Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[charlesatan]

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

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.

Well we are disgreeing on the count that "the warblade is always better than the fighter". A lot of factors and variables are involved. Levels are just one of those factors.

The thing about higher levels is the question of how long the encounter lasts. If it's under three rounds, the WB can easily win the encounter mainly because he can "unload" most of his maneuvers before recharging (and when I'm talking about "unload", I'm only taking about two or three specific 8th/9th-level maneuvers). Once the maneuvers are gone, the Fighter is still consistently dealing his set damage.

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

No, that line had two elements in it: why melee, and why the greataxe. And he does make a good point, how would a ranged Fighter stand up to a conventional Warblade? The point is, identical comparisons (i.e. same gear, same stat allocation) isn't the best choice for determining effectivity. It's like comparing apples (i.e. the Fighter) and oranges (i.e. the Warblade), even if they're both fruits (i.e. "Fighter"-types).

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

You missed the point of the post. A fully optimized tripping, spiked chain wielding Fighter for example is not reproducable as a Warblade (at least not without multiclassing) simply because a Warblade doesn't have enough feats. A TWF Fighter and a TWF Warblade would be entirely different becacuse the former's damage output will come from feats (i.e. Weapon Specialization), while the latter from maneuvers and stances (i.e. Blood in the Water) becausse a Warblade doesn't have enough feats to take both the TWF tree and the entire Weapon Focus tree.

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

If you missed my point earlier, it's not. the WB has a slightly different power curve from that of a spellcaster: good at early levels, presumably good at later levels. A Ftr is simple to use at early levels, effective in the mid-levels, and honestly not-so-effective at high levels compared to the other classes (i.e. most of the spellcasting classes).

Having said that, it's not necessarily a throw-away, no brainer that I'd always pick a WB over a Ftr. If it's feats you want, go Ftr. If what you want is maneuvers, go WB. If you want mobility, I'd say go for WB with White Raven maneuvers or a focused Fighter.

If it's a "class imbalance" you're talking about, you ignored my previous post about martial adepts being akin to spellcasters (i.e. damage output not quite there, but still a powerful hike).

 

[Nail]

An attack has always been a standard action.

!!!!

A melee attack can be a standard action. It can also be the result of an AoO. It can be part of a touch spell. It can be part of a Full Attack Action. Significantly, it can be part of a martial adept's maneuver.

A melee attack is defined as "a physical attack suitable for close combat." It does not necessarily define the kind of action it is a part of.

 

[Nail]

Well we are disgreeing on the count that "the warblade is always better than the fighter".

Hmmm. Then I think you've been misunderstanding me.

I said at 3rd level, the WB vs. Ftr comparison shows the WB ahead. At 9th level, the comparison is much closer. At 15th level, the WB is ahead again.

Stripped to those statements, do you disagree with me?

 

[charlesatan]

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.

Disarms and trip attempts are covered under special attacks. Admittedly, the wording could have been better stated (I'll even ignore the "or using a standard action to do nothing else" as a possible hint) but I pointed out earlier the line of thought the two opposing camps had, and how WotC Customer Service made their ruling.

 

[charlesatan]

I said at 3rd level, the WB vs. Ftr comparison shows the WB ahead. At 9th level, the comparison is much closer. At 15th level, the WB is ahead again.

Stripped to those statements, do you disagree with me?

Stripped down to those statements, here's my opinions:

Assuming both are optimally built, the 3rd level WB vs Ftr, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

The 9th-level varies. Is the Ftr in a position to make use of a full attack? (i.e. one big tough baddy instead of several weak baddies or spring-attacking baddy) So it goes without saying that at 9th-level, there are times when the WB will be in the lead, and at other times, the Ftr in the lead. And at 9th-level, there's really no over-the-top maneuver that outperforms a full attack.

My answer for 15th-level is pretty much like 9th-level. In the first three rounds, the WB will outperform the Ftr. If the encounter ends (and most likely it will), then I'm all for the WB being the superior class on that part. If not, the Ftr might actually out-trump the WB. Although I will concede that more often than not, in this scenario/level, the WB will probably outperform the Ftr more often than not.

