Your opinon on Tome of Battle

[eggynack]

There are three ways to combat this. One is to just make a LOT of good feats for each concept/style you can think of. Unfortunately, while I'm sure that's possible, eventually there's either gonna be overlap (which they seemed to be trying to avoid for the most part), or you're gonna start running out of ideas. Second way is to put on required fighter levels to certain feats. They dabbled with that already, but the big argument has already been posed: At that point, why not just make it a variable class ability, more like the rogue? You've essentially locked it into the one class, so that that one class has more options than others. It gets the job done, but calling them "better feats" feels somewhat disingenuous, and if they would need to be significant enough that they can compete with opposing class abilities, but not so potent as to render any other class irrelevant. A thin line to walk once you start leaving the realm of the weapon focus line. The third option is increasing the difficulty of acquiring the feats. The only real way to get the fighter, as it stands now, to have an advantage in that race without making it fighter exclusive is to give feats lots of prerequisites. You need enough prereqs that a barbarian is limited in options, but not so many that they're incapable of actually acquiring the feat. Further, if the prereqs are too good, your "solution" is ineffective in limiting (you mean the price of buying this new car is to put gasoline in it first? Sold!), and if they're too bad, we're right at where we are now. All because we're looking for a solution to the question "We have this class which is defined by its increased access to a universal resource, how do we balance that with similar classes". It'd be like trying to make a class who's only ability is that they get 3x WBL. Items are either priced so well for their power that the bonus money doesn't matter, priced so high that they're functionally unattainable to anyone but this hypothetical class, or both are in the middle, and they get more versatility but less bang for their buck (pun unintended). With that in mind, to me it feels less like laziness, more like they had a difficult problem they weren't quite capable of solving given their level of knowledge regarding the system before it was released (which would have probably better been solved by scrapping the idea they had for the fighter and replacing it with something else, which cuts out that whole design problem).

I disagree with this to some extent. For example, on the second method, why not make the feats possible for other classes to take, but easier to take or otherwise better on a fighter? They experimented with that method some on the monk, and there's a strong tendency towards that on the relationship between warblades and fighters, in both directions actually. Warblades need to wait to take fighter feats, because they have a penalty on effective fighter level, and fighters need to wait to take stuff like martial study, because their levels only count for half IL.

On the third method, I don't see the issue with making prerequisites at a higher power level. The barbarian gets to get the low hanging powerful fruit, the rhetorical car in this analogy, while the fighter is allowed to get the car, and also several other cars, because they have the feats for that. Yeah, totally landed that one. The fighter has access to that one awesome feat that requires several other awesome feats in order to take it, while the barbarian is more limited. That almost works even without prerequisites. If the feats that fighters can take are just generally amazing, then getting more of them is a big deal. That does run into your first issue to some extent, but I like to think that there's a good middle ground between what we have now and so many feats that there's excessive overlap.

Finally, Rubik had a pretty solid idea for a fourth method, which is synergy benefits. If fighter feats get better specifically because you have more of them, then it starts to matter a lot more that you have a lot of them. Yeah, the barbarian has improved trip, but his improved trip will never work as well as the fighter's does. Examples of that method can be found in stuff like luck feats, psionic feats, and shifter feats.

[Vhaidara]

Longer explanation: Warblade can stand and full attack, with riders from feats (like Trip and knockback) just like a fighter.

However, what if you have to move? The fighter can move and try to trip once, or move and attack. Warblade, meanwhile, gets to move and initiate. Or, you know, trip/attack normally (and refresh something)

[Fax Celestis]

On the third method, I don't see the issue with making prerequisites at a higher power level. The barbarian gets to get the low hanging powerful fruit, the rhetorical car in this analogy, while the fighter is allowed to get the car, and also several other cars, because they have the feats for that. Yeah, totally landed that one. The fighter has access to that one awesome feat that requires several other awesome feats in order to take it, while the barbarian is more limited. That almost works even without prerequisites. If the feats that fighters can take are just generally amazing, then getting more of them is a big deal. That does run into your first issue to some extent, but I like to think that there's a good middle ground between what we have now and so many feats that there's excessive overlap.

