Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 11:15 AM	People keep claiming that ToB is balanced and an optimized barbarian can dish out more damage. I tried finding the discussions with a google search, but it was only bringing up fighter/warblade comparisons (even though I typed "barbarian"). Anyway, I'm currently running a low level campaign (just hit 5th) but my warblade and swordsage are dealing crazy damage and I don't remember having to maximize the HP of monsters when we had barbarians in the party. Anyway, the only good comparison I've seen so far shows that a barbarian can deal more damage in the 1st two rounds, while raging, at 4th level. I feel this is a terrible comparison, since combats typically should last longer than 2 rounds and you don't have very many rage/day at 4th level so over all it just shows that in one fight they deal more damage. But what about marginally intelligent enemies that, oh I don't know, move away on the defensive until the barbarian runs out of rage and is fatigued? Anyway, I know its the "sweet" level for warblade and my warblade is a goliath and the swordsage is a halfling-ferret creature with a wee bite attack and TWF, so I'm probably setting myself up for too much pain. Its just that my warmage and beguiler are feeling out-damaged and out-controlled with all the options available to the ToB characters and the effective inexhaustibility of the classes. And I keep telling them "a barbarian does more damage" but they don't believe me and I've never seen an actual comparison. A link that doesn't require a doctorate in experimental quantum physics would be ideal.
Salla 06-22-07, 11:24 AM	Send a PM to Tempest Stormwind. He's done the math and can direct you to a link more readily than I.
mostholy2 06-22-07, 11:40 AM	I think that ToB martial classes do really well up to 5th lvl because most of their strike maneuvers require standard actions. So long as you aren't TWF, you definitely gain damage and strike benefits more than a typical (but not optimized) raging barbarian. However, past 5th lvl you lose out on using reiterative attacks from +6 and higher BAB and your characters start getting access to haste and other abilities that give them extra attacks. These cannot be used in conjunction with the ToB strikes, so the damage comparison evens up until you start getting the really high level maneuvers. Barbarians rage usually lasts all combat (at least 7 rounds). Even if you have the opponent's go on the defensive during those rage rounds, they will be wasting actions or significantly decreasing their own offensive capabilities while the party is going hog wild on them. After playing in an arena game with a warblade/Mo9 vs. optimized barbarians, I would say that damage output is equivalent or better for the barbarians at all levels until past 11th lvl.
souldragon_420 06-22-07, 11:40 AM	Also its still low level and its a real known fact that at low level martial classes dominate combat while caster just kinda try and hide while throwing the occasional spell so they don't get killed. Once you get a few more levels under there belt like 7 or 8 the warmage should be blowing lots of things away before the Warblade and Swordsage can even reach them. As for the beguiler i don't know never played one or in a group with one but seems they don't really have lot of combat oriented stuff its real small spell list and mostly enchantment stuff so seems they would be the perfect class for more diplomatic and social encounters so just throw them some stuff that cant just be handled by hacking it to bits and the beguiler should really shine.
Tempest Stormwind 06-22-07, 11:41 AM	Barbarians typically have 14 Constitution (15 goes into Strength, the second-highest on the elite array (14) goes into Con). Rage therefore lasts 7 rounds at level 1. Combat never lasts *that* long at those levels, unless there's fortifications involved (which is simple: Delay your rage until you need to fly into it). I chose two rounds because in the comparisons I use, people are interested in raw damage and usually only look at one round. The two rounds I set up are repeatable, one after the other. There *are* more optimal approaches at the levels in question, but they invariably involve a combination of maneuvers that you can't obtain without being, essentially, THIS PARTICULAR warblade vs. generic barbarian. For instance, 4th-level a White Raven specialist can, potentially, have Battle Leader's Charge, Leading the Charge (stance), and Tactical Strike, charge the opponent the first round, and tactical strike the second. This both is not repeatable (thus, you're comparing a nova situation to a class that cannot go nova) and is not open to every warblade (try building that character and you'll see just how focused on White Raven he has to be; I chose to work with Mountain Hammer instead for that reason and since more warblades are likely to have it (or Tactical Strike, I guess) than all three of the above maneuvers. Besides, people complain about Mountain Hammer, so why not?). As I mentioned earlier, the warblade has several "hot spots" that make it seem stronger than it is. All of them are right when the warblade gains a new maneuver level and the barbarian gains no additional attacks. Level 5 is perhaps the worst offender of all of these -- the warblades just got level 3 maneuvers, some of which are pretty strong, and the barbarian's still stuck with his basic rage and his single attack. People have observed the same problem with warlocks, I might add -- when we see people who say "Warlocks are broken, and are destroying my game!", we usually ask "Are you level 5?" or similar, and the answer is yes (in most cases; sometimes it's just the DM being incompetent). I guarantee once level 6 hits, the barbarian will surge ahead of the warblade (in generic terms; there are still specific warblade builds that can situationally outdamage specific barbarian builds). Even during the hotspots, the barbarian (with identical level-appropriate equipment to the warblade and no feats chosen except Power Attack) can dish out comparable damage to a warblade, if not more at some of the hotspots. (Levels 5 and 15 are the only serious exceptions; the warblade just gained level 3 and 8 maneuvers, respectively, while the barbarian gains next to nothing.) I've checked this at several levels, and the result is pretty consistent. The only reason the barbarian seems to fall behind over the course of the day is because Rage was built back in 2000 as part of the per-day balancing system inherited from 2e. If you grant the barbarian Extra Rage as a feat (I did no such thing since not every barbarian takes Extra Rage but almost every barbarian takes Power Attack) or replace Rage with Berserker Strength (PHB2's per-encounter variant on Rage, in a book full of per-encounter-balancing ablities), this disadvantage disappears. In short, if you find the warblade is dealing too much damage, you are likely at levels 5 or 15, or you have never DMed for a barbarian before.
Salla 06-22-07, 11:46 AM	Thank you.
crashlogic 06-22-07, 11:51 AM	lets see: Warblade rolls a "1" to hit, a misses no damage. Barbarian rolls a "20" to hit with a great axe and the gets a critical. Barabarian does more damage than Warblade, at any level. A single D20 has the same chance of rolling any number each time the die is rolled. Dice have no memory. :)
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 11:53 AM	Yea, we just hit level 5. I've DM'd for barbarians before, never had a problem them. My games are typically high-powered, so I don't have trouble adjusting for it. I've just a couple players who don't like ToB, one of whom thinks 3.x in general is overpowered (and still plays 2nd ed a lot), and there is seldom an encounter where they don't at the very least sigh and look around in disbelief at the capabilities of the ToB classes, or at the most ask "what the **** was that?" I'm just waiting for the power level to balance back out, but these low-levels are kind of grinding on my acceptance of the book (and some of our campaigns take place at lower levels).
Endarrion 06-22-07, 12:11 PM	Does everyone groan when the 5th level wizard throws a fireball and immolates an entire group of goblins and ends the encounter in 1 round? Different classes are better at different levels. At levels 1-4 the druid is as good as any other class. As soon as Wild Shape hits at fifth level... BOOM. All of a sudden, the rogue is groaning because mister badger just burrowed under the guard wall, waltzed through the cavern, scouted the enemy and came back, all without having to roll a single check. Just remind the other players, and yourself, that things will get better later on.
Tempest Stormwind 06-22-07, 12:16 PM	Your grognard player(s) likely aren't used to warriors doing things that are fun, or let them contribute to the game in means other than "I stand and swing my sword." If mages were built with that mentality, they would be warlocks without non-blast invocations ("I stand and zap him with magic") instead of the beautiful tactical creations they are. And part of it is the name. I mean, with a move name like Power Attack, you don't feel encouraged to say anything. With moves like ELDER MOUNTAIN HAMMER! (bolding, caps, and exclamation point required), they're just screaming to be, well, screamed. Of course, you could also choose to be silent about it. Mages don't feel this either, with names like "Mordenkainen's Lucubration!" or "Leomund's Tiny Hut!". But mathematically? In terms of damage, they're behind the barbarians. In terms of mobility and non-damage contributions, they're miles ahead of PHB classes. I've quoted this before, and I'll quote it again. Do note that Tleilaxu_Ghola is pretty much the biggest name on the CO boards as far as the Tome of Battle is concerned (and in other areas too, but those aren't pertinent here), so he's VERY much aware of the intricacies of the book and how it synergizes with the rest of the game.When you get down to it though, here's what ToB ACTUALLY changes: 1. Makes DEX SAD builds soo much easier. 2. Facilitates the creation of AoOs 3. Offers more potent single attack options, such that warrior builds are no longer restrained to focusing on gaining full attacks. This in turn equates to higher mobility. 4. Offers the ability for warrior types to deal more than pure damage, additional effects include: stunning, dazing, instant death, immobilization, ability damage. 5. Grants warrior types the ability to make use of immediate and swift actions on a regular basis. Bottom line: it gives warriors more options. As is to be expected from a supplement for... you guessed it... warriors.For more information, see the original source (click the button after his name in the quote). That is, in a nutshell, what changes mechanically when you implement the Tome. Note how none of it relates directly to damage. Numbers 3 and 4 are the biggest of the bunch (since when did heroic fantasy combat involve planting your feet to the same small area round after round, as opposed ty dynamically moving around and challenging your opponents no matter where they may flee?), followed by 5 (which encourages warriors to look for combos and pay attention when it isn't their turn).
ravenshrike 06-22-07, 12:22 PM	Its just that my warmage and beguiler are feeling out-damaged and out-controlled with all the options available to the ToB characters and the effective inexhaustibility of the classes. And I keep telling them "a barbarian does more damage" but they don't believe me and I've never seen an actual comparison. Um, the warmage is an underpowered caster, specializing in damage which is on the low-end of caster abilities. As for the beguiler, he gets 3rd level spells next level, and should really start to control things then. In fact, as time goes by he'll probably end up as the "most powerful" in your group, if only because of his controlling spells and access to UMD.
Tempest Stormwind 06-22-07, 12:55 PM	Um, the warmage is an underpowered caster, specializing in damage which is on the low-end of caster abilities. As for the beguiler, he gets 3rd level spells next level, and should really start to control things then. In fact, as time goes by he'll probably end up as the "most powerful" in your group, if only because of his controlling spells and access to UMD. I just read his party composition in the other thread and reached a similar conclusion. Warmage: Direct Damage is weak and suboptimal in general. There IS an exception -- typically cited as "levels 5-9, maybe just 5-7 if the wizard's smart", but that's written with wizards in mind. The warmage gains spells at the sorcerer rate, meaning his blasting range is levels 6-10. He's level 5 now, and thus obviously will not be the star of the show. (3rd level spells are deceptively good at dealing damage for their level.) Beguiler: Same general idea, except that the beguiler's curve is generally smoother (since illusion and enchantment remain useful at pretty much all levels, except where True Seeing and Mind Blank are commonplace, and then he's got a few transmutations to fall back on). He'll also be gaining 3rd level spells next level -- which include Legion of Sentinels, Vertigo Field, Suggestion, Major Image, Dispel Magic and Glibness. Only the first of those is even remotely damaging (it serves mostly as a visually impressive battlefield control effect, especially if you cast it in an area rich with enemy spellcasters or archers, or between you and foes who might charge). The others are incredibly useful spells in their own right -- Vertigo Field is one of the best spells in the PHB2, for instance, and can utterly CRIPPLE melee characters if applied intelligently. The beguiler also has options for when magic isn't avaialble: Haste the two warriors (and the rest of the party while you're at it), which results in a lot of extra damage and a lot more fun for other members of the party (in case the beguiler felt like he might be upstaging them at this point). But yeah, two DELAYED-LEVEL caster classes at a level before they get their sweeter abilities, compared to two Tome of Battle characters with specific build choices presenting a powerful impact on their battle prowess who also happen to be at a level where they gain new abilities. No wonder there appears to be an imbalance. Give it ONE more level, and observe. On a side note, the swordsage has three attacks, and he's citing this as a problem. You aren't letting him full attack with strikes, are you? Observe the initiation action of each maneuver -- the best damaging move the swordsage has at this point that he can use with a full attack would be Burning Blade (Searing Blade isn't worth the higher-level maneuver you could take in its place), for +1d6+5 fire damage per attack for one round. (Note that at later levels, fire damage is easily resisted or negated; at those levels your warmage can just switch to orbs of cold or lightning while the swordsage is boned for energy damage.) Due to his low attack bonus (3/4 + TWF + a natural attack feat = a lot of penalties on an already low attack bonus), I can't imagine all three of them hitting all that often. (We have a similar swordsage in one of our games; he deals with the attack roll problem by using Blood in the Water as his default stance and dual-wields keen kukris. That said, he prefers moves like Fan the Flames, and he RPs his swordsage far more like a close-range warmage -- for instance, his Roots of the Mountain stance involves him descriptively drawing magma from the ground to harden around his legs, and his Searing Charge maneuver looks more like these (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZNbNzqiV4zc) than anything else.)
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 01:22 PM	Yes its party composition. But its actually more than that, its player choice in character creation. I've given them options to improve their character's effectiveness in various fields and they haven't taken them! I've offered them feats that add 9 spells to their spells known as long as they can logically connect them (same school/descriptors or even similar names) but they haven't taken them. Such as adding all the power word spells for the beguiler, or even getting all the cure spells for either of them. Neither of them took that feat (based off of arcane disciple, but designed to not be religious in nature). I offered the beguiler the chance to get a free arcane strike ability that functions like sneak attack (bonus sneak attack damage for sacrificed spell slots), but he didn't take it. And I don't have any non-spontaneous casters in my campaign, but they didn't even ask, they wanted to play warmage and beguiler. (but there are no non-delayed casters, clerics and wizards are gone, druids are spontaneous like beguilers) At this point its nearly comical whenever they complain about ToB, considering that I've offered them abilities to increase their own capacity but haven't taken the chance. Side note the swordsage does hit quite often, with flaws she has weapon finesse and focus I think. (the casters had the same options to take flaws, but the beguiler took combat expertise and improved feint. . .)
windscar18 06-22-07, 01:34 PM	Wait a minute... Why has your swordsage taken weapon focus as his flaw feat? Swordsages get Weapon Focus for free at level 1 O_o?
Matthew77 06-22-07, 01:39 PM	Sounds like you've answered your own question. Moderately optimized melee fighters with non-standard races are more impressive in combat than poorly built spellcasters. If you kept the warblade and swordsage exactly the same stat, feat and race wise, but changed them to barbarian and rogue, I doubt you would see much change. As a side note.. Spontaneous casting Druids? The mind boggles.
Yadot 06-22-07, 01:51 PM	As a side note.. Spontaneous casting Druids? The mind boggles. Probably one of the simplest ways to fix the Druid is to use the PHII shapeshifting variant and have it gain Spells Known as a Sorcerer.
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 02:08 PM	Wait a minute... Why has your swordsage taken weapon focus as his flaw feat? Swordsages get Weapon Focus for free at level 1 O_o? Working from memory of another persons character. I knew she had focus from somewhere. :P She actually has weapon finesse, weapon focus (from class), adaptive style, bander bite (feat for bite attack), and TWF.
Nat_20 06-22-07, 03:01 PM	When I saw the thread name I laughed... In a 4th level game i was playing last week we have an orc barbarian with 22 Str in the party and i was playing a Human Warblade, so near the end of the game the DM was adding up the EXP for the adventure, and me and him decided to have a little out of game dual, Now keep in mind that i made both of these character because he is still a little new, anyway, he was an Orc Barb with 22 Str and MW Chainshirt and +1 FullBlade. I was a Mithral B.Plate, Hv. Shield and Longsword using Warblade with an 18 Str Each round i would get one or two good hits, but then he attacks and cleaves my head off... Both of the Character are somewhat Min-Maxed but he still destroys me in one on one. Heck, he nailed a Howler and dropped it in one hit... i guess if i tried the same build i could have more but i dont care. These new classes are good, but not so good that there is no mare reason to play the older ones...
IRememberCecil 06-22-07, 04:02 PM	Your personal experience has nothing on the math that T_S has done. It's pure math and can thus not be wrong.
Fireclave 06-22-07, 04:23 PM	I've offered them feats that add 9 spells to their spells known as long as they can logically connect them (same school/descriptors or even similar names) but they haven't taken them. Such as adding all the power word spells for the beguiler, or even getting all the cure spells for either of them. Neither of them took that feat (based off of arcane disciple, but designed to not be religious in nature). Would they have to have two high caster stats like Arcane Disciple? Because the stat investment for getting access to those top tier spells can make it not worth the feat if your character isn't build for that. Or perhaps, since they are playing themed casters, they might not have wanted to branched out to using other spells. The warmage and beguiler are pretty good at what they do. If they wanted to do it all, they probably would be playing a wizard, druid, or cleric instead. Or maybe they just have some longterm plans for their limited feat pool. I offered the beguiler the chance to get a free arcane strike ability that functions like sneak attack (bonus sneak attack damage for sacrificed spell slots), but he didn't take it. I wouldn't take it either. Beguilers have poor Bab and therefore shouldn't be in attacking in melee most of the time. Besides, if I were to try to turn a poor bab caster into a skirmisher, I'd much rather spend my spell slots on Arcane Strike instead of Sneak Attack since the former adds bonuses to my attack roll, applies to every attack I make that round, works against creatures that are immune to sneak attack (undead, golems, undead, oozes, undead, fighters with fortification, undead), and doesn't require me feint or flank. At this point its nearly comical whenever they complain about ToB, considering that I've offered them abilities to increase their own capacity but haven't taken the chance. The sneak attack is kinda meh. The feat to get nine spells known for one feat seems to be an almost must have for a dedicated spellcaster, but without knowing the prereqs, it's still hard to say. (the casters had the same options to take flaws, but the beguiler took combat expertise and improved feint. . .) Decent choices for a Beguiler. Combat Expertise can come in handy if the beguiler gets tossed into melee for whatever reason and need more AC, and unlike Armored Caster, it doesn't impose penalties on move silently and related dex-based skills that are the Beguiler's forte. Improved Feint synergies well with the beguiler's cloaked casting ability.
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 04:39 PM	Your personal experience has nothing on the math that T_S has done. It's pure math and can thus not be wrong. I didn't say the math was wrong, I like the math. I said it wasn't taking everything into account, like running away from encounters because of the raging barbarian or maybe having more than 1 encounter in a day.
IRememberCecil 06-22-07, 04:46 PM	I didn't say the math was wrong, I like the math. I said it wasn't taking everything into account, like running away from encounters because of the raging barbarian or maybe having more than 1 encounter in a day. Oh sorry. That wasn't directed at you. /shame I love math too. Math just doesn't love me back, but if I wrap my mind around it I can do pretty well. But you do raise valid points. The thing is, though, that Tempest seems to be working from a theoretical standpoint. You are proposing practical factors that may not always apply, thus they aren't as reliable.
EvilVegan 06-22-07, 04:46 PM	Would they have to have two high caster stats like Arcane Disciple? Because the stat investment for getting access to those top tier spells can make it not worth the feat if your character isn't build for that. Or perhaps, since they are playing themed casters, they might not have wanted to branched out to using other spells. The warmage and beguiler are pretty good at what they do. If they wanted to do it all, they probably would be playing a wizard, druid, or cleric instead. Or maybe they just have some longterm plans for their limited feat pool. I wouldn't take it either. Beguilers have poor Bab and therefore shouldn't be in attacking in melee most of the time. Besides, if I were to try to turn a poor bab caster into a skirmisher, I'd much rather spend my spell slots on Arcane Strike instead of Sneak Attack since the former adds bonuses to my attack roll, applies to every attack I make that round, works against creatures that are immune to sneak attack (undead, golems, undead, oozes, undead, fighters with fortification, undead), and doesn't require me feint or flank. The sneak attack is kinda meh. The feat to get nine spells known for one feat seems to be an almost must have for a dedicated spellcaster, but without knowing the prereqs, it's still hard to say. Decent choices for a Beguiler. Combat Expertise can come in handy if the beguiler gets tossed into melee for whatever reason and need more AC, and unlike Armored Caster, it doesn't impose penalties on move silently and related dex-based skills that are the Beguiler's forte. Improved Feint synergies well with the beguiler's cloaked casting ability.The arcane sneak attack ability functions exactly the same as arcane strike. In conditions where sneak attack applies it deals d6s instead of d4s and it qualifies as sneak attack damage for all purposes (like feat/PrC requirements). So it gives a bonus to hit like arcane strike, making the BAB not as important (but still relevant). And it was free, so even if it blows complete balls, there's no reason to not take it. The Arcane Training feat has no real prerequisites. I haven't fully statted the feat out because no one has shown an interest in it. I run my campaigns very loose when there is new material that I'm adding, and people know that I will nerf anything that I've created if I feel its overpowered. I just know it adds 9 spells to the spell list, one at each level, and they have to be thematically linked. Combat Expertise and Improved Feint are good choices for a beguiler who has sneak attack.
Tempest Stormwind 06-22-07, 04:48 PM	I didn't say the math was wrong, I like the math. I said it wasn't taking everything into account, like running away from encounters because of the raging barbarian or maybe having more than 1 encounter in a day. The problem with Rage's per-day limit is that it's a relic of when the system had everything based on a per-day mentality while the ToB has a per-encounter design philosophy to it. Those two will cause logical disconnects across the course of a day of adventuring. However, the per-encounter rage variant, berserker strength, provides IDENTICAL offensive benefits to the existing Rage ability and can be used at will, provided a particular condition is met. It's for this reason that I compared the classes within the same encounter. A barbarian who doesn't use Rage is like a warblade who doesn't use maneuvers -- and in that case, the two of them are essentially identical (full base attack, d12 HD, 4 skill points per level, and so on and so forth) apart from a few minor class features (and not even all of them; both get Uncanny Dodge). Otherwise, we get things like "Yeah, but on the twelfth encounter of the day the warlock is still going strong and the wizard's shooting bolts, OMG nerf warlock quick". You have to compare things in the same domain or else the comparison becomes meaningless.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 08:13 AM	It wasn't so much the twelfth encounter, but the third and fourth ones and any that last longer than 10 rounds. I realize its a difference between encounter-based characters and day-based characters, but what does ToB do to counter-balance this? Why is this change okay if they aren't reworking the way CR/EL/EXP works? I mean before you would gain a level in 13 encounters because you had to fight lots of smaller battles and conserve resources, if you charge through encounters that drain 75% of your resources every fight (meaning the fights are much higher CR than your current party level) then you'll level in 4 or 5 encounters, but each encounter you have 100% of your resources for the day. . . It makes it entirely possible for a party to level from 1 to 20 in a month because every fight they can go nova and they can take more fights and harder fights. You say its a relic of "when the system had everything based on a per-day mentality", but that isn't a relic. That is still how the system is set up. Isn't it? If a fight lasts longer than 10 rounds (or more likely 7 or 8) the barbarian decreases to a point below what he is normally, due to fatigue, but if a warblade is in a long fight that involves the enemy trying to whittle down the party's abilities, he can recover his maneuvers in the middle of the fight with almost no drawbacks. I'm not saying it has to be nerfed, or that this makes it overpowered, I think it makes a different game that needs a new way to calculate what "25% of a party's resources" are and how much XP to grant. As I've said in other threads, the CR/EL/EXP system is currently designed around a 4-man party that consists of the 4 archetypes: Melee/tank, healer/buffer, skill/conditional damage, blaster/controller. If you make it so that the melee/tank characters are more powerful then the encounters become easier and should technically grant less XP. For instance a fight of the party's CR is supposed to drain 25% of the party's resources. If a party is two crusaders, a warblade, and a swordsage a fight of the party's CR is going to drain 0% of the party's resources. The only way to truly drain 25% of their resources is to kill one member of the party. So, how does one rework the other classes to make them "per encounter" classes? Make it so that a sorcerer (et al) has spells per encounter instead of spells per day (divide spells per day by 4 or 2 perhaps) but has a recovery method that he can use to regain spells? Seems like a lot of work to rebalance everything.
turalisj 06-23-07, 08:27 AM	Um...what? Where's the logic in that? 'The only way to truly drain 25% of the party's resources is to kill one member' So, at the end of the day, do you TPK your group? Because that is a bit....odd.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 09:14 AM	Um...what? Where's the logic in that? 'The only way to truly drain 25% of the party's resources is to kill one member' So, at the end of the day, do you TPK your group? Because that is a bit....odd.It is a bit odd. I'm saying that there is no way to drain limitless resources except to remove the resource entirely. There is no limit to the resources of a ToB character. The only way you can drain 25% of 4 limitless sources is to remove 1 of those sources. 1/4 of the party is 25% of their resources (because each member is 100% limitless). I'm not saying this is the correct way to plan encounters, I'm saying that this is how XP is currently calculated. A same CR encounter should drain 25% of your resources and grant a specific amount of XP, if the fight drains more it grants more XP, if it drains less it grants less XP. Since there is no limit to the resources they cannot be drained 25%, but the party as a whole can be drained 25% by losing 1 member out of 4, thereby removing/draining "25%" of the resources available. I'm saying that the inexhaustibility of the ToB classes wreaks havoc on the assumptions present in the CR/XP system, specifically that experience awards are based on 4 encounters that over all drain 25% of the resources of the party, meaning that by the end of the day they have to rest because they are 100% drained of ability.
Mr_Teapot 06-23-07, 09:17 AM	If a fight lasts longer than 10 rounds (or more likely 7 or 8) the barbarian decreases to a point below what he is normally, due to fatigue, A smart barbarian won't Rage on the first turn. In a 10 round combat (which is well beyond the normal length of D&D combat), the barbarian should wait 3 or 4 turns before raging. Playing a barbarian well is often about knowing when to rage and when not to - judging how a battle is going and estimating how long it will last. In the same combat, a swordsage is screwed for about the same number of turns or more, and fares worse than an exhausted barbarian (3/4 BAB and worse hit die). That is, unless you give the swordsage Adaptive Style but in that case you should be comparing to a barbarian using Extend Rage (which favors the barbarian again). For instance a fight of the party's CR is supposed to drain 25% of the party's resources. If a party is two crusaders, a warblade, and a swordsage a fight of the party's CR is going to drain 0% of the party's resources. That's assuming that the crusaders can keep the entire party at full HP, and that they don't use any expendable magic items at all. Both these are highly doubtful, even with the Crusader's healing abilities.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 09:30 AM	A smart barbarian won't Rage on the first turn. In a 10 round combat (which is well beyond the normal length of D&D combat), the barbarian should wait 3 or 4 turns before raging. Playing a barbarian well is often about knowing when to rage and when not to - judging how a battle is going and estimating how long it will last.But you don't know how long a fight will last before its over. Few barbarians wait more than a round after entering melee to rage. In the same combat, a swordsage is screwed for about the same number of turns or more, and fares worse than an exhausted barbarian (3/4 BAB and worse hit die). That is, unless you give the swordsage Adaptive Style but in that case you should be comparing to a barbarian using Extend Rage (which favors the barbarian again).We were comparing the warblade, but yes a swordsage with adaptive style would be comparable to a barbarian with extend rage/extra rage. I don't know what kind of games you run/play in, but my DM and players know that when the barbarian rages you leave him alone for as long as possible. It takes highly mobile classes/monsters (monks, ninjas, teleporters) or high AC enemies (combat expertise + full plate + shield or Elusive Target) to really negate him, but gimping a barbarian is pretty easy. That's assuming that the crusaders can keep the entire party at full HP, and that they don't use any expendable magic items at all. Both these are highly doubtful, even with the Crusader's healing abilities.? Crusaders can heal constantly. Between fights there is no reason they wouldn't be able to heal a party to full, during fights they can do enough to keep the party alive.
turalisj 06-23-07, 09:46 AM	Except they can't use thier healing strikes out of a fight, because they have to hit something. Or do your crusader character randomly attack trees to heal thier party members?
Neutronium_Dragon 06-23-07, 09:48 AM	Other than a glitch with Martial Spirit, the Crusader's healing abilities don't work outside of combat. They require an enemy who presents a credible threat to be used.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 09:51 AM	Except they can't use thier healing strikes out of a fight, because they have to hit something. Or do your crusader character randomly attack trees to heal thier party members?Non-lethal sparring or weapon drills. You say "randomly attack trees to heal their party members" like it is an absurd concept. If that HEALS the party and they're injured, there is no reason not to do so. The rules do not state you have to be threatened to use your healing abilities. Flavor it how you like. If you think "attacking trees" is the way to go, more power to ya. I say they "practice their katas making practice strikes to focus their minds and to get their party ready to face the next encounter."
Salla 06-23-07, 09:52 AM	Non-lethal sparring or weapon drills. Neither of those constitute 'an enemy presenting a credible threat', thus do not trigger the Crusader's healing strikes. By the same token, you cannot swat bugs or hunt rabbits for healing strikes. No danger, no healing strikes. :)
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 09:54 AM	Other than a glitch with Martial Spirit, the Crusader's healing abilities don't work outside of combat. They require an enemy who presents a credible threat to be used. Really? I'll take your word for it. But also someone mentioned you having to have a specific skill to use your maneuvers, but I couldn't find the rule. Do you have to have max ranks in the key skill to use your maneuvers?
turalisj 06-23-07, 10:01 AM	No, but many maneuvers require or are made better by having more ranks in the key skill for that discipline. Outside of combat, a crusader can't heal at all. I wasn't saing attacking a tree would work. There's no subsituting a cleric in a party, or a rouge, or a wizard. A party of two warblades, a crusader, and an Ssage would die,
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 10:18 AM	Not if they're all feral! :P
Matthew77 06-23-07, 10:19 AM	I think the Party of 2x Crusader, Warblade, SS would be pretty darn impressive in combat. Not having trapfinding or any arcane utility/mobility spells with be painful in non-combat situations, though. I've been an enthusiastic TOB supporter for about a year now, and both played and DMed for many Warblades at a variety of levels. Warblade and Swordsage I have no problems with. However, I just started my first Crusader character, have played two sessions with him now, and even though the party loves having him along, the Crusader is presenting some balance issues. I can easily absorb punishment that would kill any other party member, and the longer the fight, the greater my advantage becomes. HP damage really doesn't scare me at all, and at 4th level, there isn't much that does ability damage or status effects. Its actually a nice change to have a defensive character with staying power, because D&D heavily favors offensive strategies, but the Crusader is already showing signs of potential balance problems. Having two in a party working to support eachother would be even worse. It will be interesting to see how the character plays out at higher levels and against a variety of opponents that have more special attacks.
