Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Jhulae]

No, but a martial adept can't prepare the same maneuver either.

That's interesting. Where is that in the book, please?

 

[charlesatan]

That's interesting. Where is that in the book, please?

There's a thread at it at the WotC Optimization boards: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=683775

From CustServ and from Ask Wizards: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060830a

 

[Kmart Kommando]

That's interesting. Where is that in the book, please?

Under 'readying maneuvers', or 'preparing maneuvers', too tired to go look it up, but it is there somewhere. Otherwise, you'd have munchkined-out TWFing warblades popping off double-full-attacks for the first 8 rounds of every combat.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

Flavor-wise, they have this Asian feel to it (much like the monk). Whether it's grouped there with Shugenja and Wu-Jen's and Samurai's (there's an underpowered class no one's complaining about) is up to you, but on the other hand, I can also envision it part of the regular D&D world (we have monks in the PHB don't we?).

As for the other classes, I think they stand well on their own even with martial adepts in the game. Monks and Rangers are significantly different from the typical Fighter archetype, and Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins definitely still have a use despite the existence of Warblades, for example.

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".

Uh, martial adepts are quite similar to spellcasters. The maneuver progression (1st-9th level maneuvers), the fact that they're expended (you don't use the same maneuver consecutively for example), among other things. Of course they're not as powerful as spells of the same level, but they're recoverable, linked often to melee attacks, and most go through SR. So it's spell-like but not quite spells.

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.

Uh, even if you removed Natural Spell, a Druid would still be powerful. Actually spells in itself are powerful. I mean a 20th-level, you're dealing 20d6 damage to an area (lots of targets). Or Meteor Swarm with a ranged touch attack, dealing as much as 24d6 damage to a single target plus some collateral damage.

How do non-spellcasters compete with that in terms of damage output? And if you're gonna compare that to maneuvers, even they don't deal that much damage, at least consecutively (sure, you have the 9th-level desert wind maneuver but that's it).

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.

Martial adepts aren't broken. They're powerful, yes, but they're also not as powerful as spells. Again, even maneuvers don't deal 20d6 damage automatically. And you have to consider that 1) martial adepts can't perform the same attack consecutively except on certain occassions, 2) most of the maneuvers are linked to an attack (and it's not even a touch attack... has it ever occured to you that you'd actually miss, even with Fighter BAB?), and 3) you're melee.

 

[Perun]

I've done it.

With the WB's I posted, I also made a Ftr. That is: same ability scores, same equipment, same theme (both "Greataxe Warriors") for levels 3, 9, 15, and 20. (The 20th level comparison turned out to depend too much on equipment choices, so I dropped it for purposes of comparing the classes.) I started each at 1st level, and made choices for them level-by-level, so no "optimized for level 15, but couldn't possibly get there" PCs.

If you are interested, I could post these. They include a few house rules of ours (Magical equpment has changed, 32 pt buy, Humans gain a +2/-2 on any 2 ability scores, Dodge feat applies to all opponents)...but since this is a comparison, the changes are irrelevant.

The end result seems to be that at 3rd level the WB wins easily, at 9th level it's a tie, and at 15th level the WB wins again.

If it's no trouble, I'd like to see the builds (if for no other reason, I'm interested in ways to build a fighter )

On my side, here's a Psychic Warrior that adventures alongside the warblade I posted earlier. He's about as effective in combat, at leat at these low levels (although the warblade's player is more involved in the game, so his got presence is more strongly felt in the game).[sblock]
Sylathar
Human Psychic Warrior 2
N Medium Humanoid (human, psionic)
Init +2, Sences Listen +1, Spot +1
Languages Common
Action Points 5
-------------------------
AC 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16
(+2 Dex, +4 chain shirt, +2 heavy steel shield)
hp 17 (2d8+2 HD)
Fort +4, Refl +4, Will +3
-------------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 longsword +6 (1d6+4/19-20)
Ranged longbow +3 (1d8/×3)
Attack Options psionics, potion of cure light wounds
Base Atk +1, Grp +4
-------------------------
Powers Known Expansion, thicken skin
Power Points 2
-------------------------
Abilities Str 16, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
SQ human traits
Feats Iron Will(H), Psionic Weapon(B), Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (longsword; B)
Skills Autohypnosis +8, Climb* +6, Concentration +6, Knowledge (psionics) +2
Posessions backpack, whetstone, sunrod (2), heavy steel shield, +1 longsword, longbow, chain shirt, potion of healing (1d8+1)

* Includes armour check penalty armour (but not shield)[/sblock]

 

[Victim]

Uh, martial adepts are quite similar to spellcasters. The maneuver progression (1st-9th level maneuvers), the fact that they're expended (you don't use the same maneuver consecutively for example), among other things. Of course they're not as powerful as spells of the same level, but they're recoverable, linked often to melee attacks, and most go through SR. So it's spell-like but not quite spells.

