Yes, the spellcasters have to conserve resources.
They also have more powerful resources to conserve. The most powerful maneuvers are about on par with 6th-7th level spells (Strike of Righteous Vitality = heal, Inferno Blast = delayed blast fireball, etc), and not the actual power spells at those levels, even. There is no strike that comes remotely close to the power of flesh to stone, let alone gate, imprisonment, weird, wail of the banshee, storm of vengeance, or even implosion.
Yes, the spellcasters have to conserve resources.
They also have more powerful resources to conserve. The most powerful maneuvers are about on par with 6th-7th level spells (Strike of Righteous Vitality = heal, Inferno Blast = delayed blast fireball, etc), and not the actual power spells at those levels, even. There is no strike that comes remotely close to the power of flesh to stone, let alone gate, imprisonment, weird, wail of the banshee, storm of vengeance, or even implosion.
I am not disputing that. I am also not disputing that for the most parts casters particularly cleric druid and wizard are top of the pile even in pathfinder. I am just saying that in terms of overall party balance, both against casters and against non-casters, The ability to mid fight recover your manuevers throws things off. It is not just spellcasters who must conserve or spells that need conserving. Barbarian Rage, Paladin Smite/Divine Bond, Druid Wild Shape, Monk Ki, Bard Songs, these are all per-day resources. Throwing per encounter into the mix is already better. If a paladin could get his smite back with a full round action, or a druid could pick a new wild shape with a full round action, it would make a HUGE difference. The recovery method makes them exempt from ever having to worry about running out of powers (they still as you say have to worry about when to use the powers, i am not disputing that, just the longevity thing). It messes with encounters that are designed to be long and grueling, and allows more 'nova' like behavior, which particularly at low to mid levels, throws things to hell (in my experience and opinion ofcourse).
I am just saying that in terms of overall party balance, both against casters and against non-casters, The ability to mid fight recover your manuevers throws things off.
No, it really doesn't. From someone who has played multiple campaigns with multiple ToB characters in each that have gone from level 1 to level 18+ (and one that went to mid 20's), there hasn't been a single encounter that has been significantly easier because Martial Adepts could recover maneuvers mid-fight.
There's two reasons why that is:
1) Encounters in D&D are very short. Even in Pathfinder they aimed for (IIRC) 4 or 5 rounds per encounter.
2) Martial Adepts are balanced knowing that they can recover maneuvers mid-fight. That's one of the reasons their maneuvers are barely stronger than a full attack (and weaker than a full attack in some cases -- Strike of Perfect Clarity, for example).
Actually, I'd be willing to bet NONE of those classes would be willing to waste a full round action in combat for those purposes.
I especially can't see a druid wasting an entire full round action switching into a new wildshape form when he should be either kicking ass or casting spells.
Exactly.
He's also ignoring that those abilities are designed with the intent of needing to be conserved, while maneuvers are designed with the intent of not needing to be conserved.
I am just saying that in terms of overall party balance, both against casters and against non-casters, The ability to mid fight recover your manuevers throws things off.No, it really doesn't. From someone who has played multiple campaigns with multiple ToB characters in each that have gone from level 1 to level 18+ (and one that went to mid 20's), there hasn't been a single encounter that has been significantly easier because Martial Adepts could recover maneuvers mid-fight.
There's two reasons why that is:
1) Encounters in D&D are very short. Even in Pathfinder they aimed for (IIRC) 4 or 5 rounds per encounter.
2) Martial Adepts are balanced knowing that they can recover maneuvers mid-fight. That's one of the reasons their maneuvers are barely stronger than a full attack (and weaker than a full attack in some cases -- Strike of Perfect Clarity, for example).
1. So then why are you so concerned about getting manuever back if it never comes up that they run out in the first place and its a terrible use of an action to give up a turn to get them back?
2. The damaging manuevers sure. But there are lots of manuevers that simply cannot be compared to a full attack because they do something completely different.
Actually, I'd be willing to bet NONE of those classes would be willing to waste a full round action in combat for those purposes.
I especially can't see a druid wasting an entire full round action switching into a new wildshape form when he should be either kicking ass or casting spells.
Exactly.
