The Flavor is what you make of it

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Many times, more than I'd care to count, I've heard 'but it doesn't fit my flavor' as a reason to decline to use certain classes, most often the ToB classes, but also other suggestions.

It is generally used to defend an exceedingly sub-optimal mechanical choice. For example "I want to play a Monk", to which a response is "Try Swordsage. It's everything Monk wanted to be, but wasn't". Then the rebuttal is "But I don't like the flavor..."

My question is this: Since when does mechanics determine flavor?

Now, I could understand the argument "I don't understand/like the maneuver and stance initiator mechanic" That's perfectly reasonable, it isn't for everyone.

But in what way is the 'flavor' of ANYTHING dependent on the mechanics used to attain it?

To use the obvious example: Miko. She was a 'Samurai'. That was her flavor. She used the Diasho (Katana + Wakizashi), she acted in every way with Honor, following the Bushido code. She didn't have a single level of Samurai. Any of them. She was a Paladin/Monk. Yet her flavor was 'Samurai'.

Give me a character concept and I can fill it, AND (unless you explicitly exclude such) make it mechanically effective.

For example, the concept of 'monk'. That covers a *LOT* of ground. Starting with your Kung Fu movies, then moving on to Anime, then going back west to Friar Tuck.

You can do ALL of these roles without ever using a single level of the Core class 'Monk'. And do them better than that class does.

Example: I want to be a Monk, as in 'an unarmed combatant who can avoid being hit, deliver a powerful blow, and can heal himself'.

My friend, you just described a Psychic Warrior. By focusing his Chi (psionics), he can do all that, and much more.

* But I don't want him to be a mystical monk, I want him to be realistic

* You mean that being able to deck an insubstantial wraith or pierce the armor of a magical beast is mundane? Check again, Ki Strike is a Supernatural ability. You know, like Magic... or Psionics.

If you want a 'realistic' monk, he's a Commoner 1 with Improved Unarmed Strike. He can kill most other Commoners with a single mighty blow (since they all have around 4 hit points). If, on the other hand, you want him to face cinematic foes, you will need a cinematic monk. Which a Psychic Warrior does better than a Monk does.

tl;dr version: You choose the flavor of your character. It has almost nothing to do with mechanics. Fluff can be re-arranged. Names can be changed to protect the innocent.

[The-Mage-King]

Well said, Shneekey. Could you tell it to any people who are calling ToB "Anime", when they pop up again?

[Lord_Gareth]

My name is Lord_Gareth, and I approve this message.

[Thurbane]

All of what you said is true - however some DMs and players will have a much harder time ignoring, re-imagining or coming up with new fluff than others. Some people just don't have the time or creativity to do this, and prefer to use fluff as written.

Personally, I see no problem with including or not including things in campaigns due to the fluff. Not every campaign has to have a "kitchen sink" approach to crunch - sometimes campaigns with certain things absent can have a unique and interesting flavor. Like, say, a campaign where all the true dragons are extinct after a massive war; or another campaign where the laws of magic make arcane casting difficult or impossible.

[big teej]

and then there are those of who prefer to think of classes as in game constructs, thus making "dislike of flavor" an entirely valid problem.

too my knowledge, there are very few on the playground with this view, but it being a minority does not disqualify the perspective from consideration.

and the fact so much as one individual finds it fun renders it all the validity it requires.

[Blisstake]

Sometimes flavor and abilities don't mesh well, however. For example, let's say you want to be a highly skilled swordmaster, who is powerful only by virtue of persistence and experience.

Instead of a fighter, your friend tells you to play a swordsage so you can actually compete with the rest of the group. That's fine, but then you have to start explaining why you can turn invisible, create bursts of fire, and lose a bunch of your abilities in an anti-magic field.

I understand what you're saying, and a lot of times re-fluffing can lead to interesting and creative characters, but it does have its limits. You can't refluff a warrior as a mage, for example.

[Knaight]

My question is this: Since when does mechanics determine flavor?

tl;dr version: You choose the flavor of your character. It has almost nothing to do with mechanics. Fluff can be re-arranged. Names can be changed to protect the innocent.

Mechanics have a huge influence on flavor, and that applies at the character level. Lets look at fantasy melee combat rules, specifically those related to multiple opponents alone, in two hypothetical examples; it should illustrate my point.

Example 1: When facing multiple opponents, your skill is reduced by a significant amount per opponent. On top of that, it is an opposed roll, and you must beat all of your opponents rolls to strike any of them.

Example 2: When facing multiple opponents, all of them are treated as minions except for one. Minions provide a small combat bonus to the one person, and nothing else, moreover successful attacks against the one person can kill a certain number of minions outright.

In Example 1, the mechanics create tension and danger, where a small group can take down an expert, and the difference between the best and the worst can be easily overcome with numbers. It is gritty.

In Example 2, combat is clearly about duels between actual important people, and everyone else is a side character who gets killed. The difference between heroes and not heroes is stark. It is cinematic.

Now, the specific example given -one where ToB replaces the normal rules- doesn't really lend itself to specific "anime" characters. However, there is a flavor attached to each class, each being a variant on the "highly skilled warrior" concept. I would also agree that one can play their character as something other than the composite of its classes, and even favor the mechanical building block interpretation. Yet to state that mechanics have no influence on flavor is patently false.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Sometimes flavor and abilities don't mesh well, however. For example, let's say you want to be a highly skilled swordmaster, who is powerful only by virtue of persistence and experience.

Instead of a fighter, your friend tells you to play a swordsage so you can actually compete with the rest of the group. That's fine, but then you have to start explaining why you can turn invisible, create bursts of fire, and lose a bunch of your abilities in an anti-magic field.That's like saying 'you want to be a Fighter, be a Monk'. The traditional answer to Fighter is Warblade. Which does none of those things, and has no abilities which shut down in an AMF.


I understand what you're saying, and a lot of times re-fluffing can lead to interesting and creative characters, but it does have its limits. You can't refluff a warrior as a mage, for example.

No, but you can refluff magic as 'the warrior spirit', if you choose the right magic. Mage Armor and Shield, for example, can be 'Chi Aura'. Stoneskin becomes 'Stone Horse Stance'. Hell, Mage Armor can simply be 'bullet-proof nudity' or even "BY CROM!!!". I mean, none of the big burley muscular stereotypes ever wore armor... or much of anything other than a loincloth. Yet they almost never got hit. Mage Armor and Shield explain why... they represent the Plot Armor involved in not being hit.

[dextercorvia]

Sometimes flavor and abilities don't mesh well, however. For example, let's say you want to be a highly skilled swordmaster, who is powerful only by virtue of persistence and experience.

Instead of a fighter, your friend tells you to play a swordsage so you can actually compete with the rest of the group. That's fine, but then you have to start explaining why you can turn invisible, create bursts of fire, and lose a bunch of your abilities in an anti-magic field.

I understand what you're saying, and a lot of times re-fluffing can lead to interesting and creative characters, but it does have its limits. You can't refluff a warrior as a mage, for example.

In your example, the concept would probably be better served by a Warblade, who is missing some of the more overtly supernatural stuff.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Mechanics have a huge influence on flavor, and that applies at the character level. Lets look at fantasy melee combat rules, specifically those related to multiple opponents alone, in two hypothetical examples; it should illustrate my point. We're still in the D&D 3.5 forum, last I saw. That means that this is explicitly aimed at playing in the 3.5 system. If you want to play something else, that's your cuppa. But rules systems from other games really has no bearing on this discussion


Example 1: When facing multiple opponents, your skill is reduced by a significant amount per opponent. On top of that, it is an opposed roll, and you must beat all of your opponents rolls to strike any of them.

Example 2: When facing multiple opponents, all of them are treated as minions except for one. Minions provide a small combat bonus to the one person, and nothing else, moreover successful attacks against the one person can kill a certain number of minions outright.

In Example 1, the mechanics create tension and danger, where a small group can take down an expert, and the difference between the best and the worst can be easily overcome with numbers. It is gritty.

In Example 2, combat is clearly about duels between actual important people, and everyone else is a side character who gets killed. The difference between heroes and not heroes is stark. It is cinematic. Neither of which are used in D&D 3.5, except as a homebrew rule, and thus does not apply in this case.

That is one of the reasons I prefer 3.5 to 4e or any other game system currently out: because fluff IS mutable.


Now, the specific example given -one where ToB replaces the normal rules- doesn't really lend itself to specific "anime" characters. However, there is a flavor attached to each class, each being a variant on the "highly skilled warrior" concept. I would also agree that one can play their character as something other than the composite of its classes, and even favor the mechanical building block interpretation. Yet to state that mechanics have no influence on flavor is patently false.

You have yet to back that last statement up with something which is relevant to the 3.5 rules system we are discussion. Do so, and we can continue this discussion.

[Blisstake]

That wasn't what I was arguing. Yes, warblade would work excellently, I'm just saying not everything can mix with everything else.

[Thurbane]

That's like saying 'you want to be a Fighter, be a Monk'. The traditional answer to Fighter is Warblade. Which does none of those things, and has no abilities which shut down in an AMF.

Um, I thought the traditional answer to being a Fighter, was, well, being a Fighter. I mean, despite it being mechanically subpar in 3.X, it is a class (and archetype) that has existed since 1E.

I find it a little odd that people argue the Warblade is better at being a Fighter than a Fighter. You can certainly argue that it fills the same niche better - to argue that it's better at being a Fighter depends almost entirely on how you define Fighter.

[Lord_Gareth]

The only definition of Fighter is "master of weapons-based combat". His niche IS his definition; as such, Warblade really is better at being a Fighter than a Fighter is.

[Flickerdart]

That wasn't what I was arguing. Yes, warblade would work excellently, I'm just saying not everything can mix with everything else.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that.


Um, I thought the traditional answer to being a Fighter, was, well, being a Fighter. I mean, despite it being mechanically subpar in 3.X, it is a class (and archetype) that has existed since 1E.

I find it a little odd that people argue the Warblade is better at being a Fighter than a Fighter. You can certainly argue that it fills the same niche better - to argue that it's better at being a Fighter depends almost entirely on how you define Fighter.
Fighter, someone who fights. A Warblade fights better than a Fighter.

[Pyro_Azer]

In my group I have found "I don't like the flavor" is often a red herring. Usually it's closer to "I don't want to have to learn a new system (like ToB, ToM, Psionics, Incarnum or whatever).

[Blisstake]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that.

Just chiming in that re-fluff has limits. Not trying to contradict anyone.

[Veyr]

A Swordsage could easily focus on Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, Stone Dragon, and Tiger Claw, and never have any concerns about explaining the "magical" nature of his abilities, if the abilities of the Swordsage better fit your concept than did the Warblade. The Swordsage is the most mystical of the three, but even it doesn't have to be if it doesn't want to be.

[Flickerdart]

Just chiming in that re-fluff has limits. Not trying to contradict anyone.
Quite frankly, the swordsage has enough (Ex) schools that he could be a completely mundane swordsmaster and kick ass without turning invisible, catching fire or avoiding AMFs.

Edit: Stop swordsaging me!

[Lord_Gareth]

Edit: Stop swordsaging me!

Swordsage'd - You would feel shame, if you'd survived the surprise round.

[HappyBlanket]

Um, I thought the traditional answer to being a Fighter, was, well, being a Fighter. I mean, despite it being mechanically subpar in 3.X, it is a class (and archetype) that has existed since 1E.

I find it a little odd that people argue the Warblade is better at being a Fighter than a Fighter. You can certainly argue that it fills the same niche better - to argue that it's better at being a Fighter depends almost entirely on how you define Fighter.

Ooh. Terminologically served.
But yeah. The concept of a nonmagical (well, barring equipment) warrior (not capitalized, note) with heavy armor and a sword is well served by taking levels of Warblade rather than Fighter.

edit: I kinda went with the assumption that Fighter on a D&D forum meant the Fighter class, not a variety of classes including the Warblade.

I do like this thread :D I like it a lot... I'm being kinda hypocritical in saying that I support this line of thinking, but... I'm getting there, I think.

[AnonymousD&Der]

You can't refluff a warrior as a mage, for example.

XD I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. There actually was someone who made a Barbarian who, in character, thought he was a Wizard. And the thread alone was made of win. XD

[Thrice Dead Cat]

XD I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. There actually was someone who made a Barbarian who, in character, thought he was a Wizard. And the thread alone was made of win. XD

I'm a muscle wizard! I cast FIST!:smallbiggrin:

[AnonymousD&Der]

I'm a muscle wizard! I cast FIST!:smallbiggrin:

He seriously did something like that! With Power Attack being some awesome Magic Attack! I think someone recommended that for flying spells, he would throw what he wanted to have flight, and for read magic, he'd try to read, and outright lie/mis-interpret what he was reading. I think he just jumped for his flight.

IT was MADE of WIN.

[HappyBlanket]

XD I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. There actually was someone who made a Barbarian who, in character, thought he was a Wizard. And the thread alone was made of win. XD

OH GOD I REMEMBER THAT. I BOOKMARKED IT.
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049)
Sword Spell. Material Component: Sword.
Permanent Mage Armor. Material Component: Armor.
Familiar: Xerxes the Somewhat Terrified Stray Cat

...Feel kinda bad about continuing to derail an amazing thread.

[The-Mage-King]

OH GOD I REMEMBER THAT. I BOOKMARKED IT.
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049)
Summon Sword. Material Component: Sword.

Nonono! It's "Material Component: Sword shaped totem costing (Price of sword)".

And I, too, have that bookmarked. Because, really, why not?

[AnonymousD&Der]

Fluff can be damned. A Barbarian Mage is -awesome-. I might use this character concept. Bookmarking now.

It's probably -not- as epic, but what would happen if you do it the other way around? The few spells you would have, since you'd be placing the bulk of your stats into the physical scores, could be used for Falcon Punching.

[Lord_Gareth]

and the fact so much as one individual finds it fun renders it all the validity it requires.

No. Because no one finds it 'fun'. They play the game that way and the game is fun, but what it actually is is a mental straightjacket that sucks fun out of attempting all manner of cool or interesting concepts, and the fact that it has adherents does not legitimize it in any way.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Fluff can be damned. A Barbarian Mage is -awesome-. I might use this character concept. Bookmarking now.

It's probably -not- as epic, but what would happen if you do it the other way around? The few spells you would have, since you'd be placing the bulk of your stats into the physical scores, could be used for Falcon Punching.

Mage Armor + Shield = Plot Armor. After all, there's got to be *SOME* reason why the guy running around in a loincloth isn't hit every time...

True Strike = the power-up before launching the devastating (power) attack.

Nerveskitter = Unmatched Reflexes

Shocking Grasp = FALCOOOON PAUNCH!

[BlueInc]

XD I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. There actually was someone who made a Barbarian who, in character, thought he was a Wizard. And the thread alone was made of win. XD

Oh god. My players once brainwashed a Paladin into believing he was a Wizard who could speak every language in existence, but actually just spoke gibberish if it was anything other than elf or common.

But in regards to the topic, yes, multiple classes can fulfill an archetype.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Fluff can be damned. A Barbarian Mage is -awesome-. I might use this character concept. Bookmarking now.

It's probably -not- as epic, but what would happen if you do it the other way around? The few spells you would have, since you'd be placing the bulk of your stats into the physical scores, could be used for Falcon Punching.

Play a transmuter, or a sorcerer, with all the self buffing spells. Bull's strength, Bear's endurance. With levels that don't have unobtrusive buffing spells, use metamagic to fill those levels in.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Mage Armor + Shield = Plot Armor. After all, there's got to be *SOME* reason why the guy running around in a loincloth isn't hit every time...

True Strike = the power-up before launching the devastating (power) attack.

Nerveskitter = Unmatched Reflexes

Shocking Grasp = FALCOOOON PAUNCH!

Wouldn'y you need energy sub (fire) to FALCOOOOON PAUNCH! people?:smallconfused:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wouldn'y you need energy sub (fire) to FALCOOOOON PAUNCH! people?:smallconfused:

Eh, Falcon Punch is a spellsword channeling a fireball through his fists.

[Thurbane]

Fighter, someone who fights. A Warblade fights better than a Fighter.

The only definition of Fighter is "master of weapons-based combat". His niche IS his definition; as such, Warblade really is better at being a Fighter than a Fighter is.
I respectfully disagree here. The "master of weapons based combat" could just as easily describe the NPC Warrior class.

For me, fighter (in D&D) has a very definite connotation with the Fighter class, that has been around since 1E/Basic, and was The Fighting Man before that. I personally think that the 3.X incarnation, with his bonus combat feats, does a pretty good job of representing that archetype. As I keep saying, it might be mechanically subpar to what a Warblade can do, but it certain fills the Fighter archetype sufficiently for my taste. Not to mention that the name Warblade seems a trifle silly to me...as opposed to what, a Peaceblade? :smalltongue: (Yes, that was a joke).

In a similar way that the Rogue will always be a Rogue (or Thief) to me, even though Factotum might fill the role better...

[Hiro Protagonest]

I respectfully disagree here. The "master of weapons based combat" could just as easily describe the NPC Warrior class.

For me, fighter (in D&D) has a very definite connotation with the Fighter class, that has been around since 1E/Basic, and was The Fighting Man before that. I personally think that the 3.X incarnation, with his bonus combat feats, does a pretty good job of representing that archetype. As I keep saying, it might be mechanically subpar to what a Warblade can do, but it certain fills the Fighter archetype sufficiently for my taste. Not to mention that the name Warblade seems a trifle silly to me...as opposed to what, a Peaceblade? :smalltongue: (Yes, that was a joke).

Warblade is a terrible name. It should never be used ingame. Which means that the class's fluff is easily changeable.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I respectfully disagree here. The "master of weapons based combat" could just as easily describe the NPC Warrior class.

For me, fighter (in D&D) has a very definite connotation with the Fighter class, that has been around since 1E/Basic, and was The Fighting Man before that. I personally think that the 3.X incarnation, with his bonus combat feats, does a pretty good job of representing that archetype. As I keep saying, it might be mechanically subpar to what a Warblade can do, but it certain fills the Fighter archetype sufficiently for my taste. Not to mention that the name Warblade seems a trifle silly to me...as opposed to what, a Peaceblade? :smalltongue: (Yes, that was a joke).

In a similar way that the Rogue will always be a Rogue (or Thief) to me, even though Factotum might fill the role better...

Warblade also has bonus feats, and actually viable class features. If you want to play on a lower power level, that is your choice. If everyone agrees to this, then you have no problem. However, if you play with others who wish to play on a higher power level, you will be unable to contribute meaningfully.

And, most importantly, the actual *FLAVOR* is identical, regardless of the class you choose.

[QuidEst]

Well, I can certainly see how flavor is going to be influenced by both the mechanics and the fluff that's provided. I know personally I wouldn't care much for a magic user with a sword. And sure, I could play around with it, but it'd be more fun to make a theatrical bard or somebody from a plane like ours getting used to the mechanics, a la Erfworld. (I would feel that they ought to be a core class in that case.) Some people just use what their given, so they don't consider what other options there are.

[Thurbane]

And, most importantly, the actual *FLAVOR* is identical, regardless of the class you choose.
Look, without being rude here, no matter how many times you keep saying that doesn't make it universally true. Flavor is very much in the eye of the beholder...

I think I've made my stance clear - feel free to disagree, but I think I'm done here.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Well, I can certainly see how flavor is going to be influenced by both the mechanics and the fluff that's provided. I know personally I wouldn't care much for a magic user with a sword. And sure, I could play around with it, but it'd be more fun to make a theatrical bard or somebody from a plane like ours getting used to the mechanics, a la Erfworld. (I would feel that they ought to be a core class in that case.) Some people just use what their given, so they don't consider what other options there are.

I see how mechanics influence the fluff, but it is so easy to just ignore the given fluff entirely. :smallconfused:

[AnonymousD&Der]

I see how mechanics influence the fluff, but it is so easy to just ignore the given fluff entirely. :smallconfused:

For some players, it's very hard to even determine where the Fluff ends and the Crunch begins, let alone substituting Fluff. And for others, they're lazy, and it's easier to do it just with what's given, and find the fluff and mechanics you need.

[Philistine]

I respectfully disagree here. The "master of weapons based combat" could just as easily describe the NPC Warrior class.

For me, fighter (in D&D) has a very definite connotation with the Fighter class, that has been around since 1E/Basic, and was The Fighting Man before that. I personally think that the 3.X incarnation, with his bonus combat feats, does a pretty good job of representing that archetype. As I keep saying, it might be mechanically subpar to what a Warblade can do, but it certain fills the Fighter archetype sufficiently for my taste. Not to mention that the name Warblade seems a trifle silly to me...as opposed to what, a Peaceblade? :smalltongue: (Yes, that was a joke).

In a similar way that the Rogue will always be a Rogue (or Thief) to me, even though Factotum might fill the role better...

Fighter and Warblade. Fill. The exact. Same. Archetype.

Seriously, what "flavor" is it, exactly, that you think the Warblade is missing compared to the Fighter? Because I'm looking back and forth between the Warblade entry in the TOB and the Fighter entry in the PHB, and I'm not seeing any meaningful differences in the way they're written up - the Warblade's fluff is just a (somewhat briefer) restatement of the Fighter's, like unto what you get in the classroom when you ask a student to explain a textbook passage in their own words.

[Quietus]

Fighter and Warblade. Fill. The exact. Same. Archetype.

Seriously, what "flavor" is it, exactly, that you think the Warblade is missing compared to the Fighter? Because I'm looking back and forth between the Warblade entry in the TOB and the Fighter entry in the PHB, and I'm not seeing any meaningful differences in the way they're written up - the Warblade's fluff is just a (somewhat briefer) restatement of the Fighter's, like unto what you get in the classroom when you ask a student to explain a textbook passage in their own words.

But... but the Warblade is all flashy and smug about it! They totally say it right there! If you aren't being flashy and smug and competitive, you're breaking RAW! Mm, the delicious flavor of Sarcasm...

[Thurbane]

<snip>
Not to flog a dead horse here, but emphasis mine:

For me, fighter (in D&D) has a very definite connotation with the Fighter class, that has been around since 1E/Basic, and was The Fighting Man before that.
Again, feel free to disagree, but you cannot claim that your perceived flavour of Fighter is right, and mine is wrong. Interpretation of flavour is probably more subjective than anything else in the entire game. I'm not just talking about the pre-written fluff in the books, I'm talking about the connotations the name Fighter has for me after a quarter century of D&D.

Also, I'm not really sure why people are so defensive about this. I'm not going to barge into your game, slap a character sheet out of your hand and tell you that you're wrong for playing a Warblade in preference to a Fighter; I'm merely offering the counterpoint that fluff/flavour is subjective, and not universal.

[Cerlis]

This is really just a discussion of people who have mind sets that are just different. its like trying to get a min maxer and a role-player to agree or something, it can be done but really its a matter of "I disagree with this, i tire of having to disagree with this, so i want to convert people to my way of thinking"

If i wanted to i could scan my brain and think of the exact logical reasons why i have a problem with pretending a class is something that its not. but i'll just say that i'm pretty sure the same feeling i get when i hear someone tell someone who wants to be a monk to play a swordsage is the same instinct that makes me wary when suggesting homebrewn stuff.

I guess basically when i first learned about the class it told me what it was. the book told me what it did where it got its power, the psychology and philosophy behind it. that is what it was. And so when you try to tell me its something different my mind says no.

I guess decent metaphor i just thought of is....

--I want a chair for my table. it doesn't have to be pretty or new or anything. but i just want a chair. my friend tells me to get an ice-cooler. Now the ice-cooler sits at the same height as a chair. It takes up the same size as the chair. but its plastic so its more durable. its cheaper cus its not wood. I can also store things in it. further if i decide i don't need the chair i can take it on trips to store my drinks or store other things. i can use its cup holders.
and most importantly i can sit on it.
The ice-cooler is a chair. The ice cooler is a better chair. every aspect of the ice-cooler is better than a normal chair. you'd be stupid to want anything else. a real chair is inferior.

However, there is one flaw. the ice-cooler is a better chair in every way except one. its NOT a chair. When i look at it sitting at my table i will think "I'll go sit on my ice-cooler". when friends come over they will ask why i have an ice-cooler by the table. And even if they except my perfect logic in choosing an ice-cooler over a chair they will still be aware that it is not a chair.

My drink ice-cooler is a better chair than a chair will ever be. A warblade is a better fighter than a fighter will ever be. But neither will ever be mistaken for the other. You can PRETEND an ice-cooler is a chair. everyone can be happy with that and accept it and go about their lives and they may be happier. and indeed in this game we use our imaginations entirely. but there is a difference between asking people to imagine the situation you are describing, and trying to put yourselves in your characters shoes, a difference between that and asking people to pretend the reality of reality is something that it is not. to ignore rules and laws that though easily changeable, they have already accepted.

I can call a cooler a chair, i can call the color green "blue". I can pretend I'm a princess.

but the fact of the matter is we accepted the books for what they are, they spell out the rules and we may amend them here or there for the rule of cool, or to accommodate something there isn't rules for, or to make something better. but when it comes down to it a swordsage is to a monk what a cyborg is to a human. Looks 100% the same, almost entirely different.

so there is your answer.

[Flickerdart]

Ok. Explain, then, what the fluff difference between a Warblade and a Fighter is, then. Because while the ice cooler and a chair serve absolutely different purposes, the Warblade and the Fighter are identical in their fluff and roleslice, making your fanciful analogy misplaced at best.

[Cerlis]

no. a Warblade has more skill points because they are either diplomats, scary intimidating tyrants or skilled acrobats as well as a fighter. They are described as being reckless glory seekers who use wit and guile to immortalize themselves in song.

the book describes them as basically a nonmagical mix of a knights sense of prestige, a fighters skill, a bards sense of glory and a paladins heroism.

they fill the same niche mostly but a warblade and a fighter are as different as a fighter is to a knight and a knight is to a non-magical paladin.

the problem is with the 20 or 30 base classes we have in 3.5 now its hard to distinguish the subtle differences. essentially many fighters have the same fluff as warblades, many have the same fluff as Assassin. Fighter is a generic class that is all encompassing. while classes like swashbuckler, ninja, hexblade, warblade, duskblade are more flavored and specific classes that have a spelled out fluff designed to make one of many versions of a main class into a main class. Just as a Rogue can be a ninja, but the Ninja class has a different flavor than the rogue class. cus the rogue is all emcompassing of anyone roguey.

[Flickerdart]

The Warblade doesn't have to be a diplomat, or a tyrant, or an acrobat. He can just fight, and take the fighty skills with his skill points.

Also, how do you want a Fighter to be an Assassin without the skill points or class features? He would be the worst assassin who ever lived, which would soon mean a dead assassin.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Not to flog a dead horse here, but emphasis mine:

Again, feel free to disagree, but you cannot claim that your perceived flavour of Fighter is right, and mine is wrong. Interpretation of flavour is probably more subjective than anything else in the entire game. I'm not just talking about the pre-written fluff in the books, I'm talking about the connotations the name Fighter has for me after a quarter century of D&D. So you are saying that if I were to bring a pineapple to the table and name it 'Fighter', then it too would emulate the qualities you reminisce about?

No?

What's in a name? Will a rose, by any other name, still smell as sweet?

Look, I've been playing D&D since the Boxed Set myself. I understand the nostalgia. But if you go back to D&D, or AD&D, or AD&D 2nd ed, you will notice something:

The Fighter, in every iteration until 3e, was better at swinging a sword than anyone else.

Sure, the Thief had a Backstab multiplier, and eventually they came out with the Ranger, who could swing two swords at once, but the Fighter was the only one who got the higher Con bonuses to hit points, who had percentile strength numbers, who continued to get more hit points after level 9, and who had more weapon proficiencies than any three other classes put together. They were also the only ones who really GOT multiple attacks per turn. They were the only ones who could specialize. And he also leveled the fastest.

So the Fighter did something that no one else COULD do.

Enter 3rd ed, and the 3.5 fix. Everyone gets the same Con bonuses to hit points. Everyone got hit points at every level, clear through Epic. Everyone got iterative attacks. Everyone leveled up at the same rate. Lots of different classes got lots of different proficencies. Weapon Specialization no longer meant more attacks, just a flat +2 bonus.

Suddenly, the Fighter was no longer the best at anything.

Then along came ToB and Warblade. Suddenly, you had a Fighter archetype who could do something that no one else could. Suddenly, you had someone who CAN contribute to combat, who IS better with a weapon than anyone else, who DOES kick ass AND chew bubble gum at the same time.

