Balancing the Warblade

[gribble]

I have dropped the warblade class, and collapsed the core functionality of it into level substitutions for the fighter and barbarian.

Nice idea - I like it.

You may recover all expended maneuvers with a move action that consists of nothing more than a harmless flourish with your weapon.

I don't think this will work, unless you also include a prohibition against using maneuvers and changing stances - otherwise this is even less expensive than the swift action followed by an attack (because they can replenish *and* use a maneuver/change stance in the same round - i.e. continuously use the same maneuver every round).

 

[Gargoyle]

Nice idea - I like it.



I don't think this will work, unless you also include a prohibition against using maneuvers and changing stances - otherwise this is even less expensive than the swift action followed by an attack (because they can replenish *and* use a maneuver/change stance in the same round - i.e. continuously use the same maneuver every round).

Ah yes, that's a problem. I think I'll redo that part.

Edited above.

 

[comrade raoul]

Heh. You'd better explain why that's silly, since it's fundamental to the way the system is balanced.

Sure, although I'm not sure I understand how it's fundamental. To my mind, maneuvers differ from spells in that low-level maneuvers can remain relatively useful even for much more experienced characters, because maneuvers enhance attacks (and attacks continue to improve more or less proportionately to a character's level). I'm really troubled by a character's having more than one or two of his highest-level maneuvers readied, because it means he might be able to use two or three very powerful maneuvers in consecutive rounds. (Consider, say, a strike of perfect clarity followed by time stands still.) I really don't see how the warblade needs to be able to do this, at all, especially since the warblade's combat abilities without the aid of his maneuvers are pretty respectable.

I call it "silly" because it doesn't have any analogue in the rules. Is there some sort of plausible, in-game justification why warblades should be able to switch out weaker maneuvers for stronger ones, but sorcerers need to trade low-level spells for other low-level spells? (I'd be happy to let warblades swap maneuvers for others they could get at the same level, though.)

Getting rid of this rule is another nice way of distinguishing swordsages from warblades. Because a swordsage learns a maneuver every level, he's better equipped to ready a variety of high-level maneuvers.

Your initator level is you level in the adept class, plus half of all your other levels. Under your rule, a Fighter 10/Warblade 10 would end up with quite a nice collection of high end maneuvers compared to the straight warblade.

I'd always liked the idea of mucking about with the system a bit more and getting rid of this rule. It doesn't seem necessary, exactly, and it seems to open up more possibilities for abuse.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Barbarian dumping rage for maneuvers? Dump the DR and the improved uncanny dodge.
Rage and Tiger Claw go hand-in-hand.

 

[Alceste]

Why do you think this is desirable? I see the warblade as very much a front line fighter - an alternative to the fighter class (but not an automatic replacement because he's strictly superior - which is kind of the point of this thread). Why do you think a warblade should have something to do in non-combat situations when the fighter doesn't?

I tend to se the warblade as the front line showman style of fighter. A warblade is self promoting and flashy (maneuvers) versus a fighter who excels at the basic mechanics (feats). The problem is without a hard core limiting factor on maneuvers in a fight, the warblade is mechanically better than a fighter. With a hard limiting factor on maneuvers, the advantage slides slightly back to a fighter in a long fight (after 6+ rounds). On the other hand, the warblade will have a slight advantage in non-combat situations. In no way will the warblade be able to dominate skill based situations in the way that bards and rogues can. The warblade will be useful, thus the player will also more be interested in non-combat situations.

I do not want to replace the fighter, but rather have an alternative that has some slight advantages and disadvantages. The fighter will have a slight advantage in extremely long combats, while the warblade has a slight advantage in non-combat situations. These slight differences are what the classes interesting to me.

Lol, it still not address how much I hate the d12 for an intelligence fighter. But there are alot of personal preferences in that issue.

 

[gribble]

With a hard limiting factor on maneuvers, the advantage slides slightly back to a fighter in a long fight (after 6+ rounds). On the other hand, the warblade will have a slight advantage in non-combat situations. In no way will the warblade be able to dominate skill based situations in the way that bards and rogues can. The warblade will be useful, thus the player will also more be interested in non-combat situations.

