Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Nail]

But we're not really talking about paradigms. That's just begging the point.

I disagree. It's not Begging the Question, it's just setting up a Strawman Argument. Different strategies...toward the same conclusion, I'll admit.

The paradigm we're all talking about is clear: it's 3.xe D&D. We are comparing the efficacy of one class (the Warblade) to a similar class (the Fighter). Those that wish to show the Warblade is not overpowered must first prove the comparison is invalid -- toward that end they've used this "different paradigm" schtick.

I note that no one's taken me up on the comparison of the melee potential of a Wiz 5 or a WB 5 toe-to-toe with a troll. That speaks volumes.

I'll grant we could compare the Warblade to the Bbn, or perhaps the Pal. (A Rgr comparison would be more tenous.) I'm relatively certain we'd come to the same conclusion as we do with our comparison to the Fighter: the Warblade is not balanced with respect to the core classes. .....Arguably, it's not even close, IMO.

 

[Slaved]

I've also been accused on this very thread for having house rules that favor the Ftr over the WB!

Which post or posts were these? I did a search but I didnt see any saying that the fighter was favored over the warblade.


I just had a group over last night to do some group vs group combat. Unfortunately since we were new to the tome of battle it took quite some time to make some of the characters. While doing this and while playing though I noticed that the choices for what you can do and when are very limited.

My crusader had the problem repeatidly of having manuevers at random that were not very helpful at the time and the slow refresh rate.

The warblade we had fighting kept on wishing he had taken the full round change to his as whenever the tactical situation would change he would notice one of the manuevers he had not on call would be perfect while the others were less useful. As fighter types they still had the issue with no listen, spot, or search which nearly killed one of them in a fight.

The pure fighter tended to have more options on hand at any given time and was able to deal with situations more readily. Of course he had picked feats from a large spectrum of books and had planned them out pretty well.

It was not nearly enough to get a good feel for the book as a whole but it does look that their choices for maneuvers and stances are very limited. The levels break strangely and you can easily find yourself in a 4 level gap where you are using only lower level stuff because you need to wait for prereqs or the new maneuvers are just too redundant with old maneuvers with little to no extra benefit.

With better planning the crusader and warblade likely could've been made better. I really like some of the feats and how the class meshes, except for the large amount of redudancy and lack of fun options for several different levels. For the crusader at one point I was looking at a first level stance that can do a minor amount of healing or a fifth level stance that would give me an extra 5' step each turn. Tough call, both were fairly minor and situational, even though they were 4 levels apart!

I'll try to do another something like that next week, we'll see how it goes.

 

[Nail]

I just had a group over last night to do some group vs group combat. Unfortunately since we were new to the tome of battle it took quite some time to make some of the characters.

I'm sure that's the case. It took me quite a while (several short sessions over several days) to get a really good feel for how the martial adepts work. being new to the material inevitably means making mistakes.

The warblade we had fighting kept on wishing he had taken the full round change to his as whenever the tactical situation would change he would notice one of the manuevers he had not on call would be perfect while the others were less useful.

Sure. I find Ftrs have the same issue with feats: "I wish I had taken Close-quarters Fighting!"

The pure fighter tended to have more options on hand at any given time and was able to deal with situations more readily. Of course he had picked feats from a large spectrum of books and had planned them out pretty well.

...and he was more familiar with how to build a good fighter, I'll guess. Give that guy (or gal!) some time with the ToM:Bo9S, and that'll turn around quickly.

What level were these PCs?

It was not nearly enough to get a good feel for the book as a whole but it does look that their choices for maneuvers and stances are very limited.

Agreed. And the prerequisites (starting at 2nd level maneuvers!) can make cherry-picking the best ones very difficult. Errors in my first attempt at a WB 15 were legion!

With better planning the crusader and warblade likely could've been made better.

Yup. Familiarity is key.

In my game, the WB (a Mnk/WB, actually) has discovered the power of the concentration skill. By taking a skill focus and a high Con, he can dish out some serious damage.

Tell us more as you make discoveries!

 

[Slaved]

We are comparing the efficacy of one class (the Warblade) to a similar class (the Fighter).

You have done one comparison with a certain type of weapon at levels preferential to the warblade. In those you have claimed warblade the master. So much so apparantly that the warblade needs to be taken down a notch, or two, or beheaded, something like that.

I would make builds that use other levels, other point buys, other houserules, and other feat setups but it seems like a lot of work for no reward.

Even levels tend to favor the fighter slightly more than the warblade, lower point buys may also favor the fighter over the warblade, ranged/high AC/large feat chains will likely favor the fighter over the warblade. But going by what you have said before it sounds like the other side, as you put it, would have to prove massive superiority over the warblade in all aspects in order to justify its higher skill points and higher hd.

I think though that at some point the inadequacies of the fighter with even the rest of the core classes simply shines through too much. The fighter needs more skill points, the fighter needs more skill choices, and he might even need more feats to do what he is supposed to do. If we start with the premise that fighters are fine then most every class in the phb is going to be shown to be overpowered in every area except for lots of feats. Of course the fighter beats the warblade in feats as well.

