Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Perun]

What if we simplify the playing field? No house rules, 28 pt buy, feats in core rules plus Complete books plus PH II and ToB:Bo9S?

Anyone up for this?

Reading this thread and looking at Nail's original compariosn between the two classes made me realise that there's no real point (IMO) in comparing the two, even if I was one of the people who originally asked for comparison. The number of options for both classes (with fighter's having a slight advantage) is staggering, and you can build a large number of different characters even when using same race, stats, and books. For example, one could build an archer fighter specialised in high-Str composite longbow. Who could then, theoretically, pester the warblade from a couple of hundred of feet away. Or a tripper or disarmer of... well you get the idea. Limiting the options invariably eventually favours one class.

It's kind of like comparing wizard vs. sorcerer vs. warrmage... each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each is good at one thing.

Why not? The fighter has almost no skills and the ones he does have are not impressive. He has nearly no skill points and no reason to try to get more since his choice of skills are poor. This means that out of combat he is not worth much.

For curiosity's sake, what do you consider to be good out-of-combat skills?

In combat he can be shown up by any of the other classes in the phb. Typically this means through specific builds while he can be a generalist but being a generalist is not all that rewarded. He is still king of his sandpile but without a very large selection of very good feats his sandpile is not very impressive.

Others look flashier, others have more options out of combat, others can even trump him in many areas.

He can be out-damaged by the barbarian. But that's pretty much it. Paladins and rangers aren't nearly as effective in combat.

Most classes have their roles picked for them (depending on their BAB, saves, class skills, and skill points available). While a bard isn't overly effective in a regular combat-heavy game, he's all but irreplaceable in an intrigue/diplomacy-heavy game.

In my experience the fighter is a weak class.

This is the key statement, actually -- "in my experience". And that's what it all boils down to. It's all about game style and personal preferences. I play a 13th-level druid in one of our games, and he's a decent character, good at surviving. But, it's a power-heavy group, with a beefed-up cleric, 30+ Int wizard, and a psychic warrior (well, there's also a scout, but he doesn't have much of an impact on the actual game), and my druid is good for some boosting and occasional grapple -- others outshine him (this doesn't mean he's not a powerful character -- just that he doesn't have much opportunity to shine in that game). And I've had to work real hard to keep up, power-level wise. Other characters have normal higher-level character seets. My "sheet" is a 2,5-cm-thick amount of paper (various spells form different books, wild shape forms, etc.). In another campaign, we had two wizards, a archer-ranger, and a 10 Str, Dex, and Con druidess with a wolf animal companion and Augment Summoning feat. Due to the lack of any real meleers in that group, she was the goddess of battle. I also played a sorcerer in a group withou other arcanists, and he was an excellent character. If the party also had a wizard, his role would be much different, and his toes would be much stepped on

I have yet to see a persuasive arguement that the fighter is a well balanced class. In general it seems that for most builds one of the other classes would do it better or the same with more options. It does the best at feat chains but most feat chains are less effective than other class features. At least more books are seeing this now and making stronger high level feats. Perhaps it has changed and high level effects are good enough. That still doesnt make up for the fighters other lacks though.

I odn't know whether you'll fid this persuasive, but fighters are, as even you said earlier, generalist combatants. Barbarians will, in all likelyhood, deal more brute force damage and last longer in combat than most (if not all) other melee classes. Warblades might be more effective in certain situations, depending on their manoeuvres known (which they can get locked into at higher levels, because of prerequisites) and manoeuvres readied.

But fighter can be a good combatant (excellent attac bonus, good damage, very good AC), while at the same time being a tripper, disarmer, archer and pretty much whatever else he desires. Also, as was already pointed out, all of his options are available to him at all times, no need to prepare anything.

He can also be a specialist -- the only way to build the best archer is by going fighter. Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Specialisation, Ranged Weapon Mastery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Greater Manyshot, Ranged Disarm, Ranged Pin, Ranged Sunder, Improved Rapid Shot, Penetrating Shot... That's 15 feats so far. A figher gets 18 feats over 20 levels (without the human bonus feat).

It makes for an extremely focused character, of course, but it's the bestest archer out there.

Regards.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you or anything (I'm in fact agreeing you on your explanation of gishes), I just want to use gish as an example because it's one of those classes that engage in melee (sound familiar?) yet can do tons of damage in one attack, let alone a full attack, that outstrips that of most warrior-based classes, yet no one's complaining about them, but they are complaining about martial adepts. (And in a way, buffs are like the boost maneuvers, such as the spell wraithstrike could easily have been a boost.)

 

[charlesatan]

We are 5th level now and I have a fighter and my friend has a warblade. His choices of powers allow him to make a concentration check for reflex or will saves so he has a PLUS 17 which is just insane. (He hasn't taken the fort save ability yet which he'll trade for reflex as it's not as crucial in some cases).

