Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[Nail]

A one on one fight between a Fighter and a Warblade is a really poor contest to see which class is better,

If this is in response to my posts: You mis-understand my intent. A Side-by-Side comparison is different than a Head-to-Head comparison.

what puts the Warblade on top is the fact that it has multiple ways of doing this, flashy ways like making fire out of nothing or using super martial arts maneuvers, in addition to being able to use the standard full attack swing-and-hit routine that the Fighter is restricted to.

Interestingly enough, the warblade doesn't get the discipline that allows the "fire out of nothing" maneuvers (i.e. Desert Wind). The WB can take a feat, tho' (Martial Study) to get just one Desert Wind Maneuver.

The fact that he gets a higher hit die and more skill points even on top of that just makes us wince all the more.

True enough. Take away these sorts of things, and it'd probably be acceptable.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Actually, the Crusader is probably the most broken of them all. If the Crusader picks his maneuvers carefully, he can actually have access to all his maneuvers every round once he goes through the cycle at least once.

I will break down how this works...



Here is an example of what happens:

Start of Round 1
3 Maneuvers GRANTED
2 Maneuvers WITHHELD
(Player does not EXPEND any Maneuvers)

End Round 1, 1 Withheld Maneuvers becomes granted as such:
4 Maneuvers GRANTED
1 Maneuvers WITHHELD

Start of Round 2
4 Maneuvers GRANTED
1 Maneuvers WITHHELD
(Player does not EXPEND any Maneuvers)

End Round 2, 1 Withheld Maneuvers becomes granted as such:
5 Maneuvers GRANTED
0 Maneuvers WITHHELD

Start of Round 3
5 Maneuvers GRANTED
0 Maneuvers WITHHELD
Player expends 2 Maneuvers (1 strike, and 1 boost), which now looks like this:
3 Maneuvers GRANTED
2 Maneuvers EXPENDED
0 Maneuvers WITHHELD

End Round 2. Going on the quote provided above from ToB... We have can not be granted a manuever because we have no withheld maneuvers remaining. What happens? I recover all EXPENDED Maneuvers (in this case, 2 have been expended) and a new pair (that means 2) of maneuvers is GRANTED to me. I already have 3 GRANTED Maneuvers, but a new pair gets granted to me, so I am back to 5 Granted Maneuvers.

There ya go. After 3 rounds of combat, you will have all your maneuvers available to you provided you can use at least 2 maneuvers every round.

(Sorry if this has been brought up already, didn't get to read all pages)

That might be true, if you don't read the rest of the text, in which it says "..determine randomly which maneuvers are granted and which are withheld.."
Your maneuvers all become unexpended, then ALL of your readied maneuvers are shuffled and then the pair of maneuvers to be granted is randomly selected from all of your readied maneuvers, and the rest become withheld. To do anything else is Munchkin, pure and simple.

Crusaders are only broken if you ignore the rules.

 

[Nail]

Why did you pick those levels? They seem to favor the warblade much like comparing a wizard vs sorcerer at level 3 would favor the wizard.

For the Ftr vs. WB comparison, that's a very minor issue. Fourth level isn't much different, 11th level isn't much different, etc. If you'd like, I invite you to post other WBs at other levels.

Why such a high point buy value? That favors people who need more stats which will also favor the warblade.

Because they're the ability score generation method in play in my game. I thought I made that obvious.

The WB does not really suffer from M.A.D.. A higher Int is nice, but not required, as the maneuvers don't have saving throws which depend on Int. All the rest of the ability scores favor a Ftr and WB equally.

Why did you limit it to a melee weapon only and why greataxe? Looking over the choices for abilities this would also seem to favor the warblade.

I'm afraid with this statement and those above you're starting to reveal a distinct lack of understanding of the issues at hand. You know that WB's don't use missile weapons for manuevers, right? And that the only missile weapons they are proficient with are those that are also melee weapons?

Etc.

This comparison is completely dependent on which feats are chosen plus the situations that come up.

Not at all; that's why both the Ftr and the WB are focused on the same thing: Being really good with a Greataxe. That's entirely the point of a comparison: keep as many things as possible the same between two different approaches.

I suspect you might learn a great deal by posting a 6th level Warblade, focused on a Greataxe (so as to compare to those I posted). Along with that work up a 6th level Ftr; keep as much as is reasonable the same between them. Go for it!

 

[charlesatan]

Another thing going against Crusaders is the fact that their choice of techniques is limited. Devoted Spirit is good for healing but that's it. Stone Dragon is a bit like Devoted Spirit (defensive-oriented) or making that one big strike count (penetrate DR, etc.) but also limits your mobility depending on your stance or strike. White Raven is great tactically, but really aside from the charge and getting into position to attack, there's little left in damage output compared to say, the Diamond Mind or Iron Heart schools. If anyone deserved the d12 hit points, it'd be the Crusaders. (Sure, you can take feats to gain access to other maneuvers but again, that's taking a feat.)

I also forgot to mention that Fighters too can take Martial Maneuvers and stances, just not as high a level as martial adepts. And again, the strength of a Fighter is his number of feats, which most martial adepts (and the bonus feat list of the Warblade isn't impressive) simply don't have.

 

[Nail]

I also forgot to mention that Fighters too can take Martial Maneuvers and stances, just not as high a level as martial adepts.

And the feat to do it (Martial Study) is a Ftr bonus feat. So Ftrs could be taking a few of the juicy feats (with the proper prereq.s).