Otto the Bugbear 06-23-07, 11:07 AM	It is a bit odd. I'm saying that there is no way to drain limitless resources except to remove the resource entirely. There is no limit to the resources of a ToB character. The only way you can drain 25% of 4 limitless sources is to remove 1 of those sources. 1/4 of the party is 25% of their resources (because each member is 100% limitless). I'm not saying this is the correct way to plan encounters, I'm saying that this is how XP is currently calculated. A same CR encounter should drain 25% of your resources and grant a specific amount of XP, if the fight drains more it grants more XP, if it drains less it grants less XP. Since there is no limit to the resources they cannot be drained 25%, but the party as a whole can be drained 25% by losing 1 member out of 4, thereby removing/draining "25%" of the resources available. I'm saying that the inexhaustibility of the ToB classes wreaks havoc on the assumptions present in the CR/XP system, specifically that experience awards are based on 4 encounters that over all drain 25% of the resources of the party, meaning that by the end of the day they have to rest because they are 100% drained of ability. The thing is, ToB allows players and DMs alike to stop concentrating on following that 4/day set-up, and instead just concentrate on the story/adventure. Once a group divorces themselves from the concept of needing to follow that track of "uses 25% of their daily resources", there's really nothing to wonder about / worry about / discuss. Now, I know that it might cause some consternation for some people mixing 'per encounter' with 'per day', but the way the 'per encounter' stuff we have so far -- and it's a little too sparse for my tastes -- is around equal or a bit weaker than the stuff the 'per day' crowd is whipping out. Sure, at the levels your group is at, and the character classes they're playing, seems to widen this gap, but there are likely mitigating circumstances there as well. A beguiler, for instance, has two death spells that are Will save based; sleep and color spray. Non-lethal sparring or weapon drills. You say "randomly attack trees to heal their party members" like it is an absurd concept. If that HEALS the party and they're injured, there is no reason not to do so. The rules do not state you have to be threatened to use your healing abilities. It's been said already, so I'll just add my "those don't count" to the pile. Also, it only works if the alignment is one different than yours, so trees and the like wouldn't work anyway. They have no alignment.
AllisterH 06-23-07, 11:25 AM	Hmm? I'm not sure why you think the ToB classes should be based on the per-day schedule. Isn't the fighter based on the per-encounter basis already? So is the rogue for that matter and the monk (other than quivering palm at 15th level). To a lesser extent, both the ranger and the paladin are also based on the per-encounter basis AND per-day basis. The thing is, the balance of ToB classes (and other per encounter classes) vs per day classes is that they can't nova since their powers just aren't as powerful (generally speaking, a 9th level manoeuver matches in power a 6th level spell), similarly, the warlock at 20th level looks like a pauper compared to even the sorceror. There's also the fact that the 4 encounters per day mechanic doesn't actually work since we HAVE the term nova. It simply is too easy for the per-day classes to camp and simply have ONLY 1 or 2 encounters and then stop. Unless your campaign ALWAYS has a time-crunch factor ("we have to get the ring to Mt. Doom before the end of today"), it is hard to justify to players why they should risk their characters when they are only at 50% of effectiveness.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 11:27 AM	The thing is, ToB allows players and DMs alike to stop concentrating on following that 4/day set-up, and instead just concentrate on the story/adventure. Once a group divorces themselves from the concept of needing to follow that track of "uses 25% of their daily resources", there's really nothing to wonder about / worry about / discuss. Now, I know that it might cause some consternation for some people mixing 'per encounter' with 'per day', but the way the 'per encounter' stuff we have so far -- and it's a little too sparse for my tastes -- is around equal or a bit weaker than the stuff the 'per day' crowd is whipping out. Sure, at the levels your group is at, and the character classes they're playing, seems to widen this gap, but there are likely mitigating circumstances there as well. A beguiler, for instance, has two death spells that are Will save based; sleep and color spray. You're saying there is no change needed to rebalance the per-day people to the per-encounter people? I think there's some slight readjustment that needs doing to make everyone balanced for each encounter. Letting some classes shine at the end of the day when everyone else is just passing their turn because they're out of abilities is not as fun as it sounds. It's been said already, so I'll just add my "those don't count" to the pile. Also, it only works if the alignment is one different than yours, so trees and the like wouldn't work anyway. They have no alignment. They're evil trees and they want to kill you.
Otto the Bugbear 06-23-07, 11:43 AM	Hmm? I'm not sure why you think the ToB classes should be based on the per-day schedule. Isn't the fighter based on the per-encounter basis already? So is the rogue for that matter and the monk (other than quivering palm at 15th level). To a lesser extent, both the ranger and the paladin are also based on the per-encounter basis AND per-day basis. The thing is, the balance of ToB classes (and other per encounter classes) vs per day classes is that they can't nova since their powers just aren't as powerful (generally speaking, a 9th level manoeuver matches in power a 6th level spell), similarly, the warlock at 20th level looks like a pauper compared to even the sorceror. There's also the fact that the 4 encounters per day mechanic doesn't actually work since we HAVE the term nova. It simply is too easy for the per-day classes to camp and simply have ONLY 1 or 2 encounters and then stop. Unless your campaign ALWAYS has a time-crunch factor ("we have to get the ring to Mt. Doom before the end of today"), it is hard to justify to players why they should risk their characters when they are only at 50% of effectiveness. I agree. A dirty little secret Want to know one? Monsters are already designed around a ‘per encounter’ scheme. Sure, you may say that monster X has this 1/day ability, but by the time your PCs encounter it and interact with it, the stuff that it was given to interact with PCs on a combat field, yet limited to 1/day or 3/day or whatever, are meaningless in a ‘per day’ design. That limitation of X/day is meant to offset the power of those abilities when used against the PCs. But, so what? Sure, being able to gate something in 1/day isn’t a huge quantity of times, but honestly, how often do encounters take place against those creatures with a few, some, or even most of those X/day items already used up? Exactly. As a game design purpose, limiting those powerful abilities to X/day is an abysmal failure. You're saying there is no change needed to rebalance the per-day people to the per-encounter people? I think there's some slight readjustment that needs doing to make everyone balanced for each encounter. Letting some classes shine at the end of the day when everyone else is just passing their turn because they're out of abilities is not as fun as it sounds. Not quite, at least from my perspective. The slight readjustment that needs to happen -- in the context of your problem -- is that the DM (you) needs to adjust how you design the campaign or encounters a little, without just wholesale changing the character classes. At least until the entire system gets converted into 'per encounter' design. They're evil trees and they want to kill you. Easy Durkon! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0150.html)
Tempest Stormwind 06-23-07, 11:43 AM	EvilVegan: You showed that you didn't read Douse the Flames in the other thread (it only blocks AoO), and now it's obvious you didn't read Crusader's Strike (which says that you need to hit "an enemy whose alignment has at least one component different from yours. This foe must pose a threat to you or your allies in some direct, immediate way.")... Please, read the book and run it by the rules. That's all we're asking.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 12:57 PM	Sorry, I didn't read "douse the flames" in the middle of an unimportant combat where it had little to no effect in the scheme of things (the enemy had 10 hp left and was fleeing). I try to keep the book-checking to a minimum in fights, but I have asked the player that gave me the bad information to get his maneuvers onto cards for easy reference to avoid the confusion in the future. It did surprise my beguiler who was completely unable to affect the guy with his spells, but overall wasn't a problem, and now that I know, is even less of a problem. Martial Spirit doesn't mention needing an enemy that poses a threat. Two crusaders get into Martial Spirit stance and heal 4 hp per round per attack. They get wield two weapons and use practice swords. At 1st level thats 8 hp per round healed, healing the whole party in a few rounds. As I said, non-lethal sparring or weapon drills. I didn't bring up strikes, someone else did and I took their word that it did what they said because I didn't have my book with me (I do now) and haven't ran, played, or read over a crusader except for a limited look at some of their lower level maneuvers, including Martial Spirit, and wasn't contradictory to my claim. All of this is beside the point to a degree. The classes are on par with casters in a lot of ways and have no limit per day on their uses when the system is designed to limit some of the abilities. Rogues aren't limited per day, fighters aren't limited per day. Thats it. Barbarians are limited in rage, monks in stunning fist/teleport/healing, paladins in heals/smites/turns, rangers in spells, bards in music/spells. Rogues can't affect a lot of things, but have uses outside of combat and are really good against the things they do affect. Fighters are typically assumed to be lame. ToB specifically addresses the problems with the fighter, so it is ok to have a class that isn't limited per day, but its abilities are on par with spellcasters and other things that are typically limited (teleportation, healing, status/condition effects, ability drain, etc). I'm sorry I don't have 100% eidetic recall of a book I've used for exactly 2 game sessions, but the points I'm making don't have as much to do with the specific abilities as with the endurance. Back to my original point: Over the 4 standard encounters per day, which is still the standard, these classes have no drawbacks that balance them with classes that have per day abilities. A barbarian does indeed outdamage a warblade for 7-12 rounds of 1 or 2 encounters, but then there are 2 extra encounters where the warblade outdamages the barbarian, typically by enough that for the day he has dealt more damage. It isn't much more, and it isn't exactly overpowered, but it is unbalanced when considering the CR system. Now, keep in mind I'm not disagreeing with any of your points, I just think it needs to be taken a little further and rebalanced so that encounters that were of appropriate CR for a group with a fighter isn't easily overcome by the fighter's replacement and still grants the same XP.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 01:10 PM	Well the 4 encounter per day way of thinking for xp has been broken since it was published unless your players only rest and camp when you tell them to. The per encounter classes actully make it more likely your players will go for 4 encounters before resting. See in every campaign i have ever been in we usually only face 1 or 2 sometimes 3 encounters per day. is that cause the DM designed it that way? Not at all its simply we the players after being in 1 or 2 encounters feel we have taken enough of a beating and used most our offensive spells sure we still have lots of utility stuff but that wont help much in a fight. So since we are playing free thinking people in what to them is a real world we decide to rest at low lvls that means just setting up right there in the wilderness or going to maybe a cave we passed a bit back to have a little cover and sleeping and there isn't really much the DM can do to stop us from resting when we want. In dungeons we just go back to a previous cleared room block the door set watch and sleep. once you hit mid-lvl it shouldn't be an issue for your wizard type to devote 1 2nd lvl spell slot to rope trick or some other spell and just have everyone sleep in there without even having to set watch. So saying its messed up cause its per encounter is a weak argument as most smart players are only gonna allow themselves to face a couple encounters a day so then the per day guys are actually way better then the per encounter cause they know they can just rest after the fight and have all there nuking abilities back.
RadicalTaoist 06-23-07, 01:10 PM	Point to note: the standard isn't necessarily 4 encounters a day. A safer standard is 4 encounters of equal CR a day, scaling to less or more as the CR changes. 8 encounters of two CR less than the party level or 2 encounters of two CR higher than the party level are acceptable. Carry on.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 01:17 PM	Well the 4 encounter per day way of thinking for xp has been broken since it was published unless your players only rest and camp when you tell them to. The per encounter classes actully make it more likely your players will go for 4 encounters before resting. See in every campaign i have ever been in we usually only face 1 or 2 sometimes 3 encounters per day. is that cause the DM designed it that way? Not at all its simply we the players after being in 1 or 2 encounters feel we have taken enough of a beating and used most our offensive spells sure we still have lots of utility stuff but that wont help much in a fight. So since we are playing free thinking people in what to them is a real world we decide to rest at low lvls that means just setting up right there in the wilderness or going to maybe a cave we passed a bit back to have a little cover and sleeping and there isn't really much the DM can do to stop us from resting when we want. In dungeons we just go back to a previous cleared room block the door set watch and sleep. once you hit mid-lvl it shouldn't be an issue for your wizard type to devote 1 2nd lvl spell slot to rope trick or some other spell and just have everyone sleep in there without even having to set watch. So saying its messed up cause its per encounter is a weak argument as most smart players are only gonna allow themselves to face a couple encounters a day so then the per day guys are actually way better then the per encounter cause they know they can just rest after the fight and have all there nuking abilities back.You're speaking in hypotheticals when I'm referring to the system. The system is designed for 4 encounters. If you have LESS than that it overpowers the casters. What I am stating is that one or the other needs to be rebalanced. If you have the standard 4 encounters the ToB classes unbalance the CR system in favor of ToB, if you have less then you unbalance the CR system in favor of nova-capable classes. Just because your DM coddles you and allows you to sleep whenever you like doesn't mean the system is designed to function that way. If my party goes to sleep in a monster-infested dungeon/wilderness they're going to have a problem, and the likelihood of problems increases when they haven't had 4 encounters that day. :D Oh noes, you didn't get 8 hours of rest? No spells for you, you should have met your 4 encounter requirement instead of nova-napping your way through life. Also, sometimes you really need to get things done quickly. Time passes while you rest. I was asking for either a way to make casters more per-encounter based or a way to balance ToB to be more per-day based. I'm in favor of the first. If you think the system is currently broken, then why are you arguing that I'm wrong in trying to fix it?
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 01:18 PM	Also a very good point and why i think the games i play in go the way they do makes the world feel more real too. As its highly unlikely that everything you face in a day is exactly your parties CR kinda takes the randomness of real life out of things making the game seem more artificial. I know this is D&D and its not realistic as you have to forget realism in favor of balance allot of the time but there are some places where you can maintain that shadow of realism with out unbalancing things and i feel this is one area where you can. Also the whole suggestion of 4 encounters a day and X number per lvl are just that suggestions and in real play most all that kinda stuff gets destroyed anyway.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 01:31 PM	I'm not giving hypotheticals I'm giving what i have seen and encountered many times in many campaigns under many DMs in both 2 ed, 3.0 and 3.5. Also i never said i thought it was broken as trust me i have never had a trouble making martial types that can keep up or out do casters in combat just the ToB lets me do it with out building over specialized freaks that use like 20 books and trust me most my nastiest warrior types had no limits on there abilities per day or per encounter. Ands its not coddling its logical from the way you put it if your guys have there 4 encounters then try to go back aways and rest they are allowed to sleep relatively uneventfully but if they don't they get mess with allot. So it sounds like your monsters in your dungeons meta game hardcore and in the weirdest way. Monsters wandering down hall and see a blocked room with possible sleeping adventures. Monsters ask themselves "hmm how many fights have these guys had today oh 4 well lets leave them be they are tired and wouldn't be able to handle a fight." Monsters walk a little farther down and find another group "hmm these guys only had 2 fights lets get them for being dumb and not fighting 4 times." That also makes another point about why we rest earlier especially in high threat areas so while we might not have our biggest attacks left we still have some we are able to fight off any attacks that might occur while sleeping. Where if we pushed thru for 4 then got attacked while resting we would be sitting ducks as all our spells are gonna and our martial guys are beat up already with no means of healing them up. Also there is still the fact that any group of at least 8th lvl can just go into extra dimensional space and sleep totally soundly with almost no means of being bothered short of a very powerful caster coming along with powerful divination spells to locate the spot to dispel.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 01:46 PM	I'm not giving hypotheticals I'm giving what i have seen and encountered many times in many campaigns under many DMs in both 2 ed, 3.0 and 3.5. Also i never said i thought it was broken as trust me i have never had a trouble making martial types that can keep up or out do casters in combat just the ToB lets me do it with out building over specialized freaks that use like 20 books and trust me most my nastiest warrior types had no limits on there abilities per day or per encounter.But those are hypotheticals. What you experience is different than what the rules present. The rules present rules that are designed a certain way. If the moon was made of spare ribs, would you eat it then? It doesn't matter what the reality is, the rules dictate one thing (4 encounters per day) and you might be doing another. It doesn't matter what kind of fighter or wizard you can build, the rules are set up a certain way and if that system isn't working or being used then it needs to be redesigned to work and be used. Ands its not coddling its logical from the way you put it if your guys have there 4 encounters then try to go back aways and rest they are allowed to sleep relatively uneventfully but if they don't they get mess with allot. So it sounds like your monsters in your dungeons meta game hardcore and in the weirdest way. Monsters wandering down hall and see a blocked room with possible sleeping adventures. Monsters ask themselves "hmm how many fights have these guys had today oh 4 well lets leave them be they are tired and wouldn't be able to handle a fight." Monsters walk a little farther down and find another group "hmm these guys only had 2 fights lets get them for being dumb and not fighting 4 times."It was a humorous (and hypothetical) situation. It is coddling to allow the players to run willy-nilly around a world full of danger and not interrupt them, because the rules state that you aren't supposed to let them do this. Its like playing poker but letting everyone look at the deck before getting their cards out. It makes it easier and isn't how its supposed to be played. That also makes another point about why we rest earlier especially in high threat areas so while we might not have our biggest attacks left we still have some we are able to fight off any attacks that might occur while sleeping. Where if we pushed thru for 4 then got attacked while resting we would be sitting ducks as all our spells are gonna and our martial guys are beat up already with no means of healing them up. Also there is still the fact that any group of at least 8th lvl can just go into extra dimensional space and sleep totally soundly with almost no means of being bothered short of a very powerful caster coming along with powerful divination spells to locate the spot to dispel.So rope trick should allow you to rest after your 4 encounters (according to the rules) because thats what you're supposed to have. It isn't what happens and it isn't logical, but the rules state that this is how the game is designed. Thats what needs to be changed. It can't be designed from the ground up with 4 in mind and then played with 2 in practice. Thats what it means to be unbalanced. It may not sound correct, but anything that really happens in real life is hypothetical with regards to what the rules state are supposed to happen.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 02:02 PM	But the rules are simply guidelines that often don't work as intend simply due to rule 0 and if you don't feel its working then change it in your game but most people don't have a problem with this and also it is one from what i have experienced and gather from reading these forums that it is one that is often not followed in most games. I have actually seen many people on these forums praising the per encounter balance as opposed to the per day method cause the 4 per day thing rarely if ever happens in there games as well. And ok yeah players might advance a little faster then expected but if thats the way it happens in play oh well. Especially since most groups meet at best once a week for any particular campaign often more like once every 2 or 3 weeks as allot of people don't have the time these days to play more then that and they don't want it to take 2 or 3 years of real game time to just reach 10th lvl. Cause even when we go like this and fight much harder stuff to get more xp it still often takes 2 or 3 sessions to get a lvl as is. Which at 3 sessions per lvl meeting only 2 times a month thats only 8 lvls in 1 year.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 02:08 PM	Also what really happens isn't the hypothetical. Hypothetical is a theory of what might happens based on some given data well going by that in this case as the rule here is more of a guideline then anything the rules are a just a hypothetical of what should or might happen in actual practice. The important thing is though in D&D due to rule 0 are rules are just guidelines. Also i don't see what the big deal is if your players advance a little faster then normal as they are all getting the same xp and moving along at the same pace its not like this is an MMO where all the D&D players in the world are straight jacketed into one set way of doing everything and advancing or else balance is destroyed. As long as everyone in the group is getting to same xp and advancing at the same rate it is balanced it don't matter if its a faster or slower rate then the game down the street because what happens in your game has no effect on the game down the street and vice versa.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 02:12 PM	You play slow. :P Or you play for too little time. I play once or twice a week in 3-5 different games (alternating). Of course a lot of these campaigns start up and end between levels 1 and 5 (due to scheduling conflicts typically), so we level up 2 or 3 times and then the campaign is over (after maybe 3 sessions). Quantity over quality! Personally, my campaigns last the longest out of any that we play and we play them more often than any of the others (for whatever reason). I've got per-day encounters planned for the next 5-7 sessions and with traps, RP, and combat its hard to have only 4 encounters in 1 day without wanting to throw in more. My campaigns often have goals that need to be accomplished quickly, so even if the player's have rope trick (which they usually don't), they can't spam it. My players don't need much role-play time, relying on skill checks and descriptions of events in favor of larping, as long as the storyline is interesting and their characters are developing as they want, everyone is happy. Anyway, all this anecdotal crap doesn't change the fact that the game is designed one way and people are playing it another. It would be more logical to have a system that was designed the way people are playing it.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 02:40 PM	Well me and my friends don't get to meet up that often and i don't think we play slow we just do more of the role-play and puzzle solving stuff i guess. Yes, the way allot of people play don't match up with this rule perfectly but it doesn't seem to bother them or hurt there campaigns probably cause most o them see it as largely a guideline or do like RadicalTaoist said which we do allot in the games i play and go off that base 4 a day cause often encounters are above or below our base CR some what instead of all being set in stone as being at our CR. you seem to run more to this rule then most and thats fine its your game and if you want to change it or other parts of the rules to fit more the varied encounter style thats fine do it and as long as you and your players agree its all good. But you didn't make this thread for making a new rule you just wanted to know about balance between a per day and a per encounter class. If you are now wanting to redo this rule then make a thread for that so people can come to the thread to work on that. Personally i think doing that would be allot of work for what ends up to be little gain and i have a feeling there are allot that agree with me but you don't seem to so make a thread to work on revising this rule and see what kinda response you get. i don't think you will get much but hope you do cause i know it kinda sucks to see a thread, you made with what you think is a good idea, flop. So I in conclusion i don't think there is anything wrong with the rule and the way lots of groups run but since you do go try yo make something new cause thats what is great about D&D its all guidelines you can ignore or not ignore and make your own as you see fit.
aelryinth 06-23-07, 03:02 PM	Except they can't use thier healing strikes out of a fight, because they have to hit something. Or do your crusader character randomly attack trees to heal thier party members? And any DM who lets them get away with that deserves all the difficulties he's going to get. ===Aelryinth
TheCobra 06-23-07, 03:06 PM	I recently spent a bit of time making a 20th-level fighter/barbarian NPC. Even with PC gear, he can't do 100+ damage in a single hit the way Warblade of the same level could. Against something with sad AC, he might be able to do more damage with a full attack. Maybe. Warblades are just superior. Sorry. By the way, where are y'all getting the idea that you must have four encounter per day, every day?
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 03:47 PM	The guidelines in the Encounter section says its based on 4 encounters a day but trying to follow that blindly seems a bit straight jacketed to and unrealistic which is what i was trying to say and that it often don't work out like that in most campaigns. EvilVegan feels that since 4 a day doesn't happen the CR and xp charts and rules should be changed. But as i feel its all more or less a guideline it shouldn't be and issue. He does seem to follow that rule pretty strictly though along with those encounters burning 25% of the parties resources and feels if they don't use that much the rule should be changed. Which is why i suggest he make a new thread for it. But in all honesty i think he is just over thinking and over complicating a rule that is more a guideline then a something stamped in stone that every campaign a group must follow. i do think its kinda funny that he takes this rule so seriously while he admits and even gives example of some house rules and material he has made and says he does it allot in his campaigns. But to each his own and thats what is so great about D&D you take what you like and what you don't like you throw out or change. Ahh lovely lovely rule 0.
Matthew77 06-23-07, 03:56 PM	I recently spent a bit of time making a 20th-level fighter/barbarian NPC. Even with PC gear, he can't do 100+ damage in a single hit the way Warblade of the same level could. Against something with sad AC, he might be able to do more damage with a full attack. Maybe. Warblades are just superior. Sorry. Except that +100 damage single hit replaces a full attack action. If you can't deal more than 100+ damage with a full attack from a level 20 barbarian, something is seriously wrong. Any time the Warblade could do a move + a maneuver, the barbarian could be using a leap attack charge. Have you actually played a warblade, or are you just comparing numbers on paper?
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 04:02 PM	If you are now wanting to redo this rule then make a thread for that so people can come to the thread to work on that Done! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12832314#post12832314)
InkBlot 06-23-07, 04:04 PM	By the way, where are y'all getting the idea that you must have four encounter per day, every day? We're not. Point to note: the standard isn't necessarily 4 encounters a day. A safer standard is 4 encounters of equal CR a day, scaling to less or more as the CR changes. 8 encounters of two CR less than the party level or 2 encounters of two CR higher than the party level are acceptable. Carry on. I recently spent a bit of time making a 20th-level fighter/barbarian NPC. Even with PC gear, he can't do 100+ damage in a single hit the way Warblade of the same level could. Against something with sad AC, he might be able to do more damage with a full attack. Maybe. Warblades are just superior. Sorry. 100 damage with a single strike? That's a cake walk for a 20th level fighter/barbarian. Power attack for 5, +5 enhancement bonus weapon, +1d6 fire + 1d6 electricity from flaming and shocking give another 5 (average), +6 strength modifier is ludicrously easy to get with a barbarian, +4 from Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus, use a lance for 1d8 base damage (average 4.5). That's 29.5 damage (average), minimum 23, maximum 40. Hop on a mount, charge with Spirited Charge, Ride By Attack, and your +5 flaming shocking lance. 29.5 * 4 = 118 damage (average). With bad rolls it's 92 damage, with good rolls it's 160 damage. That only used 6 feats, only core material, and I forgot that you can wield a lance two-handed for double power attack damage (slap another 20 damage on there to account for that). A 100+ damage full attack is even easier, and a full attack is safer too (it isn't all-or-nothing).
TheCobra 06-23-07, 04:12 PM	The guidelines in the Encounter section says its based on 4 encounters a day Where? That only works if the counters are all equal to the party level. Except that +100 damage single hit replaces a full attack action. Only if your foe happens to be right there. If you can't deal more than 100+ damage with a full attack from a level 20 barbarian, something is seriously wrong. Depends on the AC of your opponent. Power attack isn't free, you know. The fighter/barbarian NPC I'm talking about would have to hit with three attacks to deal 100+ damage. Any time the Warblade could do a move + a maneuver, the barbarian could be using a leap attack charge. Not really. Sometimes you can't charge. Even so, without Shock Trooper, good luck doing 100+ damage. Have you actually played a warblade, or are you just comparing numbers on paper? I don't play characters. I DM. So far, warblades seem more of a threat to the PCs than either fighters or barbarians. 100 damage with a single strike? That's a cake walk for a 20th level fighter/barbarian. With a mount, sure. I wasn't talking about mounted combat.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 04:20 PM	Except that +100 damage single hit replaces a full attack action. If you can't deal more than 100+ damage with a full attack from a level 20 barbarian, something is seriously wrong. Any time the Warblade could do a move + a maneuver, the barbarian could be using a leap attack charge. Have you actually played a warblade, or are you just comparing numbers on paper? Warblade + Warmasters Charge + Leading the Charge + group of 5 or more can deal way more damage than a barbarian with leap attack. Its base damage is 255 before weapon damage, leap attack, pounce, or any other abilities. With a cohort or a mount with pounce or any sort of summoner in the group this damage can easily reach thousands of damage. And the victim is stunned. How is the barbarian stunning people again? Avalanche of blades + raging mongoose + storm guard warrior --> raging mongoose (recovered for free by feat, or use another boost) + time stands still + stance = round 1 no damage, round 2 +100 of damage on each attack on 10-14 attacks. 1000 - 1400 damage (before weapon damage or other modifiers). Heaven forbid he's hasted with natural attacks. And the +100 is a reserved figure. The barbarian was leaping chargin again? Lets give him shock trooper and frenzied berserker 10. Power attack on leap attack 6:1, -20 for +120 to damage. Go ahead and give him pounce and a speed weapon and throw on a natural attack or two. Lets say he's lucky and gets 8 attacks in at +120 each, thats 960 damage before weapon damage. The next round he might power attack for 20, but he's going to miss and its only 4:1 exchange at that point. So 8 attacks at +80, most of which will miss. Oh and his AC is at -20 (not that the thing he attacked is alive, but his friends are). Sorry, no.
RadicalTaoist 06-23-07, 04:22 PM	So, TheCobra, what you're really arguing is not that Warblades do more damage per hit but that Warblades are more mobile, since they do not need mounted combat to whack someone not adjacent to them for 100+ a pop. Can we be clear on that much?
TheCobra 06-23-07, 04:29 PM	So, TheCobra, what you're really arguing is not that Warblades do more damage per hit but that Warblades are more mobile, since they do not need mounted combat to whack someone not adjacent to them for 100+ a pop. Can we be clear on that much? Mainly that the NPC I recently made would be much better if he were a warblade. Say whatever you want, but he'd be doing more damage if he were a warblade. Of course, I guess that's my fault for not giving him Leap Attack and Shock Trooper. Mounted combat has advantages, but it's own associated problems. And, as another posted noted, warblades can also do insane damage while charging.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 04:42 PM	My 300 dead cat build deals over 12000 damage before rolls. But who would reasonably spend 1 feat and 6000 gp to deal 12000 damage using 300 easily replaced skeletal cats?
windscar18 06-23-07, 04:44 PM	Warblade + Warmasters Charge + Leading the Charge + group of 5 or more can deal way more damage than a barbarian with leap attack. Its base damage is 255 before weapon damage, leap attack, pounce, or any other abilities. With a cohort or a mount with pounce or any sort of summoner in the group this damage can easily reach thousands of damage. And the victim is stunned. How is the barbarian stunning people again? Avalanche of blades + raging mongoose + storm guard warrior --> raging mongoose (recovered for free by feat, or use another boost) + time stands still + stance = round 1 no damage, round 2 +100 of damage on each attack on 10-14 attacks. 1000 - 1400 damage (before weapon damage or other modifiers). Heaven forbid he's hasted with natural attacks. And the +100 is a reserved figure. The barbarian was leaping chargin again? Lets give him shock trooper and frenzied berserker 10. Power attack on leap attack 6:1, -20 for +120 to damage. Go ahead and give him pounce and a speed weapon and throw on a natural attack or two. Lets say he's lucky and gets 8 attacks in at +120 each, thats 960 damage before weapon damage. The next round he might power attack for 20, but he's going to miss and its only 4:1 exchange at that point. So 8 attacks at +80, most of which will miss. Oh and his AC is at -20 (not that the thing he attacked is alive, but his friends are). Sorry, no. War Master's Charge is, I admit, extremely ridiculously powerful, but that's just the single biggest example again. But where in the hell did you get the idea that you get +100 damage on each attack, if you use the frenzied beserker example that he gets +120 damage? Where's this 100 damage? Bonus damage? How the hell does he get +100 bonus damage? If that's base damage, then the frenzied beserker should have more along the lines of 220 damage per attack, such to get in the hundreds range.
EvilVegan 06-23-07, 04:49 PM	War Master's Charge is, I admit, extremely ridiculously powerful, but that's just the single biggest example again. But where in the hell did you get the idea that you get +100 damage on each attack, if you use the frenzied beserker example that he gets +120 damage? Where's this 100 damage? Bonus damage? How the hell does he get +100 bonus damage? If that's base damage, then the frenzied beserker should have more along the lines of 220 damage per attack, such to get in the hundreds range. Stormguard warrior + raging mongoose + avalanche of blades. Stormguard warrior is a tactical feat, it grants you +5 damage per successful touch attack that hits the round before (dealing no damage on the build up round). Avalanche of blade gives you 1 attack + 1 attack for each successful attack. Raging mongoose gives you +4 attacks as a free action. You start the round by initiating 5 touch attacks, each additional attack suffers a cumulative -4 to hit. For each touch attack that hits, the following round you deal +5 untyped damage bonus per hit. First iteration of touch attacks is at full Attack bonus, -4 each round after that. Without modifiers we're talking hiting a touch AC 22 if you roll a 2. Chances are high that you'll hit more than that. And they stay high that you'll keep hitting that often until you're around -12 to hit (after hitting 20 times) but you could reasonably roll high enough to hit well up to 30 times (for +150 damage) and if you use my drummer boy (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=859594) build you can hit even more times than that (each 19-20 you roll grants another attack). As I said, the +100 to damage is a reserved estimate against anything with less than a 20 touch ac. Dragons and other large creatures are pretty toasted (if they stay in range).
windscar18 06-23-07, 05:08 PM	Whoa, what...WHAT? -12 to attack after 20 attacks? You get -12 to attack after 8 attacks. You're not allowed to attack with both weapons, except in the case of your boost. So, in other words, you take your initial 5 attacks, then start taking -4 penalties. So, your chart ends up like this... 5th attack: No penalty 6th attack: -4 7th attack: -8 etc.... And, now that I actually have the book in front of me, War Master's Charge affect allies within 30 ft. So while it is incrediably game breaking, it isn't to the realm of 3000 cats.
