# Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?



## Nail

A player of mine has asked to play either a *Warblade* or *Swordsage* (from the WotC book: Tome of Battle - the Book of Nine Swords).  I'm wondering what the general opinion is on these classes.

*Swordsage:*
The swordsage seems to have a mis-print in their skill points per level.  It should be 4 pts per level, not 6, right?

If we compare Swordsage (SS) to Mnk, the SS has the adaptability, via it's maneuvers and
stances, to overcome almost any weakness it may have.  The Mnk, OTOH, has abilities that are fixed, and it's awfully easy to build a poor Mnk.  Both get average BAB, and the Mnk gets a better Fort save.  But as for class abilities, the SS has the Mnk beat, hands down. It gets *lots* of maneuvers and stances.  And AC favors the SS over Mnk.

****************
*Warblade:*
Comparing the Ftr to the WB:


		Code:
	

Ftr                                WB
d10 HD                             d12 HD
Good BAB                           Good BAB
Good Fort, Poor Ref & Will         Good Fort, Poor Ref & Will
2 skill pts/lvl                    4 skill pts/lvl
Skills:                            Skills:
   Climb, Craft,                      Balance, Climb,
   Handle Animal,                     Concentration, Craft,
   Intimidate, Jump,                  Diplomacy, Intimidate,
   Know(local),                       Jump, Know(History),
   Ride, Swim                         Know(local), 
                                      Martial Lore, Swim,
                                      Tumble
Class Abilities:                   Class Abilities:
   1 bonus feat/2 lvls                Maneuvers & Stances,
                                      Battle Clarity(1st),
                                      Weapon Aptitude(1st),
                                      Uncanny Dodge(2nd),
                                      Battle Ardor(3rd)
                                      Bonus Feats(5th, 9th, 13th, 17th),
                                      Imp. Uncanny Dodge(6th),
                                      Battle Cunning(7th),
                                      Battle Skill(11th),
                                      Battle Mastery(15th),
                                      Stance Mastery(20th).

Comments:
   **The WB has a better skill list and skill points than the fighter.  The tumble skill alone is worth the whole fighter list.

   **In some campaigns, Weapon aptitude is huge.  Not only can you take the Weapon Specialization feats (which normally only a Ftr can take), but you can shift that Weapon Focus feat to whatever weapon you happen to have on hand. 

   **The "Battle" class abilities are good stuff, but not over-the-top.  It makes the WB's Int score important.  Does the Ftr have anything to match this?  Feats, I guess. But....

   **The maneuvers and stances are what “match” the Ftr bonus feats.  And given my read through, they at least tie the Ftr bonus feats in power.  They are very _cool_ abilities, and I can't wait to see 'em in practice.  But these things are not just “sub-“feats.  Each is the equivalent to a spell or psionic ability. I guess my main question here is: "What does the WB lose to gain the "Battle" abilities and the maneuvers and stances?"


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I think most people feel that Tome of Battle was a significant moment of power-creep.  Though that may be because I'm in their number.

We're in the middle of an Age of Worms campaign, so I haven't had a chance to playtest it thoroughly, but I can't really see somebody playing a Monk or Fighter to much appreciate having the Tome of Battle classes introduced.  The major argument FOR ToB usually boils down to:  "I think Monk and Fighter suck, so these classes being more powerful is good."

I think the concepts are cool, but I'd rather introduce them as feats for the Fighter and other existing martial classes to have access to.  I'd save the ToB classes for a campaign where Fighter/Monk/Barbarian were replaced entirely with those classes.

--fje


----------



## Crothian

I think it depends in what we call overpowered.  Is it overpowered compared to the fighter?  I think yes (however this can depend on what feat options that fighter has).  Is it overpowered compared to the Cleric?  I don't think so.


----------



## Nail

I'm less interested in how a Warblade compares to a Cleric (or a Psion, or a Druid, or....) than how it compares to a Ftr, Bbn, Pal, or Rgr.  

How does it compare?

(I think it's also fair to assume that if Tome of Battle is available, then PH II - and its feats - is available.)


----------



## Victim

Nail said:
			
		

> A player of mine has asked to play either a *Warblade* or *Swordsage* (from the WotC book: Tome of Battle - the Book of Nine Swords).  I'm wondering what the general opinion is on these classes.
> 
> *Swordsage:*
> The swordsage seems to have a mis-print in their skill points per level.  It should be 4 pts per level, not 6, right?
> 
> If we compare Swordsage (SS) to Mnk, the SS has the adaptability, via it's maneuvers and
> stances, to overcome almost any weakness it may have.  The Mnk, OTOH, has abilities that are fixed, and it's awfully easy to build a poor Mnk.  Both get average BAB, and the Mnk gets a better Fort save.  But as for class abilities, the SS has the Mnk beat, hands down. It gets *lots* of maneuvers and stances.  And AC favors the SS over Mnk.




I don't know about that.  There's often a significant opportunity cost to using a manuever since many replace your normal attack action.  While monk abilities are generally less powerful, they easily work in conjunction with each other.  My monk ended up using pretty much all of his combat abilities at the same time, while the swordsage can generally only run any one of his stances, plus any one of his strikes, plus any one of his boosts at any given moment.  And Greater Flurry is no small thing either.  Plus since the swordsage recovery method kind of sucks and they can only ready one copy of a manuever, it seems likely they'll burn through their better moves rather quickly - or they'll won't have the chance to use their larger array of manuevers.

The warblade is probably less broken than it looks at first glance.    On one of the other ToB threads awhile back I ran some numbers on a warblade spamming Time Stands Still versus a fighter full attacking, and the deficet the fighter needed to cover with his unspent feats wasn't nearly as great as I thought.  And mean Fighter/Barbarian (and/or PrC) types can probably compete on an even basis with warblades.

Of course, I haven't seen the new classes in play yet either.  Hopefully our group will get a chance to test them out soon.


----------



## Mouseferatu

You know, one major balancing factor that never seems to come up is that many of the maneuvers require the warblade/crusader/swordsage use a standard action. At high levels, whent he fighter is making multiple attacks, with all sorts of fighter bonus feats stacked on him, that loss of iterative attacks is _huge_. I've seen high-level fighters deal out multiple hundreds of HP in damage in one round at very high levels. At least some of the time, the ToB character is going to have to sacrifice that to use his abilities.

(And yes, I know that not _all_ the ToB abilities require this, but there are enough of them that it's a factor.)

*Edit:* And Victim beat me to it.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Nail said:
			
		

> **In some campaigns, Weapon aptitude is huge.  Not only can you take the Weapon Specialization feats (which normally only a Ftr can take), but you can shift that Weapon Focus feat to whatever weapon you happen to have on hand.




My favorite trick is to take Exotic Weapon Proficency and the use Weapon Aptitude to switch it around, so I can be good at a Spiked Chain, Bastard Sword, or whatever the situation calls for.


----------



## Crothian

Nail said:
			
		

> How do they compare?




This is assuming that all classes have full access to a wide variety of D&D books as that is how I play.  If we start limioted the books accessiable, the Warblade and Swordsage start to look much better.  Also, I'm not assuming pure min maxing. 

Against the Ranger and Paladin, I think they compare well.  Rangers and Paladins are more versatile and I think their spells really are a big plus for those classes.  In a stricty combat approach the Warblade and Swordsage are better, but then so is the Fighter and Barbarian.

Against the Barbarian, I think it favors the Warblade and Spellsword a little becasue they are more versatile in combat with the options they get.  However, Barbarians have a better skill list for outside of combat.  

Against Fighters I again thing they have an advantage.  But I haven't really looked on how a fighter can take advantage of the options from the Book of Nine Swords.  

I'm not sure I would call the advantage overpowered, but they are more powerful.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Victim said:
			
		

> Plus since the swordsage recovery method kind of sucks and they can only ready one copy of a manuever, it seems likely they'll burn through their better moves rather quickly - or they'll won't have the chance to use their larger array of manuevers.




This is why the Adaptive Stlye feat is a MUST for a Swordsage.  Instead of using a full round action to recover one maneuver, they can use Adaptive Style to use a full round action and recover all their moves.


----------



## Nail

I've read some of the analyses of Warblade, and they all *start* at 20th level. I don't know about you, but my players don't start at 20th.  They start at 1st.  And they spend quite a bit of time between 1st and 20th.  

Many of the maneuvers (strikes) require a standard or a full-round action.  Is that the only drawback?  I, too, have been in games where full-attacking Bbn/Ftrs have done 100's of points of damage per round...but that was when they were full-attacking (*and* buffed by the Cleric and Wizard, which could happen to the warblade too).  Full attacks are not always the norm in combat.

Counters and Boosts and Stances can be layered on top of Strikes....that action limitation starts to sound like less of a drawback.


----------



## Victim

Nail said:
			
		

> I've read some of the analyses of Warblade, and they all *start* at 20th level. I don't know about you, but my players don't start at 20th.  They start at 1st.  And they spend quite a bit of time between 1st and 20th.
> 
> Many of the manuever(stikes) require a standard or a full-round action.  Is that the only drawback?  I, too, have been in games where full-attacking Bbn/Ftrs have done 100's of points of damage per round...but that was when they were full-attacking (*and* buffed by the Cleric and Wizard, which could happen to the warblade too).  Full attacks are not always the norm in combat.
> 
> Counters and Boosts and Stances can be layered on top of strikes....that action limitation starts to sound like less of a drawback.




Yeah, full attacks aren't always the norm, so standard action strikes or full action ones that allow some form of movement are a significant boon for the warblade.  On the other hand, some tricks like Leap Attack or Shock Trooper only work on charge attacks so the fighter has some options for not losing all his damage on a single attack.  Spirited Charge can also work (but that's more a pally trick).  Grappling will often be a strong choice for a monk limited to a single attack, so even if they lose out on lots of damage compared to a full attack, they're still potentially restricting their opponent significantly.

As far as buffing, I don't think it helps the warblade as much.  An extra attack from haste is a big help to the fighter, but the warblade's strikes will often prevent the attack from being used.  Also, if the warblade is using manuevers to compress his action into a single attack at his highest bonus, then the impact of +attack and damage buffs is greatly diminished.

Since characters can't combine immediate and swift actions, it's usually Counters or Boosts plus a Strike and Stance.

At low levels, the fighter probably has Cleave, while the warblade is using the move that lets him attack two opponents.  I think it'd probably take until mid levels for the differences to start to show up.  Also, the low level swordsage player hates his character because the amount of known manuevers forces them to be generalists instead of focusing on the player's prefered disciplines.


----------



## catsclaw227

ignore post.... I misread something in my book about swordsages.....


----------



## Perun

I think the fighter is able to hold his own in the game, especially with PHB II feats (which, I believe, should be allowed in the game that aloows for various other accessories).

IMO, the one thing warblade definitely has over fighter is his Weapon Aptitude -- a fighter _should_ be able to gain it, either as a house-ruled class ability, or it being made into a (fighter bonus) feat (perhaps even a fighter-exclusive one, like Weapon Specialisation). In fact, I think that could be my first house rule (giving it to the fighter as a bonus ability).

I'm also not overly fond of fighter's lack of skills and skill points, but then again, an Int 18 rogue has too few skill points for my tastes, so I'm a little biased in that regard 

IMC, I've got a warforged warblade 2, and he's pretty good. Then again, we've never had a straight fighter in our group (psychic warriors and barbarians are meleers of choice in our group), so I really can't compare. I'd consider playing one (in fact, If I ever decide to play a meleer, it'd be a choice between a fighter, knight (PHB II) or soulknife (XPH)), but I usually play spellcasters.

Regards.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I'm currently playing a Barbarian1/Cleric13 character ... buffed to the gillies and using Strength Domain I have a reasonable chance of landing a full three-strike full-attack, if I don't dump too much to Power Attack.

And, then, I think I topped out around 200 damage.  Which, at this level, seems to beat anything Medium to death in a single round.

But, in play, that's really RARE to pull off.  Usually it's something in the nature of the GM sacrificing a Pawn to my Bishop.  More often, I'm buzzing around the battlefield  utilizing my increased movement rate to lay down the hurt with single large attacks with strategic use of Power Attack.

I just think the ToB classes take too much away from the melee classes that exist now.  I mean, seriously, giving Warblade fighter specialization, only ten times better because he can ALWAYS be specialized in that new cool item they found, was a kick in the teeth while the other guy was down.  That he waits two levels is all but redundant.  I'm sure if you asked people playing a Fighter if they'd like to wait until level 6 to get Specialization, but they can use it with any weapon, they'd jump on that chance.  

I know from personal playing experience that being tied to a single weapon or type of weapon can be a pretty big drag.  Right now my character uses a Weapon of Legacy greatclub and I've got a 32,300gp +4 equiv longsword hanging off his belt just in case he gets disarmed ... the WoL abilities and character cost sacrifices are too great to trade out using weapons.

--fje


----------



## Particle_Man

Perun said:
			
		

> I'm also not overly fond of fighter's lack of skills and skill points, but then again, an Int 18 rogue has too few skill points for my tastes, so I'm a little biased in that regard




You might want to borrow the "Skill Groups" idea from Iron heroes.  they associate skills into groups of 3 or so skills, and give certain classes access to certain groups, meaning that if a class spends one skill point on a skill group the class has access to, he gains a rank in every skill in that group.  I think this helps with the skill point deficit problem.


----------



## brehobit

My opinion is that all three ToB classes are better than the warrior classes in the PHB.  

We had a twinked out swordsage level 5 in our party.  He was very powerful....

Mark


----------



## starwed

One nice benefit that ToB classes, which I haven't seen mentioned, is that they can use shields with little penalty.

Outside of ToB, there are two main ways to deal a lot of melee damage: Use a 2-handed weapon and power attack, or dual weild and get lots of per attack bonuses.  Both mean you either don't have a shield, or you burn a feat to carry a buckler.  (And take a penalty to attack at the same time.)

While a ToB build has no problem in strapping on that large shield and dishing out their maneuvers with a longsword.  There's going to be _some_ loss of damage, but it's going to be a very good trade off for the AC you're getting.

Still, I'm inclined to think that the system as a whole is ok, but one thing that's *definately* overpowerful is the one level dip.  A fighter taking a single level of crusader or warblade get's a hell of a lot more than a feat for their effort.


----------



## Iscariot

The ToB classes lack the versatility of the paladin and ranger due to the spellcasting those classes have, and the ToB classes lack the ranged-oomph of he core classes.  The one thing they DO have going for them is making melee classes that are useful at higher levels.  Every fighter won't be a spiked-chain wielder or two-handed power-attacker.  The options it opens up encourages more melee characters.  In most games, why would people bother playing a fighter whan druids and clerics can do it better?


----------



## Victim

Iscariot said:
			
		

> The ToB classes lack the versatility of the paladin and ranger due to the spellcasting those classes have, and the ToB classes lack the ranged-oomph of he core classes.  The one thing they DO have going for them is making melee classes that are useful at higher levels.  Every fighter won't be a spiked-chain wielder or two-handed power-attacker.  The options it opens up encourages more melee characters.  In most games, why would people bother playing a fighter whan druids and clerics can do it better?




In my experience, high level fighter types are powerhouses.  Sure, you can assume that fighters will have ineffective builds, but I can just as easily assume that the casters picked crap spells.


----------



## Nightfall

High level powerhouses that can still get themselves enchanted/dominated/held or barbequed on a failed Reflex/Will save. 

(would like to meet the high level crappy spellcaster even at 5th level.   )


----------



## Thurbane

Q. Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?

A. Yes.

...next question?


----------



## Hammerhead

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Q. Warblade and Swordsage: Overpowered?
> 
> A. Yes.
> 
> ...next question?




Amazing. Any other insights?

I seem to recall that at the start of Third Edition, almost everyone seemed to say the Monk was overpowered. When in fact it was one of the weakest classes all around.


----------



## DarkJester

I feel that the Sword Sage and Warblade are powerful warriors. I'm not sure how much stronger they are than their equivilants, but I like them much more as a DM. In my campaigns I use the suggested variant unarmed swordsage in place of monks, and the warblade in addition to fighters. Sword Sages can have the flair that I feel the standard monk is missing. Warblades give the tank more options than "I rage" - or - "I Power attack for 3" - or - "I charge".  That's a gross simplification of what typical fighters can do, but thats the just of it.


----------



## Votan

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Amazing. Any other insights?
> 
> I seem to recall that at the start of Third Edition, almost everyone seemed to say the Monk was overpowered. When in fact it was one of the weakest classes all around.




What is ironic is that the warblade seems to have most of the fixes that people suggest for the fighter: more skills and skill points, more powerful but limited use abilities to replce the bland bonuses of feats and d12 hit points.

If these fixes are not overpowered then I suspect that this class isn't either.


----------



## DarkJester

Votan said:
			
		

> What is ironic is that the warblade seems to have most of the fixes that people suggest for the fighter: more skills and skill points, more powerful but limited use abilities to replce the bland bonuses of feats and d12 hit points.
> 
> If these fixes are not overpowered then I suspect that this class isn't either.




That is my reasoning behind introducing the Warblade. It's what I want out of a tank. For my groups, everyone wants to play anything but the main combatant. The warblade breathed new life into the role for us.


----------



## brehobit

Votan said:
			
		

> What is ironic is that the warblade seems to have most of the fixes that people suggest for the fighter: more skills and skill points, more powerful but limited use abilities to replce the bland bonuses of feats and d12 hit points.
> 
> If these fixes are not overpowered then I suspect that this class isn't either.




So is the warblade better than the fighter?  I'd have to say "yes, by a bunch".  Heck the swordsage is a better fighter than a fighter.  At 5th level you can toss off a 6d6 (usually 10' radius) fireball once per fight, do 2d6 sneak attack (every round) and add your Wis to your AC in light armor.  Oh, you also have 6 skill points/level. 

The fighter gets +2 BAB, +5 hps, and 3 feats.  The feats are mighty handy, but the sword sage gets weapon focus in a SET of weapons (worth 1.5 feats I'd say), +2 to init (worth .5 feats?) and gets to add WIS to damage some of the time (worth between .5 and 1 feats depending on how high of stats you have).  So the sword sage has 2.5-3 (good) feats, plus two good saves vs. one.  So I'd say all the fighter has over the swordsage is the +2 BAB (significant) and +5 hit points (a feat at best). 

And all of this ignore the all but one of the maneuvers of the sword sage.  He could be able to do each of the following 1/fight:

* Make a concentration check vs. target's AC.  If successful, target takes +1d6 damage and is flatfooted (So +2d6 more due to the sneak attack)  (Swift)

* Turn inviso for your action only (again the +2d6 damage AND no AoO) (swift)

* teleport 50' as a standard action. (apparently all day)

* Do +2d6 damage and overcome all hardness and DR (part of attack, standard action)

* get a touch attack to do 4d6 fire damage as an immediate action against anyone who hits you.

(Fireball already mentioned)

That is gross.

Example:

6th level sword sage:
32-point buy:
halfling swordsage.

Str 8
Int 10
Wis 14
Dex 21
Con 14
Chr 8

AC: 24 (+5 +1 chain shirt, +2 Wis, +1 size, +5 DEX, +1 natural)
feats:
Shadow blade (1st)
Weapon finesse (3rd)
EWP: spiked chain (6th)

Attack bonus: +12 (+4 BAB, +5 DEX, +1 magic, +1 size, +1 weapon focus) 
Damage: d6 + 6 (+1 magic, +5 DEX) +2d6 (sneak attack) +2 (Wis if using shadow strike)
Has a 10' reach.

That's a heck of an AC and a LOT of damage.  As good of damage as a raging barbarian?  Nope.  As good of an AC as a pure tank fighter?  Really close (Full plate +1, Heavy shield +1, amulet +1 and Dex +1 is also AC 24) and the sword sage damage is better...  (The tank likely has STR 16 and weapon specialization so d8+5 damage and two attacks at +11/+6 or so)

And he can do all of the actions listed above in addition to being nearly as good in pure combat as the tank-fighter...

Total spent on magic items:
+1 chain shirt (1300), +1 spiked chain (2,325), +1 amulet of natural armor (1000) so 4,800ish.  

Mark


----------



## Victim

Nightfall said:
			
		

> High level powerhouses that can still get themselves enchanted/dominated/held or barbequed on a failed Reflex/Will save.
> 
> (would like to meet the high level crappy spellcaster even at 5th level.   )




Sure, you can argue that casters don't pick bad spells (of course, prep casters can sometimes be caught without the right spells), but then why not assume that fighters are going to pick good weapon/feat combos?  The main difference is just when you make the choices that determine effectiveness.  The caster picks his spells everyday, and so can simply start picking better spell combos.  The fighter needs to build the awesome into his character from the get go.

At level 20, a wizard has +12 base Will save with no special focus on Wis.  At level 20, a barbarian has +6 base Will save, but gets another +8! when raging.  A fighter barbarian might only have normal rage, but probably takes Iron Will so that probably puts him up to +10 when raging.  Fighters may also have the feats to spend on the PHB2 Con based Will save feat, if it's allowed.  The Will save gap isn't that wide, unless you start talking about divine casters, pallies or monks - characters that have good Will saves AND have extra incentives to pump up their Wis are generally going to blow everyone else away.  And Reflex saves should be pretty close too - with the fighter types having a HP advantage over most other characters that helps to blunt the effects of failed Ref saves.  I don't think melee monsters are as screwed on saves as you seem to think.

Plus some pretty low level spell effects like Protection from Evil and Resist Energy provide a strong second line of defense.

Basically, half of the question is whether or not the core melee class are underpowered.


----------



## gnfnrf

I'm not sure if it is broken alone, but it's definately broken when combined with psionics.

I have a kalashtar soulknife/swordsage with Instant Clarity and Psychic Renewal, Insightful Strike (the DM maneuver), and a third eye of concentration in my game.  At 9th level, he is dealing 40 points of damage in melee every other round, and doing something useful on the off-rounds.

It's not even like the PC tried that hard to twink, he just picked the things that seemed right at the time.

--
gnfnrf


----------



## satori01

I'm DM'ing for 2 Swordsages right now.  One is for my secondary campaign, the Savage Tide adventure path.  Everyone is 3rd level.
Right now in terms of sheer destructive power number 1 is the Barbarian, number 2 is the Warmage.   The Swordsage is probably #3 but could get a run for his money from the Unfettered or the Dragon Shaman.  The Barbarian could kill him in one hit.

Now in my primary 14 level campaign, a player replaced his Arcane Trickster with a 14 level Swordsage/Master of Nine combo.
I was afraid that this character would dominate compared to the established characters.  First big battle, the  character springs into action, using a Desert Wind Maneuver to fly across the map and land near a giant with Greater Invis on it.

Now the Swordsage has an AC of 31, the highest now in the group.  He selects his square to land in, incurs an attack of opportunity, and is squished into chunky salsa as the giant hits with a giantish level of  power attack.  AC is one thing, but d8 hit points is another.  

Likewise Swordsages have poor Fort saves; life can be hard for a melee combat monkey when you Fort save is low. The Swordsage had taken damage from poison and other effects pre-combat.  

In the same exact circumstance the winged Asasimar Champion of Freedom/Fighter with mobility and Spring Attack, avoided being hit by the AOO because of Mobility, and due to a higher Fort Save,(escaping previous poison damage) and Higher HD, if she had taken the hit would still have been in decent fighting shape.

The Swordsage was handy, and with maneuvers can do good damage with a single standard action, but it was not overpowered compared to any of the the Warriors in my group, An Archer, an Unfettered/Paladin/Knight of the Pale, or the Champion/Fighter.

The balancing factor seem to be the universal factors easy to miss when reading, Saves and Hit Dice and BAB.


----------



## Victim

brehobit said:
			
		

> AC: 24 (+5 +1 chain shirt, +2 Wis, +1 size, +5 DEX, +1 natural)
> feats:
> Shadow blade (1st)
> Weapon finesse (3rd)
> EWP: spiked chain (6th)
> 
> Attack bonus: +12 (+4 BAB, +5 DEX, +1 magic, +1 size, +1 weapon focus)
> Damage: d6 + 6 (+1 magic, +5 DEX) +2d6 (sneak attack) +2 (Wis if using shadow strike)
> Has a 10' reach.
> 
> That's a heck of an AC and a LOT of damage.  As good of damage as a raging barbarian?  Nope.  As good of an AC as a pure tank fighter?  Really close (Full plate +1, Heavy shield +1, amulet +1 and Dex +1 is also AC 24) and the sword sage damage is better...  (The tank likely has STR 16 and weapon specialization so d8+5 damage and two attacks at +11/+6 or so)
> 
> And he can do all of the actions listed above in addition to being nearly as good in pure combat as the tank-fighter...
> 
> Total spent on magic items:
> +1 chain shirt (1300), +1 spiked chain (2,325), +1 amulet of natural armor (1000) so 4,800ish.
> 
> Mark




Amulet of natural armor is 2k, not 1k.  Plus your chain shirt isn't mithril.  Either spend 1k more or drop your AC by 1 because of the max Dex.  I think HP are also important to fighting characters; your swordsage has 45.  By the way, your character is within 4 lbs of medium encumberance from just his weapon and armor, and can lose his AC bonus.  

At level 6, swordsages can have 6 readied moves plus 3 stances.  You won't have very many strikes of your insightful focus discipline if you're going to with those moves, so your +2 Wis bonus to damage won't come up very often.  Of course, your shadowblade feat basically locks you into using Shadow Hand stances, so you probably won't be switching those around very often.

For comparison:

half orc Fighter 4 Barbarian 2
STR 20 (24)
DEX 12
CON 14 (18)
INT 10
WIS 13
CHA 6

Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Iron Will, Weapon Spec, Extra Rage

AC 21 -> 19 (+1 FP, +1 natural or deflection, +1 Dex)
Attack: +13/+8   RAGE!! -> +15/+10
Damage: 2d6+7 19-20 -> 2d6+10 19-20
HP: 55 -> 67

Uncanny Dodge, Fast Movement (not in use)

With extra rage, the character should be able to use rage in most encounters.

Average damage when raging.  Numbers after slash are with optimal PA (the difference isn't very much except against 15, and that's when everyone is going to PA)

Single Attack...............................Full Attack
AC 15:  19.86/25.58 ....................  36.58/43.07
AC 20:  16.72/17.88 ....................  28.22/29.1
AC 25:  11.5/11.55  ......................  17.77

Over 6 rounds, with 3 single attacks and 3 full attacks, the character does 140.94 damage.  Not counting any cleaves of course.

Now let's take the swordsage.  Sneak Attacking, but not using strikes:

AC 15: 20.32
AC 20: 14.67
AC 25: 9.03

Next step is to include his abilities and look at things over 6 rounds.  It doesn't really matter at this point whether he full attacks or not, so he'll have 6 standard action attacks.  Let's say that he'd ordinarily be able to sneak attack half the time, so with his 2 moves he'll sneak attack 5/6.  Since he's already using the fireball thing, I'll switch his level disc focus to Desert Wind and he'll pack 1 other strike (the +1d6+6 fire one).  With reach, we'll say he can get in AoO in 2 rounds - once enemies engage, they probably won't provoke and he doesn't have Combat Reflexes to pick off multiples in each wave.

So in 6 rounds he does 73.35 damage on his sneak attacks, 29.34 on AoO (I assumed those were sneaks as well), and 7.85 on the round without sneak attacks.  So that's 110.54 damage on attacks.  He uses the 4d6 counter strike against one foe for 14 more damage (I'm assuming it hit, since it's a touch attack).  His concentration check based move adds another 2.275.  His fireball attack (assuming 1 target - hey, it's not like the barbarian is using cleave!) adds 6d6+2 damage but has to hit, so that's another 14.95 damage after they fail the save.  His DR busting strike (stone dragon, right) adds another 4.55.  Finally his last desert wind strike adds 6.825 net damage.  

Okay, that's 153.14 damage.  Dang.  I hate it when I do all this work and I don't get the numbers I want.    Still, I don't think the swordsage demonstrates total supremacy despite his advantage in damage and AC - more full attacks, fire resistance (energy resistance is significantly easier to get than DR), stuff that's immune to sneak attacks, or a different AC could all swing things the barbarian's way.  Or even not assuming that enemies fail their save, that the touch attack hits, and that he makes his concentration check.  But it's still pretty disapointing.  I was figuring that conventional fighter types would have an edge in raw damage but that the swordsage would have a bunch more tricks.

I thought about using a spiked chain fighter 2 rogue 4 to maintain more congruence between the characters, since they'd both have trouble if not sneak attacking, skill totals would be pretty much closer, etc.  However, that doesn't say much about conventional fighting classes.


----------



## Nightfall

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Amazing. Any other insights?
> 
> I seem to recall that at the start of Third Edition, almost everyone seemed to say the Monk was overpowered. When in fact it was one of the weakest classes all around.




Yeah Thurbane needs a nap!  

But serious monk isn't weak, nor it is the weakest class around. Bard is. (Are we really THAT surprised?) 

Victim,

Honestly I was more looking at Fighters than Barbarians. (Of course 3.0 Barbs did count at one time when I was talking about it.) But the fact is while it's possible to dominate a melee combatant (paladin, ranger, fighter and barbarian), the trouble general is with the other four, they have ways to avoid spellcasters' effects. But the fact is I'd like to meet the fighter that actually took Iron Will. Cause honestly, in all the games I've played, 0% of any player took Iron will unless it was to meet a req for a Pr-class.


----------



## Perun

Nightfall said:
			
		

> High level powerhouses that can still get themselves enchanted/dominated/held or barbequed on a failed Reflex/Will save.




So can a spellcaster. There's _always_ at least 5% chance that you'll fail your save.

Anyways, with the PHB II a figter can, at the cost of mere two feats, get his Con bonus to his Will save. Another feat, Combat Focus, will give him a further +2 bonus to Will saves after he scores a hit in combat.

That's in addition to Iron Will.

This save-raising has a somewhat steep cost (total of four feats), but, hey, if a fighter can't afford it -- who can?

Regards.


----------



## Paradigm

Right now in the campaign I am participating in, we have a Warblade, freshly made, at 15th level. He isn't any more effective than either the fighter or the knight. He does more damage than the knight, and has a better AC than the fighter. All three builds are pretty well done. The circumstances in which the Warblade is more effective is when the party has to fight on the move, and he can make his attack as a standard action and do more damage than the fighter. If the fighter can lay into something that mostly stays put, the buffs start to really add up. (Marshal, Bard, Cleric, Archivist). If a position has to be held to protect the spellcasters, the Knight is unrivalled. The seven characters operate as a well-oiled machine.

The Warblade does not dominate melee, isn't the best at each situation, and doesn't take away any of the unique roles of any other character. Without any of those three conditions I wouldn't judge the class to be unbalanced.


----------



## Nightfall

Peren,

Yeah well I'm still waiting to see that happen (someone taking a feat to increase their chance of not being De-willified). And as for a spellcaster, honestly that 5% chance isn't that good. I speak from experience on that one. *Grumbles slightly on Censure of Mesos...*


----------



## Victim

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Yeah Thurbane needs a nap!
> 
> But serious monk isn't weak, nor it is the weakest class around. Bard is. (Are we really THAT surprised?)
> 
> Victim,
> 
> Honestly I was more looking at Fighters than Barbarians. (Of course 3.0 Barbs did count at one time when I was talking about it.) But the fact is while it's possible to dominate a melee combatant (paladin, ranger, fighter and barbarian), the trouble general is with the other four, they have ways to avoid spellcasters' effects. But the fact is I'd like to meet the fighter that actually took Iron Will. Cause honestly, in all the games I've played, 0% of any player took Iron will unless it was to meet a req for a Pr-class.




That's funny, because in my group it's pretty standard for fighter types to have some measure to help avoid Will effects.  Iron Will, a non humanoid race so that X "person" spells fail, multiclassing, those PHB2 feats, etc.  I pretty much always take Iron Will for a fighter type - I even took it in the example character above for a comparison that didn't involve saves at all!

I wonder how much magic resources your group allocates to boosting saves too.  Just as group preferences on encounters/day, prefered monster types, treasure amounts can all have a significant impact in play, how much trouble players (and monsters) take with their saves is also going to have a balance effect.  Let's say for the sake of argument that my group is a high saving throw environment.  Spell attacks, especially save or die effects, will be less effective (which is the whole point of boosting saves ) so casters are generally weaker and in particular suffer with many direct effects.  So casters will do more buffs, debuffs - Slow and Confusion spread the effects over many targets so someone will likely fail; Ray of Enfeeblement and Enervation have no save - battlefield control, etc.  So fighter types benefit in several ways.  First of all, they probably have higher saves themselves.  Second, the reduced effects of many attack spells increases the importance of their damage.  And finally, casters using more buff, debuff, and area control are going to increase the fighters' ability to deal damage in combat.


----------



## Solarious

Nightfall said:
			
		

> But serious monk isn't weak, nor it is the weakest class around. Bard is. (Are we really THAT surprised?)



Sure, the bard is weak, but only because many of the powers are DM-intensive. If the DM is experienced enough and allows the players leeway when they apply their abilities creatively, the Bard can become quite the powerhouse.

Case in point: use skills/spells to look like an enemy's ally, Facinate them when in music range (suitably twinked, of course), and let the rest of the party (buffed up with your magic, naturally) move into flanking positions while the enemy is held in Fireball formation. Let loose the hounds, and use your Bardic Song to make the slicing and dicing all the more painful. And after all, didn't high level play tell you Initiative counts?


----------



## brehobit

Victim said:
			
		

> Amulet of natural armor is 2k, not 1k.  Plus your chain shirt isn't mithril.  Either spend 1k more or drop your AC by 1 because of the max Dex.  I think HP are also important to fighting characters; your swordsage has 45.  By the way, your character is within 4 lbs of medium encumberance from just his weapon and armor, and can lose his AC bonus.



Yep the joys of doing things by memory, thanks...


> Over 6 rounds, with 3 single attacks and 3 full attacks, the character does 140.94 damage.  Not counting any cleaves of course.
> 
> *<clip>*
> 
> Okay, that's 153.14 damage.  Dang.  I hate it when I do all this work and I don't get the numbers I want.    Still, I don't think the swordsage demonstrates total supremacy despite his advantage in damage and AC - more full attacks, fire resistance (energy resistance is significantly easier to get than DR), stuff that's immune to sneak attacks, or a different AC could all swing things the barbarian's way.  Or even not assuming that enemies fail their save, that the touch attack hits, and that he makes his concentration check.  But it's still pretty disapointing.  I was figuring that conventional fighter types would have an edge in raw damage but that the swordsage would have a bunch more tricks.




I think in general your analysis was generous to the swordsage.  (Getting a sneak attack on an AoO is rare for example).  That said:

* The HP/AC difference probably goes to the swordsage, but for some things there is nothing like lots of HPs.  
* The barbarian has a marked advantage at range.
* This swordsage build (all dex) is more than a bit broken and has lots of problems (carrying things for example)
* I would argue that the fireball is quite likely to catch more than one baddy in the blast.  I never saw it NOT manage that in about 10 fights (using published Eberron modules...).  6d6 (+2 perhaps) is good area damage at this level.
* As noted, fire resistance would suck a fair bit of damage away.  But if you _know_ you will be facing fire resistant baddies, you can select different maneuvers with a 5 minute break.
* I chose the maneuvers somewhat randomly.  He should have one more 3rd level one...

Net effect: the swordsage at 6th level is on-par with a fairly optimized warrior type (perhaps better in most fights, certainly worse in some).  This build can teleport 50' at will (well needs 1 round to regain that ability after using it, but that is _really_ handy esp. in a front-line fighter).  He could freely choose to spider climb at will.   And he has darn good skills.

Thanks for doing the comparison!


----------



## Plane Sailing

It may sound silly, but the warblade looks to me as if it would probably be an interesting and balanced class when compared to other melee types with no stances or manoeuvres at all!

I wouldn't allow the ToB classes into an ongoing campaign of mine, for both balance concerns and flavour concerns.

However, if I were to start a new fantasy campaign, I'd be happy building them in from the start, along with a flavour that supports them (and possibly some tweaks to make it easier for any other class to gain the stances and manoeuvres).


----------



## Thurbane

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> Amazing. Any other insights?
> 
> I seem to recall that at the start of Third Edition, almost everyone seemed to say the Monk was overpowered. When in fact it was one of the weakest classes all around.



Hint: the smiley indicates a certain level of sarcasm/humour...


----------



## Nifft

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> This is why the Adaptive Stlye feat is a MUST for a Swordsage.  Instead of using a full round action to recover one maneuver, they can use Adaptive Style to use a full round action and recover all their moves.




Does Adaptive Style really work that way? Where can I find confirmation?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## starwed

It was one of the questions from "Ask Wizards," on 08/28/2006.



> Q: If you take the Adaptive Style feat (Tome of Battle, pg. 28), can you pick new maneuvers and/or ready all maneuvers by spending a full-round action in the middle of combat?
> 
> A: Yes, you can use Adaptive Style to pick new maneuvers in the middle of combat. Since you are picking new maneuvers, they would all be readied. This is a clear advantage for a class such as the swordsage, who normally has to spend a full round action to recover a single maneuver, and would be a great feat to pick up.



How much stock you put into this is up to you.


----------



## glass

FWIW, my current AoW campaign includes a Swordsage:Wizard, and he doesn't seem to outshine the rest of the group (Rogue:Artificer, Druid:Barbarian, and Beguiler:Fighter).

The party have just made third level, and the swordsage's best ability so far has been the 'everybody-flanks' stance. That is certainly a potent ability, but it an allows the whole party to shine which IMO makes it much more palatable. The rogue especially likes it.


glass.


----------



## brehobit

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It may sound silly, but the warblade looks to me as if it would probably be an interesting and balanced class when compared to other melee types with no stances or manoeuvres at all!



A little bit weak I'd say.  Maybe just stances and you'd have a pretty reasonable class compared to the other melee types. 


Mark


----------



## Victim

brehobit said:
			
		

> Yep the joys of doing things by memory, thanks...
> 
> 
> I think in general your analysis was generous to the swordsage.  (Getting a sneak attack on an AoO is rare for example).  That said:
> 
> * The HP/AC difference probably goes to the swordsage, but for some things there is nothing like lots of HPs.
> * The barbarian has a marked advantage at range.
> * This swordsage build (all dex) is more than a bit broken and has lots of problems (carrying things for example)
> * I would argue that the fireball is quite likely to catch more than one baddy in the blast.  I never saw it NOT manage that in about 10 fights (using published Eberron modules...).  6d6 (+2 perhaps) is good area damage at this level.
> * As noted, fire resistance would suck a fair bit of damage away.  But if you _know_ you will be facing fire resistant baddies, you can select different maneuvers with a 5 minute break.
> * I chose the maneuvers somewhat randomly.  He should have one more 3rd level one...
> 
> Net effect: the swordsage at 6th level is on-par with a fairly optimized warrior type (perhaps better in most fights, certainly worse in some).  This build can teleport 50' at will (well needs 1 round to regain that ability after using it, but that is _really_ handy esp. in a front-line fighter).  He could freely choose to spider climb at will.   And he has darn good skills.
> 
> Thanks for doing the comparison!




Well, it seems reasonable that at least 1 AoO was triggered by the swordsage going invisible, moving to a good position, and then taking getting an attack based on his enemy not knowing he was there.  Plus it's not unreasonable for the swordsage for get more than 2 AoO in a fight either with his reach.  He can usually spend a move action tumbling backwards AoO free, and then any attackers pressing him have to provoke again.  Fewer AoOs that hit harder vs several more attacks is going to be pretty even.  Besides, at the point where I was making those assumptions, I figured the fighter was going to win so I could afford to be generous. 

As far as fire resistance goes, I was thinking more along the lines of Resist Energy than fire based monsters.  It's an easy way for classed character to blunt the effects of the most common magic attack, scales with caster level, and lasts a fair amount of time.  And at higher levels, cleric types often won't have anything better to do with their low level spells than to slap a bunch of Resists on themselves or their friends.


----------



## Soel

Nifft said:
			
		

> Does Adaptive Style really work that way? Where can I find confirmation?
> 
> Thanks, -- N




According to WotC Customer Service it does. Don't have a link, but you can find it on the Character Optimization boards over at Wizards.

Basically, when you re-prepare your manuevers, they are all refreshed. Its a side effect of the feat, probably not intended RAW.


----------



## Nifft

Soel said:
			
		

> According to WotC Customer Service it does. Don't have a link, but you can find it on the Character Optimization boards over at Wizards.
> 
> Basically, when you re-prepare your manuevers, they are all refreshed. Its a side effect of the feat, probably not intended RAW.




Holy anthropomorphic baleen whale guano, Batman! That's totally bake-your-priest and punch-a-cobra awesome! TOTALLY!!!one!

Swordsage is clearly the new black.

 -- N


----------



## Nail

Nifft said:
			
		

> Holy anthropomorphic baleen whale guano, Batman! That's totally bake-your-priest and punch-a-cobra awesome! TOTALLY!!!one!
> 
> Swordsage is clearly the new black.
> 
> -- N



Sarcasm aside (if possible): is Adaptive Style balanced?  That seems over-the-top to me.

FWIW, I see no reason for a Warblade to have d12 HD.  Can anyone provide a reason (other than "power creep")?  Assume a Ftr is also a viable class, and that WB should be balnaced WRT the warblade.


----------



## Nightfall

Reason for Warblade having d12? Well what's the reason most classes with d12s have them? Last longer than their d10 counterparts. 

Victim,

Well in general, our party relies on out-tactical thinking our DMs opponents. It works so long as I (and the others) keep to their roles. Plus the fact most of our DMs have the tactical intellecelt(sp) of a Tarrasque. So as you can see, while I think of these things, most of my fellow players don't and usually keep to either RP or tactial concerns as they relate to being "better" than the opponents. True we do get magical stuff to increase saves...but in general they rely more on AC and Dex than saves if they get in to trouble. Will and Fort rarely cross their minds. (Unless it's a character that is all about those.) Plus they tend to try to "Bluff-ercise" or "Diplomacize" their way past others in order to "feint, back stab/sneak attack" past the spellcasters. (These guys often have like +15 or +20 totals to their rolls on those skills.)

So maybe that's why...

Sol,

Eh the only thing I've learned about initiative counts is if it's a part of your character's power/skill thingie. Bards might need to go first but in general, they are dead by the second round.   
Eh


----------



## Nail

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Reason for Warblade having d12? Well what's the reason most classes with d12s have them? Last longer than their d10 counterparts.



....yeah.   Do I have to thank you for that "clarification"?    

Question: _"Why do Warblades get d12 HD?"_

 Unlike Bbns, warblades are not forced into having a lower AC.  And the Ftr, the quintessential warrior-type, gets d10.  What do Warblades lack (that Ftrs have) that warrants a d12?


----------



## Nightfall

Well you don't have to thank me. You can be rude if you want Nail.  

I'm just saying "I think they wanted something that had cool abilities and could hang with other d12s" 

Undead, Dragons etc.


----------



## Nail

<whiny voice> Ftr: "But I wanna hang with the cool d12 classes!  Mo-om!  Nightfall's being unfair!"


----------



## Nightfall

To which I reply: "Fair? I didn't know I was being unfair I guess the unfair police will have to lock me up or something..." Goes on to rant about what is and isn't fair in reality if anything...


----------



## catsclaw227

Soel said:
			
		

> According to WotC Customer Service it does. Don't have a link, but you can find it on the Character Optimization boards over at Wizards.
> 
> Basically, when you re-prepare your manuevers, they are all refreshed. Its a side effect of the feat, probably not intended RAW.




I thought that WITH adaptive style, the swordsage to get ONE maneuver back in a round of concentrating.  I might be wrong here.


----------



## dog45

Nifft said:
			
		

> Holy anthropomorphic baleen whale guano, Batman! That's totally bake-your-priest and punch-a-cobra awesome! TOTALLY!!!one!
> 
> Swordsage is clearly the new black.
> 
> -- N





If that flips your lid, check out this thread - Tome of Battle Tricks-Combos-Library - Wizards Community

note: the wotc boards are down right now, but will return you to your regulary scheduled program soon.


----------



## kaomera

Nail said:
			
		

> Question: _"Why do Warblades get d12 HD?"_
> 
> Unlike Bbns, warblades are not forced into having a lower AC.  And the Ftr, the quintessential warrior-type, gets d10.  What do Warblades lack (that Ftrs have) that warrants a d12?



They seem very nearly equal in being "forced" into having a lower AC. And a d10 vs. a d12 is only an average of one hit point per level. Due to benefiting more from points in other ability scores, the Warblade seems likely to have a point or two less Constitution, anyway (or the Fighter could take Improved Toughness). I've got a Swordsage and a Warblade in my game at the moment. They've only just made fifth level, but so far their maneuvers are simply not keeping up with the three extra Feats that a Fighter at that level would have. Mind you, with their other bonuses they are both probably slightly more "powerful" than an equal-level Fighter, but they're also not quite as easy to play well and are harder to really optimize.


----------



## Nightfall

Kao,

If people want to optimize a fighter, go fighter/rogue.  

Dog,

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Paradigm

Nightfall said:
			
		

> Kao,
> 
> If people want to optimize a fighter, go fighter/rogue.
> 
> Dog,
> 
> Thanks for the link.




Nah, I've run enough RPGA games to know that it is Barbarian / Fighter / Rogue.


----------



## Nail

kaomera said:
			
		

> They seem very nearly equal in being "forced" into having a lower AC.



   I doubt it.

*HD*: Warblade is better

*BAB*: same

*Saves*: same

*Skills*: Warblade has a better list and more points

*Armor*: Ftr has Hvy Armor Proficiency, but Warblade is NOT barred from picking up the feat.

*Feats*: Ftr better...but that's his schtick, and meanwhile the Warblade gets.....

*Maneuvers*: Warblade is better.  Warblade can "recharge" every other round, if desired.  Pick up Adaptive Style, and he can be doing this all day.

*Class Abilities*: A Ftr has none, other than the feats already mentioned.  A Warblade gets several that are quite useful.


Decision: Warblade.  It's an easy call, really.


----------



## kaomera

Nightfall said:
			
		

> If people want to optimize a fighter, go fighter/rogue.



I was saying (or at least trying to) that a Fighter (straight Fighter, mind you) would have been easier for my players to run well (in a tactical sense). We do have a slightly dysfunctional party setup, but it would really, really benefit from a well-built Fighter. The Warblade is great at slaughtering individual targets in melee, but his complete lack of ranged attacks puts the opposition in the driver's seat, and his defenses aren't really that great. The Swordsage, meanwhile, just misses all the time...


----------



## brehobit

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Nah, I've run enough RPGA games to know that it is Barbarian / Fighter / Rogue.



A fighter4/barb4/swordsage1 can have a 2d6 sneak attack, d8 HD, better saves, and weapon focus in a set of weapons.  Oh, and a bunch of maneuvers/fight...

I'll take the swordsage level 1 before thinking about the rogue....

Mark


----------



## satori01

Nail said:
			
		

> I doubt it.
> 
> *HD*: Warblade is better
> 
> *BAB*: same
> 
> *Saves*: same
> 
> *Skills*: Warblade has a better list and more points
> 
> *Armor*: Ftr has Hvy Armor Proficiency, but Warblade is NOT barred from picking up the feat.
> 
> *Feats*: Ftr better...but that's his schtick, and meanwhile the Warblade gets.....
> 
> *Maneuvers*: Warblade is better.  Warblade can "recharge" every other round, if desired.  Pick up Adaptive Style, and he can be doing this all day.
> 
> *Class Abilities*: A Ftr has none, other than the feats already mentioned.  A Warblade gets several that are quite useful.
> 
> 
> Decision: Warblade.  It's an easy call, really.




Warblade will also suffer from MAD.  To say nothing precludes a Warblade from taking Heavy Armor Proficency is a bit of a cop out.  Nothing precludes a Barbarian from Taking Heavy Armor and Tower Shield Proficiency either.  Sure the Barb, losses fast movement, but for many people, that is not that big of a deal.

The skill lists of the TOB classes are larger, and have more skill points than the fighter list, because many of the Martial Adept disciplines have maneuvers that require skill checks.  The TOB classes have skill points like the Bard has skill points; it looks impressive on the outside, but at least one of their skills is going to be mandated by a discipline selection, more than likely.  A Warblade might very well have a maxed out Concentration skill, a skill that will only get used when he activates Diamond Mind powers.  Also because of the skill requirements for the various Disciplines, most of the TOB class list are hodge podge, not focused like the Ranger or Rogue.

The Warblade class abillities are interesting, but not outstanding.  The Int bonus to damage for flanked enemies is probably the best, and again depends on how high ones Intelligence is.  If you are talking standard point buy, puting a 14 in INT, is going to hurt more direct abilities like CON, DEX, and STR.  If you are talking about having insane ability scores, than yes the Warblade blows away the fighter.  But then so does the Swordsage,(who in that case might be better than Warblade), the Monk, and the Paladin.

I like the TOB classes, you can model a lot of different archtypes with them, and combat is more than rush forward and full attack.  For me the TOB classes allow for more interesting and fun things to potentially occur.  Most of the dislike for the classes, is the balance committee feeling like it steps on the toes of the Fighter.  Frankly I play the game for fun, and if it allows someone to have more fun, then the class is a go for me.

So far from my experience, a Swordsage has not made any of the meleeist in my 2 campaigns feel obsolete.

Power Attack + Divine Might + Paladin's Smite Evil + Bless Weapon + Keen Edge = More damage than most TOB classes will do.


----------



## Plane Sailing

satori01 said:
			
		

> The Warblade class abillities are interesting, but not outstanding. The Int bonus to damage for flanked enemies is probably the best, and again depends on how high ones Intelligence is. If you are talking standard point buy, puting a 14 in INT, is going to hurt more direct abilities like CON, DEX, and STR. If you are talking about having insane ability scores, than yes the Warblade blows away the fighter. But then so does the Swordsage,(who in that case might be better than Warblade), the Monk, and the Paladin.




I'd play one with good Dex and Int and merely average Str/Con/Wis/Cha quite happily (switching the normal Fighter Str + Con focus for Dex+Int instead).

Just what I'd do. I don't see it as much in the way of MAD (compared to paladins/rangers and monks, especially)


----------



## Plane Sailing

satori01 said:
			
		

> Power Attack + Divine Might + Paladin's Smite Evil + Bless Weapon + Keen Edge = More damage than most TOB classes will do.




All very well, but you hardly get any smite evils, and Bless weapon doesn't stack with keen edge if I remember the spell correctly. Get a lucky x3 or x4 crit with smite evil and you do tons of damage, sure... but you don't have the staying power for doing that kind of damage during a dungeon crawl that the ToB classes have!


----------



## Nail

satori01 said:
			
		

> Warblade will also suffer from MAD.



The only difference between Ftr and WB is Int.  That's hardly a M.A.D. problem.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> To say nothing precludes a Warblade from taking Heavy Armor Proficency is a bit of a cop out.  Nothing precludes a Barbarian from Taking Heavy Armor and Tower Shield Proficiency either.  Sure the Barb, losses fast movement, but for many people, that is not that big of a deal.



So, to summarize:
Bbn loses a class ability if he wears heavy armor.
WB loses no class abilities if wearing heavy armor.
The advantage seems very clear-cut, actually.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> The skill lists of the TOB classes are larger, and have more skill points than the fighter list, because many of the Martial Adept disciplines have maneuvers that require skill checks.



Some do, some don't. The advantage still lies very clearly with the WB.  Are you claiming that having ranks in Tumbling has no advantage other than its use in a martial maneuver?   



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> The Warblade class abillities are interesting, but not outstanding.  The Int bonus to damage for flanked enemies is probably the best, and again depends on how high ones Intelligence is.



You've missed a few "interesting" abilities.  Namely:
Ability to switch weapon feats around to whatever weapon he's using.  Have Weapon Focus on a Greatsword, but want it on Long Composite Bow for the up-coming ambush?  Done.
All "fighter only" feats are accessable, like weapon specialization.
Uncanny Dodge and improved uncanny dodge
Int bonus to Ref saves
Int bonus when flanking
Int bonus on disarm, bull-rush, sunder, trip, etc checks



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> For me the TOB classes allow for more interesting and fun things to potentially occur.



Me too. 

 Does that require a d12 HD?  Does that require the better skill list and class abilities than the fighter?



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> Most of the dislike for the classes, is the balance committee feeling like it steps on the toes of the Fighter.  Frankly I play the game for fun, and if it allows someone to have more fun, then the class is a go for me.



If you have someone playing a Ftr, their fun will be diminished when someone brings in a WB.

PC: "I'd have more fun if my Wiz PC had d12 HD.  Wha'd'ya say?"


----------



## kigmatzomat

Sword sage is okay.  I think of it as a flexible-build monk.  In many ways it is more flashy than a monk.

Warblade..... I love the class; great flavor and is fun to play.  But it is quite a bit beefier than the non-MA warrior classes.  Better skills, better HD, class specials, and maneuvers.  If it were d10 HD, fighter skill list and had about 2 less maneuvers at 1st level I'd be happier.


----------



## Paradigm

Nail said:
			
		

> If you have someone playing a Ftr, their fun will be diminished when someone brings in a WB.
> 
> PC: "I'd have more fun if my Wiz PC had d12 HD.  Wha'd'ya say?"




I would contest that assertion. I may have the rule-lawyerist (new word!) game store on earth, and it isn't like ToB is the new black. When it was new there was a surge of martial adepts, now not so much.

Feats are too readily dismissed in favor of class features. A 10th level fighter has 10 feats, that is a power not to be dismissed. In those feats, a fighter could take choice martial manuevers and stances, or just build any number of dominating melee builds.

I will grant that fighter gets too few skills, though I think that Rogue gets too few skills also.


----------



## Perun

Nail said:
			
		

> Ability to switch weapon feats around to whatever weapon he's using.  Have Weapon Focus on a Greatsword, but want it on Long Composite Bow for the up-coming ambush?  Done.




This is the only warblade ability that I believe is unfair to the fighter. And, IMO, I've house-ruled it so that the fighters get it as well.



> If you have someone playing a Ftr, their fun will be diminished when someone brings in a WB.




*Might* be diminished, for some players. I'd, generally, play a fighter over a warblade. 

Regards.


----------



## Nail

Paradigm said:
			
		

> I would contest that assertion. I may have the rule-lawyerist (new word!) game store on earth, and it isn't like ToB is the new black. When it was new there was a surge of martial adepts, now not so much.



Huh.

Could you expand upon that a bit?  I'm interested.



			
				Paradigm said:
			
		

> Feats are too readily dismissed in favor of class features. A 10th level fighter has 10 feats, that is a power not to be dismissed.



A Ftr 10 gains 6 bonus feats.  (No fair counting the feats gained by PC level!  Everyone gets those!)  Those feats are limited to the Ftr Bonus feat list...meaning several very cool Ftr-friendly feats are left out.

SPOILER:



Spoiler



In my game I allow a Ftr a bonus feat every level.  And even there, I don't think the Ftr beats a Warblade.  I've worked up a 3rd, 6th, and 9th level comparison, and the Warblade kicks the Ftr...usually.  Like Perun, I consider the ability to switch weapons a Big Deal(tm).



But setting my game aside, and going back to a straight Ftr-Warblade comparison.......why'd the Warblade get all the designer lovin'?