HE DOES 1d20 + 17 damage at 5th level with insightful strike! Double that on a crit! Did I mention he doesn't really need str to do this? His second round he uses mountain hammer and adds 2d6 to his attack damage. So he can't do these things EVERY round? He has to spend a free action to get his abilities back while attacking normally. Must hurt.

Well at low-levels (and at the higher levels), the WB outstrip the fighter simply because the Ftr doesn't really gain any benefits from full attack (except in a few rare circumstances, such as a TWF Ftr) because he doesn't yet have iterative attacks. In fact, level five and below is the best opportunity to make use of single attacks, such as Spring Attack, which won't get as much mileage at say, 16th level. And yes, "recharging" your maneuvers is cheap at level 5 and below (since Ftr's don't have swift actions to spend on) but you're going to feel it in the higher levels.

As for your 1d20+17 damage, as pointed out by Slaved, you're sacrificing potential attack/damage bonus (since your main stat is now Con instead of Str) and you're relying on that one maneuver instead of overall effectiveness. I'd also like to point out that Insightful Strike is a level 3 maneuver, meaning the character just got it at 5th level and is at it's "most optimum level". I mean if we bump the character's level by one, we'd have either a Ftr 6 or a WB 6, with a base attack of +6/+1 plus whatever modifiers. You have two attacks if you made a full attack and let's assume you're wielding a +1 greatsword and have a strength of 20 (18 base Str, +2 enhancement from a magic item). Your potential damage in each instance is 2d6+8. So now it becomes a 1d20+18 damage vs 4d6+16 (and a higher crit threat range). Granted, both attacks must hit in order to achieve that number, but then again, you also have a higher Str because your stats went to Str instead of Con. And as pointed out, it's a good chunk of investment in feats on the Warblade's part (and he doesn't have lots of those) while the Ftr hasn't spent any in this calculation. Theoretically if he spent two feats on Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec., his attack bonus in each instance will go up to 1, and the damage potential would now be 4d6+20. Not that I'm saying this will always be the result (since as many people pointed out, you won't always get a full attack), but I think we must also accept into our equation that full attacks will occur, and Ftrs want that situation to happen. Of course the WB focusing on the Insightful Strike maneuver tree will be less item dependent (which is both a strength and a weakness, because on one hand, it makes no distinction if you're using an unarmed strike but on the other hand, doesn't benefit you if you're using this colossal +5 greathammer), but at higher levels, Ftrs theoretically should be getting better gear and magic weapons, which the Insightful Strike maneuver tree doesn't really benefit from.

Oh, as for the Diamond Mind counters (the Will save and Ref save you're talking about), that has its own limitations as well. Theoretically you have achieve higher saves, yes, but you must realize that 1) they're immediate actions, which means that's one swift action (usually a boost) that's unavailble to you on your next turn, 2) you're spending a maneuver, which means you might not have access to it again until you "recharge", and 3) doesn't help you against multiple saves in a round since it'll only work once. It might help against the first fireball in the round, but it won't help against the second. Not that the Ftr is in a better position, mind you, but that's one of those days that I'm glad I'm a Paladin and not a Warblade.

And I also mentioned gishes because certain gishes also have a certain sweet spot on certain levels. Take the Duskblade: at 5th level, thanks to Arcane channeling, I can deal my melee damage +5d6 electricity damage (shocking grasp) as a standard action thanks to Arcane Channeling. Granted, I can only do it 5/day minimum and not the infinite potential of martial adepts, but that depends on the encounters your GM throws at you, in the same way that a Warlock will earn his keep if the GM throws 10 encounters/day at players, while the Psion will seem more powerful compared to the Wizard if your GM just has 1 encounter/day.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

Actually depends on what "core warrior types". As I mentioned before, before level 6, the Ftr is definitely at a disadvantage. I think the Paladin can hold his own compared to a Warblade, assuming he has access to feats like Divine Might for example. And if we're talking about non-core, my previous post just showed how an early-level Duskblade, for example, can much up to an early-level WB.

My theoretical (and I mean theoretical, no playtesting involved, but experience with the rules of the game) assessment is that the sweetest spot for Ftr's is in the mid-level (and Nail's "test" at least agrees with this) simply because the maneuvers reach a point where you have to make a decision whether you want to make a full attack or use a maneuver (of course if you just have a standard action available, obviously using the maneuver is the optimum choice). At the higher levels, well, I don't really see how one round of Ftr's attacks can compare to say, the Time Stands Still maneuver (two full attacks) but then again, the latter can only be done once per encounter (assuming the WB doesn't recharge or has a way of recovering them as a swift action [i.e. Kalashtar WB]) so theoretically the longer combat lasts, the more chances a Ftr can make up for the martial adept's increased efficiency in the first few rounds of combat.

As for multiclassing, again, it depends what you want. If you want feats, go Ftr. If you want a bunch of maneuvers (and I say a bunch of maneuvers because if it's just one maneuver you want, you can get that by spending a Ftr feat), yes, dip into a martial adept class. But as I mentioned in my previous posts, the thing about the core martial classes is that there's little incentive to stay in the class all-throughout. The martial adepts encourage more 20-levels of the class, or at the very least, 6 levels of non-martial adept classes so you can have access to 9th-level maneuvers. You might say that a warrior class can benefit from taking a few levels of martial adept, but the reverse is also true: a martial adept class can just as well benefit from a dip into Ftr or Barbarian for example. Again, it depends on what you have in mind.