Illithid_Tentacles 06-23-07, 05:09 PM	For instance a fight of the party's CR is supposed to drain 25% of the party's resources. If a party is two crusaders, a warblade, and a swordsage a fight of the party's CR is going to drain 0% of the party's resources. The only way to truly drain 25% of their resources is to kill one member of the party. Hit points are a resource. Time is a resource. Money is a resource. Equipment is a resource, and weapons can be broken, disarmed and stolen, etc. One shot magic items (potions, scrolls, etc.) and charges from magic items that use them are resources. You're looking at this the same way you were looking at the game before the ToB was introduced. The ToB changes a LOT of things about the game, so of course you're going to have to adjust the way think about it.
souldragon_420 06-23-07, 05:12 PM	You do realize the only way to use 2 boost in one round is to be a lvl 20 Swordsage and then you can only do it 3 times per DAY!! Boost take a swift action and you only get one of those around. But i must say your ga mes must be interesting to play in since having less then 4 encounters a day is an abomination and breaking the rules in the extreme, but highly modifying the base classes and running around with armies of undead cats to get UBER charges with is commonplace and even seems to be expected. Cause hate to say it that cat thing is right along the lines of the hulking hurler and Pun Pun which even the makers of those admit are gross bending and breaking of rules that shouldn't be allowed in game even if they are achievable by RAW. Cause that stuff is totally in the realm of munchkinism.
Zurai 06-23-07, 05:23 PM	Avalanche of blade gives you 1 attack + 1 attack for each successful attack. Raging mongoose gives you +4 attacks as a free action. You start the round by initiating 5 touch attacks, each additional attack suffers a cumulative -4 to hit. For each touch attack that hits, the following round you deal +5 untyped damage bonus per hit. First iteration of touch attacks is at full Attack bonus, -4 each round after that. Without modifiers we're talking hiting a touch AC 22 if you roll a 2. Chances are high that you'll hit more than that. And they stay high that you'll keep hitting that often until you're around -12 to hit (after hitting 20 times) You fail to understand how Raging Mongoose works, and how Avalanche of Blades works. Raging Mongoose gives you 2-4 extra attacks in a round, depending on whether you're wielding one weapon or two. Avalanche of Blades changes your iterative attacks from -5 penalty to -4 penalty, but immediately ends your attacks if you miss. With Raging + Avalanche, your attacks go like this (assuming +20 BAB and an opponent with, say, 22 touch AC like you listed, and dual wielding): int attack = 20; int AC = 22; int mongooseAttacks= 4; for (mongooseAttacks; mongooseAttacks > 0; mongooseAttacks--) { if(attack + (rand()%20+1) >= AC) { player.dealDamage(enemy); } } for (attack; attack + (rand()%20+1) >= AC; attack -= 4) { player.dealDamage(enemy); } In other words - you make your four mongoose attacks, then you perform Avalanche of Blades. Mongoose does NOT allow you to Avalanche off of its extra attacks. Making the Avalanche attack is its own full round action, completely independantly of Mongoose. As I said, the +100 to damage is a reserved estimate against anything with less than a 20 touch ac. Dragons and other large creatures are pretty toasted (if they stay in range). Dragons are actually just fine against this. 2nd level spell scintillating scales turns natural armor bonuses into deflection bonuses, making dragons pretty damn hard to hit with touch attacks. They could also just move back 10 feet on their turn - or even better, fly up 100 feet, outside of flying charge range.
JTalbain 06-23-07, 05:30 PM	Here's something I haven't seen anyone address: What happens if the fight is at range? Warblade and Swordsage are really good at blending things into a fine red goo in melee, but have you noticed they suck at any range greater than about 60 feet? Reasons why: 1. Swordsage and Warblade have NO PROFICIENCY with any ranged weapons (except thrown weapons, which suck for range). 2. Most strikes must be performed in melee. 3. I'm pretty sure no boost affects ranged attacks. 4. Again I'm relatively sure no ranged maneuver has a range greater than 60 feet. 5. No maneuver or stance allows for true flight. This can be alleviated slightly by using items which grant flight, but in the meantime the fighter, barbarian, rogue, bard, ranger, paladin, wizard, sorceror, cleric, druid, monk, and, incidentally, the crusader, all have the option to kick the crap outta whatever is flying while the warblade or swordsage tries to catch up. Also, against a flying opponent in many situations, this simply won't happen. So, against an opponent on much higher ground, or assaulting from many fortifications, or possessing the ability to fly/teleport/move very fast, they're really fairly suboptimal. This again brings up the subject of how smart the monsters are, but given the fairly medieval setting and the numerous creatures that have highly evasive abilities and decent ranged attacks, I don't think this is too much of a stretch. I will however note that in the typical module taken from Dungeon, or in the average campaign set-up, these situations don't come up very often. In most situations, it's my experience that the ToB classes own pretty nearly everything.
xanadu 06-23-07, 11:51 PM	Here's something I haven't seen anyone address: What happens if the fight is at range? What? You bring up obvious weaknesses in the uber-TOB classes :eek: How dare you for being sensible.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 12:02 AM	The reason why I don't address range in any of my calculations is that my calculations are meant to show the ToB classes' damage aren't out of line with existing class' damage in identical circumstances. At range, this is already obvious -- barbarians likely have bows as backup weapons (and composite bows at that), while warblades are nigh-worthless at range except for a single maneuver (Lightning Throw, which is 8th level and only affects a 30' line). You don't need math to see who's at an advantage here.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 01:56 AM	(except thrown weapons, which suck for range). Not really. It's not quite a javelin, but the shortspear should be enough at low levels. A first level, the other fighter types will be using javelins anyway. Mighty composite bows are expensive. This can be alleviated slightly by using items which grant flight, but in the meantime the fighter, barbarian, rogue, bard, ranger, paladin, wizard, sorceror, cleric, druid, monk, and, incidentally, the crusader, all have the option to kick the crap outta whatever Yes, rogues, paladins, and barbarians are known for their deadly ranged attacks. If it's out of the warblade's reach, it's most likely also too far away to sneak attack. The fighter types can shoot arrows at it, but not especially well, unless they're built for it. The reason why I don't address range in any of my calculations is that my calculations are meant to show the ToB classes' damage aren't out of line with existing class' damage in identical circumstances. I'll admit barbarians can do as much damage, but only when charging and/or power attacking for a lot. Sounds fun, but using Power Attack isn't free. If the monsters have good AC, you're going to be doing a lot less damage than the warblade. If you can't charge, you're going to be doing a less damage than the warblade. The warblade, on the other hand, only needs to move and take a standard action. He doesn't have to take a minus on attack or AC to deal serious damage (i.e. he'll actually hit). He doesn't care about AoOs because he has ranks in tumble.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 02:11 AM	I'll admit barbarians can do as much damage, but only when charging and/or power attacking for a lot. Sounds fun, but using Power Attack isn't free. If the monsters have good AC, you're going to be doing a lot less damage than the warblade. If you can't charge, you're going to be doing a less damage than the warblade. The warblade, on the other hand, only needs to move and take a standard action. He doesn't have to take a minus on attack or AC to deal serious damage (i.e. he'll actually hit). He doesn't care about AoOs because he has ranks in tumble. You haven't seen my calculations, have you? I account for AC and attack penalties just peachy. The barbarian still comes out ahead. If he can't charge, neither can the warblade (and the strongest, most reliable, most damaging maneuvers of several levels happen to be White Raven charges). If the warblade moves in and uses a strike, he can't use that strike on his next turn, and has to recover if he wants that damage to be repeatable. The barbarian just attacks again, always repeatable. The results are, with two exceptions (5th and 15th), consistent: the barbarian comes out ahead. The only thing the warblade leads on (most of the time) is mobility, which can't be quantified as readily. One of these days I have to write up those calculations for all appropriate levels as a Regdar's article...
TheCobra 06-24-07, 02:27 AM	If the warblade moves in and uses a strike, he can't use that strike on his next turn, and has to recover if he wants that damage to be repeatable. He can still full attack nearly as well as the barbarian. It's no huge loss. Besides, plenty of combats end in 2-3 rounds. Warblades often have that many decent strikes. The only thing the warblade leads on (most of the time) is mobility, which can't be quantified as readily. Well, the warblade has to lead in AC, unless you're somehow ignoring the penalty from raging. He also has various other defenses that the barbarian completely lacks. Moment of Perfect Mind, for example. One of these days I have to write up those calculations for all appropriate levels as a Regdar's article... Yeah, you'll have to. Because, as it is, I don't really believe you. What builds are you using? Crazy Leap Attack + Shock Trooper stuff for the barbarian?
turalisj 06-24-07, 02:30 AM	Guys, don't argue against Tempest. It's impossible. :P
TheCobra 06-24-07, 02:36 AM	A high-level warblade could have easily have three or more deadly strikes. Greater Insightful strike, Diamond Nightmare Blade, and Strike of Perfect Clarity, for example.
turalisj 06-24-07, 02:39 AM	It depends on what the warblade focuses on. An Irond Dragon focused warblade for example, is an excelent melee mob killer. I will admit that a warblade with tiger's blood manuevers will out-rage a barbarian.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 02:47 AM	Speaking of Tiger Claw maneuvers, Feral Death Blow isn't exactly something a barbarian can mimic. And even if the target makes it's save, that's a decent amount of damage.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 03:02 AM	He can still full attack nearly as well as the barbarian. It's no huge loss. Besides, plenty of combats end in 2-3 rounds. Warblades often have that many decent strikes. No, not nearly as well as the barbarian. A barbarian who does NOT use rage and a warblade who does NOT use any maneuvers are similar. A barbarian using rage and a warblade using maneuvers are similar. A warblade full-attacking without maneuvers* and a barbarian using rage are NOT in the same league. * I say "maneuvers" here because warblades lack solid damage boosts until the later end of Tiger Claw, and those are best if you are a two-weapon fighter. Until that point, the overwhelming majority of warblade boosts are based off of mobility or team coordination.Well, the warblade has to lead in AC, unless you're somehow ignoring the penalty from raging. He also has various other defenses that the barbarian completely lacks. Moment of Perfect Mind, for example.The strongest damage strikes for several levels, either the White Raven charges or the Rabid Wolf Strike chain, all involve an AC penalty (either from charging or from the maneuver itself). Similarly, the +3.5 damage from Punishing Stance (as compared to +2 from Rage, but rage has other goodies) is associated with a -2 AC penalty. At the levels where you would actually consider Punishing Stance (a suboptimal choice in most circumstances; it's only worth it for characters who are only seeing action at lower levels), you have the same AC as the raging barbarian. The defensive option the warblade has that the barbarian does not, however, is the counter. Wall of Blades alone is incredible. You mentioned the Diamond Mind counters earlier as well. Using these, however, prevents them from using the offenses that they need to outdo the barbarian. Besides, when did I say I was comparing defenses? All of my math was aimed at countering "The warblade deals too much damage" claims, not "The warblade's AC is too high".Yeah, you'll have to. Because, as it is, I don't really believe you. What builds are you using? Crazy Leap Attack + Shock Trooper stuff for the barbarian?No, neither the warblade nor the barbarian have ANY feats chosen whatsoever beyond Power Attack (which nearly every melee damage-dealer takes). Both characters also have identical wealth-appropriate equipment, typically greatswords (if you're going for damage, you can't beat a two-hander). Just because I have a link handy, I'll present you a sample set of calculations (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12819646&postcount=108). I've done more convincing set-ups than this one. There *are* levels where the warblade easily outdoes the barbarian. These are levels 5 and 15, when the warblade gains a new level of maneuvers and the barbarian's one level away from gaining an iterative attack. (Level 11 is interesting since it opens up the whopping +10d6 Rabid Bear Strike, but the barbarian gains another attack and Greater Rage. The two cancel each other out and the pattern holds.) In all other levels, the warblade (using repeatable tactics) is outdone by the barbarian. (Nova tactics are not recommended for most of the same reasons they're not recommended to casters, only instead of per-day uses, you pay in opportunity cost. Every additional strike you load up on restricts your action selection and your available counters, plus to learn some of the better strikes requires a larger degree of specialization in your repotoire. At that point you aren't comparing "a" warblade to a barbarian, but are rather comparing "this" warblade to a barbarian.)
TheCobra 06-24-07, 03:14 AM	A warblade full-attacking without maneuvers* and a barbarian using rage are NOT in the same league. Rage only gives +2 to hit and +2/3 to damage until level 11. That's good, yes, but not that much of a difference. Remember that the warblade can take fighter-only feats and end up with just as much of a bonus to hit and damage. Of course, your numbers don't factor that in. No, neither the warblade nor the barbarian have ANY feats chosen whatsoever beyond Power Attack (which nearly every melee damage-dealer takes). Both characters also have identical wealth-appropriate equipment, typically greatswords (if you're going for damage, you can't beat a two-hander). Interesting. While that seems reasonable at first glance, it completely negates Weapon Aptitude, a class feature for the warblade. You're also ignoring the warblade's bonus feats, though I guess those aren't too likely to affect damage output.
AAB 06-24-07, 03:20 AM	At that point you aren't comparing "a" warblade to a barbarian, but are rather comparing "this" warblade to a barbarian. and when you start bringing in specific warblade builds well then you might as well compare it to the leap-attack/shock trooper barbarian. same deal.
AAB 06-24-07, 03:22 AM	Interesting. While that seems reasonable at first glance, it completely negates Weapon Aptitude, a class feature for the warblade. You're also ignoring the warblade's bonus feats, though I guess those aren't too likely to affect damage output. weapon aptitude is really only useful if you aren't buying your own magic gear at the magic-mart and happened to find a crazy-good weapon lying around. in most games players choose their own equipment and, for the most part, stick with it. it's therefore very reasonable to assume they both use a greatsword.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 03:23 AM	I ignored Weapon Aptitude in that particular calculation because he's at level 4. He'd need to be level 6 before claiming Weapon Specialization, the first fighter-only feat to boost damage. Furthermore, I'd be leaving those out anyway because I'm not comparing specific builds. Warblades without fighter-only feats are not only strong and effective, but popular. I'm leaving feats out altogether -- if you want to take Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization as a level 6 warblade, fine, do so, which changes the numbers for your particular warblade. On the flipside, I could take Improved Bull Rush and Shock Trooper as my level 6 barbarian. Or Leap Attack and Powerful Charge. Or similar. To which people would counter "but the warblade can take those too!". Which negates the need for fighter-only feats in the calculation (because at this point, it's not comparing the classes, but rather the feats. I'm not doing this to prove that Leap Attack adds more damage than Weapon Specialization, I'm doing this to show that the warblade doesn't bring more damage to the table than you're already used to via raging barbarians).
TheCobra 06-24-07, 03:29 AM	I understand your reasoning, but you're still ignoring a class features. Unlike the barbarian, the warblade actually gets bonus feats. Not very good ones, but Unnerving Calm, for example, could slightly affect damage output. In theory, the bonus feats also make it easier for warblades to spend their normal feats on other things.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 03:42 AM	I understand your reasoning, but you're still ignoring a class features.A class feature that doesn't factor in to the combat numbers isn't going into a combat calculation. I didn't factor in the barbarian's trap sense, did I? I AM COMPARING THE WARBLADE TO THE BARBARIAN ONLY IN TERMS OF DAMAGE OUTPUT, BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK THE WARBLADE DISHES OUT TOO MUCH DAMAGE WHEN IN TRUTH IT DOES NOT. It does comparable or even *less* damage than the barbarian, but is far more fun to play while it does it.Unlike the barbarian, the warblade actually gets bonus feats. Not very good ones, but Unnerving Calm, for example, could slightly affect damage output.Unreliably, and trivially. Only Combat Reflexes has a chance at pushing the warblade above the barbarian, but that's dependent on opponent tactics. Blind-Fight can come close, but that's also highly situational. Unnerving Calm and Blade Meditation are ALSO situational, and a very small damage value to boot (the former only applies against a single target for the whole combat, for example, and it can be reversed if the opponent's good or lucky. All of that... for +2 damage).In theory, the bonus feats also make it easier for warblades to spend their normal feats on other things.Like everyone's lining up to take Athletic, Endurance, and Run with their character levels.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 03:47 AM	A class feature that doesn't factor in to the combat numbers isn't going into a combat calculation. You're right. There's no way the ability to take Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Melee Weapon Mastery (and apply these feats to any weapon) could help the warblade deal more damage. Like everyone's lining up to take Athletic, Endurance, and Run with their character levels. As you even noted in your post, some of the bonus feats aren't bad. Combat Reflexes and Blind-Fight are solid feats.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 04:04 AM	You're right. There's no way the ability to take Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Melee Weapon Mastery (and apply these feats to any weapon) could help the warblade deal more damage. And in exchange, the barbarian takes Leap Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Shock Trooper. We're not comparing specific builds. The *ability* to take those feats is open to the warblade. This is why I keep the feats BLANK except for Power Attack -- so you can change the builds around. I am, after all, comparing the warblade to the barbarian. I am NOT comparing THIS PARTICULAR warblade to THAT PARTICULAR barbarian, since that proves nothing.As you even noted in your post, some of the bonus feats aren't bad. Combat Reflexes and Blind-Fight are solid feats.But situational. VERY situational, in the case of blind-fight. The character with Blind-Fight will have a better chance at winning against invisible foes than the character without blind-fight. However, against the overwhelming majority of opponents for a given CR (which are, by and large, not invisible), it will not make an impact. You may notice I'm using a generic monster based on the averages and standard deviations of particular CRs. This is for the same reason -- removing conditionals (in other words, countering "Yeah, but if" arguments before they happen). Ever played Diablo? The old one, not Diablo 2. One of the Gossip lines there ALWAYS cheesed me off. If you spoke to Griswold often enough, he would sometimes say "Look at that edge, that balance! In the right hands, and against the right foe, the sword is the master of all weapons!" or something like that. The italicized component really got under my skin, because it reeks of false advertising. (It was true in Diablo, where the only opponents swords weren't good against were undead, and the only character really worth using swords with was the warrior, but it isn't true in D&D, where there are too many other variables to track.) For instance, Favored Enemy can be a HUGE damage boon to the ranger -- In one of my games, our own ranger, with Favored Enemy (Human) and (Improved Critical: Valenar Double Scimitar), dishes out utterly LUDICROUS amounts of damage if his foe is human or isn't immune to crits. If he's a human not immune to crits, well, just start making funeral arrangements now. However, this doesn't make the ranger the king of melee combat -- it's easy to build a barbarian that does comparable (albiet slightly less) damage than that, but to everything he meets rather than just crit-vulnerable humans. Similarly, I use objective measurements -- as objective as I can. The barbarian and the warblade: 1) Have identical ability scores (although the placement of Int and Wis change) 2) Have identical equipment 3) Have identical feat choices -- that is, Power Attack and the rest is left open to the player 4) Fight the same foe, a statistical amalgamation of appropriate CR monsters they meet, under the assumption of a normal distribution, in identical circumstances 5) Both use repeatable tactics, reducing the skew effect from nova strikes 6) Do not have any specific build decisions made besides Power Attack (that is, no Pounce for the barbarian, and no single specific maneuver setup for the warblade -- it's quite likely that a warblade that looks very much like this sample warblade might spontaneously show up in your games, for instance, since he leaves as many of his maneuvers undetermined as possible and thus corresponds to a greater selection of the warblade population.) ...You get the idea. I'm considering writing up a grand, multi-level summary of this for Regdar's. If you honestly have a problem with this reasoning, let me know now so I can address it then.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 04:11 AM	And in exchange, the barbarian takes Leap Attack, Improved Bull Rush, and Shock Trooper. None of which gives flat bonus to hit and damage. That's a great combo, but +3 to hit and +4 to damage all the time is far more consistent. The *ability* to take those feats is open to the warblade. Yes, but, according to your calculations, the ability is literally worthless. It doesn't add anything to damage. Finally, what about maneuvers that force saving throws? Swooping Dragon Strike is a good example. The target will be stunned almost all the time. The warblade can then recover and full attack. Basically, anything that isn't immune to stunning is dead.
Sleepwalker13666 06-24-07, 04:26 AM	None of which gives flat bonus to hit and damage. That's a great combo, but +3 to hit and +4 to damage all the time is far more consistent. Yes, but, according to your calculations, the ability is literally worthless. It doesn't add anything to damage. Finally, what about maneuvers that force saving throws? Swooping Dragon Strike is a good example. The target will be stunned almost all the time. The warblade can then recover and full attack. Basically, anything that isn't immune to stunning is dead. The point is neither of them are optimized, one is raging, one is using maneuvers, both spent all available feats on skill focus basket weaving except for 1, power attack. Because once you start straying from that example it is no longer a basic test, it has too many variables.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 04:29 AM	Still, save-or-die effects have to be counted one way or another. If the warblade full attacks a foe stunned by Swooping Dragon Strike, he's going be doing a lot more damage than normal. That's one of the more extreme examples, but there are others.
Sleepwalker13666 06-24-07, 04:33 AM	Still, save-or-die effects have to be counted one way or another. If the warblade full attacks a foe stunned by Swooping Dragon Strike, he's going be doing a lot more damage than normal. That's one of the more extreme examples, but there are others. Of course, the beauty of feats is your options are wide open, but that's also part of what makes factoring them irrelevant in a simple test, this wasn't meant to represent a warblade that was optimized for 4 hours vs. a barbarian that was optimized for 4 hours. At the basics, the barbarian is slightly better, from there you can whip out your manhood all you want, then the barbarian can whiop out his manhood, and basically it boils down to a weeny waiving contest that proves nothing.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 04:35 AM	It's comparatively easy to account for stunning attacks. I suggest you read this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=861084). (You'll need to read it completely to see how, but it's not hard to understand, nor is it hard to apply to stunning.) That said, I wasn't demonstrating the fact that the warblade can actually do something in battle besides damage that contributes to victory. You seem to take these analyses for something they're not. I use them to show just how much damage a warblade can do in repeatable circumstances -- specifically, how it's very comparable to a barbarian. This was designed to counter the common complaint of the warblade dealing too much damage. Have you EVER seen a thread complaining about the warblade stunning a target? No? Well, what about a warblade dishing out too much damage? Oh, there used to be one of those every three days a few months ago, when I started doing these comparisons (I used estimated numbers for the monsters, since the critter filter wasn't available at the time; my estimations were, interestingly, within one standard deviation of the mean in most cases). Those are the people I'm trying to counter. Sleepwalker, that was amazing. *applaud*
TheCobra 06-24-07, 04:36 AM	Uh, Swooping Dragon Strike isn't a feat. I'm just hoping that Tempest is counting the devastating effect of maneuvers such as that one. In practice, it deals a lot more than +10d6 damage. It also means the warblade will always beat the barbarian in a duel.
Sleepwalker13666 06-24-07, 04:40 AM	Sleepwalker, that was amazing. *applaud* Thank you good sir, I'm honored. Hey tempest, while your out can I convince you to take a look at a class I worked on, the links in my sig, called the Nightshaper, it uses some ToB and some MoI, It's my first attempt hybriding these kinds of classes and am a little iffy about the balance.
Vaelan 06-24-07, 04:41 AM	Because once you start straying from that example it is no longer a basic test, it has two many variables. And if you don't stray from that example, it is no longer a relevant test. You can flesh out the builds a little more and have a test that is relevant in a small number of cases or you can dumb them down and have a test that is never relevant.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 04:41 AM	Uh, Swooping Dragon Strike isn't a feat. I'm just hoping that Tempest is counting the devastating effect of maneuvers such as that one. In practice, it deals a lot more than +10d6 damage. Did you even read my reply? I DO consider stunning. I just haven't published anything here yet that references it.It also means the warblade will always beat the barbarian in a duel.D&D's NEVER been designed with PvP in mind. Duels are a HORRIBLE indicator of class balance. That is PRECISELY why I use actual monster data as my opponents in the simulations I've run. They, not other characters, are what you are going to be swinging at. Sleepwalker: NO. My PM box is already full, I keep it full because the moment I open it up I get five or more "can you help with my class" messages flooding it. I wish I were kidding.
Sleepwalker13666 06-24-07, 04:45 AM	Sleepwalker: NO. My PM box is already full, I keep it full because the moment I open it up I get five or more "can you help with my class" messages flooding it. I wish I were kidding. That doesn't surprise me at all good sir. No big deal, I'm sure I'll hear about it soon enough from other posters.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 04:45 AM	Did you even read my reply? No. We must have posted at nearly the same time. I'm glad you factor in stunning. They, not other characters, are what you are going to be swinging at. Except when the DM, you know, sends NPCs with class levels against you. I do this regularly.
Sleepwalker13666 06-24-07, 04:48 AM	No. We must have posted at nearly the same time. I'm glad you factor in stunning. Except when the DM, you know, sends NPCs with class levels against you. I do this regularly. But n.p.c.s usually face off with a group not an individual.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 04:52 AM	But n.p.c.s usually face off with a group not an individual. Normally, yes. Every once in a while, though, a PC might get the chance to face an opponent alone. Some of my PCs held off a band of hobgoblins by doing this. (The party's fighter/barbarian beat the hobgoblin leader in a duel.)
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 04:52 AM	Except when the DM, you know, sends NPCs with class levels against you. I do this regularly.Then at that point I'd compare both the barbarian and the warblade against the NPC. Independently (not part of the same party), that is. My gut suspicion is that the warblade would have some fancy technique (stunning, mobility-locking, insta-kill at high levels) that wins the day in one or two rounds (due to enemy saves) while the barbarian simply dishes out enough punishment to end the battle in roughly the same span of time. I have not yet done explicit math on this, but it definitely seems to follow from my earlier analyses. All of my work has shown similar results. Warblades get to use fancy stunts that are a blast to use and often equate to higher mobility. Barbarians use more primitive tactics, but get superior numeric results. Fundamentally, that last point is what I wanted to prove when I did all of this math. I am ONLY doing these to show that the warblade's damage output is NOT unreasonable, unless you consider the barbarian's damage output to be unreasonable.
Sleepwalker13666 06-24-07, 04:56 AM	Normally, yes. Every once in a while, though, a PC might get the chance to face an opponent alone. Some of my PCs held off a band of hobgoblins by doing this. (The party's fighter/barbarian beat the hobgoblin leader in a duel.) Oh course, epic showdowns between pc and arch nemesis are an important part of the game. But also thats a different scenario than the presented example.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 04:59 AM	My gut suspicion is that the warblade would have some fancy technique (stunning, mobility-locking, insta-kill at high levels) that wins the day in one or two rounds (due to enemy saves) while the barbarian simply dishes out enough punishment to end the battle in roughly the same span of time. The barbarian doesn't really help the rest of the party by repeatedly full attacking. If the warblade stuns a foe, on the other hand, the rogue goes to town on it. And with Swooping Dragon Strike, he's always stunning it if can be stunned and isn't huge or larger. Yes, the maneuver is somewhat situational. Perhaps your damage calculations are right, but I know which one I'd want in my party. On the whole, I'm quite convinced the warblade is the superior class.
