Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Actually, I am playing a Crusader atm. Only played him a couple times so far, and I think he is around 4th level. They work out fine AFAICS. The funny thing is, I was pretty much set on Swordsage or Warblade, but at the last minute I chose Crusader and haven't regretted it yet. Of course, they are the only ones that have access to the healing strikes, and I am the only healer in the group atm, so that is one thing that swayed me.

 

[Nail]

IMC, a sling is all that is currently available to my PCs. Thus the choice. (I'm brutal, eh? )

However, if you chose a Comp. Longbow instead....it's a small thing. Neither are good at missile weapons -- they're good at toe-to-toe melee. That's the point.

The best thing, really, would be to see fighter and warblade in actual play over several levels.

Absolutely. IMC, that's happening. We've had one session with the new WB in the party, comparing his mojo with that of the party's Ftr. It's too early to tell how things will go.

 

[Nail]

Actually, I am playing a Crusader atm. Only played him a couple times so far, and I think he is around 4th level. They work out fine AFAICS.

Say....

Could you describe a recent battle in which your Crusader played a part? I'm eagerly interested......

 

[RigaMortus2]

You could make a decent thrower with certain maneuvers from ToB. Take a look at Dancing Mongoose and Raging Mongoose. They allow you to make extra attacks, which would apply to thrown weapons, projectile weapons, as well as melee weapons. Although to make good use of thrown weapons, you'd want levels in Bloodstorm Blade

 

[RigaMortus2]

Say....

Could you describe a recent battle in which your Crusader played a part? I'm eagerly interested......

It's been awhile since we played, but we got stuck in a haunted house. It is a party of three (Human Crusader, Warforged Warmage and Human Fighter/Rogue). I am main tank and I help out the Fighter/Rogue by flanking with him. I'll post my character:

Human Crusader 5th lvl

(stats were rolled)
Str 18
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 12
Cha 12

BAB +5 / Melee +9 / Ranged +7

Feats: Extra Granted Maneuver, Stone Power, Weapon Finesse (Longsword)

Stances Known: Martial Spirit (usually the one I use), Stonefoot Stance
Maneuvers Known: Crusader's Strike, Vanguard Strike, Stone Bones, Tactical Strike, Leading the Attack, Mountain Hammer, Revitalizing Strike
Maneuvers (commonly) Readied: Crusader's Strike, Revitalizing Strike, Mountain Hammer, Stone Bones, Vanguard Strike

A common tactic I use is combing my Stone Power feat with a Stone Dragon maneuver, so I can get temp HP (which is basically a cheap form of DR). This also helps me soak up my damage from Steely Resolve.

Sample Encounter (enemy wins init)
Enemy hits me for 12 damage, I actually take 2 of it, and the other 10 points of that goes into my Steely Resolve, which gives me a +2 to hit and damge due to Furious Counterstike. So on my turn, assuming I have a SD maneuver ready, I use it with Stone Power to give myself 10 temp HPs. I make my attack at +7 (+9 melee +1 WF +2 Furious CS -5 Stone Power). Then at the end of the round, I put the 10 points of delayed damage from Steely Resolve into my temp HP. I also heal 2 damage from the stance, so that takes care of the 2 damage I took.

If I don't have a Stone Dragon Maneuver available, I then have Crusader's Strike and/or Revitalizing Strike available, so I use that to heal my damage (provided my allies are not damaged worse than me).

Those are the standard tactics I use.

 

[Victim]

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).

Martial Adepts do melee damage. Sometimes they'll throw some ability damage or stuff on top their damage, but they still make melee attacks and do melee damage. Giving a fighter a wounding weapon doesn't change the paradigm in which he operates.

Martial Adepts don't use strategic resource management like spellcasters. They don't really have battlefield control effects. Save based attacks are a minority. About the only way in which adepts are similar to casters is their 9 level manuever system.

Adepts operate mostly like fighter types with some magic items. Their non-dependence on full attacks makes them like mounted fighters, but fighter types still.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

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.

