Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-04-06, 12:50 PM	The arguement is over! This thread is no longer nessary.
DarknessEternal 11-04-06, 01:34 PM	First of all, he loves spellcasters and seems to think that fighters exist only to be meat shields. If that's true, you probably can't convince him of anything. Stop playing with people who are unreasonable.
Telemon_Ajax 11-04-06, 02:14 PM	Tell him to stop being an idiot and to get over his spellcaster fetish. Seriously, he doesn't like the fact that fighters almost got balanced with ToB?
Shaggy_Shaggs 11-04-06, 02:20 PM	Tell him "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." If he starts to argue, slap him hard and repeat "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." Continue this process until any time he sees your hand move, whether or not you're in reach or making a slapping movement, he reflexively and automatically recites "It's okay for warrior types not to suck."
FrostHammer 11-04-06, 02:21 PM	Play with another DM.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-04-06, 02:29 PM	He thinks that the warblade is overpowered since he can get his manuvers back with a swift action and the 9th level iron heart manuver deals 100 damage (yes, he condems an entire dicipline because of one manuver, a manuver whose damage is outshined by 9th level spells), he thinks swordsages are overpowered because of the desert wind fire manuvers, and while he has no specific qualms about the crusader he condems it because the other two are "overpowered". And as for his opinion of fighters, he will go on LONG rants on why 20th level core-only fighters are completely balanced.
DreamerInsane 11-04-06, 03:26 PM	That can't be solved by anything short of brainwashing, I'm afraid...
highbulp 11-04-06, 04:10 PM	Or, you could realize that maybe your DM doesn't like this class (for whatever reason, intelligent or not) and then play something else. Basically he's saying "I don't want ToB in my campaign." So don't use it. Just a thought.
KoboldDragoon 11-04-06, 04:14 PM	Tell him "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." If he starts to argue, slap him hard and repeat "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." Continue this process until any time he sees your hand move, whether or not you're in reach or making a slapping movement, he reflexively and automatically recites "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." :D This had me cracking up.
Hack and Smasher 11-04-06, 04:17 PM	And as for his opinion of fighters, he will go on LONG rants on why 20th level core-only fighters are completely balanced. I LOLed hard. Oh on the chance this is a serious post. Start to DM, its not hard. Theres some downloadable modules to get you started on D&D homepage.
Hack and Smasher 11-04-06, 04:19 PM	And as for his opinion of fighters, he will go on LONG rants on why 20th level core-only fighters are completely balanced. I LOLed hard. Oh on the chance this is a serious post. Start to DM, its not hard. Theres some downloadable modules to get you started on D&D homepage.
The_Puppetmaster 11-04-06, 04:21 PM	Anyway, he flat out banned the warblade and has insigated a fatal nerf into the other two: ToB classes can only recover their manuvers oncer per day per intelegence bonus plus 2. Maybe your DM should learn the rules first. If he wants to ban ToB, play druid 20, or cleric 20 with DMM persisted. He will cry. Then play a warblade. You'll be ok after that. :D
ressurrector 11-04-06, 06:43 PM	Hi. I recently played Red Hand of Doom using a swordsage, and made my DM loath the ToB. I used the Desert Wind manuver that deals fire damage in a radius when you hit an enemy, and that ENRAGED my DM. Just FYI, the Desert Wind AoE maneuvers, unless they say you make an attack, do not include an attack. Also, there's reflex saves for half, just in case you forgot. As far as the problem with your DM, play a caster, or a multiclass melee/caster. If you really want to show how fighters are not balanced, play a Druid or Cleric, boost str and con, and start owning things in melee. This guy's never played a melee character in his life I'll bet. (you might also want to mention that vs high CR monsters, the meatshields are pretty much auto-hit and taken down within a couple rounds or more)
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-04-06, 07:11 PM	He's normally a good DM, and I do DM, but he is a little picky in the fighter catigory. He thinks that "It's not realistic that swinging a sword at someone can do as much damage as being hit by a lightning bolt or a meteor!" I tried pointing out that this is a GAME, and a game isn't fun if a party member completely upstages you. He didn't listen though, and went into a rant about how dealing 100 points of damage every round is completely overpowered, although he turned a deaf ear when I pointed out Meteor Swarm, Disintigrate, and Wail of the Banshee, not to mention Wish (which in his game has the capability make someone instantly fail their next saving throw, finger of death anyone?). All of which are gained at the same level or before Strike of Perfect Clarity. As for my becoming the DM, I do. We take turns DMing, and I'm working on my next campaign. As for playing a DVMM-persistant cleric, he has a tendency to fly into a "metagaming rage" when I try stuff like that.
Shaggy_Shaggs 11-04-06, 07:18 PM	Yeah, this guy definitely needs some intensive slap therapy/brainwashing. The side of his head will probably be a mushy purple mess before you penetrate the skull, but if you can't just abandon him entirely, stick with it, you'll get results sooner or later.
Comus 11-04-06, 07:27 PM	Play a sorcerer, wizard, cleric, druid, or anything else that has full spellcasting progression. If he loves them so much, then play one yourself. Heck, just go to the CharOp board, give them a level and the books you're using (not that you need much more than core+completes for this) and let them build you a full caster. They're the only people I've ever seen that can 'win' D&D. ProTip: If the DM is nerfing something, don't play it. He doesn't like it, and wants to make sure you won't either.
The_Puppetmaster 11-04-06, 07:27 PM	"It's not realistic that swinging a sword at someone can do as much damage as being hit by a lightning bolt or a meteor!" You did the right thing in telling him this is a game and not about realism. You may just have to hammer this into his head until he gets it. Keep it up, every session if you have to. He'll cave in eventually. dealing 100 points of damage every round is completely overpowered At best, its only once every other round. Round 1: SoPC Round 2: Refresh via single attack or doing nothing Repeat steps 1 and 2 as neccessary. And its no better that half the stuff a primary spellcaster can do. Again, keep at it. You're on the right track. He has a very 1st edition mindset... You're looking at playing a warblade, so you are playing 3.5 edition. I surmize that so are your other players. Whip out the 3.5 edition DMG and hit him with it, along with the phraze, "Get with the program." If he wantes to DM 1st edition tell him to go find a 1st edition group. He has never had a BBEG who wasn't a wizard. (well, one was a sorcerer) That would get old quick... no dragons, no pit fiends, no conniving and secret organizations... I wouldn't play it after the thrid consecutive cookie cutter "I'm taking over the world" wizard character. As for my becoming the DM, I do. Do you enjoy it? How about really enjoy it? If so, take the reins. See how everyone else likes the idea of you permaDMing. To me, it sounds like I'd have a blast playing (even though I myself am always a DM) under your campaign. I think I'd leave this guy's group though... sounds borish. As for playing a DVMM-persistant cleric, he has a tendency to fly into a "metagaming rage" when I try stuff like that. ... not surprized. :D EDIT: lol at comus They're the only people I've ever seen that can 'win' D&D.
NineInchNall 11-04-06, 08:16 PM	This is pretty much the same experience that I've had with the books. DMs are so totally unused to seeing martial characters perform poorly that they cry foul upon seeing them perform adequately. Not well, just adequately. It's going to take a long, long time, I think, for the entrenched DM to undergo a pardigm shift.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-04-06, 08:18 PM	You hit the nail on the head Nineinchnail. He has never experenced anything that suggests fighters are not underpowered (from WotC), so when he does he panicked.
ShadowDragon8685 11-04-06, 11:24 PM	There can be only one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801) soloution for a DM so broken. Use your power wisely, my friend. Use it well.
Salla 11-05-06, 12:24 AM	That can't be solved by anything short of brainwashing, I'm afraid... Pretty small load of laundry, this.
draco1119 11-05-06, 03:56 AM	Play an Abjurant Champion from Complete Mage. Once you've hit the example they use (Fighter 7/Wizard 1/Abjurant Champion 5), cast Mage Armor and Shield on yourself once/day. Now, if you don't have this book, you're wondering why. Answer: At 1st level, you add your class level to any bonuses given by Abjuration spells. At 2nd level, any Abjuration spell you cast is automatically Extended and Quickened. At 5th level, your BAB becomes your caster level. What does this mean, in cold hard numbers? +9 AC for 24 hours (Mage Armor), +9 AC for 24 minutes (Shield). Add in higher level spells like Protection from Arrows, Protection from Energy, etc... :evillaugh
Vaelan 11-05-06, 09:03 AM	First of all, this nerf is practically nothing for a Swordsage. Put a few more points into Intelligence and take Adaptive Style. You can use your maneuvers until the spellcasters run out of spells, which is the true measure of a day in D&D. If you are convinced to play something else, I would play a Fighter/Wizard that happens to do things in a fashion similar to that of a Swordsage. Channel a spell through your sword (Spellsword) that deals 6d6 fire damage (probably more) and compare it to any number of Desert Wind maneuvers. Show him how similar such characters are and let him come to the conclusion that he was being an idiot. Second, the idea that it is okay for fighters not to "suck" fails to take into account the fact that the game is balanced, to an extent, upon the premise that fighters "suck". Replace the Fighter in an iconic party with something that doesn't "suck" and you've just made every encounter in which the Fighter would have contributed less easier. The balance between the party and encounters of CR equalling their average level was damaged. I'm not trying to justify your DM here, since his solution tells us that he isn't acting out of balance concerns, but it is the job of the DMs to look at the bigger picture if their players dwell upon the petty form of "balance" that is espoused on these boards.
