Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Just for the sake of adding to the Medium Armor + Fast Movement or Tumble situation, allow me to give my take on it from the perspective of somebody playing with all of the involved character options.

My current character is a Barbarian1/Cleric13. I took the Barbarian for Rage and Increased Movement (I wanted to build a non-traditional paladin-type, so he's got Destruction Domain Smite and Extra Smite).

This is the first game I'm playing with my current group, and after playing with D20Modern they liked 1) more skills and 2) Starting Occupations, so all of the characters got an additional 2sp/lvl.

With my extra skill points I decided to go cross-class into Tumble ... another House Rule, they let PCs/NPCs with ranks in Tumble attempt to "set" the DC of the Tumble Through Threatened Squares check, so I figured it would be worth it if nothing else to help protect the back ranks by trying to ruin a few Tumble checks.

My character has never worn Medium armor. Using the Tumble skill as written in RAW (especially with some additional movement from Bbn and Divine Vigor) is just too good. It's more useful, tactically, to be able to roll into flanking position with the Rogue and avoid AoOs entirely than the few points of AC a heavier armor can net ... why? Because if I can avoid the first AoO and put myself and the rogue in a position to do maximum damage, we can quite possibly DROP the badguy before he gets a chance to make me pay for my lower AC.

Additionally, D&D is weighted heavily against AC, especially at mid to high levels. It takes FAR more character resources to get an effective AC score than it does to just beat things to death. Our Fighter-type is bemoaning that now, as he wears a Heavy Shield +3 and Full Plate +2 and a Ring of Protection +4 while I have no RoP, Mithril Breastplate +1, and use a two-handed weapon. Things don't have a real big problem hitting either of us.

So, for my money, Tumble is one of the few skills worth taking cross-class. Being able to maneuver in combat effectively really increases tactical superiority. With "melee" monsters at mid-to-high levels having buckets of HD and Strength scores in the 30s, AC in D&D is hard to get anyway ... personally, every Barbarian should be putting ranks in Tumble cross-class and get at least five ranks in Jump and wear the Mithril Breastplate. Every Warblade should be getting movement-rate-increasing items, putting ranks in Tumble, and wearing the Mithril Breastplate.

--fje

 

[glass]

So, for my money, Tumble is one of the few skills worth taking cross-class. Being able to maneuver in combat effectively really increases tactical superiority. With "melee" monsters at mid-to-high levels having buckets of HD and Strength scores in the 30s, AC in D&D is hard to get anyway ... personally, every Barbarian should be putting ranks in Tumble cross-class and get at least five ranks in Jump and wear the Mithril Breastplate. Every Warblade should be getting movement-rate-increasing items, putting ranks in Tumble, and wearing the Mithril Breastplate.

I quite agree.

I wasn't saying that tumble as a class skill wasn't a (very) good feature, I was simply pointing out that it was disingenuous to not consider its loss in medium or heavy armour, expecially while calling out the loss of a barbarian's fast movement in heavy armour.


glass.

 

[dvvega]

My wife is currently playing a Warblade 11 and to be honest the experience of the party is that it is not overpowered compared to a Fighter or any other class unless you go out to make it so.

She has built a decent tool-box style fighter. She adapts to the situation using a combination of Diamond Mind, Iron Heart and Stone Dragon. They have DR, then Stone Dragon, they unleash spells by the bucket load, Diamond Mind.

The feats selected were to enable her to rechoose Manuevers. The fact that refreshing your Manuevers makes you either attack once only (without use of Manuevers) or do nothing at all balances the Warblade out nicely.

Her previous character was a Charge-based Fighter. Now that character was much more powerful than the Warblade. It dealt phenomenal amounts of damage consistently. What it lacked was the versatility of the Warblade.

Out of the 3 classes in BoNS, the Crusader is the only one that is pretty silly in my group's opinions due to its randomness. Why choose a class that could randomly mess you up if the dice fall badly.