Chie 06-24-07, 08:00 AM	The barbarian doesn't really help the rest of the party by repeatedly full attacking. If the warblade stuns a foe, on the other hand, the rogue goes to town on it. And with Swooping Dragon Strike, he's always stunning it if can be stunned and isn't huge or larger. Yes, the maneuver is somewhat situational. Perhaps your damage calculations are right, but I know which one I'd want in my party. On the whole, I'm quite convinced the warblade is the superior class. Running the risk of beating a dead horse,that's exactly the point that they are trying to make.The barbarian will outdamage the Warblade on the whole,but the Warblade can actually accomplish something beyond "Smack it once,smack it harder,and smack it again for good measure." Hence why ToB is such a good book.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 09:01 AM	Whoa, what...WHAT? -12 to attack after 20 attacks? You get -12 to attack after 8 attacks. You're not allowed to attack with both weapons, except in the case of your boost. So, in other words, you take your initial 5 attacks, then start taking -4 penalties. So, your chart ends up like this... 5th attack: No penalty 6th attack: -4 7th attack: -8 etc....Okidoki. So he's getting +40 damage. Not as good as +80, but there is no penalty to hit and he gets more attacks and has a higher AC. Still he's almost keeping up with the incredibly ludicrous pouncing betentacled barbarian frezied berserker and he's just a guy with two sharp rocks. And, now that I actually have the book in front of me, War Master's Charge affect allies within 30 ft. So while it is incrediably game breaking, it isn't to the realm of 3000 cats.Its 300 skeletal cats, not 3000, and it is fully legal. You can fit more than 300 cats in a 30 ft radius, they're tiny and there are 120 squares in a 30 ft radius. 480 total skeletal cats max. 300 was chosen for flavor reasons. With warmasters charge and leading the charge each cat deals 46 damage and has 5% chance to miss and a 4.75% chance to crit (+600 to hit). 13696 average damage not counting the warblade's attack. Hit points are a resource. Time is a resource. Money is a resource. Equipment is a resource, and weapons can be broken, disarmed and stolen, etc. One shot magic items (potions, scrolls, etc.) and charges from magic items that use them are resources. You're looking at this the same way you were looking at the game before the ToB was introduced. The ToB changes a LOT of things about the game, so of course you're going to have to adjust the way think about it.But it doesn't change XP and levelling and encounters per day. Until that changes there are no reasons to look at ToB any way other than the way the game was before it was introduced, at least with regards to XP and levelling and encounters per day. You do realize the only way to use 2 boost in one round is to be a lvl 20 Swordsage and then you can only do it 3 times per DAY!!Yes I realize that. Did I use 2 in a round? raging mongoose and avalanche of blades was round 1 then he recovers raging mongoose (via Sudden Recovery feat). Round 2 he uses it again. But i must say your ga mes must be interesting to play in since having less then 4 encounters a day is an abomination and breaking the rules in the extreme, but highly modifying the base classes and running around with armies of undead cats to get UBER charges with is commonplace and even seems to be expected.Yes I try to play the game by the rules. Please, continue mocking my correct use of the DMG. I didn't say I always play the game that way, I said that is how I design my campaign encounters. If the party does something drastically different (such as leaving the dungeon/quest and going to the bar) they might have a few more random encounters but they aren't going to have the 4 I planned. Especially if there is absolutely no reason for them to have encounters. But thats if they stop doing what they're supposed to be doing (by their own design, they tell me what they plan on doing and I plan the time it would take and what happens in that time, so don't think I railroad. . . much). I was being humorous when I said that they would be attacked if they hadn't had 4 encounters, but I do typically plan on them being attacked while camped as part of some days encounters, typically as the 4th encounter. With traps and other obstacles that could be as little as 1 fight for the day, but 4 "encounters" between sleep cycles. Cause hate to say it that cat thing is right along the lines of the hulking hurler and Pun Pun which even the makers of those admit are gross bending and breaking of rules that shouldn't be allowed in game even if they are achievable by RAW. Cause that stuff is totally in the realm of munchkinism.Congratulations, you made the logical leap that my build was on par with hulking hurler and pun pun. Please take that next step and assume that it was meant in exactly the same light and sees absolutely 0 game play. It is a hypothetical experiment, but to be honest I don't think it is nearly as extreme an attempt at rules-bending as pun pun or hulking hurler. Armies of undead are a staple of fantasy, if you don't like 300 skeletal cats (which I used as a reference to the 300 movie, but needed something cute and tiny) then use ghosts (a la LOTR with Aragorn's army) or regular skeletons or hasted hydra zombies or even your real followers granted by leadership. Way to take everything I say and make it sound much more extreme than it really is and then mock it. Good job! I'm considering writing up a grand, multi-level summary of this for Regdar's. If you honestly have a problem with this reasoning, let me know now so I can address it then.I'm glad my thread motivated you to do this! I expect it to be grand and glorious! Side note: I do feel that ignoring all feats is a bit unusual in the comparison. It doesn't have to be "particular" vs "particular", it just has to be identical. The warblade and barbarian have to have the same feats and equipment. If the barbarian has leap attack and shock trooper then the warblade can get it. And they do get bonus feats (even if crappy feats but combat reflexes is good and iron heart aura is a free AC bump for adjacent allies). If the only difference a barbarian is getting is from rage (+2 to hit and +3 to damage increasing to +3/+4 and +4/+6, and +2(3)(4)/level hit points and +2/3/4 will save), decent damage reduction, and +10 speed. . . Well anyway, I await your comparisons. I thought they had been done already (thats why I started this thread, to find the thread that hadn't been made yet apparently) D&D's NEVER been designed with PvP in mind. Duels are a HORRIBLE indicator of class balance. That is PRECISELY why I use actual monster data as my opponents in the simulations I've run. Just wanted to quote this because its true and stuff. I hate seeing wizard vs fighter duel threads. Running the risk of beating a dead horse,that's exactly the point that they are trying to make.The barbarian will outdamage the Warblade on the whole,but the Warblade can actually accomplish something beyond "Smack it once,smack it harder,and smack it again for good measure." Hence why ToB is such a good book.Hence why people think it's overpowered. First of all, the barbarian out-damaging the warblade is not as clear cut as it sounds. Second of all, if a melee class is supposed to deal damage, but is now dropping status effects and area-affecting blasts and heals, it is going to affect game balance.
Chie 06-24-07, 10:09 AM	Hence why people think it's overpowered. First of all, the barbarian out-damaging the warblade is not as clear cut as it sounds. Second of all, if a melee class is supposed to deal damage, but is now dropping status effects and area-affecting blasts and heals, it is going to affect game balance. The Warblade outdoing the barbarian isn't as clear-cut either.It also won't really effect game balance all that much since the melee classes are the weaker classes anyways.Trading some useful effects in return for lessened over-all damage in a character type (namely meleers) that is underpowered anyways does not equal an overpowered class. Secondly melee classes aren't supposed to just deal damage.They're supposed to fight.And believe it or not,there is more to fighting than just dealing damage to the enemyIf damage was all there was to it then every feat for a melee character would only increase the damage they deal.And there wouldn't be any need for options like Trip or Disarm.The other books have been putting out feats and other things for the melee characters since 3.5 came out.It's just ToB is about the first time they did a good job of it.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 10:29 AM	The Warblade outdoing the barbarian isn't as clear-cut either.It also won't really effect game balance all that much since the melee classes are the weaker classes anyways.Trading some useful effects in return for lessened over-all damage in a character type (namely meleers) that is underpowered anyways does not equal an overpowered class.Yes, melee classes are underpowered. The CR system was designed with this in mind. If you increase a class to make it "balanced" and it was underpowered to begin with, the system that was balanced on this presumed under-powered class is no longer "balanced". That is why a party with 2 clerics + 2 others has an easier time facing challenges than a party with 1 cleric + 1 fighter + 2 others. The class is more powerful so challenges are easier to overcome. This should directly correlate into less XP, but nobody does this, so it seems as if clerics are better than fighters. And they are, but only because you're ignoring the rule on CR that says if a fight is easier to overcome you get less XP. Basically I'm saying that you have to gimp you party so that fights are harder to earn the correct amount of XP or you need to rework the CR system to adjust for the fact that groups often don't play the sub-optimal iconic 4. Secondly melee classes aren't supposed to just deal damage.They're supposed to fight.And believe it or not,there is more to fighting than just dealing damage to the enemyIf damage was all there was to it then every feat for a melee character would only increase the damage they deal.And there wouldn't be any need for options like Trip or Disarm.The other books have been putting out feats and other things for the melee characters since 3.5 came out.It's just ToB is about the first time they did a good job of it.Except that I've seen only 1 build that does anything other than damage, and thats the oldschool chain tripper. Damage is what meleeists do, even with splats.
runestar 06-24-07, 10:38 AM	That is why a party with 2 clerics + 2 others has an easier time facing challenges than a party with 1 cleric + 1 fighter + 2 others. The class is more powerful so challenges are easier to overcome. This should directly correlate into less XP, but nobody does this, so it seems as if clerics are better than fighters. And they are, but only because you're ignoring the rule on CR that says if a fight is easier to overcome you get less XP. I don't think it works that way. I think wotc assumes that all classes are more or less equal. Which is why encounters give the same xp regardless of the party's makeup. Different parties may utilize varying tactics, but no one might be any better or worst than the other. For example, a party of bards uses diplomacy to peacefully resolve a standoff without any loss to themselves. By definition, you must award them the same xp as compared to a group of barbs who just rush in and chop everything to bits, and taking tons of damage in the process. In addition, it does not seem fair to arbitrarily penalize or reward one class over another just because one seems to be stronger or weaker than the other. Likewise, you give out full xp even if the party mage lucks out and 1-shots the BBEG with a save-or-die spell, or if the barb crits for tons of damage before he has a chance to react. Even if something goes wrong and a battle turns out to be tougher than expected (say because the PCs had crappy rolls and the foes had good rolls), you wouldn't give out more xp. Or heck, just rework the monsters if you need to. Many can be made that much stronger simply just be playing around with their feat choices and assigning the correct eq to them.:)
turalisj 06-24-07, 10:58 AM	Which do you think wiill work better: 4 cerlics 4 wizards 4 rouges or 4 fighters. I'm voting for either the wizards or the clerics.
runestar 06-24-07, 11:01 AM	I will go with 4 wizards if the dm allows ample downtime for item crafting. Else, my money is on the group of 4 clerics. Still, I don't see the relevance of that point...:confused:
Chie 06-24-07, 11:04 AM	Yes, melee classes are underpowered. The CR system was designed with this in mind. If you increase a class to make it "balanced" and it was underpowered to begin with, the system that was balanced on this presumed under-powered class is no longer "balanced". That is why a party with 2 clerics + 2 others has an easier time facing challenges than a party with 1 cleric + 1 fighter + 2 others. The class is more powerful so challenges are easier to overcome. This should directly correlate into less XP, but nobody does this, so it seems as if clerics are better than fighters. And they are, but only because you're ignoring the rule on CR that says if a fight is easier to overcome you get less XP. The CR tables are based on the premise of a standard party.That is to say 1 healer,1 melee,1 skill-monkey,1 mage.Any other combination alters what the CR is supposed to represent,that's why CR's are a guideline where you can adjust them up or down if things were too easy for your party.The CR tables are also based on the idea that the classes are balanced.That was the intention even though it failed in it's execution,hence the many attempts they've made to increase the power of melee characters.They wanted to get them to balance with the casters.And XP has absolutely nothing to do with why clerics are better than fighters.Clerics are better than fighters because they can do anything and have no real weaknesses that they can't easily overcome. The CR is based on a set of very narrow assumptions and then you're expected to use DM's judgement as to how tough the encounter actually was. Any deviation alters the way you have to judge CR. And might I add that,if one class is less powerful than another as you admit the melee characters are,then the game is not 'Balanced'.Unless the word balance has a drastically different meaning for you than the rest of the english speaking world. Basically I'm saying that you have to gimp you party so that fights are harder to earn the correct amount of XP or you need to rework the CR system to adjust for the fact that groups often don't play the sub-optimal iconic 4. You have to do that anyway.Unless of course there are only four people in your game and one person plays a fighter,one a mage,one a cleric,and one a rogue.You have only four encounters,all of equal CR to them a day,everyday.They always get a set number of gold and a set number of magic items,and you never,ever deviate from that pattern or allow any other characters of ANY type because the DM of your group doesn't want to have to use brain for a few minutes. Except that I've seen only 1 build that does anything other than damage, and thats the oldschool chain tripper. Damage is what meleeists do, even with splats. But it isn't the only thing they have to do.The ToB characters deal damage mostly too,they just do it in more ways than "me hit big thing with my sharp pointy thing".The ToB also actually have skills that they can use for other purposes. Or do the fighter characters in your game walk around hitting every rock,tree,and creature they come across because that's all they know how to do.
Otto the Bugbear 06-24-07, 11:05 AM	Yes, melee classes are underpowered. The CR system was designed with this in mind. Where are you getting this information? Basically I'm saying that you have to gimp you party so that fights are harder to earn the correct amount of XP or you need to rework the CR system to adjust for the fact that groups often don't play the sub-optimal iconic 4. Have to gimp? Where are you getting this information? Except that I've seen only 1 build that does anything other than damage, and thats the oldschool chain tripper. Damage is what meleeists do, even with splats. That's all they do? They don't do other things at all?
windscar18 06-24-07, 11:07 AM	Hence why people think it's overpowered. First of all, the barbarian out-damaging the warblade is not as clear cut as it sounds. Second of all, if a melee class is supposed to deal damage, but is now dropping status effects and area-affecting blasts and heals, it is going to affect game balance. Oh no, Shield Slam and Lay on Hands have been here FOREVER, and now some class actually shows up with similar abilities. I'm sure that makes a lot of sense, especially when Shield Slam is, I don't know...dazing instead of stunning, which is more reliable, AND can be done every round without stopping. Lay on Hands actually heals a DECENT amount. Yeaaaaaah. Stunning isn't necessarily the problem.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 11:18 AM	Oh no, Shield Slam and Lay on Hands have been here FOREVER, and now some class actually shows up with similar abilities. I'm sure that makes a lot of sense, especially when Shield Slam is, I don't know...dazing instead of stunning, which is more reliable, AND can be done every round without stopping. Lay on Hands actually heals a DECENT amount. Yeaaaaaah. Stunning isn't necessarily the problem. Way to ignore the limitless nature of crusader healing and the numerous other effects besides stunning, such as ability damage, movement penalties, etc and new disables such as "can't attack" Lay on Hands is very limited.
windscar18 06-24-07, 11:20 AM	Way to ignore the limitless nature of crusader healing and the numerous other effects besides stunning, such as ability damage, movement penalties, etc and new disables such as "can't attack" Lay on Hands is very limited. Oh, so now the problem is with the Crusader? Make up your mind already.
souldragon_420 06-24-07, 11:25 AM	I still don't see how the CR and xp system can be unbalanced cause no matter how you read it everyone is getting in the group is getting the same xp and advancing at the same rate no matter what so they are all balanced against one another. So what if they have a harder or easier time with a certain encounter, be it due to better character building or group building or just lucky rolls, then the group playing in the game down the street. Cause what happens in your group has nothing to do with the other group and vice versa. They exist in totally separate worlds doing there own things. As long as your players don't feel they are advancing to fast or to slow all is good. Like I said before this isn't an MMO everyone doesn't have to use the same set in stone and wavering xp system cause if one group advances faster then slower then another it don't matter as they have no effect on each others games. If you really do want it totally set in stone where you get X xp for killing Y just go back to the 2nd ed monster xp system where each monster has a set xp that they always give no matter what. And if you want to limit it somewhat so people can just kill an endless stream of kolbolds to get to lvl 20 just do a thing where after your X lvls over what its CR was you dont get its xp anymore. Still think your over complicating a system that cant really be broken as long as its always applied the same to everyone in your group. Cause it don't a single bit of difference on your campaign or group if another DM decides to give his group double or half of what you give yours for the same encounter and vice versa. As long as everyone in your group is happy with there advancement rate everything is fine.
TheCobra 06-24-07, 11:26 AM	While Shield Slam is cool feat, it's actually allows as saving throw. Swooping Dragon Strike really doesn't. Also, when it works, stunning is a lot worse than dazing. Dropping your weapon can be a pain. (Though not as much these, now that anyone can buy Quick Draw for 300 gp.)
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 11:27 AM	Where are you getting this information? Have to gimp? Where are you getting this information?Its the assumption present in the CR system. The party is supposed to be 4 characters and they're supposed to be the iconic 4. By "have to gimp" I mean that for the encount to be as challenging as it is designed to be you should have a fighter or barbarian (or other melee type). If you change what is in that "slot" the fight will be easier or harder, meaning that it is more or less of a challenge. So for things to be the correct CR you would need to fill that slot with the sub-optimal choice. That's all they do? They don't do other things at all?Yes. In combat, all meleeists do is deal and take damage. I'm not saying this is the correct thing for meleeists to be doing, but that's how they've worked up until ToB. Status changing effects were the realm of spellcasters and very specific feats (and a rogue special ability).
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 11:30 AM	Oh, so now the problem is with the Crusader? Make up your mind already. Crusaders are the ones with healing, yes (good job!). But did you happen to read the rest of my post which doesn't apply only to the crusader. "...and the numerous other effects besides stunning, such as ability damage, movement penalties, etc and new disables such as "can't attack""
windscar18 06-24-07, 11:30 AM	...I'm not saying this is the correct thing for meleeists to be doing, but that's how they've worked up until ToB. Status changing effects were the realm of spellcasters and very specific feats (and a rogue special ability). So wait a minute... You're actually saying that it's possible (not even guarenteed) that ToB is doing what meleeists SHOULD be doing, but then arguing against it because it breaks away from the trends set about by the core rules? Isn't game design intended to break rules?
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 11:36 AM	I still don't see how the CR and xp system can be unbalanced cause no matter how you read it everyone is getting in the group is getting the same xp and advancing at the same rate no matter what so they are all balanced against one another. So what if they have a harder or easier time with a certain encounter, be it due to better character building or group building or just lucky rolls, then the group playing in the game down the street. Cause what happens in your group has nothing to do with the other group and vice versa. They exist in totally separate worlds doing there own things. As long as your players don't feel they are advancing to fast or to slow all is good. Like I said before this isn't an MMO everyone doesn't have to use the same set in stone and wavering xp system cause if one group advances faster then slower then another it don't matter as they have no effect on each others games. If you really do want it totally set in stone where you get X xp for killing Y just go back to the 2nd ed monster xp system where each monster has a set xp that they always give no matter what. And if you want to limit it somewhat so people can just kill an endless stream of kolbolds to get to lvl 20 just do a thing where after your X lvls over what its CR was you dont get its xp anymore. Still think your over complicating a system that cant really be broken as long as its always applied the same to everyone in your group. Cause it don't a single bit of difference on your campaign or group if another DM decides to give his group double or half of what you give yours for the same encounter and vice versa. As long as everyone in your group is happy with there advancement rate everything is fine.I'm glad that you're fine with the system as is while admitting that it is flawed. I will continue to use the system as is, that is not the point. My point is that the system is flawed and should be corrected so that things are more consistent. You put more work into your post just now than I have put in to reworking the CR system. I've actually put no work into doing so. The Starwars saga system went back to 2nd edition style xp, you gain less XP from things 5 levels lower than you, but still could probably wipe out an army of kobolds and probably get to 20th level. The CR system can be unbalanced in play because its balanced against things that don't actually happen in play. Namely people playing sub-optimal characters in 4 man groups.
souldragon_420 06-24-07, 11:43 AM	So wait a minute... You're actually saying that it's possible (not even guarenteed) that ToB is doing what meleeists SHOULD be doing, but then arguing against it because it breaks away from the trends set about by the core rules? Isn't game design intended to break rules? No see what it is is the fact that they get to carry swords so they can't have nice things. If your melee you only get to put thought into your character at creation after that you just let it be played by a bobbing bird and a number generator. Your melee you know tactical warrior types but you dont get to use tactics you just charge and full attack. Tactics and putting thought into your actions is something you only get to do if your a caster. At least according to some people but this has been argue a million times on this board and people can never agree. There are the ones who, probably mostly melee player types, think hey cool ToB is great I get to think and use tactics and have to pay attention to whats going on in battle now like my caster buddies have been doing forever. Then there are the ones, probably mostly caster players, that think hey you melee guy what are you doing thinking and using tactics like me your just suppose to stand there and auto-attack the stuff while i blow it away. You are my NPC pawn whether you realize it or not so stop doing nice fun cool things like i do and go back to mindlessly auto attacking.
RadicalTaoist 06-24-07, 11:45 AM	Ahem. Again I interject quickly, but the iconic party of four sucks and shouldn't be used as a balance model. I'd say a lot of balance problems arose because of designers looking at things solely through the paradigm of the Old Four rather than looking at the ramifications of the abilities they designed. ToB is a step away from that and that's only a good thing in my mind.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 11:51 AM	So wait a minute... You're actually saying that it's possible (not even guarenteed) that ToB is doing what meleeists SHOULD be doing, but then arguing against it because it breaks away from the trends set about by the core rules? Isn't game design intended to break rules?Ok. You must be misreading me. I don't think ToB is bad at all. I think it brought a lot of interesting stuff to the field. I even think other things should be rebalanced to match the per-encounter style of ToB, such as giving sorcerers less spell slots, but with a method of replenishing them between or even during fights so that they're always ready to go. I just feel that the ToB by increasing the amount of healing available or number of status effects available while replacing a sub-optimal character choice (fighter or barbarian) has indirectly wreaked havoc with the CR system that isn't easily corrected or quantified. Its like giving a fighter free spell slots with up to 6th level spells that it can use as a free action while in combat once per encounter with no drawbacks and expecting challenges to be as challenging as they were previously. Its ludicrous to claim it doesn't affect the CR system.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 11:53 AM	There are the ones who, probably mostly melee player types, think hey cool ToB is great I get to think and use tactics and have to pay attention to whats going on in battle now like my caster buddies have been doing forever. Then there are the ones, probably mostly caster players, that think hey you melee guy what are you doing thinking and using tactics like me your just suppose to stand there and auto-attack the stuff while i blow it away. You are my NPC pawn whether you realize it or not so stop doing nice fun cool things like i do and go back to mindlessly auto attacking.Which one do you think I am? I can tell from your responses to me that you're probably wrong in your assumptions about me.
souldragon_420 06-24-07, 11:55 AM	I'm glad that you're fine with the system as is while admitting that it is flawed. I will continue to use the system as is, that is not the point. My point is that the system is flawed and should be corrected so that things are more consistent. You put more work into your post just now than I have put in to reworking the CR system. I've actually put no work into doing so. The Starwars saga system went back to 2nd edition style xp, you gain less XP from things 5 levels lower than you, but still could probably wipe out an army of kobolds and probably get to 20th level. The CR system can be unbalanced in play because its balanced against things that don't actually happen in play. Namely people playing sub-optimal characters in 4 man groups. But that is totally ignoring rule 0 which basically says every rule in every book is optional and/or guidelines as suggestions but not set in stone unable to be changed from group to group. See basically every D&D group exist in it's own little bubble totally unaffected by outside groups and able to change, add, or remove rules as they see fit as it has no affected on anyone else's game and its there game to do with as they please. So it might work for some people totally not at all for others. Thats what i love most about D&D is its so changeable alterable for every group to really make there own game. And to that it shouldn't be that way goes against the most core concept of D&D. At least IMO. If you feel it should be all set in stone where every group that plays plays it the exact same way well then i think you want an MMO not a pen and paper game. Cause you will never get everyone to play the same way or interpret all the rules in a Pen and Paper RPG the same way regardless of which system you use. And yes that is one of the biggest draws to Pen and Paper RPGs for allot of people.
windscar18 06-24-07, 11:55 AM	Ok. You must be misreading me. I don't think ToB is bad at all. I think it brought a lot of interesting stuff to the field. I even think other things should be rebalanced to match the per-encounter style of ToB, such as giving sorcerers less spell slots, but with a method of replenishing them between or even during fights so that they're always ready to go. I just feel that the ToB by increasing the amount of healing available or number of status effects available while replacing a sub-optimal character choice (fighter or barbarian) has indirectly wreaked havoc with the CR system that isn't easily corrected or quantified. Its like giving a fighter free spell slots with up to 6th level spells that it can use as a free action while in combat once per encounter with no drawbacks and expecting challenges to be as challenging as they were previously. Its ludicrous to claim it doesn't affect the CR system. So, in other words, you essentially think that Tome of Battle has actually given the fighter some amount of strength and that, in effect, it wrecks havoc on the CR system. Hate to tell you, but CR was made around the assumption that all 4 party roles were assumed to be equal.
souldragon_420 06-24-07, 11:57 AM	Which one do you think I am? I can tell from your responses to me that you're probably wrong in your assumptions about me. Well i use to think you were in the 1st category after reading the ToB is to Animae thread but after the way you are talking in here saying melee should not do anything but damage and charge full attack type actions i think your falling in to the 2nd category.
Otto the Bugbear 06-24-07, 12:26 PM	Its the assumption present in the CR system. The party is supposed to be 4 characters and they're supposed to be the iconic 4. That's where you're getting the information that melee classes are underpowered? Page number please. By "have to gimp" I mean that for the encount to be as challenging as it is designed to be you should have a fighter or barbarian (or other melee type). If you change what is in that "slot" the fight will be easier or harder, meaning that it is more or less of a challenge. So for things to be the correct CR you would need to fill that slot with the sub-optimal choice. I would need to fill it with a sub-optimal choice? Where does it say that (page number please)? And where does it describe what is sub-optimal (page number please)? I'm talking about where it specifically says that melee classes are weaker. Yes. In combat, all meleeists do is deal and take damage. I'm not saying this is the correct thing for meleeists to be doing, but that's how they've worked up until ToB. Status changing effects were the realm of spellcasters and very specific feats (and a rogue special ability). Oh. So damage isn't the only thing they do. They deal damage and take damage. Yes, melee classes are underpowered. Where are you getting that information? I've yet to see it said in the book that melee classes are underpowered. The books were designed on the assumption that they were specifically not underpowered. The only place you'll find statements like that are on the boards. The CR system was designed with this in mind. Where are you getting the information that the CR system was designed with "melee classes are underpowerd" from? Not in the books, right? If you increase a class to make it "balanced" and it was underpowered to begin with, the system that was balanced on this presumed under-powered class is no longer "balanced". On what page number is this list of classes that are "underpowered" located? That is why a party with 2 clerics + 2 others has an easier time facing challenges than a party with 1 cleric + 1 fighter + 2 others. The class is more powerful so challenges are easier to overcome. This should directly correlate into less XP, but nobody does this, so it seems as if clerics are better than fighters. And they are, but only because you're ignoring the rule on CR that says if a fight is easier to overcome you get less XP. That's not because the classes were intentionally designed to be underpowered. That's an unintentional side-effect of what the outcome of the design was. Basically I'm saying that you have to gimp you party so that fights are harder to earn the correct amount of XP or you need to rework the CR system to adjust for the fact that groups often don't play the sub-optimal iconic 4. I have yet to see any rules specifying that you "have to gimp your party so that fights are harder to earn the "correct" amount of XP or you need to rework the CR system". Anywhere in the books. Except that I've seen only 1 build that does anything other than damage, and thats the oldschool chain tripper. Damage is what meleeists do, even with splats. You've never seen a [melee] build that takes advantage of bull rush or disarm or sunder? If you say so.
Minmaximus 06-24-07, 12:33 PM	Wow. How refreshing. The first thread about warblades that does not have uber-broken in the title. I am playing an 8th lvl warblade and he is not running away with the campaign like others suggest. No, he is not a crappy warblade, my tag is minmaximus after all. I am on pace to get time stands still, and perfect strike. I currently use bonecrusher, mithral tornado, and a "martial studied" burning blade as my attacks. And hold a moment of perfect mind back for the will saves. But whenever I run up and pop a monster for good damage, the halfling rogue runs up and does about the same. I almost played a barbarian, but being a spellcaster at heart, I like a little book keeping to keep me interested. My friend who DM'ed a group in Ohio had a falchion wielding barbarian in his group, and from the stories, that guy was awesome. Carried the group on his furry shoulders.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 12:45 PM	Well i use to think you were in the 1st category after reading the ToB is to Animae thread but after the way you are talking in here saying melee should not do anything but damage and charge full attack type actions i think your falling in to the 2nd category. Ah, I knew there was something that wasn't coming across. I'm not saying that's what melee should do, I'm saying that before ToB, thats what it did do. There wasn't a real way for warriors to do these things. I actually DM more than I play and try to vary my characters between all of the roles. I'm currently in 2 games, one as a kobold sorcerer with only power words and tactical movement verbal only spells (benign transposition, slide, etc) and as an evil warblade using light maces and lightning mace weapon style feat.
turalisj 06-24-07, 12:50 PM	And I'm in one game as a kobold warblade, and another as a kobold Ssgae... Let's just say that no one laughs at the kobold again.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 01:12 PM	That's where you're getting the information that melee classes are underpowered? Page number please. I would need to fill it with a sub-optimal choice? Where does it say that (page number please)? And where does it describe what is sub-optimal (page number please)? I'm talking about where it specifically says that melee classes are weaker. Oh. So damage isn't the only thing they do. They deal damage and take damage. Where are you getting that information? I've yet to see it said in the book that melee classes are underpowered. The books were designed on the assumption that they were specifically not underpowered. The only place you'll find statements like that are on the boards. Where are you getting the information that the CR system was designed with "melee classes are underpowerd" from? Not in the books, right? On what page number is this list of classes that are "underpowered" located? That's not because the classes were intentionally designed to be underpowered. That's an unintentional side-effect of what the outcome of the design was. I have yet to see any rules specifying that you "have to gimp your party so that fights are harder to earn the "correct" amount of XP or you need to rework the CR system". Anywhere in the books.Its a paradigm. It isn't so much listed/written as the underlying assumption upon which everything else depends. It is debated that fighters and other melee classes are underpowered. It is also claimed that ToB "fixes" the fighter by replacing him. These are not my claims, these are not rules, these are beliefs and opinions and actual real-life game play. But if you must have the actual rules and page numbers: DMG Page 39, Modifying XP awards and encounter levels: ... Circumstance Half as difficult XP x 1/2 Significantly less dificult XP x 2/3 Significantly more difficult XP x 1.5 Twice as difficult XP x 2 If you have a party of 4 clerics or a party of 4 fighters and you're fighting something that is twice as hard for the fighters to over come the fighters should gain twice the XP. Also, same page, Assigning Ad Hoc XP awards: "An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PC's resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all." Other than those, all of my claims are paradigm claims and not rules issues specifically. You've never seen a [melee] build that takes advantage of bull rush or disarm or sunder? If you say so.No I haven't seen a melee build that takes advantage of bull rush or disarm or sunder. Not one that works anyway. Disarm that dragon, bull rush the tarrasque, sunder all the treasure. No. In campaigns against humanoids with crap equipment those builds work great, otherwise you'd be better off just dealing damage. As for me saying that meleeists only deal/take damage, you're taking me the wrong way if you think that I think thats the only thing they should be doing. When I said "Meleeists only deal damage" I was saying that the combat abilities of a meleeist before ToB only involve dealing damage, not other effects like stunning and ability damage. Please stop attacking me on that minor point if you would. :D
AAB 06-24-07, 01:36 PM	While Shield Slam is cool feat, it's actually allows as saving throw. Swooping Dragon Strike really doesn't. Also, when it works, stunning is a lot worse than dazing. Dropping your weapon can be a pain. (Though not as much these, now that anyone can buy Quick Draw for 300 gp.) why do you say that swooping dragon strike doesn't allow a saving throw? sure, it is based off a skill-check, one of the highest modifiers in the game, but it's a jump check. jump checks are not especially reliable, especially when performed by someone in armor. casters can raise their save DCs through heighten spell, spell focus, etc. and those all stack. it's not as horrible as you think it is.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 01:43 PM	why do you say that swooping dragon strike doesn't allow a saving throw? sure, it is based off a skill-check, one of the highest modifiers in the game, but it's a jump check. jump checks are not especially reliable, especially when performed by someone in armor. casters can raise their save DCs through heighten spell, spell focus, etc. and those all stack. it's not as horrible as you think it is. HAHA! My 5th level warblade gets +29 to jump while wearing armor. He's an unusual case, but still. (Without the leap stance) Boots of S&S +9 jump. Leaping stance +10 to jump and you're running. Thats 2 easy ways. There are more. Its much easier to get jump checks up than save DC for spells. Still a nat 20 can save, and there are other factors. You aren't wrong. I just like having a crazy high jump check.
souldragon_420 06-24-07, 01:47 PM	Well ok yes before thats all they could do and we would of liked if they could do more and i don't have a link to it but at one time there was a big post on the EN World homepage by the designer of ToB that he agreed with that statement as well as talk of his inspiration for the book and PHBII feats. However the fact of the matter is they can't go back and change the classes in the PHB without releasing a new edition and I don't think wizards or more importantly the player base is ready for that. So they just have to release new books with classes and abilities that try to fix what some players feel is a problem in the current books. They did it as a supplemental cause while most people on these boards including myself feel that the melee are underpowered and boring compared to casters there is still alot of people out there that don't feel that way at all. This is an obvious fact do to how hotly debated of a topic ToB still is even tho its been out nearly a year. Edit: argh to many people posted while typing but this is directed toward how old melee classes could only do dmg while ToBs can do alot more then just DMG.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 01:52 PM	I personally don't feel that the core classes are underpowered, I just like arguing. :D I've played at least 3 straight fighters and loved every second of it. I also played a rogue with nothing but double skill bonus feats (acrobatic, alertness, etc). For some reason I rolled more 20s with that character than any other before or since. Almost every first round of combat I'd roll a 20.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 01:52 PM	Okay, evil vegan, I hope you realize that the CR system was WAY FUBARED before ToB. Hell it's FUBAR in a core only game. Play 4 druids and see what happens to your precious system where the party has 4 cr 2 critter along with those 4 druids going up against CR 1-3 encounters. It's a joke. Add in summon spells and it's even more screwy. Also the classes were designed with they are all equal, hence they all have the same exp progression change from 2nd ed. We of course know this is not even remotely true. But anyways, the CR system assumes this to be true. So basically your issue with the CR system has NOTHING to do with ToB, it has to do with the fact that the CR and class system was broken to begin with.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 02:00 PM	Okay, evil vegan, I hope you realize that the CR system was WAY FUBARED before ToB. Hell it's FUBAR in a core only game. Play 4 druids and see what happens to your precious system where the party has 4 cr 2 critter along with those 4 druids going up against CR 1-3 encounters. It's a joke. Add in summon spells and it's even more screwy. Also the classes were designed with they are all equal, hence they all have the same exp progression change from 2nd ed. We of course know this is not even remotely true. But anyways, the CR system assumes this to be true. So basically your issue with the CR system has NOTHING to do with ToB, it has to do with the fact that the CR and class system was broken to begin with.But it didn't fix it either. :D I know its broken currently. How would you fix it? I started another thread on it (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=872802).
souldragon_420 06-24-07, 02:01 PM	I personally don't feel that the core classes are underpowered, I just like arguing. :D Yeah i have built plenty of destructive melee types off the core classes without touching ToB and still have ideas for future ones that don't. Thing is its much harder to optimize the core melee classes to that point and often requires getting many different things from lots of different books. Also there isn't really a way to make an effective mobile light armor warrior excpet for dervish. Thats what i like about ToB though as it allows you to make the effective mobile warrior types and many other types to without having to use anything but the ToB and maybe the PHB. It's just simpler and it's nice sometimes to not have to spend 5+ hours scouring countless books to make a warrior that kinda meets your concept and still is effective.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 02:05 PM	But it didn't fix it either. :D I know its broken currently. How would you fix it? I started another thread on it (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=872802). You can't. Even the fixed exp system in UA doesn't work since it's still pretty much based of CR anyways. You could I suppose use the exp charts from 2ed but that fails as soon as you MCed. I mean it's FUBAR...you just can't fix some thing that are that screwed up without chucking it out thr window and starting over.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 02:05 PM	Hooray for 4th ed. :D I wonder what they'll get horribly wrong in that version...