The problem here is that that exclusive long-end-of-the-chain feat is Weapon Supremacy, which gives you +4 vs disarming (outperformed by a locked gauntlet, 8gp), ability to wield your weapon while in grapple (mitigated by carrying a dagger, having a natural attack, or judicious use of other options which completely negate grapple), +5 to one attack after your first strike (meaning, basically, your first and second iteratives have the same AB, or your haste attack is much better than your regular attack; this is the only part of the feat that is actually cool, and it still isn't even that great), and you can take 10 on attack rolls (which means you can't crit, so sorry, critfisher builds). Oh, and a +1 bonus to AC (which you can get from a dusty prism ioun stone for 5000gp).

tl;dr I agree with you in theory, but the actual result is severely lacking.

[OldTrees1]

no, but the warblade does a normal attack JUST AS WELL as a fighter. no where is it stated that warblades have to use their maneuvers. sure, its smart to, but you dont HAVE to. instead you get class features and some bonus feats (from a narrow list, granted).

So if the normal attack is buffed primarily by feats and if one class gets more feats than the other ...
A Medium level Warblade can have the normal attack of a lower level Fighter, not an equal level Fighter.

Longer explanation: Warblade can stand and full attack, with riders from feats (like Trip and knockback) just like a fighter.

However, what if you have to move? The fighter can move and try to trip once, or move and attack. Warblade, meanwhile, gets to move and initiate. Or, you know, trip/attack normally (and refresh something

Pounce has been easily available for Martial characters since Complete Champion. No need for a pounce maneuver that arrives many levels later. This is true for both Fighters and Warblades.

[Werephilosopher]

Pounce has been easily available for Martial characters since Complete Champion. No need for a pounce maneuver that arrives many levels later. This is true for both Fighters and Warblades.

What relevance does an ACF for Barbarians have in comparing Warblades with Fighters? The point is that Warblades don't need to waste a level multiclassing.

[Vhaidara]

Pounce has been easily available for Martial characters since Complete Champion. No need for a pounce maneuver that arrives many levels later. This is true for both Fighters and Warblades.

So what you're saying is that Warblade's advantage over Fighter (can move and do something useful) is negated by...a Barbarian ACF? We're comparing the two classes.

Further, there are situations where you can't charge. Difficult terrain, corners, wanting to get to the squishy enemy behind the frontliner.

And beyond that, Warblade gets an effective Pounce at level 1 by taking Sudden Leap.

[eggynack]

tl;dr I agree with you in theory, but the actual result is severely lacking.

Nah, that's my argument at its essence. Thiyr's argument was basically that all of the solutions to make fighter feats uncrappy are riddled with serious issues, so after the fighter was set in stone as working off of this general system, so too was the fighter's poor design, at least to some extent. After that point, the designers weren't particularly at fault. My counter-argument is that the designers could have done all of these other things which they didn't really do. Yes, the actual result was severely lacking, but what I'm claiming is that it could have not been lacking. The weapon focus line could have theoretically been a series of really powerful feats, limited mostly to fighters, but they skipped the step where the feats are good, and that was the core problem, rather than some issue with the design of fighters themselves.

[mangosta71]

Ok lets test that.
1) Can the Warblade use the exact same strike manuever 5 rounds in a row?
No. Strike manuevers are Standard actions. Each manuever can only be readied once. Manuevers are expended when used. Recharging manuevers requires not using your standard action for a manuever that turn. QED

The warblade maneuver recharge mechanic is actually just making a standard or full attack. Sure, that means you're not using a strike maneuver that round, but you can still make a special attack via a feat. And a warblade can spam a feat-based special attack every round just like a fighter.

2) Can the Warblade use 3 strike manuevers in the same round?
No. Strike manuevers are Standard actions. You have one standard action per round. 1<3 QED

A warblade has the same option to skip using a maneuver in favor of using a full attack that a fighter does. And since he also has full BAB, his full attack routine will have the same number of attacks with the same bonuses.

