Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[charlesatan]

As mentioned in the D&D Podcasts, the Book of Nine Swords seem more powerful than your standard warrior types but really not more compared to the spellcasters.

The swordsage vs monk is a poor argument for me mainly because the monk isn't really the best when it comes to offensive power (and you have to MAD [Multiple Attribute Dependency] while you're at it) and is more defensively oriented as-is. Of course given the chance, I'd pick swordage over monk any day simply because the former is more flexible (not bard flexible but more of fighter flexible) in your build.

The warblade seems to be superior over the fighter in many aspects (skills, hit points) but anyone who's played a warblade and a fighter will discover the lack of feats in the former (sorry, but the bonus feats the warblade gets every 5 levels aren't that great unless you're qualifying for the master of nine prestige class). But that's what you have maneuvers for.

The closer analogy between the warblade vs fighter would be psions vs sorcerer/wizards. In the first few rounds, the warblade can dish out a lot more than the fighter, but if it's consistency you want, go with the fighter. The longer the fight turns out, the more effective the fighter becomes. The warblade can probably go two to three rounds before needing to recharge, and take note that not all of his maneuvers produce full attacks. (Of course having said that, a lot of combat encounters end by the 3rd round or so anyway....) The fighter's effectiveness is continuous full attacks, while the warblade isn't always making a full attack.

 

[charlesatan]

Yes, the warblade must follow his swift action with a melee attack. Nothing in the description limits him to one attack in that round, however.

Not it says a melee attack (and not melee attacks) or a standard action. That involves a swift action, and then your choice whether to make a single attack (and risk missing) or taking a standard action. Sure, you can make another attack if you're using 3.0 haste or something but "recharging" pretty much takes up an entire round (oh, you get to make one attack, whopee).

 

[Nightfall]

"waaaah. Fighters are not as fun as warblades!"

So don't play a fighter! Play a warblade!

Hell I'm not! Course I rarely play fighters any more even before the Warblade. Mostly because I was like "I want cooler abilities. I play a paladin or a ranger!" Or else the fighter/rogue hybrid.

 

[satori01]

With a feat every level, and access to PHB II and the Complete series a Fighter would be a contender. ( I have been tempted to go the same route as Nail with Fighters).

Maneuvers are interesting to me, because it gives fighting classes a wide range of tactical options, while still retaining the durability of warrior types, but adding in the factor of do you use X power now.

Feats generally give static bonuses, either always active, or activitating when a certain condition is met. Maneuvers will just seem sexier the feats for the most part. Being able to throw a guy 10' just seems cooler than the Mobility feat, even though Mobility ultimately keeps a tank healthier and more able to do their thing, than the Mighty Throw Maneuver.

A well designed Fighter is a mixture of those synergies, and is generally non flashy but effective. The Ranger as a class, has much more problems than a Fighter does in terms of a combat role, yet few people complain about a Ranger, because it is focused, it has flavor and class abilities that support that flavor, and it is fun.

Ultimately, a Fighter seems boring because it is a class that only gives Feats every couple of levels or so. I truly suspect though, Nail with his house rule, has seen some terrifyingly effective Fighters though.

My beef with the Warblade is the swift action all maneuver recovery. That is TOO much. The Warblade might be a better combatant, but the Swordsage is supposed to be the master Martial Maneuver Artist, and yet the Warblade is better effectively than the Swordsage at using those powers? I think not.

Felon will probably get a kick out of me saying this, but as written a Warblade essentially has no resource management other than picking Maneuvers, and frankly that is not fun. There needs to be at least some tension about wether using X power at the right or wrong time, saves or hoses you.

Set a Warblade to use a standard action to recover a single maneuver, and the class is a lot more balanced.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Not it says a melee attack (and not melee attacks) or a standard action. That involves a swift action, and then your choice whether to make a single attack (and risk missing) or taking a standard action. Sure, you can make another attack if you're using 3.0 haste or something but "recharging" pretty much takes up an entire round (oh, you get to make one attack, whopee).

Yet, everywhere else in the book they have that phrase in a description (such as in the text of a maneuver), it explicitly says a single melee attack. Why did they not say ".. a swift action followed by a single melee atack.." in the warblade's recovery method? The answer: they are not limited to a single melee attack after the swift action. It would have said "..a swift action, followed by a standard action to make a single melee attack.." if they were.

 

[glass]

Wouldn't it be cooler, though, if the Warblade was balanced with respect to the Ftr (as is)?

Yes it would, and I am beginning to think that you might have been right about its overpoweredness, especially after the revelation that it can gets its manouvers back while full attacking.

That said, even if the fighter and warblade were perfectly balanced for power, the WB would look cooler on the page with all its funky special abilities. OTOH, the fighter's coolness comes in its genericness. You bring can bring your own flavour to a fighter to an unprecedented extent, but if you don't want to do that, cool, play something else (be it a warblade or a paladin). I think that that was what Epoch was getting at.


glass.

 

[Felon]

Not it says a melee attack (and not melee attacks).

The purpose of the description is to tell you how the warblade regains his maneuvers, and that's by either making an attack or twirling his sword. They don't use the plural, because multiple attacks aren't required to regain the maneuvers--but that hardly means they're prohibited. Likewise, it doesn't state whether or not the warblade can take a move action that round either, because it isn't pertinent to regaining his maneuvers--but that hardly means he can't move.

The recharge is a swift action that's immediately followed by a melee attack (which is not defined as any particular sort of action), and then whatever the heck else you want to do that round (like moving or making the rest of your iterative attacks or dancing a little jig).

Now, if you don't have the opportunity to attack anything in a given round, you can do a little weapon-flourish, which is explicitly defined as a standard action, but that's not what we're talking about here.

(oh, you get to make one attack, whopee).

You speak as if full-round attacks are a given. In truth, warriors frequently have to take actions that limit them to one attack (like moving more than five feet). So, what you're "whopeeing" about is something your typical fighter has learned to live with for a long time.

 

[Nail]

That said, even if the fighter and warblade were perfectly balanced for power, the WB would look cooler on the page with all its funky special abilities.

BTW, glass, I'm all about having cool classes. ...So you and I are on the same page there, at least.

 

[Nail]

Felon nails it.

The recharge can take place right before a full attack, and warriors of any stripe often don't get full attacks.

 

[Aaron L]

BTW, glass, I'm all about having cool classes. ...So you and I are on the same page there, at least.

So am I! It's just the Warblade is SO cool it makes the Fighter look like the guy who took his aunt to the prom in comparison.

What I'm really trying to say is: I want BOTH classes to be cool. But overshadowing the coolness and fun of the Fighter is bad. When one class completely overshadows another in it's supposed area of expertise it's bad for the game. All the classes are supposed to be equally fun. No one should have to "take a hit" for the sake of wanting to roleplay a plain Fighter, the plain Fighter should be just as cool and exciting as every other option.

I still find it really weird that I'm on the side of a discussion actually opposing a cool new class. To be bad enough to make me take a stand against it it has to be really onerous.