Swordsage: The Complex Fighter

[Libramarian]

What about the class looks especially complex to you? I will try to simplify anything that is overly complex.

Honestly, I thought this class was far more simple than the battlemaster and orders of magnitude more simple than the warlock (which is one of the most simple spellcasting classes there is).

Well you have a decision point between a handful of maneuvers whenever you have combat focus and it's your turn or one of your triggers just went off. That's pretty complex. That would be fun in a high stakes "boss" combat but tedious in a low stakes "trash" combat. Unfortunately because these are encounter resources the player would feel pressure to use these every combat, slowing down the trash combats that are supposed to be simple and brutal. The nice thing about daily resources is the complexity of the class naturally scales up or down according to the stakes of the battle at hand (assuming competent resource management). If you could somehow design the maneuevers so that they naturally will only be useful in a high stakes combat, without making them daily abilities, then I think that would work. I don't know how you would do that though. I don't have the PHB yet so I can't compare this to the battlemaster or warlock. It's possible that I would also want to make these criticisms against those classes.

Many people do run games where every combat is balanced to be difficult-but-winnable and PCs only go 1 or 2 battles between rests. I think this class would work best in that type of game, possibly as a straight replacement for the fighter.

 

[Libramarian]

Let's look at that in a bit more detail.

You win initiative and flip the table.
The orc doesn't walk around it and instead just takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc. 7.8 damage.
The orc takes a swing. 4.1 damage.
You attack the orc and kill it.

= 8.2 damage taken, 2 hits.

You win initiative and attack the orc. 7.8 damage.
The orc takes a swing. 5.1 damage.
You attack the orc and kill it.

= 5.1 damage taken, 1 hit.

So yeah, your example is just yet another illustration of ~using your imagination~ being functionally worse than endlessly swinging your weapon - even if we make the orc completely braindead and say you're the only one who gains a benefit from being attacked across a table.

You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free on your turn, so it wouldn't take your action to flip the table.

 

[TwoSix]

What about the class looks especially complex to you? I will try to simplify anything that is overly complex.

Honestly, I thought this class was far more simple than the battlemaster and orders of magnitude more simple than the warlock (which is one of the most simple spellcasting classes there is).

It gets new features every level, and gets up to 12 maneuvers from a list of at least, what, 50? And the maneuvers are of 4 different types?

I'm not saying it's OVERLY complex, but I don't think you can compare it to a battlemaster. With that many maneuvers, it's pretty much a new spellcasting class with a list of spells people don't know, unless they were already familiar with Bo9S.

I'd say to reduce complexity a bit, maybe drop Extra Attack and Combat focus. Move Legendary Strikes up to level 11, to match when other classes get their uber spells. Bake the extra damage from Extra Attack and Deadly Strike right into the Strikes themselves, with upgrades at 5 and 11 (and maybe 17 if needed). It makes the Swordsage more like a spellcaster with one big hit, rather than multiple little ones, and makes the math a little easier to balance.

 

[Ashkelon]

Well you have a decision point between a handful of maneuvers whenever you have combat focus and it's your turn or one of your triggers just went off. That's pretty complex. That would be fun in a high stakes "boss" combat but tedious in a low stakes "trash" combat. Unfortunately because these are encounter resources the player would feel pressure to use these every combat, slowing down the trash combats that are supposed to be simple and brutal. The nice thing about daily resources is the complexity of the class naturally scales up or down according to the stakes of the battle at hand (assuming competent resource management). If you could somehow design the maneuevers so that they naturally will only be useful in a high stakes combat, without making them daily abilities, then I think that would work. I don't know how you would do that though. I don't have the PHB yet so I can't compare this to the battlemaster or warlock. It's possible that I would also want to make these criticisms against those classes.

Many people do run games where every combat is balanced to be difficult-but-winnable and PCs only go 1 or 2 battles between rests. I think this class would work best in that type of game, possibly as a straight replacement for the fighter.

Ah, I think you missed something about maneuvers. Except for legendary maneuvers, all maneuvers can be used any time you expend your combat focus. This means that you will be choosing a maneuver about two-thirds of the time, with the other times being the times you simply make basic attacks. I agree that this does caus a number of available decision points to be made each turn, but it IMHO it is about as complicated as wizards having to choose which cantrip to cast every round.

 

[Ashkelon]

You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free on your turn, so it wouldn't take your action to flip the table.

i'm 100% sure this is incorrect. The interacting with an object is for drawing or stowing rules. To flip a table, you would have to do something like the Improvise action or maybe the Use an Object action.

 

[Ashkelon]

It gets new features every level, and gets up to 12 maneuvers from a list of at least, what, 50? And the maneuvers are of 4 different types?

I'm not saying it's OVERLY complex, but I don't think you can compare it to a battlemaster.

Yeah, I guess saying it was as complex as the battlemaster might have been a little overly optimisitc. But then again, the battlemaster is rather confusing in how its maneuvers work. Some of them you use before making your attack roll, and some after. Some of them use your reaction, others use no action at all. Some of them require saving throws, others do not. And while the swordsage does get 12 maneuvers, the battlemaster has to keep track of 9 maneuvers, action surge, and second wind. That is pretty damn close to keeping track of 11 different maneuvers.

With that many maneuvers, it's pretty much a new spellcasting class with a list of spells people don't know, unless they were already familiar with Bo9S.

Yeah, you are certainly right here. There are about 65 unique maneuvers right now which definitely adds a lot of information to go through. That being said, I tried to make the maneuvers much cleaner and easier to resolve than spells. Compare the maneuvers to the battlemaster maneuvers, the paladin smites, and even many common attack spells. The swordsage maneuvers don't require extra rolls or checks and many are very straightforward.

