Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Nail]

If we asked them a question and we disregarded it, why else bother asking them in the first place?

Because we hope they read the rules text before answering? Is that too much to ask?

Besides, I think HeapThaumaturgist has the right of it: The "balance" of the WB does not lie in how the WB recharges. It lies in all of the goodies it gets.

 

[Nail]

As for balance, again, the designers have admitted that it's not supposed to stand up to your conventional warrior types.

And that, in fact, is the whole point of this thread.

 

[charlesatan]

Besides, I think HeapThaumaturgist has the right of it: The "balance" of the WB does not lie in how the WB recharges. It lies in all of the goodies it gets.

Yes, it gets a lot of goodies, but it still doesn't give you a feat every other level. =) Heck, we could argue about the Psychic Warrior who gets both feats and psionic powers but we're not.

I think we all have a clear-cut conception of both classes. If I want feats, Ftr. Maneuevers, WB.

 

[charlesatan]

And that, in fact, is the whole point of this thread.

There is a difference, you know, between a good, strong class and broken-ness. =) And the fact that Ftr-types and Martial Adepts work on a different paradigm.

 

[Nail]

Sure. I suspect WB crosses that line.

That said, I've allowed a WB into my game (with d10 HD). There is a straight classed Ftr in the game.

I'll know soon enough.

 

[Nail]

I think we all have a clear-cut conception of both classes. If I want feats, Ftr. Maneuevers, WB.

If it were really that simple......

BTW, have you seen a straight classed Ftr at mid-levels? How 'bout a WB?

 

[charlesatan]

Again, Full Attacks just aren't the be-all end-all. "Feats" don't apply to Full Attacks, usually, any more than Maneuvers do. Feats usually provide a situational bonus, much like a Maneuver or Stance does (but without the wuxia "and then I fly through the air and blow you up and make your eyeballs bleed for three rounds"). Specialization would apply to every attack in a full attack action ... buy wait, the Warblade gets that too. But better.

Errr, no. Mobility, for example, applies all the time, and the same goes for Improved Toughness. Some feats are situational, some aren't. Maneuvers for me are like spells. You won't be using the same maneuver twice in a row, but it is a bang when you use one. As for Weapon Spec., I'm sure the WB looks good on paper, but when you're making your character, you'll notice the feats aren't enough (especially if you're qualifying for the Master of Nine prestige class).

hoooooboy. I was biting my nails wondering if I could convince my GM to let me retcon the 14th level of Cleric I took at the end of the last session and replace it with a level of Crusader. The multiclassing rules for this book seem to be, in a word, INSANE. My character is already the leading damage-dealing beatstick, and picking up five maneuvers and a stance would just skyrocket my dishing.

Depends on your Cleric concept actually. As a healer, you're still better off as a Cleric. As a combat Cleric, the dips would be nice.

So far, the Crusader seems to be pretty cool ... I like the flavor, and none of the abilities seem way way out there. Unfortunately, I'm really REALLY convinced that many of these Manuevers and Stances are, in and of themselves, well worth a whole feat ... and the martial adept classes get quite a few of them. That they are "expended" and "refreshed" seems ... not really that much of a balance, to me. If I have, say, a powerful Charge-related feat, I can't just use that feat every round, round after round ... there's only so many situations in which you will need/want/be able to charge the enemy. So a Strike that lets you charge without taking AoOs AND deal +10 damage on the charge ... that it is then "Expended" doesn't seem to make it weaker than any charge feat I've heard of.

In a way, they are worth a feat (and with the 2nd-level spell heroism, you get just that, a fighter bonus feat which in turn can be used to get a maneuver) but the same can be said for spells.

There's a Strike in there that deals just a straight +8d8 damage. Yeow. By my reading of the rules, if my 14th level character took his 15th level in Crusader, I could actually pick that one up. Last session, at 14th level, I put down a 99 damage hit, without any crits ... "Add 8d8 to that?" "Yes, please."

That's where Full Attack comes into play. If you're facing weenies, low hp monsters, the full attack doesn't count as much but when you're facing the big baddie, it's a question of whether I want 3/4/5 attacks, or one attack with +8d8 damage? (The answer depends on other factors such as your damage bonus... if you're wielding a dagger and have a Str of 10, I'd take the 8d8 damage.)