 

[charlesatan]

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.

This isn't really a design problem rather than an in-game problem. I mean there are several types of players: those who play for role-playing reasons, those with a concept, and well, there are those who want to kick some ass. For the concept player, I think as long as he got his concept, he's happy with what he's got. Now if what he had in mind was this anime, wuxia character in the first place and he had to settle for Ftr because Book of Nine Swords wasn't out yet, well, certainly he'll be displeased if he can't retcon/remake his character (and shall we blame the designers for giving us more options?). But if he wanted your typical warrior with none of those boost, counters, and stances (it's a whole lot simpler to play for example), then it's simply not going to affect him. Of course if it's the last one, the person who wants to kick some ass, well, there really are other optimal choices rather than picking Ftr (like the various gish classes/builds for example).

Of course if it's the character spotlight thing (giving each character a chance to shine during the session), I think it can be set up so that the Ftr still has a shining role. A mid-level/high-level long encounter, for example, will benefit the Ftr more compared to a martial adept for example (as opposed to short, multiple encounters). That's not to say that'll happen in the real world -- characters that outshine other characters do happen. But that's because of the group dynamic, and the munchkin or power-gamer for example, no matter what class he picks, will probably be more effective in combat compared to say, a newbie, even if he picks a really "powerful" class.

And admittedly, the Ftr is a difficult class to "optimize", but on the other hand, he's also very simple to play, and choosing the "wrong" feats isn't as crippling compared to playing another warrior-type class that has less feats to spread around.

 

[charlesatan]

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

Because I'm a dim-wit, I honestly don't differentiate (it's like a lay-man reading medical/technical terms... I'm sure there's a big difference between computer virus and computer worms for example, but I simplify things and call it a virus even if it's possibly a worm). Phrased that way, I'm just interested in winning (be it a battle or a war). =)

 

[Slaved]

For curiosity's sake, what do you consider to be good out-of-combat skills?

Social skills, things like diplomacy, gather information, and the like. Not so much intimidate because of the drawbacks that come with it, but it can be used in a pinch. Much like I could use my car to open a can of food if I have no can opener, but it is likely to cause other problems in the process.

Knowledge skills. These come in very handy when trying to figure something out. They even help socially in the proper groups.

Spot, listen, and search. These allow for a person to know what is going on around them and help figure out what is going on.

So many others for different abilities here and there.

The fighter has basically nothing here. He does have intimidate but it is charisma based and a fighter has no other reason to put any points into charisma. Plus I see intimidate as having problems as I said earlier. I would only use it as a last resort after all other options are gone outside of combat. Occasionally it can be useful inside of combat though.

 

[BASHMAN]

Part of the problem with how people are viewing warblade is that they are forgetting 1 major thing:

You can ONLY TAKE 1 SWIFT OR IMMEDIATE ACTION per round! It explicitly states that in TOB. This means that if you use an immediate action to make a will save, you cannot make a manuver that round. Nor can you recover manuvers-- you cannot recover in a round in which you used a manuver! Likewise, if you use a manuver, and later in the round, someone uses hold person on you, you have to use WILL-- you have no immediate action because you already used a swift for your manuver.

Now, Next round, you could use Iron Heart Surge to get out of the hold, but that takes your action, and now if the mage wants to he can use hold on you again... but now IHS is not readied...

Which just made me realize a major weakness of the Warblade's recovery. A warblade cannot recover manuvers while he is held. A Swordsage or Crusader can-- all they have to do is meditate/pray. As long as they are consious, they can do that. A warblade must be able to move to recover, however.

I know this because I have a Monk15/Swordsage1 who failed a save and was held. While held, I asked if I could meditate, the GM said yes because it was a mental process, so I was able to take a full round action to recover a manuver.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I think the Book of Nine Swords helps a fighter out somewhat in the area of skills, since Martial Study makes the key skill of a discipline into a class skill. Take a Desert Wind maneuver and you get Tumble as a class skill. Take a Setting Sun maneuver and you get Sense Motive as a class skill. Take a Shadow Hand maneuver and you get Hide as a class skill. Take a White Raven maneuver and you get Diplomacy as a class skill.

Frankly, I think the Book of Nine Swords could have given fighters some additional benefits with respect to maneuvers, such as allowing them to take Martial Study one additional time for every six fighter levels, and giving fighters of 4th and higher level an initiator level equal to fighter level - 2.

 

[Nail]

Moderator's Notes:
I've only read a couple of posts in this thread, posts that were reported.

Would it be possible to know which posts "brought on the Moderators"? There's certainly a lot of heated discussion here, but I've not seen anything so far that seems out-of-bounds.....so I'm curious.