Retiering the Classes: Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade

[eggynack]

Masters of the sublime way, these highly controversial classes from tome of battle bring some more complex tactics into standard melee. There's a heavy emphasis on straightforward combat here, if more varied than is typical, but the classes have varying degrees of out of combat utility too. The critical question of these classes, especially the crusader and warblade, is how far you can get by hitting enemies in the face with a sword.

Crusader (ToB, 8): Between its healing and tanking capabilities, this class is most common in form to the paladin, especially given the light alignment restriction. The random maneuver recovery mechanic is a weird one, but it's also quite powerful, lacking in the action costs that the other two have.

Swordsage (ToB, 15): This is the ToB class most oriented around non-combat stuff, with an above average number of utility maneuvers running around. It's also the most supernatural of the three, making it somewhat modeled after the monk. The recovery mechanic is the worst of the three though, which is a bit of a downside for the class in a combat context.

Warblade (ToB, 20): If your aim is stabbing folks, this is the way to go. Like the fighter, the warblade is largely oriented around the goal of hitting enemies with a sword in a variety of creative ways, and like the fighter, it does so through fully mundane means. The warblade's recovery mechanic is perhaps the most straightforwardly powerful, allowing you to recover and hit enemies at the same time, and do so while choosing the maneuvers in question.




What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System). A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a swordsage. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

Tier four: Here we're in ranger/barbarian territory (though the ranger should be considered largely absent of ACF's and stuff to hit this tier, as will be talked about later). Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of monks, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Tier six: And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.



The Threads

Tier System Home Base (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base&p=21722272#post21722272)


The Fixed List Casters: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515849-Retiering-the-Classes-Beguiler-Dread-Necromancer-and-Warmage&p=21722395#post21722395)


The Obvious Tier One Classes: Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Sha'ir, and Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516137-Retiering-the-Classes-Archivist-Artificer-Cleric-Druid-Sha-ir-and-Wizard&p=21731809#post21731809)


The Mundane Beat Sticks (part one): Barbarian, Fighter, Samurai (CW), and Samurai (OA) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516602-Retiering-the-Classes-Barbarian-Fighter-Samurai-(CW)-and-Samurai-(OA)&p=21747927#post21747927)


The Roguelikes: Ninja, Rogue, and Scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517091-Retiering-the-Classes-Ninja-Rogue-and-Scout)


The Pseudo-Druids: Spirit Shaman, Spontaneous Druid, Urban Druid, and Wild Shape Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517370-Retiering-the-Classes-Spirit-Shaman-Spontaneous-Druid-Urban-Druid-and-WS-Ranger&p=21774657#post21774657)


The Jacks of All Trades: Bard, Factotum, Jester, and Savant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517967-Retiering-the-Classes-Bard-Factotum-and-Jester&p=21794327#post21794327)


The Tome of Battlers: Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518495-Retiering-the-Classes-Crusader-Swordsage-and-Warblade&p=21815193#post21815193)


The NPCs: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Magewright, and Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519155-Retiering-the-Classes-Adept-Aristocrat-Commoner-Expert-Magewright-and-Warrior&p=21838412)


The Vaguely Supernatural Melee Folk: Battle Dancer, Monk, Mountebank, and Soulknife (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519701-Retiering-the-Classes-Battle-Dancer-Monk-Mountebank-and-Soulknife)


The Miscellaneous Full Casters: Death Master, Shaman, Shugenja, Sorcerer, and Wu Jen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520291-Retiering-the-Classes-Death-Master-Shugenja-Sorcerer-Wu-Jen&p=21878654#post21878654)


The Wacky Magicists: Binder, Dragonfire Adept, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, and Warlock (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520903-Retiering-the-Classes-Binder-Dragonfire-Adept-Shadowcaster-Truenamer-Warlock&p=21898782#post21898782)


The Rankings
Crusader: Tier three

Swordsage: Tier three

Warblade: Tier three

And here's a link to the spreadsheet. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hj9_9PQg6tXACUWZY_Egm2R9Gtvg9nXRTPfGYnAfh9w/edit)

[Bucky]

Idiot Crusader with White Raven Tactics: T2 or not?

[ryu]

You're already well aware of my methods Eggy. All 3 tier 3. Clearly better than rogue, clearly worse than sorcerer. Both by wide margins in all three cases. Or perhaps you need me to elaborate?

[Grod_The_Giant]

By your vaguer tiers, I suppose all three would rightly wind up in Tier 3, as they're flatly superior to something like a Barbarian and inferior to a Sorcerer. I don't think the Warblade or Crusader really get enough noncombat stuff to meaningfully contribute outside of a fight, though, and they lack the Warmage or Duskblade's ability to easily expand their abilities.

[eggynack]

Idiot Crusader with White Raven Tactics: T2 or not?
Not sure it matters overmuch, being a really specific and high op build.

You're already well aware of my methods Eggy. All 3 tier 3. Clearly better than rogue, clearly worse than sorcerer. Both by wide margins in all three cases. Or perhaps you need me to elaborate?
Seems fair, at least for now. Might be worth arguing if/when things get crazy and controversy filled.

Anyway, I'ma third the three tier threes vote. The warblade and crusader strike me as rather similar to the warmage. Really heavily combat oriented with the occasional non-combat thing going on. The key difference, to my mind, is that warmage has the better ceiling, while the ToB classes quite likely have the better floor. The warmage floor is admittedly pretty good though, as is traditional for the fixed list casters. Warmage is likely better, but that class seems reasonably high in the tier anyway, once you account for feats and such. Swordsage seems even more clearly a three, cause you have the really solid versatile combat element, alongside some really interesting and useful maneuvers.

[ryu]

Three sets of three that are all threes and with the added bonus of that being three kinds of three. Look at the synergy. LOOK AT IT!

[Troacctid]

Yeah, I believe I made the Warmage comparison in a previous discussion. I stand by it. Putting Warblade and Crusader below T3 doesn't make sense—they're easily better than any T4 class, and quite a few T3 classes to boot.

All three sit comfortably in Tier 3.

[Zaq]

Hmm. Conventional wisdom puts all three classes squarely in T3, and I have to admit that it's hard to break away from that mindset.

In combat, all three classes are about the gold standard for "useful martials who aren't playing rocket tag." They aren't typically an AC-based save-or-die the way a focused charger can be, but they also have useful and varied abilities that are harder to render useless than those of most traditional martial folks. They famously have a very high floor, so much so that they have a reputation for looking overpowered when compared to unoptimized PHB martials (but still at equivalent levels of optimization).

Also, from a player perspective, ToB classes are interesting, which tends to make me look more favorably on them than I do on, say, a Barbarian. Even if a Barbarian is about equal to a ToB class at the specific task of "make attack rolls against something until it stops being a problem," I'm inclined to rate the ToB class as being "better" than the Barb, if for no other reason than because I think it's more interesting to use a suite of maneuvers than to just make a bunch of raw attack rolls. This doesn't mean that the ToB classes automatically belong in a higher tier, though. Fun is subjective, and tiers are more about measuring power, versatility, and problem-solving ability than about "does the voter personally enjoy this class."

That said, being honest, just how good are the initiators at solving out-of-combat problems? They have more skills than a Fighter does, and they tend to have reasonably decent skill lists, but they also sometimes (not always, but sometimes) have to invest skill points in skills that their disciplines use but that have relatively limited uses outside of those disciplines. (Concentration is the worst offender, since a non-casting character will almost never need Concentration outside of using Diamond Mind maneuvers, but it's not the only time this sort of thing comes up.) I'm not sure that their skill access alone is enough to give them credit for being especially useful out of combat—for contrast, I consider an ACFless Ranger to be low T4 or high T5, and they arguably have more robust skill access than a Warblade or Crusader, plus or minus Diplomacy. The Swordsage is obviously much better at skills than the two others are, of course, even if they do have a few weird gaps in their list.

So if skills aren't enough to give them a leg up out of combat, what else do they have? Maneuvers, mostly. How useful are maneuvers out of combat? I think we need to look at the three classes individually for that. In most cases, though, getting non-combat utility from maneuvers is mostly a function of creative application rather than native function.

First, the Crusader. They have access to the Stone Dragon Lockpick (though their maneuver regeneration process means that it's a little more awkward than for the other two, though not so much so as to make it useless). It can be argued that Martial Spirit (though not Crusader's Strike or similar strikes) can be used for out-of-combat healing, though there's some justification for that being not RAI. Aura of Perfect Order can potentially make you better (or at least more reliable) at skill checks, so long as you don't need to make more than one per round. Strike of Righteous Vitality is an edge case; it can only be used in combat, but it can make it so that a problem incurred in combat might not remain a problem after combat, since Heal can help with more problems than just HP damage, but that's still kind of marginal. Other Stone Dragon and White Raven maneuvers don't really contribute out of combat. I think the Crusader's maneuvers offer the least utility out of combat if you don't allow Martial Spirit shenanigans, but even with them, they're mostly combat monsters.

The Swordsage has the widest variety of maneuvers, so it stands to reason that they have access to the most utility-based ones. Several of their stances (Step of the Dancing Moth, Rising Phoenix, Balance on the Sky, Dance of the Spider) allow different movement modes, which is nice. Stone Dragon Lockpick, of course. The Shadow Hand teleportation maneuvers are always excellent to have on hand. A highly permissive reading of Leaping Dragon Stance can make you much better at high jumping, though there are reasons to question the validity of that reading. Hearing the Air is blindsense; whether that's useful out of combat is kind of an open question, but at least it makes guard duty easier. Cloak of Deception provides super-short-duration invisibility; it's not good for long-term scouting, but it can be useful to get from one cover point to another. There's some good options, though most of them are stances, and stances are sometimes a bit more precious than general maneuvers. So it's not really fair to say that most Swordsages will have a whole ton of out-of-combat maneuvers, but they'll probably have more than the other two initiators will.

Finally, the Warblade. Stone Dragon Lockpick is a given, and we can make the same (shaky) argument for Leaping Dragon Stance that we made with the Swordsage. Same with Hearing the Air. Other than that, we're pretty much down to Iron Heart Surge, and I don't want to get into whether that's useful out of combat, because that's a major can of worms.

Overall, I'm having a hard time seeing a whole ton of out-of-combat utility for the Crusader and the Warblade. Those two classes might have Diplomacy and/or Intimidate trained, but their other skills are likely to be combat-focused or niche. Their maneuvers provide more out-of-combat utility than you'll get from your average Fighter, but not so much that they're likely to be your primary problem-solvers. They're mostly really good at hitting things, and they're good at hitting things in interesting ways. That puts them in a pretty similar boat to the Barbarian, and I voted for the Barb being T4. The Swordsage seems like an easy T3, though, since they've got decent utility, good skills, and good flexibility.

That leaves the Warblade and Crusader around T4. Is that accurate, though? We have to look at their combat abilities a little deeper. As I said, I'm biased towards maneuvers in combat, since they're more fun to me than just making normal attacks (even big normal attacks). Even trying to be unbiased, though, I think that there's something to be said for maneuvers as your primary combat contribution.

First, if you pick a robust base of maneuvers, it's relatively difficult to force an initiator into a position where they can't do anything useful. They don't usually need to make full attacks, and while there are exceptions, most maneuvers require less perfect battlefield setup than other classes might require. (It's possible that your absolute best maneuver for the moment might be exhausted or unavailable, but it's likely that you have SOMETHING to use that's more useful than a basic attack.) I nudged the Rogue out of T3 (despite having strong damage potential and excellent skill utility) because it's easy to shut down their combat potential. There's a strong part of me that wants to nudge the Crusader and Warblade up into T3 for the inverse reason—it's hard to shut down their maneuvers entirely. (They're vulnerable to save-or-sucks like any other fightin'-man class, plus or minus Diamond Mind and similar shrug-it-off maneuvers, but there aren't entire classes of enemies who ignore maneuvers outright, and environmental conditions rarely directly affect how useful a maneuver is.)

Also, maneuvers have a lot of combat utility. There are plenty of raw damage maneuvers for when that's your game, but there's also plenty of tactical maneuvers (especially, though not only, in White Raven) that alter how the battlefield works. You can shut down enemy AoOs, you can force saving throws against disadvantageous conditions, you can facilitate allied movement, and so on. HP damage is, as we all know, pretty much binary—your last HP is the only one that really counts, so doing a lot of damage to something doesn't change its fighting ability until you kill it. There are plenty of tactical maneuvers that both apply damage and change the target's fighting capabilities, so that's some combat utility that's a little bit more elegant than just hitting something hard.

There's some issues with the classes, of course. Crusader stance progression is borked. It's weird that Swordsages and Warblades don't get martial ranged weapons. It's a little annoying how few choices a super-low-level Crusader gets when picking maneuvers. Steely Resolve, while useful early on, is a bit of a headache to keep track of. We all know about the editing issues in the book (Swordsage starting skills, the infamous half-errata, IHS, etc.). And so on. But overall, I think they're designed pretty well as a whole.

I think the Swordsage is fairly clearly T3, and I think the Warblade and the Crusader are at the bottom of T3. They don't have as much out-of-combat utility as I'd really like, but they have solid combat ability that plays well with others and that doesn't crumple under pressure, and I think that counts for a lot. I'd be willing to listen to arguments that the Crusader and the Warblade belong in T4, though.

[Dondasch]

Well, Swordsage is the easiest to tier. Between the combat power of maneuvers, access to maneuvers useful outside of combat, and skills, they're a pretty clear Tier 3.
Crusader and Warblade are a bit harder. They're substantially better than T4, but often lack in noncombat situations. That said, they're still Tier 3, if a bit lower in the tier.

It's also worth noting that these classes are generally going to be in the same tier regardless of optimization. Just choosing maneuvers on the basis of what sounds cool will still give you a strong selection, unlike with spells. The flipside is that there isn't much upward mobility, barring TO shenanigans like an Idiot d2 Crusader with White Raven Tactics (henceforth known as the White Peregrine).

[AnachroNinja]

Crusader: Tier 4
Warblade: Tier 4
Swordsage: High Tier 4(Low 3 if generous)

Pretty much the same general reason for all of them, being pretty good in combat is not enough to justify the higher tier in my opinion. As has been noted, they aren't quite as good as a high end barbarian at making things dead. On the other hand, they have a greater variety of ways to make things dead. So what? If a barbarian charger is a sledgehammer, the TOB classes are a box of various smaller hammers. That's great that you have a bunch of different hammers... I mean that one has a claw on it for pulling nails and that's pretty cool... But they're all just hammers and they do the same thing.

I'll give swordsage a little credit for having more skills, though they suffer on in combat survivability as recompense, but they're still just right on the line. ToB classes are cool and balanced and everyone likes them... But they aren't actually that strong.

[lord_khaine]

Crusader: Tier 3
Warblade: Tier 3
Swordsage: Tier 3

Justification, they are all excellent combatants with at least a little added utility. Swordsage and Warblade both get a lot of defence from more exotic attacks in the Iron Heart and Diamond mind schools. Looking at Wall of blades and Iron. Heart. SURGE! here in particular. Or in the crusaders case got Song of the white raven buffing.

[Cosi]

I think having only combat options is basically fine if those options are good. Outside combat you can contribute by doing things that are completely unrelated to anything on your sheet like "being genre savvy" or "being good at planning" (for example: Sokka in Avatar TLA). Those probably get you farther than the utility of most things that aren't full casters, particularly if you also have good skills. On that basis, the Crusader and Warblade seem fine.

My concern with these classes is that high level maneuvers are pretty meh. The 9th level Stone Dragon maneuver does 2d6 CON damage. That's pretty terrible, and worse than the Barbarian's plan of "charge things really hard and kill them instantly". Obviously ToB characters can do that, but it really hurts the Swordsage because it makes the best plan "use your maneuvers to support being a traditional Ubercharger", and the Swordsage is bad at that by virtue of being stuck with a refresh scheme (1/encounter) that's really bad for that.

So what does the contribution of the Warblade, Crusader, or Swordsage look like in a 15th level fight?

[Gnaeus]

I'd list all 3 as T3. T4s, like Barbarian or Archer, can be good at combat, but not necessarily at combats that don't fit their specialties. They can be shut out of combat by multiple methods. Martial adepts don't need full attacks, they can access alternate movement modes, shoot ranged attacks, generate disabling conditions, etc. For that reason, they are highly gear independent, so while the barbarian is struggling to overcome their combat holes, the crusader or warblade can spend a higher portion of WBL on utility. Their level range is frontloaded, stronger in the first 5 levels than the last 5, but since the first 5 levels are weighted more heavily than the last 5, that shouldn't hurt them much.

They also have probably the most forgiving multiclass mechanic in 3.5. While the caster never wants to lose CL, and the muggles are driven to multiclass wildly because they have few high level abilities worth the investment, ToB classes mesh great with each other or with lower tier muggles. Or steal one another's tricks via feats.

[Soranar]

I guess I'll be the first one being controversial here, I can't say I expected that.

I easily see a swordsage's abilities brings it into or close to tier 3. They have a lot of save or suck, x6 skillpoints, access to various forms of teleportation and other movement types. Basically, if they're against something that requires something else than major trauma, they can usually contribute.

Don't get me wrong, crusaders and warblades are great fighter types. They have strong defenses and offensive abilities to match.

But does combat ability alone make you tier 3? Because I would argue that a barbarian is just as good at combat than either a crusader or a warblade and barbarians are just tier 4 (really good at 1 thing AKA combat)

What exactly can a warblade or a crusader do outside combat? I'm reserving the right to change my vote if someone can spell it out for me but , from what I can see, both are tier 4.


So my vote for now

Swordsage : tier 3
Warblade: tier 4
Crusader : tier 3 (edited due to Aura of perfect order)

[ryu]

I guess I'll be the first one being controversial here, I can't say I expected that.

I easily see a swordsage's abilities brings it into or close to tier 3. They have a lot of save or suck, x6 skillpoints, access to various forms of teleportation and other movement types. Basically, if they're against something that requires something else than major trauma, they can usually contribute.

Don't get me wrong, crusaders and warblades are great fighter types. They have strong defenses and offensive abilities to match.

But does combat ability alone make you tier 3? Because I would argue that a barbarian is just as good at combat than either a crusader or a warblade and barbarians are just tier 4 (really good at 1 thing AKA combat)

What exactly can a warblade or a crusader do outside combat? I'm reserving the right to change my vote if someone can spell it out for me but , from what I can see, both are tier 4.


So my vote for now

Swordsage : tier 3
Warblade: tier 4
Crusader : tier 4

Neither the first nor the heaviest controversy so far. We've got an all 4s vote.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I think having only combat options is basically fine if those options are good. Outside combat you can contribute by doing things that are completely unrelated to anything on your sheet like "being genre savvy" or "being good at planning" (for example: Sokka in Avatar TLA). Those probably get you farther than the utility of most things that aren't full casters, particularly if you also have good skills. On that basis, the Crusader and Warblade seem fine.

My concern with these classes is that high level maneuvers are pretty meh. The 9th level Stone Dragon maneuver does 2d6 CON damage. That's pretty terrible, and worse than the Barbarian's plan of "charge things really hard and kill them instantly". Obviously ToB characters can do that, but it really hurts the Swordsage because it makes the best plan "use your maneuvers to support being a traditional Ubercharger", and the Swordsage is bad at that by virtue of being stuck with a refresh scheme (1/encounter) that's really bad for that.

So what does the contribution of the Warblade, Crusader, or Swordsage look like in a 15th level fight?

2d6 Con is actually a lot of damage. With an average damage of 7 that will do 4xHD damage (if Con is even) or 3xHD damage (if Con is odd) for a single no fuss hit and the damage is harder to shut down that a charge. The only 9th level maneuver that leaves me feeling meh is Desert Wind's.
Going down:
Desert Wind: 100 damage fireball. The fact that there are so many ways to mitigate the damage, requires you to have a huge number of maneuvers from a subpar school, it is supernatural so easier to stop, and the fact you cannot even aim the thing (which requires a full round action to activate) makes this one feel bleh.
Devoted Spirit: Spammable Heal is nice, especially since it works in situations where magic may not. The prerequisite to learn it is also lower and Devoted Spirit has some solid choices. SAdly in combat only, but cannot have everything.
Diamond Mind: Good at trying to cut through a lot of mooks, since the average build will have 6 or 8 attack with this. Also great for crit fishing. Not amazing, but cool. Just be aware of DR.
Iron Heart: No fuss pile of damage. Certainly useful and synergizes nicely with Finishing Blow against most foes.
Setting Sun: Back to the painful prerequisites. Great at mook clearing, but literally useless against larger foes. Can get your trip check to insane numbers if you have a good movespeed though.
Shadow Hand: What is it with swordsage and painful reqs? This maneuver is supernatural again (ow) and unreliable. Being able to maul a caster's Concentration by 6 is cool, but have so many requirements. If you get lucky you can temporarily do hot damage (15d6 + 2d6 Con) but it wears off quickly.
Stone Dragon: No prerequisites, which is cool, semi-reliable damage. If it weren't for the stupid "both feet must be on the ground" clause this would be really solid. As is try to get reach and hope enemies swoop low (or fight in a dungeon with a low ceiling).
Tiger Claw: A death effect with a strength based save is cool. The fact anyone immune to crits is immune to it not. The jump is not too bad if you really want to use this maneuver.
White Raven: If your entire party wants to charge this gets crazy quickly and can drop stuns (no save) and let allies move as an immediate action. It is really inconsistent, but amazing when you can get it off.

Edit: Put me down for all 3's. They are solid and reliable in combat and have some options beyond "hit with stick and hope for best". Their expanded skill lists are cool but it will be unreliable as to whether or not they will really be useful.

[Soranar]

Neither the first nor the heaviest controversy so far. We've got an all 4s vote.

I thought I'd be the first one to say tier 4 and when my post when up so did yours, I was just surprised to be alone in with that opinion at the time.

[Cosi]

2d6 Con is actually a lot of damage. With an average damage of 7 that will do 4xHD damage (if Con is even) or 3xHD damage (if Con is odd) for a single no fuss hit and the damage is harder to shut down that a charge. The only 9th level maneuver that leaves me feeling meh is Desert Wind's.

But their HP is scaling by more than that amount. It can't kill anyone with more than 12 CON (and only averages killing people with 7 CON), and those people would mostly just die to being stabbed. Generally, you spend your action to hit a dude really hard.


Devoted Spirit: Spammable Heal is nice, especially since it works in situations where magic may not. The prerequisite to learn it is also lower and Devoted Spirit has some solid choices. SAdly in combat only, but cannot have everything.

Combat healing is not super good. Particularly when it can't really be spammed barring Idiot Crusader cheese, Martial Study, or items.


Diamond Mind: Good at trying to cut through a lot of mooks, since the average build will have 6 or 8 attack with this. Also great for crit fishing. Not amazing, but cool. Just be aware of DR.

How is this good at cutting through mooks? You have to be in (or close to) melee range with a bunch of opponents who are probably able to fly, teleport, or both.


Iron Heart: No fuss pile of damage. Certainly useful and synergizes nicely with Finishing Blow against most foes.

That's probably less damage than you get from your PA multipliers. Good


Setting Sun: Back to the painful prerequisites. Great at mook clearing, but literally useless against larger foes. Can get your trip check to insane numbers if you have a good movespeed though.

Most high level foes are large or larger. I think every CR 17 opponent is Large or larger, and many are Huge or more.


Tiger Claw: A death effect with a strength based save is cool. The fact anyone immune to crits is immune to it not. The jump is not too bad if you really want to use this maneuver.

Weren't casters throwing around single target death effects at melee range at 9th level (with slay living). Obviously not a one-to-one comparison, but it's hard for me to get excited over an ability that people have had for 8 levels already -- a horde of Clerics who can cast slay living is not an encounter you are supposed to get XP for at 17th level.


White Raven: If your entire party wants to charge this gets crazy quickly and can drop stuns (no save) and let allies move as an immediate action. It is really inconsistent, but amazing when you can get it off.

Your entire party almost certainly does not want to charge. What's the threshold where you see this becoming good? Two other chargers? Three?

[Sayt]

I don't personally think that warblade and crusader make it out of T4, as their disciplines just don't have enough utility. Swordsage does make it to T3, I think.

I also think that uberchargers are a TO exercise, and not a useful benchmark for damage expecations.

[remetagross]

But does combat ability alone make you tier 3? Because I would argue that a barbarian is just as good at combat than either a crusader or a warblade and barbarians are just tier 4 (really good at 1 thing AKA combat)

That seems debatable to me. After all, can't the Crusader and the Warblade be almost as good as ubercharging as the Barbarian? The only thing he has and they don't is Pounce, since they can both get flat damage and to-hit increases, or additional attacks. But the Warblade does get Pounce at level 9 with Pouncing Charge, and the Crusader is a couple Martial Studies away from it as well.
And besides, they can do much more than ubercharging.

[ZamielVanWeber]

But their HP is scaling by more than that amount. It can't kill anyone with more than 12 CON (and only averages killing people with 7 CON), and those people would mostly just die to being stabbed. Generally, you spend your action to hit a dude really hard.
That is exactly what most melee builds do and the damage is solid without spending any other build resources into it, which is where it shines.


Combat healing is not super good. Particularly when it can't really be spammed barring Idiot Crusader cheese, Martial Study, or items.
It will come up, at worst, every 3rd round with a feat. Also Heal is a great use of an action in combat: it easily out heals most monsters damage and purges a laundry list of statuses


How is this good at cutting through mooks? You have to be in (or close to) melee range with a bunch of opponents who are probably able to fly, teleport, or both.
Yes, because mooks are going to enjoy 17th+ level PC wealth. Also cannot you fly or teleport with that massive wealth? You love charging, which is shut down by marbles, but seem critical of these. Which is it: do mooks carry around gear reliably to stop every strategy or not?


That's probably less damage than you get from your PA multipliers. Good
Only if you manage power attack at X4 with a BAB of 26 plus or are ubercharging without being stopped. Also, I can totally combine PA and this maneuver for damage and the fact that a nice chunk of damage comes from here means enemies with extremely high ACs won't rip my damage to shreds. (In a 2-man one shot at ECL 14 there was a boss with 60+ AC. Power attack that without massive levels of optimization).


Most high level foes are large or larger. I think every CR 17 opponent is Large or larger, and many are Huge or more.
So? You can trip larges and it is insanely easy with this maneuver. Also things with PC levels can be CR 17+ without being large. I also said this one was not great.


Weren't casters throwing around single target death effects at melee range at 9th level (with slay living). Obviously not a one-to-one comparison, but it's hard for me to get excited over an ability that people have had for 8 levels already -- a horde of Clerics who can cast slay living is not an encounter you are supposed to get XP for at 17th level.
You missed the part where this is not a death effect. Slay Living is blocked by a list of things but this does not have the death descriptor.


