Angel Tarragon
Dawn Dragon
Compared to the power against core classes, psionics stuff and some other supplemental material (ToM, WoL, PHB2 and LM) whaere does the Tome of Battle stand?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Bo9S: Power Level?
- Thread starter Angel Tarragon
- Start date
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
It brings melee classes in line with the spellcasters, and I like it a lot. It evens out the scales.
-blarg
-blarg
Hella_Tellah
Explorer
Tome of Battle classes are about as powerful as Tome of Magic classes. They're better than core Fighters, Paladins and Rangers, but less powerful than Wizards, Clerics and Psions.
Compared to a Barbarian, the Warblade is about even--a well-built Barbarian will outclass a Warblade in terms of pure damage output, but the Warblade will be capable of other, more interesting things, like altering the initiative order or shaking off an ongoing magical effect. I'd put the Crusader just a hair above them both, but still far less powerful than a decently built Cleric. The Swordsage is really more fun than good. He doesn't have a role in the party that we think of as canon to the D&D experiece, but he's very good at dealing nice damage, bouncing around the battlefield, and looking stylish while he does so. He's like the monk class you've always wanted, and I'd measure him to be a bit more combat effective than a rogue, but beyond acrobatics he's not much of a "skill-monkey."
I wouldn't be all that concerned, frankly, with the Tome of Battle classes outshining other classes in terms of pure effectiveness, although they're all a sight more powerful than Monks and Samurai.
But if you've got a party with a Fighter, a Rogue, a Barbarian, and a Swordsage, the Swordsage player is just going to have a lot more fun in battles, with a lot more options to play with. Your other players will probably get jealous, but not because the Swordsage is strictly better, numerically.
Compared to a Barbarian, the Warblade is about even--a well-built Barbarian will outclass a Warblade in terms of pure damage output, but the Warblade will be capable of other, more interesting things, like altering the initiative order or shaking off an ongoing magical effect. I'd put the Crusader just a hair above them both, but still far less powerful than a decently built Cleric. The Swordsage is really more fun than good. He doesn't have a role in the party that we think of as canon to the D&D experiece, but he's very good at dealing nice damage, bouncing around the battlefield, and looking stylish while he does so. He's like the monk class you've always wanted, and I'd measure him to be a bit more combat effective than a rogue, but beyond acrobatics he's not much of a "skill-monkey."
I wouldn't be all that concerned, frankly, with the Tome of Battle classes outshining other classes in terms of pure effectiveness, although they're all a sight more powerful than Monks and Samurai.
But if you've got a party with a Fighter, a Rogue, a Barbarian, and a Swordsage, the Swordsage player is just going to have a lot more fun in battles, with a lot more options to play with. Your other players will probably get jealous, but not because the Swordsage is strictly better, numerically.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Around about the same; maybe a little lower depending on what spells you might be using from some of those sources.
A lot of fluff is made when people skim the book and see powers doing things like '+4d6 damage' and 'teleport 30' on a sucessful hit' but that's because they only skim. They don't see how often a power is used (usually once per encounter; stances usually work all the time and are no more game-breaking than certain always-on magic items; less-so, in fact, since you can only use one of them at a time), the conditions that have to be in place for that power to work, etc etc etc. Read the power carefully and completely, and read the section on how one gains powers. At the levels they're gained, there's just no comparison power-wise between my Desert Wind martial guy setting up a sneak attack with his spear +2 for 1d8+1d6+4d6+4 damage once per encounter vs the mage of that level pumping out fireball, orb of force, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc.
A lot of fluff is made when people skim the book and see powers doing things like '+4d6 damage' and 'teleport 30' on a sucessful hit' but that's because they only skim. They don't see how often a power is used (usually once per encounter; stances usually work all the time and are no more game-breaking than certain always-on magic items; less-so, in fact, since you can only use one of them at a time), the conditions that have to be in place for that power to work, etc etc etc. Read the power carefully and completely, and read the section on how one gains powers. At the levels they're gained, there's just no comparison power-wise between my Desert Wind martial guy setting up a sneak attack with his spear +2 for 1d8+1d6+4d6+4 damage once per encounter vs the mage of that level pumping out fireball, orb of force, lightning bolt, cone of cold, etc.
WhatGravitas
Explorer
They're pretty powerful, in the order crusader, warblade, swordsage. If you're sticking to core material only (especially the core MM), they will outclass badly built characters easily. But they go nowhere near the sheer power of a well-played wizard, druid, or cleric (and by well-played I only mean knowing what you're doing, not broken stuff).
I'm playing in a campaign with two crusaders and one sorcerer/swordsage right now - and the crusaders are powerful - due to their ability to produce lose-lose situations for singular targets, especially against core monster. But once I break out MM3 or MM5 or touch-up some core monsters (by putting a level of warblade on it, counting the 1/2 the HD as initiator levels), it goes very well (well, except for the sorcerer/swordsage, because he... is one of those players who play suboptimal characters for RP reasons - but he has fun).
Also: Crusaders are often much more powerful than warblades and swordsage, due to their different maneuver recovery and tactical capabilities. To give them something harder to crack, give them several strong monsters, like a pack of trolls or flying beasts, because crusaders excel at pinning down singular monsters, and their damage output can kill weaker monsters in a single go. Oh, and look out for Divine Surge, +8d8 is too powerful for 7th level characters, I've ruled it to +4d8, and nobody complains.
Cheers, LT.
I'm playing in a campaign with two crusaders and one sorcerer/swordsage right now - and the crusaders are powerful - due to their ability to produce lose-lose situations for singular targets, especially against core monster. But once I break out MM3 or MM5 or touch-up some core monsters (by putting a level of warblade on it, counting the 1/2 the HD as initiator levels), it goes very well (well, except for the sorcerer/swordsage, because he... is one of those players who play suboptimal characters for RP reasons - but he has fun).
Also: Crusaders are often much more powerful than warblades and swordsage, due to their different maneuver recovery and tactical capabilities. To give them something harder to crack, give them several strong monsters, like a pack of trolls or flying beasts, because crusaders excel at pinning down singular monsters, and their damage output can kill weaker monsters in a single go. Oh, and look out for Divine Surge, +8d8 is too powerful for 7th level characters, I've ruled it to +4d8, and nobody complains.
Cheers, LT.
Last edited:
Doug McCrae
Legend
They're stronger than core melee classes and weaker than core casters.
GammaPaladin
First Post
A Setting Sun Swordsage with a reach weapon (Particularly a chain) is a truly, truly excellent battlefield controller though. That's one role the other ToB classes can't do as well as the SS. Particularly if he has some way to increase his size (And therefore, reach).
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
Alzrius said:It's power level is over NINE THOUSAND!!!
I thought they turned it up to 11.
Similar Threads