Kradlo 11-05-06, 12:53 PM	The Game Master is the final arbiter of which game supplements he will or won't incorporate into his campaign. He can modify them as he deems reasonable. That's Rule Zero. You can't force him to change his mind, but you can try to diplomatically convince him that the campaign will not suffer if the ToB classes are allowed as written. If he remains adamant, you can either roll with it or walk (Rule Minus One - Players Can Vote With Their Feet). If you really want to show him that swordsages are balanced, run a game with him as a player, and let him see them play.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 11-05-06, 01:03 PM	Set up some mock battles and prove why fighters are completely unnecessary at mid to high levels. Every time he has a qualm about it. Answer it; give him everything that he wants as proof. Also, while you're doing this be sure to speak calmly and in a kind tone. Be sure to let him know that you're not attacking him. Be sure to let him know that you understand his view, and remark on how his argument might seem to make sense intellectually, but show him that in reality it doesn't hold up, and fighters get ganked. :)
Vestigial_Thumb 11-05-06, 01:54 PM	The Game Master is the final arbiter of which game supplements he will or won't incorporate into his campaign. He can modify them as he deems reasonable. But he also has to realize that what he's doing may not be smart and if he wants to modify something, he should do so with an open mind. That DM is clearly not doing his duty and deserves any harm the players deem reasonable to inflict upon him.
IceFractal 11-05-06, 02:33 PM	I think you could convince him to unnerf ToB quite easily. Just make a slight change: Swordsage -> WizardSage Warblade -> WarSorcerer And say everything they do is a spell. For instance, instead of saying "I use the Steel Wind manuever to strike two foes as one", say "I cast the 'Arcane Steel Wind of Magickness' invocation to magically hit two foes ... with magic". Given his stated opinions on the matter, than should resolve things. :rolleyes: Seriously though - the DM is flat-out biased. You can either play a spellcaster, play a sideline character, or join a different campaign. If other people feel the same way you do, maybe you can get your campaign started early, and get back to his campaign "later" (if and when he stops being a jackass).
Tempest Stormwind 11-05-06, 03:28 PM	There can be only one (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=491801) soloution for a DM so broken. Use your power wisely, my friend. Use it well. *rolls up newspaper* *bats ShadowDragon8685* No. No. Pun-Pun is NOT a solution to anything in-game. He's a thought experiment, nothing more. See the LordofProcrastination quote in my sig. As has been said, there's nothing wrong with the ToB. We have one party member who's a swordsage (specializing in the Shadow Hand; he's got some levels elsewhere, such as in ninja and monk -- his attack bonus is pretty low as a result). He attacked an enemy with a flurry, Flashing Sun, and Burning Blade active, striking to subdue -- and ended up dealing 59 subdual damage and 23 fire damage in that full attack, killing the NPC instantly. 72 damage at level 5. He thought his character needed a tone-down (as would your DM) -- until the DM revealed what that NPC was, and the circumstances leading up to the attack. 1) The NPC was a mage, meaning low hit points for her level. The DM also revealed later that she had a lowish Constitution. 2) The NPC was, at the time, GRAPPLED by another party member, meaning she had no Dexterity bonus to AC, and she wasn't wearing armor (mage). (The swordsage got lucky and didn't hit the other party member.) This also accounted for a significant chunk of his attack damage (just under half of the physical damage), which stemmed from Sudden Strike. 3) The swordsage's attack bonus was pitiful, especially for a primary melee character -- none of the attack rolls would have stood a chance of hitting the *real* villain in the encounter (the mage was a support character). If he struck to kill, and didn't flurry, he MIGHT be able to hit him. Against an essentially helpless mage, though... 4) After blowing these maneuvers on the mage, he has to spend a full round recovering each one -- and this is problematic given how he was essentially in melee at the time, where a wasted round could spell death. 5) This was all against a single target and hinged on attack rolls (see 3), and the damage was *overkill*. A mage at the time could dish out *enough* damage to kill a lot of people in a large area with a single spell -- as we were reminded of when we ate a fireball earlier in the session (though we were fortunate and survived). The only reason this isn't apparent in our group is that I'm the mage-type, and I focus on nondamaging, defensive, and utility tricks instead (which pays off more in the long run and is more rewarding and fun to play, in my opinion). (Due to his own intense ability score demands (Wisdom, Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence), he has a lowish Constitution to boot, and actually has fewer hit points than my character, a psion (d4 HD with 14 Con). The one Magic Missile spell he ate brought him to 8 hit points. At level 5, in a melee character. Can you say "glass cannon"?) In fact, mostly because of number 4, I had to end up coccooning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/ectoplasmicCocoon.htm) him, just so he didn't get slaughtered by the villain before the healer could get to him (it also gave him a chance to recover the maneuvers he blatantly spent on the now-dead mage). Had he been left free, we'd have lost a party member (as the main enemy could easily have run him through (it wouldn't have been hard to take him to -10 in one hit, and he had two attacks), and had story reasons to do so after his actions). Now, granted, he's not *pure* swordsage, and his attack bonus and hit points would probably be better if he were. But swordsage accounted for the majority of his damage there (especially when you factor 2 into account), which is akin to a nova attack (as after he blew it on the mage, he'd be unable to use those maneuvers on the *real* villain -- effectively, were he a mage, he just fired all of his scorching rays into illusions instead of the real target). Essentially, he blew all his ammo on a dummy target -- while tempting and satisfying, it won't pay off in the long run. Yes, it's big damage. No, it's not a problem. Enough things hold it back from being a problem. And our DM (and most of the rest of the party) recognizes this, being very familiar with the rules -- this means we don't do knee-jerk reactions. I suspect your DM would dislike duskblades for the same reason, and they're fine as well. Now, if you want to convince your DM that fighters shouldn't be weak, there's no real way of doing that in the rules. Playing a caster character (i.e. CoDzilla) will only serve to reaffirm his belief in the strength of casters over martial characters. The strongest pre-ToB martial characters with respect to damage are well-built Frenzied Berserkers, Dervishes, or Revenant Blades (Player's Guide to Eberron), usually a combination of RB and one of the others. Playing one of these, if you know what you're doing, can show him that they can be powerful on the damage front. The best options for a pure fighter, pre-ToB, would be to focus on a spiked chain and fancy battlefield control techniques. You're not damaging, but you're a walking Black Tentacles spell if you're doing things right. You'll rely on enlargement spells as levels go up, admittedly, but pre-ToB, no noncaster could get by at higher levels without some amount of magic overall. (Oh, and speaking of: Don't neglect Intimidate. -1 to enemy saves means that the caster's save-or-dies are just that much more likely to work, at no action cost to the caster. It's not a great support role (unless you REALLY focus on this and get feats to buff it up), but it's a way you can help when weapons won't solve the problem.)
angryman 11-05-06, 07:56 PM	Tell him "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." If he starts to argue, slap him hard and repeat "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." Continue this process until any time he sees your hand move, whether or not you're in reach or making a slapping movement, he reflexively and automatically recites "It's okay for warrior types not to suck." As violent and hilarious as this is...naah, it's just funny. :D
Gale 11-05-06, 08:05 PM	My DM had also questioned the balance of a swordsage when I found ot that my lvl5 swordsage(who for the exception of a few shadow hand manuevers uses desert wind manuevers) could do 6d6 of damage. Basically I started to show comparisen to other classes and stating that it has weakness (which I will probably regret in the futer for mentioning :weep: ). and then ended it with a star wars quote: "strike me down, and I will become more powerfull than you could ever imagine". He believes that statement since I have a habit of creating godly characters if I wish it. :P
Tiefling_Warlock 11-05-06, 11:19 PM	He thinks that "It's not realistic that swinging a sword at someone can do as much damage as being hit by a lightning bolt or a meteor!" Yes, and an old man muttering and waving his hands around to make a lighting bolt is much more realistic
Thanqol 11-05-06, 11:56 PM	I, personally, dislike the ToB with a passion - Heavens help you if you want to play any of those abominations in my game. I mostly detest that WotC published a huge erratia for the fighter class and expects me to buy it if I ever want to play a sword swinger again. So I personally ban them before they can blink, and offer a power up to standard warrior classes instead. R.E. Martial characters becoming better: The classes from the ToB arn't actually martial characters. They're spellcasters with reflavoured, melee-focused magic. Just my opinion; I've got friends who swear by the book, but I've never stopped hating it.
ressurrector 11-06-06, 01:16 AM	I would be interested in what "power up"s you give to standard warrior classes.