This, I said to myself, is what Fighter should have been.


Also, I'm not really sure why people are so defensive about this. I'm not going to barge into your game, slap a character sheet out of your hand and tell you that you're wrong for playing a Warblade in preference to a Fighter; I'm merely offering the counterpoint that fluff/flavour is subjective, and not universal.I don't see that. I'm trying to say that fluff/flavor is subjective, and not universal. You're apparently trying to say the opposite, that fluff and flavor are irrevocably tied to specific classes and ONLY those classes.

You seem to be saying 'you can't be a Fighter unless you actually have levels in Fighter. No other class is a fighter, because that is what it is called... Fighter.' We are trying to point out that anyone can call themselves a fighter, but a fighter who can't even hold their own in a bar-room brawl is not going to be taken nearly as seriously as one who can.

[HappyBlanket]

Wait. For the purposes of this thread, how are we defining the term Fighter? Are we saying Fighter = Fighter as defined by the PHB, or are we saying Fighter = swings a weapon and wears armor? Because I've seen embarrassingly long winded arguments stem from confusion between the two.


-snip-

So basically... The book said this, and therefore I can't think otherwise? I mean, I know that you're saying that's how it is to you, and I imagine you're not willing to flirt with any alternative opinions, but you must acknowledge how absurd that is. I mean, this is your perception we're talking about. It's your own mind. What it does and how it acts is your responsibility.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Wait. For the purposes of this thread, how are we defining the term Fighter? Are we saying Fighter = Fighter as defined by the PHB, or are we saying Fighter = swings a weapon and wears armor? Because I've seen embarrassingly long winded arguments stem from confusion between the two.

I would be grateful to you if you could explain the difference between the two, because you pretty much quoted the PhB...

[HappyBlanket]

I would be grateful to you if you could explain the difference between the two, because you pretty much quoted the PhB...

Fighter(1) as defined by the PHB is a class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm), and only this class.

Fighter(2) as "wears armor and swings a sword (oh, and is nonmagical)" is a concept, and it includes classes like Warblade, Warrior, Fighter, and any other classes akin to them.

So all Fighters(1) are Fighters(2), but not all Fighters(2) are Fighters(1).

[Cerlis]

Wait. For the purposes of this thread, how are we defining the term Fighter? Are we saying Fighter = Fighter as defined by the PHB, or are we saying Fighter = swings a weapon and wears armor? Because I've seen embarrassingly long winded arguments stem from confusion between the two.



So basically... The book said this, and therefore I can't think otherwise? I mean, I know that you're saying that's how it is to you, and I imagine you're not willing to flirt with any alternative opinions, but you must acknowledge how absurd that is. I mean, this is your perception we're talking about. It's your own mind. What it does and how it acts is your responsibility.

100% my point. The OP is confused as to why people would think this way so i'm trying to explain how i think and why i think people who think simularly think the way they think.

So yes what i explained is exactly how I think and i never said anyone has to think a certian way. what i did emphasis is that people who think differently (such as the OP) think they way they think and should except that others think differently. and to some of us (theoretically, if i'm not he only one who feels this way) there is no changing the fact that we feel this way.

I told no one to think differently, nor did i say my way is better. i was just explaining that to me it is this way in an attempt to get those interested in understanding those who might be like minded to myself

@flickerdart
A warblade doesnt have to be, and a cleric doesnt have to cast spells. its up to him to do what he wants to do. but a warblade gets more skills because he represents a trope that falls into one of the many roles a fighter can fill. the warblade is described by the book to be a glory loving warrior, one of many roles a fighter can

And just cus a fighter would make a poor assassin doesnt mean he cant. a 12 year old child can make a good assassin with the right diplomacy and bluff checks. point is 3.5 fighter was made to represent someone who focuses on fighting. its a broad class that encompasses many tropes. and -as my personal choice- which -may or may not mimic the choices of like minded individuals- if i wanted to play a soldier, or a warrior or a master of arms i would probably pick a fighter, or have a different class dip fighter for say a Assassin who specializes in weapons, or a wizard who focuses on weapon spells. but say i want to play a flashy glory hero i'd choose warblade.

but the PHB says either literally or basically that a fighter encompasses a great many forms of warrior.

[HappyBlanket]

-snip-

Well, having another opinion is fine.
But, and I probably haven't mentioned this, but I'm approaching this topic whilst imaging a Player who wants to make an unarmed character who fights with his fists in a medieval setting. I'm imagining the DM shares your opinion that the book's fluff is set in stone, and therefore rules that ToB is banned, by merit of it's fluff not suiting the setting.

So we have two possibilities. A) The man in power continues believing that fluff is set in stone, and the Player, in pursuit of his concept, creates a Monk. Not surprisingly, the Monk fails miserably, and the Player grows envious of the other Players (who have created feasible builds) while scorning the DM.

B) The man in power allows himself to change the fluff of ToB, and the Player, in pursuit of his concept, creates an Unarmed Swordsage. Success is had, and the Player has a fun time.

And the only difference between the two is changing fluff.

I apologize in advance, but I don't agree with the sentiment that there's no changing the way a person thinks. Beliefs are malleable things, if you let them be.

[Flickerdart]

@flickerdart
A warblade doesnt have to be, and a cleric doesnt have to cast spells. its up to him to do what he wants to do. but a warblade gets more skills because he represents a trope that falls into one of the many roles a fighter can fill. the warblade is described by the book to be a glory loving warrior, one of many roles a fighter can

So...because a Warblade gets MORE skill points and abilities, he's a subset of the Fighter? That's absurd. It's the other way around - a Warblade can represent the Fighter if he wants. The Fighter cannot represent a Warblade.


And just cus a fighter would make a poor assassin doesnt mean he cant. a 12 year old child can make a good assassin with the right diplomacy and bluff checks.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You are arguing that with the right amount of natural 20s, a Commoner can be any class and any role? Good luck with that.



point is 3.5 fighter was made to represent someone who focuses on fighting.

So was the Warblade.



its a broad class that encompasses many tropes. and -as my personal choice- which -may or may not mimic the choices of like minded individuals- if i wanted to play a soldier, or a warrior or a master of arms i would probably pick a fighter

Which the Warblade can also do.



or have a different class dip fighter for say a Assassin who specializes in weapons, or a wizard who focuses on weapon spells.

Or dip a Warblade, in which case the character would be more proficient in weapons due to the level-appropriate abilities he gains.



but the PHB says either literally or basically that a fighter encompasses a great many forms of warrior.
And so does the Warblade (who gains the Fighter feats and skills, and lots more besides). A Warblade can be anything that a Fighter can be and more.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

100% my point. The OP is confused as to why people would think this way so i'm trying to explain how i think and why i think people who think simularly think the way they think. In effect... yes. How could mechanics have any possible impact on character story and background?


So yes what i explained is exactly how I think and i never said anyone has to think a certian way. what i did emphasis is that people who think differently (such as the OP) think they way they think and should except that others think differently. and to some of us (theoretically, if i'm not he only one who feels this way) there is no changing the fact that we feel this way.I'm still wondering what logical reason there is for assuming that the class Fighter is, in fact, a better ANYTHING than any other class out there. RP is fluff and flavor and easily portable.


but the PHB says either literally or basically that a fighter encompasses a great many forms of warrior.But it does so very poorly. A Fighter is expected to fight. But the class 'Fighter' cannot. Thus, they are not, in my opinion, good fighters.

And that is why it is nearly always better represented by a different class. Because there IS now a specialist class for every nitch you want to be.

Want to be a Ninja? Be a Swordsage with a heavy leavening on Shadow Hand. Maybe dip Rogue.

Want to be a 'Shining Warrior in Full Plate, wielding Shield and Sword to defend your comrades and slay your foes in honorable combat'? You just described Crusader.

Want to be a 'Weaponsmaster who can kill you with anything he can get his hands on, and has forgotten more ways of killing you than you have ever learned'? That's what we like to call a Warblade. Not enough for you? Fine. Look up the Haberdasherer. One level dip in Master of Masks for the Gladiator mask and you're proficient in every weapon ever printed. Yes, even those.

Want to be a Dashing Swordsman with rapier wit? That's also called a Warblade. Or, perhaps, Swashbuckler. Either fills the roll better than Fighter.

My point is this:

Game Mechanics are an artificial construct designed so that everyone can be on the same page when it comes to player and NPC interaction. It should cater to your character design, not mandate it.

[Heatwizard]

Not to mention that the name Warblade seems a trifle silly to me...as opposed to what, a Peaceblade? :smalltongue: (Yes, that was a joke).

Behold, the Peaceblade. (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=214368)

[Bhaakon]

No. Because no one finds it 'fun'. They play the game that way and the game is fun, but what it actually is is a mental straightjacket that sucks fun out of attempting all manner of cool or interesting concepts, and the fact that it has adherents does not legitimize it in any way.

Some people like detailed worlds, be they purchased campaign settings or homebrew, into which various permutations of characters either stick out like a sore thumb or actively violate the underling assumptions of the setting. To many of those people, refluffing important parts of the setting to shoe-horn in new mechanics is a grating retcon that violates the purpose of using an established setting in the first place. For them, working within and around the constraints of the setting is a large part of the fun.

Similarly, some people are going to complain about any setting that prevents them from playing any type of character concept they want, and are willing to put up with (or simply don't care about) some seriously strained fluff to make it happen.

To put it another way, one person's "cool and interesting" is another person's "lame and ridiculous", and that's just the way it is.

[LordBlades]

Warblade is a terrible name. It should never be used ingame. Which means that the class's fluff is easily changeable.

TBH 'fighter' is an equally silly name to use in character IMHO. I've personally never encountered in either novels or actual historical chronicles a person or group of people being referred to as 'fighter' or 'fighters'. Warrior, soldier, mercenary, knight, crusader, samurai etc. yes, but never 'fighter'.

[Cerlis]

Well, having another opinion is fine.
But, and I probably haven't mentioned this, but I'm approaching this topic whilst imaging a Player who wants to make an unarmed character who fights with his fists in a medieval setting. I'm imagining the DM shares your opinion that the book's fluff is set in stone, and therefore rules that ToB is banned, by merit of it's fluff not suiting the setting.

So we have two possibilities. A) The man in power continues believing that fluff is set in stone, and the Player, in pursuit of his concept, creates a Monk. Not surprisingly, the Monk fails miserably, and the Player grows envious of the other Players (who have created feasible builds) while scorning the DM.

B) The man in power allows himself to change the fluff of ToB, and the Player, in pursuit of his concept, creates an Unarmed Swordsage. Success is had, and the Player has a fun time.

And the only difference between the two is changing fluff.

I apologize in advance, but I don't agree with the sentiment that there's no changing the way a person thinks. Beliefs are malleable things, if you let them be.



scenario C. Player makes a monk and doesnt fail horribly. problem solved. Or player plays a rogue with imp unarmed strike. his die damage doesnt matter since hes sneak attacking them with pressure points and blows to the head. or he plays a fighter with clever use of game mechanics and official feats that allow him to overcome his 1d4 unarmed dmg. Everyone who rails against monks even say "monk is fine in a medium to low powered game" Heck you can even play a tier5 with a bunch a tier ones if everyone goes right.

Scenario D. the DM refluffs the the ToB classes to better fit with the setting. Feeling weird about basically homebrewing things. the game continues and everyone has fun including the DM who had reservations

--------------
by in large if my point here where to be simplified it would be that :People shouldnt be looked down upon, insulted, or treated as close minded nutters just because their first instinct is to avoid refluffing and just use the material already printed.




So...because a Warblade gets MORE skill points and abilities, he's a subset of the Fighter? That's absurd. It's the other way around - a Warblade can represent the Fighter if he wants. The Fighter cannot represent a Warblade.

That doesn't make any sense at all. You are arguing that with the right amount of natural 20s, a Commoner can be any class and any role? Good luck with that.


So was the Warblade.


Which the Warblade can also do.


Or dip a Warblade, in which case the character would be more proficient in weapons due to the level-appropriate abilities he gains.


And so does the Warblade (who gains the Fighter feats and skills, and lots more besides). A Warblade can be anything that a Fighter can be and more.
-no, because the page or two of fluff before the abilities are discussed in the book say how the warblade is a very specific form of warrior. THat they usually feel this way and that way about this and that; that they are a specific trope. and since that trope is a sub trope of the classic fighter, which a fighter is. then that means a warblade is essentially a main class designed to be that trope, with mechanical success. its like saying a ninja is a sub trope/class of rogue

- No i'm arguing that all it takes is a child with a knife to kill someone, so assuming a trained warrior cant assassinate someone is off. perhaps your confusing me for saying something i'm not.

- and no a warblade was designed to be someone who is skilled at fighting...and be a glory hog who seeks to immortalize himself in a bards song.
Mechanically speaking you may be right, since obviously the designers made warblade to "be a better fighter" but fluff wise, there is a good page or more distinguishing the two classes.

-and yes a warblade can also do it. cus its a sub trope of the main trope that a fighter represents. a warblade is a rectangle, a fighter is a square. just cus they do the same thing doesnt mean they are identical.

-and yes, you could dip warblade to be help make your character more skilled with weapons. in fact i might encourage it since warblade is a better class. (however I hear about people dipping fighter more than warblade cus of more bonus feats for a low lvl investment. hence dipping fighter to become a better arms master.)*to be clear i mean dipping fighter for combat feats, since feats are like crack to optimizers. i'm aware plenty of people dip Warblade for stances and maneuvers

-exactly. there are an infinite number of character concepts and since a warblade is almost exactly a fighter this is true. i'm trying to figure out if you think i'm saying a warblade isnt better than a fighter at being a warrior. cus i'm not saying that. i'm just saying a fighter isnt a warblade and a warblade isnt a fighter.




In effect... yes. How could mechanics have any possible impact on character story and background?

I'm still wondering what logical reason there is for assuming that the class Fighter is, in fact, a better ANYTHING than any other class out there. RP is fluff and flavor and easily portable.

But it does so very poorly. A Fighter is expected to fight. But the class 'Fighter' cannot. Thus, they are not, in my opinion, good fighters.

And that is why it is nearly always better represented by a different class. Because there IS now a specialist class for every nitch you want to be.

Want to be a Ninja? Be a Swordsage with a heavy leavening on Shadow Hand. Maybe dip Rogue.

Want to be a 'Shining Warrior in Full Plate, wielding Shield and Sword to defend your comrades and slay your foes in honorable combat'? You just described Crusader.

Want to be a 'Weaponsmaster who can kill you with anything he can get his hands on, and has forgotten more ways of killing you than you have ever learned'? That's what we like to call a Warblade. Not enough for you? Fine. Look up the Haberdasherer. One level dip in Master of Masks for the Gladiator mask and you're proficient in every weapon ever printed. Yes, even those.

Want to be a Dashing Swordsman with rapier wit? That's also called a Warblade. Or, perhaps, Swashbuckler. Either fills the roll better than Fighter.

My point is this:

Game Mechanics are an artificial construct designed so that everyone can be on the same page when it comes to player and NPC interaction. It should cater to your character design, not mandate it.

-not sure the point of first comment

-i dont know of anyone who thinks a fighter is better than anything(except npc classes). perhaps you think i'm saying something i'm not or i'm not explaining well enough

-a fighter CAN fight and he can do it well. a ToB class can do it better. a tier 1 class can do it best. but unless every optimizer on this board is wrong then a fighter does fine and dont pretend it doesnt.

dont confuse other classes doing better at its job than it with it not doing its job.

a fighter is suppose to hit stuff with a sword and it can and it does. if the warblade one shots it thats between the fighter and the warblade and their egos.


Some people like detailed worlds, be they purchased campaign settings or homebrew, into which various permutations of characters either stick out like a sore thumb or actively violate the underling assumptions of the setting. To many of those people, refluffing important parts of the setting to shoe-horn in new mechanics is a grating retcon that violates the purpose of using an established setting in the first place. For them, working within and around the constraints of the setting is a large part of the fun.

Similarly, some people are going to complain about any setting that prevents them from playing any type of character concept they want, and are willing to put up with (or simply don't care about) some seriously strained fluff to make it happen.

To put it another way, one person's "cool and interesting" is another person's "lame and ridiculous", and that's just the way it is.

this is very simular to my argument here. some seem to think that its "Fighter is just as good as warblade" when really i'm basically saying "some people think different and dont want to do it the same way you do"

[LordBlades]

a fighter is suppose to hit stuff with a sword and it can and it does. if the warblade one shots it thats between the fighter and the warblade and their egos.

Actually, a fighter is supposed to be good at hitting stuff with a sword, and this is where it kind of fails.

[Philistine]

Some people like detailed worlds, be they purchased campaign settings or homebrew, into which various permutations of characters either stick out like a sore thumb or actively violate the underling assumptions of the setting. To many of those people, refluffing important parts of the setting to shoe-horn in new mechanics is a grating retcon that violates the purpose of using an established setting in the first place. For them, working within and around the constraints of the setting is a large part of the fun.

Similarly, some people are going to complain about any setting that prevents them from playing any type of character concept they want, and are willing to put up with (or simply don't care about) some seriously strained fluff to make it happen.

To put it another way, one person's "cool and interesting" is another person's "lame and ridiculous", and that's just the way it is.
The whole point is that there IS no "strained fluff." Especially with classes like Fighter and Warblade, which have THE SAME fluff; but I can refluff a Barbarian's mechanics as Monk abilities ("Rage" becoming "Focus," with the same mechanical abilities being explained as mind-over-matter instead of nigh-uncontrollable anger, for example). How is it "straining" the setting if my "Monk" can periodically enter a trance-like state in which his strength, endurance, and willpower tick up a couple of notches, while yours gets to take an extra swing at an opponent every round (unless you moved more than 5')?

EDIT: At the risk of crossing up discussions, something I posted in the Tier Rant thread is probably even more appropriate in this thread.
When it comes to classes, you really OUGHT to ignore WotC's fluff text. In part this is because most of it is tripe - either so bland as to be meaningless (Fighter), or so hokey as to be ridiculous (Monk). Also because letting the classes' fluff text determine your character's personality leaves you with a very limited number of truly distinct characters you can play. (In that sense it's lucky that the flavor text is generally so uninspired, as that makes it easier to ignore.)

[Cerlis]

Actually, a fighter is supposed to be good at hitting stuff with a sword, and this is where it kind of fails.


there are a thousand pouncing leap power attacking fighters and dungeoncrasher fighters who would disagree with you. in fact my lvl 1 fighter who is fighting stuff with a ac of 12 with +6 to hit with no combat modifiers (flanking, charging) would disagree with you.

[Lord_Gareth]

The whole point is that there IS no "strained fluff." Especially with Fighter and Warblade, which have THE SAME fluff; but I can refluff a Barbarian's mechanics as Monk abilities ("Rage" becoming "Focus," with the same mechanical abilities being explained as mind-over-matter instead of nigh-uncontrollable anger, for example). How is it "straining" the setting if my "Monk" can periodically enter a trance-like state in which his strength, endurance, and willpower tick up a couple of notches, while yours gets to take an extra swing at an opponent every round (unless you moved more than 5')?

If I could quote this any harder I would. The idea that a class's mechanics can only be tied to its specific flavor literally brings nothing to the game - and what it takes away is quite a bit. I don't know about you, but that sounds like an active hindrance to fun to me.

[MeeposFire]

This reminds me of a debate on the WotC boards about reflavoring things. The debate centered on a rogue using a fullblade but using the stats of a dagger in all things. Now this is significant since rogues in 4e can't SA with a fullblade ever. That discussion became pretty heated. Most of the continual 4e players tended to be OK with it since in 4e it is very common to refluff things to suit a players vision but staying true to the RAW mechanics.

[Lord_Gareth]

there are a thousand pouncing leap power attacking fighters and dungeoncrasher fighters who would disagree with you. in fact my lvl 1 fighter who is fighting stuff with a ac of 12 with +6 to hit with no combat modifiers (flanking, charging) would disagree with you.

Mm-mm. And now these fighters are fighting flying enemies like dragons. Or teleporting ones like demons. Or there's a darkness spell present. Or someone casts wall of force. Or....

I can keep going if you like. Fighters suck at fighting, and their ability to ubercharge (which is still one method of affecting the campaign world, mind, and literally the only one they get) does not change this, especially since EVERYONE ELSE can charge too.

Oh, and those pouncing 'fighters' needed a level in Barbarian to pounce too, thus handily playing into our point that fluff is mutable.

[MeeposFire]

Actually, a fighter is supposed to be good at hitting stuff with a sword, and this is where it kind of fails.

Right now you are falling into a trap. Fighters are not a good class but he can hit things with his sword very well. That is not his problem. His problem is that is all he can do.

[Cerlis]

The whole point is that there IS no "strained fluff." Especially with Fighter and Warblade, which have THE SAME fluff; but I can refluff a Barbarian's mechanics as Monk abilities ("Rage" becoming "Focus," with the same mechanical abilities being explained as mind-over-matter instead of nigh-uncontrollable anger, for example). How is it "straining" the setting if my "Monk" can periodically enter a trance-like state in which his strength, endurance, and willpower tick up a couple of notches, while yours gets to take an extra swing at an opponent every round (unless you moved more than 5')?

whos to say that people who have issues with having people flip around and shoot fireballs out of their fingers with their key and teleporting around like a chinese movie wouldnt be ok with a tough trancing monk?

the fluff change you gave is an example of a fluff change i'm sure many people would be ok with. but say "Psionics" or "ToB" near the wrong setting and the DMs will grab their folder of campaign stuff in defense.

making ToB fit in a setting that is not very Tome of battly is possible but it WOULD be a stretch

[Lord_Gareth]

Right now you are falling into a trap. Fighters are not a good class but he can hit things with his sword very well. That is not his problem. His problem is that is all he can do.

His other problem is that all the monsters he's fighting hit things better. Against a monster of a CR appropriate to the party's level, a fighter will always be lesser than the melee brute monsters without ubercharging being involved.

[MeeposFire]

Mm-mm. And now these fighters are fighting flying enemies like dragons. Or teleporting ones like demons. Or there's a darkness spell present. Or someone casts wall of force. Or....

I can keep going if you like. Fighters suck at fighting, and their ability to ubercharge (which is still one method of affecting the campaign world, mind, and literally the only one they get) does not change this, especially since EVERYONE ELSE can charge too.

Oh, and those pouncing 'fighters' needed a level in Barbarian to pounce too, thus handily playing into our point that fluff is mutable.

You are taking his retort out of context. He is refuting that fighter cant hit with a sword well. You are talking about the real problems of the fighter which are things that are not hitting things with his sword like mobility and dealing with obstacles.

[Cerlis]

Mm-mm. And now these fighters are fighting flying enemies like dragons. Or teleporting ones like demons. Or there's a darkness spell present. Or someone casts wall of force. Or....

I can keep going if you like. Fighters suck at fighting, and their ability to ubercharge (which is still one method of affecting the campaign world, mind, and literally the only one they get) does not change this, especially since EVERYONE ELSE can charge too.

Oh, and those pouncing 'fighters' needed a level in Barbarian to pounce too, thus handily playing into our point that fluff is mutable.


that comment was in reply to saying fighters dont hit stuff well. as Meep said, they can do it. the problem is thats all they can do.

So i'm not sure how "Fighters arent tier 1 or 2" contradicts "Fighters can hit stuff"

[ffone]

Discussion on this topic (which is a regular rcoccurence) always seems to fall into the same false dichotomy:

"Mechanics = Flavor"

vs

"No relationship whatsoever."

The Paladin class can be used to play a samurai, sure (I mean, obviously - it's not like pre CW anyone would've said "well there's no Samurai Class, so obviously it's impossible to play one in DnD.")

But IMO not all pairs of classes are equally interchangeable. The spellcasting classes tend to be somewhat less interchangeable, due to the Vancian nature of casting and the separate progressions (whereas levels of paaldin, samurai etc. all tend to contribute toward the same "pile of BAB, feats, and other attack-y things").

Sure, you *can* roleplay a Wizard as a Druid by saying the power comes from nature. But this comes with assumptions about the campaign world (that 'Nature' does in fact grant certain spells, which require a spellbook or whatever object you want to refluff a spellbook as, and doesn't prohibit metal armor but instead has casting failure, yadda yadda) - and certain campaign worlds like the Forgotten Realms have an actual notion of 'here's how magic works' (obviously the novels don't all tow it, which would be impossible since they span many versions).

At some point, saying you can refluff anything as anything is tautological - I want to play a Wizard with the fluff of a Barbarian - his primal rage lets him throw balls of fire because he's so anggrrrry! - this is little more than semantics (I say "instinct" or "rage" instead of "arcane magic") and cosplay (I wear furs instead or robes) which IMO isn't very interesting or illuminating.

Whereas playing a Wizard who has the *background* and trappings of a particular upbringing (from a small tribe, somehow got his hands on some scrolls and a spellbook or began scribbling on animal hide by himself, maybe self-taught like a small number of mathematicians in RL), and wears furs or goes around barechested and frothing or whatever you please - but whose Wizard Magic still is Wizard Magic like those of the wizards in the southern cities (as opposed to Rage-Instinct-Magic which the Spellcraft checks to ID castings of somehow still work on...), is, in my opinion, more interesting (because the character is now part of a consistent world rather than having to have the forces or magic re-explained by the DM for the entire cosmos, all to suit today's whim of the player and his new PC).

[Coidzor]

the fluff change you gave is an example of a fluff change i'm sure many people would be ok with. but say "Psionics" or "ToB" near the wrong setting and the DMs will grab their folder of campaign stuff in defense.

That just sounds like personal character flaws, insecurity, and immaturity more than anything. :smallconfused: What's your point here? Because I don't really want to indulge or embrace the fears and paranoia of others.


making ToB fit in a setting that is not very Tome of battly is possible but it WOULD be a stretch

What do you mean by "Tome of battly?" Many of the maneuvers are just things that actually trained combatants can just do, but were never actually modeled in 3.X until then, from what I recall.

[Lord_Gareth]

whos to say that people who have issues with having people flip around and shoot fireballs out of their fingers with their key and teleporting around like a chinese movie wouldnt be ok with a tough trancing monk?

the fluff change you gave is an example of a fluff change i'm sure many people would be ok with. but say "Psionics" or "ToB" near the wrong setting and the DMs will grab their folder of campaign stuff in defense.

making ToB fit in a setting that is not very Tome of battly is possible but it WOULD be a stretch

Okay, I'm going to walk away from this thread for the evening, as it's 3 AM where I am and I'm not sure I can continue this in a civil fashion, but I needed to say this: Cerlis, the sheer amount of "completely missing the point" in this post is so great that one almost suspects it's deliberate. If the DM doesn't want to learn a new system, that's one thing (as his laziness has nothing to do with flavor). We're not disputing that at all. What we are disputing is the idea that a different mechanical system automatically has a different flavor. If my character swings so powerfully that he strikes two enemies at once, did I just use Cleave or Steel Wind? If I roar to unleash my rage before leaping on my enemy from above, did I just Claw at the Moon or Leap Attack? If I blow off an enemy's finger of death like it was nothing, did I just successfully use my Mettle class feature (from Hexblade or Crusader) or activate my Mind over Body counter?

Fluff. Is. Mutable. Mechanics are just a convenient shorthand for what you're attempting to get your character to do, and the idea that the two are married in a system like 3.5 is literally nothing short of woefully ignorant.

(Mind, if we were talking World of Darkness we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

there are a thousand pouncing leap power attacking fighters and dungeoncrasher fighters who would disagree with you. in fact my lvl 1 fighter who is fighting stuff with a ac of 12 with +6 to hit with no combat modifiers (flanking, charging) would disagree with you.

Can't get Pounce without something other than Fighter, so you've just proven the point...

And I can get a Barbarian at level 1 who can do this with pathetic ease.

+1 (BAB)
+5 (STR, being Half-Orc)
+ 2 (from the bonus strength from rage)

There's a +8 right there. With zero optimization, without ever cracking any book other than the PhB. Oh, and he CAN actually Pounce. Trust me, you don't want to go there. The CharOp members of the board will eat you alive over a statement like that.

However, my question to you: How does the fact that you use Warblade instead of Fighter (or, if you prefer, the reverse) in any way affects your character concept?

