pawsplay
Hero
I was at the book store yesterday, and took a second look at this, and my perception is definitely different than the first look.
First of all, I've decided to discard my objection against the class flavor in a standard campaign. The classes are quite similar to the swashbuckler, monk, kensai, lasher, and so forth in feel, so unless they are specifically inappropriate (Dark Ages inspired campaign, no monks, for instance), I would say they are generally appropriate, if perhaps a candidate for being rare.
I still don't like their campaign options. To me, relating this material to Wee Jas, that is, to Greyhawk, rubs me the wrong way. I already have a picture in my head of what a templar of Wee Jas would be like, and it's not a paladin/crusader/whatever that prestige class was. That's a personal thing, and I don't think that's a negative of the book, just one area where it would have less value to me.
Swordsage - The concept is actually something D&D has needed for a while, encompassing the academy-trained fencer, the old school kenshi/kensai, a variant monk focused on martial arts rather than miracles, and a weapon-based monk like character. It's not for every campaign. Like the Psychic Warrior, it has medium BAB, and like the Psychic Warrior, can more than compensate. The swordsage has more access to stances that close the difference until all but high levels, at which point a swordsage's access to maneuvers is far more important than their BAB. Being a slightly skill-based, defensive character always puts you on a back foot in a standard D&D party, but that doesn't make the class weak.
Crusader - I was iffy about the concept, but I've actually warmed up to the idea of a zealous swordsman fighting like someone from a modern action film. It also covers the grim, loyal knight, who is not a paladin, without stealing from the paladin's thunder. The main objection I have is the random access to maneuvers, which is probably balanced, but represents a time stealer and a distraction during combat. I don't think most groups want to pause in the first few rounds of the Big Fight to chant, "No whammy!"
Warblade - This is the problem child. Now, let me say that I like the concept, which covers everything from D'Artagnan to a Jackie-Chan inspired spear fighter to "Invincible Sword Princess." The warblade comes out slightly on the strong side. Now compared to the other martial adepts, their maneuver access and such are a little weak, balancing them as a niche. But in absolute terms, they look strong comapred to the fighter and barbarian. They trade some defense for offense, and in a D&D party, offense tends to be strong. Thus, in constrast to the swordsage, they are showboats, although vulnerable in some aspects. They are also feat-starved compared to the fighter, making them more similar to a paladin, melee cleric, or a barbarian. I would not automatically choose a Warblade over a barbarian; barbarians do not have to worry about expected maneuvers and have a number of other advantages. A warblade's refresh is strong compared to the other adept's, but their maneuver selection is weak, and they could end up holding a bad card if they can't figure out a good way to fire off their last, usually useful, but currenly useless or even dangerous maneuver.
The poor fighter - The fighter recently got a boost with PHBII, now has to stand off against the martial adepts, particularly the warblade. First of all, the fighter still has a niche compared to the Warblade. The fighter's versatility is unmatched; there is no practical way for a warblade to an archer/swordsman on the same plane as a fighter. Heavy armor and tactical options are very strong with CW, PHBII, and CAd in play. Second, while the warblade can often outperform a fighter in raw damage, the fighter is more likely to be able to pull off an optimal attack. If, for instance, a melee combatant is immobilized, the figher is likely to be able to pull out a glaive or a longbow and do something interesting, whereas the warblade has to hope for either a good counter (like a Str boost to escape webs) or the right discipline (Balance is handy against grease). Third, with the B9S in play, a fighter who dips into maneuvers through feats or PrCs should be able to hold his own in a big way, and in fact, may be overpowered in a game that does not incorporate martial maneuvers in a big way. Refresh is not much of a concern; most fights only last so long, the fighter simply doesn't have to bother with invoking a refresh, and a fighter has a ton of feats that can be used over and over and over again. As a sideline, the fighter can compare in the maneuever department as well as a paladin can in the divine spellcasting departmnet.
First of all, I've decided to discard my objection against the class flavor in a standard campaign. The classes are quite similar to the swashbuckler, monk, kensai, lasher, and so forth in feel, so unless they are specifically inappropriate (Dark Ages inspired campaign, no monks, for instance), I would say they are generally appropriate, if perhaps a candidate for being rare.
I still don't like their campaign options. To me, relating this material to Wee Jas, that is, to Greyhawk, rubs me the wrong way. I already have a picture in my head of what a templar of Wee Jas would be like, and it's not a paladin/crusader/whatever that prestige class was. That's a personal thing, and I don't think that's a negative of the book, just one area where it would have less value to me.
Swordsage - The concept is actually something D&D has needed for a while, encompassing the academy-trained fencer, the old school kenshi/kensai, a variant monk focused on martial arts rather than miracles, and a weapon-based monk like character. It's not for every campaign. Like the Psychic Warrior, it has medium BAB, and like the Psychic Warrior, can more than compensate. The swordsage has more access to stances that close the difference until all but high levels, at which point a swordsage's access to maneuvers is far more important than their BAB. Being a slightly skill-based, defensive character always puts you on a back foot in a standard D&D party, but that doesn't make the class weak.
Crusader - I was iffy about the concept, but I've actually warmed up to the idea of a zealous swordsman fighting like someone from a modern action film. It also covers the grim, loyal knight, who is not a paladin, without stealing from the paladin's thunder. The main objection I have is the random access to maneuvers, which is probably balanced, but represents a time stealer and a distraction during combat. I don't think most groups want to pause in the first few rounds of the Big Fight to chant, "No whammy!"
Warblade - This is the problem child. Now, let me say that I like the concept, which covers everything from D'Artagnan to a Jackie-Chan inspired spear fighter to "Invincible Sword Princess." The warblade comes out slightly on the strong side. Now compared to the other martial adepts, their maneuver access and such are a little weak, balancing them as a niche. But in absolute terms, they look strong comapred to the fighter and barbarian. They trade some defense for offense, and in a D&D party, offense tends to be strong. Thus, in constrast to the swordsage, they are showboats, although vulnerable in some aspects. They are also feat-starved compared to the fighter, making them more similar to a paladin, melee cleric, or a barbarian. I would not automatically choose a Warblade over a barbarian; barbarians do not have to worry about expected maneuvers and have a number of other advantages. A warblade's refresh is strong compared to the other adept's, but their maneuver selection is weak, and they could end up holding a bad card if they can't figure out a good way to fire off their last, usually useful, but currenly useless or even dangerous maneuver.
The poor fighter - The fighter recently got a boost with PHBII, now has to stand off against the martial adepts, particularly the warblade. First of all, the fighter still has a niche compared to the Warblade. The fighter's versatility is unmatched; there is no practical way for a warblade to an archer/swordsman on the same plane as a fighter. Heavy armor and tactical options are very strong with CW, PHBII, and CAd in play. Second, while the warblade can often outperform a fighter in raw damage, the fighter is more likely to be able to pull off an optimal attack. If, for instance, a melee combatant is immobilized, the figher is likely to be able to pull out a glaive or a longbow and do something interesting, whereas the warblade has to hope for either a good counter (like a Str boost to escape webs) or the right discipline (Balance is handy against grease). Third, with the B9S in play, a fighter who dips into maneuvers through feats or PrCs should be able to hold his own in a big way, and in fact, may be overpowered in a game that does not incorporate martial maneuvers in a big way. Refresh is not much of a concern; most fights only last so long, the fighter simply doesn't have to bother with invoking a refresh, and a fighter has a ton of feats that can be used over and over and over again. As a sideline, the fighter can compare in the maneuever department as well as a paladin can in the divine spellcasting departmnet.
Last edited:
