Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[charlesatan]

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?"

Let me rephrase (or explain) what Slaved is saying.

"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." - It's pretty much saying how there are some things that the martial adept can do and the fighter can't, and vice versa. On the side of the Fighter, it might mean the sheer number of feats, or the fact that he can use ranged weapons more effectively. On the side of the martial adept, the fact that he has maneuvers. It's like comparing the Fighter to a Wizard (at least that's his argument, from what I understand).

"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." "Your comparison both times was designed to make the conclusion come out a certain way." - Again, you have been comparing one type of WB build and comparing it to a Ftr with the same build, which isn't emphasizing a Ftr's strengths. It's like rigging a statistic survey, asking how many support Bush in a republican rally (or a democratic rally) to skewer the results.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

I actually have no argument with it in the early levels but I'd expect to see the disadvantages cropping up in the high levels, when you get the choice to either make a full attack or use those "hit and heal" maneuvers.

One of the funny scenarios I just can't help imagine is the party keeping a troll alive and a hostage so that you can keep in hitting it just to heal the entire party...

 

[charlesatan]

Say....

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

I forgot to mention that party composition also plays as part. I'd see the Crusader appearing more effective if a bulk of the group are melee-oriented classes (to take advantage of the white raven and devoted spirit maneuvers).

 

[charlesatan]

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.

Actually they still have strategic resource management. It's just a different kind of resource management (for the WB, it's expend all of your best maneuvers and hopefully it'll kill your opponent before you run out of them, for the Crusader something else). And yes, the 9-level maneuver system, and the maneuvers do get expended. And which is why I said they're somewhere in between, not quite spellcasters but similarly not just non-spellcasters.

 

[RigaMortus2]

One of the funny scenarios I just can't help imagine is the party keeping a troll alive and a hostage so that you can keep in hitting it just to heal the entire party...

Doesn't work. It's built into the maneuver that the enemy has to be a threat. If the troll is alive but subdued or helpless, he is no threat.

Crusader's Stike
This foe must pose a threat to you or your allies in some direct, immediate way.

It's a built in fail safe...

Actually, upon reading this, I also noticed the strike only works against enemies whose alignment is at least 1 component away. Yikes, I'll have to keep that in mind. I'm LG anyway and so far I think we only fought evil things, certain no LG things, so shouldn't have too much problem with it...

 

[charlesatan]

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.

I'd take on the challenge if it was say, level 20, and I'd throw in a spellcasting prestige class for the Wiz... =) [We can fight creatures that has spell resistance, spell immunity, just as long as it doesn't have an anti-magic field strapped to it; or we can just fight each other]

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

But the problem is, the Warblade isn't "like" the wizard as much as he's "like" the Fighter. Both are guys that hit people in the face with a sword.

I would say that a sufficient comparison would need to do "concepts" or "archetypes" that are common to the fantasy/D&D paradigm.

Probably "Sword and Board" and the "Greataxe" and "Two-Handed Sword" and probably "Two-Weapon Guy".

Fighters can probably do like "The Tripping Cheesemonkey" better than a Warblade ... the question is, is "The Tripping Cheesemonkey" A) something people like to play and B) as effective overall as the Warblade overall.

I've played several "trip-monkey" builds ... they were sort of fun to build and rather fun to play at early levels where Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids dominate. Hell On Wheels, really. About 8th level, they turned to absolute crap. As the game progresses, appropriate CR "monsters" in the manuals, especially melee guys for the melee characters to fight, get bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger. A Huge 4-Legged monster with big strength is pretty hard to trip, even if you're optimized to trip. It's just something I've experienced. If you're a fighter with all kinds of special tripping feats and feats that proc on trips etc etc, you can do some really wonky things to low-strength Medium two-legged creatures. The dragon just breathes fire on you and backslaps you across the room.

It's why I'm currently playing a medium-armored guy-with-a-big-2-hander ... in D&D, really, beating the other guy in the face for as much damage as humanly possible always works ... humanoids, dragons, elementals, outsiders, oozes ... "Don't play with it, just kill it."

I think, though, that when people think Melee Combat they think of a few archetypes. Spiked Chain Trip-Monkey With Armor Spikes is a purely D&D creation. Nobody put down a fantasy novel and said: "Man ... I'd like to be a guy with huge awkward friggin' spikes on his full plate armor that swings a spikey awkward chain and makes people fall down alot!"

--fje

 

[charlesatan]

But the problem is, the Warblade isn't "like" the wizard as much as he's "like" the Fighter. Both are guys that hit people in the face with a sword.

I would say that a sufficient comparison would need to do "concepts" or "archetypes" that are common to the fantasy/D&D paradigm.

Which is why I'm going for a different paradigm entirely. Because it's an entirely different animal.

I mean in our fantasy/D&D paradigm, we don't get Fighters saying, "Wait, I can't perform the same attack because I need to re-ready it," either. In anime/manga, we have warriors "charging" up and the like, but the power levels of those attacks are almost magical (and that's what the martial adepts are trying to emulate). I mean if you look at the Desert Wind maneuvers, some of them are like what Kenshin does. And Diamond Mind has that omni-slash thing going on.