For every character concept, there is multiple different ways to build it, so that the end result is the same. If you want a guy who can beat on things, you can do that. You can call yourself a fighter while doing it, just like Miko calls herself a Samurai, despite being a Monk/Paladin.

If you want to play a 'monk', you don't have to play the class "Monk". You don't have to play a Swordsage either. You don't have to go Tashalatora. You can take any route you want to get there.

By that same token, it doesn't matter what mechanics you use to get you to where you want to go, it's still your character, and you play it however you want to.

Mechanics are inherently divorced from character concepts. In fact, character concepts should be created LONG before you even THINK about cracking open a book to see what class best fits IT.

Game Mechanics are there to keep everyone from playing free-form and arguing about "Bang! I shot you, you're dead!" "No, you missed, but I shot you, so YOU are dead!" ad infinitum.

So, since game mechanics is merely the framework upon which we stretch our canvas, it behooves us to choose one most ideally suited to the creation we wish to make this time. And if you want to build a character that is good at hitting things, then the last thing you want to do is to put in more than two levels of Fighter, because you will be ruining your fundamental concept of 'can hit stuff well'.

[Ravens_cry]

You would have to change a few rules to make a Barbarian into a Monk. Monks lived by a strict code and often included various vows that were taken seriously. I do not see that fitting with the "Must not be lawful" rule. The Illiteracy does not really fit the fluff for most monks either. Finally, a Barbarian when rages loses some AC. It's not much, but it fits the Berserker fluff in that their rage is a heedless rush into battle, brute strength over finesse. "Focus" would generally imply the opposite. The Whirling Frenzy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/classFeatureVariants.htm) would fit Monks better, in my opinion than the default Rage.

[LordBlades]

Right now you are falling into a trap. Fighters are not a good class but he can hit things with his sword very well. That is not his problem. His problem is that is all he can do.

I beg to disagree. A fighter (as in single classed fighter) has several problems in regards to hitting stuff with a sword:

His attack bonus is at best BAB+Str+weapon bonus+2(if you burn 2 feats on greater weapon focus).

You have no way to do more than 1 attack if you need to move more than 5 ft.

You have no built-in way to boost your to-hit bonus (no Rage/Frenzy, no ability to cast buffs, no ability to make attacks as touch etc.).

These are the reasons why I say fighters are not good at fighting with a sword.

Dungeoncrashers are good, but they don't hit things with swords.
Uberchargers are also good, but most of them rely on Pounce and Whirling Frenzy,which are gained from Barbarian class, not Fighter.

[Cerlis]

That just sounds like personal character flaws, insecurity, and immaturity more than anything. :smallconfused: What's your point here?



What do you mean "Tome of battly?" Many of the maneuvers are just things that actually trained combatants can just do, but were never actually modeled in 3.X until then, from what I recall.

-I was being dramatic. that is to say that a DM who has a very thought out campaign world would have issue with bringing such dramatic different forms of power into a world that doesnt have that. If they are going for Lord of the rings dramatic gritty looking battle then flashy intense stuff (which i love) such as that in ToB would probably make the DM uncomfortable. my point is (though i can only guess at other peoples minds based off my time on this earth) that i'd think many people could be persuaded to alter the crunch of barbarian with the fluff of a monk. but ToB, psionics, and other magic systems are more dramatic changes. turning rage into a trance is different than going from a campaign where people fight tooth and nail to being able to punch through walls, or igniting their weapons with spirit energy. My point is these two refluffs are not simular. so its wrong to think that someone wanting to avoid major refluffs would be against ALL refluffs. there is a middle ground.

--ok let me use an example. Lord of the Rings is gritty and realistic. Magic is scarce. armor is realistic. its easy to die. World of warcraft though gorey is more "cartoony". magic is more flashy and more rampant. armor is gaudy and strange. glowing eyes are everywhere.-----------ToB has people attacking at supperhuman speed. Igniting weapons with their ki. Teleporting behind opponents. Though these abilities exist in standard setting, they are not easily accessed by melee characters. I would imagine many people who are fine with new systems but still dont like Tome of Battle probably feel that such intense stunts and flashy moves would mess with the the gritty feel or melee combat that is common.

I dont know if thats how they feel or what, but thats what i meant. imagine if in Lord of the Rings if gimli was punching through walls, if legolas ran across the battlefield with fire in his wake....would change the feel of the battle and even the story. it was gritty and realistic. and intense abilities woulda ruined that.

[ffone]

Barb Rage as a 'drunken master monk' thing might be amusing. (If the DM doesn't want to actually require alcohol on hand, declare that not having his drink...can send the guy into a rage!)




I dont know if thats how they feel or what, but thats what i meant. imagine if in Lord of the Rings if gimli was punching through walls, if legolas ran across the battlefield with fire in his wake....would change the feel of the battle and even the story. it was gritty and realistic. and intense abilities woulda ruined that.

Peter Jackson seemed to think Legolas knew Spider Climb (or rather, Elephant Climb) :smallconfused:

And Shield Surf.

[Honest Tiefling]

I agree with Ffone, in that some classes work at it better then others. In some settings, you have more wiggleroom to refluff classes as well.

But if I were the DM, I would say that fluff is only immutable as long as the mechanics are not changed. You want to play your warblade as coming from a barbarian village? Do you need to change mechanics? Sure, fine.

And the preclass fluff? I...Actually never look at it much. I find it silly in some cases (Lawful wizards? Um...Not often) and downright restrictive in others. More restrictive then I think any player would be comfortable with.

Personally, I also find that referring to classes grinds my gears. A lot. I know that this is only a personal pet peeve, but it never made sense to me. How do people know that beguilers and wizard/rogues are not the same thing? People probably mistake beguilers for assassins. A hexblade could probably pass for a bard with the right character choices. I just do not see the world divided neatly into a certain amount of character classes and people distinguishing between fighters, knights and warriors in the same profession. But I respect that other people might have different views on this and probably have campaign settings where it all makes sense or see the classes differently.

But in closing...Fluff is mechanics if your party decides such. Saying they are different is only valid if your group agrees. Saying they are not is only valid if your group agrees to that as well. Some settings might very well treat ToB differently, and people do play the game differently then others. What matters is that everyone has fun in their own way.

[Ravens_cry]

Barb Rage as a 'drunken master monk' thing might be amusing. (If the DM doesn't want to actually require alcohol on hand, declare that not having his drink...can send the guy into a rage!)

Wll, again, if you make it so it's "Add Alcohol for rage" that's still a rules change. Your comment reminds me of another Barbarians (http://www.yamara.com/yamara/index.php?date=2006-06-08) justification for raging.
Besides, the drunken master style was about imitating the weaving, unpredictable and loose limbed movement of a drunkard, you weren't actually supposed to be drunk. Except Bob, Bob is always like that. Still, as a DM, I would allow the rules tweaks, as long as they are acknowledged as such, and refluffing, because hey, if it fits your concept best, go for it.

[Cerlis]

Okay, I'm going to walk away from this thread for the evening, as it's 3 AM where I am and I'm not sure I can continue this in a civil fashion, but I needed to say this: Cerlis, the sheer amount of "completely missing the point" in this post is so great that one almost suspects it's deliberate. If the DM doesn't want to learn a new system, that's one thing (as his laziness has nothing to do with flavor). We're not disputing that at all. What we are disputing is the idea that a different mechanical system automatically has a different flavor. If my character swings so powerfully that he strikes two enemies at once, did I just use Cleave or Steel Wind? If I roar to unleash my rage before leaping on my enemy from above, did I just Claw at the Moon or Leap Attack? If I blow off an enemy's finger of death like it was nothing, did I just successfully use my Mettle class feature (from Hexblade or Crusader) or activate my Mind over Body counter?

Fluff. Is. Mutable. Mechanics are just a convenient shorthand for what you're attempting to get your character to do, and the idea that the two are married in a system like 3.5 is literally nothing short of woefully ignorant.

(Mind, if we were talking World of Darkness we wouldn't be having this discussion.)

you name stuff that gives the same effect basically. but if we are leaving out the idea of someone scrapping ToB just for the new system, and talking about the mechanics. then there is a Immutable difference between gaining the ability to get a free attack of opportunity. or +2 on an attack....and launching a fireball when you swing your sword. a difference between getting +4 when flanking instead of +2 , and magically allowing your party to charge out of turn i with an big attack bonus and calling it an extrodinary ability.
and everything in DnD is married to each other. but i'm not saying you cant get a divorce.

and there is really no need to act like i'm saying something i'm not. I have implied in at least two posts that i agree the idea of being so stingy with fluff is illogical. I Illogically get uncomfortable with the idea of changing up fluff to get what you want and ruiningdissecting the rules how you see fit. And other people have that same reservation. Luckily most of us are open minded to accept changes if its balanced or doesnt ruin our campaign setting. So i'm not sure what the point. That its illogical to be so stingy with fluff? i already admitted that more than once in more than one way. THat its stupid for me to think differently than you? i hope not.



These are the reasons why I say fighters are not good at fighting with a sword.

and my issue is that it seems like this opinion is formed by comparing it to classes which do their job better. everyone here knows Fighter is a low tier. everyone knows they suck. you have to be highly optimized to get them to compete. it doesnt matter. yes warblade is oh so much better than fighter. that doesnt mean the rectangle is a square or the icecooler is a chair. if they where the same thing we wouldnt be having this discussion because we couldnt tell the difference. they are different, and some people choose one over the other because it feels different. and thats a fact.

[Thurbane]

You seem to be saying 'you can't be a Fighter unless you actually have levels in Fighter. No other class is a fighter, because that is what it is called... Fighter.' We are trying to point out that anyone can call themselves a fighter, but a fighter who can't even hold their own in a bar-room brawl is not going to be taken nearly as seriously as one who can.
I completely get your point, really I do. You can call any class a Fighter. Sure.

I don't think I could have possibly made it any clearer that I was talking about my own fluff/flavor associations. And that for me, calling a Warblade a Fighter simply does not work. I am not saying your general point is wrong, at all. I am saying that some people have definite associations with certain game terms.

Anyone out there playing a game is completely free to associate whatever flavor they want with any metagame construct, be it class names or whatever else (FWIW, I have played in plenty of games where people use metagame ideals such as class names in character, as part of the game world, too). But some of us either don't want to, or have associations different than yours - and that's perfectly OK too.

Completely aside from the fact that my group doesn't use ToB, the Warblade will never be a "Fighter" to me, any more than the Factotum will be a Rogue - I don't see how there's anything wrong with that. I enjoy D&D very much under my own fluff and flavor associations, and I don't need anyone insinuating that I or my group is somehow "wrong" for this (not actually accusing anyone here of doing so, BTW).

I am very much an advocate of "whatever works at your table", and would never be so arrogant as to apply my own ideals to others games. If the Warblade is the default Fighter in your game, I have absolutely zero problem with that. My comments have merely been offering a counterpoint, from a different point of view. I do not hold that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's.

[MeeposFire]

I beg to disagree. A fighter (as in single classed fighter) has several problems in regards to hitting stuff with a sword:

His attack bonus is at best BAB+Str+weapon bonus+2(if you burn 2 feats on greater weapon focus).

You have no way to do more than 1 attack if you need to move more than 5 ft.

You have no built-in way to boost your to-hit bonus (no Rage/Frenzy, no ability to cast buffs, no ability to make attacks as touch etc.).

These are the reasons why I say fighters are not good at fighting with a sword.

Dungeoncrashers are good, but they don't hit things with swords.
Uberchargers are also good, but most of them rely on Pounce and Whirling Frenzy,which are gained from Barbarian class, not Fighter.

You are still describing mostly things that are not hitting it with a sword. Fighters are not tier 5 because they can't deal damage, they can. They are tier 5 from a lack of versatility. You can essentially match rage bonuses to hit and damage with bonus feats that is not a big deal (and if you are a straight fighter what else are you going to get). Pounce is not about power but versatility as it is about giving you more ways of obtaining full attacks (of course that leads to more damage but the big thing here is getting more full attacks). Once again the fighter swings a sword fine he lacks the versatility to get to use it. This is also why the PF fighter mostly fails. Stock PF fighters just upped the numbers which is not the problem. You are fixating on the wrong problem which is the reason why the PF fighter is still poor when they could have fixed it up.

As a further example why are ToB characters higher tier. It isn't about damage because a lot of characters could out damage ToB characters but few of them are as flexible and versatile (which is something a fighter is not which kills them in any discussion of class effectiveness). A strike is often less powerful than a full attack but the fact that it may be a standard action allows it to be used in situations that you can't get a full attack. That is a huge part of ToB being tier 3. It is not a coincidence that ToB is tier 3 (ability to deal good damage in any situation even with standard action), barbs are tier 4 (can get full attacks in more situations than normal), and the fighter is tier 5 (can only get full attacks in the standard situations).

[Lord_Gareth]

you name stuff that gives the same effect basically. but if we are leaving out the idea of someone scrapping ToB just for the new system, and talking about the mechanics. then there is a Immutable difference between gaining the ability to get a free attack of opportunity. or +2 on an attack....and launching a fireball when you swing your sword. a difference between getting +4 when flanking instead of +2 , and magically allowing your party to charge out of turn i with an big attack bonus and calling it an extrodinary ability.
and everything in DnD is married to each other. but i'm not saying you cant get a divorce.

Okay. You've tripped a very old pet peeve of mine through no fault of your own, so please, know that this is not directed at you specifically, but at this entire line of thought to begin with:

If you don't like the (Su) disciplines in ToB, ban them.

One would not imagine this to be a novel concept but, evidently, it is! Every time Tome of Battle comes up, its detractors immediately latch onto Desert Wind and then lose their minds over the idea that someone is performing a supernatural weapon-based attack. So ban it. Done! Simple! Easy! No effort required.

As far as White Raven goes, the term you're looking for is "superior leadership", and the Marshal also gets it. It's not magic, just good tactics represented by a single, defining mechanic.

[Knaight]

We're still in the D&D 3.5 forum, last I saw. That means that this is explicitly aimed at playing in the 3.5 system. If you want to play something else, that's your cuppa. But rules systems from other games really has no bearing on this discussion

No, but that doesn't mean that concepts applicable to the genre don't apply to D&D. That mechanics have an impact on flavor is part of this, and while obvious and start illustrations can be drawn from completely made up, simply explanations, they still apply to a less overt degree regardless. To say that the connection between mechanics and representation can be altered is a true statement; to say that mechanics have no influence patently false. Nitpicking the hypothetical model that best provides a clear illustration doesn't change that.

If you insist on examples from D&D 3.5 specifically, that can easily be done. Say someone wants to be an arcane archer, but doesn't want to use the aforementioned class due to it being completely terrible. Flavor mutability does allow some easy options, such as re-flavoring the warlock. However, the mechanics of the paladin simply don't work for that. All they can really do is extra damage occasionally, along with the capacity to enchant their weapons, nothing they have even remotely resembles an ability to use arrows to cast spells. Warlock invocations, while not spells, are close enough to use.

The way the mechanics failed to fit an ability? That would be them having an influence. For that matter, the fact that the mechanics of a first level character would fail to adequately represent a badass dragonslayer is another simple example where the mechanics have an influence. There are a lot of these, which is to be expected, given that the reason we bother with mechanical character representation is that mechanics represent characters, at some level or other. In D&D, this is largely a matter of capabilities alone, but it is still there. Similarly, the presence of a rule system in which these characters exist acts in some way to emulate genres. The gigantic cap in power between low and high level characters in any edition of D&D, particularly 3.x lends itself to a world with some characters lifted far above the norm, and a process of getting to that point from a normal person. The presence of lots of save or die spells leads itself to a world where anyone can die easily, the presence and nature of resurrection magic leads itself to a world where death is fairly cheap, and to reiterate this is a case where mechanics lead to flavor.

[Bhaakon]

The whole point is that there IS no "strained fluff." Especially with classes like Fighter and Warblade, which have THE SAME fluff; but I can refluff a Barbarian's mechanics as Monk abilities ("Rage" becoming "Focus," with the same mechanical abilities being explained as mind-over-matter instead of nigh-uncontrollable anger, for example). How is it "straining" the setting if my "Monk" can periodically enter a trance-like state in which his strength, endurance, and willpower tick up a couple of notches, while yours gets to take an extra swing at an opponent every round (unless you moved more than 5')?

I never said anything about warblades. Barring things like the ludicrous Iron Heart Surge shenanigans, most maneuvers don't really clash with the common fluffing of fighter-type classes as bad-ass normals setup.

What I'm talking about is when a player tries to play a character that directly violates the established fluff of a setting to the point where the work around is strained to ridiculousness. Like (to use an extreme example) a player who wants to be a planetouched halfing monk/sorcerer/dragon disciple in a low magic home brew all-human world based on medieval Europe which explicitly exists outside the standard D&D cosmology. To use a more subtle example, some of the extreme high-op builds I see often include dips and class combinations that don't make a ton of sense in terms of role playing, which I would (as a DM) be inclined to ban from my games without some sort of elaborate and reasonable justification. Not to say that extreme high op is bad, just to say that some people favor an internal logic to their role playing, others prefer to mechanically optimize their character, and still other like to come up with unusual character concepts, and these three preferences (and I'm sure there are others I haven't considered) can and do come to loggerheads--often within the same person.

Which isn't to say that I'm always a slave to internal logic. For instance, I would never say that a player couldn't advance in a particular character level because he/she had neglected to use that classes abilities in game (which a friend of mine did to me one, refusing to let me advance my gish's level in wizard because I hadn't cast enough spells in combat). The point is that there's a balance to be stuck, and sometimes that means that established fluff overrules RAW.

[Heatwizard]

then there is a Immutable difference between gaining the ability to get a free attack of opportunity. or +2 on an attack....and launching a fireball when you swing your sword.

...So? The only one who can do that is the Swordsage, who is explicitly flavored as a gish.

[Lord_Gareth]

...So? The only one who can do that is the Swordsage, who is explicitly flavored as a gish.

See my above post re: ban 'em if you don't like 'em as well.

[LordBlades]

and my issue is that it seems like this opinion is formed by comparing it to classes which do their job better. everyone here knows Fighter is a low tier. everyone knows they suck. you have to be highly optimized to get them to compete. it doesnt matter. yes warblade is oh so much better than fighter. that doesnt mean the rectangle is a square or the icecooler is a chair. if they where the same thing we wouldnt be having this discussion because we couldnt tell the difference. they are different, and some people choose one over the other because it feels different. and thats a fact.

I'm not comparing the fighter with anything. I merely gave some reasons why I think fighters aren't very good at swinging swords at things (not having a very high to-hit modifier nor a high enough damage without ubercharging, being highly dependent of the enemy not moving etc.).

If you want to get in comparisons, think about this: can you claim to be good at something when about 80% of the other guys that do the same thing are better than you?

[Cerlis]

...So? The only one who can do that is the Swordsage, who is explicitly flavored as a gish.

the point is that the fluff isnt COMPLETELY mutable. because many abilities create fluff by default. you can fluff Bears endurance as a form of rage or mental training but you cant really fluff waving your hands around, throwing guano in the air (which is in the rules isnt fluff but required of the rules) to create a fireball; you cant refluff that as a whirlwind.

Many of the things he pointed out are interchangable and all that matters is what you say it is. but even mundane disciplines allow you to go above and beyond what a rogue barbarian or fighter would be able to do without epic feats (like using a skill check to mimic a spell). thus making their fighting styles magical looking which would in tern change the fluff of the class.

@Lord Gareth.
thats very good and all. but i was just using the most extreme example. as i described in the paragraph above when you get abilities so flashy and a character performing them then it changes their fluff.

-----------------------

I'm starting to think this entire thing is based off the difference between "Fighter" and "fighter"


--------------------
I'm not comparing the fighter with anything. I merely gave some reasons why I think fighters aren't very good at swinging swords at things (not having a very high to-hit modifier nor a high enough damage without ubercharging, being highly dependent of the enemy not moving etc.).

If you want to get in comparisons, think about this: can you claim to be good at something when about 80% of the other guys that do the same thing are better than you?

yes you can. Say i'm a worksman at a contractor site. I'm a good worker, i know my stuff, but i'm new to the job so everyone is a bit better than me. it doesnt mean i stink at my job.

[Heatwizard]

See my above post re: ban 'em if you don't like 'em as well.

Yeh, but it doesn't hit on my pet peeve with the whole thing, where people go "Look at this! The guy swings his sword, and...and FIRE comes out! What? That's absurd! Swords and magic can't be used together! Get this nonsense away from me. Sure, you can play a Duskblade."

e: Never mind, my browser's acting funny. I'll post anew.

[Cerlis]

Yeh, but it doesn't hit on my pet peeve with the whole thing, where people go "Look at this! The guy swings his sword, and...and FIRE comes out! What? That's absurd! Swords and magic can't be used together! Get this nonsense away from me. Sure, you can play a Duskblade."

the problem is when you try to pass off the inhuman strength and constitution super hearing Warblade, or the teleporting firebreathing, super speed swordsage as "Just a warrior" or "Just a monk"

[Lord_Gareth]

@Lord Gareth.
thats very good and all. but i was just using the most extreme example. as i described in the paragraph above when you get abilities so flashy and a character performing them then it changes their fluff.

Name me one flash ability from the (Ex) disciplines. Go ahead, name me one. White Raven's all about leadership; the granted actions represent tactical coordination and superior strategy. Diamond Mind is the very essence of understatement. Tiger Claw is what the Barbarian should have been in the first place, and has the added benefit of being based on real dagger-born knife styles (including, in some cases, the whole "jumping on your enemy" thing). Stone Dragon is about physical power and it bashes things really hard. Setting Sun is another one based on real-life combat. Iron Heart gets, what, IHS, Wall of Blades and Avalanche of Blades as its "flashiest" abilities, and they're Willpower, Parry, and Rapid Attacks, respectively?

No, they're not flashy. Many of them are only barely beyond the realm of mundane possibility. Almost all of them have deep roots in what real warriors on Earth do or have done and, getting further, their only real sin is in giving melee something interesting to do mechanically. Your knee-jerk reaction to the martial classes doesn't change the fact that the Warblade is the exact same thing as a Fighter (to the point of even being able to take fighter-only feats) fluff-wise, just as the idea of the Swordsage is the exact same thing as a Monk (who also gets a giant spread of (Su) abilities, I might add) and the Crusader is the exact same thing as a Paladin. Your argument is not sustainable, sir, as the ground it stands on does not exist.

[Heatwizard]

the problem is when you try to pass off the inhuman strength and constitution super hearing Warblade, or the teleporting firebreathing, super speed swordsage as "Just a warrior" or "Just a monk"

Just because a Fighter 20 can't do it doesn't make it magic. If you decide that Warbades are the bog standard face-puncher class, then, by definition, they are 'just a warrior', and the things they do are 'typical warrior nonsense'. 'Sides, you don't get into the really zany stuff until the higher levels, in which case you begin to enter the super-human anyway.

[Lord_Gareth]

Just because a Fighter 20 can't do it doesn't make it magic. If you decide that Warbades are the bog standard face-puncher class, then, by definition, they are 'just a warrior', and the things they do are 'typical warrior nonsense'. 'Sides, you don't get into the really zany stuff until the higher levels, in which case you begin to enter the super-human anyway.

Psh, have you read the endurance and fatigue rules? D&D characters regularly ignore feats of endurance, strength and speed that would literally kill a normal human even at low levels. Everything else is just a matter of how powerful the monster you're fighting is.

[Heatwizard]

Psh, have you read the endurance and fatigue rules? D&D characters regularly ignore feats of endurance, strength and speed that would literally kill a normal human even at low levels. Everything else is just a matter of how powerful the monster you're fighting is.

I just read a blog post like a week ago, and it crunched some numbers and noted that everything's mildly realistic as long as you keep in mind 70% of humanity is Commoner 1(and the other 30% never gets further then 3, tops), but I neglected to bookmark, so.

[TroubleBrewing]

To use a more subtle example, some of the extreme high-op builds I see often include dips and class combinations that don't make a ton of sense in terms of role playing, which I would (as a DM) be inclined to ban from my games without some sort of elaborate and reasonable justification.

I think this argument involves a certain amount of another popular discussion: Whether or not classes are a metagame construct.

With this example, a build with "tons of dips and class combos that don't make sense in terms of roleplaying", I have several issues:

1) The idea that a certain build is invalid because it contains a lot of varied information (I.E. Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Abjurant Champion 10/Spellsword 1/Other CHA Class 3) is narrow-minded.

I've played plenty of Fighter 2/Ranger 1/Rogue 2 adventurers in the pet setting of one of my best friends (it's a gritty, low-magic, core-only setting). That's three classes in five levels, and it fits my concept of "pragmatic, skilled warrior with decent amount of woodcraft and a loyal wolf companion". Admittedly, this could have been accomplished with Ranger, but I like skill points and SA damage. My point is that certain builds require dips to be viable. Some builds require dips to even exist, let alone be effective at their chosen role.

2) The idea that the above is invalid because it "doesn't make sense in terms of roleplaying" is a fallacy. Roleplaying is totally separate from what is on your character sheet. Just because I have twelve classes, three different spell lists, two soulmelds and a PP pool doesn't mean my character "doesn't make sense from a roleplaying perspective". It means I'm playing an eccentric collector of obscure magika from around the multiverse. There are many more possible examples of varied and sometimes contradictory class combinations producing functional and perfectly believable builds.

My point can be summed up like this: Classes are metagame constructs. They exist to provide a mechanical way of organizing certain abilities, and have no function beyond that. If they did, all city guards would introduce themselves as James the Fighter or Bob the Paladin, every wild man living in the woods would become Jack Druid and Barbarian Walter James Neysmith, Esquire, and all singers would introduce themselves as Bard Dave. Classes do not exist within the game world; within the game world, only skill sets exist. If a given person has SA damage, he's good at hitting people where it hurts. The world doesn't care if you got those dice from Lurk levels or Rogue levels; it only cares that your dagger just out-damaged the greatsword.

[Cerlis]

Name me one flash ability from the (Ex) disciplines. Go ahead, name me one. White Raven's all about leadership; the granted actions represent tactical coordination and superior strategy. Diamond Mind is the very essence of understatement. Tiger Claw is what the Barbarian should have been in the first place, and has the added benefit of being based on real dagger-born knife styles (including, in some cases, the whole "jumping on your enemy" thing). Stone Dragon is about physical power and it bashes things really hard. Setting Sun is another one based on real-life combat. Iron Heart gets, what, IHS, Wall of Blades and Avalanche of Blades as its "flashiest" abilities, and they're Willpower, Parry, and Rapid Attacks, respectively?

No, they're not flashy. Many of them are only barely beyond the realm of mundane possibility. Almost all of them have deep roots in what real warriors on Earth do or have done and, getting further, their only real sin is in giving melee something interesting to do mechanically. Your knee-jerk reaction to the martial classes doesn't change the fact that the Warblade is the exact same thing as a Fighter (to the point of even being able to take fighter-only feats) fluff-wise, just as the idea of the Swordsage is the exact same thing as a Monk (who also gets a giant spread of (Su) abilities, I might add) and the Crusader is the exact same thing as a Paladin. Your argument is not sustainable, sir, as the ground it stands on does not exist.

one power? ok. the entire list of +Xd6 dmg and ignores hardness and Dmg reduction. I've seen the HP of different material. its physically possible with those maneuvers to punch through stone walls, and i dont mean put your hand through drywall or a trained martial artist putting his hand through a few hollow bricks.we are talking knocking a big hole in a wall. any other tier 4 character would need every magic item he had giving him size, str, and damage bonuses to do that. that is not just above human, thats superman. or the Hear the unseen. yes people can greatly improve their hearing, but to the point of pinpointing someone in the heat of combat? and that doesnt even matter. what matters is when looking at it your geting all this stuff that mimics magical effects, the only people who get to deal with +to stats or seeing invisibility or applying haste effects is spellcasters. it FEELS like magic, and it isnt MY kneejerk reaction, its EVERYONE who is hesitant about ToB. I have already said that that the feeling is illogical. but thats how it is. it can be overcome and it should be overcome unless it grossly ruins a campaign setting. So the logistics of these "feelings" is irrelevant. thats just how it is for me and everyone else with a knee jerk reaction to it.

and no a warblade is not the exact same thing as a fighterr fluffwise. or else all the fluff related stuff in the book would say the exact same thing. Fighters are soldiers and warriors, while warblades are heroes and inglorious bastards. a Swordsage isnt a monk. a Monk is taking a real world idea and giving them some of the aspects of its lore and adding it in and then taking atheme and expanding on it (a martial arts move or two and the idea of becoming physically and spiritually perfect, which almost every class ability is based on) while a sword sage is based off all that crouching tiger hidden dragon stuff. they are exceedingly simular but just as different as the paladin is from the Knight.