----------



## Nail

Perun said:
			
		

> *Might* be diminished, for some players. I'd, generally, play a fighter over a warblade.



Really?  Why?


----------



## Perun

Nail said:
			
		

> Really?  Why?




Because, IMO, a fighter is more customizeable (due to a large number of feats and feat slots available) and simpler and more elegant to run. And because I like it more 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying warblade is bad (in any way), it's just that I (and, supposedly, a few other people), when given a choice, would rather pick a fighter to play. However, I also recognise the attractiveness of the warblade and its manoeuvres (and would play one sooner than I'd play a barbarian).


----------



## Paradigm

Nail said:
			
		

> Huh.
> 
> Could you expand upon that a bit?  I'm interested.




At first, there was a lot of Martial Adepts, mostly Warblades because of the HPs. The Warblade, with his cool manuever would inflict about as much as the fighter, with the added bonus of being able to move more than 5 feet. (The fighter would be making 2 attacks). Where the Warblade started to fall behind was off of buffs. The Fighter would get more benifit out of spells such as Righteous Wrath of the Faithful and Haste, because the manuever (as a standard or full round action) would not permit an additional attack. The Fighter also benefits from other buffs because he will strike more often and thus apply the bonus more often.
In a vacuum the Warblade may shape up better, but characters play in parties.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> A Ftr 10 gains 6 bonus feats.  (No fair counting the feats gained by PC level!  Everyone gets those!)  Those feats are limited to the Ftr Bonus feat list...meaning several very cool Ftr-friendly feats are left out.
> 
> But setting my game aside, and going back to a straight Ftr-Warblade comparison.......why'd the Warblade get all the designer lovin'?




First, I'd only play fighters in your game.
Second, 6 feats is still a significant boost


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

How about the fact that the book offers the maneuvers and stances on a 1-for-1 feat basis?

If the stances are worth a feat in and of themselves ...

--fje


----------



## Nail

Perun said:
			
		

> Because, IMO, a fighter is more customizable (due to a large number of feats and feat slots available) and simpler and more elegant to run.



That's interesting.  For my own explorations and level-by-level write-ups, the WB looks *much* more customizable, as it gets many maneuvers that it can use in a battle, and it can recharge those maneuvers if necessary with a Standard action + attack.  And with Adaptive style, he can even change maneuvers around mid-battle.

Still, a "write-up" isn't the same thing as playing a class.  I'd love to see it in play, or hear about someone who's played one.  I'd rather that such a experience includes many levels of play, not just one adventure...but beggars can't be choosers.  



			
				Perun said:
			
		

> And because I like it more



No arguing with that.


----------



## Nail

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> How about the fact that the book offers the maneuvers and stances on a 1-for-1 feat basis?
> 
> If the stances are worth a feat in and of themselves ...



Exactly.


----------



## NilesB

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'd play one with good Dex and Int and merely average Str/Con/Wis/Cha quite happily (switching the normal Fighter Str + Con focus for Dex+Int instead).
> 
> Just what I'd do. I don't see it as much in the way of MAD (compared to paladins/rangers and monks, especially)



When all is said and done a Warblades are primary melee combatants. You can build one without strength, but you can also build a single class cleric with a Wis of 12, neither one is gonna be effective. But what about that feat that lets you add your Dex Mod to weapon damage you ask? Shadow Blade requires access to the Shadow Hand Discipline which Warblades do not get. A fighter can get Shadow Blade earlier than a warblade, and keeping the feat active doesn't disrupt the fighter's class abilities.


----------



## Victim

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> How about the fact that the book offers the maneuvers and stances on a 1-for-1 feat basis?
> 
> If the stances are worth a feat in and of themselves ...
> 
> --fje




Well, one stance is worth one feat.  Since only one stance can be running at time, additional stances are going to lose some value.  So a fighter who uses a few feats to gain qualifying moves and then finally picks the stance he wants will probably get about as much use from it as the swordsage gets from his 4 stances.

But multiclassing into an adept is so much better for fighting types than picking up the feats.  It's kind of like fighters going to barbarian or vice versa, except with order of operations playing a huge role.  I can understand trying to make multiclassing attractive with adepts in a way that it isn't for casters, but it seems like too much.  Maybe there should be a cap on the levels of manuevers that should can get with emulated adept levels or something.  Going from no special moves to a 5th level one is kind of jarring.


----------



## NilesB

Victim said:
			
		

> Going from no special moves to a 5th level one is kind of jarring.



At 19th level noone is going to notice the effect of a first level maneuver, if you can even get all high level maneuvers, they tend to have prerequisites.


----------



## NilesB

Nail said:
			
		

> Ability to switch weapon feats around to whatever weapon he's using.  Have Weapon Focus on a Greatsword, but want it on Long Composite Bow for the up-coming ambush?  Done.



Warblades aren't even proficient in composite longbows. they can't do it.


----------



## Nail

NilesB said:
			
		

> Warblades aren't even proficient in composite longbows. they can't do it.



Well what do you know.  I glossed right over that.

Still, they *can* switch around their weapon feats as often as desired....so long as they are proficient with the weapons.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Honestly, personally ... unless you're a dedicated archer, D&D doesn't really reward you that much for having a bow.  

I say this because I'm playing a dedicated meleeist cleric, which can get big and beatstick better than the party fighter ... and, since I have a level of Barbarian, I have bows.  So does the fighter.

I go from damage in the 20-30s on a regular hit to 1d8+2 on a hit with my +2Str Composite Longbow.  Woo.  Even if we've got a flying enemy, it's better to get somebody to cast Fly than stand back and ping them for round after round.  Now, a specialized archer can dish down their own damage, but you've got a whole different build from a melee guy.

The most effective I've seen bows in non-dedicated-archer hands was the time we built an ambush behind a thick specially-prepared Wall Of Stone and had +4 Aberration Bane Flaming Burst Arrows prepared specifically to slaughter some naga ... and, in the end, what really won there was a Bead-pumped Holy Word that paralyzed them all.  Then we Shaped a door in the wall and walked out and CDGed.

Honestly, being totally protected behind a stone wall with maxed out super-arrows is about the best it's going to get, and it still wasn't that hot.

--fje


----------



## Paradigm

D&D sucks for archers, that is a whole other thread.


----------



## Nail

....a whole 'nother thread.    Let's keep this one on Warblades and Swordsages, if you wouldn't mind.

(My orginal point - that WB can switch weapon focus etc as often as they like - has been totally lost.  C'est la guerre.)


----------



## kaomera

Nail said:
			
		

> (My orginal point - that WB can switch weapon focus etc as often as they like - has been totally lost.  C'est la guerre.)



OK, I'll bite... Under what circumstances would you consider this ability to be particularly useful? (I'd personally be more likely to find concern with the WB's ability to gain otherwise fighter-only feats. It's not like you can whip out a backup weapon if you're disarmed and suddenly switch all of your feats over...)


----------



## dagger

A situation involving treasure is the main benefit I would think.


----------



## Paradigm

kaomera said:
			
		

> OK, I'll bite... Under what circumstances would you consider this ability to be particularly useful? (I'd personally be more likely to find concern with the WB's ability to gain otherwise fighter-only feats. It's not like you can whip out a backup weapon if you're disarmed and suddenly switch all of your feats over...)




Most useful instance would be Improved Unarmed Strike after being taken prisoner. Otherwise, I guess if you invested in Longsword and then found a great magical battleaxe or something.


----------



## kaomera

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Most useful instance would be Improved Unarmed Strike after being taken prisoner. Otherwise, I guess if you invested in Longsword and then found a great magical battleaxe or something.



Improved Unarmed does not require a choice of what weapon it applies to, so I'm not seeing how there would be any effect on that feat. If you mean being able to swap over things like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization to Unarmed, then you do have a good point. It still requires that you be allowed one hour of practice (with an "unarmed" available to practice with   ), but I can think of a lot of scenarios where that wouldn't be a problem. So, OK, if you're captured or lose your weapon and can't retrieve / replace it (or you replace it with a different type of weapon) then it is an advantage. Not a situation I see come up all that often IMC, but I can't argue it isn't an advantage.

As far as swapping weapons because of found treasure, I guess I'm limiting myself in that I normally tailor any major magic items (like weapons, armor) to the party members. I can see this being an advantage anyway, since you can swap out if you know you will be facing opponents that are weak against _x_ type of damage. You'd still be at a disadvantage in that you'd have to carry around (both in terms of encumbrance and wealth level) extra weapons. IMC the PCs don't find bunches of "extra" level-appropriate gear, but I can see the benefit of swapping your +3 Keen, Frost Burst greatsword for a +1 Flaming, Ghost Touch heavy mace in some circumstances... At which point you need all the other bonuses you can stack, so the ability becomes even more useful.


----------



## Paradigm

kaomera said:
			
		

> If you mean being able to swap over things like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization to Unarmed, then you do have a good point.




That is what I meant, yes.



> IMC the PCs don't find bunches of "extra" level-appropriate gear, but I can see the benefit of swapping your +3 Keen, Frost Burst greatsword for a +1 Flaming, Ghost Touch heavy mace in some circumstances... At which point you need all the other bonuses you can stack, so the ability becomes even more useful.




I have backup weapons with ghost touch, adamantine and silver for my marshal.


----------



## satori01

Nail said:
			
		

> If you have someone playing a Ftr, their fun will be diminished when someone brings in a WB.




That is the meta argument people want to bandy about.  Though I really suspect that if you have a well designed character you love, the fact that someone else makes a very effective character to join your group, is not necessarily going to cheese you off that much.

As I have said, I have now seen two Swordsages in action, one in a low level party starting from 1st level, and one in a 14th level party as a replacement character.  So far neither has been unbalancing, and neither has made other players feel overmatched.

Now I will say this,  I run a hodge podge game.  AE, Complete Series, Homemade PrC, Monte Cook supplements....my game has alot of options available to people.  Take a plain 'Vanilla' game, and TOB will be over the top.  I strongly suspect if TOB appeals to you in the first place, you dont run a 'Vanilla" game.


----------



## catsclaw227

starwed said:
			
		

> It was one of the questions from "Ask Wizards," on 08/28/2006.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: If you take the Adaptive Style feat (Tome of Battle, pg. 28), can you pick new maneuvers and/or ready all maneuvers by spending a full-round action in the middle of combat?
> 
> A: Yes, you can use Adaptive Style to pick new maneuvers in the middle of combat. Since you are picking new maneuvers, they would all be readied. This is a clear advantage for a class such as the swordsage, who normally has to spend a full round action to recover a single maneuver, and would be a great feat to pick up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much stock you put into this is up to you.
Click to expand...



I am not sure, but I read the adaptive style as being able to spend a round to refocus and swap out your maneuvers, but it DOESN'T change the number of maneuvers you can perform in one encounter.

i.e., You have spent 2 maneuvers, and you have 2 more left this encounter, but they aren't very effective and you want to change them. You can use Adaptive Style to spend a round and change out your maneuvers, but you still only have 2 more maneuvers left to perform in this encounter.  That number doesn't reset simply by changing focus.

This is how we play it.


----------



## glass

Nail said:
			
		

> The only difference between Ftr and WB is Int.  That's hardly a M.A.D. problem.



And Dex, unless you are going to burn a feat on heavy armour proficiency.




> _So, to summarize:
> Bbn loses a class ability if he wears heavy armor.
> WB loses no class abilities if wearing heavy armor.
> The advantage seems very clear-cut, actually.
> 
> Some do, some don't. The advantage still lies very clearly with the WB.  Are you claiming that having ranks in Tumbling has no advantage other than its use in a martial maneuver?  _



So tumbling, which you can't do in heavy armour*, is a big advantage, but the WB doesn't lose any advantages in heavy armour?  



> _You've missed a few "interesting" abilities.  Namely: Ability to switch weapon feats around to whatever weapon he's using.  Have Weapon Focus on a Greatsword, but want it on Long Composite Bow for the up-coming ambush?  Done._



That would be the composite longbow they aren't proficient in? Or are you burning yet another feat?

Don't get me wrong, I think the WB is a little on the stong side, but it isn't anything like the uberclass you are painting.


glass.

* unless you are a dwarf.


----------



## Plane Sailing

I don't see the heavy armour proficiency lack as a penalty at all. 

Mithral full plate is a medium armour that gives you the AC bonus of full plate, for instance. 

The difference between light armour and heavy armour is only +4 to AC which while nice doesn't stay all that important for long and is often offset by the movement penalties of heavy armour.


----------



## Plane Sailing

NilesB said:
			
		

> At 19th level noone is going to notice the effect of a first level maneuver, if you can even get all high level maneuvers, they tend to have prerequisites.




But isn't that like saying that a Ftr18 who takes Wiz1 shouldn't just get 1st level spells because no one is going to notice the effect of a 1st level spell?


----------



## glass

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I don't see the heavy armour proficiency lack as a penalty at all.
> 
> Mithral full plate is a medium armour that gives you the AC bonus of full plate, for instance.



It counts as medium armour for certain puposes, but you still have be proficient in full plate to ware it effectively.

Also, you can't tumble in medium armour either.


glass.


----------



## Plane Sailing

glass said:
			
		

> It counts as medium armour for certain puposes, but you still have be proficient in full plate to ware it effectively.






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Mithral Full Plate of Speed: As a free action, the wearer of this fine set of +1 mithral full plate can activate it, enabling her to act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10 rounds each day. The duration of the haste effect need not be consecutive rounds.
> Speed while wearing a suit of mithral full plate is 20 feet for Medium creatures, or 15 feet for Small. The armor has an arcane spell failure chance of 25%, a maximum Dexterity bonus of +3, and an armor check penalty of –3. *It is considered medium armor *and weighs 25 pounds.
> Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, haste; Price 26,500 gp.




That just says it is considered medium armour; doesn't say anything about needing heavy armour proficiency to wear it. Are you thinking of something else? Maybe there are generic rules for mithral armour which this particular item supercedes?

Tumble just makes light armour even more attractive, I'm just pointing out that you can get the heavy armour AC bonus without having the heavy armour proficiency. Heavy armour is rarely worth having while adventuring on the whole in my experience.

Cheers


----------



## glass

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> That just says it is considered medium armour; doesn't say anything about needing heavy armour proficiency to wear it. Are you thinking of something else? Maybe there are generic rules for mithral armour which this particular item supercedes?



It is still full plate, which means it need full plate proficiency. What kind of proficiency do you need for full plate? Heavy Armour. It says it _is considered_ medium armour, which means it can't actually _be_ medium armour, can it?

_EDIT: Another point. If it is your contention that it is not full plate, then it can't get full plate's armour bonus, can it? It gets some (undefined) bonus for generic medium armour._

_EDIT 2: Anyway, this has been debated before and is hardly essential to the main point of the thread, so I'll leave it there._


glass.


----------



## glass

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Tumble just makes light armour even more attractive, I'm just pointing out that you can get the heavy armour AC bonus without having the heavy armour proficiency. Heavy armour is rarely worth having while adventuring on the whole in my experience.



I was adressing Nail's seeming contradictory contentions that Warblades don't lose anything by wearing heavy armour while Barbarians do (assuming both have taken the feat), and that the Tumble skill is the mutts nuts.

Especially since Barbarians keep their Fast Movement in the medium armour that they are both proficient in, while Warblades lose their ability to Tumble. This applies equally to mithral full plate, whether you think they both need a feat or can both use it as is. It doesn't apply to dwarves, though, of course.


glass.


----------



## FireLance

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But isn't that like saying that a Ftr18 who takes Wiz1 shouldn't just get 1st level spells because no one is going to notice the effect of a 1st level spell?



Well, first of all, I'd question the assertion that no-one will notice the effect of a 1st-level spell, and similarly, no-one will notice the effect of a 1st-level maneuver. There are 1st-level maneuvers (and spells, I'm sure) that synergize well with a Ftr18's abilities.

That said, the martial adept multiclassing mechanic is one of the most ingenious that I've seen in a good long time, because it allows you access to higher-level maneuvers while still requiring some sort of logical progression through the "number of maneuvers known" prerequisite.


----------



## Plane Sailing

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, first of all, I'd question the assertion that no-one will notice the effect of a 1st-level spell, and similarly, no-one will notice the effect of a 1st-level maneuver. There are 1st-level maneuvers (and spells, I'm sure) that synergize well with a Ftr18's abilities.




As you note, it is the assertion that 1st level manouvres are useless that I'm questioning too


----------



## Plane Sailing

glass said:
			
		

> It is still full plate, which means it need full plate proficiency. What kind of proficiency do you need for full plate? Heavy Armour. It says it _is considered_ medium armour, which means it can't actually _be_ medium armour, can it?




That seems like a foolish argument to me. The meaning of the words seem pretty straightforward. It is considered medium armour thus medium armour proficiency is required to wear it. Proficiency is given in weights of armour, not specific armours.

Regards


----------



## kaomera

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But isn't that like saying that a Ftr18 who takes Wiz1 shouldn't just get 1st level spells because no one is going to notice the effect of a 1st level spell?



More or less. IMHO, it's generally kind of silly to take a first level of Wizard at 19th level, for the spells known (getting access to the spell list for magic item use is possibly a better reason, and there are probably others). The Martial Adept classes are designed to encourage this practice (possibly to make the material more useful when dropped into an ongoing campaign)


----------



## NilesB

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But isn't that like saying that a Ftr18 who takes Wiz1 shouldn't just get 1st level spells because no one is going to notice the effect of a 1st level spell?



Point 1:because first level spells have out of combat utility they would be signifigantly more valuable to an 18th level fighter than first level Martial maneuvers.
Point 2: Taking one level of wizard is not a balanced option, it is an underpowered option. Supplements should not be balanced against PCs who shoot themselves in the foot. Maybe you would be interested in the big book of Commoner variants, but I'd rather see designer try not to repeat their mistakes than to see them enshrine those mistakes as a baseline.


----------



## NilesB

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Most useful instance would be Improved Unarmed Strike after being taken prisoner.



Sure you can change your weapon specific feats over to Unarmed strike, provided your captors aloow you a good nights sleep followed by a uninterupted hour of practicing your boxing. Then you have the opportunity to see how well you can fight your way free of the captors who were able to defeat you when you were properly equipped with your bare hands, taking an attack of opportunity every swing you take at them. If that's the most useful scenario you can come up with to take advantage of this class ability it doesn't seem that much better than say, the bard's inability to use the silent spell feat.


----------



## Victim

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> But isn't that like saying that a Ftr18 who takes Wiz1 shouldn't just get 1st level spells because no one is going to notice the effect of a 1st level spell?




Exactly, that's why there are 80 billion PrCs and new base classes designed for fighter/magic users.  The base combination of fighter X plus wizard Y generally isn't very good precisely because nothing stacks.  Fighting classes can easily stack Bab and thus multiclass effectively.

The system for initiator level seems to be designed so that there is some stacking, like BaB.  Really, there has to be; there's not going to be room for a bunch of PrCs that would fix the matter.  I guess the question is how much non-power (whether it be manuevers, spells, psionics) should stack with power levels.  I think that the current ToB system is problematic in that it makes order of operations so important, and that one level is probably too good - especially since only the first level is that great.


----------



## kigmatzomat

I agree, martial adepts multiclass too darned well.  If they reduced the number of maneuvers at 1st level I'd be happier both for multi-classing and balance.  I've house-ruled that the total Initiator level is capped at 4xAdept Class level, though I'd consider cutting it down to 2x Adept Class level if my game weren't already at 20th level.


----------



## Nightfall

*thinks if nothing else he's right that martial adept classes are way more fun than fighters*

And yes Eric I figured that might be the case...but I'm more welcoming of fighter/rogues.


----------



## Nail

glass said:
			
		

> It is still full plate, which means it need full plate proficiency.



I'm sorry glass, but you'll have to point us in the direction of this "Full Plate Proficiency".

Hint: It doesn't exist.  

Mithril Full Plate is treated as medium armor.  How could that be clearer?


----------



## Nail

kaomera said:
			
		

> OK, I'll bite... Under what circumstances would you consider this ability to be particularly useful?



Being able to switch weapon proficiency feats is very useful...depending on your campaign.  If your DM custom-builds the treasure pile to always include weapons the PCs can use - even specialize in - then it's obviously less useful.

In the games I've run, and the games I've played, you don't reliably find your weapon of choice in the treasure pile...unless it's a common weapon.  Even then, odds are not 100%.  In published adventures, you're quite apt to see melee weapons your specialized Ftr can't use.

...but not your specialized WB.


----------



## Nightfall

Nail said:
			
		

> I'm sorry glass, but you'll have to point us in the direction of this "Full Plate Proficiency".
> 
> Hint: It doesn't exist.
> 
> Mithril Full Plate is treated as medium armor.  How could that be clearer?




You could try this: 


*MITHRIL FULL PLATE IS TREATED AS MEDIUM ARMOR. *

Like so...


----------



## Nail

glass said:
			
		

> I was addressing Nail's seeming contradictory contentions that Warblades don't lose anything by wearing heavy armour while Barbarians do (assuming both have taken the feat), and that the Tumble skill is the mutts nuts.



Contradictory?  I'm just laying out the benefits of the WB class...I'm not claiming synergy between tumble and heavy armor.

WBs have no penalty when wearing Heavy Armor.  (They do need to take a feat to do so.) 

WBs have access to a larger skill list, which includes the valuable tumble skill.

WBs who chose to wear armor that lowers their movement rate (Medium or Heavy armor...or are dwarves ) probably won't be the same WBs that use the Tumbling skill. Tumble is a great skill for those that are built to move in melee...and therefore wish to avoid AoOs.  If your PC is not built for mobility, then it's clear Tumble is less useful to you.


----------



## Nail

Nightfall said:
			
		

> You could try this:



Geez-zes-kryst!

Give a fella a bit o' warning before ye do that!  Now I gotta tip my chair back up off the floor.....


----------



## Nightfall

Why? No one expects the Nightfall "post em when people don't expect em!" dealio.  
Glad you liked it though.


----------



## Paradigm

Nightfall said:
			
		

> You could try this:
> 
> 
> *MITHRIL FULL PLATE IS TREATED AT MEDIUM ARMOR. *
> 
> Like so...


----------



## FireLance

Nightfall said:
			
		

> You could try this:
> 
> 
> *MITHRIL FULL PLATE IS TREATED AT MEDIUM ARMOR. *
> 
> Like so...



FireLance say: he who use big red bold underlined capital letters should proofread before post.


----------



## epochrpg

Victim said:
			
		

> I don't know about that.  There's often a significant opportunity cost to using a manuever since many replace your normal attack action.  While monk abilities are generally less powerful, they easily work in conjunction with each other.  My monk ended up using pretty much all of his combat abilities at the same time, while the swordsage can generally only run any one of his stances, plus any one of his strikes, plus any one of his boosts at any given moment.  And Greater Flurry is no small thing either.  Plus since the swordsage recovery method kind of sucks and they can only ready one copy of a manuever, it seems likely they'll burn through their better moves rather quickly - or they'll won't have the chance to use their larger array of manuevers.
> .




I agree completely.  My character is a Level 15Monk/Level 1 Swordsage (trying to become a shadowsun ninja) and I have to say, that a lot of the swordsage manuvers (or any of the martial adept manuvers) lack one major thing-- the ability to take a full attack action.  For this reason, my monk uses normal attacks most of the time.  I only use my manuvers when I move.

The only exception is that I have a boost (tiger's leap) that lets me take a jump as a swift action instead of a move action.  This, in turn, allows me to jump up to an enemy (with my 30+ jump check) and unload my full attack action on him.  However, I do it once, and I cannot do it again until after combat.  There is a 2nd Level druid spell (lion's charge) that essentially allows the same thing, so I don't think it is very broken at all.

Now my more potent manuvers essentially require me to give up my full attack action to do them.  Since I am in a mixed level game, where my 16th level character is fighting alongside 23rd level wizards and rangers, there are plenty of enemies that have DR/Epic or DR/- that we have to face.  Without the Stone Hammer strike, when we encounter such creatures, I might as well just go home for the evening, because I am worthless.  Stone Hammer actually levels the playing field a bit, allowing me to make a single attack against such creatures (and making it worth my while to show up to game).  

I did chose one manuver mainly because I found it humorous-- Comet Throw.  Grab an enemy, throw him at another enemy, watch them both take 4d6 dmg.  This is a 4th level manuver, however.  A 4th Level spell doing 4d6 dmg to two creatures, after requiring you to make 2 successful dice contests with them AND gives a reflex save for half would be a joke.  Which is partly why I chose it, for laughs.  Unfortunatly, our DM does not make us fight mooks very often.  It is usually 1 or 2 big-bad monsters, which are too big for me even to try this on... Phooey


----------



## epochrpg

Paradigm said:
			
		

> Most useful instance would be Improved Unarmed Strike after being taken prisoner. Otherwise, I guess if you invested in Longsword and then found a great magical battleaxe or something.




That is a good idea with the unarmed strike.

However, a WB or SS or Crusader have to be VERY CAREFUL about their choice of weapons.  It is a very delacate game, because you can only use certain manuvers with certain weapons.  There is very little overlap between schools and weapons allowed.  

There are 2 schools that allow bastard sword, and 2 schools that allow Great-Sword and 2 schools that allow Great-Axe.  Unarmed strike is the weapon allowed by the most schools-- 3. 

For this reason, your character will need to carry around at least 2 weapons or take Improved Unarmed Strike as a feat unless you plan on restricting yourself to ONLY 2 fighting schools that have a common weapon. 

Currently, I am working on a Warblade who is going to emulate Mad Mardigan from the Willow movie.  He will use Bastard Sword so he can use Diamond Mind and Iron Heart manuvers, and Improved Unarmed Strike (and a mace) so he can use Stone Dragon (taken mainly in order to gain the Stone Power feat [which is VERY useful for Crusaders, btw, but I digress].  

In essence, though the reason that the ability to change your weapon feats is important is if you start focusing on using a different school, that requires a different weapon, you want your feats to jive with that weapon.  If you want to change your focus from Diamond Mind to Tiger Claw, for instance, you might want to change your weapon feats from Bastard Sword to Kukri.


----------



## Victim

Nothing says that you have to use the weapons of a discipline with its manuevers.  Some characters will have a bonus when doing so, but it's not required.


----------



## epochrpg

Victim said:
			
		

> Nothing says that you have to use the weapons of a discipline with its manuevers.  Some characters will have a bonus when doing so, but it's not required.




I guess it does not say that, specifically, but it seems to be implied, and it seems to go against the spirit of the school to use different weapons with it.  However, you do have a point in that the Mountain Hammer manuver has an illustration of somebody using a hammer to strike an enemy, when ironically enough, Stone Dragon does not have Hammer as a weapon choice.

Personally though I use only the weapons it says with individual manuvers because 1. it seems more balanced that way and 2. I feel like I am cheating if I don't.  

My monk15/Swordsage1 fights with a Spiked Chain and Unarmed Strikes.  Only when using a shadowhand manuver do I ever use the spiked chain-- otherwise, I am using the unarmed strikes, because Setting Sun and Tiger Claw don't have Spiked Chain on their lists. 

Do I feel this is restrictive?  Yes, it is-- but I think there should be some sort of check on the martial adept's power, and also, it is more in spirit with the idea that you are emulating a fighting style when you stick to weapons prescribed by that style.  If you use a greatsword to do Setting Sun manuvers, it does not seem right.


----------



## FireLance

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  My character is a Level 15Monk/Level 1 Swordsage (trying to become a shadowsun ninja) and I have to say, that a lot of the swordsage manuvers (or any of the martial adept manuvers) lack one major thing-- the ability to take a full attack action.  For this reason, my monk uses normal attacks most of the time.  I only use my manuvers when I move.
> 
> The only exception is that I have a boost (tiger's leap) that lets me take a jump as a swift action instead of a move action.  This, in turn, allows me to jump up to an enemy (with my 30+ jump check) and unload my full attack action on him.  However, I do it once, and I cannot do it again until after combat.



Boosts, rather than strikes, probably work better for a multiclassed character, especially a monk. For example, Burning Blade (I think) from Desert Wind adds fire damage to each successful attack, and can work well with a monk's flurry of blows. In addition, a swordsage can spend a full-round action to recover a maneuver, but he will generally be better off doing something else.


----------



## epochrpg

FireLance said:
			
		

> Boosts, rather than strikes, probably work better for a multiclassed character, especially a monk. For example, Burning Blade (I think) from Desert Wind adds fire damage to each successful attack, and can work well with a monk's flurry of blows. In addition, a swordsage can spend a full-round action to recover a maneuver, but he will generally be better off doing something else.




Yeah, but I don't think Desert wind goes with unarmed strikes (yes, on some technicality it never says you have to use weapons from your fighting style, but that is frankly dumb.  Just like Adaptive Style refreshing your used manuvers is dumb.)

FYI, people Just because someone at WOTC said something dumb, does not mean you have to buy it.


----------



## glass

*fails Will save* Damnit, I really wanted to leave this tangent alone!



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> I'm sorry glass, but you'll have to point us in the direction of this "Full Plate Proficiency". Hint: It doesn't exist.



Which would be relevant if I had said it did. But since I quite clearly said that full plate requires Heavy Armour Proficiency, which I'm reasonably certain does exist.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Mithril Full Plate is treated as medium armor.  How could that be clearer?



It is _treated as_ medium armour, which indicates that it isn't medium armour. Your're right that is pretty clear. 

The Mithral Full Plate of Speed doesn't specify for what purposes it is and isn't considered medium (maybe it would be clearer if it did), thankfully the general description of mithral says:


			
				The SRD said:
			
		

> Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations.



Movement and other limitations. No mention of proficiency.


glass.


----------



## glass

Nail said:
			
		

> Tumble is a great skill for those that are built to move in melee...and therefore wish to avoid AoOs.  If your PC is not built for mobility, then it's clear Tumble is less useful to you.





			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Barbarian's Fast Movement is a great class ability for those that are built to move in melee....  If your PC is not built for mobility, then it's clear barbarian's Fast Movement is less useful to you.



The contradiction is that you dissmissed the barbarian's option to take a feat for heavy armour while playing up the warblade's. Especially when, as I have already noted, the barbarian's ability works in medium armour, and the warblade's doesn't.


glass.


----------



## Elemental

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Yeah, but I don't think Desert wind goes with unarmed strikes (yes, on some technicality it never says you have to use weapons from your fighting style, but that is frankly dumb.  Just like Adaptive Style refreshing your used manuvers is dumb.)
> 
> FYI, people Just because someone at WOTC said something dumb, does not mean you have to buy it.




I'm relieved it does allow any weapon with any manouvere, myself. Firstly, because the average Swordsage would have to be carrying around five weapons to use all his manouveres in a fight. Secondly, if you find certain weapon combos ridiculous, nothing is _forcing_ you to use them. Somebody else might have a concept where a greatsword makes perfect sense with Setting Sun.

And why can't Desert Wind go with unarmed strikes? I think the idea of an unarmed fighter who spins and whirls into combat, delivering a kick that trails fire is kind of cool, myself.


----------



## Nail

glass said:
			
		

> *fails Will save* Dammit, I really wanted to leave this tangent alone!



<Nail rolls d20>  => Succeeds at Will save...barely.

On to comments about Warblades and Swordsages, and leaving behind any comments about how *glass* has a totally messed up take on mithril full plate.


...dang.  Maybe missed the save after all.  Do I feel a "hostile tingling"?


----------



## Nail

Elemental said:
			
		

> I'm relieved it does allow any weapon with any manouvere, myself.



Me too.  Although I really value *epochrpg*'s other comments. 

It *is* true that one of the adepts feats (Blade Meditation) requires the adept to use the discipline's weapon.


----------



## Nail

glass said:
			
		

> ...the barbarian's ability works in medium armour, and the warblade's doesn't.



What ability works for the barbarian, but doesn't work for the WB?   You're setting up lots of strawmen, methinks.


----------



## glass

Nail said:
			
		

> What ability?



The ability to tumble. 


glass.


----------



## Nail

So, a Bbn can tumble in medium armor, but a WB can't?


----------



## epochrpg

Elemental said:
			
		

> Somebody else might have a concept where a greatsword makes perfect sense with Setting Sun.




Yes, I believe the word for that certain somebody is... Munchkin


----------



## Nail

I'm really not sure that term is necessary, especially in the context you put it in, epochrpg.  Be considerate, please.


----------



## epochrpg

Very well.  I appologize for the above rudeness.  However, when people come up with "perfectly reasonable" explanations of using a more powerful weapon with a certain ability than was intended it sounds suspicious to me.  I am used to dealing with a fellow player who would pull this kind of stuff all the time, always rationalizing why he could do certain things that he wasn't supposed to do, and trying make up reasons why it was in character.  I should not, however, assume that someone else is doing the same thing, necessarily. 

However, I do feel that the discipline weapons is a balancing thing, and that not requiring them for strikes (boosts and stances don't necessarily need them) could be a bit broken. I certainly wouldn't want someone using a spiked chain to pull off a lot of these manuvers, and am glad that it is only used by Shadow Hand discipline.


----------



## kigmatzomat

A number of maneuvers specify the need for a discipline weapon (I'm thinking the Tiger maneuvers, mostly) and the rest can work with any weapon.  I thought they required them as well until one of the players pointed out the blurb that says "any weapon can be usedunless specified in the maneuver."  I'm at work so I don't have the book to try and find that quote again.  

For the Tiger maneuvers it makes sense as they tend to require claws or unarmed strikes.  It is less rational for the Stone Dragon maneuvers to care about the weapon since those maneuvers have the "contact with the ground and only moving 5'" limitation.


----------



## epochrpg

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I thought they required them as well until one of the players pointed out the blurb that says "any weapon can be usedunless specified in the maneuver."  I'm at work so I don't have the book to try and find that quote again.  .




When you get home do you think you could post the page number, collumn and paragraph here, please.  I would really like to see that (my new character is a level 5 warblade who focuses on bastard sword because he is a diamond mind/iron heart user, but he also uses stone dragon, and therefore would be carrying a mace around too [or doing unarmed strikes]


----------



## kigmatzomat

My game books are at a friend's house until tomorrow.  I'll try to remember to post it later this weekend.  IIRC it was at the beginning of the section that describes maneuvers and it was tagged onto the end of a paragraph.  Not exactly blatant but it was in a rational location.


----------



## Nail

On page 41, first paragraph, it states: _"In addition, variuos weapons lend themselves to the philosophy or maneuvers of different disciplines."_

Hardly conclusive.

However, the "Initiating Maneuvers and Stances" section (p. 38) lists what's necessary to use a maneuver...and does NOT list needing a particular kind of weapon.


----------



## Soel

One of the folks who worked on the books posted that the different weapons per discipline was purely for flavor reasons to make them stand apart from one another more.

You'd have to change Blade Meditation if you go with this line of thinking, though.


----------



## RigaMortus2

NilesB said:
			
		

> At 19th level noone is going to notice the effect of a first level maneuver, if you can even get all high level maneuvers, they tend to have prerequisites.




Not really.  There are several 1st level maneuvers that are good all the way through level 20.


----------



## RigaMortus2

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I am not sure, but I read the adaptive style as being able to spend a round to refocus and swap out your maneuvers, but it DOESN'T change the number of maneuvers you can perform in one encounter.
> 
> i.e., You have spent 2 maneuvers, and you have 2 more left this encounter, but they aren't very effective and you want to change them. You can use Adaptive Style to spend a round and change out your maneuvers, but you still only have 2 more maneuvers left to perform in this encounter.  That number doesn't reset simply by changing focus.
> 
> This is how we play it.




Look up the rules for Readying maneuvers for the day.  When you Ready maneuvers for the day, all your maneuvers become refreshed.  Normally it takes about 5 minutes to Ready maneuvers, so you can freely swap out maneuvers from encounter to encounter provided you have at least 5 minutes to set aside to Ready them.  At any rate, whenever you Ready maneuvers they all become refreshed and available to you (even if you decide to Ready the same maneuver).  All Adaptive Style does is change that 5 minute time frame to a full round action.  All other rules regarding Readying maneuvers remain the same.


----------



## kigmatzomat

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Not really.  There are several 1st level maneuvers that are good all the way through level 20.




Yeah, there sure are.  MC is at 20th right now so people are considering the MAs for their 21st level.  I am concerned about the power levels of the maneuvers so I have a house rule limiting total Initiator level to MA class level x4 that caps them to 2nd level maneuvers right off the bat  and they are still quite appealing.  

Most Strikes' value at high levels tends to be highly situational (when moving, against foes with certain resistances, etc) but 1st & 2nd level Boosts, Counters, and Stances are useful at all character levels.  The low level Desert Wind Stance that lets you resist fire based on your Tumble skill can result in total fire immunity for a 20th level character.  At least one low level Counter lets you use one save in place of another (Diamond Mind, fort for ref?), others give you extra AoOs like a 'lite' combat reflexes, who wouldn't want to be able to teleport 50' (Shadow Step, IIRC), and the 1st level Crusader Stance that heals people when you hit a bad guy is never a shabby thing.


----------



## RigaMortus2

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Just like Adaptive Style refreshing your used manuvers is dumb.)
> 
> FYI, people Just because someone at WOTC said something dumb, does not mean you have to buy it.




Except those are the actual rules written in the ToB.  See my post above that explains why Adaptive Style works the way it works.


----------



## satori01

I'm curious of what the aesthetic is that makes people generally view the Warblade as overpowered?

No one even brings up the Crusader as being overpowered.  The Swordsage is brought up, but is shot down quickly as people are playing those, and they seem to be balanced.  

I do not think a lot of Warblades get played, something in the look of them frighten DMs, and make players afraid of the munchkin title.  Clearly the class to compare it too is the Barbarian:

Medium Armor, d12 HD, situational class abilities and Maneuvers.

Full BaB and d12 HD pulls a lot of psychological weight.  So what would make the Warblade balanced in the minds of critics?

D10 HD?  2 skill points a level?  Not being able to recharge all of its maneuvers with swift action, (my only real beef with the class)?

Did anyone play the class at the delve in Gencon?  How did it fare?


----------



## brehobit

satori01 said:
			
		

> I'm curious of what the aesthetic is that makes people generally view the Warblade as overpowered?
> 
> No one even brings up the Crusader as being overpowered.  The Swordsage is brought up, but is shot down quickly as people are playing those, and they seem to be balanced.




In this thread I posted a very powerful swordsage build.  I think swordsages are much more powerful than warblades (which I think are also overpowered).

The crusader is less of a problem because of the random nature of his maneuvers. The lack of control is very limiting.  A maneuver that aids in a charge is usually worthless if you don't get it on the first round.

A warblade gets 4 bonus feats (some of which are very nice indeed: things a fighter would likely take) vs. 11 of a fighter.  It gets more skill points, class skills, and a bigger hit die.  It can take fighter-only feats.  Even without the maneuvers and stances the argument is pretty simple that a warblade is overpowered.

The swordsage argument is harder because of the medium BAB.  

All that said, a crusader and warblade get hosed by when they get stances.  Playing a pure warblade or crusader looks pretty sub-optimal.  I think fighter 2 followed by warblade may be the way to go.  

By far the most powerful  thing about the Bo9S classes is the mult-classing rules.  A fighter 8 would be crazy to take fighter 9 (or barb 1 or whatever) over taking one of the Bo9S classes.  And oddly he will end up with a better stance (3rd level) than a pure warblade will  of the same character level!  A little odd. (The warblade will get a 5th level one at 10th level...)


Mark


----------



## catsclaw227

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Except those are the actual rules written in the ToB.  See my post above that explains why Adaptive Style works the way it works.




I understand -- it just makes the adaptive style feat too powerful.  A  4st level swordsage would essentially get as many manevers as a 15th level swordsage, just not the same selection.   I kinda like our ruling, where it allows the swordsage to swap out what they have left.


----------



## Nail

satori01 said:
			
		

> I'm curious of what the aesthetic is that makes people generally view the Warblade as overpowered?
> ...(snip)...
> 
> Full BAB and d12 HD pulls a lot of psychological weight.  So what would make the Warblade balanced in the minds of critics?



It does put the pressure on the class to show how it is balanced with respect to either the Bbn or (a better comparison) the Ftr.  That's why I started this thread.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about Warblades (and comparing it to Ftr) for the last 11 days or so.  I think for my game I'll reduce their HD to d10 (which reduces the "psychological weight"), and leave the rest alone....and then have a really clever player of mine give it a go.  



Spoiler



(He's bringing in a new PC....his "dex Ftr" was CdG-ed by a BBEG, FWIW.)


  I'm positive he'll turn up the unbalanced bits.    

And in our group we have a player with a straight Ftr.  So the comparison potential is high.


----------



## starwed

> The crusader is less of a problem because of the random nature of his maneuvers. The lack of control is very limiting. A maneuver that aids in a charge is usually worthless if you don't get it on the first round.



I actually found this to be not nearly as limiting as I thought it would be.  You start with two maneuvers, and draw a new one at the end of each round.  Since you've only got 5 total, that means you'll have all of them in hand after 3 rounds of combat, and reshuffle on the 4th round.  In about two play sessions, featuring a lot of combat, I was without a useful maneuver for only 1 round.

It _is_ hard to pull off particular combos with a crusader, but as long as you stick with reasonably flexible maneuvers, you're not going to have a problem.  (And the maneuvers which aid in a charge normally eliminate AoO as you charge, making them quite useful for getting to the back ranks of an enemy group.)


----------



## Plane Sailing

Nail said:
			
		

> I've spent a lot of time thinking about Warblades (and comparing it to Ftr) for the last 11 days or so.  I think for my game I'll reduce their HD to d10 (which reduces the "psychological weight"), and leave the rest alone....and then have a really clever player of mine give it a go.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> (He's bringing in a new PC....his "dex Ftr" was CdG-ed by a BBEG, FWIW.)
> 
> 
> I'm positive he'll turn up the unbalanced bits.
> 
> And in our group we have a player with a straight Ftr.  So the comparison potential is high.




Be sure to let us know how it turns out, Nail!

Cheers


----------



## Nightfall

Anyway I do apologize to people, like Firelance, but I had thought I'd cut and pasted this correctly. Fix that in a bit...

In any case if you could tumble as a Barbarian, my idea of a Raging Barbarian/Battle Dancer would be way cooler.


----------



## Victim

brehobit said:
			
		

> The crusader is less of a problem because of the random nature of his maneuvers. The lack of control is very limiting.  A maneuver that aids in a charge is usually worthless if you don't get it on the first round.




True, but crusaders will be granted a significant subset of their readied manuevers if they spend the feat, and will know that they have random manuevers when they're picking stuff out.  If chances are you won't have a charge boosting manuever when you charge, then it's easy enough to avoid some of the more situational manuevers.  Moreover, crusaders do have unlimited access to their stances (even if the progression does screw them, so that they'll need to spend a feat to get their top stance).  They have pretty exclusive access to devoted spirit.  Crusaders are the only class that does not need to spend actions to recharge manuevers.  With their automatic recharges, healing manuevers and stances, and damage defering class ability, the class seems to pack almost limitless endurance.


----------



## Nail

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Be sure to let us know how it turns out, Nail!



So...is that Moderater-sanctioned Thread Necromancy?

Done!


----------



## Nightfall

It's only non-sanctioned if you wait like....2 months and then bring it back up.


----------



## Nail

Given that this is a long-term campaign, and given that we meet once/2 weeks, I can't imagine I'll have any solid data in less than 3 months, really.


----------



## Nightfall

Well you can post initial findings as you go along. You know not solid data but stuff that people might like to read anyway.


----------



## Paradigm

brehobit said:
			
		

> The crusader is less of a problem because of the random nature of his maneuvers. The lack of control is very limiting.  A maneuver that aids in a charge is usually worthless if you don't get it on the first round.




I find this to be almost no limitation at all. One doesn't have to take any charge-related abilities if that ia concern. I find the fact that one can be a damage sponge, and gain a bonus to hit with strikes that heal to be pretty powerful. Extra granted manuever is definately a feat you want to take. Also, you can cycle your manuevers readily to get ones you want.


----------



## Nail

Say...

I'm currently working up a human Warblade thru several levels (3rd, then 9th, then 15th, then 20th) and I'm finding the prerequisites for the manuevers to be a huge challenge.  Decisions you make back at 3rd level have large effects on your choices at 15th level.  Considering the complexity of the decisions, that seems a Bad Idea(tm) to me.

Comments?  Has anyone else had this revelation/problem?


----------



## kaomera

Nail said:
			
		

> Say...
> 
> I'm currently working up a human Warblade thru several levels (3rd, then 9th, then 15th, then 20th) and I'm finding the prerequisites for the manuevers to be a huge challenge.  Decisions you make back at 3rd level have large effects on your choices at 15th level.  Considering the complexity of the decisions, that seems a Bad Idea(tm) to me.
> 
> Comments?  Has anyone else had this revelation/problem?




I definitely noticed that. As I had mentioned earlier, I think that a Warblade (or any other Martial Adept class) is much, much harder to build / optimize than a Fighter (or Barbarian, or whatever). I do not think that I would, personally, label that a "Bad Idea(tm)". I'm not sure that's a problem, but then again I'm not sure it's exactly a feature, either. I do believe that it makes some of the comparisons I've seen less valid, as you simply can't just grab whatever maneuvers you want. I also think that assuming that a Warblade will recover their maneuvers every-other round (or even every three or four rounds) is a bit suspect; there are probably situations where it would be advisable, but I think that in most circumstances it's going to be more effective (and more fun, if that matters) to go ahead and fire off your lower-level maneuvers or even unload a full-attack.

One thing this thread has brought up for me is that there are a lot of (IMHO) "little" things that the Warblade gets that I don't think individually make that much of a difference, and I wouldn't even say that combined they overbalanced the class (or would necessarily make the player of a Fighter feel upstaged / overshadowed), but they do have an impact. Maybe that's mostly just psychological, but I don't think the Warblade is going to be rendered useless if you take away a hp per level, or remove some or all of the Weapon Aptitude ability. I'm just naturally wary of "nerf"ing a class, especially in order to avoid overshadowing a different class, it doesn't seem to ever work out positively for me. I'd be much more inclined to give Fighters a bit of a boost (possibly adding a class feature to allow them to apply the Weapon Focus / Specialization line of feats to a group of weapons, similar to the Weapon Group feats from UA).


----------



## satori01

Nail said:
			
		

> Say...
> 
> 
> 
> Comments?  Has anyone else had this revelation/problem?




I think it is one of the hidden balancing points.  It is hard to try to get all of the best moves from the different disciplines.  A Warblade will be able to specialize in 2 types of disciplines top.

Stances counting as maneuvers helps, and the Master of Nine, can help some more.  You also can replace Maneuvers known, so theoretically you can replace some old Maneuvers for more powerful ones.


----------



## Aaron L

I think the Warblade is too much after my reading of the Bo9S, comparing it only to the other two classes.  Its ability to recover all of its maneuvers with an attack action, compared to the Swordsage having to spend an action to recover just one maneuver, is pretty poorly thought out.   

Actually, _extremely_ poorly thought out.  

Plus, I really don't see why they should have d12 hit dice.  I can't imagine why anyone would want to play a Fighter when Warblade, as is, is available.  (speaking strictly from a mechanical perspective)  More hit points, more skill points, better skills, almost as many feats, same BAB, AND neat supernatural weapon tricks on top of it?  What is the tradeoff?  The opportunity cost of having to giving up a full attack to be able to use a special maneuver thats as good as a spell isnt much of a drawback.  The Warblade can decide to full attack and do as much damage as the Fighter OR use his special attack that summons fire and blows up the bad guys.  The Fighter doesnt get the choice.  When one class can do everything another class can do, and just as well, PLUS a whole bunch of other things, I call it problems.    

I think whoever wrote up that class was drinking a little too much that day. I think the current idea in class design is that versatility isn't that much of an advantage; that the ability to do several things equally as well as another class doesnt give it an advantage over the other class.  Thats the only excuse I can think of for the Warblade.  I'm guessing they thought that if it can only do as much at one time as a Fighter than it doesnt matter how many _other_ things it can do as well, because it can still only do one thing at a time.  And I don't really think thats a very good way to balance classes.  The Fighter is getting left in the cold, because it's gonna be way more fun with this class that can fight just as well, but he can also decide to go all Crouching Tiger when he gets bored with just full attacking all the time.  

It's a matter of fun.  The Warblade is a FUNNER class.  It has more bells and whistles.    

Plus, giving it the accesibility to Fighter only feats is really just adding insult to injury.  I could see maybe adding more feats like Weapon Supremacy could make the Fighter shine a little brighter, but then they give the Warblade acces to them too, PLUS he can swap out the weapons he wants to specialize in whenever he wants! 


Damn, the more I talk about it the more baffled I get.  Who approved this class?           


I love the Bo9S.  I just think the Warblade is way over the top.


----------



## Kmart Kommando

In at least 2 years of 7-9 player games, no one in my games has ever played a fighter, or rather, played more than 4 levels of fighter.  
Saying that no one would play a fighter when the warblade is available means nothing, because no one wanted to play a fighter _before_ the warblade was available.


----------



## epochrpg

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

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


----------



## Felon

Aaron L said:
			
		

> When one class can do everything another class can do, and just as well, PLUS a whole bunch of other things, I call it problems.



That's really my issue with the warblade. It's not even that it's overpowered so much as over_featured_. It's just too damn much stuff rolled into one class. It's like some weird barbarian/fighter/rogue/swashbuckler amalgam.



> Damn, the more I talk about it the more baffled I get.  Who approved this class?




I really wish it were possible to nail down the author(s) of individual classes, feats, and other content. 

Btw, sorry about Woofers. Lost me a cat earlier this year. Sucks.


----------



## glass

Nail said:
			
		

> What ability works for the barbarian, but doesn't work for the WB?   You're setting up lots of strawmen, methinks.



Was it really necessary to edit a wholey inaccurate accusation into your post?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> So, a Bbn can tumble in medium armor, but a WB can't?



No, a barbarian can use fast movement in medium armour, but a warblade can't tumble in medium armour. Obviously.


glass.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Just for the sake of adding to the Medium Armor + Fast Movement or Tumble situation, allow me to give my take on it from the perspective of somebody playing with all of the involved character options.

My current character is a Barbarian1/Cleric13.  I took the Barbarian for Rage and Increased Movement (I wanted to build a non-traditional paladin-type, so he's got Destruction Domain Smite and Extra Smite).  

This is the first game I'm playing with my current group, and after playing with D20Modern they liked 1) more skills and 2) Starting Occupations, so all of the characters got an additional 2sp/lvl. 

With my extra skill points I decided to go cross-class into Tumble ... another House Rule, they let PCs/NPCs with ranks in Tumble attempt to "set" the DC of the Tumble Through Threatened Squares check, so I figured it would be worth it if nothing else to help protect the back ranks by trying to ruin a few Tumble checks.

My character has never worn Medium armor.  Using the Tumble skill as written in RAW (especially with some additional movement from Bbn and Divine Vigor) is just too good.  It's more useful, tactically, to be able to roll into flanking position with the Rogue and avoid AoOs entirely than the few points of AC a heavier armor can net ... why?  Because if I can avoid the first AoO and put myself and the rogue in a position to do maximum damage, we can quite possibly DROP the badguy before he gets a chance to make me pay for my lower AC.

Additionally, D&D is weighted heavily against AC, especially at mid to high levels.  It takes FAR more character resources to get an effective AC score than it does to just beat things to death.  Our Fighter-type is bemoaning that now, as he wears a Heavy Shield +3 and Full Plate +2 and a Ring of Protection +4 while I have no RoP, Mithril Breastplate +1, and use a two-handed weapon.  Things don't have a real big problem hitting either of us.

So, for my money, Tumble is one of the few skills worth taking cross-class.  Being able to maneuver in combat effectively really increases tactical superiority.  With "melee" monsters at mid-to-high levels having buckets of HD and Strength scores in the 30s, AC in D&D is hard to get anyway ... personally, every Barbarian should be putting ranks in Tumble cross-class and get at least five ranks in Jump and wear the Mithril Breastplate.  Every Warblade should be getting movement-rate-increasing items, putting ranks in Tumble, and wearing the Mithril Breastplate.  

--fje


----------



## glass

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> So, for my money, Tumble is one of the few skills worth taking cross-class.  Being able to maneuver in combat effectively really increases tactical superiority.  With "melee" monsters at mid-to-high levels having buckets of HD and Strength scores in the 30s, AC in D&D is hard to get anyway ... personally, every Barbarian should be putting ranks in Tumble cross-class and get at least five ranks in Jump and wear the Mithril Breastplate.  Every Warblade should be getting movement-rate-increasing items, putting ranks in Tumble, and wearing the Mithril Breastplate.



I quite agree.

I wasn't saying that tumble as a class skill wasn't a (very) good feature, I was simply pointing out that it was disingenuous to not consider its loss in medium or heavy armour, expecially while calling out the loss of a barbarian's fast movement in heavy armour.


glass.


----------



## dvvega

My wife is currently playing a Warblade 11 and to be honest the experience of the party is that it is not overpowered compared to a Fighter or any other class unless you go out to make it so.

She has built a decent tool-box style fighter. She adapts to the situation using a combination of Diamond Mind, Iron Heart and Stone Dragon. They have DR, then Stone Dragon, they unleash spells by the bucket load, Diamond Mind.

The feats selected were to enable her to rechoose Manuevers. The fact that refreshing your Manuevers makes you either attack once only (without use of Manuevers) or do nothing at all balances the Warblade out nicely.

Her previous character was a Charge-based Fighter. Now that character was much more powerful than the Warblade. It dealt phenomenal amounts of damage consistently. What it lacked was the versatility of the Warblade.

Out of the 3 classes in BoNS, the Crusader is the only one that is pretty silly in my group's opinions due to its randomness. Why choose a class that could randomly mess you up if the dice fall badly.

The Fighter is still stronger in combat in our experience thus far, but can get caught out in the wrong situation whereas the Warblade can handle a lot more but at reduced strength.


----------



## Felon

dvvega said:
			
		

> The fact that refreshing your Manuevers makes you either attack once only (without use of Manuevers) or do nothing at all balances the Warblade out nicely.




That's not a fact. It's a misreading. The warblade refreshes his maneuvers by making an attack; it is not stated that he is limited to a single attack that round. What it does say is that if he's got nobody to attack, he can refresh by using a standard action to twirl his weapon, but that's hardly the same thing.



			
				dvvega said:
			
		

> The Fighter is still stronger in combat in our experience thus far, but can get caught out in the wrong situation whereas the Warblade can handle a lot more but at reduced strength.



For all you're proclaiming the warblade to be inferior to the fighter, you're not telling us where this supposed reduced strength stems from. Saying "the warblade's only more powerful than the fighter if you design it to be" sounds like a bit of a canard. If your wife shunned a power build, that's not evidence of any innate strength or weakness on the class's part.


----------



## dvvega

I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.

A melee attack does not equal a full attack action.

As to strength of combat, the Fighter's complete access to Feats which are not restricted in use makes him/her the better combatant.

A Warblade cannot initiate more that one maneuver at a time in general (most of them require Standard Actions that equate to a single attack). Since you are taking a Standard action you can only attack once (in general) and move.

Of course he/she can react to things using some maneuvers but generally one maneuver per round.