3) Can the Warblade use multiple strikes outside of their turn?
No. You only get AoOs and 1 immediate action outside of your turn, neither can be used for Strikes. QED
These are the qualities I like about Fighter that Warblade is prohibited.

The fighter only gets AoOs, so it makes no sense for this to be a point in the fighter's favor.

[OldTrees1]

What relevance does an ACF for Barbarians have in comparing Warblades with Fighters? The point is that Warblades don't need to waste a level multiclassing.

The question is why does person X that prefers fighters to warblades, prefer fighters to warblades. My answer included that I prefer At Will abilities. Warblade's Pounce manuever is not At Will and thus both Fighters and Warblades would dip for At Will pounce when played by me.

So what you're saying is that Warblade's advantage over Fighter (can move and do something useful) is negated by...a Barbarian ACF? We're comparing the two classes.

Further, there are situations where you can't charge. Difficult terrain, corners, wanting to get to the squishy enemy behind the frontliner.

And beyond that, Warblade gets an effective Pounce at level 1 by taking Sudden Leap.

What advantage? Warblade does not get At Will pounce. I said I choose Fighter over Warblade because my strong preference for At Will effects (and other factors). So both my Fighters and my Warblades would dip for Pounce. This should be obvious.

[OldTrees1]

The warblade maneuver recharge mechanic is actually just making a standard or full attack. Sure, that means you're not using a strike maneuver that round, but you can still make a special attack via a feat. And a warblade can spam a feat-based special attack every round just like a fighter.

A warblade has the same option to skip using a maneuver in favor of using a full attack that a fighter does. And since he also has full BAB, his full attack routine will have the same number of attacks with the same bonuses.

The fighter only gets AoOs, so it makes no sense for this to be a point in the fighter's favor.

So your argument is that a Warblade can use their fewer feats to mimic a lower level Fighter when trying to match the playstyle I prefer? So my options (when matching the playstyle I prefer) are normal level Fighter or mimicking a lower level Fighter via using Warblade? This should not be hard to grasp.

[geekintheground]

So your argument is that a Warblade can use their fewer feats to mimic a lower level Fighter when trying to match the playstyle I prefer? So my options (when matching the playstyle I prefer) are normal level Fighter or mimicking a lower level Fighter via using Warblade? This should not be hard to grasp.

where are you getting "lower level"? sure, you count as a lower level fighter for feat purposes, but what feats are you thinking of that actually require fighter levels AND are worth taking? and the difference isnt that big, its just warblade level -2.

[Necroticplague]

Ok lets test that.
1) Can the Warblade use the exact same strike manuever 5 rounds in a row?
No. Strike manuevers are Standard actions. Each manuever can only be readied once. Manuevers are expended when used. Recharging manuevers requires not using your standard action for a manuever that turn. QED
2) Can the Warblade use 3 strike manuevers in the same round?
No. Strike manuevers are Standard actions. You have one standard action per round. 1<3 QED
3) Can the Warblade use multiple strikes outside of their turn?
No. You only get AoOs and 1 immediate action outside of your turn, neither can be used for Strikes. QED
These are the qualities I like about Fighter that Warblade is prohibited.

1. Yes, actually, they can. They need only use a swift action to refresh, and can then use the maneuver with their standard, assuming it includes a melee attack. Or if its a move-action boost, refresh, boost, attack.

2.If you get more actions, yes (which is why Multitasking is useful for a warblade that qualifies). You could also use a Standard Action Strike, preceded by a move action Boost and a Swift action stance change (or a swift action boost/strike, Sudden Leap comes to mind).
As for full-attacking, neither can the fighter if the enemy starts more than 5+reach feet away. Initiators can actually be better as getting that full-attack, thanks to the earlier-mentioned swift-action movement. Opponent too far? Sudden Leap over there! They're shooting at you? Leaping Flame right up in their faces!

3................
Dude, their's specifically a whole category of things for this. They're called Counters. Heck, I haven't seen any fighter feats that let you use an immediate action like counters do. And speaking of AoOs, many stances help with those just as well as they do with a Strike.