See, that's the essential dillema between what I'll call "my side" and what I'll call "your side" is that, on my end, I don't think the Fighter should be replaced.

For several reasons:

It's a core class. When people get "D&D" they get the core three books. When people play "D&D", the base assumption, the 'fundamentals', if you will, is that they'll be playing with, if nothing else, the stuff in the PHB.

I think that when options are released for the game ... a big thing, a big part, should be that those options do not supercede things in the PHB. Add to them, sure. Offer additional "options", of course. If there's a power increase, it should be across the board or to address increases at other points. It shouldn't be: "Spellcasters either trump Fighters in power or in fun, so we'll replace the Fighter with something more powerful and more fun!"

It should be: "We'll add to the Fighter and make it more powerful and more fun!"

In some ways, they seemed to try to do that in ToB ... that's a flag for me. It has multiclassing rules that are patently different than anything else in the game ... the "old" classes can "buy in" to the new classes at a 1-for-2 exchange if they'd like to switch. Your crappy old Fighter 6 can get powers like a Warblade 4 when he takes that WB level when they hit 7th level.

It's sort of a: "Yea, we trumped the Fighter, so ... here's a free gift if your GM buys this book after you already started playing a Fighter."

I like the ideas. Don't get me wrong. But I don't like what they did to the Fighter.

So, if I were to run a D&D game where I used the ToB (may be in the far dang future at this point) I'd probably refit the Fighter to bring him back in and tone back the Warblade.

I shouldn't have to, however, and that's a ding on the folks that authored the book and WotC in general. I don't pay them to put together crap I have to spend hours wrangling over and fixing in the toolshop before it's playworthy. I don't pay them to screw up game balance and increase power levels. I can do that on my own, for free.

Right now I'm comparing the classes and putting together a bolt-on package for the Fighter. Even then, I'd probably strip some of the stuff off the WB. I need to examine the Swordsage a little closer, but the Crusader doesn't seem over the top when you realize that his maneuvers are doled out at random and then rebooted, so he sort of has to burn them fast and sloppy or they go away.

--fje

 

[satori01]

See, that's the essential dillema between what I'll call "my side" and what I'll call "your side" is that, on my end, I don't think the Fighter should be replaced.

--fje

Which is fair enough, however, if we were talking from the ground up, say a 4th edition, would you rather see a Fighter that is more akin to the Warblade? Sounds to me that you would be inclined that way.

Again I am not so sure, the Fighter is replaced by the TOB classes. Certainly the Swordsages I have seen in action have not replaced, or outperformed the Barbarians, Totem Warriors, Champions, or Paladins in my campaigns.

A Crusader is certainly duarable, and has some limted Healing power thru Maneuvers, which is quite an assest in a non standard, (ie no healer) party.

A Warblade makes peoples eyes bug out, but I still feel that if TOB classes are allowed, more than likely other sourcebooks are in play as well, Like the Duskblade, Psy Warrior etc, and people will find an accord to make a balanced group.

As an aside, I would not mind seeing a Refit on the Fighter and the Bard classes in general. Wouldnt be that hard to do, and would increase the lifespan of the classes, similiar to what 3.5 did for the Ranger.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

And at what point did I become rude? Unless me stating "you're contradicting yourself..." is what you consider rude, which is simply me pointing out the fallacy in your statements.

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).

That's because there's really been little support for Psionic feats and they're there to augment a Psionic character; it's not his bread and butter. Anyone who's played a Psychic Warrior, for example, will probably rely more on his powers rather than his psionic focus. Don't get me wrong, Psionic Focus are an extra "edge", but they're far from the sole reason that a person plays a Psychic Warrior.

Now if you chose the Soulknife as an example (since he doesn't have powers)...

P.S. Here's the link to the feat-intensive Ftr 20 build: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005

 

[charlesatan]

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.

My only complaint with such a move is that feats are usually less complicated than maneuvers. Which isn't a problem for me, but it might be for starting players. That and honestly, the maneuver list is more intimidating than a feat list (in the same way that a spell list is more intimidating than the, uh, feat list).