------------------------


I think this argument involves a certain amount of another popular discussion: Whether or not classes are a metagame construct.

With this example, a build with "tons of dips and class combos that don't make sense in terms of roleplaying", I have several issues:

1) The idea that a certain build is invalid because it contains a lot of varied information (I.E. Paladin 2/Sorcerer 4/Abjurant Champion 10/Spellsword 1/Other CHA Class 3) is narrow-minded.

I've played plenty of Fighter 2/Ranger 1/Rogue 2 adventurers in the pet setting of one of my best friends (it's a gritty, low-magic, core-only setting). That's three classes in five levels, and it fits my concept of "pragmatic, skilled warrior with decent amount of woodcraft and a loyal wolf companion". Admittedly, this could have been accomplished with Ranger, but I like skill points and SA damage. My point is that certain builds require dips to be viable. Some builds require dips to even exist, let alone be effective at their chosen role.

2) The idea that the above is invalid because it "doesn't make sense in terms of roleplaying" is a fallacy. Roleplaying is totally separate from what is on your character sheet. Just because I have twelve classes, three different spell lists, two soulmelds and a PP pool doesn't mean my character "doesn't make sense from a roleplaying perspective". It means I'm playing an eccentric collector of obscure magika from around the multiverse. There are many more possible examples of varied and sometimes contradictory class combinations producing functional and perfectly believable builds.

My point can be summed up like this: Classes are metagame constructs. They exist to provide a mechanical way of organizing certain abilities, and have no function beyond that. If they did, all city guards would introduce themselves as James the Fighter or Bob the Paladin, every wild man living in the woods would become Jack Druid and Barbarian Walter James Neysmith, Esquire, and all singers would introduce themselves as Bard Dave. Classes do not exist within the game world; within the game world, only skill sets exist. If a given person has SA damage, he's good at hitting people where it hurts. The world doesn't care if you got those dice from Lurk levels or Rogue levels; it only cares that your dagger just out-damaged the greatsword.

not really my argument but if you are going to argue this you need to keep in mind your example was an example of a SENSIBLE multiclassing combination that represents a certian appropriate character.

while the person you are quoting i believe is talking about people picking up prestige classes or conflicting classes that make no sense and not even having it in their backstory. and ignore the fact it would take some extreme circumstances to create that binder/fighter/urpreist/hellfirewarlock/whathaveyou.


------------
I think the major division is simply people who see the mechanics as part of the class as the class, and people who see everything that was written as part of the class.

such as the difference between a group who decides to (assuming unearthed arcana didnt exsist) decided to homebrew a paladin of evil, just switching all the cases of good and evil in their spell and ability list, and the group who if you want to play an evil paladin you have to be a blackguard (again, pretending that unearthed arcana doesnt exist)

in other words the classes arent the same because they say they arent. it says there in the rulebooks that they arent. YOu can homebrew and pretend all you want and thats good. KEEP IN MIND! I say thats all good and if it enhances fun it SHOULD be done. but thats homebrewn territory and people should not be faulted if they gravitate to the Fluff as Written.

[Knaight]

one power? ok. the entire list of +Xd6 dmg and ignores hardness and Dmg reduction. I've seen the HP of different material. its physically possible with those maneuvers to punch through stone walls, and i dont mean put your hand through drywall or a trained martial artist putting his hand through a few hollow bricks.we are talking knocking a big hole in a wall. any other tier 4 character would need every magic item he had giving him size, str, and damage bonuses to do that. that is not just above human, thats superman. or the Hear the unseen. yes people can greatly improve their hearing, but to the point of pinpointing someone in the heat of combat? and that doesnt even matter. what matters is when looking at it your geting all this stuff that mimics magical effects, the only people who get to deal with +to stats or seeing invisibility or applying haste effects is spellcasters. it FEELS like magic, and it isnt MY kneejerk reaction, its EVERYONE who is hesitant about ToB. I have already said that that the feeling is illogical. but thats how it is. it can be overcome and it should be overcome unless it grossly ruins a campaign setting. So the logistics of these "feelings" is irrelevant. thats just how it is for me and everyone else with a knee jerk reaction to it.

With a handful of feats spent, at low level, a fighter can effectively fire two arrows from a bow, simultaneously, in the heat of combat. By high levels, it is absolutely trivial to be firing a bow, with aimed shots, at moving targets, once per second or faster before magic is involved. I see this as every bit as cinematic as punching through a wall, particularly as the sheer quantity of hit points a wall is likely to have means that it takes quite a while even when armed. D&D is built around highly cinematic heroes, and they are superhuman in various respects from the beginning.

[TroubleBrewing]

and no a warblade is not the exact same thing as a flavor fluffwise. or else the all the fluff related stuff in the book would say the exact same thing. 1 Fighters are soldiers and warriors, while warblades are heroes and inglorious bastards. 2 a Swordsage isnt a monk. a Monk is taking a real world idea and giving them some of the aspects of its lore and adding it in and then taking atheme and expanding on it 3(a martial arts move or two and the idea of becoming physically and spiritually perfect, which almost every class ability is based on4) while a sword sage is based off all that crouching tiger hidden dragon stuff 5. they are exceedingly simular but just as different as the paladin is from the Knight. 6

I could spend hours picking this post apart, but I'm going to focus on this part instead. I've gone through and numbered the parts that I'm discussing, for clarity's sake. (The numbers come after the bit I'm referencing.)

1. So, two examples of fluff being similar can't be considered "the same" unless they have exactly the same wording?

2. And Warblades can't be warriors or soldiers? Fighters can't be heroes or inglorious bastards?

3. This part just needs to be gone. A Swordsage can be all of those things, but since Desert Wind is the first discipline listed, everyone reads that one and throws the book down, shouting about "fireballs coming out of swords". Hell, there's an entire variant for Swordsages who don't even use weapons.

4 and 5 are very closely tied together.

4. Almost every class ability is based on becoming spiritually perfect? Where in the Monk fluff does it say THAT? :smallconfused:

5. The characters in CT,HD spent their entire lives attempting to become physically and spiritually perfect. They are way, way closer to the Monk than the fluff you made up on the spot claimed to have read in the PHB.

6. The Paladin and the Knight are a perfect example, but for our argument: they both fill the same niche, but are fundamentally different classes.

Just like the Fighter and the Warblade. :smallannoyed:

[Heatwizard]

I have already said that that the feeling is illogical.

Wait, so if you're aware that you're wrong, why are you arguing this point?

[Lord_Gareth]

one power? ok. the entire list of +Xd6 dmg and ignores hardness and Dmg reduction.

Adamantine weaponry would like a word with you, friend. There's a few enchantments that do this as well, in addition to a Rage feat for barbarians. At lower levels, when you first get the Mountain Hammer strike, it's great as a lock pick but doesn't deal enough damage to reliably blow through material like stone or adamantine. By the time you get to the sequel strikes that do, mundane warriors have been doing the same thing, just using a shiny tool instead of a power.


Hear the unseen. yes people can greatly improve their hearing, but to the point of pinpointing someone in the heat of combat?

I've done it. It's not even all that hard, once you learn how to pay attention. A lot of times your eyes just get in the way in a fight unless you've trained yourself in how to use them properly, but your ears, those are very reliable.


and no a warblade is not the exact same thing as a flavor fluffwise. or else the all the fluff related stuff in the book would say the exact same thing. Fighters are soldiers and warriors, while warblades are heroes and inglorious bastards.

We're discussing the mutability of flavor here; do you really think I'm all that attached to the garbage WotC vomited all over the Warblade's mechanics? All of their abilities and class features read, "I am a skilled warrior whose martial prowess is his defining feature." What are fighters? In theory, they are skilled warriors whose martial prowess is their defining features. They're the exact same thing. The little blurb about Warblades (which, incidentally, only technically applies in canon!Grayhawk) before and after those skills and abilities is utterly irrelevant to the archetype being represented.


a Swordsage isnt a monk. a Monk is taking a real world idea and giving them some of the aspects of its lore and adding it in and then taking atheme and expanding on it (a martial arts move or two and the idea of becoming physically and spiritually perfect, which almost every class ability is based on) while a sword sage is based off all that crouching tiger hidden dragon stuff.

Swordsages are based on the exact same legends as Monks are. Go ahead, look them up sometime. In legends, monks walked on water (Swordsage), were able to step through shadows (swordsage), command the Five Elements (swordsage), meditate for days on end (either), strike with uncanny accuracy and precision (swordsage), harm their foes' shadows (swordsage), throw demons and other gigantic opponents (swordsage), unleash flurries of furious blows (either; Flurry of Blows or Tiger Claw) and do many and sundry other supernatural things that for the most part, Swordsages do.


they are exceedingly simular but just as different as the paladin is from the Knight.

Bad comparison. Paladins are "supernatural warriors whose honor lends them divine power". Knights are "honorable warriors that rely on martial prowess and willpower." Knights are closer to Lawful fighters in concept and there is, indeed, no real non-mechanical difference between a Lawful fighter and a Knight of the same alignment. A better comparison for Paladins would be Crusader (identical) or Cleric (same thing, but better), with Favored Soul being another interesting option.

[Gavinfoxx]

I just thought I would like to add, if you read any of the writings of renaissance martial arts that involves using big swords, like two handed war swords and stuff, much of the descriptions of how that stuff works has remarkably similar flavor text to Iron Hart maneuvers, counters, and stances. Liechtenauer's Master Strokes, in particular, read like the flavor text for some of the Iron Heart strikes.

So yea, the Warblade? Someone who fights. And it actually lets you do a WIDER variety of flavor than the Fighter, because it can actually DO things that are like, you know, people who know certain types of fighting, which the fighter couldn't simulate.

[Cerlis]

*writing in bold in quote for ease of reply*

I could spend hours picking this post apart, but I'm going to focus on this part instead. I've gone through and numbered the parts that I'm discussing, for clarity's sake. (The numbers come after the bit I'm referencing.)

1. So, two examples of fluff being similar can't be considered "the same" unless they have exactly the same wording? if x=/=y then y=/=X. I've already explained this last page. Warblade is a sub-trope of Fighter. so it is capable of being almost exactly the same but still being different. a rectangle vs a square. a man vs his reflection. if you gave a sorcerer a wizards spellbook and spell progression he'd still get his power from the inside while a wizard learned it. their fluff is different so even if they do the exact same thing they are different. so yes different=different.

2. And Warblades can't be warriors or soldiers? Fighters can't be heroes or inglorious bastards? see above. but to expand a warblades chapter specifically say Warblades usually do this and feel that. and yes i'm aware i say usually. because like i've freely admited Me thinking that different things arent the same doesnt mean you cant pretend they are.

3. This part just needs to be gone. A Swordsage can be all of those things, but since Desert Wind is the first discipline listed, everyone reads that one and throws the book down, shouting about "fireballs coming out of swords". Hell, there's an entire variant for Swordsages who don't even use weapons. yes he can and so can a fighter. but a fighter doesnt equal a monk. a Swordsage is a martial artist but not a Monk. a swordsage can even be a monk, but he isnt a Monk.

4 and 5 are very closely tied together.

4. Almost every class ability is based on becoming spiritually perfect? Where in the Monk fluff does it say THAT? :smallconfused: the part where it says they are disciplined people who seek spirtual and physical perfection. thats why they get dodge bonuses, thats why they become super fast thats why their strikes become supernaturally imbued with ki, thats why they become immune to physical things like poison and resistant of the mind, thats why they become outsiders at 20th lvl. almost every single class feature is a manifestation of them trying to become physically and spirutally perfect.

5. The characters in CT,HD spent their entire lives attempting to become physically and spiritually perfect. They are way, way closer to the Monk than the fluff you made up on the spot claimed to have read in the PHB. Go read it yourself. and no the CT HD people are closer to the swordsage since they are based off all the martial arts lore and then expanded by fantasy taking all the real stuff its based on out of proportion for the sake of a story.

6. The Paladin and the Knight are a perfect example, but for our argument: they both fill the same niche, but are fundamentally different classes. exactly, so you could CALL yourself a paladin if you where a knight, and you could pretend all you want. but your not a paladin, your a knight.

Just like the Fighter and the Warblade. :smallannoyed: exactly, very simular, but not the same thing.


Wait, so if you're aware that you're wrong,why are you arguing this point?

who said anything about being wrong? i admitted that fluff is not static and that even if you have reservations changing it you should attempt to overcome it. and i said that a Fighter isnt a Warblade. because they have different abilities and fluff. so they are. You may be confusing my saying that "people have a right to not want to treat classes as if they where classes that they arent" as "People shouldnt treat classes as if they where classes they arent" or something.


---------------------------------
*ps. you all seem very smart and logical so i think even if yall think i'm an idiot you can make your points without all the snide asides.

[Lord_Gareth]

*Points at his post above*

You may want to check out my rebuttal as well, Cerlis.

[Gavinfoxx]

@Lord Gareth -- in combat, wait, you're military?

Also, I would say that most orders of paladins would require you to merely be a holy warrior that shows a divine spark of some sort and takes some oaths.

So that's, uh, damn near any divine class that isn't EXTREMELY Nature based that can remotely do martial or melee stuff. Ranger or Mystic Ranger, Cleric, Divine Bard, Shugenja, etc. Not sure about Druid though. Anyway, all those guys could be Paladins.

[Lord_Gareth]

@Lord Gareth -- in combat, wait, you're military?

Gods no. Martial arts training plus a healthy dose of street fighting, Dagorhir and combat-recreation paintball. I've been at mass-battles with hundreds of combatants (oh Eryndor, you throw the best events this side of Ragnarok) and still been able to clearly pick out my friends and foes on hearing alone - indeed, doing so is vital to not getting shiv'd in the kidneys.

[Cerlis]

Adamantine weaponry would like a word with you, friend. There's a few enchantments that do this as well, in addition to a Rage feat for barbarians. At lower levels, when you first get the Mountain Hammer strike, it's great as a lock pick but doesn't deal enough damage to reliably blow through material like stone or adamantine. By the time you get to the sequel strikes that do, mundane warriors have been doing the same thing, just using a shiny tool instead of a power.
-missing the point. a 20th lvl warrior can take his adamantine sword and slowly slice through a steel wall like qui-gone did with that blast door. a 15th lvl Warblade/swordsage could be stark naked and punch the wall and it would bust open. THAT is superhuman strength that looks out of place in a campaign where everything is mundane except for actual divine or arcane magic which i believe many campaigns are and hence the reservations and the feeling that Seeing a warblade in action is far from a fighter.


I've done it. It's not even all that hard, once you learn how to pay attention. A lot of times your eyes just get in the way in a fight unless you've trained yourself in how to use them properly, but your ears, those are very reliable

ok, so its perfectly possible. tell a DM or a player a fighter can hit harder with his Greatsword and a warblade can see with his ears. a greatly different ability, style of ability, and the feeling and fluff of that class is greatly affected by the impression that ability gives . Hell a fighter can learn to do it but the point is that Warblade has this big label that says "crazy super fighter" while a Fighter says "Hey i'm just a fighter"


We're discussing the mutability of flavor here; do you really think I'm all that attached to the garbage WotC vomited all over the Warblade's mechanics? All of their abilities and class features read, "I am a skilled warrior whose martial prowess is his defining feature." What are fighters? In theory, they are skilled warriors whose martial prowess is their defining features. They're the exact same thing. The little blurb about Warblades (which, incidentally, only technically applies in canon!Grayhawk) before and after those skills and abilities is utterly irrelevant to the archetype being represented.


ok. fine. so the entire fluff of the class doesnt matter only the crunch. so there is no issue. if we are ignoring all the lore that came with the class then a fighter and a warblade are only left with their abilities which are different so they arent the same. they are just both warriors who hit stuff in different ways and have no name. still not the same.
Just cus you dont care about half the information on the class doesnt mean the rest of us do.



Swordsages are based on the exact same legends as Monks are. Go ahead, look them up sometime. In legends, monks walked on water (Swordsage), were able to step through shadows (swordsage), command the Five Elements (swordsage), meditate for days on end (either), strike with uncanny accuracy and precision (swordsage), harm their foes' shadows (swordsage), throw demons and other gigantic opponents (swordsage), unleash flurries of furious blows (either; Flurry of Blows or Tiger Claw) and do many and sundry other supernatural things that for the most part, Swordsages do.

I disagree. Swords sages are obviously based off those legends. but Monks are obviously based off more recent and slightly realistic lore. Swordsages are based off all the crazy stuff that is physically impossible. while Monks are based off the last few hundred year tales of monks from a distant land. One guy kills a explorer with a pressure point and suddenly monks can kill you with a strike (which they have). the focus of the knowledge on those slightly more historical monks of legend are about them reaching spiritual and physical perfection which the monk class talks about. and all their class features are based off this premise. they have the same origin but they are cousins not siblings.




Bad comparison. Paladins are "supernatural warriors whose honor lends them divine power". Knights are "honorable warriors that rely on martial prowess and willpower." Knights are closer to Lawful fighters in concept and there is, indeed, no real non-mechanical difference between a Lawful fighter and a Knight of the same alignment. A better comparison for Paladins would be Crusader (identical) or Cleric (same thing, but better), with Favored Soul being another interesting option.

well thats cus i'm having to say the same thing every few posts. i'm running out of metaphors and comparisons. and yes to use one of your examples a Knight is the same as a lawful fighter non-mechanically. just like one of MANY tropes of fighter can be just like a warblade. however since the scope of fighter encompasses many things, a warblade isnt the same as a fighter more than a knight is a fighter, or a necromancer is a dread necromancer.

[Gavinfoxx]

Gods no. Martial arts training plus a healthy dose of street fighting, Dagorhir and combat-recreation paintball. I've been at mass-battles with hundreds of combatants (oh Eryndor, you throw the best events this side of Ragnarok) and still been able to clearly pick out my friends and foes on hearing alone - indeed, doing so is vital to not getting shiv'd in the kidneys.


Oh, so sports stuff (yes I totally called SCA and related activities a sport). Still, I guess that's close enough.

[faceroll]

I find some things that are so ingrained in the mechanics, it's very hard to separate it from the fluff. Take arcane casting vs. psionics. That stuff is separated by a large mechanical divide that manifests itself in the fluff in all kinds of ways- staredowns, brainbleeding, mindflayers, bat poop, hand waving, knowledge: arcana vs. knowledge: psionics.

Adding a splash of psionics or castiness to a class isn't just throwing some chi-energy on it. What sort of chi requires lard and live spiders, or makes you vulnerable to creatures from beyond time?


However, if you play with others who wish to play on a higher power level, you will be unable to contribute meaningfully.

Disagree. Damage output on a Fighter is amazing. Warblade damage is a little lackluster. Warblade survives stuff like Charm or Entangle a little better, but fighters end fights faster, thanks to higher DPS. With proper itemization and buffs, fighters can also deal with most problems enough to contribute.

Why take all those wimpy wizard levels when you can just buy their class abilities in potion form?


I see how mechanics influence the fluff, but it is so easy to just ignore the given fluff entirely. :smallconfused:

I find it equally easy to ignore the mechanics. Why is the playground so obsessed with rules, but willing to change mechanics? By the RAW, shouldn't we be as RAWtarded about fluff as we are mechanics? Is there a rule that says "disregard fluff as you see fit" that is any more important than the same rules that say "disregard whatever you want as you see fit"?

[Eldan]

I disagree. Swords sages are obviously based off those legends. but Monks are obviously based off more recent and slightly realistic lore. Swordsages are based off all the crazy stuff that is physically impossible. while Monks are based off the last few hundred year tales of monks from a distant land. One guy kills a explorer with a pressure point and suddenly monks can kill you with a strike (which they have). the focus of the knowledge on those slightly more historical monks of legend are about them reaching spiritual and physical perfection which the monk class talks about. and all their class features are based off this premise. they have the same origin but they are cousins not siblings.

Ah, yes. I forgot that absolutely realistic legend of the Zen Monk who could travel to the ethereal plane. Oh, and the famous Lama who could punch people so they died a week later. And that indian Yogi who would eat a bowl of cyanide every morning.

[Lord_Gareth]

Ah, yes. I forgot that absolutely realistic legend of the Zen Monk who could travel to the ethereal plane. Oh, and the famous Lama who could punch people so they died a week later. And that indian Yogi who would eat a bowl of cyanide every morning.

And yet they left out the dude who grew tea leaves out of his eyelids (best. Monk. Ever.)

[Cerlis]

Ah, yes. I forgot that absolutely realistic legend of the Zen Monk who could travel to the ethereal plane. Oh, and the famous Lama who could punch people so they died a week later. And that indian Yogi who would eat a bowl of cyanide every morning.

actually the whole killing someone in one one blow is based off an actual martial arts technique. and it was a legend about that technique that obviously gave this ability. I'm sorry you havent heard of it.

as for the poison thing. i said it was based off the whole "physically and spiritually perfect". actually now that i think about it alot of those documentaries talk about monks controlling their metabolism (which i believe the monk ability says is the origin of their poison immunity) and thats how they are able to be underground for hours without suffocating and all that. basically if you really look at it you can see they took those themes that are common, well known and relatively recent and expand on em. like thinking "well if they can focus their ki and their metabolism and have great mental dicispline...what could they do if they could actually transcend human limitations" and thus the whole monks becoming immune to stuff, getting super fists and becoming outsiders.

in short Monks are based off relatively recent stories about real people that where probably fell prey to the inaccuracies of gossip (thus slightly exaggerating their abilities) made into a class and taking what they have and expanding on it. while the Sword sage is based off the more obscene and extreme legends which inspired these more realistic monks.

Legends of Monks Flying and killing in one blow-->swordsage

Legends of monks flying and killing in one blow-->real people attempt these and do amazing if human things--->people exaggerate these abilities--->Monk

[Shpadoinkle]

This thread reminded me of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10292404&postcount=67) brilliant post by Runestar.

[LordBlades]

I read people saying monks are based on 'realistic lore'. Then I read Abundant Step:



Abundant Step (Su)
At 12th level or higher, a monk can slip magically between spaces, as if using the spell dimension door, once per day. Her caster level for this effect is one-half her monk level (rounded down).


I really don't see how a monk is more 'mundane' than a swordsage focusing on the (ex) disciplines.

[Cerlis]

I read people saying monks are based on 'realistic lore'. Then I read Abundant Step:



I really don't see how a monk is more 'mundane' than a swordsage focusing on the (ex) disciplines.

and i wouldnt be suprised if someone who worried about the fluff of a martial arts character in his campaign got rid of that ability. the monks 20lvl progression is Full of abilities all the way down. i have no idea what they where thinking when that ethereal and dimension door stuff other than possibly the idea that they wanted to give em a way to run away from scary stuff once per day. and i dont know anyone else who knows why they do that. but every other ability makes sense based on the premise of the class.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Speaking as another martial artist here...

When you're talking about ToB classes, you are talking about people who have trained and honed their skills to perfection. Trying to say "real people can't break bricks, unless they're trained martial artists' is merely proving our point, because ToB classes *ARE* real martial artists.

And I *HAVE*, personally, RL, broken red bricks with my bare hands. I've even managed the 'third one down in the stack of six' trick. Cinderblock is child's play, and fit only for beginners to give them the confidence they need to proceed. There's your Mountain Hammer technique right there.

And it is this precise technique which has spawned the infamous Bruce Lee 'six inch punch'. As far as the infamous 'death touch' technique, I can tell you at least four different ways a single strike can appear to merely bruise, and cause a man to drop dead after eight hours or so. Kidney shot being one of them.

Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, and (to a much lesser extent) Setting Sun are rather 'outlandish' in nature. And granted, it is not appropriate in a more 'gritty' campaign. But then, neither is the ability to use Dimension Door as a (Su) ability, or going Ethereal. Both of which are Monk abilities.

Desert Wind represent the Wuxai legends of fighters who struck so fast that it literally ignited the air around them. I could even give you the physics formulae behind that legend, using wind resistance to create friction and thus heat.

Shadow Hand represents the 'ninja' mythology and legend... being able to disappear into the shadows and reappear elsewhere, strangling someone from down the hall, striking vital organs with precision to slay with a touch... mind you, I can also, personally, do the last of the three, but how can you have a problem with DimDoor as a Su ability when monk gets the same damn thing?

If you are wanting 'gritty and realistic' then a Monk's ability to punch insubstantial beings (Ki Strike: Magic) is definitely out of the question. How would Aragorn like it if Legolas stole his fire when talking to the ghosts and decked the ghost leader?

[Heatwizard]

Now that it's not 3 AM, let me go back and try to make a different point.


I can call a cooler a chair, i can call the color green "blue". I can pretend I'm a princess.

You are playing D&D. You are already pretending you are a princess.

In a situation where you're already doing things like rolling 20 sided dice to determine what happens in an imaginary world, this line you draw seems pretty arbitrary.

[big teej]

No. Because no one finds it 'fun'. They play the game that way and the game is fun, but what it actually is is a mental straightjacket that sucks fun out of attempting all manner of cool or interesting concepts, and the fact that it has adherents does not legitimize it in any way.

so you're telling me I am incpable of finding enjoyment out of treating classes as in-game constructs?

interesting, I was unaware that someone who has never met me in person new my personality better than I did.

see also
my name is "no one"

also, for people playing in "a mental straightjacket that sucks fun out attempting all manner of cool or interesting concepts," my group has a damn good time from week to week.

[Veyr]

For those who consider classes an in-game construct... do you play OotS style, where everyone knows about the mechanics behind the world and compares character sheets in character?

Because otherwise I can think of absolutely no way that characters could tell a Fighter apart from a Warblade or a Monk apart from a Swordsage. The abilities are far too similar from a fluff perspective. How can you tell the difference between a Charge with Improved Bull Rush, and Charging Minotaur Strike? How can you tell the difference between Ki Strike (Magic/Lawful/Adamantine), and Mountain Hammer? How can you tell the difference between a full-attack with Two-Weapon Fighting, and Wolf Fang Strike?

[faceroll]

For those who consider classes an in-game construct... do you play OotS style, where everyone knows about the mechanics behind the world and compares character sheets in character?

Because otherwise I can think of absolutely no way that characters could tell a Fighter apart from a Warblade or a Monk apart from a Swordsage. The abilities are far too similar from a fluff perspective. How can you tell the difference between a Charge with Improved Bull Rush, and Charging Minotaur Strike? How can you tell the difference between Ki Strike (Magic/Lawful/Adamantine), and Mountain Hammer? How can you tell the difference between a full-attack with Two-Weapon Fighting, and Wolf Fang Strike?

Martial Lore checks.

[Honest Tiefling]

What if the fighter used feats to grab stances and maneuvers? Or if the warblade dipped out into fighter?

[Veyr]

Both are often recommended in any case. A Warblade can often make good use of feats, and a Fighter can often make good use of maneuvers.

[Fax Celestis]

Again, feel free to disagree, but you cannot claim that your perceived flavour of Fighter is right, and mine is wrong.

He can claim that your view is outmoded and stuck on old system archetypes, and that because something was one way once does not mean it is that way still--or ever will be again. Saying that "because the fighter was this way in the older versions means it is still this way in the newer versions" is basically the same as saying that "The refresh button was at this spot in the browser window in Firefox 1 through 3, which means it's still there for Firefox 4". Hint: it's not, they moved it. It's grating and obnoxious, but you either get used to things being different in the new version, or you stick with the old version. What you're describing is essentially continuing to use Firefox 4, clicking the spot where the refresh button was in v1-3, and then being upset when the page doesn't refresh.

[Gensh]

He can claim that your view is outmoded and stuck on old system archetypes, and that because something was one way once does not mean it is that way still--or ever will be again. Saying that "because the fighter was this way in the older versions means it is still this way in the newer versions" is basically the same as saying that "The refresh button was at this spot in the browser window in Firefox 1 through 3, which means it's still there for Firefox 4". Hint: it's not, they moved it. It's grating and obnoxious, but you either get used to things being different in the new version, or you stick with the old version. What you're describing is essentially continuing to use Firefox 4, clicking the spot where the refresh button was in v1-3, and then being upset when the page doesn't refresh.