Of course, even assuming all your points were right, that still leads to one point of confusion: why is what you seem to support either good or fighter-unique? Barbarians are just as capable of doing the same things over-and-over (charge-charge-charge-charge), as are rogues (5" into flanking-SA-5" into flanking-SA-5" into flanking-SA-5" into flanking-SA). And that kind of repetition is boring as heck. There's no real decision to make there, no real interest. I mean, I've made a character like that (every single round was "I attempt to grapple", and I found it very quickly became a snooze-fest for combat. And if all you do is one thing, then you end up worthless if that one thing is shut down (my before-mentioned character ended up as a ghost).

[Thiyr]

I answered this back here but in summary, I like using multiple strikes per turn and be able to use them again the next turn and the turn after that. Fighter's way of of augmenting its attacks allows for multiple different types of attacks per turn every turn. I do not have to recharge Knock-down, Knockback, or Staggering Strike and they can be used multiple times per turn regardless of whether it is my turn or not.

It is these factors:
At Will vs Recharged
Multiple per turn vs Single per turn
On turn or Out of turn vs Only on your turn

The cost is Fighter requires higher system mastery for lower power/versatility than Warblade.

Oh yea, and a small touch of pedantic nitpicking: Staggering strike requires sneak attack to function. If your fighter has sneak attack, it isn't gonna have all those feats.

Also, the last point is kinda not quite right. I didn't see it elaborated on in your linked post, but both classes have options which allow them to act outside of their turn (counters vs karmic strike/rolibar's gambit/combat reflexes). The fighter has far fewer options out of turn, i feel like, but it has them. While the fighter can make more AoOs out of turn, the variety of options it has is far lower (as they can't make decisions on what they're doing outside of attack/not attack for the most part).

As far as at will vs recharged, I grant you that point. That said, unless you're trying to do three things at once, the warblade can usually pick up those options as well (I did a fairly solid knockback/shock trooper dungeoncrasher 2/warblade X build a while back, for instance, with the maneuvers mostly being support to that concept). At that point, the "recharge" portion doesn't necessitate inaction. It instead varies up your options. At worst for a warblade, if they -absolutely need- to use the same maneuver to be effective, they can go every other round, but IME those situations aren't common.

As far as multiple vs single, the better way to put it is passive vs active. A fighter can do all of its things at the same time every turn forever, while the warblade has to choose what it wants to do this round. The warblade again, however, gets a bit more bang-for-buck for the choices made, and if the options aren't relevant at the moment it won't hobble them (if knockback/knockdown is your thing, someone magically levitating isn't gonna be a great option. A fighter's options are gone, while the warblade just uses stuff that isn't charging minotaur.)

Basically, the fighter can do more rider effects at once, but again, needs to sacrifice options to do that.


@eggy:

on method 2, part of the problem with having things more effective on the fighter is questioning how it is done. Is it the ignore prereqs bit? That may start bogging things down, and starts running into the issues present in method 1 (So many feat slots, not enough feats to care about). That and it can be a hassle to track that down, and there's not really a good way to decide when a fighter should get it vs everyone else. For a small subset of feats, pretty easy. More feats = far harder to pull off well. Did you mean different functions, in the vein of stunning fist's uses per day? Unless we're putting a limiter on uses, that's could be similarly difficult to figure out what's appropriate for fighters vs non fighters, and again it grows harder to do well the more feats you try to do it with (stunning fist is one of the only feats I know of that did it that way). Not to say it can't be done, but again, it's difficult to do well.

on method 3, you hit my counterargument on the head, it runs back into problem 1. And I agree, there is a middle ground, feats in 3.5 weren't done terribly well overall, largely due to lack of experience as far as how they work within the system. They erred on the side of overestimating the power of their feats rather than underestimating them. And honestly, for a new system, i think that makes sense. Power creep is pretty much unavoidable, and just needs to be managed well. Trying to depower stuff that's too good, though? Next to impossible in a medium like this. If 3.5's designers came in with the knowledge we've amassed today, I'm sure it would've been done better. I just think that given their level of knowledge, the easiest way to open up design space with feats would've been to cut the strictly feat-based fighter -as a core option-. Its simple, elegant, and I like it in concept. I love modular classes like that. I just think they bit off more than they could chew when they first designed it.