Your entire party almost certainly does not want to charge. What's the threshold where you see this becoming good? Two other chargers? Three?
Are you sure? I mean, if my party is Crusader, Barbarian and CoDzilla (and Druidzilla's companion) I could certainly see them all charging. You also are discounting the joys of handing your melees immediate action movement. Two is when I see it becoming good but the more the merrier.

Edit: Cleaned it up a bit.

[ryu]

I thought I'd be the first one to say tier 4 and when my post when up so did yours, I was just surprised to be alone in with that opinion at the time.

Ah. Fair enough.

[Zancloufer]

I would say that they are all Tier 3.

They have quite a bit of utility IMHO. Even the 8th and 9th level manoeuvres are solid.

Heal is one of the few spells that might be worth using in combat and having access to an Ex version of it WHILE you attack is amazing. Time Stands still lets you attack twice as much as you should.

White Raven's super charge can be stupid if anyone is a minonmancer or has leadership. I mean seriously Leadership/Undead Horde + White Raven Tactics = Broken. You can pack something stupid like 50 minions in a 30ft sphere easily and any enemy within 60ft of you is going to eat YES damage.

Feral Death Strike is a lot nastier than you give it credit for. It is an EX Death Effect with a DC of 19+Str and the only true protection is 100% Fortification (Unlike all other death effects which things like AMFs, SR, Death Ward, or Type Immunities protect against). Lesser Fortification doesn't protect you and you can get past type critical immunity if you really want (Ie: Death Strike Bracers). Just Pimp out Jump + Str and you wreck faces and even if you fail they still take +20d6 damage. Ex Insta death with high DC almost impossible to protect against and deals good damage even on save.

The 7-8th level ones are nice to. Things like extra movement actions, deflecting attacks, having more swift actions, list goes on. What I am saying is that the ToB classes are only really good at wrecking faces in a mundane way. They are however without peer in this possessing a wide array of useful abilities that are pretty much impossible to 100% shut down. They are not so much the Tier 3 that is good at one thing, but okay at 2-3 others, but the tier 3 that can solve 1 problem 5 ways and has like 1-2 passable backup ****cks.

[Dondasch]

What exactly can a warblade or a crusader do outside combat? I'm reserving the right to change my vote if someone can spell it out for me but , from what I can see, both are tier 4.

Well, outside of combat, not much. You get a few skills, and beyond that it's mainly creative use of maneuvers. But let's back up a bit.


But does combat ability alone make you tier 3? Because I would argue that a barbarian is just as good at combat than either a crusader or a warblade and barbarians are just tier 4 (really good at 1 thing AKA combat)

This is where I would disagree. Barbarians aren't as good at combat as the ToB classes, due to things like reliance on full attacks, and the fact that maneuvers can replace things the Barbarian can only get through magic items. Warblades and Crusaders have more options in combat than just straightforward damage, and they are harder to shut down. This, combined with the higher optimization floor of ToB classes, is what bumps them into Tier 3. They're at the bottom of the tier, but I think they still squeeze in.

[Cosi]

I also think that uberchargers are a TO exercise, and not a useful benchmark for damage expecations.

It depends. I think the Uberchargers that do damage expressed in SI notation are TO, but the ones that just do enough to kill things on hit are probably not.


That is exactly what most melee builds do and the damage is solid without spending any other build resources into it, which is where it shines.

Solid damage isn't really good enough. At 17th level, you're averaging three or more uses of this maneuver to kill a caster type like the Aboleth Mage or Formian Queen. It alternates well with regular attacks, but so do more regular attacks, and it doesn't benefit from whatever damage you happen to be doing.


It will come up, at worst, every 3rd round with a feat. Also Heal is a great use of an action in combat: it easily out heals most monsters damage. and purges a laundry list of statuses

It's 150 HP every 3 rounds (heal caps, the maneuver really should just say "150" because you can't get it before then). Assuming you average every other round, that's 75 HP. A CR 17 Marilith probably deals more than that every round, and it gets worse if you're getting beaten down by a group instead. Also, lots of monsters will just fling save-or-dies or other spells. You might plausibly fight three Trumpet Archons, which are 14th level Clerics that are also celestials.


Yes, because mooks are going to enjoy 17th+ level PC wealth. Also cannot you fly or teleport with that massive wealth? You love charging, which is shut down by marbles, but seem critical of these. Which is it: do mooks carry around gear reliably to stop every strategy or not?

At 17th level "mooks" could plausibly mean CR 11 monsters like Barbed Devils (at-will teleport), Young Adult Blue Dragons (150ft fly speed), or Hezrous (at-will teleport). Even the mooks that are basically big piles of stats are Huge (Cloud Giants, Elder Elementals) or larger (Vermin), and won't be positioned for you to be in melee range of several at once. Also, whatever movement you do has to fit into your full round action attack.


Only if you manage power attack at X4 with a BAB of 26 plus or are ubercharging without being stopped. Also, I can totally combine PA and this maneuver for damage and the fact that a nice chunk of damage comes from here means enemies with extremely high ACs won't rip my damage to shreds. (In a 2-man one shot at ECL 14 there was a boss with 60+ AC. Power attack that without massive levels of optimization).

You obviously have Shock Trooper if you're charging, so you don't take to-hit penalties. Even then, more damage is not the problem martials have.


You missed the part where this is not a death effect. Slay Living is blocked by a list of things but this does not have the death descriptor.

You know what else isn't a [Death] effect? Ubercharging. Also, yes, this is somewhat better than something Clerics got eight levels ago. That is not sufficient to sway me. Maybe 4th level spell phantasmal killer is a better case? Sure, it requires two saves, but this requires a Jump check and a save.


Are you sure? I mean, if my party is Crusader, Barbarian and CoDzilla (and Druidzilla's companion) I could certainly see them all charging. You also are discounting the joys of handing your melees immediate action movement. Two is when I see it becoming good but the more the merrier.

But if your party is Beguiler, Warlock, and Binder, it's possible none of them want to charge. Looking at the standard party, you can expect that maybe the Cleric or the Rogue wants to charge, but neither is a sure thing (even among martial Clerics, the iconic build is the Cleric Archer), so you average one. For every party of four melee types, you can expect at least as many parties where all your friends are squishies.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It depends. I think the Uberchargers that do damage expressed in SI notation are TO, but the ones that just do enough to kill things on hit are probably not.
But are still easily shut down if the DM really wants.


Solid damage isn't really good enough. At 17th level, you're averaging three or more uses of this maneuver to kill a caster type like the Aboleth Mage or Formian Queen. It alternates well with regular attacks, but so do more regular attacks, and it doesn't benefit from whatever damage you happen to be doing.
I have other maneuvers as well and doing a ton of damage that is difficult to manage is nice. It also costs waaay less than all the build resources you dedicate to ubercharging.


It's 150 HP every 3 rounds (heal caps, the maneuver really should just say "150" because you can't get it before then). Assuming you average every other round, that's 75 HP. A CR 17 Marilith probably deals more than that every round, and it gets worse if you're getting beaten down by a group instead. Also, lots of monsters will just fling save-or-dies or other spells. You might plausibly fight three Trumpet Archons, which are 14th level Clerics that are also celestials.
A marilith who never misses averages 137 damage a round. Honestly, being able to face tank a marilith while my party members work it over is valuable. Monsters also fling Save-or-sucks and heal cuts through those.


At 17th level "mooks" could plausibly mean CR 11 monsters like Barbed Devils (at-will teleport), Young Adult Blue Dragons (150ft fly speed), or Hezrous (at-will teleport). Even the mooks that are basically big piles of stats are Huge (Cloud Giants, Elder Elementals) or larger (Vermin), and won't be positioned for you to be in melee range of several at once. Also, whatever movement you do has to fit into your full round action attack.
Then you can just smash one into oblivion with your 8 full attacks. Power attack a little bit and watch your damage explode! If they move just use your pounce maneuver instead. Either way: damage.

[quote]You obviously have Shock Trooper if you're charging, so you don't take to-hit penalties. Even then, more damage is not the problem martials have.
So your argument is that by having a narrower and more resources intensive build I am better in general? I mean: shut down charging and your an angry dude with a stick and no real options. Maneuvers are more resilient to being stopped.


You know what else isn't a [Death] effect? Ubercharging. Also, yes, this is somewhat better than something Clerics got eight levels ago. That is not sufficient to sway me. Maybe 4th level spell phantasmal killer is a better case? Sure, it requires two saves, but this requires a Jump check and a save.
Do you know is easily stopped? Ubercharging. And since you are doing TO ubercharging it is more likely that they will fail to kill somthing and have to figure out how to charge again, while I can just smack them with another maneuver. Also that jump check is trivial. If that jump check cannot be made than an ubercharger will probably not hit with any attack.


But if your party is Beguiler, Warlock, and Binder, it's possible none of them want to charge. Looking at the standard party, you can expect that maybe the Cleric or the Rogue wants to charge, but neither is a sure thing (even among martial Clerics, the iconic build is the Cleric Archer), so you average one. For every party of four melee types, you can expect at least as many parties where all your friends are squishies.

Then don't take that maneuver? I mean, it's not like you don't know your party composition and, no matter how much you protest, there are good options for both warblade and crusader at 9ths.

[Soranar]

I would agree that an ubercharger can reach TO levels of optimization

But even with ordinary optimization a barbarian can easily reach 150+ damage per round.

Since an initiator gets his best stuff at level 17, what can a level 17 barb do?

Say he was a human, with 18 STR

+4 to STR from level increases
+6 from a magic item
(I'll ignore tomes for now)
another +6 from raging

so 34 STR wiedling a two handed greataxe

1d12 (weapon) + 18 (STR 1.5x) + 51 (power attack x3 leap attack)

so about 75 damage per hit and all he's using is

-power attack
-leap attack
- improved bull rush
- shock trooper

a human can pull this off by level 6

if he gets pounce from the barbarian ACF then we can assume he can hit at least twice during his attack routine to deliver 150 damage but honestly I'd be surprised if he couldn't hit 3 times for 225 damage. Especially with a haste effect.

and this build doesn't use battle jump,headlong rush or a valorous weapon

and sure difficult terrain can stop your charge but you're jumping
jump is a class skill
you get +12 to it from your raging STR (without any magic items, I'd be surprised if you can't fly somehow) and you're running

even a basic mounted charger can reach that kind of damage while mounted with a lance and spirited charge (and flying mounts are easy enough to find)

honestly the tome of battle's damage output is just ordinary

[AnachroNinja]

At a certain point it doesn't really matter how many magic items, fears, or build resources it takes for a given class to do well in combat. A well built barbarian contributes meaningfully in combat in almost all situations. I feel like we can all agree on that. It's irrelevant whether he needs more magic items then a warblade, because it's well within his capacity.

A warblade can contribute meaningfully in almost all combat situations, although it's acknowledged that he can't generally outdamage the barbarian unless the barbarians tactics are being hampered in pretty specific ways that pretty much require direct DM intent. The warblade does require less resources to hit that generic level of "meaningful contribution".

The question becomes: Can the warblade realistically levy those extra resources (build, feat, money) to be able to meaningfully contribute outside of combat? How much weight should that contribute? At what point does it become a Schrodinger's situation in which you're just positing arbitrary items the warblade could have?

Overall, I don't think the warblade can get sufficient value out of those remaining resources that they allegedly have over the barbarian, especially not when compared to their lower damage threshold overall. They are still just a combat monster.

The same applies generally to all the TOB classes, though the Swordsage does have slightly more variety. I don't really care if you can Trip, Self Heal, and so jumping con damage. That's still just combat. It's not intrinsically more valuable then the guy who just one shots every enemy you put in front of him who's not immune to HP damage.

[rrwoods]

Sounds like most people here are of the opinion that swordsage is the stronger of the three classes. I don't disagree but I want to offer that I think swordsage probably has a lower floor, even if it has a higher ceiling. I'm DMing a campaign with all three of these classes in the party, and all three of the players are new-ish. While I of course offered my assistance, the three players chose what they chose, all of them a bit suboptimal in one way or another. The swordsage player feels pretty outclassed most of the time. Mostly to do with maneuver selection; having selected hatchling's flame, for example, he's finding it's not as useful practically as it originally appeared. (Yeah, I know, none of us would have picked that maneuver, but what I'm saying is this is a real thing that a real player did and low-but-not-sabotaging-myself-op is part of the discussion.)

Also, from my own experience playing one, even doing your best to pick good maneuvers, it can feel pretty tough to contribute at low levels. Especially on feat-starved races where you either delay Adaptive Style or delay your accuracy/damage boosting feats.

For out of combat stuff, you get good skills and points for a combat character but intelligence isn't a priority usually. The sense magic feature is mildly useful... when it isn't being obsoleted by an artificer's monocle.

Don't get me wrong, I think swordsage is tier three and will vote that way (first vote woo!), but the floor is something to consider here.

Votes:
All 3s.

[remetagross]

I would agree that an ubercharger can reach TO levels of optimization

But even with ordinary optimization a barbarian can easily reach 150+ damage per round.

Since an initiator gets his best stuff at level 17, what can a level 17 barb do?

Say he was a human, with 18 STR

+4 to STR from level increases
+6 from a magic item
(I'll ignore tomes for now)
another +6 from raging

so 34 STR wiedling a two handed greataxe

1d12 (weapon) + 18 (STR 1.5x) + 51 (power attack x3 leap attack)

so about 75 damage per hit and all he's using is

-power attack
-leap attack
- improved bull rush
- shock trooper

a human can pull this off by level 6


That is true, but actually, a Warblade can pull this off at level 5, since he gets a bonus feat at level 5.

Or, all that thing that a Barbarian can do, a Tier 6 Warrior can do as well! You just have to remove the Str bonus from Rage, so that the damage per hit goes from 75 to 69. To me, the difference is far from being meaningful.

In both cases, my point is that, yes, Barbarians are powerful uberchargers, but actually, they are only slightly more good at it than every other full BAB class out there. Until Pounce gets involved, granted, but you example above specifically did not use Pounce. And Warblades do get Pounce as a maneuver at level 9 anyway.

I think we are forgetting that ubercharging is far from being a Barbarian-only trick; at the same time, maneuvers of level 6 or more (when Martial Study can't get you those) are a martial adept-only trick. So that a Warblade can be an ubercharger and in addition to that, an action economy abuser, a tank, a debuffer, etc. At least, that's how things look like from a theoretical point of view, I have never played either class.

How about you folks that have played both?

[Dondasch]

So, can someone explain to me why Barbarian = ubercharger? It's not a trick unique to them, other than Pounce. You can stack a bunch of ubercharging stuff on even CW Samurai. It doesn't mean they make it to T4.
Ubercharging is also a fairly high-op trick, as for it to work consistently you need to make sure you deal enough damage to kill your target on your first charge, and that they don't have allies who can benefit from your now-nonexistent AC. You also need a clear charging lane, free of mooks, concealment/cover, marbles, etc.

[Telok]

So what does the contribution of the Warblade, Crusader, or Swordsage look like in a 15th level fight?

Having actually played that as both a wizard and a warblade? Dangerous, mobile, difficult to negate.

My threat list sort of goes casters>insta-kill &OR martial adepts>big damage>nuisance.

As a warblade I built for mobility, effect negation, detection, and picked up damage by default. Other than Imp.Crit and Combat Expertise all feats got to be spent on stuff that boosted caster hunting. Other than traditional armor and save boosters all money got to be spent on adding to non-damage abilities. Essentially the base chassis provided base competent combat ability and the character could spend resources on non-combat type stuff. Out of combat? Yeah, it was player skill and gear more than skills or anything. But the warblade chassis allowed more spending on out of combat gear than a straight fighter or barbarian. At 15th level the character was jumping over 144 man pike blocks to attack invisible flying casters, ignoring a fair number of status effects, and rocking the highest AC and HPs in the group.

Playing as a wizard the martial adepts are the second target after casters and one Fireball-minion clump, they often beat even the Fireball-clump if the minions aren't seriously debilitating or damaging. They rank with the ubercharge and super-barb builds because even though they aren't insta-kill like those two they are more mobile and harder to shut down. Mage slayer build? Teleport. Charger? Cover or flight or terrain. Sneak attack and skirmish? Concealment or Polymorph. Full attacks? Movement. UMD? Wall of Dispel, a screen spell, Globe of Invulnerability, other stuff. But a martial adept? They're variable, mobile, able the shrug off or avoid popular control effects, and usually dangerous enough to worry about. Crusaders are tougher and can spend a feat to get the Shadow Hand teleport. Warblades tend to be pretty mobile and have the save counters and IHS. Swordsages... can do lots of things but tend to run out of good manoeuvres pretty fast.

Personally I can see the arguments for both low T3 and high T4. I can't really call it one way or the other because just good magic item selection, or average or better player skill, puts them well into T3 but that's not really what the tier system is about. The only thing I can't condone is placing swordsages a tier above the other two. They run out of manoeuvres too easily, refresh too slowly, and are much too MAD which means they need gear and feats for basic combat ability more than the others. They hurt at low levels, so much so that nobody in my group has been able to keep one alive long enough to get to higher levels. They just don't seem to have the combat ability to stand with the other two classes.

[Soranar]

That is true, but actually, a Warblade can pull this off at level 5, since he gets a bonus feat at level 5.

Or, all that thing that a Barbarian can do, a Tier 6 Warrior can do as well! You just have to remove the Str bonus from Rage, so that the damage per hit goes from 75 to 69. To me, the difference is far from being meaningful.

In both cases, my point is that, yes, Barbarians are powerful uberchargers, but actually, they are only slightly more good at it than every other full BAB class out there. Until Pounce gets involved, granted, but you example above specifically did not use Pounce. And Warblades do get Pounce as a maneuver at level 9 anyway.

I think we are forgetting that ubercharging is far from being a Barbarian-only trick; at the same time, maneuvers of level 6 or more (when Martial Study can't get you those) are a martial adept-only trick. So that a Warblade can be an ubercharger and in addition to that, an action economy abuser, a tank, a debuffer, etc. At least, that's how things look like from a theoretical point of view, I have never played either class.

How about you folks that have played both?

We use the barbarian because of the chassis (d12 hitpoints, full BAB, nice defenses and offenses) and because he is slightly better than all other martial characters at what he does

and my example did use pouce to reach more than 150 damage per round without headlong rush or valorous weapons

btw shock trooper requires BAB +6 just so you know

the problem here is that 1 melee combo is comparable to most your class features (maneuvers/stances)

do Barbs get high saves? they do due to a high CON, rage and steadfast determination
can Barbs do something other than combat well? depending on your ACF you can

-intimidate
-destroy traps
-track

it's not much (thus the tier 4) but it's still something to do outside combat

[Soranar]

So, can someone explain to me why Barbarian = ubercharger? It's not a trick unique to them, other than Pounce. You can stack a bunch of ubercharging stuff on even CW Samurai. It doesn't mean they make it to T4.
Ubercharging is also a fairly high-op trick, as for it to work consistently you need to make sure you deal enough damage to kill your target on your first charge, and that they don't have allies who can benefit from your now-nonexistent AC. You also need a clear charging lane, free of mooks, concealment/cover, marbles, etc.

ubercharging tends to = barbarian because

-it leaves you vulnerable to attack (thus you need lots of hitpoints so d12 and a high CON is a must)
-the barbarian chassis rewards a high CON and boosts it (via rage that lasts longer due to high CON and boosts CON)
-pounce is natually in your chassis
-you get bonus feats without requirements (improved trip for example)
-you can choose to keep pretty decent defensive abilities (uncanny dodge)
-rage works with any weapon so it's friendly to random loot
-there is a rage ACF that grants you an extra attack right away (letting you outdamage everyone until they get access to a permanent haste effect, much much later)

[Dondasch]

the problem here is that 1 melee combo is comparable to most your class features (maneuvers/stances)

First off, that combo involves four feats, while maneuvers involve none. Second, that's ignoring defensive maneuvers. Third, as I've mentioned, your combo requires fairly specific circumstances, while maneuvers do not.


do Barbs get high saves? they do due to a high CON, rage and steadfast determination

Funny, I can't seem to find Steadfast Determination as a Barbarian ACF. It's a feat, available to anyone. It also has a horrible prereq, so now you've spent 6 feats (75% of your allotment over 20 levels, assuming nonhuman) to the martial adept's 0.


can Barbs do something other than combat well? depending on your ACF you can

-intimidate
-destroy traps
-track

it's not much (thus the tier 4) but it's still something to do outside combat

Intimidate is available to anyone, even the aforementioned CW Samurai. Destroying traps is only an adamantine weapon or 2nd level maneuver away. And Track is a feat, useful only for a narrow selection of problems, and useless if the quarry can swim/fly/teleport/etc.


ubercharging tends to = barbarian because

-it leaves you vulnerable to attack (thus you need lots of hitpoints so d12 and a high CON is a must)
-the barbarian chassis rewards a high CON and boosts it (via rage that lasts longer due to high CON and boosts CON)
-pounce is natually in your chassis
-you get bonus feats without requirements (improved trip for example)
-you can choose to keep pretty decent defensive abilities (uncanny dodge)
-rage works with any weapon so it's friendly to random loot
-there is a rage ACF that grants you an extra attack right away (letting you outdamage everyone until they get access to a permanent haste effect, much much later)

My question isn't about "if ubercharger, then Barbarian"; Pounce alone provides a compelling argument for that. It's about the reverse: "if Barbarian, then ubercharger", which seems to get assumed in these optimization discussions.

[GilesTheCleric]

What exactly can a warblade or a crusader do outside combat? I'm reserving the right to change my vote if someone can spell it out for me but , from what I can see, both are tier 4.

Swordsage : tier 3
Warblade: tier 4
Crusader : tier 4I'd like to have a go at changing your mind, if you like. I argued that Crusaders should probably be T3 in Jormengand's thread, on the basis of both their out-of combat utility, as well as their incredible in-combat flexibility. ToB classes get a lot of tactical abilities that everyone else doesn't have.


stan, I think I need to agree with Muggins here. Crusaders can do more than just hit things with sticks.

Let's take a quick look at manoeuvers:

Devoted Spirit lets you:

get rerolls (Aura of Perfect Order)
heal (many)
goad (Defensive Rebuke)
debuff (Entangling Blade)
be invincible (Immortal Fortitude)
buff allies (Shield Block, Vanguard Strike)
BFC (Thicket of Blades)

Stone Dragon lets you:

destroy objects/ terrain (many)
ability damage (Bonesplitting Strike)
move enemies (many)
BFC (X Vise, Earthquake Strike)
shut down casters (Irresistable Mountain Strike)
buff (Roots of the Mountain)

White Raven lets you:

buff (Bolstering Voice)
+action economy (many)
+movement (many)
debuff (Covering Strike, White Raven Strike)
SoL (White Raven Hammer)

Many of those abilities are combat-only, but things like Aura of Perfect Order basically gives you pseudo-advantage on every roll you make. That's pretty great no matter what you're doing. Destroying terrain is very good in dungeons or for subverting traps. Really, the things they lack are flight, immunities, and targeted skill improvements.

Few of these abilities are going to just end an encounter the way a caster can, but they do enable the Crusader to have a lot of powerful, tactical options -- versatility -- to engage with their foes in the most beneficial way at the time.

To me, Crusaders seem highly versatile in combat, and able to contribute meaningfully to a decent number of out-of-combat scenarios, provided their Wizard buddy didn't just solve it outright before they could contribute. There's probably some manoeuvers from other disciplines that do provide those bonuses, which any ToB class is going to find fairly easy to pick up via feats.

I'll add that, anecdotally, all the ToB classes in my games have had a decent amount of out-of-combat utility. For example, in just the last session my swordsage used their teleport frequently to help navigate the river+boat+banks of the river the party was traveling on, and also suplexed a tree in order to dislodge a logjam that was halting the party's progress. Would I have allowed jump or grapple checks to solve those problems as well? Sure. But, they would have been more difficult -- the ToB class had an easier time completing the challenge.


Crusader: Tier 4
Warblade: Tier 4
Swordsage: High Tier 4(Low 3 if generous)

Pretty much the same general reason for all of them, being pretty good in combat is not enough to justify the higher tier in my opinion. As has been noted, they aren't quite as good as a high end barbarian at making things dead.

In this tier evaluation, we're looking at averages of many builds, not just the high-end. If you think that a large majority of tables have high-op barbarians, then that's fair; otherwise, I just don't think it's quite in line with how we're evaluating things here, though.

[Soranar]

Alright I'm game, I'll take a look


Devoted Spirit

get rerolls (Aura of Perfect Order)

-Actually this lets you take 11, it's not a reroll since you have to use it before you fail the roll. Still really good mind as you can use it once per round but it comes in fairly late (level 11). The utility though is quite high. This might make a crusader tier 3 IMO.

heal (many)
goad (Defensive Rebuke)
debuff (Entangling Blade)
be invincible (Immortal Fortitude)
buff allies (Shield Block, Vanguard Strike)
BFC (Thicket of Blades)

all of these are combat actions without clear uses outside combat unless you can trigger the heal outside combat somehow but everyone keeps saying that's not the case

Stone Dragon lets you:

destroy objects/ terrain (many)

-definitely useful (much like shatter for a warlock, I see the use here)

ability damage (Bonesplitting Strike)
move enemies (many)
BFC (X Vise, Earthquake Strike)

-useful in combat but all combat related (no clear use outside of it that I can see)

shut down casters (Irresistable Mountain Strike)

-yeah no, you need to land a hit for this to work. Just killing said caster with that hit is just as effective.

buff (Roots of the Mountain)

-this only buffs yourself in regards to combat abilities unfortunately


White Raven lets you:

buff (Bolstering Voice)

-saves vs fear are rarely useful outside combat but it happens, ok

+action economy (many)
+movement (many)

-any movement ability (better than simply walking) can be useful outside combat but I'm not sure if this has anything like that

debuff (Covering Strike, White Raven Strike)
SoL (White Raven Hammer)

-no clear use outside combat again



Conclusion:

From what I just saw you can take 11 on rolls which is huge IMO (attack, saves or checks!). This is like skill mastery on steroids (you can use this on knowledge checks, on open lock checks, on search checks, you name it you can try to do it even without any ranks in the skill you can easily land a DC 15 in most areas, that is indeed huge.

Hell you can use manyshot with this and you just used take 11 on all your attacks.

This takes the uncertainty of many rolls completely out of the equation, it's good enough to make you tier 3 IMO. You can't easily gain this without initiator levels

The destruction effect is less impressive (since anyone can get it through martial study) but it can be useful sometimes. Nowhere near as useful as aura of perfect order mind.

Anyway, I'm convinced, Crusader is tier 3.

