Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[brehobit]

How is he getting +17 to his concentration check?

+8 from skill points
+4 from constitution
+3 from skill focus

That is only +15 and it is likely making his other attacks weaker because of placing such a high stat in con along with having to spend that feat on concentration boosting.

Also, d20+17 averages out to 27.5. A fireball cast by a 5th level wizard with a certain feat does 5d6+5, which is a little less on average with only 22.5 but over a much larger area and at range.

With a 16 Con and blade meditation (Diamond Mind) he'd be doing d20+17. That feat is an option for the 5th level warblade bonus feat.

And the wizard casting that fireball has an AC around 16 (assuming mage armor and a good dex) and and probably half as many hit points as the warblade. Plus the fireball is probably once or twice a day. Plus the fireball isn't all that useful in many many fights. So if the argument is that a warblade has the AC and hit points of a fighter and the damage ability of a wizard, just more often...

The warblade _is_ broken compared to the core warrior types. I don't think anyone is really arguing against that. The only serious question is if the core fighter-types are too weak. And IME the answer is "not even kind of" at lower levels (say 1 to 7 or so). Higher levels, I rarely play so I can't really answer.

I still believe that _any_ solid warrior build can be improved by adding a level or two of the Bo9S classes. At 9th level you'd be crazy not to grab at least one level of one of these. Probably swordsage, even with the BAB hit.

 

[BASHMAN]

I just think it's sad I find myself trying to take a level or two of it with other classes because the benefits are so great. I can take one level of warblade using half the levels of other classes and still get an amazing will save or fort save

Wow! It's amazing that you have so many ranks in Concentration, considering you are a fighter who would have no use for taking so many ranks in a cross class skill that until now has been completely worthless to non-spellcasters.

Part of the reason that warblades get 4 Skill points per level is that they are required to sink max skill ranks into things that are only useful for making manuvers, like Concentration. I defy to come up with a _Good_ reason why a fighter would need to take concentration. The Warblade can only use it with maneuvers-- he does not cast spells, and thus has no other use for concentration.

There are other skills that warblades have to sink skill slots into for manuvers. If we assume he had decided to take only 2 schools, that would leave him 2 skill points per level to use other than the ones dedicated to his maneuvers.

Also, If you could explain how your 5th level warblade friend has a +17 Concentration check, I would LOVE to hear it, since the most ranks he can have is 8. Does he have a +9 CON modifier? Cause if that is the case, I dont think its the class that is game-breaking. I guess he could have taken a feat that gives +3 with skill focus... Assuming a 19 CON (max possible at level 5 without munchkin cheese), maxed ranks, and skill focus concentration, that is 4+8+3= 15. Btw, feats that give skill bonuses don't stack with eachother, or else you could take skill focus 10 times for the same skill for a +30 bonus.

 

[BASHMAN]

How is he getting +17 to his concentration check?

+8 from skill points
+4 from constitution
+3 from skill focus

That is only +15 and it is likely making his other attacks weaker because of placing such a high stat in con along with having to spend that feat on concentration boosting.

Also, d20+17 averages out to 27.5. A fireball cast by a 5th level wizard with a certain feat does 5d6+5, which is a little less on average with only 22.5 but over a much larger area and at range.

BINGO! Get this guy a prize! He knows what he is talking about.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

They've already covered how the guy got there. As far as I can see, it's legit. They've got feats in there that help the Warblade get up more Concentration.

And Concentration is a one-off.

There's also stuff like Tumble in there, which not only works the Maneuver schtick but is ... TUMBLE ... "the" combat skill.

If they gave them Concentration and 3sp per level, and no Tumble, I would say: "Hrm, okay, they added a skill point for Concentration in there."

And the Concentration stuff is still pretty powerful. It gives good synergy in that this guy can max out his Concentration and use it for saves and damage. He's probably tanked his Strength a bit, but he's using his Concentration skill instead. It's a bit like the Paladin and Cha. Paladins get good mileage out of Cha with the Saves + Smite + Divine Feats, etc etc.

Paladin gets Cha, an ability bonus which is expensive to increase, to attack rolls and to save ... as opposed to Concentration, which is Ability + (X+3) + Feats to saves and damage. The Paladin gets Smite Evil as a class ability ... this allows him to strike Evil Creatures for "Paladin Level" in additional damage several times a day. This single maneuver, out of several maneuvers, allows the Warblade to strike Any Creature for "Warblade + 1/2 non-Warblade + 3 + Feats/Bonuses" additional damage any number of times per day.

One of the places where I'm saying some of these maneuvers just wildly make me go "HUH". When they're blowing Feats out of the water and sinking Class Abilities like paper boats and you get a whole bunch of them PLUS class abilities PLUS d12hp PLUS skill points ...

A guy comes on, playing in a game, with a Warblade, and he's playing a Fighter, and he feels slighted and he's unhappy ... but people just want to needle his math and cry foul. (Even if his math is correct.) He's in a game. He's playing IN A GAME ... where his fun level has decreased because of this book and this class in particular. Those are the kinds of costs I'm talking about.