That's because more fantasy fiction tend to be "realistic" when it comes to the warrior type (despite the fact that what they might be facing is magical, the existence of spellcasters, etc.), while anime/manga can be much more dramatic, albeit over the top. And in way, a lot of maneuvers are over the top compared to your "I attack and hit".

And again, there are "gish", the warrior/mage archetype, yet I see no one complaining about their power levels... (at least not on this thread)

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

And again, there are "gish", the warrior/mage archetype, yet I see no one complaining about their power levels... (at least not on this thread)

Um, because, historically in D&D, they've not been broken. Quite the opposite, really. Gishes usually turn out very very blah. Recently there have been some spells and feats that have made it a more attractive option and bring it more in line with other concepts, but the fact that nobody is posting: "Gish so broken! Help!" speaks to ... the lack of broken!

If the book let people play their favorite Inuyasha character in D&D, but it wasn't whacked-out broken ... nobody would complain. It's not that we all hate anime. Personally, I probably would want a special setting for it, but I'm not opposed to it on any particular level.

Well ... DragonBallZ is really really dumb. But I watch lots of anime. I'm a dork. I'm even overweight and have a beard. I am ... Archetypal.

Somebody has pointed out before that nobody complains about the Samurai, which is underpowered ... I'll add to the list of "classes nobody complains about", the Spelltheif, the Hexblade, the Ninja ...

GMs don't complain about under-powered optional classes. GMs are all FOR underpowered optional classes. GMs can ADD stuff to make their players happy ... harder to REMOVE things to make EVERYBODY happy.

If somebody wants to play a Samurai, but we all think it is underpowered, I might offer him an extra bonus feat or maybe we'd build it with some maneuvers. We can do that. We have the technology. The player in question then gets to both play the concept that he wanted to play, which makes him happy, and gets some added juice, which makes him happy. The Samurai doesn't overshadow the Fighter, which makes that guy's player happy, and doesn't overshadow the Wizard, so makes that guy happy. EVERYBODY IS HAPPY.

But say somebody wants to play a Warblade. Well, here's the horns of a dilemma. Suddenly, I look like the badguy because I let Lloyd play a Samurai, a non-core class. I let Samuel take feats from the PHBII. I'm letting in optional material ... but I'm exercising my option on the Warblade not to let him in. This makes that player sad. This adds stress to my fun game night. Suddenly, I'm not happy and somebody else isn't happy. This makes things less fun.

Or say I let the Warblade in. It proves to overshadow the Fighter, making that player unhappy. The Warblade keeps going and going after the Wizard is out of spells, making that player unhappy. The other two being unhappy makes ME unhappy, because part of GMing is making folks happy. Now, I'm sure the guy playing the Warblade is happy as a clam. He's kicking butt, he's taking names, he's making the guy that played the Fighter look like a chump, he's doing Omnislash and he's screaming "WINDSCAR!" when he throws down some hawt maneuvers. But my game is a less-happy place.

That other classes or concepts don't stir complaints from GMs should SAY something about this book. Not just: "Grognards fear change!", but that there are legitimate problems. Spelltheif is a pretty different class ... power-wise, sucks hard ... but different. Nobody complains about it, though. Channeled spells are pretty different, but not broken, and nobody complains about them.

Doesn't mean we're unfairly biased against new things or different things or changing things.

And, yea, I think if 4th edition were to come along, I think incorporating something like Maneuvers from the ground up would be okay. Toned down some, a little less anime in places. Making them work from the ground up with the Fighter would be fine. People like resource management on a turn-by-turn level, so adding that to the Fighter is a fine idea. Folks like the fiddly bits at the table, which is why I think Power Attack and Combat Expertise are two of the most popular feats out there.

As I've repeatedly said ... if this expansion would have been something that added to the Fighter ... bolted something on, offered a feat that granted maneuvers, etc etc ... would have LOVED it. But they trumped the fighter, took it to 11, etc. That's the source of complaints.

--fje

 

[Votan]

Um, because, historically in D&D, they've not been broken. Quite the opposite, really. Gishes usually turn out very very blah. Recently there have been some spells and feats that have made it a more attractive option and bring it more in line with other concepts, but the fact that nobody is posting: "Gish so broken! Help!" speaks to ... the lack of broken!

It think that this is a little bit edition dependent; in both 1st and 2nd edition the elf (or, even worse, half elf) fighter/magic-user was a formidable party member and an important part of a first rate party.

These days the problem is the transition; F/MU classes are good at upper levels but the process of getting there can be pretty harsh.

Duskblades and Psychic Warriors seem to be decent implementations of the concept.

And, let us not forget the classic hybrid, the cleric. Its flavor is not that of the arcane warrior but it is mechanically a combination (medium BAB, d8 hp, full spellcasting, armor and possibly a martial weapon depending on domain).

In any case, I actually like the shift to the warblade over the fighter. Nobody is forced to play a fighter and I can find ways to power up a human fighter if I have to (I've got one in my game right now). But the warblade is much better outside of combat and has fun/flashy options which I think would appeal to my players.

But I can see the contrary opinion. The fact that the melee classes are underpowered in core is bad and there is no patch that is going to be completely effective. A more interesting feat tree for the fighter might have been nice but it was the skills and flashy actions that needed to be inserted the most.