[Soranar]

First off, that combo involves four feats, while maneuvers involve none. Second, that's ignoring defensive maneuvers. Third, as I've mentioned, your combo requires fairly specific circumstances, while maneuvers do not.

That's not really the point. The point is that anyone can do damage in combat. A tier 4 character can do it very well but that's still just doing damage in combat. Unless you free feats let you do something else than combat then you're still no more versatile than a normal combattant.




Funny, I can't seem to find Steadfast Determination as a Barbarian ACF. It's a feat, available to anyone. It also has a horrible prereq, so now you've spent 6 feats (75% of your allotment over 20 levels, assuming nonhuman) to the martial adept's 0.

True but a barbarian will have a higher CON and a will bonus while raging on top of the extra CON from rage. A warblade needs STR, CON, INT and some DEX

A Barbarian needs STR and CON. That's the difference of a focused class/



Intimidate is available to anyone, even the aforementioned CW Samurai. Destroying traps is only an adamantine weapon or 2nd level maneuver away. And Track is a feat, useful only for a narrow selection of problems, and useless if the quarry can swim/fly/teleport/etc.

Yeah but the barbarian can look for traps with survival just like a rogue, nobody else can do that (meaning he does multiple things with 1 skill). And of course track is not magical but it is something to do that a warblade doesn't have. A barbarian can get a roar ability and/or a frightful presence ability which is difficult for anyone else to emulate.




My question isn't about "if ubercharger, then Barbarian"; Pounce alone provides a compelling argument for that. It's about the reverse: "if Barbarian, then ubercharger", which seems to get assumed in these optimization discussions.

Most people assume ubercharger because it's effective. But barbarians can make great archers , mounted combattants or AoO builds. A bonus to STR works in many many ways.

[Zancloufer]

Maybe it's just me, but much of the whole "ToB Classes are only Tier 4" argument seems to stem from the whole (A) their class features are only good for combat 90% of the time and (B) top tier Fighter/Barbarian Optimization might be better than them just using their class features.

Barbarian, a Tier 4 using best optimization might be better than a ToB character without feats/skills at fighting. I think there is too much focus on seeing what a ToB class can do purely out of combat and not enough consideration to how little of their non-class features they have to dedicate to hit that tier 4 "Do damage" floor. I see them more of a Tier 3 in that "They cover their role with complete ease and can afford to spend resources else where" or the "They are good at one thing, but have 4 different ways of doing that one thing instead of 1-2".





From what I just saw you can take 11 on rolls which is huge IMO (attack, saves or checks!). This is like skill mastery on steroids (you can use this on knowledge checks, on open lock checks, on search checks, you name it you can try to do it even without any ranks in the skill you can easily land a DC 15 in most areas, that is indeed huge.

Hell you can use manyshot with this and you just used take 11 on all your attacks.

This takes the uncertainty of many rolls completely out of the equation, it's good enough to make you tier 3 IMO. You can't easily gain this without initiator levels

The destruction effect is less impressive (since anyone can get it through martial study) but it can be useful sometimes. Nowhere near as useful as aura of perfect order mind.

Anyway, I'm convinced, Crusader is tier 3.

You can't gain it period without initiator levels. A 18 X/Crusader 2 would qualify for it at level 20 and that's pretty much the earliest you would get it without some serious cheese.

[Firechanter]

I can make an examplary case mostly for the Warblade, since I lack extensive play experience with Crusader (only a few levels) and Swordsage (none), but either way, I am solidly convinced that the Warblade is Tier 3 and the others probably are, too.

- The Warblade can switch between roles, or even fulfill multiple roles simultaneously. Granted, they are mostly _combat_ roles, but we all know that combat is not a single niche. Warblades are certainly Bruisers first and foremost, but in a pinch they can also function as Leader (Enabler) or Tank. That's three roles right there! And he can be good at _all_ of them -- isn't that exactly what T3 is about?
-- Crusader is basically analog, albeit with different priorities, and definitely the best Martial Tanks in the game.
- Sure, a Warblade is basically Melee only and sucks at range. But, their excellent mobility allows the Warblade to turn pretty much _any_ encounter into Melee. It's very hard to deny them any area.
This is especially helped by their ability to snatch the Swordsage's Teleports per feat - already excellent maneuvers that become even better in the hands of the Warblade, because he can refresh them much more easily than the original owner.
- of course, a Warblades out of combat utility is limited, but it's there nonetheless. I think we all know what he can do so I can save the trouble.
- at the same time, the Warblade's damage potential is entirely sufficient to cream any level-appropriate opponent. It may not attain the output of an optimized Barbarian Ubercharger, but who cares if you can dish out >1000 points of damage when less than half of that can kill anything in the books?
- saving the best for last, what really sets the WB apart from his mundane peers is the ability to say No to enemy casters. They shove a Willsave down your throat? You substitute your Save with a Concentration check. A second one hits you before you can refresh? You shout BY CROM! and shake it off.

Add to that the specific bonus that Warblades and even more so Crusaders can be veritable Energizer Bunnies that can keep going until the cows come home. You can't run out of spell slots, wand charges, uses per day or whatever.
All in all, the Martial Adepts are so much better than the basic T4s that lumping them into the same tier would brand the whole tier system as useless. It would be kinda like saying "A Porsche 918 is the same league as a VW Golf because both are slow compared to a Lockheed F-22".

[neriractor]

True but a barbarian will have a higher CON and a will bonus while raging on top of the extra CON from rage. A warblade needs STR, CON, INT and some DEX

A Barbarian needs STR and CON. That's the difference of a focused class/.

I have to disagree on that one, warblades also need only STR and CON, at least as much as the barbarian can be Said to only need them, they both get the same out of a High DEX and warblades don't get INT because they need it, they get it because skill points are nice and several of your class abilities give you small incentives to take it.

[Rhyltran]

Isn't this tiering system not including feats/items into the calculations? Comparing builds for said classes isn't really what we're aiming for is it?

[Bucky]

We're assuming that characters with these classes have some sort of feats and items; our initiators and barbarians are wearing armor and have weapons, not charging enemies naked with unarmed strikes. We're not assuming any specific feats or items.

[Rhyltran]

We're assuming that characters with these classes have some sort of feats and items; our initiators and barbarians are wearing armor and have weapons, not charging enemies naked with unarmed strikes. We're not assuming any specific feats or items.

Except in the last few posts people have been comparing very specific feats and builds. Namely the ubercharger.

[AnachroNinja]

The argument for ToB classes as Tier 3 seems to break down to: "But they're really good at combat in a lot of different ways and don't have to try hard to do it! And they are not butt useless outside of combat if you take very specific manuevers and stances..."

Yes, they have a good floor and are easy to use, but that just means the range of potential warblades is narrower then the range of potential barbarians. They are not just always better.

A couple people have pointed out that it feels wrong to put ToB classes in the same tier as regular melee when they have such a broader array of combat options. I say it's ridiculous to put them in the same tier as a Bard when their out of combat options and in combat options are so piss poor by comparison.

[Bucky]

The Ubercharger crowd has a point. Even without Shock Trooper, barbarians can charge to out-damage a Warblade's maneuvers over a fairly broad level range.

[eggynack]

We are using feats and items somewhat, but in a weird general averaging of specific cases way. For example, consider shock trooper, and its role in comparisons between the barbarian and the warblade. First, we do not assume it's showing up on literally every build, just cause it's good. We're not assessing some individual barbarian build, but the class as a whole. So, you account for optimization level, obscurity, and similar pertinent factors. Second, we can't just assume the barbarian is the only one with shock trooper. Instead, we assess the utility the feat offers the barbarian and warblade alike, and that difference in utility is what we multiply by the aforementioned of likelihood of taking the feat (which could possibly be different for each class) to establish how much utility is offered by shock trooper to the barbarian as opposed to the warblade. And, finally, we do that again for just about every pertinent feat or item, at least in a loose headspace way.

So, we don't assume shock trooper. We also don't assume not shock trooper. We assume sometimes shock trooper, and thus do we best approximate the actual in-game value of the class, because the marginal value offered by standard level by level feats to each class is a relevant factor in class power level.

[Dondasch]

That's not really the point. The point is that anyone can do damage in combat. A tier 4 character can do it very well but that's still just doing damage in combat. Unless you free feats let you do something else than combat then you're still no more versatile than a normal combattant.

No rebuttal on defenses or ubercharging being circumstantial? The first one is important because ubercharging torpedoes your defenses, and the second is important because maneuvers aren't anywhere near as circumstantial.
And combat isn't just about dealing damage; if it was, God Wizards wouldn't be regarded as superior to blasters. Martial adepts have solid damage out of the box, along with other effects for combat (GilesTheCleric listed some for the Crusader). And while my knowledge on what to do with feats for noncombat purposes is limited, the point still stands that the ubercharger requires more build resources.


True but a barbarian will have a higher CON and a will bonus while raging on top of the extra CON from rage. A warblade needs STR, CON, INT and some DEX

A Barbarian needs STR and CON. That's the difference of a focused class/

Barbarians still need Dex as much as the Warblade, unless you're so specced for ubercharging that AC becomes irrelevant (which is only at very high op levels), or you have other defenses like miss chances (again, high op). Even then, you're losing out on initiative, and potentially giving the enemy a chance to throw out a BFC spell that shuts down your main shtick. And the Warblade doesn't need Int; the class features that use it offer minor bonuses, not vital ones.


Yeah but the barbarian can look for traps with survival just like a rogue, nobody else can do that (meaning he does multiple things with 1 skill). And of course track is not magical but it is something to do that a warblade doesn't have. A barbarian can get a roar ability and/or a frightful presence ability which is difficult for anyone else to emulate.

Doing multiple things with 1 skill isn't that impressive when a decent chunk of those things are bad (tracking, and the base functionality of Survival). Plus, the other thing (finding traps) is the niche of another class, so it's redundant if you have a rogue-type. Oh, and once you hit magical traps, it's replaced by a cantrip​. On top of that, where are you getting a high Survival from? You're pumping Str and Con, Dex is still important for initiative, and Int is good for skill points. So you are unlikely to be able to boost Wis too high, you don't have class features to give you a big bonus, and you are sinking a lot of resources into ubercharging+Will saves already.
Frightful presence is okay, but bonuses against or immunities to fear are a dime a dozen. Again, it's easy to shut down.


Most people assume ubercharger because it's effective. But barbarians can make great archers , mounted combattants or AoO builds. A bonus to STR works in many many ways.

And yet, the discussion inevitably drifts to a high op strategy, which is unlikely to be relevant at many tables. The fact that martial adepts are good out of the box is a major point in their favor. "Being hard to screw up" is often put forth in favor of T1s being better than T2s, so it ought to be just as much of a factor here.

[AnachroNinja]

And yet, the discussion inevitably drifts to a high op strategy, which is unlikely to be relevant at many tables. The fact that martial adepts are good out of the box is a major point in their favor. "Being hard to screw up" is often put forth in favor of T1s being better than T2s, so it ought to be just as much of a factor here.

This right here is objectively false. Wizards, Archivists, and Artificers are Tier1 and among the easiest to screw up. Only clerics and druids are considered hard to mess up.

Not to mention, no one is really putting forth "ubercharger the build". That's the 3000+ damage a round high op build. Shock trooper and leap attack are just pretty obvious ways of making a good melee character that synergize well. Does not mean every barbarian uses it, although almost every melee character I've played in a party with tends to, but it's not TO either.

[eggynack]

This right here is objectively false. Wizards, Archivists, and Artificers are Tier1 and among the easiest to screw up. Only clerics and druids are considered hard to mess up.
Well, I wouldn't say wizards, archivists, and artificers are all that hard to mess up. However, I think it's fair that, at least in the case of wizard and archivist, they're harder to mess up than, say, a sorcerer, given that they have easier access to error fixing. Not sure in the case of artificer. I know it's a hard class, but they have some essential malleability. This comparison doesn't extend to, say, a beguiler, because beguilers are arguably even harder to mess up than clerics or druids (at least clerics, cause druids do have more always on stuff), cause you don't even have to make daily decisions correctly, but that comparison tends to swing in favor of existing tier ones for other reasons. Anyway, all I'm really saying is that this sort of argument does exist, and in a form that is by no means objectively false. And, as long as he meant "T1s" as selected classes from the tier, "T2s" the same, and hard in a relative sense, I think the argument he put forth does fit that not objectively false form. The other reading definitely exists though. It could have been put better.

Anyways, whether this is a factor in the tier one/tier two comparison is kinda irrelevant. It's a factor here. We're expressly considering some lower optimization scenarios in this thread, and more importantly, I think we absolutely should be considering lower optimization scenarios for the health of the system (which is why I put the guideline there). How big is the advantage to these ToB classes from their low floor? Can't say for certain, and it's presumably something we'd be working out. But I don't think it can be denied that this is a point in favor of these classes. It certainly played a role in the tiering I gave.

[Dondasch]

This right here is objectively false. Wizards, Archivists, and Artificers are Tier1 and among the easiest to screw up. Only clerics and druids are considered hard to mess up.

All right, I'll rephrase it so that my meaning is clear. They're hard to permanently screw up. (Wizards and Archivists can scribe more stuff into their books, and Artificers can scrap/sell existing magic items to finance new ones or resort to tricks with infusions). Though the note about Clerics and Druids proves my point, since they are regarded as being higher in T1 than the other classes there.
Also, what eggynack said.


Not to mention, no one is really putting forth "ubercharger the build". That's the 3000+ damage a round high op build. Shock trooper and leap attack are just pretty obvious ways of making a good melee character that synergize well. Does not mean every barbarian uses it, although almost every melee character I've played in a party with tends to, but it's not TO either.

First off, the comparisons being made in this thread are predominantly towards an ubercharging Barbarians. Not to the 3000+ damage threshold (theoretical optimization), but generally nearer the "put a big hole in monsters of the same CR" threshold (high practical optimization). Second, I consider it to be high op because it requires significant investment of build resources, uses feats and abilities from a variety of sources, and (when it actually works) ends encounters. Another reason it's high op is because it leaves you very low on defense, so you also need a good way of surviving if you don't kill everything on the first turn.
Or, to try and put my main point simply: there are Barbarians that don't charge (due to either intentional build choices or not having the optimization knowledge), but not martial adepts without maneuvers.

[MHCD]

Barbarian, a Tier 4 using best optimization might be better than a ToB character without feats/skills at fighting. I think there is too much focus on seeing what a ToB class can do purely out of combat and not enough consideration to how little of their non-class features they have to dedicate to hit that tier 4 "Do damage" floor. I see them more of a Tier 3 in that "They cover their role with complete ease and can afford to spend resources else where" or the "They are good at one thing, but have 4 different ways of doing that one thing instead of 1-2".(emphasis added)

This is well put, and goes well with Firechanter's comments following it, and eggynack's further below that. Initiators are given so much through their class features that they can easily spend their feats and skill points on further specialization without sacrificing all versatility or expanding the tricks in their repertoire.


Or, to try and put my main point simply: there are Barbarians that don't charge (due to either intentional build choices or not having the optimization knowledge), but not martial adepts without maneuvers.

Also, what's to stop a crusader or warblade from taking the same feats as an ubercharger barbarian while choosing maneuvers that complement and round-out their abilities? Yeah, the warblade's strength will be lower than the charging barbarian, but being able to drop a wall of blades counter after hosing your AC on a charge is worth something, and that's almost the least the warblade could do differently.

Add my votes to the straight threes.

[Soranar]

I am sorry, I did not mean to derail this discussion into comparing a barbarian to a warblade.

I still think both classes are tier 4 due to their lack of versatility outside combat.

I think a better example of this was mentioned earlier: instead of comparing a warblade to a tier 4 class, why not compare it to a tier 3 class.

The bard is the perfect example of this :

-useful in combat
-useful outside combat in a number of ways

conclusion: usually has something significant to contribute.

a tier 4 class is still good, it's just narrower. But as long as that role it fills is useful that doesn't really matter.

[eggynack]

I am sorry, I did not mean to derail this discussion into comparing a barbarian to a warblade.
It's a pretty inevitable place for this kinda discussion to go, I think.



I think a better example of this was mentioned earlier: instead of comparing a warblade to a tier 4 class, why not compare it to a tier 3 class.

The bard is the perfect example of this :

-useful in combat
-useful outside combat in a number of ways

conclusion: usually has something significant to contribute.
Bard is a really really good tier three though. In point of fact, going by the mean value on my spreadsheet, 2.96, it's the best tier three in the game, the only class that rounds down to three instead of rounding up or even landing smack dab on the tier. If ya wanna talk tier three comparison classes, and I think that would indeed be a useful thing to do, it should probably be the factotum, which lands at 3.35, or if you want to better match the warblade's combat emphasis, the wild shape ranger, which has a 3.32. You can be a decent amount worse than a bard and still be tier three.

[AnachroNinja]

It's a pretty inevitable place for this kinda discussion to go, I think.



Bard is a really really good tier three though. In point of fact, going by the mean value on my spreadsheet, 2.96, it's the best tier three in the game, the only class that rounds down to three instead of rounding up or even landing smack dab on the tier. If ya wanna talk tier three comparison classes, and I think that would indeed be a useful thing to do, it should probably be the factotum, which lands at 3.35, or if you want to better match the warblade's combat emphasis, the wild shape ranger, which has a 3.32. You can be a decent amount worse than a bard and still be tier three.

That's a hard argument for me to use since I don't agree with factotum being tier 3 in the first place. But the point I made earlier is not simply that ToB classes aren't as good as the bard. It's that they aren't even in the same league. They don't come close in any aspect except straight combat ability, and there's couple few bard builds that probably trump them at that even.

Barbarians are good at combat and have some niche utility out of combat, they're tier 4.

Bards are good in combat, out of combat, good spell casting, skills, excellent party support, can fill most roles. They're tier 3.

ToB classes are good in combat in a variety of ways and have some niche utility and movements. .... Which is the more obvious comparison?

[eggynack]

That's a hard argument for me to use since I don't agree with factotum being tier 3 in the first place.
That's fair. The inevitable problem with using classes close to the wire is that a fundamental aspect of those classes is that people actually consider them the tier they're listed as at the lowest rate. Still, whether you agree with that tiering or not (and you don't), demonstrating that the warblade is factotum inferior would be somewhat convincing for the people that do think the class is tier three, so making the basic underlying argument could make sense even if you don't agree with one of the premises. It'd actually serve a double purpose. If the class is worse than a tier four class, after all, that's even more definitive. Alternatively, I actually don't know your opinion on wild shape ranger, but that class could act as a strong comparison class. Reasonable and variety filled combat, largely movement oriented non-combat, and a strong ceiling to counteract some of the warblade's strong floor. Seems like a solid fit, comparison test wise, and as with the factotum, it could make sense as a thing to argue whether you agree with the wild shape ranger tiering or not.

[Jopustopin]

I think for me the reason why warblades are tier 3 and barbarians are tier 4 boils down to only a couple of maneuvers. Moment of Perfect Mind. Iron Heart Surge. White Raven Tactics.

The Warblade out of the box can make the wizard go again. The warblade, out of the box, makes the saving throw vs color spray and sleep at level 1. The Warblade out of the box doesn't get panicked or dominated. How many times has the poor barbarian been rendered useless in round one until someone can remove the effect? I have never seen a Warblade get hit with something that Moment of Perfect Mind couldn't save and then an Iron Heart Surge.

Warblades have diplomacy, intimidate, and they, unlike the ubercharger, actually stay in combat. Did I mention they can let the wizard go again? Tier 3. DUH.

[Rhyltran]

Straight tier 3 for all of them. I'll give more of an analysis when I get back from my appointment tomorrow.

[Soranar]

Ok maybe bard is a bit too strong of a tier 3. Factotum is a debatable choice (kind of like a sorcerer, can be powerful, easy to screw up)


So that leaves the Wildshape Ranger

So, a wildshape ranger

-has entangle (better battlefield control than anything a Warblade can do and it's a level 1 spell)
-can wildshape into multiple combat forms to fit the situation
-can wildshape into multiple utility forms to fit the situation outside combat
-has multiple utility spells useful outside combat
-even without wildshape feats, you can still turn into decent high level combat forms (the legendary ape is pretty impressive with 30 STR and it can wield weapons if you want to but even it's natural attacks are impressive)

the chassis

has 6 skillpoints per level
2 good saves
high BAB
d8 hitpoints
martial weapons and light armor proficiency


if I compare a wildshape ranger to a swordsage, the similarities aren't obvious but they're there

same skillpoints
2 good saves
medium BAB
d8 hitpoints
martial weapons and light armor proficiency

can use shadow hand maneuvers/stances to:

-air walk
-become invisible
-teleport
-spider climb

Desert wind maneuvers/stance

-can make you fly

And finally the stone maneuvers/stances

-let you destroy anything in your way

All in all I think a swordsage is strickly inferior to a wildshape ranger but not by much (mostly due to a lack of splat support and spellcasting)

As usual a Warblade just can't seem to compare in any of this

the warblade chassis is tougher (d12 hitpoints) and it has many defensive abilities (mostly diamond mind tricks) but it lacks anything truly useful outside combat.

[Jopustopin]

Sometimes when I listen to people's arguments for why something belongs in a different tier, I imagine what their experience is with dungeons and dragons. Are they actually needing the front line guy to turn into a hummingbird in their games? Is that a useful ability that the Warblade just fails at?

In my games we have a lot of combat. I weigh combat pretty high. Simply having diplomacy and being really F-ing amazing at combat is like the backbone of tier three. You can handle about 95% of the games problems with diplomacy and a sword that does a lot of damage. Did I mention the Warblade can make the wizard go again?

If a commoner out of the box could make a wizard go again, they would easily be better than the samurai. That's a "up a whole tier" ability. It's a pretty handy thing to have.

[Efrate]

All 3. Various reasons.

All ToB classes are good in combat. They can reasonably contribute in combat in any encounter.

Crusaders get kind of almost-DR, a save reroll, cha to will saves, reasonable skills (diplo, intimidate, know religion) for out of combat stuff, plus a few minor bonuses like mettle and smite. That is before manuevers. They get all the white raven goodies, healing, specifically HEAL as a bonus on top of an attack, which is quite good, the stone dragon lockpick invalidating all the doors, hardness, and bars you will ever encounter given a bit of time, aura of perfect order to drastically reduce varience, and a bit of BFC options, most sadly allowing fort saves, but there is a bit of scaling there. Plus WRT giving anyone an extra turn whenever is really, really good. Another strike for you, an emergency heal from your cleric, another awesome spell from your wizard, etc. Its very good. That is enough utility in and out of combat to get you into t3 IMO. They also have most their WBL and feats to spend on whatever, and make great chargers,in addition to all of that if you so want it.

Swordsages get a ton of movement abilities including an Ex teleport, concealment, some debuffs, incorporeality, flight, all the save replacement counters, stone dragon lockpick, a good selection of skills, intimidate, hide, move silently, sense motive, knowledge local, knowledge nature, listen, and tumble for more mobility, and you have a fair few skill points. 2 good saves. You get evasion (normal and improved) to further increase survivability, free identify, a bunch of minor combat buffs, kind of pounce in sudden leap, a SoD which still does a decent bit of damage, scent, blindsense, and a bunch of nice boosts. Also time stand still. You do lag behind early, since you are not full BaB but can still contribute and be much more survivable than most other melee combatants.

Warblades get meh skills, diplomacy and knowledge local for out of combat, tumble for in, all the save replacements and blindsense, scent, poor mans pounce in sudden leap, uncanny dodge (normal and improved) to foil rogues, IHS for all its wackiness, wall of blades being able to likely negate any ranged touch/touch spell, stone dragon lockpick, a SoD, stone dragon debuffs, save rerolls, WRT, and more. You do maybe the least out of combat of the three, but being able to make a concentration check for all your saves, getting a reroll on saves(or a lone attack) if needed, having access to scent and blindsense, ability to just say no to any number of things, your stone dragon lockpick, and WRT puts you clearly in more than can do damage territory.

[Lans]

I feel like the ignore hardness manuevers are over rated. A lot of times just doing a full attack is going to be better than using the manuever.

[danielxcutter]

I feel like the ignore hardness manuevers are over rated. A lot of times just doing a full attack is going to be better than using the manuever.

Yes, in combat. Out of combat, on the other hand, Mountain Hammer does a much better job of smashing doors and walls. That is why lots of martial adepts take it even when that's the only Stone Dragon maneuver they'll ever take.

[Telok]

A couple things that I would note.
First, all three martial adepts can be built well using strength or dex because they are not natively dependent on strength for damage. While I've seen a couple dex fighter and ranger builds they tend to suffer from being archery or twf or likewise very dependent on a large number of feats and often specific gear sets. And I've never seen a dex barbarian or paladin build, at least nothing that was more barb/pally than multi-dips and a patchwork of PrCs. So to my mind there's more build variation available in ToB than the three power attack/charge/full attack options that the PH warriors get.

Second, a question here, beyond DFI and massive inspire stacking how is a bard good in non-spell combat? I don't doubt that, with all splats in use, they're pushing that T2 boundary pretty hard. But I've never seen a bard character (not a TO build, an actual character) that wasn't either just another a caster or a DFI/all splat inspire stack.

Third, the martial adepts are as or more diverse and capable than the PH base warriors. The ranger-swordsage and paladin-crusader comparisons feel about right and the warblade (before feats, items, ACFs) is at least as good, if not better than barbarian both in and out of combat.

I think the main issue is that the T3/T4 boundary is possibly the least well defined of the tier splits and that the ToB classes lie near or within the fuzzy area of the definition.

Edit: Just realized something. Wiz is T1 and Sorc is T2, right? But with sufficent skill and optimization both are tier<game broken>, essentially equal. So part of, or most of, the reason that Sorc is T2 is that it takes more effort, more skill, and more splats to kick the sorcerer up to game breaking levels. That and it's easier to fix a low op wizard just with new spells.

So while all our melee guys top out at about the same level (tough, durable, insta-gib bad guys) by using wealth, feats, skill, ect. They aren't the same with respect to how much effort it takes to get there or with how powerful they are given the exact same resources and feats. Give a ToB class and a roughly equivalent PH melee class the same stats, feats, and equipment. How do they compare then?

[EldritchWeaver]

Did I mention the Warblade can make the wizard go again?

What does the phrase "make ... go again" mean?

[lord_khaine]

I feel like the ignore hardness manuevers are over rated. A lot of times just doing a full attack is going to be better than using the manuever.

It lets you punch though rock, walls, doors, cages, manacles ect, with your bare hands. :smallbiggrin:

[Beheld]

What does the phrase "make ... go again" mean?

Can use your swift action (iirc) to give them another standard action. Go again means "acts again" not like "the wizard was unable to move because he ran out of fuel, and the Warblade gassed him up."

