Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Nail]

A player of mine has asked to play either a Warblade or Swordsage (from the WotC book: Tome of Battle - the Book of Nine Swords). I'm wondering what the general opinion is on these classes.

Swordsage:
The swordsage seems to have a mis-print in their skill points per level. It should be 4 pts per level, not 6, right?

If we compare Swordsage (SS) to Mnk, the SS has the adaptability, via it's maneuvers and
stances, to overcome almost any weakness it may have. The Mnk, OTOH, has abilities that are fixed, and it's awfully easy to build a poor Mnk. Both get average BAB, and the Mnk gets a better Fort save. But as for class abilities, the SS has the Mnk beat, hands down. It gets *lots* of maneuvers and stances. And AC favors the SS over Mnk.

****************
Warblade:
Comparing the Ftr to the WB:

Ftr                                WB
d10 HD                             d12 HD
Good BAB                           Good BAB
Good Fort, Poor Ref & Will         Good Fort, Poor Ref & Will
2 skill pts/lvl                    4 skill pts/lvl
Skills:                            Skills:
   Climb, Craft,                      Balance, Climb,
   Handle Animal,                     Concentration, Craft,
   Intimidate, Jump,                  Diplomacy, Intimidate,
   Know(local),                       Jump, Know(History),
   Ride, Swim                         Know(local), 
                                      Martial Lore, Swim,
                                      Tumble
Class Abilities:                   Class Abilities:
   1 bonus feat/2 lvls                Maneuvers & Stances,
                                      Battle Clarity(1st),
                                      Weapon Aptitude(1st),
                                      Uncanny Dodge(2nd),
                                      Battle Ardor(3rd)
                                      Bonus Feats(5th, 9th, 13th, 17th),
                                      Imp. Uncanny Dodge(6th),
                                      Battle Cunning(7th),
                                      Battle Skill(11th),
                                      Battle Mastery(15th),
                                      Stance Mastery(20th).

Comments:
**The WB has a better skill list and skill points than the fighter. The tumble skill alone is worth the whole fighter list.

**In some campaigns, Weapon aptitude is huge. Not only can you take the Weapon Specialization feats (which normally only a Ftr can take), but you can shift that Weapon Focus feat to whatever weapon you happen to have on hand.

**The "Battle" class abilities are good stuff, but not over-the-top. It makes the WB's Int score important. Does the Ftr have anything to match this? Feats, I guess. But....

**The maneuvers and stances are what “match” the Ftr bonus feats. And given my read through, they at least tie the Ftr bonus feats in power. They are very _cool_ abilities, and I can't wait to see 'em in practice. But these things are not just “sub-“feats. Each is the equivalent to a spell or psionic ability. I guess my main question here is: "What does the WB lose to gain the "Battle" abilities and the maneuvers and stances?"

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think most people feel that Tome of Battle was a significant moment of power-creep. Though that may be because I'm in their number.

We're in the middle of an Age of Worms campaign, so I haven't had a chance to playtest it thoroughly, but I can't really see somebody playing a Monk or Fighter to much appreciate having the Tome of Battle classes introduced. The major argument FOR ToB usually boils down to: "I think Monk and Fighter suck, so these classes being more powerful is good."

I think the concepts are cool, but I'd rather introduce them as feats for the Fighter and other existing martial classes to have access to. I'd save the ToB classes for a campaign where Fighter/Monk/Barbarian were replaced entirely with those classes.

--fje

 

[Crothian]

I think it depends in what we call overpowered. Is it overpowered compared to the fighter? I think yes (however this can depend on what feat options that fighter has). Is it overpowered compared to the Cleric? I don't think so.

 

[Nail]

I'm less interested in how a Warblade compares to a Cleric (or a Psion, or a Druid, or....) than how it compares to a Ftr, Bbn, Pal, or Rgr.

How does it compare?

(I think it's also fair to assume that if Tome of Battle is available, then PH II - and its feats - is available.)

 

[Victim]

A player of mine has asked to play either a Warblade or Swordsage (from the WotC book: Tome of Battle - the Book of Nine Swords). I'm wondering what the general opinion is on these classes.

Swordsage:
The swordsage seems to have a mis-print in their skill points per level. It should be 4 pts per level, not 6, right?