Krusk 11-06-06, 03:08 AM	honestly, just play a Vow of Poverty druid who focuses on wildshape. It will be the most obnoxious thing he has ever seen. Especially if you stay in animal form 24/7. He will have to find a way to motivate you that dosnt include money, magic items, or the safety of a town. Then he will have to find a way for the Npcs to communicate with you. Then once you agree somehow to do some sort of quest he will have to find a way to convince you to bring a bunch of matierilistic people with you, that you cant communicate with that are slowing you down. to top it off you could probably achieve your goal faster if you just flew there turned into a polar bear and killed everyone who was angering you. Then after 25 min of the session running like "so you enter the town -wait why would i go into a town, im sitting in the woods., fine your in the woods when a woodsman approaches you. He asks you -wait, im a leapord why would he talk to me., fine another druid approaches. He asks you to take these people with you to stop someone from destroying all of elven kind- wait why do i care about elfs they deserve it for being materialistic. Fine go save the forest from this guy. Ok, i turn into a bird fly into the biggest buildings window, find a bedroom and wait. when someone comes in i turn into a polar bear and attack. repeat. you return 45 min later to report as finished and the rest of the party is just finished restockign supplies. Time for a new quest, so repeat all steps, but now for some reason you have to bring these people with you. and for some reason all they care about is money. but for some weird reason you arent allowed to leave them to die. They keep fighting all the monsters on the way, when you could easily fly over/around/ away from them. finally when the other players ask you to play something that speaks, play a half ogre barbarian with str 18, int 5 befor racial mods. eventually he will beg you to play your swordsage
Andorxor 11-06-06, 03:38 AM	wait why do i care about elfs they deserve it for being materialistic He would loose his vow for not being exalted
Krusk 11-06-06, 04:28 PM	He would loose his vow for not being exalted sorry my one example was off. please ignore that one sentince of my previous post. your correct, unless the druid has decided that people who value money and possessions over anything else are not good. now you get to argue alignment which im not going to do because it never ends in a definate answer, but always railroads a thread off track.
Mordar 11-06-06, 09:28 PM	sometimes there is no reasoning whatsoever to that kind of people, I play with a DM that thinks that a gish is useless at everything, even for fun, he thinks also that the main role of a sorcerer is being back in the line firing spells, thus he thinks master transmogrifist is useless for any spellcaster because "spellcasters are just spellcasters, anything that gives then the ability of acting like a fighter is useless, and goes against the flavour of the class" and such, he also nerfed anything from TOB, meaning you can only recover maneuvers ONCE PER DAY (yeah...like spellcasting :s), he also thinks fighter are meatballs and are extremely powerfull because they have "OMG BONUS FEATS", he also thinks a lvl 20 fighter can be macht for a lvl 20 wizard....and the list goes on and on and on and on
Drachasor 11-07-06, 02:02 PM	I, personally, dislike the ToB with a passion - Heavens help you if you want to play any of those abominations in my game. I mostly detest that WotC published a huge erratia for the fighter class and expects me to buy it if I ever want to play a sword swinger again. So I personally ban them before they can blink, and offer a power up to standard warrior classes instead. R.E. Martial characters becoming better: The classes from the ToB arn't actually martial characters. They're spellcasters with reflavoured, melee-focused magic. Just my opinion; I've got friends who swear by the book, but I've never stopped hating it. Are you power-ups as interesting and engaging as the options in the ToB? Fighter-types being weak is a problem. An equally big or even bigger problems is that they are boring to play (compared to casters). They lack really different options. ToB gives fighter-types a lot of different and interesting options. Most of those options are not really magical to any degree (certainly not according to the game mechanics). All it does is give a very different mechanic and flavor to a good assortment of moves. It's a variety the fighting classes have desperately needed. So sure, in a sense they are reflavored spellcasters. That just means the designers took something that worked and was interesting (the spell system) and retooled it to be a melee attack system. There's nothing wrong with that, and the flavor they gave it (of melee combat) WORKS. All it does is allow melee types to do amazing physical feats like they do in fantasy literature. It also allows them to be very effective in combat and carry their own weight well. Spellcasters shouldn't dominate battles, and now they don't have to. Anyhow, either you'd have to reinvent ToB or your fix is just going to be giving warriors and such a set of optinos that are not very interesting compared to spellcasters. And that doesn't fix the problem. -Drachasor
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-07-06, 06:45 PM	I had a new arguement with my DM, apparently I was wrong about my assumptions that he thought that fighters were supposed to be underpowered. He thinks that a 20th level fighter is stronger than a 20th level spellcaster. I almost passed out laughing at that, but he then told me that because of this one feat that prevents casters from casting defencivly that his fighter could own a mage of equal level. He then said that high-end damage spells did LESS damage than magic weapons, and once again I was able to restrain myself from laughing. He then told me that warblades are completely broken no matter how you play them, because they can use their manuvers unlimited times per day and can recover them with a swift action. I edited the front post to match this new revolation. I told him that I would prove him wrong with a cleric using divine metamagic to persistantify divine power, and he told me he would send a bunch of homebrew monsters that instantly dispelled all divine spells and prevented them from being used. He then told me this was NOT metagaming.
Thanqol 11-07-06, 08:08 PM	Are you power-ups as interesting and engaging as the options in the ToB? Fighter-types being weak is a problem. An equally big or even bigger problems is that they are boring to play (compared to casters). They lack really different options. ToB gives fighter-types a lot of different and interesting options. Most of those options are not really magical to any degree (certainly not according to the game mechanics). All it does is give a very different mechanic and flavor to a good assortment of moves. It's a variety the fighting classes have desperately needed. It might just be my style of play, which is online mostly and therby very description-intensive, but fighters are very, very interesting to play when people can describe their moves however they want. In tabletop I tend to end up in a lot of dungeons and my wizard kicks his heels and mutters to himself because he can't use any of his good spells in the cramped quarters while the fighters are the stars of the show. And they're having a ton of fun. Again, just my style of play. So sure, in a sense they are reflavored spellcasters. That just means the designers took something that worked and was interesting (the spell system) and retooled it to be a melee attack system. There's nothing wrong with that, and the flavor they gave it (of melee combat) WORKS. The spellcasting system is particularly complex, and very defined. It's tough to improvise a lightning bolt's thematics - while a fighter making that attack roll could be doing *anything*. Which makes wizards as dull as dirt in online play. All it does is allow melee types to do amazing physical feats like they do in fantasy literature. It also allows them to be very effective in combat and carry their own weight well. Spellcasters shouldn't dominate battles, and now they don't have to. I'm not defending the classes as they are. I'm saying that being sold an erratia for the fighter class for seventy dollars Australian makes me wanna kick WotC in the teeth. Especially when heroic, existing Fighters woke up one morning and didn't even compare to these new Warblades who have sprung up everywhere. Anyhow, either you'd have to reinvent ToB or your fix is just going to be giving warriors and such a set of optinos that are not very interesting compared to spellcasters. And that doesn't fix the problem. -Drachasor I should of mentioned my own patches. I allow fighters a bonus feat at every level, another good save of their choice, 4+ int skill points per level, and the option to learn even more feats through practice and role-playing (lesser ones that they might normally ignore for their character's path - like the weapon master getting Improved Grapple). Not in the rules, but so sue me :P But this is highly game-style dependant. I love fighters, and I see often that they're very very effective. One session when our party fighter was away in Tabletop? We were left with a Cleric, a Druid, a Wizard and a Rogue at level eight - the power classes. The monsters wiped the floor with us and we ran for it. Next session, Gastron returned, killed everything in the room almost single-handed, and sang a song about how great he was. The irony? We're all powergamers, except Gastron's player.
