Post/Author/DateTime	Post
quix0te 04-16-07, 05:07 PM	Let me preface this by saying that I really enjoy the new directions for some of the new splatbooks they put out in the last year. I was particularly blown away by Book Of The Nine Swords. However BOTNS in particular, but also Complete Scoundrel and Spell Compendium seemed to be continually raising the bar on character power. I floated some of the skill tricks from Scoundrel past my friends and one of them was very much "Those seem more like feats.... for only two skill points?!" Now, true, there are pre-reqs for most of the more awesome skill tricks, but there are also pre-reqs for feats. And Acrobatic Backstab and 'Spot the Weak point' seem pretty crazy powerful. For 2 skill points and pre-reqs of skills that are pretty central anyway. By comparison, however, BOTNS is CRAZY powerful. I cant imagine anyone choosing a fighter over one of the Kata Classes. Just to name one, the Mighty Throw from the Setting Sun Katas is, very simply, improved trip, for no feat. And at lvl 7, you can improved trip someone into a friend 20 feet away for 4d6 damage to both of them (reflex save for half). What has been the response of other players and GMs to this? Does everyone agree "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander", and NPCs and PCs alike are suddenly characters in a Wuxia movie? I'm genuinely curious.
Egres 04-16-07, 05:24 PM	This should be posted in the General board. Aside from that, make a quick google search: you'll find plenty of threads showing that the general consensus is that the Bo9S isn't overpowered.
AllisterH 04-16-07, 05:26 PM	<snip Don't have Complete Scoundrel> By comparison, however, BOTNS is CRAZY powerful. I cant imagine anyone choosing a fighter over one of the Kata Classes. Just to name one, the Mighty Throw from the Setting Sun Katas is, very simply, improved trip, for no feat. And at lvl 7, you can improved trip someone into a friend 20 feet away for 4d6 damage to both of them (reflex save for half). What has been the response of other players and GMs to this? Does everyone agree "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander", and NPCs and PCs alike are suddenly characters in a Wuxia movie? I'm genuinely curious. Well, remember, there is the feat Martial Study meaning anyone could select Martial Study (Mighty throw) so it is about worth a feat anyway. So for a non-adept, the question becomes Improved Trip vs Martial Study (Mighty Throw) Advantages of Feat: Improved Trip Can be used to qualify for other feats. Can be used in every round compared to the once an encounter nature of Martial Study for non-adepts or the once every 2 rounds for martial adepts. Advantages of Feat: Martial Study (Mighty Throw) Makes Sense Motive a class skill.
Kazeofwinds 04-16-07, 05:29 PM	Its more or less agreed that core melee is horribly underpowered in comparison to spellcasters (there are some holdouts, but meh). For the most part though, it is considered a good thing that non-casters are being elevated slightly more in comparison to their old power level. As for ToB, it has been mathematically shown that damagewise its about even/slightly less than core melee, but the manuvers add versatility and generally make fighter types more fun to play. On another note, skill trick abilities are generally accepted to be around the strength of those weak feats nobody takes(roughly jalf a feet). Tricks are also limited by character level for how many you can know, and to 1/encounter for use, if my memory is correct. Basically, with the ecxeption of people that belive the fighter to be the pinnacle of core melee class design, the power level really hasnt changed much, though I suppose the overall average has shifte upwarsds slightly, nothing tops 9-level casters. Note on ToB: characters from this book are easier to create well, but the cap for optimize/breakability is far lower, so they seem more powerful, but they really arent any more powerful than a regular melee fighter with some acceptable PrCs, Though they tend to be more versatile and stylish to play. Honestly, I'd have a blast fighting enemies that do more than "It full attacks" or "The tarrasque eats you"
Zagreen 04-16-07, 05:31 PM	Most skill tricks have a limit of one use per combat (or similar period). With that limit they would be stupidly underpowered as feats. A lot of them would be underpowered as feats even if you could use them all the time.
Chie 04-16-07, 05:31 PM	Let me preface this by saying that I really enjoy the new directions for some of the new splatbooks they put out in the last year. I was particularly blown away by Book Of The Nine Swords. However BOTNS in particular, but also Complete Scoundrel and Spell Compendium seemed to be continually raising the bar on character power. I floated some of the skill tricks from Scoundrel past my friends and one of them was very much "Those seem more like feats.... for only two skill points?!" Now, true, there are pre-reqs for most of the more awesome skill tricks, but there are also pre-reqs for feats. And Acrobatic Backstab and 'Spot the Weak point' seem pretty crazy powerful. For 2 skill points and pre-reqs of skills that are pretty central anyway. By comparison, however, BOTNS is CRAZY powerful. I cant imagine anyone choosing a fighter over one of the Kata Classes. Just to name one, the Mighty Throw from the Setting Sun Katas is, very simply, improved trip, for no feat. And at lvl 7, you can improved trip someone into a friend 20 feet away for 4d6 damage to both of them (reflex save for half). What has been the response of other players and GMs to this? Does everyone agree "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander", and NPCs and PCs alike are suddenly characters in a Wuxia movie? I'm genuinely curious. Spot the weak point isn't really that bad considering that you can't get it until about level nine and you have to use a standard action first to use it. And ToB isn't crazy powerful.It just has a lot of new options that make melee fighters more interesting.In the actual use you don't get too much more powerful than the other melee,although you do thankfully get a power increase over fighters.As I'm sure everyone would love to point out once again,fighters are fairly weak compared to most of the other classes.ToB just gives them options and a little bit of a power boost. As with anything when you increase the options of a class or concept you increase it's capabilities.