I'd say to reduce complexity a bit, maybe drop Extra Attack and Combat focus. Move Legendary Strikes up to level 11, to match when other classes get their uber spells. Bake the extra damage from Extra Attack and Deadly Strike right into the Strikes themselves, with upgrades at 5 and 11 (and maybe 17 if needed). It makes the Swordsage more like a spellcaster with one big hit, rather than multiple little ones, and makes the math a little easier to balance.

I actually wish extra attack was never implemented in game. I liked things better when all classes had deadly strike to increase their weapon damage as they leveled up. It was much easier to balance things. Sadly, this isn't what we were given in the final product. I agree that your suggestion here would make the class more simple, but ultimately, it would make it too much like a spellcaster and that is definitely not what I want.

I want the class to be a martial class through and through. As such, it has to follow the basic structure of other martial classes, which means extra attack at level 5. This is why the swordsage's maneuvers all start dealing double damage at level 5+. The warblade can choose to use the Attack action and make two weapon attacks, or use his action to initiate a strike making a single attack that deals double damage.

 

[Juriel]

Swordsage's maneuvers have got nothing on the average spell in complexity, and that he can activate one every turn is no more harder to grasp than Rogue or a Monk making their bonus action decision. Nothing he does approaches the power or utility of Wizard/Druid, and he seems to do less damage than a regular Fighter (and only medium armor)...

There's nothing but awesome here. And though there's a ton of maneuvers, unlike spells, the GM does not HAVE to learn what each and every maneuver does, just in case it can break up his whole plot.

 

[Juriel]

i'm 100% sure this is incorrect. The interacting with an object is for drawing or stowing rules. To flip a table, you would have to do something like the Improvise action or maybe the Use an Object action.

Actually... page 190 of PHB.

INTERACTING WITH OBJECTS AROUND YOU
Here are a few examples of stuff you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a weapon
open or close a door
withdraw a potion from your pack
pick up a dropped axe
take a bauble from table
remove a ring from finger
eat some food
plant a banner
fish a few coins from coinpouch
drink a flagon
throw a lever or a switch
pull a torch from sconce
take a book from shelf
extinguish a small flame
don a mask
pull your hood up
put your ear to a door
kick a small stone
turn a key in lock
tap the floor with 10ft pole
hand an item to someone

So you might be able to to flip a table for free, but it's still down to GM mood where the exact limit of a free action lies.

Which is beside the point, because anyone can flip a table or improvise. The whole point is that casters don't have to, because they have interesting stuff to do by just pressing their shiny spell buttons, they don't need to beg the DM to make an allowance for them so they have SOME decision to make every turn. Even choosing whether or not to use a big spell IS a decision point, something Fighters don't have.

...and as such, Swordsage seems to deliver on the promise of giving Fighter-ish people something to think about. Where's the problem with that? If someone wants a player to be bored out of their mind just rolling to hit, roll damage, they can give them control over one of their summons - it's just like having a PHB Fighter along!

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I guess saying it was as complex as the battlemaster might have been a little overly optimisitc. But then again, the battlemaster is rather confusing in how its maneuvers work. Some of them you use before making your attack roll, and some after. Some of them use your reaction, others use no action at all. Some of them require saving throws, others do not. And while the swordsage does get 12 maneuvers, the battlemaster has to keep track of 9 maneuvers, action surge, and second wind. That is pretty damn close to keeping track of 11 different maneuvers.

No, you're not wrong. The complexity, as always, comes from tracking the options for actions, bonus actions, and reactions, but that's no different than most classes, both in 3e, 4e, and 5e.

Yeah, you are certainly right here. There are about 65 unique maneuvers right now which definitely adds a lot of information to go through. That being said, I tried to make the maneuvers much cleaner and easier to resolve than spells. Compare the maneuvers to the battlemaster maneuvers, the paladin smites, and even many common attack spells. The swordsage maneuvers don't require extra rolls or checks and many are very straightforward.

No, I do agree that the maneuvers aren't that complicated individually. It might simply be the packaging. Maybe they can be organised into Strikes, Boosts, Counters, Stances and Legendary Strikes? I'm not sure what's gained by dividing them into disciplines, as I don't really see any mechanic that relies on the discipline of the maneuver, other than the 14th level Stone Dragon one.

I actually wish extra attack was never implemented in game. I liked things better when all classes had deadly strike to increase their weapon damage as they leveled up. It was much easier to balance things. Sadly, this isn't what we were given in the final product. I agree that your suggestion here would make the class more simple, but ultimately, it would make it too much like a spellcaster and that is definitely not what I want.

I want the class to be a martial class through and through. As such, it has to follow the basic structure of other martial classes, which means extra attack at level 5. This is why the swordsage's maneuvers all start dealing double damage at level 5+. The warblade can choose to use the Attack action and make two weapon attacks, or use his action to initiate a strike making a single attack that deals double damage.

I see where you're coming from. I do see reasons for the extra attack method, (normalizes damage per round towards the average value, provides a mechanic to differentiate abilities on number of attacks, like Hunter's Mark, provides differentiation between attacks and spells) but it's not my favorite option.

That being said, maybe have the ability to trade one of your attacks for a Strike, like a Beastmaster's animal companion, instead of costing the entire action? That would let the damage scale up at 5 like it's supposed to, provide a bit of a boost to damage by giving an extra chance to regain focus, and feel more like the other martial classes.

 

[Deadstop]

Ashkelon, quick question:

Will you be working up subclass entries for Tiger Claw and White Raven, or do you intend those simply to be "extra" maneuvers for everyone?

Related: I notice that Tiger Claw Legendary Strikes require level 15 rather than level 9. Is that deliberate?

Thanks!