Drachasor 11-07-06, 08:26 PM	I had a new arguement with my DM, apparently I was wrong about my assumptions that he thought that fighters were supposed to be underpowered. He thinks that a 20th level fighter is stronger than a 20th level spellcaster. I almost passed out laughing at that, but he then told me that because of this one feat that prevents casters from casting defencivly that his fighter could own a mage of equal level. He then said that high-end damage spells did LESS damage than magic weapons, and once again I was able to restrain myself from laughing. He then told me that warblades are completely broken no matter how you play them, because they can use their manuvers unlimited times per day and can recover them with a swift action. I edited the front post to match this new revolation. I told him that I would prove him wrong with a cleric using divine metamagic to persistantify divine power, and he told me he would send a bunch of homebrew monsters that instantly dispelled all divine spells and prevented them from being used. He then told me this was NOT metagaming. Wow..... Btw, what does he think of Swordsages and Crusaders? -Drachasor
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-07-06, 08:38 PM	He doesn't think they're as bad, but he's still anoyed that they get to use their manuvers with no limit, so he implimented a rule where you can only get manuvers back 3+Int modifier/day. Totally cripples the ToB.
theotherdraxen 11-07-06, 09:03 PM	He's normally a good DM, and I do DM, but he is a little picky in the fighter catigory. He thinks that "It's not realistic that swinging a sword at someone can do as much damage as being hit by a lightning bolt or a meteor!" With this philosophy, there is no way that warrior types will ever be balanced with spellcasters. It proves the very fallacy that made warrior types weak in core to begin with: it is impossible that by swinging a sword someone can do as much damage as lightning. Of course, if you're Gilgamesh, Achilles, Rama (sp?), Pecos Bill, or any other such character, you're not realistic to begin with. You could also point out to him that casting spells is about as realistic as cutting a dragon in half with a longsword.
Vaelan 11-07-06, 09:39 PM	He doesn't think they're as bad, but he's still anoyed that they get to use their manuvers with no limit, so he implimented a rule where you can only get manuvers back 3+Int modifier/day. Totally cripples the ToB. No, it doesn't. It may completely miss the entire point of the whole damn system, but it does not cripple it. As I said before, boost your Intelligence a bit and you'll still be able to throw out maneuvers throughout all of a day's encounters.
Howland Reed 11-07-06, 10:29 PM	Thanqol summed it up for me. The warblade is basically "oh, here's how we should have made fighters to begin with. Our bad". For that matter, the crusader and swordsage are highly reminiscent (to me) of the paladin and monk (the latter a bit less so...but since the core monk was entirely weighted towards unarmed combat, it neatly filled the role of blademaster-style martial artist or kensai). It's not that they're BAD, or unbalanced per se, it's just a bit galling to have WotC realize they goofed, and then instead of fixing the core classes, release a NEW class that renders the old one totally obsolete (and before someone says it, yes, I know lots of people think fighters were obsolete before). It's the like the old days of CCGs...when a card, through play evolution or new releases, started to fall behind, you had a couple of options. Some games released "magic bullets" to nerf good cards, or new improved cards that rendered the old one obsolete. A better solution (which Decipher used with their Star Wars game) was to release a new card that augmented the old card and synergized with it, making you want to use the OLD card again. I think the idea of combat maneuvers was brilliant. So once they came up with it, why not give to the class that a.) has the most reason to possess it and b.) is most in need of it? Because it's too much trouble? I'm in the process of doing it now and it's not that tough. Btw, and this is just a pet peeve of mind, while I find disciplines like Diamond Mind and Iron Heart excellent, I was irritated by Shadow Hand and Desert Wind, and to some extent Devoted Spirit. The first two were basically "casting spells with a sword", I'm sorry (even without a sword, in the case of some Shadow hand moves...why didn't those maneuvers just say "you can cast air walk/spider climb/dimension door/et al). And Devoted Spirit...when it mentions channeling divine "energy", how is that not supernatural? A Cleric's Heal can be be negated by anti-magic, but yours can't because *gasp* you have to HIT a guy to cast it? Anyway...I guess I differ from Thanq in that I'm weak...I bought the errata. But I'm not using it as written.
Thanqol 11-07-06, 10:51 PM	You gave in to the dark side :( But at least you remain aware of it's limits. I did skim a PDF of the book, and I saw a few things I liked though (namely the Nine Swords that are the book's name; there's one thing I don't like doing and that's making magic items myself), and the flavor text. But for the most part, it won't be gracing my table. On the other hand, I was cheering the PHB2. It gave the fighter high end feats. High end *Good* feats. And a reason to stick with the class. Now *that's* a pro for WotC - a neat fix for fighters. That they released ToB a few months later was annoying - a REPLACEMENT for fighters when you just got interested in them again.
turalisj 11-07-06, 11:01 PM	If that's true, you probably can't convince him of anything. Stop playing with people who are unreasonable. I would have to agree. If I find a dm who downright refuses to go with anything besides core, or nerfs everything, I just don't play and move on..... But then I have the luxury of playing online.... By the way, I never played a fighter after I got complete warrior, swashbuckler ftw!
Drachasor 11-08-06, 12:27 AM	I think the idea of combat maneuvers was brilliant. So once they came up with it, why not give to the class that a.) has the most reason to possess it and b.) is most in need of it? Because it's too much trouble? I'm in the process of doing it now and it's not that tough. How do you expect them to do that without making all fighters and like classes obsolete anyhow? Afterall, everyone would have to remake their characters. That said, some guidelines or a changed class or two would have been nice. I think they could have given a small progression to the core classes without much trouble. However, it still would have required everyone who plays one of those classes to buy Tome of Battle to add those abilities to their character. I think that would have irked people a lot more. -Drachasor
turalisj 11-08-06, 12:56 AM	How do you expect them to do that without making all fighters and like classes obsolete anyhow? Afterall, everyone would have to remake their characters. That said, some guidelines or a changed class or two would have been nice. I think they could have given a small progression to the core classes without much trouble. However, it still would have required everyone who plays one of those classes to buy Tome of Battle to add those abilities to their character. I think that would have irked people a lot more. -Drachasor Shh..... there are WotC employees lurking about >.>
X-Codes 11-08-06, 03:51 AM	Divine: Persistent is actually a really uninspired cleric strategy nowandays. Get Sacred Healing and just turn on Divine Power when you need to. Also, if there are any "Auto-negate-divine-magic monsters" there, insist that you do something else. Seriously, if a DM goes out of his way to kill a player for no reason other than to prove the point that Fighters > Casters, he deserves to be shot in the head. No, not that head, I'm anti-execution. Darwinism, however, is completely cool to me.
Howland Reed 11-08-06, 08:53 AM	Waaaay way back in 2E, when Combat & Tactics came out with new rules for weapon mastery, this changed the dynamic for fighter's weapon skills. It's the same thing. You can either try to retroactively change your character, or just shrug and apply it to your next character. While it could potentially make a current fighter CHARACTER obsolete, isn't that preferable to rendering EVERY fighter everywhere obsolete? Which is better...you now have a subpar character, or every fighter you ever make from now on will ALSO be subpar? As for having to buy the ToB to add those abilities...they kinda have to do that now, to be competitive. You can either a.) stick with your old, core fighter, who everyone knows lags behind or b.) buy the new book and play a new, balanced melee class. What's worse about c.) buy the book and revitalize an already existing core class? Your option, about including a way to integrate maneuvers into the Fighter class rather than just saying, "Oh, use some of your feats to get some crappy, toned-down version of it" would have been the best move. It's basically what I'm doing now...integrating some variants of the warblade's class features and a maneuver/stance progression into the fighter. Then I'm probably folding some of the crusader's junk into the paladin (who also had fairly mediocre class features, after you get past the front-loaded levels) and reworking the swordsage to be the generic martial adept.
