Making Sense of the Warblade

[Thanatos]

09-02-06, 02:25 AM #1

So I think the warblade (from the "Tome of Battle") is a pretty crazy class. In fact, one of the craziest things about it is its name, which impressively manages to be simultaneously uninformative (no, we're different than all those people who use their blades for peace) and trite, in sort of a munchkiny, inner-twelve-year-old sense. To make matters worse, it's sort of flavorless (how are warblades supposed to be thematically different from fighters who just really like fighting? What coherent fantasy archetype or niche do they fill?) and prima facie overpowered. Moreover, I bet you (if you've looked at that book) feel more or less the same way I do.

I think the name warblade is perfectly fitting since that sums up so many classes like weapon master, fighter, etc. which are just as vague really. It's about as munchkiny as swashbuckler, samauri, ninja, kensai, assassin...overpowered is also an opinion, not a fact...I own the book...and no, I don't see it the way you do at all...moreover, I actually used to have the opinion the book was a piece of trash...but after alot of discussion, I was convinced it was actually a well balanced and flavorfull book with a different take on classes being balanced against the vancian spellcaster system.

Be sure and take a look through this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=173480

Its about Nine Swords as well.

There are more then a few people who have been discussing the Warblade and have come to the conclusion that, as written, its really not significantly or necessairly more powerful then a fighter or barbarian of equal stature (including a good example on page 5). Despite the fact it looks so on paper and has mechanics that are higher then the fighters (d12 hit points, but no heavy armor either).

Also, from what I have finally started to see in play (jn a test campaign), the Nine Sword classes don't really outshine any of the others, they definitely add a different flavor to the fighting classes and require more tactical orientation to better utilize some of their maneuvers, but so far, its been really on par. We've yet to get to mid or high levels, but so far, 1-6 seems alright.

 

[comrade raoul]

overpowered is also an opinion, not a fact...

Although whether or not a particular rules element is overpowered indeed depends on the interests of the gaming group and the other rules involved, it's still productive to talk about balance. In fact, you go on to note that the warblade isn't/i] significantly more powerful than the other martial characters. Let's suppose, just for sake of argument, that you're right. Either that claim is purely a matter of opinion, or it's at least partially a matter of fact. If it's the former, it's hard to see how we can have any kind of productive discussion about play balance at all; if it's the latter, it's hard to see how it wouldn't also/i] be at least in part a matter of fact if that statement were false instead.

Be sure and take a look through this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=173480

Its about Nine Swords as well. There are more then a few people who have been discussing the Warblade and have come to the conclusion that, as written, its really not significantly or necessairly more powerful then a fighter or barbarian of equal stature (including a good example on page 5).

I've been following the thread pretty closely. I'm certainly not one of these people.

 

[Thanatos]

Although whether or not a particular rules element is overpowered indeed depends on the interests of the gaming group and the other rules involved, it's still productive to talk about balance. In fact, you go on to note that the warblade isn't/i] significantly more powerful than the other martial characters. Let's suppose, just for sake of argument, that you're right. Either that claim is purely a matter of opinion, or it's at least partially a matter of fact. If it's the former, it's hard to see how we can have any kind of productive discussion about play balance at all; if it's the latter, it's hard to see how it wouldn't also/i] be at least in part a matter of fact if that statement were false instead.

I've been following the thread pretty closely. I'm certainly not one of these people.

I don't disagree with you regarding whether a rules element is overpowered or regarding talk about balance, thats the whole point of forums -- to discuss stuff.

Actually, I said the warblade wasn't significantly more powerful then the fighter or barbarian of equal stature, nor did I present that as fact since I included,

...a few people who have been discussing the Warblade and have come to the conclusion...

That seems to indicate opinions, no statement of fact. At the end of my post I offer my opnion (based in a test campaign - qualified as an opion by "from what I have finally started to see in play") to acknowledge that I don't see any overpowering elements either. However, compared to the Crusader or Swordsage...its more powerful then either of them, though the Crusader comes in a close second (just from what I've seen in play now - again, just my opinion).

While on the other hand, you are saying its prima facie (Literally, "on its face." A fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some other evidence. -- so you are presenting it as factually overpowered from the getgo.). I don't think we can have any discussion based on that alone -- I wanted to make sure the readers of this thread were aware of the other and that the "facts" presented here were just really opnions, like mine.