Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

[bushidokid]

I think the thing that's causing people here problems is the fundamental way in which the WB operates. The WB along with the Monk is unique among warrior types in that it's almost completely self-contained. What I mean by that is that the WB like the monk always works, he's not dependent on weapons, armor, equipment or magic. Weapon aptitude grantees that all his feats work and if he's taken imp unarmed strike all his maneuvers and stances work just fine. This I think, is an unconscious thing that people respond to, the Monk was thought to be massively overpowered when 3e came out, and I think it was partly do to this. No matter what the campaign, no matter what the treasure, magic level or party make-up the monk and the WB always have a base-line performance. And if something helps them it helps them, but they're almost never rendered useless by Dm inflicted forces. Well, ranged weapons, but even then, Monks have fast movement, deflect arrows and jump, and depending on your maneuvers, WBs have options.

Also, having built a 17th level WB for a friends game, I can say that they're absolutely wicked, but one of the things I discovered is that you're getting maneuvers from at most two schools, maybe splashing a third, so people who are going to any given maneuver to answer some problem for the WB have to remember that the pre-req system makes it almost impossible to cover much more than two separate schools. Also, the sheer number of feats allow fighters to slide into a variety of niches, for example, if I were making a fighter, I'd definitely pick up Improved unarmed, Improved grapple and superior Unarmed, because I could never be disarmed and grappling is just good for certain things, like completely owning a WarBlade. ; )

My WB is certainly a powerful character, but is he more powerful than the equivalent character? I dunno. One final thought, the term "broken" is being tossed around here, and I don't think it's appropriate. Overpowered maybe, but in my mind Broken is something that fundamentally destroys the game, makes it impossible to play, Pun-Pun, the Will and the Word and Epic Spellcasting are broken, what we're discussing is mere overpowering.

 

[Fedifensor]

Actually, WotC can. All it needs to do is to release a bunch of Fighter-only feats, or feats that scale with the number of Fighter levels or the number of Fighter feats (defined as any feat that could be taken as a Fighter bonus feat) that a character has. This is an approach that has been used for draconic feats (Complete Arcane, Races of the Dragon, Dragon Magic) and other feats that synergize with each other (PHB2's stance feats, for example).

Again, that's going to have to wait for 4E. If you introduce it as errata, it's a marketing nightmare. If you introduce it in a new book, you completely invalidate the core rules. At that point, why even bother having an SRD?

If Weapon Focus granted a +1 bonus to hit, and an additional +1 for every six Fighter feats, you wouldn't need Greater Weapon Focus, and a high-level Fighter could get a +3 or +4 bonus to hit with each weapon that he took Weapon Focus in.

The problem is that you're just offering more bonuses. It doesn't solve all the other fighter problems. Their skill list is pitiful. Every odd level after 1st is a 'dead' level with nothing to offer.

Furthermore, most classes have more than 11 total boosts over a 20-level progression. Heck, just look at what they did with the 3.5 ranger (a vast improvement over the 3.0 version). I count 21 improvements over the course of the 20 level progression - several bonus feats, 4 different levels of spells, and lots of class abilities like Favored Enemy, Evasion, etc. And that doesn't even count the fact that they get 6 skill points per level and a huge list of class skills. They even get an extra 'good' save. Bonus feats alone do not make an appealing class. Which is why I see the Warblade as a far better choice for the 4E fighter than the current 3.5 version.

 

[FireLance]

Again, that's going to have to wait for 4E. If you introduce it as errata, it's a marketing nightmare. If you introduce it in a new book, you completely invalidate the core rules. At that point, why even bother having an SRD?

The problem is that you're just offering more bonuses. It doesn't solve all the other fighter problems. Their skill list is pitiful. Every odd level after 1st is a 'dead' level with nothing to offer.

Furthermore, most classes have more than 11 total boosts over a 20-level progression. Heck, just look at what they did with the 3.5 ranger (a vast improvement over the 3.0 version). I count 21 improvements over the course of the 20 level progression - several bonus feats, 4 different levels of spells, and lots of class abilities like Favored Enemy, Evasion, etc. And that doesn't even count the fact that they get 6 skill points per level and a huge list of class skills. They even get an extra 'good' save. Bonus feats alone do not make an appealing class. Which is why I see the Warblade as a far better choice for the 4E fighter than the current 3.5 version.

Have we gone from discussing whether the warblade is overpowered to discussing whether the fighter is underpowered? If so, perhaps we should start a new thread.

If the real problem is that the fighter is underpowered, and is underpowered even when considering the SRD only, then let's not point fingers at the poor warblade, please.

It is true that as more fighting-type base classes are introduced, the number of archetypes that are best modeled with a pure fighter gets reduced. A player who wants a noble or aristocratic warrior is probably better off with a knight (from PHB2) or a samurai (from Complete Warrior). The swashbucker (from Complete Warrior) works better for the mobile, Dexterity-based, lightly-armored warrior. Now, the warblade is a better martial artist/trick fighter. The fighter's niches are getting eroded, to the point that it's simply become the class you take if you want more fighter feats. Right now, I think the only archetypes that it does really well are archers/ranged attack specialists and spiked chain weapon masters.

 

[Votan]

Right now, I think the only archetypes that it does really well are archers/ranged attack specialists and spiked chain weapon masters.

I think that even the archery tree is a limited option for fighters. While it is true that they are the fastest class to be useful at archery, archery tends to be a weak otpion at low levels compared to melee (a Greatsword is cheaper than a +3 mighty bow and does a lot more damage at these levels).