Uh, even if you removed Natural Spell, a Druid would still be powerful. Actually spells in itself are powerful. I mean a 20th-level, you're dealing 20d6 damage to an area (lots of targets). Or Meteor Swarm with a ranged touch attack, dealing as much as 24d6 damage to a single target plus some collateral damage.

How do non-spellcasters compete with that in terms of damage output? And if you're gonna compare that to maneuvers, even they don't deal that much damage, at least consecutively (sure, you have the 9th-level desert wind maneuver but that's it).

Non spellcasters compete quite handily with that kind of damage. Meteor Swarm, assuming all the touches succeed, does 24d6 fire damage and 8d6 impact damage. That's a mere 112 damage. Raw damage - kind of like when you assume that a fighter hits with all his attacks. Most high level monsters have some SR. Let's give the target SR such that the spell fails 30% of the time (not unreasonable for most outsiders assuming the wizard has some spell pen stuff) and our caster's net damage is down to ~78. Add in 10 points of fire resistance and you're looking at 38 damage (since Meteor Swarm does its fire damage in 4 separate bursts).

Sure, it looks like a huge pile of damage with all those d6s, but by the time you include SR, energy resistances, saves, it's not so great. Just like you need to know about AC and DR to see how a fighter type is going to work. Knowing that something hits for 50 damage is pretty worthless without information about how often it connects.

And while area damage is good, I don't think its value is the damage dealt to one guy times the number of targets. Killing 1 guy is way better than dropping 2 guys to half.

 

[charlesatan]

Non spellcasters compete quite handily with that kind of damage. Meteor Swarm, assuming all the touches succeed, does 24d6 fire damage and 8d6 impact damage. That's a mere 112 damage. Raw damage - kind of like when you assume that a fighter hits with all his attacks. Most high level monsters have some SR. Let's give the target SR such that the spell fails 30% of the time (not unreasonable for most outsiders assuming the wizard has some spell pen stuff) and our caster's net damage is down to ~78. Add in 10 points of fire resistance and you're looking at 38 damage (since Meteor Swarm does its fire damage in 4 separate bursts).

Meteor Swarm was just an example (and I assumed it was targeted at an NPC). The damage can be increased such as via a Greater Rod of Maximization (or Empower if that's your thing). I'd go for the generic blasts though (i.e. Delayed Blast Fireball, Horrid Wilting) since they don't require an attack roll (an auto-hit).

An optimized spellcaster won't really have problems with SR except in rare circumstances. Assay Resistance (+10 caster level to penetrate SR) or Arcane Mastery (take 10 on caster level checks) in combination with Spell Penetration (and other magic items that boost caster level/checks to penetrate SR). Won't help against those immune to spells though.

As for resistances, I'd assume you'd choose the appropriate elemental spell against specific creatures (i.e. not use fire spells when fighting a red dragon). Otherwise, just use the generic damage type of Horrid Wilting (or dessication if you're using Sandstorm), or if you took a level of Archmage, change the energy type into sonic (since few creatures have resistance/immunity to it). If I'm really sideboarding against a creature that normally has protection to the elements (or specializing in either the fire department or cold department), I'd get the feat from either Sandstorm or Frostburn which negates the fire and cold resistance respectively.

What I'm more worried about are those immune to spells (i.e. some golems) and the saves (because a lot of monsters will make the saves, unless I specifically choose a spell [i.e. horrid wilting for those with low Fort saves]).

Sure, it looks like a huge pile of damage with all those d6s, but by the time you include SR, energy resistances, saves, it's not so great. Just like you need to know about AC and DR to see how a fighter type is going to work. Knowing that something hits for 50 damage is pretty worthless without information about how often it connects.

True, but for the most part, most humanoids don't exactly ha ve that type of SR/resistance/high saves, and spells are less chancy connecting compared to several attacks (or in the case of Martial Adepts, one attack against a presumably high AC).

And while area damage is good, I don't think its value is the damage dealt to one guy times the number of targets. Killing 1 guy is way better than dropping 2 guys to half.

