Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Victim]

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 manuever(stikes) 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.

Yeah, full attacks aren't always the norm, so standard action strikes or full action ones that allow some form of movement are a significant boon for the warblade. On the other hand, some tricks like Leap Attack or Shock Trooper only work on charge attacks so the fighter has some options for not losing all his damage on a single attack. Spirited Charge can also work (but that's more a pally trick). Grappling will often be a strong choice for a monk limited to a single attack, so even if they lose out on lots of damage compared to a full attack, they're still potentially restricting their opponent significantly.

As far as buffing, I don't think it helps the warblade as much. An extra attack from haste is a big help to the fighter, but the warblade's strikes will often prevent the attack from being used. Also, if the warblade is using manuevers to compress his action into a single attack at his highest bonus, then the impact of +attack and damage buffs is greatly diminished.

Since characters can't combine immediate and swift actions, it's usually Counters or Boosts plus a Strike and Stance.

At low levels, the fighter probably has Cleave, while the warblade is using the move that lets him attack two opponents. I think it'd probably take until mid levels for the differences to start to show up. Also, the low level swordsage player hates his character because the amount of known manuevers forces them to be generalists instead of focusing on the player's prefered disciplines.

 

[catsclaw227]

ignore post.... I misread something in my book about swordsages.....

 

[Perun]

I think the fighter is able to hold his own in the game, especially with PHB II feats (which, I believe, should be allowed in the game that aloows for various other accessories).

IMO, the one thing warblade definitely has over fighter is his Weapon Aptitude -- a fighter should be able to gain it, either as a house-ruled class ability, or it being made into a (fighter bonus) feat (perhaps even a fighter-exclusive one, like Weapon Specialisation). In fact, I think that could be my first house rule (giving it to the fighter as a bonus ability).

I'm also not overly fond of fighter's lack of skills and skill points, but then again, an Int 18 rogue has too few skill points for my tastes, so I'm a little biased in that regard

IMC, I've got a warforged warblade 2, and he's pretty good. Then again, we've never had a straight fighter in our group (psychic warriors and barbarians are meleers of choice in our group), so I really can't compare. I'd consider playing one (in fact, If I ever decide to play a meleer, it'd be a choice between a fighter, knight (PHB II) or soulknife (XPH)), but I usually play spellcasters.

Regards.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm currently playing a Barbarian1/Cleric13 character ... buffed to the gillies and using Strength Domain I have a reasonable chance of landing a full three-strike full-attack, if I don't dump too much to Power Attack.

And, then, I think I topped out around 200 damage. Which, at this level, seems to beat anything Medium to death in a single round.

But, in play, that's really RARE to pull off. Usually it's something in the nature of the GM sacrificing a Pawn to my Bishop. More often, I'm buzzing around the battlefield utilizing my increased movement rate to lay down the hurt with single large attacks with strategic use of Power Attack.

I just think the ToB classes take too much away from the melee classes that exist now. I mean, seriously, giving Warblade fighter specialization, only ten times better because he can ALWAYS be specialized in that new cool item they found, was a kick in the teeth while the other guy was down. That he waits two levels is all but redundant. I'm sure if you asked people playing a Fighter if they'd like to wait until level 6 to get Specialization, but they can use it with any weapon, they'd jump on that chance.

I know from personal playing experience that being tied to a single weapon or type of weapon can be a pretty big drag. Right now my character uses a Weapon of Legacy greatclub and I've got a 32,300gp +4 equiv longsword hanging off his belt just in case he gets disarmed ... the WoL abilities and character cost sacrifices are too great to trade out using weapons.

--fje

 

[Particle_Man]

I'm also not overly fond of fighter's lack of skills and skill points, but then again, an Int 18 rogue has too few skill points for my tastes, so I'm a little biased in that regard

You might want to borrow the "Skill Groups" idea from Iron heroes. they associate skills into groups of 3 or so skills, and give certain classes access to certain groups, meaning that if a class spends one skill point on a skill group the class has access to, he gains a rank in every skill in that group. I think this helps with the skill point deficit problem.

 

[brehobit]

My opinion is that all three ToB classes are better than the warrior classes in the PHB.

We had a twinked out swordsage level 5 in our party. He was very powerful....

Mark

 

[starwed]

One nice benefit that ToB classes, which I haven't seen mentioned, is that they can use shields with little penalty.

Outside of ToB, there are two main ways to deal a lot of melee damage: Use a 2-handed weapon and power attack, or dual weild and get lots of per attack bonuses. Both mean you either don't have a shield, or you burn a feat to carry a buckler. (And take a penalty to attack at the same time.)

While a ToB build has no problem in strapping on that large shield and dishing out their maneuvers with a longsword. There's going to be some loss of damage, but it's going to be a very good trade off for the AC you're getting.

Still, I'm inclined to think that the system as a whole is ok, but one thing that's definately overpowerful is the one level dip. A fighter taking a single level of crusader or warblade get's a hell of a lot more than a feat for their effort.

 

[Iscariot]

The ToB classes lack the versatility of the paladin and ranger due to the spellcasting those classes have, and the ToB classes lack the ranged-oomph of he core classes. The one thing they DO have going for them is making melee classes that are useful at higher levels. Every fighter won't be a spiked-chain wielder or two-handed power-attacker. The options it opens up encourages more melee characters. In most games, why would people bother playing a fighter whan druids and clerics can do it better?

 

[Victim]

The ToB classes lack the versatility of the paladin and ranger due to the spellcasting those classes have, and the ToB classes lack the ranged-oomph of he core classes. The one thing they DO have going for them is making melee classes that are useful at higher levels. Every fighter won't be a spiked-chain wielder or two-handed power-attacker. The options it opens up encourages more melee characters. In most games, why would people bother playing a fighter whan druids and clerics can do it better?

In my experience, high level fighter types are powerhouses. Sure, you can assume that fighters will have ineffective builds, but I can just as easily assume that the casters picked crap spells.

 

[Nightfall]

High level powerhouses that can still get themselves enchanted/dominated/held or barbequed on a failed Reflex/Will save.

(would like to meet the high level crappy spellcaster even at 5th level. )