Later on, to be a great archer, spot would be a very useful skill. Rangers get this as well as spells that enhance archery (post-Complete Adventurer) and will have acquired all of the critical archery feats by level 6 or so (and all posisble ones by level 11 or so).

It's a tough niche for a fighter to dominate even. Even Horse Archer is lost to the ranger who has a horse as an animal companion.

But spiked chain tripper is pure fighter.

 

[Nail]

So....I take it then that the "Warblade is balanced with respect to the Ftr" camp has given up that argument as a lost cause? ('Cause that's what started this thread, see post #1)

'Bout time.

 

[NilesB]

So....I take it then that the "Warblade is balanced with respect to the Ftr" camp has given up that argument as a lost cause? ('Cause that's what started this thread, see post #1)

No, but the Barbarian is a more apt class for comparison with the Warblade.

 

[Perun]

So....I take it then that the "Warblade is balanced with respect to the Ftr" camp has given up that argument as a lost cause? ('Cause that's what started this thread, see post #1)

'Bout time.

Nononononono I, for one, am still in the fighter-is-balanced camp, but I said my bit. Different people have different values, and nobody is, apparently, changing their minds.

My take, since I'm already babbling here, is that the issue is siatuational. It depends n the campaign, play-style, DM, and the players. But does warblade make fighter ineffective? No. Is he better at certain things? Yes. But, then again, a fighter is better at certain other things.

Warblade is new, and its flashy. It draws attention. d12 HD helps, too But it lacks heavy armour proficiency and ranged weapon proficincies (see second paragraph above on the relevance of this).

But, ToB offers some great material for fighters, too. Martial Study feat is also a fighter bonus feat, through which a fighter can get up to three of the following skills: Tumble, Intimidate, Balance, Sense Motive, Hide, Jump, and Diplomacy. Plus a manoeuver. Then there's Martial Stance (which is also a fighter bonus feat). A fighter with those feats won't be as good at manoeuvering as a martial adept, but, hey -- he gets a new class skill!

I'm certain there was a point somewhere in there, but I lost it.

 

[IanB]

So....I take it then that the "Warblade is balanced with respect to the Ftr" camp has given up that argument as a lost cause? ('Cause that's what started this thread, see post #1)

'Bout time.

I'm not sure that you can draw that conclusion, as the participants in the different parts of the discussion are not the same people.

/back to lurking

 

[Nail]

I'm certain there was a point somewhere in there, but I lost it.

No, no....I got the point.

IMC, the Warblade is doing some funky (clever!) things to get his Concentrations skill way up there. I'm "eager" to see how he punishes my NPCs with it.

 

[Fedifensor]

Well, since I've been working on a Warblade build as a possible replacement character in our Eberron game, here's what I've got:

Kalashtar Warblade 10
Stats: Str 14 (18), Dex 14, Con 16 (18), Int 14, Wis 14, Cha 8, Armor Class 18 (+6 armor, +2 Dex), 133 Hit Points (campaign rules give max roll at 1st, 75% afterward).
Saves: Fort +13, Ref +9, Will +7.
Attacks: Katana +15/+10 (1d10+8, 17/x2 crit)
Skills (ranks/bonus): Autohypnosis 1/+3, Balance 5/+7, Climb 1/+3, Concentration 13/+29, Diplomacy 9/+10, Intimidate 5/+6, Jump 5/+9, Knowledge: Psionics 6/+8, Knowledge: Local 5/+7, Knowledge: History 2/+4, Martial Lore 2/+5, Psicraft 1/+5, Swim 1/+3, Tumble 13/+15.
Languages: Common, Quor, Riedran, Draconic.
Feats: Power Attack, Psionic Weapon, Psionic Meditation, Deep Impact, Blade Meditation (Diamond Mind), Blind-Fight.
Move: 30'.
Space/Reach: 5 feet/5 feet
Power Points: 10
Class Abilities: Battle Clarity (+2 to Reflex saves, included), Weapon Aptitude, Improved Uncanny Dodge, Battle Ardor (+2 to confirm criticals), Battle Cunning (+2 to melee damage versus flat-footed or flanked foes).
Racial Abilities: See Eberron Campaign Sourcebook.
Maneuvers (* = Readied): Moment of Perfect Mind* (DM1), Insightful Strike* (DM3), Ruby Nightmare Blade* (DM4), Wall of Blades* (IH2), Iron Heart Surge (IH3), Lightning Recovery (IH4), Mithral Tornado (IH4), Battle Leader's Charge* (WR2).
Stances: Stance of Clarity (DM1), Leading the Charge (WR1), Press the Advantage (WR5)
Equipment: +1 keen deep crystal katana, +1 mithral breastplate, third eye: concentrate, +4 belt of giant strength, +2 amulet of health, +2 cloak of resistance, MW dagger, various mundane items.

This build assumes a 30-point buy (what I use in my home campaign) and magic items equal to what is shown on the Character Wealth by Level guidelines (pg 135 DMG). I would love to add the Martial Discipline Weapon (Diamond Mind) enhancement, but I just didn't have the cash to spare.

Tactics are pretty simple. In nearly every round of combat, the character can use Deep Impact to make a normal attack into a touch attack, which works perfectly well with maneuvers. Add in a charged deep crystal blade and Power Attack, and the damage can really get up there. Not to mention the 30-49 points of damage available with a single swing at this level (the damage doubles next level, with Greater Insightful Strike).

The weak point of the build is the AC. Even with Stance of Clarity fighting a single foe, it's only a 20. The character will be using Wall of Blades to help with AC, but that will only be available once every four rounds or so.