Andrew_980 11-08-06, 02:09 PM	I just love how many go straight for the most immature way of handling it " show him even worse power gaming that will teach him" No, that will teach him that you are an ass not worth playing with. Just talk it over and if he will not see it your way pick something else or WALK AWAY. that is your final and most complete way of letting the DM know how you feel about his rules (kinda like gamer sepiku)
RadicalTaoist 11-08-06, 02:43 PM	I had a new arguement with my DM, apparently I was wrong about my assumptions that he thought that fighters were supposed to be underpowered. He thinks that a 20th level fighter is stronger than a 20th level spellcaster. I almost passed out laughing at that, but he then told me that because of this one feat that prevents casters from casting defencivly that his fighter could own a mage of equal level. He then said that high-end damage spells did LESS damage than magic weapons, and once again I was able to restrain myself from laughing. He then told me that warblades are completely broken no matter how you play them, because they can use their manuvers unlimited times per day and can recover them with a swift action. I edited the front post to match this new revolation. I told him that I would prove him wrong with a cleric using divine metamagic to persistantify divine power, and he told me he would send a bunch of homebrew monsters that instantly dispelled all divine spells and prevented them from being used. He then told me this was NOT metagaming. :ahem: He thinks that it's all right to punish players in-game to win balance arguments, blatantly outright deny deliberate metagaming for no reason other than said argument, and define balance by how much a favored character archetype (casters) should be allowed to dominate over another he favors less. He told me this with a straight face. Fixed. Ditch this fool. That or recommend to him Ars Magica or Mage: the Ascension, they seem more like the game he wants to play.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-08-06, 03:44 PM	I know of no other games anywhere in my area, and all the players are really good friends of mine. Leaving isn't really an option. I'm gonna email him a link to this thread so he can see the arguements against him.
RadicalTaoist 11-08-06, 10:41 PM	Welcome to the 21st century people. Check this out. (http://openrpg.com/) Now you can play with people from all over the world simulating a tabletop environment. My current group has me and another fellow in Toronto, two guys in Halifax, a dude in Edmonton, and we had a guy from Texas in our group too. No one should have to suffer from a bad DM because of geographical issues anymore. Besides, isn't there a forum here for searching for groups? EDIT: I stand corrected Tempest. All of Alberta's the same though, right? :P
Aryxbez 11-08-06, 11:59 PM	Voldar_Mecorthio, is your DM's campaign low-magic? Also if you live in Collinsville, I am looking for players No, it doesn't. It may completely miss the entire point of the whole damn system, but it does not cripple it. As I said before, boost your Intelligence a bit and you'll still be able to throw out maneuvers throughout all of a day's encounters. The reason it cripples, is because the swordsage needs enough ability scores already, And i have been playing one
Ravenscroft 11-09-06, 12:57 AM	Ditch this fool. That or recommend to him Ars Magica or Mage: the Ascension, they seem more like the game he wants to play. Why would the Ars Magica community want a sucky DM like this. Pretty certain the people on the Atlas Games boards don't want his type ruining our fine game. :D
X-Codes 11-09-06, 02:08 AM	Welcome to the 21st century people. Check this out. (http://openrpg.com/) Now you can play with people from all over the world simulating a tabletop environment. My current group has me in Toronto, two guys in Halifax, a dude in Calgary, and...hmm...forget where the other guy's from. We had a guy from Texas in our group too. No one should have to suffer from a bad DM because of geographical issues anymore. Besides, isn't there a forum here for searching for groups? I can't believe you just plugged OpenRPG... I heard that they're planning to go shareware. Granted it's a good virtual tabletop, but you still need to find players, and the OpenRPG community isn't great IMO. Theres only two major servers on OpenRPG: Veav's Server and DiceGamers. Veav's Server has no games half the time and the people on it get harassed by the guys that subscribe to DiceGamers, and DiceGamers is a subscription only server which has given less than spectacular experiences to me on more than one occasion, plus the guys that run it are completely indifferent towards the open harassment of Veav's Server. If you must play online, then go to either www.dndonlinegames.com or www.giantitp.com. PbP, while slow-paced, is still a good game experience and is much less obtrusive than virtual tabletop programs like OpenRPG. If you want dedicated D&D sessions, then you can advertise/join up with in-person games on DnDOG, and you might also be able to set up virtual tabletop games, although you'd have to ask the DnDOG staff.
Tempest Stormwind 11-09-06, 03:02 AM	Welcome to the 21st century people. Check this out. (http://openrpg.com/) Now you can play with people from all over the world simulating a tabletop environment. My current group has me in Toronto, two guys in Halifax, a dude in Calgary, and...hmm...forget where the other guy's from. We had a guy from Texas in our group too. No one should have to suffer from a bad DM because of geographical issues anymore. Besides, isn't there a forum here for searching for groups? Psst! RT! I'm not from Calgary, I'm from Edmonton. They're rival cities. X-Codes, if you're playing pick-up games, then OpenRPG is what you claim. If, however, you do the sensible thing with it -- namely, go to a forum such as OpenRPG's classifieds, THIS very forum's classifieds, or even RPAlliance, or similar, and gather the players and DM beforehand, using OpenRPG as the tool to game over instead of the forum -- OpenRPG works beautifully. And PbP isn't merely slow -- to compare it to OpenRPG (which is slow by comparison to face-to-face) would be to liken the flow of molasses to the exhaust from a jet engine. ESPECIALLY if you're trying to get dynamic conversation. This is what I've done on my longest-running games -- one lasted over two years, and the other (described above; the fifth guy is also from the Toronto area) has been going strong for months now and everyone loves it. If you judge OpenRPG based on pick-up games, then you have to also judge face-to-face gaming on pick-up games -- i.e. conventions or gamestore pick-ups with thankless jerkhole DMs and selfish munchkin players everywhere, no one caring about each other or the story, living in a Dead Alewives sketch... Yeah, I like (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/01/21) where this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/01/23) is going (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/01/26). All of a sudden, D&D doesn't look to appealing, does it? ...and that's all due to the context. Just find the group beforehand -- geography doesn't matter, as RT mentioned -- and bridge it using OpenRPG. Oh, and the shareware rumor was just that -- a rumor. OpenRPG is, by definition, Open Source. And for any X, there is an Open Source version >> X.
RadicalTaoist 11-09-06, 09:26 AM	Why would the Ars Magica community want a sucky DM like this. Pretty certain the people on the Atlas Games boards don't want his type ruining our fine game. :D Maybe you could teach him some manners. I just think the guy needs a system where casters are -expected- to be the only PCs, and he'll be set.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-09-06, 06:03 PM	Horray! I talked to him again, giving him numbers to back up my theory, and while innitially he denyed their acuracy, he thought about it and told me that he was wrong about ToB. No more nerf! In fact his DMPC is going to become a warblade. And he's not nearly the jerk you're taking him for, he just had a momentary panic attack when fighters no longer sucked.
EyeontheMountain 11-09-06, 09:54 PM	I am not buying TOB I am not allowing TOB I am not able to be convinced. But we}'ll still have fun if you join my game. Plenty of other books are out there. And no, I am not the DM in this situation.
RadicalTaoist 11-09-06, 10:24 PM	And he's not nearly the jerk you're taking him for, he just had a momentary panic attack when fighters no longer sucked. Ah, this is good. Happy gaming. (I understand his surprise, it's a bit of a paradigm shift)
ressurrector 11-09-06, 10:45 PM	I am not buying TOB I am not allowing TOB I am not able to be convinced. But we}'ll still have fun if you join my game. Plenty of other books are out there. And no, I am not the DM in this situation. So you refuse the possibility that you may be incorrect, and say that all possible arguments will not sway you? Your call, but I prefer to keep an open mind. To the OP: congrats, have fun with your martial good-ness.
Ravenscroft 11-10-06, 01:14 AM	I am not buying TOB I am not allowing TOB I am not able to be convinced. But we}'ll still have fun if you join my game. Plenty of other books are out there. And no, I am not the DM in this situation. Runs away crying. :weep:
Oneiromancer 11-10-06, 11:04 AM	:mad: THEY ARE NOT HOMEBREW Quells come from Libris Mortis They hate divine spellcasters with a pasion and would gladly attack any cleric they see. Also Voldar assumes that the wizard has the advantage of exterior open-plain combat. Lets see a wizard survive a keen vorpal kukri. Also I only detest certain aspects of the book. 100 damage on every attack? Not right, Any wizard spell with that kind of power at least allows a save. And the desert wind maneuver? Automatic 50 fire damage (ty for fire immunity) Also I barely nerfed it. Being able to get back all of your manuevers UNLIMITED times per day is unholy. I made it 5 + wis mod per day. That's still plenty of times. Case and point.