Tempest Stormwind 04-16-07, 05:37 PM	It's numerically easy to demonstrate that the Book of Nine Swords classes are not more powerful than PHB melee classes. (People have already mentioned some mathematical demonstrations; I've done several of them.) They just have more options to choose from, frequently with regard to mobility or skills, which makes them easily more fun to play than just another full-attack-monkey. The mere addition of counters makes even the most ADD-ridden player* pay attention when it isn't his turn, for instance. All of the complaints about it come from people who haven't thought it through. For instance, your argument on Mighty Throw is wrong. First, it isn't Improved Trip (Improved Trip grants you a free attack if you trip them, which is based off of your own crazy-buffed melee damage, and it can be used to qualify for several other feats). Second, it does cost a feat for anyone except a swordsage to get (and the swordsage is probably the weakest of the three, although he does get the greatest number of unique maneuvers). Third, it doesn't freely upgrade; Mighty Throw on its own cannot toss the opponent into another opponent, nor can it actually deal damage. Fourth, at level 7, 4d6 is pretty shoddy. Fifth, Improved Trip can actually be used on every attack (i.e. if you're making several trip attacks on different opponents, you can trip them and smack them as they fall), while Mighty Throw cannot be used more than once per combat (Swordsages have a terribly slow recovery method and enough readied maneuvers that they're better off not recovering nine times out of ten, although Adaptive Style changes that somewhat). Finally, Improved Trip seems like it'd be perfect for a judo or aikido character, except that monks (the class you'd usually use to make such a character) have severe enough MAD to dump Intelligence (required for Improved Trip), and Improved Trip doesn't let you use Dexterity (speak to anyone who's studied judo and they'll tell you it's far more about reaction time, balance, and movement than just brute-force throwing someone). And that's just your statement on Mighty Throw. Take a look through the maneuvers open to a warblade or crusader; you'll be hard-pressed to find wuxia moves in there unless you distinctly flavor them as such (Diamond Mind and Tiger Claw are the only ones I can think of that could come close -- the former works great for fencers and samurai, the latter for barbarians, rangers, and general mobility monkeys. If those are wuxia, then you did that to them). If anything, of all the inspirational sources they list in the front of the book, it's closest to Soul Calibur -- which, with few exceptions, is nothing but flashy but mundane fantasy melee combat. Both Soul Calibur and the Book of Nine Swords, however, are DYNAMIC melee combat, which is what makes them fun when compared to, say, the original Final Fantasy's battle system or the PHB fighter. I don't own Complete Scoundrel, so I can't comment on it. * Used in the colloquial sense, not a medical sense. I'm a psychology research assistant and was misdiagnosed with ADHD as a kid; I don't intend this remark to offend anyone.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-16-07, 05:42 PM	I don't own Complete Scoundrel, so I can't comment on it. It's meh, but balanced. OP, listen to what this man says, he know his D&D.