I note that no one's taken me up on the comparison of the melee potential of a Wiz 5 or a WB 5 toe-to-toe with a troll. That speaks volumes.

Maybe you have me blocked but I addressed this earlier. I believe a couple of others did as well.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

My main argument is that you're lumping them into two categories and forcing people to choose: either they're melee or they're spellcasters. I'm pushing for something more like "they're more like gish", which is somewhere in between. And no, it's not like martial adepts, for example, will simply be using attack and full attack. They'll be using maneuvers which get expended. There, that's a better explanation. Compare the class to gishes, not to fighters. Because fighters operate on a different level. Unless you're type that believes that in high levels, fighters (a core class) are on the same footing as the spellcasters (the other core classes), and they're simply not. Arguably if I make a Wiz 10/Ftr 10, I'd still end up with a better melee combatant.

 

[charlesatan]

The paradigm we're all talking about is clear: it's 3.xe D&D. We are comparing the efficacy of one class (the Warblade) to a similar class (the Fighter). Those that wish to show the Warblade is not overpowered must first prove the comparison is invalid -- toward that end they've used this "different paradigm" schtick.

I note that no one's taken me up on the comparison of the melee potential of a Wiz 5 or a WB 5 toe-to-toe with a troll. That speaks volumes.

I'll grant we could compare the Warblade to the Bbn, or perhaps the Pal. (A Rgr comparison would be more tenous.) I'm relatively certain we'd come to the same conclusion as we do with our comparison to the Fighter: the Warblade is not balanced with respect to the core classes. .....Arguably, it's not even close, IMO.

I'm mainly using the different paradigm shift simply because WBs don't necessarily behave as fighters. As I said earlier, you don't suddenly see warriors in fantasy novels suddenly go "I can't use the same attack again because...".

Hey you're not willing to take up my challenge of a Wiz 20 either so... =)

For me, there are some things that feats can do and some things it can't. The same goes for maneuvers. If I wanted to do A, I take feats. If I want to do B, I take maneuvers.

And the WB not balanced with respect to the core classes... the core classes themselves aren't balanced with each other. Your main argument is that the WB isn't balanced with the Ftr, and the designers have said as much that it's not meant to be. It's certainly well balanced when compared to the spellcasters on the other hand. So saying that the WB is not balanced with respect to the core classes is simply erroneous. And it's also not like you can compare the WB to say, a class like the Rogue, which while very effective in combat, I see one of his other assets is the trapfinding/stealth skills that he has.

 

[Victim]

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).

I'm not so sure about that. Since initiator levels stack - even non adept classes add to initiator level - multiclassing can be very attractive for adepts as well. They're free to multiclass with each other and can cherry pick low level benefits from non adepts. Or fighters and such can start taking a few adept levels once they're up there so they can grab 5th or 6th level moves easily.

Also, even taking the multiclass friendly nature of fighters and barbarians into account, adepts still seem to come up ahead.

 

[NilesB]

I'm not so sure about that. Since initiator levels stack

Err... actually they don't. a Warblade 5/ Swordsage 5 has initiator levels of 7/7 rather than 10.

 

[Victim]

Err... actually they don't. a Warblade 5/ Swordsage 5 has initiator levels of 7/7 rather than 10.

Hmm? I seem to recall that the thing about 1/2 stacking only applied to non-adept levels. However, I don't have the book anymore so I can't really check. Oh well. Even if adept levels merely stack the same way they do with normal classes, then you can still multi between them to easily grab manuever prereqs and such.

My main argument is that you're lumping them into two categories and forcing people to choose: either they're melee or they're spellcasters. I'm pushing for something more like "they're more like gish", which is somewhere in between. And no, it's not like martial adepts, for example, will simply be using attack and full attack. They'll be using maneuvers which get expended. There, that's a better explanation. Compare the class to gishes, not to fighters. Because fighters operate on a different level. Unless you're type that believes that in high levels, fighters (a core class) are on the same footing as the spellcasters (the other core classes), and they're simply not. Arguably if I make a Wiz 10/Ftr 10, I'd still end up with a better melee combatant.

Fundamentally, I don't think that gishes operate on a different paradigm. Most them operate simply as self buffing/supporting fighters since that's the only way to get enough synergy between the classes to make the combo worthwhile. Instead of needing a supporting caster or item to 'port past the wall of force and apply the beatstick to the enemy caster, they'll just do it themselves with a swift spell or quickened thing. Same thing for dealing with flying or invisibility enemies - actually, my Duskblade is crap against flyers (but a fighter caster with a conventional list would be better in that case). A gish is a better solo act and needs his toys less. But with good gear and teamwork, most fighter/wizard combos are going to be at a disadvantage.

While I can't really argue that single class fighters seem to be lacking something (since I don't see people make many fighters that remain single classed), I don't think that conventional melee characters - let us say fighter/barbarians, fighter/PrC (non magic), or whatever - really have too many problems. In my group's most recent games, high level casters haven't really been valued for their direct offensive capacity. Man, "That's it?" I'm still upset.

 

[BryonD]

My experience is that there is no such thing as a class so wildly broken that people won't line up to insist that it is fine. To the contrary, the more overpowered a class the more people seem to bend over backward to rationlize how perfect it is.