Otto the Bugbear 06-24-07, 02:11 PM	These are not my claims, these are not rules, these are beliefs and opinions and actual real-life game play. Ok. But if you must have the actual rules and page numbers: DMG Page 39, Modifying XP awards and encounter levels: ... Circumstance Half as difficult XP x 1/2 Significantly less dificult XP x 2/3 Significantly more difficult XP x 1.5 Twice as difficult XP x 2 If you have a party of 4 clerics or a party of 4 fighters and you're fighting something that is twice as hard for the fighters to over come the fighters should gain twice the XP. Also, same page, Assigning Ad Hoc XP awards: "An encounter so easy that it uses up none or almost none of the PC's resources shouldn't result in any XP award at all." That's nice. But I don't see anywhere in the sections you quoted that says "melee classes were designed to be underpowered". Nor do I see anywhere in there that specifically says the CR system was designed with these allegedly underpowered melee classes in mind. Other than those, all of my claims are paradigm claims and not rules issues specifically. :) No I haven't seen a melee build that takes advantage of bull rush or disarm or sunder. Not one that works anyway. Never works? Or works less often than dealing damage and absorbing damage. As for me saying that meleeists only deal/take damage, you're taking me the wrong way if you think that I think thats the only thing they should be doing. That's not what I think. I think you said, "they only deal damage." When I said "Meleeists only deal damage" I was saying that the combat abilities of a meleeist before ToB only involve dealing damage, not other effects like stunning and ability damage. Please stop attacking me on that minor point if you would. :D I am not attacking you. I am debating (or attacking if you prefer) your claims. There is a distinct difference there.
turalisj 06-24-07, 02:25 PM	HAHA! My 5th level warblade gets +29 to jump while wearing armor. He's an unusual case, but still. (Without the leap stance) Boots of S&S +9 jump. Leaping stance +10 to jump and you're running. Thats 2 easy ways. There are more. Its much easier to get jump checks up than save DC for spells. Still a nat 20 can save, and there are other factors. You aren't wrong. I just like having a crazy high jump check. Thri-kreen warblade 5 with 16 strength and max ranks in jump can get a +41 to jump checks. :P And that's without any feats or items.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 02:38 PM	Thri-kreen warblade 5 with 16 strength and max ranks in jump can get a +41 to jump checks. :P And that's without any feats or items. Psst! Thri-kreens have 2 racial HD and a +2 level adjustment. They're ECL 5 with ONE class level. Even with that, you miscalculated. It's +43 in such circumstances (+3 Str +6 ranks +4 Speed(40) +30 racial).
turalisj 06-24-07, 02:38 PM	Even then, they have an abysmally high jump check.
The_Shaman 06-24-07, 03:14 PM	Psst! Thri-kreens have 2 racial HD and a +2 level adjustment. They're ECL 5 with ONE class level. Even with that, you miscalculated. It's +43 in such circumstances (+3 Str +6 ranks +4 Speed(40) +30 racial). Only the psionic ones, I think. Nonpsionic ones had +1. Well, it's still a pain in the posterior, but it might make a difference ;)
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 03:16 PM	Only the psionic ones, I think.The real ones.Nonpsionic onesThe cheap knock-offs stolen for Forgotten Realms which treats psionics like the fuzz you sweep under the carpet because Ed Greenwood dislikes them. I cut my teeth on D&D in Dark Sun. Nonpsionic thri-kreen are like non-androgynous elves.
turalisj 06-24-07, 03:18 PM	Only the psionic ones, I think. Nonpsionic ones had +1. Well, it's still a pain in the posterior, but it might make a difference ;) Like Tempest said, the real ones. You can't take psionics out of a mindflayer and call it an illithid. It's not an illithid. It's a cheap knock-off. Edit: I checked. Even non-psionic ones have a +30 jump check.
Crimson_Concerto 06-24-07, 03:38 PM	The real ones.The cheap knock-offs stolen for Forgotten Realms which treats psionics like the fuzz you sweep under the carpet because Ed Greenwood dislikes them. I cut my teeth on D&D in Dark Sun. Nonpsionic thri-kreen are like non-androgynous elves.:OMG! Tempest Stormwind has an irrational hatred for something? Tempest, shame on you! :P I thought you knew better than that. :rofl:
turalisj 06-24-07, 03:42 PM	Never played Dark Suns.... But if WotC renewed thier licence for Dragonlance, then maybe there is still hope.
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 03:58 PM	:OMG! Tempest Stormwind has an irrational hatred for something? Tempest, shame on you! :P I thought you knew better than that. :rofl: No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;) But yes, if you haven't played Dark Sun... shame on you. It was probably the most original of the old settings altogether -- not another Greyhawk or FR or Dragonlance (let's face it, those three are all essentially clones of one another. The trick is getting fans of any one of those to admit it) in any stretch of the imagination. (For the record, I only *read* about Al-Qadim; I'm not including it in my assertion about originality as a result.) Dark Sun was as refreshing and original then as Eberron is now. As for my love of thri-kreen, well, that came from reading Thri-Kreen of Athas, which to this day is my standard benchmark for how distinct from humans a race should be, at least psychologically. It's an incredible book. If you read that, you'll soundly see why "nonpsionic thri-kreen" is an oxymoron.
Cold Napalm 06-24-07, 04:09 PM	No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;) But yes, if you haven't played Dark Sun... shame on you. It was probably the most original of the old settings altogether -- not another Greyhawk or FR in any stretch of the imagination. (For the record, I only *read* about Al-Qadim; I'm not including it in my assertion about originality as a result.) Dark Sun was as refreshing then as Eberron is now. As for my love of thri-kreen, well, that came from reading Thri-Kreen of Athas, which to this day is my standard benchmark for how distinct from humans a race should be, at least psychologically. It's an incredible book. If you read that, you'll soundly see why "nonpsionic thri-kreen" is an oxymoron. You know I love FR and I love planescape and yet hate ebberon (warforge,usually played as mecha, and artificers bug me to no end) and dark sun (really bad halfling experience). I'm okay with greyhawk and dragonlance, but no they are not clones. Well greyhawk and FR is, except that FR expanded into other cultures like middle east and asia and greyhawk is basically european cultures only...but yeah, basically the same. Dragonlance is kinda unique in that the setting was in a wartime setting (well at least in 2ed), which made for something different. This whole post war era deal of dragonlance does admitly make it more like a clone of the other two setting but it wasn't always so.
EvilVegan 06-24-07, 04:32 PM	Never works? Or works less often than dealing damage and absorbing damage. That's not what I think. I think you said, "they only deal damage."Well, in context and in my mind it made sense! :P I meant "they only deal damage (instead of other effects)". If it helps I'll go back and edit all my posts so that I look smarter than I really am. I am not attacking you. I am debating (or attacking if you prefer) your claims. There is a distinct difference there.Truly! I just thought everything was getting a little too far away from what I was meaning. No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;) But yes, if you haven't played Dark Sun... shame on you. It was probably the most original of the old settings altogether -- not another Greyhawk or FR or Dragonlance (let's face it, those three are all essentially clones of one another. The trick is getting fans of any one of those to admit it) in any stretch of the imagination. (For the record, I only *read* about Al-Qadim; I'm not including it in my assertion about originality as a result.) Dark Sun was as refreshing and original then as Eberron is now. As for my love of thri-kreen, well, that came from reading Thri-Kreen of Athas, which to this day is my standard benchmark for how distinct from humans a race should be, at least psychologically. It's an incredible book. If you read that, you'll soundly see why "nonpsionic thri-kreen" is an oxymoron.Dark Sun is so totally awesome. I don't know how I feel about them not converting it to 3.x. I think they would have messed it up... Halflings as the primeval master-race is so totally awesome and elves are losers (except darksun elves).
turalisj 06-24-07, 04:54 PM	*an elf with his left arm and legs replaced by automail walks in and starts kicking EvilVegan*
Crimson_Concerto 06-24-07, 06:19 PM	No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;)Actually, I was referring to your irrational hatred of non-psionic Thri-Kreen. And I don't particularly enjoy the flavor of Faurun either. :) As for my love of thri-kreen, well, that came from reading Thri-Kreen of Athas, which to this day is my standard benchmark for how distinct from humans a race should be, at least psychologically. It's an incredible book.Never heard of it. What is it and where can I find it? Is it part of a setting book? A regular suppliment? A novel? An article? Something written out here on the boards? I'd like to see what's so great about it. If you read that, you'll soundly see why "nonpsionic thri-kreen" is an oxymoron.Ah, well, you see, I've never heard of this book or whatever it is. What I know about the Thri-Kreen I've gotten from the MMII, SS, and XPH monster entries, and looking at only those, I fail to see why they absolutely must be psionic in nature to have a unique culture. Why is their not being psionic oxymoronic? I mean, I could understand Psychic Warrior being a favored class if their culture values psionic capabilities, for example, just as I understand Rogue being a favored class of Halflings because Halflings value stealth and versatility, but Halflings don't need to get +1D6 Sneak Attack damage as a racial ability to reflect that cultural aspect. Furthermore, what's to say that I like the flavor of this book you read if it differs from my notions of what Thri-Kreen are supposed to be? The culture this book describes may seem to me to be like what Eberron's Talenta Halfling is to the default PHB cultural description: cute and very interesting, but not my default flavor choise. All that being said, I'd like to see this book or article you read to see what it says. If I like it, I may indeed reconsider my notions of what Thri-Kreen are supposed to be, but otherwise, if my notion of what Thri-Kreen are have nothing to do with psionics, then what's wrong with a non-psionic Thri-Kreen? EDIT: If this is too far off topic, please PM me a response. I never thought you one to force a particular flavor on things, and I'd like to see where you're going with this.
turalisj 06-24-07, 06:23 PM	The last page of savage species gives a non-psionic Thri-kreen with a +30 to jump... >.>
Tempest Stormwind 06-24-07, 07:17 PM	Never heard of it. What is it and where can I find it? Is it part of a setting book? A regular suppliment? A novel? An article? Something written out here on the boards? I'd like to see what's so great about it.2e supplement for Dark Sun, most akin to the Races Of books nowadays but FAR better thematically (I'm bad at 2e mechanics, so I can't comment on its mechanical elements). It's available via PDF (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=1235&) if you know where to look.Ah, well, you see, I've never heard of this book or whatever it is. What I know about the Thri-Kreen I've gotten from the MMII, SS, and XPH monster entries, and looking at only those, I fail to see why they absolutely must be psionic in nature to have a unique culture. Why is their not being psionic oxymoronic? I mean, I could understand Psychic Warrior being a favored class if their culture values psionic capabilities, for example, just as I understand Rogue being a favored class of Halflings because Halflings value stealth and versatility, but Halflings don't need to get +1D6 Sneak Attack damage as a racial ability to reflect that cultural aspect. Furthermore, what's to say that I like the flavor of this book you read if it differs from my notions of what Thri-Kreen are supposed to be? The culture this book describes may seem to me to be like what Eberron's Talenta Halfling is to the default PHB cultural description: cute and very interesting, but not my default flavor choise.Ever notice the thri-kreen's amazingly short lifespan yet their ability to take PC classes? Wonder where that's from? In Dark Sun, it's clear. Thri-kreen have a racial memory. They are born with a latent memory of how to do several advanced things, such as create and throw chatchkas, hunt, and use psionic abilities. Their psionic powers are completely innate and natural to them; they can't imagine life without them. (Similarly, they might see a particular event which awakens additional memories for them; this is quite literally how they advance as PCs). Their whopping -4 Charisma is also explained in that book beautifully -- they are ALIEN in their mindset. For instance, they have no need for money (thinking of everything in terms of the clutch or the hunt, they share what they need in the clutch and hunt what they need if they don't have it). Thus, when dealing with merchants, they might structure the exchange as if they were on the hunt in the first place, trying to corner the merchant with words from a position of strength, or escape with a minimum of wounds if cornered themselves. I'm doing them a disservice here, of course. Oh, and in Dark Sun, the halflings were more likely to eat you than pick your pocket. I'm not kidding.All that being said, I'd like to see this book or article you read to see what it says. If I like it, I may indeed reconsider my notions of what Thri-Kreen are supposed to be, but otherwise, if my notion of what Thri-Kreen are have nothing to do with psionics, then what's wrong with a non-psionic Thri-Kreen?A nonpsionic thri-kreen would be like a gnome who hadn't heard of illusions, a dwarf who had never once been underground or seen a mountain, or a kalashtar with a single spirit. Once you truly understand their nature, you can't think of them any other way without DRAMATIC reflavoring (i.e. Eberron's Valenar elves, aka "See, we *are* manly"). The XPH (or any other thri-kreen source, even Shining South's FR port of them) didn't bother with any such reflavoring. (Hell, Shining South puts them on plains without bothering to adjust anything about their "we're built for the desert" mechanics or thematics!). I'm not forcing flavor on anyone. I'm enforcing mechanics.
Crimson_Concerto 06-25-07, 05:19 PM	Ever notice the thri-kreen's amazingly short lifespan yet their ability to take PC classes? Wonder where that's from?Not really. I mean, Elves have amazingly long lifespans and they're still suitable for PC play without a Level Adjustment (you would think they'd have lots of mental stat bonuses, I mean, c'mon)... Except for that Thri-Kreen actually make more sense than Elves do, having that INT and CHA penalty. In Dark Sun, it's clear. Thri-kreen have a racial memory. They are born with a latent memory of how to do several advanced things, such as create and throw chatchkas, hunt, and use psionic abilities.. . . Wow, you're right. That is pretty cool. Their psionic powers are completely innate and natural to them; they can't imagine life without them. (Similarly, they might see a particular event which awakens additional memories for them; this is quite literally how they advance as PCs).Here you lost me. The memory thing is cool, but I don't see it as necessarely having much to do with Psionics. I also don't see how Thri-Kreen would have trouble adapting to a lack of psionic powers, and in fact, their psionic powers are barely if at all mentioned in the flavor for them presented in the MMII, SS, and XPH. This book you have sounds cool, but I don't really put much if any stock in the cultures the Races Of books present, so... I already answered the issue of their advancement as PCs, though the memory thing is much cooler than the default alternative that they just simply develop faster... Their whopping -4 Charisma is also explained in that book beautifully -- they are ALIEN in their mindset. For instance, they have no need for money (thinking of everything in terms of the clutch or the hunt, they share what they need in the clutch and hunt what they need if they don't have it). Thus, when dealing with merchants, they might structure the exchange as if they were on the hunt in the first place, trying to corner the merchant with words from a position of strength, or escape with a minimum of wounds if cornered themselves.Again, interesting, but I don't see what they has to do with a -4 CHA. I mean, that's not any weirder than Illithid culture, and that have, what, +6 CHA? The CHA penalty to me just seems to be a lack of ego (though it should be noted my definition of CHA may differ than that of the PHB (physical attractiveness my ***), though that doesn't necessarely mean I don't agree with the -4 penalty). Oh, and in Dark Sun, the halflings were more likely to eat you than pick your pocket. I'm not kidding.:mymy: A nonpsionic thri-kreen would be like a gnome who hadn't heard of illusions, a dwarf who had never once been underground or seen a mountain, or a kalashtar with a single spirit.Well, I don't really have a problem with replacing Gnome SLAs, because like Thri-Kreen Psionics, they seem only to be mentioned briefly if at all whenever somebody talks about their culture (or rather, the brief culture given to them by default, not including much delayed development from suppliments). However, Dwarves and Kalashtar have the complete opposite situation as what we're discussing. What they have is a flavor that's not necessarely represented much in the mechanics, not a mechanic with little flavor to back it up... I'm not forcing flavor on anyone. I'm enforcing mechanics.If you're enforcing mechanics, then what about the mechanic that the Thri-Kreen can give up the psionics for a lower LA? :) (though you may still have a case against it you haven't mentioned, since I haven't see it in 3.5, only in 3.0...) You know, it's interesting, because I was about to play a non-psionic Thri-Kreen Warblade in an upcoming campaign, but now I'm actually curious to obtain that PDF of this book of yours before making that decision... NOTE: Somebody tell me if this is getting too off topic. If so, it can be moved elsewhere, like the Monsters board or the Psionics board.
souldragon_420 06-25-07, 05:33 PM	Well see another thing is Thri-Kreen were originally a dark sun race and psionic as they were developed for that world and its emphasis on most things being bugs and and reptiles and always were psionic in all sources until ported to FR and generic 3.Xness. So the others are just a watered down version made to fit a various worlds flavor. But most people will always feel the true version of something is the original which in this case will always be the psionic desert living variety. Thats probably how tempest feels and to him those will always be the original and true ones. You might feel otherwise and want to use others in your campaign and i don't want to put words into tempest's mouth but he probably doesn't care what version you use in your campaign just in his he will only use the psionic ones. And if I'm wrong feel free to kick me into next week Tempest.
Tempest Stormwind 06-25-07, 05:53 PM	Nah, you're free to play the game however you want. After all, I'm not in it, so what right do I have to inform you how to play? (Even if I were in the game, I don't have that right, but since I'd be playing *with* you, we'd probably have to compromise for mutual enjoyment.) The thing is, if I were in the game, I likely wouldn't be for long if there were such a thing as nonpsionic thri-kreen. Just as I leave the instant Sigil shows up. Crimson, there's a lot more there than I let on. It's all in the book, which is well worth a read, especially at that low price, even with the edition change. (For the record, the -4 Cha comes from the general lack of interest in the self, which is replaced with the clutch-mind. Illithids practically are walking superiority complexes and each craves personal might and influence, which is what their race essentially was "bred" for (darwin-style; you don't get to eat many brains unless you're particularly cunning or commanding). At least, that's how I see it.) There's a pile more of 'kreen trivia that you will no doubt find interesting (elf meat is essentially solid heroin to them, they don't sleep and are fascinated by others who do (ever wake up to have one of those buggers staring you in the face, wondering what's happening?), and, more pertinent to this discussion, hone their psionic ablities as a means of exploring their racial memory and practicing the hunt), but I definitely can't do it justice on a mere forum. (If you're a Dune fan, they are in several ways like Fremen, except nomadic and far less human.) (Let's just say that the first non-human race I played was a thri-kreen, and the 'kreen remain, to this day, the only commonly played race I can describe, personality-wise, without using the phrase "Like humans, but...". They have a completely alien, and completely fascinating, mentality which is an absolute joy to RP, not to mention a breath of fresh air at the table if done correctly.)
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-25-07, 06:08 PM	No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;) While I understand your hatred of Faerún and share it, what is wrong with Planescape? I have never played in that setting but from what I have heard (and read, not a lot though)it had some pretty good fluff(although the Lady of Pain seemed like a likely tool for DM *******ry) so what exactly is it that put you off so horribly? I mean, I've seen you mention this a few times now and you seem to have some pretty strong feelings regarding this. Care to share?
Otto the Bugbear 06-25-07, 06:11 PM	Yeah, and those bugs sure do make good eatin'. 'Specially when cooked in a campfire. That carapace acts just like a hot-plate, sizzler style! Sorry, I had an urge to post, but nothing to really say. You've all been there before.
aotrscommander 06-25-07, 06:48 PM	But yes, if you haven't played Dark Sun... shame on you. It was probably the most original of the old settings altogether -- not another Greyhawk or FR or Dragonlance (let's face it, those three are all essentially clones of one another. The trick is getting fans of any one of those to admit it) in any stretch of the imagination. (For the record, I only *read* about Al-Qadim; I'm not including it in my assertion about originality as a result.) Dark Sun was as refreshing and original then as Eberron is now. As for my love of thri-kreen, well, that came from reading Thri-Kreen of Athas, which to this day is my standard benchmark for how distinct from humans a race should be, at least psychologically. It's an incredible book. If you read that, you'll soundly see why "nonpsionic thri-kreen" is an oxymoron. Hm. Tempest, you have once again managed the near-impossible; to raise my opinion of Thri-kreen from the level of below the dirt. I've always considered them the poster-child for what I call the Untidy races; anthropamorphic and uninspired, more-or-less men in rubber suits; really sort of a pack of mechanics tacked on to the game world with no real thought as to how they fit in. Exactly the opposite of what you've found. Clearly - at least in some sourcebooks - they have been filled out properly; but it looks like in 3.x they didn't do them much justise. That said, my only expereince with them has been AD&D's Monsterous Manual and in 3.x. Won't actually mean I'll start letting them into any of my games as such, but at least now I see that they do have some proper background and at least one world where they're properly intergrated. Which I can appreicate. Ironically, one of my biggest bugbears, if you'll forgive me Otto, is in sci-fi the amount of men-in-rubber-suit aliens that aren't very alien at all. No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;) Funnily enough, I can just about cope with Planescape - though probably only because I have very fond memories of Planescape: Torment and because I've seen it only in part through the eye of 3.5 and a fragmentary section of Die Vecna Die! The mere mention of Spelljammer, however - which as I recall you quite like - sends me in frothing fits incoherent rage1. I am stanchly a starship person, and the thought of there being no space (which I rationalise even into Planescape) and no starships and instead being *twitch* sailing ships is so totally alien, so vile that to me, it's like it's watching the home slide show of Cthulu's holiday in Far Realm, with narration by ex-British Prime Minister John Major and Paris Hilton. It scars me on a deep psychological level - and I'm supposed to me immune to mind-affecting effects... Yeah, and those bugs sure do make good eatin'. 'Specially when cooked in a campfire. That carapace acts just like a hot-plate, sizzler style! Sorry, I had an urge to post, but nothing to really say. You've all been there before. Yeah, like 95% of my posts. Including this one... 1Have you ever seen a skeleton froth at the mouth? No? It's not a pretty sight, trust me.
Archangel62 06-25-07, 07:11 PM	No, my hatred for FR is, in fact, completely rational. It's my hatred for Planescape that is irrational and completely overbearing. ;) But yes, if you haven't played Dark Sun... shame on you. It was probably the most original of the old settings altogether -- not another Greyhawk or FR or Dragonlance (let's face it, those three are all essentially clones of one another. The trick is getting fans of any one of those to admit it) in any stretch of the imagination. (For the record, I only *read* about Al-Qadim; I'm not including it in my assertion about originality as a result.) Dark Sun was as refreshing and original then as Eberron is now. As for my love of thri-kreen, well, that came from reading Thri-Kreen of Athas, which to this day is my standard benchmark for how distinct from humans a race should be, at least psychologically. It's an incredible book. If you read that, you'll soundly see why "nonpsionic thri-kreen" is an oxymoron. I cut my teeth on planescape and darksun, however my love for the latter was somewhat tempered by a halfling who turned about 3/4ths of the characters I brought in into portable rations for the party. :twitch: That being said I loved the setting, it felt very new and original, the only other complaint had to do with my psionic characters head exploding when I activated a power.
Tempest Stormwind 06-25-07, 09:03 PM	AotrsCommander: I've gotten exactly the same responses from most people I know who never played Dark Sun. When they hear I wanted to play a thri-kreen, they always assume I'm doing so for the 4 arms or the +30 Jump (and at times I do, but those are usually optimization experiments where fluff doesn't matter). They're usually shocked when I choose straight ranger or psywar, and are often rather impressed at my RP to boot. (It helps that I spent quite a while memorizing and practicing the thri-kreen language primer as provided in Thri-kreen of Athas. Some of those sounds are HARD to do verbally (I sometimes clack my nails against the table to substitute for a mandible click, for instance), but the result is definitely alien and distinctive.) But yes, that book costs next to nothing to get as a PDF, and is hands-down the single-best racial book I've ever seen. Now, back on topic, I think people would like to know that I'm several levels deep on my grand sweeping level-by-level comparison of the warblade to the barbarian in terms of melee damage. It will, once it's complete, be made available as part of a Regdar's article. It turns out I was SLIGHTLY off before (my level 5 comparison earlier didn't use actual data; I guessed it). Here's the summary results from levels 1-5 so far. Level 1: Warblade using Steely Strike in Punishing Stance by 0.5 damage (or Barbarian by 2.98 damage if warblade isn't in Punishing Stance) Level 2: Barbarian by 3.09 damage (or by 1.78 if warblade's using Punishing Stance) Level 3: Warblade using Emerald Razor in Punishing Stance by 1.03 damage, or barbarian by 2.6 damage if warblade isn't using Punishing Stance. Level 4: Warblade using Emerald Razor in Punishing Stance by 1.35 damage, or barbarian by 2.5 damage otherwise. Level 5: Warblade using Bonecrusher in Punishing Stance by 2.7 damage, Barbarian by 1.06 otherwise. Notice that on the levels the warblade is ahead, it always depends on Punishing Stance (which I will continue to include in the analysis at each level, even though that stance is generally not used, with warblades instead opting for mobility or defensive stances, ESPECIALLY from levels 10 and up -- possibly as early as 5 and up, because WotC's admitted the stance timing on the three classes is boinked up and every single fix I've seen for it gives an extra stance at that point). Furthermore, the margin at which the warblade is ahead by Punishing Stance is (except for the already-established level 5 hotspot) consistently significantly smaller than the margin the barbarian's ahead of the non-punishing-stance warblade. On a side note, the maneuvers I considered were: 1: Steely Strike, Sapphire Nightmare Blade 2: Rabid Wolf Strike, Mountain Hammer / Tactical Strike (same results*), Emerald Razor, Claw at the Moon (I'm working on a for-interest's sake comparison with Battle Leader's Charge right now) 3: Insightful Strike, Bonecrusher. It's interesting to note that until level 5, none of the +d6 strikes are the kings of damage, statistically. *DR data is hard to come by, but besides, for level 3 it's nigh-insiginificant and most early DR is DR/Magic, which you already bypass at level 4 due to your shiny sword. My assumptions are pretty straightforward -- optimal melee conditions, probability of being hit no more than 65% (50%, considered a benchmark for tanks, +15% from the 3 points difference between the best core medium armor to the best core heavy armor), no feats beyond Power Attack to skew the numbers, average stats used for opponent (drawn from as many monsters at a given CR as can be found), and so on. I'm trying to minimize the impact from anything but the classes in question here. I'm also countering nova issues by insisting on repeatable tactics (that is, at the end of the round the warblade finishes his attack routine, he is able to start the routine again; furthermore I will attempt to do this with a minimum number of maneuvers in an effort to reduce the probability of comparing THIS PARTICULAR warblade to a generic barbarian). PLEASE tear me a new one in any of this; I'm trying to end this debate once and for all, and the more my math can endure the better. (I'm aiming to get level 12 finished before I publish; beyond that point environmental and magic factors make such comparisons increasingly superfluous and melee ceases to be about damage.)
Cold Napalm 06-25-07, 09:17 PM	Oh, and in Dark Sun, the halflings were more likely to eat you than pick your pocket. I'm not kidding. GEH, I wish you were kidding...bad halflings...bad bad bad...
msatran 06-26-07, 03:13 PM	Remember, too, that all you need to do to give your barbarian cleave is to give him power attack, and once he starts using rage, power attack, cleave, and a two handed weapon, somewhere in that horrid mess is another attack.
The_Shaman 06-26-07, 03:40 PM	OK, here is an issue: doesn't the bonus to attack and damage from the weapon mastery chain (+3 attack, +4 damage) make the warblade a power attacker on par with the Barb until greater rage, maybe mighty rage comes in the play? I know feats are optional, but bonus feats and the ability to take fighter feats are a notable class ability to me.
Crimson_Concerto 06-26-07, 04:10 PM	OK, here is an issue: doesn't the bonus to attack and damage from the weapon mastery chain (+3 attack, +4 damage) make the warblade a power attacker on par with the Barb until greater rage, maybe mighty rage comes in the play? I know feats are optional, but bonus feats and the ability to take fighter feats are a notable class ability to me.I don't know if it's worth mentioning or not, but if you mean Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, they are generally considered quite weak last I heard. There are much better feats for a Warblade to take.