And it is a limited resource until you refresh. So if you have the ultimate maneuver readied, you can use it every 2nd turn on average.

The fighter on the other hand is not restricted like this. He has full use of all his Feats at all times.

They both have strengths and weaknesses but our playgroup does not believe that either is better than the other except in specific situations.


----------



## glass

dvvega said:
			
		

> I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.



If that is actually what it says, then Felon is correct. If you need a 'melee attack', the the full attack action can certainly provide you one (plus some more just for plain damage dealing). 

That said, I was also under the impression that refreshing was a 'one attack only' deal. I'll have to reread that section when I get home tonight.


glass.


----------



## dvvega

Text in question



> You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action ...




The use of the wording here is pretty obvious and explicit. If you break down the sentence at the "," and conjunctions ...

You recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action followed in the same round by

a) a melee attack        OR
b) a standard action

For these effects to be equivalent (a) would be a single attack which would equate to a standard action.

If it was meant to allow a full attack action it would have said something like

"at least one melee attack"
"any melee attack option (such as a full attack)"

or something to that effect.


----------



## epochrpg

dvvega said:
			
		

> Of course he/she can react to things using some maneuvers but generally one maneuver per round.
> 
> And it is a limited resource until you refresh. So if you have the ultimate maneuver readied, you can use it every 2nd turn on average.
> 
> The fighter on the other hand is not restricted like this. He has full use of all his Feats at all times.




Yep, and the Fighter is also doing full-attack actions every round with all those feats too, while the warblade is only making 1 standard action a round.


----------



## Paradigm

dvvega said:
			
		

> I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.
> 
> A melee attack does not equal a full attack action.




I think you are drawing too fine of a line here.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Actually, my reading is, he needs to either attack somebody or use a Standard Action to twirl his weapon ... OR ... 

The text is saying that he can't use a Swift action and then:

Cast a Spell
Move and pull something from his Bag of Holding
Escape a Grapple
Use A Skill

etc etc.  He has to attack them.  If he were limited to a single attack action, that would be spelled out there.  As it is, the only references made to actual D&D Game Rules Action Types are:  A Swift action (to replenish) and a Standard Action (if he can't or won't make a melee attack).  A Swift action does not preclude one from making a Full Attack and making "a melee attack" does not preclude one from using the Full Attack action in melee combat.

He could not, for instance, use the Swift action to replenish and then:

Use a single standard attack to throw a javelin and move
Use a Full Attack to throw 2-4 javelins

Why?  Because those are ranged attacks and the rules spell out a melee attack.

He could, however, use a Swift action and then:

Hit a guy in the face with his axe and move
Hit a guy in the face with his axe multiple times as part of a Full Attack
Show off his axe-i-ness using a Standard Action and move

--fje


----------



## Nail

Hold on.

If he can recharge as a Swift action, what's to say he can't make a melee attack using a now-recharged maneuver?


----------



## Nail

Ah...got it.  The next part says you can't do that.



			
				ToB:Bo9S said:
			
		

> *Maneuvers Readied*: ...
> 
> ...You can recover all expended maneuvers with a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing else in the round (such as executing a quick, harmless flourish with your weapon).  You cannot initiate a maneuver or change your stance while you are recovering your expended maneuvers, but you can remain in a stance in which you began your turn.




So the rounds might go:

Round 1: Perform an uber-maneuver.

Round 2: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.

Round 3: Perform an uber-maneuver.

Round 4: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.

etc.


----------



## Victim

Yeah, but the character would likely be better off using a cycle that packs a few manuevers before recharging.  For instance, the warblade uses a standard attack manuever on his approach, follows up with something that uses a full attack, then recharges while finishing his enemy off - plus he could throw a pair of counters.  Then he moves to the next baddy and starts the cycle over.


----------



## Nail

Depends on the maneuvers, of course.  It wouldn't be a bad thing to use Emerald Razor and a Power Attack one round (assume 2-Hd Weapon), then full attack the next while getting back the Emerald Razor.  Etc.

The relevant points are, I guess, that 
Uber-maneuvers may be done once every other round with little loss of fighting effectiveness, and
anytime your Warblade is Full Attacking, he might as well be recharging his maneuvers.

I, like *dvvega*, had initially read the recharge action as essentially a special kind of Standard Action with 1 melee attack thrown in.  That was an incorrect reading.


----------



## Nail

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Yep, and the Fighter is also doing full-attack actions every round with all those feats too, while the warblade is only making 1 standard action a round.



This is bandied about a bit too much, I think.  You're implying that the Fighter's bonus feats are equal to (if not better than?) the Warblade's maneuvers.  Is that full-round-attacking fighter better than the Warblade's standard action attack per round?  

I'm not (yet) convinced either way, even after writing up comparisons for several levels of each.  The tendency seems to swing in the Warblade's favor, but.....

....We'll see, I guess.

Try stating out a Ftr 3 and a WB 3 (human) for example.  WB wins, easily.

At 9th level, it's a lot closer ...it might be equal, depending on what books you use (for bonus feats).  Still, I'd say the WB wins.

At 15th level, I _think_ the WB wins again......but I'd like to see that in play before I know for sure.

At 20th level the equipment becomes such a large part of the PC, I'm not sure comparing classes becomes relevant, really.


----------



## Aaron L

epochrpg said:
			
		

> "waaaah.  Fighters are not as fun as warblades!"
> 
> So don't play a fighter!  Play a warblade!




Are you being serious? 

Seriously, I'm completely baffled by your statement.

PS thanks Felon.  Woofy dieing was pretty much the culmination of the worst week of my life.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

epochrpg said:
			
		

> "waaaah.  Fighters are not as fun as warblades!"
> 
> So don't play a fighter!  Play a warblade!




Didn't see this the first time through.

Not picking on you, Epoch, but this is pretty much my major complaint with the ToB stuff in general and the Warblade in particular.

Often, it seems to me, the crux of the pro/con argument boils down to the pro side saying:  "The Fighter sucks, so these classes being better in general is okay."  

Which, no, I don't think that's okay at all.  If the major argument in favor of these things is that the fighter sucks and something that supercedes the fighter in every way is therefor okay, that's pretty much the definition of Power Inflation, right there.

I've lived through editions with rampant power inflation, and I really don't want D&D to go that way again.  I'm willing to look at particular supplements and say:  "In a vaccuum, this new option would be okay, but in combination with these others it becomes broken, so I'm not going to put it in my game."  But it makes me sad when I look at a supplement and say:  "Huh, this takes a core class in the game, drags it into a dark alley, and mugs it."  And that's what I say when I read Bo9S.  

I don't think mugging the Fighter if the Fighter isn't "fun enough" is okay ... I like to see more feats, different types of feats, like Weapon Style feats and the higher-level tactical feats and such that add more options and flavor and, if needed, POWER to the Fighter ... not just scrapping it, stealing what class abilities it had and making them better, and releasing a new book.

--fje


----------



## Slaved

Fighters power level is completely dependent on what feats he has available. Given a poor list of feats then the fighter will be poor, given an overpowerd list of feats then the fighter can be overpowered.

For myself, given the choice between playing a fighter and playing any other core class I would pick any other core class.

Putting the warblade into the list doesnt change anything, I still wouldn't pick the fighter.

If it is a character build perhaps having a couple of splash levels of fighter would be ok, but that would be the end of it and it would be a very tough call to even go that far.

For the thread, depending on the list of feats available the fighter could be better or worse than a warblade in a list of situations but overall the warblade simply looks like it would be more fun or interesting to play and has many options without having to dig through a dozen books to make the character. Even if the warblade is better at every fighting style who cares? The fighter is boring and has a scary tendency to suck. It doesn't look like the warblade is better in every way though, simply more interesting. Fighters are still the king of feats.



This was written while I was posting:"HeapThaumaturgist 
Often, it seems to me, the crux of the pro/con argument boils down to the pro side saying: "The Fighter sucks, so these classes being better in general is okay." 

Which, no, I don't think that's okay at all. If the major argument in favor of these things is that the fighter sucks and something that supercedes the fighter in every way is therefor okay, that's pretty much the definition of Power Inflation, right there."

I would say that it is not so much power inflation as it is fixing a problem that was introduced early on with a creative and fun solution.

The fighter has an issue with needing a large variety of feats to choose from, a lack of good skills, a lack of skill points, and generally a very boring progression. Placing in more feats helps the fighter. Each time a new feat comes out the total possible builds for fighters increases greatly.

I'd like to see them fix the fighter directly in addition to adding classes like the warblade myself. Having lots of choices which are all fun is an important goal.


----------



## Felon

dvvega said:
			
		

> I stated attack once only because the Warblade text states "a melee attack". It does not allow for multiple melee attacks, only one, otherwise it would have stated as much.




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. 



			
				dvvega said:
			
		

> Text in question
> 
> The use of the wording here is pretty obvious and explicit.




What's obvious is that the description does not _explicitly_ forbid a full-attack action in the slightest. You are merely _inferring_ as much, concluding that the requirement to follow the swift action with a melee attack represents the sum total of action the warblade can take for the entire round. But that's an inferrence, nothing more.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> So the rounds might go:
> Round 1: Perform an uber-maneuver.
> Round 2: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.
> Round 3: Perform an uber-maneuver.
> Round 4: Recharge all maneuvers as swift action, then Full attack.
> etc.



Yeppers.


----------



## Nail

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Often, it seems to me, the crux of the pro/con argument boils down to the pro side saying:  "The Fighter sucks, so these classes being better in general is okay."
> 
> Which, no, I don't think that's okay at all.  If the major argument in favor of these things is that the fighter sucks and something that supercedes the fighter in every way is therefor okay, that's pretty much the definition of Power Inflation, right there.



Exactly.

....and yet I recognize that for some people, power inflation isn't necessarily a Bad Thing(tm), and that the Ftr core class will always be a "dip" class on the way to a PrC that's cool. Sobeit.

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



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Fighters power level is completely dependent on what feats he has available. Given a poor list of feats then the fighter will be poor, given an overpowerd list of feats then the fighter can be overpowered.



If we restrict ourselves to WotC (non-campaign specific) books, I'd disagree with you.  The Ftr just doesn't get enough bonus feats to take advantage of all that "great feat goodness" out there in WotC-land.

IMHO, a Ftr should get 



Spoiler



a bonus feat _every level_


....but that's a house rule, so I'll leave that out.   



Spoiler



..and even then, my write-ups show the Ftr trailing the Warblade slightly, I think.


----------



## 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

Felon said:
			
		

> 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

epochrpg said:
			
		

> "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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

glass said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## DarkJester

> 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.




I think cool is pretty subjective. To me, a fighter will never be as cool as, say, even a barbarian. The same goes for equally fun. Fun depends on the player. I have more fun playing spellcasters that melee combatants as I have more options in combat. I have no interest playing a fighter, and never have. Feats are something everyone gets, getting more feats doesn't appeal to me as the concept behind my character's strength. The warblade on the other hand offers a variety of abilities that really spice up combat. I'd play a warblade. I don't think being a plain fighter is taking a hit, though I do think it would be less fun to play. And as such, In my games I recomend that players look at the warblade if they are thinking of making a fighter, although I don't force it. I think the warblade is everything the fighter should have been.


EDIT:
As far as making the fighter cool, I'm not sure how to accomplish that. The fighters main ability is the plethora of feats it recieves. The problem with that is, if the feats are on a small feat chain (so that lower level fighters can recieve them), then anyone can get them, and if the feats are on a big feat chain then they won't come into play until late anyhow. The warblade looks like it would be fun all the way through. I do think the warblade having acsess to fighter only feats is stepping on the fighter's toes a bit now that I think about it.


----------



## Nail

DarkJester said:
			
		

> As far as making the fighter cool, I'm not sure how to accomplish that. The fighters main ability is the plethora of feats it recieves. The problem with that is, if the feats are on a small feat chain (so that lower level fighters can recieve them), then anyone can get them, and if the feats are on a big feat chain then they won't come into play until late anyhow.



I disagree.  Many people may have access to many of the Ftr feats, but NO ONE can take as many of them as the Ftr, and thus NO ONE can build them into the cool combos the Ftr can.  Some of these combos are available to the Ftr right from Level 1, unlike the other classes.

For example: Making a great Trip Monkey requires lots of feats (Exotic Weapon, Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Impr. Trip, Weapon Focus, etc......including all of those cool PH II feats...) and no one has the feats to do that except the Ftr.  Meanwhile the Ftr can do that, plus do other things well.

<PIMP>_And if you still think the Ftr is too weak, give 'em more bonus feats like I do...._.</PIMP>

*All of that said:* The Warblade appears to *_still_* step on the Ftr's schtick.  Those cool  maneuvers look an awful lot like "suped-up feats"...and the Warblade (et al.) gets even more of them!


----------



## Nail

Aaron L said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## NilesB

The availabilityof full attacks on the round a Warblade recharges his maneuvers is ambigious.
I feel the Warblade is balanced disallowing this ability, but probably overpowered allowing it.
Do the people arguing that the Warblade is overpowered believe it would not be so without this ability?


----------



## DarkJester

Nail said:
			
		

> I disagree.  Many people may have access to many of the Ftr feats, but NO ONE can take as many of them as the Ftr, and thus NO ONE can build them into the cool combos the Ftr can.  Some of these combos are available to the Ftr right from Level 1, unlike the other classes.
> 
> For example: Making a great Trip Monkey requires lots of feats (Exotic Weapon, Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Impr. Trip, Weapon Focus, etc......including all of those cool PH II feats...) and no one has the feats to do that except the Ftr.  Meanwhile the Ftr can do that, plus do other things well.




I'm with you somewhat here. I think that one of the main problems is the lack of synergy between a lot of the feats, though I don't think this would be an issue unless core only or very high level. 

At 10th level a fighter really doesn't look half bad on second look.

10th Level Fighter could have the following:
Weapon Focus
Power Attack
Cleave
Expertise
Improved Trip
Weapon Specialization
Improved Critical
Knock Down
Close Quarters Fighting
Improved Buckler Defense (Or Sheild Specialization)

Pros: More Feats, Heavy Armor + Buckler or Shield for decent defense, power attack, knock down, and improved trip for some good offense. C.Q.F to resist those nasty grapples (though situational, a lifesaver). WF, WS, and Imp. Critical for more fun.

When I get home I'll throw some generic warblade stuff and see what he's got to compare to the Fighter at this point. Or someone else can humor me till I get back to my books.




> The availabilityof full attacks on the round a Warblade recharges his maneuvers is ambigious.
> I feel the Warblade is balanced disallowing this ability, but probably overpowered allowing it.
> Do the people arguing that the Warblade is overpowered believe it would not be so without this ability?




I'm not sure really. We havn't seen one in play yet. I don't think this ability in and of itself is enough to break or not break the class. My combats don't seem like they would last long enough for a warblade to be recharging his manuevers very often in combat.


----------



## Nail

DarkJester said:
			
		

> I'm not sure really. We havn't seen one in play yet. I don't think this ability in and of itself is enough to break or not break the class. My combats don't seem like they would last long enough for a warblade to be recharging his manuevers very often in combat.



That's where I'm sitting too.  

My combats last about 5 rounds, give or take. Here's how I predict a combat with a WB to go (FWIW):
************************
Round 1: Use a "charging" maneuver.

Round 2: Use some sort of attack maneuver, perhaps combined with either a Boost or a Counter (both are Swift Actions).

Round 3: Battlefield changes so that the melee-types have to move.  The WB moves, then uses a Standard Action Maneuver.

Round 4: Full Attack plus recharge.

Round 5: Use some sort of attack maneuver, perhaps combined with either a Boost or a Counter (both are Swift Actions).  The battle is practically finished at this point.
************************

Which means 1 recharge....that is combined with a full attack.  The WB uses pretty much all of his readied maneuvers before recharging.


----------



## Nail

NilesB said:
			
		

> The availabilityof full attacks on the round a Warblade recharges his maneuvers is ambigious.



I disagree.


----------



## DarkJester

Thinking of manuevers, I seem to remember the warblade having some pretty powerful stuff, such as full attack at the end of a charge, rerolling attacks, Or being able to void some heavy hits. How do you think the actual manuever selection plays into the comparison of warblade and fighter? Nail, you mentioned some manuevers being like stronger feats, that's kind of where I'm going with this.


----------



## DarkJester

Also Nail, adressing your original point. I don't get to play much, but the next time I do I'm going to do everything short of gift wrapping my left hand and giving it to the DM to be able to play a Warblade or Sword Sage. Not because I seek to dominate in combat, but, as had been said many times in the thread, because they are so dang cool. They've got _Style_.


----------



## NilesB

Nail said:
			
		

> I disagree.



You are ducking my question.


----------



## DarkJester

NilesB said:
			
		

> You are ducking my qyestion.




I tihnk Nail agrees with my statement:



			
				 DarkJester said:
			
		

> I'm not sure really. We havn't seen one in play yet. I don't think this ability in and of itself is enough to break or not break the class. My combats don't seem like they would last long enough for a warblade to be recharging his manuevers very often in combat.




 (See post 196)


----------



## Nail

DarkJester said:
			
		

> How do you think the actual manuever selection plays into the comparison of warblade and fighter? Nail, you mentioned some manuevers being like stronger feats, that's kind of where I'm going with this.



It's complicated...which is one reason I'm sitting on the fence of this issue.

Manuever selction depends *alot* on when you get the new maneuver slot and what maneuvers you _already_ have.  Decisions you make (as a WB) very early on significantly restrict what maneuvers are available to you in the higher levels.

Tell you what: When I get home, I'll post a 15th level Warblade I worked up from level 1.  Fair warning: I have yet to see a WB *in play*.  That's significant.


----------



## Nail

NilesB said:
			
		

> You are ducking my qyestion.



I am?   
Since I don't feel the "wording is ambiguous", I don't feel the RAW supports another interpretation.  A WB may recharge while full-attacking.



			
				NilesB said:
			
		

> Do the people arguing that the Warblade is overpowered believe it would not be so without this ability?



The WB is not overpowered dependent on the state of it's recharge ability.  It's overpowered because it has:
Higher HD
More Skill points
Better skill list
Maneuvers that are often better than feats, and certainly more adaptable than feats.
...and a list of other class abilities to boot (adaptive style, Battle Clarity, etc)

But: I'd like to see it in play (or hear about it in play a lot more) before I know.  After having written up several level comparisons between a Ftr and a WB (3rd, 9th, 15th, 20th), it looks like the WB is "too good"....and yet, I could be wrong.

NilesB, what's been your experience with a WB?  Ever had a comparison with a Ftr?


----------



## Nail

*3rd level Warblade*

*Warning!* There are House Rules about equipment in play here.  Since I was doing this to compare a Ftr and a WB, the different equipment rules are irrelevant.

************************************
*Test Warblade*
Male Human WB 3
Medium Humanoid (human)
*Init* +6 (+2 Dex +4 feat); *Senses* Listen +4, Spot +4
*Languages* Common_______________________________
*AC* 16, touch 12, ff 14	Uncanny Dodge
	(Chainshirt +4, Dex +2)
*hp* 31 (3 HD)
*Fort* +5  *Ref * +3 (+5 Battle Clarity)  *Will* +3_________
*Speed* 20 ft. (4 squares)
*Melee* Greataxe +9 (1d12+6/x3) 
		Battle Ardor: +2 to confirm crits
*Ranged* Throwing Axe +6 (1d6+4/x2, R 10ft)
*Base Atk* +3; *Grp* +7
*Maneuvers Known* Stone Bones (Stone 1, strike, DR 5/adamantine), Leading the Attack (White 1, strike, allies +4 atk), Moment of Perfect Mind (Diam 1, counter, Conc. Skill for Will save),  Steel Wind (Iron 1, strike, Atk 2 foes), Mountain Hammer (Stone 2, strike, +2d6 dam & no DR) 
*Stances Known* (1) Punishing Stance (Iron 1, +1d6 dam, -2 AC) 
Maneuvers Readied (3)
	Moment of Perfect Mind, Leading the Attack, Stone Bones___________________
*Abilities* Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 6
*Feats* Weapon FocusB, Impr. Init., Adaptive Style
*Skills* (7x6r):  Balance +9 (6 ranks +2 Dex -1 armor +2 Tumble), Climb +9 (6 ranks +4 Str -1 armor), Concentration +8 (6 ranks +2 Con), Jump +9 (6 ranks +4 Str -1 armor), Listen +4 (cc 3 ranks +1 Wis), Spot +4 (cc 3 ranks +1 Wis), Tumble +9 (6 ranks +2 Dex -1 armor +2 Jump)
*Possessions* Adventuring gear, MW Chainshirt, MW Greataxe, MW Throwing Axe, 1 Cure LW Infusion
*********************************


----------



## Nail

*9th Level Warblade*

Again: There are House Rules here (about magical equipment and such).  These are easy to ignore for our pupose here.

************************************************
Test Warblade
Male Human WB 9
Medium Humanoid (human)
*Init* +6 (+2 Dex +4 feat); *Senses* Listen +7, Spot +7
*Languages* Common________________________________
*AC* 20, touch 12, ff 18 
(Chainshirt +4, Dex +2, Nat Armor +4)
*hp* 82 (9 HD)
*Fort* +11  *Ref * +8 (+10 Battle Clarity)  *Will* +8________
*Speed* 20 ft. (4 squares)
*Melee* Greataxe +19/+14 (1d12+14/x3) 
                 Battle Ardor: +2 to confirm crits
*Ranged* Throwing Axe +11 (1d6+6/x2, R 10ft)
*Base Atk* +9; *Grp* +15
*Maneuvers Known* (8) Moment of Perfect Mind  (Diam 1, counter, Conc. for Will save), Emerald Razor (Diam 2, 1D, strike, touch atk), Disarming Strike (Iron 2, strike, Atk + Disarm), Battle Leader’s Charge (White 2, 1W, strike, charge no AoO, +10 dam), Mountain Hammer (Stone 2, strike, +2d6 dam & no DR), White Raven Tactics (White 3, 1W, boost, change ally init), Lightning Recovery (Iron 4, 2I, counter, re-roll Atk +2), Iron Heart Focus (Iron 5, 2I counter, re-roll save)
*Stances Known* (2) Punishing Stance (Iron 1, +1d6 dam, -2 AC), Tactics of the Wolf (White 3, 1W, all flanking +1/2 lvl dam)
*Maneuvers Readied* (4) 
_______Battle Leader’s Charge, White Raven Tactics, Emerald Razor, Iron Heart Focus__
*Abilities* Str 22, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 6
*Feats* Weapon Focus(greataxe)B, Impr. Init., Adaptive Style, Combat ReflexesWB5, Weapon Specialization(greataxe), Power Attack, Unnerving CalmWB9,
*Skills* (7x12r):  Balance +15 (12 ranks +2 Dex -1 armor +2 Tumble), Climb +17 (12 ranks +6 Str -1 armor), Concentration +14 (12 ranks +2 Con), Jump +19 (12 ranks +6 Str -1 armor +2 tumble), Listen +7 (cc 6 ranks +1 Wis), Spot +7 (cc 6 ranks +1 Wis), Tumble +15 (12 ranks +2 Dex -1 armor +2 Jump)
*Possessions* Adventuring gear, MW Scalemail, MW Greataxe, MW Throwing Axe, 1 Cure LW Infusion
*Instilled Magic* +2 Str (6000XP), +4 Nat Armor (15,000XP), +3 Greataxe (9000XP), +3 Saves (9000XP)
************************************************


----------



## Nail

*15th level Warblade*

At the risk of killing this thread, here's the last Warblade I'll post:

***********************************************
Test Warblade
Male Human WB 15
Medium Humanoid (human)
*Init* +7; *Senses* Listen +10, Spot +10 
*Languages* Common______________________________
*AC* 29, touch 13, ff 26 
(+5 Chainshirt +4, Dex +3, Nat Armor +7)
*hp* 163 (15 HD)
*Fort* +20  *Ref * +15 (+17 w/Battle Clarity)  *Will* +13_______________
*Speed* 20 ft. (4 squares)
*Melee* Greataxe +22/+14/+8 (1d12+21/x3) 
		Battle Ardor: +2 to confirm crits
*Ranged* Throwing Axe +18 (1d6+9/x2, R 10ft)
*Base Atk* +15; *Grp* +22
*Atk Options* 
	Blind-fighting
	Battle Cunning: +2 dam vs. flanked or ff
	Battle Skill: +2 oppose bull rush, disarm, feint, overrun, sunder, or trip
	Battle Mastery: +2 Atk & Dam on AoOs
*Maneuvers Known* (11) 
Moment of Perfect Mind (Diam 1, counter, Conc. for Will save), Emerald Razor (Diam 2, 1D, strike, touch atk), Disrupting Blow (Diam 5, 2D, strike, Will DC 22 or no actions for 1 rd), Quicksilver Motion (Diam 7, 3D, boost, free move action), Disarming Strike (Iron 2, strike, Atk + Disarm), Lightning Recovery (Iron 4, 2I, counter, re-roll Atk +2), Iron Heart Focus (Iron 5, 2I, counter, re-roll save), Iron Heart Endurance (Iron 6, 2I, boost,if 1/2hp then heal lvlx2), White Raven Tactics (White 3, 1W, boost, change ally init), War Leader’s Charge (White 6, 2W, strike, charge no AoO, +35 dam), White Raven Hammer (White 8, 3W, strike, +6d6 dam & stun 1 rd)
*Stances Known* (3) Punishing Stance (Iron 1, +1d6 dam, -2 AC), Tactics of the Wolf (White 3, 1W, all flanking +1/2 lvl dam), Hearing the Air (Diam 5, 2D, Blindsense 30ft, +5 Listen) 
*Maneuvers Readied* (6)
Quicksilver Motion, Iron Heart Focus, Lightning Recovery,
War Leader’s Charge, White Raven Tactics, White Raven Hammer__________
*Abilities* Str 24, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 6
*Feats* Weapon Focus(greataxe)B, Impr. Init., Adaptive Style, Combat ReflexesWB5, Weapon Specialization(greataxe), Power Attack, Unnerving CalmWB9, Greater Weapon Focus(greataxe), Blind FightWB13, Melee Weapon Mastery(slashing)
*Skills* (7x18r):  Balance +22 (18 ranks +3 Dex -1 armor +2 Tumble), Climb +24 (18 ranks +7 Str -1 armor), Concentration +22 (18 ranks +4 Con), Jump +26 (18 ranks +7 Str -1 armor +2 tumble), Listen +10 (cc 9 ranks +1 Wis), Spot +10 (cc 9 ranks +1 Wis), Tumble +22 (18 ranks +3 Dex -1 armor +2 Jump)
*Possessions* Adventuring gear, MW Scalemail, MW Greataxe, MW Throwing Axe, 2 Cure LW Infusions
*Instilled Magic* +3 Str (9000XP), +2 Dex (6000XP), +4 Con (12,000XP), +5 Armor (15,000XP), +7 Nat Armor (21,000XP), +7 Greataxe (9000XP), +7 Saves (21,000XP
***********************************************


----------



## KuKu

Nail said:
			
		

> *Abilities* Str 18, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 6




A modified point buy with a value of 36? Higher point buys tend to favour characters who need more attributes and this is a very high point buy.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I think the full-attack-while-recharging is sort of a drop in the bucket at this point.

When we line up the Warblade vs. the Fighter, this is where I think the Warblade creates problems:

* Higher HD
* More Skill Points
* Better Skill Selection
* Access to "Fighter-Only" Feats
* Improvements to "Fighter-Only" Feats that the Fighter doesn't get
* Additional Class abilities, some worth feats in-and-of-themselves
* Nearly half the number of Bonus Feats of the Fighter
* Stances worth a feat apiece, possibly more in some cases.
* Maneuvers worth a feat apiece, possibly more in some cases.
* Counters and Boosts, which are aren't something the Fighter really has access to.

"Mang, them full attacks be the bomb-diggity." is sort of irrelevant ... in fact, I think saying:  "But many maneuvers don't allow for a Full Attack." is also largely irrelevant.  I've played a melee combatant from 3rd-15th level at this point, and I RARELY find myself in the position to perform a full attack.  I can buff and bash a full attack with the best of them, but here are the issues:

* On even a slightly dynamic battlefield, people are rarely within a 5' step of your beatstick.
* If the badguy has placed himself into a position where he will be Full Attacked, it often means he's ready to suck up that full attack and dish out his own.
* If you have placed yourself into a position to Full Attack, you're in a position to suck up a Full Attack from the guy you want to wail on.
* At levels where "The Full Attack Action" begin to show up, even for full BAB characters, you're fighting creatures who are specifically designed A) To survive one or more full attacks from multiple characters and B) Have the Strength and HD to make their own Full Attack as nasty or MORE nasty than your Fighter-type.

The Full Attack is not a magic cure-all where monsters explode because "The Fighter" has assaulted them with his "Feats".  What "Feats" are these that cause all of the monsters to drop over dead with a Full Attack?  Power Attack?  PA ups your damage at the expense of your attack bonus, and your Full Attack is at progressively lower attack bonuses ... meaning when you Power Attack you're trading more damage for fewer hits.  I can't recall too many feats that are useful for Full Attacks that aren't stand-alone or very short chains, so I don't see where "Feats" make "Full Attacks" the ultimate weapon in the Fighter arsenal any more than the full attack and a few good feats can be strapped onto a Warblade or a Swordsage or a Monk.

Now, if the D&D Podcast folks are saying that these classes are overpowered, and they are.  "Don't measure them against the melee classes, measure them against the spellcasting classes."  That's saying:  "Yea, it's a power creep, but look ... SHINY NEW CLASSES!"

I'd have rather seen Tome of Battle introduce this stuff with feats for Fighters, alternate class ability progressions for Monks, Feats for Monks that allow them to trade our class abilities for new ToB stuff, things that allow the Barbarian and the Paladin to access ToB maneuvers, etc ...

THAT would have been good design.  Granting that spellcasters have become more powerful than the melee classes in the game, "fixing" that isn't unofficially scrapping the melee classes and building suped-up new classes to replace them.  FIXING the issue is offering some more stuff for the existing melee classes.

It's paramount to saying:  "Polymorph is broken, so we're going to introduce a whole new system of magic based around Polymorph so that all spellcasting is equal in level to Polymorph and just as difficult to adjudicate ... and we'll add in some brand new classes that are more powerful than the Wizard and Sorcerer that do everything the sorcerer and wizard do, but better and with more skills."

--fje


----------



## dvvega

Just a mention on the whole Warblade recovery thing. I decided to contact WOTC customer service and they have confirmed that the melee attack is intended to be a Standard Action.



> It is retrievable with an attack action (which is a standard action). You can indeed take a 5-ft step as well.


----------



## charlesatan

Here's the other response I got from CustServ:

"The rules only mention an attack action, which would normally be a standard action! Now if the DM wanted to allow the recovery after a full attack action, that would seem reasonable as well, but the Dungeon Master would have to let everybody know that this was a specific ruling for his/her own game. Have fun and good gaming!"


----------



## charlesatan

I'd also like to clarify that yes, you can take a move action while recovering your maneuvers as a Warblade. But nonetheless, moving isn't an attack, and I'd expect that by the time you're recovering maneuvers, you're in the thick of combat.


----------



## dvvega

And that is what I originally said. CustServ state Stanard action with a house ruling to make it full round.


----------



## Nightfall

*still thinks Warblade rocks.  *


----------



## epochrpg

Nail said:
			
		

> Hold on.
> 
> If he can recharge as a Swift action, what's to say he can't make a melee attack using a now-recharged maneuver?




the text.  It says that you cannot initiate a manuver in the round you refresh one.


----------



## Perun

It would be interesting to see a well-built (test) fighter, to compare him to Nail's warblade. I'd do it myself, but I'm lousy at optimisation of any sort. Any takers? 

However, here's a warblade from actual play, from the Eberron campaign where I DM. the character is not overly optimised, and was created with a 32 points (warforged get +2 Con, -2 Wis, -2 Cha):[sblock]
*X-27A*
Warforged Warblade 2
CN Medium Construct (living construct)
*Init +2*, *Sences* Listen -2, Spot -2
*Languages* Common
-------------------------
*AC* 19, touch 12, flat-footed 17
              (+2 Dex, +5 mithral body, +2 heavy steel shield)
*hp* 27 (2d12+6 HD)
*Immmunities* poison, sleep effects, paralysis, disease, nausea, fatigue, exhaustion, effects that cause sickened condition, energy drain
*Resistance* light fortification (25% chance to negate critical hit or sneak attack)
*Fort* +6, *Refl* +2 (+4 Battle Clarity), *Will* -2
-------------------------
*Speed* 30 ft.
*Melee* masterwork scimitar +6 (1d6+3/18-20)
*Melee* falchion +5 (2d4+4/18-20)
*Melee* slam +5 (1d4+3/×2)
*Attack Options* Manoeuvres, _oil of repair light injury_ (1d8+1)
*Action Points* 4
*Base Atk* +2, *Grp* +5
-------------------------
*Manoeuvres Known* (4)
 Steel Wind, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Moment of Perfect Mind, Leading the Attack
*Stances known* (1)
Punishing Stance
*Manoeuvres Readied* (3)
Moment of Perfect Mind, Steel Wind, Leading the Attack
-------------------------
*Abilities* Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 6, Cha 10
*SQ* warforged traits, weapon aptitude, uncanny dodge
*Feats* Mithral Body (ECS)
*Skills** Balance +3, Climb +4, Concentration +8, Craft (blacksmithing) +7 (+9 to repair warforged), Jump +4, Knowledge (local) +6, Martial Lore +3
*Posessions* backpack, warforged repair kit, crowbar, oil (1 pint), whetstone, sunrod (5), heavy steel shield, masterwork scimitar, falchion, _wand of repair light injury_ (46 charges)

* Include armour check penalty for both armour and shield, where appropriate[/sblock]

Also, here's a fighter I created a while ago (actually, it's one of about a dozen character I've got in reserve ), for a theoretical future campaign (also created with 32 points):[sblock]
*Maristin*
Half-Elf Fighter 1
N Medium humanoid (elf)
*Init +2*, *Sences* Listen +3, Spot +3, low-light vision
*Languages* Common, Elven, Halfling
-------------------------
*AC* 19, touch 12, flat-footed 17
              (+2 Dex, +4 scale mail, +3 heavy wooden shield)
*hp* 12 (1d10+2 HD)
*Immmunities* sleep effects
*Resistance* +2 racial bonus vs. enchantment effects
*Fort* +4, *Refl* +2, *Will* +2 (+4 Combat Focus)
-------------------------
*Speed* 20 ft. (base 30 ft.)
*Melee* longsword +3 (1d8+2/19-20)
*Melee* dagger +3 (1d4+2/19-20)
*Ranged* longbow +3 (1d8/×3)
*Action Points* 5
*Base Atk* +1, *Grp* +3
-------------------------
*Abilities* Str 15, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 14, Cha 9
*SQ* half-elf traits
*Feats* Shield Specialisation (heavy; PHB II), Combat Focus (PHB II)
*Skills** Climb +2, Diplomacy +1, Gather Information +1, Handle Animal +0, Jump +2, Listen +3, Search +2, Spot +3, Swim –4, Ride +3
*Posessions* Backpack, Waterskin, Flint & steel, Common lamp, oil (5), Bedroll, Trail rts. (×5), Hempen rope, 50 ft., Belt pouch (23 gp, 3 sp, 8 cp), Longsword, Shortbow, Scale mail, Shield (heavy wooden), Dagger, Arrows (40), Holy symbol (wooden), Whetstone

* Include armour check penalty for armour (but not shield [-2]), where appropriate[/sblock]


----------



## epochrpg

Nail said:
			
		

> For example: Making a great Trip Monkey requires lots of feats (Exotic Weapon, Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Impr. Trip, Weapon Focus, etc......including all of those cool PH II feats...) and no one has the feats to do that except the Ftr.  Meanwhile the Ftr can do that, plus do other things well.




Actually, you just described my character.  Half-Orc Monk15/Swordsage 1 (he got the weapon focus spiked chain and unarmed strike thanks to discipline focus: shadow hand).  Doesn't have expertise, because monks don't need it to get improved trip.  EWP spiked chain was something he recently picked up.  Also, add Knock-Down to that list of feat combos (automatic trip attempt if you do more than 10 damage to an opponent).


----------



## epochrpg

Actually the best way to make a FAIR comparison between a warblade and fighter is to make them the same race, with the same exact attribute scores, same equipment, and the same level of course.  Only things allowed to be different is class and choice of feats.  

Then let them fight eachother, but instead of rolling, assume every dice roll comes up 15 on a d20 (yes, far higher than average, but if it were a 10 nobody'd ever hit).    Assume every damage roll comes up dead average.


----------



## Victim

dvvega said:
			
		

> Just a mention on the whole Warblade recovery thing. I decided to contact WOTC customer service and they have confirmed that the melee attack is intended to be a Standard Action.




Wow, I didn't know people still asked customer service rules questions.

As far as I'm aware, Knockdown was never updated to 3.5.  For good reason.

In my experience, conventional melee types aren't really weak.  They are, however, inflexible in that they can basically just attack things, and somewhat boring to play since pretty much everything they do is determined in character creation/development rather than in play.  It'd be nice if the ToB classes addressed the latter two issues without power creep.


----------



## Victim

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Actually the best way to make a FAIR comparison between a warblade and fighter is to make them the same race, with the same exact attribute scores, same equipment, and the same level of course.  Only things allowed to be different is class and choice of feats.
> 
> Then let them fight eachother, but instead of rolling, assume every dice roll comes up 15 on a d20 (yes, far higher than average, but if it were a 10 nobody'd ever hit).    Assume every damage roll comes up dead average.




How is one v one fighting relevant again?


----------



## glass

dvvega said:
			
		

> Just a mention on the whole Warblade recovery thing. I decided to contact WOTC customer service and they have confirmed that the melee attack is intended to be a Standard Action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is retrievable with an attack action (which is a standard action). You can indeed take a 5-ft step as well.
Click to expand...




			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> Here's the other response I got from CustServ:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rules only mention an attack action, which would normally be a standard action! Now if the DM wanted to allow the recovery after a full attack action, that would seem reasonable as well, but the Dungeon Master would have to let everybody know that this was a specific ruling for his/her own game. Have fun and good gaming!
Click to expand...


All that confirms is that CustServ can't (or don't) read. Which we already knew. 


glass.


----------



## glass

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Actually the best way to make a FAIR comparison between a warblade and fighter is to make them the same race, with the same exact attribute scores, same equipment, and the same level of course.  Only things allowed to be different is class and choice of feats.
> 
> Then let them fight eachother, but instead of rolling, assume every dice roll comes up 15 on a d20 (yes, far higher than average, but if it were a 10 nobody'd ever hit).    Assume every damage roll comes up dead average.



That is a terrible way to compare them. Apart from the fact that one-on-one combat is hardly the best test, but you can't expect a fighter and WB to choose the same ability scores, so you are skewing things in favour of which ever class the scores you do choose suits.

And you can't just arbtrarily assume that all the dice will come up 15+. If you can't get any usefull results by taking the average (which seems unlikely given how attack bonuses tend to outtrip ACs), then you have to roll the dice (lots of times) and record the results.


glass.


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> "Mang, them full attacks be the bomb-diggity." is sort of irrelevant ... in fact, I think saying:  "But many maneuvers don't allow for a Full Attack." is also largely irrelevant.  I've played a melee combatant from 3rd-15th level at this point, and I RARELY find myself in the position to perform a full attack.  I can buff and bash a full attack with the best of them, but here are the issues:
> 
> * On even a slightly dynamic battlefield, people are rarely within a 5' step of your beatstick.
> * If the badguy has placed himself into a position where he will be Full Attacked, it often means he's ready to suck up that full attack and dish out his own.
> * If you have placed yourself into a position to Full Attack, you're in a position to suck up a Full Attack from the guy you want to wail on.
> * At levels where "The Full Attack Action" begin to show up, even for full BAB characters, you're fighting creatures who are specifically designed A) To survive one or more full attacks from multiple characters and B) Have the Strength and HD to make their own Full Attack as nasty or MORE nasty than your Fighter-type.
> 
> The Full Attack is not a magic cure-all where monsters explode because "The Fighter" has assaulted them with his "Feats".  What "Feats" are these that cause all of the monsters to drop over dead with a Full Attack?  Power Attack?  PA ups your damage at the expense of your attack bonus, and your Full Attack is at progressively lower attack bonuses ... meaning when you Power Attack you're trading more damage for fewer hits.  I can't recall too many feats that are useful for Full Attacks that aren't stand-alone or very short chains, so I don't see where "Feats" make "Full Attacks" the ultimate weapon in the Fighter arsenal any more than the full attack and a few good feats can be strapped onto a Warblade or a Swordsage or a Monk.
> 
> Now, if the D&D Podcast folks are saying that these classes are overpowered, and they are.  "Don't measure them against the melee classes, measure them against the spellcasting classes."  That's saying:  "Yea, it's a power creep, but look ... SHINY NEW CLASSES!"




The "full attack" option depends on what you're facing. At low-levels, they're not as important (as you'll be just having one attack anyway). At higher levels, it's best suited against the "elite" foes (usually those with equal or higher CR than you and not really the "cleavable" monsters). But yes, getting into Full Attack position is difficult (which is why the White Raven school is useful), but more often than not, once you're there, you'll be full attacking round after round unless they're already dead or they're the spring attack-types.

The feats are important because they're consistent bonuses. And they're not necessarily there to give you more damage output, but for other benefits as well (i.e. Tactical Feats, combat options, etc.).

In a way, there is some sense comparing them to spellcaster types. For one thing, their abilities are nearly spell-like, and you do expend them. The problem with Fighters is that they're dull due to the fact that they're stuck with Full Attack as their main attack option.


----------



## charlesatan

Perun said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see a well-built (test) fighter, to compare him to Nail's warblade. I'd do it myself, but I'm lousy at optimisation of any sort. Any takers?




The thing is the dynamics of a martial adept is different from a fighter.

As I said before, the strength of a Fighter is consistent full attacks, while a martial adept is in the first few (but crucial) rounds. If a Fighter went one on one against a martial adept, he'd need to survive the first three rounds before his consistent damage comes into play to average things out.

Second is the power curve of the martial adept. I'd say he's strongest in the early levels (where no one has iterative attacks anyway), and on high levels (because let's face it, that's where we're talking about the juicy abilities, such as two full attacks, a single quadruple damage attack, two extra attacks with each weapon, +3d6 fire damage with each strike, etc.). I'd say a Fighter has equal chance to shine with a Warblade at the 8th-12th level.

Of course outside of combat, the Warblade trumps the fighter.


----------



## RigaMortus2

brehobit said:
			
		

> The crusader is less of a problem because of the random nature of his maneuvers. The lack of control is very limiting.  A maneuver that aids in a charge is usually worthless if you don't get it on the first round.




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...



> If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers and a new *pair* of readied maneuvers is granted to you.




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)


----------



## epochrpg

glass said:
			
		

> That is a terrible way to compare them. Apart from the fact that one-on-one combat is hardly the best test, but you can't expect a fighter and WB to choose the same ability scores, so you are skewing things in favour of which ever class the scores you do choose suits.
> 
> And you can't just arbtrarily assume that all the dice will come up 15+. If you can't get any usefull results by taking the average (which seems unlikely given how attack bonuses tend to outtrip ACs), then you have to roll the dice (lots of times) and record the results.
> .




Ah, you might be right.  Change to the following: Assume that each character has a 14 in every stat (thus it is not more/less beneficial to either one) and instead of always rolling a 15, make it be that each round they roll exactly the same on a d20.  That way when one crits, the other crits, etc.  

The point of this is not to allow random luck to be the deciding factor.  _"The warblade rolled 4 natural 20s in a row? That's it, it must be a broken class!"_  That is the kind of argument we need to avoid.


----------



## Shazman

Yeah, but isn't three rounds a long time to be in the thick of a fight without using your precious class abilities?  I'm not sure if these new classes are overpowered, but they add a lot of adaptability and excitement to combat rather than I hit x AC for x damage over and over again.  Most martial adept classes will burn through their maneuvers faster than a 3.0 hasted wizard would burn through spells, so longer fights will favor the core melee classes over the Tome of Battle ones. The warblade can recover these as a standard action, so it may be over the top, but I still bet it can't beat a frenzied berserker.


----------



## starwed

> longer fights will favor the core melee classes over the Tome of Battle ones.



Actually, the crusader pretty much never runs out of maneuvers.

After playing using the ToB, I think that, even if it's not unbalanced, they could have made the maneuvers lower powered. It still would have been a lot of fun to play with.


----------



## Nail

glass said:
			
		

> All that confirms is that CustServ can't (or don't) read. Which we already knew.



Amen!

Again: The actual rules text in the Tob:Bo9S is does NOT say "attack action".  That is brutally clear (read it for yourself, page 22, 3rd paragraph).  It says "melee attack".  This is fundamentally different than a standard action.  A melee attack can be part of a standard action or part of a full attack action or.....etc.

If they would like to amend the text by issuing an errata, that's their prerogative.  But claiming the text uses one set of words when another set is printed is just irresponsible.

Bad cust-serve.  Bad!     (shakes rolled-up newspaper)


----------



## Nail

charlesatan said:
			
		

> In a way, there is some sense comparing them to spellcaster types. For one thing, their abilities are nearly spell-like, and you do expend them.



I am completely baffled by this type of argument.  

WB's are front-line melee combatants.  The best comparison would be with another class that is also a front-line melee combatant.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I'm even perfectly cool with saying the designer might have INTENDED that the Warblade recharge with only a single melee attack as part of a standard action.

I'm not going to say, however:  "Wow, dude, totally makes the class not-broken."

As I've said above, I think the class is way past the place where getting in a full attack while getting all of his maneuvers back is going to make it broken.  We passed Broke-Class Mountain somewhere a few miles back.

--fje


----------



## Nail

Shazman said:
			
		

> Most martial adept classes will burn through their maneuvers faster than a 3.0 hasted wizard would burn through spells, so longer fights will favor the core melee classes over the Tome of Battle ones.



Except that the martial adept classes can get their maneuvers back right in the middle of combat.  Can a "hasted wizard" do that?    

Last night we had our first meeting with the WB in play.  The WB's player is a sharp one, so he knows how to use the rules.  His WB *never* ran out of maneuvers...he recharged when he needed to and the opportunity cost was low.  It was no problem.

...and he did at least as much damage as the Ftr in the group, despite having inferior weapons (improved unarmed strike).


----------



## RigaMortus2

Shazman said:
			
		

> Yeah, but isn't three rounds a long time to be in the thick of a fight without using your precious class abilities?  I'm not sure if these new classes are overpowered, but they add a lot of adaptability and excitement to combat rather than I hit x AC for x damage over and over again.  Most martial adept classes will burn through their maneuvers faster than a 3.0 hasted wizard would burn through spells, so longer fights will favor the core melee classes over the Tome of Battle ones. The warblade can recover these as a standard action, so it may be over the top, but I still bet it can't beat a frenzied berserker.




Not really.  90% of the encounters I have been in are at LEAST 3 rounds long, if not longer.  And you CAN use the maneuvers within the first 3 rounds and have this "tactic" work, so long as you don't use more than 2 maneuvers in 3 rounds.  At that point, you can use any 2 maneuvers (whichever are beneficial to you) every round and having all of them available to choose from.


----------



## Nail

Perun said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see a well-built (test) fighter, to compare him to Nail's warblade. I'd do it myself, but I'm lousy at optimisation of any sort. Any takers?



I've done it.

With the WB's I posted, I also made a Ftr.  That is: same ability scores, same equipment, same theme (both "Greataxe Warriors") for levels 3, 9, 15, and 20.  (The 20th level comparison turned out to depend too much on equipment choices, so I dropped it for purposes of comparing the classes.)  I started each at 1st level, and made choices for them level-by-level, so no "optimized for level 15, but couldn't possibly get there" PCs.

If you are interested, I could post these.  They include a few house rules of ours (Magical equpment has changed, 32 pt buy, Humans gain a +2/-2 on any 2 ability scores, Dodge feat applies to all opponents)...but since this is a comparison, the changes are irrelevant.

The end result seems to be that at 3rd level the WB wins easily, at 9th level it's a tie, and at 15th level the WB wins again.


----------



## Nail

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> We passed Broke-Class Mountain somewhere a few miles back.


----------



## Aaron L

A one on one fight between a Fighter and a Warblade is a really poor contest to see which class is better, because one of the primary points several of us have been trying to make is that even though both classes can probably dish out about the same overall damage factor, 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.


It can do the straight roll/hit/damage toe-to-toe combat just as well as the Fighter, plus it gets to be a neato Dragonball Z super martial artist when it wants to.


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.    


I really can't see how anyone could argue that the Warblade is balanced with the Fighter.  It  can do everything the Fighter can, plus _so much more_.


What makes me grind my teeth is that I love the class.  I just wish it wasn't so obviously and horribly overpowered!  Theres absolutely no reason at all for it to have 12 sided hit dice.  Thats a hallmark of classes that are supposed to be exceptionally hardy like the Barbarian.   Make it d10.  Why does the class get 4 skill points per level?  They devote their lives to learning to fight, just like the Fighter is supposed to, but for some reason they get twice as many skill points?  Make it 2 per level.  The ability to take Fighter only feats as if they were 2 levels lower is nothing but a slap in the face to the Fighter class, a complete joke and insult to the class, and I'm really shocked they put this in.  Especially when they not only get access to these Fighter only feats, they get to do them _better_ than the Fighters do, because they can swap out which weapon they want to be focused in whenever they want!  It's unbelievable!!  Lets drop that ability too.  

Even with all those reductions, I'd still love to play a Warblade!  I think those changes would make it a bit more reasonable.  And when you can strip several abilities from a class and it STILL looks attractive to play, that should be a damn good indication it's too much.


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> I've done it.
> 
> With the WB's I posted, I also made a Ftr.  That is: same ability scores, same equipment, same theme (both "Greataxe Warriors") for levels 3, 9, 15, and 20.  (The 20th level comparison turned out to depend too much on equipment choices, so I dropped it for purposes of comparing the classes.)  I started each at 1st level, and made choices for them level-by-level, so no "optimized for level 15, but couldn't possibly get there" PCs.
> 
> If you are interested, I could post these.  They include a few house rules of ours (Magical equpment has changed, 32 pt buy, Humans gain a +2/-2 on any 2 ability scores, Dodge feat applies to all opponents)...but since this is a comparison, the changes are irrelevant.
> 
> The end result seems to be that at 3rd level the WB wins easily, at 9th level it's a tie, and at 15th level the WB wins again.




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.

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

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.

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

With all of this how can your one comparison declare that the warblade is always better than the fighter?


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> Except that the martial adept classes can get their maneuvers back right in the middle of combat.  Can a "hasted wizard" do that?




No, but a martial adept can't prepare the same maneuver either.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> I am completely baffled by this type of argument.
> 
> WB's are front-line melee combatants. The best comparison would be with another class that is also a front-line melee combatant.




Not really. Gish (spellcaster/fighters) can be front-line melee combatants too, and probably dish out as much damage as Martial Adepts (plus they get full attacks) yet they're still limited by spell slots/spells prepared. But the thing about Martial Adepts is that they have maneuvers which is somewhere in between spells, since you have "slots" for them, but renews itself at the end of the encounter (meaning several encounters doesn't hamper a Martial Adept they way it does other spellcasters).

Some Martial Adept maneuvers don't even function in an anti-magic field (mostly the Desert Wind ones) but in a way, it's still the same principle: expend a maneuver and it's gone. It's obviously more easier to recover than a spell, but then again, most maneuvers aren't as powerful as spells of the equivalent level, and require an attack roll to say the least (and in some cases, not as productive; look at the Devoted Spirit's 9th-level maneuver -- not the best maneuver in my opinion because if you wanted someone to cast heal, you're better off as a Cleric, although it is nice for a "Fighter"-type to have access to it).


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> Amen!
> 
> Again: The actual rules text in the Tob:Bo9S is does NOT say "attack action".  That is brutally clear (read it for yourself, page 22, 3rd paragraph).  It says "melee attack".  This is fundamentally different than a standard action.  A melee attack can be part of a standard action or part of a full attack action or.....etc.




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. It was you who was insisting on it.

And most maneuvers state "make an attack" yet no one is assuming that it's a full attack. 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 the one who's been mistaking attack = could be a full attack.


----------



## dvvega

> Originally posted by *Rigamortus2*
> 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.




This comment about Crusaders and "endless" maneuvers is incorrect. A common misreading of the Crusader's recovery rules that I've seen on different boards.

I think this is indicative of one of the problems with people trying to compare classes and prove that their favourite is broken or the best or what have you.

In the Crusader's case ...

Crusader has 5 readied maneuvers at the start of an encounter.
2 Accessible
3 Withheld

You gain access to a Withheld maneuver at the end of each of your turns. Note that you can expend maneuvers and still gain access to withheld maneuvers.

R1 (after you have acted)
3 Accessible
2 Withheld

R2 (after you have acted)
4 Accessible
1 Withheld

R3 (after you have acted)
5 Accessible
0 Withheld

R4 (after you have acted)
No Withheld maneuvers thus you recover all your expended maneuvers AND



> page 10 BoNS ... a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you. Randomly determine which of your maneuvers are granted and which are withheld. At the end of your next turn ...




Whenever you have no Withheld maneuvers you reset back to the start of combat where you have 2 random maneuvers active and 3 withheld. At no stage can you constantly have 5 maneuvers available.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> *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)




Your quote is incomplete and the remainder of the paragraph you started to quote show this premise to be incorrect.



			
				Tome of Battle said:
			
		

> Randomly determine which of your maneuvers are granted and which are withheld. At the end of your next turn, a withheld maneuver is granted to you, and *the whole process of divine inspiration begins again*




This makes it clear to me that their recovery method is basically a reset button. All maneuvers become readied, but only two are immediately granted and you are granted two of your readied maneuvers while the others are withheld.


----------



## Nail

Aaron L said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Aaron L said:
			
		

> 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

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> 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

Slaved said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> 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).




			
				Nail said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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?  



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> #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).



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> #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.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

starwed said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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.)


			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> *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

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> #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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Nail

charlesatan said:
			
		

> If we asked them a question and we disregarded it, why else bother asking them in the first place?



Because we hope they read the rules text before answering?  Is that too much to ask?     

Besides, I think HeapThaumaturgist has the right of it: The "balance" of the WB does not lie in how the WB recharges.  It lies in all of the goodies it gets.


----------



## Nail

charlesatan said:
			
		

> As for balance, again, the designers have admitted that it's not supposed to stand up to your conventional warrior types.



And that, in fact, is the whole point of this thread.


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> Besides, I think HeapThaumaturgist has the right of it: The "balance" of the WB does not lie in how the WB recharges.  It lies in all of the goodies it gets.




Yes, it gets a lot of goodies, but it still doesn't give you a feat every other level. =) Heck, we could argue about the Psychic Warrior who gets both feats and psionic powers but we're not.

I think we all have a clear-cut conception of both classes. If I want feats, Ftr. Maneuevers, WB.


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> And that, in fact, is the whole point of this thread.




There is a difference, you know, between a good, strong class and broken-ness. =) And the fact that Ftr-types and Martial Adepts work on a different paradigm.