Even I seem to be complicating things, It's because I'm qualifying the situation. Slaved did mention "With all of this how can your one comparison declare that the warblade is always better than the fighter?" Always, after all, is different from often, on the average, or seldom. And depending on what your GM throws at you and his tactics, it's hard to say in a clear-cut way which class will most likely be favored. Suffice to say, there are times when a Ftr is useful, and there are times when a WB is more useful.

 

[Nail]

Disarms and trip attempts are covered under special attacks. Admittedly, the wording could have been better stated (I'll even ignore the "or using a standard action to do nothing else" as a possible hint) but I pointed out earlier the line of thought the two opposing camps had, and how WotC Customer Service made their ruling.

#1) "Melee Attack" is not the same as "Standard Action". You'll just have to drop that line of your argument.

#2) The wording says "melee attack". I'm not sure how anyone could claim differently. (Without a bottle of White-out and a pen in hand. )

#3) There are two ways of a WB recharging: swift action + melee attack or swift action plus standard action (harmless flourish). Again, this is what the text says. So far, there's no room for interpretation.

#4) Since a melee attack can be part of a Full-round Attack, and the text says "melee attack" without defining the action type required, we are free to chose the type of action.

#5) CustServe *often* gives answers that differ from the books, sometimes from one day to the next. Since the CustServe statement "The rules only mention an attack action, which would normally be a standard action!" shows they didn't read the rule text in question before answering, it's reasonable to disregard it completely.

 

[Nail]

Stripped down to those statements, here's my opinions:

Excellent; Thank you. Have you played a WB? (If you mentioned it earlier, I missed it and I apologize.)

Always, after all, is different from often, on the average, or seldom.

I think you'll find I've not used the word "always".

However, if the word "often" can be used when talking about the WB over the Ftr, we have a balance problem, don't we?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Stripped down to those statements, here's my opinions:

Assuming both are optimally built, the 3rd level WB vs Ftr, yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

The 9th-level varies. Is the Ftr in a position to make use of a full attack? (i.e. one big tough baddy instead of several weak baddies or spring-attacking baddy) So it goes without saying that at 9th-level, there are times when the WB will be in the lead, and at other times, the Ftr in the lead. And at 9th-level, there's really no over-the-top maneuver that outperforms a full attack.

My answer for 15th-level is pretty much like 9th-level. In the first three rounds, the WB will outperform the Ftr. If the encounter ends (and most likely it will), then I'm all for the WB being the superior class on that part. If not, the Ftr might actually out-trump the WB. Although I will concede that more often than not, in this scenario/level, the WB will probably outperform the Ftr more often than not.

Again, Full Attacks just aren't the be-all end-all. "Feats" don't apply to Full Attacks, usually, any more than Maneuvers do. Feats usually provide a situational bonus, much like a Maneuver or Stance does (but without the wuxia "and then I fly through the air and blow you up and make your eyeballs bleed for three rounds"). Specialization would apply to every attack in a full attack action ... buy wait, the Warblade gets that too. But better.

I just picked up a copy of the book this afternoon, and I'm going through it.

hoooooboy. I was biting my nails wondering if I could convince my GM to let me retcon the 14th level of Cleric I took at the end of the last session and replace it with a level of Crusader. The multiclassing rules for this book seem to be, in a word, INSANE. My character is already the leading damage-dealing beatstick, and picking up five maneuvers and a stance would just skyrocket my dishing.

I must read more. Thus-far I was most familiar with a few maneuvers and stances I'd been shown by friends and the Warblade available on the WotC site, so I'm going through the other two classes.

So far, the Crusader seems to be pretty cool ... I like the flavor, and none of the abilities seem way way out there. Unfortunately, I'm really REALLY convinced that many of these Manuevers and Stances are, in and of themselves, well worth a whole feat ... and the martial adept classes get quite a few of them. That they are "expended" and "refreshed" seems ... not really that much of a balance, to me. If I have, say, a powerful Charge-related feat, I can't just use that feat every round, round after round ... there's only so many situations in which you will need/want/be able to charge the enemy. So a Strike that lets you charge without taking AoOs AND deal +10 damage on the charge ... that it is then "Expended" doesn't seem to make it weaker than any charge feat I've heard of.