Tempest Stormwind 11-10-06, 11:23 AM	Also Voldar assumes that the wizard has the advantage of exterior open-plain combat. Lets see a wizard survive a keen vorpal kukri.Let's see ANYONE get close enough to the wizard to actually use it. Note that this is open-plain combat (no cover). The wizard does have the advantage.Also I only detest certain aspects of the book. 100 damage on every attack? Not right, Any wizard spell with that kind of power at least allows a save. Not true. Ray attacks (such as Scorching Ray) typically have NO save, but bank on an attack roll -- JUST LIKE this maneuver! And if I recall correctly, it's a 9th level maneuver (I could be wrong) -- let's metamagic up a Scorching Ray to that level and see how much damage it does! (It actually comes out ahead, particularly against single targets!).Also I barely nerfed it. Being able to get back all of your manuevers UNLIMITED times per day is unholy. I made it 5 + wis mod per day. That's still plenty of times. Case and point.That's your case, not your point. You need to demonstrate WHY it's wrong that they recover however often they need to. (The expression is "case IN point" and is meant to apply only when you make a point that also sums up your position -- hence, your case lies in the point. Here, you're stating your position, but making no argument, so no point exists.) If you think it's broken, then you have yet to grasp that the most vital resource to any adventurer is TIME. A swordsage has a ton of maneuvers available at any one time, but spends a FULL ROUND ACTION to recover one -- essentially saying "I do nothing". A warblade has to stop using his maneuvers and actually attack (or flourish) to recover them -- essentially saying "I don't need to do anything." A crusader is jacked with a random selection of maneuvers that he can't control (well, he *can*, but it's undoubtedly not intended that way), and he can't get any of them back unless he burns them all. You want analogues? Swordsages are like wizards who leave spell slots open for the rest of the day. If they cast every round, they burn out, and if they want to be useful again, they need to lie down for a while, where they're back to as strong as they were before. Warblades are psychic warriors focusing on psionic feats with Psionic Meditation -- they can get powerful effects, but not every single round. Crusaders are like nothing else in the game, but close to a Magic deck -- you can't guarantee you'll have the cards you want at any given time. I fail to see how this is different from any other system. Look at the warlock -- they can go all day because their effects are weak, but they don't need to recover in the middle of a round. The martial adepts are similar -- stronger, but they suffer in-battle burnout that the warlock doesn't. Spellcasters -- who suffer burnout for the *entire day* -- are stronger still, and far more versatile, so long as they haven't burned out. I fail to see how this is "unholy" -- in fact, it looks reasonable.
Andrew_980 11-10-06, 12:56 PM	*strikes the nazi pose* Hail Bush! VERY inappropriate, keep your hate on topic or elsewhere. (not to mention CoC violations)
DarknessEternal 11-10-06, 02:07 PM	A crusader is jacked with a random selection of maneuvers that he can't control (well, he *can*, but it's undoubtedly not intended that way), and he can't get any of them back unless he burns them all. Crusaders are granted one of their presently readied but expended manuevers at the end of every round regardless of how many granted maneuvers they currently have.
Tempest Stormwind 11-10-06, 05:31 PM	Crusaders are granted one of their presently readied but expended manuevers at the end of every round regardless of how many granted maneuvers they currently have. Incorrect. They are granted one of their withheld maneuvers at the end of every round. After you run out of withheld maneuvers, well, that's where it gets interesting (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=707947). That link also explains what I was referring to about controlling your maneuvers. I was a bit off in my line, though, in that a crusader merely needs to run out of witheld maneuvers (not granted maneuvers) before he recovers. This might have led to the confusion, and I apologize for that.
Howland Reed 11-10-06, 08:58 PM	'A warblade has to stop using his maneuvers and actually attack (or flourish) to recover them -- essentially saying "I don't need to do anything."' I, uh, disagree vehemently. Attacking, for a warblade, is a long way from doing nothing. With full BAB, good hp, armor, weapons, and feats, they're basically as good as a fighter for basic melee (better in some ways, thanks to their "battle" class features). Is it as good as doing a maneuver? Probably not. But when you can maneuver every other round, and in between, STILL deal out reasonable hand-to-hand damage (or another tactical choice, like trip/disarm/etc), that's not really much of a hindrance. Having to wait for a round, like a swordsage? That's balanced. Having to attack might be balanced if the class sucked at melee, but warblades are GREAT at melee. How is that a hindrance? "Darn, I can't do my super-awesome move EVERY round. Oh well, I can still hit this guy." I can kind of understand why they did it, since warblades have the lowest access to maneuvers. But I don't know...being able to do Time Stands Still or Strike of Perfect Clarity every other round, while still being able to fight in between, is pretty hardcore. It doesn't match a meteor swarm, but how many of those can a wizard toss out? Not a dozen per day, which is no problem for a warblade. And the main thing is, when a wizard first learns 9th level spells, they only get 1. As soon as an adept learns a 9th level maneuver, they can use it basically unlimited times per day.
Tempest Stormwind 11-10-06, 09:26 PM	'A warblade has to stop using his maneuvers and actually attack (or flourish) to recover them -- essentially saying "I don't need to do anything."' I, uh, disagree vehemently. Attacking, for a warblade, is a long way from doing nothing. With full BAB, good hp, armor, weapons, and feats, they're basically as good as a fighter for basic melee (better in some ways, thanks to their "battle" class features). Is it as good as doing a maneuver? Probably not. But when you can maneuver every other round, and in between, STILL deal out reasonable hand-to-hand damage (or another tactical choice, like trip/disarm/etc), that's not really much of a hindrance. Having to wait for a round, like a swordsage? That's balanced. Having to attack might be balanced if the class sucked at melee, but warblades are GREAT at melee. How is that a hindrance? "Darn, I can't do my super-awesome move EVERY round. Oh well, I can still hit this guy."The reason they get the best recovery tactic is because they ahve the weakest access to maneuvers. And it's a hinderance since it means they *need* to be able to attack someone to both recover and contribute -- and if the maneuvers are *anywhere* near as strong as the ToB-is-broken crowd decries, the warblade'll be surrounded by bodies instead of targets. (Note: They aren't that strong.) It forces them to attack, which is something any class can do. For that round, they are NOT a warblade, but rather a fighter or a barbarian. They are not contributing their unique talents to the battle. And because of their low maneuvers readied, they'll have to do it relatively often. Imagine if a spellcaster had to fire a crossbow or flip through a spellbook every three or four rounds to be able to continue to cast spells. If all you need at the time is a crossbow bolt, it's not a disadvantage -- but at that point, the spellcaster isn't using his abilities. If you need a spell that round, though... ha, you're jacked. And the silly part? This type of system has already been used in D&D -- psionic focus. Granted, focus feats are nowhere near as strong as maneuvers, but they're usable at will so long as you can regain your focus between using them -- which keeps you from contributing your unique talents to the group for that round (EXCEPTION: Psychic warriors, egoists, and others with access to Hustle, provided they have the Psionic Meditation feat, can, effectively, gain focus as a swift action). Seriously, it's just another paradigm shift. Just like the warlock and "at-will".I can kind of understand why they did it, since warblades have the lowest access to maneuvers. But I don't know...being able to do Time Stands Still or Strike of Perfect Clarity every other round, while still being able to fight in between, is pretty hardcore. It doesn't match a meteor swarm, but how many of those can a wizard toss out? Not a dozen per day, which is no problem for a warblade. And the main thing is, when a wizard first learns 9th level spells, they only get 1. As soon as an adept learns a 9th level maneuver, they can use it basically unlimited times per day.A well-made wizard has far, far more than 1 of those -- and they wouldn't focus on Meteor Swarm. If you're still using direct damage after level, say, 9-11, you're not playing your Intelligence properly (bust out the save-or-dies or buff/utility effects, as they're more effective). A wizard can outdamage Meteor Swarm with Shrink Item alone, and can easily do more with clever applications of other spells -- and that assumes they want damage more than they want victory. Meanwhile, look at what all the high-end maneuvers do. Notice a trend?
Arivia 11-10-06, 09:37 PM	Oh, and the shareware rumor was just that -- a rumor. OpenRPG is, by definition, Open Source. And for any X, there is an Open Source version >> X. To be more specific, even if they went shareware, it matters little due to the GPL. See what happened with XChat's Win32 port.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-11-06, 01:47 AM	Also keep in mind that the 9th level maneuvers aren't the equivalent of 9th level spells. They're closer to 6th level spells. By that stage of the game your average wizard probably has as many level 6+ slots as he's reasonably going to need in a given session, either through his own slots, bonus slots, and/or items he's carrying around.
Elemental 11-11-06, 07:45 AM	Horray! I talked to him again, giving him numbers to back up my theory, and while innitially he denyed their acuracy, he thought about it and told me that he was wrong about ToB. No more nerf! In fact his DMPC is going to become a warblade. And he's not nearly the jerk you're taking him for, he just had a momentary panic attack when fighters no longer sucked. Wow, that doesn't happen very often in this sort of thread. Good to hear.