[Lans]

It lets you punch though rock, walls, doors, cages, manacles ect, with your bare hands. :smallbiggrin:

That seems very corner case

[Efrate]

Got to get to the center of a dungeon? Just rip through all walls in the way. Adamantime walls? No problem. Cave in blocking your way? Chop chop. Need to breech a castle wall? Go to town. Just need to get past that nasty locked door? Rip off the hinges. Need to cut the chain to the drawbridge? Chop chop. It can literally chop through anything. Given time. Also makes you more or less immune to mundane imprisionment, and its EX so AMF doesn't mean anything to you. All manacles, bindings, etc you get through. The utility of a limitless way to go through any surface that isn't 100% made of force is very relevant.

[Canine]

What does the phrase "make ... go again" mean?

I don't have the book in front of me, but it is referring to the White Raven maneuver that gives another character a standard action.

Edit: Swordsaged

[AnachroNinja]

Second, a question here, beyond DFI and massive inspire stacking how is a bard good in non-spell combat? I don't doubt that, with all splats in use, they're pushing that T2 boundary pretty hard. But I've never seen a bard character (not a TO build, an actual character) that wasn't either just another a caster or a DFI/all splat inspire stack.



To provide at least one example, I pretty consistently play bards using the ACF that trades inspire courage and etc (but not bardic music itself notably) for an animal companion as a druid. Retaining bardic music allows me to still power Snowflake Wardance and Hymn of Healing. Pretty feat light because I'm not bothering with inspire courage so I generally pick up Obtain Familiar and Improved Familiar.

This turns me into a very solid melee combatant with a sturdy companion and a fairly high HP/BAB familiar. We flank things and tear them apart while still providing support with works like grease and haste. I heal/help heal the party out of combat by making cheap cure spells heal an extra (my level+3) per cast. I of course still have a massive array of skills because I'm a bard, including wild empathy so I can make friends with almost anything. And I still have UMD on the back burner if I need it for extra options and quirky spells via scroll.

It's overall an extremely well rounded character that contributes in more ways then a ToB class can ever hope to. I feel like a warblade doesn't have anywhere near the utility to compare to that.

[Jopustopin]

What does the phrase "make ... go again" mean?

I don't have the book in front of me, but it is referring to the White Raven maneuver that gives another character a standard action.

Guys you're not giving a wizard a standard action. You're giving the wizard an entire turn. You reset their initiative to = yours -1. So if the wizard acts on initiative count 20 and you go on 19 you set their initiative to 18. They go next. So the 1st round of combat round would look like: Wizard's turn. Warblade's Turn; he uses a swift action to use White Raven Tactics in addition to doing his job. Wizard's turn again. Bad guys turn. Depending on the initiative gap between you and the bad guys, the warblade on the next round can just delay to 17 and refresh the maneuver (if he wanted to) and then use it again on the following round.

If you can't find a use for that you don't belong here. And if you don't know a Warblade and Crusader can do that starting at level 5 why are you rating them into a tier?

[lord_khaine]

It's overall an extremely well rounded character that contributes in more ways then a ToB class can ever hope to. I feel like a warblade doesn't have anywhere near the utility to compare to that.

To start with it does look like a fairly exotic build, among other things it uses alternative class features and feats from a lot of different sources. So it should not be compared to a regular out-the-book warblade.

And while i cant deny even then you would have a much higher degree of utility, then i cant see how your Bard is a sturdy melee combatant compared to a optimized Warblade.

So yes, your bard will indeed contribute in a lot of ways, while the Warblade will excell in combat and aid in a few additional places.

[ZamielVanWeber]

That seems very corner case

Once you have the maneuver it is not. You will use it all the time to break things. It also makes knowledge (architecture and engineering) valuable by telling you what walls are load bearing.

[Jopustopin]

Once you have the maneuver it is not. You will use it all the time to break things. It also makes knowledge (architecture and engineering) valuable by telling you what walls are load bearing.

Had a Warblade dead to right - caught in the closing wall trap at the beginning of Rappan Athuk. No one had anything to get him out.

He punched his way out.

Keep pretending the Barbarian and Warblade are in the same tier people.

[Firechanter]

Had a Warblade dead to right - caught in the closing wall trap at the beginning of Rappan Athuk. No one had anything to get him out.

He punched his way out.

Talking about anecdotes: in RHoD, my Warblade single-handedly destroyed that bridge before the enemy even realized what was going on. Mountain Hammer for the win.
Granted, that may also have been possible with an Adamantine weapon. But who has these at level 5?

Also, in the same game, when I told the DM I took White Raven Tactics, he just said "Seriously? You want to play with WRT?" and glared at me like I'd just suggested eating babies. So I swapped it out to avoid an arms race.

[MHCD]

I think the main issue is that the T3/T4 boundary is possibly the least well defined of the tier splits and that the ToB classes lie near or within the fuzzy area of the definition.

Edit: Just realized something. Wiz is T1 and Sorc is T2, right? But with sufficent skill and optimization both are tier<game broken>, essentially equal. So part of, or most of, the reason that Sorc is T2 is that it takes more effort, more skill, and more splats to kick the sorcerer up to game breaking levels. That and it's easier to fix a low op wizard just with new spells.

So while all our melee guys top out at about the same level (tough, durable, insta-gib bad guys) by using wealth, feats, skill, ect. They aren't the same with respect to how much effort it takes to get there or with how powerful they are given the exact same resources and feats. Give a ToB class and a roughly equivalent PH melee class the same stats, feats, and equipment. How do they compare then?

This point is well made. T1 and T2 both natively have access to tools of the same power level, but T1 is more flexible in that it has access to more tools simultaneously or can open up its box and swap out what's on its belt. T2 can reach that level of flexibility, but it requires building for it specifically, making use of PrC options, and/or through feats/skills/etc. T1 has the power and flexibility naturally, without having to make the same investment of resources, leaving even more flexible to specialize or generalize as they please.

T3 and T4 are the same, and while they both bring to the table tools of similar power level (or the nebulous jack-of-all trades ability), T3 has a bigger box, can reload its belt, and can do so automatically without a requiring a build dedicated to be able to do so. That's why the martial adepts are T3 vs their non-initiator counterparts.

[AnachroNinja]

To start with it does look like a fairly exotic build, among other things it uses alternative class features and feats from a lot of different sources. So it should not be compared to a regular out-the-book warblade.

And while i cant deny even then you would have a much higher degree of utility, then i cant see how your Bard is a sturdy melee combatant compared to a optimized Warblade.

So yes, your bard will indeed contribute in a lot of ways, while the Warblade will excell in combat and aid in a few additional places.

I was responding to a direct question about bard builds other then DFI/Inspire Courage stacking. And between the bard, his companion, and his familiar, there is a lot of damage to be done. And the bard has access to mirror image and other defensive spells which can be shared with both.

[Telok]

To provide at least one example, I pretty consistently play bards using the ACF that trades inspire courage and etc (but not bardic music itself notably) for an animal companion as a druid. Retaining bardic music allows me to still power Snowflake Wardance and Hymn of Healing. Pretty feat light because I'm not bothering with inspire courage so I generally pick up Obtain Familiar and Improved Familiar.

This turns me into a very solid melee combatant

Seriously, I was asking about combat ability. I already understand that bards have a better range of skills and add spellcasting on top of that. I already said they were top of T3 and pushing into T2 for overall rating. Having checked the snowflake is from Frostburn, which explains why I haven't seen it in play, our group didn't need the setting/terrain specific books to play adventures in those places so we passed them by. But it's still just Cha to attack rolls, which turns medium BaB into full BaB and a little to-hit bonus.

So it's an ACF and three feats to have an animal companion and a familiar fight along side you and emulate full BaB? I'm sure that's OK for combat ability but you can get a similar combat effect with NPC Warrior taking the Wild Cohort and Leadership feats. And I know leadership has issues but I'm assuming here that it's used for something like a unicorn, griffon, or werebear, not a DMM cleric.

Remember, I'm not talking about bards not being T3/T2 overall, I asked about bards being good as warrior type combatants without DFI, or all-splat inspiration stacking. You answered that, with a build that's OK in combat by using splats and feats to nab the druid animal companion and fighter BaB. Thank you for the information.

[Lans]

But even with ordinary optimization a barbarian can easily reach 150+ damage per round.

Since an initiator gets his best stuff at level 17, what can a level 17 barb do?

Say he was a human, with 18 STR

+4 to STR from level increases
+6 from a magic item
(I'll ignore tomes for now)
another +6 from raging

so 34 STR wiedling a two handed greataxe

1d12 (weapon) + 18 (STR 1.5x) + 51 (power attack x3 leap attack)

so about 75 damage per hit and all he's using is

-power attack
-leap attack
- improved bull rush
- shock trooper

if he gets pounce from the barbarian ACF then we can assume he can hit at least twice during his attack routine to deliver 150 damage but honestly I'd be surprised if he couldn't hit 3 times for 225 damage. Especially with a haste effect.

and this build doesn't use battle jump,headlong rush or a valorous weapon

and sure difficult terrain can stop your charge but you're jumping
jump is a class skill
you get +12 to it from your raging STR (without any magic items, I'd be surprised if you can't fly somehow) and you're running

honestly the tome of battle's damage output is just ordinary

A warblade can do the same thing with initiator level to damage, and 2 extra attacks instead of rage.


That is true, but actually, a Warblade can pull this off at level 5, since he gets a bonus feat at level 5.


You might want to take a closer look at the warblades bonus feat list.

[Schattenbach]

Swordsage T3, Crusader T3, Warblade high T4 (Warblade is better than most T4 but I still don't think it's good enough in and itself to be T3 ... in terms of sheer combat capabilities, Warblade is better than plenty T3 classes, though).

[remetagross]

That's interesting, Crusader higher than Warblade? Why so?

[AnachroNinja]

That's interesting, Crusader higher than Warblade? Why so?

Because for some reason a lot of people seem to feel *Effective in combat via use of weapons, self healing, extra actions, faux DR, and minor buffs* is really meaningfully different then *Effective in combat via use of weapons, hitting stuff really hard and so taking less damage, extra actions, and self buffs*...

It's all just various shades of *Being good at combat and little else* but apparently the shinier the coat of paint is on it, the better it is. I actually like the analogy involved there. Barbarians are big muscle cars, they don't corner well, no bells and whistles, but hell on wheels on the straight aways. ToB classes are fancy imports. Nice engines, extra parts boosting performance, manuevers well, and AC to make you feel cool. They aren't actually going to get you there any faster, and you're all driving on the same road while the Bards, Warmage, and various other casters are cruising around in their small two seater planes. We won't talk about the druid and his space shuttle though.

[Eldariel]

For level 9 maneuvers, it's worth remembering a couple of things:

Diamond Mind
Time Stands Still works with ranged weapons. It actually single-handedly makes Warblades and Swordsages (with the proficiencies) excellent Archers, particularly in conjunction with Raging Mongoose. Also, if you can access Blood Wind in any way (it's a first level spell, you can probably come up with something by level 17; though obviously not inherent but an item), your unarmed strikes have a 100' range.

Stone Dragon
Some enemies can be immune to conventional damage. This at least gives the classes a means to bypass that immunity and attack an ability score instead, albeit with mere ability damage. Still, it enables killing regenerators whose regeneration you cannot beat, for instance. It's also not a negative energy effect, bypassing Death Ward-based protections. It's not amazing, but it has some niches.

Tiger Claw
As above, Feral Death Blow gives Warblades/Swordsages a non-magical death effect that Death Ward-based protections don't work against. It's again a way to bypass various damage-based defenses, such as Delay Death, Regeneration and company. Sadly curbed by critical hit immunity making it far, far less applicable, but it can again sometimes slip through cracks in enemy's immunity list.


Minor stuff, but at least worth remembering.

[GilesTheCleric]

Because for some reason a lot of people seem to feel *Effective in combat via use of weapons, self healing, extra actions, faux DR, and minor buffs* is really meaningfully different then *Effective in combat via use of weapons, hitting stuff really hard and so taking less damage, extra actions, and self buffs*...

It's all just various shades of *Being good at combat and little else* but apparently the shinier the coat of paint is on it, the better it is. I actually like the analogy involved there. Barbarians are big muscle cars, they don't corner well, no bells and whistles, but hell on wheels on the straight aways. ToB classes are fancy imports. Nice engines, extra parts boosting performance, manuevers well, and AC to make you feel cool. They aren't actually going to get you there any faster, and you're all driving on the same road while the Bards, Warmage, and various other casters are cruising around in their small two seater planes. We won't talk about the druid and his space shuttle though.

Combat may be solveable with copious amounts of damage, but not always, and that's not always the most efficient means. And, if copious amounts of damage is your solution, many other classes like Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian do have to invest a fair amount of their permanent resources in order to do so. Rogues need to make their SA activate consistently. Barbarians want PA multipliers. Fighters pick a combat style and burn all their feats to hit the top of the chain. ToB classes get appreciable damage with few permanent resources invested, which leaves them able to spend their other resources in being flexible, much like a Bard can.

Further, their wide array of possible means to engage with combat can make them the best at many types of combat. For example, perhaps you're facing an entrenched foe, or a foe on the high ground, or a foe with rough terrain, or a foe in the ocean. Each of Barbarian, Fighter, and Rogue would need to expend WBL or permanent resources to be able to engage with these foes in the most effective manner if that terrain does not bend to their specialty, and may be limited to only a few scenarios depending on how much WBL they have available. ToB classes, because of the spell-like nature of their manoeuvers, have a much better chance of being able to have a significant contribution to a wider variety of combats.

Further, yes, some in-combat abilities can be used out of combat. Swordsages can teleport, which solves a lot of movement challenges. Warblades can break walls, which solves traps, some movement, some puzzles, and allows for a lot of increased tactical and strategic approaches to combat as well. Crusaders can heal, which also allows them to defeat traps, and some movement (jump down the pit, heal up the fall damage; trek through the biting cold, heal up the cold damage).

That's not to mention that Aura of Perfect Order makes skills consistently useable, and that WRT is incredible. Giving your allies actions is probably one of the most versatile abilities in the game -- if you have three other party members, each with their own specialisation, then odds are at least one of them can effectively overcome any given challenge. By granting them extra actions, you are essentially doubling that party member -- you are effectively becoming them, since their contribution is also yours.

Lastly, and maybe you don't agree with this, but combat is a fair amount of the game. It's also one of the few codified things. Traps have game mechanics, skills have game mechanics, yes. But puzzles, social encounters, political strife, character goals -- those are all in the hands of the individual table. At my table, my players know to expect 50% social and only 25% combat encounters. Does that stop them from building fun combat characters? No, because all of them can contribute equally to the social interactions. That's a player skill, not a class skill.

[Firechanter]

It's all just various shades of *Being good at combat and little else* but apparently the shinier the coat of paint is on it, the better it is. I actually like the analogy involved there. Barbarians are big muscle cars, they don't corner well, no bells and whistles, but hell on wheels on the straight aways. ToB classes are fancy imports. Nice engines, extra parts boosting performance, manuevers well, and AC to make you feel cool. They aren't actually going to get you there any faster, and you're all driving on the same road while the Bards, Warmage, and various other casters are cruising around in their small two seater planes. We won't talk about the druid and his space shuttle though.

Well, I guess it was me who brought up the car-vs-plane analogy here, but I'm not sure I can see the Bard flying around. Maybe he's the hovercraft. But the Warmage? Puh-leez. All he can do is go Boom in four different colours. In our vehicle analogy, he might qualify as the rocket-powered tobbogan.
And again, the difference between a 2005 Ford Mustang and a Porsche 918 Hypercar is way too significant to lump them both together as "Eh, just a couple of fast cars". A tier system that cannot account for this difference would be way too coarse to be any useful.

One thing that I've noticed in the past is that most people who argue for the Adepts as T4 are simply misunderstanding the meaning of T3. They seem to be under the impression that a T3 must be able to do absolutely everything on its own. But that is definitely not what is stated in the tier system. All it says is that a T3 is able to do multiple things well. Which is what Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade all do. As opposed to T4, which either does one thing well but nothing else, or is just so-so at several things. We have demonstrated over and over, in this thread and elsewhere, that "even" a Warblade can do a good deal more than "just damage".

[eggynack]

Well, I guess it was me who brought up the car-vs-plane analogy here, but I'm not sure I can see the Bard flying around. Maybe he's the hovercraft. But the Warmage? Puh-leez. All he can do is go Boom in four different colours. In our vehicle analogy, he might qualify as the rocket-powered tobbogan.
And again, the difference between a 2005 Ford Mustang and a Porsche 918 Hypercar is way too significant to lump them both together as "Eh, just a couple of fast cars". A tier system that cannot account for this difference would be way too coarse to be any useful.
Yeah, and also, there's probably a bunch of situations where you'd prefer a really well designed and efficient ground bound vehicle to a particularly crappy flying one. Bards can probably get off the ground, soaring through the clouds a bit, but they might do it pretty slowly, or lack the stability of the car (cause the plane is crappy). Planes aren't strictly better than cars, and neither is a really versatile mix of combat and non-combat strictly better than pure combat. The capability to fly is strictly better than not having that in a vacuum, but neither these vehicles nor these classes exist in a vacuum, and the bard's enhanced powers in certain senses comes at the cost of some things a warblade brings to the table.


One thing that I've noticed in the past is that most people who argue for the Adepts as T4 are simply misunderstanding the meaning of T3.
Not precisely sure what you're saying. Is this a claim that adepts are tier three? Cause most of the people who don't say tier four tend to say tier five. And to be clear regarding the rest of this paragraph, I think adepts are tier four, and warblades tier three. Looking forward to getting into the former in a few days. Should be fun.

[Hurnn]

Crusader (ToB, 8) T4

Of the 3 it probably does the least damage (not counting the d2 crusader build) but does the most other things, healing and cheating action economy being the 2 best. Their maneuvers are a bit unreliable do to their mechanic of how they get to use them. However they have some amazing utility stances

Swordsage (ToB, 15) T3

The best skill monkey of the 3 and probably the only one that will MEANINGFULLY contribute out of combat, and has access to schools that give alternate travel modes


Warblade (ToB, 20) T4

Hands down the best damage dealer of the 3 but that's all they do hit things. Oh I guess break things which is a sub set of hit things.



Frankly there have been a lot of shaky arguments put forth as to why 2 of the 3 are T3 and not T4, ranging from "I'm right and you are wrong, and an idiot if you don't agree with me" Schrodinger's Warblade who has all the prefect maneuvers readied for every situation they might need them, which mostly seems to to revolve around 3 abilities which would use up somewhere between most or all of their entire build and glosses over the fact that most of a warblades career they have 3-5 maneuvers that can be readied, and up till 10th level they only know 8. My favorite has been "they can assist others with skill checks", so can a 1st level commoner.

[AnachroNinja]

Yeah, and also, there's probably a bunch of situations where you'd prefer a really well designed and efficient ground bound vehicle to a particularly crappy flying one. Bards can probably get off the ground, soaring through the clouds a bit, but they might do it pretty slowly, or lack the stability of the car (cause the plane is crappy). Planes aren't strictly better than cars, and neither is a really versatile mix of combat and non-combat strictly better than pure combat. The capability to fly is strictly better than not having that in a vacuum, but neither these vehicles nor these classes exist in a vacuum, and the bard's enhanced powers in certain senses comes at the cost of some things a warblade brings to the table.


You pretty much got right on the point I was making. Some times a fast car is exactly what you need to get from point A to point B. The problem is that anytime point B is not accessible by road (That's anything but combat to those who are following the metaphor) You are pretty much useless. A 2 seater Piper may not be as fast as your Ferrari when you're tearing down the straightaway, but it can go places you never can. Even hot air balloon has a breadth of options you just can't compete with.

That's my point. The ToB classes are really good within their baliwick, but they are also limited by it. And has been brought up, a Swordsage isn't really any better in combat then the Bard who's every attack deals an extra 9d6 sonic damage, oh and so do everyone else's which is still his contribution. Or the bard who is attacking at better then fill BAB with a spell storing crystal echoblade, in flanking with his magebred dire bear and Imp familiar (also likely with a spell storing weapon) and all of them have greater mirror image going. And that's a wonky built for fun character who still has spells and skills to play with.

Yeah, your Swordsage has good native combat abilities. Tell me what he's doing with his feats that match bard spellcasting/skills/class features?

[Telok]

Hurnn, you forgot some rankings.

In actual play I've found that the ToB classes have much more out of combat ability than the regular fighters, barbarians, and often more than paladins. Mostly it's due to having better skill lists and at least some class abilities that apply to situations beyond combat (and more than just athletics, riding, and intimidate, which is extremely niche outside of combat). Not to say that you don't see ToB characters without any non-combat options, but that's generally a player issue rather than a class issue. In play it just seems like people spend more resources on non-combat abilities because they don't need all the feats and magic to cover their core competency. I've seen barbarian characters outperform warblades in and out of combat, but that was a 15 year D&D player outclassing a new player, it wasn't because the class offered anything to support it.

The ToB classes have their basic function built in and aren't dependent on choosing the correct feat chain (TWF oversized bastard swords is awesome right?), acf, or being one trick ponies. Which means, on average, that they tend to pick up non-combat abilities sooner, more often, and with less opportunity cost. I don't know if that makes them fully T3, but I can't put them below rangers or duskblades from what I've seen played.

I still can't bring myself to consider swordsages better than the other two. The significant MAD, medium BaB, and larger potential to screw up the character by accident offset the minor differences in skills and the 'ID a magic weapon/armor' at a relatively late level (compared to artificer's monocole and that one DFA ability).

[Firechanter]

Not precisely sure what you're saying. Is this a claim that adepts are tier three? Cause most of the people who don't say tier four tend to say tier five. And to be clear regarding the rest of this paragraph, I think adepts are tier four, and warblades tier three. Looking forward to getting into the former in a few days. Should be fun.

Uuuh. Sorry, my bad: I meant _Martial Adepts_, i.e. our beloved Initiators, Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade. I totally forgot about the NPC class of the same name.

[Jopustopin]

Frankly there have been a lot of shaky arguments put forth as to why 2 of the 3 are T3 and not T4, ranging from "I'm right and you are wrong, and an idiot if you don't agree with me" Schrodinger's Warblade who has all the prefect maneuvers readied for every situation they might need them, which mostly seems to to revolve around 3 abilities which would use up somewhere between most or all of their entire build and glosses over the fact that most of a warblades career they have 3-5 maneuvers that can be readied, and up till 10th level they only know 8. My favorite has been "they can assist others with skill checks", so can a 1st level commoner.

And yet you didn't address my argument at all. But let me address yours. Simply stating that the argument is shaky and then scarecrow style beating their positions is two different fallacies in debate. Congratulations! While you didn't straight up say, "I'm right and you are wrong, and an idiot if you don't agree with me" you can assume you're thinking it by how ridiculous you make your opponents sound.

Simply having a better skill list is why Warblades are tier 3 and Barbarians are tier 4. One of these two classes has intelligence synergy with their class and has a superior skill list. The other one uses intelligence as a dump stat and their skills will be mostly for combat like Jump, Spot, and Listen.

One of them will fail their will save often and can't put out uber damage like you all are just pretending he will be. The other does not fail his will save and continues to do his job. If he does fail his will save, the next turn he un-fails his will save and then makes it the wizards turn again. Please address the statement: "giving the wizard another entire turn in the same round is a +1 tier ability."

One of them has diplomacy as a class skill, the most important problem solving skill in the game. The other does not.

One of these classes is tier 3. The other is tier 4.

[AnachroNinja]

Simply having a better skill list is why Warblades are tier 3 and Barbarians are tier 4. One of these two classes has intelligence synergy with their class and has a superior skill list. The other one uses intelligence as a dump stat and their skills will be mostly for combat like Jump, Spot, and Listen.

Please address the statement: "giving the wizard another entire turn in the same round is a +1 tier ability."

One of them has diplomacy as a class skill, the most important problem solving skill in the game. The other does not.

One of these classes is tier 3. The other is tier 4.

Having a skill list superior to a barbarian is not the same thing as having a *good* skill list. Diplomacy is the most frequently nerfed and table subjective skill in the game in any case. Not to mention you don't have the ability to make it actually game breaking because you have no charisma and nothing supporting the skill.

To go to the second one, when your only way to claim being awesome is that you can help someone out who's better then you, you're not that awesome. What if the wizard doesn't need to cast anther spell that round? What if they are a blaster using magic missile? What if there isn't a wizard in the party at all? When the best use of your class features is just refreshing manuevers so you can do nothing but give another player extra actions, it probably means you're not doing that great. It's like saying your character is awesome because you can take leadership and have a wizard cohort. And that's avoiding the issue that using WRT and delay in that fashion is overwhelmingly likely to get banned, not because it's super powerful, but just because it's asanine too work the system that blatantly.

[Jopustopin]

Having a skill list superior to a barbarian is not the same thing as having a *good* skill list. Diplomacy is the most frequently nerfed and table subjective skill in the game in any case. Not to mention you don't have the ability to make it actually game breaking because you have no charisma and nothing supporting the skill.

To go to the second one, when your only way to claim being awesome is that you can help someone out who's better then you, you're not that awesome. What if the wizard doesn't need to cast anther spell that round? What if they are a blaster using magic missile? What if there isn't a wizard in the party at all? When the best use of your class features is just refreshing manuevers so you can do nothing but give another player extra actions, it probably means you're not doing that great. It's like saying your character is awesome because you can take leadership and have a wizard cohort. And that's avoiding the issue that using WRT and delay in that fashion is overwhelmingly likely to get banned, not because it's super powerful, but just because it's asanine too work the system that blatantly.

I thank you for addressing my position. I want to make sure I understand your point here. It sounds like your saying the Warblade, in combat, has nothing else to do except refresh his maneuvers and make the wizard go again. You do know that's part of an attack action right? And that White Raven Tactics is a boost, so that's a swift action. Basically your point is that, while the Warblade is using white raven tactics and refreshing his maneuvers he is unable to do anything else? That's just demonstrably false. Put another way, your position is: well that's all the cake has, icing. That's pathetic. My position is, White Raven Tactics is the icing on the cake. I mean, it's not just all the things the Warblade is capable of doing in and out of combat by himself. He's often unstoppable while doing his job and he allows the Wizard to basically double their effectiveness at the beginning of combat. If your DM rules that you can only use WRT once per ally per combat it's still ridiculously good. We're talking the wizard going twice in the first round of combat. That's usually the combat being over at that point.

To your other points it sounds like you play with diplomacy nerfed. White Raven Tactics banned. And you don't have a Wizard. I don't use our house rules when determining the tier system and neither should you.

[Firechanter]

What if the wizard doesn't need to cast anther spell that round? What if they are a blaster using magic missile? What if there isn't a wizard in the party at all?