 

[charlesatan]

If it were really that simple......

BTW, have you seen a straight classed Ftr at mid-levels? How 'bout a WB?

The thing about feats and maneuvers is that they're semi-interchangeable. I mean a 20th-level character can be Warblade 16/Fighter 4 (taking Ftr 4 not last but early on) and he'd still have access to 9th-level maneuvers. And the reverse is semi effective as well: a Ftr 16/WB 4 can net you 6th-level maneuvers. You also have to bear in mind that maneuvers can be taken by anyone (would it have seemed more balancing to you if Ftrs counted as initiator levels? -- a house rule to consider) and not just martial adepts.

I think we've all seen straight-classed Ftr. Of course it's only with the PHB 2 released that Ftrs became a lot more competitive (and have a place to dump all their feats, even if they're just concentrating on one weapon). The WB is easier to theorycraft because you only have your maneuvers to check. What a mid-level WB must ask himself is whether he'll do more damage using a maneuver or with a full attack. And at mid-level, there's really no over-the-top maneuver. The maneuvers that come close are probably the x2 damage with a Concentration check, +2d6 fire damage if you manage to get Desert Wind maneuvers, or perhaps an extra attack with each weapon (which is part of a Full Attack so it's a nice boost since you still retain your full attack). But other than that, the main benefits of WB isn't in his offense but in his defensive capabilities or the ability to change stances (adapting to the situation).

 

[charlesatan]

That said, I've allowed a WB into my game (with d10 HD). There is a straight classed Ftr in the game.

The thing about optimizing both classes is that it's easier to optimize a WB since 1) you're not reliant as much on magic items, and 2) there's only a few maneuvers and a lot of them are good. Feats, on the other hand, are drawn from a wide variety of books, and high-level Fighters are dependent on magic items. Of course straight-classed Fighters are also hard to mess up since "wasting" a feat isn't as crippling as it is to other classes, and honestly, you're limited to few attack options (attack, charge, full attack, etc.).

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

There is a difference, you know, between a good, strong class and broken-ness. =) And the fact that Ftr-types and Martial Adepts work on a different paradigm.

What're the different paradigms?

It's a whole other GAME, personally. These things need their own campaign setting with its own custom rules, new flavors, etc. One in which the martial adepts are the ONLY martial classes to be chosen from. Martial Adepts plus ... I'd say like the Shujenga and the other asian-flavored casters, not the wizard, maybe the Sorc, probably the Warmage.

It's just, I think, not fair to introduce these classes into a game in which Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins exist. They're just so far away and gone in terms of power, ahem, "paradigm" that it's seriously sad to put them in the same game.

I'm not saying they're not fun to play, or that people are bad people for enjoying them or wanting to play them, but phrases like: "Shouldn't be compared to the martial characters" or "more in line with spellcasters" are, to me, code-phrases for "broke as hell".

I don't think there's some huge and yawning chasm of power between the existing martial classes and the spellcasters. I think there are some poorly thought-out individual issues ... namely Natural Spell and the existing way Wildshape encourages 8Str, 8Dex, 8Con Druid-feebs who then pop over into Dire Bears while still casting. I just nix Natural Spell. One feat, as opposed to creating a whole different GAME.

I think certain spells, especially some expansion-product spells, can be of questionable power when interacting with other spells, but I bar those instead of ... creating a whole new GAME.

Having PLAYED the infamously broken beatstick buff-n-slaughter cleric ... the fix is found in three words: Targeted Dispel Magic. GRRRRRRR. We hates it, my Precious, we do. But, at the same time, MAN is that effective for dealing with pesky god-roiders. A few judicious outsiders with Dispel Magic as an SLA are almost impossible to stop. Can't silence, grapple, counterspell, or become immune to it. Additionally, if you just ban a few badly-thought-out feats like Divine Metamagic, boom, balance. No need to create a whole new game.

Claiming that the martial adepts should be considered in a special happy land all their own is just shuffling the issue under the rug. They're broken. Unless you let the spellcasters shamelessly exploit a few particular loopholes, even THEY are going to get spanked by these guys. It's CLASSIC power creep ... one "correctable" issue is, instead of being dealt with, exacerbated by inflating the power of the next expansion.

--fje