But it's not just the oldie mindset here. I only picked up D&D just before 4E was released, and I still don't like having ToB in my games. It's not always about having some preconceived notion about what a fighter is supposed to be so much as the notion as to what a fantasy hero is supposed to be, and the capacities of the ToB classes far outstrip that. I opened the PHB for the first time, saw the Fighter, and said "That actually looks really bad," but I could see how it's supposed to represent the warrior who survives epic battles through sheer tenacity and cleverness - anyone playing this class would have to in order to survive high level play at all. ToB classes...not so much. To that end, the most legendary character out of all the games I've ran was simply a Monk 7, and the players still think he was this wonderfully powerful, awesome guy who killed an avatar of the god of war and took up his sword. No need for supernatural stunts (not even the Ex ones).

[Quietus]

by in large if my point here where to be simplified it would be that :People shouldnt be looked down upon, insulted, or treated as close minded nutters just because their first instinct is to avoid refluffing and just use the material already printed.

I challenge you to produce a single character concept - JUST ONE - that you feel Fighter represents better than Warblade.

[Fax Celestis]

"That actually looks really bad,"

And what, pray tell, was your reaction on seeing the warblade? If it was "That actually looks pretty good," then we have the crux of the entire thread in a nutshell.

Just because the fluff text says something doesn't mean that is the only way that class ever exists. Why can't I play a dragonfire adept who robs his powers from dragons he devours after slaying them in combat? Why can't I play a swordsage that's a courtesan? Why can't I play a strong, thuggy, rogue with poor social skills and a strange knack for magical devices? Class does not make character, just as character does not make class.

[TroubleBrewing]

I challenge you to produce a single character concept - JUST ONE - that you feel Fighter represents better than Warblade.

Robin Hood?

I agree with you, but you walked right into that one.

EDIT: A longbow-user. There, happy? :smallyuk:

[Hiro Protagonest]

Robin Hood?

I agree with you, but you walked right into that one.

Fighter doesn't have the skill ranks to be Robin Hood.

[TroubleBrewing]

Fighter doesn't have the skill ranks to be Robin Hood.

Originally, I had "archer" in there, but I didn't want people to confuse it with the TV show. :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

I challenge you to produce a single character concept - JUST ONE - that you feel Fighter represents better than Warblade.

Honestly I have a hard time coming up with something that is not at least passingly based on the mechanics of the classes (as I am more of a meta construct kind of guy) so these probably would not count.

1) Warrior that wants to be the ultimate master of the spiked chain so he can use it to disrupt, stop, and punish anyone who does anything nearby.

2) A character who wants t kill by bashing people into objects ie bull rushing based character with an emphasis on intimidation and weapon mastery.

3) Mid range combat archery.

Granted both of those are only better with a fighter since they are one of the few ways to mechanically get those done. I am having trouble thinking of anything else that would require extensive fighter levels to fit the fluff of a character as something like a warblade would be as good or better for about anything else.

[Gensh]

And what, pray tell, was your reaction on seeing the warblade? If it was "That actually looks pretty good," then we have the crux of the entire thread in a nutshell. Just because the fluff text says something doesn't mean that is the only way that class ever exists. Why can't I play a dragonfire adept who robs his powers from dragons he devours after slaying them in combat? Why can't I play a swordsage that's a ninja? Why can't I play a strong, thuggy, rogue with poor social skills and a strange knack for magical devices? Class does not make character, just as character does not make class.

It was more like "That'll completely blow the doors off any mundane plot point I have short of a cliff." I'd have no problems with any of the other ones, but the fact of the matter is that if the Fighter wants to try to say, storm a castle, then he has to plan it out and be cautious throughout the whole thing, whereas the warblade is a lean, mean, killing machine. Most people don't realize the full potential of the casting classes on their own; they have to get on the internet to do so. :smallwink: Again, the most powerful character in any game I've ever run was a Monk 7.

[Fax Celestis]

2) A character who wants t kill by bashing people into objects ie bull rushing based character with an emphasis on intimidation and weapon mastery.

Use Charging Minotaur. A warblade counts as a fighter for bonus feats, so you can take the Weapon Focus/Spec/Mastery line from PHB-II. Unlike the fighter, the warblade can swap those around with some practice. Put ranks in Intimidate and pick up the Initimidating Strike feat from PHB-II.


It was more like "That'll completely blow the doors off any mundane plot point I have short of a cliff." I'd have no problems with any of the other ones, but the fact of the matter is that if the Fighter wants to try to say, storm a castle, then he has to plan it out and be cautious throughout the whole thing, whereas the warblade is a lean, mean, killing machine. Most people don't realize the full potential of the casting classes on their own; they have to get on the internet to do so. :smallwink: Again, the most powerful character in any game I've ever run was a Monk 7.

If your plot points are that flimsy, then you need some better ones. In a world as magical and dangerous as D&D's, if you are not on par, you are dead.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm frankly surprised this has to be said at all.

Really, what comes next? "What matters is that you all have fun"?

[MeeposFire]

Use Charging Minotaur. A warblade counts as a fighter for bonus feats, so you can take the Weapon Focus/Spec/Mastery line from PHB-II. Unlike the fighter, the warblade can swap those around with some practice. Put ranks in Intimidate and pick up the Initimidating Strike feat from PHB-II.



If your plot points are that flimsy, then you need some better ones. In a world as magical and dangerous as D&D's, if you are not on par, you are dead.

Charging mintaur would be nowhere near as good and can only be used at best once every other round. Dungeon crasher is that good (and constant) and the bonus feats are nice for that style (to a point anyway). Also you are going to spend almost all of your feats on the weapon focus line and intimidate strike (remember that the warblade bonus feat list is very limited)? That seems like a bad idea on a warblade. Lastly that still is nowhere as good as a Zhent fighter for this sort of thing. Granted if you said "leave after 9th level" I could probably agree to that. Fighter 20 isn't really needed here unless I want that supreme mastery feat (which flavorwise I might but that is so expensive).

[Gensh]

If your plot points are that flimsy, then you need some better ones. In a world as magical and dangerous as D&D's, if you are not on par, you are dead.

Can you actually provide a reason beyond a senseless ad hominem attack? There's no reason why, for example, the traditional dynamic of nobleman with a few thug guards needs to be disrupted. The Fighter and Wizard played by the average non-forumite doesn't necessarily fear any one of those individuals, but together, it could mean a party wipe. There are certainly lots of very powerful monsters in D&D, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're out and about. By necessity, there have been more powerful adventurers than the PCs even if there aren't now, and fear of crazed hobos with swords and fireballs keeps them from attacking settlements.

[Quietus]

So this isn't strictly limited to Meepo's response, but all of what's been brought up thus far more or less folds into these, soo...


Honestly I have a hard time coming up with something that is not at least passingly based on the mechanics of the classes (as I am more of a meta construct kind of guy) so these probably would not count.

1) Warrior that wants to be the ultimate master of the spiked chain so he can use it to disrupt, stop, and punish anyone who does anything nearby.

With what feats? Combat Reflexes, EWP : Spiked Chain, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip? Sure, not bad, but a Warblade gets bonus feats too, remember. Plus the fact that he actually gets something out of that Int makes him more likely to grab Combat Expertise in the first place. And he's got stances that allow him to do this better than a Fighter could.


2) A character who wants t kill by bashing people into objects ie bull rushing based character with an emphasis on intimidation and weapon mastery.

Weapon mastery, like the Weapon Focus line that when you get a bit of random loot and the weapon isn't the right type, the Fighter doesn't get to use, while the Warblade can practice for a bit and swap over to that type? Bull Rush I'll give you, but if the Warblade dips 2 or 6 levels of Fighter, and goes straight Warblade from there, they still get 9th level maneuvers. Intimidate is just a skill, and Warblades get it.


3) Mid range combat archery.

Warblades are actually decent archers. They can use some of their boosts with bows, and from what I understand, Blood In The Water does some very nice things to a properly built bow-build. At the very least they'll do it as well as a Fighter, because archery is just feats. So yes, they can do the archer/robin hood thing.

That's really the problem with Fighters. They're a poorly designed class that get nothing of their own. The designers thought providing a bunch of feats would be great, possibly because that appeared, to them, to be 3e's analog of proficiencies or whatever made Fighters so great in AD&D. They then failed to provide enough worthwhile feats to make the 11 bonus feats they got meaningful, and rarely do you see a feat chain that goes even four deep. If there were feat chains that required you to take 8 feats and got progressively crazier and stronger, then Fighters would have a leg to stand on, but right now, they don't get anything that the other classes don't ALSO get.

[Fax Celestis]

Can you actually provide a reason beyond a senseless ad hominem attack? There's no reason why, for example, the traditional dynamic of nobleman with a few thug guards needs to be disrupted.

Sure, but that sort of challenge is appropriate for parties that are fifth level or under. Expecting to use the same challenges on a higher party is an exercise in futility, as they'll walk all over them. A thirty foot wide pit in front of a locked door is a challenge for a first-level party, and absolutely meaningless for a party with flight, teleportation, or even just a high Strength and lots of points in Jump--all things that come in at higher levels.

[Gensh]

Sure, but that sort of challenge is appropriate for parties that are fifth level or under. Expecting to use the same challenges on a higher party is an exercise in futility, as they'll walk all over them. A thirty foot wide pit in front of a locked door is a challenge for a first-level party, and absolutely meaningless for a party with flight, teleportation, or even just a high Strength and lots of points in Jump--all things that come in at higher levels.

That was purely an example. As the capacities of the players expand, so too must the challenges. They no longer must deal with the local lord, but must attempt to balance political favor between nations. It's simply a matter of scaling challenges appropriately to suit their abilities. Casters can be played horrendously and have a tendency to be little more than blasters or whatnot without internet content. There is just no way to reasonably provide a challenge that's appropriate for classes that are killing machines out of the box when their fellows are still debating whether or not they want to risk casting another magic missile during the current encounter.

[MeeposFire]

So this isn't strictly limited to Meepo's response, but all of what's been brought up thus far more or less folds into these, soo...



With what feats? Combat Reflexes, EWP : Spiked Chain, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip? Sure, not bad, but a Warblade gets bonus feats too, remember. Plus the fact that he actually gets something out of that Int makes him more likely to grab Combat Expertise in the first place. And he's got stances that allow him to do this better than a Fighter could.



Weapon mastery, like the Weapon Focus line that when you get a bit of random loot and the weapon isn't the right type, the Fighter doesn't get to use, while the Warblade can practice for a bit and swap over to that type? Bull Rush I'll give you, but if the Warblade dips 2 or 6 levels of Fighter, and goes straight Warblade from there, they still get 9th level maneuvers. Intimidate is just a skill, and Warblades get it.



Warblades are actually decent archers. They can use some of their boosts with bows, and from what I understand, Blood In The Water does some very nice things to a properly built bow-build. At the very least they'll do it as well as a Fighter, because archery is just feats. So yes, they can do the archer/robin hood thing.

That's really the problem with Fighters. They're a poorly designed class that get nothing of their own. The designers thought providing a bunch of feats would be great, possibly because that appeared, to them, to be 3e's analog of proficiencies or whatever made Fighters so great in AD&D. They then failed to provide enough worthwhile feats to make the 11 bonus feats they got meaningful, and rarely do you see a feat chain that goes even four deep. If there were feat chains that required you to take 8 feats and got progressively crazier and stronger, then Fighters would have a leg to stand on, but right now, they don't get anything that the other classes don't ALSO get.

1) Those are only some of the feats needed. Here is a more complete list

Fighter feats
Improved Initiative
EWP Spiked Chain.
Weapon Spec
Stand Still
Greater weapon focus
Martial Stance – Thicket of blades
Close Quarters Fighting
Greater Weapon Spec
Overpowering Assault (class feature replacing a feat)
Deft opportunist
Defensive Sweep

Weapon Focus
Combat Reflexes
Martial Study
Melee weapon Mastery (piercing)
Mage Slayer
Pierce Magical Protection
Robilar’s Gambit

These are just the basic feats you may wish to make yourself get AoO on item usage and supernatural abilities and more so even more feats to possibly add in. Without those feats you cannot do an effective lockdown so no your warblade will not be as effective in this regard. As you can see it is VERY feat intensive. You might be able to get rid of a few levels of fighter but you will still have a lot of fighter levels (and you would want to find a way to replace the overwhelming attack class feature).

2) Intimidate is just a skill but if you want to actually use it effectively you will want that 9th level of fighter for zhent fighter. It is very nice.

3) Warblades will have a lot of trouble fitting in the long list of feats that you will want especially since your damage per arrow will be much lower. Warblades can use a few maneuvers to make it interesting just like rangers have spells that makes archery more interesting. We just had this conversation about rangers and fighters and the case is fighters are the best at straight archery in visual range. Rangers had other things that made them much better in other areas of archery 9such as extreme sniping). It became a question what do you want to do.

4)

[Fax Celestis]

That was purely an example. As the capacities of the players expand, so too must the challenges. They no longer must deal with the local lord, but must attempt to balance political favor between nations. It's simply a matter of scaling challenges appropriately to suit their abilities. Casters can be played horrendously and have a tendency to be little more than blasters or whatnot without internet content. There is just no way to reasonably provide a challenge that's appropriate for classes that are killing machines out of the box when their fellows are still debating whether or not they want to risk casting another magic missile during the current encounter.

A class' suitability to the power level of the party as a whole is...not the discussion, I thought?

[Sir Enigma]

Can you actually provide a reason beyond a senseless ad hominem attack? There's no reason why, for example, the traditional dynamic of nobleman with a few thug guards needs to be disrupted. The Fighter and Wizard played by the average non-forumite doesn't necessarily fear any one of those individuals, but together, it could mean a party wipe. There are certainly lots of very powerful monsters in D&D, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're out and about. By necessity, there have been more powerful adventurers than the PCs even if there aren't now, and fear of crazed hobos with swords and fireballs keeps them from attacking settlements.

But how does swapping the Warblade for the Fighter change this? The warblade does the same things as the fighter - it stands next to things and hits them with pointy objects until they stop bothering him. The difference is, the warblade can be effective at several forms of combat (so it's less likely to get into combat conditions that nullify him and leave him useless, like a charge-fighter without room to charge), and he's got more skill points, a better list, and possibly some utility abilities, so it's more likely to have something to contribute in situations outside of combat. I think you're rather overestimating the power level of a warblade.

[Gensh]

A class' suitability to the power level of the party as a whole is...not the discussion, I thought?

That's not necessarily my point. The fact of the matter is that both the build and the class' mechanics themselves have a rather significant impact on flavor.


But how does swapping the Warblade for the Fighter change this? The warblade does the same things as the fighter - it stands next to things and hits them with pointy objects until they stop bothering him. The difference is, the warblade can be effective at several forms of combat (so it's less likely to get into combat conditions that nullify him and leave him useless, like a charge-fighter without room to charge), and he's got more skill points, a better list, and possibly some utility abilities, so it's more likely to have something to contribute in situations outside of combat. I think you're rather overestimating the power level of a warblade.

No. I'm simply saying that a man who can cut through walls as an easy to get class feature is fundamentally disruptive to the game world, especially given the limited selection of maneuvers. Certainly, this can be replicated through any adamant weapon, but that's the crutch of the matter. Someone will know that the great hero so-and-so has a mighty sword and will take steps to neutralize it. It's much more difficult to block an innate power. The question is how much mechanics affect flavor, and my answer is that they do so quite a bit. A Wizard built to shoot fireballs and little more is hardly more intimidating than anyone else.

[Quietus]

1) Those are only some of the feats needed. Here is a more complete list

Fighter feats
Improved Initiative
EWP Spiked Chain.
Weapon Spec
Stand Still
Greater weapon focus
Martial Stance – Thicket of blades
Close Quarters Fighting
Greater Weapon Spec
Overpowering Assault (class feature replacing a feat)
Deft opportunist
Defensive Sweep

Weapon Focus
Combat Reflexes
Martial Study
Melee weapon Mastery (piercing)
Mage Slayer
Pierce Magical Protection
Robilar’s Gambit

These are just the basic feats you may wish to make yourself get AoO on item usage and supernatural abilities and more so even more feats to possibly add in. Without those feats you cannot do an effective lockdown so no your warblade will not be as effective in this regard. As you can see it is VERY feat intensive. You might be able to get rid of a few levels of fighter but you will still have a lot of fighter levels (and you would want to find a way to replace the overwhelming attack class feature).

Basic feats? I see a build. The weapon focus tree is notoriously bad for its returns on investment, so you don't need that. Exotic Weapon Proficiency can be dropped for a reach weapon and gauntlets/spiked armor. You had to spend two feats to get things the Warblade gains automatically, which you would either do worse or do later because of your lower initiator level. So striking the feats that aren't strictly necessary for a lockdown build, we still have 7 left - and some of them I'm not innately familiar with, such as deft opportunist. I believe that means the warblade is left with several feats to spend on those other, unnecessary feats if he wants to. And they make up for the +4 attack/+6 damage you spent five feats to get by having actual class features.

So yes, the Warblade can play lockdown quite easily if they want to.


2) Intimidate is just a skill but if you want to actually use it effectively you will want that 9th level of fighter for zhent fighter. It is very nice.

I don't know what zhent fighter does, so I can't really discuss this.


3) Warblades will have a lot of trouble fitting in the long list of feats that you will want especially since your damage per arrow will be much lower. Warblades can use a few maneuvers to make it interesting just like rangers have spells that makes archery more interesting. We just had this conversation about rangers and fighters and the case is fighters are the best at straight archery in visual range. Rangers had other things that made them much better in other areas of archery 9such as extreme sniping). It became a question what do you want to do.

It really won't. As I said, using boosts and other options that Warblades get as part of their advancement, they can make up whatever arrow-damage bonuses your Fighter gets pretty easily. As to rangers, we aren't discussing rangers here. I believe my challenge was to provide Fighter fluff which the Warblade can't match, and I've yet to see anyone do so.

[Typewriter]

Mechanics are flavor sometimes. A maneuver is a maneuver, whether you refluff it to be mystical or generic, it's still your character doing something other than simply swinging a sword well.

That's why I prefer fighters to Warblades. No fancy moves, no refreshing, no skills that either make no sense (I just learned it somehow) or require a backstory of training (I just learned it from master Yojimbo).

[Terazul]

That's why I prefer fighters to Warblades. No fancy moves, no refreshing, no skills that either make no sense (I just learned it somehow) or require a backstory of training (I just learned it from master Yojimbo).

...How do you justify feats?

Or what anyone does when they level up and decide to change class?

Or any class feature ever?

And no, most of the maneuvers are in fact just swinging your sword well. No matter how much you want to shoehorn it into something else.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Robin Hood?

I agree with you, but you walked right into that one.

EDIT: A longbow-user. There, happy? :smallyuk:

Cleric turning into Arrow Demons and Rangers with Arrow Mind would disagree with you. There was a thread on this two weeks ago.


2) Intimidate is just a skill but if you want to actually use it effectively you will want that 9th level of fighter for zhent fighter. It is very nice. It's nice, but Dread Necro does it nicer. Without taking actions. And auto-shaken, even if the opponents do somehow make the save. And still able to cast 9th level spells. And has minions more powerful than said Fighter. Several of them. And has tons of debuffing and Save or Lose ability.

[sonofzeal]

No. I'm simply saying that a man who can cut through walls as an easy to get class feature is fundamentally disruptive to the game world, especially given the limited selection of maneuvers. Certainly, this can be replicated through any adamant weapon, but that's the crutch of the matter. Someone will know that the great hero so-and-so has a mighty sword and will take steps to neutralize it. It's much more difficult to block an innate power. The question is how much mechanics affect flavor, and my answer is that they do so quite a bit. A Wizard built to shoot fireballs and little more is hardly more intimidating than anyone else.
Almost anyone can carve their way through a stone wall, given enough time. Anything that can do substantial damage in a single hit can get through the wall. Faster, if they have Power Attack. Adamantine weapons or Maneuvers merely expedite matters. And even worse, you've got the Rogue with a UMD'd scroll of Stone Shape, or the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard lobbing it around as needed. Then there's Gaseous Form if there's cracks, or Swift Etherealness if there isn't, or Blink and a healthy jog, or any number of other techniques. If they want through that wall, they're probably going to get there.

Seriously, if your campaign's derailed by someone able to go through a wall, you've got more serious issues than the Warblade.


(Also you can always put something on the other side of the wall to jump them when they smash through, or make the wall thick enough that any hole gets clogged with the rubble without serious effort, or make it load bearing so that there's a minor cave in if they smash it. Or just mention out of game that persistent wall-smashing makes your life as DM much harder.)

[TroubleBrewing]

Cleric turning into Arrow Demons and Rangers with Arrow Mind would disagree with you. There was a thread on this two weeks ago.

Like I said, I actually agree with this. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Also, the question I was "answering" was "What can a fighter better than a warblade?"

Clerics make awesome archers even without turning into/summoning Arrow Demons. Ditto for Rangers.

[Fax Celestis]

Mechanics are flavor sometimes. A maneuver is a maneuver, whether you refluff it to be mystical or generic, it's still your character doing something other than simply swinging a sword well.

...how is "I attack two people as a standard action" anything other than "simply swinging a sword well"?

[Terazul]

...how is "I attack two people as a standard action" anything other than "simply swinging a sword well"?

Clearly that level of skill is too much for a simple warrior to be capable of. I mean, it's not like the fighter gets some sort of crazy whirlwind attack or something. Oh wait. :smallamused:

[Sir Enigma]

Almost anyone can carve their way through a stone wall, given enough time. Anything that can do substantial damage in a single hit can get through the wall. Faster, if they have Power Attack. Adamantine weapons or Maneuvers merely expedite matters. And even worse, you've got the Rogue with a UMD'd scroll of Stone Shape, or the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard lobbing it around as needed. Then there's Gaseous Form if there's cracks, or Swift Etherealness if there isn't, or Blink and a healthy jog, or any number of other techniques. If they want through that wall, they're probably going to get there.

Seriously, if your campaign's derailed by someone able to go through a wall, you've got more serious issues than the Warblade.


(Also you can always put something on the other side of the wall to jump them when they smash through, or make the wall thick enough that any hole gets clogged with the rubble without serious effort, or make it load bearing so that there's a minor cave in if they smash it. Or just mention out of game that persistent wall-smashing makes your life as DM much harder.)

Pretty much this. If you need to get through a wall, Warblades with Mountain Hammer are a really poor way to do so. It can't be done quickly or quietly - someone will notice that there's a guy with a sword smashing his way through the wall - and if neither of these matter, a battering ram would be more effective than the Warblade.

Or, you could just remove or modify that one maneuver, if it turns out to be genuinely problematic.

[Starsinger]

That's why I prefer fighters to Warblades. No fancy moves, no refreshing, no skills Ahh! Here we go, now that is a valid reason to prefer Fighter. A Fighter is vanilla ice cream, and a Warblade is a hot fudge sundae. Both have the same creamy vanilla base "I am a person who hits people with things". But a Warblade has all of that tasty fudge and nuts on top. Sometimes you just want a bowl of vanilla ice cream.


no skills that either make no sense (I just learned it somehow) or require a backstory of training (I just learned it from master Yojimbo).

Never in my life have I seen any character in any tabletop RPG ever justify why he learned a new skill, feat, spell, technique, summon, limit break, or what have you. I mean I read in the 3.0 PHB about if you want to dip Wizard, you should mention ahead of time that Lidda has been reading Mialee's spell book over her shoulder...

[Typewriter]

Mechanics are flavor sometimes. A maneuver is a maneuver, whether you refluff it to be mystical or generic, it's still your character doing something other than simply swinging a sword well.

That's why I prefer fighters to Warblades. No fancy moves, no refreshing, no skills that either make no sense (I just learned it somehow) or require a backstory of training (I just learned it from master Yojimbo).


...how is "I attack two people as a standard action" anything other than "simply swinging a sword well"?

If I wanted to pretend mechanics were invisible I would just play my own custom system called "Whatever I want to have happen happens".

Seriously, you're not just 'attacking two people as a standard action'. You're using an ability. It doesn't matter how you refluff that ability there's still a mechanic that has to be 'fluffed'. It's not just "I attack".


...How do you justify feats?

Or what anyone does when they level up and decide to change class?

Or any class feature ever?

And no, most of the maneuvers are in fact just swinging your sword well. No matter how much you want to shoehorn it into something else.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with abilities coming from somewhere, I just said I prefer characters with no 'fancy abilities'. As I said, maneuvers are abilities, not just 'something I can do for no reason'. There's a refresh mechanic. There's a leveling system behind the maneuvers.

To me a fighter who swings his sword, and occasionally gains the ability to deal more damage while swinging his sword as he levels is a much more interesting character than someone who 'for some reason can swing really hard sometimes then has to do something else before being able to swing really hard again'.

Like I said, if I wanted to pretend mechanics were invisible I wouldn't bother playing a game that has those mechanics in it.

Hey, you're even talking to someone whose favorite class is Monk. I've never cared how horrible the abilities are or whether or not they work together, I love abundant step and quivering palm and all those. I don't care if I can play a psion who focuses on meditation and warps the world around him by pure psionic thought - I still think that the monks abilities are cool and I'm going to continue playing those.

[sonofzeal]

Pretty much this. If you need to get through a wall, Warblades with Mountain Hammer are a really poor way to do so. It can't be done quickly or quietly - someone will notice that there's a guy with a sword smashing his way through the wall - and if neither of these matter, a battering ram would be more effective than the Warblade.

Or, you could just remove or modify that one maneuver, if it turns out to be genuinely problematic.
A-yup.

Also, Fighters can get the Find Flaw feat (Dragon #359) as a Fighter Bonus Feat, anyone with a Psi Focus and Improved Sunder can take Focused Sunder (XPH), Wall Breaker (Dragon #285) only requires Power Attack, Sense Weakness (Draconomicon) only requires Combat Expertise and Weapon Focus, and then there's Ruinous Rage (ELH), Combat Engineer (Dragon #334), Nature's Fists (Dragon #343), Strength Devotion (Complete Champion), and more.

And remember that Martial Study is a Fighter Bonus Feat, so they can grab Mountain Hammer as an "easy-to-get class feature" too.

[Gensh]

Almost anyone can carve their way through a stone wall, given enough time. Anything that can do substantial damage in a single hit can get through the wall. Faster, if they have Power Attack. Adamantine weapons or Maneuvers merely expedite matters. And even worse, you've got the Rogue with a UMD'd scroll of Stone Shape, or the Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard lobbing it around as needed. Then there's Gaseous Form if there's cracks, or Swift Etherealness if there isn't, or Blink and a healthy jog, or any number of other techniques. If they want through that wall, they're probably going to get there.

Seriously, if your campaign's derailed by someone able to go through a wall, you've got more serious issues than the Warblade.

Well, this was just an example off the top of my head. I would certainly have some sort of response to the situation. The issue is more with the speed with which it can happen. Again, it's not just class but also build that matters here. The Wizard who used all his third level spell slots on magic missile certainly isn't going to get through that bank wall and pull of the heist of the century. The party's going to have to find another way in. Probably the Duskblade casting jump to get on the roof. Really, my meleers always seem to have more clever players than the casters, but that's another discussion altogether.

[Typewriter]

Ahh! Here we go, now that is a valid reason to prefer Fighter. A Fighter is vanilla ice cream, and a Warblade is a hot fudge sundae. Both have the same creamy vanilla base "I am a person who hits people with things". But a Warblade has all of that tasty fudge and nuts on top. Sometimes you just want a bowl of vanilla ice cream.


I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but yeah. Pretty much. I was in a party with someone playing a warblade or something (don't remember honestly) while I was a fighter, and he did somewhat better than me in combat. Not quite double my damage, but close. He was very pleased with his backstory of having trained under the master warrior so and so, and how he trains every day to become one with his sword, blah blah blah.

He asked me once, in character, how I had developed my skills in combat as they were impressive (though not as impressive as his own), and my response was "killin gophers".



Never in my life have I seen any character in any tabletop RPG ever justify why he learned a new skill, feat, spell, technique, summon, limit break, or what have you. I mean I read in the 3.0 PHB about if you want to dip Wizard, you should mention ahead of time that Lidda has been reading Mialee's spell book over her shoulder...

I have never taken a feat, skill point, or class that didn't somehow tie into my backstory. My average 'back story' that I give to my DMs are around 12 pages long. I once had a character withe leadership and he had around 230 followers. Every single follower was statted, and had a paragraph long description for them.