My goodness. Are you acting like that on purpose? Do we really have to spell this out for you?
WRT is not limited to enabling Wizards in any way, it's just typically the most extreme force multiplier, what with Wizards being the most powerful class in the game, T1 and whatnot. You can give that turn to anyone you like and who can use it. Usually the best use of your action is to cast a spell. If absolutely nobody has an idea what to do with an extra turn, you can give it to yourself and simply double your damage output. Is that really so hard to imagine? And is it really so hard to understand that _anyone_ going twice is much better than, well, nobody going twice?


And that's avoiding the issue that using WRT and delay in that fashion is overwhelmingly likely to get banned, not because it's super powerful, but just because it's asanine too work the system that blatantly.

Just like so many full caster tricks, starting with Celerity. Does that make Wizards not-T1, because many of their spells might get banned? Weird logic. oÔ

In other words: Wizards can break the game in many ways. That is _precisely_ why they are T1. The _definition_ of T1 is "can break the game in many ways". If you ban every single spell that can break the game, whoopsie, Wizards fall down to T3!

Which gets me thinking: the definition of T2 is "can break the game in at least one way". If WRT can break the game, does that mean that Crusaders and Warblades are, in fact, T2? ^^

----

General musings:
Talking about White Raven Tactics, think about what two Ruby Knight Vindicators working in tandem could do. Ofc they'd need an erratum that Divine Impetus can be used as Free Action once per turn, because it will do you no good if you have to pay a Standard Action to gain a Swift Action. But, if that's a given, these two RKVs can keep WRTing each other and getting the maneuver back (via Divine Recovery) until they run out of Turn attempts. I've never seen that in actual play, but it sounds pretty awesome. ^^

P.S.: that's why in Science Fiction, "RKV" stands for "Relativistic Kill Vehicle". Go figure. ;)

[eggynack]

Which gets me thinking: the definition of T2 is "can break the game in at least one way". If WRT can break the game, does that mean that Crusaders and Warblades are, in fact, T2? ^^

Just pointing out that we're not really operating on the game breaking metric here, for reasons pretty heavily related to this one. It makes it really unclear what we're evaluating, and to what extent. Like, is silent image one of the game breaking wizard things? If it's not, does it even matter to the tiering of the class? What about black tentacles? Is the most important element of the tiering of wizards their 9th's? Cause that's the exact opposite of how tiering should work. One of the big things I was trying to fix with this iteration, really. WRT is sweet business though.

[ryu]

Just pointing out that we're not really operating on the game breaking metric here, for reasons pretty heavily related to this one. It makes it really unclear what we're evaluating, and to what extent. Like, is silent image one of the game breaking wizard things? If it's not, does it even matter to the tiering of the class? What about black tentacles? Is the most important element of the tiering of wizards their 9th's? Cause that's the exact opposite of how tiering should work. One of the big things I was trying to fix with this iteration, really. WRT is sweet business though.

And besides I wouldn't say it's tier 2 worthy. Tier 3? Totally. Tier 2 is a much harder sell.

[Bucky]

General musings:
Talking about White Raven Tactics, think about what two Ruby Knight Vindicators working in tandem could do. Ofc they'd need an erratum that Divine Impetus can be used as Free Action once per turn, because it will do you no good if you have to pay a Standard Action to gain a Swift Action. But, if that's a given, these two RKVs can keep WRTing each other and getting the maneuver back (via Divine Recovery) until they run out of Turn attempts. I've never seen that in actual play, but it sounds pretty awesome. ^^


Or you can Idiot Crusader it instead, like I mentioned in the second post of the thread.

[AnachroNinja]

I thank you for addressing my position. I want to make sure I understand your point here. It sounds like your saying the Warblade, in combat, has nothing else to do except refresh his maneuvers and make the wizard go again. You do know that's part of an attack action right? And that White Raven Tactics is a boost, so that's a swift action. Basically your point is that, while the Warblade is using white raven tactics and refreshing his maneuvers he is unable to do anything else? That's just demonstrably false. Put another way, your position is: well that's all the cake has, icing. That's pathetic. My position is, White Raven Tactics is the icing on the cake. I mean, it's not just all the things the Warblade is capable of doing in and out of combat by himself. He's often unstoppable while doing his job and he allows the Wizard to basically double their effectiveness at the beginning of combat. If your DM rules that you can only use WRT once per ally per combat it's still ridiculously good. We're talking the wizard going twice in the first round of combat. That's usually the combat being over at that point.

To your other points it sounds like you play with diplomacy nerfed. White Raven Tactics banned. And you don't have a Wizard. I don't use our house rules when determining the tier system and neither should you.

OK lemme figure out where to start.... My apologies for giving the mistaken impression that warblades are not doing anything at all while refreshing. Sticking to your example of giving the wizard a free second round at the start of combat, you're probably not already adjacent to your enemies, though you may be in some cases, so your actions are limited to moving and a standard action attack. Not impressing me much. Also pretty unlikely that even your full attack routine is going to be to impressive should you be able to make use of it since all your feats are being used to expand your job combat options, since you don't need those like barbarian does. Not to mention realistically, the wizard going first usually means the combat is over after his first action, and if it's not, then the wizard is probably built in such a way that the second free one will not be the overwhelming force multiplier your implying. I'm not saying this is useless, or even weak. I'm saying it's just another combat trick. Not only that, it's a combat trick whose viability is directly based on the strength of your ally rather then your own. Not only that, but it's one of your relatively few manuevers readied. Along with IHS, a stone dragon door knocker, the Concentration saving throw one... That leaves you exactly one manuever(prior to level 15) to be the amazing combat god your supposed to be. This isn't impressing me. You're still going to have to stack all your feats and money on the same areas the barbarian does to try to be his equal in combat.

As for the diplomacy thing, I actually didn't say anything about my house rules. The tables I play at are generally very high OP, but that isn't really important because the fact is, we DO take into account whether certain tactics are very DM dependent (like diplomacy because your subject to hour the DM interprets helpful and similar) and whey something is frequently banned or considered high OP. That's why the wizard discussion wasn't all about wizards chain gating solars until they get bored, because that's not relevant at most tables and as such, isn't a useful metric for standard play. Your experience with WRT use may be different, I can only provide my own anecdotal evidence to back up my opinion, and that is that WRT is almost never allowed in conjunction with constant initiative delaying at the tables I've played at.


My goodness. Are you acting like that on purpose? Do we really have to spell this out for you?
WRT is not limited to enabling Wizards in any way, it's just typically the most extreme force multiplier, what with Wizards being the most powerful class in the game, T1 and whatnot. You can give that turn to anyone you like and who can use it. Usually the best use of your action is to cast a spell. If absolutely nobody has an idea what to do with an extra turn, you can give it to yourself and simply double your damage output. Is that really so hard to imagine? And is it really so hard to understand that _anyone_ going twice is much better than, well, nobody going twice?



Just like so many full caster tricks, starting with Celerity. Does that make Wizards not-T1, because many of their spells might get banned? Weird logic. oÔ

In other words: Wizards can break the game in many ways. That is _precisely_ why they are T1. The _definition_ of T1 is "can break the game in many ways". If you ban every single spell that can break the game, whoopsie, Wizards fall down to T3!

Which gets me thinking: the definition of T2 is "can break the game in at least one way". If WRT can break the game, does that mean that Crusaders and Warblades are, in fact, T2? ^^

----

General musings:
Talking about White Raven Tactics, think about what two Ruby Knight Vindicators working in tandem could do. Ofc they'd need an erratum that Divine Impetus can be used as Free Action once per turn, because it will do you no good if you have to pay a Standard Action to gain a Swift Action. But, if that's a given, these two RKVs can keep WRTing each other and getting the maneuver back (via Divine Recovery) until they run out of Turn attempts. I've never seen that in actual play, but it sounds pretty awesome. ^^

P.S.: that's why in Science Fiction, "RKV" stands for "Relativistic Kill Vehicle". Go figure. ;)

OK, a lot of what I said above is applicable but I'm going to try to expand where necessary here...

OK, same deal as above. Extra turns are good, but yours aren't free. You're removing your own ability to use a manuever to grant it more then once because of the refresh mechanic. You can use it just once per combat, on which case you're really just front loading because you have up another useful or damaging manuever to have WRT. Again, that doesn't make it bad. In fact that segues into my next point. ..

At no point did I say that WRT was *broken*. I in fact was specific that it's usually banned because combined with initiative delay, it is a blatant abuse of wonky rules that seems asanine to most people I've come into contact with while gaming.

Also, yes, the fact that many wizard spells and tricks are banned is something that gets taken into account when we were tiering wizards. Again, a trick isn't especially relevant in a discussion like this if it almost never sees actual use. Especially since so many people do have knee jerk reactions and think ToB is overpowered (it's not) and it's actually more likely to see nerfs then many other, more powerful tactics. And that is directly relevant to this topic.

This is the thing guys. For the hypothetical warblade to be able to ignore saves, break spell effects, bash open locks, pounce (once per combat) and give out extra turns... That means he's not using manuevers for actual combat damage. That puts him right back there at trying to stack power attack or charge damage like everyone else. Does he have a small leg up because he natively can defend against some things rather then just using items to boost saves or buying an adamantine weapon? Sure, but he isn't getting as many bonus feats as a fighter, rage or pounce or extra attacks like a barbarian, or even spells/mounts/companions/ACFs like a paladin or ranger. It's not all upside for the ToB class. They are way more user friendly, but they just aren't a whole tier better in my opinion.

[Bucky]

Let's put the party Wizard on the back burner for the moment.

A Warblade giving the party Sorcerer an extra turn is really good.
A Warblade giving the party Rogue an extra turn is pretty good.
Heck, giving the party Monk an extra turn is still decent because it probably means the Monk can actually get off a Flurry for once.

[ryu]

Let's put the party Wizard on the back burner for the moment.

A Warblade giving the party Sorcerer an extra turn is really good.
A Warblade giving the party Rogue an extra turn is pretty good.
Heck, giving the party Monk an extra turn is still decent because it probably means the Monk can actually get off a Flurry for once.

I argue that unless this is a tippy kill elder gods monk you're better off double dipping your own turn.

[Soranar]

I appreciate how useful WRT is in combat

but I still fail to see how that helps outside combat. A round is 6 seconds after all so , most of the time, saving 6 seconds before taking another non combat action shouldn't change anything.

And I'd like to see what a warblade build that doesn't use any of his feats to help his combat prowess do with said feats? It's been argued that a Warblade remains effective in combat without spending any resources on it, I'm just trying to see what that looks like as a build, what maneuvers and strategies would you use?

Every time I ask : what can a warblade do outside combat, I keep getting the following answers

-it has diplomacy as a class list

but it doesn't have a need for a high CHA or any boosts to CHA skills so I guess he'll be a secondary party face just in case the real face is out of comission?

-but it's really REALLY good at combat, way better than a barbarian

again, but what about outside combat? If you can't be anything but a beatstick, it doesn't matter how good of a beatstick you are you're still just a tier 4 class

[ryu]

I appreciate how useful WRT is in combat

but I still fail to see how that helps outside combat. A round is 6 seconds after all so , most of the time, saving 6 seconds before taking another non combat action shouldn't change anything.

And I'd like to see what a warblade build that doesn't use any of his feats to help his combat prowess do with said feats? It's been argued that a Warblade remains effective in combat without spending any resources on it, I'm just trying to see what that looks like as a build, what maneuvers and strategies would you use?

Every time I ask : what can a warblade do outside combat, I keep getting the following answers

-it has diplomacy as a class list

but it doesn't have a need for a high CHA or any boosts to CHA skills so I guess he'll be a secondary party face just in case the real face is out of comission?

-but it's really REALLY good at combat, way better than a barbarian

again, but what about outside combat? If you can't be anything but a beatstick, it doesn't matter how good of a beatstick you are you're still just a tier 4 class

Except barbarians aren't actually much good in combat. They've one really powerful trick.... That can kill most anything in one hit.... Assuming the terrain is clear, that the enemy is on the ground, that they have no miss chances or similar to ruin your day, that will totally get you murdered if used in combat with multiple opponents, and so on. You can easily no sell a barbarian. Not so easy with initiators. Doesn't mean you can't beat an initiator in combat. It does mean they're less of a joke than barbarians though.

[Jopustopin]

But what about outside combat? If you can't be anything but a beatstick, it doesn't matter how good of a beatstick you are you're still just a tier 4 class

So basically spellcasters get to be all alone in tiers 1, 2, and 3? I disagree.

Don't know what else to say other than in tier 3 your actual skill list starts to become a factor. Skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive, etc. can be used to handle many (most) of the games "problems." I'm begging the question but then I don't feel like arguing for my conclusion and I'll just state it so you know where I'm coming from.

[Bucky]

Start with the bard.
Subtract spellcasting.
Add full BAB, d12 hit dice and some maneuvers that they can only use in combat.

They're still able to contribute outside of combat, and not just due to their skills. Their musical abilities suddenly take center stage (particularly suggestion) and they still have Bardic Knowledge for information gathering.

They'd likely get into T3 without too much controversy, assuming the maneuvers made them a competent beatstick.

[Efrate]

I think you are missing a few important warblade points.

You get more maneuvers readied than 3, thats only a thing at level 1. If you go by lvl 5 to 15, you have between 4 and 6 readied, and a lot more known.

You can use multiple maneuvers a round, most are standard action, or swift, with a very few move action ones. You can use a swift a move and standard action, that is 3 maneuvers, in one turn. One of those swifts can be giving yourself, or another ally, another turn. You can do this in addition to all of the other stuff you can do. You can also use a swift boost, move normally,than take a standard action strike, or some combination thereof.

It takes a swift to refresh your maneuvers, so you can every other turn do swift move standard to infinity. You do not need pounce since your damage is in maneuvers. A manuever that does say 8d6 plus weapon damage is a standard action, which is normally going to be more than your full attack barring ubercharging, which you can do with a pounce maneuver if you so desire. If something stops you from charging, you can just move normally and use a maneuever. You can change your manuevers readied out of combat in a few moments (or one full round in or out with a feat), and you know a lot more than you ready, over the same range you know between 6 and 11 maneuvers, plus any bonus from feats, prcs, whathave you.

You have abilities to pretty much say no to save or suck, ac replacement versus any touch attack, some movement and special senses, IHS, WRT, and the ability to move and act every round and still contribute. An uberchcarges charges, then if its is stopped, or whatever survives, basically cannot do anything unless he can charge again. If he cannot charge, say because difficult terrain, blockcade spell, flying enemy, enemy not in a straight line from him, or anything else, his contribution is move, minor attack, turn. Or move into position to charge next turn.

Which may be fine. You could WRT the ubercharger after he moves into place so his charging lane isn't blocked and the enemy cannot move to keep it blocked and he can do his thing if you so desire. If an uber charger cannot charge, he has the monk problem, or move attack turn, hope for full attack next turn. But even so, his damage in the scenario isn't great because a full attack without the benefit of who cares about AC power attack, you take a fairly big to hit penalty if you still try to power attack, your multiple attacks have a good chance of not connecting, and your damage output suffers drastically. A martial adept had none of those problems.

You ubercharger also is going to be hit by everything, like any ray spell, or even just normal attack from something, because he hosed his AC, and if it isn't dead, he has to rely on hp to save him. Martial adepts again don't care, wall of blades or just being able to still get the benefit of your AC will keep you alive a lot longer, and you have d12s still in the case of the warblade. You will likely make the save versus the suggestion of whatever which tells you to lie down, or the dominate, or anything else. You can deflect the enervation with wall of blades, you can IHS out of the antimagic field so all your gear works (though you are less dependent on that than most martials), and still have damaging manuevers. You drop an enemy and got to move to another one? Refresh your maneuvers en route, repeat.

Out of combat, you can still contribute. No barrier stops you. You have a bit of movement and senses, spot and listen are fine, but blindsense and scent will do more for you. You can actually talk to people and diplo yourself into a dececnt place, whereas grog the barbarian is waiting in the corner trying to not be bored while he waits to charge something. You can use your few minor knowledges to help with information gathering, or do it yourself if no else can, and still be a force in a fight. Your barbarian can see and hear (maybe if int wasn't dumped to silliness/racial modded to be hugely negative), while you have a bit of int synergy to help give you the skill points you need, and can actually contribute outside of hulk smash. That is why you are better than a barbarian, and that is why you are a tier ahead.

[AnachroNinja]

I think you are missing a few important warblade points.

You get more maneuvers readied than 3, thats only a thing at level 1. If you go by lvl 5 to 15, you have between 4 and 6 readied, and a lot more known.

You can use multiple maneuvers a round, most are standard action, or swift, with a very few move action ones. You can use a swift a move and standard action, that is 3 maneuvers, in one turn. One of those swifts can be giving yourself, or another ally, another turn. You can do this in addition to all of the other stuff you can do. You can also use a swift boost, move normally,than take a standard action strike, or some combination thereof.

It takes a swift to refresh your maneuvers, so you can every other turn do swift move standard to infinity(shame you can't use a manuever the same turn you refresh so your just standard action attacking 50% of the time? Nice.). You do not need pounce since your damage is in maneuvers. A manuever that does say 8d6 plus weapon damage is a standard action, which is normally going to be more than your full attack barring ubercharging(8d6 is an average of 28 damage. That's not even making up the strength bonus from rage on one power attack) , which you can do with a pounce maneuver(once before refreshing) if you so desire. If something stops you from charging, you can just move normally and use a maneuever. You can change your manuevers readied out of combat in a few moments (or one full round in or out with a feat), and you know a lot more than you ready, over the same range you know between 6 and 11 maneuvers, plus any bonus from feats, prcs, whathave you.

You have abilities to pretty much say no to save or suck, ac replacement versus any touch attack, some movement and special senses, IHS, WRT, and the ability to move and act every round and still contribute. An uberchcarges charges, then if its is stopped, or whatever survives, basically cannot do anything unless he can charge again. If he cannot charge, say because difficult terrain(fight, jump) , blockcade spell(flight, jump, twisted charge) , flying enemy(flight, jump, twisted charge) enemy not in a straight line from him(flight, jump, twisted charge) or anything else, his contribution is move, minor attack, turn. Or move into position to charge next turn.

Which may be fine. You could WRT the ubercharger after he moves into place so his charging lane isn't blocked and the enemy cannot move to keep it blocked and he can do his thing if you so desire. If an uber charger cannot charge, he has the monk problem(because clearly he can't allocate build resources into anything else) , or move attack turn, hope for full attack next turn. But even so, his damage in the scenario isn't great because a full attack without the benefit of who cares about AC power attack, you take a fairly big to hit penalty if you still try to power attack, your multiple attacks have a good chance of not connecting, and your damage output suffers drastically. A martial adept had none of those problems.

You ubercharger also is going to be hit by everything, like any ray spell, or even just normal attack from something, because he hosed his AC, and if it isn't dead, he has to rely on hp to save him. Martial adepts again don't care, wall of blades or just being able to still get the benefit of your AC will keep you alive a lot longer, and you have d12s still in the case of the warblade. You will likely make the save versus the suggestion of whatever which tells you to lie down, or the dominate, or anything else. You can deflect the enervation with wall of blades, you can IHS out of the antimagic field so all your gear works (though you are less dependent on that than most martials), and still have damaging manuevers. You drop an enemy and got to move to another one? Refresh your maneuvers en route, repeat.

Out of combat, you can still contribute. No barrier stops you(seriously what barrier stops a raging barbarian power attacking for full? Even without an adamantine weapon your getting thru almost anything) . You have a bit of movement and senses, spot and listen are fine, but blindsense and scent will do more for you. You can actually talk to people and diplo yourself into a dececnt place(not without charisma or skill synergy or spell support, which you don't have) , whereas grog the barbarian is waiting in the corner trying to not be bored while he waits to charge something(oh wait, intimidate functions near identically for most things). You can use your few minor knowledges to help with information gathering, or do it yourself if no else can, and still be a force in a fight. Your barbarian can see and hear (maybe if int wasn't dumped to silliness/racial modded to be hugely negative), while you have a bit of int synergy to help give you the skill points you need, and can actually contribute outside of hulk smash. That is why you are better than a barbarian, and that is why you are a tier ahead.

This post is the most complete version of "ignoring every actual limit on the character" and essentially saying Warblades are awesome because... Yeah.... They're awesome.

I'm mostly just going to reiterate one point that I already made in my previous post...


You have abilities to pretty much say no to save or suck, ac replacement versus any touch attack, some movement and special senses, IHS, WRT, and the ability to move and act every round and still contribute.

You can't do all that at once. You've got WRT, IHS, the blind sense one, wall of blades, and the concentration for saves one.... Oh, prior to level 15 you are already out of manuevers so you have no damaging manuevers whatsoever. Once you hit 15 you can throw in one stone dragon manuever. Or you can have some damaging ones and that means you don't have all those defenses that you somehow think all Warblades have all the time. I also added in some bolded commentary in your post to keep things organized.

[Efrate]

How are you getting 5 ranks in balance for twisted charge as a cross class skill, when you are likely dumping int? You can swap ride for tumble with skilled city dweller, but balance?

Jumping is part of a move action, a charge is a full round action, and you cannot use a move action in a full round action, so you are not jumping during a charge. Admittedly its a bit murky but I do not think you can by RAW, someone correct me if I am wrong. With leap attack yes, but until then you cannot, and when do you take leap attack?

At what level are you getting flight, investing however many resources in it? Why can I not do the same?

How are you getting Jump, intimidate (with no cha synergy just like my diplo), balance, tumble, spot and listen? You do not have that much intelligence, and 4 points doesn't go too far when you need a skill trick and a bunch of cross class skills. A warblade is at least somewhat incentivized to put something into int.

So you give up something. If no spot or listen, how are you attack an invisible or hidden opponent?

Scent and blindsense are stances, not maneuvers that count against your readied, you have these all the time if you chose them.

You can still do ubercharge if you want as a warblade, plus have the ability to not be able to/want to charge and still provide decent damage. You do all the barbarian does, and more, with abilities to do things outside of combat. You also get a few bonus feats to help support the ubercharge plus style, they are not great bonus feats but they are there.

You get rage for a minor pump to damage and more splat support, but the same warblade can do all the barbarian can and more, including stuff out of combat. Its not a huge list, I will admit, but its less prone to being shut down, because you can always move and standard action strike, with or without PA, for similar damage which will trump what your barbarian can do in most cases.

[Troacctid]

Jumping is part of a move action, a charge is a full round action, and you cannot use a move action in a full round action, so you are not jumping during a charge. Admittedly its a bit murky but I do not think you can by RAW, someone correct me if I am wrong.
This looks like a job for... Errata Girl!

*ahem* While the option was not originally presented in the core rulebooks, the Rules Compendium would later explicitly allow you to jump during a charge!

You're welcome, good citizens. My work here is done for now. *flies away*

*walks back in* Hey guys, what's up? Oh man, was Errata Girl just here? Did I miss her again? Damn, I really wanted her to autograph my copy of the Complete Champion errata! Sigh.

[Firechanter]

Anachro, you seem to be misinformed about the action economy of maneuvers.
- You _can_ refresh them as often as you like,
- you can churn out a Full Attack while refreshing
- Also, just for the record, "the blind sense one" is a stance and doesn't cost any maneuver slots.

Seriously, it doesn't seem like you understand the Warblade class very well, or have ever played one or even seen one played.
I don't understand why you seem to be bent on arguing that an opportunity cost of, oh wait, practically nothing, to get back some excellent tricks is bad. When a Wizard has cast each of his spells, the opportunity cost of getting them back is way higher.

Secondly, nobody says that a Warblade can do all of these things all of the time, like the strawman you're trying to sell us. As I said above, he doesn't _have_ to be able to do everything to qualify for Tier 3. If he was able to do everything, he'd be T1. For T3 it's totally sufficient if he can do _a few_ of these things.

Thirdly, I'll grant you that the damaging maneuvers are not very powerful. They arguably are more for Low-Op games, where they are a huge progress from the notion that +2 damage is acceptable for a Fighter. If you're optimizing for damage, your offensive maneuver picks will be more about action economy and less about a few damage dice. Like the Mongoose ones that give you extra attacks. Or the one that gives you Pounce, and lets you be an Ubercharger without being a Spirit Lion Barbarian.

There's also nothing wrong with using all your maneuver slots defensively and fuel the offense with feats. Which means you are as capable as a Fighter in offense, but way way harder to shut down.
Personally I typically have three defensive maneuvers prepped (Wall of Blades, Moment of Perfect Mind, and Iron Heart Surge). I don't need to replace my Fort or Ref saves because I'm good enough at them natively. The other slots mostly improve my action economy, and my damage output is fueled by feats.

Classes have different strengths and weaknesses. Just last night my Wizard(12) shut down three enemy Bards in the same battle by hitting them successively with Flesh To Stone, Enervation and Bigby's Forceful Hand, respectively. There was nothing they could do about it because the spells either targeted their weak save, allowed no save at all, or made an opposed check in an ability Bards suck at.
Any of these would have probably been wasted on a Warblade: he would have deflected the Enervation, resisted the Hand and then destroyed it, and probably made his save against F2S natively.
So, we have three powerful attacks by a T1 that reliably shut down three T3 Bards, but would have been of dubious efficacy against a Warblade. Does that now mean that Bards are crappier than Warblades? Or would dealing with the latter simply require entirely different tactics? (Hint: these are rhetorical questions.)

[Eldariel]

shame you can't use a manuever the same turn you refresh so your just standard action attacking 50% of the time? Nice.

The Warblade recovery method is worded as thus "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)."

Nothing says the attack has to be a standard action - the standard action to do nothing is the alternative if you do not, for whatever reason, wish to perform an attack (p.s. you really should). Nothing in the language prevents you from making more attacks. You can just as easily follow up with a full attack of which the first one is a melee attack - since it has to be immediately followed, Charge might or might not be allowed (can you take the swift recovery action in lieu of the charge action after movement before attack?) or even full ranged attack using a secondary attack to provide the melee attack (having a non-hand using natural weapon thus allows full recovery even with a bow at no attacks lost and no penalties - the game has rules for attacking squares used e.g. when you don't see your enemy).


Far as non-combat benefits go, don't forget Hunter's Sense. It provides you with Scent, which can be used for a variety of purposes: identifying items, creatures, etc. It also allows for more versatile tracking should you have the feat.

There's also out of combat movement speed; things like Order Forged From Chaos + Quicksilver Motion followed by move and recovery can amount to a 33% increase in the overall movement rate provided you have some way to keep up. White Raven Tactics can also be used in limited ways out of combat.

[Efrate]

Thanks for the RC clarification, I was just going on SRD.