Nifft 06-26-07, 04:50 PM	I don't know if it's worth mentioning or not, but if you mean Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, they are generally considered quite weak last I heard. There are much better feats for a Warblade to take. Weapon Focus + Weapon Specialization + Weapon Mastery (PHB-II) give in total a +3 to attack and +4 to damage. But you're right, Power Attack + Ironheart Aura + Stormguard Warrior are probably better. Still, you can afford all six eventually, particularly if you dip into Fighter for two levels (to gain your 2nd Stance at character level 6 / initiator level 5). Cheers, -- N
TheCobra 06-26-07, 04:52 PM	I don't know if it's worth mentioning or not, but if you mean Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, they are generally considered quite weak last I heard. There are much better feats for a Warblade to take. Considering that a warblade can apply them to any weapon he wants to, I can't really agree. They're solid feats for a warblade. The bonus to hit is especially nice. It sucks to miss with a strike.
Tempest Stormwind 06-26-07, 05:14 PM	Remember, too, that all you need to do to give your barbarian cleave is to give him power attack, and once he starts using rage, power attack, cleave, and a two handed weapon, somewhere in that horrid mess is another attack.Cleave is a weak feat except against mooks, and mooks tend to fall quicker to area spells than to cleave attacks. OK, here is an issue: doesn't the bonus to attack and damage from the weapon mastery chain (+3 attack, +4 damage) make the warblade a power attacker on par with the Barb until greater rage, maybe mighty rage comes in the play? I know feats are optional, but bonus feats and the ability to take fighter feats are a notable class ability to me. Those are feats the warblade needs to take with character feats, thus I'm not including them. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that those do put him ahead of a featless barbarian at a few levels, but so long as we're doing this, I can also give my barbarian Pounce (sub level), Improved Sunder, Combat Brute, and Extra Rage. All of a sudden, the comparison is less generalizable. We've started to compare feats to feats rather than classes to classes. You also underestimate Greater Rage. Just for fun, I went ahead and rushed the level 11 calculation -- barbarians get Greater Rage at this point, and warblades get freakin' +10d6 Rabid Bear Strike. Even with that, the barbarian is over 20 points of weighted damage ahead of the warblade (at most of the earlier levels, he's ahead by only 2 points, or, if the warblade chooses the right stance and it's at the right level, behind the warblade by something like 0.5 points). This is with identical feats (that is, nothing but Power Attack). Yes, Greater Rage has a total impact at that level comparable to a +4 atk, +10d6 strike. (Note that this calculation was rushed and I had to estimate their equipment at that point. I also didn't factor in stances. Both of those will be rectified in the formal calculation.) I should mention now that one thing I am NOT contesting is that warblades are more mobile than PHB classes. This is self-evident, since they don't rely on full attacks as much. My calculations are showing that they are not more *damaging* than barbarians, by and large. (For the record, in the six levels I've completed so far, the only time the warblade is *consistently* ahead of the barbarian (that is, without stances) is if he's charging, using Battle Leader's Charge, and even then it only stays ahead of the barbarian for a level or two (slightly more with Leading the Charge), and even then the margin isn't as great as people think. I did this calculation mostly for kicks, since charges aren't repeatable tactics in general, but they are common pre-ToB. This situation will also change if the barbarian has Pounce, which is exceedingly easy to get (thanks to Complete Champion, it is apparently not even worth a feat, but instead just the "penalty" of moving as fast as everyone else). As for when the warblade is inconsistently ahead of the barbarian, it always involves Punishing Stance so far, which is a suboptimal choice of stance to use in general due to its poor scaling and other stance's defensive/mobility options.)
TheCobra 06-26-07, 05:26 PM	(slightly more with Leading the Charge) Oh, so you apply Leading the Charge to the warblade's damage? Do you also let the warblade use White Raven Tactics to act twice in a round?
windscar18 06-26-07, 05:29 PM	I don't think Tempest does, cause that's just purely cheese. Leading the Charge isn't so cheap.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 05:32 PM	I don't think Tempest does, cause that's just purely cheese. Leading the Charge isn't so cheap. Maybe not, but allowing one opens the door for the other. Personally, I think White Raven maneuvers that say "ally" exclude the initiator.
Tempest Stormwind 06-26-07, 05:45 PM	I did so with Leading the Charge because I include stances in the calculations -- I do stance-free calculations, then I see what impact a particular stance would have. So far, this has been absolutely critical -- at most levels, the warblade's behind the barbarian; at some of them he can use Punishing Stance to get ahead of the barbarian by a very tiny margin. (At other levels, he's superior regardless of his stance choice, but I've only seen that come up once with repeatable tactics so far). I'm AFB at the moment and forget if LtC specifies that it applies to the warblade's damage or not, but if it doesn't specify, I'll still include it since the charge-maneuver calculations I'm doing are purely for interest's sake (they aren't repeatable, as I said; you can't finish the attack sequence and be ready to start it again if it involves a charge), and purely for interest's sake, I wanted to see if LtC had as large an impact as I thought it would. It doesn't. All of this is just a footnote in my calculations, by the way. I draw conclusions based on repeatable tactics, and then include a "if you don't care about repetition, here's the numbers for the charge maneuver" afterward. As an afterthought, I added Leading the Charge as a secondary calculation after that. I'm trying to minimize nova strikes because they aren't repeatable. A wizard could shoot out really freakin' big lightning bolts (http://youtube.com/watch?v=A-D3gRs9aEs) round in round out and appear to be the king of damage, but in truth all he's doing is tapping himself dry. Warblades who use non-repeatable tactics are doing similar, although they're balanced against each encounter instead of each day. Thus, I look for attack sequences that are repeatable (though they may span multiple rounds, the round after they're done you're in a position to repeat them again; for regular warriors this is usually as straightforward as just full-attacking every round). On a related note, I try to keep individual maneuvers required for my calculations at a minimum. Sure, a warblade using this boost with its three prereqs, that maneuver with its two other prereqs, and this particular stance might outdo a generic barbarian. It may not outdo THAT particular barbarian, and it certainly doesn't represent many warblades out there (rather, just the one with those particular 7 maneuvers and that stance; the actual maneuvers required to do this might be less if the warblade knows multiple stances and draws from the same school but the point holds). This is to try to minimize the impact of "build" on the final results; it's the same reason neither character has any feat beyond Power Attack. For the record, I do NOT include White Raven Tactics in my calculations. The main reason I do so is because White Raven (the school) is about boosting your allies, and it's debatable as to whether it's balanced or not if you also gain the benefits your allies do (WRT is the flagship of this, but consider Swarm Tactics. Use that when you're alone and it's essentially +5 to all melee attack rolls, which clearly goes against the spirit of White Raven). The other two reasons are given above. I should note that WRT on self was one-half of the crusader-infinite-action-CustServ-loop, and is critical to every ToB super-nova exploit strike. Thus, simply saying it doesn't affect yourself is a perfectly acceptable ruling (the only super-damage exploit that doesn't nullify is Chuck, which relies on Divine Metamagic, a spell from Complete Champion, and Tornado Throw to throw people out of the solar system. This is impossible without DMM + Complete Champion. Big surprise there.). It's also not technically a houserule either, since it's a perfectly valid interpretation of "allies". Besides, just as it's self-evident that warblades have better mobility than barbarians, it's *practically* self-evident that WRT will lead to better warblade damage and cheesy tactics. I don't see much reason to do the math to prove what's already obvious (and easily avoided).
turalisj 06-26-07, 05:48 PM	I've said this before, so I'll restate it. Don't argue with Tempest. It's pointless. He's a god.
Archangel62 06-26-07, 05:53 PM	I've said this before, so I'll restate it. Don't argue with Tempest. It's pointless. He's a god. This just reinforces my theory that Tempest has become a D&D board demipower due to constant invocations of his name in the stormwind fallacy, he has a portfolio of Mechanics, Psionics, Tome of Battle, and possibly fighter debates.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 05:58 PM	I'm AFB at the moment and forget if LtC specifies that it applies to the warblade's damage or not "All allies." According to the PHB, of course, this probably means it does apply to the warblade's damage. However, that means the same for White Raven Tactics. I'm trying to minimize nova strikes because they aren't repeatable. I think a deeply disagree with this part of your system. Perhaps it's because of the way I DM (usually fewer than four per day), but I think nova strikes are critical and common. Even following the DMG's advice to the letter, you'll face tough fights rather often. These days, you won't be facing four encounters. Besides, if character is going to deal 200 in two rounds, she'll want to deal as much of it as possible in the first round. The more damage you deal in the first round of combat, the more likely you are to kill something. That's a good thing. It'll prevent you and your party from being killed. Dealing 80 the first round and 20 the second is better than dealing 50 the first and 50 the second. I don't see much reason to do the math to prove what's already obvious (and easily avoided). Indeed. I don't see how the barbarian could win. The warblade could even use the second initiative tick to recover and full attack, then do the same thing the next round. I also don't see any DM allowing this. Ever.
Endarrion 06-26-07, 06:01 PM	Dealing 80 the first round and 20 the second is better than dealing 50 the first and 50 the second. Um... Only if you kill the creature in the first round. If you still need to hit it again (assuming no one else kills it for you after the big hit) then it doesn't matter.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-26-07, 06:09 PM	I'm not really seeing the whole deal about barbarians doing more damage than warblades. Unless you allow that crazy pounce variant barbarian or you're talking about low levels only. The base barbarian has only a couple advantages over the warblade. Rage and Fast movement. That's literally it. Rage amounts to a +2 to hit and a +3 to damage per attack. Which is okay, but warblades get stuff that's just better than that. At low levels, this does mean the barb wins out on damage somewhat. At mid to high levels, it's not even close. At level 11 for instance... The barb gets greater rage. So he's got +3 to hit and like +4 to damage. So lets look at it. Warblade and barb with equal ability scores. It doesn't particularly matter what those scores are, just that they're equal. Round #1 Barb: His first action is used on a charge, which gets +4 to damage only. Lets put all his attack bonus to damage with PA so that's +10 damage from rage. Decent, but not great. Warblade does a war leaders charge for +35 damage. +25 over the barb. So round 1: winner warblade. Round #2 (and subsequent rounds) Barb: Proceeds to full attack. 3 attacks at +10 damage over the warblade. Chances are the barb's last attack is going to miss, so that's not really all as great as it sounds. Warblade: Some options Rabid Bear strike: Inflict an extra +35 damage and a +4 to hit, convert that to power attack and you've got another +8 to damage. So +43 damage total. Now this is a full BaB attack, compared to the barb relying on a full BaB attack and a -5 iterative, so you still hold a big advantage. Dancing mongoose: You get an extra attack on you full attack at full BaB. More than likely going to put you on top. And this is just a boost, you can use a strike in the same round. White raven tactics: Hell this move pretty much means the warblade wins by default. He can effectively do the damage of the highest damaging PC character other than himself with this manuever. Even though he's not technically doing the damage, it's an indirect result of him using an ability, so it counts as his contribution. Moment of Alacrity: You get another turn basically, dealing double damage before your foe can act. Oh, and you can use strikes normally in the round as well. Obviously, this one is crazy good. Overall, the advantage is in the warblade's corner until he runs out of manuevers. But most battles probably won't last that long. And with something like moment of alacrity, he's a whole combat round ahead of the barbarian.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 06:10 PM	Um... Only if you kill the creature in the first round. If you still need to hit it again (assuming no one else kills it for you after the big hit) then it doesn't matter. That's true, but, in D&D, they are a lot of PCs. Most likely, someone else will kill it. Or it'll get scared and heal itself, prevent it from hurting anyone. This is especially true for NPCs. If they don't do something amazing in the first round, the PCs often won't let them have second round.
Tempest Stormwind 06-26-07, 06:12 PM	"All allies." According to the PHB, of course, this probably means it does apply to the warblade's damage. However, that means the same for White Raven Tactics. Which is why I do comparisons for the charge maneuvers with AND WITHOUT LtC. The part with LtC was mostly to satisfy my curiosity, and the charge maneuvers in general are more hypothetical since they aren't repeatable.I think a deeply disagree with this part of your system. Perhaps it's because of the way I DM (usually fewer than four per day), but I think nova strikes are critical and common. Even following the DMG's advice to the letter, you'll face tough fights rather often. These days, you won't be facing four encounters. 1) It's not four. You can get by with two if they're both tougher, for instance. The CR matters. 2) The real critical point here is you don't need four encounters -- you just need the THREAT of just one more and people won't go nova. Be sure to back that up every now and again. Since warblades bring the same thing to the table every battle but do NOT bring the same thing to battle every round (since you can't ready a maneuver more than once), I went on a round-by-round approach. Besides, if character is going to deal 200 in two rounds, she'll want to deal as much of it as possible in the first round. The more damage you deal in the first round of combat, the more likely you are to kill something. That's a good thing. It'll prevent you and your party from being killed. Dealing 80 the first round and 20 the second is better than dealing 50 the first and 50 the second.If and only if the 80 damage is enough to kill the monster. HIT POINTS: Anything more than none means I'm ready for action, baby! I should note that I'm expressing the damage both in terms of weighted damage (average damage * probability of it hitting) and in terms of percentage of HP for the average monster at that particular CR. I'm also using that percentage to assign a grade to each individual round's performance: Passable: 10%/round Optimal: 20%/round (monster down in just over one round in typical party) Overpowered: 50%/round Twink: 100%/round. I will also account for massive damage saves if the weighted damage they deliver exceeds 50; it hasn't yet. (On an interesting note, looking at level 1, the barbarian's two-round output is Overpowered/Overpowered, while the warblade's is Overpowered/Optimal.)Indeed. I don't see how the barbarian could win. The warblade could even use the second initiative tick to recover and full attack, then do the same thing the next round. I also don't see any DM allowing this. Ever.That's partially why I'm not including it, as you'd see in my post.
The_Shaman 06-26-07, 06:13 PM	This just reinforces my theory that Tempest has become a D&D board demipower due to constant invocations of his name in the stormwind fallacy, he has a portfolio of Mechanics, Psionics, Tome of Battle, and possibly fighter debates. Bwahahaha, what, we got divine posters here? How long before we get a "disciple of X" PrC made? I shall not denounce Kopyrka. Do not try my faith! One moment, though. The warblade need not go for the MWMAstery chain with their character feats. They have bonus feats, and while I am AFB at the moment I think they had at least 3 bonus feats until lvl 10. Hence, the Mastery chain can be provided for and warblades are going to have as many feats remaining as barbarians... at least.
turalisj 06-26-07, 06:15 PM	I'm working on a disciple of stormwind PrC. You get bonuses to all knowledge skills and can smite idiot x/day.
Tempest Stormwind 06-26-07, 06:16 PM	One moment, though. The warblade need not go for the MWMAstery chain with their character feats. They have bonus feats, and while I am AFB at the moment I think they had at least 3 bonus feats until lvl 10. Hence, the Mastery chain can be provided for and warblades are going to have as many feats remaining as barbarians... at least. Shame their bonus feats have to come from a short list. The best feat on that list is either Combat Reflexes or Improved Initiative, with a slight provision for Blind-Fight or one of the discipline feats (mostly for prerequisites). I don't see people lining up for Athletic or Lightning Reflexes.
windscar18 06-26-07, 06:17 PM	You also get "Optimize Target Player" 2189347892137489714 times per encounter.
TheCobra 06-26-07, 06:53 PM	1) It's not four. You can get by with two if they're both tougher, for instance. The CR matters. Yeah. I certainly don't do just one encounter at CR = the party level. That would be cake walk for the PCs. Usually the CR is a point or two above the party level. Sometimes three or four points above. 2) The real critical point here is you don't need four encounters -- you just need the THREAT of just one more and people won't go nova. Be sure to back that up every now and again. I do that sometimes. I even have endurance runs ever once in a while. If and only if the 80 damage is enough to kill the monster. Yeah. But everyone in the party is doing 80 damage in the first round, it can make a difference. It depends, though. Some fights do take a while. Then consistent, repeatable damage is very good.
Mr_Teapot 06-26-07, 07:27 PM	Um... Only if you kill the creature in the first round. If you still need to hit it again (assuming no one else kills it for you after the big hit) then it doesn't matter. If you're fighting multiple opponents with less than 50 HP, then the 50/50 option is a lot better than the 80/20 option. A group of enemies at 40 HP, for example would go down quicker with the reliable damage than with the weighted damage.
Grantor 06-26-07, 07:32 PM	It is a bit odd. I'm saying that there is no way to drain limitless resources except to remove the resource entirely. But isn't this arguement valid for a party of Rogues and Fighters? (Aside from the Healing Strike, anyway.) "Resources", I believe, were considered to be HP, spells and consumables when 3.0 was developed. Obviously any party without spells or consumables is not suffering resource loss if they can kill opponents before the foes gets to strike back.
aotrscommander 06-26-07, 08:29 PM	But isn't this arguement valid for a party of Rogues and Fighters? (Aside from the Healing Strike, anyway.) "Resources", I believe, were considered to be HP, spells and consumables when 3.0 was developed. Obviously any party without spells or consumables is not suffering resource loss if they can kill opponents before the foes gets to strike back. With a passable UMD and wands of Lesser Vigor and/or CLW and party of Fighters and Rogues would have resources limited only to the amount of wands they could get hold of; and at medium levels a couple of wands is but a drop in the pond of their availble cash (it amounts to 550/275 hp per wand) Admittedly the former takes about 20 minutes rest (220 hp and 20 charges) to get an (average) 20th character to full. By that point, you'd probably have stash of umpteen per character, though (and maybe even wands of a stronger spell too). Edit: Note to self, buy crap load of wand for Voranak next time we play the Dwarf Fighter Brigade...
Tempest Stormwind 06-27-07, 02:03 PM	I just finished level 7 of the calculations and need to get back to my real job, but I feel I should let people know of the trend so far. Using repeatable tactics, these were the maneuvers I considered. 1st: Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Steely Strike (Punishing Stance) 2nd: Rabid Wolf Strike**, Mountain Hammer / Tactical Strike, Emerald Razor, Claw at the Moon, Battle Leader's Charge* 3rd: Insightful Strike, Bonecrusher (No 3rd level stances are available to warblades without feats until level 10) 4th: Ruby Nightmare Blade, Bonesplitting Strike, Death from Above, White Raven Strike. * For curiosity, since it isn't technically repeatable. Versions done both with and without Leading the Charge, since it's debatable if it works with it. (At most levels, Punishing Stance won't work with a charge due to unacceptable AC loss; see below.) **Causes unacceptable AC loss; definition of "Hit more often than 65%". These maneuvers are very powerful but also extremely risky, thus they work best as finishing moves. Comparing these against a full-attacking core-only barbarian with identical wealth-appropriate equipment, I found the following results. Both characters are using the optimal Power Attack for every given option. If I list a maneuver, it means the warblade using that maneuver was more damaging the the barbarian, while if I list the barbarian, it means the oldschool barbarian did better.LEVEL PUNISHING STANCE NO STANCE 1 Steely Strike by 0.5 Barbarian by 2.98 2 Barbarian by 1.78 Barbarian by 3.09 3 Emerald Razor by 1.03 Barbarian by 2.6 4 Emerald Razor by 1.35 Barbarian by 2.5 5 Bonecrusher by 2.7 Barbarian by 1.06 6 Barbarian by 4.79 Barbarian by 10.1 7 Barbarian by 1.45 Barbarian by 2.3 Charge stats: LEVEL LEADING THE CHARGE PUNISHING STANCE NO STANCE 1 Barbarian by 5.19 Barbarian by 2.55 Barbarian by 5.68 2 Barbarian by 5.68 Barbarian by 2.93 Barbarian by 5.68 3 BLC by 2.36 Unacceptable AC BLC by 0.6 4 BLC by 1.44 Unacceptable AC Barbarian by 1.11 5 BLC by 2.77 Unacceptable AC Barbarian by 0.45 6 Barbarian by 7.34 Unacceptable AC Barbarian by 11.45 7 Barbarian by 7.63 Unacceptable AC Barbarian by 12.58The values above are weighted damage -- average damage * the chance of that attack succeeding. (This factors in what AC the attack opposes, any attack roll changes, and the probability of succeeding on any required skill checks.) The charge stats are done with the barbarian who does NOT have pounce (core-only), and the warblade who's using the best charge maneuver available to him (at the moment, that's either no maneuver, or Battle Leader's Charge at level 3 or above.) As you can see, without Punishing Stance, the only time a warblade can out-damage a barbarian is if he's charging at level 3 using Battle Leader's Charge. (It's debatable if Leading the Charge actually applies to the warblade's charge damage; I did this calculation as a what-if, and all it shows is that the charging warblade remains ahead of the barbarian from level 3 until the end of the level 5 hotspot. If it doesn't apply to the warblade himself, it's just level 3, and it STILL isn't repeatable.) WITH Punishing Stance, it's an almost even toss-up, with the warblade ahead on 4 of the repeatable levels (with an average victory margin of 1.34) and the barbarian ahead on 3 of them (with an average victory margin of 2.67). The two of them typically have identical ACs in such a scenario as well (although the barbarian has more hit points, a higher Fort save, and a boosted Will save, and the warblade doesn't). As a general trend, I'm seeing the two as reasonably balanced with each other -- barbarians doing more damage, warblades having more options available to them (the barbarian uses the same tactics every round at every level, while the warblade has several options available at each level that ease the monotony or come with side benefits.) The one serious thing I'm missing on this math is the critical hit. I've left it out for sake of speed; I want to get the math done and out there first and I'll later revise it for crits. (Boosts are not mentioned above because as of level 7 there are no damage-affecting boosts for warblades; when they start showing up I'll include their math as well. As of level 7, the only boosts a warblade could possibly know are Sudden Leap, White Raven Tactics (which I don't include for reasons I mentioned above), Lion's Roar (won't affect you against this target), Fountain of Blood (see Lion's Roar), and Covering Strike (purely defensive). I will be formalizing all of these results when I get to level 12, and I'll make the excel file available for public download.
Vaelan 06-27-07, 03:38 PM	Having the Warblade only use one strike then recovering is not reasonable. There are three reasons why, in my opinion, any reasonably played Warblade would forsake the strike/recover routine. First of all, it is easy to get two worthwhile strikes. You don't even have to take advantage of maneuver swapping to do this. It is basic maneuver choice. Second, having two offensive strikes has an apparent, if overestimated, effect on the Warblade's offensive contribution to the party. A Warblade with two Strikes will seem more effective to a casual observer, even if they aren't. This is probably the strongest incentive to use two Strikes before recovering. In short, there is an obvious, perceived benefit and thus you are more likely to see a two-Strike Warblade than a one-Strike Warblade, making the omission of two-Strike Warblades a significant factor that damages your overall effort. Third, and least obviously, having fewer than two offensive strikes cripples the Warblade's use of Counters and Boosts as a full half of the Warblade's swift/immediate actions are used on recovering. Assuming the Strike/Recover routine, the only time you can use a Boost is when you're using your Strike. The only time you can use a Counter is right after you recover maneuvers. Since using a Counter will remove the opportunity to use a Boost next round, you can use either a Boost or a Counter. It boils down to you making use of, at best, three maneuvers. You can use a Counter or Boost, Order Forged from Chaos (initiated as a move action), and a Strike. In addition to limiting the number of maneuvers you can actually make use of, this routine also makes Counters and a few Boosts less effective than they might normally be. Counters are obviously dependant upon the actions of others. The Strike/Recover routine limits the opportunities to use Counters. A few of the Warblade's Boosts are also dependant upon something that you can't exactly predict: when you drop an opponent. You can only use a Boost half of the time, so you lose roughly half of the opportunities to use it. Of course, that is ignoring that you deal more damage when you use a Strike, and thus can use a Boost if you forsake Counters, and are thus slightly more likely to drop an opponent, making the missed opportunities less than half. There is also the issue of Boosts that require precise timing that is not based upon your own actions to use effectively, such as White Raven Tactics. You can't use them half of the time and their use is prone to waste because the routine forces you to guess whether you'll need a Counter now or Boost next round. While this problem also exists when you go with a more reasonable Strike/Strike/Recover routine, it is worse when you eliminate a Strike. The spoliered section isn't terribly important, since it is a matter that isn't apparent and thus less likely to be taken into consideration by a player. By making decisions based on this particular issue, you are limiting the scope of players that the comparison may apply to by assuming that they're all capable of perceiving the problem and inclined to take the effort required to fully understand the problem. Obviously you don't want to limit the scope of relevance. However, by ignoring my first two points, you are limiting the scope of relevance in the opposite direction. While the third point isn't terribly apparent and extremely likely to be missed, the first two points are obvious. By ignoring them, you are saying that this comparison is only relevant to characters played by lazy (non-derogatory, easier than saying not inclined towards blahblahblah) or stupid players. You have cited two concerns: applicability (Warblade, rather than This Warblade) and the use of non-repeatable routines. Strike/Strike/Recover is just as repeatable as Strike/Recover and applicability can be addressed by comparing the average potential of the entire set of relevant Strikes rather than just picking a number of specific Strikes. Since you're already running the calculations for the relevant maneuvers, taking the average shouldn't be particularly onerous.
Endarrion 06-27-07, 04:24 PM	How can one denounce mathematically assisted data as "wrong" without providing some other mathematically assisted data to back it up? 1+1 is 3. ->No, it's not. Prove it. ->Um, it's not! UNACCEPTABLE! 1+1 is 3. ->No, it's not. Prove it. ->If I have one apple and procure another apple, the total quantity of apples is 2. Therefore, 1+1=2. I see... ACCEPTABLE! Bonus points to anyone who knows where the acceptable/unacceptable thing came from. But enough with the poorly worded reproach. Having the Warblade only use one strike then recovering is not reasonable. There are three reasons why, in my opinion, any reasonably played Warblade would forsake the strike/recover routine. <snip> It is basic maneuver choice. <snip> You have cited two concerns: applicability (Warblade, rather than This Warblade)... Self explanatory, I believe.
Tempest Stormwind 06-27-07, 05:08 PM	I can compare the multiple-strike scenario (novas) easily enough once I get the basics done; it's just a matter of changing the ending formulae of each page. It's less applicable to any individual warblade than the individual strike / recover section is (and the DMs who believe the issue is with a particular maneuver, which I've seen -- DMs banning the warblade because Bonecrusher deals too much damage, for instance), but it's applicable nevertheless and worth exploring. Recall, I'm sharing my results as I get them. I fully well intend to explore SEVERAL options before I publish on Regdar's. On an unrelated note, the average damage across a set of strikes isn't going to be as relevant as the sum of the chosen strikes, especially once 3rd level maneuvers enter the picture. For instance, Flesh Ripper itself deals no additional damage, but if it hits, the opponent's AC drops by 4 for a round, meaning that if you're using two strikes, you want to open with Flesh Ripper, since that will improve the probability of your next attack working -- ESPECIALLY if that attack checks against AC multiple times (Tiger Claw / Diamond Mind, for instance). I will make sure to pick the optimal three-round routine as well as the existing two-round routine. All the numbers will be available to confirm. I'm not sure if I should extend it beyond three; I can see an argument for both sides.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-27-07, 08:25 PM	**Causes unacceptable AC loss; definition of "Hit more often than 65%". These maneuvers are very powerful but also extremely risky, thus they work best as finishing moves. What? First how do you even know the enemy's attack bonus? It varies by creature, so trying to figure out what 65% is is pretty much impossible. So is trying to base things off of some optimal power attack formula, because again, the ACs vary. The best you can do is try to factor enemy AC out of the equation and convert bonuses to hit directly to damage via PA. Otherwise, the whole argument hinges on what creature you pick as a balance point. A barb might outdamage a warblade against an AC 19, but may not against an AC 24. Neither proves a general case, so picking an arbitrary enemy AC is a bad idea. Second, this is a damage test, so you shouldn't be excluding stuff because they make you more vulnerable. Otherwise, we have to exclude rage too, that's a -2 to AC. The warblade's rabid strikes are only a -4, which is two lower than the raging barbarian. Doesn't seem so unacceptable to me. Why is the barbarian's standard -2 acceptable but the warblade's -4 isn't? Seems as though you're not using math so much as arbitrarily excluding everything that disproves your hypothesis.
Tempest Stormwind 06-27-07, 08:44 PM	What? First how do you even know the enemy's attack bonus? It varies by creature, so trying to figure out what 65% is is pretty much impossible.Not really. I was using an average drawn from appropriate CR monsters, which can be found here (http://megariqueza.com/DnD/CritterFilter.php). I could have sworn I said so earlier in the thread, too...So is trying to base things off of some optimal power attack formula, because again, the ACs vary. The best you can do is try to factor enemy AC out of the equation and convert bonuses to hit directly to damage via PA. Otherwise, the whole argument hinges on what creature you pick as a balance point. A barb might outdamage a warblade against an AC 19, but may not against an AC 24. Neither proves a general case, so picking an arbitrary enemy AC is a bad idea. I didn't pick arbitrary ones; I picked averages. That site also provides standard deviations as well, which I'll mention in the Regdar's article. The lower the standard deviation, the more representative that average AC will be. The only things I don't really account for are tricks like invisibility and concealment and similar; against such foes, the character built to handle that particular scenario will outperform the other, but in generic vs generic (as I'm aiming for), the effect will presumably be identical to both. (The example I gave with invisibility slightly favors the warblade since Blind-Fight is on their list of bonus feats. It's not often taken unless the character's going for Master of Nine, though it is available nevertheless.)Second, this is a damage test, so you shouldn't be excluding stuff because they make you more vulnerable. Otherwise, we have to exclude rage too, that's a -2 to AC. Not if the -2 AC keeps you above 65%. The reason I chose this was because the character is in melee range the whole time (by virtue of being a melee character). I don't have values for melee damage from CritterFilter, so I simply assumed that being hit is a Very Bad Thing. The 65% comes from 50% (considered by many a benchmark minimum for melee characters) adjusted for the difference between medium and heavy armor (since both classes only have medium armor but have d12 HP, they are apparently built to take hits more often than heavily armored classes are). The warblade's rabid strikes are only a -4, which is two lower than the raging barbarian. Doesn't seem so unacceptable to me. Why is the barbarian's standard -2 acceptable but the warblade's -4 isn't?Because I have the monster's average melee attack values, and there are many times where the -2 from Rage or Punishing Stance puts you dangerously close to going over 65% -- level 7 is particularly bad with this, hitting 65% virtually on the dot. This is with wealth-appropriate equipment identical to both characters, I might add. If -2 puts you at 65%, then -4 will definitely put you over it. Similarly, there are levels where you can take the -4 or even the -6 (from combining such a strike with Punishing Stance); this is especially true at level 1 where Steely Strike comes out ahead. Seems as though you're not using math so much as arbitrarily excluding everything that disproves your hypothesis.Seems like you are assuming things to try to start a flamewar again.