Of the group I currently DM for there is one (out of five) players who plays similarly. He is not very efficient in combat, but his characters abilities reflect his actions better than any other character in the party.

And for the record I have no problem with my other 4 players spending all their time murdering monsters and then taking the feat "Skill Focus: Diplomacy" if that's what they want to do, it's just not how I play.

[Hiro Protagonest]

My average 'back story' that I give to my DMs are around 12 pages long. I once had a character withe leadership and he had around 230 followers. Every single follower was statted, and had a paragraph long description for them.

:smalleek:

[Starsinger]

I'm not sure if you were being serious or not, but yeah. Pretty much. Yeah I was being serious. I can't think of a better word but... sometimes Simple is good. That's why people play a Paladin over a Clericzilla or a Warmage over an Invoker Evoker. Unfortunately people who prefer a simpler character get punished, which I consider to be a failing of the system. Not everyone wants to dig through pages of spells or abilities everytime they make a character.

[Typewriter]

:smalleek:

It almost wound up ruining the campaign. The DM was so amused by it that for 2 session all he had happen was people interacting with my crew (I had an airship and the followers were my crew).

As, um, 'pleased' as I was that the DM enjoyed my Peeps it was really boring to have nothing but social interactions with random people I had built for two six-hour long sessions.

Also, it was apparently 325 followers? Looking through it some of it is confusing to me. There's a lot of things that I can only assume that the DM especially allowed, or referenced campaign specific traits that I can't quite remember...

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq4n2Zv8vmuydFZneGN5Rkxzamh1MWJkNjM2TUdYZ Gc&hl=en_US&authkey=CIiMyecD#gid=0

There's a 'key' at the bottom that will tell you what all of the seemingly random fields mean.

[Thurbane]

He can claim that your view is outmoded and stuck on old system archetypes, and that because something was one way once does not mean it is that way still--or ever will be again.
Hate to disappoint, but it is precisely "that way"...at my table.

Saying that "because the fighter was this way in the older versions means it is still this way in the newer versions" is basically the same as saying that "The refresh button was at this spot in the browser window in Firefox 1 through 3, which means it's still there for Firefox 4". Hint: it's not, they moved it. It's grating and obnoxious, but you either get used to things being different in the new version, or you stick with the old version. What you're describing is essentially continuing to use Firefox 4, clicking the spot where the refresh button was in v1-3, and then being upset when the page doesn't refresh.
That's not really an accurate analogy in my view - the "refresh button" (i.e. the Fighter) still exists in 3.5 - under the name Fighter, even. Just because Warblade fills a similar (or even the same) niche better, doesn't neccessarily mean that it is "the new Fighter". Let's face it, Druid can fill the traditional Fighter niche (dealing lots of damage in melee) better than either of them. Does that make a Druid a Fighter? How about a Cleric with Persisted Divine Power, or a Wizard with Persisted Tenser's Transformation? And as I keep saying, again and again, if you want to treat Warblade as the Fighter replacement/new version of the Fighter in your games, that's totally cool with me. I don't see why it has to be so in my games, especially considering I don't even own a copy of ToB.

-----

Are people really that threatened by people who hold different opinions? I don't know why people have to be so concerned about how other people they will never meet interpret flavor or play the game. Honestly, I couldn't give a flying fig if in your game if the word Fighter refers to a small cupcake topped with whipped cream. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, and vice versa. Is that really such a radical concept? Are people honestly that fixated on their opinion being the "right" one? (Note: this is not directed at Fax or anyoe other individual in this thread - it's a general comment).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah I was being serious. I can't think of a better word but... sometimes Simple is good. That's why people play a Paladin over a Clericzilla or a Warmage over an Invoker. Unfortunately people who prefer a simpler character get punished, which I consider to be a failing of the system. Not everyone wants to dig through pages of spells or abilities everytime they make a character.

Invokers are the most simply system devised in 3.5. You can do this thing, an unlimited number of times per day. Think of it like swinging your sword, but it's magic, and it's cool. Go, play.

[Starsinger]

Invokers are the most simply system devised in 3.5. You can do this thing, an unlimited number of times per day. Think of it like swinging your sword, but it's magic, and it's cool. Go, play.

Accursed spelling, I meant Evoker.

[Quietus]

He asked me once, in character, how I had developed my skills in combat as they were impressive (though not as impressive as his own), and my response was "killin gophers".



I have never taken a feat, skill point, or class that didn't somehow tie into my backstory. My average 'back story' that I give to my DMs are around 12 pages long. I once had a character withe leadership and he had around 230 followers. Every single follower was statted, and had a paragraph long description for them.

I love backstory-heavy characters as a DM, but I would hand that back to you if you gave it to me and say "I'm sorry, but I'm busy writing a campaign, I don't have time to read a novel". That's quite simply too much. However, I have a hard time seeing how twelve pages of backstory boils down to "Killin gophers", nor how doing so would teach you the intricacies of weilding a weapon properly in man to man combat, and the proper form for wearing armor. I also object to anyone who claims that Improved Sunder is somehow less of a special attack than Mountain Hammer; Both are special attacks, both involve doing something more than saying "I attack". And over the course of some 18 feats, a fighter is likely to pick up at least a few that give options, rather than just pluses.

[sonofzeal]

Hate to disappoint, but it is precisely "that way"...at my table.

That's not really an accurate analogy in my view - the "refresh button" (i.e. the Fighter) still exists in 3.5 - under the name Fighter, even. Just because Warblade fills a similar (or even the same) niche better, doesn't neccessarily mean that it is "the new Fighter". Let's face it, Druid can fill the traditional Fighter niche (dealing lots of damage in melee) better than either of them. Does that make a Druid a Fighter? How about a Cleric with Persisted Divine Power, or a Wizard with Persisted Tenser's Transformation? And as I keep saying, again and again, if you want to treat Warblade as the Fighter replacement/new version of the Fighter in your games, that's totally cool with me. I don't see why it has to be so in my games, especially considering I don't even own a copy of ToB.

Are people really that threatened by people who hold different opinions? I don't know why people have to be so concerned about how other people they will never meet interpret flavor or play the game. Honestly, I couldn't give a flying fig if in your game if the word Fighter refers to a small cupcake topped with whipped cream. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, and vice versa. Is that really such a radical concept? Are people honestly that fixated on their opinion being the "right" one?
If the Warblade had been in the PHB and had been called "Fighter", would you consider it as such?

If so, why put so much emphasis on what is, objectively, just an out-of-game label?

If not, what are the defining traits of "Fighter" that rules out Warblades? And remember, Martial Study is a Fighter Bonus Feat, so most particular abilities can change hands. Fighters can't get Strike of Perfect Clarity, and Warblades can't get Weapon Supremacy, but the bulk of either class can be claimed by the other without much effort.

[TroubleBrewing]

Thurbane: The inherent difference in our viewpoints hinges mainly on the way we approach the issue: One side says "if it's not a Fighter, it's not a fighter", and the other side says "They both fight. They're both fighters."

It isn't really a question of believing that someones opinion is mistaken, it's that only one of those things is an opinion.

In your opinion (as far as I've read), nothing can be flavored as a Fighter unless is actually is a Fighter. This is your opinion, and that is fine.

The other viewpoint, which looks more at what the class in question actually does, states that if it looks like a spade, acts like a spade, and behaves like a spade, it's probably a spade. This is less an opinion than a fact. However, this is purely because we are approaching the issue with the idea that there is a right answer and a wrong answer. In your mind, both sides are opinions, and therefore insulated against being correct or incorrect.

Both sides are equally valid, but for different arguments.

EDIT: Gah! Swordsage'd!

[Lord_Gareth]

Are people really that threatened by people who hold different opinions? I don't know why people have to be so concerned about how other people they will never meet interpret flavor or play the game. Honestly, I couldn't give a flying fig if in your game if the word Fighter refers to a small cupcake topped with whipped cream. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, and vice versa. Is that really such a radical concept? Are people honestly that fixated on their opinion being the "right" one? (Note: this is not directed at Fax or anyoe other individual in this thread - it's a general comment).

Threatened? No. Not at all. I highly doubt you're going to kick in the door on one of my campaigns and exclaim, "UR DOIN' IT WRONG!" before shooting everyone (if you do, please film it so that I may be officially recorded as having died the best death ever). But what we're trying to do is help you be able to enjoy the game more than you already are, and we're getting frustrated because you won't let us help you.

[Typewriter]

I love backstory-heavy characters as a DM, but I would hand that back to you if you gave it to me and say "I'm sorry, but I'm busy writing a campaign, I don't have time to read a novel". That's quite simply too much. However, I have a hard time seeing how twelve pages of backstory boils down to "Killin gophers", nor how doing so would teach you the intricacies of weilding a weapon properly in man to man combat, and the proper form for wearing armor. I also object to anyone who claims that Improved Sunder is somehow less of a special attack than Mountain Hammer; Both are special attacks, both involve doing something more than saying "I attack". And over the course of some 18 feats, a fighter is likely to pick up at least a few that give options, rather than just pluses.

Oh believe me, many of my DMs haven't read the backstories I've come up with and that's not a problem. I'll generally make an 'abbreviated' version that contains the fine details that I want to make sure won't conflict with anything the DM has planned. This will usually only be half a page or less.

The character with the 'killin gophers' thing was only about 4 pages long and it was mostly about how everywhere this guy had gone bad stuff had happened to him. He learned how to kill by killing gophers on a farm, but what brought him to the party was a bit more complex. Of course this was all through the eyes of an 8 INT fighter who... well doesn't matter.

/Tangent

I tend to take very few feats that allow options unless it's something I can just 'turn on' and 'leave on' (power attack).

And I don't know Mountain Hammer off the top of my head, but assuming that there's more to it than "I can do this repeatedly because I know how" there is a difference between "I can sunder because I know how" and "I can do Mountain Hammer every other round after taking a full round action to reflect on my life".

[Thurbane]

I think we're really labouring a point here. I like the PHB Fighter with his bonus feats. I don't own ToB (I used to own a copy, but I traded it on on Cityscape), my group mostly plays a pretty much core-only game, so there's really no value in me trying to adopt the Warblade as a Fighter replacement in my game anyhow. We don't use psionics, incarnum or most other non-core subsytems.

I was playing 3.X Fighters for several years before the Warblade was a twinkle in a designer's eye. I guess I'll never know if I would have accepted the Warblade as a Fighter in 3.X if it had appeared in the original 3.0 PHB, because that didn't happen.

[Fax Celestis]

Seriously, you're not just 'attacking two people as a standard action'. You're using an ability. It doesn't matter how you refluff that ability there's still a mechanic that has to be 'fluffed'. It's not just "I attack".

So 'If it's boring, you're playing a fighter'?

Come on. Using Power Attack is 'using an ability'. That is a really flimsy argument you have there.

And the other thing: why does it matter if I say "I use Steel Wind", or just say "I attack two dudes"? It has the functionally the exact same result.


He asked me once, in character, how I had developed my skills in combat as they were impressive (though not as impressive as his own), and my response was "killin gophers".

And this backstory precluded using a class that did the same things, in the same ways, but was better at it, for what reason exactly?


Are people really that threatened by people who hold different opinions?

They're not threatened by a differing opinion: they're upset by the expectation that something (the warblade) is being maligned because of something it is not (a magical warrior class made of sunshine and lightning), rather than being accepted for what it is (a fairly mundane front-line high-fantasy warrior).

[Lord_Gareth]

And I don't know Mountain Hammer off the top of my head, but assuming that there's more to it than "I can do this repeatedly because I know how" there is a difference between "I can sunder because I know how" and "I can do Mountain Hammer every other round after taking a full round action to reflect on my life".

Warblades refresh their maneuvers as a standard-action melee attack, so it's "I can do Mountain Hammer every other round if I take a round to recover between them, since swinging my sword that fraggin' hard takes a lot of effort."

[MeeposFire]

Warblades refresh their maneuvers as a standard-action melee attack, so it's "I can do Mountain Hammer every other round if I take a round to recover between them, since swinging my sword that fraggin' hard takes a lot of effort."

No warblades must make an attack or waste a standard action to refresh. The attack can be an attack action or full attack action as long as you don't use any maneuvers.

[Lord_Gareth]

No warblades must make an attack or waste a standard action to refresh. The attack can be an attack action or full attack action as long as you don't use any maneuvers.

Huh. That's a slight expansion on what I said, but an important one. Duly noted.

[Thurbane]

Threatened? No. Not at all. I highly doubt you're going to kick in the door on one of my campaigns and exclaim, "UR DOIN' IT WRONG!" before shooting everyone (if you do, please film it so that I may be officially recorded as having died the best death ever). But what we're trying to do is help you be able to enjoy the game more than you already are, and we're getting frustrated because you won't let us help you.
And this is the inherent (quite possibly unintentional) arrogance in a lot of pro-ToB arguments.

Let me spell something out, and be clear. I enjoy my D&D game perfectly as-is. I have played the game for a quarter century, I'm not a novice who doesn't understand the game. I chose to play the game the way I do, quite deliberately. I also, quite deliberately, chose to use some supplements and not others, because that suits the style of game I like. I owned a copy of ToB for several months. I read it through. I decided it didn't suit my style of game. The other guys in my group, a mix of old school veterans and players who'd only come on board with 3.X, felt the same way.

It's basically the same argument as if you were suggesting I should be playing 4E, because it's better balanced...

[MeeposFire]

Huh. That's a slight expansion on what I said, but an important one. Duly noted.

A lot of people miss the fact that warblades can refresh off of full attacks due to the stnadard action flourish next to it. If a warblade is refreshing not on a full attack they are doing it wrong.

[Lord_Gareth]

It's not about ToB specifically, Thurbane, but about the concept of classes as in-game constructs that I'm objecting to. ToB has just gotten wrapped up in that particular discussion, but the same thing applies on rogue vs. ninja, fighter vs. knight, paladin vs. favored soul, whatever.

[Fax Celestis]

Let me spell something out, and be clear. I enjoy my D&D game perfectly as-is.

You may well be. There are people who are new to the game, who come to this forum saying "I want to play a fighter! Help me!" and people go "Well, the fighter class is actually pretty terrible, why don't you try one of these other options instead: rogue/swash, warblade, ranger/scout, hexblade..." To which the response is immediately "BUT I CANT FIT MY CONCEPT INTO YOUR BIGGER BOX"...which is pretty ludicrous, seeing as it's the same box with some extra space.

Fighters and warblades, just as rogues and factotums, monks and swordsages, paladins and crusaders, and a plethora of other classes, have the same box. If your concept works for one class, it will work for the other class. There are innumerable cases where it will even work in a different box (rogue/swashbuckler for a TWF finesse fighter, for example, instead of a ranger). It is the people that ask for help, that then snub their nose at the proffered assistance, that create such tension and frustration.

[sonofzeal]

I tend to take very few feats that allow options unless it's something I can just 'turn on' and 'leave on' (power attack).
Your loss. Improved Trip and Goad are excellent and classic feats for Fighter, as is Rapid Shot for ones with ranged weapons, and Shock Trooper for chargers.


And I don't know Mountain Hammer off the top of my head, but assuming that there's more to it than "I can do this repeatedly because I know how" there is a difference between "I can sunder because I know how" and "I can do Mountain Hammer every other round after taking a full round action to reflect on my life attack them a few more times and set myself up in the right position to do it again".
Fixed that for you.


Flavour text for Mountain Hammer (I claim fair use): "Like a falling avalanche, you strike with the weight and fury of the mountain."

Translation: hit it with a sword really really hard.


Personally, I picture someone performing an attack and bracing their other arm against the backside of the blade to really force it through. The recovery mechanism is slightly awkward, but entirely plausible; setting yourself up to do the same move twice is not always easy, especially if you want to do it well. It's far easier to follow a descending slash with a rising one, or a horizontal one, or a stab, than it is to link straight back into a descending slash. It's never been hard to handwave in my group.

[Thurbane]

You may well be. There are people who are new to the game, who come to this forum saying "I want to play a fighter! Help me!" and people go "Well, the fighter class is actually pretty terrible, why don't you try one of these other options instead: rogue/swash, warblade, ranger/scout, hexblade..." To which the response is immediately "BUT I CANT FIT MY CONCEPT INTO YOUR BIGGER BOX"...which is pretty ludicrous, seeing as it's the same box with some extra space.
I honestly have not seen that kind of response here very often at all. It's more often the opposite - if someone asks for a melee build, but makes it clear that they don't own or their group doesn't use ToB, they (or their group) are sometimes accused of "doing it wrong". This is just counter productive, IMHO. If ToB isn't on the table, there's not point beating people up about it. I'm not saying this means that Fighter becomes the next best default option - a Lion Totem Barbarian would be more logical for most requests.

Fighters and warblades, just as rogues and factotums, monks and swordsages, paladins and crusaders, and a plethora of other classes, have the same box. If your concept works for one class, it will work for the other class. There are innumerable cases where it will even work in a different box (rogue/swashbuckler for a TWF finesse fighter, for example, instead of a ranger). It is the people that ask for help, that then snub their nose at the proffered assistance, that create such tension and frustration.
Speaking for myself, if people chose to ingore advice I give them on this forum, it doesn't bother me at all. I have a personal fondness for Binders, for instance - I'll often suggest them when people ask for build advice. This doesn't mean I get my nose put out of joint if people chose to ignore that advice. People are under no obligation to take anyone's advice, even if they intially asked for it...sure, they shouldn't be rude about it. That I can totally agree with.

[Gensh]

You may well be. There are people who are new to the game, who come to this forum saying "I want to play a fighter! Help me!" and people go "Well, the fighter class is actually pretty terrible, why don't you try one of these other options instead: rogue/swash, warblade, ranger/scout, hexblade..." To which the response is immediately "BUT I CANT FIT MY CONCEPT INTO YOUR BIGGER BOX"...which is pretty ludicrous, seeing as it's the same box with some extra space.
...
It is the people that ask for help, that then snub their nose at the proffered assistance, that create such tension and frustration.

Equally frequent is someone who comes on the board and asks for someone to help them with a build and requests that no one use ToB because they personally don't care for it and are promptly told they're doin' it rong.

EDIT: Thurbane, brofist!

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I honestly have not seen that kind of response here very often at all. It's more often the opposite - if someone asks for a melee build, but makes it clear that they don't own or their group doesn't use ToB, they (or their group) are sometimes accused of "doing it wrong". This is just counter productive, IMHO. If ToB isn't on the table, there's not point beating people up about it. I'm not saying this means that Fighter becomes the next best default option - a Lion Totem Barbarian would be more logical for most requests.

Speaking for myself, if people chose to ingore advice I give them on this forum, it doesn't bother me at all. I have a personal fondness for Binders, for instance - I'll often suggest them when people ask for build advice. This doesn't mean I get my nose put out of joint if people chose to ignore that advice. People are under no obligation to take anyone's advice, even if they intially asked for it...sure, they shouldn't be rude about it. That I can totally agree with.

Your disinclination for ToB mechanics in no way changes the fact that the flavor is identical.

I can understand, even respect, your disinclination for the Initiation mechanic. That's cool.

But to say that Fighter has a better 'flavor' than Warblade is utterly ridiculous, when their flavor is exactly the same.

[Thurbane]

It's not about ToB specifically, Thurbane, but about the concept of classes as in-game constructs that I'm objecting to. ToB has just gotten wrapped up in that particular discussion, but the same thing applies on rogue vs. ninja, fighter vs. knight, paladin vs. favored soul, whatever.
Fair enough - I still maintain, though, that treating classes as in-game constructs is just as valid a play style as not doing so. I do see your point, that it can be unneccessarily restrictive, but speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with it.

Plenty of people here post about game styles that I personally wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, whether its epic, gestalt, or a whole other gaming system. Just because I have no interest in playing their games, though, does not make them any less valid than mine - just simply not to my taste.

But to say that Fighter has a better 'flavor' than Warblade is utterly ridiculous, when their flavor is exactly the same.
Well, for starters, I don't think I ever claimed that one flavour was "better" than the other...

And I find that we're back on exactly the same path as we were all those pages ago - you insisting the flavour is exactly the same, and me saying that in my mind, they're not. The phrase "agree to disagree" comes to mind, though I suspect you won't accept that. I also clarify (again) that I am not talking simply about the written book fluff for each class, but my own associations.

...I know I said this way back on page two, but since I seem to be going in circles, I really should leave it there.

[Lord_Gareth]

If you agree it's needlessly restrictive, then how can you not see that the game would be more fun if you didn't do that, thus opening the floodgate for creative concepts both in terms of fluff and mechanics?

[Cerlis]

If you agree it's needlessly restrictive, then how can you not see that the game would be more fun if you didn't do that, thus opening the floodgate for creative concepts both in terms of fluff and mechanics?

then it seems like the assumption is that you're having more fun than he is.

[Fax Celestis]

then it seems like the assumption is that your having more fun than he is.

No, the assumption is that it is a longer time before that source of fun is exhausted. There are only so many 'out of the box' rogues you can play before getting bored, but there are a nearly limitless number of potential things you can make with the rogue class divorced from the rogue fluff.

[Lord_Gareth]

then it seems like the assumption is that you're having more fun than he is.

Having played the game both ways (and more besides) in my 12-year run of D&D from 2e to 3.5 to Pathfinder to brief flirtations with 4e, I can say that in my experience, people who play it my way do have more fun, because they have more room to be creative and really express the ideas that have formed in their mind. Plus there's a certain thrill out of taking a difficult flavor concept and finding just the right mechanics to represent it and then bringing it to life in a real game environment.

[Thurbane]

If you agree it's needlessly restrictive, then how can you not see that the game would be more fun if you didn't do that, thus opening the floodgate for creative concepts both in terms of fluff and mechanics?
*sigh*

Fair enough - I still maintain, though, that treating classes as in-game constructs is just as valid a play style as not doing so. I do see your point, that it can be unneccessarily restrictive, but speaking for myself, I don't have a problem with it.

I hope the emphasis clears that up. Maybe I like being restricted. Maybe I just enjoy a different style of game as you - I know, radical concept, right? I hear there's even people that don't like D&D at all. Or prefer 4E. Or don't roleplay at all. If everyone like exactly the same things, in exactly the same way, it would be a much poorer world for it.

For myself, I can't get my head around the fact some people like dance music. Me, I love heavy metal, punk and hard rock. I don't get why they like what they do, but I accept it...

[sonofzeal]

then it seems like the assumption is that you're having more fun than he is.
Maybe he's having equal fun. But if he's running a gaming group and enforcing those unnecessary restrictions, sooner or later (and likely just about the first time those restrictions are enforced) it's going to hamper someone's enjoyment.

Nobody complains if your particular character's identity is wrapped up in a slightly metagame concept like "Rogue" or "Fighter" or "Warblade". I have no problem with someone who introduces himself as "Warblade Rorthorpe", and who talks about "my pride as a Warblade" or "my Warblade training taught me X".

But the moment that player says to another player, "hey you can't call yourself a Fighter, your character sheet says Warblade", yeah, it's a problem, and it's reducing enjoyment.

[Thurbane]

No, the assumption is that it is a longer time before that source of fun is exhausted. There are only so many 'out of the box' rogues you can play before getting bored, but there are a nearly limitless number of potential things you can make with the rogue class divorced from the rogue fluff.
1. I would say that slightly over 25 years passes the "durability of time" test myself.
2. Who ever said that I or my group consistently play "out of the box" characters of any type? Just because I don't play a Facotutm and call it a Rogue, doesn't mean that the Rogues I play come off an assembly line. 3.5 is one of the most awesomly customizable systems there is, even barring class variations. Race, feats, skill distribution, PrCs...the variety is really quite incredible, even within the "confines" of a particular class.

Maybe he's having equal fun. But if he's running a gaming group and enforcing those unnecessary restrictions, sooner or later (and likely just about the first time those restrictions are enforced) it's going to hamper someone's enjoyment.
Well, in my on again/off again group of 25+ years, we haven't hit this wall so far. And (for the record) I don't run a group, we're a group where we take turns DMing.

Nobody complains if your particular character's identity is wrapped up in a slightly metagame concept like "Rogue" or "Fighter" or "Warblade". I have no problem with someone who introduces himself as "Warblade Rorthorpe", and who talks about "my pride as a Warblade" or "my Warblade training taught me X".

But the moment that player says to another player, "hey you can't call yourself a Fighter, your character sheet says Warblade", yeah, it's a problem, and it's reducing enjoyment.
For the record, I've never said any such thing happens my my games.

I (and my group) like that D&D is a class based system. If we wanted more open ended characters concepts, unfettered by metamagame notions, then we'd probably play a classless system...

[MeeposFire]

Well 3e D&D is the closest you can probably get to a classless class based game. For the most part 3e is class based in name only.

[Starsinger]

Well 3e D&D is the closest you can probably get to a classless class based game. For the most part 3e is class based in name only.

Class based in name only would be more like Anima where you buy your abilities with points but have a class that modifies some attributes and changes the price you pay for things. D&D is modular class design, not class based in name only.

[MeeposFire]

Class based in name only would be more like Anima where you buy your abilities with points but have a class that modifies some attributes and changes the price you pay for things. D&D is modular class design, not class based in name only.

Yea but it really starts encroaching on classless. I mean did you pick up that barb level so you can be a barbarian or did you take it to get pounce. Most people on this thread are saying they take it to get pounce to fill their actual concept which in all likely hood has nothing to do with being a barbarian. THis is also why most people in this thread would tell you not to play a samurai but play another class like warblade since they fill the mechanic better while being able to fill the fluff.

[TroubleBrewing]

THis is also why most people in this thread would tell you not to play a samurai but play another class like warblade since they fill the mechanic better while being able to fill the fluff.

Exactly. This exactly.

Fluff has no bearing on mechanics. Classes are a metagame construct. Thank you for seeing this, Meepos.

[Starsinger]

Yea but it really starts encroaching on classless. I mean did you pick up that barb level so you can be a barbarian or did you take it to get pounce. Most people on this thread are saying they take it to get pounce to fill their actual concept which in all likely hood has nothing to do with being a barbarian. This is also why most people in this thread would tell you not to play a samurai but play another class like warblade since they fill the mechanic better while being able to fill the fluff.

Separation of fluff and crunch is not the same as being class-less. Class features are still tied to some class or another (and with ACFs a few classes maybe) but you still have to take that class/one of those classes to get them.

[sonofzeal]

Well, in my on again/off again group of 25+ years, we haven't hit this wall so far. And (for the record) I don't run a group, we're a group where we take turns DMing.
Hey, if you've got a consistent group of people and none of them care to go outside that box, more power to you. I just hope that, if you ever add someone to your circle and they're a bit more flexible on this line, that you'd accept and support them in that. That's all we ask, really.

[MeeposFire]

Separation of fluff and crunch is not the same as being class-less. Class features are still tied to some class or another (and with ACFs a few classes maybe) but you still have to take that class/one of those classes to get them.

That is why I said it still is officially classless. Classes are archetypes and in previous and later versions of D&D your class was extremely important to how you interact with the world. In these versions you could not just cheery pick abilities as you were stuck inside a class with only a couple of exceptions (dual classing which requires super high stats and you can't go back is one of only a tiny few). If you wanted to have the barbarian abilities you had to actually play a full bore barbarian. In 3e you just take whatever class abilities from whatever classes you want to make a concept. In reality the classes are just menus on which to pick up abilities. Now there is nothing wrong with this but 3e is extremely different on how it handles classes compared to other editions.

[Typewriter]

Warblades refresh their maneuvers as a standard-action melee attack, so it's "I can do Mountain Hammer every other round if I take a round to recover between them, since swinging my sword that fraggin' hard takes a lot of effort."

OK, so your concept is, "I can be really good sometimes but never consistently!". Congratulations, you came up with something that isn't what I want.

You're trying to warp not only fluff, but mechanics for your argument and it just doesn't work. There is a mechanic there, it doesn't matter what you call it or what you pretend is happening. You may rationalize it however you want "Swords are heavy so I'm only really good every other round" but that doesn't mean it's a rationale that anyone else is going to want. You being able to come up with a rationale that makes you happy does not equate out to you being able to make everyone happy by making up your own fluff.


Your loss. Improved Trip and Goad are excellent and classic feats for Fighter, as is Rapid Shot for ones with ranged weapons, and Shock Trooper for chargers.

I don't like the trip mechanics, and I generally only use core +1 to build my characters, so if you think that all those sweet feats are my loss... they're not. Sorry.