----------



## Nail

Sure.  I suspect WB crosses that line.

That said, I've allowed a WB into my game (with d10 HD).  There is a straight classed Ftr in the game.

I'll know soon enough.


----------



## Nail

charlesatan said:
			
		

> I think we all have a clear-cut conception of both classes. If I want feats, Ftr. Maneuevers, WB.



If it were really that simple......

BTW, have you seen a straight classed Ftr at mid-levels?  How 'bout a WB?


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> 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.




Errr, no. Mobility, for example, applies all the time, and the same goes for Improved Toughness. Some feats are situational, some aren't. Maneuvers for me are like spells. You won't be using the same maneuver twice in a row, but it is a bang when you use one. As for Weapon Spec., I'm sure the WB looks good on paper, but when you're making your character, you'll notice the feats aren't enough (especially if you're qualifying for the Master of Nine prestige class).





			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> 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.




Depends on your Cleric concept actually. As a healer, you're still better off as a Cleric. As a combat Cleric, the dips would be nice.





			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> 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.




In a way, they are worth a feat (and with the 2nd-level spell heroism, you get just that, a fighter bonus feat which in turn can be used to get a maneuver) but the same can be said for spells.



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> 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."




That's where Full Attack comes into play. If you're facing weenies, low hp monsters, the full attack doesn't count as much but when you're facing the big baddie, it's a question of whether I want 3/4/5 attacks, or one attack with +8d8 damage? (The answer depends on other factors such as your damage bonus... if you're wielding a dagger and have a Str of 10, I'd take the 8d8 damage.)


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> If it were really that simple......
> 
> BTW, have you seen a straight classed Ftr at mid-levels?  How 'bout a WB?




The thing about feats and maneuvers is that they're semi-interchangeable. I mean a 20th-level character can be Warblade 16/Fighter 4 (taking Ftr 4 not last but early on) and he'd still have access to 9th-level maneuvers. And the reverse is semi effective as well: a Ftr 16/WB 4 can net you 6th-level maneuvers. You also have to bear in mind that maneuvers can be taken by anyone (would it have seemed more balancing to you if Ftrs counted as initiator levels? -- a house rule to consider) and not just martial adepts.

I think we've all seen straight-classed Ftr. Of course it's only with the PHB 2 released that Ftrs became a lot more competitive (and have a place to dump all their feats, even if they're just concentrating on one weapon). The WB is easier to theorycraft because you only have your maneuvers to check. What a mid-level WB must ask himself is whether he'll do more damage using a maneuver or with a full attack. And at mid-level, there's really no over-the-top maneuver. The maneuvers that come close are probably the x2 damage with a Concentration check, +2d6 fire damage if you manage to get Desert Wind maneuvers, or perhaps an extra attack with each weapon (which is part of a Full Attack so it's a nice boost since you still retain your full attack). But other than that, the main benefits of WB isn't in his offense but in his defensive capabilities or the ability to change stances (adapting to the situation).


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> That said, I've allowed a WB into my game (with d10 HD).  There is a straight classed Ftr in the game.




The thing about optimizing both classes is that it's easier to optimize a WB since 1) you're not reliant as much on magic items, and 2) there's only a few maneuvers and a lot of them are good. Feats, on the other hand, are drawn from a wide variety of books, and high-level Fighters are dependent on magic items. Of course straight-classed Fighters are also hard to mess up since "wasting" a feat isn't as crippling as it is to other classes, and honestly, you're limited to few attack options (attack, charge, full attack, etc.).


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

charlesatan said:
			
		

> There is a difference, you know, between a good, strong class and broken-ness. =) And the fact that Ftr-types and Martial Adepts work on a different paradigm.




What're the different paradigms?

It's a whole other GAME, personally.  These things need their own campaign setting with its own custom rules, new flavors, etc.  One in which the martial adepts are the ONLY martial classes to be chosen from.  Martial Adepts plus ... I'd say like the Shujenga and the other asian-flavored casters, not the wizard, maybe the Sorc, probably the Warmage.

It's just, I think, not fair to introduce these classes into a game in which Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins exist.  They're just so far away and gone in terms of power, ahem, "paradigm" that it's seriously sad to put them in the same game.

I'm not saying they're not fun to play, or that people are bad people for enjoying them or wanting to play them, but phrases like:  "Shouldn't be compared to the martial characters" or "more in line with spellcasters" are, to me, code-phrases for "broke as hell".

I don't think there's some huge and yawning chasm of power between the existing martial classes and the spellcasters.  I think there are some poorly thought-out individual issues ... namely Natural Spell and the existing way Wildshape encourages 8Str, 8Dex, 8Con Druid-feebs who then pop over into Dire Bears while still casting.  I just nix Natural Spell.  One feat, as opposed to creating a whole different GAME.  

I think certain spells, especially some expansion-product spells, can be of questionable power when interacting with other spells, but I bar those instead of ... creating a whole new GAME.

Having PLAYED the infamously broken beatstick buff-n-slaughter cleric ... the fix is found in three words:  Targeted Dispel Magic.  GRRRRRRR.  We hates it, my Precious, we do.  But, at the same time, MAN is that effective for dealing with pesky god-roiders.  A few judicious outsiders with Dispel Magic as an SLA are almost impossible to stop.  Can't silence, grapple, counterspell, or become immune to it.  Additionally, if you just ban a few badly-thought-out feats like Divine Metamagic, boom, balance.  No need to create a whole new game.

Claiming that the martial adepts should be considered in a special happy land all their own is just shuffling the issue under the rug.  They're broken.  Unless you let the spellcasters shamelessly exploit a few particular loopholes, even THEY are going to get spanked by these guys.  It's CLASSIC power creep ... one "correctable" issue is, instead of being dealt with, exacerbated by inflating the power of the next expansion.  

--fje


----------



## Jhulae

charlesatan said:
			
		

> No, but a martial adept can't prepare the same maneuver either.




That's interesting.  Where is that in the book, please?


----------



## charlesatan

Jhulae said:
			
		

> That's interesting.  Where is that in the book, please?




There's a thread at it at the WotC Optimization boards: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=683775

From CustServ and from Ask Wizards: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060830a


----------



## Kmart Kommando

Jhulae said:
			
		

> That's interesting.  Where is that in the book, please?



Under 'readying maneuvers', or 'preparing maneuvers', too tired to go look it up, but it is there somewhere.  Otherwise, you'd have munchkined-out TWFing warblades popping off double-full-attacks for the first 8 rounds of every combat.


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> What're the different paradigms?
> 
> It's a whole other GAME, personally.  These things need their own campaign setting with its own custom rules, new flavors, etc.  One in which the martial adepts are the ONLY martial classes to be chosen from.  Martial Adepts plus ... I'd say like the Shujenga and the other asian-flavored casters, not the wizard, maybe the Sorc, probably the Warmage.
> 
> It's just, I think, not fair to introduce these classes into a game in which Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Barbarians, and Paladins exist.  They're just so far away and gone in terms of power, ahem, "paradigm" that it's seriously sad to put them in the same game.




Flavor-wise, they have this Asian feel to it (much like the monk). Whether it's grouped there with Shugenja and Wu-Jen's and Samurai's (there's an underpowered class no one's complaining about) is up to you, but on the other hand, I can also envision it part of the regular D&D world (we have monks in the PHB don't we?).

As for the other classes, I think they stand well on their own even with martial adepts in the game. Monks and Rangers are significantly different from the typical Fighter archetype, and Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins definitely still have a use despite the existence of Warblades, for example.



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they're not fun to play, or that people are bad people for enjoying them or wanting to play them, but phrases like:  "Shouldn't be compared to the martial characters" or "more in line with spellcasters" are, to me, code-phrases for "broke as hell".




Uh, martial adepts are quite similar to spellcasters. The maneuver progression (1st-9th level maneuvers), the fact that they're expended (you don't use the same maneuver consecutively for example), among other things. Of course they're not as powerful as spells of the same level, but they're recoverable, linked often to melee attacks, and most go through SR. So it's spell-like but not quite spells.



> I don't think there's some huge and yawning chasm of power between the existing martial classes and the spellcasters.  I think there are some poorly thought-out individual issues ... namely Natural Spell and the existing way Wildshape encourages 8Str, 8Dex, 8Con Druid-feebs who then pop over into Dire Bears while still casting.  I just nix Natural Spell.  One feat, as opposed to creating a whole different GAME.




Uh, even if you removed Natural Spell, a Druid would still be powerful. Actually spells in itself are powerful. I mean a 20th-level, you're dealing 20d6 damage to an area (lots of targets). Or Meteor Swarm with a ranged touch attack, dealing as much as 24d6 damage to a single target plus some collateral damage.

How do non-spellcasters compete with that in terms of damage output? And if you're gonna compare that to maneuvers, even they don't deal that much damage, at least consecutively (sure, you have the 9th-level desert wind maneuver but that's it).



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Having PLAYED the infamously broken beatstick buff-n-slaughter cleric ... the fix is found in three words:  Targeted Dispel Magic.  GRRRRRRR.  We hates it, my Precious, we do.  But, at the same time, MAN is that effective for dealing with pesky god-roiders.  A few judicious outsiders with Dispel Magic as an SLA are almost impossible to stop.  Can't silence, grapple, counterspell, or become immune to it.  Additionally, if you just ban a few badly-thought-out feats like Divine Metamagic, boom, balance.  No need to create a whole new game.
> 
> Claiming that the martial adepts should be considered in a special happy land all their own is just shuffling the issue under the rug.  They're broken.  Unless you let the spellcasters shamelessly exploit a few particular loopholes, even THEY are going to get spanked by these guys.  It's CLASSIC power creep ... one "correctable" issue is, instead of being dealt with, exacerbated by inflating the power of the next expansion.




Martial adepts aren't broken. They're powerful, yes, but they're also not as powerful as spells. Again, even maneuvers don't deal 20d6 damage automatically. And you have to consider that 1) martial adepts can't perform the same attack consecutively except on certain occassions, 2) most of the maneuvers are linked to an attack (and it's not even a touch attack... has it ever occured to you that you'd actually miss, even with Fighter BAB?), and 3) you're melee.


----------



## Perun

Nail said:
			
		

> I've done it.
> 
> With the WB's I posted, I also made a Ftr.  That is: same ability scores, same equipment, same theme (both "Greataxe Warriors") for levels 3, 9, 15, and 20.  (The 20th level comparison turned out to depend too much on equipment choices, so I dropped it for purposes of comparing the classes.)  I started each at 1st level, and made choices for them level-by-level, so no "optimized for level 15, but couldn't possibly get there" PCs.
> 
> If you are interested, I could post these.  They include a few house rules of ours (Magical equpment has changed, 32 pt buy, Humans gain a +2/-2 on any 2 ability scores, Dodge feat applies to all opponents)...but since this is a comparison, the changes are irrelevant.
> 
> The end result seems to be that at 3rd level the WB wins easily, at 9th level it's a tie, and at 15th level the WB wins again.




If it's no trouble, I'd like to see the builds (if for no other reason, I'm interested in ways to build a fighter )

On my side, here's a Psychic Warrior that adventures alongside the warblade I posted earlier. He's about as effective in combat, at leat at these low levels (although the warblade's player is more involved in the game, so his got presence is more strongly felt in the game).[sblock]
*Sylathar*
Human Psychic Warrior 2
N Medium Humanoid (human, psionic)
*Init +2*, *Sences* Listen +1, Spot +1
*Languages* Common
*Action Points* 5
-------------------------
*AC* 18, touch 12, flat-footed 16
              (+2 Dex, +4 chain shirt, +2 heavy steel shield)
*hp* 17 (2d8+2 HD)
*Fort* +4, *Refl* +4, *Will* +3
-------------------------
*Speed* 30 ft.
*Melee* _+1 longsword_ +6 (1d6+4/19-20)
*Ranged* longbow +3 (1d8/×3)
*Attack Options* psionics, _potion of cure light wounds_
*Base Atk* +1, *Grp* +4
-------------------------
*Powers Known* _Expansion, thicken skin_
*Power Points* 2
-------------------------
*Abilities* Str 16, Dex 15, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
*SQ* human traits
*Feats* Iron Will(H), Psionic Weapon(B), Lightning Reflexes, Weapon Focus (longsword; B)
*Skills* Autohypnosis +8, Climb* +6, Concentration +6, Knowledge (psionics) +2
*Posessions* backpack, whetstone, sunrod (2), heavy steel shield, _+1 longsword_, longbow, chain shirt, _potion of healing_ (1d8+1)

* Includes armour check penalty armour (but not shield)[/sblock]


----------



## Victim

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Uh, martial adepts are quite similar to spellcasters. The maneuver progression (1st-9th level maneuvers), the fact that they're expended (you don't use the same maneuver consecutively for example), among other things. Of course they're not as powerful as spells of the same level, but they're recoverable, linked often to melee attacks, and most go through SR. So it's spell-like but not quite spells.
> 
> Uh, even if you removed Natural Spell, a Druid would still be powerful. Actually spells in itself are powerful. I mean a 20th-level, you're dealing 20d6 damage to an area (lots of targets). Or Meteor Swarm with a ranged touch attack, dealing as much as 24d6 damage to a single target plus some collateral damage.
> 
> How do non-spellcasters compete with that in terms of damage output? And if you're gonna compare that to maneuvers, even they don't deal that much damage, at least consecutively (sure, you have the 9th-level desert wind maneuver but that's it).




Non spellcasters compete quite handily with that kind of damage.  Meteor Swarm, assuming all the touches succeed, does 24d6 fire damage and 8d6 impact damage.  That's a mere 112 damage.  Raw damage - kind of like when you assume that a fighter hits with all his attacks.  Most high level monsters have some SR.  Let's give the target SR such that the spell fails 30% of the time (not unreasonable for most outsiders assuming the wizard has some spell pen stuff) and our caster's net damage is down to ~78.   Add in 10 points of fire resistance and you're looking at 38 damage (since Meteor Swarm does its fire damage in 4 separate bursts).  

Sure, it looks like a huge pile of damage with all those d6s, but by the time you include SR, energy resistances, saves, it's not so great.  Just like you need to know about AC and DR to see how a fighter type is going to work.  Knowing that something hits for 50 damage is pretty worthless without information about how often it connects.

And while area damage is good, I don't think its value is the damage dealt to one guy times the number of targets.  Killing 1 guy is way better than dropping 2 guys to half.


----------



## charlesatan

Victim said:
			
		

> Non spellcasters compete quite handily with that kind of damage.  Meteor Swarm, assuming all the touches succeed, does 24d6 fire damage and 8d6 impact damage.  That's a mere 112 damage.  Raw damage - kind of like when you assume that a fighter hits with all his attacks.  Most high level monsters have some SR.  Let's give the target SR such that the spell fails 30% of the time (not unreasonable for most outsiders assuming the wizard has some spell pen stuff) and our caster's net damage is down to ~78.   Add in 10 points of fire resistance and you're looking at 38 damage (since Meteor Swarm does its fire damage in 4 separate bursts).




Meteor Swarm was just an example (and I assumed it was targeted at an NPC). The damage can be increased such as via a Greater Rod of Maximization (or Empower if that's your thing). I'd go for the generic blasts though (i.e. Delayed Blast Fireball, Horrid Wilting) since they don't require an attack roll (an auto-hit).

An optimized spellcaster won't really have problems with SR except in rare circumstances. Assay Resistance (+10 caster level to penetrate SR) or Arcane Mastery (take 10 on caster level checks) in combination with Spell Penetration (and other magic items that boost caster level/checks to penetrate SR). Won't help against those immune to spells though.

As for resistances, I'd assume you'd choose the appropriate elemental spell against specific creatures (i.e. not use fire spells when fighting a red dragon). Otherwise, just use the generic damage type of Horrid Wilting (or dessication if you're using Sandstorm), or if you took a level of Archmage, change the energy type into sonic (since few creatures have resistance/immunity to it). If I'm really sideboarding against a creature that normally has protection to the elements (or specializing in either the fire department or cold department), I'd get the feat from either Sandstorm or Frostburn which negates the fire and cold resistance respectively.

What I'm more worried about are those immune to spells (i.e. some golems) and the saves (because a lot of monsters will make the saves, unless I specifically choose a spell [i.e. horrid wilting for those with low Fort saves]).



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> Sure, it looks like a huge pile of damage with all those d6s, but by the time you include SR, energy resistances, saves, it's not so great.  Just like you need to know about AC and DR to see how a fighter type is going to work.  Knowing that something hits for 50 damage is pretty worthless without information about how often it connects.




True, but for the most part, most humanoids don't exactly ha ve that type of SR/resistance/high saves, and spells are less chancy connecting compared to several attacks (or in the case of Martial Adepts, one attack against a presumably high AC).



			
				Victim said:
			
		

> And while area damage is good, I don't think its value is the damage dealt to one guy times the number of targets.  Killing 1 guy is way better than dropping 2 guys to half.




Depends. I mean if you're facing the big bad guy who's taking on the entire party by himself, no it's not (at that point, I'd probably go for something like Energy Drain, Enervation, or even the much maligned Polar Ray) and that's what I'm depending the Fighters for. But for crowd control (and the crowd can add up; I mean if I were a level 20 Fighter or even a Warblade, I'd be worried if I were facing 4 unmodified War Trolls), the spellcaster is it, and even the Martial Adepts don't have that kind of advantage (well, they do, but it's just one or two maneuvers, and it's fire damage and has a save as well).

So Victim, the main point is, do you think martial adepts are better than most spellcasters, equal to them, or below them in terms of power?


----------



## RigaMortus2

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> 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.




No, your maneuvers don't ALL become unexpended.  Where did you get that from?  Quote please?



> If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all *expended* maneuvers, and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you.




If we have 3 maneuvers granted, and 2 maneuvers expended and 0 maneuvers withheld, we apply the quote above.  So we recover all expended maneuvers (in this case, 2) and a new pair (pair means 2) of readied maneuvers is granted to us.  We already have 3 granted maneuvers, these haven't been touched,  The rules never tell us what to do with our granted maneuvers we currently have, they just tell us that we are given a new pair of granted maneuvers.  Those being the 2 maneuvers that were previously expended.



> Randomly determine which of your maneuvers are granted and which are withheld.




Well, since we only have 2 maneuvers to worry about, and we are getting back a pair of maneuvers anyway, there isn't much "random determination" involved.  But this quote would apply if we had more than 2 maneuvers that were recovered, such as if we had 3.  Since you have to randomly determine which pair of the 3 we get back.



> At the end of your *next* turn, a withheld maneuvers is granted to you, and the whole process of divine inspiration begins again.




This quote does not invalidate anything we've done so far.  In fact, it comes into play next turn, where we do the same thing again.


----------



## Kmart Kommando

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> No, your maneuvers don't ALL become unexpended.  Where did you get that from?  Quote please?
> 
> If we have 3 maneuvers granted, and 2 maneuvers expended and 0 maneuvers withheld, we apply the quote above.  So we recover all expended maneuvers (in this case, 2) and a new pair (pair means 2) of readied maneuvers is granted to us.  We already have 3 granted maneuvers, these haven't been touched,  The rules never tell us what to do with our granted maneuvers we currently have, they just tell us that we are given a new pair of granted maneuvers.  Those being the 2 maneuvers that were previously expended.
> 
> Well, since we only have 2 maneuvers to worry about, and we are getting back a pair of maneuvers anyway, there isn't much "random determination" involved.  But this quote would apply if we had more than 2 maneuvers that were recovered, such as if we had 3.  Since you have to randomly determine which pair of the 3 we get back.
> 
> This quote does not invalidate anything we've done so far.  In fact, it comes into play next turn, where we do the same thing again.




Wrong.  







> Randomly determine which of your maneuvers is granted and which are withheld.



 which comes after


> You recover all expended maneuvers.



  When you recover all expended maneuvers, they become readied again. Then you randomly determine which or your readied maneuvers are granted and which are withheld, just like the begining of combat.

Earlier in the text it says: 







> Crusaders are unique among the martial adepts, relying on flashes of divine inspirationto use use their martial maneuvers.



 Then it describes the random process. Then, at the end of the paragraph describing what to do if you're out of withheld maneuvers, it even says 







> At the end of your next turn, a withheld maneuver is granted to you, _and the whole process of divine inspiration begins again._



It is clearly written how your readied maneuvers are split between granted and withheld, and when to shuffle the pile.  Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
I'll say it again:  twisting words and breaking the rules to make something more powerful than it is, is *Munchkin*.
Crusader is a simple class to play, once you learn the rules. I recommend doing so.


----------



## charlesatan

RigorMortus, unfortunately, your appraisal of how the Crusader works is simply wrong. This can all be clarified by a sidebar that unfortunate wasn't on the Crusader page:

pg. 38, "Keeping Track of Readied and Expended Maneuvers"

If you're a crusader, you also need to track your granted maneuvers. Label each card with the name of a readied maneuver. Keep your cards face down. To determine which maneuvers are granted to you, all you have to do is deal yourself a card. The face-up cards in front of you represent your granted maneuvers; the face-down cards are readied maneuvers when you go to draw a card and there are none left face down. *At that point, shuffle all your maneuver cards together and draw new granted maneuvers for the next round.*


----------



## Aaron L

Nail said:
			
		

> 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.




No, not to yours.  Someone had said something about a one to one fight, I think


> 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.





Your'e right, poor example


----------



## Kmart Kommando

Compare the Warblade to the Barbarian side-by-side.  They have pretty much the same role.

Most likely, they are a hitter (duhh), and both have d12 hit dice. Barbarian gets Rage and DR, while Warblades get better AC and some counters if they choose. Actually, a Warblade makes a better Barbarian if you go for punishing stance and stick to Tiger Claw maneuvers, but you won't have the better AC a Warblade can get, or the Barbarian's rage.  It all depends on what flavor you want.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> When you recover all expended maneuvers, they become readied again.




Wrong.

Where does it state this?  Any maneuver that you have withheld, recovered, or granted are ALL considered Readied.  I think you are getting your terms mixed up.



			
				Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> Then you randomly determine which or your readied maneuvers are granted and which are withheld, *just like the begining of combat.*




You are adding this last part.  Again I have to ask where you are getting this from?  You are given specific rules for how you gain access to your maneuvers at the beginning of combat, and you are later given specific rules for how you recover your maneuvers during combat.



			
				Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> Earlier in the text it says:  Then it describes the random process. Then, at the end of the paragraph describing what to do if you're out of withheld maneuvers, it even says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the end of your *next* turn, a withheld maneuver is granted to you, _and the whole process of divine inspiration begins again._
Click to expand...



You keep missing the fact that this sentence, the "whole process of divine inspiration begins again" happens at the end of your NEXT turn.



			
				Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> It is clearly written how your readied maneuvers are split between granted and withheld, and when to shuffle the pile.  Ignoring that doesn't make it go away.
> I'll say it again:  twisting words and breaking the rules to make something more powerful than it is, is *Munchkin*.
> Crusader is a simple class to play, once you learn the rules. I recommend doing so.




WotC seems to think it's just fine, and in fact, this is how Cust Serv rules it (last time I checked).



> If you're a crusader, you also need to track your granted maneuvers. Label each card with the name of a readied maneuver. Keep your cards face down. To determine which maneuvers are granted to you, all you have to do is deal yourself a card. The face-up cards in front of you represent your granted maneuvers; the face-down cards are readied maneuvers when you go to draw a card and there are none left face down. *At that point, shuffle all your maneuver cards together and draw new granted maneuvers for the next round.*




This little side bar is a bit faulty.  Again, it uses bad terminology.  If you opt to use cards to represent your maneuvers, do you really shuffle all your maneuver cards together?  All of them!?  Even the ones that I did not Ready for the day!?!?  At some point, you have to make an assumption on either side of the arguement, and whose to say which is right and which is wrong? (WotC of course, or the DM whose rules can vary from table to table).  I think they mean that you shuffle all your *expended* maneuver cards together, and draw new granted maneuvers for the next round.  With your ruling, you have to assume they want you to shuffle all your *readied* maneuver cards together, and draw new granted  maneuvers for the next round.  So no matter how you look at it, you have to make an assumption one way or the other what WotC meant by this.


----------



## RigaMortus2

FWIW, here are 3 seperate CustServ answers regarding the Crusader Recovery Mechanic



			
				CustServ said:
			
		

> If you had expended three Maneuvers and no longer had any withheld, at the end of turn when it attempted to grant you another maneuver it would see that it could not. It would recover the three expended maneuvers, and immediately grant you two of them. Then next turn it would grant you your final maneuver. The turn after that it would attempt to grant you another, see that you were empty and recycle any maneuvers you had spent, randomly grant you two of them.... etc etc.






			
				Bradon from CustServ said:
			
		

> .. If you don't expend maneuvers granted to you, they are NOT recovered and thrown into the readied pool to be re-granted. Only expended maneuvers are recovered in the Crusader Mechanic.






			
				Trevor K from CustServ said:
			
		

> When a crusader runs out of granted maneuvers and cannot be granted a maneuver at the end of his/her turn, all of the expended maneuvers become readied, and the crusader is granted 2 maneuvers, in addition to whatever unexpended maneuvers he/she still had granted to them from previous rounds.




Response from CustServ to clarify, and asked them if they realize the potential abuse this could cause...



			
				CustServ said:
			
		

> Yes there was some initial confusion, but Trevor K's explanation is correct. It is possible to get to the point where you can use your favorite maneuver over and over each round. It can be easier to understand if you use index cards to represent your Readied maneuvers when determining which maneuvers are Withheld, Granted, and Expended.
> 
> The balance is the fact that it takes time to get to that point. Many combats don't last as long as it takes to get to the point where you get to do it over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> Take Care and Good Gaming!
> 
> We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
> 
> To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
> 
> Sam
> Customer Service Representative
> Wizards of the Coast
> 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
> 425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
> Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST





As I said, FWIW...


----------



## glass

charlesatan said:
			
		

> 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.



_Mis_understanding! 'Melee Attack' is a quite clearly defined term of art in D&D. Several actions allow you to make melee attacks, including the Attack action and the Full Attack action.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

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



They also state the kind of action required to activate them (usually standard, sometime full round). You do realise that the various manuevers including Melee Attacks in various different kinds of actions is yet more evidence against you position (as if any more was needed ).


glass.


----------



## Plane Sailing

charlesatan said:
			
		

> You missed the point of the post. A fully optimized tripping, spiked chain wielding Fighter




Of course this guy is subject to MAD too, isn't he? He always wants good Str and Con, but he wants good Dex (to get the AoO) and good Int (to get the expertise/improved trip feats). Suddenly they are on even terms again.

What feats would an optimised tripping spiked chain fighter want, anyway?

Weapon Focus
Weapon Specialisation
expertise
combat reflexes
improved trip

So a 6th level human Fighter could have all these and have two feats in hand, while a 6th level human warblade would be stumbling along without those two feats and making do with his extra skill points, uncanny dodge, battle clarity, battle ardour (don't forget the fighter is an Int & Dex fighter!) and four readied manouvers and two stances.

All righty then.


----------



## Plane Sailing

I've mentioned in an earlier ToB thread that I thought it might be instructive to compare WB with PsyWar, and I'll be interested to see how things work out in Perun's game (keep us posted, Perun!).

To recap: PsyWar can get psionic feats - more powerful than standard feats, but they either require you to keep your psionic focus in order to continue to use them (up the walls?, speed of thought?) or expend your focus in order to use them (psionic weapon, deep impact etc).

Psionic focus can be regained as a full round action (DC20 concentration check) that provokes Aoo; a feat can reduce this to a MEA that provokes AoO.

In addition they get some powers and a small amount of pp to use them.

I wonder what WB would look like if manouvres were converted into psionic feats with appropriate prereqs to manage the levels at which they become available?

FWIW I don't think the ToB characters can even be meaningfully compared with spellcasters for the purposes of adventuring - they just don't have the resource management because there is little reason to not use your best stuff in every combat (unlike the casters who have to ration out their spells, because they don't get to recharge for 24 hours, unlike all the martial adepts who can be fully recharged at the start of each combat (and probably get to recharge in the middle of combat when they need to too)

Cheers


----------



## charlesatan

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Of course this guy is subject to MAD too, isn't he? He always wants good Str and Con, but he wants good Dex (to get the AoO) and good Int (to get the expertise/improved trip feats). Suddenly they are on even terms again.




The build's on the optimization boards at WotC, by Snow Savant I think, but it's currently down. I'll link to it later on.

You don't need good Con, but Str and Dex. It was built several months ago, so yes, you also need 13 Int to take advantage of Karmic Strike, but ever since Robilar's Gambit in PHB 2, that's not necessary. It's a feat intensive build and makes use of 20 levels of fighter.


----------



## charlesatan

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I've mentioned in an earlier ToB thread that I thought it might be instructive to compare WB with PsyWar, and I'll be interested to see how things work out in Perun's game (keep us posted, Perun!).
> 
> To recap: PsyWar can get psionic feats - more powerful than standard feats, but they either require you to keep your psionic focus in order to continue to use them (up the walls?, speed of thought?) or expend your focus in order to use them (psionic weapon, deep impact etc).
> 
> Psionic focus can be regained as a full round action (DC20 concentration check) that provokes Aoo; a feat can reduce this to a MEA that provokes AoO.
> 
> In addition they get some powers and a small amount of pp to use them.
> 
> I wonder what WB would look like if manouvres were converted into psionic feats with appropriate prereqs to manage the levels at which they become available?
> 
> FWIW I don't think the ToB characters can even be meaningfully compared with spellcasters for the purposes of adventuring - they just don't have the resource management because there is little reason to not use your best stuff in every combat (unlike the casters who have to ration out their spells, because they don't get to recharge for 24 hours, unlike all the martial adepts who can be fully recharged at the start of each combat (and probably get to recharge in the middle of combat when they need to too)
> 
> Cheers




Uh, you're contradicting yourself. First you want to compare martial adepts with psychic warriors, but not with spellcasters because "they don't have the resource management... there is little reason to not use your best stuff in every combat" mainly because psychic warriors follow the same philosophy (it still costs power points to manifest powers).

Second, the problem with psionic focus, unlike maneuvers, is that you really can't execute them consecutively round per round unless you manage to "recharge" them quickly enough. There are two psionic-synergistic feats in ToB:BoNS, Psychic Renewal and Instant Clarity.

And as for maneuvers = powers, like spells, powers are usually more powerful compared to maneuvers at equal levels (although of course a Psychic Warrior only manifests up to 6th level powers).

A super-optimized high-level Psychic Warrior (i.e. broken builds) can probably outdamage a martial adept, but can probably only go for two encounters at most.

As for spellcasters and resource management, 1) see my first paragraph, 2) depends on which spellcaster (I mean a Druid can go on and on and a Sorcerer has a lot of slots), 3) depends on the kinds of encounters your GM throws at you... I mean do GMs really throw 4 encounters in a day? (I mean some yes, but some less than that, and some just make do with 1 encounter a day.)


----------



## Kmart Kommando

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> FWIW, here are 3 seperate CustServ answers regarding the Crusader Recovery Mechanic...



well, 3 wrong answers from CustServ doesn't change my mind.  They obviously didn't even read the book.


----------



## charlesatan

On a side note, I'm surprised (well, not really considering EnWorld's forum reactions to the Orb spells and to Monster Manual IV just to name a few) at how people are stuck to an old paradigm. In this paradigm, D&D has two types of characters: spellcasters and non-spellcasters ("Fighters"). Since martial adepts are supposed to melee combatants, people suddenly lump them in the non-spellcaster group and call them broken and refuse to compare them to spellcasters.

That's not to say martial adepts are really spellcasters in disguise (because as pointed out, there are differences, both good [refreshed at the end of every counter] and bad [can't prepare the same maneuver twice]). Which is why I'm operating on a different paradigm, which is somewhere between spellcasters and non-spellcasters (but I'm fond of gish characters, so it's not such a huge mental leap for me).


----------



## charlesatan

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> well, 3 wrong answers from CustServ doesn't change my mind.  They obviously didn't even read the book.




Eh. You win some, you lose some when it comes to CustServ.

But honestly, even if CustServ was right, RigaMortus2 should actually play a full-fledged Crusader. Because honestly, they're not that awesome (short of your other party members being other melee specialists as well and you're milking the White Raven school and that stance that gives you 4 hp every time you score a hit) offense-wise when it comes to maneuvers. Mind you, I'm not saying that they're not good, they're just not broken, and really aren't as sweet as say, the Warblade when it comes to maneuvers.


----------



## Plane Sailing

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Uh, you're contradicting yourself.




Point 1. Don't be rude or you'll get banned. I've overlooked some rudeness earlier in this thread, but keep accusations to yourself, thanks.

Point 2. If you read carefully the point I'm comparing with is the psionic feats, which allow 'unnatural' stuff to be done by psychic warriors (and psions/soulknives/wilders etc).

I highlight this because 
(a) the psionic feats seem less powerful than manouvres
(b) there has been pretty wide acceptance of psionic feats not being unbalanced (unlike the continuous debate about manouvres)
(c) the methods for regaining the use of the psionic feats is less generous than the methods for regaining manouvres (WB in particular).

So. A new thing is produced which gives more abilities, which are more powerful and yet easier to recharge than the established psionic feats.

That's the nature of power creep, and I think it is an unfortunate thing (but I can see why it happens, and why designers like to try out different ideas about how to make things 'cool' or 'useful')


----------



## satori01

One thing to consider is that many of the Maneuvers for martial adepts have greater opportunity costs in regards to their Maneuver choices than compared to a Psy War in a Psy War's choice of feats.

A Psy War does not impact his powers known when he or she takes Psionic Weapon or Greater Psionic Weapon.  Indeed a lot of the hitting strength of the Psy Warrior is being able to ovelay the extra damage from feats with powers.

Most, (and at the very least many) of the Martial Adepts powers are going to have Maneuver Pre-requisites which are going to steer Martial Adepts down a more specialized path.

A Psy Warrior is a good comparison for a Martial Adept, I suspect a well designed Psy Warrior could take a Warblade at low levels, rather handily.  Many of the increased damage powers for low level Martial Adepts have draw backs like a penalty to AC.  
A power charged, Psionic Weapon using, Power Attacking Psy War is going to have good success against a a character with a -2 to AC penalty and medium or light armor.

Now in theory, a Martial Adept is going to be able to do their shtick all day long,  while a Psy War is going to run out of PP, and need to rest.

I think in general a Psy War is a good starting comparison point for Martial Adepts.  At high levels I suspect the power shifts over to the Martial Adept side, as there are a dearth of High Level Psy Warrior type feats, and their powers do not necessarily blow your socks off at the high levels.  The Sweet spot is definitely in the mide range, for Psy Warriors.


----------



## Nail

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Since martial adepts are supposed to melee combatants, people suddenly lump them in the non-spellcaster group and call them broken and refuse to compare them to spellcasters.



I'd be happy to compare them to spell casters.

Let's compare the _melee potential_ of a Wiz 5 and a WB 5, toe-to-toe with a Troll......  

Go.


----------



## Nail

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> well, 3 wrong answers from CustServ doesn't change my mind.  They obviously didn't even read the book.



Let's put this point to bed.

CustServe is often wrong (or contradictory) enough that what is says is simply irrelevant to solving a rules issue.  We all are capable of figuring this stuff out without a Bull in a China Shop distracting us.


----------



## satori01

I find Nail's example of an Improved Unarmed wielding Warblade, being on par with a Fighter to be a proof of concept.  I like the fact, that with Maneuvers, a subpar archetype in D&D, (the Pugulist), is made effective.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say the Martial Adept classes are what the warrior type classes should be.  Feats like Improved Trip, Sunder etc could be made into Maneuvers, letting Feats fullfill other roles than adding combat options.

Maneuvers can also model things like Divine Might, better than Feats I think.  It is much easier to retro con, and allow someone to swap out a Maneuver, (similiar to a spell), than it is to have someone redo their feat choices.

Moreover, it removes the Fighter from being dependent on their equipment and their comrades to provide them with the means to do their job at high levels.  Take AOW, 



Spoiler



the final battle against Kyuss, w/out Boots of Flying, or a Fly spell, How does a Fighter get up there?  If Kyuss moves around, how does the Fighter deal his full attack damage.



The TOB classes are certainly more versatile, than a Fighter, because they attempt to address a structrual flaw endemic to the Fighter.
I find it interesting that the Star Wars Saga system is doing an overhaul to the Soldier class.  Pretty much shows me, the Fighter needs a redesign.


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> Let's compare the _melee potential_ of a Wiz 5 and a WB 5, toe-to-toe with a Troll




I am pretty sure that this is a joke on your part but I feel that it shows what you were doing earlier in a different way.

My comments before were about how the two classes can each do something that the other cannot and in the areas that they overlap one will be better than the other. For your example you ignore so many different types of builds and focus on a single one where the adept may very well come out ahead and then claim it is sufficient overall.

That just doesnt work, just like it isnt working in the example that you are giving here. This example makes it much clearer though that there is an issue with how you are setting up the comparison. Your comparison both times was designed to make the conclusion come out a certain way.


----------



## Nail

So it's not valid to compare a Ftr and a WB because it "makes the comparison come out a certain way"?  Huh.  Do you mean "It shows WBs are better than Ftrs?"   

Speaking of comparisons, someone earlier asked me to post what I'd done.  

Three comparisons between Ftr and a WB (3rd, 9th, 15th).  There are various house rules in play, as I've said before.  Since most of these house rules apply equally, they are irrelevant for comparison purposes.  (Aside: 



Spoiler



The house rule that is relevant is that Ftrs IMC gain 1 bonus feat per level, as I discussed earlier.  Without these extra feats, the Ftr doesn't really stand up to the WB at all, IMO.


)


----------



## Perun

Nail said:
			
		

> So it's not valid to compare a Ftr and a WB because it "makes the comparison come out a certain way"?  Huh.  Do you mean "It shows WBs are better than Ftrs?"
> 
> Speaking of comparisons, someone earlier asked me to post what I'd done.
> 
> Three comparisons between Ftr and a WB (3rd, 9th, 15th).  There are various house rules in play, as I've said before.  Since most of these house rules apply equally, they are irrelevant for comparison purposes.  (Aside:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The house rule that is relevant is that Ftrs IMC gain 1 bonus feat per level, as I discussed earlier.  Without these extra feats, the Ftr doesn't really stand up to the WB at all, IMO.
> 
> 
> )




Thanks for posting the info. It's interesting, and really made me understand how ungrateful such comparisons are, because you (the generic you, not aimed at Nail) always try to make it all "balanced", and thus make some sub-par choices.

For example, the fighter in the example uses a _sling_ at lower levels. A sling is an awful weapon, really, and only slightly less awful in the hands of a halfling (1d4 base damage, move action to reload). He also uses a throwing weapon at higher levels. IMO, he should have used a bow in all cases (a cheap one, maybe even a shortbow at lower levels, and composite longbow with high Str rating at higher levels. Ranged combat is still not his forte, but at least he can do something with the bow (multiple attacks per round).

The best thing, really, would be to see fighter and warblade in actual play over several levels. I don't know whether our other campaign will be reaching its end anytime in the near future, but if it does, I'll try to arrange for a fighter and warblade in the party. 

With that, I'm off to DM another session


----------



## RigaMortus2

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Eh. You win some, you lose some when it comes to CustServ.
> 
> But honestly, even if CustServ was right, RigaMortus2 should actually play a full-fledged Crusader. Because honestly, they're not that awesome (short of your other party members being other melee specialists as well and you're milking the White Raven school and that stance that gives you 4 hp every time you score a hit) offense-wise when it comes to maneuvers. Mind you, I'm not saying that they're not good, they're just not broken, and really aren't as sweet as say, the Warblade when it comes to maneuvers.




Actually, I am playing a Crusader atm.  Only played him a couple times so far, and I think he is around 4th level.  They work out fine AFAICS.  The funny thing is, I was pretty much set on Swordsage or Warblade, but at the last minute I chose Crusader and haven't regretted it yet.  Of course, they are the only ones that have access to the healing strikes, and I am the only healer in the group atm, so that is one thing that swayed me.


----------



## Nail

IMC, a sling is all that is currently available to my PCs.  Thus the choice.  (I'm brutal, eh? )

However, if you chose a Comp. Longbow instead....it's a small thing.  Neither are good at missile weapons -- they're good at toe-to-toe melee.  That's the point.



			
				Perun said:
			
		

> The best thing, really, would be to see fighter and warblade in actual play over several levels.



Absolutely.  IMC, that's happening.  We've had one session with the new WB in the party, comparing his mojo with that of the party's Ftr.  It's too early to tell how things will go.


----------



## Nail

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Actually, I am playing a Crusader atm.  Only played him a couple times so far, and I think he is around 4th level.  They work out fine AFAICS.



Say....

Could you describe a recent battle in which your Crusader played a part?  I'm eagerly interested......


----------



## RigaMortus2

You could make a decent thrower with certain maneuvers from ToB.  Take a look at Dancing Mongoose and Raging Mongoose.  They allow you to make extra attacks, which would apply to thrown weapons, projectile weapons, as well as melee weapons.  Although to make good use of thrown weapons, you'd want levels in Bloodstorm Blade


----------



## RigaMortus2

Nail said:
			
		

> Say....
> 
> Could you describe a recent battle in which your Crusader played a part?  I'm eagerly interested......




It's been awhile since we played, but we got stuck in a haunted house.  It is a party of three (Human Crusader, Warforged Warmage and Human Fighter/Rogue).  I am main tank and I help out the Fighter/Rogue by flanking with him.  I'll post my character:

Human Crusader 5th lvl

(stats were rolled)
Str 18
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 12
Cha 12

BAB +5 / Melee +9 / Ranged +7

Feats: Extra Granted Maneuver, Stone Power, Weapon Finesse (Longsword)

*Stances Known*: Martial Spirit (usually the one I use), Stonefoot Stance
*Maneuvers Known:* Crusader's Strike, Vanguard Strike, Stone Bones, Tactical Strike, Leading the Attack, Mountain Hammer, Revitalizing Strike
*Maneuvers (commonly) Readied:* Crusader's Strike, Revitalizing Strike, Mountain Hammer, Stone Bones, Vanguard Strike

A common tactic I use is combing my Stone Power feat with a Stone Dragon maneuver, so I can get temp HP (which is basically a cheap form of DR).  This also helps me soak up my damage from Steely Resolve.

Sample Encounter (enemy wins init)
Enemy hits me for 12 damage,  I actually take 2 of it, and the other 10 points of that goes into my Steely Resolve, which gives me a +2 to hit and damge due to Furious Counterstike.  So on my turn, assuming I have a SD maneuver ready, I use it with Stone Power to give myself 10 temp HPs.  I make my attack at +7 (+9 melee +1 WF +2 Furious CS -5 Stone Power).  Then at the end of the round, I put the 10 points of delayed damage from Steely Resolve into my temp HP.  I also heal 2 damage from the stance, so that takes care of the 2 damage I took.

If I don't have a Stone Dragon Maneuver available, I then have Crusader's Strike and/or Revitalizing Strike available, so I use that to heal my damage (provided my allies are not damaged worse than me).

Those are the standard tactics I use.


----------



## Victim

charlesatan said:
			
		

> On a side note, I'm surprised (well, not really considering EnWorld's forum reactions to the Orb spells and to Monster Manual IV just to name a few) at how people are stuck to an old paradigm. In this paradigm, D&D has two types of characters: spellcasters and non-spellcasters ("Fighters"). Since martial adepts are supposed to melee combatants, people suddenly lump them in the non-spellcaster group and call them broken and refuse to compare them to spellcasters.
> 
> That's not to say martial adepts are really spellcasters in disguise (because as pointed out, there are differences, both good [refreshed at the end of every counter] and bad [can't prepare the same maneuver twice]). Which is why I'm operating on a different paradigm, which is somewhere between spellcasters and non-spellcasters (but I'm fond of gish characters, so it's not such a huge mental leap for me).




Martial Adepts do melee damage.  Sometimes they'll throw some ability damage or stuff on top their damage, but they still make melee attacks and do melee damage.  Giving a fighter a wounding weapon doesn't change the paradigm in which he operates.

Martial Adepts don't use strategic resource management like spellcasters.  They don't really have battlefield control effects.  Save based attacks are a minority.  About the only way in which adepts are similar to casters is their 9 level manuever system.

Adepts operate mostly like fighter types with some magic items.  Their non-dependence on full attacks makes them like mounted fighters, but fighter types still.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

satori01 said:
			
		

> The TOB classes are certainly more versatile, than a Fighter, because they attempt to address a structrual flaw endemic to the Fighter.
> I find it interesting that the Star Wars Saga system is doing an overhaul to the Soldier class.  Pretty much shows me, the Fighter needs a redesign.




See, that's the essential dillema between what I'll call "my side" and what I'll call "your side" is that, on my end, I don't think the Fighter should be replaced.

For several reasons:

It's a core class.  When people get "D&D" they get the core three books.  When people play "D&D", the base assumption, the 'fundamentals', if you will, is that they'll be playing with, if nothing else, the stuff in the PHB.

I think that when options are released for the game ... a big thing, a big part, should be that those options do not supercede things in the PHB.  Add to them, sure.  Offer additional "options", of course.  If there's a power increase, it should be across the board or to address increases at other points.  It shouldn't be:  "Spellcasters either trump Fighters in power or in fun, so we'll replace the Fighter with something more powerful and more fun!"

It should be:  "We'll add to the Fighter and make it more powerful and more fun!"

In some ways, they seemed to try to do that in ToB ... that's a flag for me.  It has multiclassing rules that are patently different than anything else in the game ... the "old" classes can "buy in" to the new classes at a 1-for-2 exchange if they'd like to switch.  Your crappy old Fighter 6 can get powers like a Warblade 4 when he takes that WB level when they hit 7th level.

It's sort of a:  "Yea, we trumped the Fighter, so ... here's a free gift if your GM buys this book after you already started playing a Fighter."

I like the ideas.  Don't get me wrong.  But I don't like what they did to the Fighter.

So, if I were to run a D&D game where I used the ToB (may be in the far dang future at this point) I'd probably refit the Fighter to bring him back in and tone back the Warblade.

I shouldn't have to, however, and that's a ding on the folks that authored the book and WotC in general.  I don't pay them to put together crap I have to spend hours wrangling over and fixing in the toolshop before it's playworthy.  I don't pay them to screw up game balance and increase power levels.  I can do that on my own, for free.

Right now I'm comparing the classes and putting together a bolt-on package for the Fighter.  Even then, I'd probably strip some of the stuff off the WB.  I need to examine the Swordsage a little closer, but the Crusader doesn't seem over the top when you realize that his maneuvers are doled out at random and then rebooted, so he sort of has to burn them fast and sloppy or they go away.

--fje


----------



## satori01

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> See, that's the essential dillema between what I'll call "my side" and what I'll call "your side" is that, on my end, I don't think the Fighter should be replaced.
> 
> --fje




Which is fair enough, however, if we were talking from the ground up, say a 4th edition, would you rather see a Fighter that is more akin to the Warblade?  Sounds to me that you would be inclined that way.

Again I am not so sure, the Fighter is replaced by the TOB classes.  Certainly the Swordsages I have seen in action have not replaced, or outperformed the Barbarians, Totem Warriors, Champions, or Paladins in my campaigns.

A Crusader is certainly duarable, and has some limted Healing power thru Maneuvers, which is quite an assest in a non standard, (ie no healer) party.

A Warblade makes peoples eyes bug out, but I still feel that if TOB classes are allowed,  more than likely other sourcebooks are in play as well, Like the Duskblade, Psy Warrior etc, and people will find an accord to make a balanced group.

As an aside, I would not mind seeing a Refit on the Fighter and the Bard classes in general.  Wouldnt be that hard to do, and would increase the lifespan of the classes, similiar to what 3.5 did for the Ranger.


----------



## charlesatan

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Point 1. Don't be rude or you'll get banned. I've overlooked some rudeness earlier in this thread, but keep accusations to yourself, thanks.




And at what point did I become rude? Unless me stating "you're contradicting yourself..." is what you consider rude, which is simply me pointing out the fallacy in your statements.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Point 2. If you read carefully the point I'm comparing with is the psionic feats, which allow 'unnatural' stuff to be done by psychic warriors (and psions/soulknives/wilders etc).
> 
> I highlight this because
> (a) the psionic feats seem less powerful than manouvres
> (b) there has been pretty wide acceptance of psionic feats not being unbalanced (unlike the continuous debate about manouvres)
> (c) the methods for regaining the use of the psionic feats is less generous than the methods for regaining manouvres (WB in particular).




That's because there's really been little support for Psionic feats and they're there to augment a Psionic character; it's not his bread and butter. Anyone who's played a Psychic Warrior, for example, will probably rely more on his powers rather than his psionic focus. Don't get me wrong, Psionic Focus are an extra "edge", but they're far from the sole reason that a person plays a Psychic Warrior.

Now if you chose the Soulknife as an example (since he doesn't have powers)...

P.S. Here's the link to the feat-intensive Ftr 20 build: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=163005


----------



## charlesatan

satori01 said:
			
		

> I am going to go out on a limb here and say the Martial Adept classes are what the warrior type classes should be.  Feats like Improved Trip, Sunder etc could be made into Maneuvers, letting Feats fullfill other roles than adding combat options.
> 
> Maneuvers can also model things like Divine Might, better than Feats I think.  It is much easier to retro con, and allow someone to swap out a Maneuver, (similiar to a spell), than it is to have someone redo their feat choices.




My only complaint with such a move is that feats are usually less complicated than maneuvers. Which isn't a problem for me, but it might be for starting players. That and honestly, the maneuver list is more intimidating than a feat list (in the same way that a spell list is more intimidating than the, uh, feat list).


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> So it's not valid to compare a Ftr and a WB because it "makes the comparison come out a certain way"?  Huh.  Do you mean "It shows WBs are better than Ftrs?"




Let me rephrase (or explain) what Slaved is saying.

"My comments before were about how the two classes can each do something that the other cannot and in the areas that they overlap one will be better than the other." - It's pretty much saying how there are some things that the martial adept can do and the fighter can't, and vice versa. On the side of the Fighter, it might mean the sheer number of feats, or the fact that he can use ranged weapons more effectively. On the side of the martial adept, the fact that he has maneuvers. It's like comparing the Fighter to a Wizard (at least that's his argument, from what I understand).

"For your example you ignore so many different types of builds and focus on a single one where the adept may very well come out ahead and then claim it is sufficient overall." "Your comparison both times was designed to make the conclusion come out a certain way." - Again, you have been comparing one type of WB build and comparing it to a Ftr with the same build, which isn't emphasizing a Ftr's strengths. It's like rigging a statistic survey, asking how many support Bush in a republican rally (or a democratic rally) to skewer the results.


----------



## charlesatan

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Actually, I am playing a Crusader atm.  Only played him a couple times so far, and I think he is around 4th level.  They work out fine AFAICS.  The funny thing is, I was pretty much set on Swordsage or Warblade, but at the last minute I chose Crusader and haven't regretted it yet.  Of course, they are the only ones that have access to the healing strikes, and I am the only healer in the group atm, so that is one thing that swayed me.




I actually have no argument with it in the early levels but I'd expect to see the disadvantages cropping up in the high levels, when you get the choice to either make a full attack or use those "hit and heal" maneuvers.

One of the funny scenarios I just can't help imagine is the party keeping a troll alive and a hostage so that you can keep in hitting it just to heal the entire party...


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> Say....
> 
> Could you describe a recent battle in which your Crusader played a part?  I'm eagerly interested......




I forgot to mention that party composition also plays as part. I'd see the Crusader appearing more effective if a bulk of the group are melee-oriented classes (to take advantage of the white raven and devoted spirit maneuvers).


----------



## charlesatan

Victim said:
			
		

> Martial Adepts don't use strategic resource management like spellcasters.  They don't really have battlefield control effects.  Save based attacks are a minority.  About the only way in which adepts are similar to casters is their 9 level manuever system.




Actually they still have strategic resource management. It's just a different kind of resource management (for the WB, it's expend all of your best maneuvers and hopefully it'll kill your opponent before you run out of them, for the Crusader something else). And yes, the 9-level maneuver system, and the maneuvers do get expended. And which is why I said they're somewhere in between, not quite spellcasters but similarly not just non-spellcasters.


----------



## RigaMortus2

charlesatan said:
			
		

> One of the funny scenarios I just can't help imagine is the party keeping a troll alive and a hostage so that you can keep in hitting it just to heal the entire party...




Doesn't work.  It's built into the maneuver that the enemy has to be a threat.  If the troll is alive but subdued or helpless, he is no threat.

Crusader's Stike
_This foe must pose a threat to you or your allies in some direct, immediate way._

It's a built in fail safe...

Actually, upon reading this, I also noticed the strike only works against enemies whose alignment is at least 1 component away.  Yikes, I'll have to keep that in mind.  I'm LG anyway and so far I think we only fought evil things, certain no LG things, so shouldn't have too much problem with it...


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to compare them to spell casters.
> 
> Let's compare the _melee potential_ of a Wiz 5 and a WB 5, toe-to-toe with a Troll......
> 
> Go.




I'd take on the challenge if it was say, level 20, and I'd throw in a spellcasting prestige class for the Wiz... =) [We can fight creatures that has spell resistance, spell immunity, just as long as it doesn't have an anti-magic field strapped to it; or we can just fight each other]


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

But the problem is, the Warblade isn't "like" the wizard as much as he's "like" the Fighter.  Both are guys that hit people in the face with a sword.  

I would say that a sufficient comparison would need to do "concepts" or "archetypes" that are common to the fantasy/D&D paradigm.

Probably "Sword and Board" and the "Greataxe" and "Two-Handed Sword" and probably  "Two-Weapon Guy".

Fighters can probably do like "The Tripping Cheesemonkey" better than a Warblade ... the question is, is "The Tripping Cheesemonkey" A) something people like to play and B) as effective overall as the Warblade overall.

I've played several "trip-monkey" builds ... they were sort of fun to build and rather fun to play at early levels where Humanoids and Monstrous Humanoids dominate.  Hell On Wheels, really.  About 8th level, they turned to absolute crap.  As the game progresses, appropriate CR "monsters" in the manuals, especially melee guys for the melee characters to fight, get bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger.  A Huge 4-Legged monster with big strength is pretty hard to trip, even if you're optimized to trip.  It's just something I've experienced.  If you're a fighter with all kinds of special tripping feats and feats that proc on trips etc etc, you can do some really wonky things to low-strength Medium two-legged creatures.  The dragon just breathes fire on you and backslaps you across the room.

It's why I'm currently playing a medium-armored guy-with-a-big-2-hander ... in D&D, really, beating the other guy in the face for as much damage as humanly possible always works ... humanoids, dragons, elementals, outsiders, oozes ... "Don't play with it, just kill it."

I think, though, that when people think Melee Combat they think of a few archetypes.  Spiked Chain Trip-Monkey With Armor Spikes is a purely D&D creation.  Nobody put down a fantasy novel and said:  "Man ... I'd like to be a guy with huge awkward friggin' spikes on his full plate armor that swings a spikey awkward chain and makes people fall down alot!"