DaidojiTaidoru 06-27-07, 08:48 PM	What? First how do you even know the enemy's attack bonus? It varies by creature, so trying to figure out what 65% is is pretty much impossible. So is trying to base things off of some optimal power attack formula, because again, the ACs vary. The best you can do is try to factor enemy AC out of the equation and convert bonuses to hit directly to damage via PA. Otherwise, the whole argument hinges on what creature you pick as a balance point. A barb might outdamage a warblade against an AC 19, but may not against an AC 24. Neither proves a general case, so picking an arbitrary enemy AC is a bad idea. Second, this is a damage test, so you shouldn't be excluding stuff because they make you more vulnerable. Otherwise, we have to exclude rage too, that's a -2 to AC. The warblade's rabid strikes are only a -4, which is two lower than the raging barbarian. Doesn't seem so unacceptable to me. Why is the barbarian's standard -2 acceptable but the warblade's -4 isn't? Seems as though you're not using math so much as arbitrarily excluding everything that disproves your hypothesis. You missed his earlier calculations I'm assuming, which is reasonable since the detailed versions were linked in another thread. Here it is again. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12819646&postcount=108) Pay special attention to the section under The Target Opponent to see the reasoning behind the choices. Some detail has to be sacrificed in order to get any results at all. If you want to run the numbers against every creature of CR +/- 3 for a given level and then average the results into a nice graph I'm sure no one will stop you. But using a preset average isn't that horrible an abstraction for the basic maths. Edit: And Ninja'd. Oh well.
TheCobra 06-27-07, 08:52 PM	Have you done the numbers against foes with DR yet, Tempest? I would imagine warblades would do better there, as DR is worse against one powerful blow. Also, they can sometimes ignore it entirely.
Tempest Stormwind 06-27-07, 09:18 PM	Have you done the numbers against foes with DR yet, Tempest? I would imagine warblades would do better there, as DR is worse against one powerful blow. Also, they can sometimes ignore it entirely. I do have DR values, but not the most critical elements of the information: what percentage of monsters of a given CR have DR (Cube is working on this one) and what type of weapon bypasses it (too complex for CritterFilter to implement without piles of work, and it's a volunteer project). When I feel I have a statement to make about DR, I'll include it. For instance, at level 3, very few CR 3 monsters have DR (in my experience; I can't provide numbers to back it up) and those that do have the following results: Min DR: 5 Avg DR: 5.47 St.Dev: 1.45 Max DR: 10 Knowing that these results are drawn from 155 monster entries and assuming a normal distribution, we can readily determine a seed for how common DR is: ~106 (105.71, being 68.2% of 155) of the 155 entries would have DR values between 4.02 and 6.92, with ~25 (24.645) being below those values and the same number being above them. That 106 would then need to be multiplied by the percentage of monsters at CR 3 that have DR, which would probably be rather low (no more than 20% at my guess, but this is, of course, a guess. Running with this estimate, we can guess that ~5 monsters with DR have DR below 4.02, ~21 monsters with DR have DR between 4.02 and 6.92, and ~5 monsters with DR have DR above 6.92 but not greater than 10). Since DR is ALMOST always a multiple of 5 in 3.5 (there's a few with lower DR values, such as DR 2/-, but the vast majority over 5 are multiples of 5 in my experience), we can make a reasonable claim about those values from before (running with my 20% estimate, which IS JUST AN ESTIMATE, those 21 monsters would mostly be DR 5, with about 5 monsters at DR 10 and 5 below 5. This is rough and dirty, though). This would allow us to figure out roughly your chances at overcoming (that is, doing more damage than) the DR with particular attack forms. I can't make numerical claims about what bypasses DR yet. In my experience, barring weapon damage choices, the most common at low levels is DR/Magic, which you autobypass as of level 4 (the first level I could afford a +1 greatsword without too much overbudgeting). At level 3, even without Punishing Stance, it would favor the warblade if he used Mountain Hammer (both the barbarian and Mountain Hammer have the same weighted damage at optimal Power Attack at that level, 9.253, but Mountain Hammer ignores DR. The warblade's followup attack has a weighted damage of 6.192, though, meaning that with my existing 2-round model (which is not going to be the ONLY model I test, I might add), the barbarian's dealt 8.506 weighted damage to a resistant target, and the warblade's dealt 10.445 weighted damage, granting the warblade a victory margin of 1.939 weighted damage), but only against a target that they do not bypass DR on. (If the warblade uses the normal optimal attack route of that level in my model, Emerald Razor + Punishing Stance, he instead dishes out 5.9 weighted damage, behind the barbarian. So it's not so much the "one powerful blow" approach; the special properties of some of his maneuvers are still required to excel.)
TheCobra 06-27-07, 09:30 PM	Yeah, I know DR isn't much of a problem at low levels. Eventually, though, it becomes one. Most outsiders have DR, and a character won't always have a powerful cold iron sword and powerful silvered sword around. And then an adamantine one to deal with constructs.
IRememberCecil 06-27-07, 09:33 PM	I just watched Die Hard 4 and I've realized that none of this matters. John McClane can outdo anything you can come up with. Srsly, Pun-Pun is **** compared to that man. The movie makes 300 look like a romantic comedy.
Johnny_Angel 06-27-07, 09:37 PM	I agree with most of the discussions that mages generally have the ability to outpower melee classes, but I always hate when people claim that "all a melee class as to do is stand and swing his/her weapon." I hardly find it impossible to employ tactics while using a melee class. ::shrug:: It's just another difference of opinion I suppose.
Endarrion 06-27-07, 09:48 PM	The ability for melee classes to use tactics is not what's being discussed, it's whether or not the classes from ToB do more damage than the classes from the PHB, and TempestStormwind is using a generic Warblade (ToB) and a generic Barbarian (PHB) to compare damage outputs only. Tactics would go into "this warblade vs that barbarian" rather than two generic damage dealers.
EvilVegan 06-28-07, 08:28 AM	Now I'm just curious. Can an Athasian thri-kreen warblade out-damage a Faerunian non-psionic thri-kreen Barbarian in Planescape if they're both running from John McClane?
aotrscommander 06-28-07, 09:17 AM	Now I'm just curious. Can an Athasian thri-kreen warblade out-damage a Faerunian non-psionic thri-kreen Barbarian in Planescape if they're both running from John McClane? Tch. Of course not. McClane will have killed them both before they take their first swing!
IRememberCecil 06-28-07, 11:53 AM	Tch. Of course not. McClane will have killed them both before they take their first swing! No. John McClane doesn't roll that way. If you mess with him, he'll kill your girlfriend, your assistant and your lawyer. Then he'll go on an epic run of destruction, blowing up buildings and vehicles. As he does so, he attracts the attention of higher authorities who mistake him for a criminal, so he destroys their stuff too. As he gets closer, you get more desperate and end up making the mistake of making it personal... And then he gets angry. When John McClane gets angry, you actually have no chance of living, you can only prolong it for about 20-30 minutes of movie time, at which point, he gets both of you into a tight situation, says "Yippie ki yay, mother:censored:" and you die within a short while (from a fraction of a second to half a minute). Anyone see Die Hard 4? This thread should be about that movie now.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 06-28-07, 12:03 PM	Anyone see Die Hard 4? This thread should be about that movie now. I did. It was freakin awesome. Everything you said and more man.
ravenshrike 06-28-07, 12:07 PM	Best music video ever. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTyw6cq86kY
Otto the Bugbear 06-28-07, 12:11 PM	John McClane v. the Death Star (http://www.grudge-match.com/History/mcclane-deathstar.shtml) Best quote from readers... This is essentially a chemistry problem. The Death Star: Tends to explode John McClane: Tends to cause things to explode
aotrscommander 06-28-07, 02:07 PM	No. John McClane doesn't roll that way. If you mess with him, he'll kill your girlfriend, your assistant and your lawyer. Then he'll go on an epic run of destruction, blowing up buildings and vehicles. As he does so, he attracts the attention of higher authorities who mistake him for a criminal, so he destroys their stuff too. As he gets closer, you get more desperate and end up making the mistake of making it personal... And then he gets angry. When John McClane gets angry, you actually have no chance of living, you can only prolong it for about 20-30 minutes of movie time, at which point, he gets both of you into a tight situation, says "Yippie ki yay, mother:censored:" and you die within a short while (from a fraction of a second to half a minute). Anyone see Die Hard 4? This thread should be about that movie now. I bow to your superior knowledge, IRC.
IRememberCecil 06-28-07, 02:15 PM	I bow to your superior knowledge, IRC. Just so you know, I'm making this a part of my to-be-opened ego pad. Self-exaltation!
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-28-07, 02:44 PM	If -2 puts you at 65%, then -4 will definitely put you over it. Similarly, there are levels where you can take the -4 or even the -6 (from combining such a strike with Punishing Stance); this is especially true at level 1 where Steely Strike comes out ahead. Seems like you are assuming things to try to start a flamewar again. Why is 65% a magic number? I don't get it. Seems you picked a number expressly so that you can include rage, but exclude stuff like punishing stance or rabid strikes. Also, I would ditch the whole "optimum power attack" thing. Optimum power attacks only happen if you know the monster's AC, which rarely should happen in most games if your DM is being somewhat clever.
Tempest Stormwind 06-28-07, 02:56 PM	Why is 65% a magic number? I don't get it. Seems you picked a number expressly so that you can include rage, but exclude stuff like punishing stance or rabid strikes. I explained it above, and in the link you were provided with. A general benchmark for being hit is 50%. A tank that is hit more often than 50% isn't considered much of a tank -- ideally, they are hit far less often than this. "Tank" type classes in the PHB include the fighter and the paladin. Barbarians and warblades, compared to these two, have Medium armor rather than Heavy, but a higher HD to boot (they retain shield proficiency, but use of a shield is a fighting-style choice, not part of the class itself). From a design perspective, this means that these two classes are meant to be hit more often than the fighters, which explains the higher HD (and, at later levels, methods of reducing damage or improved HP gain or similar -- both classes gain ways to endure attacks rather than mitigate them). So, it seems that a number greater than 50% can serve as the absolute worst value for such a class to be hit with. It's just a matter of picking which ones. Looking at core armor differences (the big difference between barbarians/warblades and fighters/paladins when it comes to methods of mitigating being hit), we see that the highest base AC value for medium armor, the breastplate, is +5, while the best heavy armor, full plate, rates at +8. This means that a character wearing a breastplate will be hit 15% more often by a given attack than a character wearing full plate of equivalent quality, as the d20 needs to fall three numbers higher to hit the full plate (3/20 = 15%). 50% + 15% = 65%. I didn't pull the number out of thin air. Besides, I've already said that the -AC strikes are still sometimes valid -- I cited level 1 as an example, where Steely Strike + Punishing Stance is the most numerically optimal result -- and that even if they aren't acceptable AC-wise later on, they work well as finishing blows (that is, a conditional attack, and I'm trying to remove the impact of the conditions of battle from this comparison as best I can for the purposes of approximation.). Also, I would ditch the whole "optimum power attack" thing. Optimum power attacks only happen if you know the monster's AC, which rarely should happen in most games if your DM is being somewhat clever.Then why bother with Power Attack at all in the calculation? The optimal power attack shows exactly how powerful a particular attack can be. It looks at the chances of each attack hitting balanced against how powerful a particular hit is. I pick the best one for sake of comparison. Since the barbarian has an increase to every attack roll he makes due to PA, he can PA for more every round (though warblades with attack-influencing strikes can get the same results on strike rounds). It sounds to me that arguing for removing optimal power attack is to ignore this plain fact in favor of arbitrarily picking what value to look at.
EvilVegan 06-28-07, 03:41 PM	Why not consider a barbarian without power attack? Both classes can power attack, but neither class has power attack as a class feature. I mean if you're comparing class to class and won't consider other feats and abilities aside from power attack, why include power attack at all? The barbarian does get a lot out of power attack, but a warblade can also get a lot out of power attack. Also what about a warblade that uses their maneuvers to improve their ability to power attack, either via attack bonus strikes/stances/boosts, or through pounce abilities? I still think that the barbarian would probably still be above/equal to a warblade in a lot of cases though.
Tempest Stormwind 06-28-07, 04:17 PM	Why not consider a barbarian without power attack? Both classes can power attack, but neither class has power attack as a class feature. I mean if you're comparing class to class and won't consider other feats and abilities aside from power attack, why include power attack at all?Why not consider a barbarian without a greatsword? Both classes can attack, but neither has a greatsword as a class feature. The answer is the same: If you're going for melee damage output, Power Attack is going in the build somewhere. It's practically omnipresent. Similarly, two-handed weapons are going to be present (except if a source of bonus damage like Sneak Attack is present), and the best core example of that is a greatsword.Also what about a warblade that uses their maneuvers to improve their ability to power attack, either via attack bonus strikes/stances/boosts, or through pounce abilities?What did you think I was doing? 1) Steely Strike and Emerald Razor, kings of damage at some of the levels I've already reported, don't deal bonus damage but rather increase your chances of hitting such that you can power attack more. 2) At the levels I've looked at there aren't any warblade pounce abilities, and the benchmark I'm using doesn't include charging (since it isn't repeatable), although I am doing charge calculations for sake of completeness (and I will factor in Pouncing Charge at that point). 3) I'm considering stances in my equations; none increase attack rolls at this point. Similarly, there are no attack- or damage- impacting boosts at these levels. When they show up, I'll start including them. The data I've used is only up to about level 7. Warblade options are somewhat limited at this point.I still think that the barbarian would probably still be above/equal to a warblade in a lot of cases though.That's what my results are showing. In general, the barbarian gets superior numbers (by huge margins; on the few levels the warblade's ahead he's ahead by a very small amount in general), but the warblade has far more options to consider in delivering his damage. This equates to higher mobility and tactical possibilities, and thus more fun, IMHO. However, that's not what I'm comparing numerically.
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-28-07, 07:08 PM	Then why bother with Power Attack at all in the calculation? Well, PA is very nice for getting everything down to damage bonuses and not attack bonuses. The problem with things being in attack bonuses is that then your opponent's AC matters, and AC as I said before, is not something we can readily predict (as it varies from monster to monster). So instead of playing averages and trying to find some arbitrary AC, lets just try to factor AC out of the equation entirely. You can actually do that with power attack by using the -1 to hit for +2 to damage. Thus you make it so every class has an equal chance to hit (therefore, enemy AC doesn't matter anymore, or at least, it has limited impact). We generally want to reduce the impact of variables we don't know, thus I generally support trying to keep the attack bonuses of each side even using the power attack formula. Pretty reasonable, since it's a feat that both warblades and barbs are going to take. And of course, eliminating enemy AC from calculations, even if just partly, makes our work a lot easier because there are fewer contingencies to cover and the math becomes easier.
Tempest Stormwind 06-28-07, 07:19 PM	Well, PA is very nice for getting everything down to damage bonuses and not attack bonuses. The problem with things being in attack bonuses is that then your opponent's AC matters, and AC as I said before, is not something we can readily predict (as it varies from monster to monster). So instead of playing averages and trying to find some arbitrary AC, lets just try to factor AC out of the equation entirely. You can actually do that with power attack by using the -1 to hit for +2 to damage. Thus you make it so every class has an equal chance to hit (therefore, enemy AC doesn't matter anymore, or at least, it has limited impact). We generally want to reduce the impact of variables we don't know, thus I generally support trying to keep the attack bonuses of each side even using the power attack formula. Pretty reasonable, since it's a feat that both warblades and barbs are going to take. And of course, eliminating enemy AC from calculations, even if just partly, makes our work a lot easier because there are fewer contingencies to cover and the math becomes easier. If you simply say "always hits" you're removing the importance of the attack roll. Which is kind of important. Unless your commoners never have problems hitting things. The only way I can see what you're suggesting as even REMOTELY valid would be if you're trying to say something like "Assume that attack bonus X is a guaranteed hit" and thus PA down to that value all the time. My original demonstrations, a long time ago, actually used this, using guessed values (based on a very quick sweep of the monster manual) to determine an appropriate number to choose. In such circumstances, the barbarian *still* came out on top -- Maneuver + First hit of recovery round <= both first hits of both rage rounds on most of the levels I did this at, and the barbarian had more chances to hit with followup attacks, which were at a higher attack bonus, and if either one connected there went the warblade's damage bonus. I have since opted to use actual monster data and a weighted damage approach, as I feel this better reflects what one might expect in the game. If we look strictly at damage values without factoring in attack values, we change this entire spectacle from "an approximation" to "mathematical masturbation". We may as well say "Assuming I roll all nat 20s and I deal max damage, I can solo the tarrasque" or something else equally ridiculous and improbable. EDIT: I made a rounding error on my AC calculations for Rabid Wolf Strike. It's fine to use RWS on its own at level 3 (and only level 3); this puts the warblade a full 1.35 points of weighted damage ahead of the barbarian at that level. I figured that out while asking myself if there was any reason why level 3 (which has all the markings of a hotspot: warblades gaining a new level of maneuvers and barbarians gaining nothing serious offensively) wasn't favoring the warblade. It was, I just didn't realize it.
EvilVegan 06-29-07, 10:03 AM	Personally I don't like considering the barbarian or warblade's AC in the equation as it has nothing to do with one class out-damaging the other. But I'm not the one doing the very interesting math, so I'll be quiet.
turalisj 06-29-07, 07:50 PM	Folks, I've said it before. DON'T ARGUE WITH TEMPEST!
Archtyrant Terevoth 06-29-07, 11:50 PM	If you simply say "always hits" you're removing the importance of the attack roll. Which is kind of important. Unless your commoners never have problems hitting things. Well no, the idea is to get the two attack bonuses equal and thus create a "don't care" state for the AC. If the barb and warblade have equal attack bonus, then the AC becomes irrelevant, just the damage matters. It isn't because you're assuming you always hit, but merely because any change to AC affects both equally.
aelryinth 06-30-07, 02:49 AM	The one mitigating factor with medium armor vs heavy is the Dex limit is higher. Thus Breastplate actually tops out at +7, since you can either scorea higher dex or get more benefit from a dex booster then Full Plate at +1 can give you. When you add Mithral to the equation, vs, oh, Adamantine Full Plate, the Fighter stock, the AC value can actually even out (although the likelihood of most Barb/Warblades getting a 20 Dex isn't too high, esp with the Elite stat array.) BTW, Tempest, since you are doing your comparison, how are you working in the fact that the Warblade gets additional bonus feats to go 'shopping' with, and can actually pick up Weapon spec or something with them? (and actually, by his class ability, seems EXPECTED to.) ===Aelryinth
Dherki 06-30-07, 07:12 AM	BTW, Tempest, since you are doing your comparison, how are you working in the fact that the Warblade gets additional bonus feats to go 'shopping' with, and can actually pick up Weapon spec or something with them? (and actually, by his class ability, seems EXPECTED to.) ===Aelryinth Warblade cannot get weapon spec with his bonus feats. Bonus feats are drawn from a rather short list, with probably the best being Imp Initiative or Combat Reflexes and neither of these has any real effect on these particular calculations.
IRememberCecil 06-30-07, 08:49 AM	Folks, I've said it before. DON'T ARGUE WITH TEMPEST! I could probably beat him in some discussions. But he sure as hell knows how to play things to his strengths (which I don't, I just pick fights wherever I have a minor problem).
AAB 06-30-07, 12:16 PM	I could probably beat him in some discussions. But he sure as hell knows how to play things to his strengths (which I don't, I just pick fights wherever I have a minor problem). yeah, he pretty much sticks with psionics and ToB.
Tempest Stormwind 06-30-07, 12:23 PM	The one mitigating factor with medium armor vs heavy is the Dex limit is higher. Thus Breastplate actually tops out at +7, since you can either scorea higher dex or get more benefit from a dex booster then Full Plate at +1 can give you. When you add Mithral to the equation, vs, oh, Adamantine Full Plate, the Fighter stock, the AC value can actually even out (although the likelihood of most Barb/Warblades getting a 20 Dex isn't too high, esp with the Elite stat array.)The difference there is coming from the character, not coming from any inherent class problem. Besides, on the elite array, 15/14 are spoken for on this type of character, leaving a 13 as the highest to put into Dex, so in this case they will be equivalent (which will show up once I can afford mithral full plate).BTW, Tempest, since you are doing your comparison, how are you working in the fact that the Warblade gets additional bonus feats to go 'shopping' with, and can actually pick up Weapon spec or something with them? (and actually, by his class ability, seems EXPECTED to.)No. He can't take those as bonus feats, and I'm leaving build feats out of it. While he could gain Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, a barbarian might use those same slots on Improved Bull Rush and Combat Brute. People would then say "no fair, you gave the barbarian better feats" and the comparison shifts from the two classes to comparing the feats. The fact that a warblade can take fighter feats allows for greater build diversity, but doesn't impact the strength of any particular warblade like bonus feats would. And the warblade's bonus feat list is really, really weak -- only Blade Meditation would impact damage in any way that isn't conditional, and even then that's a mere +1 on strikes from a particular discipline using that discipline's preferred weapons, meaning the build would need to change from level to level (and since only Stone Dragon favors greatswords, I'd have to change the weapon every time, which *does* have a significant impact on damage). (One other thing that I do is I don't reply to people trying to stroke my ego. That thing's already the size of an aircraft. Carrier. FLEET. It doesn't need feeding, dammit! :) )
IRememberCecil 06-30-07, 12:29 PM	(One other thing that I do is I don't reply to people trying to stroke my ego. That thing's already the size of an aircraft. Carrier. FLEET. It doesn't need feeding, dammit! :)) I have the same problem. I compare mine to Godzilla. But, hey, we both realize this weakness, so that means we can poke fun at it and let others do the same without getting all-too offended, right?
Dherki 06-30-07, 01:28 PM	And the warblade's bonus feat list is really, really weak -- only Blade Meditation would impact damage in any way that isn't conditional, and even then that's a mere +1 on strikes from a particular discipline using that discipline's preferred weapons, meaning the build would need to change from level to level (and since only Stone Dragon favors greatswords, I'd have to change the weapon every time, which *does* have a significant impact on damage). Little correction: White Raven also favors greatswords. Not that this fact changes much. I somehow doubt there will be many White Raven strikes if you are going for maximum damage.
AAB 06-30-07, 01:39 PM	I have the same problem. I compare mine to Godzilla. But, hey, we both realize this weakness, so that means we can poke fun at it and let others do the same without getting all-too offended, right? i just imagined Tempest and IRememberCecil duking it out over Tokyo.... :P
aotrscommander 06-30-07, 02:00 PM	i just imagined Tempest and IRememberCecil duking it out over Tokyo.... :P ... ... Damn. I'd pay to see that...
EvilVegan 06-30-07, 02:28 PM	Folks, I've said it before. DON'T ARGUE WITH TEMPEST!But if I overcome something with CR = my ECL+7 I'll level for sure! I wasn't really arguing. I see the validity of his position. You have to take into things like enemy AC and PC survivability after an attack (if you're dead you can't deal damage, so the living guy wins in the damage calculations). I really just want to know pure damage potential. I'm going to do that on my own though, Tempest's work is a more valid comparison since it takes into account actual game situations over theoretical damage outputs) At higher levels the barbarian gets iterative attacks, sure, but with avalanche of blades you can get more than 4 attacks (and the first 4 attacks are made with a greater bonus than regular iterative attacks(BAB/-4/-8/-12/-16/-20/-24..., vs BAB/-5/-10/-15) and with the nightmare blades dealing multiplied damage, one hit is nearly identical to separate hits (except that you can crit for more on multiple hits). So you may not get all your attacks on 2nd round but there's no reason you shouldn't be dealing damage as if you did get multiple attacks. But when you hit with these multiple attacks you'll be dealing less damage than a barbarian unless you use a boost, because your damage comes from strikes more than iterative attacks. . . Human Warblade 20 (Tiger Claw / Diamond Mind focused) Abilities: Str 30 (15 + 5 + 5 + 6), Dex 19 (13 + 6 enhancement), Con 20 (14 + 6 enhancement), Int 18 (12 +6 enhancement), Wis 10, Cha 8 Feats: TWF, ITWF, GTWF, TWD, Weapon Focus (hand axe), Weapon Specialization (hand axe), Greater Focus (hand axe), Greater specialization (Hand Axe), Improved Initiative, Quick Draw, Unnerving Calm, Combat Reflexes Attack: +32 (20 bab, 10 str, 2 focus) Full attack: +30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15 (20 bab, 10 str, 2 focus, -2 TWF) Stances Known: Punishing Stance, Tactics of the Wolf, Leaping Dragon Stance, Hearing the Air Maneuvers known: Disrupting Blow, Rapid Counter, Pouncing Charge, Greater Insightful Strike, Rabid Bear Strike, Avalanche of Blades, Swooping Dragon Strike, Diamond Nightmare Blade, Raging Mongoose, Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip, Feral Death Blow, Time Stands Still. Maneuvers readied: Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip, Time Stands Still, Swooping Dragon Strike, Raging Mongoose, Avalanche of Blades, Feral Death Blow, Pouncing Charge Round 1 Feral Death Blow. Fort Save (DC 29) or die. Then take 22d6 + 14 (20d6 FDB, 1d6 weapon, 1d6 punishing stance, +10 str, +4 spec), probably another fort save (DC 15) or die. 91 damage + decent save DC death effect + probable additional massive damage save. +32 to hit (Alternately: Pouncing charge + raging mongoose. Does round 3 damage. This is if you're using magical weapons with a lot of damage increasing abilities or wounding) Round 2 Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip + Time Stands Still + Punishing stance and Tactics of the Wolf +30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15 Against 1 target while dual-wielding handaxes thats possible damage of 48d6 damage + 110 (Str, 80 primary, 30 off-hand) + 56 (specialization) + 140 (if flanking with tactics of the wolf). Round 2 damage average 474, maximum 594, minimum 354. (requires flanker, without flanker remove 140 damage for 214-454 damage). 1 massive damage save. Round 3 Raging Mongoose + Full attack > +30/+30/+30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+20/+15. 6 with primary (1d6 + 1d6 +10 +4 = 21 avg) 5 with off hand (1d6 + 1d6 + 5 +4 = 16 avg). Average 206 (if all hit). No massive damage saves. (Alternately, if raging mongoose used first round, switch to Leaping dragon stance and execute Swooping Dragon Strike, stun DC 44-63 -AC penalty, spend next round recovering) 3 round average: 771 damage, 3 saves for death. Human Barbarian 20 Abilities: Str 30 [38] (15 + 5 + 5 + 6 [+8 rage]), Dex 19 (13 + 6 enhancement), Con 20 [28] (14 + 6 enhancement [+8 rage]), Int 10 , Wis 18 (12 + 6 enhancement), Cha 8 Feats: Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Improved Sunder, Shock Trooper, Combat Brute, Leap Attack, Extend Rage, Extra Rage. Attack: +30 [+34] (BAB 20 +10 [+14]) Full attack: +30/+25/+20/+15 [+34/+29/+24/+19] Round 1: Rage. Charge + Leap Attack + shock trooper + pounce (somehow). +36/+31/+26/+21, 1d12 + 60 (power attack + leap attack) + 22 (str). 83-94 damage per hit, 4 hits, 332 - 376 damage. 4 fortitude saves (DC 15) or die. (Player AC is at -20 penalty for shock trooper.) Round 2: Full attack + combat brute +14/+9/+4/-1 1d12 + 60 (power attack) + 22 st= 83-94, 4 hits = 332 - 376 damage. 4 fortitude saves (DC 15) or die. Round 3: Full attack +14/+9/+4/-1 1d12 + 40 (power attack) + 22 st= 63-74, 4 hits = 252 - 296. 4 fortitude saves or die. 3 round average: 916-1048 damage. 12 saves for massive damage. So a barbarian vs a TWF warblade does considerably more damage. Against inanimate objects. :) With magical weapons (+1 wounding, flaming, frost, acidic, shocking handaxes/greataxe of speed) the warblade (with his 32 attacks instead of 26) deals an additional 64 constitution damage and an average of 448 energy damage and an additional 117 weapon damage. The barbarian (with his 15 attacks instead of 12) deals an additional 30 constitution damage and 60-360 energy damage and an extra 244-277 weapon damage. Final (silly) results 1336 + 64 con damage for the warblade (with twice as much money spent on weapons, which is a LOT). 1220-1685 + 30 con damage (with less money on equipment, but a lot less chance to hit.) 15 saves for massive damage. Okidoki. Even when I'm trying to get ludicrous (and using my loose rules for using 2 speed weapons) a barbarian outdamages a warblade against things with no AC. My only other option is to use a combat Rythm build. My drum roll build (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=859594) has no static limit on maximum damage (with infinite good rolls you have infinite attacks in 1 round). Or "silly" white raven builds that actually use their followers (gasp!). These can deal crazy amounts of damage by exploiting stormguard warrior and avalanche of blades.
Aminvelos 06-30-07, 03:41 PM	I think that was a very unfair way to take a look at the two Maybe I'm just an unwitting idiot but I think this example was badly made. EvilVegan. You didn't give them the same feats. You completely forgot the xfactor, the fact that TOB classes can make their own manuevers, and stances. Without even beginning to rack my brain the 5+ to hit for the warblade from swarm tactics, and punishing stance makes up for the str bonus, barbarians recieve. 5+ hit 3.5 average damage. Although I'm sure you could make an improved punishing stance that does a greater advantage. So all other things being equal you take 4+ additional damage and to Hit for barb 8+ to str. Swarm tactics gives +5 to hit punishing stance +3.5 damage. The difference isn't that big, since the warblade will be able to use boosts to increase his attacks further.
