Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[glass]

Actually the best way to make a FAIR comparison between a warblade and fighter is to make them the same race, with the same exact attribute scores, same equipment, and the same level of course. Only things allowed to be different is class and choice of feats.

Then let them fight eachother, but instead of rolling, assume every dice roll comes up 15 on a d20 (yes, far higher than average, but if it were a 10 nobody'd ever hit). Assume every damage roll comes up dead average.

That is a terrible way to compare them. Apart from the fact that one-on-one combat is hardly the best test, but you can't expect a fighter and WB to choose the same ability scores, so you are skewing things in favour of which ever class the scores you do choose suits.

And you can't just arbtrarily assume that all the dice will come up 15+. If you can't get any usefull results by taking the average (which seems unlikely given how attack bonuses tend to outtrip ACs), then you have to roll the dice (lots of times) and record the results.


glass.

 

[charlesatan]

"Mang, them full attacks be the bomb-diggity." is sort of irrelevant ... in fact, I think saying: "But many maneuvers don't allow for a Full Attack." is also largely irrelevant. I've played a melee combatant from 3rd-15th level at this point, and I RARELY find myself in the position to perform a full attack. I can buff and bash a full attack with the best of them, but here are the issues:

* On even a slightly dynamic battlefield, people are rarely within a 5' step of your beatstick.
* If the badguy has placed himself into a position where he will be Full Attacked, it often means he's ready to suck up that full attack and dish out his own.
* If you have placed yourself into a position to Full Attack, you're in a position to suck up a Full Attack from the guy you want to wail on.
* At levels where "The Full Attack Action" begin to show up, even for full BAB characters, you're fighting creatures who are specifically designed A) To survive one or more full attacks from multiple characters and B) Have the Strength and HD to make their own Full Attack as nasty or MORE nasty than your Fighter-type.

The Full Attack is not a magic cure-all where monsters explode because "The Fighter" has assaulted them with his "Feats". What "Feats" are these that cause all of the monsters to drop over dead with a Full Attack? Power Attack? PA ups your damage at the expense of your attack bonus, and your Full Attack is at progressively lower attack bonuses ... meaning when you Power Attack you're trading more damage for fewer hits. I can't recall too many feats that are useful for Full Attacks that aren't stand-alone or very short chains, so I don't see where "Feats" make "Full Attacks" the ultimate weapon in the Fighter arsenal any more than the full attack and a few good feats can be strapped onto a Warblade or a Swordsage or a Monk.

Now, if the D&D Podcast folks are saying that these classes are overpowered, and they are. "Don't measure them against the melee classes, measure them against the spellcasting classes." That's saying: "Yea, it's a power creep, but look ... SHINY NEW CLASSES!"

The "full attack" option depends on what you're facing. At low-levels, they're not as important (as you'll be just having one attack anyway). At higher levels, it's best suited against the "elite" foes (usually those with equal or higher CR than you and not really the "cleavable" monsters). But yes, getting into Full Attack position is difficult (which is why the White Raven school is useful), but more often than not, once you're there, you'll be full attacking round after round unless they're already dead or they're the spring attack-types.

The feats are important because they're consistent bonuses. And they're not necessarily there to give you more damage output, but for other benefits as well (i.e. Tactical Feats, combat options, etc.).

In a way, there is some sense comparing them to spellcaster types. For one thing, their abilities are nearly spell-like, and you do expend them. The problem with Fighters is that they're dull due to the fact that they're stuck with Full Attack as their main attack option.

 

[charlesatan]

It would be interesting to see a well-built (test) fighter, to compare him to Nail's warblade. I'd do it myself, but I'm lousy at optimisation of any sort. Any takers?

The thing is the dynamics of a martial adept is different from a fighter.

As I said before, the strength of a Fighter is consistent full attacks, while a martial adept is in the first few (but crucial) rounds. If a Fighter went one on one against a martial adept, he'd need to survive the first three rounds before his consistent damage comes into play to average things out.

Second is the power curve of the martial adept. I'd say he's strongest in the early levels (where no one has iterative attacks anyway), and on high levels (because let's face it, that's where we're talking about the juicy abilities, such as two full attacks, a single quadruple damage attack, two extra attacks with each weapon, +3d6 fire damage with each strike, etc.). I'd say a Fighter has equal chance to shine with a Warblade at the 8th-12th level.

Of course outside of combat, the Warblade trumps the fighter.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The crusader is less of a problem because of the random nature of his maneuvers. The lack of control is very limiting. A maneuver that aids in a charge is usually worthless if you don't get it on the first round.