Fixed that for you.

Flavour text for Mountain Hammer (I claim fair use): "Like a falling avalanche, you strike with the weight and fury of the mountain."

Translation: hit it with a sword really really hard.


Personally, I picture someone performing an attack and bracing their other arm against the backside of the blade to really force it through. The recovery mechanism is slightly awkward, but entirely plausible; setting yourself up to do the same move twice is not always easy, especially if you want to do it well. It's far easier to follow a descending slash with a rising one, or a horizontal one, or a stab, than it is to link straight back into a descending slash. It's never been hard to handwave in my group.

My biggest problem with ToB is the refresh mechanic. It's possible to imagine many of the abilities as "Something a skilled warrior could learn to do" but when you have to factor in a spell level equivalent system for ability management and a refresh mechanism... it just gets a bit more 'advanced' than what I tend to play in a fighter.


So 'If it's boring, you're playing a fighter'?


Not necessarily, depends on the character you're trying to play. I didn't say you couldn't call a warblade a fighter, I think you're thinking of someone else.

My argument is that their are some characters whose 'fluff' is better executed by a fighter than a warblade.

If I want to play a 'simple melee warrior' that's going to be done better by a fighter than a warblade.



Come on. Using Power Attack is 'using an ability'. That is a really flimsy argument you have there.

It's an ability you have and can do. It's not dependent on anything fancy, you can't lose it. The idea of a farmer having the ability to "Hit harder" makes a lot more sense than the idea of a farmer being able to "attack two dudes" when the party tank can't.



And the other thing: why does it matter if I say "I use Steel Wind", or just say "I attack two dudes"? It has the functionally the exact same result.

So let me get this straight...

I have no idea when you get this ability, but for arguments sake let's say its level 4.

Fred is a fighter, Walter is a warblade.

Walter: I attack two dudes
Fred: How?
Walter: I just do it. Nothing special.
Fred: Can I do it?
Walter: No, it requires something special to learn.

There is a mechanic there. You need to have some kind of fluff there. Saying "I attack two dudes and there's no reason for me to be able to do so is not 'refluffing' it's simply a game I have no interest in playing.

You seem to me to be arguing that you can pretend these maneuvers are simply something that exists without requiring any rationale, but the idea of them existing implies there is a rationale for their existence.



And this backstory precluded using a class that did the same things, in the same ways, but was better at it, for what reason exactly?


Huh? Are you actually saying that it makes just as much sense for me to learn a refresh based mechanic of melee combat from killing gophers as it is to learn how to hit hard?



They're not threatened by a differing opinion: they're upset by the expectation that something (the warblade) is being maligned because of something it is not (a magical warrior class made of sunshine and lightning), rather than being accepted for what it is (a fairly mundane front-line high-fantasy warrior).

Personally I'm annoyed by the fact that saying "I'm going to play class X because it does what I want" is apparently no longer allowed because other people know better. See also: The reason I've never come to this forum looking for build advice.

Hey, speaking of which:



Fighters and warblades, just as rogues and factotums, monks and swordsages, paladins and crusaders, and a plethora of other classes, have the same box. If your concept works for one class, it will work for the other class. There are innumerable cases where it will even work in a different box (rogue/swashbuckler for a TWF finesse fighter, for example, instead of a ranger). It is the people that ask for help, that then snub their nose at the proffered assistance, that create such tension and frustration.

If I ask "I'm trying to play a fighter and I want to be able to use a sword and shield and I want to use power attack. What feats help power attack? What feats make shields better?", and people respond with "Play a warblade with a greatsword" the problem is not them accepting your divine help, the problem is that you haven't helped. You did not answer the question, you went off on a superior tangent about what you think they should be playing instead of answering the question.

You can pretend to be the victim of snubbed noses all you want, but when you ignore people in favor of telling them they're wrong - the problem is not them.

That being said - there are some people who come to these forums and don't understand the mechanics very well. There are times when the information is helpful because they don't know better and you are teaching them. Thinking that everyone who comes to these boards needs to learn to do things your way is what I see as the problem, not these 'nose snubbers' that create the tension and frustration.

In other words, if I ask a simple question and you go off on a thirty page well thought out, immaculately researched dissertation on why it could be done better you have actually supplied me with ZERO help.



No, the assumption is that it is a longer time before that source of fun is exhausted. There are only so many 'out of the box' rogues you can play before getting bored, but there are a nearly limitless number of potential things you can make with the rogue class divorced from the rogue fluff.


For the record I never said that I couldn't play a fighter who was a rogue, or a warblade who was a rogue. I simply said that sometimes the fluff I want will come better from an actual rogue than a refluffed XYZ.

[Starsinger]

So let me get this straight...

I have no idea when you get this ability, but for arguments sake let's say its level 4.

Fred is a fighter, Walter is a warblade.

Walter: I attack two dudes
Fred: How?
Walter: I just do it. Nothing special.
Fred: Can I do it?
Walter: No, it requires something special to learn.

There is a mechanic there. You need to have some kind of fluff there. Saying "I attack two dudes and there's no reason for me to be able to do so is not 'refluffing' it's simply a game I have no interest in playing.

Fred is a Fighter, Walter is a Warblade.

Walter: I attack two dudes
Fred: How?
Walter: I just do it. Nothing special.
Fred: Can I do it?
Walter: Yeah you just have to practice.

Walter's Player: Take this feat that lets you use the maneuver.
Fred's Player: Oh okay, thanks!

I fixed that for you...

[TroubleBrewing]

Fred is a fighter, Walter is a warblade.

Walter: I attack two dudes
Fred: How?
Walter: I just do it. Nothing special.
Fred: Can I do it?
Walter: No, it requires something special to learn.

Bob is a Warblade, Frank is a Fighter.

Frank: I attack two dudes
Bob: How?
Frank: I just do it. Nothing special.
Bob: Can I do it?
Frank: No, it requires something special to learn. It's called Cleave, maybe you've heard of it? I got it through my class features.




In other words, if I ask a simple question and you go off on a thirty page well thought out, immaculately researched dissertation on why it could be done better you have actually supplied me with ZERO help.

Perhaps not the help you wanted, but maybe the help you needed. If you were asking for build help and people supplied it, I fail to see the issue.

[Gavinfoxx]

If someone asks for help with a sword and board fighter, I would say something like, "Okay, here's an important question: How important is it that you be competent at melee combat and threat versus challenge rating appropriate enemies, compared to being a primarily Fighter classed character who focuses on using a sword and shield? The two are mutually exclusive. The book is lying when it says the fighter is a competent generalist melee class; it's not. The Fighter is good when you are going for very specific, particular niche combat style builds, where you invest everything into one of the combat styles that the game supports as being viable. Do note that 'fighting with a two handed weapon, with a Dancing Shield' is a somewhat more viable option for the Fighter, and is easily within the Fighter's mid-level Wealth By Level (Is your DM using Wealth By Level? The fighter is balanced as requiring a large amount of magic equipment; are you okay with a very item dependent character?). If you want to play a competent sword and board character, other classes like Warblade (which has identical flavor to the Fighter) work better. If, despite this, you REALLY want to use the Fighter *class* with a sword-and-board combat style, we can help you make the most of that sinking ship, mostly by doing stuff with using the shield as one of the primary weapons. Do you still want to do this?"

[Typewriter]

Fred is a Fighter, Walter is a Warblade.

Walter: I attack two dudes
Fred: How?
Walter: I just do it. Nothing special.
Fred: Can I do it?
Walter: Yeah you just have to practice.

Walter's Player: Take this feat that lets you use the maneuver.
Fred's Player: Oh okay, thanks!

I fixed that for you...

OK, so your fluff is that you have to practice in order to do something that's not at all special. Great fluff, I love it.


Bob is a Warblade, Frank is a Fighter.

Frank: I attack two dudes
Bob: How?
Frank: I just do it. Nothing special.
Bob: Can I do it?
Frank: No, it requires something special to learn. It's called Cleave, maybe you've heard of it? I got it through my class features.


Well, and this is just for me, the answer I would give is "I learned a while back that when you down an opponent the guy next to him usually isn't expecting the sword to just keep coming at him. I just kind of take advantage of that and continue my strike. If you want I can probably give you some examples."

That is a fluffed explanation of the fluff feat and how it works. How do you teach someone, in character (using fluff) to simply attack two guys? Obviously there's some kind of rationale. Or do you simply move twice as fast as you normally do *sometimes*?



Perhaps not the help you wanted, but maybe the help you needed. If you were asking for build help and people supplied it, I fail to see the issue.

They didn't help? Seriously, what don't you get? Giving people help they didn't ask for or want is not helping them. Sometimes that's not the case, and I admitted to that. That doesn't mean it's true for everyone though.

If that was the case then you could just create a thread called "The 8 characters" and every build request would be linked to that. Oh, you want to play a sword/shield warrior? That's wrong, here's a link - thread closed. Very helpful don't you think?


If someone asks for help with a sword and board fighter, I would say something like, "Okay, here's an important question: How important is it that you be competent at melee combat and threat versus challenge rating appropriate enemies, compared to being a primarily Fighter classed character who focuses on using a sword and shield? The two are mutually exclusive. The book is lying when it says the fighter is a competent generalist melee class; it's not. The Fighter is good when you are going for very specific, particular niche combat style builds, where you invest everything into one of the combat styles that the game supports as being viable. Do note that 'fighting with a two handed weapon, with a Dancing Shield' is a somewhat more viable option for the Fighter, and is easily within the Fighter's mid-level Wealth By Level (Is your DM using Wealth By Level? The fighter is balanced as requiring a large amount of magic equipment; are you okay with a very item dependent character?). If you want to play a competent sword and board character, other classes like Warblade (which has identical flavor to the Fighter) work better. If, despite this, you REALLY want to use the Fighter *class* with a sword-and-board combat style, we can help you make the most of that sinking ship, mostly by doing stuff with using the shield as one of the primary weapons. Do you still want to do this?"

At the very least your asking the person if you can go outside what they stated as their comfort zone, and I'm guessing you'd listen. What I've seen a lot of on these forums is, lets say you responded with that, and the topic creator replied with, "Nah, my group is pretty low powered, I've actually played one of these before and it worked fine. I just want to find a couple feats because I've already taken all the obvious ones." People will still continue to try and convince them they are wrong and to do it a different way.

That's why I don't use these forums for build advice. I've seen too many thread where people just dismiss what the person is asking for in favor of what they think he wants. I will say that the forums seem to have gotten a bit nicer about it in the last year, but it's still nothing I'd ever bother with, especially given my groups general power level of play.

EDIT: Working with someone is a good thing, and I endorse it. Repeatedly ignoring someones requests in favor of telling them what to do is neither helpful nor 'working with them'.

[Analytica]

I probably should not join this discussion, but a thought came to me which I figured I should share. A DM connecting certain fluff with certain crunch might be using this as a balancing mechanic, and might be achieving desired results in this manner.

This might not matter so much for a discussion on warblades versus fighters, I guess. But say that, for instance, some powerful character option like the Divine Power spell was only offered by a particular deity of war, and that deity on the other hand would not offer healing magic. This is not necessarily the best example either maybe. Perhaps the pouncing ability of lion totem barbarians only can come from the lion totem spirit, and that spirit will desert someone who no longer lives as the tribals do and fight as the tribals do. Perhaps the pride of the noble sorcerer in the fury of the flame keeps them from wielding the more deadly but less awe-inspiring sleep spells. Not everything is optimized for its purpose in every real-world practice, though often that is of course the case.

There are few restrictions like this in the rules as written, and those that do exist mainly concern codes of conducts, taboos, alignment restrictions and similar things. Hathrans being forbidden to craft magic items and losing class abilities if they do. But by considering world-specific class fluffs to be almost as binding, particularly powerful combinations could be "soft banned" without banning the component parts. If wizards are generally non-combatants, polymorphing grapple wizards will not necessarily render grappling warriors obsolete, and it might explain why a particular game setting also doesn't look like they have done so either.

If someone would want to go against such norms ("I deserted the druids, but kept their teachings so I could learn to reverse engineer nature"), such a special snowflake might still be allowed, assuming it will not cause problems through balance issues for that particular group. Some people in online D&D discussions state that Tier 1 classes, for example, must by necessity change a game entirely if allowed. In my experience, tying flavor and rules together more is one way in which it is possible to avoid that outcome.

[Cerlis]

Hey, if you've got a consistent group of people and none of them care to go outside that box, more power to you. I just hope that, if you ever add someone to your circle and they're a bit more flexible on this line, that you'd accept and support them in that. That's all we ask, really.

see this is the thing i have issue with. For some reason there seems to be this notion that because some of us enjoy playing with the resources already given that we are some sort of immovable fun sucking close minded stick in the muds.

When all we have is a different playstyle.

[sonofzeal]

see this is the thing i have issue with. For some reason there seems to be this notion that because some of us enjoy playing with the resources already given that we are some sort of immovable fun sucking close minded stick in the muds.

When all we have is a different playstyle.
Immovable fun sucking close minded sticks in the mud do exist though, I've run into some, and they use the same logic. If you start talking about how classes ARE this and AREN'T that, it really sounds like the sort of close-mindedness that hurts other people's fun. Now, not knowing you personally, I can't tell which sort you are. If I hear that sort of logic, well, I may jump to the wrong conclusion, and even if I don't I may think it's important to make that distinction clear. It's a deep enough problem in enough gaming groups that it's worthy of being addressed.

Again - as long as you're open-minded in what you'll accept for fellow players, and what you'll allow in games you DM, I've got no beef.

[Veyr]

I still don't see how you can claim that differentiating between a melee Fighter and a Warblade is anything other than metagaming.

[Cerlis]

Immovable fun sucking close minded sticks in the mud do exist though, I've run into some, and they use the same logic. If you start talking about how classes ARE this and AREN'T that, it really sounds like the sort of close-mindedness that hurts other people's fun. Now, not knowing you personally, I can't tell which sort you are. If I hear that sort of logic, well, I may jump to the wrong conclusion, and even if I don't I may think it's important to make that distinction clear. It's a deep enough problem in enough gaming groups that it's worthy of being addressed.

Again - as long as you're open-minded in what you'll accept for fellow players, and what you'll allow in games you DM, I've got no beef.

sounds good.


I still don't see how you can claim that differentiating between a melee Fighter and a Warblade is anything other than metagaming.

if this doesnt work i'm going to give up cus obviously i cant explain it well enough.

A warblade is different from a fighter, both mechanically and lore-wise because the book says it is. Just as arcane and divine magic are different cus the book says it is. If you want to play either one of those things as if they are the same thing. more power to you. hell i'll do it to. but that starts to fall into the realm of homebrewing, which every player has a right to not want to do.

-----------------
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2

compare that to your entry on fighter in the players handbook. obviously Warblade is a subsect of fighter. There are hundreds of concepts for a warblade, but thousands for a fighter, and hundreds of those concepts for fighter are exactly like a warblade. but saying a warblade is exactly like a fighter is like saying every pie is a cherry pie.

Unless like one or two others here you ignore all the pre established lore that comes with the class. which is just fine. however since you are trying to understand me, i'm not ignoring the lore of the class, Even if i'd be willing to for other people. For i dont ruin other peoples fun just because i think differently.

[sonofzeal]

if this doesnt work i'm going to give up cus obviously i cant explain it well enough.

A warblade is different from a fighter, both mechanically and lore-wise because the book says it is. Just as arcane and divine magic are different cus the book says it is. If you want to play either one of those things as if they are the same thing. more power to you. hell i'll do it to. but that starts to fall into the realm of homebrewing, which every player has a right to not want to do.
Let's see what the book says...


A warblade is a front-line melee combatant.... He engages his enemies toe to toe and defeats them through skill at arms.

Yep, totally different than a Fighter. =P

Really the only flavour difference is that Warblades are supposed to be "glory-hounds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en0QAoSkmIg)" who think that "battle is beautiful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9hatLT-vl4)", while Fighters are a bit more open-ended and generic as far as personality goes.

In my mind, the Warblade is just a type of Fighter, as is the Knight. I think of them more like "kits" from 2e, than as distinct classes. I mean, obviously an Ubercharger Fighter is going to be totally different in play than a Lockdown Fighter, who is going to be rather different than a Sword And Board, or an Archer, or a Grappler. And I think, flavour-wise, Warblades fit just fine somewhere in that realm.

[Veyr]

hundreds of those concepts for fighter are exactly like a warblade.
Stop, stop right there.

If hundreds of Fighter concepts are exactly like a Warblade... how can your characters tell a Warblade isn't one of those Fighters? Seriously. That's my question, that, right there.

I understand that you can build Fighters that the Warblade cannot replicate. Archers, for instance. But if, as you say, Warblades are a sub-set of Fighters, and that, on a conceptual level, there is nothing a Warblade can do that a Fighter cannot do (albeit better), how can you tell one apart from a Fighter built to fit the same concept?

[Thurbane]

see this is the thing i have issue with. For some reason there seems to be this notion that because some of us enjoy playing with the resources already given that we are some sort of immovable fun sucking close minded stick in the muds.

When all we have is a different playstyle.
Agreed, it can come accross that way sometimes.

Again - as long as you're open-minded in what you'll accept for fellow players, and what you'll allow in games you DM, I've got no beef.
Sure - but it's a two way street. If a new player comes along to an established group, he may have to adjust his play style somewhat to fit in better with the group. If, for instance, we picked up a new player, and he said he wanted to play a psionic character, I'd point out that, unfortunately, our group doesn't use that subsystem. I'd give him a list of all the resources that are allowed in a particular campaign (this varies by who is DMing in our group - some are very much core only, while others allow more splats in play), and see if there was a character he would enjoy playing from that list.

If the player really had his heart set on a psionic character, and nothing else would make him happy, I'd probably even suggest a vote among the group, to see if we might review the inclusions of psionics. But if the majority didn't want to include psionics, and the new player simply refused to play anything else, I'm afraid we'd be at an impasse.

This falls a bit outside the topic of fluff/flavor, I guess...

[Starsinger]

OK, so your fluff is that you have to practice in order to do something that's not at all special. Great fluff, I love it.


Is that not what a feat is? Half the ones fighters are eligible for aren't at all special. "You practice swinging your sword so you do it +1. You practice getting punched so you get 3 HP. You practice swinging your sword for +2 damage. You practice not getting punched, +1 AC to a specific target you designate."

[Typewriter]

Is that not what a feat is? Half the ones fighters are eligible for aren't at all special. "You practice swinging your sword so you do it +1. You practice getting punched so you get 3 HP. You practice swinging your sword for +2 damage. You practice not getting punched, +1 AC to a specific target you designate."

Depends on what you consider to be the fluff. The argument I've been hearing is that you can simply refluff anything to be a a better fighter, but so far nobody has 'refluffed' anything, just said 'it works'.

[sonofzeal]

Sure - but it's a two way street. If a new player comes along to an established group, he may have to adjust his play style somewhat to fit in better with the group. If, for instance, we picked up a new player, and he said he wanted to play a psionic character, I'd point out that, unfortunately, our group doesn't use that subsystem. I'd give him a list of all the resources that are allowed in a particular campaign (this varies by who is DMing in our group - some are very much core only, while others allow more splats in play), and see if there was a character he would enjoy playing from that list.

If the player really had his heart set on a psionic character, and nothing else would make him happy, I'd probably even suggest a vote among the group, to see if we might review the inclusions of psionics. But if the majority didn't want to include psionics, and the new player simply refused to play anything else, I'm afraid we'd be at an impasse.

This falls a bit outside the topic of fluff/flavor, I guess...
Oh, totally.

But actually, this gives one of the strengths of the more open-ended approach to classes and to flavour in general. So, let's say I want to play Psi, but the group doesn't use that subsystem. Well, what if I play an Enchanter with a Mindbender dip for Telepathy, or a Warlock with appropriate Invocations, and refer to "powers of the mind"? Would that be acceptable in your group?

[TroubleBrewing]

Depends on what you consider to be the fluff. The argument I've been hearing is that you can simply refluff anything to be a a better fighter, but so far nobody has 'refluffed' anything, just said 'it works'.

We expect that you'll have the imagination to think of something. My sympathies if this is not the case.

[MeeposFire]

Oh, totally.

But actually, this gives one of the strengths of the more open-ended approach to classes and to flavour in general. So, let's say I want to play Psi, but the group doesn't use that subsystem. Well, what if I play an Enchanter with a Mindbender dip for Telepathy, or a Warlock with appropriate Invocations, and refer to "powers of the mind"? Would that be acceptable in your group?

Better yet "you don't like power from the mind? Oh I am sorry I am using a class that uses mystical energies from a far off plan of existence. The spells I use are based off of spell points not slots and they require no material components..." essentially a reflavored psionics. That should work fine (assuming you took the time to change the fluff to what you want) and the only reason you should not do this is if you don't like the mechanic. This is why binders were given alternate fluff for binding ancestor spirits or binding yourself to celestials if you prefer to the standard.

[Cerlis]

Let's see what the book says...



Yep, totally different than a Fighter. =P

Really the only flavour difference is that Warblades are supposed to be "glory-hounds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en0QAoSkmIg)" who think that "battle is beautiful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9hatLT-vl4)", while Fighters are a bit more open-ended and generic as far as personality goes.

In my mind, the Warblade is just a type of Fighter, as is the Knight. I think of them more like "kits" from 2e, than as distinct classes. I mean, obviously an Ubercharger Fighter is going to be totally different in play than a Lockdown Fighter, who is going to be rather different than a Sword And Board, or an Archer, or a Grappler. And I think, flavour-wise, Warblades fit just fine somewhere in that realm.

that little description can describe half the melee classes in the game, and if you take out "front line" then all of em. and yes the flavour difference is that warblade is supposed to be yada yadda. Thus different. Like i said, if you IGNORE the FLAVOR you JUST SAID WAS DIFFERENT, then yes they are the same. but thats like saying if you ignore the fact that cherry pie is cherry then its exactly like every other pie.

@veyr. and yes like i said the character concept you make for your warblade can be made with the fighter class , since a warblade is a subsect of fighter. but unless you reflavor your class, which you have the right to do, then that stoic humble silence non glory seeking archer could never be confused for a warblade.

[TroubleBrewing]

but thats like saying if you ignore the fact that cherry pie is cherry then its exactly like every other pie.

It's actually like saying that there are two pies in front of you; both of them are cherry, but one of them has way more cherries in it, and the other one supposedly has cherries in it, but they are buried beneath layer after layer of crap.

Guess which one is which! :smallamused:

[Thurbane]

Oh, totally.

But actually, this gives one of the strengths of the more open-ended approach to classes and to flavour in general. So, let's say I want to play Psi, but the group doesn't use that subsystem. Well, what if I play an Enchanter with a Mindbender dip for Telepathy, or a Warlock with appropriate Invocations, and refer to "powers of the mind"? Would that be acceptable in your group?
Sure, I don't see why not. Of course, everyone in character is going to know/assume that "powers of the mind" refers to some kind of casting or SLA, as psionics as such do not exist. I do see the point you're driving at, but it's not something I am interested in adopting in our games.

Better yet "you don't like power from the mind? Oh I am sorry I am using a class that uses mystical energies from a far off plan of existence. The spells I use are based off of spell points not slots and they require no material components..." essentially a reflavored psionics. That should work fine (assuming you took the time to change the fluff to what you want) and the only reason you should not do this is if you don't like the mechanic. This is why binders were given alternate fluff for binding ancestor spirits or binding yourself to celestials if you prefer to the standard.
Sure, you can refluff it as you wish. We wouldn't use it in our games, though, because it would involve using a mechanic that we specifically do not use. There is nothing inherently wrong with psionics, or maneuvres/stances, or incarnum, or any other subsytem - we just chose not to use them in our group, probably as much for mechnical as flavour reasons (and by mechanical, I don't mean that I find the mechanics overpowered or broken, more that most of our group have no interest in learning a new susbystem, even relatively "easy" ones). We find arcane and divine casting, and the classes that use them, more than sufficient for our purposes, without needing (or wanting) to refluff other systems to fit in thematically. As I've said, a lot of our gaming is more-or-less core only.

To give a personal example, I am totally in love with the Binder class, both it's fluff and it's crunch. I can't wait to play one, and when I am DM Binding will be a part of my game world. However, when I approached one of my DMs and asked him if I could play one a while back, he said no, since he wasn't familiar with the mechanics, and that it didn't really fit thematically with the campaign (after I explained the concept behind binding vestiges). So, instead of getting grumpy or despondant, I simply went another direction, and ended up playing a Dragon Shaman, another class I has been very keen to try out. Since the DM was familiar with the PHB2, he green lighted it, and I was happy.

[AnonymousD&Der]

I'm probably going to either derail the current conversation, or make the Mortal-Kombat vs D.C. Combat Rage even worse...

but where exactly is Fluff and Crunch defined? Where does it say that, at least if I'm understanding right, the overall "theme" and "style" of how something about a class or ability can be changed so long as the actual mechanics stay the same?

I am -not- trying to start more fire, and if that's what happens, someone call a moderator and get me infracted for it. I'm just genuinly curious about when and where Fluff and Crunch was defined. I miss too dang much in my reading.

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm probably going to either derail the current conversation, or make the Mortal-Kombat vs D.C. Combat Rage even worse...

but where exactly is Fluff and Crunch defined? Where does it say that, at least if I'm understanding right, the overall "theme" and "style" of how something about a class or ability can be changed so long as the actual mechanics stay the same?

I am -not- trying to start more fire, and if that's what happens, someone call a moderator and get me infracted for it. I'm just genuinly curious about when and where Fluff and Crunch was defined. I miss too dang much in my reading.

There's no cause to be so cautious just for asking a question. :smalltongue:

Fluff is generally defined as meaning "flavor text" or "information provided by the game that is non-essential to mechanics".

Crunch is the exact opposite. "Information that IS the game mechanics" is my definition.

EDIT: Wow, I did NOT get what you were asking.

It's generally acceptable to change fluff simply because doing so has absolutely no effect on game mechanics at all. Changing crunch, on the other hand, is what we call "homebrewing" if the change is huge, or "houseruling" if the change is small.

[AnonymousD&Der]

There's no cause to be so cautious just for asking a question. :smalltongue:

You carry such an attitude ON THE INTERNET!?! Someone's got some +5 Holy Cajones!

I think I do have the basic terms, but where it is defined as such, unless that's specifically a player based idiology, is what I'm looking for. Is it in like the DMG, or in WotC material?

[Typewriter]

We expect that you'll have the imagination to think of something. My sympathies if this is not the case.

I appreciate your sympathies. My tiny brain is pretty much incapable of understanding how you could teach someone to simply attack at twice the normal speed while only being able to do so if it's against two targets and only after you perform some type of mandatory 'refresh' between.

I'm sure your sympathies will help me through this troubled time.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I appreciate your sympathies. My tiny brain is pretty much incapable of understanding how you could teach someone to simply attack at twice the normal speed while only being able to do so if it's against two targets and only after you perform some type of mandatory 'refresh' between.

I'm sure your sympathies will help me through this troubled time.

Twice the speed? Steel wind is a quick single attack that is positioned to strike two targets, and the refreshing is for that you lose the positioning when you use the strike and have to reposition while doing a normal attack next round.

[Typewriter]

Twice the speed? Steel wind is a quick single attack that is positioned to strike two targets, and the refreshing is for that you lose the positioning when you use the strike and have to reposition while doing a normal attack next round.

Yeah... OK? You strike two people with one strike and then reposition. That is the mechanic. What is the fluff that I'm going to use to make sense of my 8 INT fighter whose never worked a day in his life and hates training want to know how to do this?

Walter:Hey Fred, if you get into position just like this you can hit two people at a time, but you can't do it again until you attack normally and get back into position.
Fred: No.

EDIT:
Your talking about learning a specific maneuver at this point, and you're describing it as a maneuver. Not all characters are going to want to learn maneuvers, not all character concepts are going to involve fluff like "Enjoys learning maneuvers more advanced than hitting the other guy".

[TroubleBrewing]

I'm done here.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah... OK? You strike two people with one strike and then reposition. That is the mechanic. What is the fluff that I'm going to use to make sense of my 8 INT fighter whose never worked a day in his life and hates training want to know how to do this?

Walter:Hey Fred, if you get into position just like this you can hit two people at a time, but you can't do it again until you attack normally and get back into position.
Fred: No.

