Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[charlesatan]

On a side note, I'm surprised (well, not really considering EnWorld's forum reactions to the Orb spells and to Monster Manual IV just to name a few) at how people are stuck to an old paradigm. In this paradigm, D&D has two types of characters: spellcasters and non-spellcasters ("Fighters"). Since martial adepts are supposed to melee combatants, people suddenly lump them in the non-spellcaster group and call them broken and refuse to compare them to spellcasters.

That's not to say martial adepts are really spellcasters in disguise (because as pointed out, there are differences, both good [refreshed at the end of every counter] and bad [can't prepare the same maneuver twice]). Which is why I'm operating on a different paradigm, which is somewhere between spellcasters and non-spellcasters (but I'm fond of gish characters, so it's not such a huge mental leap for me).

 

[charlesatan]

well, 3 wrong answers from CustServ doesn't change my mind. They obviously didn't even read the book.

Eh. You win some, you lose some when it comes to CustServ.

But honestly, even if CustServ was right, RigaMortus2 should actually play a full-fledged Crusader. Because honestly, they're not that awesome (short of your other party members being other melee specialists as well and you're milking the White Raven school and that stance that gives you 4 hp every time you score a hit) offense-wise when it comes to maneuvers. Mind you, I'm not saying that they're not good, they're just not broken, and really aren't as sweet as say, the Warblade when it comes to maneuvers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Uh, you're contradicting yourself.

Point 1. Don't be rude or you'll get banned. I've overlooked some rudeness earlier in this thread, but keep accusations to yourself, thanks.

Point 2. If you read carefully the point I'm comparing with is the psionic feats, which allow 'unnatural' stuff to be done by psychic warriors (and psions/soulknives/wilders etc).

I highlight this because
(a) the psionic feats seem less powerful than manouvres
(b) there has been pretty wide acceptance of psionic feats not being unbalanced (unlike the continuous debate about manouvres)
(c) the methods for regaining the use of the psionic feats is less generous than the methods for regaining manouvres (WB in particular).

So. A new thing is produced which gives more abilities, which are more powerful and yet easier to recharge than the established psionic feats.

That's the nature of power creep, and I think it is an unfortunate thing (but I can see why it happens, and why designers like to try out different ideas about how to make things 'cool' or 'useful')

 

[satori01]

One thing to consider is that many of the Maneuvers for martial adepts have greater opportunity costs in regards to their Maneuver choices than compared to a Psy War in a Psy War's choice of feats.

A Psy War does not impact his powers known when he or she takes Psionic Weapon or Greater Psionic Weapon. Indeed a lot of the hitting strength of the Psy Warrior is being able to ovelay the extra damage from feats with powers.

Most, (and at the very least many) of the Martial Adepts powers are going to have Maneuver Pre-requisites which are going to steer Martial Adepts down a more specialized path.

A Psy Warrior is a good comparison for a Martial Adept, I suspect a well designed Psy Warrior could take a Warblade at low levels, rather handily. Many of the increased damage powers for low level Martial Adepts have draw backs like a penalty to AC.
A power charged, Psionic Weapon using, Power Attacking Psy War is going to have good success against a a character with a -2 to AC penalty and medium or light armor.

Now in theory, a Martial Adept is going to be able to do their shtick all day long, while a Psy War is going to run out of PP, and need to rest.

I think in general a Psy War is a good starting comparison point for Martial Adepts. At high levels I suspect the power shifts over to the Martial Adept side, as there are a dearth of High Level Psy Warrior type feats, and their powers do not necessarily blow your socks off at the high levels. The Sweet spot is definitely in the mide range, for Psy Warriors.

 

[Nail]

Since martial adepts are supposed to melee combatants, people suddenly lump them in the non-spellcaster group and call them broken and refuse to compare them to spellcasters.

I'd be happy to compare them to spell casters.

Let's compare the melee potential of a Wiz 5 and a WB 5, toe-to-toe with a Troll......

Go.

 

[Nail]

well, 3 wrong answers from CustServ doesn't change my mind. They obviously didn't even read the book.

Let's put this point to bed.