As far as synergy benefits, I like the idea, but it can be really tricky to design things like that in such a way that they're done well. It's kinda like a softer version of method 3, in a way. While you can use the feat without its prereqs, its a lot less useful without them. In the case of luck feats, it means you've got it 1/day. Alone, that's something i'd almost never want to spend a feat on unless I know I'm never gonna need it more than once. Shifter feats have the same problem but worse, because they're almost a requirement to make a character that's a shifter. Its why I've wanted to make one for so long and never actually done it: I love the race's concept, but it would need to dominate the build to do that. psionic/draconic/heritage feats are a bit better, but in general are just a bad way of making the feat -scale- rather than making the feat different. Psionic Body is basically a feat-eating Improved Toughness, for example.

The other risk with that idea is going the direction Pathfinder did, which I don't find very acceptable. It takes that same synergy concept, but goes the opposite direction: Instead of making Improved Trip do something new and cool if you get a fighter to take another feat on top of it, they just divided up two functions of the feat. Improved Trip became Imp. Trip and Greater Trip, which does (roughly) the same thing as the first initial feat, but split up because people have more feats. Its not a guarantee that that gets done, but its certainly a risk. There's a lot of room to screw up the synergy-feat solution, especially when you're coming at them from the context of "What if there's just more feats?"

DISCLAIMER: This isn't me saying pathfinder is bad. Just that I feel that specific design choice was poorly thought out.


EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out. While generally accepted (and I agree with it), it's still only technically -implied- that you can only prep a given maneuver once. I enjoy prepping more different maneuvers, overall, but for dips prepping the same thing multiple times can be advantageous. At best we have FAQ saying that, but at least with my local playgroup, it was only when I saw it posted here so much that any of us even thought that restriction existed, including our players that read the book cover-to-cover a few times. There IS, however, an explicit ruling that the warblade can't initiate any maneuvers while they're refreshing, so refresh->strike doesn't work every turn.

[OldTrees1]

TO EVERYONE:
I was asked to explain why I have the preference I do. I do not like the tone I am being subjected to. Please restrain your incredulous bilebiliary incredulity and exercise your intellectual empathy. I have now explained and clarified twice in this thread. If you actually wanted to you could find the answer in those posts.

where are you getting "lower level"? sure, you count as a lower level fighter for feat purposes, but what feats are you thinking of that actually require fighter levels AND are worth taking? and the difference isnt that big, its just warblade level -2.

How many levels does it take for Fighter to get 9 feats? How many levels does it take Warblade? Remember your argument is that I could play a Warblade sans Manuevers rather than a Fighter.

1. Yes, actually, they can. They need only use a swift action to refresh, and can then use the maneuver with their standard, assuming it includes a melee attack. Or if its a move-action boost, refresh, boost, attack.

2.If you get more actions, yes (which is why Multitasking is useful for a warblade that qualifies). You could also use a Standard Action Strike, preceded by a move action Boost and a Swift action stance change (or a swift action boost/strike, Sudden Leap comes to mind).
As for full-attacking, neither can the fighter if the enemy starts more than 5+reach feet away. Initiators can actually be better as getting that full-attack, thanks to the earlier-mentioned swift-action movement. Opponent too far? Sudden Leap over there! They're shooting at you? Leaping Flame right up in their faces!

3................
Dude, their's specifically a whole category of things for this. They're called Counters. Heck, I haven't seen any fighter feats that let you use an immediate action like counters do. And speaking of AoOs, many stances help with those just as well as they do with a Strike.

Of course, even assuming all your points were right, that still leads to one point of confusion: why is what you seem to support either good or fighter-unique? Barbarians are just as capable of doing the same things over-and-over (charge-charge-charge-charge), as are rogues (5" into flanking-SA-5" into flanking-SA-5" into flanking-SA-5" into flanking-SA). And that kind of repetition is boring as heck. There's no real decision to make there, no real interest. I mean, I've made a character like that (every single round was "I attempt to grapple", and I found it very quickly became a snooze-fest for combat. And if all you do is one thing, then you end up worthless if that one thing is shut down (my before-mentioned character ended up as a ghost).