Howland Reed 11-11-06, 06:38 PM	"It forces them to attack, which is something any class can do." Right. And for some classes, that's ALL they can do...but not warblades. "For that round, they are NOT a warblade, but rather a fighter or a barbarian. They are not contributing their unique talents to the battle. And because of their low maneuvers readied, they'll have to do it relatively often." So your point is that warblades aren't overpowered, because half the time they're "only" a fighter? If half of the time you are just as good as some other members of the party (fighters/barbarians/meleeists etc), and the other half you are much better than them, something's wrong. I understand that the problem is really that the fighter is weak more than that the warblade is strong, but I do seriously think the warblade's abilities are kinda overkill. Are they balanced compared to a fighter? No. Are they balanced compared to a barbarian? Debatable...same HD, same BAB, same skills, maneuvers instead of straight-up combat boost (rage)...but then they get feats and "battle" abilities on top. Are they balanced compared a swordsage? Instead of meditating to recover, they just fight...which, thanks to full BAB and half-again the HP, they do MUCH better. "Imagine if a spellcaster had to fire a crossbow or flip through a spellbook every three or four rounds to be able to continue to cast spells." This is a semi-strawman. Your first line is correct: what if a caster had to fire a crossbow (i.e. attack) every other round, in order to keep casting? Basically, what if a wizard had the warblade's "recovery" method? Let's consider. 1.) they would have to (like a warblade) have unlimited spells per day, not slots. 2.) they would have to (like a warblade) have full BAB and d12 HD, which would make them EFFECTIVE combatants. Since neither of these is true, it's not comparable. For casters, this would be a nerf, since you'd be making them do something they suck at in order to do what they're good at. But as I said: warblades don't suck at melee! They're great at it! Your other example is just off the wall...flipping through a spellbook for 3-4 rounds? That's basically the swordsage's recovery on steroids (multiple rounds instead of a single). And you know what? Some people would TAKE it, in order to be able to cast their spells as often as they want, barring recovery time. Summation of my rebuttal: 1.) Your example is in no way comparable to the warblade's situation, hence it is a poor/false analogy. 2.) It would, however, make an excellent mechanism to balance what everyone sees as "overpowered" casters. I'm seriously considering it. (this is something I find funny...when the initial poster said his DM thinks warblades are unbalanced, their answer was "hit him with something even MORE unbalanced". When I say I find warblades a bit unbalanced--I don't think they're "broken"--people retort that primary casters are sooo much better...even though I think most people agree that casters are overpowered to begin with! Game balance is not just "is it stronger than everything else?". To me, it's "how does it's strength compare to other classes, especially those with similar roles?".) I can't answer your psi analogy; I'm not familiar with 3.5 psi rules. "A well-made wizard has far, far more than 1 of those -- and they wouldn't focus on Meteor Swarm. If you're still using direct damage after level, say, 9-11, you're not playing your Intelligence properly (bust out the save-or-dies or buff/utility effects, as they're more effective)." All right, rebuttal: 1.) how does a 17th level wizard have more than one 9th level spell per day? With 28+ Int, they get 2. How can a well-made wizard have "far, far more" than this? This is an honest question...I haven't yet played epic-level 3.5 (and really, don't expect to). 2.) I gave meteor swarm as an example. Replace it with any 9th level you like. The point is, they are inherently limited in times per day by the spellcasting mechanics, whereas recovery for maneuvers only limits IMMEDIATE access, not total access. Again: that warblade can do his 9th level maneuver a million times a day (figuratively or literally), as long as he only does it every other round. A wizard cannot do that. The fact that meteor swarm is a subpar 9th spell is not an answer to the point that 9th level spells have a much greater built-in limit than 9th level maneuvers. (further, I'd suggest that if meteor swarm is a subpar 9th spell, than either a.) the other 9th spells are overpowered or b.) meteor swarm should be a lower level spell.) To the fellow who suggested that 9th level maneuvers are comparable to 6th level spells, all right, I'll bite. A sorcerer and a warblade both hit 17th level. The sorcerer, by this point, can cast six 6th level spells, eight if he has 30+ Int. The warblade can use his 9th maneuver--of equal power to those 6th level spells--UNLIMITED times per day. Granted, the sorcerer has 7th-8th level spells as well, but the warblade has vastly better raw combat stats. Eight per day vs. a million? Balanced? Some would say the balancing is due to the limited application in real terms of what the PCs would encounter (i.e. you'll never be involved in enough fights to make it a real advantage). I just tend to disagree. I'll admit to breaking the 3.5 rule of averaging 4 encounters per day...depending on how the PCs play it, they could easily face 2-3 times that, depending on how you define an "encounter". One of my favorite old 2nd edition dungeon-mag adventures ("My Lady's Mirror") had at least 15 encounters (combat encounters; there were others for roleplaying), which could all easily be encountered in a single day, if the PCs were aggressive and bold (to the point of foolhardiness...which my PCs often were).
Howland Reed 11-11-06, 07:36 PM	Let me make this easy: who here thinks that allowing the Sorcerer to cast his spells as many times per day as he wants would be balanced...as long as he has to "recover" the spell in the same way that a swordsage recovers maneuvers (take one round to focus/concentrate)? If that's too good (since spells are a bit better than equivalent-level maneuvers), let's reduce the Sorcerers casting progression (in terms of what level spells they can cast, mind...since they have no "per day" limit) and spells known to that of, say, a bard. Would either of these cases be balanced?
Neutronium_Dragon 11-11-06, 08:52 PM	Going by the above comparison, if sorcerers could cast all of the 6th level and lower spells that they wanted from an even narrower list than they have now? Sure. By 17th-20th level, 6th level spells aren't terribly amazing, and a sorcerer probably isn't going to be running out of them all that often anyway.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-11-06, 10:36 PM	If you gave the sorcerer unlimited access to casting if he had to replenish his spells after every fourth or fifth spells and only knew 13 spells at level 20, then I think people would be screaming underpowered, not overpowered.
Comus 11-11-06, 11:12 PM	If you gave the sorcerer unlimited access to casting if he had to replenish his spells after every fourth or fifth spells and only knew 13 spells at level 20, then I think people would be screaming underpowered, not overpowered. And yet, most people who look at the Warlock call it overpowered at first glance. Running the numbers proves them wrong, of course, but you can see what I mean.
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-12-06, 12:01 AM	The word "Unlimited" scares people. It's just that simple.
Howland Reed 11-12-06, 12:48 AM	"Going by the above comparison, if sorcerers could cast all of the 6th level and lower spells that they wanted from an even narrower list than they have now? Sure. By 17th-20th level, 6th level spells aren't terribly amazing, and a sorcerer probably isn't going to be running out of them all that often anyway." All right, fair enough. But if you ever reach the point where 6th level spells (including geas, disintegrate, contingency, etc) aren't terribly amazing, you play in an altogether different world from me. (also, their list would not be all that much narrower...at 20th, a bard knows 29 spells total; a 20th level sorcerer knows 34. BFD.) "If you gave the sorcerer unlimited access to casting if he had to replenish his spells after every fourth or fifth spells and only knew 13 spells at level 20, then I think people would be screaming underpowered, not overpowered." I might as well. That's not what I suggested, so what's your point? I'm suggesting a sorcerer who knows around 30 spells at level 20 (maxed out bard spells-known list), and can cast them as often as he wants, but needs a single round to recover any spell cast. You're cool with that? If the "13 known at 20th" reference was to a martial adept class (sorry; don't have my ToB with me)...as aforementioned, that's not a fair comparison, since adepts are capable fighters, and sorcerers are not. And yeah, I'll admit this may just be a knee-jerk reaction to "unlimited". But stop and think about what "unlimited" really means when you can apply it to some higher level spells.
Always-Late 11-12-06, 12:49 AM	If you gave the sorcerer unlimited access to casting if he had to replenish his spells after every fourth or fifth spells and only knew 13 spells at level 20, then I think people would be screaming underpowered, not overpowered.I don't know. I think four Time Stops in a row would gbe really nice. (Bad comparison, I know. But o is the sorceror.)
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-12-06, 11:01 AM	If you reshape the sorcerer to the ToB's "casting" method than it becomes astonishingly underpowered and would have people screaming, but if you use it with martial manuvers people are yelling about it being overpowered. Consider the warlock. If you'll recall, a few months ago there was a tidal wave of "balance the warlock!" threads, but eventually people realized that unlimited access to a short list of powers was NOT overpowered. Now ToB uses the same concept and people are yelling overpowered. It's Deja vu. Eventually people will realize that ToB is fine just like they realized the warlock was fine.