He's also ignoring that those abilities are designed with the intent of needing to be conserved, while maneuvers are designed with the intent of not needing to be conserved.
The design intent is alot less clear then you seem to say. I think the intent of the design was to try out the per encounter mechanic in preparation for fourth edition, nothing more, nothing less.
And you can argue intent if you like, but the actual designer of the book came out and said these things should be changed. I do believe he has better insight to intent then either you or I do.
The druid was likely a bad example (though I could think of utility reasons). But i could definately see a wizard taking a round to get back that perfect spell that the enemy happened to pass the save on. And the paladin would likely gladly spend a round to get his smite back when a second bid bad shows up mid fight.
I am just saying that in terms of overall party balance, both against casters and against non-casters, The ability to mid fight recover your manuevers throws things off.No, it really doesn't. From someone who has played multiple campaigns with multiple ToB characters in each that have gone from level 1 to level 18+ (and one that went to mid 20's), there hasn't been a single encounter that has been significantly easier because Martial Adepts could recover maneuvers mid-fight.
There's two reasons why that is:
1) Encounters in D&D are very short. Even in Pathfinder they aimed for (IIRC) 4 or 5 rounds per encounter.
2) Martial Adepts are balanced knowing that they can recover maneuvers mid-fight. That's one of the reasons their maneuvers are barely stronger than a full attack (and weaker than a full attack in some cases -- Strike of Perfect Clarity, for example).1. So then why are you so concerned about getting manuever back if it never comes up that they run out in the first place and its a terrible use of an action to give up a turn to get them back?
2. The damaging manuevers sure. But there are lots of manuevers that simply cannot be compared to a full attack because they do something completely different.
Fail response. You're trying to separate two inexorably linked issues.
And you can argue intent if you like, but the actual designer of the book came out and said these things should be changed.
Please provide proof.
1. So then why are you so concerned about getting manuever back if it never comes up that they run out in the first place and its a terrible use of an action to give up a turn to get them back?
2. The damaging manuevers sure. But there are lots of manuevers that simply cannot be compared to a full attack because they do something completely different.
Fail response. You're trying to separate two inexorably linked issues.
And you can argue intent if you like, but the actual designer of the book came out and said these things should be changed.Please provide proof.
What exactly am i trying to seperate? I am responding to your 2 points. 1 you say its not unbalanced because it never comes up. So if it doesnt come up why does it matter.
2. I would agree that the damage manuevers are not vastly superior to a full attack. But there are lots of utlity and non-conventional abilities that you simply cannot compare to. The ability to fly a short distance damaging enemies along the way is not something you can directly compare to a full attack. So saying ALL manuevers are balanced to be slightly better then a full attack is just plain false. And thats just strikes. Counters and stances, how do i compare a defensive bonus to a full attack? How do I compare the ability to boost a will save (replacing it with a skill check I should have a good bonus in that is). The answer is you cant.
As for proof, I dont have it, you can take my word for it or Dissinger's (from the beggining of this thread), I have no idea where to find it anymore. But it did happen.
Just for the sake of debate... A Binder can fly and hit every target along the way for healthy damage once every 5 rounds, all day every day. (and in the long fights that means twice, and I believe there is a feat that reduced the recharge duration)2. I would agree that the damage manuevers are not vastly superior to a full attack. But there are lots of utlity and non-conventional abilities that you simply cannot compare to. The ability to fly a short distance damaging enemies along the way is not something you can directly compare to a full attack.
I have never seen nor used a binder in 3.5, but is that a good comparison for a class' use in pathfinder? I really dont know how the binder compares to pathfinder classes, so I could not say.
Binder is pretty much the 'create your class' class. There are a great number of different combat abilities you can choose for the day, but they're all rather balanced. A binder is far from a combat beast, and converting one to PF I might add a bit to it, but overall it's pretty well designed.I have never seen nor used a binder in 3.5, but is that a good comparison for a class' use in pathfinder? I really dont know how the binder compares to pathfinder classes, so I could not say.Just for the sake of debate... A Binder can fly and hit every target along the way for healthy damage once every 5 rounds, all day every day. (and in the long fights that means twice, and I believe there is a feat that reduced the recharge duration)2. I would agree that the damage manuevers are not vastly superior to a full attack. But there are lots of utlity and non-conventional abilities that you simply cannot compare to. The ability to fly a short distance damaging enemies along the way is not something you can directly compare to a full attack.
