Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Nail]

Hold on.

If he can recharge as a Swift action, what's to say he can't make a melee attack using a now-recharged maneuver?

 

[Nail]

Ah...got it. The next part says you can't do that.

Maneuvers Readied: ...

...You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon). You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.

So the rounds might go:

Round 1: Perform an uber-maneuver.

Round 2: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.

Round 3: Perform an uber-maneuver.

Round 4: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.

etc.

 

[Victim]

Yeah, but the character would likely be better off using a cycle that packs a few manuevers before recharging. For instance, the warblade uses a standard attack manuever on his approach, follows up with something that uses a full attack, then recharges while finishing his enemy off - plus he could throw a pair of counters. Then he moves to the next baddy and starts the cycle over.

 

[Nail]

Depends on the maneuvers, of course. It wouldn't be a bad thing to use Emerald Razor and a Power Attack one round (assume 2-Hd Weapon), then full attack the next while getting back the Emerald Razor. Etc.

The relevant points are, I guess, that

• Uber-maneuvers may be done once every other round with little loss of fighting effectiveness, and
• anytime your Warblade is Full Attacking, he might as well be recharging his maneuvers.

I, like dvvega, had initially read the recharge action as essentially a special kind of Standard Action with 1 melee attack thrown in. That was an incorrect reading.

 

[Nail]

Yep, and the Fighter is also doing full-attack actions every round with all those feats too, while the warblade is only making 1 standard action a round.

This is bandied about a bit too much, I think. You're implying that the Fighter's bonus feats are equal to (if not better than?) the Warblade's maneuvers. Is that full-round-attacking fighter better than the Warblade's standard action attack per round?

I'm not (yet) convinced either way, even after writing up comparisons for several levels of each. The tendency seems to swing in the Warblade's favor, but.....

....We'll see, I guess.

Try stating out a Ftr 3 and a WB 3 (human) for example. WB wins, easily.

At 9th level, it's a lot closer ...it might be equal, depending on what books you use (for bonus feats). Still, I'd say the WB wins.

At 15th level, I think the WB wins again......but I'd like to see that in play before I know for sure.

At 20th level the equipment becomes such a large part of the PC, I'm not sure comparing classes becomes relevant, really.

 

[Aaron L]

"waaaah. Fighters are not as fun as warblades!"

So don't play a fighter! Play a warblade!

Are you being serious?

Seriously, I'm completely baffled by your statement.

PS thanks Felon. Woofy dieing was pretty much the culmination of the worst week of my life.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

"waaaah. Fighters are not as fun as warblades!"

So don't play a fighter! Play a warblade!

Didn't see this the first time through.

Not picking on you, Epoch, but this is pretty much my major complaint with the ToB stuff in general and the Warblade in particular.

Often, it seems to me, the crux of the pro/con argument boils down to the pro side saying: "The Fighter sucks, so these classes being better in general is okay."

Which, no, I don't think that's okay at all. If the major argument in favor of these things is that the fighter sucks and something that supercedes the fighter in every way is therefor okay, that's pretty much the definition of Power Inflation, right there.

I've lived through editions with rampant power inflation, and I really don't want D&D to go that way again. I'm willing to look at particular supplements and say: "In a vaccuum, this new option would be okay, but in combination with these others it becomes broken, so I'm not going to put it in my game." But it makes me sad when I look at a supplement and say: "Huh, this takes a core class in the game, drags it into a dark alley, and mugs it." And that's what I say when I read Bo9S.

I don't think mugging the Fighter if the Fighter isn't "fun enough" is okay ... I like to see more feats, different types of feats, like Weapon Style feats and the higher-level tactical feats and such that add more options and flavor and, if needed, POWER to the Fighter ... not just scrapping it, stealing what class abilities it had and making them better, and releasing a new book.

--fje

 

[Slaved]

Fighters power level is completely dependent on what feats he has available. Given a poor list of feats then the fighter will be poor, given an overpowerd list of feats then the fighter can be overpowered.

For myself, given the choice between playing a fighter and playing any other core class I would pick any other core class.

Putting the warblade into the list doesnt change anything, I still wouldn't pick the fighter.

If it is a character build perhaps having a couple of splash levels of fighter would be ok, but that would be the end of it and it would be a very tough call to even go that far.

For the thread, depending on the list of feats available the fighter could be better or worse than a warblade in a list of situations but overall the warblade simply looks like it would be more fun or interesting to play and has many options without having to dig through a dozen books to make the character. Even if the warblade is better at every fighting style who cares? The fighter is boring and has a scary tendency to suck. It doesn't look like the warblade is better in every way though, simply more interesting. Fighters are still the king of feats.



This was written while I was posting:"HeapThaumaturgist
Often, it seems to me, the crux of the pro/con argument boils down to the pro side saying: "The Fighter sucks, so these classes being better in general is okay."

Which, no, I don't think that's okay at all. If the major argument in favor of these things is that the fighter sucks and something that supercedes the fighter in every way is therefor okay, that's pretty much the definition of Power Inflation, right there."

I would say that it is not so much power inflation as it is fixing a problem that was introduced early on with a creative and fun solution.

The fighter has an issue with needing a large variety of feats to choose from, a lack of good skills, a lack of skill points, and generally a very boring progression. Placing in more feats helps the fighter. Each time a new feat comes out the total possible builds for fighters increases greatly.

I'd like to see them fix the fighter directly in addition to adding classes like the warblade myself. Having lots of choices which are all fun is an important goal.

 

[Felon]

I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.

Yes, the warblade must follow his swift action with a melee attack. Nothing in the description limits him to one attack in that round, however.

Text in question

The use of the wording here is pretty obvious and explicit.

What's obvious is that the description does not explicitly forbid a full-attack action in the slightest. You are merely inferring as much, concluding that the requirement to follow the swift action with a melee attack represents the sum total of action the warblade can take for the entire round. But that's an inferrence, nothing more.

So the rounds might go:
Round 1: Perform an uber-maneuver.
Round 2: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.
Round 3: Perform an uber-maneuver.
Round 4: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.
etc.

Yeppers.

 

[Nail]

Often, it seems to me, the crux of the pro/con argument boils down to the pro side saying: "The Fighter sucks, so these classes being better in general is okay."

Which, no, I don't think that's okay at all. If the major argument in favor of these things is that the fighter sucks and something that supercedes the fighter in every way is therefor okay, that's pretty much the definition of Power Inflation, right there.

Exactly.

....and yet I recognize that for some people, power inflation isn't necessarily a Bad Thing(tm), and that the Ftr core class will always be a "dip" class on the way to a PrC that's cool. Sobeit.

Wouldn't it be cooler, though, if the Warblade was balanced with respect to the Ftr (as is)?

Fighters power level is completely dependent on what feats he has available. Given a poor list of feats then the fighter will be poor, given an overpowerd list of feats then the fighter can be overpowered.

If we restrict ourselves to WotC (non-campaign specific) books, I'd disagree with you. The Ftr just doesn't get enough bonus feats to take advantage of all that "great feat goodness" out there in WotC-land.

IMHO, a Ftr should get

Spoiler

a bonus feat every level

....but that's a house rule, so I'll leave that out.

Spoiler

..and even then, my write-ups show the Ftr trailing the Warblade slightly, I think.