The Fighter is still stronger in combat in our experience thus far, but can get caught out in the wrong situation whereas the Warblade can handle a lot more but at reduced strength.

 

[Felon]

The fact that refreshing your Manuevers makes you either attack once only (without use of Manuevers) or do nothing at all balances the Warblade out nicely.

That's not a fact. It's a misreading. The warblade refreshes his maneuvers by making an attack; it is not stated that he is limited to a single attack that round. What it does say is that if he's got nobody to attack, he can refresh by using a standard action to twirl his weapon, but that's hardly the same thing.

The Fighter is still stronger in combat in our experience thus far, but can get caught out in the wrong situation whereas the Warblade can handle a lot more but at reduced strength.

For all you're proclaiming the warblade to be inferior to the fighter, you're not telling us where this supposed reduced strength stems from. Saying "the warblade's only more powerful than the fighter if you design it to be" sounds like a bit of a canard. If your wife shunned a power build, that's not evidence of any innate strength or weakness on the class's part.

 

[dvvega]

I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.

A melee attack does not equal a full attack action.

As to strength of combat, the Fighter's complete access to Feats which are not restricted in use makes him/her the better combatant.

A Warblade cannot initiate more that one maneuver at a time in general (most of them require Standard Actions that equate to a single attack). Since you are taking a Standard action you can only attack once (in general) and move.

Of course he/she can react to things using some maneuvers but generally one maneuver per round.

And it is a limited resource until you refresh. So if you have the ultimate maneuver readied, you can use it every 2nd turn on average.

The fighter on the other hand is not restricted like this. He has full use of all his Feats at all times.

They both have strengths and weaknesses but our playgroup does not believe that either is better than the other except in specific situations.

 

[glass]

I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.

If that is actually what it says, then Felon is correct. If you need a 'melee attack', the the full attack action can certainly provide you one (plus some more just for plain damage dealing).

That said, I was also under the impression that refreshing was a 'one attack only' deal. I'll have to reread that section when I get home tonight.


glass.

 

[dvvega]

Text in question

You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action ...

The use of the wording here is pretty obvious and explicit. If you break down the sentence at the "," and conjunctions ...

You recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action followed in the same round by

a) a melee attack OR
b) a standard action

For these effects to be equivalent (a) would be a single attack which would equate to a standard action.

If it was meant to allow a full attack action it would have said something like

"at least one melee attack"
"any melee attack option (such as a full attack)"

or something to that effect.

 

[BASHMAN]

Of course he/she can react to things using some maneuvers but generally one maneuver per round.

And it is a limited resource until you refresh. So if you have the ultimate maneuver readied, you can use it every 2nd turn on average.

The fighter on the other hand is not restricted like this. He has full use of all his Feats at all times.

Yep, and the Fighter is also doing full-attack actions every round with all those feats too, while the warblade is only making 1 standard action a round.

 

[Paradigm]

I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.

A melee attack does not equal a full attack action.

I think you are drawing too fine of a line here.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Actually, my reading is, he needs to either attack somebody or use a Standard Action to twirl his weapon ... OR ...

The text is saying that he can't use a Swift action and then:

Cast a Spell
Move and pull something from his Bag of Holding
Escape a Grapple
Use A Skill

etc etc. He has to attack them. If he were limited to a single attack action, that would be spelled out there. As it is, the only references made to actual D&D Game Rules Action Types are: A Swift action (to replenish) and a Standard Action (if he can't or won't make a melee attack). A Swift action does not preclude one from making a Full Attack and making "a melee attack" does not preclude one from using the Full Attack action in melee combat.

He could not, for instance, use the Swift action to replenish and then:

Use a single standard attack to throw a javelin and move
Use a Full Attack to throw 2-4 javelins

Why? Because those are ranged attacks and the rules spell out a melee attack.

He could, however, use a Swift action and then:

Hit a guy in the face with his axe and move
Hit a guy in the face with his axe multiple times as part of a Full Attack
Show off his axe-i-ness using a Standard Action and move

--fje