OK, I will take your word for it, I cant say either way as I dont know anything about the class. It appears it uses recharge mechanics? That is a whole other can of worms to add to the discussion along with Per Day and Per encounter. I think it just adds more complication to the discussion. And personally I think if you are going to talk about using a class in pathfinder, you compare it to pathfinder classes and what they can do. It doesnt have to be the same, but it should be in the same ballpark of at least some of the classes.
Kolo, using short words, could you please explain to me how using a maneuver once every fight breaks the game?
I do not believe it breaks the game. I dont mind the per encounter mechanic in and of itself. I think the ability to recover those manuevers mid encounter is unbalancing. I dont think it breaks the game because i've played it, it doesnt break the game. Personally I hate saying anything 'breaks' the game. Its your game it can only break if you let it.
Okay. How does recovering maneuvers midfight imbalance the game? I am open to the idea that it imbalances games outside of my experience but I'm having difficulty picturing how.I do not believe it breaks the game. I dont mind the per encounter mechanic in and of itself. I think the ability to recover those manuevers mid encounter is unbalancing. I dont think it breaks the game because i've played it, it doesnt break the game. Personally I hate saying anything 'breaks' the game. Its your game it can only break if you let it.
Okay, this applies particularly ot the warblade, a little less to the crusader (the randomness I would remove just because i dont like it, and less because of balance), and somewhat to the swordsage.
Initiators have reletivlely few of their highest level manuevers. There is a limit to how many of them you can learn, and they always significantly better then the lower level ones for obvious reasons. A warblade can use his highest level abilties without concern for running out, because he can simply attack someone with a normal attack to get them all back, meaning he never needs to use his lower level abilities.
Sure the round where he attacks with a single attack wont be as good as when another character would full attack, no one gets to full attack every round, you almost always have to at least move to a target once or twice a fight (more in my fights as I like to use terain and movement to make it a little less of a slugfest). So warblade in particular is essentially always doing something that is at least a little better then full attacking for several rounds, then makes a normal attack, and is reset to several rounds of always better then full attacking. So the warblade never has to stop attacking, and can almost constantly use his highest level manuevers.
In addition, not all of the powers are purely offensive. Some of them are utilitarian or defensive. This gives much added versatility to the martial classes and is in my opinion a good thing. However, the recovery method means they can always count on having that trump card when they really need it, they just might need to give up an action to do it. Every class has to be concerned with economy of action, and of timing the use of their abilities well. But only the ToB classes are exempt of worrying about their powers running out.
The crusaders ability i just dont like. Random powers moving in and out of your available suite? No thank you. And the swordsage requires a full round action to recover, but also is going to have many more manuevers of its highest level available, so it faces a similar issue to that of the warblade but not as much.
Basically I dont think any class should be able to use its trump card all the time without concern for it running out at least some of the time.
I would be willing to limit the discussion to the warblade (and to a lesser extent the swordsage). The crusader's random mechanic is very clunky, and obviously limits in-combat maneuver reuse.
What's the problem with the warblade using his highest-level maneuvers over and over again? I know spellcasters can't do it, but that's doesn't mean no class should be allowed to do so. While it's fair to say that maneuvers are almost always plainly better than move-and-attack, non-initiator classes also get abilities which are better than move-and-attack now, in the form of Vital Strike and the intimidate feat chain. Also, remember that maneuvers are generally not better than full attacking, and also that the warblade is worse at full attacking than other classes, because the warblade's Weapon Cunning comes in at a later level and is much weaker than rage/smite/favored enemies/weapon training. A cost is paid for this ability to be better at moving-and-attacking; is that not fair?
Quote:
In addition, not all of the powers are purely offensive. Some of them are utilitarian or defensive. This gives much added versatility to the martial classes and is in my opinion a good thing. However, the recovery method means they can always count on having that trump card when they really need it, they just might need to give up an action to do it.No, they can't count on always having that trump card when they need it. Take the warblade, for example, fighting a succubus.