--fje


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> But the problem is, the Warblade isn't "like" the wizard as much as he's "like" the Fighter.  Both are guys that hit people in the face with a sword.
> 
> I would say that a sufficient comparison would need to do "concepts" or "archetypes" that are common to the fantasy/D&D paradigm.




Which is why I'm going for a different paradigm entirely. Because it's an entirely different animal.

I mean in our fantasy/D&D paradigm, we don't get Fighters saying, "Wait, I can't perform the same attack because I need to re-ready it," either. In anime/manga, we have warriors "charging" up and the like, but the power levels of those attacks are almost magical (and that's what the martial adepts are trying to emulate). I mean if you look at the Desert Wind maneuvers, some of them are like what Kenshin does. And Diamond Mind has that omni-slash thing going on.

That's because more fantasy fiction tend to be "realistic" when it comes to the warrior type (despite the fact that what they might be facing is magical, the existence of spellcasters, etc.), while anime/manga can be much more dramatic, albeit over the top. And in way, a lot of maneuvers are over the top compared to your "I attack and hit".

And again, there are "gish", the warrior/mage archetype, yet I see no one complaining about their power levels... (at least not on this thread)


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

charlesatan said:
			
		

> And again, there are "gish", the warrior/mage archetype, yet I see no one complaining about their power levels... (at least not on this thread)




Um, because, historically in D&D, they've not been broken.  Quite the opposite, really.  Gishes usually turn out very very blah.  Recently there have been some spells and feats that have made it a more attractive option and bring it more in line with other concepts, but the fact that nobody is posting:  "Gish so broken! Help!" speaks to ... the lack of broken!

If the book let people play their favorite Inuyasha character in D&D, but it wasn't whacked-out broken ... nobody would complain.  It's not that we all hate anime.  Personally, I probably would want a special setting for it, but I'm not opposed to it on any particular level.  

Well ... DragonBallZ is really really dumb.  But I watch lots of anime.  I'm a dork.  I'm even overweight and have a beard.  I am ... Archetypal.

Somebody has pointed out before that nobody complains about the Samurai, which is underpowered ... I'll add to the list of "classes nobody complains about", the Spelltheif, the Hexblade, the Ninja ... 

GMs don't complain about under-powered optional classes.  GMs are all FOR underpowered optional classes.  GMs can ADD stuff to make their players happy ... harder to REMOVE things to make EVERYBODY happy.

If somebody wants to play a Samurai, but we all think it is underpowered, I might offer him an extra bonus feat or maybe we'd build it with some maneuvers.  We can do that.  We have the technology.  The player in question then gets to both play the concept that he wanted to play, which makes him happy, and gets some added juice, which makes him happy.  The Samurai doesn't overshadow the Fighter, which makes that guy's player happy, and doesn't overshadow the Wizard, so makes that guy happy.  EVERYBODY IS HAPPY.

But say somebody wants to play a Warblade.  Well, here's the horns of a dilemma.  Suddenly, I look like the badguy because I let Lloyd play a Samurai, a non-core class.  I let Samuel take feats from the PHBII.  I'm letting in optional material ... but I'm exercising my option on the Warblade not to let him in.  This makes that player sad.  This adds stress to my fun game night.  Suddenly, I'm not happy and somebody else isn't happy.  This makes things less fun.

Or say I let the Warblade in.  It proves to overshadow the Fighter, making that player unhappy.  The Warblade keeps going and going after the Wizard is out of spells, making that player unhappy.  The other two being unhappy makes ME unhappy, because part of GMing is making folks happy.  Now, I'm sure the guy playing the Warblade is happy as a clam.  He's kicking butt, he's taking names, he's making the guy that played the Fighter look like a chump, he's doing Omnislash and he's screaming "WINDSCAR!" when he throws down some hawt maneuvers.  But my game is a less-happy place.

That other classes or concepts don't stir complaints from GMs should SAY something about this book.  Not just:  "Grognards fear change!", but that there are legitimate problems.  Spelltheif is a pretty different class ... power-wise, sucks hard ... but different.  Nobody complains about it, though.  Channeled spells are pretty different, but not broken, and nobody complains about them.  

Doesn't mean we're unfairly biased against new things or different things or changing things.

And, yea, I think if 4th edition were to come along, I think incorporating something like Maneuvers from the ground up would be okay.  Toned down some, a little less anime in places.  Making them work from the ground up with the Fighter would be fine.  People like resource management on a turn-by-turn level, so adding that to the Fighter is a fine idea.  Folks like the fiddly bits at the table, which is why I think Power Attack and Combat Expertise are two of the most popular feats out there.  

As I've repeatedly said ... if this expansion would have been something that added to the Fighter ... bolted something on, offered a feat that granted maneuvers, etc etc ... would have LOVED it.  But they trumped the fighter, took it to 11, etc.  That's the source of complaints.

--fje


----------



## Votan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Um, because, historically in D&D, they've not been broken.  Quite the opposite, really.  Gishes usually turn out very very blah.  Recently there have been some spells and feats that have made it a more attractive option and bring it more in line with other concepts, but the fact that nobody is posting:  "Gish so broken! Help!" speaks to ... the lack of broken!




It think that this is a little bit edition dependent; in both 1st and 2nd edition the elf (or, even worse, half elf) fighter/magic-user was a formidable party member and an important part of a first rate party.  

These days the problem is the transition; F/MU classes are good at upper levels but the process of getting there can be pretty harsh.  

Duskblades and Psychic Warriors seem to be decent implementations of the concept.

And, let us not forget the classic hybrid, the cleric.  Its flavor is not that of the arcane warrior but it is mechanically a combination (medium BAB, d8 hp, full spellcasting, armor and possibly a martial weapon depending on domain).  

In any case, I actually like the shift to the warblade over the fighter.  Nobody is forced to play a fighter and I can find ways to power up a human fighter if I have to (I've got one in my game right now).  But the warblade is much better outside of combat and has fun/flashy options which I think would appeal to my players.  

But I can see the contrary opinion.  The fact that the melee classes are underpowered in core is bad and there is no patch that is going to be completely effective.  A more interesting feat tree for the fighter might have been nice but it was the skills and flashy actions that needed to be inserted the most.


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Um, because, historically in D&D, they've not been broken.  Quite the opposite, really.  Gishes usually turn out very very blah.  Recently there have been some spells and feats that have made it a more attractive option and bring it more in line with other concepts, but the fact that nobody is posting:  "Gish so broken! Help!" speaks to ... the lack of broken!




If it's just "broken-ness" you're complaining about, the martial adepts aren't.

And again, the whole problem isn't in whether the martial adepts are really broken but in perspectives. Gishes can be more powerful than martial adepts but as you said, people aren't complaining because there's been a historical precedent. The case with martial adepts is that it's new, so people are still wary of it, and don't have the proper "perspective" on it, hence all the complaints.

Any character can easily overshadow any other characters. I just recently gamed in a gaming group with over a dozen players (don't ask) and my gish and my other friend's psionic gish easily (sadly) overshadowed all the other characters, including two martial adepts. I just think that people need a paradigm shift when it comes to the martial adepts before calling it unfair. And you mentioned was about meeting player expectations, which I think can be handled better. (Again, it all boils down to preconceptions.)

P.S. I was the one who said samurai's are underpowered. I don't think the rest you mentioned (ninja, spellthief, etc.) are underpowered. It's just that comparing the Fighter vs Samurai, I can build a more effective samurai using the former.


----------



## epochrpg

charlesatan said:
			
		

> P.S. I was the one who said samurai's are underpowered. . It's just that comparing the Fighter vs Samurai, I can build a more effective samurai using the former.




Not to mention more historically accurate.  What's this crud about ALL samurais being 2-weapon fighting experts?  There were some, very few samurais who learned to use a weapon in each hand, but for the most part, a katana was wielded in 2 hands.  

I thought that the 2nd Ed Samurai Kit was plenty cool.  certain number of times a day, he could make a kiah shout to gain 18/00 STR for 1 round.  Very cool when you are fighting the bbeg.


----------



## NilesB

Nail said:
			
		

> IMC, a sling is all that is currently available to my PCs.  Thus the choice.  (I'm brutal, eh? )



It seems clear from this and other posts that you are using a series of house rules and campaign eccentricities that increase the power of the Warblade relative to the Fighter.

The designers and developers of the Tome of Battle did not and should not have been expected to take your specific deviations from the rules as written and/or the default setting into acount in the design of the Warblade.


----------



## Victim

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Actually they still have strategic resource management. It's just a different kind of resource management (for the WB, it's expend all of your best maneuvers and hopefully it'll kill your opponent before you run out of them, for the Crusader something else). And yes, the 9-level maneuver system, and the maneuvers do get expended. And which is why I said they're somewhere in between, not quite spellcasters but similarly not just non-spellcasters.




No, it's tactical resource management.  One of the issues with spells and wands is that the resources are tracked from encounter to encounter - you have to pick not just the best time to use a spell during this fight, but also consider the next battles and challenges.  An adept generally need only concern himself with 1 fight at a time.


----------



## charlesatan

Victim said:
			
		

> No, it's tactical resource management.  One of the issues with spells and wands is that the resources are tracked from encounter to encounter - you have to pick not just the best time to use a spell during this fight, but also consider the next battles and challenges.  An adept generally need only concern himself with 1 fight at a time.




Oh, sorry, I wasn't able to distinguish tactical from strategic. I wonder why they're synonyms...

Again, as I said before, it's not as taxing for a martial adept compared to a spellcaster for multiple encounters, but there is still some reservation of resources. And a long encounter (rather than a numerous one) can be as debilitating to a martial adept. But as I said, it's somewhere mid-way between a spellcaster and a non-spellcaster. I don't think we need to point out further differences between a martial adept and a spellcaster because we're being redundant and I've admitted as much in previous posts: shares some traits of a spellcaster, but not quite a spellcaster.

But here's another element that makes them more akin to spellcasters. I now remember why I don't see a lot of Ftr 20's (or even Barbarian 20's) at that but will possibly see lots of Warblade 20's, Swordsage 20's: it's the initiator level. For spellcasters, losing caster level is bad which is why most don't multiclass except to take a prestige class that adds caster levels. Most warrior-types, on the other hand, are less restricted, which is why you see Ftr 8/Bar 12 or Rog 4/Ftr 8/Bar 8 for example. With martial adepts, again, it's somewhere in between as the multiclassing isn't as hard as it is on spellcasters, but it still penalizes you (which is why most won't want to multiclass more than six levels of a non-martial adept so they can  have access to 9th-level maneuvers).

Different paradigm people, a different paradigm. Not quite a spellcaster, but not quite a non-spellcaster either. People want either A or B. I'm calling them "C".

P.S. If I wanted feats, I'd take Ftr. If I wanted maneuvers, I'd take Warblade. Now whether feats are up to maneuvers is a different story, but so are spells, and a lot of other abilities from classes and prestige classes.


----------



## glass

satori01 said:
			
		

> Moreover, it removes the Fighter from being dependent on their equipment and their comrades to provide them with the means to do their job at high levels.  Take AOW,
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> the final battle against Kyuss, w/out Boots of Flying, or a Fly spell, How does a Fighter get up there?  If Kyuss moves around, how does the Fighter deal his full attack damage
> 
> 
> .



When will people learn to mask spoilers? It really isn't difficult!


glass.


----------



## glass

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry, I wasn't able to distinguish tactical from strategic. I wonder why they're synonyms...



They aren't synonyms.

[SBLOCK=Strategy]strat‧e‧gy  /ˈstrætɪdʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[strat-i-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.
1.	Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
2.	the use or an instance of using this science or art.
3.	skillful use of a stratagem: The salesperson's strategy was to seem always to agree with the customer.
4.	a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.[/SBLOCK][SBLOCK=Tactics]tac‧tics  /ˈtæktɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tak-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.	(usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2.	(used with a plural verb) the maneuvers themselves.[/SBLOCK]


glass.


----------



## FireLance

glass said:
			
		

> They aren't synonyms.



Just in case the distinction between tactical and strategic still isn't very clear from reading the definitions, my own rule of thumb is that tactics are concerned with the short term, e.g. a round or a single battle, and strategies are concerned with the longer term, e.g. an adventure or a campaign.

Example of tactical thinking: if I move to here before I use my _scroll of cone of cold_, I will be able to catch two additional hill giants in the area of effect.

Example of strategic thinking: I only have one _scroll of cone of cold_, so I should save it for when we face the fire giants leading the hill giants. I'll use my _scroll of fireball_ instead.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Different paradigm people, a different paradigm. Not quite a spellcaster, but not quite a non-spellcaster either. People want either A or B. I'm calling them "C".
> 
> P.S. If I wanted feats, I'd take Ftr. If I wanted maneuvers, I'd take Warblade. Now whether feats are up to maneuvers is a different story, but so are spells, and a lot of other abilities from classes and prestige classes.




But we're not really talking about paradigms.  That's just begging the point.  There's no real "paradigm shift" to speak of.  We have, closer, Hegelian synthesis in the rules presented, but we're not entering or shifting or experiencing any "paradigm".  If you're speaking in terms of "the way we see things working", it doesn't.

At the base of things the game still works the same.

We've got a new mechanic ... a resource which is expended and refreshed within the discrete combat "encounter", but which always returns to full.  

But nobody is arguing against that mechanic.  It's not the mechanic that people are upset with.

Some examples of the mechanic are problematic ... certainly those maneuvers which were obviously designed, as a whole, to be "less powerful" than feats (so they can be doled out in greater numbers) which become MORE powerful than feats.  But that's the fault of the maneuver, not the system.

I don't think anybody arguing in the negative is unable to grasp the new mechanics.

Saying they're overpowered just isn't the same thing as not seeing this "new paradigm".  It's visible, for what it's worth.  I'll go out on a limb to say that, from reading past posts of many of the posters in this thread, that they're not stupid people or people incapable of understanding rules minutae.  Quite the opposite.  The punditry on the Rules forum makes my brain hurt sometimes, but it's a pretty good place to go if you want to find some people that get into the rules of the game.  Usually the arguments around here are over minor points of fact.

Now, why people bring up "A" and "B" as comparisons is because they HAVE to interact with Fighters and Wizards or Melee and Spellcasters.  It's D&D.  They can't exist in a happy world where all that matters is them.  People have to bring these classes into their games.  If they're going to upset the balance between Melee and Spellcasters (and they ARE melee, they hit things in the face with weapons), if they're going to cause strife and problems with the people playing, then that's a problem.  The problem doesn't go away just by saying: "It's a new paradigm."  So what?  That matters to the bottom line?  If it causes problems, then it IS a problem.

--fje


----------



## Nail

NilesB said:
			
		

> The designers and developers of the Tome of Battle did not and should not have been expected to take your specific deviations from the rules as written and/or the default setting into acount in the design of the Warblade.



Nor do I expect them to.  

The comparison I posted was appicable to my camapign...and yet it is quite simple to remove or ignore the campaign specific elements.  (Combat, magic, etc all work the same...just remove a few feats and you're good-to-go.) None of my analysis is based on the particular house rules I play under.  I hope that's clear.


----------



## Nail

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> But we're not really talking about paradigms.  That's just begging the point.



I disagree.  It's not Begging the Question, it's just setting up a Strawman Argument.  Different strategies...toward the same conclusion, I'll admit.  

The paradigm we're all talking about is clear: it's 3.xe D&D.  We are comparing the efficacy of one class (the Warblade) to a similar class (the Fighter).  Those that wish to show the Warblade is not overpowered must first prove the comparison is invalid -- toward that end they've used this "different paradigm" schtick.

I note that no one's taken me up on the comparison of the melee potential of a Wiz 5 or a WB 5 toe-to-toe with a troll.  That speaks volumes.   

I'll grant we could compare the Warblade to the Bbn, or perhaps the Pal.  (A Rgr comparison would be more tenous.)  I'm relatively certain we'd come to the same conclusion as we do with our comparison to the Fighter: the Warblade is not balanced with respect to the core classes.   .....Arguably, it's not even close, IMO.


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> I've also been accused _on this very thread_ for having house rules that favor the Ftr over the WB!




Which post or posts were these? I did a search but I didnt see any saying that the fighter was favored over the warblade.


I just had a group over last night to do some group vs group combat. Unfortunately since we were new to the tome of battle it took quite some time to make some of the characters. While doing this and while playing though I noticed that the choices for what you can do and when are very limited.

My crusader had the problem repeatidly of having manuevers at random that were not very helpful at the time and the slow refresh rate.

The warblade we had fighting kept on wishing he had taken the full round change to his as whenever the tactical situation would change he would notice one of the manuevers he had not on call would be perfect while the others were less useful. As fighter types they still had the issue with no listen, spot, or search which nearly killed one of them in a fight.

The pure fighter tended to have more options on hand at any given time and was able to deal with situations more readily. Of course he had picked feats from a large spectrum of books and had planned them out pretty well.

It was not nearly enough to get a good feel for the book as a whole but it does look that their choices for maneuvers and stances are very limited. The levels break strangely and you can easily find yourself in a 4 level gap where you are using only lower level stuff because you need to wait for prereqs or the new maneuvers are just too redundant with old maneuvers with little to no extra benefit.

With better planning the crusader and warblade likely could've been made better. I really like some of the feats and how the class meshes, except for the large amount of redudancy and lack of fun options for several different levels. For the crusader at one point I was looking at a first level stance that can do a minor amount of healing or a fifth level stance that would give me an extra 5' step each turn. Tough call, both were fairly minor and situational, even though they were 4 levels apart!

I'll try to do another something like that next week, we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> I just had a group over last night to do some group vs group combat. Unfortunately since we were new to the tome of battle it took quite some time to make some of the characters.



I'm sure that's the case.  It took me quite a while (several short sessions over several days) to get a really good feel for how the martial adepts work.  being new to the material inevitably means making mistakes.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> The warblade we had fighting kept on wishing he had taken the full round change to his as whenever the tactical situation would change he would notice one of the manuevers he had not on call would be perfect while the others were less useful.



Sure.  I find Ftrs have the same issue with feats: "I wish I had taken Close-quarters Fighting!"



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> The pure fighter tended to have more options on hand at any given time and was able to deal with situations more readily. Of course he had picked feats from a large spectrum of books and had planned them out pretty well.



...and he was more familiar with how to build a good fighter, I'll guess.  Give that guy (or gal!) some time with the ToM:Bo9S, and that'll turn around quickly.

What level were these PCs?



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> It was not nearly enough to get a good feel for the book as a whole but it does look that their choices for maneuvers and stances are very limited.



Agreed.  And the prerequisites (starting at 2nd level maneuvers!) can make cherry-picking the best ones very difficult.  Errors in my first attempt at a WB 15 were legion!     



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> With better planning the crusader and warblade likely could've been made better.



Yup.  Familiarity is key.

In my game, the WB (a Mnk/WB, actually) has discovered the power of the concentration skill.  By taking a skill focus and a high Con, he can dish out some serious damage.

Tell us more as you make discoveries!


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> We are comparing the efficacy of one class (the Warblade) to a similar class (the Fighter).




You have done one comparison with a certain type of weapon at levels preferential to the warblade. In those you have claimed warblade the master. So much so apparantly that the warblade needs to be taken down a notch, or two, or beheaded, something like that.

I would make builds that use other levels, other point buys, other houserules, and other feat setups but it seems like a lot of work for no reward.

Even levels tend to favor the fighter slightly more than the warblade, lower point buys may also favor the fighter over the warblade, ranged/high AC/large feat chains will likely favor the fighter over the warblade. But going by what you have said before it sounds like the other side, as you put it, would have to prove massive superiority over the warblade in all aspects in order to justify its higher skill points and higher hd.

I think though that at some point the inadequacies of the fighter with even the rest of the core classes simply shines through too much. The fighter needs more skill points, the fighter needs more skill choices, and he might even need more feats to do what he is supposed to do. If we start with the premise that fighters are fine then most every class in the phb is going to be shown to be overpowered in every area except for lots of feats. Of course the fighter beats the warblade in feats as well.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> I note that no one's taken me up on the comparison of the melee potential of a Wiz 5 or a WB 5 toe-to-toe with a troll.  That speaks volumes.




Maybe you have me blocked but I addressed this earlier. I believe a couple of others did as well.


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Now, why people bring up "A" and "B" as comparisons is because they HAVE to interact with Fighters and Wizards or Melee and Spellcasters.  It's D&D.  They can't exist in a happy world where all that matters is them.  People have to bring these classes into their games.  If they're going to upset the balance between Melee and Spellcasters (and they ARE melee, they hit things in the face with weapons), if they're going to cause strife and problems with the people playing, then that's a problem.  The problem doesn't go away just by saying: "It's a new paradigm."  So what?  That matters to the bottom line?  If it causes problems, then it IS a problem.




My main argument is that you're lumping them into two categories and forcing people to choose: either they're melee or they're spellcasters. I'm pushing for something more like "they're more like gish", which is somewhere in between. And no, it's not like martial adepts, for example, will simply be using attack and full attack. They'll be using maneuvers which get expended. There, that's a better explanation. Compare the class to gishes, not to fighters. Because fighters operate on a different level. Unless you're type that believes that in high levels, fighters (a core class) are on the same footing as the spellcasters (the other core classes), and they're simply not. Arguably if I make a Wiz 10/Ftr 10, I'd still end up with a better melee combatant.


----------



## charlesatan

Nail said:
			
		

> The paradigm we're all talking about is clear: it's 3.xe D&D.  We are comparing the efficacy of one class (the Warblade) to a similar class (the Fighter).  Those that wish to show the Warblade is not overpowered must first prove the comparison is invalid -- toward that end they've used this "different paradigm" schtick.
> 
> I note that no one's taken me up on the comparison of the melee potential of a Wiz 5 or a WB 5 toe-to-toe with a troll.  That speaks volumes.
> 
> I'll grant we could compare the Warblade to the Bbn, or perhaps the Pal.  (A Rgr comparison would be more tenous.)  I'm relatively certain we'd come to the same conclusion as we do with our comparison to the Fighter: the Warblade is not balanced with respect to the core classes.   .....Arguably, it's not even close, IMO.




I'm mainly using the different paradigm shift simply because WBs don't necessarily behave as fighters. As I said earlier, you don't suddenly see warriors in fantasy novels suddenly go "I can't use the same attack again because...".

Hey you're not willing to take up my challenge of a Wiz 20 either so... =)

For me, there are some things that feats can do and some things it can't. The same goes for maneuvers. If I wanted to do A, I take feats. If I want to do B, I take maneuvers.

And the WB not balanced with respect to the core classes... the core classes themselves aren't balanced with each other. Your main argument is that the WB isn't balanced with the Ftr, and the designers have said as much that it's not meant to be. It's certainly well balanced when compared to the spellcasters on the other hand. So saying that the WB is not balanced with respect to the core classes is simply erroneous. And it's also not like you can compare the WB to say, a class like the Rogue, which while very effective in combat, I see one of his other assets is the trapfinding/stealth skills that he has.


----------



## Victim

charlesatan said:
			
		

> But here's another element that makes them more akin to spellcasters. I now remember why I don't see a lot of Ftr 20's (or even Barbarian 20's) at that but will possibly see lots of Warblade 20's, Swordsage 20's: it's the initiator level. For spellcasters, losing caster level is bad which is why most don't multiclass except to take a prestige class that adds caster levels. Most warrior-types, on the other hand, are less restricted, which is why you see Ftr 8/Bar 12 or Rog 4/Ftr 8/Bar 8 for example. With martial adepts, again, it's somewhere in between as the multiclassing isn't as hard as it is on spellcasters, but it still penalizes you (which is why most won't want to multiclass more than six levels of a non-martial adept so they can  have access to 9th-level maneuvers).




I'm not so sure about that.  Since initiator levels stack - even non adept classes add to initiator level - multiclassing can be very attractive for adepts as well.  They're free to multiclass with each other and can cherry pick low level benefits from non adepts.  Or fighters and such can start taking a few adept levels once they're up there so they can grab 5th or 6th level moves easily.

Also, even taking the multiclass friendly nature of fighters and barbarians into account, adepts still seem to come up ahead.


----------



## NilesB

Victim said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that.  Since initiator levels stack



Err... actually they don't. a Warblade 5/ Swordsage 5 has initiator levels of 7/7 rather than 10.


----------



## Victim

NilesB said:
			
		

> Err... actually they don't. a Warblade 5/ Swordsage 5 has initiator levels of 7/7 rather than 10.




Hmm?  I seem to recall that the thing about 1/2 stacking only applied to non-adept levels.  However, I don't have the book anymore so I can't really check.  Oh well.  Even if adept levels merely stack the same way they do with normal classes, then you can still multi between them to easily grab manuever prereqs and such.



			
				charlesatan said:
			
		

> My main argument is that you're lumping them into two categories and forcing people to choose: either they're melee or they're spellcasters. I'm pushing for something more like "they're more like gish", which is somewhere in between. And no, it's not like martial adepts, for example, will simply be using attack and full attack. They'll be using maneuvers which get expended. There, that's a better explanation. Compare the class to gishes, not to fighters. Because fighters operate on a different level. Unless you're type that believes that in high levels, fighters (a core class) are on the same footing as the spellcasters (the other core classes), and they're simply not. Arguably if I make a Wiz 10/Ftr 10, I'd still end up with a better melee combatant.




Fundamentally, I don't think that gishes operate on a different paradigm.  Most them operate simply as self buffing/supporting fighters since that's the only way to get enough synergy between the classes to make the combo worthwhile.  Instead of needing a supporting caster or item to 'port past the wall of force and apply the beatstick to the enemy caster, they'll just do it themselves with a swift spell or quickened thing.  Same thing for dealing with flying or invisibility enemies - actually, my Duskblade is crap against flyers  (but a fighter caster with a conventional list would be better in that case).  A gish is a better solo act and needs his toys less.  But with good gear and teamwork, most fighter/wizard combos are going to be at a disadvantage.

While I can't really argue that single class fighters seem to be lacking something (since I don't see people make many fighters that remain single classed), I don't think that conventional melee characters - let us say fighter/barbarians, fighter/PrC (non magic), or whatever - really have too many problems.  In my group's most recent games, high level casters haven't really been valued for their direct offensive capacity.  Man, "That's it?" I'm still upset.


----------



## BryonD

My experience is that there is no such thing as a class so wildly broken that people won't line up to insist that it is fine.  To the contrary, the more overpowered a class the more people seem to bend over backward to rationlize how perfect it is.


----------



## Pielorinho

*Moderator's Notes*:
I've only read a couple of posts in this thread, posts that were reported.  I want to give folks a gentle reminder to address the argument, not the person making the argument; please do not speculate on the reason why folks make an argument, or describe their behavior in sarcastic, belittling, or mocking language.

Thanks!
Daniel


----------



## sithramir

*Warblade is overpowered*

Unfortunately I don't check the boards enough to read this entire 9 pages of comments. However, being as i'm in a campaign that has had a warblade or two in it now i'll give my say. I apologize that i'm sure it'sbeen all said before.

Warblades are sickingly overpowered. Here's the example:

We are 5th level now and I have a fighter and my friend has a warblade. His choices of powers allow him to make a concentration check for reflex or will saves so he has a PLUS 17 which is just insane. (He hasn't taken the fort save ability yet which he'll trade for reflex as it's not as crucial in some cases).

The fact that he gets d12 hps, weapon specialization, adaptive style, 4 skill points per level, tumble are irrelevant.

HE DOES 1d20 + 17 damage at 5th level with insightful strike! Double that on a crit! Did I mention he doesn't really need str to do this? His second round he uses mountain hammer and adds 2d6 to his attack damage. So he can't do these things EVERY round? He has to spend a free action to get his abilities back while attacking normally. Must hurt.

We're only 5th level but that's just wrong. The fact that he gets all the other abilities over a fighter is just sad.

He can only get better. At 11th level he gets to do 1d20+25-30 points of damage TIMES 2! Even 3 times if crit'd. Oh and at 12th level he gets ancient mountain hammer and can add 12d6 with a strike. He doesn't even need to do a full attack to out damage almost any fighter.

I just think it's sad I find myself trying to take a level or two of it with other classes because the benefits are so great. I can take one level of warblade using half the levels of other classes and still get an amazing will save or fort save and great damage bonus's.

Anyways, I think it's wrong that they make something like that when it's so obviously powerful. The only reason someone would take fighter now is for a few feats.


----------



## Slaved

How is he getting +17 to his concentration check?

+8 from skill points
+4 from constitution
+3 from skill focus

That is only +15 and it is likely making his other attacks weaker because of placing such a high stat in con along with having to spend that feat on concentration boosting.

Also, d20+17 averages out to 27.5. A fireball cast by a 5th level wizard with a certain feat does 5d6+5, which is a little less on average with only 22.5 but over a much larger area and at range.


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> I would make builds that use other levels, other point buys, other houserules, and other feat setups but it seems like a lot of work for no reward.



Much easier to say it is so, than to prove it.   I understand.

What if we simplify the playing field?  No house rules, 28 pt buy, feats in core rules plus Complete books plus PH II and ToB:Bo9S?  

EDIT<



Spoiler



As I've said above, I used my house rules because I'm looking at how a WB affects my game....and those house rules are easily ignored, since they affect both classes equally.


>



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> The fighter needs more skill points, the fighter needs more skill choices, and he might even need more feats to do what he is supposed to do.



Here, I believe, is the core of the "Warblade is fine" argument.  The Warblade is fine, because the Ftr (or Bbn, or Pal, or....) is weak.  I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument.


----------



## Nail

Victim said:
			
		

> Fundamentally, I don't think that gishes operate on a different paradigm.  Most them operate simply as self buffing/supporting fighters since that's the only way to get enough synergy between the classes to make the combo worthwhile.



Agreed.   I'm pleased (generally) about the direction the Duskblade is going, FWIW.


----------



## sithramir

The blade meditation feat gives him a +2 bonus on his class skill which for warblades happens to be concentration. That's where the other +2 comes from.

Yes. I agree a fireball is pretty powerful. But the point is that the warblade can do it several times in one combat and can then do it in every encounter. If we have several fights in one day which is typical for our group at least if we're in a specific adventure then he shines. A wizard may onle have 2-3 potential fireballs. Yes it's at range but you also can't use it if you're friends are nearby or if there are buildings nearby (assuming you actually care about the destruction of other people's property). 

And so it's STILL more powerful because of that. While there are ways to deal more damage in some instances you'll be hard pressed to find a consisent way to do damage like the warblade can. The fact that he can hvae this output and outshine a paladin in saves (assuming he takes those maneuvers) is sick. Oh but he HAS to take those maneuvers? That's another benefit he has the OPTION to take other things. 

You know my friend states how he feels its balanced because in our last campaign a warblade died. The funny thing is the reason he died was that he made his first fort save with his concenctration check (whatever maneuver gives that which I forget the name) and then had to make a second fort save and rolled a 1. He thinks since it's still possible the guy died it's ok. The funny thing is that another character might not have even had a chance with the first save yet alone two and this isn't including all the crazy benefits the class gets.


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> Much easier to say it is so, than to prove it.   I understand.




As that is what you have been doing I assumed that you would understand.

I say this because of what I've said before, you have taken one specific point on a rather large spectrum and made decissions about the rest of the spectrum. We all make guesses based on our experiences, I just don't think you have had enough data to make a firm call.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> What if we simplify the playing field?  No house rules, 28 pt buy, feats in core rules plus Complete books plus PH II and ToB:Bo9S?




Anyone up for this?



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> Here, I believe, is the core of the "Warblade is fine" argument.  The Warblade is fine, because the Ftr (or Bbn, or Pal, or....) is weak.  I'm not sure that's a persuasive argument.




Why not? The fighter has almost no skills and the ones he does have are not impressive. He has nearly no skill points and no reason to try to get more since his choice of skills are poor. This means that out of combat he is not worth much.

In combat he can be shown up by any of the other classes in the phb. Typically this means through specific builds while he can be a generalist but being a generalist is not all that rewarded. He is still king of his sandpile but without a very large selection of very good feats his sandpile is not very impressive.

Others look flashier, others have more options out of combat, others can even trump him in many areas.

In my experience the fighter is a weak class. Taking levels in it has come down to taking the hit in most every area simply to get a feat chain faster, which means no more than 2 levels of fighter ever and that is only if desperation forces it.

I have yet to see a persuasive arguement that the fighter is a well balanced class. In general it seems that for most builds one of the other classes would do it better or the same with more options. It does the best at feat chains but most feat chains are less effective than other class features. At least more books are seeing this now and making stronger high level feats. Perhaps it has changed and high level effects are good enough. That still doesnt make up for the fighters other lacks though.


----------



## Slaved

sithramir said:
			
		

> The blade meditation feat gives him a +2 bonus on his class skill which for warblades happens to be concentration. That's where the other +2 comes from.
> 
> Yes. I agree a fireball is pretty powerful. But the point is that the warblade can do it several times in one combat and can then do it in every encounter. If we have several fights in one day which is typical for our group at least if we're in a specific adventure then he shines. A wizard may onle have 2-3 potential fireballs. Yes it's at range but you also can't use it if you're friends are nearby or if there are buildings nearby (assuming you actually care about the destruction of other people's property).




True, the warblade can potentially do his more often. I gave the fireball example though to show that the damage was close to par, especially once you toss in the multiple feat cost to get there.

I think that with an 18 constitution that your friend would have had to put a smaller stat into strength than he would have done otherwise. To me this means that he sacrificed to hit and damage in order to get that bigger hit. Add in spending 2 feats to get there as well and the skill points and I am hard pressed to call it too many bad names.

Are those assumptions correct? Did he put a 14 into strength while he put the 18 into constitution? If so what if we look at other attacks and see how they would compare overall on average? Especially if we take one of those two feats and put it towards something else.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> The fact that he can hvae this output and outshine a paladin in saves (assuming he takes those maneuvers) is sick.




The warblade at level 5 only has 4 manuevers readied. If he puts one aside to use concentration for a single will save, as an immediate action, this is definately very impressive but it also uses up a lot his option pool.

It outstripes the paladin for a single will save every other round at most.

If he also has the other manuever readied to get the boost to reflex saves then your friend is literally sitting at something like this:

Reflex save boost
Will save boost
Concentration strike
Something else

And that is all that he does for the battle.

It looks like he will use his concentration strike on the first round, regular attack on the second round recovering his manuever, and then strike on the third round. This routine only works though if he does not use his reflex or will save boost as those take immediate actions and recovering manuevers takes a swift action. So, using his save boost means that he disrupts his ability to use his concentration strike and his ability to get his save boost back.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> The only reason someone would take fighter now is for a few feats.




Was there _ever_ another reason to take a fighter than for the feats?


----------



## Votan

Slaved said:
			
		

> I have yet to see a persuasive arguement that the fighter is a well balanced class. In general it seems that for most builds one of the other classes would do it better or the same with more options. It does the best at feat chains but most feat chains are less effective than other class features. At least more books are seeing this now and making stronger high level feats. Perhaps it has changed and high level effects are good enough. That still doesnt make up for the fighters other lacks though.




The problem with the fighter is that, without skills, it can't fulfil the role of a scout or a sniper (or a really effective guard for that matter).  It is hard to do the ounted warrior role in D&D givne the fragility of mounts (and the ability of the Paladin and Ranger to have better mounts as a class feature isn't helping any).  

It has no rewards for lack of armor and every advantage for having heavy armor (unlike Barbarians and Scouts which have solid reasons not to be in full plate).  

So the Fighter has three choices that I can see with-in the class:

a) Direct fire archery 
b) Melee tank
c) Weapon master

and one out of class option:

d) fast qualificaiton for feat intensive prestige classes.

Let's ignore d).  

a) is hard even in core.  Add the spell compendium and the archery spells of the ranger are a real issue.  It's a little better with the feats of a fighter to fast qualify for things like precise shot at very low levels.  But, by level 3 or so, the ranger is doing fine.  

Weapon specialization helps but only so much . . . 


b) and c) are tough.  The right extra books (PHB2; Complete Warrior gives the Paladin some great Divine Feats that more than make up for the extra feats that a Fighter can pick) makes a difference.  But the truth is that a well built Paladin seems to tank slightly better and a cleric is no slouch in this department.  

So really, the best role for a fighter is weapon master.  He can learn exotic weapons (spiked chain) and dominate the battlefield.  But it's a narrow edge, in my opinion.  

[Also, deeply counterintuitive, is that a human is a suboptimal fighter race; pretty much the best choice seems to be a dwarf especially given the sad saving throws and the necessity of heavy armor]

So the warblade> fighter might be a mark of the fighter alone and not the warblade.  If the warblade was better than the fighter, barbarian, paladin and ranger then I'd be more convinced.


----------



## NilesB

sithramir said:
			
		

> We are 5th... he gets... weapon specialization,



No he doesn't.

Complaining about the Warblade having abilities that it doesn't have isn't helping your case.


----------



## brehobit

Slaved said:
			
		

> How is he getting +17 to his concentration check?
> 
> +8 from skill points
> +4 from constitution
> +3 from skill focus
> 
> That is only +15 and it is likely making his other attacks weaker because of placing such a high stat in con along with having to spend that feat on concentration boosting.
> 
> Also, d20+17 averages out to 27.5. A fireball cast by a 5th level wizard with a certain feat does 5d6+5, which is a little less on average with only 22.5 but over a much larger area and at range.




With a 16 Con and blade meditation (Diamond Mind) he'd be doing d20+17.  That feat is an option for the 5th level warblade bonus feat. 

And the wizard casting that fireball has an AC around 16 (assuming mage armor and a good dex) and and probably half as many hit points as the warblade.  Plus the fireball is probably once or twice a day.  Plus the fireball isn't all that useful in many many fights.  So if the argument is that a warblade has the AC and hit points of a fighter and the damage ability of a wizard, just more often...

The warblade _is_ broken compared to the core warrior types.  I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.  The only serious question is if the core fighter-types are too weak.  And IME the answer is "not even kind of" at lower levels (say 1 to 7 or so).  Higher levels, I rarely play so I can't really answer.

I still believe that _any_ solid warrior build can be improved by adding a level or two of the Bo9S classes.  At 9th level you'd be crazy not to grab at least one level of one of these.  Probably swordsage, even with the BAB hit.


----------



## epochrpg

sithramir said:
			
		

> I just think it's sad I find myself trying to take a level or two of it with other classes because the benefits are so great. I can take one level of warblade using half the levels of other classes and still get an amazing will save or fort save




Wow!  It's amazing that you have so many ranks in Concentration, considering you are a fighter who would have no use for taking so many ranks in a cross class skill that until now has been completely worthless to non-spellcasters.  

Part of the reason that warblades get 4 Skill points per level is that they are required to sink max skill ranks into things that are only useful for making manuvers, like Concentration.  I defy to come up with a _Good_ reason why a fighter would need to take concentration.  The Warblade can only use it with maneuvers-- he does not cast spells, and thus has no other use for concentration.  

There are other skills that warblades have to sink skill slots into for manuvers.  If we assume he had decided to take only 2 schools, that would leave him 2 skill points per level to use other than the ones dedicated to his maneuvers. 

Also, If you could explain how your 5th level warblade friend has a +17 Concentration check, I would LOVE to hear it, since the most ranks he can have is 8.  Does he have a +9 CON modifier?  Cause if that is the case, I dont think its the class that is game-breaking.  I guess he could have taken a feat that gives +3 with skill focus...  Assuming a 19 CON (max possible at level 5 without munchkin cheese), maxed ranks, and skill focus concentration, that is 4+8+3= 15.  Btw, feats that give skill bonuses don't stack with eachother, or else you could take skill focus 10 times for the same skill for a +30 bonus.


----------



## epochrpg

Slaved said:
			
		

> How is he getting +17 to his concentration check?
> 
> +8 from skill points
> +4 from constitution
> +3 from skill focus
> 
> That is only +15 and it is likely making his other attacks weaker because of placing such a high stat in con along with having to spend that feat on concentration boosting.
> 
> Also, d20+17 averages out to 27.5. A fireball cast by a 5th level wizard with a certain feat does 5d6+5, which is a little less on average with only 22.5 but over a much larger area and at range.




BINGO! Get this guy a prize!  He knows what he is talking about.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

They've already covered how the guy got there.  As far as I can see, it's legit.  They've got feats in there that help the Warblade get up more Concentration.

And Concentration is a one-off.  

There's also stuff like Tumble in there, which not only works the Maneuver schtick but is ... TUMBLE ... "the" combat skill.   

If they gave them Concentration and 3sp per level, and no Tumble, I would say:  "Hrm, okay, they added a skill point for Concentration in there."  

And the Concentration stuff is still pretty powerful.  It gives good synergy in that this guy can max out his Concentration and use it for saves and damage.  He's probably tanked his Strength a bit, but he's using his Concentration skill instead.  It's a bit like the Paladin and Cha.  Paladins get good mileage out of Cha with the Saves + Smite + Divine Feats, etc etc.  

Paladin gets Cha, an ability bonus which is expensive to increase, to attack rolls and to save ... as opposed to Concentration, which is Ability + (X+3) + Feats to saves and damage.  The Paladin gets Smite Evil as a class ability ... this allows him to strike Evil Creatures for "Paladin Level" in additional damage several times a day.  This single maneuver, out of several maneuvers, allows the Warblade to strike Any Creature for "Warblade + 1/2 non-Warblade + 3 + Feats/Bonuses" additional damage any number of times per day.

One of the places where I'm saying some of these maneuvers just wildly make me go "HUH".  When they're blowing Feats out of the water and sinking Class Abilities like paper boats and you get a whole bunch of them PLUS class abilities PLUS d12hp PLUS skill points ... 

A guy comes on, playing in a game, with a Warblade, and he's playing a Fighter, and he feels slighted and he's unhappy ... but people just want to needle his math and cry foul.  (Even if his math is correct.)  He's in a game.  He's playing IN A GAME ... where his fun level has decreased because of this book and this class in particular.  Those are the kinds of costs I'm talking about. 

--fje


----------



## Slaved

brehobit said:
			
		

> With a 16 Con and blade meditation (Diamond Mind) he'd be doing d20+17.




8+3+3+2=16 not 17, am I missing something? Still two feats, 10 point buy points, and 8 skill points to get there plus the other restrictions mentioned above.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> And the wizard casting that fireball has an AC around 16 (assuming mage armor and a good dex) and and probably half as many hit points as the warblade.  Plus the fireball is probably once or twice a day.  Plus the fireball isn't all that useful in many many fights.  So if the argument is that a warblade has the AC and hit points of a fighter and the damage ability of a wizard, just more often...




Actually, that is not the arguement, but we can go with it if you like I suppose.

I prefer to use the wizard as a buffer plus extra damage potential at range, although I do feel that they should have a higher hd and be able to wear armor like basically everyone else. Stupid sacred cows, need some sacred steak.

As such, I give you the haste spell. This nifty little spell will work on the whole party. +1 to AC, +1 to attack rolls, +1 to reflex saves, +30' movement (about), and +1 extra attack on a full attack action.

For a normal fighter type person who isnt trying all of these cool little maneuvers this is a huge buff. Yes, this means that it relies on other people in the party to be effective, I am ok with that.

As such this spell can add up to hundreds of points of damage, depending on how you want to count. So if we are counting whos is bigger I would assume in a somewhat typical party this wins out over the warblades maneuver. At this point the warblade is actually in a position where using his manuevers could be seen as a detriment, his average damage actually goes down.


In the case of the warblade spending two feats, plus the rest to gain an attack that does pretty great damage every other round at best and next level giving up the occasional iterative attack for the pleasure...... it sounds like a great theme but the power level is not really staggering. Saying it can kill a mage in one hit isnt going to convince me either though as there are so many different things that can kill mages easily at the early levels.

Still, with a 12 con a mage would have an average of 19 hp at level 5. Assuming that the warblade has moved up and is standing next to the mage then he swings for d20+16 with an attack bonus of, say, +8 (+5 BAB+2strength+1weapon) versus the given AC of 16 earlier. On average the mage lives with about 2 hp left. On a successful hit the warblade can take the mage from full to dead on a roll of 13 or higher and only fails to knock him unconscious on a roll of 1, 2, or 3.

And the mage will do whatever it is that mages do I guess.

I do know what an ogre would do though, or more appropriately 2 as that would make CR 5. They would attack him dumbly as creatures with the intelligence on the order of "might be able to color within most of the lines" are wont to do.

So our intrepid hero has tumbled up to the ogre, we will assume it was successful. He has attacked and dealt some damage, pretty likely after all, it only has a 16 AC. It takes at least 2 hits to take out an ogre with this attack though, so now it is the ogres turn.

With some movement and a little bit of cunning they flank the warblade and attack. It doesnt take much to flank, they have reach and it is something that even animals do well. Each attacks with their clubs, lets assume that the warblade has a 18 AC. Chain shirt, heavy shield, and a 14 dexterity. It will take an average of 5 swings to take out the warblade. Two swings are down, now it is the warblades turn.

What he does at this point is entirely dependent on his other readied manuevers however. If he has the two save boosts as the other warblade then whatever his single last manuever left is his option or he can make an attack and refresh his big strike. As he is using diamond mind manuevers it seems likely he is also using their weapons, which are rapier, short sword, trident, and bastard sword. None of those are likely to kill the ogre this turn. Assuming he swings and gets his manuevers back it is now onto the ogres, who get two more swings in and the warblade is only a few hp away from being dead.

Going through that sort of scenario it looks to me that the warblade and the ogres are decently matched up. The warblade loses on average but with a more offensive selection of manuevers he should be able to improve that.

The mage is also likely to be able to take both out, so long as they dont get too close first.

As is most any ranged class assuming they spot them far enough away or have a good enough movement.

With this it at least seems reasonable. I am sure someone will disagree.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> The warblade _is_ broken compared to the core warrior types.  I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.




I'll take that. Broken is a big bad word and is used too often. Comparing with a barbarian, ranger, cleric, and maybe even the bard would be pretty interesting. I think that all of those are better classes in general than the fighter.



			
				brehobit said:
			
		

> I still believe that _any_ solid warrior build can be improved by adding a level or two of the Bo9S classes.  At 9th level you'd be crazy not to grab at least one level of one of these.  Probably swordsage, even with the BAB hit.




Fighter types do multiclass pretty well, that is pretty much a given. Taking a level out of the progression for your class though, not everyone is going to do that.

Take a level out of ranger? Less skill points, animal companion is a bit weaker, delays some spells, delays those other high level abilities like hiding in plain sight.

Take a level out of barbarian? Delays the bigger and badder rage, delays DR, there is some pretty nice stuff up there.

But yeah, it can be worth it, especially depending on the build. It can even be worthwhile to take a level of fighter for certain kinds of builds though and we know how much of a hit it is to take him, you better really like that feat.


----------



## Slaved

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> he's playing a Fighter, and he feels slighted and he's unhappy




Yeah, he should've made a better character. Or be happy with his character concept enough to make up for it.

If someone brought an expert into the party and felt that he was being outdone everywhere who's fault would it be? Suboptimal choices lead to suboptimal builds. Shoot yourself in the foot, expect it to hurt.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

It's really hard to engage in a debate about whether or not a particular class is overpowered, in a D&D game, if the real basis of the counterargument is:  "Well all of the core classes really suck, anyway."

The Fighter needs more skill points and less focus on feats and should be a Warblade or Swordsage anyway.

The Wizard should have better HD and armor anyway.

It's kind of hard to make any sort of comparison if the final answer is going to be that anywhere it may be overpowered, it's really because we aught to change everything else about D&D to bring it in line with a new class.

Then we're not playing D&D ... we're playing "I liked the Bo9S so we made an RPG for it."

Making a core-class character shouldn't be shooting oneself in the foot.  And it isn't.  I can build fun, interesting, extremely playable Fighters without any difficulty whatsoever.  That they're then beaten to death in an allyway for their class abilities by a Warblade doesn't mean that I decided to play an Expert.  

  Somebody can't air real-world issues and grievances without being told they should suck it up and they're playing the game wrong anyway.  So if a guy with a Wizard says he's having problems, did he decide to play an Aristocrat and shoot himself in the foot because his hit die really should have been higher?  The guy playing the Bard might as well have played a Commoner?

Maybe so, really.  But that's the game people purchased when they bought D&D.  If Bo9S means that the core classes are now NPC classes, the prosecution rests its case, eh?

--fje


----------



## epochrpg

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry, I wasn't able to distinguish tactical from strategic. I wonder why they're synonyms...




I used to think that, but they are different.  Tactics is about winning a battle.  Strategy is about winnin a war.


----------



## Slaved

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> It's really hard to engage in a debate about whether or not a particular class is overpowered, in a D&D game, if the real basis of the counterargument is:  "Well all of the core classes really suck, anyway."




Nicely overstated, care to try again?

If we assume that barbarians and rangers are well balanced, which I like to do, then the fighter comes up a bit short.

If we look at how hp works in the game and what hd creatures have an typical con scores then d4 hd classes come up short.

There have been a lot of threads based upon the fighter being a poor class. The arguements are many but I think it is easy enough to come down to one thing. If you assume that the fighter is well balanced then anything you base on that assumption is likely to be at least as flawed as the premise.



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Making a core-class character shouldn't be shooting oneself in the foot.




I agree. So when is the fighter fix coming out?

It is possible to make a fun, interesting, what-have-you character who has the abilities of a diabetic blind kobold who is allergic to things like air. Fun is in the eyes of the beholder.

Balanced however is based on a lot more than that. It is very possible to make suboptimal choices in the game while someone else makes optimal choices and feel completely left out. It is unfortunate when the system enforces this with a poorly balanced base, such as in the case of the fighter.

If someone is not having fun for whatever reason it is time to talk with the dm. Whatever the issue is can be resolved that way, I would hope, every time. Perhaps a few extra skills and skill points plus a special feat would fix up the fighter guy. That certainly seems like a good bet to me. Much more so than bringing everything else in the game down to the fighters level.


----------



## Victim

Nail said:
			
		

> Agreed.   I'm pleased (generally) about the direction the Duskblade is going, FWIW.




Yeah, so far the class has been working well for us too.  It believes rather like a more conventional self buffing fighter mage in capability, but without a massive stack of buffs - the spell channeling makes up for the lack of normal buffs.  That keeps things more easily manageable.  Also, the way their full attack channeling works encourages some more usual tactics.

There might be a problem area right around 3rd to 5th when the DB can channel spells and buff for lots of relative damage: +8d6 with shocking grasp and blade of blood on top of whatever melee goodness the DB can dish out might be too much damage at level 5.  But then their spell damage stops increasing so rapidly.  



> Nicely overstated, care to try again?
> 
> If we assume that barbarians and rangers are well balanced, which I like to do, then the fighter comes up a bit short.
> 
> If we look at how hp works in the game and what hd creatures have an typical con scores then d4 hd classes come up short.
> 
> There have been a lot of threads based upon the fighter being a poor class. The arguements are many but I think it is easy enough to come down to one thing. If you assume that the fighter is well balanced then anything you base on that assumption is likely to be at least as flawed as the premise.




Good thing I haven't been comparing warblades to just single class fighters then.  Really, fighter is just a weird class.  Simple class abilities.  Pretty simple to play.  But in between is a big mess that requires the player to develop an ever expanding combination of items and feats from day 1 with no real do-overs.  And many fighter characters don't really have enough decent feat to support that kind of expansion over the long term.  That fighter concept that worked so well at levels 1-4 might suck at level 10; most other character types aren't going to become obselete as levels increase.

Yeah, d4 classes do really come up short in HP.  That's why Con seems to be their stat priority right after INT.


----------



## Perun

Nail said:
			
		

> What if we simplify the playing field? No house rules, 28 pt buy, feats in core rules plus Complete books plus PH II and ToB:Bo9S?





			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Anyone up for this?




Reading this thread and looking at Nail's original compariosn between the two classes made me realise that there's no real point (IMO) in comparing the two, even if I was one of the people who originally asked for comparison. The number of options for both classes (with fighter's having a slight advantage) is staggering, and you can build a large number of different characters even when using same race, stats, and books. For example, one could build an archer fighter specialised in high-Str composite longbow. Who could then, theoretically, pester the warblade from a couple of hundred of feet away. Or a tripper or disarmer of... well you get the idea. Limiting the options invariably eventually favours one class.

It's kind of like comparing wizard vs. sorcerer vs. warrmage... each has its strengths and weaknesses, and each is good at one thing.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Why not? The fighter has almost no skills and the ones he does have are not impressive. He has nearly no skill points and no reason to try to get more since his choice of skills are poor. This means that out of combat he is not worth much.




For curiosity's sake, what do you consider to be good out-of-combat skills?



> In combat he can be shown up by any of the other classes in the phb. Typically this means through specific builds while he can be a generalist but being a generalist is not all that rewarded. He is still king of his sandpile but without a very large selection of very good feats his sandpile is not very impressive.
> 
> Others look flashier, others have more options out of combat, others can even trump him in many areas.




He can be out-damaged by the barbarian. But that's pretty much it. Paladins and rangers aren't nearly as effective in combat.

Most classes have their roles picked for them (depending on their BAB, saves, class skills, and skill points available). While a bard isn't overly effective in a regular combat-heavy game, he's all but irreplaceable in an intrigue/diplomacy-heavy game.



> In my experience the fighter is a weak class.




This is the key statement, actually -- "in my experience". And that's what it all boils down to. It's all about game style and personal preferences. I play a 13th-level druid in one of our games, and he's a decent character, good at surviving. But, it's a power-heavy group, with a beefed-up cleric, 30+ Int wizard, and a psychic warrior (well, there's also a scout, but he doesn't have much of an impact on the actual game), and my druid is good for some boosting and occasional grapple -- others outshine him (this doesn't mean he's not a powerful character -- just that he doesn't have much opportunity to shine in that game). And I've had to work real hard to keep up, power-level wise. Other characters have normal higher-level character seets. My "sheet" is a 2,5-cm-thick amount of paper (various spells form different books, wild shape forms, etc.). In another campaign, we had two wizards, a archer-ranger, and a 10 Str, Dex, and Con druidess with a wolf animal companion and Augment Summoning feat. Due to the lack of any real meleers in that group, she was the goddess of battle. I also played a sorcerer in a group withou other arcanists, and he was an excellent character. If the party also had a wizard, his role would be much different, and his toes would be much stepped on 



> I have yet to see a persuasive arguement that the fighter is a well balanced class. In general it seems that for most builds one of the other classes would do it better or the same with more options. It does the best at feat chains but most feat chains are less effective than other class features. At least more books are seeing this now and making stronger high level feats. Perhaps it has changed and high level effects are good enough. That still doesnt make up for the fighters other lacks though.




I odn't know whether you'll fid this persuasive, but fighters are, as even you said earlier, generalist combatants. Barbarians will, in all likelyhood, deal more brute force damage and last longer in combat than most (if not all) other melee classes. Warblades might be more effective in certain situations, depending on their manoeuvres known (which they can get locked into at higher levels, because of prerequisites) and manoeuvres readied.

But fighter can be a good combatant (excellent attac bonus, good damage, very good AC), while at the same time being a tripper, disarmer, archer and pretty much whatever else he desires. Also, as was already pointed out, all of his options are available to him at all times, no need to prepare anything.

He can also be a specialist -- the only way to build the best archer is by going fighter. Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialisation, Greater Weapon Specialisation, Ranged Weapon Mastery, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Greater Manyshot, Ranged Disarm, Ranged Pin, Ranged Sunder, Improved Rapid Shot, Penetrating Shot... That's 15 feats so far. A figher gets 18 feats over 20 levels (without the human bonus feat).