Howland Reed 11-12-06, 06:56 PM	"If you reshape the sorcerer to the ToB's "casting" method than it becomes astonishingly underpowered and would have people screaming, but if you use it with martial manuvers people are yelling about it being overpowered." Because spells are balanced by being given to a combat-poor (low HD, low attacks) class. When you give them to a combat-heavy class, the power level raises. What is balanced for a sorcerer (d4 HD, 1/2 BAB, no other class features) is not balanced for a warblade (d12 HD, 1/1 BAB, several other class features). "Consider the warlock. If you'll recall, a few months ago there was a tidal wave of "balance the warlock!" threads, but eventually people realized that unlimited access to a short list of powers was NOT overpowered. Now ToB uses the same concept and people are yelling overpowered. It's Deja vu. Eventually people will realize that ToB is fine just like they realized the warlock was fine." I don't have complete arcane, and thus can't speak for the warlock. What I can say is that warlocks probably would NOT be balanced if they had: --d12 HD --full BAB --full weapon/armor selection --bonus feats and other combat abilities Warlocks to warblades are an apples to oranges comparison, as the two have (in my mind) roughly comparable "spells", but are otherwise totally different and for that matter, designed for different roles. Yeesh. I'm not even arguing about the warblade's lack of balance so much now as I am about the lousy analogies being used. A class is "balanced" (as much as anything is) when: --It is not paramount in it's role. --It does not excel in it's role AND infringe on other roles. --It is not a "one-man show" --It has sufficient limitations and/or "weak spots" that it must compensate for I think warblades (martial adepts in general, really) are guilty of imbalance, moreso than the core classes (full casters do tend to violate #3 pretty heavily, I'll admit). For that matter, I think most of the "newer" base classes do this (beguiler, duskblade, favored soul...). This is a personal opinion, but (I feel) a valid one. If you want to argue that the newer classes are perfectly fine, that's great...but the fact that they eclipse older classes is (to me) patently obvious. If you'd rather say those classes are weak rather than the new classes being too strong, that's a valid interpretation. I see the glass as half-empty, I guess. Maybe that's just my crotchety old 1E roots showing through.
Optimator 11-12-06, 09:23 PM	Pfft, Warblades can't use a specific maneuver unlimited times a day; they can only do it 7,200 times a day (:thinks:). Talk about hyperbole! :rolleye2:
Neutronium_Dragon 11-12-06, 10:00 PM	> A class is "balanced" (as much as anything is) when: > --It is not paramount in it's role. Unless its role is to be paramount in a given area. The fighter was supposed to be the best at melee combat, bar none. Except that he isn't. > --It does not excel in it's role AND infringe on other roles. Which is very different from saying "it must excel in its role and be useless at all others", which is the problem with many of the older classes. It *is* acceptable to excel at one role and be competent at some others. > --It is not a "one-man show" Any class can be a one-man show in the right situation. What matters is that they're not a one-man show in every situation. (Which so far no class is.) --It has sufficient limitations and/or "weak spots" that it must compensate for Or just areas of non-strength rather than gaping holes that it needs to plug, especially since it's easier to balance adventures for a party that way. All of the new classes are primarily setting out to deal with issue #2. One-man shows aren't good, but neither are one-trick ponies.
Howland Reed 11-12-06, 10:36 PM	Minor points and disagreements: 1.) Fighters were not meant to dominate melee combat. If anything, they were supposed to give up a few points to Barbarians in melee. Their role WAS "combatant" (hence their name), and they were supposed to be able to be competetive with all the other "combatant"-role classes (barbarians, rangers, paladins). But while each of the others was supposed to have either a particular combat "niche" or other noncombat abilities, the figher was supposed to be pure combat. Only, as you said, he isn't. And that's sad. 2.) I agree that it is acceptable to be good at one thing and competent at others. Take the ranger...he is good at combat, and also a competent skillsman. A druid is a divine caster with the same secondary (unfortunately, wild shape throws their power curve WAY up there). Paladins are combat with a secondary divine. Rogues are skills with secondary combat. The trouble with fighters is they have no secondary. That sucks. The trouble with new classes, from what I've seen (I'll admit to not having looked extensively) is that their secondaries are too expansive. 3.) As I said...Wizard/Cleric/Druid (espec. druid) CAN be a one-man show for most situations, especially at higher levels. That sucks. They do it by using spells to make them fill in for other roles. What the new classes do (again, my impression) is have expansive enough secondaries to fill in for other roles. 4.) I think I'd agree that Wizards was trying to make classes, in general, more well-rounded. I just think they did it in such a way as to "phase out" their older, more "one-trick-pony" classes. In particular, I feel the fighter, paladin, rogue, and monk are getting reduced to "dip" classes. Part of this was true already, with the promulgation of prestige classes. New (and better) base classes exacerbate the problem. The irony is that I feel the new classes were also intended to prevent "dipping", and multiclassing in general, instead promoting straight-classing. I don't think they had the intended effect, though. Eh. I'm not a fanatic; I'll admit this could be all in my head. I'm just giving an impression, and not all that detailed an analysis (I don't own any PHII or any complete books other than warrior/adventurer). My points have largely been reduced to two: 1.) I don't like denigration of the core, which is what I see happening. This is largely an emotional attachment to things as "fixtures" in D&D from previous editions. There is no real reason to weep for the passing of the fighter, unless you simply have an emotional attachment to fighters (which I do). It also is distasteful to me due to the comparison to CCGs, wherein as the game evolved, old things were left behind and new things replaced them, requiring a constant cash outflow to remain competetive (emphasizing the first C, "collectible", rather than the G "game"). 2.) The arguments many are attempting to make for why newer classes are balanced take a different view of balance; namely, something is "balanced" if it can keep up with the most powerful (even overpowered) classes currently in play. If a class is not as serious an offender as CoDzilla, it's fine. And I'll admit that is a valid paradigm for game balance. It's just not mine. That view of balance (IMHO) leads to an "arms race" style approach, where gradually the power of classes continues to increase until the game is being played at an altogether different power level. This was occuring in 3E from the very first! Ordinary, bare-bones 3rd edition was at a higher power level than 2nd edition. Expansion books have only continued this trend. And again, I'm not trying to throw stones...this is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just not what I want out of my D&D. I like a game where you can buy the basic 3 books and still run a comparable game to the guy up the block who owns 100+ sourcebooks. And right now, you cannot.
Neutronium_Dragon 11-12-06, 11:09 PM	1) It's also illustrative of the problem of one-trick pony-ism. If the fighter could make effective contributions in other areas besides just his combat feats then he might have managed to hold his own; the PHB2 feats at least made great strides towards solving the "combat falloff" problem, but the issue remains that, outside of "tank things and hit them", he can't do much of anything. The sorcerer is another case of it. He has no meaningful contribution to make unless he's casting spells. Which isn't just pigeonholed, it is (in a sense) boring, no matter how flashy those spells might be. 2) I think that it's also acceptable to define a class's role as encompassing more than one thing. The sorcerer throws spells. That's *it*. A beguiler's role isn't strictly broken down along the melee/magic/medic/manipulate lines, but fills a certain subset of several of those - which is fine, and it also makes the character more interesting in its diversity and for its ability to contribute in several ways. 3) Clerics especially aren't that great when it comes to utility magic. The druid beats them for that, and the wizard is way ahead of both. The wizard doesn't have the same combat presence... but the wizard is another of those "one trick pony" classes which has spells, spells, and more spells, but otherwise doesn't have a whole lot that he can do to contribute. 4) I think that this is more due to the fact that it's a choice between introducing new stuff which phases out the old, or going to a new ruleset version which incorporates the changes. A lot of people are keen for 4E, and that's what it would take to accomodate the changes which are being made. If/when a 4E comes out, what you'll probably see is the Fighter (and so on) making a comeback with the new material integrated, but until then it's just too much to retroactively insert into the class. 1) Again, this is probably because it's easier to add something new than to change what's already published, at least until a new ruleset comes out, especially since any change to the core means revising or rewriting virtually every other product. (Just look at the huge swath of things touched by something as narrow as Polymorph. Now imagine trying to change a whole bunch of the core classes. We'd be drowning in a sea of domino-effect errata.) 2) I don't think that there's an inherent power creep to a rebalancing act such as this; if these new things *aren't* a CoDZilla then they're not creeping the power any higher than it already was. What they are helping to do is make previously-untenable options (Fighter) work again. (Even if it's now named Warblade rather than Fighter Mk2, it's still the same basic class idea in a different package.)
Howland Reed 11-13-06, 07:48 AM	All valid points. Touche. Maybe I should just wait for 4E. :)
Voldar_Mecorthio 11-13-06, 07:22 PM	4E is a myth and a cop out. We should fix 3.X, not rely on 4E.