T1wb: The warblade does his turn, doing whatever.
T1su: The succubus uses Suggestion. The warblade uses Moment of Perfect Mind as an immediate action.
T2wb: The warblade can only refresh maneuvers by wasting his standard action to do a flourish, since he's used an immediate action since his last turn and thus cannot refresh as a swift action. Assuming he doesn't want to turtle up, he does whatever.
T2su: Suggestion again, this time against his naked will save. Maybe he's lucky and saves, I dunno.
T3wb: Now the warblade can opt to use no maneuvers to refresh his MOPM.See? The warblade has to choose between attacking at all or being vulnerable. The swordsage is similar, except that he has to turtle up completely to be able to use MOPM or the like repeatedly.
Do you feel having gradiated options to give up offense to increase defense in this way is inappropriate? If so, why?
Actually the warblade doesnt have to waste an action on flourish, he can attack with it, including using things like power attack. I think that is my biggest problem with the warblade is that his refresh mechanic, is what most classes often have to do once or twice anyway if they have to move or otherwize cannot take a full attack. Sure they might have vital strike or cleave, but chances are most martial classes have focused on maximizing a full attack and not going with something like vital strike.
And my problem with using their best abilities, is no other class can do that. Its not just spellcasters that run out of juice. Everyone does eventually. Paladins can run out of smites, barbians run out of rage, casters run out of spells, bards run out of songs. This is why we have a 4 encounter day, the party is supposed to decrease in capability as the day wears on. Not only does this not happen to a warblade, but he doesnt even have to worry about running out mid battle.
Now the sword sage is less of an issue, you have to give up a whole round, but he also has more manuevers. So lets say in a six round encounter a warblade uses flourish twice to attack something (its not uncommon to only be able to make a standard attack twice in a fight so you arent losing anything over the full attackers). Chances are the swordsage will only have to refresh once in that same fight to keep at his top level or two of manuevers. So basically the warblade makes 2 normal attacks in the fight and keeps up his best powers the whole encounter. The swordsage drops 1 round of actions to keep using his top powers for all other rounds.
And while it can be problematic if the warblade needs constant use of his counters, how often does this really happen? Eventually there will be a turn where he doesnt need to use one, and has his swift action free.
T2wb: The warblade can only refresh maneuvers by wasting his standard action to do a flourish, since he's used an immediate action since his last turn and thus cannot refresh as a swift action.
Actually, he has no choice. He cannot recover maneuvers. A Warblade must use a swift action and then follow it up with either an attack or a standard action to flourish his weapon in order to recover maneuvers.
Actually the warblade doesnt have to waste an action on flourish, he can attack with it, including using things like power attack. I think that is my biggest problem with the warblade is that his refresh mechanic, is what most classes often have to do once or twice anyway if they have to move or otherwize cannot take a full attack. Sure they might have vital strike or cleave, but chances are most martial classes have focused on maximizing a full attack and not going with something like vital strike.No, he can't refresh and attack if he used an immediate action since his last turn, because you refresh as a swift action if you attack. You can't use a swift action if you used an immediate action since your last turn.
Refreshing MOPM doesn't imbalance the game because it involves trading off offense for defense.
-edit- And Zurai is right, you can't refresh at all after using an immediate action, I misread. So the warblade is even more limited.
This is why we have a 4 encounter day, the party is supposed to decrease in capability as the day wears on.Fighters and rogues don't.
But you're drifting into vague class comparisons again. I'm not asking for examples where the warblade does better or worse than this or that class situationally; every class that isn't 100% horrible will do better than another class situationally, and the warblade was intended to be 3.5 fighter+ to boot. I'm asking you to present me practical situations where refreshing maneuvers imbalances the game.
You are right fighters and rogues dont degrade over the day, but they pretty much depend on the people that do.
In terms of the warblade, i need to reconsider it. I was mistaken in terms of it requiring both a swift and a standard action. I thought it was just a standard. And we play differently at my table (an immediate action would never stop you from having a swift). So I dont think my opinion is any longer relevant to the general experience for this class anyway. So I will bow out.
Fair enough.