It makes for an _*extremely*_ focused character, of course, but it's the bestest  archer out there.

Regards.


----------



## charlesatan

Victim said:
			
		

> Fundamentally, I don't think that gishes operate on a different paradigm.  Most them operate simply as self buffing/supporting fighters since that's the only way to get enough synergy between the classes to make the combo worthwhile.  Instead of needing a supporting caster or item to 'port past the wall of force and apply the beatstick to the enemy caster, they'll just do it themselves with a swift spell or quickened thing.  Same thing for dealing with flying or invisibility enemies - actually, my Duskblade is crap against flyers  (but a fighter caster with a conventional list would be better in that case).  A gish is a better solo act and needs his toys less.  But with good gear and teamwork, most fighter/wizard combos are going to be at a disadvantage.




Not that I'm disagreeing with you or anything (I'm in fact agreeing you on your explanation of gishes), I just want to use gish as an example because it's one of those classes that engage in melee (sound familiar?) yet can do tons of damage in one attack, let alone a full attack, that outstrips that of most warrior-based classes, yet no one's complaining about them, but they are complaining about martial adepts. (And in a way, buffs are like the boost maneuvers, such as the spell wraithstrike could easily have been a boost.)


----------



## charlesatan

sithramir said:
			
		

> We are 5th level now and I have a fighter and my friend has a warblade. His choices of powers allow him to make a concentration check for reflex or will saves so he has a PLUS 17 which is just insane. (He hasn't taken the fort save ability yet which he'll trade for reflex as it's not as crucial in some cases).
> 
> HE DOES 1d20 + 17 damage at 5th level with insightful strike! Double that on a crit! Did I mention he doesn't really need str to do this? His second round he uses mountain hammer and adds 2d6 to his attack damage. So he can't do these things EVERY round? He has to spend a free action to get his abilities back while attacking normally. Must hurt.




Well at low-levels (and at the higher levels), the WB outstrip the fighter simply because the Ftr doesn't really gain any benefits from full attack (except in a few rare circumstances, such as a TWF Ftr) because he doesn't yet have iterative attacks. In fact, level five and below is the best opportunity to make use of single attacks, such as Spring Attack, which won't get as much mileage at say, 16th level. And yes, "recharging" your maneuvers is cheap at level 5 and below (since Ftr's don't have swift actions to spend on) but you're going to feel it in the higher levels.

As for your 1d20+17 damage, as pointed out by Slaved, you're sacrificing potential attack/damage bonus (since your main stat is now Con instead of Str) and you're relying on that one maneuver instead of overall effectiveness. I'd also like to point out that Insightful Strike is a level 3 maneuver, meaning the character just got it at 5th level and is at it's "most optimum level". I mean if we bump the character's level by one, we'd have either a Ftr 6 or a WB 6, with a base attack of +6/+1 plus whatever modifiers. You have two attacks if you made a full attack and let's assume you're wielding a +1 greatsword and have a strength of 20 (18 base Str, +2 enhancement from a magic item). Your potential damage in each instance is 2d6+8. So now it becomes a 1d20+18 damage vs 4d6+16 (and a higher crit threat range). Granted, both attacks must hit in order to achieve that number, but then again, you also have a higher Str because your stats went to Str instead of Con. And as pointed out, it's a good chunk of investment in feats on the Warblade's part (and he doesn't have lots of those) while the Ftr hasn't spent any in this calculation. Theoretically if he spent two feats on Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec., his attack bonus in each instance will go up to 1, and the damage potential would now be 4d6+20. Not that I'm saying this will always be the result (since as many people pointed out, you won't always get a full attack), but I think we must also accept into our equation that full attacks will occur, and Ftrs want that situation to happen. Of course the WB focusing on the Insightful Strike maneuver tree will be less item dependent (which is both a strength and a weakness, because on one hand, it makes no distinction if you're using an unarmed strike but on the other hand, doesn't benefit you if you're using this colossal +5 greathammer), but at higher levels, Ftrs theoretically should be getting better gear and magic weapons, which the Insightful Strike maneuver tree doesn't really benefit from.

Oh, as for the Diamond Mind counters (the Will save and Ref save you're talking about), that has its own limitations as well. Theoretically you have achieve higher saves, yes, but you must realize that 1) they're immediate actions, which means that's one swift action (usually a boost) that's unavailble to you on your next turn, 2) you're spending a maneuver, which means you might not have access to it again until you "recharge", and 3) doesn't help you against multiple saves in a round since it'll only work once. It might help against the first fireball in the round, but it won't help against the second. Not that the Ftr is in a better position, mind you, but that's one of those days that I'm glad I'm a Paladin and not a Warblade.

And I also mentioned gishes because certain gishes also have a certain sweet spot on certain levels. Take the Duskblade: at 5th level, thanks to Arcane channeling, I can deal my melee damage +5d6 electricity damage (shocking grasp) as a standard action thanks to Arcane Channeling. Granted, I can only do it 5/day minimum and not the infinite potential of martial adepts, but that depends on the encounters your GM throws at you, in the same way that a Warlock will earn his keep if the GM throws 10 encounters/day at players, while the Psion will seem more powerful compared to the Wizard if your GM just has 1 encounter/day.


----------



## charlesatan

brehobit said:
			
		

> The warblade _is_ broken compared to the core warrior types.  I don't think anyone is really arguing against that.  The only serious question is if the core fighter-types are too weak.  And IME the answer is "not even kind of" at lower levels (say 1 to 7 or so).  Higher levels, I rarely play so I can't really answer.
> 
> I still believe that _any_ solid warrior build can be improved by adding a level or two of the Bo9S classes.  At 9th level you'd be crazy not to grab at least one level of one of these.  Probably swordsage, even with the BAB hit.




Actually depends on what "core warrior types". As I mentioned before, before level 6, the Ftr is definitely at a disadvantage. I think the Paladin can hold his own compared to a Warblade, assuming he has access to feats like Divine Might for example. And if we're talking about non-core, my previous post just showed how an early-level Duskblade, for example, can much up to an early-level WB.

My theoretical (and I mean theoretical, no playtesting involved, but experience with the rules of the game) assessment is that the sweetest spot for Ftr's is in the mid-level (and Nail's "test" at least agrees with this) simply because the maneuvers reach a point where you have to make a decision whether you want to make a full attack or use a maneuver (of course if you just have a standard action available, obviously using the maneuver is the optimum choice). At the higher levels, well, I don't really see how one round of Ftr's attacks can compare to say, the Time Stands Still maneuver (two full attacks) but then again, the latter can only be done once per encounter (assuming the WB doesn't recharge or has a way of recovering them as a swift action [i.e. Kalashtar WB]) so theoretically the longer combat lasts, the more chances a Ftr can make up for the martial adept's increased efficiency in the first few rounds of combat.

As for multiclassing, again, it depends what you want. If you want feats, go Ftr. If you want a bunch of maneuvers (and I say a bunch of maneuvers because if it's just one maneuver you want, you can get that by spending a Ftr feat), yes, dip into a martial adept class. But as I mentioned in my previous posts, the thing about the core martial classes is that there's little incentive to stay in the class all-throughout. The martial adepts encourage more 20-levels of the class, or at the very least, 6 levels of non-martial adept classes so you can have access to 9th-level maneuvers. You might say that a warrior class can benefit from taking a few levels of martial adept, but the reverse is also true: a martial adept class can just as well benefit from a dip into Ftr or Barbarian for example. Again, it depends on what you have in mind.


----------



## charlesatan

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> A guy comes on, playing in a game, with a Warblade, and he's playing a Fighter, and he feels slighted and he's unhappy ... but people just want to needle his math and cry foul.  (Even if his math is correct.)  He's in a game.  He's playing IN A GAME ... where his fun level has decreased because of this book and this class in particular.  Those are the kinds of costs I'm talking about.




This isn't really a design problem rather than an in-game problem. I mean there are several types of players: those who play for role-playing reasons, those with a concept, and well, there are those who want to kick some ass. For the concept player, I think as long as he got his concept, he's happy with what he's got. Now if what he had in mind was this anime, wuxia character in the first place and he had to settle for Ftr because Book of Nine Swords wasn't out yet, well, certainly he'll be displeased if he can't retcon/remake his character (and shall we blame the designers for giving us more options?). But if he wanted your typical warrior with none of those boost, counters, and stances (it's a whole lot simpler to play for example), then it's simply not going to affect him. Of course if it's the last one, the person who wants to kick some ass, well, there really are other optimal choices rather than picking Ftr (like the various gish classes/builds for example).

Of course if it's the character spotlight thing (giving each character a chance to shine during the session), I think it can be set up so that the Ftr still has a shining role. A mid-level/high-level long encounter, for example, will benefit the Ftr more compared to a martial adept for example (as opposed to short, multiple encounters). That's not to say that'll happen in the real world -- characters that outshine other characters do happen. But that's because of the group dynamic, and the munchkin or power-gamer for example, no matter what class he picks, will probably be more effective in combat compared to say, a newbie, even if he picks a really "powerful" class.

And admittedly, the Ftr is a difficult class to "optimize", but on the other hand, he's also very simple to play, and choosing the "wrong" feats isn't as crippling compared to playing another warrior-type class that has less feats to spread around.


----------



## charlesatan

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I used to think that, but they are different.  Tactics is about winning a battle.  Strategy is about winnin a war.




Because I'm a dim-wit, I honestly don't differentiate (it's like a lay-man reading medical/technical terms... I'm sure there's a big difference between computer virus and computer worms for example, but I simplify things and call it a virus even if it's possibly a worm). Phrased that way, I'm just interested in winning (be it a battle or a war). =)


----------



## Slaved

Perun said:
			
		

> For curiosity's sake, what do you consider to be good out-of-combat skills?




Social skills, things like diplomacy, gather information, and the like. Not so much intimidate because of the drawbacks that come with it, but it can be used in a pinch. Much like I could use my car to open a can of food if I have no can opener, but it is likely to cause other problems in the process.

Knowledge skills. These come in very handy when trying to figure something out. They even help socially in the proper groups.

Spot, listen, and search. These allow for a person to know what is going on around them and help figure out what is going on. 

So many others for different abilities here and there.

The fighter has basically nothing here. He does have intimidate but it is charisma based and a fighter has no other reason to put any points into charisma. Plus I see intimidate as having problems as I said earlier. I would only use it as a last resort after all other options are gone outside of combat. Occasionally it can be useful inside of combat though.


----------



## epochrpg

Part of the problem with how people are viewing warblade is that they are forgetting 1 major thing: 

You can ONLY TAKE 1 SWIFT OR IMMEDIATE ACTION per round!  It explicitly states that in TOB.  This means that if you use an immediate action to make a will save, you cannot make a manuver that round.  Nor can you recover manuvers-- you cannot recover in a round in which you used a manuver!  Likewise, if you use a manuver, and later in the round, someone uses hold person on you, you have to use WILL-- you have no immediate action because you already used a swift for your manuver. 

Now, Next round, you could use Iron Heart Surge to get out of the hold, but that takes your action, and now if the mage wants to he can use hold on you again... but now IHS is not readied... 

Which just made me realize a major weakness of the Warblade's recovery.  A warblade cannot recover manuvers while he is held.  A Swordsage or Crusader can-- all they have to do is meditate/pray.  As long as they are consious, they can do that.  A warblade must be able to move to recover, however.  

I know this because I have a Monk15/Swordsage1 who failed a save and was held.  While held, I asked if I could meditate, the GM said yes because it was a mental process, so I was able to take a full round action to recover a manuver.


----------



## FireLance

Actually, I think the Book of Nine Swords helps a fighter out somewhat in the area of skills, since Martial Study makes the key skill of a discipline into a class skill. Take a Desert Wind maneuver and you get Tumble as a class skill. Take a Setting Sun maneuver and you get Sense Motive as a class skill. Take a Shadow Hand maneuver and you get Hide as a class skill. Take a White Raven maneuver and you get Diplomacy as a class skill.

Frankly, I think the Book of Nine Swords could have given fighters some additional benefits with respect to maneuvers, such as allowing them to take Martial Study one additional time for every six fighter levels, and giving fighters of 4th and higher level an initiator level equal to fighter level - 2.


----------



## Nail

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Moderator's Notes*:
> I've only read a couple of posts in this thread, posts that were reported.



Would it be possible to know which posts "brought on the Moderators"?  There's certainly a lot of heated discussion here, but I've not seen anything so far that seems out-of-bounds.....so I'm curious.


----------



## brehobit

epochrpg said:
			
		

> Part of the problem with how people are viewing warblade is that they are forgetting 1 major thing:
> 
> You can ONLY TAKE 1 SWIFT OR IMMEDIATE ACTION per round!  It explicitly states that in TOB.  This means that if you use an immediate action to make a will save, you cannot make a manuver that round.




Erb?

I can take a swift or immediate action AND perform a maneuver that uses a standard, move, or full action.  Or at least I think I can.  If not, that _would_ make a significant difference.  Heck, as far as I know you can perform a swift, move, and standard maneuver all in one turn...


----------



## Nail

brehobit: What I think (or rather: "hope") epochrpg is saying is that you can't use two "swift action" maneuvers per round.  I'm not sure anyone has said they could, but epochrpg seems to think the point has been over-looked.

You can certainly use a maneuver that takes a swift action and then a maneuver that takes a standard action (or full-round action) in the same round.  There are no new rules forbidding that.


----------



## charlesatan

Brehobbit: Yes, it's more of I can't use two counters in the same round (unless you have that 8th-level stance that allows you to do so). So you can use the Concentration --> Ref save or Concentration --> Will save, just not both in the same round, or even the same one consecutively. It also means that if you do use those counters, you can't refresh your WB maneuvers the next round (since it requires a swift action). (Or at the very least, that's one boost you can't use the next round.)

Nail: It was probably Plane Sailing's complaint (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3191117&postcount=293), due to my post (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3191023&postcount=289), to which I replied (http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3191922&postcount=309) because as you pointed out, I don't see how I was rude in that particular post, unless proving somebody else wrong is considered rude (and there's a lot of that going around here, and I myself have been proven wrong in the boards).


----------



## kaomera

Nail said:
			
		

> brehobit: What I think (or rather: "hope") epochrpg is saying is that you can't use two "swift action" maneuvers per round.  I'm not sure anyone has said they could, but epochrpg seems to think the point has been over-looked.
> 
> You can certainly use a maneuver that takes a swift action and then a maneuver that takes a standard action (or full-round action) in the same round.  There are no new rules forbidding that.



I think he's also pointing out something that threw a wrench in the plans of our Warblade last session (yesterday): you cannot use an Immediate action and then use a Swift action in the next round. It's still nothing major, IMHO, but it is there; Martial Adepts have more different resource-management considerations than any other class I can think of, but non of them individually is as much of a big deal. They're stuck with a limited number of maneuvers, but can swap them out fairly often (every other level, IIRC). They have a limited number of those maneuvers actually available in any given fight, but can swap those as well, either out of combat or with a feat (that also re-readies all of their maneuvers). They have more skills they need to spend points on, but they also get more points to spend. They need to be careful of their feat choices, but then so does every other class. They need to manage their actions well, but only because they actually have useful things they can do with swift, immediate, standard, move, and full-round actions. (I could go on, but I think that's more than enough examples).

Right now our Swordsage is happy to putter along, nearly getting killed several times per session, and generally failing to play a huge role in the game. Our Warblade keeps flip-flopping between completely giving up on his maneuvers (and/or lobbying to change his character to a Fighter) on rounds where he rolls poorly, and jumping up and down and screaming when he deals 30+ points of damage to a mook Hobgoblin. Meanwhile, our Fighter is doing all the work, keeping the big threats occupied for multiple turns, clearing entire flanks (that the rest of the party has ignored) of threats, and is even the only one trying any really interesting maneuvers on the battlefield. However, I don't think this really says much about the classes. I could swap those three players' characters and I think I'd get more or less the same result. They chose their characters because they wanted more resource-management in a hand-to-hand class / will grab anything new and shiny / wanted a lot of feats and didn't want the resource-management of a Martial Adept class, respectively.


----------



## chaotix42

d20 SRD said:
			
		

> Swift Action
> A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform only a single swift action per *turn*.




If you are the target of White Raven Tactics you can use multiple swift actions in one round. That is why (among other reasons) we've implemented a house rule in our games stating that you may only be the target of 1 WRT in a round.


----------



## Plane Sailing

charlesatan said:
			
		

> And at what point did I become rude? Unless me stating "you're contradicting yourself..." is what you consider rude, which is simply me pointing out the fallacy in your statements.




The appropriate response is "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be rude".


----------



## dvvega

*sithramir* wrote:



> We are 5th level now and I have a fighter and my friend has a warblade. His choices of powers allow him to make a concentration check for reflex or will saves so he has a PLUS 17 which is just insane. (He hasn't taken the fort save ability yet which he'll trade for reflex as it's not as crucial in some cases).
> 
> HE DOES 1d20 + 17 damage at 5th level with insightful strike! Double that on a crit! Did I mention he doesn't really need str to do this? His second round he uses mountain hammer and adds 2d6 to his attack damage. So he can't do these things EVERY round? He has to spend a free action to get his abilities back while attacking normally. Must hurt.





One thing that might be noted is that you do not get to double your damage on criticals (or triple etc) with Insightful Strike. As far as I know, Criticals only work with normal weapon damage (c.f. Sneak Attack not multiplying).

In the SRD it states


> Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit.




This would lead to the implication that only a weapon's normal damage is multiplied. 

Granted this still makes his damage dealing high at 5th level (1d20 +17) but it stops the multipliers stacking.

A Fight at 5th level (wanting to realy power up) should have Weapon Specialisation. Let us assume you are using a Longsword you are doing 1d8 +6 (+2 from Specialisation +4 from Strength).

Now 1d8 +6 seems small BUT the Warblade can only do his Insightful Strike every 2 rounds consistently (the inbetween round for refreshing). This means that over the same period of time the Warblade does 1d20 + 17 while the Fighter does 2d8 + 12. Averages are 27 for Warblade, 20 for Fighter. Not too far apart in this instance but still obvious.

The minute you get to 6th level, however, things change. Warblade still does 1d20 +17 every 2 rounds while the Fighter is now doing 2d8+12 every round. That's 4d8 +24 over 2 rounds which outstrips the Warblade.

Now you stated he likes to Insightful Strike then Mountain Hammer. Then Recover. Over 3 rounds he does 1d20+17 +1d8 +2d6 +2 (assuming minimal Strength and Longsword). This averages to 39 over 3 rounds.

The Fighter comparison would do 3d8+18 which is 27 over 3 rounds.

Lets make them 6th level and the fighter is now doing 6d8+36. Which creams the Warblade.

Of course the above assumes the Fighter can hit on his 2 iterative attacks. He should have Weapon Focus and anything to help him out in this respect.


----------



## Plane Sailing

NilesB, if you've got a question about it, email me. Don't discuss it in the thread please.


----------



## brehobit

dvvega said:
			
		

> *sithramir* wrote:
> One thing that might be noted is that you do not get to double your damage on criticals (or triple etc) with Insightful Strike. As far as I know, Criticals only work with normal weapon damage (c.f. Sneak Attack not multiplying).



I'd disagree with this.  It replaces that damage, I think it would multiply on a crit just fine.  The rule of thumb is that extra damage doesn't multiply.  This replaces normal damage.  I'd call it good.


----------



## sithramir

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Well at low-levels (and at the higher levels), the WB outstrip the fighter simply because the Ftr doesn't really gain any benefits from full attack (except in a few rare circumstances, such as a TWF Ftr) because he doesn't yet have iterative attacks. In fact, level five and below is the best opportunity to make use of single attacks, such as Spring Attack, which won't get as much mileage at say, 16th level. And yes, "recharging" your maneuvers is cheap at level 5 and below (since Ftr's don't have swift actions to spend on) but you're going to feel it in the higher levels.
> 
> As for your 1d20+17 damage, as pointed out by Slaved, you're sacrificing potential attack/damage bonus (since your main stat is now Con instead of Str) and you're relying on that one maneuver instead of overall effectiveness. I'd also like to point out that Insightful Strike is a level 3 maneuver, meaning the character just got it at 5th level and is at it's "most optimum level". I mean if we bump the character's level by one, we'd have either a Ftr 6 or a WB 6, with a base attack of +6/+1 plus whatever modifiers. You have two attacks if you made a full attack and let's assume you're wielding a +1 greatsword and have a strength of 20 (18 base Str, +2 enhancement from a magic item). Your potential damage in each instance is 2d6+8. So now it becomes a 1d20+18 damage vs 4d6+16 (and a higher crit threat range). Granted, both attacks must hit in order to achieve that number, but then again, you also have a higher Str because your stats went to Str instead of Con. And as pointed out, it's a good chunk of investment in feats on the Warblade's part (and he doesn't have lots of those) while the Ftr hasn't spent any in this calculation. Theoretically if he spent two feats on Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec., his attack bonus in each instance will go up to 1, and the damage potential would now be 4d6+20. Not that I'm saying this will always be the result (since as many people pointed out, you won't always get a full attack), but I think we must also accept into our equation that full attacks will occur, and Ftrs want that situation to happen. Of course the WB focusing on the Insightful Strike maneuver tree will be less item dependent (which is both a strength and a weakness, because on one hand, it makes no distinction if you're using an unarmed strike but on the other hand, doesn't benefit you if you're using this colossal +5 greathammer), but at higher levels, Ftrs theoretically should be getting better gear and magic weapons, which the Insightful Strike maneuver tree doesn't really benefit from.
> 
> Oh, as for the Diamond Mind counters (the Will save and Ref save you're talking about), that has its own limitations as well. Theoretically you have achieve higher saves, yes, but you must realize that 1) they're immediate actions, which means that's one swift action (usually a boost) that's unavailble to you on your next turn, 2) you're spending a maneuver, which means you might not have access to it again until you "recharge", and 3) doesn't help you against multiple saves in a round since it'll only work once. It might help against the first fireball in the round, but it won't help against the second. Not that the Ftr is in a better position, mind you, but that's one of those days that I'm glad I'm a Paladin and not a Warblade.
> 
> And I also mentioned gishes because certain gishes also have a certain sweet spot on certain levels. Take the Duskblade: at 5th level, thanks to Arcane channeling, I can deal my melee damage +5d6 electricity damage (shocking grasp) as a standard action thanks to Arcane Channeling. Granted, I can only do it 5/day minimum and not the infinite potential of martial adepts, but that depends on the encounters your GM throws at you, in the same way that a Warlock will earn his keep if the GM throws 10 encounters/day at players, while the Psion will seem more powerful compared to the Wizard if your GM just has 1 encounter/day.




You are not taking an overall perspective. Yes the fighter fighting two handed with an 18 Str (there is no str enhancing for us yet) using a greatsword has a good damage potential with a full attack. The reality is that he HAS to do that and he still falls way short. I don't want to use a greatsword with every character I make. He has to hit twice to do it (the second attack is at -5 so even if his first attack may be 2 higher from str his second is lessened). He doesn't have this option except for a full attack. A warblade gets to do this on the first attack every time. Maybe if you're fighting poweful creatures you can stand and full attack but in our campaign it's often several NPC's and one might die in that first attack. The fighter has to stand and take some hits to do that. ALSO that's just one power. The warblade can use his next round to mountain hammer and add +2d6 damage. Oh he also gets to ignore all damage reduction so now he has an attack that can strike down a door or bypass any creature that a fighter might have a lot of trouble defeating because of this AND he still has tumble, diplomacy, 4 skill pts per level, d12 hps, and great save potential.

Yes, he can only use his saves once a round at best and needs to recharge to gain it back but he also doesn't fail on a 1 as it's now a concentration check in lieu of a save. Oh no he and the fighter got hit by two fire balls in the same round? My warblade is probably alive because he saved on the first roll and whether or not he failed on the second he's got d12 hps and a maxed out con (which benefits him in many areas). The fighter may be dead on the first or second fireball while the warblade is still standing.

So what that he doesn't benefit from a +5 weapon. INSTEAD he gets to use a +1 wounding, keen, sure-strike, mage bane weapon and still do as much if not more damage than a fighter. He doesn't even need to pay for that +5 weapon unless he wants to boost his to hit some. At higher levels a fighter is using power attack to try to even get close to the damage output of a warblade so his attack is lessened anyways.

Yes he just got this power at 5th level but he keeps getting better powers. Soon he'll be able to add 6d6 with greater mountain hammer, then he'll get greater insightful strike, then ancient mountain hamer, then he'll get the one tha tjust adds 100 damage to his attacks.

  I just used level 5 as the example but I doublt you'll find a level where the warblade isn't shining anyways. Maybe "statistically" a fighter with a specific weapon can keep close but that falls short in actual play and that's ignoring all the other powers available to the warblade. The funny thing is that in our campaign as give a Fighter a feat at EVERY level and it still falls short. Maybe you can say fighters were just a bit weak but other classes will find it hard to compete.


----------



## sithramir

brehobit said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with this.  It replaces that damage, I think it would multiply on a crit just fine.  The rule of thumb is that extra damage doesn't multiply.  This replaces normal damage.  I'd call it good.




It actually states it somewhere in Tome of Battle that this damage would be doubled with a crit. Greater insightful strike says that it's a concentraction check X3 instead of X2 to clarify that this didn't actually double the concentration check X2 and give 4 times the damage.


----------



## Artoomis

brehobit said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with this.  It replaces that damage, I think it would multiply on a crit just fine.  The rule of thumb is that extra damage doesn't multiply.  This replaces normal damage.  I'd call it good.




Actually, extra damage *dice* don't mutiply.  Extra damage certainly does.


----------



## sithramir

dvvega said:
			
		

> *sithramir* wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that might be noted is that you do not get to double your damage on criticals (or triple etc) with Insightful Strike. As far as I know, Criticals only work with normal weapon damage (c.f. Sneak Attack not multiplying).
> 
> In the SRD it states
> 
> 
> This would lead to the implication that only a weapon's normal damage is multiplied.
> 
> Granted this still makes his damage dealing high at 5th level (1d20 +17) but it stops the multipliers stacking.
> 
> A Fight at 5th level (wanting to realy power up) should have Weapon Specialisation. Let us assume you are using a Longsword you are doing 1d8 +6 (+2 from Specialisation +4 from Strength).
> 
> Now 1d8 +6 seems small BUT the Warblade can only do his Insightful Strike every 2 rounds consistently (the inbetween round for refreshing). This means that over the same period of time the Warblade does 1d20 + 17 while the Fighter does 2d8 + 12. Averages are 27 for Warblade, 20 for Fighter. Not too far apart in this instance but still obvious.
> 
> The minute you get to 6th level, however, things change. Warblade still does 1d20 +17 every 2 rounds while the Fighter is now doing 2d8+12 every round. That's 4d8 +24 over 2 rounds which outstrips the Warblade.
> 
> Now you stated he likes to Insightful Strike then Mountain Hammer. Then Recover. Over 3 rounds he does 1d20+17 +1d8 +2d6 +2 (assuming minimal Strength and Longsword). This averages to 39 over 3 rounds.
> 
> The Fighter comparison would do 3d8+18 which is 27 over 3 rounds.
> 
> Lets make them 6th level and the fighter is now doing 6d8+36. Which creams the Warblade.
> 
> Of course the above assumes the Fighter can hit on his 2 iterative attacks. He should have Weapon Focus and anything to help him out in this respect.




As stated above he does do double damage on a crit with insightful strike.

Also, noone get's to do a full attack the first round so the fighter only get's one attack that first round. He's suffering a minus five on his second attack to get this damage (which the warblade never suffers). He can take weapon focus and weapon specialization (but so can the warblade). Also, when they both hit 6th level the warblade get's to do two attacks on his second (or third in my friend's case) attack as he's allowed as a free action to recharge. It either takes a standard action or he can do it while doing an attack action and it never states that he cannot do a full attack.

Another option is that a warblade put no points into strength and works for a very high dex and high con character. He can use weapon finesse and get a similar attack option as a strength fighter. Just  another option he has.


----------



## brehobit

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, extra damage *dice* don't mutiply.  Extra damage certainly does.



Yeah, that's what I meant to write


----------



## Slaved

sithramir said:
			
		

> It actually states it somewhere in Tome of Battle that this damage would be doubled with a crit.




Where does it state this? Without it specifically saying so I would go with it not doubling on a crit based on its wording.

Also you are saying that people are not looking at the overall perspective in relation to the guy doing d20+16 every other round (at most) while seemingly ignoring that it takes 2 feats to get to that point and a bunch of skill points and having to tank strength to get there so having a worse damage normally along with a worse to hit and potentially giving up other bonus attacks (I mentioned haste earlier, two weapon fighting is another good example).

I'd like to see a comparison with the guy doing this and another character designed to do damage in melee combat to see how it works out. I am thinking that the extra to hit will be worth something here plus the other feats going to some other use cannot be ignored. In addition seeing how the various combat buffs that parties are likely to have added in to see how they change the situation.


----------



## FireLance

sithramir said:
			
		

> He can take weapon focus and weapon specialization (but so can the warblade).



This gets brought up very often, but it usually isn't that simple. At 5th level, a warblade gets two feats, three if human, and one bonus feat from a limited list. He can't take Weapon Specialization yet (he's only considered a 3rd level fighter) and if he takes Skill Focus (Concentration) and Weapon Focus, that uses up all his feat choices if he is not human. If he does want to take Weapon Specialization, that's his 6th-level feat slot used up, too. It's as inflexible a build as the greatsword-wielding fighter.

A warblade can potentially do a lot of things, in the same way that a wizard can potentially do a lot of things. However, limited feat slots, maneuvers learned and readied, stances known and in effect, and even the number and type of actions that he is able to perform in a round constrain what he can actually do at any one time.

I don't deny it's a really powerful class (it's one of my favorites, actually ), but it isn't as bad as it is sometimes made out to be.


----------



## sithramir

Slaved said:
			
		

> Where does it state this? Without it specifically saying so I would go with it not doubling on a crit based on its wording.
> 
> Also you are saying that people are not looking at the overall perspective in relation to the guy doing d20+16 every other round (at most) while seemingly ignoring that it takes 2 feats to get to that point and a bunch of skill points and having to tank strength to get there so having a worse damage normally along with a worse to hit and potentially giving up other bonus attacks (I mentioned haste earlier, two weapon fighting is another good example).
> 
> I'd like to see a comparison with the guy doing this and another character designed to do damage in melee combat to see how it works out. I am thinking that the extra to hit will be worth something here plus the other feats going to some other use cannot be ignored. In addition seeing how the various combat buffs that parties are likely to have added in to see how they change the situation.




It was apparently answered by the sage actually is what my friend just told me. I searched quickly and didn't find it but I'm sure it's there. Anyone else know where it is?

It's taking two feats to maximize his damage (+17 from 18 con, 8 ranks, 3 skill focus, +2 blade meditation) and spending 1 of his 4 skill points on concentration. Since he's 2 up on a fighter it's not hurting him skill point wise. He's doing 1d20 + 17 on the first round. No other character can do that at 5th level. Can you make a character that can statistically do more damage? Yes. But this is only one of the many benefits of the warblade. Two weapon fighting still has to hit with many attacks and can't do it on the first round. Even with the feat to give him two attacks as a standard it won't happen.


Oh I just learned there's an item from Complete Adventurer called the Tunic of Steady Spellcasting. It gives a +5 to concentration checks. In the descriptoin it SPECIFICALLY says it works on all concentration checks. It costs 2500 gp.

So the fifth level character now does 1d20+22. Everyone whos' just statistically gotten close to comparison with their statistics can retry since we got a +5 boost. Did I mention he has a +22 concentration check for a will save, reflex save, or fort save if he chooses without a chance of failure now? Don't forget the d12 hps, diplomacy and tumple skills, ability to get weapon focus, weapon adaptation, etc. The only thing he's lost is a few attack points from a lower strength. The fact is this isn't a negative since for you to get damage output similar to this you either need multiple attacks, power attack, or something similar which all lower your attack bonus anyways (or your attack bonus on the second attack). 

The class has the ability to deal insane damage, have the highest BAB and hps (higher since con is one of the most important stats), have the best saves in the game, gaining more or equal skill points to all other full attack bonus classes, gaining tumble and diplomacy, can get weapon specialization and other fighter feats, can change his weapon specialization (which even a fighter can't), etc, etc, etc. It's fun to play and have in the group power wise I suppose. So he has to sacrifice a round to recover these things? He can do that while full attacking still or moving (tumbling) and doing it getting to other opponents. Trying to show that a wizard or two handed fighting character can potentially out damage him is minor overall (especially since it's hard to do even statistically).


----------



## sithramir

FireLance said:
			
		

> This gets brought up very often, but it usually isn't that simple. At 5th level, a warblade gets two feats, three if human, and one bonus feat from a limited list. He can't take Weapon Specialization yet (he's only considered a 3rd level fighter) and if he takes Skill Focus (Concentration) and Weapon Focus, that uses up all his feat choices if he is not human. If he does want to take Weapon Specialization, that's his 6th-level feat slot used up, too. It's as inflexible a build as the greatsword-wielding fighter.
> 
> A warblade can potentially do a lot of things, in the same way that a wizard can potentially do a lot of things. However, limited feat slots, maneuvers learned and readied, stances known and in effect, and even the number and type of actions that he is able to perform in a round constrain what he can actually do at any one time.
> 
> I don't deny it's a really powerful class (it's one of my favorites, actually ), but it isn't as bad as it is sometimes made out to be.




You're right. He had to take those feats and nothing else. Though he was human and had another. Without it he still does 1d20 +17 assuming he has his new Tunic of Steady Spellcasting. The reason he takes those is why not? How else do you get two feats to give +5 damage. His options are the same as a fighter with added benefits.

Just try DM'ing someone with a warblade who does 1d20 + 22 in their first round attack. How many characters does the group fight that has enough hps to survive that?


----------



## Slaved

sithramir said:
			
		

> It was apparently answered by the sage actually is what my friend just told me.




The sage speaking means nothing to me. If someone can find it in the book though that would be nice.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> It's taking two feats to maximize his damage (+17 from 18 con, 8 ranks, 3 skill focus, +2 blade meditation) and spending 1 of his 4 skill points on concentration.




If we are going back to having the 18 constitution then yes, it is +17. Earlier the guy had 16 con, hence the +16 instead.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> He's doing 1d20 + 17 on the first round. No other character can do that at 5th level.




Actually, he is attempting to do that much, he still has to get near his target and succeed at an attack roll and then whatever else might come up.

And while it is true that no other character can do d20+17 there are builds which can do similar average damage.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Can you make a character that can statistically do more damage? Yes.




This pretty well nullfies the arguement as far as I can tell.

Yes, the warblade can do other things, most of which are melee attacks. I could also say that most of them are combat only.

At least he has slightly better skills than a fighter.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Oh I just learned there's an item from Complete Adventurer called the Tunic of Steady Spellcasting. It gives a +5 to concentration checks. In the descriptoin it SPECIFICALLY says it works on all concentration checks. It costs 2500 gp.




Now it looks like you are trading your +1 weapon in for +5 potential damage every other round at most.

At this point we are up to two feats, the highest level manuever available, a manuever every other round at most, single target, melee only, nearly a third of the money he has for his level, 16 point buy points, and who knows what else. I would certainly hope it is impressive!

I still want to see it compared with some other guy though. How about a 5th level fighter with a two handed weapon? He will have an 18 str like your guy has an 18 for con. I am guessing that his strength will be 14 or less, especially as he is a light armor fighter. 14 strength, 14 dex, 18 con is already 28 point buy points though, I doubt he will like having 8's in everything else, especially if he wants to make use of several of his class features.

Well, nail said 28 point buy. You spent 16 on con, where are the other 12 points going?


----------



## dvvega

Actually I was just looking over Complete Arcane for a concept I was thinking of - a Wizard who immobilises his targets instead of trying to kill them and I found Bands of Steel.

Reflex save or not the target is Entangled at the very least requiring a Strength check or Escape Artist to get out of it each round. If he doesn't save he is Helpless.

Now that spell messes up the Warblade we are discussing here. In fact if the Wizard can cast two of them, the DC for the second Reflex save should be 19 with School Specialisation. The Warblade isn't going to last long if the Wizard brought friends.


----------



## FireLance

sithramir said:
			
		

> You're right. He had to take those feats and nothing else. Though he was human and had another. Without it he still does 1d20 +17 assuming he has his new Tunic of Steady Spellcasting. The reason he takes those is why not? How else do you get two feats to give +5 damage. His options are the same as a fighter with added benefits.
> 
> Just try DM'ing someone with a warblade who does 1d20 + 22 in their first round attack. How many characters does the group fight that has enough hps to survive that?



A Medium-sized 5th-level fighter with 18 Strength and Powerful Charge (Eberron Campaign Setting), Greater Powerful Charge (Eberron Campaign Setting), Rapid Assault (Book of Nine Swords), Power Attack, Weapon Focus and a _+1 greatsword_ can charge and deal 5d6+17 (avg 34.5) points of damage in the first round of combat with a +8 attack bonus. With a bit of magic help in the form of an _enlarge person_ from a spellcaster or a 50 gp potion, this goes up to 7d6+18 (avg 42.5) points of damage. 

I must admit that the warblade can probably deal higher damage more consistently, though.


----------



## chaotix42

Insightful Strike damage does multiply. In the ToB it states that extra damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit. Insightful strike is not extra damage at all, merely different damage. 

I had a PC use an Insightful Strike with a heavy pick and roll a natural 20. Hello 120-ish points of damage, goodbye poor lizardfolk.


----------



## NilesB

Insightful strike does not benefit from _anything_ that increases normal damage.

Critical hits clearly qualify here.


----------



## glass

brehobit said:
			
		

> The rule of thumb is that extra damage doesn't multiply.  This replaces normal damage.  I'd call it good.



Extra damage _dice_ don't multiply on a critical.

And I wouldn't call it a rule of thumb. It's just a rule; the rule. 


glass.


----------



## glass

NilesB said:
			
		

> Insightful strike does not benefit from _anything_ that increases normal damage. Critical hits clearly qualify here.



I'm not sure they do. Critical hits don't increase normal damage, they just apply it more than once.


glass.


----------



## Fedifensor

glass said:
			
		

> Extra damage _dice_ don't multiply on a critical.




For clarity, here is the quote from the book (page 43):

"You can make a critical hit with a strike, and in a few cases, a critical hit grants you additional benefits.  *You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit.  You treat it just as you would extra damage from an ability, such as sneak attack.*"

So, the +100 damage strike doesn't become +400 if you get a critical hit with a scythe.  However, since Insightful Strike isn't extra damage, but the base damage of the strike, I'd say that will multiply.  Otherwise, they would have said that you can't get a critical with Insightful Strike.


----------



## NilesB

glass said:
			
		

> I'm not sure they do. Critical hits don't increase normal damage, they just apply it more than once.



So with a critical hit on insightful strike you get to _not_ apply normal damage twice.


----------



## sithramir

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> For clarity, here is the quote from the book (page 43):
> 
> "You can make a critical hit with a strike, and in a few cases, a critical hit grants you additional benefits.  *You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit.  You treat it just as you would extra damage from an ability, such as sneak attack.*"
> 
> So, the +100 damage strike doesn't become +400 if you get a critical hit with a scythe.  However, since Insightful Strike isn't extra damage, but the base damage of the strike, I'd say that will multiply.  Otherwise, they would have said that you can't get a critical with Insightful Strike.




You don't care about what the sage says but the above logic is sound. You make a concentration check in lieu of normal damage. You're not doing any extra damage. The critical hit would multiply the normal damage. Mountain hammer gives +2d6 damage which WOULDN"T be multipled on a critical hit.

Also whoever stated that it was a 16 con with a 28 point buy. It was an 18 con for the specific case I mentioned in our game where we have a different point buy system. If you were doing a normal 28 point buy it would most likely by only a 16 to make other stats realistic.

A fighter with 16 (or 18) str fighting two handed can do decent damage but it doesn't compare to the 1d20+22 damage. Also you keep forgetting that the round when he's recharging he can do the same thing as the fighter. He can attack two handed with slightly less damage due to his lower str. AND/OR he could also add +2d6 from another strike, or get to attack two creatures at once with a strike, etc. So even if some other character can come close to averaging the damage look at what he is lacking in other areas? The fighter has a will save of 2 or so? Maybe 3-4 depending on stats and a resistance item? Compare that to +22. Same thing for reflex or fortitude saves. And the fighter's not getting any other benefits in other areas out of combat to make up for it. In fact, the warblade has diplomacy which a fighter doesn't so he can also has added role playing benefits.

   You guys can debate that it's not overpowered or not but it's the sum of things that gets me. The fact that he owns combat AND get's better skill points is what bums me out. I could say (fine my fighter isn't as powerful but i'll role play him more) but the warblade's added skills helps him to be a better role player (in statistic terms). He could put one of his 3 + int + human skill points into role playing skills the same as a fighter. In the end it's about fun and I don't need to have the most powerful character to do that but it sucks that I have to ignore a few other classes because a similar build with some warblade levels can outclass it.


----------



## Nail

sithramir said:
			
		

> You guys can debate that it's not overpowered or not but it's the sum of things that gets me.



It's the "sum of things" that gets me too.

What first "got my dander up" was the d12 HD.  There's just no good reason for that.    The next was looking over the class skills, and seeing a better class list and more skill points.  (You don't need 2 extra skill points per level just to take Concentration, and Concentration is not a skill used for most maneuvers.)  Then there are the class abilities (apart from the maneuvers).....

The maneuvers may be the equivalent of the Ftr bonus feats (that's highly debatable, but it's at least possible).  ...But all the rest???


----------



## Slaved

Couldn't the extra average hit point be to make up for the classes extra MAD plus the lighter armor choices?

The skills however I will simply call a step in the correct direction.

sithramir, please stat out this build that you are talking about. 28 point buy, 5th level, warblade. Otherwise we are comparing phantoms to phantoms.


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> The skills however I will simply call a step in the correct direction.



Just so we're clear: I get that.  NSI => No Sarcasm Intended.  There's been more than one occasion in which my gaming friends and I say, "Wouldn't it be better if everyone had more skill points?"

But I'd rather that sort of decision be made indepentent of a new class introduction.   ..Sorta a "rising tide lifts all boats" philosophy.  Giving a new class extra skill points because "everyone should have more skill points" completely misses the point, IMO.  

Or giving a new "Warrior Class" d12 HD because "all warriors types should have higher HD" is not constructive.  Etc.

The maneuver mechanic is interesting, and a breath of fresh air with respect to melee combat.  I like it.   ...I would have liked it even more if they had presented it with new classes that were balanced with the core classes.  Surely that's a reasonable request, is it not?


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> Just so we're clear: I get that.




And I get that you feel that the warblade gets too much.

Unfortunately WOTC has decided to not errata some skills into the fighter. Who knows why. But that does not mean that everyone else should suffer for it. I want them to give th fighter some skills!! Please!!! I am not going to take skills away from other characters to make the fighter feel better though.

Maybe introducing more skills to new classes is the first step in fixing the fighter. It could be a multi edition fix, and the fix has to start somewhere.

I notice that you did not comment on my reasoning behind the d12 hd though so I will try another route. Why does the barbarian have the d12 hd in your opinion? The barbarian also has 4 skill points and a better skill list than the fighter.



			
				Nail said:
			
		

> I would have liked it even more if they had presented it with new classes that were balanced with the core classes.




I think that by ""core classes"" you actually mean ""fighter"". I also think that you further mean ""certain types of melee fighters"". That looks to be a long way away from the words you actually used though.


----------



## FireLance

sithramir said:
			
		

> A fighter with 16 (or 18) str fighting two handed can do decent damage but it doesn't compare to the 1d20+22 damage. Also you keep forgetting that the round when he's recharging he can do the same thing as the fighter. He can attack two handed with slightly less damage due to his lower str. AND/OR he could also add +2d6 from another strike, or get to attack two creatures at once with a strike, etc. So even if some other character can come close to averaging the damage look at what he is lacking in other areas? The fighter has a will save of 2 or so? Maybe 3-4 depending on stats and a resistance item? Compare that to +22. Same thing for reflex or fortitude saves. And the fighter's not getting any other benefits in other areas out of combat to make up for it. In fact, the warblade has diplomacy which a fighter doesn't so he can also has added role playing benefits.



As mentioned, a warblade can potentially do many things, but not all at the same time. A 5th-level warblade (for the sake of argument) has six maneuvers known and four maneuvers readied. If he wants to take Insightful Strike and the three saving throw counters, that's all the maneuvers he can ready, and he can know at most two other maneuvers.

As for role-playing benefits, don't forget that the fighter gets Diplomacy as a class skill if he takes a White Raven maneuver with Martial Study


----------



## sithramir

*Sample Warblade*

*Warblade Warblader*
Male dwarf warblade 5
CN Medium Humanoid
*Init* +1; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
*Languages* Common, Dwarven
*AC * 17(20), touch 11, flat-footed 17, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +1, +1 chain shirt armor +5, +1 Deflection)
*Hp* 58 (5 HD)
*Resist* stability
*Saves* Fort +8(+10 against poison), Ref +3, Will +1; +2 on saves against spells *and spell-like effects
Speed 20 (30) ft.
Melee* +1 dwarven waraxe +10 (1d10+5/x3)
*Atk Options* +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
*Base Atk* +5, Grp +8
*Combat Gear* potion of _cure light wounds_
*Maneuvers and Stances Known*
Stances: Punishing Stance, Stance of Clarity*
Maneuvers: Mountain Hammer*, Insightful Strike*, Steel Wind, Saphire Nightmare Blade
Boosts: Moment of Perfect Mind*, Action Before Thought*
*Readied stance or maneuver
*Abilities * Str 16, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 6
*SQ* stonecutting, weapon aptitude
*Feats* Weapon Focus (dwarven waraxe), Blade Meditation, Skill Focus (Concentration)
*Skills* Concentration +22, Tumble +9, etc,.
*Possesions* Combat gear + Tunic of Steady Spellcasting, Ring of Protection +1

Please note I wrote this up quickly but it's a good comparison for the point buy specified which is not what my group uses. If I was a human I'd probably have improved initiative or unnerving calm. Sixth level i'd be torn between one of those and weapon specialization.

I could have given him less strength and had a 19 con to work towards level 8 but decided to put the point in str. If I took weapon spec at 6th level and got a +2 str boosting item the damage would go up by 4 on a normal attack which is pretty nice. Course his 1d20 +22 ain't too shabby. I didn' t gold because it may be a little over 9000 but you get the idea.


----------



## Slaved

Thank you sithramir, I'll look it over in a little while, a little busy right now. Maybe someone else will have another character to compare with before I get back  

Edited..
I just noticed you made a dwarf, that will make the comparison a little tougher. I had thought it was going to be humans. I'll have to think about it more than I thought I would.


----------



## FireLance

sithramir, minor nitpick: How did you get Absolute Steel Stance?  The warblade gets his second stance at 4th level, and since there are no 2nd level stances, that means he has to pick another 1st-level stance. Did you mean Punishing Stance (-2 AC, +1d6 damage)?


----------



## Slaved

Ok, things I noticed.

Over on money, but you caught that. Still, it would be nice to keep to the 9k limit.

You cannot yet have absolute steel dance, firelance already caught this.

You are allowed 1 3rd level maneuver and you have two. At least one of them must go.


----------



## sithramir

Ok I edited the character above to fix things. 

Added Saphire Nightmare Blade

Removed Mind over Body, and the stance and replaced it with Punishing Stance.

Also removed Amulet of Nat Amor +1 so now he has some spare cash since I didn't feel like adding it all together.

I swear that I could switch an old stance for a new one but maybe I can't do that yet. That's why he had the different stance but i'll reread. Changes should make him "correct" for now.


----------



## Slaved

At 4th, and every 4th level thereafter I believe, you can change a stance. But at 4th you still cannot choose 5th level stances so the only option is changing a 1st for a different 1st I believe, assuming that there are no 2nd level stances available.


----------



## FireLance

Slaved said:
			
		

> At 4th, and every 4th level thereafter I believe, you can change a stance. But at 4th you still cannot choose 5th level stances so the only option is changing a 1st for a different 1st I believe, assuming that there are no 2nd level stances available.



I don't think you can change stances, just maneuvers at every even level starting from 4th.


----------



## Slaved

FireLance said:
			
		

> I don't think you can change stances, just maneuvers at every even level starting from 4th.




Really? wow, weird.


----------



## Bivotar

Slaved said:
			
		

> Really? wow, weird.




It is true. I myself thought it was weird as well. There are no 2nd level stances so a 4th level warblade has to pick another 1st level stance. Unless it's possible for the player to not pick a stance at 4th level and wait to pick it at 5th level. Not sure if that's against the rules or not and if it's unbalancing at all.


----------



## Slaved

So the warblade gets 4 stances total and 2 of them are trapped at being first level? wow

Anyway, I wrote this up a bit ago.

[hide]Barbarian Barblader
Male dwarf Barbarian 5
CN Medium Humanoid
Init +1; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
Languages Common, Dwarven
AC 19, touch 11, flat-footed 19, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +1, +1 Breastplate armor +6, +1 Deflection, +1 natural)
Hp 58 (5 HD)
Resist stability
Saves Fort +9(+11 against poison), Ref +4, Will +2; +2 on saves against spells and spell-like effects
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 greatsword +10 (2d6+5/x3)
Atk Options +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
Base Atk +5, Grp +8
Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds
Special: Fast movement (factored in above), illiteracy, rage 2/day, uncanndy dodge, trap sense +1, improved uncanny dodge
Abilities Str 16, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 6
SQ stonecutting, weapon aptitude
Feats Weapon Focus (great sword), power attack
Skills Tumble (cross classed) 4 ranks = +5, listen 8 ranks = +8, Survival 8 ranks = +8, etc
Possesions Breastplate +1, greatsword +1, Ring of Protection +1, cloak of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1

I kept the same stats although I really hated doing so. A low dex for a guy who is relying on the lighter armors seems very wrong to me. I would go for taking 2 points of con off of this guy and knocking his dex up to 14 and making his strength a 16. At level 8 he will then have an 18 in strength. He will lose 5hp but the +1 to AC and other benefits are worth that easily.

I would suggest that you get a cloak of protection +1, that way the saves are the same again.

Picked up ranks in tumble cross classed to make that part closer.

While raging and power attacking for 2 the barbs attack bonus is the same as the warblades and he does 2d6+12 damage. Over the course of two rounds it is 4d6+24 damage with an average of 38. To use insightful strike every other round that would mean using a regular attack in between so the warblades damage would be d20+d10+27 with an average of 43. Pretty close, optimal useage of power attack requires a bit of math and knowledge of the opponents AC. If the barbarian can charge the first round he can up this damage by 4 and keep the same attack bonus which makes the damage totals nearly equal but the barbarian has 2 less AC than the warblade for a round.

A +2 str item was mentioned. This would give the warblade +2 damage and give the barbarian +4 to damage in this comparison.

So while the barbarian has rages these guys are on the same footing. When not raging the barbarian has more AC but does less damage. Against very high or very low AC foes the barbarain can come out ahead because of power attack but those cannot be counted on.

It looks from this that what pushes the warblade ahead of the barbarian in general comes down to a few things. The first is the +5 concentration item while the barb has no options to boost damage for the same slot, it might be too much to allow this for the price listed. Next up being able to do it all of the combats in the day instead of the barbarians only two is a big advantage. As a third I don't much care for the character being able to use the blade meditation feat without using the weapon from that devotion.

Or we could go extra rage and reckless rage. That gives 4 per day, which makes it more or less for every encounter, and makes the damage potential higher normally. Unfortunately without power attack there is not a way to trade in the higher attack bonus for damage to compare the totals directly. I will leave that for others to decide, especially if they take into account swapping out some constitution for some dexterity.[/hide]


----------



## NilesB

Slaved said:
			
		

> I kept the same stats although I really hated doing so. A low dex for a guy who is relying on the lighter armors seems very wrong to me. I would go for taking 2 points of con off of this guy and knocking his dex up to 14



Trade in 2 points of int for dex.


----------



## dvvega

Got a reply from Customer Service regarding the critical thing and they state that it is in fact a replacement weapon damage thus can be multiplied. I am now going to put in a house rule regarding this since it is definately way too much.


----------



## sithramir

Slaved said:
			
		

> So the warblade gets 4 stances total and 2 of them are trapped at being first level? wow
> 
> Anyway, I wrote this up a bit ago.
> 
> [hide]Barbarian Barblader
> Male dwarf Barbarian 5
> CN Medium Humanoid
> Init +1; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
> Languages Common, Dwarven
> AC 19, touch 11, flat-footed 19, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +1, +1 Breastplate armor +6, +1 Deflection, +1 natural)
> Hp 58 (5 HD)
> Resist stability
> Saves Fort +9(+11 against poison), Ref +4, Will +2; +2 on saves against spells and spell-like effects
> Speed 30 ft.
> Melee +1 greatsword +10 (2d6+5/x3)
> Atk Options +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
> Base Atk +5, Grp +8
> Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds
> Special: Fast movement (factored in above), illiteracy, rage 2/day, uncanndy dodge, trap sense +1, improved uncanny dodge
> Abilities Str 16, Dex 12, Con 18, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 6
> SQ stonecutting, weapon aptitude
> Feats Weapon Focus (great sword), power attack
> Skills Tumble (cross classed) 4 ranks = +5, listen 8 ranks = +8, Survival 8 ranks = +8, etc
> Possesions Breastplate +1, greatsword +1, Ring of Protection +1, cloak of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1
> 
> I kept the same stats although I really hated doing so. A low dex for a guy who is relying on the lighter armors seems very wrong to me. I would go for taking 2 points of con off of this guy and knocking his dex up to 14 and making his strength a 16. At level 8 he will then have an 18 in strength. He will lose 5hp but the +1 to AC and other benefits are worth that easily.
> 
> I would suggest that you get a cloak of protection +1, that way the saves are the same again.
> 
> Picked up ranks in tumble cross classed to make that part closer.
> 
> While raging and power attacking for 2 the barbs attack bonus is the same as the warblades and he does 2d6+12 damage. Over the course of two rounds it is 4d6+24 damage with an average of 38. To use insightful strike every other round that would mean using a regular attack in between so the warblades damage would be d20+d10+27 with an average of 43. Pretty close, optimal useage of power attack requires a bit of math and knowledge of the opponents AC. If the barbarian can charge the first round he can up this damage by 4 and keep the same attack bonus which makes the damage totals nearly equal but the barbarian has 2 less AC than the warblade for a round.
> 
> A +2 str item was mentioned. This would give the warblade +2 damage and give the barbarian +4 to damage in this comparison.
> 
> So while the barbarian has rages these guys are on the same footing. When not raging the barbarian has more AC but does less damage. Against very high or very low AC foes the barbarain can come out ahead because of power attack but those cannot be counted on.
> 
> It looks from this that what pushes the warblade ahead of the barbarian in general comes down to a few things. The first is the +5 concentration item while the barb has no options to boost damage for the same slot, it might be too much to allow this for the price listed. Next up being able to do it all of the combats in the day instead of the barbarians only two is a big advantage. As a third I don't much care for the character being able to use the blade meditation feat without using the weapon from that devotion.
> 
> Or we could go extra rage and reckless rage. That gives 4 per day, which makes it more or less for every encounter, and makes the damage potential higher normally. Unfortunately without power attack there is not a way to trade in the higher attack bonus for damage to compare the totals directly. I will leave that for others to decide, especially if they take into account swapping out some constitution for some dexterity.[/hide]




This guy can do some decent damage as well. He has two fight two-handed which my character doesn't. That means mine could have a higher AC (I just don't care to wield shields). My guy could easily add another 2 or 3 to his AC from that. He would only lose one point of damage on his second round.