Depends. I mean if you're facing the big bad guy who's taking on the entire party by himself, no it's not (at that point, I'd probably go for something like Energy Drain, Enervation, or even the much maligned Polar Ray) and that's what I'm depending the Fighters for. But for crowd control (and the crowd can add up; I mean if I were a level 20 Fighter or even a Warblade, I'd be worried if I were facing 4 unmodified War Trolls), the spellcaster is it, and even the Martial Adepts don't have that kind of advantage (well, they do, but it's just one or two maneuvers, and it's fire damage and has a save as well).

So Victim, the main point is, do you think martial adepts are better than most spellcasters, equal to them, or below them in terms of power?

 

[RigaMortus2]

That might be true, if you don't read the rest of the text, in which it says "..determine randomly which maneuvers are granted and which are withheld.."
Your maneuvers all become unexpended, then ALL of your readied maneuvers are shuffled and then the pair of maneuvers to be granted is randomly selected from all of your readied maneuvers, and the rest become withheld. To do anything else is Munchkin, pure and simple.

Crusaders are only broken if you ignore the rules.

No, your maneuvers don't ALL become unexpended. Where did you get that from? Quote please?

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.

If we have 3 maneuvers granted, and 2 maneuvers expended and 0 maneuvers withheld, we apply the quote above. So we recover all expended maneuvers (in this case, 2) and a new pair (pair means 2) of readied maneuvers is granted to us. We already have 3 granted maneuvers, these haven't been touched, The rules never tell us what to do with our granted maneuvers we currently have, they just tell us that we are given a new pair of granted maneuvers. Those being the 2 maneuvers that were previously expended.

Randomly determine which of your maneuvers are granted and which are withheld.

Well, since we only have 2 maneuvers to worry about, and we are getting back a pair of maneuvers anyway, there isn't much "random determination" involved. But this quote would apply if we had more than 2 maneuvers that were recovered, such as if we had 3. Since you have to randomly determine which pair of the 3 we get back.

At the end of your next turn, a withheld maneuvers is granted to you, and the whole process of divine inspiration begins again.

This quote does not invalidate anything we've done so far. In fact, it comes into play next turn, where we do the same thing again.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

No, your maneuvers don't ALL become unexpended. Where did you get that from? Quote please?

If we have 3 maneuvers granted, and 2 maneuvers expended and 0 maneuvers withheld, we apply the quote above. So we recover all expended maneuvers (in this case, 2) and a new pair (pair means 2) of readied maneuvers is granted to us. We already have 3 granted maneuvers, these haven't been touched, The rules never tell us what to do with our granted maneuvers we currently have, they just tell us that we are given a new pair of granted maneuvers. Those being the 2 maneuvers that were previously expended.

Well, since we only have 2 maneuvers to worry about, and we are getting back a pair of maneuvers anyway, there isn't much "random determination" involved. But this quote would apply if we had more than 2 maneuvers that were recovered, such as if we had 3. Since you have to randomly determine which pair of the 3 we get back.

This quote does not invalidate anything we've done so far. In fact, it comes into play next turn, where we do the same thing again.

Wrong.

Randomly determine which of your maneuvers is granted and which are withheld.

which comes after

You recover all expended maneuvers.

When you recover all expended maneuvers, they become readied again. Then you randomly determine which or your readied maneuvers are granted and which are withheld, just like the begining of combat.

Earlier in the text it says:

Crusaders are unique among the martial adepts, relying on flashes of divine inspirationto use use their martial maneuvers.

Then it describes the random process. Then, at the end of the paragraph describing what to do if you're out of withheld maneuvers, it even says

At the end of your next turn, a withheld maneuver is granted to you, and the whole process of divine inspiration begins again.

It is clearly written how your readied maneuvers are split between granted and withheld, and when to shuffle the pile. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
I'll say it again: twisting words and breaking the rules to make something more powerful than it is, is Munchkin.
Crusader is a simple class to play, once you learn the rules. I recommend doing so.

 

[charlesatan]

RigorMortus, unfortunately, your appraisal of how the Crusader works is simply wrong. This can all be clarified by a sidebar that unfortunate wasn't on the Crusader page:

pg. 38, "Keeping Track of Readied and Expended Maneuvers"

If you're a crusader, you also need to track your granted maneuvers. Label each card with the name of a readied maneuver. Keep your cards face down. To determine which maneuvers are granted to you, all you have to do is deal yourself a card. The face-up cards in front of you represent your granted maneuvers; the face-down cards are readied maneuvers when you go to draw a card and there are none left face down. At that point, shuffle all your maneuver cards together and draw new granted maneuvers for the next round.