Actually, the Crusader is probably the most broken of them all. If the Crusader picks his maneuvers carefully, he can actually have access to all his maneuvers every round once he goes through the cycle at least once.

I will break down how this works...

If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you.

Here is an example of what happens:

Start of Round 1
3 Maneuvers GRANTED
2 Maneuvers WITHHELD
(Player does not EXPEND any Maneuvers)

End Round 1, 1 Withheld Maneuvers becomes granted as such:
4 Maneuvers GRANTED
1 Maneuvers WITHHELD

Start of Round 2
4 Maneuvers GRANTED
1 Maneuvers WITHHELD
(Player does not EXPEND any Maneuvers)

End Round 2, 1 Withheld Maneuvers becomes granted as such:
5 Maneuvers GRANTED
0 Maneuvers WITHHELD

Start of Round 3
5 Maneuvers GRANTED
0 Maneuvers WITHHELD
Player expends 2 Maneuvers (1 strike, and 1 boost), which now looks like this:
3 Maneuvers GRANTED
2 Maneuvers EXPENDED
0 Maneuvers WITHHELD

End Round 2. Going on the quote provided above from ToB... We have can not be granted a manuever because we have no withheld maneuvers remaining. What happens? I recover all EXPENDED Maneuvers (in this case, 2 have been expended) and a new pair (that means 2) of maneuvers is GRANTED to me. I already have 3 GRANTED Maneuvers, but a new pair gets granted to me, so I am back to 5 Granted Maneuvers.

There ya go. After 3 rounds of combat, you will have all your maneuvers available to you provided you can use at least 2 maneuvers every round.

(Sorry if this has been brought up already, didn't get to read all pages)

 

[BASHMAN]

That is a terrible way to compare them. Apart from the fact that one-on-one combat is hardly the best test, but you can't expect a fighter and WB to choose the same ability scores, so you are skewing things in favour of which ever class the scores you do choose suits.

And you can't just arbtrarily assume that all the dice will come up 15+. If you can't get any usefull results by taking the average (which seems unlikely given how attack bonuses tend to outtrip ACs), then you have to roll the dice (lots of times) and record the results.
.

Ah, you might be right. Change to the following: Assume that each character has a 14 in every stat (thus it is not more/less beneficial to either one) and instead of always rolling a 15, make it be that each round they roll exactly the same on a d20. That way when one crits, the other crits, etc.

The point of this is not to allow random luck to be the deciding factor. "The warblade rolled 4 natural 20s in a row? That's it, it must be a broken class!" That is the kind of argument we need to avoid.

 

[Shazman]

Yeah, but isn't three rounds a long time to be in the thick of a fight without using your precious class abilities? I'm not sure if these new classes are overpowered, but they add a lot of adaptability and excitement to combat rather than I hit x AC for x damage over and over again. Most martial adept classes will burn through their maneuvers faster than a 3.0 hasted wizard would burn through spells, so longer fights will favor the core melee classes over the Tome of Battle ones. The warblade can recover these as a standard action, so it may be over the top, but I still bet it can't beat a frenzied berserker.

 

[starwed]

longer fights will favor the core melee classes over the Tome of Battle ones.

Actually, the crusader pretty much never runs out of maneuvers.

After playing using the ToB, I think that, even if it's not unbalanced, they could have made the maneuvers lower powered. It still would have been a lot of fun to play with.

 

[Nail]

All that confirms is that CustServ can't (or don't) read. Which we already knew.

Amen!

Again: The actual rules text in the Tob:Bo9S is does NOT say "attack action". That is brutally clear (read it for yourself, page 22, 3rd paragraph). It says "melee attack". This is fundamentally different than a standard action. A melee attack can be part of a standard action or part of a full attack action or.....etc.

If they would like to amend the text by issuing an errata, that's their prerogative. But claiming the text uses one set of words when another set is printed is just irresponsible.

Bad cust-serve. Bad! (shakes rolled-up newspaper)

 

[Nail]

In a way, there is some sense comparing them to spellcaster types. For one thing, their abilities are nearly spell-like, and you do expend them.

I am completely baffled by this type of argument.

WB's are front-line melee combatants. The best comparison would be with another class that is also a front-line melee combatant.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm even perfectly cool with saying the designer might have INTENDED that the Warblade recharge with only a single melee attack as part of a standard action.

I'm not going to say, however: "Wow, dude, totally makes the class not-broken."

As I've said above, I think the class is way past the place where getting in a full attack while getting all of his maneuvers back is going to make it broken. We passed Broke-Class Mountain somewhere a few miles back.

--fje