Secondly, what happens if your guy needs to make a reflex or will save with your saves? Pretty screwed. Hold person could end your life. My character has a +22 in those saves without a chance of failure.

Your guy has a +10 attack the same as my character so he can't power attack to increase damage without lowering his to hit. He can charge the first round. Oops you're assuming he uses a rage. The point is he can only do this in one or two encounters. Or he could remove one of his feats to get more rages which lowers his attack or damage.

He doesn't get weapon aptitude like my character who can choose to specialize in any weapon.

My character can ignore DR from any creature with his other strike OR break down a any inanimate object given time. 

My tumble ability is higher. In fact I put 5 cross-class ranks into balance which I believe is a synergy +2 to tumble to bring mine to an 11. Nearly a guaranteed tumble at this level now.

He could use blade meditation and choose another weapon. I just copied this from the Tome of Blood example and didn't look up another weapon.

Your character needs a two-handed weapon to help get you're damage output. I can pick up any weapon I find an in an hour be doing the same damage for the most part.

The funny thing is it just gets better. Next level I get Weapon Specializion for +2 damage to help cut the gap. At ninth I can get the feat from Complete Adventurer? that gives +2 damage for slashing weapons if you're a fighter with +8 BAB. I'm slowly closing the gap in those regards (did I mention his concentration is going up adding 1 more point of damage every time he levels?). At that point he's got other abilities coming to him as well.

I also thought about taking a shadow maneuver at 9th level in lieu of +2 damage to give myself the ability to step through the shadows as a move action. Now my guy can shadow jump 50' and then do 1d20+22 (or whatever it is at the level he gets this). 

Another negative is that a ray of enfeeblement nearly crushes you're character. My character would simply lose some attack bonus (and no damage reduction for the first attack). Any other spell any my character has great saves (we both had good fort). 

My character got the speed of your character from a stance (or gets it at 6th level). He also gets uncanny dodge. The only two benefits of a barbarian at that point is improved uncanny dodge and rage (which he needed to get close in damage output).

Oh and my character can read so he'll taunt your character by writing funny notes about him and passing it around to all the other fighter types!

Basically, your character does a lot of damage but warblades just get a lot more benefits which is what makes me angry. Yes my character was power gamed to max out damage with concentration but that's because there's no reason not to. I just feel it's a bit overpowerful due to this. If they come out with a few more classes of this power then I guess I just say. Ok the base classes are just weaker now other than cross-classing for abilities and that's that.


----------



## Slaved

NilesB said:
			
		

> Trade in 2 points of int for dex.




Will do, and apparently the hide tags do not work here   

Barbarian Barblader
Male dwarf Barbarian 5
CN Medium Humanoid
Init +2; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
Languages Common, Dwarven
AC 20, touch 12, flat-footed 19, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +2, +1 Breastplate armor +6, +1 Deflection, +1 natural)
Hp 58 (5 HD)
Resist stability
Saves Fort +9(+11 against poison), Ref +4, Will +2; +2 on saves against spells and spell-like effects
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 greatsword +10 (2d6+5/x3)
Atk Options +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
Base Atk +5, Grp +8
Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds
Special: Fast movement (factored in above), illiteracy, rage 2/day, uncanndy dodge, trap sense +1, improved uncanny dodge
Abilities Str 16, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 6
SQ stonecutting
Feats Weapon Focus (great sword), power attack
Skills Tumble (cross classed) 4 ranks = +6, listen 8 ranks = +8, Survival 8 ranks = +8, etc
Possesions Breastplate +1, greatsword +1, Ring of Protection +1, cloak of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1


So now the barbarian has 3 more AC than the warblade, 1 while raging. The warblade could use a shield, nonmagical right now, but would lose damage.

Plus earlier I apparently forgot to add in crits! Something is wrong with me. The damage numbers go to, over a 2 round period, 42 for the barbarian and 44 for the warblade. Barely distinguishable against critable foes. If the warblade uses a shield his damage is barely effected, which is great news for people who want to use sword and board techniques, and it drops to 43. Still basically the same.

The warblade is better at the occasional reflex save, much better in fact, but it slows down his damage greatly. Basically he is trading 22 or 23 damage, depending on shield use, for a higher reflex save against a single reflex based attack. Right now though the barbarian is likely to have a better will save. Not by a lot, but better while raging. Hold person still ends either of their lives, but the barbarian has a better time with it most of the time.

The barbarian moves faster currently. It is possible for the warblade to match this at level 10, but that is a long way off from here.

There were some other comments that could be responded to if higher level characters were made to compare. Do not jump the gun sithramir! We are doing fine so far, we just have to go slowly.


Oh, and just because here is the barbarian who can pick up any weapon and immediately use it just as well
Barbarian Barblader
Male dwarf Barbarian 5
CN Medium Humanoid
Init +3; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
Languages Common, Dwarven
AC 21, touch 13, flat-footed 19, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +3, +1 Breastplate armor +6, +1 Deflection, +1 natural)
Hp 53 (5 HD)
Resist stability
Saves Fort +9(+11 against poison), Ref +5, Will +2; +2 on saves against spells and spell-like effects
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 greatsword +9 (2d6+5/x3)
Atk Options +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
Base Atk +5, Grp +8
Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds
Special: Fast movement (factored in above), illiteracy, rage 4/day, uncanndy dodge, trap sense +1, improved uncanny dodge
Abilities Str 16, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 6
SQ stonecutting
Feats extra rage, reckless rage
Skills Tumble (cross classed) 4 ranks = +7, listen 8 ranks = +8, Survival 8 ranks = +8, etc
Possesions Breastplate +1, greatsword +1, Ring of Protection +1, cloak of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1

Now he can rage every encounter of the day basically, although this still has some drawbacks which makes the warblades version of the abilities better.

But while raging his attack spread is +12 to hit and 2d6+10 for a two round average of 37. The warblade is doing 44, assuming no shield, but with 2 points less on the attack bonus. Depending on the AC of the opponent this could mean that the average damage is higher for either of them.

Edited.....
Oh yeah, the warblade and the barbarian should also have appropriate ranged weapons. I think that would mean composite longbows for each with +3 str on them. The barbarian might want a stronger one, because raging and ranged combat is funny, but I am not sure. In these examples the barbarian is better at ranged, but only by a +1 or +2 bonus respectively. The warblade could spend an hour moving his weapon focus, which is a great ability, but then he will be an extra point of attack bonus behind in melee.


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> Unfortunately WOTC has decided to not errata some skills into the fighter.  Who knows why. But that does not mean that everyone else should suffer for it.



"Everyone's" not suffering per se.  The Warblade just gets too many skill points, based on a comparison of the core classes.  If you (or I!) want to give everyone more skill points .....that's entirely beside the point!  



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> I notice that you did not comment on my reasoning behind the d12 hd though so I will try another route. Why does the barbarian have the d12 hd in your opinion? The barbarian also has 4 skill points and a better skill list than the fighter.



....and Barbarian has fewer other options, namely feats, so having more skill points doesn't throw off the balance.

The Bbn has a d12 because it is a class based on a low AC.  A Warblade is not constained in such a way.



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> I think that by ""core classes"" you actually mean ""fighter"". I also think that you further mean ""certain types of melee fighters"". That looks to be a long way away from the words you actually used though.



That's because I did not use -- or mean to use -- those words.  I mean "Core Clasess, which include Bbn, Brd, Clr, Drd, Ftr, Mnk, Pal, Rgr, Rog, Sor, and Wiz."  And I most certainly did not mean "certain types of melee fighters".  

Are the core classes perfectly balanced with respect to each other?  IMO, they need a bit more tweaking.  But is WB well outside the range of balance with respect to the core classes?  IMO, yes...subject to play-testing evidence to the contrary.  

One of my players is currently working on that for me.


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> .... The warblade could spend an hour moving his weapon focus, which is a great ability, but then he will be an extra point of attack bonus behind in melee.



BTW, Slaved, thanks for these write-ups!  I wish I had more time right now to look them over in detail.

Do you have a spreadsheet that can calculate average damage per roudn against a given AC?  I do, as well as the average AC for comparably CR opponents in the core rules.  It's helpful in this kind of comparison.


----------



## chaos2600

regarding Slaved's post...I seem to recall that the Warblade's not proficient with the comp longbow or ranged martial weapons in general.  My book's at home though so I can't look up whether I'm on crack or not though.


----------



## Bivotar

chaos2600 said:
			
		

> regarding Slaved's post...I seem to recall that the Warblade's not proficient with the comp longbow or ranged martial weapons in general.  My book's at home though so I can't look up whether I'm on crack or not though.




It is true. The Warblade (and I think the Swordsage too) only have martial proficiency in melee weapons. That of course did not stop WOTC from putting the example characters in the book with longbows and such. The warblade could use a crossbow though.


----------



## Bivotar

sithramir said:
			
		

> Oh and my character can read so he'll taunt your character by writing funny notes about him and passing it around to all the other fighter types!




LOL. And don't they say that the pen is mightier than the sword.


----------



## KuKu

Bivotar said:
			
		

> It is true. The Warblade (and I think the Swordsage too) only have martial proficiency in melee weapons. That of course did not stop WOTC from putting the example characters in the book with longbows and such. The warblade could use a crossbow though.




http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2
This says simple and martial melee weapons and thrown weapons. I think that would mean no crossbows and I think that a warblade would have to use something like throwing axxes or pepper sprays.


----------



## Sithobi1

That depends whether you read it as (simple and martial) melee weapons or simple and (martial melee) weapons. I'm not sure which one I prefer.


----------



## Bivotar

KuKu said:
			
		

> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2
> This says simple and martial melee weapons and thrown weapons. I think that would mean no crossbows and I think that a warblade would have to use something like throwing axxes or pepper sprays.




Hmmm. I took it as all simple weapons and only martial melee weapons. But it could be the other way too. I guess it all depends on how one reads it. To me if it meant only melee weapons for both simple and martial weapons then it would have read:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency: You are proficient with simple *melee* and martial melee weapons (including those that can be used as thrown weapons), light and medium armor, and all shields except tower shields.

(Bolded text added by me)


----------



## sithramir

Slaved said:
			
		

> Will do, and apparently the hide tags do not work here
> 
> Barbarian Barblader
> Male dwarf Barbarian 5
> CN Medium Humanoid
> Init +2; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
> Languages Common, Dwarven
> AC 20, touch 12, flat-footed 19, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +2, +1 Breastplate armor +6, +1 Deflection, +1 natural)
> Hp 58 (5 HD)
> Resist stability
> Saves Fort +9(+11 against poison), Ref +4, Will +2; +2 on saves against spells and spell-like effects
> Speed 30 ft.
> Melee +1 greatsword +10 (2d6+5/x3)
> Atk Options +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
> Base Atk +5, Grp +8
> Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds
> Special: Fast movement (factored in above), illiteracy, rage 2/day, uncanndy dodge, trap sense +1, improved uncanny dodge
> Abilities Str 16, Dex 14, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 6
> SQ stonecutting
> Feats Weapon Focus (great sword), power attack
> Skills Tumble (cross classed) 4 ranks = +6, listen 8 ranks = +8, Survival 8 ranks = +8, etc
> Possesions Breastplate +1, greatsword +1, Ring of Protection +1, cloak of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1
> 
> 
> So now the barbarian has 3 more AC than the warblade, 1 while raging. The warblade could use a shield, nonmagical right now, but would lose damage.
> 
> Plus earlier I apparently forgot to add in crits! Something is wrong with me. The damage numbers go to, over a 2 round period, 42 for the barbarian and 44 for the warblade. Barely distinguishable against critable foes. If the warblade uses a shield his damage is barely effected, which is great news for people who want to use sword and board techniques, and it drops to 43. Still basically the same.
> 
> The warblade is better at the occasional reflex save, much better in fact, but it slows down his damage greatly. Basically he is trading 22 or 23 damage, depending on shield use, for a higher reflex save against a single reflex based attack. Right now though the barbarian is likely to have a better will save. Not by a lot, but better while raging. Hold person still ends either of their lives, but the barbarian has a better time with it most of the time.
> 
> The barbarian moves faster currently. It is possible for the warblade to match this at level 10, but that is a long way off from here.
> 
> There were some other comments that could be responded to if higher level characters were made to compare. Do not jump the gun sithramir! We are doing fine so far, we just have to go slowly.
> 
> 
> Oh, and just because here is the barbarian who can pick up any weapon and immediately use it just as well
> Barbarian Barblader
> Male dwarf Barbarian 5
> CN Medium Humanoid
> Init +3; Senses Listen +, Spot +; darkvision 60 ft.
> Languages Common, Dwarven
> AC 21, touch 13, flat-footed 19, +4 AC against giants, uncanny dodge (Dex +3, +1 Breastplate armor +6, +1 Deflection, +1 natural)
> Hp 53 (5 HD)
> Resist stability
> Saves Fort +9(+11 against poison), Ref +5, Will +2; +2 on saves against spells and spell-like effects
> Speed 30 ft.
> Melee +1 greatsword +9 (2d6+5/x3)
> Atk Options +1 on attacks against orcs and goblinoids, battle ardor
> Base Atk +5, Grp +8
> Combat Gear potion of cure light wounds
> Special: Fast movement (factored in above), illiteracy, rage 4/day, uncanndy dodge, trap sense +1, improved uncanny dodge
> Abilities Str 16, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 6
> SQ stonecutting
> Feats extra rage, reckless rage
> Skills Tumble (cross classed) 4 ranks = +7, listen 8 ranks = +8, Survival 8 ranks = +8, etc
> Possesions Breastplate +1, greatsword +1, Ring of Protection +1, cloak of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +1
> 
> Now he can rage every encounter of the day basically, although this still has some drawbacks which makes the warblades version of the abilities better.
> 
> But while raging his attack spread is +12 to hit and 2d6+10 for a two round average of 37. The warblade is doing 44, assuming no shield, but with 2 points less on the attack bonus. Depending on the AC of the opponent this could mean that the average damage is higher for either of them.
> 
> Edited.....
> Oh yeah, the warblade and the barbarian should also have appropriate ranged weapons. I think that would mean composite longbows for each with +3 str on them. The barbarian might want a stronger one, because raging and ranged combat is funny, but I am not sure. In these examples the barbarian is better at ranged, but only by a +1 or +2 bonus respectively. The warblade could spend an hour moving his weapon focus, which is a great ability, but then he will be an extra point of attack bonus behind in melee.




You're right. The barbarian at level 5 will have better speed. However, at level 6 I get a new stance that gives me +10 movement, and +2 to AC whenever I move 10'. That's what's too powerful about the warblade. 

He was barely short for enough for a +1 Nat AC item. However, he only loses 1 point of damage (on his second attack) to use a shield. And he did have over 1000 gp's left so he can afford a +1 Shield. Also I can give him a breastplate the same as you since I was only getting a +5. SO basically with a few changes to my character my AC is 3 greater. At level 6 it will go up by 2 with my stance and for a very cheap cost up one more for a +1 Nat AC item. Since you left your Int at 10 I'll make mine 10 and boost my Dex up by 2 to match. SO my AC is 4 higher than previous.

My character get's plus's to confirm critical's also!

So now my character has an AC of 21. You are now less than his AC (more so raging to get the added damage). If we want to go statistical I'll spend an hour and switch to a weapon with a better crit range if to crit range is factored in. But you're already unable to match his damage output currently plus his other benefits so I won't bother.

And he doesn't always trade any damage for a reflex save. He uses his maneuver as a standard action and can use a reflex or will save as an immediate. He just recharges them all when he recharges his maneuver. If he had to wait an extra round (if he had to do it before the start of the second round when he'd recharge) he can still use mountain hammer to increase his damage +2d6 for that round. SO yes there is a point where his damage is lessened but at the price of guaranteeing his will or reflex save. Wouldn't you take that?

You said that the barbarian has a better time against hold person but I don't understand why. The first attack spell against a warblade is a guaranteed success at this level versus a +2 save or slightly higher while raging. Yes, if he get's hit with two in a round or so he is in more trouble but the barbarian suffers worse since he has to make two saves with his worst save anyways. Two spells won't likely happen at this level in the same round but the warblade is still better of knowing he's going to succeed on his first.

You're character can't pick up any weapon and use it immediately AND do similar damage. In fact, any other weapon and you lose your 2d6 and crit range as well as potentialyl a chance to two-hand attack depending on the weapon. This does not affect my warblade (especially if he's using a shield and a one-hand weapon). If you didn't want me to use a shield I could also use a greatsword and increase my average dmg a few more points as well.

It's odd that I can nearly copy all the barbarians abilities except rage with a warblade though not at this level. I was concerned with fighters but this makes me more concerned that barbarians are losing a lot compared to warblades as well.

 Yes, you're reckless raging barbarian is getting "closer" to the warblade's damage output but not able to yet surpass it nor the other benefits the warblade is gaining. And at this level with that high of an output he's going to be slaying things easy. That 5 or more so damage he can do may be what ends a creatures life. Another factor that's not really considered statistically is that while his two round average is only slightly higher than you're characters he's doing potentially more of it in the first round. If we found a wizard will he live through 1d20+22? Probably not. Will he live past 2d6+10? Likely. THis is something that needs to be remembered in the fact that many creatures don't live to see the second round with warblades. Heck, a high roll and most other level 5 PC's will fall. 

Can you please explain your averages to me? 2d6+10 X 2 = 32? Or are we saying a d6 averages at 3.5 for a total of 7 +10 X2 = 34. Warblade is 1d20+22+1d10+5 = 42? or is a d20 avg an 11 and a d10 a 5.5 = 43.5? Sorry i'm at work but it seems the differential is higher. I'd probably just assume i'm one-handed with a shield so my AC is 1 higher than yours and my average damage goes down by 1 point. That way the only benefit is you're +2 attack bonus while in rage.

Basically i'd say let's keep things on even ground. If we want a higher AC I can give him a similar or higher AC. The fact still remains that his damage output is greater (even if close) plus several other abilities


----------



## sithramir

Bivotar said:
			
		

> Hmmm. I took it as all simple weapons and only martial melee weapons. But it could be the other way too. I guess it all depends on how one reads it. To me if it meant only melee weapons for both simple and martial weapons then it would have read:
> 
> Weapon and Armor Proficiency: You are proficient with simple *melee* and martial melee weapons (including those that can be used as thrown weapons), light and medium armor, and all shields except tower shields.
> 
> (Bolded text added by me)




You're bold is how I would read it as well. Simple and Martial both are referring melee weapons. If they had written "with simple weapons and martial melee weapons" then I would say he gets all simple. The bold isn't needed. Too bad WotC doesn't have an english major to edit for them


----------



## Bivotar

sithramir said:
			
		

> You're bold is how I would read it as well. Simple and Martial both are referring melee weapons. If they had written "with simple weapons and martial melee weapons" then I would say he gets all simple. The bold isn't needed. Too bad WotC doesn't have an english major to edit for them




Actually looking closer at it I think you may be right. Looking at the fighter it says:

A fighter is proficient with *all* simple and martial weapons...

And a warblade says the following:

You are proficient with *simple and martial melee weapons* (including those that can be used as thrown weapons)...

So if the warblade were truly proficient in all simple weapons and only martial melee weapons then it would have read something like what you wrote or it would have added the "all" before simple.

So I just checked the ToB again and it looks like the weapon prof break down like this for each of the martial adepts:

Crusader: same as a fighter
Swordsage: all simple weapons, martial melee weapons (including thrown weapons)
Warblade: simple melee weapons, martial melee weapons  (including thrown weapons)

Does that seem correct?


----------



## Nail

@ Bivotar: Agreed.

No missile weapons that are not also melee weapons for WB.


----------



## Nail

...I'm not so sure about Swordsage.  The wording is different from WB...but only barely.  Given editting problems in the book, I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between swordsage and WB is an error.


----------



## Bivotar

Nail said:
			
		

> ...I'm not so sure about Swordsage.  The wording is different from WB...but only barely.  Given editting problems in the book, I wouldn't be surprised if the difference between swordsage and WB is an error.




I would tend to agree about there possibly being an editing error but it may be correct. Not sure if it really unbalances anything for the swordsage to allow all simple weapons.

But it is odd about the warblade having such limited access to weapons. This is the first time I have ever seen such a slicing of the weapon proficiencies. Doesn't really bother me though.


----------



## Slaved

Wow.. that lack of ranged weapons for the warblade is rough. That means that the other character in question, barbarian in my last build, has a major advantage at range. He is doing d8+3 with a +8 attack bonus (can't afford masterwork with everything else I believe) at a long range vs. the warblades nothing at all, maybe throwing axes or something.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> You're right. The barbarian at level 5 will have better speed. However, at level 6 I get a new stance that gives me +10 movement, and +2 to AC whenever I move 10'. That's what's too powerful about the warblade.




You are going to spend a feat for that stance? If so we are definately going to have to make those 6th level builds and compare them.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> And he did have over 1000 gp's left so he can afford a +1 Shield.




Only if you do not get the cloak of protection I believe. I was hoping that you would so that the saves would be about equal still before raging or the manuever.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> And he doesn't always trade any damage for a reflex save. He uses his maneuver as a standard action and can use a reflex or will save as an immediate. He just recharges them all when he recharges his maneuver.




The immediate action steals your next rounds swift action. It takes a swift action to recover your manuevers. So in order to use your big move every other round you cannot use your reflex boost at all. This means that you are losing damage.

I think that the number of times you have to make a reflex save during your own turn is incredibly low so that is unlikely to be an issue.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> You said that the barbarian has a better time against hold person but I don't understand why.




Well, while raging the barbarians will save is better than the warblades will save. If you go for the shield then the barbarians will save is always better than the warblades along with the rest of his saves being better as well. The warblade does not yet have the ability to trade out his will save so it is not fair trying to say that he can, you already tried that once and was called on it.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> You're character can't pick up any weapon and use it immediately AND do similar damage.




Why not? For melee weapons the second build has exactly the same strength score for each and none of his bonuses are specific weapon dependent.

Compared with that the warblade is at a slight disadvantage because he has to rest for a night and then train for awhile to change over his weapon focus.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Yes, you're reckless raging barbarian is getting "closer" to the warblade's damage output but not able to yet surpass it nor the other benefits the warblade is gaining.




At this point it is coming down to there not being feats or items specialized in one area while there are feats and items specialized in the other. There arent any feats to pick up for the barbarian that will help out directly. Oversized weapon gives more penalties than bonuses, exotic weapon doesn't have a good choice, etc. Whereas the warblade was able to focus 2 feats and 8 skill points and about half of his wealth on a single goal.

The two came out pretty even while the barbarian is raging, the barbarian is miles ahead in ranged, and the warblade comes out ahead in versitility and staying power, along with a better first blow in most circumstances. Oh, and the warblade can be ahead on AC if he tries, he actually makes a good sword and board character! That is amazing!

All in all, not bad. I think the biggest problem I see is that the +5 concentration item is too cheap, at least for this character. I don't know about it general, although I do know that some people complain casters have it too easy when it comes to concentration checks.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Can you please explain your averages to me? 2d6+10 X 2 = 32? Or are we saying a d6 averages at 3.5 for a total of 7 +10 X2 = 34. Warblade is 1d20+22+1d10+5 = 42? or is a d20 avg an 11 and a d10 a 5.5 = 43.5?




The average is calculated for a single, linear die by taking the maximum result, adding it to the minimum result, and then dividing by 2. It works the same for all dice combinations with fair dice with equal chances for each number, but that is the slow way to do it.

So d6 averages to 3.5, d20 averages to 10.5 and d10 averages to 5.5. I might have made a mistake adding somewhere though, it happens.

2d6+10 x2 should be 34, d20+d10+22+5 should be 43, I will look over my numbers when I am not quite so tired but the ones in other posts look ok at a glance.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Basically i'd say let's keep things on even ground.




Then where is your cloak of resistance?   

If you like the barbarian could beat up your character in a duel but I do not see how that would prove anything.


edited.....
I am really enjoying the comparisons. I just wish I knew the different books better to know if there are feats out there which actually help characters focus as much as the warblade with his concentration feats focuses. Being able to drop that sheer load of things onto one ability would make any ability strong! It reminds me of a warlock using a bunch of feats and items to boost up his blast to incredible touch attack damage several times a day.

edited again....


			
				nail said:
			
		

> BTW, Slaved, thanks for these write-ups! I wish I had more time right now to look them over in detail.
> 
> Do you have a spreadsheet that can calculate average damage per roudn against a given AC? I do, as well as the average AC for comparably CR opponents in the core rules. It's helpful in this kind of comparison.




I am sorry that I missed this earlier nail.   

I do not have a spreadsheet or anything, I have not really even compared to many AC's. I don't know if average AC's will help though, enemies are so very variable between campaigns. Does the spreadsheet that you have give you the average damage for many AC's at the same time? I was trying to keep the attack bonuses the same but converting to hit to damage looks to be a losing proposition sometimes. Having to spend a feat to do less average damage seems like a barbarian way to go but it does not look to be terribly bright.


----------



## glass

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> For clarity, here is the quote from the book (page 43):
> 
> "You can make a critical hit with a strike, and in a few cases, a critical hit grants you additional benefits.  *You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit.  You treat it just as you would extra damage from an ability, such as sneak attack.*"



Ah, that is interesting, I had missed that. The interesting thing is, it contradicts itself. The first sentance says never multiply it; the second sentance says treat it like other abilities which add damage: ie multiply if it is a flat number, don't if it is damage.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> So, the +100 damage strike doesn't become +400 if you get a critical hit with a scythe.



Well, that depends if you go by the first sentance or the second.  



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> However, since Insightful Strike isn't extra damage, but the base damage of the strike, I'd say that will multiply.  Otherwise, they would have said that you can't get a critical with Insightful Strike.



Agreed.


glass.


----------



## glass

NilesB said:
			
		

> glass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure they do. Critical hits don't increase normal damage, they just apply it more than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So with a critical hit on insightful strike you get to _not_ apply normal damage twice.
Click to expand...


How does that follow?


glass.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Does everybody feel that the difference between a Javelin and a Mighty Composite Longbow is that great, in the hands of a non-build character?

I.E. if you took a stock 5th or 6th level Barbarian and gave him a MCL and ran him through regular D&D encounters, especially published adventure content found in WotC modules or Dungeon adventures or the Dungeon Adventure Paths.

Would he be considerably more powerful than the same character with a set of javelins?

I.E. is the Simple, thrown, 30' inc., 1d6+Str that much weaker, in the game, than Martial, projectile, 110' inc., 1d8+Str?

Note that, if your strength score increases for any reason (buffs, rage, items) the extra damage is strapped immediately to the javelin, as a thrown weapon, but not to the longbow and that if, for any reason, your Strength score is lowered you take no penalty on the javelin attack but do take a penalty for using a Mighty bow without the Strength score it was built for.

Additionally, range increment.  Are ranges greater than 30'-60' common in D&D games?  Do your games often involve foes forced to travel in the open across hundreds of feet of terrain without cover, total cover, or concealment to reach melee combat with your non-bow-specialized character?  Without the arcane casters blowing them up for multiple d6s every round to your 1d8+2-4.

--fje


----------



## starwed

The problem with thrown weapons is that using magic weapons becomes much more problematic.


----------



## Victim

Range is often important when dealing with bombardment from flying creatures - the most common way to get potentially 100s of unobstructed feet is to go mostly up.  Sure, throwing out a few weak d8+4 shots is nothing special, but it's better than just standing around complaining about how useless you are.

Other than that, javelins are pretty good.  But it's even better to have both.  Then you use the bow when the situation calls for extreme range, or just whip out a javelin if you come up short of melee.

Of course, the point is moot if the warblade multiclasses into a normal fighting class.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the manuever critting text contradicts itself.  Based on the comparison to sneak attack, it seems to be saying that manuevers are treated as extra "dice" even if it's a flat damage bonus on crits.


----------



## Slaved

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Does everybody feel that the difference between a Javelin and a Mighty Composite Longbow is that great, in the hands of a non-build character?




Well, the weapons look something like this.......
Javelin  1gp  d6(M)  x2  30'(range increment)  2lbs  piercing (not designed for melee, take a -4 nonproficiency to use it in melee, might not be a free action to draw I do not know because I cannot find the rule, always gets full strength bonus, since it is two handed it might take a full-round action to use and so no iterative attacks, max range increment 5)

Composite longbow  100gp(+100gp per strength bonus)  d8(M)  x3  110'(range increment) 3lbs piercing(ammo) (arrows are 20 for 3lbs, cannot be used in melee, free action to draw more arrows so can be used with iterative attacks, can be used while mounted, -2 penalty to attack if your strength modifier is lower than the bonus on the longbow, max range increment 10)


I would think that any combatant which is within 30' to 60' is within charging range, except maybe for the dwarven warblade above for anything beyone 40'   , so ranged weapons are not helpful unless their is some other issue such as people in the way or terrain issues. If the combat is beyond that then you are looking at either very large penalties for the javelin to hit or it being simply unable to because of the range. The composite longbow can shoot almost 10 times as far as the javelin can be thrown!

If you are enlarged then you get a +2 to strength, a -2 to dexterity, a -1 to hit and a -1 to AC. For the Javelin this means you get +1 to damage and -2 to hit overall. For the composite longbow your bow changes from d8 to 2d6 damage, according to the monstrous manual, and a -2 to hit. The javelin does not get the extra die increase because of some crazy rule someone told me once that I do not remember, so it could be incorrect.

If you walk around with either a longbow out or a javelin out you are not ready for melee, although with the javelin you are in a better position. Javelin is also superior for straight strength buffs and debuffs.


If you never, or only incredibly rarely, have to worry about creatures being more than 60' away from you before you know they are hostile then the lack of ranged attacks may never matter at all. If it happens more commonly then the lack of ranged attacks will hurt more.

If all combats start so close though what do archer builds in your game do or spellcasters with long range, area of effect spells? They must be much less useful. If it is so close all of the time it would seem unlikely that anyone would even bother to carry ranged weapons, or at least not put any effort at all into making them better if they do.

Pull out the javelin and throw it or simply charge and be in melee? Forget a bow of any kind, all the enemies have to do is a move action or two and you will be needing a melee weapon out anyway.

Maybe the close range is more common with people who use battlemats?


edited.....
I am very late to the party


----------



## NilesB

*Insightful Strike and critical hits*

Insightful strike is a concentration check not weapon damage, it specifically disallows you from increasing it's damage with any and all effects that deal extra weapon damage. Critical hits deal extra weapon damage, they do not improve concentration checks. This is not even a litte ambiguous.


----------



## Slaved

I forgot about spells!

I am rushing out the door and likely won't have time for a couple of days but at some point I'd like to make a list of spells up to 3rd level that help teamates for which would help which character more.

Something like....
Warblade: a, b, c
Fighter/Barbarian/??: d, e, f

unless someone has a better formating idea?


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

Actually there's no text that I can see that suggests the Javelin is in any way a two-handed weapon.  It doesn't take a full-round-action to throw.  That rule is for melee weapons without a range increment listed, such as a greatsword or greataxe.

Without any rules stating otherwise, you can draw and throw javelins with one hand, as far as I know.  If you had TWF you could throw them two at a time.  You could draw two of them, hold one in each hand, and take a 2-attack Full Attack Action, again, as far as I know, since I don't think there are any rules about passing an item from one hand to the next.

Drawing a javelin is a move action, throwing a standard action.  This requires one hand.  A greatsword-wielding character can take a hand off his sword (free action), draw a javelin (move action), throw the javelin (standard action), and return his hand to his weapon (free action).  Same as drawing/throwing a throwing axe, as far as I can see.  He's still melee ready.  You just end up with fewer, because they are essentially a heavy ammunition.

My current character uses both javelins and a bow.  I rarely use the bow.  Have to drop the 2hander, pull the bow, use the bow ... then I can't move if I want to get my 2hander back because it is on the floor.  

We have fought a dragon out-doors ... was better to get a Fly spell, but with the dragon's movement rate it came down to a stalemate ... it could fly past and use its breath every few rounds and nobody could catch it or try a flyby attack, but with our protections we took little actual damage from either and did about the same damage to the dragon, if not more.   So we were pinging eachother.  The dragon could retreat and wait for the buffs to wear off, but we could retreat somewhere the dragon couldn't reach.  If the dragon got pinned down, it was going to eat the big melee damage, and every time it came past it was open to spells. 

It's one of those oddities of D&D that things tend to narrow down to about <100' battlemaps.  One, the game encourages miniature use, and at 5' = 1", it's hard to get much on there.  Designers tend to establish encounters that can fit on the more common dining-room table, which is 5'x4' IIRC.  That's about 300' x 240' for the biggest combat board your average game group can field, and that's leaving no room for books and sheets and snacks and stuff.  "Big" battles seem to be 100'x100' square or less, most common encounters seem to be 25'-60' on a side.  

Is that unfairly weighted toward melee combat?  Yea, pretty much.  Especially unfairly weighted against LARGE RANGE INCREMENTS.  30' increment really seems to be about the cherry increment.  Not too short, not uselessly long.

What are the ranged guys doing?  Skirmishing around the edges of the melee combat.  Most are engaging within 20-30' of the melee.  I see 10-to-1 "firing into melee" penalties to "range increment" penalties.  

It can be argued that in a fair or perfect world, the guy with the 110' range increment could put the injury on somebody with a melee weapon.  Sure.  Hypothetically.  But the designers don't put those sort of things in their games, nor the GMs.  When they show up, it isn't an "average" combat ... that becomes the focus of the combat.  The "Sniper" combat or the "Flying Islands" combat.  They're set pieces.  Like fighting on rope bridges over chasms and lava lakes. 

Not that you can't make a very effective ranged combatant character.  With feats and spells and abilities, you can be very effective.  But it's not, that I've ever seen, "effective because the guy has to run over 300 feet of open ground or air to get at me".  It is "effective somewhere outside of the foe's threat range".  A bow-based character is just as effective, essentially, 5' outside of the foe's threat range as 105' outside of the foe's threat range.  Their only worry is keeping the melee guy off them.  If that means the party tank is keeping the monster from him, or that the guy has to cover 300' of open ground, it's essentially the same to the bowman.

More likely, the party is kicking down the "door" of a 25'x25' to 100'x100' room and beating the snot out of a collection of monsters in there.  Lots of variations on the theme, but go through a dungeon magazine or review the last half-dozen combats in your home game ... "PCs arrive on 100'x100' or less field, melee ensues."  Stuff is thrown in there to make it interesting and different.

--fje


----------



## Nail

Good points, HeapThaumaturgist.

I agree that range increments larger than the shortbows (60 ft) are usually irrelevant.  But the difference between the javelin (30ft) and the shortbow is large enough to matter in most combats I run....for the PCs optimized for missile weapons.  That is, being farther away than 30 ft is ideal for missile oriented PCs, and the extra -2 atk because of range is enough to matter.    (Ignoring sneak attack, etc.)

However, if your PC is built around melee, having any missile weapon at all is rather superfluous, IME.  Sure, once every 3 or 4 meetings having a missile weapon is nice, but most of the time moving into melee range is a better tactic than using a round for missile fire.

So (depending on campaign), does it matter that Warblades don't have proficiency with non-thrown missle weapons?  Nah.

....and if it really is a proplem, there's always that one level of Ftr to solve it.


----------



## Malacoda

Personally, I feel that comparing a Warblade with Insightful Strike to a two-handed weapon type is the wrong approach. The Barbarian or Fighter gets no benefit from a full attack action. Their single attack is not as powerful as the Warblade’s Insightful Strike, and they have no real way to compensate.

A better choice might be a dual-weapon type, who can get a benefit from a full attack action.

For example:

*Dual-Weapon Specialist: *Fighter 5 (Dwarf); HD 5d10+15 (47 hp); Init +2; Spd 20 ft. (4 squares); AC 17 (+5 breastplate, +2 Dexterity), touch 13, flat-footed 15; Base Atk/Grpl +5/+8; Atk +1 Dwarven Waraxe +10 melee (1d10+6/x3); Full Atk +1 Dwarven Waraxe +8 melee (1d10+6/x3) and +1 Dwarven War Axe +8 melee (1d10+4/x3) 

Str 16, Dex 15, Con 16 Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 6

Feats: Two-Weapon Fighting, Over-sized Offhand Weapon, Weapon Focus (Dwarven Waraxe), Weapon Specialization (Dwarven Waraxe), 1 other feat

Against a troll (AC16), this character does an average of 13.65 damage per round it does a full attack action (65% chance to hit, 11.5 and 9.5 average damage per weapon). Over two rounds this is 27.3 points of damage.

Against the troll the warblade with the 1d20+17 damage Insightful Strike does 20.63 average damage (75% chance to hit, 27.5 average damage). On the second round it does an average of 7.88 (75% chance to hit, 10.5 average damage). Total over two rounds is 28.5.

As you can see this brings the two closer. The warblade is not dependent on the full attack action, so it has another edge over the fighter. Combine that with flexibility, and the warblade overall wins.

But, that is just 5th level. What about 6th level?

Give the Warblade Weapon Specialization and a +2 Strength item. Give the Fighter Two Weapon Pounce and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and a +2 Dex item (so it can qualify for ITWF).

Against an Ettin (AC18) the fighter does an average of 22.05 damage when it can do a full attack action (4 attacks, 2 at 65% and 2 at 40%, same average damage). If it cannot do a full attack action but can charge, it does 13.65 damage on average. If it can full attack every round, it does 44.10 damage over two rounds. If it has to charge one round and full attack the next, it does 35.7 damage over two rounds. 

The warblade’s Insightful Strike does up to 21.38 points of damage on average against the ettin, and it’s second round it full attacks for an average of 16.88 damage. Over two rounds, that is 38.25 points of damage.

In one level, the two-weapon specialist can leapfrog the warblade in shear damage, given the examples set forth. There might be other maneuver or stances or whatever that levels this back out, but given the parameters set out, the fighter isn’t doing that poorly, in my opinion.

None of my calculations include the cloak or whatever that gives +5 to Concentration checks. I know this means I am not arguing the RAW. It would add 3.75 points to the Warblade’s numbers (75% chance to hit, 5 points of damage). Personally, I find the usage of the cloak in this manner to be so cheesy I want to spread it on a cracker, but that is for individual DMs to decide. It impacts the 5th level comparison a fair amount, and shores up the difference in the 6th level comparison when full attacking.

Insightful strike is nice. Compared to some fighter-type builds it is going to look real good, but against others, like the two-weapon build, not as much.

This is only a commentary on shear damage, not other abilities. Having not read through ToB completely it is hard for me to comment much further than this.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

To be honest, though, I've never really found where TWF has been especially noteworthy for any other than a rogue.  You've GOT to have feats like Oversized TWF and TWPounce to even get into the running.

I think, also, the fact that the Warblade can do this one-handed should be noted.  At low levels, 1-3, a shield is 1-2 more AC.  At mid levels 3-4, PLUS the shield allows for an additional set of armor-related special enchantments at a cheaper cost.  Once we get into the higher levels, the floaty-shield lowers the AC change, but there's cost issues involved as well, since +2 worth of gold is going to keeping the thing in the air while the warblade has since strapped Arrow Deflection or another 2 points of AC on there or something similar.

Additionally, even with several feats plugged into the build and assuming full attack (which is just not as real-world likely as I think people assume), the Warblade in there is still dealing MORE damage, and more quickly.  His damage is greater AND it is frontloaded.  Both of these characters are heavily optimized, in terms of character resources, and I think it still gives some gifts to the fighter ... assumption of a full attack, assumption of a lower-AC enemy.  Low-AC/High-HP/Low-Damage monsters favor full attacks ... you can stand next to them, you can hit them with the lower attack bonuses of the iterative attacks, and they survive long enough to get in the damage.

For instance, if we instead say that the TWF Fighter and the Warblade are approaching a 5th level Wizard (Dex 14, Con 14, Mage Armor, Shield up, AC 20 and 24hp) the Warblade has a good chance of blowing him out of the water in a single move+Insightful Strike, while the TWF guy has his damage output significantly decreased ... there's not going to be 2 rounds of Full Attacks from either warrior.  If the Wizard survives the first assault of either one, he's going to be getting the hell out of the way.  The TWF guy can chase him around the battlefield for a few rounds.  

This is, also, generally why TWF sucks for everybody other than the rogue.  The rogue tumbles into flanking and tries to get two stabs in the next round and finish the job.  The rogue doesn't stand around for three rounds making full attacks on the dragon because the dragon is going to punt him and have a few attacks left over for the Fighter.

Even when we're all but throwing the fight for the Fighter, he still just gets "close" but he's STILL out-performed.  When we're assuming high-HP, low-AC, low-attack monsters that are just ripe for the picking with a full attack ... then the fighter gets aaaaaaaaaaaalmost there.     

Larger issue, though, this just one choice among several choices the warblade player can make.  While they both dumped all of their feats into their "builds" the warblade gets additional choices in Stance and Maneuvers ... taking the save maneuvers is great, especially for the guy tweaking the Concentration check but the stance is pretty much gravy for him.  Those saves are far beyond anything the Fighter can get.  The stance is beyond what the fighter has.  Busting straight out on the home stretch in a prime set-up just for him using everything he has ... the fighter catches up in damage while falling behind on every other level. 

--fje


----------



## Seeten

I think Warblade is better used as a replacement fighter than as a side by side. I think Fighter, if I ran both, would get Maneuvers and Stances from specific schools, just like it was a Warblade, and I'd up skill points, and I'd let fighter have feats instead of battle clarity/battle alacrity/battle blah blah.

I'd leave Warblade at D12 hd, because Fighter feats are better than Warblade specials, once fighters get equal maneuvers to Warblades.


----------



## sithramir

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> To be honest, though, I've never really found where TWF has been especially noteworthy for any other than a rogue.  You've GOT to have feats like Oversized TWF and TWPounce to even get into the running.
> 
> I think, also, the fact that the Warblade can do this one-handed should be noted.  At low levels, 1-3, a shield is 1-2 more AC.  At mid levels 3-4, PLUS the shield allows for an additional set of armor-related special enchantments at a cheaper cost.  Once we get into the higher levels, the floaty-shield lowers the AC change, but there's cost issues involved as well, since +2 worth of gold is going to keeping the thing in the air while the warblade has since strapped Arrow Deflection or another 2 points of AC on there or something similar.
> 
> Additionally, even with several feats plugged into the build and assuming full attack (which is just not as real-world likely as I think people assume), the Warblade in there is still dealing MORE damage, and more quickly.  His damage is greater AND it is frontloaded.  Both of these characters are heavily optimized, in terms of character resources, and I think it still gives some gifts to the fighter ... assumption of a full attack, assumption of a lower-AC enemy.  Low-AC/High-HP/Low-Damage monsters favor full attacks ... you can stand next to them, you can hit them with the lower attack bonuses of the iterative attacks, and they survive long enough to get in the damage.
> 
> For instance, if we instead say that the TWF Fighter and the Warblade are approaching a 5th level Wizard (Dex 14, Con 14, Mage Armor, Shield up, AC 20 and 24hp) the Warblade has a good chance of blowing him out of the water in a single move+Insightful Strike, while the TWF guy has his damage output significantly decreased ... there's not going to be 2 rounds of Full Attacks from either warrior.  If the Wizard survives the first assault of either one, he's going to be getting the hell out of the way.  The TWF guy can chase him around the battlefield for a few rounds.
> 
> This is, also, generally why TWF sucks for everybody other than the rogue.  The rogue tumbles into flanking and tries to get two stabs in the next round and finish the job.  The rogue doesn't stand around for three rounds making full attacks on the dragon because the dragon is going to punt him and have a few attacks left over for the Fighter.
> 
> Even when we're all but throwing the fight for the Fighter, he still just gets "close" but he's STILL out-performed.  When we're assuming high-HP, low-AC, low-attack monsters that are just ripe for the picking with a full attack ... then the fighter gets aaaaaaaaaaaalmost there.
> 
> Larger issue, though, this just one choice among several choices the warblade player can make.  While they both dumped all of their feats into their "builds" the warblade gets additional choices in Stance and Maneuvers ... taking the save maneuvers is great, especially for the guy tweaking the Concentration check but the stance is pretty much gravy for him.  Those saves are far beyond anything the Fighter can get.  The stance is beyond what the fighter has.  Busting straight out on the home stretch in a prime set-up just for him using everything he has ... the fighter catches up in damage while falling behind on every other level.
> 
> --fje




I'll just leave it at Amen. There's only a few builds, if any, that can even out damage the warblade and you're trying to assume they get full attack options. Even if they did, which isn't half as often (especially at lower levels when things either die or run), they're still not out damaging him. AND he's getting more hps, a better AC with a shield, insane saves WITHOUT failure, etc, etc, etc. 

How about this. You just created a character that can get close to the damage output (but not over) now create a character that beats my character's saves. I'm trying to think how someone can get up to a +22 in any one save at 5th level yet alone 2 saves. Did I mention in a level two (if he wants to) he can have that in EVERY save? Oh and it goes up by 1 every level and more if his con gets boosted. I'd like to see that happen.

That's why warblades are so powerful front loaded insane damage with more benefits than any other class. Yes, they are mostly combat oriented powers, but he still gets Diplomacy and 4 skill points so he can CHOOSE to be a role playing skillful character.


----------



## Slaved

Lots of posts to respond to, what is the proper etiquette? I will just stumble along for now.



			
				HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> Actually there's no text that I can see that suggests the Javelin is in any way a two-handed weapon.  It doesn't take a full-round-action to throw.  That rule is for melee weapons without a range increment listed, such as a greatsword or greataxe.
> 
> We have fought a dragon out-doors ... was better to get a Fly spell, but with the dragon's movement rate it came down to a stalemate ... it could fly past and use its breath every few rounds and nobody could catch it or try a flyby attack, but with our protections we took little actual damage from either and did about the same damage to the dragon, if not more.   So we were pinging eachother.  The dragon could retreat and wait for the buffs to wear off, but we could retreat somewhere the dragon couldn't reach.  If the dragon got pinned down, it was going to eat the big melee damage, and every time it came past it was open to spells.
> 
> It's one of those oddities of D&D that things tend to narrow down to about <100' battlemaps.  One, the game encourages miniature use, and at 5' = 1", it's hard to get much on there.  Designers tend to establish encounters that can fit on the more common dining-room table, which is 5'x4' IIRC.  That's about 300' x 240' for the biggest combat board your average game group can field, and that's leaving no room for books and sheets and snacks and stuff.  "Big" battles seem to be 100'x100' square or less, most common encounters seem to be 25'-60' on a side.
> 
> Is that unfairly weighted toward melee combat?  Yea, pretty much.  Especially unfairly weighted against LARGE RANGE INCREMENTS.  30' increment really seems to be about the cherry increment.  Not too short, not uselessly long.
> 
> What are the ranged guys doing?  Skirmishing around the edges of the melee combat.  Most are engaging within 20-30' of the melee.  I see 10-to-1 "firing into melee" penalties to "range increment" penalties.
> 
> It can be argued that in a fair or perfect world, the guy with the 110' range increment could put the injury on somebody with a melee weapon.  Sure.  Hypothetically.  But the designers don't put those sort of things in their games, nor the GMs.  When they show up, it isn't an "average" combat ... that becomes the focus of the combat.  The "Sniper" combat or the "Flying Islands" combat.  They're set pieces.  Like fighting on rope bridges over chasms and lava lakes.
> 
> Not that you can't make a very effective ranged combatant character.  With feats and spells and abilities, you can be very effective.  But it's not, that I've ever seen, "effective because the guy has to run over 300 feet of open ground or air to get at me".  It is "effective somewhere outside of the foe's threat range".  A bow-based character is just as effective, essentially, 5' outside of the foe's threat range as 105' outside of the foe's threat range.  Their only worry is keeping the melee guy off them.  If that means the party tank is keeping the monster from him, or that the guy has to cover 300' of open ground, it's essentially the same to the bowman.
> 
> More likely, the party is kicking down the "door" of a 25'x25' to 100'x100' room and beating the snot out of a collection of monsters in there.  Lots of variations on the theme, but go through a dungeon magazine or review the last half-dozen combats in your home game ... "PCs arrive on 100'x100' or less field, melee ensues."  Stuff is thrown in there to make it interesting and different.
> 
> --fje




My mistake about the two handed javelin. I do not know where I got that from.

I guess the rest just differs from my experience. I have seen battles in the plains where you can practically see forever, in the desert which was somewhat the same but less fire risk, in small towns where buildings were in the way and a street went from one side to the other that was a few hundred feet away, in huge towns where the skyscrapers had fighting going up and down to different towers and to the streets below, ship to ship combat, ship to shore combat, shore to ship combat, flying combat, sparse woods, gulches, extremely old forests with huge trees with miles of shadey and stubly growth under their canopies, on top of those canopies, and so many other places.

Sometimes combats started at far distances, sometimes they stayed that way. Sometimes they started up close, usually they stayed that way.

I think it comes down to what type of combat your dm wants to emphasize. I think with my dm right now the lack of a good ranged attack will make the character feel useless in at least some battles. Someone could cast fly on him but for at least some of the battles he would be by himself with the enemies.



			
				Malacoda said:
			
		

> Personally, I feel that comparing a Warblade with Insightful Strike to a two-handed weapon type is the wrong approach. The Barbarian or Fighter gets no benefit from a full attack action. Their single attack is not as powerful as the Warblade’s Insightful Strike, and they have no real way to compensate.




This is only true for a single level. At level 6 the barbarian and fighter get an extra attack on a full attack. It looks to be a level where things can line up just right to gain a whole lot of benefit, although the barbarian example from before is still pretty equal for either 2 or 4 fights a day.

I think next will be level 6 comparisons which should help to see if it is just for that one level or if it continues. I do not think that every class is equal at every level, just look at the wizard and the sorcerer.




			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> There's only a few builds, if any, that can even out damage the warblade and you're trying to assume they get full attack options.




I believe the charging build posted earlier beats your initial damage and if you want to recharge it will be beating your second round damage as well. If it does not then someone can make a charging build that will beat your damage.

The full attacks will be nice to put in there when they come up as well. The barbarian/fighter will charge into combat and make a single attack, the next round he will make a full attack. The warblade will move up and make his strike, the next round he will recharge to do it again. That will make the comparison very interesting.

Also, if you pick up 3 abilities to make each of your saves have a boost then you will only have a single other ability to use. You can only use one of those each round and it interfers with recharging so you cannot use them very often.

They are great abilities though, no doubt about that!


----------



## charlesatan

sithramir said:
			
		

> You are not taking an overall perspective. Yes the fighter fighting two handed with an 18 Str (there is no str enhancing for us yet) using a greatsword has a good damage potential with a full attack. The reality is that he HAS to do that and he still falls way short. I don't want to use a greatsword with every character I make. He has to hit twice to do it (the second attack is at -5 so even if his first attack may be 2 higher from str his second is lessened). He doesn't have this option except for a full attack. A warblade gets to do this on the first attack every time. Maybe if you're fighting poweful creatures you can stand and full attack but in our campaign it's often several NPC's and one might die in that first attack. The fighter has to stand and take some hits to do that. ALSO that's just one power. The warblade can use his next round to mountain hammer and add +2d6 damage. Oh he also gets to ignore all damage reduction so now he has an attack that can strike down a door or bypass any creature that a fighter might have a lot of trouble defeating because of this AND he still has tumble, diplomacy, 4 skill pts per level, d12 hps, and great save potential.




First off, if he does manage to connect with both of his attacks, using the math, I don't see how he comes off short (I'd take 4d6+20 over 1d20+17.

Second, yes, you don't have to use a greatsword. But speaking from an optimal point of view, it's one of the weapons to take (and along those lines are the falchion if you want a higher threat range for crits, the scythe for a higher crit multiplier, etc.). Or do you want to carry the discussion to unarmed strikes only? Isn't that rather limiting the Fighter's options?

Hitting twice isn't as bad as you make it sound. For one thing, you have an additional chance to make a critical. I also forgot that with Boots of Speed (admittedly not in the budget at 5th or even 6th level) or under the effects of a Haste spell, your output increases dramatically (it's not like a WB using Insightful Strike) will benefit from Haste except for the glorified Expeditious Retreat effect and the +1 to AC and Ref saves. You're also forgetting that you still have to hit with your attack for Insightful Strike and with your Con being your primary stat, your total attack bonus is certainly less than the first attack of the Fighter with a Str 18 (but more than his first iterative attack). So if I can miss with my second attack, you can also miss with your Insightful Strike, which is an all-or-nothing move before needing to recharge.

Don't get me wrong, Mountain Hammer is great. However, its optimum effectiveness is when you're fighting someone with DR and your damage modifiers doesn't amount to 2d6 when it comes to the iterative attacks. Again, at 6th level, assuming the creature he faces has DR, a Ftr wielding a Greatsword will deal more damage with iterative attacks than Mountain Hammer alone.

As for "when you can full attack or not", it's a shifty situation. At 1st-level, I'd say that's true. Any attack can probably fell another monster of equal CR. At 5th-level, unless you're still facing CR 1 or even CR 2 monsters, I don't think that's true. Or sometimes it's plain tactical playing. If I win initiative, I stay in front of the party and wait for the opposition's "Fighter" to charge. I take the hit, then full attack on my turn. I will not charge a group of orcs for example unless I'm sure I can kill them, and even then, that risks me putting myself in place where they can full attack me. Usually I wait for them to come to me, rather than vice versa (for Ftrs, it's usually a question of who can full attack first who wins).

The skill points are admittedly pretty, but on the other hand, Martial Adepts also need those skill points as some are related to their maneuvers (Concentration and Tumble comes to mind). d12 hp is also pretty. Great save potential isn't an advantage more than an option. You still have to choose those counters, and they're taking up readied slots. It's like saying a Ftr can take all these feats, yet in the end, he's only stuck with a couple of them. With the "great save potential", you're giving up other potential maneuvers. And we've already pointed out their limitations.




			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Yes, he can only use his saves once a round at best and needs to recharge to gain it back but he also doesn't fail on a 1 as it's now a concentration check in lieu of a save. Oh no he and the fighter got hit by two fire balls in the same round? My warblade is probably alive because he saved on the first roll and whether or not he failed on the second he's got d12 hps and a maxed out con (which benefits him in many areas). The fighter may be dead on the first or second fireball while the warblade is still standing.