EDIT:
Your talking about learning a specific maneuver at this point, and you're describing it as a maneuver. Not all characters are going to want to learn maneuvers, not all character concepts are going to involve fluff like "Enjoys learning maneuvers more advanced than hitting the other guy".

More like...

Walter: Hey Fred, if you get into position just like this, when you hit one guy like this, the other guy opens himself up and you can hit him too. But you gotta watch it, or you'll open yourself up to a counter-attack from both of 'em, so make sure to get back to a neutral stance before doing it again.

Fred: Okay. Show that maneuver to me again?

Walter: Here let me show you (spend a Fighter bonus feat on this)

Which, oddly enough, exists in real life. I recall more than one conversation of this nature with my Sensei. It doesn't get more realistic than that.

[Terazul]

Yeah... OK? You strike two people with one strike and then reposition. That is the mechanic. What is the fluff that I'm going to use to make sense of my 8 INT fighter whose never worked a day in his life and hates training want to know how to do this?

Walter:Hey Fred, if you get into position just like this you can hit two people at a time, but you can't do it again until you attack normally and get back into position.
Fred: No.

...Well then how is he--Oh wait. Fair enough, Int 8 so he can't even qualify for Combat Expertise to get to Whirlwind Attack. Which is effectively the same thing. Except with Whirlwind you can only do it when not moving (Full-Round Action!) because it requires so much effort. And Cleave! You can't attack two targets regularly if they're standing in front of you, only if one happens to die. Why are these situations suddenly so complex? If anything, what the Fighter is doing is more complex because available in an even more limited number of situations.

Seriously now.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yeah... OK? You strike two people with one strike and then reposition. That is the mechanic. What is the fluff that I'm going to use to make sense of my 8 INT fighter whose never worked a day in his life and hates training want to know how to do this?

Walter:Hey Fred, if you get into position just like this you can hit two people at a time, but you can't do it again until you attack normally and get back into position.
Fred: No.That's called a level 1 commoner, and it takes practice to get the stance and strike for it.
EDIT:
Your talking about learning a specific maneuver at this point, and you're describing it as a maneuver. Not all characters are going to want to learn maneuvers, not all character concepts are going to involve fluff like "Enjoys learning maneuvers more advanced than hitting the other guy".

You think real life swordfighting techniques are just flailing your weapon around? Think again.

[sonofzeal]

that little description can describe half the melee classes in the game
That's kind of the point. They're pretty generic. That's why people recommend using them in place of Fighters, because their central shtick (stand up front and hit things with pointy things until they stop moving) is suspiciously familiar.


...and if you take out "front line" then all of em. and yes the flavour difference is that warblade is supposed to be yada yadda. Thus different. Like i said, if you IGNORE the FLAVOR you JUST SAID WAS DIFFERENT, then yes they are the same. but thats like saying if you ignore the fact that cherry pie is cherry then its exactly like every other pie.
Calm down guy, no need to yell.

The Warblade is supposed to be a "glory-hound", yes. But that's not exactly uncommon for a Fighter too, is it? Not all fighters revel in their awesome martial prowess, but I'd wager that your average fighter will brag about that awesome lucky critical that ended the Mindflayer menace, or that time they held a bridge against a whole orc warband. I'd wager that your average fighter is proud of their skill, and enjoys being recognized for it.

So... you really don't need to ignore anything. The descriptions of a Warblade, while rather more poetic, amount to just about what you'd expect from an average Fighter. Not every Fighter, certainly. But not every Warblade is going to be exactly like the description either, otherwise this is no longer really an RP.

And it's not like Fighter even has much of anything in the way of fluff. They're... warriors. They hit things with other things until those things stop moving. They're usually pretty strong and tough, and spend a lot of time developing their skill with weapons. That's seriously about it. And hey, that's a perfect description of Warblades too.

I really don't see the issue. Flavour-wise they're similar to the point of being indistinguishable. Absolutely nothing that's said about the Warblade is outside the bounds of propriety for a Fighter. Fighters are a little more generic, and a little more flexible, but if you're doing the hit-them-with-a-sword thing then you're now solidly in Warblade territory.

[Typewriter]

More like...

Walter: Hey Fred, if you get into position just like this, when you hit one guy like this, the other guy opens himself up and you can hit him too. But you gotta watch it, or you'll open yourself up to a counter-attack from both of 'em, so make sure to get back to a neutral stance before doing it again.

Fred: Okay. Show that maneuver to me again?

Walter: Here let me show you (spend a Fighter bonus feat on this)

Which, oddly enough, exists in real life. I recall more than one conversation of this nature with my Sensei. It doesn't get more realistic than that.

No, I get that. I'm fine with that. What I'm saying though is not every character concept is "Wants to be the best" or "Has any interest at all in learning how to do more than the basics".

What I'm saying is that the very fact that the ToB mechanics involve things like a refresh system and a leveling system conveys to me that their is some degree of "Skill" or "Talent" or "Maneuver" involved. No matter how you refluff it there is something there has to be some fluff to explain the refresh mechanic, and that not all character concepts mesh with fluff like that.

What you're giving is an example of a fighter who wants to improve and learn a maneuver. The example I'm giving is someone who would fall asleep halfway through your explanation and then take "Weapon Focus" in the weapon he's been using constantly.

When you change that you're not refluffing the ability you're refluffing the character.


...Well then how is he--Oh wait. Fair enough, Int 8 so he can't even qualify for Combat Expertise to get to Whirlwind Attack. Which is effectively the same thing. Except with Whirlwind you can only do it when not moving (Full-Round Action!) because it requires so much effort. And Cleave! You can't attack two targets regularly if they're standing in front of you, only if one happens to die. Why are these situations suddenly so complex? If anything, what the Fighter is doing is more complex because available in an even more limited number of situations.

Seriously now.

Again, you're talking about mechanics. I've already explained the fluff I would use to explain cleave in game, whirlwind attack I've never taken but for the character I've been talking about it would probably be,
"I like to turtle up... not move, y'know, then when they come in close I go freaking insane, going in circles 'n stuff".
"Circles?".
"Yep. Circles.".

As I think I said earlier my biggest problem with maneuvers is the refresh mechanic. The fact that they work the way they do makes them more than your standard, "Learned to fight on a farm" person would learn. Sure you can refluff your character all you want, talk about how he came up with the styles all on his own, it all came naturally, yada yada yada, but at that point you're not longer talking about the same character as I'm talking about characters who just don't care. They don't care to get smarter, to get a profession, to get a craft. They don't care to learn anything other than "Chop chop chop". Those characters exist. Those are my favorite characters. I think that "No time to think" is the single greatest class feature I've ever seen in my life.

Sometimes characters exist for whom the optimum builds cannot be refluffed to meeting.


That's called a level 1 commoner, and it takes practice to get the stance and strike for it.

Exactly! Thank god that commoner has the patience to do it because I know Fred doesn't.



You think real life swordfighting techniques are just flailing your weapon around? Think again.

First off, we're not talking real life here are we?
Second off, swordfighting is flailing if that's what my character fluff states.
Third off, A Fighter is obviously not as skilled of a fighter as a Warblade, so wouldn't the Fighter be the equivalent of a flailer when compared to a warblade?

[Veyr]

I don't really have anything to add, other than to note that the one question I'd really like to see answered... hasn't been:


hundreds of those concepts for fighter are exactly like a warblade.
Stop, stop right there.

If hundreds of Fighter concepts are exactly like a Warblade... how can your characters tell a Warblade isn't one of those Fighters? Seriously. That's my question, that, right there.

I understand that you can build Fighters that the Warblade cannot replicate. Archers, for instance. But if, as you say, Warblades are a sub-set of Fighters, and that, on a conceptual level, there is nothing a Warblade can do that a Fighter cannot do (albeit better), how can you tell one apart from a Fighter built to fit the same concept?

[Thurbane]

This is where someone normally cites Barbarian Rage as a non-ToB refresh mechanic, right? :smalltongue:

[Typewriter]

I don't really have anything to add, other than to note that the one question I'd really like to see answered... hasn't been:

I think the argument is that, in character, you wouldn't tell a difference. The argument they're making is that since you don't build your character 'in character' you should take the optimum choices because it can all be 'fluffed' to be the same, thus making you more efficient, but not leaving a discernible difference in character (aside from competency that is).

My problem with that is that not all mechanics can be easily re-fluffed to match potential character concepts.

[Shadowknight12]

{{scrubbed}}

[Veyr]

I think the argument is that, in character, you wouldn't tell a difference. The argument they're making is that since you don't build your character 'in character' you should take the optimum choices because it can all be 'fluffed' to be the same, thus making you more efficient, but not leaving a discernible difference in character (aside from competency that is).
I know, I agree. I'm asking how people can disagree, barring something OotS-like where people in-character have such meta-knowledge as classes and levels and the like.


My problem with that is that not all mechanics can be easily re-fluffed to match potential character concepts.
Err... ok, I'm willing to stipulate that there is not a perfect match for every concept. Just most of them. Which you don't seem to be disagreeing with, so... what, exactly, is the problem?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Exactly! Thank god that commoner has the patience to do it because I know Fred doesn't.Having the warblade class doesn't mean sitiing around. It means practicing often.
First off, we're not talking real life here are we?Really? That's your argument?
Second off, swordfighting is flailing if that's what my character fluff states.Good luck passing that off to anyone who's taken swordfighting in real life.
Third off, A Fighter is obviously not as skilled of a fighter as a Warblade, so wouldn't the Fighter be the equivalent of a flailer when compared to a warblade?

Um, no. The average town guard (a warrior) has more than just swinging a sword around. It's not shown in the mechanics, and since fluff isn't given, it should be assumed that it acts the same as in real life.

[Starsinger]

As I think I said earlier my biggest problem with maneuvers is the refresh mechanic. The fact that they work the way they do makes them more than your standard, "Learned to fight on a farm" person would learn.
So your issue is that Warblade maneuvers require more training than a peasant would figure out while using a pitchfork to bale hay and suddenly decide to apply to Orcs?

Sure you can refluff your character all you want, talk about how he came up with the styles all on his own, it all came naturally, yada yada yada, but at that point you're not longer talking about the same character as I'm talking about characters who just don't care. They don't care to get smarter, to get a profession, to get a craft. They don't care to learn anything other than "Chop chop chop". Warrior. What you're after if you want someone who doesn't care about getting better at swinging his sword that he learned how to use on a farm is a Warrior. Fighters by their very nature of the only class feature they have are made of "I get better. What I think you mean is that you want more passive/support abilities instead of active abilities.


Those characters exist. Those are my favorite characters. I think that "No time to think" is the single greatest class feature I've ever seen in my life.
Combined with the idea that you want passive instead of active, I think the issue is you want "no time to think" not your character. But you know what? I agree with you. There is an inherent flavor difference between Passive-Abilities Only Fighter, and a Warblade with Active abilities instead. One is dull and effective at what he's made for, whereas the other is shiny and dynamic and can adapt far better than the other.

[Thurbane]

Second off, swordfighting is flailing if that's what my character fluff states.

Good luck passing that off to anyone who's taken swordfighting in real life.
Doesn't that argument run a bit counter to the whole topic of this thread? i.e. Flavour is what you make of it.

Also, D&D (all versions, including 3.5) is notoriously bad at modelling anything rsembling "real life" in the vast majority of cases.

[Typewriter]

{{scrubbed}}.

Oh, that's cute. You disagree but instead of coming up with an argument you make fun of me. I always forgot that when you're on the internet you can win by pretending you've already won.


I know, I agree. I'm asking how people can disagree, barring something OotS-like where people in-character have such meta-knowledge as classes and levels and the like.


Err... ok, I'm willing to stipulate that there is not a perfect match for every concept. Just most of them. Which you don't seem to be disagreeing with, so... what, exactly, is the problem?

Wait, were you arguing against me? I thought you were making the point that it doesn't matter that you should just play what you want, and I agree with that.


Having the warblade class doesn't mean sitiing around. It means practicing often.

You practice without patience much? I didn't say anything about 'sitting around' I said it would take patience. Putting words into my mouth doesn't win an argument.



Really? That's your argument?

That wasn't an argument so much as a question. We're talking about classes. That you take levels in. And pretending that every class just does whatever we want it to do because we want it to do it. And then you start comparing it to real life? OK, everyone dies in one shot, I have a bow...



Good luck passing that off to anyone who's taken swordfighting in real life.


I? What? Real life? Do you not under? I am in a different conversation apparently? D&D =s real life? How do you refluff things that are an abstraction of real life if you're trying to stay accurate to reality? I honestly have no idea what point you're going to make.



Um, no. The average town guard (a warrior) has more than just swinging a sword around. It's not shown in the mechanics, and since fluff isn't given, it should be assumed that it acts the same as in real life.

Wait, so every town guard is a warrior? Or a fighter? Or every town guard knows maneuvers? Or every town guard dies the first time he gets stabbed because it's real life and in real life people that get stabbed die? And magic?

[Typewriter]

So your issue is that Warblade maneuvers require more training than a peasant would figure out while using a pitchfork to bale hay and suddenly decide to apply to Orcs?
Warrior. What you're after if you want someone who doesn't care about getting better at swinging his sword that he learned how to use on a farm is a Warrior. Fighters by their very nature of the only class feature they have are made of "I get better. What I think you mean is that you want more passive/support abilities instead of active abilities.


Depends on the character.



Combined with the idea that you want passive instead of active, I think the issue is you want "no time to think" not your character. But you know what? I agree with you. There is an inherent flavor difference between Passive-Abilities Only Fighter, and a Warblade with Active abilities instead. One is dull and effective at what he's made for, whereas the other is shiny and dynamic and can adapt far better than the other.

When I play a fighter I do just fine in my group, so your point is pretty much irrelevant to me, but I'm glad you felt the need to try and 'rub it in' one last time or whatever you're doing there.

You'll do more damage than me but since that's not what I was trying to do with the character I don't really get it. It's like winning a race against yourself.

[Shadowknight12]

Oh, that's cute. You disagree but instead of coming up with an argument you make fun of me. I always forgot that when you're on the internet you can win by pretending you've already won.

Why should I bother? Everyone else is making excellent arguments against you, time after time, and you're stubbornly pulling ever-sillier counters against them, without giving a single inch or making any sort of attempt at compromising. Clearly you're too emotionally invested into this, so any sort of logic or sensible argument will be rejected out of hand. You are wasting everyone's time by continuing a conversation that benefits nobody, which was exactly the point I tried to make with my comedic announcement before.

[Zaq]

Second off, swordfighting is flailing if that's what my character fluff states.

Yup. And on this turn, you just happen to be flailing in such a way that you manage to land a solid hit on two dudes next to you. Does your character think "I'm going to activate Steel Wind now"? Not if you don't want him to. He can just be flailing. That doesn't mean it's not still, mechanically, Steel Wind, or Mountain Hammer, or even Emerald Razor. Your character doesn't even have to think he's doing anything special. He's just fighting in the way he knows how, not even making any conscious choice to use what's written on his character sheet as a "maneuver." That's the entire point. Your character doesn't know the difference between when you say "I flail at him" and make a full attack, or when you say "I flail at him" and activate Wolf Fang Strike. It just happens that way. What's so hard about that?

[Typewriter]

Why should I bother? Everyone else is making excellent arguments against you, time after time, and you're stubbornly pulling ever-sillier counters against them, without giving a single inch or making any sort of attempt at compromising. Clearly you're too emotionally invested into this, so any sort of logic or sensible argument will be rejected out of hand. You are wasting everyone's time by continuing a conversation that benefits nobody, which was exactly the point I tried to make with my comedic announcement before.

No, so instead you insult me. And now you're arguing that your attempt at an insult was superior because I'm stubborn. Thus insulting me again. I've responded to every point that's been made because they haven't convinced me. Here, I'll try it your way.

"I'm sorry you're so emotionally invested in disagreeing with me that rather than understand that I simply disagree you think I have some sort of personality flaw that your witty remarks will somehow improve."

There, that's helpful huh?


Yup. And on this turn, you just happen to be flailing in such a way that you manage to land a solid hit on two dudes next to you. Does your character think "I'm going to activate Steel Wind now"? Not if you don't want him to. He can just be flailing. That doesn't mean it's not still, mechanically, Steel Wind, or Mountain Hammer, or even Emerald Razor. Your character doesn't even have to think he's doing anything special. He's just fighting in the way he knows how, not even making any conscious choice to use what's written on his character sheet as a "maneuver." That's the entire point. Your character doesn't know the difference between when you say "I flail at him" and make a full attack, or when you say "I flail at him" and activate Wolf Fang Strike. It just happens that way. What's so hard about that?

It honestly just doesn't make sense to me. The mechanics exist for a reason, and just pretending that they simply 'do' seems weird to me. Especially when I can do everything I want to do with a fighter, and the fluff makes more sense to me. I said in my first post in this thread that if I wanted to pretend mechanics were invisible I wouldn't bother playing D&D, I'd play "Whatever I want whenever I want".

That being said if there was no 'refresh mechanic' this would be perfectly fine with me. As I've said before, it's that mechanic that makes maneuvers more than flailing to me, and pretending they're not at that point feels more like ignoring mechanics than refluffing abilities.

[Quietus]

I think the argument is that, in character, you wouldn't tell a difference. The argument they're making is that since you don't build your character 'in character' you should take the optimum choices because it can all be 'fluffed' to be the same, thus making you more efficient, but not leaving a discernible difference in character (aside from competency that is).

My problem with that is that not all mechanics can be easily re-fluffed to match potential character concepts.

The argument isn't that you wouldn't tell the difference. It's that you couldn't tell the difference. In-character, the only "visual" difference between a competent Fighter and a Warblade is .. um. Well, I guess that the Warblade piles up bodies around him more effectively?

I will grant you this : If your character concept is "Inept flailing guy with a sword who has no special tricks, nope, not even then".. then sure. That isn't going to be represented by a Warblade. You're specifically building a character that is incompetent - whether by lack of intelligence, or laziness, or whatever - despite being lucky enough to land a hit every now and then. If the entire concept of your character is "Get adjacent to monster, full attack"... well, technically, a Warblade will still be better at it by virtue of having some actual class features, but its main benefit, stances and maneuvers, will be pointless to you.

But if your concept involves something that isn't just "I take weapon focus for my bumbling farmer with a sword"? Warblade is, more often than not, going to be indistinguishable. The Sunder-based Fighter can lunge in, and drive his sword down through a target's shield, lopping it in half. The Warblade with Mountain Hammer (Does extra damage, ignores hardness) can lunge in, and drive his sword down through a target's shield, lopping it in half. These are the same thing, in terms of fluff. It's just that the Warblade is actually a capable combatant, and is more likely to succeed at what he's attempting with his first try. So we again come back to.. yes, if your concept requires your character to be inept or incompetent, sure. I'll grant you that the Warblade isn't going to model that quite as well as Fighter does.

[sonofzeal]

No, so instead you insult me. And now you're arguing that your attempt at an insult was superior because I'm stubborn. Thus insulting me again. I've responded to every point that's been made because they haven't convinced me. Here, I'll try it your way.

"I'm sorry you're so emotionally invested in disagreeing with me that rather than understand that I simply disagree you think I have some sort of personality flaw that your witty remarks will somehow improve."

There, that's helpful huh?



It honestly just doesn't make sense to me. The mechanics exist for a reason, and just pretending that they simply 'do' seems weird to me. Especially when I can do everything I want to do with a fighter, and the fluff makes more sense to me. I said in my first post in this thread that if I wanted to pretend mechanics were invisible I wouldn't bother playing D&D, I'd play "Whatever I want whenever I want".

That being said if there was no 'refresh mechanic' this would be perfectly fine with me. As I've said before, it's that mechanic that makes maneuvers more than flailing to me, and pretending they're not at that point feels more like ignoring mechanics than refluffing abilities.
Eh, I just accept it on an out-of-game level.

If your average Fighter moves five feet he can attack four times; if he moves six feet he can only attack once. Does it make any sense in the game world? Not really, but we accept it as part of the game and move on.

If you can accept dichotomies like that, I find it hard to believe that you can't accept not using the same attack twice in a row. It's new, and it takes some getting used to, but it's no more strange than what we already take for granted. This is, after all, a game. We make stories around it, but not ever element of the game bears thinking about in any real detail.

[Quietus]

It honestly just doesn't make sense to me. The mechanics exist for a reason, and just pretending that they simply 'do' seems weird to me. Especially when I can do everything I want to do with a fighter, and the fluff makes more sense to me. I said in my first post in this thread that if I wanted to pretend mechanics were invisible I wouldn't bother playing D&D, I'd play "Whatever I want whenever I want".

That being said if there was no 'refresh mechanic' this would be perfectly fine with me. As I've said before, it's that mechanic that makes maneuvers more than flailing to me, and pretending they're not at that point feels more like ignoring mechanics than refluffing abilities.

I'm going to simply put this out there : The Fighter's basically got no fluff aside from "He's a dude. He fights things with a weapon." The Warblade? Is also a dude who fights things with a weapon. I challenge you to think of the 'refresh mechanic' as "Okay, I have to wait until I have an opening before I make my move", rather than some mystic mumbo jumbo to bring his sword-spell back to mind that it seems you believe is the case.

[Thurbane]

Eh, I just accept it on an out-of-game level.

If your average Fighter moves five feet he can attack four times; if he moves six feet he can only attack once. Does it make any sense in the game world? Not really, but we accept it as part of the game and move on.

If you can accept dichotomies like that, I find it hard to believe that you can't accept not using the same attack twice in a row. It's new, and it takes some getting used to, but it's no more strange than what we already take for granted. This is, after all, a game. We make stories around it, but not ever element of the game bears thinking about in any real detail.
I think that's a big part of the issue though - some people find it easier to suspend disbelief of certain things than others - this won't be universal accross everyone. For some, the refresh mechanic is going to be a sticking point. It's not "right" or "wrong", it's just how an individuals perceptions, assocations and preferences are "wired up".

The fact that the refresh mechanic being hard to justify in character comes up relatively often in these type of threads just shows that Typewriter isn't the only who finds it so. Heck, I play with a guy who thinks the Blind Fight feat is just blatantly absurd...that it goes well beyond what is remotely possible in the "real world" and is so silly as to break his suspension of disbelief. I kid you not. I personally find his stance baffling, but I accept it as a quirk of his play style preferences.

[Shadowknight12]

No, so instead you insult me. And now you're arguing that your attempt at an insult was superior because I'm stubborn. Thus insulting me again. I've responded to every point that's been made because they haven't convinced me. Here, I'll try it your way.

"I'm sorry you're so emotionally invested in disagreeing with me that rather than understand that I simply disagree you think I have some sort of personality flaw that your witty remarks will somehow improve."

There, that's helpful huh?

I'm not insulting you. You are taking what I'm saying as insulting. There's a difference. I'm merely stating what I'm perceiving, and giving you my reasons for not wasting my time presenting arguments that will be ignored.

Those points haven't convinced you because you won't be convinced. Nothing anyone says here will sway you. You refuse to see logic of common sense. Burden of proof is on you. If you are indeed capable of such things, prove it, and I shall gladly help you understand what the others have apparently failed to explain to you.

[Starsinger]

When I play a fighter I do just fine in my group, so your point is pretty much irrelevant to me, but I'm glad you felt the need to try and 'rub it in' one last time or whatever you're doing there.

You'll do more damage than me but since that's not what I was trying to do with the character I don't really get it. It's like winning a race against yourself.

The fighter was the only one where I mentioned something applicable to "doing more damage" when I said it was effective. Adaptability does not inherently mean more damage. It will end up being more damage because you'll have more opportunities to do damage, but that is not the goal. The goal is to be useful in more situations.

[Typewriter]

The argument isn't that you wouldn't tell the difference. It's that you couldn't tell the difference. In-character, the only "visual" difference between a competent Fighter and a Warblade is .. um. Well, I guess that the Warblade piles up bodies around him more effectively?

I will grant you this : If your character concept is "Inept flailing guy with a sword who has no special tricks, nope, not even then".. then sure. That isn't going to be represented by a Warblade. You're specifically building a character that is incompetent - whether by lack of intelligence, or laziness, or whatever - despite being lucky enough to land a hit every now and then. If the entire concept of your character is "Get adjacent to monster, full attack"... well, technically, a Warblade will still be better at it by virtue of having some actual class features, but its main benefit, stances and maneuvers, will be pointless to you.

But if your concept involves something that isn't just "I take weapon focus for my bumbling farmer with a sword"? Warblade is, more often than not, going to be indistinguishable. The Sunder-based Fighter can lunge in, and drive his sword down through a target's shield, lopping it in half. The Warblade with Mountain Hammer (Does extra damage, ignores hardness) can lunge in, and drive his sword down through a target's shield, lopping it in half. These are the same thing, in terms of fluff. It's just that the Warblade is actually a capable combatant, and is more likely to succeed at what he's attempting with his first try. So we again come back to.. yes, if your concept requires your character to be inept or incompetent, sure. I'll grant you that the Warblade isn't going to model that quite as well as Fighter does.

For the record: I play to the optimization level of my group. That just happens to be low. I also don't play the most powerful thing I can imagine. I have played with people before who always tried to min-max everything and get the best out of whatever they're doing, and it just didn't seem fun to me.

If my character concept is a guy with a stick who hits stuff good, then that's what I'm going to play.


Eh, I just accept it on an out-of-game level.

If your average Fighter moves five feet he can attack four times; if he moves six feet he can only attack once. Does it make any sense in the game world? Not really, but we accept it as part of the game and move on.

If you can accept dichotomies like that, I find it hard to believe that you can't accept not using the same attack twice in a row. It's new, and it takes some getting used to, but it's no more strange than what we already take for granted. This is, after all, a game. We make stories around it, but not ever element of the game bears thinking about in any real detail.

I don't, and I have a tendency to do so with gusto (obviously). I DM 90% of the time, and as a result the way I enjoy playing is not the way we play. I'm a good guy, if I'm DMing for people who want to optimize their builds I'm going to let them. I don't enforce restrictions on them that I don't think would enhance their enjoyment of the game.

As a result of this, when I play I get very much 'in character'. Everything I do makes sense, every skill point is a reflection of something my character has done, and every feat ties in to the characters actions. I mentioned earlier that I write incredibly long backstories(that the DM doesn't usually even read). I don't do this for them or for no reason. I do it to get in character. To get into that mindset.

There are some mechanical issues in D&D that I don't like to think about, and I ignore because I have no choice, but when it comes to my character, the first character I'll have played in 2 years? I build him the way I want to build him.


I'm going to simply put this out there : The Fighter's basically got no fluff aside from "He's a dude. He fights things with a weapon." The Warblade? Is also a dude who fights things with a weapon. I challenge you to think of the 'refresh mechanic' as "Okay, I have to wait until I have an opening before I make my move", rather than some mystic mumbo jumbo to bring his sword-spell back to mind that it seems you believe is the case.

Just as their are characters that this would make sense for there are characters that this wouldn't make sense for. Why take a round to wait for an opening when I can just keep full attacking? Or intimidating? The only way a maneuver based character would work with the specific concept I'm thinking of is if he never refreshed. He just used his maneuvers and then they were gone for the combat.

But even if that's the issue, what's the point when I'd just rather play a fighter? More damage does not equate to more fun. If I wanted to optimize I would optimize and chances are it wouldn't be a fighter. Some concepts are fine and simple and advanced mechanics simply overcomplicate an otherwise simplistic build.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wait, so every town guard is a warrior? Or a fighter? Or every town guard knows maneuvers? Or every town guard dies the first time he gets stabbed because it's real life and in real life people that get stabbed die? And magic?

I said the average town guard. :smallsigh:

And I said "maneuver" as in a fighting move, not the metagame construct presented in ToB.

And common sense (the real life kind) should apply to anything not covered by rules, and HP isn't just physical toughness, unless you fluff it that way (yes, I know what that means in this argument).

[Veyr]

Wait, were you arguing against me? I thought you were making the point that it doesn't matter that you should just play what you want, and I agree with that.
I was actually responding to Cerlis; I'm not really following your argument. So I don't really know if I agree with you or not.

Cerlis is one who has claimed to feel that classes are in-character constructs, and that there is a difference between a Fighter and a Warblade built along the same lines, which confuses me greatly because I can't think of any in-character method of distinguishing the two aside from metagaming (either the normal kind, or the sanctioned kind like an OotS-style game or through use of Martial Lore).