[Dagroth]

Other than Raging, a Warblade can do everything a Barbarian can do... and a bunch more things added on top.

Both Warblades & Crusaders have multiple defensive options that regular melee just can't even come close to.

Clearly, T3.

[Malroth]

Tier 4's for Crusader and Warblade they're really really really good at the one thing they're good at (making things they can reach dead by sword) but they really suffer from the "when all you have is a hammer" problem out of combat.

Low 3 for Swordsage, not as powerful as the other two initiators in direct combat but has a much broader field of powers that can keep it relevant 100% of the time.

[Firechanter]

Tier 4's for Crusader and Warblade they're really really really good at the one thing they're good at (making things they can reach dead by sword) but they really suffer from the "when all you have is a hammer" problem out of combat.

Have you read this thread? There's been pages of discussion how this is simply not true.
Apart from the fact that "kill things you can reach by sword" doesn't do it justice when you can reach _anything_.
And that they are not limited _in_ combat to just sticking steel into soft bits, either.

Sorry, but reading these demonstrably false statements of "can only do damage" again and again is getting really tiresome.

[AnachroNinja]

How are you getting 5 ranks in balance for twisted charge as a cross class skill, when you are likely dumping int? You can swap ride for tumble with skilled city dweller, but balance?

Well by level 10 you can have it purely based on cross class ranks. You can also dip into another class for it. You can even just take Martial Study for it, which of you take it at 6 even gets you Mountain Hammer I think.



Jumping is part of a move action, a charge is a full round action, and you cannot use a move action in a full round action, so you are not jumping during a charge. Admittedly its a bit murky but I do not think you can by RAW, someone correct me if I am wrong. With leap attack yes, but until then you cannot, and when do you take leap attack?

This has already been covered, and a fair number of barbarians will have leap attack. Jump8 and PA aren't exactly stringent requirements.



At what level are you getting flight, investing however many resources in it? Why can I not do the same?

No one said you couldn't do the same. You guys seem to be trying to infer a lot of things that I'm not actually saying. My point is simply that difficult terrain, waist high fences and corners aren't some magic insurmountable obstacle that stymied melee for eons until Martial Adepts showed up.



How are you getting Jump, intimidate (with no cha synergy just like my diplo), balance, tumble, spot and listen? You do not have that much intelligence, and 4 points doesn't go too far when you need a skill trick and a bunch of cross class skills. A warblade is at least somewhat incentivized to put something into int.

So you give up something. If no spot or listen, how are you attack an invisible or hidden opponent?


So you're saying you're warblade is going to dump points into Int and have a lower STR/Con then the barb right out the gate, noted. Back on topic. Most of those skills don't need to be maxed out. You only need 5 ranks in balance and it's done forever, same with tumble. Jump can lose a few points because you can pretty much take ten and run on pure strength bonus and crush almost any DC. As for intimidate, that was my point. The barbarian is exactly as good at it as you're warblade is with diplomacy, and that's assuming you're not allowed to use Dragon mag for Fearsome Gaze(STR to intimidate and an untyped +4) in which case he crushes it.
And as for invisible opponent's, I guess he's just going to have to devote some resources to see invisible items like a Corsairs eye patch, but then again, you're not being invisible hide DCs with a spot check anyway for Christ's sake.

Kind of like how you're still eating that 50% miss chance even with blindsense or scent.



Scent and blindsense are stances, not maneuvers that count against your readied, you have these all the time if you chose them.

Yes, you can. But then you're using limited resources to gain abilities that don't actually negate the problem they are directed towards. So you're not taking 11 on all your attack roles or getting AoO for 5' steps. That's been my point throughout most of this. You can't do all the things you want to do at once. You can't even do most of the things you want to do at once.


You can still do ubercharge if you want as a warblade, plus have the ability to not be able to/want to charge and still provide decent damage. You do all the barbarian does, and more, with abilities to do things outside of combat. You also get a few bonus feats to help support the ubercharge plus style, they are not great bonus feats but they are there.

Except you can't charge as well. Your strength is lower, you don't have rage/whirling frenzy, you can't pounce every turn if needed. You can still charge, but you are objectively worse at it just based on your own claims of what you are doing with your class resources.


You get rage for a minor pump to damage and more splat support, but the same warblade can do all the barbarian can and more, including stuff out of combat. Its not a huge list, I will admit, but its less prone to being shut down, because you can always move and standard action strike, with or without PA, for similar damage which will trump what your barbarian can do in most cases.

Rage isn't even a minor pump to damage. At minimum it's +6 damage if all you do is rage and PA for 2 more. The more you boost your charging, the greater the impact becomes. Throw in Leap Attack and it's +8, Valorous weapon and it's +16. And that's just baseline rage. Whirling frenzy is a free haste attack and may be more useful if there's no wizard. You can move and standard action attack, and frequently a barbarian can move and full attack. Cheap items like Chronocharm of Horizon Walker and Anklets of Translocation make this pretty trivial even at low levels and are useful to boot. And yes, your warblade can use them too, but he still won't be as good at charging in the first place.


Anachro, you seem to be misinformed about the action economy of maneuvers.
- You _can_ refresh them as often as you like,
- you can churn out a Full Attack while refreshing
- Also, just for the record, "the blind sense one" is a stance and doesn't cost any maneuver slots.


I already covered this above. To reiterate, at no point did I say you couldn't refresh as often as you wanted. I said you can't use manuevers during the same round and responded to someone else's comment on their intended action usage. Maybe you need to work harder to actually read what is being said?


Seriously, it doesn't seem like you understand the Warblade class very well, or have ever played one or even seen one played.
I don't understand why you seem to be bent on arguing that an opportunity cost of, oh wait, practically nothing, to get back some excellent tricks is bad. When a Wizard has cast each of his spells, the opportunity cost of getting them back is way higher.

Shouldn't make claims that are entirely based on your own poor reading comprehension. Never claimed it was "bad" either. I claimed, and still claim, that "some excellent tricks" does not justify a place on Tier 3. A warblade has class based resources to shore up some of the obvious weaknesses of melee classes without having to spend as much of their other build resources on them. The problem is they do not have any ability to leverage those excess resources into true versatility or out of combat utility. You just have more hammers in the tool box.


Secondly, nobody says that a Warblade can do all of these things all of the time, like the strawman you're trying to sell us. As I said above, he doesn't _have_ to be able to do everything to qualify for Tier 3. If he was able to do everything, he'd be T1. For T3 it's totally sufficient if he can do _a few_ of these things.

This is actually false. People have been routinely rattling off a dozen manuevers, all to be used on demand, that make the Warblade so, like, obviously better then traditional melee. It has literally been "Well my warblade can fail saves and if he does fail, lol IHS! And you can't hit him with touch attacks and he can break anything and do standard attacks with +OMG damage every round while taking 11 on every role and blindsense while being able to track gnat farts by smell!" And yes there is obviously some hyperbole in there, but I'm not actually exaggerating. That is not to say that it was either of YOU specifically that were making all those claims, but that is where this started.


Thirdly, I'll grant you that the damaging maneuvers are not very powerful. They arguably are more for Low-Op games, where they are a huge progress from the notion that +2 damage is acceptable for a Fighter. If you're optimizing for damage, your offensive maneuver picks will be more about action economy and less about a few damage dice. Like the Mongoose ones that give you extra attacks. Or the one that gives you Pounce, and lets you be an Ubercharger without being a Spirit Lion Barbarian.

No argument that manuevers mostly seem heavily damaging at low OP. My primary issue with other manuevers is that your either doing it once per combat, or mixing in refreshes regularly. It's not really comparable to a permanent pounce ability or extra haste attack. It's good, don't get me wrong, most of the time it'll even be just as good because you won't need to pounce 3 times in a row, but it's not better either.


There's also nothing wrong with using all your maneuver slots defensively and fuel the offense with feats. Which means you are as capable as a Fighter in offense, but way way harder to shut down.
Personally I typically have three defensive maneuvers prepped (Wall of Blades, Moment of Perfect Mind, and Iron Heart Surge). I don't need to replace my Fort or Ref saves because I'm good enough at them natively. The other slots mostly improve my action economy, and my damage output is fueled by feats.

I'm not sure I agree with "way way harder". Harder, yes, but exactly how difficult is still something of a question. An argument could be made that in a game involving initiators, it really just means that enemies will be more prone to targeting your weak points as a result. The DM isn't always just going to throw two will saves per encounter at you so you can feel awesome and call it good. But that's table subjective so not a good argument point for this. Point is, yes, you have better defensive options and your offense is akin to a fighter... Why would that be tier 3?


Classes have different strengths and weaknesses. Just last night my Wizard(12) shut down three enemy Bards in the same battle by hitting them successively with Flesh To Stone, Enervation and Bigby's Forceful Hand, respectively. There was nothing they could do about it because the spells either targeted their weak save, allowed no save at all, or made an opposed check in an ability Bards suck at.
Any of these would have probably been wasted on a Warblade: he would have deflected the Enervation, resisted the Hand and then destroyed it, and probably made his save against F2S natively.
So, we have three powerful attacks by a T1 that reliably shut down three T3 Bards, but would have been of dubious efficacy against a Warblade. Does that now mean that Bards are crappier than Warblades? Or would dealing with the latter simply require entirely different tactics? (Hint: these are rhetorical questions.)

No, what it really means is that those bards were made in such a way that they did not even attempt to cover their weak points or defend themselves in a meaningful way and your using that as anecdotal evidence that they are equivalent to a Warblade that does deliberately cover his weak points. At that level, a bard knows three 4th level spells. If one of them is Greater Mirror Image, then they have about the same chance of obviating each of those spells as your warblade, and it will continue to do so for the rest of the combat unless dispelled. Strange how pretty classes can cover their bases too.


The Warblade recovery method is worded as thus "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)."

Nothing says the attack has to be a standard action - the standard action to do nothing is the alternative if you do not, for whatever reason, wish to perform an attack (p.s. you really should). Nothing in the language prevents you from making more attacks. You can just as easily follow up with a full attack of which the first one is a melee attack - since it has to be immediately followed, Charge might or might not be allowed (can you take the swift recovery action in lieu of the charge action after movement before attack?) or even full ranged attack using a secondary attack to provide the melee attack (having a non-hand using natural weapon thus allows full recovery even with a bow at no attacks lost and no penalties - the game has rules for attacking squares used e.g. when you don't see your enemy).

Covered this already. It was just a context issue that got missed by everyone.



Far as non-combat benefits go, don't forget Hunter's Sense. It provides you with Scent, which can be used for a variety of purposes: identifying items, creatures, etc. It also allows for more versatile tracking should you have the feat.

Scent does have some niche uses outside of combat, though I think it's gonna be pretty DM dependent how much you actually get out of it. Not calling it useless by any means, just variable and honestly not exactly amazing in the best case.



There's also out of combat movement speed; things like Order Forged From Chaos + Quicksilver Motion followed by move and recovery can amount to a 33% increase in the overall movement rate provided you have some way to keep up. White Raven Tactics can also be used in limited ways out of combat.

Yeah I agree that these things are not useless. I just don't feel like they are on the level of charm, UMD, Bardic Music, Familiars, or other abilities I associate with tier 3.


Other than Raging, a Warblade can do everything a Barbarian can do... and a bunch more things added on top.

Pounce every round.
Get a haste attack from level 1.
Match a barbs STR/Con while still having his "int synergy"

I'll wait while you match those, don't worry. I'll also throw in, shape shift into a bear while raging (bear warrior!) Just for fun.



Both Warblades & Crusaders have multiple defensive options that regular melee just can't even come close to.

Clearly, T3.

Except they can, with feats and money. The question is what can you do with the feats and money that you saved? And the answer is, nothing impressive.

I'll even throw this one out there, I'd be happy to do some comparisons if someone wants to build a level 10 Warblade to show what they feel like the character would really have available.

[Jopustopin]

Look, ya'll can stop arguing. We're not going to change AnachroNinja's mind and I struggle to imagine that he's ever seen an actual Warblade before in one of his games. The Warblade completely overshadows the Barbarian at both in combat and out of combat. He does the job he's designed for better than the Barbarian, end of story.

The real debate is whether classes with no access to spells belongs in tier 3. That's the real argument. Because AnachroNinja's argument boils down to, if you don't have spells you're in tiers 4, 5, or 6. I don't agree with this. I think that a good skill list and a healthy amount of skills is one of the reasons why Warblades are in tier 3. Pretty much anyone who votes tier 4 disagrees and anyone who votes tier 3 agrees.

I don't know what else there is to add to this debate other than to let the voters decide.

[Rhyltran]

Look, ya'll can stop arguing. We're not going to change AnachroNinja's mind and I struggle to imagine that he's ever seen an actual Warblade before in one of his games. The Warblade completely overshadows the Barbarian at both in combat and out of combat. He does the job he's designed for better than the Barbarian, end of story.

The real debate is whether classes with no access to spells belongs in tier 3. That's the real argument. Because AnachroNinja's argument boils down to, if you don't have spells you're in tiers 4, 5, or 6. I don't agree with this. I think that a good skill list and a healthy amount of skills is one of the reasons why Warblades are in tier 3. Pretty much anyone who votes tier 4 disagrees and anyone who votes tier 3 agrees.

I don't know what else there is to add to this debate other than to let the voters decide.

Truth is that a lot of people are getting this type of tiering mixed up with Jaron's. Jaron's tiering versatility trumps everything. That isn't the case here. Power is important to. The truth is the barbarian is probably the ideal Tier 4 and the Warblade does trump it with versatility, it is more durable, more resistant to saveorsucks, has more power out of the box (people are comparing the warblade to bear warriors etc but that's just base warblade, we haven't touched dips.), and more ways reach what it needs to stabby stab. This alone should put the warblade in Tier 3.

There's a reason there's some people who outright ban Tome of Battle. Though, I don't think it's OP in the slightest.

[Aimeryan]

You pretty much got right on the point I was making. Some times a fast car is exactly what you need to get from point A to point B. The problem is that anytime point B is not accessible by road (That's anything but combat to those who are following the metaphor) You are pretty much useless. A 2 seater Piper may not be as fast as your Ferrari when you're tearing down the straightaway, but it can go places you never can. Even hot air balloon has a breadth of options you just can't compete with.

That's my point. The ToB classes are really good within their baliwick, but they are also limited by it. And has been brought up, a Swordsage isn't really any better in combat then the Bard who's every attack deals an extra 9d6 sonic damage, oh and so do everyone else's which is still his contribution. Or the bard who is attacking at better then fill BAB with a spell storing crystal echoblade, in flanking with his magebred dire bear and Imp familiar (also likely with a spell storing weapon) and all of them have greater mirror image going. And that's a wonky built for fun character who still has spells and skills to play with.

Yeah, your Swordsage has good native combat abilities. Tell me what he's doing with his feats that match bard spellcasting/skills/class features?

Eh, I'm not really voting anymore or taking much notice of these threads, but I did want to point out something here that I was trying to point out something like a month ago that sort of got lost.

AnachroNinja is correct here; Swordsage is as much below Bard as Barbarian is below Swordsage - yet there are only two tiers to be spanned here (Tier 3 and 4). AnachroNinja is attempting to resolve this by lumping in Swordsage with Barbarian and leaving Bard alone, but I think this is not the correct solution.

The argument I was making before is that Tier 3 is actually really broad by including both the gishs/TOB classes and then also Bard and the like (actually, mostly just Bard now that Beguiler and DN has shimmied up the tiers). Futhermore, while Bard is below Sorcerer, I don't feel that it is that below. So my solution to the Bard-Swordsage-Barbarian problem is to move Bard up to Tier 2, or at least Tier 2.5.

If Bard is Tier 2, the gishes and TOB classes can easily fill in Tier 3 for themselves. If Bard is Tier 3, and no distinction is being made on what part of Tier 3, then the gishes and TOB classes can not fit there.

Do note that Eggynack has allowed for Tier 3 to have an upper section and a lower section (see the graphs). The lower section most people refer to Tier 3.5. My preference was, and is, that Bard be moved to Tier 2 which then causes the whole problem to disappear, but if not then vote Bard as upper Tier 3 and TOB classes as lower Tier 3 (AKA Tier 3.5).

Edit: Eggynack, you need to resolve what voting "Tier 3" means; is "upper Tier 3" and "lower Tier 3" being ignored?

If not, then people need to clarify which one they are voting for, and Eggynack needs to update the tiering descriptions to include upper Tier 3 and lower Tier 3 descriptions.

If it is being ignored, however, then this needs to be spelled out so that people can vote Tier 2 for classes would be upper Tier 3 (or conversely, vote Tier 4 for classes that would be lower Tier 3).

[Rhyltran]

Here's another problem I have with Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage being Tier 4:

The tiering system is supposed to help players into choosing what is appropriate for their level of table play. If a DM says "You need to pick Tier 4 classes for this adventure." this lumps people in with things like Ninja, Rogue, Savant, Scout, and Fighter. The barbarian, leap attack aside, is still a tier 4 class. So let's say a bunch of new players get together and roll up a Scout, Barbarian, savant, and Warblade. Let's be honest are the others even going to come close to competing with the warblade? No, it's more likely that they're going to be completely out-shadowed by him. This is my problem with the warblade being in Tier 4. Now a group of Bard, Warblade, Warmage, and Wild Shape Ranger.. that looks a lot more like a balanced group.

[AnachroNinja]

Eh, I'm not really voting anymore or taking much notice of these threads, but I did want to point out something here that I was trying to point out something like a month ago that sort of got lost.

AnachroNinja is correct here; Swordsage is as much below Bard as Barbarian is below Swordsage - yet there are only two tiers to be spanned here (Tier 3 and 4). AnachroNinja is attempting to resolve this by lumping in Swordsage with Barbarian and leaving Bard alone, but I think this is not the correct solution.

The argument I was making before is that Tier 3 is actually really broad by including both the gishs/TOB classes and then also Bard and the like (actually, mostly just Bard now that Beguiler and DN has shimmied up the tiers). Futhermore, while Bard is below Sorcerer, I don't feel that it is that below. So my solution to the Bard-Swordsage-Barbarian problem is to move Bard up to Tier 2, or at least Tier 2.5.

If Bard is Tier 2, the gishes and TOB classes can easily fill in Tier 3 for themselves. If Bard is Tier 3, and no distinction is being made on what part of Tier 3, then the gishes and TOB classes can not fit there.

Do note that Eggynack has allowed for Tier 3 to have an upper section and a lower section (see the graphs). The lower section most people refer to Tier 3.5. My preference was, and is, that Bard be moved to Tier 2 which then causes the whole problem to disappear, but if not then vote Bard as upper Tier 3 and TOB classes as lower Tier 3 (AKA Tier 3.5).

Edit: Eggynack, you need to resolve what voting "Tier 3" means; is "upper Tier 3" and "lower Tier 3" being ignored? If not, then people need to clarify which one they are voting for. If it is being ignored, however, then this needs to be spelled out so that people can vote Tier 2 for classes would be upper Tier 3 (or conversely, vote Tier 4 for classes that would be lower Tier 3).

Pretty much this. ToB classes are good. They are some degree better then other melee classes generally. To me that's just not Tier 3 when Tier 3 means Bards and similar.

[Aimeryan]

Here's another problem I have with Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage being Tier 4:

The tiering system is supposed to help players into choosing what is appropriate for their level of table play. If a DM says "You need to pick Tier 4 classes for this adventure." this lumps people in with things like Ninja, Rogue, Savant, Scout, and Fighter. The barbarian, leap attack aside, is still a tier 4 class. So let's say a bunch of new players get together and roll up a Scout, Barbarian, savant, and Warblade. Let's be honest are the others even going to come close to competing with the warblade? No, it's more likely that they're going to be completely out-shadowed by him. This is my problem with the warblade being in Tier 4. Now a group of Bard, Warblade, Warmage, and Wild Shape Ranger.. that looks a lot more like a balanced group.

Before the last line I agree with this. The last line, however, suffers from the same problem Rhyltran is attempting to resolve, just with different classes; now the Warblade is likely to be out-shadowed by the Bard. The Warblade will be strongly contributing to combat, but not much else. The Bard will be contributing strongly to combat, and then also contribute strongly in many other situations, as well. This is the Bard-TOB-Barbarian problem; each outshadow the ones listed after, but there are only two tiers being given to their use.

[Eldariel]

Isn't the obvious solution just making another tier, splitting the current high and low tier 3?

[Aimeryan]

Isn't the obvious solution just making another tier, splitting the current high and low tier 3?

That is one solution, which Eggynack has sort of done already if you check the graphs listed on page 1. The problem is he didn't also do this for the Tier text descriptions, and people are not paying attention to the upper Tier 3 and lower Tier 3 divide.

I don't think people in the Bard thread have made a good attempt at discussing whether Bard could fit in Tier 2, however. If it could be moved up then the whole problem disappears and you just have one solid Tier 3 description.

[Rhyltran]

Before the last line I agree with this. The last line, however, suffers from the same problem Rhyltran is attempting to resolve, just with different classes; now the Warblade is likely to out-shadowed by the Bard. The Warblade will be strongly contributing to combat, but not much else. The Bard will be contributing strongly to combat, and then also contribute strongly in many other situations, as well. This is the Bard-TOB-Barbarian problem; each outshadow the ones listed after, but there are only two tiers being given to their use.

There is a difference here. While I mostly agree don't forget that the warblade will also be boosted by inspire courage/dragonfire inspiration I am also confident that the warblade could still be made to be a better combatant than a bard. I know of a few optimizations that can make Bard quite good in melee combat but none of the builds I know of can out-do the Warblade in combat alone. Will the bard be pulling more weight? Absolutely. However, in said group the warblade will still be the main melee damage dealer. He might be overshadowed by the Bard but not as badly as he would be overshadowing the Rogue/Fighter/Savant and he'd still maintain his niche.

Also Bard melee optimization aside out of the box the warblade is definitely a better melee combatant.

[Dondasch]

Before the last line I agree with this. The last line, however, suffers from the same problem, just with different classes; now the Warblade is likely to out-shadowed by the Bard. The Warblade will be strongly contributing to combat, but not much else. The Bard will be contributing strongly to combat, and then also contribute strongly in many other situations, as well.

Depends on the Bard. Warmage and Warblade have competency in their field out of the box, and Wild shape Ranger requires enough looking to find that they're probably built competently. But the Bard has a huge range of places it could be.
That might be part of the problem, actually. You have to know what you're doing to build a T2 Bard, or even a T3 Bard. So, since we're (supposed to be) considering a range of optimization levels, the bard gets dragged down in tier. I might go back and revise my Bard vote, if it helps keep things sensible. Because, as you said, Bard>ToB>Barbarian.

Edit: posted something in the Bard thread, so that the T2 question will hopefully move there.

[Jopustopin]

Isn't the obvious solution just making another tier, splitting the current high and low tier 3?

I think the obvious solution is to just let the voters decide. The tiers, all of them, range from +.5 to -.5 of the actual tier they are in. So if the Bard is tier 2.49 and the Warblade is tier 3.49 they are both in "tier 3." And yet the Bard is technically a tier above the warblade. And that's what averaging our votes is doing. Not really sure what the problem is.

[Aimeryan]

I think the obvious solution is to just let the voters decide. The tiers, all of them, range from +.5 to -.5 of the actual tier they are in. So if the Bard is tier 2.49 and the Warblade is tier 3.49 they are both in "tier 3." And yet the Bard is technically a tier above the warblade. And that's what averaging our votes is doing. Not really sure what the problem is.

That would require coordinating your vote to move the average with other people. I guess you could just vote "Tier x.5" if that was allowed as a legitimate vote. If so, I would either vote Bard as Tier 2.5 and TOB classes (and other gishes) as Tier 3, or I would vote Bard as Tier 3 and TOB classes as Tier 3.5.

As mentioned I would also be happy voting Bard as Tier 2 and TOB classes as Tier 3. Yet another option is Bard - Upper Tier 3 and TOB - Lower Tier 3.

Well, I probably wouldn't because I'm not voting, but you get the point.

[Gellhorn]

For all of these classes - they've got sufficient in combat versatility that I wouldn't feel comfortable putting them in T4 - ok the barbarian might outdamage them. But if both of them put down an enemy in a turn, does it matter? Is the difference between the two enough to say "the ToB classes are too bad at their main schtick to be T3"? Imo, no.

So yeah, T3 for all of them imo. They're strong enough at what they do, and more importantly they do enough things and have enough options that they should be a higher tier than the barbarian.

[AnachroNinja]

I'd really like to see a Warblade laid out, manuevers chosen, some decent feats picked, and some items selected to show what their actual out of combat contribution is. I honestly want to know so I can see what it is that they are bringing to the table that you guys feel justifies the higher tier. Not just a big paragraph of what they could hypothetically be doing, someone please show me a Warblade they would actually bring to a game. I think this would help the debate a lot.

[Jopustopin]

I'd really like to see a Warblade laid out, manuevers chosen, some decent feats picked, and some items selected to show what their actual out of combat contribution is. I honestly want to know so I can see what it is that they are bringing to the table that you guys feel justifies the higher tier. Not just a big paragraph of what they could hypothetically be doing, someone please show me a Warblade they would actually bring to a game. I think this would help the debate a lot.

It's a trap don't fall for it guys.

[AnachroNinja]

It's a trap don't fall for it guys.


Historically, the side of the debate that refuses to even attempt to back up their claims is the side that is arguing in bad faith or from a bias. Just saying.

[Jopustopin]

Historically, the side of the debate that refuses to even attempt to back up their claims is the side that is arguing in bad faith or from a bias. Just saying.

K you win the debate. I'm still voting tier 3 though.

[Rhyltran]

I'd really like to see a Warblade laid out, manuevers chosen, some decent feats picked, and some items selected to show what their actual out of combat contribution is. I honestly want to know so I can see what it is that they are bringing to the table that you guys feel justifies the higher tier. Not just a big paragraph of what they could hypothetically be doing, someone please show me a Warblade they would actually bring to a game. I think this would help the debate a lot.

Remember, versatility alone isn't what this tiering system is about. Power is important as well. If the warblade is "more powerful" than the barbarian that alone would be sufficient. Out of the box it's easier to build a more powerful warblade than a barbarian. The problem here is that people are comparing a basic warblade to a specific barbarian (the leap attacking, pouncing, barbarian.) but that's the only build that even comes close to an out of the box warblade who has merely selected certain maneuvers. Also no one needs to outline exactly what maneuvers and feats they would take as a warblade. People already stated what the warblade can gain via maneuvers and it brings more to the table than a barbarian out of the box.