Errr, rolling 1's isn't that good of an argument to me. It happens, theoretically, on a 5% chance. What's a better argument is that you have a higher save, period. And again, the limitation there is that you can only do it once until you "recharge". It could be a combination of a Ref and a Will save. Or two Will saves (Charm Person, Charm Person). It doesn't have to be hp related.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> So what that he doesn't benefit from a +5 weapon. INSTEAD he gets to use a +1 wounding, keen, sure-strike, mage bane weapon and still do as much if not more damage than a fighter. He doesn't even need to pay for that +5 weapon unless he wants to boost his to hit some. At higher levels a fighter is using power attack to try to even get close to the damage output of a warblade so his attack is lessened anyways.




Honestly, the weapon you mentioned benefits the Ftr more, at least according to your argument. Sure, you benefit from wounding, keen, sure strike, and magebane. But wounding is optimum when you're launching several attacks, not just an "all or nothing attack" that is the nature of most maneuvers. Yes, you benefit from Keen and the question there is like whether you want the 18-20 threat range weapon or the x4 weapon: do you want more chances to crit at a lower multiplier or do you want that rare but crippling strike when you crit? If the latter, then keen's fine with Insightful Strike. If not, iterative attacks with keen lean more towards the former. Sure Strike only matters to those with alignment DR, and if you're using Mountain Hammer, irrelevant. Magebane could possibly give you a +2 to hit but if it's just that you're after, might as well get a +3 weapon. The increased damage won't help with Insightful Strike (but it does Mountain Hammer, but since you've been focusing on Insightful Strike the entire time...). Suffice to say, the Ftr is quite gear dependent and if you have a stingy DM, the martial adepts will come out on top.



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> Yes he just got this power at 5th level but he keeps getting better powers. Soon he'll be able to add 6d6 with greater mountain hammer, then he'll get greater insightful strike, then ancient mountain hamer, then he'll get the one tha tjust adds 100 damage to his attacks.




The mid-level maneuvers are so-so compared to a Full Attack. Admittedly, there's little answer for the high-level maneuvers, but they are comparable to other classes (i.e. gish, spellcasters, etc.).



			
				sithramir said:
			
		

> I just used level 5 as the example but I doublt you'll find a level where the warblade isn't shining anyways. Maybe "statistically" a fighter with a specific weapon can keep close but that falls short in actual play and that's ignoring all the other powers available to the warblade. The funny thing is that in our campaign as give a Fighter a feat at EVERY level and it still falls short. Maybe you can say fighters were just a bit weak but other classes will find it hard to compete.




Depends on what encounters your GM is throwing at you and the optimization skills of the person. The Ftr is admittedly easy to play, but on the other hand, also one of the most difficult to optimize (and few people really play the entire 20 classes out for reasons I pointed out in my earlier posts). And it's not like Ftr's can't take maneuvers either.

Also, if you're using the WotC says so card on the crits (and I agree with them... Insightful does crit), then I'll pull the Wotc says so as well when it comes to "recharging" maneuvers: it takes a standard action. At 5th-level, that's meaningless, but at later levels, the Ftr can be full attacking while you're stuck with a single attack as you need to recharge.


----------



## charlesatan

sithramir said:
			
		

> How about this. You just created a character that can get close to the damage output (but not over) now create a character that beats my character's saves. I'm trying to think how someone can get up to a +22 in any one save at 5th level yet alone 2 saves. Did I mention in a level two (if he wants to) he can have that in EVERY save? Oh and it goes up by 1 every level and more if his con gets boosted. I'd like to see that happen.





The problem with save is that it doesn't win you games (much like in Magic: The Gathering people don't use Walls most of the time), at least directly (I mean it saves your hide...). And the problem with your saves is that they're limited to 1/round and you only have one of each until you need to "recharge". If I wanted a character with high saves, I'd go Monk or Paladin. Or usually just settle with a class that has two good saves.

On a side note, at high levels, here's a good item to boost your Concentration checks: Third Eye of Concentration for 10,000 gp, in the Expanded Psionics Handbook (or SRD). Doesn't stack with your Tunic of Steady Spellcasting though (both are Competence bonuses).

Also, I think you're going about your arguments wrong. Don't mistake me, I think the martial adepts are powerful classes, but there are other classes more powerful than it (spellcasters, gishes, etc.). As I mentioned, the Duskblade at 5th-level can easily deal 5d6 electricity damage (shocking grasp) plus whatever damage his weapon deals (greatsword, 2d6+6) as a standard action. Or even using core, at higher levels, I'd go Ftr/Wiz/Eldritch Knight combination, Polymorph myself into some insanely powerful creature (Firbolg and War Troll the most optimum forms), and one can easily outdo a high-level Warblade.

And perhaps my biggest argument for your builds is that you're approaching it the wrong way. You're focusing too much on Insightful Strike (and Greater Insightful Strike). As a martial adept, my main stat would probably be Str (because I still need to hit things, and increases my damage potential overall) rather than solely Con. Because Con, at most, synergizes well with only the Diamond Mind maneuvers. For Stone Dragon, or White Raven, or Tiger Claw, or Iron Heart, I'd really want a good Str score. Your reliance on Insightful Strike is like a Wizard relying on Scorching Ray the entire time, when he has other spells to complement his abilities. Insightful Strike, for example, doesn't benefit from weapon enhancements (but it does for Concentration-boosting items, which is limited), feats, Str-boosting items, and anything else that usually boosts damage (i.e. Inspire Courage).


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

I prefer to say that Customer Service is just asking the GM next door.  You get the same off-hand punditry.

Here's what I'm getting from the conversation as it has run is that some people like Book of 9 Swords and some people don't.  

I'm of the don't.

It goes around and around and nothing new seems to be getting said.  The same few pieces keep getting chewed back and forth.

Hopefully people thinking of using the book in their own game will find the thread to have been of some edification.

--fje


----------



## interwyrm

I think the martial adepts definitely have a place in D&D. Sure, when I first started playing, fighters were fun. Now? I would never play one. I'd get bored after encounter #1. It's part of the same reason I like the new spellcasting classes that have predefined spell lists. Those are intro-spellcasters. Sorcerer is intermediate. Wizard is advanced.

Barbarian is beginner. Fighter is intermediate. Martial adept is advanced.

As far as the balance... I think warblades get d12 because they don't get heavy weapon proficiency. They could spend a feat to get it. A fighter could spend a feat to get improved toughness for the same +1 hp per level.

I really want to play a martial adept after a cursory look. They are complicated enough that I feel like I could get enjoyment out of it for an extended period of time.

When I play D&D, in combat, I don't want to be an android with an algorithm. The crusader probably solves this best, because there is an element of randomness to the abilities you can use.


----------



## Victim

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Also, I think you're going about your arguments wrong. Don't mistake me, I think the martial adepts are powerful classes, but there are other classes more powerful than it (spellcasters, gishes, etc.). As I mentioned, the Duskblade at 5th-level can easily deal 5d6 electricity damage (shocking grasp) plus whatever damage his weapon deals (greatsword, 2d6+6) as a standard action. Or even using core, at higher levels, I'd go Ftr/Wiz/Eldritch Knight combination, Polymorph myself into some insanely powerful creature (Firbolg and War Troll the most optimum forms), and one can easily outdo a high-level Warblade.
> .




Firbolg and War Troll aren't core.  Moreover, you don't need to be a wizard to reap the benefits of Polymorphing - as long as there's a friendly arcanist with the spell, any fighter type can be buffed up similarly without the sacrifice of fighting levels.  If you take the Polymorph as a given, then a regular fighter type is going to be able to use it better than a fighter mage type.  The multiclass improves the character's independence, but not its performance.  It's a move that decreases the character's power when buffed but gives them more control over when they fight with the buff.  A Warblade could make even greater use from Polymorph effects than a fighter; besides the obvious combat stat boosts, the high STR scores available on many monsters could put the DCs on some manuevers through the roof.

I've already mentioned that the Duskblade power curve spikes at around 5th level; at level 11, he's still adding +5d6 with his best channeled touch spells.  Not so awesome then, eh?  

... Not seeing the "gish" awesomeness here.


----------



## charlesatan

Slaved said:
			
		

> I forgot about spells!
> 
> I am rushing out the door and likely won't have time for a couple of days but at some point I'd like to make a list of spells up to 3rd level that help teamates for which would help which character more.
> 
> Something like....
> Warblade: a, b, c
> Fighter/Barbarian/??: d, e, f
> 
> unless someone has a better formating idea?




Here: main sources are PHB spells, PHB II, Spell Compedium, Dragon Magic, and Complete Mage. For spells that benefit both classes, I'll list them under those that benefit "more" from them. I'm also assuming that the Warblade is using the standard action/full round action maneuvers that give them one attack, instead of something like Time Stands Still which gives them access to more attacks (and just so you know, there are only three maneuvers that do so). Also, these are more offense oriented rather than defense (since both classes benefit from defense equally).

*Warblade:*

1st-level: magic stone, true strike*, blade of blood (PHB 2), snake's swiftness (SpC), divine sacrifice* (SpC)

2nd-level: bear's endurance, heroism (bard), stretch weapon (PHB 2), sure strike* (PHB 2), blade weave* (SpC), mass snake's swiftness (SpC), heroics (SpC)

3rd-level: crown of smiting (PHB 2), rusted blade (CM), find the gap* (SpC), 

*Characters Who Frequently Use Full Attack:*

1st-level: bless, divine favor*, magic weapon, shillelagh*, bloodletting* (CM), critical strike* (CM), rhino's rush* (SpC), blades of fire* (SpC)

2nd-level: aid, align weapon, bull's strength, rage (bard), animalistic powr (PHB 2), tactical precision (SpC), war cry (SpC), brambles (SpC), infernal wound (SpC), checkmate's light (SpC), flame of faith (SpC), weapon of energy (SpC), spikes (SpC), weapon of the deity (SpC), daggerspell stance* (SpC), lion's charge* (SpC), strength of stone* (SpC), swift haste* (SpC), burning sword (SpC), sonic weapon (SpC), wraithstrike *(SpC)

3rd-level: prayer, greater magic weapon, good hope, haste, keen edge, crown of might (PHB 2), ferocity of sanguine rage* (DM), fell the greatest foe (SpC), spectral weapon* (SpC), 
dolorous blow (SpC), weapon of impact (SpC), bite of the werewolf* (SpC), righteous fury* (SpC), undead bane weapon (SpC), bladestorm* (SpC)

*spells with personal range so assumes you somehow manage to get it


----------



## Slaved

Snakes swiftness just gives people an extra attack right? That means that whoever has the best melee attack would get the most benefit and since you cannot use a standard action strike with it the warblade would probably not be at the top of that list. Or am I remembering the spell wrong?

Bladeweave has the same issue right?

Wow heroism is great for the warblade though!


----------



## charlesatan

Victim said:
			
		

> Firbolg and War Troll aren't core.  Moreover, you don't need to be a wizard to reap the benefits of Polymorphing - as long as there's a friendly arcanist with the spell, any fighter type can be buffed up similarly without the sacrifice of fighting levels.  If you take the Polymorph as a given, then a regular fighter type is going to be able to use it better than a fighter mage type.  The multiclass improves the character's independence, but not its performance.  It's a move that decreases the character's power when buffed but gives them more control over when they fight with the buff.  A Warblade could make even greater use from Polymorph effects than a fighter; besides the obvious combat stat boosts, the high STR scores available on many monsters could put the DCs on some manuevers through the roof.
> 
> I've already mentioned that the Duskblade power curve spikes at around 5th level; at level 11, he's still adding +5d6 with his best channeled touch spells.  Not so awesome then, eh?
> 
> ... Not seeing the "gish" awesomeness here.




Firbolg and War Troll yes, they aren't core. They're the most "optimum" forms to choose from though in terms of melee combat. But I guess with core, the results are less impressive.

Gish (assuming you have access to the accessories) mainly because you're not as reliant of the party wizard and there are a couple of buffs that you can cast on yourself (i.e. wraithstrike).

Warblade can benefit from Polymorph but the thing about Polymorph is that your Str has increased, so your constant damage modifier is increasing as well (giving you much more value for your full attack). With the exception of Time Stands Still, Dancing Mongoose and Raging Mongoose, most of your maneuvers are single attacks.

Yes, I agree, Duskblade probably caps out at 5th-level. But I was just giving a 5th-level comparison to the 5th-level Warblade comparison. For a 20th-level build for example, I'd probably go more for a Sorcerer/Fighter/Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion build.

Here's a relatively simple (to use) 20th-level gish I built: http://charlesatan.vox.com/library/post/sample-20thlevel-pc-gish.html

I didn't use Polymorph/Draconic Polymorph because I didn't want to complicate the character . Basically just cast Ferocity of Sanguine Rage and Wraithstrike then you're off (don't forget you have Arcane Strike). Something to compare the 20th-level martial adepts builds (the character is far from the most optimized but it is more or less optimized with the intent of being a bit easier to handle than most spellcasters/gishes).


----------



## charlesatan

Slaved said:
			
		

> Snakes swiftness just gives people an extra attack right? That means that whoever has the best melee attack would get the most benefit and since you cannot use a standard action strike with it the warblade would probably not be at the top of that list. Or am I remembering the spell wrong?




Correct. But placed it in the WB section anyway because the WB typically just has one attack, vs the Ftr which gets many (or rather will opt to use a full attack).



			
				Slaved said:
			
		

> Bladeweave has the same issue right?




Bladeweave dazes for one attack/round. For a WB, that's enough. 

*edited:* read bladeweave wrong.


----------



## NilesB

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Bladeweave dazes for one attack/round. For a WB, that's enough.



Bladeweave allows you to declare if you use it to daze someone after you see if the attack hits. Full attackers have more chances to make it work.

After going through your list of spells that supposedly benefit Warblades more than conventional front-liners, the only ones I see that really do are true strike*, stretch weapon (PHB 2), sure strike* (PHB 2), and find the gap* (SpC). and most of these are swift action spells that carry a much greater opportunity cost for the Warblade.


----------



## charlesatan

NilesB said:
			
		

> Bladeweave allows you to declare if you use it to daze someone after you see if the attack hits. Full attackers have more chances to make it work.




True, but whether you hit once or you hit a lot of times during the round doesn't matter to Bladeweave. The list isn't set in stone since a lot of stuff really benefits any martial class. There are even arguable choices that I just lumped into the WB for the sake of it (i.e Heroism gives a Ftr bonus feat; I gave it to the WB simply because he has less feats to go around).



			
				NilesB said:
			
		

> After going through your list of spells that supposedly benefit Warblades more than conventional front-liners, the only ones I see that really do are true strike*, stretch weapon (PHB 2), sure strike* (PHB 2), and find the gap* (SpC). and most of these are swift action spells that carry a much greater opportunity cost for the Warblade.




I'm surprised Divine Sacrifice didn't make the list because that also only works on the 1st attack.

But that aside, the list is just a list. I never claimed that it would be the optimum choice for a WB to cast them (since he has boosts to "buff" himself and counters to think of) although it would be great if somehow he managed to cast those spells on him (and most of them have a range of self).


----------



## glass

Victim said:
			
		

> I don't think the manuever critting text contradicts itself.  Based on the comparison to sneak attack, it seems to be saying that manuevers are treated as extra "dice" even if it's a flat damage bonus on crits.



Even though it doesn't actually say anything like that?


glass.


----------



## glass

NilesB said:
			
		

> Insightful strike is a concentration check not weapon damage, it specifically disallows you from increasing it's damage with any and all effects that deal extra weapon damage. Critical hits deal extra weapon damage, they do not improve concentration checks. This is not even a litte ambiguous.



That would indeed be true, except as I noted above critical hits do not 'improve weapon damage'. Therefore the rest of you argumant does not hold.


glass.


----------



## Victim

glass said:
			
		

> Even though it doesn't actually say anything like that?
> 
> 
> glass.




Well, since the quoted rules text makes an explicit comparison to sneak attack, I'd say that it actually does say that.


----------



## glass

Victim said:
			
		

> Well, since the quoted rules text makes an explicit comparison to sneak attack, I'd say that it actually does say that.



It says that the work like other abilities that add damage, and gives sneak attack as an example of an ability that adds damage. That is not the same as saying that all abilities that add damage work like sneak attack.

That would be a major change from how everything else in D&D works, so it would have to be explicitly stated. It isn't.


glass.


----------



## NilesB

charlesatan said:
			
		

> I'm surprised Divine Sacrifice didn't make the list because that also only works on the 1st attack.



Divine Sacrifice increases the damage of one attack per round by (I'm not going to look it up again so lets call it) _n_. this results in + (chance to hit with first attack)_n_ damage per round for a conventional Frontliner and + (chance to hit with first attack)_n_ damage per round for a Martial Adept.

Exactly the same bonus.


----------



## Slaved

NilesB said:
			
		

> Divine Sacrifice increases the damage of one attack per round by (I'm not going to look it up again so lets call it) _n_. this results in + (chance to hit with first attack)_n_ damage per round for a conventional Frontliner and + (chance to hit with first attack)_n_ damage per round for a Martial Adept.
> 
> Exactly the same bonus.




If divine sacrifice adds damage wouldn't the extra damage be negated by insightful strike? I guess it depends on the wording of both but insightful strike says no extra damage even from spells.


----------



## charlesatan

Slaved said:
			
		

> If divine sacrifice adds damage wouldn't the extra damage be negated by insightful strike? I guess it depends on the wording of both but insightful strike says no extra damage even from spells.




Possibly true but I was thinking of other maneuvers since Insightful Strike (and Greater Insightful Strike) is only one of many maneuvers.


----------



## Fedifensor

FireLance said:
			
		

> A Medium-sized 5th-level fighter with 18 Strength and Powerful Charge (Eberron Campaign Setting), Greater Powerful Charge (Eberron Campaign Setting), Rapid Assault (Book of Nine Swords), Power Attack, Weapon Focus and a _+1 greatsword_ can charge and deal 5d6+17 (avg 34.5) points of damage in the first round of combat with a +8 attack bonus. With a bit of magic help in the form of an _enlarge person_ from a spellcaster or a 50 gp potion, this goes up to 7d6+18 (avg 42.5) points of damage.




Well, a charge is only going to happen once per fight, so I'll give a counter-example, also using the Eberron Campaign Setting.

Kalashtar Warblade 5

Important Stats:  16 Strength, 14 Constitution, 13 Wisdom
Important Skills:  8 ranks Concentration
Important Feats:  Psionic Weapon, Power Attack, Blade Meditation: Diamond Mind (bonus feat)
Important Maneuvers:  Battle Leader's Charge, Emerald Razor, Insightful Strike
Important Stances:  Punishing Stance
Important Equipment:  +1 Bastard Sword (katana)

The Kalashtar can also charge on the 1st round of combat.  First, he uses a swift action to activate Punishing Stance (+1d6 dmg, -2 AC).  Then, as his full-round action, he uses Battle Leader's Charge, Psionic Weapon, and PA 1 to do 3d6+1d10+18 (avg 34) with a +10 attack bonus...the same damage as your fighter, with +2 added attack bonus (from charging) and -2 AC.  Considering the Warblade has more HP than the fighter, the extra damage is worth the AC penalty.  Or he could avoid using Punishing Stance and take 2 extra points of PA to have the same attack bonus and same damage as the fighter with no AC penalty.

Unlike the fighter, the warblade is not just a one-hit charge specialist.  The following round, he can swing for 1d10+1d6+6 base damage (avg 15), using Emerald Razor to make that a touch attack.  If the foe gains most of their AC from armor, the Warblade can easily dump some of his +5 BAB into Power Attack for up to +10 damage, or 1d10+1d6+16 (avg 25).

Or, he can use Insightful Strike to do 1d20+12 damage (avg 22.5).  Note that this is without any items to boost Concentration.

Note that I used nearly identical equipment, and a lower Strength (which is fair, since I used those additional stat points in the Wisdom requirement for Psionic Weapon).  The great thing about it is the additional options offered by the Warblade.  Your fighter can charge, and then his only real combat decision is whether to Power Attack.  The warblade has more options because of the variety of maneuvers available to him.  Note that I still have three more maneuvers to pick, one more maneuver to have readied, and one additional stance.  I also have some additional class abilities that can really help in combat (like Uncanny Dodge).  Overall, the warblade is a much more capable and versatile fighter at level 5.


Now, when you get to higher levels, the fighter starts using multiple attacks, which swings the balance in the favor of the fighter.  Or does it?  The kalashtar takes Psionic Meditation as his 6th level feat, which means he can recover his Psionic Weapon as a move action.  With a minor investment in a Concentration-boosting item, he can do +2d6 every round (except with Insightful Strike, but the Concentration boost will up that damage too).  At 9th, he can either take Greater Psionic Weapon for +4d6...or Deep Impact to make every standard action maneuver go versus touch AC (which makes Emerald Razor obsolete).


The problem with fighters is that there is a law of diminishing returns with feats.  Every time a fighter gets a bonus feat, the presumption is that they will take the best possible feat for their build.  But if they do that, eventually they are taking less desirable choices (because they're already taken the best feats).  In contrast, the Warblade's maneuver choices are getting better and better as they gain levels.


----------



## charlesatan

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Now, when you get to higher levels, the fighter starts using multiple attacks, which swings the balance in the favor of the fighter.  Or does it?  The kalashtar takes Psionic Meditation as his 6th level feat, which means he can recover his Psionic Weapon as a move action.  With a minor investment in a Concentration-boosting item, he can do +2d6 every round (except with Insightful Strike, but the Concentration boost will up that damage too).  At 9th, he can either take Greater Psionic Weapon for +4d6...or Deep Impact to make every standard action maneuver go versus touch AC (which makes Emerald Razor obsolete).





Actually if you're just going to use an Eberron Kalashtar, you might as well have took Psychic Renewal (recover maneuver = level of maneuver in pp) and Instant Clarity at 6th-level (to recover your psionic focus).


----------



## Fedifensor

charlesatan said:
			
		

> Actually if you're just going to use an Eberron Kalashtar, you might as well have took Psychic Renewal (recover maneuver = level of maneuver in pp) and Instant Clarity at 6th-level (to recover your psionic focus).



I generally avoid feats that are use-limited - the advantage of fighter-types over spellcasters is that they don't run out of uses with their attacks.  Psionic Meditation can be used once per round all day long, which makes it preferable to Psychic Renewal (only usable 3 times per day).

That said, I'd probably pick up Psychic Renewal at 12th...at that point, the Kalashtar would have enough PPs to use the feat a few times, and the ability to recover a high-level maneuver and use it two rounds in a row can be devastating.


----------



## FireLance

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Well, a charge is only going to happen once per fight, so I'll give a counter-example, also using the Eberron Campaign Setting.
> 
> Kalashtar Warblade 5



Well, if I was a _*Kalashtar*_ Fighter 5, I'd swap out Weapon Focus for Psionic Weapon and Power Attack for 1 point less. That leaves my attack bonus the same and ups the average damage by 5 points.  By the way, Psionic Weapon has no Wisdom prerequisite. You may be thinking of Narrow Mind.

And, a charge can happen at any time the fighter is 10 or more feet away from an opponent and has a clear path to him. Depending on how spread out his opponents are, he may be able to to set himself up for a charge in subsequent rounds. If he drops his first opponent with his initial attack, he might even be able to charge again on the next round. A charge-focused fighter should also invest in the Spring Attack feat chain so that he can charge one round, and Spring Attack the next to set himself up for another charge in the following round. If he sacrifices Rapid Assault, a fighter has the feats to pull off the charge/spring attack combo by 6th level or 4th if he is content with just Powerful Charge.


----------



## Fedifensor

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, if I was a _*Kalashtar*_ Fighter 5, I'd swap out Weapon Focus for Psionic Weapon and Power Attack for 1 point less. That leaves my attack bonus the same and ups the average damage by 5 points.  By the way, Psionic Weapon has no Wisdom prerequisite. You may be thinking of Narrow Mind.



The Wisdom 13 is actually for Psionic Meditation, which I would pick up at 6th - it's called "planning ahead".      If you don't have Psionic Meditation, you're basically using Psionic Weapon once per fight.  Likewise, I took Psionic Weapon both for the +2d6 on the first hit, and as the prerequisite for Greater Psionic Weapon and/or Deep Impact.

Furthermore, the build I proposed can be within 1 point of your fighter's damage on a charge if he dumps the +2 from charging into Power Attack.  The thing is, the warblade isn't investing most of his capabilities into the damage he can dish out in Round 1.  Once you get to Round 2, it isn't even close.




> And, a charge can happen at any time the fighter is 10 or more feet away from an opponent and has a clear path to him. Depending on how spread out his opponents are, he may be able to to set himself up for a charge in subsequent rounds. If he drops his first opponent with his initial attack, he might even be able to charge again on the next round.



If the fighter shows his deadliness by dropping a foe in a single hit, he's either going to get swarmed by the bad guys, or they're going to run.  




> A charge-focused fighter should also invest in the Spring Attack feat chain so that he can charge one round, and Spring Attack the next to set himself up for another charge in the following round. If he sacrifices Rapid Assault, a fighter has the feats to pull off the charge/spring attack combo by 6th level or 4th if he is content with just Powerful Charge.



Except that if he's fighting someone of decent tactical ability, they will close with him after he Spring Attacks, and he'll start his next round in melee and unable to charge without drawing the AoO.  He does get the benefits of Mobility versus the AoO, but he may not have a charge lane depending on the positioning of the bad guys.  It's nice when you can get off multiple charges in a fight, but I wouldn't make a build around it.

As to having enough feats for the charge combo plus Spring Attack - drop Rapid Assault, and the warblade does more damage on the round 1 charge.  Drop Greater Powerful Charge, and the damage discrepancy becomes even larger.  Meanwhile, the kalashtar warblade has picked up Psionic Meditation at 6th (which allows the warblade to use Psionic Weapon every round).  By 8th, the first time the fighter can get a feat for something besides his one method of fighting (assuming he drops Rapid Assault), the warblade has used his 7th level maneuver gain and 8th level maneuver swap for things like Mithral Tornado (eat your heart out, Whirlwind Attack!) and Lightning Recovery (rerolling an attack is great if you are Power Attacking). 

The next level (9th), he's met all the prerequisites to pick up Deep Impact, which is the holy grail for a two-handed weapon user when going after armored targets.  Attack someone in full plate, and it's basically a +8 to your attack bonus...or +16 to damage when using Power Attack.  We won't even mention his 5th level manuever pick.  The fighter, in comparison, has gained two more feats from the 6th level comparison (8th level bonus fighter feat and 9th level character feat).  I can't think of anything that would make up for the gains the warblade got over the same period.

Sure, fighters can be built to dish out a lot of damage in specific situations - usually involving a charge in conjunction with Power Attack, Leap Attack, and Shock Trooper.  But for all-around combat ability and versatility, the Warblade is head and shoulders above the fighter.  Basically, each new maneuver is like a limited-use feat, which needs to be recharged in some fashion but is often superior to any similar feat (compare Mithral Tornado to Whirlwind Attack, for example).  Put simply, the warblade is just a flat-out more interesting character to play, as it has a lot more options in combat.  And the warblade doesn't get hamstrung by one bad choice during leveling, as he can swap out maneuvers and isn't worrying about meeting massive prerequisites for high-tier feats.


----------



## FireLance

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> If the fighter shows his deadliness by dropping a foe in a single hit, he's either going to get swarmed by the bad guys, or they're going to run.



Just to make it clear, I do think that the warblade is a powerful class, and I happen to like it for that reason. However, there is a tendency to exaggerate its advantages without recognizing its limitations, or realizing that a fighter could do the same as well. The quote above is an example. If dropping a foe in a single hit is a problem for a fighter, it's just as much a problem for a warblade. 

Similarly, a kalashtar warblade using a move action to recover his psionic focus faces the same constraint as a fighter trying to pull off a full attack - it works well in a toe-to-toe fight, but he can't do it if he has to move.

The Book of Nine Swords actually makes it easier for a kalashtar fighter to make use of Psionic Mediation and hence, feats that require him to expend his psionic focus. If he uses Martial Study to learn a Diamond Mind maneuver such as Moment of Perfect Mind, Concentration becomes a class skill for him.


----------



## Fedifensor

FireLance said:
			
		

> Just to make it clear, I do think that the warblade is a powerful class, and I happen to like it for that reason. However, there is a tendency to exaggerate its advantages without recognizing its limitations, or realizing that a fighter could do the same as well. The quote above is an example. If dropping a foe in a single hit is a problem for a fighter, it's just as much a problem for a warblade.



The thing is, if the warblade gets swarmed, he has more tools to fix that problem.  Particularly after 7th level, when Mithral Tornado becomes available (it's a lot less onerous to get than Whirlwind Attack).  Outside of the charge feats (I won't get into how broken Leap Attack is), a warblade does more damage during the course of a combat.



> Similarly, a kalashtar warblade using a move action to recover his psionic focus faces the same constraint as a fighter trying to pull off a full attack - it works well in a toe-to-toe fight, but he can't do it if he has to move.



Press the Advantage becomes available at 10th, which increases the warblade's 5' step to 10'.  Plus, if the warblade uses Battle Leader's Charge, he does not draw AoO's for moving.  Sure, he can't recover his focus that round if he charges...but he's still getting bonus damage on his attack from the maneuver.



> The Book of Nine Swords actually makes it easier for a kalashtar fighter to make use of Psionic Mediation and hence, feats that require him to expend his psionic focus. If he uses Martial Study to learn a Diamond Mind maneuver such as Moment of Perfect Mind, Concentration becomes a class skill for him.



Really, this just shows that the base fighter is really lacking.  Its skills are lacking, which is why the kalashtar fighter needs to use one of his precious feats to get Concentration.    The feats are useful, but as the fighter's ONLY class feature, the bonus feats are lacking compared to what most other classes offer.  When is the last time you saw a high-level pure fighter in a game?  Virtually every fighter I've seen multiclasses or jumps into a PrC after a few levels.  The +2 damage from Greater Weapon Specialization is handy, but not going to make a huge difference at 12th level.

I understand what you're trying to say...but I simply don't believe that the fighter measures up.  And the belief that the fighter is underpowered (particularly at higher levels) seems to be in the majority among D&D players.  WotC has tried to fix this by offering feat chains for higher-level fighters, but they still don't measure up to the capabilities of many other classes (including the warblade).


----------



## Kmart Kommando

Maybe you should start looking at the fighter as it really is:  A dipping class for its abilities (more feats).
People dip into rogue for skills and evasion, monks for abilities and evasion, arcane and divine casters for wand use, etc.  3.x is the realm of cherrypicking. Embrace it.    
Or, it's a launching point for a cool feat-intensive PrC.
Does it really matter that no one wants to play a fighter to level 20?  No one plays a wizard or sorceror to level 20.  Too many good prestice classes to choose from. WotC must have seen this tendancy, and several of the new books have had classes that give incentive to playing through all 20 levels, but pretty much all of the 'core' classes, not so much.


----------



## Fedifensor

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> Does it really matter that no one wants to play a fighter to level 20?  No one plays a wizard or sorceror to level 20.  Too many good prestice classes to choose from. WotC must have seen this tendancy, and several of the new books have had classes that give incentive to playing through all 20 levels, but pretty much all of the 'core' classes, not so much.




For the record, I commonly game with a person playing a 13th level wizard (no PrCs).  I've also seen people playing pure Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Monks, and Rangers at the mid to high levels.  The less your campaign uses the supplimental books and relies on the core rules, the more common this is.  But even with a SRD-only game, people rarely play pure fighters at the mid to high levels.

Now, the issue isn't with people multiclassing Fighter with other core classes or PrCs at the high levels...the issue is that the dip generally is no more than 4 levels.  Any class that is usually ignored at level 5+ is seriously gimped, and needs fixing.  I think that the Book of Nine Swords is a sign that the Fighter class won't survive as is in 4th edition D&D...they're going to have to spice it up considerably to make it worth putting into the book.


----------



## Nail

Me too:

For the record, I've seen several players stay all the way into the high levels with a single core class.  (Ftr or Rog or Sor or Wiz)

Put it anyway you like:  "The Ftr is lacking" or "The Warblade is overpowered."  Means the same thing.


----------



## Slaved

Nail said:
			
		

> MPut it anyway you like:  "The Ftr is lacking" or "The Warblade is overpowered."  Means the same thing.




That the fighter needs help from the people who make the game?


----------



## Nail

Slaved said:
			
		

> That the fighter needs help from the people who make the game?



Slaved, you and I have been over this territory in this thread.    

If the designers think the Ftr needs help...then help the Ftr!  Putting out a new class which takes the core Ftr class out back and shoots it is hardly "helping the Ftr".  If that's "helping", follow me out back so I can help you.


----------



## Nail

Post 5001!  Whoopie!


----------



## Fedifensor

Nail said:
			
		

> If the designers think the Ftr needs help...then help the Ftr!  Putting out a new class which takes the core Ftr class out back and shoots it is hardly "helping the Ftr".



Honestly, WotC can't help the fighter until 4E.  Changing the design of a class that has been virtually unchanged since 3E came out would be a marketing disaster.  So, the best alternative they have is to release a new "core" class that does what the fighter should have been able to do from the beginning.  Hello, Warblade!


----------



## FireLance

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Honestly, WotC can't help the fighter until 4E.  Changing the design of a class that has been virtually unchanged since 3E came out would be a marketing disaster.  So, the best alternative they have is to release a new "core" class that does what the fighter should have been able to do from the beginning.  Hello, Warblade!



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).

If Toughness was a Fighter feat that granted 2 hp plus 1 hp for every Fighter feat you had, you wouldn't need Improved Toughness, and every time the Fighter gained a bonus feat and every time he used one of his "regular" feat slots to gain a Fighter feat, he would gain 1 additional hp.

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.

If Improved Bull Rush, Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder and the like granted a +4 bonus on opposed checks, and an additional +1 for every four Fighter feats, the sheer number of feats that a figher has will give him an advantage over any other character that took the same feats.

Ideally, I'd also rework Power Attack and Combat Expertise to apply a fixed penalty to hit, and have the extra damage done and AC bonus scale with Fighter feats. See here for additional musings on this idea.


----------



## 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

FireLance said:
			
		

> 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

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> 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

FireLance said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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

Nail said:
			
		

> 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

Perun said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Nail

Heh, heh.

There are reasons I don't allow Psionics IMC......


----------



## Slaved

Pretty nice build Fedifensor, I like it. Why katana though? Rapier would allow you to use a shield and get you a pretty nice critical range to play with.

Also, do stances count as manuevers? If not then you cannot have battle leaders charge or press the advantage.

Otherwise it looks like a lot of fun. I would like to have it in my group.


----------



## Fedifensor

Slaved said:
			
		

> Pretty nice build Fedifensor, I like it. Why katana though? Rapier would allow you to use a shield and get you a pretty nice critical range to play with.



Rapier doesn't give you that two-handed weapon boost with Power Attack, which is really handy if you're going against a person's Touch AC.  And a katana is more thematic to kalashtar, in my opinion.



> Also, do stances count as manuevers? If not then you cannot have battle leaders charge or press the advantage.



Per page 44 of the ToB: "Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite to learn a new maneuver."  Good thing, too.  It would be really hard to make a diverse warblade build without that rule.  Also note that I "traded up" as I built the character level by level to 10th, swapping out maneuvers (not stances) at 4th, 6th, and 8th level.



> Otherwise it looks like a lot of fun. I would like to have it in my group.



I've been working on the background.  Given the kalashtar focus on mental talents (see Races of Eberron for a good discussion of this), the character is likely to be either an orphan or a rebel among his people.  He has a few psionic feats, but he's less reliant on the power of his mind than a psionic warrior.  However, the Diamond Mind technique begs to be invented by a kalashtar, and it could spur the development of a new method to fight the physical manifestations of the Dreaming Dark.  I need to come up with some catchphrases derived from zen quotes, though ("No matter how hard the wind blows, the mountain cannot bow to it").

Future advancement for the character would include Adaptive Style (to refresh Moment of Perfect Mind quicker and adapt to a changing battlefield) and a 2-level dip into Warmind (to get a few psionic powers like Force Shield).  However, as I don't expect the campaign to go past 15th level, I'm not going to worry about planning things out too far.


----------



## NilesB

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Rapier doesn't give you that two-handed weapon boost with Power Attack, which is really handy if you're going against a person's Touch AC.



It can.


----------



## Slaved

Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Rapier doesn't give you that two-handed weapon boost with Power Attack, which is really handy if you're going against a person's Touch AC.  And a katana is more thematic to kalashtar, in my opinion.




Good point! I had forgotten about power attack.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> Per page 44 of the ToB: "Stances are considered maneuvers for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite to learn a new maneuver."  Good thing, too.  It would be really hard to make a diverse warblade build without that rule.  Also note that I "traded up" as I built the character level by level to 10th, swapping out maneuvers (not stances) at 4th, 6th, and 8th level.




Wow! I am learning all sorts of things about this book, that is great. I definately like that they work as prerequisites, that does indeed make it easier to have diverse choices.

I did count out the abilities to make sure they were properly done as well and it looks good to me.



			
				Fedifensor said:
			
		

> I've been working on the background.  Given the kalashtar focus on mental talents (see Races of Eberron for a good discussion of this), the character is likely to be either an orphan or a rebel among his people.  He has a few psionic feats, but he's less reliant on the power of his mind than a psionic warrior.  However, the Diamond Mind technique begs to be invented by a kalashtar, and it could spur the development of a new method to fight the physical manifestations of the Dreaming Dark.  I need to come up with some catchphrases derived from zen quotes, though ("No matter how hard the wind blows, the mountain cannot bow to it").
> 
> Future advancement for the character would include Adaptive Style (to refresh Moment of Perfect Mind quicker and adapt to a changing battlefield) and a 2-level dip into Warmind (to get a few psionic powers like Force Shield).  However, as I don't expect the campaign to go past 15th level, I'm not going to worry about planning things out too far.




Makes sense. 2 Levels of war mind would be pretty funny as well, although using power points and a round for force sheild sounds like a poor option. Expansion however could be right up there with a good choice, except that it does not combo very well with mithril tornado, at least not nearly as well as it combos with whirlwind attack.

When you get the money adding the psionic weapon ability called parrying to your weapon might be a good idea as well. Mostly to help with your AC. Oh, I guess it does not work well with the war mind though. 

Thinking of power points though it looks like you can only use your deep crystal weapon 4 times a day right now. You have to have at least 1 point remaining to be able to regain focus. It probably won't be a big deal, but be careful with that!

And something I just thought of, a character can expend their focus to take 15 on a concentration check. You are likely to be making it a touch attack instead but it is an option if you need consistant damage for the manuever more than a greater chance to hit. You might want to look into getting a psicrystal when you pick up the war mind levels. With another feat it can hold an extra focus for you, just in case.


----------



## Fedifensor

Slaved said:
			
		

> Makes sense. 2 Levels of war mind would be pretty funny as well, although using power points and a round for force sheild sounds like a poor option. Expansion however could be right up there with a good choice, except that it does not combo very well with mithril tornado, at least not nearly as well as it combos with whirlwind attack.



Expansion isn't very useful until I can get the manifester level high enough to get minutes/level.  As for Force Shield - +4 shield AC (with an additional +2 insight AC from chain of defensive posture) is worth the 2-level dip and a standard action at the start of a tough combat.  Especially if I have a bit of warning before the combat starts.



> When you get the money adding the psionic weapon ability called parrying to your weapon might be a good idea as well. Mostly to help with your AC. Oh, I guess it does not work well with the war mind though.



I was actually thinking of the Martial Discipline (Diamond Mind) property, to boost my attack roll.  Drop into a Diamond Mind stance or use a Diamond Mind maneuver, and I'd get +3 to the attack roll.  Right now, the best defense is a good offense...and I do have a lot of hit points.



> Thinking of power points though it looks like you can only use your deep crystal weapon 4 times a day right now. You have to have at least 1 point remaining to be able to regain focus. It probably won't be a big deal, but be careful with that!



Already taken that into account.  I mainly plan to use the deep crystal when I need to hit hard and fast.  I won't need it in any round when I use Insightful Strike, since the damage won't stack.



> And something I just thought of, a character can expend their focus to take 15 on a concentration check. You are likely to be making it a touch attack instead but it is an option if you need consistant damage for the manuever more than a greater chance to hit. You might want to look into getting a psicrystal when you pick up the war mind levels. With another feat it can hold an extra focus for you, just in case.



Taking 15 isn't quite worth it - yet.  Once I get Greater Insightful Strike, that's about +10 damage over average, or a consistant 90 HP hit at 11th level.  Still, most targets are going to have a Touch AC that's more than 5 points less than their regular AC, which makes Power Attack a better option on non-Insightful strikes.  Deep Impact is also nice if I want to guarantee the hit on anything better than a natural 1.

I just can't spare two more feats for the Psicrystal Containment.  Besides, to really make it worth it, I'd want Greater Psionic Weapon as well.  It's something I'd do with a Psionic Warrior build, but the Warblade just doesn't have the slots for it.  A better option for this build would be to dip 4 levels into Warmind instead of 2, so I could get Hustle.  Actually, if I went that far, I may as well take 5 levels and get Sweeping Strike.


----------



## Kmart Kommando

Sweeping Strike + Deep Impact + Power Attack + any hard-hitting Strike = scary opponent.

I almost went for this one once, but I didn't want to make something broken and get Tome of Battle banned from our game.


----------



## charlesatan

NilesB said:
			
		

> It can.




"Rapier

You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a rapier sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon for you. *You can’t wield a rapier in two hands in order to apply 1½ times your Strength bonus to damage.* "


----------



## Fedifensor

Kmart Kommando said:
			
		

> Sweeping Strike + Deep Impact + Power Attack + any hard-hitting Strike = scary opponent.



Sweeping Strike is nice, but it does rely on getting your foes adjacent to each other.



> I almost went for this one once, but I didn't want to make something broken and get Tome of Battle banned from our game.



Well, my first character for the campaign was a Warforged Warlock, but I eventually switched characters out because one of the players kept insisting it was broken.  The guy plays a Warforged Juggernaut that does tons of damage with a falcheon and Power Attack, so I'm not sure why he felt so threatened by my 4d6 Eldritch Blasts with Frightful Blast and Eldritch Spear blast invocations.  Maybe it was the Fell Flight...  

My current character is a Human Sorcerer 6/Cleric 1/Silver Pyromancer 2 with the Heroic Spirit and Action Surge feats (he started out as a Sorcerer 6/Cleric 1 with no PrC when he first joined the group).  I just picked up a Lesser Metamagic Rod of Empower Spell.  Being able to dish out two fireballs in round 1 (doing [9d6 x 1.5] + 9d6 = 22 1/2d6 of fire damage) to everyone in a 20' radius puts my Warlock to shame.  And since I started out with nothing outside of the core rules and the ECS, I can't be blamed for using a new, unbalanced WotC book.  I'd be just as deadly (perhaps moreso) as a pure Sorcerer 9 with the same feats - at least the Silver Pyromancer has picked up Cure Light Wounds as a 1st level sorcerer spell to help the party out.

Anyway, I've created the Kalashtar Warblade in case the same player complains about my sorcerer, or if my character dies in the next adventure (since we take turns DMing, and it's that player's turn to DM for us).  Since my other characters have been caster-types, I'm going to see if he complains when I use a melee character.  If he still complains...I'll find another campaign.

I have to say that as much fun as I'm having with the sorcerer, I think I'd have even more fun with the Warblade.  It would be a nice change of pace to be in the thick of things instead of being the glass cannon blasting from the rear of the party.  The only reason I haven't played a melee character before now is that the options for fighters were rather sparse.  I much prefer a maneuver-based character who can alter his capabilities for different battles instead of using the same feat combos over and over again.


----------



## NilesB

That'll teach me to depend on my memory of 3.0 without checking if it's changed.

But I note a distinct lack of text saying that the rapier is an exception to the rule that 1 handed weapons wielded in 2 hands add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls when power attacking.


----------



## charlesatan

I wonder why so many people quickly recommend the rapier, when there are other 18-20/x2 martial, one-handed weapons. Such as the scimitar! Unless piercing's your thing...

NilesB: I know the feeling. That ruling crept up on me too back when 3.5 first showed up (along with spells like Cloudkill, which actually became so-so even against say, the Ftr).


----------



## NilesB

charlesatan said:
			
		

> I wonder why so many people quickly recommend the rapier, when there are other 18-20/x2 martial, one-handed weapons. Such as the scimitar! Unless piercing's your thing...



In this case it it because the rapier is a Diamond Mind form weapon and the character in question has a feat that privileges those weapons over others, and is a Diamond Mind specialist anyway.


----------



## charlesatan

NilesB said:
			
		

> In this case it it because the rapier is a Diamond Mind form weapon and the character in question has a feat that privileges those weapons over others, and is a Diamond Mind specialist anyway.




Ah.

Missed the Blade Meditation feat. Well, you are still missing out on 1/2 half your Str if using a rapier two-handed, unless you have an extreme belief you'll be rolling lots of 18's.


----------



## prozacman

*just wanted to point out*

the fighter has 11 bonus feats (to the warblades 4) that could all be spent to gain as many maneuvers as the warblade knows, except that they would all be readied maneuvers.  Giving the fighter more options maneuver wise than the warblade has, except for the awesome recovery technique.  This would still leave him with 7 feats to do with whatever he wants.

Advantage fighter.  He's still what he's alway been, king of feats.  And with the PHB2 and complete warrior, and even ToB he's actually a useful party member.  Can he be outshined by other folks? of course, but he always has been. The cleric with divine metamagic beats the fighter hands down.. but thats not the issue, does the warblade make him useless? no, he was already as useless as he was gonna get.  But a lot of the best feats in ToB are available as fighter feats, and they can make just as maneuvery as the WB, but with more feat versitility.

corollary: one could also take adaptive style to regain all their maneuvers with a fullround action, and use their remaining feats to gain 6 stances.  Giving them more readied maneuvers than everyone but the swordsage, and more versitility in which maneuvers they can choose than everyone but a master of the nine.  So a fighter that puts his mind to it could have more maneuvers readied than a warblade, and just as many stances. so to become the true master of maneuvers one looses out on a couple skill points and a handful of intelligence based abilities... and lets be honest, most fighters dump intelligence anyway.
I know the warblade gets feats too.. so a fighter could take only 6 maneuvers, adaptive style, and 6 stances, and still leave you with 5 feats to do with what you wish.  Like i said, complete warrior, PHB2 and Tome of Battle do a lot to make the fighter usable.


----------



## Videssian

prozacman said:
			
		

> the fighter has 11 bonus feats (to the warblades 4) that could all be spent to gain as many maneuvers as the warblade knows, except that they would all be readied maneuvers.  Giving the fighter more options maneuver wise than the warblade has, except for the awesome recovery technique.  This would still leave him with 7 feats to do with whatever he wants.
> 
> Advantage fighter.  He's still what he's alway been, king of feats.  And with the PHB2 and complete warrior, and even ToB he's actually a useful party member.  Can he be outshined by other folks? of course, but he always has been. The cleric with divine metamagic beats the fighter hands down.. but thats not the issue, does the warblade make him useless? no, he was already as useless as he was gonna get.  But a lot of the best feats in ToB are available as fighter feats, and they can make just as maneuvery as the WB, but with more feat versitility.
> 
> corollary: one could also take adaptive style to regain all their maneuvers with a fullround action, and use their remaining feats to gain 6 stances.  Giving them more readied maneuvers than everyone but the swordsage, and more versitility in which maneuvers they can choose than everyone but a master of the nine.  So a fighter that puts his mind to it could have more maneuvers readied than a warblade, and just as many stances. so to become the true master of maneuvers one looses out on a couple skill points and a handful of intelligence based abilities... and lets be honest, most fighters dump intelligence anyway.
> I know the warblade gets feats too.. so a fighter could take only 6 maneuvers, adaptive style, and 6 stances, and still leave you with 5 feats to do with what you wish.  Like i said, complete warrior, PHB2 and Tome of Battle do a lot to make the fighter usable.




The flaw in your idea is that _Martial Study_ can be taken a maximum of 3 times. However, I do note that _Martial Stance_ does not have this restriction, so by taking a single level of Warblade, and spending 9 feats, a fighter could have 6 stances and 6 maneuvers... with the caveat that higher maneuvers or stances may require x maneuvers in a particular discipline, and, of course, the initiator level for fighters/rogues/etc. is only 1/2 that of warblades.

I do think that for most or all melee-based classes, taking a level in Warblade is an absolute no-brainer.

Oh, and btw Nail: if my current character dies again, expect me to test this hypothesis


----------



## Nail

Videssian said:
			
		

> Oh, and btw Nail: if my current character dies again, expect me to test this hypothesis




 




Spoiler



(Note to self: Only hit Videssian's PC with non-lethal damage.)


----------



## Nail

Videssian said:
			
		

> I do think that for most or all melee-based classes, taking a level in Warblade is an absolute no-brainer.



Is there any way to make that NOT the case?  (Like remove the non-warblade class levels from the initator levels...)

...'cause as is: you're absolutely right.  And with our house rule modifications to the Ftr, it's even worse.....


----------



## Psion

The warblade has more than enough class abilities and manuevers to overmatch the fighter's bonus feats.

I'm thinking d10 HD and NO access to fighter feats, and using the PHBII (with the high level fighter feats) would be the minimum to send the warblade on its way to being equitable.


----------



## Slaved

Videssian said:
			
		

> I do think that for most or all melee-based classes, taking a level in Warblade is an absolute no-brainer.




Unless there is an experience penalty or high level abilities that you want to get faster in your normal class?

I guess this is basically the same arguement that most or all melee based classes will multiclass with barbarian, ranger, and a couple levels of fighter as well. No brainers.

Melee classes multi class rather well though. I could definately see giving all of the melee classes an ability like weapon aptitude though, just as a base rule. It makes so many feats work better across different campaign styles it is amazing.

I wonder if I should add something similar as a potential houserule for rangers. Spend a few days training and switch over combat styles. Spend a few days training and change the bonuses on favored enemies. It is an incredibly innovative idea.


----------



## Seeten

Nail said:
			
		

> Is there any way to make that NOT the case?  (Like remove the non-warblade class levels from the initator levels...)
> 
> ...'cause as is: you're absolutely right.  And with our house rule modifications to the Ftr, it's even worse.....




From my reading of Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader, all three are way too top heavy. Further, it actually makes Warblade, SSwordsage, and Crusader worse for it, as they are forced to pick suboptimal level 1 stuff they dont want, because they have no choice.

Crusader gets 5 maneuvers at level 1, and 11 or 14 overall, at work, no books, but I think its 11 overall, it'd be easy to go with 2 maneuvers at 1, and spread the rest out more evenly. Warblade and Swordsage are similar. They need to have their frontload lessened and their staying power, ie, their level up goodies improved.


----------



## Slaved

Seeten said:
			
		

> Crusader gets 5 maneuvers at level 1, and 11 or 14 overall, at work, no books, but I think its 11 overall, it'd be easy to go with 2 maneuvers at 1, and spread the rest out more evenly.




Oddly, having the crusader get less manuevers in his readied pool would actually make his choices more reliable in combat.

As it is he starts with 2 random out of the 5 he picked. This makes planning a little tough, especially if you want to have a good variety of options.

Oh, and they get 14 overall starting at 5 and gaining a new one every odd level.



			
				Seeten said:
			
		

> Warblade and Swordsage are similar. They need to have their frontload lessened and their staying power, ie, their level up goodies improved.




What number do you think would work better? The warblade starts off with 3 maneuvers known and 3 readied.

With 3 the warblade could have a strike, a boost, and a counter fairly easily. Or some combination of them of course but that seems like a decent course.

If they started with two instead then they would be missing one of these options automatically, if they started with one they would be refreshing the moves basically every other round assuming that they picked something that turns out useful for that slot.

If they were limited to two, as I think just one is basically out as an option, what combination do you think would work best? Two strikes? A strike and a boost? A strike and a counter? I doubt anyone would choose no strikes, but it completely depends on the build.

I wonder if their choices were reduced by 1 at each level for maneuvers how that would effect their ability to have prereqs for higher maneuvers. For the builds that were made earlier I think that they all were just barely able to have the choices that they made, it would likely narrow down the scope of long term choices a lot more than such a small change would initially indicate. Which leads into the next part about later levels being improved, what would you suggest?

As an aside it is interesting that the more often he tries to refresh them the less often he gets to use them.

The swordsage starts with 6 known and 4 readied, but I don't think anyone is really complaining about them. Medium BAB, d8 hd, 2 good saves, and a full round action to regain one maneuver. Comparing with the monk and I think it is an interesting set of tradeoffs, it would be a tough call which to play based on power levels.


----------



## Victim

The way the disciplines are structured, low level adepts are basically forced into taking disciplines they don't really want because they get more moves known then there are available in many areas.  I'm not even sure that the Warblade has a Boost available at level 1.


----------



## Slaved

Victim said:
			
		

> I'm not even sure that the Warblade has a Boost available at level 1.




I think the only one that they have access to is sudden leap.


----------



## Seeten

Crusader starts with 5 maneuvers and 5 readied, so the (2) is only a problem once they run short on maneuvers and get them redealt.

Crusader starting at 2 and going to 14 shouldnt be hard, lets make a quick chart:

1: 2
2: 3
3: 4
4: 5
5: 5
6: 6
7: 6
8: 7
9: 7
10: 8
11: 9
12: 9
13: 10
14: 10
15: 11
16: 11
17: 12
18: 12
19: 13
20: 14

As a quick example, this gets them their maneuvers in a decent clip, mostly at odd levels, doesnt have as furious an entry or dip, and spreads out fairly nicely, imo. Similar stuff is doable for Warblade/etc.

Warblade gets 3, you dont need a counter, boost and strike at level 1. Forgive me for saying, but opponents have 3-6 hp at this level. 1 Maneuver is plenty, it isnt like they cant swing their sword without a maneuver. They can gain their fancy tricks in just as large bushel loads, just not a front loading so much at first level. Thats what I'd do if i were designing them myself, or balancing them.


----------



## Videssian

Nail said:
			
		

> Is there any way to make that NOT the case?  (Like remove the non-warblade class levels from the initator levels...)
> 
> ...'cause as is: you're absolutely right.  And with our house rule modifications to the Ftr, it's even worse.....




Well, I think in your shoes I'd do this:

- Alter the fighter so that they (and only they) get Weapon Aptitude at level 4

- Give fighters 1 feat at each level instead at 1/2 levels (which you've already done)

- Remove non-BO9S class levels from counting as initiator levels,

- Redesign the Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade into one unified class with some significant changes. In lieu of that, I'd suggest:

- Give warblades d10 or d8 hit dice (which you've already done)

- Possibly give warblades moderate attack progression instead of good attack progression.


----------



## Nail

Videssian said:
			
		

> - Alter the fighter so that they (and only they) get Weapon Aptitude at level 4



This looks like a good Ftr bonus feat, methinks, requiring 6 levels of Ftr.  That way Ftrs can take it or not, as they chose...and it's out of "dipping" range of multiclasses.



			
				Videssian said:
			
		

> - Remove non-BO9S class levels from counting as initiator levels



Right.  Next to giving Warblades d10 HD (which our campaign has already done), this seems like the easiest change.

.....In any case, I'm eager to see the Warblade thru higher levels.  <raises a Coke> Here's to hoping for a long-lived melee PC, Videssian!


----------



## Seeten

Good luck, Videssian!


----------



## Videssian

Seeten said:
			
		

> Good luck, Videssian!




Heh, thanks!


----------

