Complete Warrior versus Sword and Fist - Which one to get? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Complete Warrior versus Sword and Fist - Which one to get? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
TheWhiteHand
10-29-04, 09:35 AM Greetings!

I am JUST getting back into D&D, both using the books to help inspiring some of my writing as well as considering trying to pull a group together to DM. Anyways, I currently have all the new core 3.5 rules. I was wondering, is the Complete Warrior an update to Sword and First, or are they both good in thier own right? Are they both compatible with the 3.5 ruleset? The same question applies to the rest of the Complete and Guidebook series of books. Which should I buy (or all)?

Sincerely,
Rob Harris
kakitadaiymo@yahoo.com
Villa Park, IL
Seeker95
10-29-04, 09:41 AM Complete Warrior is 3.5
Sword & Fist is 3.0

Complete Warrior is far more "balanced" than Sword & Fist.
It was written with more attention to compatibility with core.
However, it too has a few Cut'n'Paste balance problems.

If you are playing 3.5, go with the Complete line.
simen_88
10-29-04, 11:57 AM Agreed, CW contains much more and better information, mainly PrCs. Sword and Fist is pretty much useless compared to it in a 3,5 campaign.
Ogre4Hire
10-29-04, 12:02 PM One of Sword & Fist's most glaring problems is that it came out very shortly after 3E was released, and many of the rules were not completely hammered down yet. This means that there's a lot of problems with balance in S&F, especially with the PRCs and the new Exotic Weapons (the Mercurial Greatsword is VASTLY overpowered).

Complete Warrior, on the other hand, lacks most of the mistakes made in S&F. It's also much longer, and a hardcover (making it more durable) and the artwork is both in color and higher quality.
Stuntman
10-29-04, 01:23 PM You are much better off with the Complete Warrior because it is more balanced, more up to date (it is 3.5) and more comprehensive.
Aramil_silverwind
10-29-04, 01:42 PM If you're a player, you're PROBABLY going to want to use S&F because of its power factor. I would take Weapon Master over Kensai any day of the week.

CW is more balanced, not going to deny that... your DM is alot more likely to accpet material from that book than from S&F.

In the end, its your choice. S&F has alot of NPC-esque classes that I've found use for as a DM (like the Devoted Defender and the Dread Pirate) but other than Master of Chains, and Weapon Master theres not much for players PrC wise.

Theres some good feats, but most of them where repringted in CW.

I personally have both, and I'm not sure wich one I use more.
Seeker95
10-29-04, 02:55 PM If you're a player, you're PROBABLY going to want to use S&F because of its power factor.I you're a player, then what you can use from this supplement is entirely out of your hands. Aramil said you will want S&F because of its power. I would argue the opposite. The power in S&F will make you feel pathetic and insignificant as you realize what you are missing, since your DM has probably come to his or her senses and banned the vast majority of the things that you would want in the first place.

You're better off getting Complete Warrior (assuming you are playing 3.5) because it is:
1: 3.5
2: More balanced
3: Inclusive of much of the S&F material
4: More likely to be permitted by your DM
the_narrator
10-29-04, 03:12 PM i'd say go for complete warrior. because i hate sword and fist. actually, i'd say S&F should be renamed "Fist". 'cause it's mostly for monks anyways. the CW is alot more focused on warriors, and is generally more better.
Sensei Gith
10-29-04, 04:24 PM If you do get S&F (which I don't recommend— CW is much better), make sure you buy the second printing. Most of the biggest balance problems were fixed.
Ranger REG
10-29-04, 09:37 PM I am JUST getting back into D&D, both using the books to help inspiring some of my writing as well as considering trying to pull a group together to DM. Anyways, I currently have all the new core 3.5 rules. I was wondering, is the Complete Warrior an update to Sword and First, or are they both good in thier own right? Are they both compatible with the 3.5 ruleset? The same question applies to the rest of the Complete and Guidebook series of books. Which should I buy (or all)?
If you're new with 3.5e, stick with the compatible Complete Warrior for convenience purpose.

Once you are familiar with 3.5e, then you can try and pick up 3.0e Sword and Fist and do your own conversion/update 3.5e rules.
CzarGarrett
10-29-04, 09:41 PM Besides, Sword and Fist's material was, for the most part, reprinted in Complete Warrior.

There's some stuff not there, but a fair amount is.
Ranger REG
10-29-04, 09:49 PM Besides, Sword and Fist's material was, for the most part, reprinted in Complete Warrior.

There's some stuff not there, but a fair amount is.
Yeah, but if I've had my way, I'd rather have that Master Samurai PrC ported over and updated to 3.5e, rather than see that drek of a Samurai character class in CW.