 

[charlesatan]

For the Ftr vs. WB comparison, that's a very minor issue. Fourth level isn't much different, 11th level isn't much different, etc. If you'd like, I invite you to post other WBs at other levels.

No, actually, it is a significant factor. As I posted earlier, Warblades will probably outshine Fighters in the early levels simply because there's really little benefit from a full attack with no iterative attacks. And probably again at the higher levels, because that's where the "sweet" maneuvers come from, or at least enough to make up for the lack of a full attack (the x4 damage maneuver, two full attacks, 2 extra attacks with each weapon in hand), in the same way that a Wizard will outclass a Fighter at the higher levels.

Because they're the ability score generation method in play in my game. I thought I made that obvious.


The WB does not really suffer from M.A.D.. A higher Int is nice, but not required, as most of the maneuvers don't have saving throws (which depend on Int.) All the rest of the ability scores favor a Ftr and WB equally.

The WB isn't as MAD as the Monk or worse, the Paladin, but the 32 points favors the Warblade more than the Fighter simply because he has Int synergy while the Fighter does not (unless he multi-classed 3 levels of Swashbuckler).

I'm afraid you're starting to reveal a distinct lack of understanding of the issues at hand. You know that WB's don't use missile weapons for manuevers, right? And that the only missile weapons they are proficient with are those that are also melee weapons?

Etc.

Not at all; that's why both the Ftr and the WB are focused on the same thing: Being really good with a Greataxe. That's entirely the point of a comparison: keep as many things as possible the same between two different approaches.

I suspect you might learn a great deal by posting a 6th level Warblade, focused on a Greataxe (so as to compare to those I posted). Along with that work up a 6th level Ftr; keep as much as is reasonable the same between them. Go for it!

No, it's not just missile weapons but the type of weapon. I mean one of the more powerful but feat-intensive builds out there is the Fighter wielding a Spiked Chain and making the most out of AoO. Or it could be a weapon with a higher threat range. Or even the TWF route (which is feat intensive to maximize). The PHB2 also opens a lot of feat options depending on the type of damage (piercing, bludgening, slashing) so it is also a consideration, missile weapons aside.

There's also the fact that the Greataxe is a two-handed weapon, which gets the least benefit from Fighter only feats like Weapon Specialization (yes, the Warblade can take it, but it's costing him a feat which isn't as common as it is to a Fighter). There's also the sword/shield pair, or a two-handed weapon + spiked armor/improved unarmed strike combo, etc.

 

[Nail]

Uh, if you notice in the earlier threads, most of us were on the understanding that a melee attack was just one attack and not part of a full attack.

So spell it out for me: Does the text claim that the melee attack used for recharge must be a standard action? Where does it say that?

And most maneuvers state "make an attack" yet no one is assuming that it's a full attack.

I'm not asuming that either, as I'm reading the part of maneuver stat block that says:

Initiation Action: Standard Action

We're not talking about being able to use a maneuver, or being able to use a maneuver right after the swift action recharge. We're talking about the RAW about recharging maneuvers for the WB.

Besides, it's a full round action to make a full attack, while "an attack" is a standard action, which is in the PHB.

You're confounding a few bits here. Be careful with your wording.

Can you make a melee attack during a Full Attack Action?

What does a WB have to do immediately after using a swift action to recharge his maneuvers?

 

[Nail]

No, actually, it is a significant factor. As I posted earlier, Warblades will probably outshine Fighters in the early levels simply because there's really little benefit from a full attack with no iterative attacks.

I agree that at levels 1 - 5, the WB has the advantage. I said as much, didn't I?

And probably again at the higher levels, because that's where the "sweet" maneuvers come from, or at least enough to make up for the lack of a full attack (the x4 damage maneuver, two full attacks, 2 extra attacks with each weapon in hand), in the same way that a Wizard will outclass a Fighter at the higher levels.

So you are claiming that WB are better than Ftrs at higher levels too?

As I said above, I agree (probably --> I want to see them in play).

You are staing all of this as if you an I disagree. I find that strange, as we do not.

No, it's not just missile weapons but the type of weapon.

Two points:
#1) The person I was responding to indicated that missile weapons would be a good idea for a WB.

#2) If you feel that another weapon choice might show a different picture, I invite you to work up and post the relevant WB.

Remember, your task is to show that the WB is balanced with a Ftr.

Go.

 

[charlesatan]

So spell it out for me: Does the text claim that the melee attack used for recharge must be a standard action? Where does it say that?

An attack has always been a standard action. Not a swift, immediate, or full attack unless otherwise specified. My default (and a lot of people's) assumption is that unless otherwise stated, an attack is just an attack (a full attack, in our perspective, is a special action). You were the one assuming that unless otherwise stated, an attack could possibly be a full attack. (Not that that kind of thinking is wrong or anything, it's just that my thought-pattern is that unless otherwise stated, you can only do this, while your particular thought-pattern is unless otherwise stated, you can do this. Which isn't be so bad under "normal" circumstances, but apparently rules in my favor on this count.)

I think this part has been resolved by CustServ which is why we asked them about it in the first place. So let's move on, stop the whining and rebuttals on this part.

 

[starwed]

An attack has always been a standard action.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. A full attack action is not an attack, but, get this, you make several attacks as part of it. And oddly enough, those attacks count as attacks... (It's the same as making disarm or trip attempts as part of a full attack action.)

I personally think that the warblade should require an attack action (different than an attack) to recharge, but that's not how it was phrased.