1)
You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.

2)
I believe I answered this already.

3)
I only get 1 immediate action per round, how many do you get?

You know when my preferences are the topic, you seem awfully eager to impose your preferences. Sure the method is repetitive (it is At Will after all) but then effect is not repetitive for me. Maybe I am just creative enough to figure out how to use tactical positioning of my opponents in a variety of ways.

Edit: I reversed 2 words

[Brookshw]

OldTrees1: thank you for fighting the good fight and you're spot on.

[Curmudgeon]

If you include those, you have to include Martial Monk, which is the unique intersection of getting to skip 2 entire feat chains (Weapon Supremacy for 1 feat instead of 5)

Of course, skipping the feat chains there does the Martial Monk absolutely no good, because Weapon Supremacy is not a prerequisite for any other feat.

The Monk (regular or Martial version) has a limitation in their Bonus Feat class feature:

A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

Prerequisites

Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat.

The Monk is free to select feats for which they do not (yet) meet the prerequisites, which in turn lets them acquire additional feats having those freely-selected feats as prerequisites. This grants the Monk player flexibility by acquiring feats at their convenience rather than in prerequisite order. The Monk still cannot use any feat until they meet all its prerequisites.

[Seharvepernfan]

I personally use it in my campaigns, but I don't have any PCs who actually want to learn the subsystem and put it into use. What's your opinion?

eh...it's a mixed bag for me. Yes, the crunch mostly works, but the way it's fluffed usually doesn't sit well with me, especially the desert wing fire maneuvers/shadow hand shadow ball attacks/iron heart throw-your-sword-as-a-line-attack-then-it-returns-to-you garbage/setting sun throw-your-enemy-70ft stuff. If my game isn't too serious or gritty, I allow it just because it's fun.

In other more serious games where I am very careful and thorough in my DMing and adventure/dungeon construction, I don't allow it or things like factotums/dragonfire adepts/totemists/etc. Those all belong to a different "tier" of games, to me at least.

[Lord Raziere]

My opinion on Tome of Battle?

well it almost balances wizard and fighter, but I still feel like its missing something. its definitely going in a good direction, but it needs some work.

[Vogonjeltz]

BAB is severely overrated. A trip-focused rogue is--at most--5 points behind a fighter, much less in lower levels. "But rogues don't pump STR!" Well, if they're focusing on tripping (or bull-rushing) people, yes they do.

The point being a trip focused rogue will never be better than a trip focused fighter. There's nothing the rogue can access that the fighter can not, and it's at a straight mathematical disadvantage from the start.

So by definition, if the average BAB classes are average, that puts the good BAB classes at good (or better, build depending).

Yes, it is. In particular, gaining improved unarmed strike is a part of the monk's movement or development toward the destination or more advanced state of being good at using unarmed strike. On its own, improved unarmed strike is obviously not a progression, but it's part of a bigger progression in this case.

No it's not. Being armed or unarmed has zero bearing on the unarmed strike progression of damage.

A progression does not to have even increments. That would be an EVEN progression, which is a subset of progressions in general.

The Monk's Unarmed Strike is simply a slightly front loaded progression, where level one offers more advancement than the rest of the progression. It would be the same thing as upping unarmed damage to 1d8 at level one (from the default 1d3 for medium creatures) and then improving the damage by single die step increments. Or improving the damage by one die step increments except at level X, where it improves 2 die steps. Or by offering completely separate abilities at uneven levels that all provide "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages." None of these violate the definition of progression, and if listed under "Unarmed Strike" in the monk entry would be the Monk's "Unarmed Strike" progression.

Changes to the damage die constitute a progression, which is what the sage receives. A flip from unarmed yes to unarmed no is no progression at all.

[eggynack]

No it's not. Being armed or unarmed has zero bearing on the unarmed strike progression of damage.