On the bright side, it forced me to reverse my stance on OA Samurai class (used to hate it, now embraced it). ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TheWhiteHand 10-29-04, 09:35 AM	Greetings! I am JUST getting back into D&D, both using the books to help inspiring some of my writing as well as considering trying to pull a group together to DM. Anyways, I currently have all the new core 3.5 rules. I was wondering, is the Complete Warrior an update to Sword and First, or are they both good in thier own right? Are they both compatible with the 3.5 ruleset? The same question applies to the rest of the Complete and Guidebook series of books. Which should I buy (or all)? Sincerely, Rob Harris kakitadaiymo@yahoo.com Villa Park, IL
Seeker95 10-29-04, 09:41 AM	Complete Warrior is 3.5 Sword & Fist is 3.0 Complete Warrior is far more "balanced" than Sword & Fist. It was written with more attention to compatibility with core. However, it too has a few Cut'n'Paste balance problems. If you are playing 3.5, go with the Complete line.
simen_88 10-29-04, 11:57 AM	Agreed, CW contains much more and better information, mainly PrCs. Sword and Fist is pretty much useless compared to it in a 3,5 campaign.
Ogre4Hire 10-29-04, 12:02 PM	One of Sword & Fist's most glaring problems is that it came out very shortly after 3E was released, and many of the rules were not completely hammered down yet. This means that there's a lot of problems with balance in S&F, especially with the PRCs and the new Exotic Weapons (the Mercurial Greatsword is VASTLY overpowered). Complete Warrior, on the other hand, lacks most of the mistakes made in S&F. It's also much longer, and a hardcover (making it more durable) and the artwork is both in color and higher quality.
Stuntman 10-29-04, 01:23 PM	You are much better off with the Complete Warrior because it is more balanced, more up to date (it is 3.5) and more comprehensive.
Aramil_silverwind 10-29-04, 01:42 PM	If you're a player, you're PROBABLY going to want to use S&F because of its power factor. I would take Weapon Master over Kensai any day of the week. CW is more balanced, not going to deny that... your DM is alot more likely to accpet material from that book than from S&F. In the end, its your choice. S&F has alot of NPC-esque classes that I've found use for as a DM (like the Devoted Defender and the Dread Pirate) but other than Master of Chains, and Weapon Master theres not much for players PrC wise. Theres some good feats, but most of them where repringted in CW. I personally have both, and I'm not sure wich one I use more.
Seeker95 10-29-04, 02:55 PM	If you're a player, you're PROBABLY going to want to use S&F because of its power factor.I you're a player, then what you can use from this supplement is entirely out of your hands. Aramil said you will want S&F because of its power. I would argue the opposite. The power in S&F will make you feel pathetic and insignificant as you realize what you are missing, since your DM has probably come to his or her senses and banned the vast majority of the things that you would want in the first place. You're better off getting Complete Warrior (assuming you are playing 3.5) because it is: 1: 3.5 2: More balanced 3: Inclusive of much of the S&F material 4: More likely to be permitted by your DM
the_narrator 10-29-04, 03:12 PM	i'd say go for complete warrior. because i hate sword and fist. actually, i'd say S&F should be renamed "Fist". 'cause it's mostly for monks anyways. the CW is alot more focused on warriors, and is generally more better.
Sensei Gith 10-29-04, 04:24 PM	If you do get S&F (which I don't recommend— CW is much better), make sure you buy the second printing. Most of the biggest balance problems were fixed.
Ranger REG 10-29-04, 09:37 PM	I am JUST getting back into D&D, both using the books to help inspiring some of my writing as well as considering trying to pull a group together to DM. Anyways, I currently have all the new core 3.5 rules. I was wondering, is the Complete Warrior an update to Sword and First, or are they both good in thier own right? Are they both compatible with the 3.5 ruleset? The same question applies to the rest of the Complete and Guidebook series of books. Which should I buy (or all)? If you're new with 3.5e, stick with the compatible Complete Warrior for convenience purpose. Once you are familiar with 3.5e, then you can try and pick up 3.0e Sword and Fist and do your own conversion/update 3.5e rules.
CzarGarrett 10-29-04, 09:41 PM	Besides, Sword and Fist's material was, for the most part, reprinted in Complete Warrior. There's some stuff not there, but a fair amount is.
Ranger REG 10-29-04, 09:49 PM	Besides, Sword and Fist's material was, for the most part, reprinted in Complete Warrior. There's some stuff not there, but a fair amount is. Yeah, but if I've had my way, I'd rather have that Master Samurai PrC ported over and updated to 3.5e, rather than see that drek of a Samurai character class in CW. On the bright side, it forced me to reverse my stance on OA Samurai class (used to hate it, now embraced it). ;)