Fair enough, although perhaps you're forgetting that most warblades will want a reasonable int modifier, so will already have a leg-up on fighters in terms of skill points? Plus, with their class abilities and stances, I'm still not convinced they'll be that far behind a fighter after 6+ rounds. Reading the fluff and looking at the class, it's clearly intended to be a front line fighter...

Lol, it still not address how much I hate the d12 for an intelligence fighter. But there are alot of personal preferences in that issue.

I'm right there with you. As I said it's a relatively minor quibble, but I don't see the need for it.

 

[gribble]

Barbarian dumping rage for maneuvers? Dump the DR and the improved uncanny dodge.
Rage and Tiger Claw go hand-in-hand.

Yes, probably too well. I think this is fair - rather than Rage, the Barb is gaining the use of maneuvers as per the warblade progression. Having both would (IMO) be too good.
DR & improved uncanny dodge aren't enough of a trade-off for maneuvers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

(as someone mentioned on another thread, a good comparison class would be a psychic warrior from the psionics handbook, with d8 HD, I think low - maybe middling - skills, and 3/4 BAB...).

That was me

My gut feeling is that the class would probably be fine as d8 HD, 3/4 BAB and low skills, just like a psywar - because they also have the buffing and extra damage abilities like the psywar has that brings them to par with fighters and allow them to overshadow fighters in their optimum situation.

I would also want to change the replenishing of manouvers too though - probably to a standard action for simplicity and to allow them some flexibility.

I still cringe at the top level powers like +100 damage or 2d6 Con damage or DC31 save or die, which seem a little over the top compared to what wizards can do (meteor storm will only do 84 damage to someone, and they get spell resistance against that! - not to mention how few times a day it can be cast)

Cheers

 

[Gargoyle]

That was me

I still cringe at the top level powers like +100 damage or 2d6 Con damage or DC31 save or die, which seem a little over the top compared to what wizards can do (meteor storm will only do 84 damage to someone, and they get spell resistance against that! - not to mention how few times a day it can be cast)

Cheers

Looking at the top level maneuvers, I wonder about some of them, and most of them are accessible by the warblade. A couple I know I will nerf a little:

War Master's Charge: This gets crazy when you have a bunch of small, weak allies attacking a larger creature. Even 10 allies gives a +20 bonus to everyone's attack rolls and will likely result in +300 bonus points of damage plus whatever regular damage is done. Not a big deal against creatures of the same size, but when they can all charge... it could make the party's enlarged fighter or wildshaped druid look like swiss cheese. I am going to limit this to a number of allies equal to half your Charisma. It's still good, just not insane.

Mountain Tombstone Strike: Unlike every other 9th level maneuver, there is no prerequisite for this one. I'm sure that's intentional. By not requiring another maneuver, any character, since Stone dragon is open to all martial adepts, who does not meet the requirements for any of the other 9th level maneuvers is going to be able to take this one. However, I don't agree with this philosophy. I'm house ruling it to require 3 Stone Dragon maneuvers to force characters to specialize. If they choose not to specialize, they are free to take lower level maneuvers instead. The Con damage...ow...but an 18th level fighter using the full attack action is going to hurt someone pretty badly too, so I will leave it alone unless it becomes a problem at that level of play.

The rest I would probably want to wait to see how they are in play and come to an agreement with the players.

 

[Gargoyle]

Barbarian dumping rage for maneuvers? Dump the DR and the improved uncanny dodge.
Rage and Tiger Claw go hand-in-hand.

I'm of the same opinion as Gribble, that the class would be too good. Uncanny dodge is not as good as rage.

The funny thing about Tiger Claw is that it strongly encourages you to use Two Weapon Fighting. It's the only discipline with prerequisites on every 1st level maneuver and stance, except for one, which is Wolf Fang Strike, the one that allows you to attack with two weapons as a standard action. Rage works best with power attack and two handed weapons.

But still, I understand what you mean. Thematically, they do work well together. There is even a feat, Tiger Blooded that requires both rage and a Tiger Claw maneuver. And even though a player could multiclass as a barbarian/swordsage, that's not really what I want.

I would like to allow rage, but I'm unsure of what to take away. Perhaps allowing barbarians to keep rage but not gain stances would be good. Rage is sort of like a stance anyway, it is isn't always on, but it is used during most combats and lasts for a while.