EvilVegan 06-30-07, 04:02 PM	Tempest is working on the identical barbarian vs warblade, my comparison was for a specific, high-damage warblade vs a specific high-damage barbarian. Of course they don't have the same feats, you play them completely different. One is a charging, leap-attacking monster, the other is a mobile, multi-attacking monster. I can build a warblade using the identical feats if you like, but thanks to the way the two classese work a barbarian benefits more from power attack/leap attack than a warblade. For instance, diamond nightmare blade deals quadruple damage. This is nearly the same as hitting on all 4 attacks. All things being equal a barbarian will have +6 to damage over the warblade (from +8 to str) wielding the same weapon and with the same feats. If a barbarian hits on 4 attacks he'll deal 24 more damage than a warblade hitting on 1 attack if they both power attack for the same amount. Now, if you take into account AC and power attack variance to differentiate for the fact that a warblade power attacking for -10 on 1 full BAB attack vs a barbarian power attacking for -10 on 4 iterative attacks (with a reduction in chance to hit on extra attacks, but +4 to hit from strength) the barbarian gets +6 damage more per hit, the warblade gets +12 more from power attacking (for the same attack bonus). That's only a net difference of +24. I was trying to make them different so that they'd be more proficient at what they were doing, to make it unbalanced in favor of the warblade, and I failed. The barbarian can outdamage the warblade (against opponents where AC doesn't matter). I've personally come up with specific builds that can deal thousands of damage using only 2 maneuvers and 1 feat (Leading the Charge stance, Warmaster's charge, Leadership), but people always say my ideas are stupid and that it isn't "practical" to plan ahead to deal thousands of damage for relatively no cost. I personally think planning ahead and reducing costs is pretty much the definition of practical, but they can't handle the truth. Anyway, I was taking the other stand from Tempest. He's comparing 2 vanilla characters without equipment to see if the core class is well designed, but does allow the barbarians power attack (because what barbarian doesn't have it). I'm comparing two very specific and highly flavored characters with equipment to see if they can be broken while not overly exploiting "loop-holes" or "contrived scenarios" (though the no-AC target is pretty contrived). Feel free to build a leap attacking monster warblade and compare them. Lets see: Warblade 20 Feats: Power attack, leap attack, improved bullrush, improved sunder, combat brute, shock trooper, TWF (for spikes), ITWF (for spikes), combat reflexes, quick draw, ironheart aura, w/e Round 1 Leap Attack + Power Attack + Shock Trooper + Pouncing Charge + Raging Mongoose (Greatsword + armor spikes). +30/+30/+30/+30 (2 great sword, 2 spikes) +30/+30/+25/+25/+20/+15 (3 great sword, 2 armor spikes). 5 hits for 2d6 +1d6 (PS) + 15 (str) + 60 [427.5 average] + 4 hits for 1d6 + 1d6 (PS) +5 (str) [48 average] 475.5 average if all hit Round 2 Time stands still + combat brute + Punishing stance + tactics of the wolf +10/+10/+5/+5/+0/-5/+10/+10/+5/+5/+0/-5 8 hits for 2d6 +1d6 (PS) + 15 (str) + 60 (power attack) + 10 (TotW) [764 average]+ 4 hits for 1d6 + 1d6 (PS) +5 (str) + 10 (TotW) [88 average] 852 average if all hit. Hm. . . looks like the warblade does win. . .
Otto the Bugbear 06-30-07, 04:56 PM	Human Warblade 20 (Tiger Claw / Diamond Mind focused) Stances Known: Punishing Stance, Tactics of the Wolf, Leaping Dragon Stance, Hearing the Air Alright, I did a search, and either I'm not searching slowly enough, or it's just not out there. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. Warblade 1 - 1 stance known, maximum 1st level Warblade 4 - 2 stances known, maximum 2nd level (no 2nd level stances) Warblade 10 - 3 stances known, maximum 5th level Warblade 16 - 4 stances known, maximum 7th level So, the confusion happens when I see a 3rd level stance on this list. Indeed, the fact that there are a bunch of 3rd level stances, even in Iron Heart, which only Warblades get makes me wonder exactly how a character gets these, unless it's meant to use the level 10 extra stance to grab a 3rd level stance. In the build above, for example, Punishing Stance is 1st level, so taken at Warblade 1. Leaping Dragon Stance is 3rd level, so it had to be taken at 10th level. Hearing the Air is 5th level, so that one was taken at 16th level. But then there is Tactics of the Wolf, another 3rd level stance. You can't swap out Stances on even levels, unless I missed that part on the CustServe answers. Normally, you can't just wait to choose a feature like that when it's granted; you can't choose not to fill that level 4 extra stance known until 5th level, when the level 3 stances are unlocked. You see where I'm going with this? It seems as if every warblade will end up with two 1st level stances, and then at level 10 and 16 they can take up to 5th level and 7th level stances, respectively. And, of course, how exactly does a Warblade manage to gain that 8th level Iron Heart stance, without expending a feat? Or is that the plan; make the character burn feats to get these stances at level-appropriate places? :confused:
aotrscommander 06-30-07, 06:24 PM	You see where I'm going with this? It seems as if every warblade will end up with two 1st level stances, and then at level 10 and 16 they can take up to 5th level and 7th level stances, respectively. And, of course, how exactly does a Warblade manage to gain that 8th level Iron Heart stance, without expending a feat? Or is that the plan; make the character burn feats to get these stances at level-appropriate places? :confused: Yep. Can a crusader (Tome of Battle, page 8) delay learning a new stance to a later level? If not, how can he ever learn an 8th- or 9th-level stance, since his last stance is gained at only 14th level? As a general rule, you can’t ever delay gaining any feature that comes from reaching a new level, whether that’s a feat, skill points, class feature, or anything else. The crusader’s stances are no different; at 14th level, the crusader must select a new stance of 7th level or less. However, at 15th level the crusader could select the Martial Stance feat (page 31) in order to choose an 8th-level stance. At 18th level, he could use that feat to choose a 9th-level stance. That's the only bit of ToB that I think is poor design, that the levels at which stances are available and the level at which you get them don't match up. My guess is they didn't look at that one too hard (maybe dropped the number of stances at the last minute or something and forgot that you don't get stances as every level). Plus, 9th level stances, Sage? There is omly one 9th level maneouver for each school, and not a stance among them...
Otto the Bugbear 06-30-07, 06:37 PM	Guess I missed that FAQ entry. Speed searching and all that jazz. Thanks lich.
Tempest Stormwind 06-30-07, 07:01 PM	Guess I missed that FAQ entry. Speed searching and all that jazz. Thanks lich. Not only that, but I'm trying to hunt down where one of the authors (I forget which) mentioned that the stance timing wasn't completed properly; he suggested delaying stance progressions by a level which solves it for pretty much every class out there. I know that's the houserule I use. (It's most notorious on crusaders, since they never learn 8th level stances...)
aotrscommander 06-30-07, 10:30 PM	Not only that, but I'm trying to hunt down where one of the authors (I forget which) mentioned that the stance timing wasn't completed properly; I thought that seemed quite likely...
AAB 07-01-07, 01:49 AM	Not only that, but I'm trying to hunt down where one of the authors (I forget which) mentioned that the stance timing wasn't completed properly; he suggested delaying stance progressions by a level which solves it for pretty much every class out there. I know that's the houserule I use. (It's most notorious on crusaders, since they never learn 8th level stances...) the eighth level ICONIC crusader stance! that is honestly the coolest thing about the crusader, IMO. the immortal fortitude stance just makes me dream of epic fights where crusaders stand alone amidst a sea of enemies... warm, fuzzy thoughts.
Dherki 07-01-07, 02:06 AM	Not only that, but I'm trying to hunt down where one of the authors (I forget which) mentioned that the stance timing wasn't completed properly; he suggested delaying stance progressions by a level which solves it for pretty much every class out there. I know that's the houserule I use. (It's most notorious on crusaders, since they never learn 8th level stances...) Are you perhaps referring to this thread? http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873460&highlight=stance+progression
Kaiosama214 07-01-07, 04:49 AM	Meh, who cares if Barb can out damage the Warblade? He certainly can't deal out 2d6 con damage every other round, or use his attack modifier in place of his AC, or do two Full attack actions in a round, or a LOT of things that make Warblades (and the rest of the ToB posse) fun as heck to play. Honestly, I get so much flavor out of playing any of the classes in there. This doesn't even go into how amazingly fun it is to play Crusaders. A DM once said to me about my Siegfried-esque crusader, "You know the difference between you and paladins? The paladin would have killed all the bad guys while figuring out the way out of the dungeon. You, on the other hand, made new doors forr youself through the foot-thick stone walls, THEN killed all the bad guys."
EvilVegan 07-01-07, 08:29 AM	Meh, who cares if Barb can out damage the Warblade? People who are trying to debate the relative power of ToB to other sources care. Barbarian is the damage dealing melee/tank class in Core and Warblade is the damage dealing melee/tank class in ToB, and they have similar class chasis (hit die, skill points) so they make the "best" comparison for most debates. We aren't debating which one is more fun, we're debating which is more "powerful". Sidenote: a wounding weapon makes a barbarian capable of dealing quite a bit of constitution damage.
EvilVegan 07-01-07, 08:44 AM	Alright, I did a search, and either I'm not searching slowly enough, or it's just not out there. Perhaps someone can explain this to me. Warblade 1 - 1 stance known, maximum 1st level Warblade 4 - 2 stances known, maximum 2nd level (no 2nd level stances) Warblade 10 - 3 stances known, maximum 5th level Warblade 16 - 4 stances known, maximum 7th level So, the confusion happens when I see a 3rd level stance on this list. Indeed, the fact that there are a bunch of 3rd level stances, even in Iron Heart, which only Warblades get makes me wonder exactly how a character gets these, unless it's meant to use the level 10 extra stance to grab a 3rd level stance.Sorry about that! The progression was 1st level (punishing)2nd level(tactics of the wolf), 10th level 5th (hearing the air), and 16th level (leaping dragon). I do most of my posting at work, so I work on posts then get distracted in the middle when I have to actually do work and come back to it after.
Otto the Bugbear 07-01-07, 09:20 AM	Sorry about that! The progression was 1st level (punishing)2nd level(tactics of the wolf), 10th level 5th (hearing the air), and 16th level (leaping dragon). I do most of my posting at work, so I work on posts then get distracted in the middle when I have to actually do work and come back to it after. Ahh. Punishing Stance is a 1st level stance, so that was your first one. Tactics of the Wolf is a 3rd level stance, meaning you can't grab it until 10th level without spending a feat. Leaping Dragon Stance is a 3rd level stance, meaning you can't grab it until 10th level without spending a feat. Hearing the Air is a 5th level stance, meaning you can't grab it until 10th level without spending a feat. As-is, you can't have two 3rd level stances, unless you take the Martial Stance feat.
EvilVegan 07-01-07, 11:06 AM	Ahh. Punishing Stance is a 1st level stance, so that was your first one. Tactics of the Wolf is a 3rd level stance, meaning you can't grab it until 10th level without spending a feat. Leaping Dragon Stance is a 3rd level stance, meaning you can't grab it until 10th level without spending a feat. Hearing the Air is a 5th level stance, meaning you can't grab it until 10th level without spending a feat. As-is, you can't have two 3rd level stances, unless you take the Martial Stance feat. DOH! AFB currently. Hm. . . I think I was confusing the level of tactics of the wolf with leading the charge for some reason. . . Anyway, I guess change leaping dragon stance to hunter's sense and then the build works, but you don't have the totally fun crazy-jump ability.
InkBlot 07-01-07, 07:45 PM	the eighth level ICONIC crusader stance! that is honestly the coolest thing about the crusader, IMO. the immortal fortitude stance just makes me dream of epic fights where crusaders stand alone amidst a sea of enemies... warm, fuzzy thoughts. A Crusader In Hell (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/alumni/20061212a), anybody?
StruckingFuggle 07-01-07, 09:02 PM	People who are trying to debate the relative power of ToB to other sources care. Barbarian is the damage dealing melee/tank class in Core and Warblade is the damage dealing melee/tank class in ToB, and they have similar class chasis (hit die, skill points) so they make the "best" comparison for most debates. Damage Dealer, yes. Tank? ... Uhm, no. Not at all. o,o Or - how do you define "tank"?
Zurai 07-02-07, 12:12 AM	Warblades can play tanks just fine. Especially with the existance of mithral full plate. They get the same damage reduction as barbarians (with the right stance), the same hit die, the same or better AC, higher mobility (barring the probably-broken Complete Champion Lion Totem barbarian variant), much better saves (between int-to-reflex and the Diamond Mind save boosters), the ability to self-heal and self-dispel (Iron Heart Endurance and Iron Heart Surge), etc.
StruckingFuggle 07-02-07, 12:35 AM	They can play it, yes ... but at the same time, the Barbarian isn't the "tank" of Core, and the Warblade isn't the "tank" of ToB - the Crusader is. Yeah, they don't have the Diamond Mind counters (but they get Concentration, and could benefit from a level or two of Warblade to fix their stance progression, anyway...), and they can't compare to Iron Heart Surge, but they've generally got good saves for the important ones and IHE has nothing on Devoted Spirit.
EvilVegan 07-02-07, 08:11 AM	Damage Dealer, yes. Tank? ... Uhm, no. Not at all. o,o Or - how do you define "tank"? Highest hit die, class ability to boost hit points, damage reduction, uncanny dodge, medium armor or better, maybe a shield. Also, like a real life tank they deal a lot of damage with a single hit. Just because they can't wear plate mail and don't typically carry a tower shield, don't think that they can't take a hit. Uncanny dodge makes them nearly immune to sneak attack. Damage reduction further reduces the ability of creatures to damage them, especially if they rely on multiple attacks. An animated (tower) shield + mithral breast plate (or full plate) + amulet of natural armor + ring of protection + lesser cloak of displacement + HP boost of rage + damage reduction + uncanny dodge + highest HD + highest, non-mounted, melee damage output = tank. They aren't the best tank available (that falls to crusader), but they are still a tank.
InkBlot 07-02-07, 01:00 PM	It's just semantics. It's just a matter of nomenclature. What StruckingFuggle is saying is that, even though any individual warblade can tank, that's not what the class was designed specifically to do. Compare it to the Crusader, which obviously was specifically designed to tank. Just because a character can tank, doesn't mean that he has levels in a tank class.
Tempest Stormwind 07-02-07, 02:12 PM	True. You can tank with a WIZARD. Doesn't mean the wizard's a tank. In one of my two games, our "tank" is a swordsage who throws monsters around, essentially tying up their actions while they recover. He's got a level of Warblade and Shadow Sun Ninja in there as well, aiming for Master of Nine, and he also serves as in-battle healer and out-of-battle scout. Doesn't mean the swordsage is a healer class (though I will cave and say it's pretty close to a stealth/scout class, with its class skill list). In core, the barbarian has a low AC and a lot of HP (highest HD and Rage to boost Con). This means he TAKES a lot of hits but keeps on going. Warblades are in the same boat (subbing Stone Dragon maneuvers for the Con boost). They're not tank classes, though they are frontliners.
EvilVegan 07-03-07, 06:47 PM	Then what's a tank? If it doesn't = can take a lot of hits in the front line, then I'll need a new definition. Actually, I don't need a new one, mine works fine. I just don't see what doesn't match up with everyone elses. A wizard can tank if he takes certain spells and preps right, a barbarian has tanking class features such as DR and hit die. I really don't see how you can say a wizard tanking is the same as a barbarian tanking.
Tempest Stormwind 07-03-07, 06:54 PM	Then what's a tank? If it doesn't = can take a lot of hits in the front line, then I'll need a new definition. Actually, I don't need a new one, mine works fine. I just don't see what doesn't match up with everyone elses.I define a tank class as one that can tie up the enemy in lasting melee engagements and live to tell about it. In the vast, vast majority of situations, this amounts to defense. High armor, respectable HP, and similar. This is opposed to a standard non-tank melee character, which is based on reckless offense (which takes down the enemy faster, but doesn't defend the user; an enemy who is encouraged to avoid the attacker is one that isn't being tied up). In the PHB, I consider fighters and paladins to be "tanks", as opposed to barbarians, monks, and rangers (who are also frontliners in general but aren't "tanks"). In the ToB, the crusader's the tank.A wizard can tank if he takes certain spells and preps right, a barbarian has tanking class features such as DR and hit die. I really don't see how you can say a wizard tanking is the same as a barbarian tanking.I don't see the difference. A wizard's class features are her spells. Thus, the wizard has tanking class features such as stoneskin, false life, mirror image and fog cloud. Or the ultimate tanking spell, polymorph (war troll? Firbolg? Take your pick, you make fighters look small in the pants). However, the wizard isn't built for this on the most part. They focus instead on being arcane troubleshooters and artillery (which may or may not involve damage, but does involve taking enemies down from a distance). If they want to tank, they use their spells to make up for their class weaknesses. Thus, a wizard *can* tank, but is not a 'tank' class.
EvilVegan 07-05-07, 09:27 AM	But a barbarian doesn't choose between DR / high hit die and teleport (for instance). A wizard has to choose to be a tank for the day by preparing his spells in a certain way, a barbarian gets them automatically. The comparison really doesn't hold up because a barbarian doesn't give up other options to gain his tanking ability. It is his direct class feature, not an indirect class option. A barbarian isn't "making up for their class weaknesses" if they put on armor to be a tank. As you admitted earlier, the armor comparison between fullplate and a breastplate is +3. Is +3 armor all that disqualifies a barbarian as a tank? All barbarians have tanking features =/= some wizards may choose to have tanking features if they give up other options. 10 +13 (Mithral Full Plate +5) +7 (Animated Heavy Shield +5) + 5 (Amulet of Natural Armor) + 5 (Ring of protection) +3 (Dexterity) = 43 AC, 5/- damage reduction, highest hit die, may lower AC to 41 if he wants to increase his hit points by (4xLevel) What makes a fighter more of a tank? Combat expertise and options. A fighter can "easily" get +20 to AC from combat expertise and improved combat expertise, he gets another +2 from a tower shield. So at a -20 to hit he has a 65 AC compared to the barbarian's 43/41, but how is he going to keep an enemy engaged with him any more than the barbarian? The barbarian has higher movement speed (espeically if the fighter opted for adamantine fullplate, but then lower AC by 2 for dex and grant the fighter DR 3/-) and (unlike the fighter) can actually be hit and is actually hitting the opponent so it isn't a waste of time to attack the barbarian, where a logical enemy would ignore the "tank" fighter.
Tempest Stormwind 07-07-07, 01:39 AM	Just letting everyone know I'm putting my work on hold for a while. I WILL finish it, but I can't finish it now. The reasons for this are twofold. 1) Lab work has stepped up; we've got a paper near publication and I need to do a metric assload of simulations to confirm the model we're describing. Such is the life of a grad student. (This cuts my time for the project.) 2) I really, REALLY hate equipment shopping, and every level I hit on this project involves figuring out a typical set of equipment, which involves a lot of budgeting and recalculating and... grrr. I leave arithmetic to the machines. (This means I'm not motivated to do the project.) I might delegate the second option to friends of mine who have more time than I do... but I WILL finish this sooner or later. And when I do, expect a giant Regdar's article on it.
Raiden Drake 07-07-07, 02:49 AM	Just letting everyone know I'm putting my work on hold for a while. I WILL finish it, but I can't finish it now. The reasons for this are twofold. 1) Lab work has stepped up; we've got a paper near publication and I need to do a metric assload of simulations to confirm the model we're describing. Such is the life of a grad student. (This cuts my time for the project.) 2) I really, REALLY hate equipment shopping, and every level I hit on this project involves figuring out a typical set of equipment, which involves a lot of budgeting and recalculating and... grrr. I leave arithmetic to the machines. (This means I'm not motivated to do the project.) I might delegate the second option to friends of mine who have more time than I do... but I WILL finish this sooner or later. And when I do, expect a giant Regdar's article on it. Take your time Tempest, I'm sure the wait will be worthy
EvilVegan 07-07-07, 12:21 PM	Just letting everyone know I'm putting my work on hold for a while. I WILL finish it, but I can't finish it now. The reasons for this are twofold. 1) Lab work has stepped up; we've got a paper near publication and I need to do a metric assload of simulations to confirm the model we're describing. Such is the life of a grad student. (This cuts my time for the project.) 2) I really, REALLY hate equipment shopping, and every level I hit on this project involves figuring out a typical set of equipment, which involves a lot of budgeting and recalculating and... grrr. I leave arithmetic to the machines. (This means I'm not motivated to do the project.) I might delegate the second option to friends of mine who have more time than I do... but I WILL finish this sooner or later. And when I do, expect a giant Regdar's article on it. I can't wait (rhetorically speaking of course). It would be nice to have something/somewhere that we can just point to when people (like me) say the ToB is overpowered.
Tempest Stormwind 07-07-07, 12:49 PM	I can't wait (euphemistically speaking of course). It would be nice to have something/somewhere that we can just point to when people (like me) say the ToB is overpowered. Well, in the meantime, I can link the spreadsheet (http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/warbladevsbarbarian.xls), which is finished up to level 7, although I may revise it later once I develop a better way of handling equipment (which I suspect will be the real sore spot). Summary of results (all values are in weighted damage against equivalent CR opponents, using optimal PA for everything): NO CHARGING, first column is Punishing Stance, second is other stances, considered OVER TWO ROUNDS (for repeated tactics) (note: Italic name afterwards is the optimal warblade maneuver. If more than one is listed, they respond to different columns.) Level 1: Warblade by 0.5 / Barbarian by 2.98 Steely Strike Level 2: Barbarian by 1.78 / Barbarian by 3.09 Sapphire Nightmare Blade + Punishing Stance / Steely Strike Level 3: Warblade by 1.19 / Warblade by 1.0 Emerald Razor + Punishing Stance / Rabid Wolf Strike Level 4: Warblade by 1.35 / Barbarian by 2.5 Emerald Razor Level 5: Warblade by 2.7 / Barbarian by 1.06 Bonecrusher Level 6: Barbarian by 4.79 / Barbarian by 10.1 Bonecrusher Level 7: Barbarian by 1.45 / Barbarian by 2.5 Bonecrusher + Punishing Stance / White Raven Strike Average overall results*, no charging: Barbarian by 0.33 / Barbarian by 3.16 CHARGING, first number is stanceless (or no stance that impacts weapon damage or attack rolls), second is with Leading the Charge (if it applies), third is Punishing Stance (-- if the punishing charge imposes too strong an AC hit), considered OVER ONE ROUND as charging is by definition not repeatable and what happens next could just as easily be the earlier study: Level 1: Barbarian by 2.99 / Barbarian by 2.49 / Barbarian by 1.25 Level 2: Barbarian by 3.25 / Barbarian by 2.22 / Barbarian by 1.44 Level 3: Warblade by 1.76 / Warblade by 3.52 / Warblade by 3.81 Battle Leader's Charge Level 4: Warblade by 1.17 / Warblade by 3.70 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Level 5: Warblade by 1.25 / Warblade by 4.74 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Level 6: Warblade by 1.93 / Warblade by 6.14 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Level 7: Warblade by 2.03 / Warblade by 7.17 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Average overall results*, charging: Warblade by 0.27, Warblade by 2.94 with Leading the Charge (Note: It's debatable as to whether Leading the Charge applies to the user; chances are it does not.), Warblade by 0.37 with Punishing Stance. * Determined by treating all warblade values as positive and barbarian values as negative, summing, and averaging over the total levels, just to present a trend. DO NOTE: The damage values here use the best warblade maneuver of any given level but the spreadsheet calculates it for several. On the other ones, the warblade numbers are lower. Overall conclusions, level 1-7: 1) Warblades can deal more damage than barbarians by charging after level 3 (Battle Leader's Charge), but the margin is remarkably low unless Leading the Charge applies to them (which it may not). 2) If the warblade does not use Punishing Stance, then the barbarian consistently outdamages him by a significant margin, except at level 3. If he does use Punishing Stance, he remains either significantly behind the barbarian or slightly ahead of the barbarian. However, he does have numerous options in how to deliver this damage. 3) The warblade has a few "hot spot" levels in which his damage outputs surge from their previous level values. Several of these almost outdo the barbarian, and a few (Level 3 in particular) actually do. FINAL WORD (based on levels 1-7): Warblades DO NOT outdamage the core-only barbarian by any significant margin, except on charges using White Raven maneuvers (and even then, unless Leading the Charge applies to them, the warblade's victory margins are far narrower than the barbarian's, meaning the barbarian's victories are more definitive). In other words, my hypothesis, so far, has been correct.
AAB 07-07-07, 12:58 PM	just curious: how much is a metric assload when converted to standard units?
Tempest Stormwind 07-07-07, 01:03 PM	just curious: how much is a metric assload when converted to standard units? If by "standard" you mean "The back-assward Imperial system that the United States seems to cling to as if it were the only option", exactly eight-ninths of a barrel of water with a dash of salt in it at fifty-four feet above prairie level on a Tuesday, measured via the ever-so-accurate handful. (Why not? That's almost how the Imperial system was developed. Not like it was ever based on physical reality or anything, what with considering "weight" more fundamental than "mass"...)
Meyer_William 07-07-07, 01:12 PM	CHARGING, first number is stanceless (or no stance that impacts weapon damage or attack rolls), second is with Leading the Charge (if it applies), third is Punishing Stance (-- if the punishing charge imposes too strong an AC hit), considered OVER ONE ROUND as charging is by definition not repeatable and what happens next could just as easily be the earlier study: Level 1: Barbarian by 2.99 / Barbarian by 2.49 / Barbarian by 1.25 Level 2: Barbarian by 3.25 / Barbarian by 2.22 / Barbarian by 1.44 Level 3: Warblade by 1.76 / Warblade by 3.52 / Warblade by 3.81 Battle Leader's Charge Level 4: Warblade by 1.17 / Warblade by 3.70 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Level 5: Warblade by 1.25 / Warblade by 4.74 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Level 6: Warblade by 1.93 / Warblade by 6.14 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Level 7: Warblade by 2.03 / Warblade by 7.17 / -- Battle Leader's Charge Average overall results*, charging: Warblade by 0.27, Warblade by 2.94 with Leading the Charge, Warblade by 0.37 with Punishing Stance. Overall conclusions, level 1-7: 1) Warblades can deal more damage than barbarians by charging after level 3 (Battle Leader's Charge), but the margin is remarkably low unless Leading the Charge applies to them (which it may not). 2) If the warblade does not use Punishing Stance, then the barbarian consistently outdamages him by a significant margin, except at level 3. If he does use Punishing Stance, he remains either significantly behind the barbarian or slightly ahead of the barbarian. However, he does have numerous options in how to deliver this damage. 3) The warblade has a few "hot spot" levels in which his damage outputs surge from their previous level values. Several of these almost outdo the barbarian, and a few (Level 3 in particular) actually do. FINAL WORD (based on levels 1-7): Warblades DO NOT outdamage the core-only barbarian by any significant margin, except on charges using White Raven maneuvers (and even then, unless Leading the Charge applies to them, the warblade's victory margins are far narrower than the barbarian's, meaning the barbarian's victories are more definitive). In other words, my hypothesis, so far, has been correct. Does this take into account the new Complete Champions ability for barbarians to full attack at the end of charge?
Crimson_Concerto 07-07-07, 01:22 PM	If by "standard" you mean "The back-assward Imperial system that the United States seems to cling to as if it were the only option", exactly eight-ninths of a barrel of water with a dash of salt in it at fifty-four feet above prairie level on a Tuesday, measured via the ever-so-accurate handful. (Why not? That's almost how the Imperial system was developed. Not like it was ever based on physical reality or anything, what with considering "weight" more fundamental than "mass"...)QFT!
Tempest Stormwind 07-07-07, 01:41 PM	Does this take into account the new Complete Champions ability for barbarians to full attack at the end of charge? No. I deliberately limited it to core-only. If you do factor that in, some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations show that at level 6 and 7 (when he actually *can* full attack, the barbarian surges ahead again (specifically, the pouncing barbarian is ahead by 7.79 / 3.58LTC / --PS and 8.81 / 3.67LTC / --PS). You can also answer this for yourself by downloading that spreadsheet and looking at the math.
MerlintheTuna 07-07-07, 01:52 PM	NO CHARGING, first number is stanceless, second is Punishing Stance, considered OVER TWO ROUNDS (for repeated tactics) (note: Italic name afterwards is the optimal warblade maneuver.) Level 1: Warblade by 0.5 / Barbarian by 2.98 Steely Strike Level 2: Barbarian by 1.78 / Barbarian by 3.09 Steely Strike / Sapphire Nightmare Blade + Punishing StanceSo wait a minute, why does the Warblade's shifting to Punishing Stance cause the Barbarian to outdistance him even more? I assume I'm reading the numbers wrong, here? (Sadly, I don't seem to have Excel on this computer. Guess I'm off to grab OpenOffice.)
Meyer_William 07-07-07, 01:58 PM	No. I deliberately limited it to core-only. If you do factor that in, some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations show that at level 6 and 7 (when he actually *can* full attack, the barbarian surges ahead again (specifically, the pouncing barbarian is ahead by 7.79 / 3.58LTC / --PS and 8.81 / 3.67LTC / --PS). You can also answer this for yourself by downloading that spreadsheet and looking at the math. I hadn't realized that you would be limiting the discussion between a non-core class to a core class, while staying in core-only. Thanks for the clarification.
Tempest Stormwind 07-07-07, 02:14 PM	So wait a minute, why does the Warblade's shifting to Punishing Stance cause the Barbarian to outdistance him even more? I assume I'm reading the numbers wrong, here? (Sadly, I don't seem to have Excel on this computer. Guess I'm off to grab OpenOffice.) Er... I messed up the initial description. The first is Punishing Stance, not the second. SEE THE SPREADSHEET. I hadn't realized that you would be limiting the discussion between a non-core class to a core class, while staying in core-only. Thanks for the clarification.The barbarian is the "control". The warblade is the "experiment". All other variables are held constant (they have identical ability scores, feats (well, just ONE feat, really), gear, and similar).
MerlintheTuna 07-07-07, 02:45 PM	SEE THE SPREADSHEET.Er, see the comment in parentheses mentioning that I apparently don't have any spreadsheet software at the moment? <Shrug>
Tempest Stormwind 07-07-07, 02:56 PM	Er, see the comment in parentheses mentioning that I apparently don't have any spreadsheet software at the moment? <Shrug> Apologies, I should have made it clearer that it was meant as a general statement, not one directed at you. Sorry.
cactot 07-22-07, 03:43 PM	Plus the website with the spreadsheet has been down for a few days... Or at least I am unable to access it. Are there any alternate downloads?
Tempest Stormwind 07-22-07, 04:09 PM	Plus the website with the spreadsheet has been down for a few days... Or at least I am unable to access it. Are there any alternate downloads? The website's my ISP's. It's most likely that you can't access it. I haven't thrown it up anywhere else because this is a work in progress. I really, really need to find a better way to handle equipment... either that or just scrap the defensive calculations altogether and go for a basic 40% cut on the weapon. I think I may do that -- the "unacceptable AC" outcome wasn't changing the results all that much anyway.
wolfie-kun 07-23-07, 11:21 PM	The website's my ISP's. It's most likely that you can't access it. I haven't thrown it up anywhere else because this is a work in progress. I really, really need to find a better way to handle equipment... either that or just scrap the defensive calculations altogether and go for a basic 40% cut on the weapon. I think I may do that -- the "unacceptable AC" outcome wasn't changing the results all that much anyway. The DMG has a list of equipment for an NPC barbarian. I'm sure it would only take a little adjustment from that one to create a similar table for a Warblade. Having the same armor proficiencies helps. >.> If you like the idea but are a little to busy, send me a PM. I should be able to find some time tomorrow to get at least something basic to help you out.
Tempest Stormwind 07-24-07, 12:27 AM	Yeah, I briefly considered the NPC budgets but it's based off of NPC wealth-by-level guidelines. A soulknife -- SOULKNIFE -- gets better weapons than they do. I'm tempted to just ignore defenses altogether (including re-evaluating my old work where AC was a factor) and say "Assuming you spend 40% of your wealth on the best weapon you can afford...". This would strip out everything except damage output, and would leave mitigating factors to the individual to discover.