adgramaine 04-16-07, 05:46 PM	BOTNS seems powerful, but it isn't overly so. I recently ended a long-running game where the classes within the party included the following: Fighter, Druid, Crusader, Wizard, Ranger, Barbarian, Artificer, Scout, Warlock, Psion, Paladin, Warblade... I think I named them all. Point is, none overshadowed any of the others. Some shined more in certain encounters, but that is to be expected. With the Scout, Artificer, Warblade and Crusader... I was concerned, but unjustifiably so. The barbarian was more of a reliable fighter because the crusader didn't always get a maneuver he needed, but when he did - he flaunted it, appropriately. The warblade and fighter were almost neck and neck the whole way. The psion was heavily relied on because psionics were rare among the local population and the point of the game revolved around psionic themes, but the wizard and druid were more reliable because they could interact with their guilds/orders/whatever, providing something the psion could not. They all started at level one, and ended up between 22 and 28. This went on for quite some time, so I think I can honestly say my conclusion without sounding full of myself. With proper planning and careful consideration of encounters, your balance can not only be maintained, but enjoyed. Back to the issue (what a ramble!)... crusaders I have the most experience with. They don't get to choose their maneuvers; it really is luck of the draw so to speak. That is a real balance issue right there. Fighters and barbarians can do their shtick all day, precluding rage of course. The balance is there, you just have to read these new splats more carefully than the SRD if you want to see it some times. Plus in the fine print somewhere, if I am not mistaken, it says each maneuver can only be used once per encounter. Yes, you can do some fancy dancing, but the trick only works once. Once the orc saw you do that trick, he won't fall for it again. Of course, some feats/maneuvers might allow you to use a maneuver more than once an encounter, but hey look at that: that's a feat slot spent on something other than feats from the ever-popular combat trees. It forces specialization, which can be good. A fighter is always a fighter, gets great feat selection, and can always do what he does. Swordsages (that is the other one, right?), Warblades and crusaders... not so much. If my DM would allow me to put ranks in Spot and Listen as Class Skills, I would always choose the fighter. I would not be limited in my potential, because even a fighter can learn a maneuver or three. Skill Tricks - I love these! They are mini-feats, but they are limited in use, once per encounter if I remember correctly. And, as you said, they cost Skill Points, which lowers the pricey requirements for the Skill Tricks. That balances itself right there. Skill Tricks provide a closing of the gaps between characters without making specialized characters fall from their spotlights. In function, they make a group a tighter unit. And let's face it - it's all about tactics with most encounters, even the non-combat ones. /$0.02 -------------- Wow - I am a slow typer. I thought I'd be the first to respond... but Noooooooooooo.
Chie 04-16-07, 06:15 PM	Plus in the fine print somewhere, if I am not mistaken, it says each maneuver can only be used once per encounter. Yes, you can do some fancy dancing, but the trick only works once. Once the orc saw you do that trick, he won't fall for it again. Of course, some feats/maneuvers might allow you to use a maneuver more than once an encounter, but hey look at that: that's a feat slot spent on something other than feats from the ever-popular combat trees. It forces specialization, which can be good. A fighter is always a fighter, gets great feat selection, and can always do what he does. Swordsages (that is the other one, right?), Warblades and crusaders... not so much. If my DM would allow me to put ranks in Spot and Listen as Class Skills, I would always choose the fighter. I would not be limited in my potential, because even a fighter can learn a maneuver or three. Maneuvers are used once per encounter but each class has a way to recover them during the battle so you can use them more than once if you really want to.
adgramaine 04-16-07, 06:20 PM	Ah - thanks for pointing that out. Me being with the swiss cheese for brains. :D
MerlintheTuna 04-16-07, 06:22 PM	It's meh, but balanced. OP, listen to what this man says, he know his D&D.CScoundrel isn't balanced, unless by "balanced" you mean "considerably weaker than most existing options." I mean, honestly, have you looked at the prestige classes? Cloaked Dancer? Master of Masks? A few of the feats are okay, but I've found Complete Scoundrel to be a lot of flash and not a lot of oomph. The skill tricks are neat. They are, indeed, almost as good as some feats. Incidentally, they're better than feats that no one in their right mind took. They're not making the similar feats obsolete. The feats were so terrible that they made themselves obsolete.
quix0te 04-16-07, 06:36 PM	Thanks. I will freely admit I didnt catch the "one use per encounter" limitation for the skill tricks, which makes them much less broken. And if you say that BoT9S is reasonably balanced, I'll take your word for it. This was actually exactly what I wanted, which was a summary of the, no doubt, pages long arguments over this. Thanks for being non-flamey over this. I come from mostly Hero System, and so does my main gaming group, so we all pretty much discuss whether something is balanced before we put it into play, and then retcon it up or down if it doesnt work out.
allenchan 04-16-07, 06:36 PM	The skill tricks are neat. They are, indeed, almost as good as some feats. Incidentally, they're better than feats that no one in their right mind took. They're not making the similar feats obsolete. The feats were so terrible that they made themselves obsolete. Exactly. My first thought on Scoundrel's Skill Tricks was, "Wait, isn't there already a feat for this?" And immediately after, "Yes, there is. But no one in their right mind would have ever taken it. This is a good alternative."
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-16-07, 06:41 PM	CScoundrel isn't balanced, unless by "balanced" you mean "considerably weaker than most existing options." I mean, honestly, have you looked at the prestige classes? Cloaked Dancer? Master of Masks? A few of the feats are okay, but I've found Complete Scoundrel to be a lot of flash and not a lot of oomph. The skill tricks are neat. They are, indeed, almost as good as some feats. Incidentally, they're better than feats that no one in their right mind took. They're not making the similar feats obsolete. The feats were so terrible that they made themselves obsolete. That's actually what I meant yeah. Just didn't feel like typing it out.
adgramaine 04-16-07, 07:00 PM	I come from mostly Hero System, and so does my main gaming group, so we all pretty much discuss whether something is balanced before we put it into play, and then retcon it up or down if it doesn't work out. Then by all means, try it out. The balance is there; if it's not what you had in mind, you have the number-crunching skills to make it what you need it to be! :D