Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[charlesatan]

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 it's just "broken-ness" you're complaining about, the martial adepts aren't.

And again, the whole problem isn't in whether the martial adepts are really broken but in perspectives. Gishes can be more powerful than martial adepts but as you said, people aren't complaining because there's been a historical precedent. The case with martial adepts is that it's new, so people are still wary of it, and don't have the proper "perspective" on it, hence all the complaints.

Any character can easily overshadow any other characters. I just recently gamed in a gaming group with over a dozen players (don't ask) and my gish and my other friend's psionic gish easily (sadly) overshadowed all the other characters, including two martial adepts. I just think that people need a paradigm shift when it comes to the martial adepts before calling it unfair. And you mentioned was about meeting player expectations, which I think can be handled better. (Again, it all boils down to preconceptions.)

P.S. I was the one who said samurai's are underpowered. I don't think the rest you mentioned (ninja, spellthief, etc.) are underpowered. It's just that comparing the Fighter vs Samurai, I can build a more effective samurai using the former.

 

[BASHMAN]

P.S. I was the one who said samurai's are underpowered. . It's just that comparing the Fighter vs Samurai, I can build a more effective samurai using the former.

Not to mention more historically accurate. What's this crud about ALL samurais being 2-weapon fighting experts? There were some, very few samurais who learned to use a weapon in each hand, but for the most part, a katana was wielded in 2 hands.

I thought that the 2nd Ed Samurai Kit was plenty cool. certain number of times a day, he could make a kiah shout to gain 18/00 STR for 1 round. Very cool when you are fighting the bbeg.

 

[NilesB]

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

It seems clear from this and other posts that you are using a series of house rules and campaign eccentricities that increase the power of the Warblade relative to the Fighter.

The designers and developers of the Tome of Battle did not and should not have been expected to take your specific deviations from the rules as written and/or the default setting into acount in the design of the Warblade.

 

[Victim]

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.

No, it's tactical resource management. One of the issues with spells and wands is that the resources are tracked from encounter to encounter - you have to pick not just the best time to use a spell during this fight, but also consider the next battles and challenges. An adept generally need only concern himself with 1 fight at a time.

 

[charlesatan]

No, it's tactical resource management. One of the issues with spells and wands is that the resources are tracked from encounter to encounter - you have to pick not just the best time to use a spell during this fight, but also consider the next battles and challenges. An adept generally need only concern himself with 1 fight at a time.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't able to distinguish tactical from strategic. I wonder why they're synonyms...

Again, as I said before, it's not as taxing for a martial adept compared to a spellcaster for multiple encounters, but there is still some reservation of resources. And a long encounter (rather than a numerous one) can be as debilitating to a martial adept. But as I said, it's somewhere mid-way between a spellcaster and a non-spellcaster. I don't think we need to point out further differences between a martial adept and a spellcaster because we're being redundant and I've admitted as much in previous posts: shares some traits of a spellcaster, but not quite a spellcaster.

But here's another element that makes them more akin to spellcasters. I now remember why I don't see a lot of Ftr 20's (or even Barbarian 20's) at that but will possibly see lots of Warblade 20's, Swordsage 20's: it's the initiator level. For spellcasters, losing caster level is bad which is why most don't multiclass except to take a prestige class that adds caster levels. Most warrior-types, on the other hand, are less restricted, which is why you see Ftr 8/Bar 12 or Rog 4/Ftr 8/Bar 8 for example. With martial adepts, again, it's somewhere in between as the multiclassing isn't as hard as it is on spellcasters, but it still penalizes you (which is why most won't want to multiclass more than six levels of a non-martial adept so they can have access to 9th-level maneuvers).

Different paradigm people, a different paradigm. Not quite a spellcaster, but not quite a non-spellcaster either. People want either A or B. I'm calling them "C".

P.S. If I wanted feats, I'd take Ftr. If I wanted maneuvers, I'd take Warblade. Now whether feats are up to maneuvers is a different story, but so are spells, and a lot of other abilities from classes and prestige classes.

 

[glass]

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

.

When will people learn to mask spoilers? It really isn't difficult!


glass.

 

[glass]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't able to distinguish tactical from strategic. I wonder why they're synonyms...

They aren't synonyms.

[SBLOCK=Strategy]strat‧e‧gy  /ˈstrætɪdʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[strat-i-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1. Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2. the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3. skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4. a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.[/SBLOCK][SBLOCK=Tactics]tac‧tics  /ˈtæktɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2. (used with a plural verb) the maneuvers themselves.[/SBLOCK]


glass.

 

[FireLance]

They aren't synonyms.

Just in case the distinction between tactical and strategic still isn't very clear from reading the definitions, my own rule of thumb is that tactics are concerned with the short term, e.g. a round or a single battle, and strategies are concerned with the longer term, e.g. an adventure or a campaign.

Example of tactical thinking: if I move to here before I use my scroll of cone of cold, I will be able to catch two additional hill giants in the area of effect.

Example of strategic thinking: I only have one scroll of cone of cold, so I should save it for when we face the fire giants leading the hill giants. I'll use my scroll of fireball instead.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Different paradigm people, a different paradigm. Not quite a spellcaster, but not quite a non-spellcaster either. People want either A or B. I'm calling them "C".

P.S. If I wanted feats, I'd take Ftr. If I wanted maneuvers, I'd take Warblade. Now whether feats are up to maneuvers is a different story, but so are spells, and a lot of other abilities from classes and prestige classes.

But we're not really talking about paradigms. That's just begging the point. There's no real "paradigm shift" to speak of. We have, closer, Hegelian synthesis in the rules presented, but we're not entering or shifting or experiencing any "paradigm". If you're speaking in terms of "the way we see things working", it doesn't.

At the base of things the game still works the same.

We've got a new mechanic ... a resource which is expended and refreshed within the discrete combat "encounter", but which always returns to full.

But nobody is arguing against that mechanic. It's not the mechanic that people are upset with.

Some examples of the mechanic are problematic ... certainly those maneuvers which were obviously designed, as a whole, to be "less powerful" than feats (so they can be doled out in greater numbers) which become MORE powerful than feats. But that's the fault of the maneuver, not the system.

I don't think anybody arguing in the negative is unable to grasp the new mechanics.

Saying they're overpowered just isn't the same thing as not seeing this "new paradigm". It's visible, for what it's worth. I'll go out on a limb to say that, from reading past posts of many of the posters in this thread, that they're not stupid people or people incapable of understanding rules minutae. Quite the opposite. The punditry on the Rules forum makes my brain hurt sometimes, but it's a pretty good place to go if you want to find some people that get into the rules of the game. Usually the arguments around here are over minor points of fact.

Now, why people bring up "A" and "B" as comparisons is because they HAVE to interact with Fighters and Wizards or Melee and Spellcasters. It's D&D. They can't exist in a happy world where all that matters is them. People have to bring these classes into their games. If they're going to upset the balance between Melee and Spellcasters (and they ARE melee, they hit things in the face with weapons), if they're going to cause strife and problems with the people playing, then that's a problem. The problem doesn't go away just by saying: "It's a new paradigm." So what? That matters to the bottom line? If it causes problems, then it IS a problem.

--fje

 

[Nail]

The designers and developers of the Tome of Battle did not and should not have been expected to take your specific deviations from the rules as written and/or the default setting into acount in the design of the Warblade.

Nor do I expect them to.

The comparison I posted was appicable to my camapign...and yet it is quite simple to remove or ignore the campaign specific elements. (Combat, magic, etc all work the same...just remove a few feats and you're good-to-go.) None of my analysis is based on the particular house rules I play under. I hope that's clear.