Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3185411" data-attributes="member: 20870">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.</blockquote>

Verification