Fortunately, it doesn't say unarmed strike progression of damage. It just says unarmed strike progression. Improved unarmed strike makes you better at striking unarmed, so it can be part of unarmed strike progression. It's listed under unarmed strike, so it is a part of unarmed strike progression. Seriously, the unarmed damage isn't even called unarmed strike or unarmed strike damage. It's just called unarmed damage. It would make little sense for unarmed strike progression to point to unarmed damage, instead of the ability called unarmed strike.

[Fax Celestis]

The point being a trip focused rogue will never be better than a trip focused fighter. There's nothing the rogue can access that the fighter can not, and it's at a straight mathematical disadvantage from the start.

So by definition, if the average BAB classes are average, that puts the good BAB classes at good (or better, build depending).

Not enough for it to qualitatively matter.

[Vogonjeltz]

Fortunately, it doesn't say unarmed strike progression of damage. It just says unarmed strike progression. Improved unarmed strike makes you better at striking unarmed, so it can be part of unarmed strike progression. It's listed under unarmed strike, so it is a part of unarmed strike progression. Seriously, the unarmed damage isn't even called unarmed strike or unarmed strike damage. It's just called unarmed damage. It would make little sense for unarmed strike progression to point to unarmed damage, instead of the ability called unarmed strike.

The feat makes a character better, but that is not progression.

@fax, sorry what? Explain how +1 is not better than +0.

[eggynack]

The feat makes a character better, but that is not progression.

You seem to be missing the point. The feat is part of a progression. The unarmed damage, the improved unarmed strike, anything else listed in that ability, it's all part of a progression. It even perfectly fits your definition of a progression. You're not really saying anything at this point.

@fax, sorry what? Explain how +1 is not better than +0.

It is better. It's just not enough better.

[Fax Celestis]

With the multitude of ways to get bonuses, and the fact that literally nobody single classes, the actual final difference between two characters is almost always four points or less, usually much less.

BAB is a terrible class feature that the system thinks is worth far more than it actually is. Go look at Incarnum By The Numbers sometime and see what someone with Wizard BAB can do as a front liner. During your entire career, BAB will make up less than half of your attack bonus.

In the designers eyes, an extra 1/3 BAB per level is worth six skill points a level. That's ridiculous.

Frankly if you were to give everyone in the entire game rogue BAB, I doubt anyone would even notice.

Yes, +1>+0, but it's not +1 vs +0. It's +34 vs +32. It's +5 vs +3. It's +16 vs +13. And while you can say that having a higher number is better (and it is), there's no bonus for over hitting your opponent: you just have to beat his AC. It doesn't matter if you do it by one or by five or by thirty: it's a binary status.

[Red Fel]

TO EVERYONE:
I was asked to explain why I have the preference I do. I do not like the tone I am being subjected to. Please restrain your incredulous bile and exercise your intellectual empathy. I have now explained and clarified twice in this thread. If you actually wanted to you could find the answer in those posts.

I hope you weren't accusing my bile of incredulity. I try very hard to limit the level of incredulity in my bile.

I think the point, as I am reading, can be summed as follows:

• The Warblade, by merit of its class features and maneuvers, has more options immediately available to it than the Fighter, before considering feats.
• The Fighter has more feats available to it, and thus has more feat-based options available to it.
• There is some debate as to whether feat-based options or class-based options are superior. I won't weigh in on that.

I will observe this, however. If, in your mind, (here I'm using the general "you," not any one person specifically) the Fighter's feat-based options are sufficient for your purposes or tastes, or you've found homebrewed feat-based options that satisfy you, there is nothing wrong with preferring the Fighter over the Warblade. I readily acknowledge that the Fighter's feat-based benefits tend to be on the passive side, which is very convenient for someone who doesn't care much for bookkeeping or refreshing or any of that nonsense.

If, on the other hand, you want options aside from feats, which as others have discussed are available to everyone (albeit not in so many numbers and not necessarily as useful to them), Warblade will likely be the superior choice. As mentioned, it has class features other than feats - these features remain active regardless of maneuvers or recharges. It also has access to maneuvers, which are generally more flexible than feats (given that stances can be switched out with a swift action and maneuvers can be traded every several levels). If simply having feats isn't enough for you - which appears to be the position of a number of posters, myself included - the Warblade adds a dimension of versatility, power, and uniqueness (an Int-based melee combatant who isn't a Factotum? Yes please) that you don't generally find in the Fighter.