--fje

 

[Slaved]

With a 16 Con and blade meditation (Diamond Mind) he'd be doing d20+17.

8+3+3+2=16 not 17, am I missing something? Still two feats, 10 point buy points, and 8 skill points to get there plus the other restrictions mentioned above.

And the wizard casting that fireball has an AC around 16 (assuming mage armor and a good dex) and and probably half as many hit points as the warblade. Plus the fireball is probably once or twice a day. Plus the fireball isn't all that useful in many many fights. So if the argument is that a warblade has the AC and hit points of a fighter and the damage ability of a wizard, just more often...

Actually, that is not the arguement, but we can go with it if you like I suppose.

I prefer to use the wizard as a buffer plus extra damage potential at range, although I do feel that they should have a higher hd and be able to wear armor like basically everyone else. Stupid sacred cows, need some sacred steak.

As such, I give you the haste spell. This nifty little spell will work on the whole party. +1 to AC, +1 to attack rolls, +1 to reflex saves, +30' movement (about), and +1 extra attack on a full attack action.

For a normal fighter type person who isnt trying all of these cool little maneuvers this is a huge buff. Yes, this means that it relies on other people in the party to be effective, I am ok with that.

As such this spell can add up to hundreds of points of damage, depending on how you want to count. So if we are counting whos is bigger I would assume in a somewhat typical party this wins out over the warblades maneuver. At this point the warblade is actually in a position where using his manuevers could be seen as a detriment, his average damage actually goes down.


In the case of the warblade spending two feats, plus the rest to gain an attack that does pretty great damage every other round at best and next level giving up the occasional iterative attack for the pleasure...... it sounds like a great theme but the power level is not really staggering. Saying it can kill a mage in one hit isnt going to convince me either though as there are so many different things that can kill mages easily at the early levels.

Still, with a 12 con a mage would have an average of 19 hp at level 5. Assuming that the warblade has moved up and is standing next to the mage then he swings for d20+16 with an attack bonus of, say, +8 (+5 BAB+2strength+1weapon) versus the given AC of 16 earlier. On average the mage lives with about 2 hp left. On a successful hit the warblade can take the mage from full to dead on a roll of 13 or higher and only fails to knock him unconscious on a roll of 1, 2, or 3.

And the mage will do whatever it is that mages do I guess.

I do know what an ogre would do though, or more appropriately 2 as that would make CR 5. They would attack him dumbly as creatures with the intelligence on the order of "might be able to color within most of the lines" are wont to do.

So our intrepid hero has tumbled up to the ogre, we will assume it was successful. He has attacked and dealt some damage, pretty likely after all, it only has a 16 AC. It takes at least 2 hits to take out an ogre with this attack though, so now it is the ogres turn.

With some movement and a little bit of cunning they flank the warblade and attack. It doesnt take much to flank, they have reach and it is something that even animals do well. Each attacks with their clubs, lets assume that the warblade has a 18 AC. Chain shirt, heavy shield, and a 14 dexterity. It will take an average of 5 swings to take out the warblade. Two swings are down, now it is the warblades turn.

What he does at this point is entirely dependent on his other readied manuevers however. If he has the two save boosts as the other warblade then whatever his single last manuever left is his option or he can make an attack and refresh his big strike. As he is using diamond mind manuevers it seems likely he is also using their weapons, which are rapier, short sword, trident, and bastard sword. None of those are likely to kill the ogre this turn. Assuming he swings and gets his manuevers back it is now onto the ogres, who get two more swings in and the warblade is only a few hp away from being dead.

Going through that sort of scenario it looks to me that the warblade and the ogres are decently matched up. The warblade loses on average but with a more offensive selection of manuevers he should be able to improve that.

The mage is also likely to be able to take both out, so long as they dont get too close first.

As is most any ranged class assuming they spot them far enough away or have a good enough movement.

With this it at least seems reasonable. I am sure someone will disagree.

The warblade _is_ broken compared to the core warrior types. I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.

I'll take that. Broken is a big bad word and is used too often. Comparing with a barbarian, ranger, cleric, and maybe even the bard would be pretty interesting. I think that all of those are better classes in general than the fighter.

I still believe that _any_ solid warrior build can be improved by adding a level or two of the Bo9S classes. At 9th level you'd be crazy not to grab at least one level of one of these. Probably swordsage, even with the BAB hit.

Fighter types do multiclass pretty well, that is pretty much a given. Taking a level out of the progression for your class though, not everyone is going to do that.

Take a level out of ranger? Less skill points, animal companion is a bit weaker, delays some spells, delays those other high level abilities like hiding in plain sight.

Take a level out of barbarian? Delays the bigger and badder rage, delays DR, there is some pretty nice stuff up there.