CustServe is often wrong (or contradictory) enough that what is says is simply irrelevant to solving a rules issue. We all are capable of figuring this stuff out without a Bull in a China Shop distracting us.

 

[satori01]

I find Nail's example of an Improved Unarmed wielding Warblade, being on par with a Fighter to be a proof of concept. I like the fact, that with Maneuvers, a subpar archetype in D&D, (the Pugulist), is made effective.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say the Martial Adept classes are what the warrior type classes should be. Feats like Improved Trip, Sunder etc could be made into Maneuvers, letting Feats fullfill other roles than adding combat options.

Maneuvers can also model things like Divine Might, better than Feats I think. It is much easier to retro con, and allow someone to swap out a Maneuver, (similiar to a spell), than it is to have someone redo their feat choices.

Moreover, it removes the Fighter from being dependent on their equipment and their comrades to provide them with the means to do their job at high levels. Take AOW,

Spoiler

the final battle against Kyuss, w/out Boots of Flying, or a Fly spell, How does a Fighter get up there? If Kyuss moves around, how does the Fighter deal his full attack damage.

The TOB classes are certainly more versatile, than a Fighter, because they attempt to address a structrual flaw endemic to the Fighter.
I find it interesting that the Star Wars Saga system is doing an overhaul to the Soldier class. Pretty much shows me, the Fighter needs a redesign.

 

[Slaved]

Let's compare the melee potential of a Wiz 5 and a WB 5, toe-to-toe with a Troll

I am pretty sure that this is a joke on your part but I feel that it shows what you were doing earlier in a different way.

My comments before were about how the two classes can each do something that the other cannot and in the areas that they overlap one will be better than the other. For your example you ignore so many different types of builds and focus on a single one where the adept may very well come out ahead and then claim it is sufficient overall.

That just doesnt work, just like it isnt working in the example that you are giving here. This example makes it much clearer though that there is an issue with how you are setting up the comparison. Your comparison both times was designed to make the conclusion come out a certain way.

 

[Nail]

So it's not valid to compare a Ftr and a WB because it "makes the comparison come out a certain way"? Huh. Do you mean "It shows WBs are better than Ftrs?"

Speaking of comparisons, someone earlier asked me to post what I'd done.

Three comparisons between Ftr and a WB (3rd, 9th, 15th). There are various house rules in play, as I've said before. Since most of these house rules apply equally, they are irrelevant for comparison purposes. (Aside:

Spoiler

The house rule that is relevant is that Ftrs IMC gain 1 bonus feat per level, as I discussed earlier. Without these extra feats, the Ftr doesn't really stand up to the WB at all, IMO.

)

 

[Perun]

So it's not valid to compare a Ftr and a WB because it "makes the comparison come out a certain way"? Huh. Do you mean "It shows WBs are better than Ftrs?"

Speaking of comparisons, someone earlier asked me to post what I'd done.

Three comparisons between Ftr and a WB (3rd, 9th, 15th). There are various house rules in play, as I've said before. Since most of these house rules apply equally, they are irrelevant for comparison purposes. (Aside:

Spoiler

The house rule that is relevant is that Ftrs IMC gain 1 bonus feat per level, as I discussed earlier. Without these extra feats, the Ftr doesn't really stand up to the WB at all, IMO.

)

Thanks for posting the info. It's interesting, and really made me understand how ungrateful such comparisons are, because you (the generic you, not aimed at Nail) always try to make it all "balanced", and thus make some sub-par choices.

For example, the fighter in the example uses a sling at lower levels. A sling is an awful weapon, really, and only slightly less awful in the hands of a halfling (1d4 base damage, move action to reload). He also uses a throwing weapon at higher levels. IMO, he should have used a bow in all cases (a cheap one, maybe even a shortbow at lower levels, and composite longbow with high Str rating at higher levels. Ranged combat is still not his forte, but at least he can do something with the bow (multiple attacks per round).

The best thing, really, would be to see fighter and warblade in actual play over several levels. I don't know whether our other campaign will be reaching its end anytime in the near future, but if it does, I'll try to arrange for a fighter and warblade in the party.

With that, I'm off to DM another session