I think the problem is that we're comparing feats with not-feats, and I'm not sure it's a perfectly even comparison.

[atemu1234]

With the multitude of ways to get bonuses, and the fact that literally nobody single classes, the actual final difference between two characters is almost always four points or less, usually much less.

BAB is a terrible class feature that the system thinks is worth far more than it actually is. Go look at Incarnum By The Numbers sometime and see what someone with Wizard BAB can do as a front liner. During your entire career, BAB will make up less than half of your attack bonus.

In the designers eyes, an extra 1/3 BAB per level is worth six skill points a level. That's ridiculous.

Frankly if you were to give everyone in the entire game rogue BAB, I doubt anyone would even notice.

Yes, +1>+0, but it's not +1 vs +0. It's +34 vs +32. It's +5 vs +3. It's +16 vs +13. And while you can say that having a higher number is better (and it is), there's no bonus for over hitting your opponent: you just have to beat his AC. It doesn't matter if you do it by one or by five or by thirty: it's a binary status.

Two words: Power and Attack.

[Fax Celestis]

Two words: Power and Attack.

...Which lower BAB people are still capable of using, and to the same degree with things like Shock Trooper.

[OldTrees1]

I hope you weren't accusing my bile of incredulity. I try very hard to limit the level of incredulity in my bile.

Typo. I meant biliary incredulity. Yes, it was informing the whole group since I did feel anger/hatred behind each person's incredulity.

I think the point, as I am reading, can be summed as follows:

• The Warblade, by merit of its class features and maneuvers, has more options immediately available to it than the Fighter, before considering feats.
• The Fighter has more feats available to it, and thus has more feat-based options available to it.
• There is some debate as to whether feat-based options or class-based options are superior. I won't weigh in on that.

I will observe this, however. If, in your mind, (here I'm using the general "you," not any one person specifically) the Fighter's feat-based options are sufficient for your purposes or tastes, or you've found homebrewed feat-based options that satisfy you, there is nothing wrong with preferring the Fighter over the Warblade. I readily acknowledge that the Fighter's feat-based benefits tend to be on the passive side, which is very convenient for someone who doesn't care much for bookkeeping or refreshing or any of that nonsense.

-snip-

I think the problem is that we're comparing feats with not-feats, and I'm not sure it's a perfectly even comparison.

Thank you for the greater effort. This summary is much more accurate.
It confuses Feat vs nonFeat for At Will vs Expend and Recover but at least it is more accurate.
It confuses a preference for X over Y as a claim to play a straight X.

Fighter gets a bunch of feats to improve their At Will abilities
Warblade gets fewer feats and 1 stance to improve their At Will abilities
Thus I find Fighters are more efficient at improving At Will abilities

Why did I say "efficient"? Because I optimize for the lowest level that contains the options I want. Trying to compress a list of feats and a list of passive class features(Sneak Attack +1d6, Pounce, ...) necessitates the main class be a bonus feat class like Fighter.

That is why I prefer using Fighter over Warblade as the main class in my builds. Because it satisfies a need. That need being getting more feats in fewer levels so that the ECL of completion is as low as possible.

Again, thank you.

[VoxRationis]

...Which lower BAB people are still capable of using, and to the same degree with things like Shock Trooper.

Not to the same degree; to my understanding, even though the penalty is shifted to AC with Shock Trooper, the bonus is still capped by BAB. Of course, if I'm wrong, feel free to show me.

[eggynack]

Not to the same degree; to my understanding, even though the penalty is shifted to AC with Shock Trooper, the bonus is still capped by BAB. Of course, if I'm wrong, feel free to show me.

You are correct. It's still a bit marginal though, as bonuses go. We're still talking about +1 to attack, and either +2 to damage, or something a bit higher than that if you're investing more feats. +1 BAB is always nice, but it's just not going to make or break a class' ability to contribute effectively in a role.