[AnachroNinja]

Remember, versatility alone isn't what this tiering system is about. Power is important as well. If the warblade is "more powerful" than the barbarian that alone would be sufficient. Out of the box it's easier to build a more powerful warblade than a barbarian. The problem here is that people are comparing a basic warblade to a specific barbarian (the leap attacking, pouncing, barbarian.) but that's the only build that even comes close to an out of the box warblade who has merely selected certain maneuvers. Also no one needs to outline exactly what maneuvers and feats they would take as a warblade. People already stated what the warblade can gain via maneuvers and it brings more to the table than a barbarian out of the box.

OK, I'm honestly trying to work with you on this one. I'm going to try not to reference past posts and so forth and just approach this straight on.

Power is important, although Eggy's Tier 3 definition says


Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a swordsage. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

I would say that there does need to be *some* versatility, would you agree? That being said, what is the measure of power? Is it damage? Ability to win fights? Destroy targets? What metric are we using here?

That being said, I will agree that it is simpler to build a competent Warblade. I will argue though that that isn't the same thing as being automatic. Not everyone is going to automatically select the manuevers to protect their saves/touch AC/IHS or the stance to take 11/blindsense/scent. Those aren't just automatics picks. It's very possible for new players to just grab a bunch of +D6 abilities and roll out. At that point they are a fighter with better damage. The particular manuevers that have been brought up a lot are as much a "build" as a charging barbarian. By the same token a charging barbarian isn't the only competent barbarian build, it's just one of the simplest and most likely ones to crop up in games because the synergy between abilities is reasonably obvious. You seem to think that is unlikely to happen but accept *merely selected certain manuevers* as a matter of course for the warblade.

And honestly no one has yet actually laid out a statement about what the Warblade can use his feats to get other then "He can be a charger too." Which works nicely with the fact that a barbarian can use feats to get some (not all) of the manuevers and stances being discussed.

[Rhyltran]

OK, I'm honestly trying to work with you on this one. I'm going to try not to reference past posts and so forth and just approach this straight on.

Power is important, although Eggy's Tier 3 definition says



I would say that there does need to be *some* versatility, would you agree? That being said, what is the measure of power? Is it damage? Ability to win fights? Destroy targets? What metric are we using here?

That being said, I will agree that it is simpler to build a competent Warblade. I will argue though that that isn't the same thing as being automatic. Not everyone is going to automatically select the manuevers to protect their saves/touch AC/IHS or the stance to take 11/blindsense/scent. Those aren't just automatics picks. It's very possible for new players to just grab a bunch of +D6 abilities and roll out. At that point they are a fighter with better damage. The particular manuevers that have been brought up a lot are as much a "build" as a charging barbarian. By the same token a charging barbarian isn't the only competent barbarian build, it's just one of the simplest and most likely ones to crop up in games because the synergy between abilities is reasonably obvious. You seem to think that is unlikely to happen but accept *merely selected certain manuevers* as a matter of course for the warblade.

And honestly no one has yet actually laid out a statement about what the Warblade can use his feats to get other then "He can be a charger too." Which works nicely with the fact that a barbarian can use feats to get some (not all) of the manuevers and stances being discussed.

I agree that there needs to be some versatility which is why I said versatility is important but so is power. Actual wording was "Versatility alone isn't everything." except the Warblade here does have more than "Just" power. Having the ability to negate things effecting them, take an additional turn, re-roll saves, no save stun, resetting your party's formation, etc. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=357.msg6908#msg6908 There's just so much you can do and asking us to put together a warblade is just touching the surface because there's so many different ways you can do it. I could come up with dozens of possible warblades capable of doing different things (which is why another poster said it's a trap.) because you might be able to tear down each individual one but the fact is there is so many different ways you can do it. "One build." doesn't do it enough justice. Also even with just a charger War Master's Charge alone is.. powerful.

The warblade has versatility and it has party support. Best yet feats aside, if you were to build a white raven tactics warblade charger they have more versatility in being able to get that charge off, enhance that charge, and even make other chargers in the party better by just simply being in the party. If you look at the list of maneuvers even if you were to pick maneuvers at random (no one will do that even low op players) you still have things that not only help yourself out but help out the team while also pumping out far more damage than the Tier 4 fighter and even the Barbarian (when built correctly.), more survivability, and more ways to contribute in an encounter. I can't fathom Warblade being anything other than Tier 3 and it's the weakest of these three classes.

[Firechanter]

Hmmh, maybe the nomenclature is the first problem here. When hearing "Tier System" and particularly "Tier 1, 2" etc, everyone (who has dealt with the matter in any way at all) will immediately think of the JaronK system. Like I did, before eggy clarified that this was supposed to be a different approach. We're also seeing here that 6 tiers may just not be enough, with Initiators being so hard to accept as T3 for some, while looking decidedly out of the T4 league for most (myself included).
However, fractional tiers ("3.5") don't sound so appealing. This may be my personal taste, I guess what I dislike about it is that most tiers don't have a need for fractions. If Bard is straight Tier 3, Initiators can be 3.5, and we have the Fighter as 4.5... but are there any 1.5s or 2.5s?
So taking all of the above into account, maybe we should simply give the tiers different names/shorthands. For instance, we could use letters instead of numbers, sorta like in those video games that use S-A-B-C... etc.
Or use Greek letters, Alpha, Beta etc, the commoner-tier being Omega. Just a thought.

[Jopustopin]

Suppose your party consisted of a Wizard, a Barbarian, an Artificer, and a Warblade in a typical game.

The Artificer indicates that they will be the "trapfinder" leaning towards meleeficer in combat.
The Barbarian indicates they are going to be pure uber charger
The Wizard indicates they are going to be an abrupt jaunting conjurer focusing on knowledge skills (and losing enchantment and evocation)

The Warblade indicates they will be the party face. Guess what? THEY CAN BE THE PARTY FACE. With a minuscule sacrifice to their combat aptitude since they have White Raven Tactics and they have Leading the Charge (plus of course whatever other maneuvers they want, if they are really concerned that the DM is throwing a lot of things at the Warblade he can pick up Adaptive Style). In my opinion they are almost certainly to be more effective in combat than the Barbarian even with a feat selection that emphasizes out of combat versatility and an ability score dedication to Intelligence. Basically the Warblade in this scenario makes the Barbarian better at his job in combat (WRT and Leading the Charge stance) and makes the Wizard and Artificer better at their job in combat (WRT) AND is still better at combat than the Barbarian. He, except on the first charge of the battle, completely overshadows the Barbarian in combat.

Consider the reverse scenario:

The Artificer indicates that they will be the "trapfinder" leaning towards meleeficer in combat.
The Warblade indicates they are going to be pure uber charger focused on White Raven school and Shock Trooper (with Wall of Blades of course to protect his AC and Moment of Perfect Mind to protect his Will save).
The Wizard indicates they are going to be an abrupt jaunting conjurer focusing on knowledge skills (and losing enchantment and evocation)

The Barbarian indicates... what exactly? Nothing, they have no other viable build options besides combat. If they use their feats to pick up Diplomacy and Sense Motive as class skills (through martial study) they are heavily sacrificing combat aptitude.


This is why I say, and continue to say, that you don't need spell casting to be in tier 3. The Warblades class skills combined with the best melee base in the game gets them into tier 3. The Wizard can spend every feat on Skill Focus and still be tier 1 through spell selection. The Warblade can spend every feat on versatility and still be tier 3 through maneuver selection. In my opinion, easily, but that's just my opinion. This is why I'm not making any "Warblade" builds for you to pick apart and/or hand wave + house rules any positive into a negative. Waste of time trying to convince someone dogmatic that they are wrong.

[Troacctid]

Here's another problem I have with Warblade, Crusader, and Swordsage being Tier 4:

The tiering system is supposed to help players into choosing what is appropriate for their level of table play. If a DM says "You need to pick Tier 4 classes for this adventure." this lumps people in with things like Ninja, Rogue, Savant, Scout, and Fighter. The barbarian, leap attack aside, is still a tier 4 class. So let's say a bunch of new players get together and roll up a Scout, Barbarian, savant, and Warblade. Let's be honest are the others even going to come close to competing with the warblade? No, it's more likely that they're going to be completely out-shadowed by him. This is my problem with the warblade being in Tier 4. Now a group of Bard, Warblade, Warmage, and Wild Shape Ranger.. that looks a lot more like a balanced group.
This is on point.


Hmmh, maybe the nomenclature is the first problem here. When hearing "Tier System" and particularly "Tier 1, 2" etc, everyone (who has dealt with the matter in any way at all) will immediately think of the JaronK system. Like I did, before eggy clarified that this was supposed to be a different approach. We're also seeing here that 6 tiers may just not be enough, with Initiators being so hard to accept as T3 for some, while looking decidedly out of the T4 league for most (myself included).
However, fractional tiers ("3.5") don't sound so appealing. This may be my personal taste, I guess what I dislike about it is that most tiers don't have a need for fractions. If Bard is straight Tier 3, Initiators can be 3.5, and we have the Fighter as 4.5... but are there any 1.5s or 2.5s?
Yes. Wu Jen, Death Master, and Urban Druid are good examples of 1.5s. I think Battle Sorcerer and Mystic Ranger are 2.5s.

Fractions are the natural result of people disagreeing on tiers and results being averaged between them. I don't see why it's weird. It's important additional information. JaronK's list had it too.

[eggynack]

Yes. Wu Jen, Death Master, and Urban Druid are good examples of 1.5s. I think Battle Sorcerer and Mystic Ranger are 2.5s.
Urban druid is pretty far from the 2 line at the moment, at 1.92. Spontaneous druid is currently running as the most 1.5-ish class, with a 1.29, which is a number far enough away from 1.5 that I'm inclined to say we don't currently have a 1.5 running around. I'm hoping we'll get one at some point. Not saying my fancy sheet is fully indicative of where those lines lie, especially with a sample size of only, jeez, eleven on the urban druid, but I think it's a telling stat, and critically, it's inevitably what I'm going to rely on when we start talking about these border lines.

Anyways, this is now a crazy three-thread conversation, making heavy simultaneous use of bards, martial adepts, and the baseline tier system, so I'ma just comment on it here, because I'm commenting here anyway, and because this is the most recent thread. There's definitely some spread to tier three, whatever your model of it. However, I don't know that I'd agree that the spread is big enough, or the outliers outlierish enough, to justify a new tier. Like, I guess we'd have this new tier that contains just the bard and, if you squint, maybe the warmage? As good as bard is, I don't think it's tier two, or anywhere close really. It's a very strong class, but the gap between them and any tier two class seems massive, a gap formed of spells/day, of slower progression, and of a more limited list. The other bard stuff helps, but it doesn't seem like enough when not optimized.

Honestly, the specific construction of the high tier three low tier three has always struck me as a bit off. In my opinion, it's trying to convey two things simultaneously, weighted heavily towards one thing in its current form. First, obviously, it says that there's some range in the tier. Bards are really good, and whatever you pick as the worst tier three is probably less good, whether it's warblade or not (it's actually factotum right now). Second, it says that there's more than one way into the tier, perhaps more than there is for other tiers. Tier one is basically just prepared casters. Tier five is largely classes with limited ways to contribute, or something. Hard to state outright in an all encompassing way, but there's a feel to it. Tier three is this interesting mix of really versatile classes that are maybe not top notch power-wise, and decently versatile classes with significantly higher power. Bard is in the former group, and, I dunno, psychic warrior is in the latter. It's hard to pick for the latter because all those picks are controversial.

I think my ideal for the graphs, then, would be somewhat less area for the high end, represented by less in the way of height for the high tier three. Cause I don't really think the bard is this powerful. Not even sure two graphs are necessary, but the first graph totally failed to capture the warblade (even a better warblade, to avoid argument somewhat), and the second failed to capture bard. Not in area, but in shape. Which, maybe it's not a problem, but it seemed worth including both on that basis. Maybe I shouldn't have. It certainly wasn't an idea I conveyed especially well.

That's my opinion on it, anyway, and it's what informed a lot of my decision making on the inclusion. It's worth note, again, that the graphs are intended as a model for understanding the tiers, rather than a strict model for what the tiers are. Troacctid may have been correct, though. It's very difficult not to read as prescriptive what is aiming for descriptive, even when the latter reading is being explicitly pushed. Double especially when calling them descriptive before they're describing anything fully present is a weird thing to do.

[lord_khaine]

That being said, I will agree that it is simpler to build a competent Warblade. I will argue though that that isn't the same thing as being automatic. Not everyone is going to automatically select the manuevers to protect their saves/touch AC/IHS or the stance to take 11/blindsense/scent. Those aren't just automatics picks. It's very possible for new players to just grab a bunch of +D6 abilities and roll out. At that point they are a fighter with better damage.

Its very easy to dominate combat at that level of optimisation though. I mean if the other melee guy is hitting for 2d6+6 with his greatsword, but your doing 5d6+6 and ignoring dr, then you are likely to overshadow everyone else.

[Aimeryan]

I understand where you are coming from Eggynack, however, there still remains the issue that Bard is not close to Warblade, in the same way that Warblade is not close to Barbarian. There is actually a similar pattern between those three:

Barbarian: Limited solution paths. Solutions tend to involve applying damage in one particular way, overcoming a certain set of obstacles of appropriate level.
Warblade: Less limited solution paths. Solutions tend to involve applying damage still, but in more ways and thus overcoming more obstacles of appropriate level.
Bard: Even less limited solution paths - in fact most solution paths are open to them. Solutions tend to involve a wide range of applications, being able to overcome most obstacles of appropriate level.

All three still require a party, which may be the difference between say the Bard and the Sorcerer. They all have adequate power to face off against appropriate leveled encounters if they are able to solve them at all, the difference really comes down to how many solutions paths they each offer up.

I agree that it is irritating having a tier for only one class, but it is not an untrue assessment. What you do is up to you, but the problem has been identified at least.

[Jopustopin]

What you do is up to you, but the problem has been identified at least.

I just want to add, that I don't see a problem here. I've seen a Bard and a Warblade in play and have never felt like the Bard completely overshadowed the Warblade. Ever. I really don't know what ya'll are talking. They are easily in the same tier.

[Bucky]

Synthesizing arguments from upthread:
Crusader: 3
Swordsage: 3
Warblade: 3

Reasoning:
* There is a significant power gap between these and the reference T4s, except where the reference T4s are either using TO tactics or extremely specialized to match what the initiators do with only a fraction of their resources.
* The initiators' native combat abilities are also significantly more versatile than any of the non-initiator classes that do not rely on spellcasting, except possibly Wildshape Ranger.
* The initiators have different ways of contributing outside of combat. But they can also grab each others' cross-class maneuvers with feats.

[Aimeryan]

I just want to add, that I don't see a problem here. I've seen a Bard and a Warblade in play and have never felt like the Bard completely overshadowed the Warblade. Ever. I really don't know what ya'll are talking. They are easily in the same tier.

Was this an arena game? I think I might know why, in that case.

A Bard completely overshadows a Warblade in any situation that isn't combat. Unless the game is just combat the Warblade is overshadowed. I know combat tends to feel more competitive and thus you make comparisons there; perhaps having the bard able to solve some problem outside of combat is just a relief more than overshadowing to such a class, but it still exists as a major difference which the tiers are meant to represent.

[eggynack]

I understand where you are coming from Eggynack, however, there still remains the issue that Bard is not close to Warblade, in the same way that Warblade is not close to Barbarian. There is actually a similar pattern between those three:


I just want to add, that I don't see a problem here. I've seen a Bard and a Warblade in play and have never felt like the Bard completely overshadowed the Warblade. Ever. I really don't know what ya'll are talking. They are easily in the same tier.
This is pretty much where I am on this. I mean, I'm not saying my evaluation skills are perfect, but I don't think the difference is as insane as you're claiming. And, to the extent that your position is a valid one, it doesn't seem too far off of the million other random tiering arguments we have. Going straight from numbers, this isn't even the widest tier opinion gap. Bard is the high end at 2.96, factotum the low at 3.35. That's a difference of only .39. Tier four goes all the way from fighter, at 4.45, to rogue, at 3.85. Way bigger difference. Now, granted, that's in large part because tier two is so fundamentally different from tier three, but even the distance between fighter at tier four itself is larger. Is it a better class? I'd say yes. Is it so much better to need its own tier? I'm very doubtful.

[Bucky]

A Bard completely overshadows a Warblade in any situation that isn't combat.

There is a safe with dimensional, arcane and mechanical locks protecting it. There is a mundane barrier on the ethereal plane occupying the same space as the safe. There is an artifact inside the safe that the level 7 party needs to retrieve.

A level 7 Warblade deletes the back wall of the safe and grabs the artifact. What would a level 7 Bard do in their place?

[remetagross]

Glibness and Charm Person his way to the one holding the keys! :)

[Aimeryan]

This is pretty much where I am on this. I mean, I'm not saying my evaluation skills are perfect, but I don't think the difference is as insane as you're claiming. And, to the extent that your position is a valid one, it doesn't seem too far off of the million other random tiering arguments we have. Going straight from numbers, this isn't even the widest tier opinion gap. Bard is the high end at 2.96, factotum the low at 3.35. That's a difference of only .39. Tier four goes all the way from fighter, at 4.45, to rogue, at 3.85. Way bigger difference. Now, granted, that's in large part because tier two is so fundamentally different from tier three, but even the distance between fighter at tier four itself is larger. Is it a better class? I'd say yes. Is it so much better to need its own tier? I'm very doubtful.

I don't think Bard reaches Tier 2, although I don't think it is too far off. Given that people vote one way or the other, and not decimals, it doesn't surprise me that people put Bard in Tier 3 given the historical nature of such. Indeed, as the Bard thread was before the TOB thread people had not yet discussed and voted on the TOB classes (or the gishes) which is where the disconnect comes from.

Are you saying that if I think it is better than Tier 3 but not as good as Tier 2 I should be voting Tier 2 to try to pull the average in that direction? What if it changes at a later point and I need to vote Tier 3 to pull it back? That way of voting is madness. I could vote Tier 2.5 if you like? Or I could vote Tier 3.5 for all the TOB and gish classes, as an alternative. You would have to inform people that have already voted that they can now do this, though.

[eggynack]

I don't think Bard reaches Tier 2, although I don't think it is too far off. Given that people vote one way or the other, and not decimals
Usually, anyway. Currently have lotsa non-integer votes.


it doesn't surprise me that people put Bard in Tier 3 given the historical nature of such. Indeed, as the Bard thread was before the TOB thread people had not yet discussed and voted on the TOB classes (or the gishes) which is where the disconnect comes from.
I mean, vote switching is a thing. If people thought bard was tier three before, and now don't, they're fully within their rights to change that up.


Are you saying that if I think it is better than Tier 3 but not as good as Tier 2 I should be voting Tier 2 to try to pull the average in that direction? What if it changes at a later point and I need to vote Tier 3 to pull it back? That way of voting is madness. I could vote Tier 2.5 if you like? Or I could vote Tier 3.5 for all the TOB and gish classes, as an alternative. You would have to inform people that have already voted that they can now do this, though.
As I noted above, people have been voting tier 2.5 and the like since we've started. I have four of those associated with the first thread alone. Not a common maneuver, and it leaves you out of the less important mode and count functions, but it's a thing you can do. If you want to vote 2.5 for bard, go right ahead. That seems to be about where you think bard is, so it wouldn't be too far off track. I'd prefer you not vote out of accordance with your actual opinion though. Say, a vote for tier one for bard because it would push them upwards even more. You could always use Troacctid's fighter vote, which was whatever makes the tiering closest to 4.5 at any given point in time between 4, 4.5, and 5.

So, don't use votes out of league with your own opinion to try to rig the mean closer to your own position. That just seems mean. But if you have a vote that's neither three nor two that's closest to your true position, well, I literally included a 2.9 bard vote within the last half hour. I probably wouldn't support a version of Troacctid's vote that went from 3.5 to 5.5, for example, while I thought the version proposed seemed acceptable in accordance with a "True 4.5 vote".

[Aimeryan]

Might want to put it in the intro's that you can vote for a decimal then, since I for one didn't think this was allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up changing what a lot of people voted.

[eggynack]

Might want to put it in the intro's that you can vote for a decimal then, since I for one didn't think this was allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up changing what a lot of people voted.
Stuck some notes in the first paragraph of the procedural stuff. Thought it was additionally worth noting that I can't do anything with votes like, "The warblade is tier three if we're making serious use of stances, but tier four if their skills aren't particularly optimized," or whatever, and that the high in high tier three is meaningless to the endless void of the spreadsheet.

[AnachroNinja]

There is a safe with dimensional, arcane and mechanical locks protecting it. There is a mundane barrier on the ethereal plane occupying the same space as the safe. There is an artifact inside the safe that the level 7 party needs to retrieve.

A level 7 Warblade deletes the back wall of the safe and grabs the artifact. What would a level 7 Bard do in their place?

DFI: Sonic, sunder the safe.

Knock(Wand)

Lantern Archon familiar teleports into the safe and gets the item.(combine with scrying if needed)

Load the safe on Brown Bear ACs back and leave.

Charm someone dumb and strong to break it open.

Grease the safe, tip it on its side and ride it to freedom.

Shatter the safe/lock.

Gaseous Form and open the safe from the inside.

Phantom Steed and carry away the safe

.... That's just from SRD stuff, I can expand if that's not enough. You didn't specify the size of the safe so I assumed like 4'x4'x4' rather then a room size one, but most would work anyway.

[Telok]

Was this an arena game? I think I might know why, in that case.

A Bard completely overshadows a Warblade in any situation that isn't combat. Unless the game is just combat the Warblade is overshadowed. I know combat tends to feel more competitive and thus you make comparisons there; perhaps having the bard able to solve some problem outside of combat is just a relief more than overshadowing to such a class, but it still exists as a major difference which the tiers are meant to represent.

Well my take on this is that bard pretty much overshadows anyone not specced for whatever the bard's non-combat speciality is except for well prepared T1/T2. But the bard has the same non-combat issue that the rogue and sorcerer have, limited skill points and limited spells known on good, big, lists. A social bard, social rogue, social sorcerer are all good at what they're specialized to do. The bard may have a little easier time of it with skill/spell synergy but the other two can be pretty much equally good (Glibness via UMD/list expansion being the most obvious). I mean the bard has concentration, all knowledges beyond local, and spellcraft to the rogue's disable device, forgery, intimidate, open lock, search, spot, and use rope. All other skills are on (or off) both lists. So beyond spells and bardic music SLAs their out of combat options are very similar.

The bard's actual combat ability is almost completely splat based. That won't do people any good if they're in a splat limited game. So barring an all splats game and an online character building guide it's easy to have a bard who is less combat capable than a rogue or ranger. So I have to say that at high optimization/high options bard and warblade/crusader may have similar combat ability, and yes at that level a bard can specialize in a non-combat area and own it better than the ToB classes (except intimidation, interestingly). But at lower levels of optimization and options the ToBs outpace bards in combat easily and can bring some valuable non-combat abilities to the table.

For comparison to barbarian, ranger, paladin I think it's similar. With enough splat support (and being core classes there is enough splat support) and ACFs they can beat the ToB classes at damage, or at something else, or maybe split resources between damage and an out of combat contribution. But that's not so much the class as it is the improved splat options and optimization experience from the forums. The melee classes will out damage a bard at similar levels of optimization and be completely out preformed in non-combat unless it's pretty much just making survival or ride skill checks.

So all the melee warriors are somewhere below the bard for out of combat abilities, mostly because of spells and SLAs obviously but the skill lists are restricted too. The question becomes are the ToBs, compared to the PH warrior classes, a better fit for "very good at solving a few problems" or "very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more" and can they do that for challenges that are 'level appropriate'?

From personal experience survival, ride, and the athletic skills aside from jump and tumble are obsolete at or by level 9. Intimidate is often nearly obsolete or counter productive out of combat and only occasionally useful in combat at the level as well. So the ToB classes out shine the PH warriors on both the skill lists and skill points, which means more non-combat options are available. In combat damage is quite comparable, but the ToB classes have more build flexibility in achieving that damage (I've never seen a dex barbarian or paladin build) and aren't locked into one or two combat tactics by feat chains/combos. That's because they trade out old manoeuvres for higher level ones and supplement the manoeuvres by taking the combat feats like the PH warriors have to. The ToB classes are more resistant to negative effects, mettle, damage pool, the counters (to more than just saves and AC), IHS, some of the stone dragon strikes for DR. The ToB classes are more mobile with the jumps, teleports, charges (no-AoO, flying, jumping, pounce, not in a straight line, allies too), and single attacks that compare well to PA full attacks.

Fine, I'll vote.
Crusader 3
Swordsage 3, 4
Warblade 3

Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin as classes are pretty much aimed at damage dealing and damage taking. Only the Paladin has out of combat abilities that are consistently relevant past level 9. They are entirely dependent on feats and gear to remain competent as levels increase. The two best and easiest damage tactics are charging and full attacks, both are easily and often shut down in the presence of spellcasters. Only Paladins have any native defences against magic. The ToB classes have options and mobility in combat and the same charge/full attack options. They have in class resistance to at least some magic effects. The skill lists and skill points offer them more things to do out of combat and those things remain relevant into the latter part of the game. My only concern is that Swordsages appear to have some MAD issues and an overly restrictive recovery method that, in my gaming group, has always resulted in permanent character death before level 9.

[eggynack]

Do you mean 3,4 in the rank choice voting sense, or in the between three and four sense? In the first case, I'd just put that in as a three, cause we're using a straightforward "Each person has one numerical vote," system, and in the latter it'd probably be a 3.5 or something.

[Dagroth]

When you say "a Barbarian can get magic items to match a Warblade's defensive options", I can say "a Warblade can get magic items to match a Barbarian's damage options". Or I can say "a Warblade can get magic items to severely increase his already impressive defensive options".

You say "a Barbarian can become a Bear Warrior"... I say "a Warblade can become a Master of Nine or an Eternal Blade".

Not to mention that it's easier for a Warblade to get the feats needed to be an Ubercharger than it is for a Barbarian... because the Warblade gets Bonus Feats!

If you want to mix classes in again... which works better, a Bard-barian or a Song of the White Raven Bard/Warblade (or Bard/Crusader)? Which works better, a Rage Mage or a Jade Phoenix Mage? Which works better, a Barbarian/Cleric or a Ruby Knight Vindicator?

[AnachroNinja]

When you say "a Barbarian can get magic items to match a Warblade's defensive options", I can say "a Warblade can get magic items to match a Barbarian's damage options". Or I can say "a Warblade can get magic items to severely increase his already impressive defensive options".

So your argument is that Warblades can get magic items to match a barbarians damage options, while seeming to agree that a barbarian can get magic items to match a Warblades defensive options, and this doesn't seem to suggest that there is, of not a degree of parity between the two, a smaller gap then some have suggested? You're final statement, which is accurate, that a Warblade can use his resources to further increase his defenses, would mean that he didn't use them to match the barbarians damage, again suggesting a see-saw kind of parity between the two.