There's a Strike in there that deals just a straight +8d8 damage. Yeow. By my reading of the rules, if my 14th level character took his 15th level in Crusader, I could actually pick that one up. Last session, at 14th level, I put down a 99 damage hit, without any crits ... "Add 8d8 to that?" "Yes, please."

A couple-times read-through of the Crusader stance refresh system does seem to suggest that it's not a broken infinite loop. After all of the withheld maneuvers have been granted, on the next round you "reboot" and you get two dealt up and three in the hole. So, if you've been saving up Maneuvers, you'll have "wasted" them. It actually sounds like a lot of fun to play.

--fje

 

[charlesatan]

#1) "Melee Attack" is not the same as "Standard Action". You'll just have to drop that line of your argument.

#2) The wording says "melee attack". I'm not sure how anyone could claim differently. (Without a bottle of White-out and a pen in hand. )

#3) There are two ways of a WB recharging: swift action + melee attack or swift action plus standard action (harmless flourish). Again, this is what the text says. So far, there's no room for interpretation.

#4) Since a melee attack can be part of a Full-round Attack, and the text says "melee attack" without defining the action type required, we are free to chose the type of action.

#5) CustServe *often* gives answers that differ from the books, sometimes from one day to the next. Since the CustServe statement "The rules only mention an attack action, which would normally be a standard action!" shows they didn't read the rule text in question before answering, it's reasonable to disregard it completely.

For #1-4, the argument, honestly, can go either way. I've said my side, you've said yours. GMs will make their own rulings based on it. I honestly think that after several pages worth of debating and arguing on it, it's a subject best dropped at this point.

For #5, yes, I am well-aware of the limitations of CustServ. However, until it pops up in the "official" Sage or FAQ, it is the "official" stance I (and a lot of other people) will adopt. First off, two of us did ask them the same question, and on both counts the "default" belief is that it is a standard action (with the "full attack" option as a suggestion to the GM and inform the other players). Second, that's what CustServ is for. If we asked them a question and we disregarded it, why else bother asking them in the first place? (At least from a general-player point of view.) As a GM, it is always your perogative to agree/disagree with them or make a house rule. But in general, when the text isn't clear, the "default" is usually the FAQ, then Sage Online/Ask Wizards, then CustServ in that order.

 

[charlesatan]

Excellent; Thank you. Have you played a WB? (If you mentioned it earlier, I missed it and I apologize.)
I think you'll find I've not used the word "always".

However, if the word "often" can be used when talking about the WB over the Ftr, we have a balance problem, don't we?

Haven't played a Warblade, although I did build one from the ground up, helped some friends build their martial adepts (it's usually a combination of martial adept classes, prestige classes, and a couple of other classes from Ftrs to Wiz).

You didn't use the word always but that was the point of Slaved which was why he brought up those questions.

As for balance, again, the designers have admitted that it's not supposed to stand up to your conventional warrior types. Is it more powerful than your typical spellcasters? No. On the power-level scale of D&D (with Clerics and Druids being at the top of the ladder), the martial adepts in general are somewhere in the middle. Clearly they're better than some classes, but not the be-all and end-all of classes. Of course that's not to say that the Fighter is at the bottom of the ladder (there's probably the Monk down down there, unless you're after defense rather than offense, and MAD while you're at it), and is also like comparing the Ftr to a Bard (the Bard's a great team buffer but if you're making a Bard vs Ftr damage output...)

Are martial adepts broken? No. Will people stop playing Ftrs just because you have the WB? No. Are WB unfair to Ftrs? Depends on your perspective (I mean to the designers, the two aren't meant to be compared). But then again, it's not like the Ftrs weren't disadvantaged compared to the other core classes. The Ftr and the WB both evoke different flavors. And one thing still going for the Ftr is that it's easier to play than most classes.