If we compare Swordsage (SS) to Mnk, the SS has the adaptability, via it's maneuvers and
stances, to overcome almost any weakness it may have. The Mnk, OTOH, has abilities that are fixed, and it's awfully easy to build a poor Mnk. Both get average BAB, and the Mnk gets a better Fort save. But as for class abilities, the SS has the Mnk beat, hands down. It gets *lots* of maneuvers and stances. And AC favors the SS over Mnk.

I don't know about that. There's often a significant opportunity cost to using a manuever since many replace your normal attack action. While monk abilities are generally less powerful, they easily work in conjunction with each other. My monk ended up using pretty much all of his combat abilities at the same time, while the swordsage can generally only run any one of his stances, plus any one of his strikes, plus any one of his boosts at any given moment. And Greater Flurry is no small thing either. Plus since the swordsage recovery method kind of sucks and they can only ready one copy of a manuever, it seems likely they'll burn through their better moves rather quickly - or they'll won't have the chance to use their larger array of manuevers.

The warblade is probably less broken than it looks at first glance. On one of the other ToB threads awhile back I ran some numbers on a warblade spamming Time Stands Still versus a fighter full attacking, and the deficet the fighter needed to cover with his unspent feats wasn't nearly as great as I thought. And mean Fighter/Barbarian (and/or PrC) types can probably compete on an even basis with warblades.

Of course, I haven't seen the new classes in play yet either. Hopefully our group will get a chance to test them out soon.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You know, one major balancing factor that never seems to come up is that many of the maneuvers require the warblade/crusader/swordsage use a standard action. At high levels, whent he fighter is making multiple attacks, with all sorts of fighter bonus feats stacked on him, that loss of iterative attacks is huge. I've seen high-level fighters deal out multiple hundreds of HP in damage in one round at very high levels. At least some of the time, the ToB character is going to have to sacrifice that to use his abilities.

(And yes, I know that not all the ToB abilities require this, but there are enough of them that it's a factor.)

Edit: And Victim beat me to it.

 

[RigaMortus2]

**In some campaigns, Weapon aptitude is huge. Not only can you take the Weapon Specialization feats (which normally only a Ftr can take), but you can shift that Weapon Focus feat to whatever weapon you happen to have on hand.

My favorite trick is to take Exotic Weapon Proficency and the use Weapon Aptitude to switch it around, so I can be good at a Spiked Chain, Bastard Sword, or whatever the situation calls for.

 

[Crothian]

How do they compare?

This is assuming that all classes have full access to a wide variety of D&D books as that is how I play. If we start limioted the books accessiable, the Warblade and Swordsage start to look much better. Also, I'm not assuming pure min maxing.

Against the Ranger and Paladin, I think they compare well. Rangers and Paladins are more versatile and I think their spells really are a big plus for those classes. In a stricty combat approach the Warblade and Swordsage are better, but then so is the Fighter and Barbarian.

Against the Barbarian, I think it favors the Warblade and Spellsword a little becasue they are more versatile in combat with the options they get. However, Barbarians have a better skill list for outside of combat.

Against Fighters I again thing they have an advantage. But I haven't really looked on how a fighter can take advantage of the options from the Book of Nine Swords.

I'm not sure I would call the advantage overpowered, but they are more powerful.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Plus since the swordsage recovery method kind of sucks and they can only ready one copy of a manuever, it seems likely they'll burn through their better moves rather quickly - or they'll won't have the chance to use their larger array of manuevers.

This is why the Adaptive Stlye feat is a MUST for a Swordsage. Instead of using a full round action to recover one maneuver, they can use Adaptive Style to use a full round action and recover all their moves.

 

[Nail]

I've read some of the analyses of Warblade, and they all *start* at 20th level. I don't know about you, but my players don't start at 20th. They start at 1st. And they spend quite a bit of time between 1st and 20th.

Many of the maneuvers (strikes) require a standard or a full-round action. Is that the only drawback? I, too, have been in games where full-attacking Bbn/Ftrs have done 100's of points of damage per round...but that was when they were full-attacking (*and* buffed by the Cleric and Wizard, which could happen to the warblade too). Full attacks are not always the norm in combat.

Counters and Boosts and Stances can be layered on top of Strikes....that action limitation starts to sound like less of a drawback.