But yeah, it can be worth it, especially depending on the build. It can even be worthwhile to take a level of fighter for certain kinds of builds though and we know how much of a hit it is to take him, you better really like that feat.

 

[Slaved]

he's playing a Fighter, and he feels slighted and he's unhappy

Yeah, he should've made a better character. Or be happy with his character concept enough to make up for it.

If someone brought an expert into the party and felt that he was being outdone everywhere who's fault would it be? Suboptimal choices lead to suboptimal builds. Shoot yourself in the foot, expect it to hurt.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

It's really hard to engage in a debate about whether or not a particular class is overpowered, in a D&D game, if the real basis of the counterargument is: "Well all of the core classes really suck, anyway."

The Fighter needs more skill points and less focus on feats and should be a Warblade or Swordsage anyway.

The Wizard should have better HD and armor anyway.

It's kind of hard to make any sort of comparison if the final answer is going to be that anywhere it may be overpowered, it's really because we aught to change everything else about D&D to bring it in line with a new class.

Then we're not playing D&D ... we're playing "I liked the Bo9S so we made an RPG for it."

Making a core-class character shouldn't be shooting oneself in the foot. And it isn't. I can build fun, interesting, extremely playable Fighters without any difficulty whatsoever. That they're then beaten to death in an allyway for their class abilities by a Warblade doesn't mean that I decided to play an Expert.

Somebody can't air real-world issues and grievances without being told they should suck it up and they're playing the game wrong anyway. So if a guy with a Wizard says he's having problems, did he decide to play an Aristocrat and shoot himself in the foot because his hit die really should have been higher? The guy playing the Bard might as well have played a Commoner?

Maybe so, really. But that's the game people purchased when they bought D&D. If Bo9S means that the core classes are now NPC classes, the prosecution rests its case, eh?

--fje

 

[BASHMAN]

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

I used to think that, but they are different. Tactics is about winning a battle. Strategy is about winnin a war.

 

[Slaved]

It's really hard to engage in a debate about whether or not a particular class is overpowered, in a D&D game, if the real basis of the counterargument is: "Well all of the core classes really suck, anyway."

Nicely overstated, care to try again?

If we assume that barbarians and rangers are well balanced, which I like to do, then the fighter comes up a bit short.

If we look at how hp works in the game and what hd creatures have an typical con scores then d4 hd classes come up short.

There have been a lot of threads based upon the fighter being a poor class. The arguements are many but I think it is easy enough to come down to one thing. If you assume that the fighter is well balanced then anything you base on that assumption is likely to be at least as flawed as the premise.

Making a core-class character shouldn't be shooting oneself in the foot.

I agree. So when is the fighter fix coming out?

It is possible to make a fun, interesting, what-have-you character who has the abilities of a diabetic blind kobold who is allergic to things like air. Fun is in the eyes of the beholder.

Balanced however is based on a lot more than that. It is very possible to make suboptimal choices in the game while someone else makes optimal choices and feel completely left out. It is unfortunate when the system enforces this with a poorly balanced base, such as in the case of the fighter.

If someone is not having fun for whatever reason it is time to talk with the dm. Whatever the issue is can be resolved that way, I would hope, every time. Perhaps a few extra skills and skill points plus a special feat would fix up the fighter guy. That certainly seems like a good bet to me. Much more so than bringing everything else in the game down to the fighters level.

 

[Victim]

Agreed. I'm pleased (generally) about the direction the Duskblade is going, FWIW.

Yeah, so far the class has been working well for us too. It believes rather like a more conventional self buffing fighter mage in capability, but without a massive stack of buffs - the spell channeling makes up for the lack of normal buffs. That keeps things more easily manageable. Also, the way their full attack channeling works encourages some more usual tactics.

There might be a problem area right around 3rd to 5th when the DB can channel spells and buff for lots of relative damage: +8d6 with shocking grasp and blade of blood on top of whatever melee goodness the DB can dish out might be too much damage at level 5. But then their spell damage stops increasing so rapidly.

Nicely overstated, care to try again?

If we assume that barbarians and rangers are well balanced, which I like to do, then the fighter comes up a bit short.

If we look at how hp works in the game and what hd creatures have an typical con scores then d4 hd classes come up short.

There have been a lot of threads based upon the fighter being a poor class. The arguements are many but I think it is easy enough to come down to one thing. If you assume that the fighter is well balanced then anything you base on that assumption is likely to be at least as flawed as the premise.

Good thing I haven't been comparing warblades to just single class fighters then. Really, fighter is just a weird class. Simple class abilities. Pretty simple to play. But in between is a big mess that requires the player to develop an ever expanding combination of items and feats from day 1 with no real do-overs. And many fighter characters don't really have enough decent feat to support that kind of expansion over the long term. That fighter concept that worked so well at levels 1-4 might suck at level 10; most other character types aren't going to become obselete as levels increase.

Yeah, d4 classes do really come up short in HP. That's why Con seems to be their stat priority right after INT.