You say "a Barbarian can become a Bear Warrior"... I say "a Warblade can become a Master of Nine or an Eternal Blade".

Man I even said "just for fun" to make it clear that it wasn't really a serious comment. Bear Warrior isn't even good.


Not to mention that it's easier for a Warblade to get the feats needed to be an Ubercharger than it is for a Barbarian... because the Warblade gets Bonus Feats!

You might want to recheck the Warblade bonus feat list, there isn't much that applies to charging, mostly useful general feats like Imp. Init. And similar IIRC. not saying that's not useful, just not that relevant to charging.



If you want to mix classes in again... which works better, a Bard-barian or a Song of the White Raven Bard/Warblade (or Bard/Crusader)? Which works better, a Rage Mage or a Jade Phoenix Mage? Which works better, a Barbarian/Cleric or a Ruby Knight Vindicator?

I think it says plenty that an extraordinarily high number of melee builds incorporate a barbarian dip whereas warblade dips are mostly obviated by Martial Study.

And really a lot of this is ignoring the fact that in a real game scenario a non Tob character is rarely just a barbarian. He's going to dip Fighter for plenty of bonus feats at the very least because a barbarian doesn't start handicapping himself when he goes outside of his subsystem for anting other then T1 classes.

[Rhyltran]

At this point people are repeating the same arguments. I think people have made good points one way or another. At this point can we tally up the scores and move on to the next grouping? There's hardly anyone knew voting and just like in the other threads we can still vote. Most people who have made their cases are set on their votes.

[Dondasch]

I think it says plenty that an extraordinarily high number of melee builds incorporate a barbarian dip whereas warblade dips are mostly obviated by Martial Study.

It says that a large number of levels in Barbarian don't give you much, but a large number of levels in Warblade do. Basically, Barbarian is frontloaded and Warblade isn't.


And really a lot of this is ignoring the fact that in a real game scenario a non Tob character is rarely just a barbarian. He's going to dip Fighter for plenty of bonus feats at the very least because a barbarian doesn't start handicapping himself when he goes outside of his subsystem for anting other then T1 classes.

So your argument here is that Barbarian a good class because you can leave it for a different class?
The reason the Barbarian isn't handicapping himself by leaving his subsytem is because he doesn't have one.

[remetagross]

Beware guys, dips are not to be considered in this tiering system (either for the class considered taking a dip in another, or being a dip itself). That makes some of the points moot.

[Troacctid]

Besides, I'd argue that Warblade has way more load in the front than Barbarian. Other classes count for half initiator level, so a single level of Warblade can get you 3rd level maneuvers or higher. It just so happens that unlike Barbarian, Warblade also has plenty of load in the middle and the back, too.

[AnachroNinja]

It says that a large number of levels in Barbarian don't give you much, but a large number of levels in Warblade do. Basically, Barbarian is frontloaded and Warblade isn't.



So your argument here is that Barbarian a good class because you can leave it for a different class?
The reason the Barbarian isn't handicapping himself by leaving his subsytem is because he doesn't have one.

Actually I didn't make an argument at all there because I wasn't attaching it to the primary responses on the topic. It was just as note about the actual real game uses of the class. My arguments in reference to the tier system have been purely dealing with single class barbarians, that doesn't mean it's not worth noting that such a character will rarely in fact exist.

Realistically ToB classes aren't much less front loaded then a barbarian. You are not really gaining any large amount of additional options or effects as you level. You generally just exchange manuevers for more effective versions of previous ones after a certain point. Barbarians and other standard melee classes instead scale as a function of BAB/STR growth and the multiplicative nature of their combat feats.

The old argument has always been: Linear Fighters and Quadratic Wizards. ToB does nothing to change this, it just puts a fresh coat of paint on it and let's you feel like your doing a bunch of different things that are mostly all the same thing.

[Gemini476]

On the topic of dips, I got around to doing the maths on Multiclass XP Penalties that I said I was going to do in one of these threads some weeks ago.

Long story short: a -20% dip puts you half a level behind, -40% puts you ~1.3 levels behind, -60% is ~2.4 levels behind, and -80% is ~4-5 levels behind.

A Commoner 20 reaches level 20 in 255 encounters - an Adept 1/Commoner 19 reaches level 20 in 262 encounters. (This seems to be consistent for dips between level 1-7, by the by - I didn't bother mathing it out beyond that, but they all turned roughly the same eventually.)

Favored classes do offset this somewhat, but not entirely - the moment you toss a third dip into the mix (Cleric 1, say) you get the same problems again. And you're more limited in races, of course, unless you want to mentally add a kinda-sorta +1 level adjustment to everything that doesn't have "Favored class: [insert class in build here]".
There's no issues with dipping prestige classes other than excessive prerequisites, though, and if you really want to do an uberdipper 2/2/2/2/etc. build then you can totally do it. You just won't be getting any of the higher-level abilities the classes give you - not even the kinda-underwhelming ones like Weapon Specialization. At least you'll have good Good saves, though?

[MHCD]

Besides, I'd argue that Warblade has way more load in the front than Barbarian. Other classes count for half initiator level, so a single level of Warblade can get you 3rd level maneuvers or higher. It just so happens that unlike Barbarian, Warblade also has plenty of load in the middle and the back, too.

This is where it's at. The more levels in your build before your dip, the more powerful an option warblade becomes, and a warblade will also always do well to take another level of warblade. Additionally, a build comprised of the two classes will be more advantaged to maximize warblade levels at the expense of barbarian levels.

But as this is a straight class vs class comparison, looking at a barbarian versus a warblade at any level, be it low... medium-low... medium-high... high... what do you know, the warblade is always going to have at at least roughly as powerful options, but also many more of them and with a much better ability to make use of them all.

[eggynack]

At this point people are repeating the same arguments. I think people have made good points one way or another. At this point can we tally up the scores and move on to the next grouping? There's hardly anyone knew voting and just like in the other threads we can still vote. Most people who have made their cases are set on their votes.
Doesn't seem like the time yet. Sure, it's a bit static, but there's still a dynamic and consistent conversation flowing. I'm honestly not all that interested in the topic either. Been taking on more of a moderation/thread discussion facilitator role. But as long as topic is happening, I don't see much reason to stop things before the typical five days or so mark. I'm weighing that as a factor, after all. We currently have six of these threads populating the front page, albeit likely in temporary fashion based on addition or alteration of votes rather than through longer form discussion, and I've been trying to keep that number closer to three or four, which actually seems like about where it'll settle at this moment. I don't think the current kinda repetitive nature of things is cause to close things off early. As is, probably expect the sum up post in a day or two, and the NPC thread the day after that.

[Rhyltran]

Doesn't seem like the time yet. Sure, it's a bit static, but there's still a dynamic and consistent conversation flowing. I'm honestly not all that interested in the topic either. Been taking on more of a moderation/thread discussion facilitator role. But as long as topic is happening, I don't see much reason to stop things before the typical five days or so mark. I'm weighing that as a factor, after all. We currently have six of these threads populating the front page, albeit likely in temporary fashion based on addition or alteration of votes rather than through longer form discussion, and I've been trying to keep that number closer to three or four, which actually seems like about where it'll settle at this moment. I don't think the current kinda repetitive nature of things is cause to close things off early. As is, probably expect the sum up post in a day or two, and the NPC thread the day after that.

Fair enough. Thank you for the response.

[Malroth]

It's actualy why i had such a hard time deciding on my vote. Warblades are GOOD at what they do, really really good. Almost but not quite gamebreakingly good. In combat they're keeping up with mid optimization tier ones at times. But the thing they're good at, Hit thing, prevent status effect that would stop me from hitting thing, get free turn to hit thing agian. It doesn't present new options for dealing with different problems in which swording something isn't the answer. And while the Warblade is demonstratably better than the barbarian in 95% of builds it still is solving the exact same problems in the exact same ways even if the Warblade can shrug off a maximized empowered enervation better or is getting an extra 4d6 extra damage a couple times.

[Cosi]

But are still easily shut down if the DM really wants.

Not really, especially once you get mounts and such.


I have other maneuvers as well and doing a ton of damage that is difficult to manage is nice. It also costs waaay less than all the build resources you dedicate to ubercharging.

So? Ubercharging kills them immediately. You don't have to dedicate a lot of resources to killing something over several rounds regardless of build.


A marilith who never misses averages 137 damage a round. Honestly, being able to face tank a marilith while my party members work it over is valuable. Monsters also fling Save-or-sucks and heal cuts through those.

You yourself said you were only getting the strike half the time, so you average 75 points of healing a round. Plus, the Marilith is naturally advantaged because you can't ever heal above full.


Then you can just smash one into oblivion with your 8 full attacks. Power attack a little bit and watch your damage explode! If they move just use your pounce maneuver instead. Either way: damage.

Yes, you can kill one of eight minions in a round. Yay you!


So, can someone explain to me why Barbarian = ubercharger? It's not a trick unique to them, other than Pounce. You can stack a bunch of ubercharging stuff on even CW Samurai. It doesn't mean they make it to T4.

I mean, the real Ubercharger is something like a Fighter/Barbarian/Warblade/Frenzied Berserker, but in a world where only single classed characters exist, rage + pounce is a pretty good start.


There is a safe with dimensional, arcane and mechanical locks protecting it. There is a mundane barrier on the ethereal plane occupying the same space as the safe. There is an artifact inside the safe that the level 7 party needs to retrieve.

A level 7 Warblade deletes the back wall of the safe and grabs the artifact. What would a level 7 Bard do in their place?

One encounter doesn't prove anything. For any pair of classes, you can find some encounter at some level one, but not the other can beat -- in either direction.

[Troacctid]

I think you'd have a pretty hard time finding an encounter that a 7th level Barbarian could beat but a 7th level Warblade couldn't.

[Bucky]

One encounter doesn't prove anything. For any pair of classes, you can find some encounter at some level one, but not the other can beat -- in either direction.


He made the claim that the bard would not merely match but overshadow the Warblade in every scenario.

[Cosi]

I think you'd have a pretty hard time finding an encounter that a 7th level Barbarian could beat but a 7th level Warblade couldn't.

Barbarians get Survival and Handle Animal, while Warblades don't. So, any encounter requiring Survival or Handle Animal would work.


He made the claim that the bard would not merely match but overshadow the Warblade in every scenario.

Oh, in that case, pretend I was quoting him when I made that point and was agreeing with you.

[Dondasch]

I mean, the real Ubercharger is something like a Fighter/Barbarian/Warblade/Frenzied Berserker, but in a world where only single classed characters exist, rage + pounce is a pretty good start.

As I clarified above, the question is "why are Barbarians in these discussions always uberchargers?", not "why are uberchargers in these discussions always Barbarians?"
I'm trying to figure out if the Barbarian even has any other competitive options for combat. Since, given the discussion's focus on uberchargers, I'm really starting to doubt the Barbarian has more than one trick. Meanwhile, as mentioned, the ToB classes get multiple tricks, that are harder to shut down.

[remetagross]

Barbarians get Survival and Handle Animal, while Warblades don't. So, any encounter requiring Survival or Handle Animal would .

Since the Warblade can have Scent, I think he can actually fare quite as well as the Barbarian when it is about tracking. Not all Warblades take that stance, but not all Barbarians invest in Survival either.

And almosr no Barbarian invests in Handle Animal, so I think it's a tie about that skill.

[Bucky]

I hear bear totem barbarians stay relevant as grapplers for a while.

[Telok]

Do you mean 3,4 in the rank choice voting sense, or in the between three and four sense? In the first case, I'd just put that in as a three, cause we're using a straightforward "Each person has one numerical vote," system, and in the latter it'd probably be a 3.5 or something.

Go ahead and put it in as a 3. Just because my table can't produce viable swordsages (weirdly this actually came up last night too*) doesn't mean that they're inherently worse than the other two. I think they're more like scouts, or ninjas, not significantly worse then their peers but easier to screw up and a just enough more fragile that they have survival issues. Of course my table is running a trip build that pushes 75 to 100 damage and a 20+ trip mod on full attacks and a warblade that's investing in reroll abilities to up his crit rate on Greater Insightful Strike, so anything that isn't full BaB and full AC or a full caster tends to struggle a bit.


* We fought one, he lasted longest because we focused on killing the casters first and the minions died off as a side effect. He was KOed, then manacled, dex poisoned to single digits, and put into a spare suit of full plate. After the interrogation we left him for the demons to find. We have a Warhammer Fantasy leak into our D&D game, so we're the good guys because compared to the demons everyone's a good guy. But generally enemy swordsages are on the to-kill list after the other martial adepts and insta-kill builds but before the other melee classes.

Although this brings up an interesting question. When your DM pits your party against classed enemies where are those enemies on your to-kill list? Not just how fast you want to shut them down, because you want the uber-charger stopped on round one and Obscuring Mist can do that, but how fast you want them dead or completely incapacitated. For my party it really is casters>martial adepts>traditional melee. Shutdown is more instant-death builds>casters>super archers>martial adepts>basic melee types, although only martial adepts and casters are ever actually difficult to shut down.

[tyckspoon]

As I clarified above, the question is "why are Barbarians in these discussions always uberchargers?", not "why are uberchargers in these discussions always Barbarians?"
I'm trying to figure out if the Barbarian even has any other competitive options for combat. Since, given the discussion's focus on uberchargers, I'm really starting to doubt the Barbarian has more than one trick. Meanwhile, as mentioned, the ToB classes get multiple tricks, that are harder to shut down.

Whirling Frenzy or Ferocity Rage variants support archery or thrown weapons reasonably well, although since we're talking about Tome of Battle anyway the 'best' approach to ranged Barbarian is probably just doing Bloodstorm Blade.

[danielxcutter]

I hear that Barbarians also make great trippers, while that tactic is still valid.

[Soranar]

Since the argument that a barbarian can only do one thing (ubercharging) keeps coming up, here's a barbarian archer I used in a campaign

Race: Raptoran (to use a footbow)
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Template: Dragonborn of Bahamut (takent at level 5 to maintain flight indefinitely, since you already have flight the mind aspect seems to most useful in this case)

ACF and substitution levels

-take the Dragon totem ACF (trades away a bunch of things, gain frightful presence)
-take the Whirling Frenzy ACF
-take the Lion's roar ACF (trade DR for STR based shaken effect)

Level 1 Point Blank Shot
Level 3 Rapid Shot
Level 6 Hover (lets you full attack when flying)
Level 9 intimidating rage

This was the basis of the build

-scare opponents with frightful presence, roar and intimidating rage
-shoot things

by level 6 you can use a footbow reliably (before that point it's simpler to use a normal composite bow) which lets you add 1.5 times your STR to damage. Obviously this combines well with rage)

if you need to melee for whatever reason, it's best to make your bow elvencraft (becomes a melee weapon when needed) so you have a fallback weapon (counts as a quartestaff so you can use it 2 handed.

Shaken is a great debuf to help your spellcasters (gives a penalty to saving throws) and since you have 3 ways to cause it you don't need to waste combat actions to upgrade it to frightened or panicked. So when you face something you don't want close to you, just use two of them and it'll run away, giving you more time to shoot it. Assuming the enemy isn't immune to fear somehow, you're still flying mind so many opponents can't get to you easily.

[danielxcutter]

Since the argument that a barbarian can only do one thing (ubercharging) keeps coming up, here's a barbarian archer I used in a campaign

Race: Raptoran (to use a footbow)
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Template: Dragonborn of Bahamut (takent at level 5 to maintain flight indefinitely, since you already have flight the mind aspect seems to most useful in this case)

ACF and substitution levels

-take the Dragon totem ACF (trades away a bunch of things, gain frightful presence)
-take the Whirling Frenzy ACF
-take the Lion's roar ACF (trade DR for STR based shaken effect)

Level 1 Point Blank Shot
Level 3 Rapid Shot
Level 6 Hover (lets you full attack when flying)
Level 9 intimidating rage

This was the basis of the build

-scare opponents with frightful presence, roar and intimidating rage
-shoot things

by level 6 you can use a footbow reliably (before that point it's simpler to use a normal composite bow) which lets you add 1.5 times your STR to damage. Obviously this combines well with rage)

if you need to melee for whatever reason, it's best to make your bow elvencraft (becomes a melee weapon when needed) so you have a fallback weapon (counts as a quartestaff so you can use it 2 handed.

Shaken is a great debuf to help your spellcasters (gives a penalty to saving throws) and since you have 3 ways to cause it you don't need to waste combat actions to upgrade it to frightened or panicked. So when you face something you don't want close to you, just use two of them and it'll run away, giving you more time to shoot it. Assuming the enemy isn't immune to fear somehow, you're still flying mind so many opponents can't get to you easily.

On one hand, specific builds won't change the tier of a class by themselves. On the other hand, I wholeheartly agree with you that Barbarians can do much more than charging. They can be chargers, but they can be trippers, archers, demoralizers, grapplers, and probably a few more things that are viable choices in a usual game as well, as long as you know what you're doing.

[Dondasch]

Since the argument that a barbarian can only do one thing (ubercharging) keeps coming up, here's a barbarian archer I used in a campaign

Thanks! (to you and the others I haven't quoted)
Looking at this build, I think I'd actually rather have this than an ubercharger. Archery is more consistent in my experience (though Wind Wall is a pain), and you have a second useful tactic in combat. I'd also rate this as more competitive with a Warblade, especially since archery is something maneuvers don't offer much help with.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Crusader: Mid tier 3. Strongest pure combat class of the three (Warblade is very close behind and surpasses if you ban Crusader from acquiring Stormguard Warrior for some reason). Best maneuver recovery method in the book. Gets healing and some utility maneuvers but not many. Some of the best exclusive stances in the book (Aura of Perfect Order in particular is *at least* as amazing out of combat as it is in combat) and the best maneuver in the book (WR tactics).

Swordsage: High tier 4. Poor swordsage. Up front has a feat tax just to function properly. The BAB, HD, and armor (no, ToB, getting my 4th most important stat to AC is NOT worth giving up an animated heavy shield for) combine to make a squishy melee class forced to hit and run and the bad fort saves don't help, either. Despite being the maneuver guy and having the most known and readied....quality matters over quantity, and I'm sorry but...WR Tactics and IH Surge are worth more than most other maneuvers in the book combined. You can and probably will use maneuvers to cover for your many weaknesses (Mind Over Body for the fort save, Sudden Leap to get the heck out of melee, etc...), but in doing so you forfeit your one supposed advantage and come to grips with by far the worst maneuver recovery method in the book (and I'm talking about Adaptive Style "recovery"...the actual Swordsage recovery isn't even worthy of being discussed). It's not a bad class, just a bad martial adept.

Warblade: Higher tier 3: While slightly below Crusader for raw combat power, it's very close behind and makes up for it by having both of the book's game-breaking maneuvers and a good assortment of utility options as well. Maneuver recovery is not as good as Crusader's, but nearly as good. Less utility options than Swordsage, but still gets a wide range of them and without sacrificing combat ability one bit. It's 2nd to one of the other two classes in nearly everything, but it's such a close 2nd in each case that the sum total puts it in first place. Potent warrior with plenty of tools to be well-rounded outside of combat as well.

[Aimeryan]

Since the argument that a barbarian can only do one thing (ubercharging) keeps coming up...

It isn't that the Barbarian can only do one build, it is that it can only do build at a time and nothing else. If two Barbarians meet they may both be strong at different things, but they'll both only be strong at their respective one thing.

The TOB classes are strong at multiple things at the same time, although still limited pretty much to combat (a few exceptions exist).

The Bard is strong at multiple things at the same time, and at least competent at a few more. Their range is less narrow as well, since it doesn't just focus on combat.

[AnachroNinja]

It isn't that the Barbarian can only do one build, it is that it can only do build at a time and nothing else. If two Barbarians meet they may both be strong at different things, but they'll both only be strong at their respective one thing.

The TOB classes are strong at multiple things at the same time, although still limited pretty much to combat (a few exceptions exist).

The Bard is strong at multiple things at the same time, and at least competent at a few more. Their range is less narrow as well, since it doesn't just focus on combat.

Actually a lot of charge builds include intimidating rage/never outnumbered style tricks to throw fear stacking abilities around. It's not terribly difficult to include Imp Trip whether via feat or wolf totem. And you're still passable at archery, grappling, and normal attacks just by virtue of being high strength and full BAB.

There's a lot of room between 500 damage on a charge and "complete incompetent who can't do anything".

[Cosi]

I'm trying to figure out if the Barbarian even has any other competitive options for combat. Since, given the discussion's focus on uberchargers, I'm really starting to doubt the Barbarian has more than one trick. Meanwhile, as mentioned, the ToB classes get multiple tricks, that are harder to shut down.

As other people point out, there are other options. I just pick on the Ubercharger because it's simple, effective, and well known. I also don't think it matters how many options you have. If you imagine a world where all enemies are either Demons or Dragons, having a spell "kill anything" is exactly as effective as having two spells "kill a demon" and "kill a dragon". The focus on "options" tends to miss the point in my view.


Since the Warblade can have Scent, I think he can actually fare quite as well as the Barbarian when it is about tracking. Not all Warblades take that stance, but not all Barbarians invest in Survival either.

And almosr no Barbarian invests in Handle Animal, so I think it's a tie about that skill.

I think people are overestimating the strength of the point I'm making. I'm not saying that there are competitive builds for every class, just that you can contrive some situation where a class is better than another class. Essentially, the claim is just that no PC class is strictly better than another. That doesn't mean that in practice you won't always want a Warblade rather than a Barbarian or a Bard rather than a Warblade or a Druid rather than a Monk. Just that at the limit of infinite narrowness there exists some situation where a Monk can do a thing a Druid can't/

[Aimeryan]

Actually a lot of charge builds include intimidating rage/never outnumbered style tricks to throw fear stacking abilities around. It's not terribly difficult to include Imp Trip whether via feat or wolf totem. And you're still passable at archery, grappling, and normal attacks just by virtue of being high strength and full BAB.

There's a lot of room between 500 damage on a charge and "complete incompetent who can't do anything".

That is true, but they are not strong at those things while also being strong at charging, at least not relatively. There is the issue as well that such builds lean more towards being high op, because of not being easily stumbled upon, which we know just by item choice will pretty much get you to Tier 3 regardless of class.

I do agree, though, that at low-mid levels (around 6) a lot of Barbarians will be strong chargers and trippers, but tripping tends to fall off without considering items and spells (and even then...).

[AnachroNinja]

That is true, but they are not strong at those things while also being strong at charging, at least not relatively. There is the issue as well that such builds lean more towards being high op, because of not being easily stumbled upon, which we know just by item choice will pretty much get you to Tier 3 regardless of class.

I do agree, though, that at low-mid levels (around 6) a lot of Barbarians will be strong chargers and trippers, but tripping tends to fall off without considering items and spells (and even then...).

I agree, there's even factors like number of NPC opponent's vs large monsters and so forth. It is nebulous area to try to define. I guess part of my issue is just the disconnect I see with the high op vs "stumble into stuff" idea. It feels sometimes like it essentially penalizes choice. How would we rate a new class, the UberBarbarian. He's just like a barbarian except he doesn't get normal feats. Instead he gets a bonus feat at 1,3,6,9 etc. And the bonus feats are PA/ leap attack, imp bull rush, shock trooper.

Is it a better class because of its "high floor" because it's automatically optimized? Or is it a worse class because it can't be anything else? Just seems screwy to me.

[Firechanter]

Swordsage: High tier 4. Poor swordsage. Up front has a feat tax just to function properly. The BAB, HD, and armor (no, ToB, getting my 4th most important stat to AC is NOT worth giving up an animated heavy shield for) combine to make a squishy melee class forced to hit and run and the bad fort saves don't help, either. Despite being the maneuver guy and having the most known and readied....quality matters over quantity, and I'm sorry but...WR Tactics and IH Surge are worth more than most other maneuvers in the book combined. You can and probably will use maneuvers to cover for your many weaknesses (Mind Over Body for the fort save, Sudden Leap to get the heck out of melee, etc...), but in doing so you forfeit your one supposed advantage and come to grips with by far the worst maneuver recovery method in the book (and I'm talking about Adaptive Style "recovery"...the actual Swordsage recovery isn't even worthy of being discussed). It's not a bad class, just a bad martial adept.


Hear, hear!

As I said earlier in the thread, I have never seen a Swordsage in actual play, but I did hear complaints, both from friends and online, about them not working as well as advertised. Personally it has simply been the least appealing to me of all ToB classes. Generally I'm always skeptical when I see a combat class with 3/4 BAB. The feat tax certainly doesn't make it better.
Yet everyone on the forums went on about how the Swordsage was the best of them... I never could see it, but kept my mouth shut, and thought I was just too daft to see it.
So, in short, I am inclined to agree with your analysis. However, since I have no actual play experience with the class, I am still abstaining from my vote in that regard.

[Troacctid]

I have seen Swordsages in play and I too agree that they're the weakest of the three. But they're definitely still T3, IMO.

[arclance]

I have played a Swordsage and Warblade and can say Swordsage it is definitely the weakest at combat of the 3 ToB base classes.
Medium base attack bonus and no (or a very low number of, away from book) bonus feats make building for melee annoyingly difficult.
If your DM likes to scale enemy AC to "Challenge" the Full BAB party members hitting often enough to contribute can become an issue because of the Medium BAB.

The high number of skills and useful out of combat maneuvers makes it at least equal and probably better (depending on what comes up in play) than the Crusader and Warblade out of combat.

[Aimeryan]

The tiers are not merely about combat effectiveness - this goes even further relating to dealing damage to enemies, which is only one solution to combat.

The Swordsage may not put out the numbers of the other two, but it still has multiple effective ways of going about combat. Furthermore, it has more out-of-combat solutions to problems. This is why it rates higher (and some may argue tiers higher) - it solves more problems than the other two.

It is true, if the campaign is merely a contest of who can hit the hardest then Swordsage would probably only be Tier 4; thankfully there is more to most campaigns than just that.

I'm not voting, but if I was I would vote like this:

Bard: Tier 2.5
Swordsage: Tier 3
Crusader: Tier 3
Warblade: Tier 3.5
Barbarian: Tier 4

[eggynack]

About the right time for vote tallying. Everything landed in tier three, as was expected, though notably with the opposite ordering of the one proposed by the original tier system (either the base one or the why each class is in its tier thread). Next thread should come tomorrow, very likely covering the six NPC classes. Should be interesting. As usual, votes and talk can still go on in this thread.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hear, hear!

As I said earlier in the thread, I have never seen a Swordsage in actual play, but I did hear complaints, both from friends and online, about them not working as well as advertised. Personally it has simply been the least appealing to me of all ToB classes. Generally I'm always skeptical when I see a combat class with 3/4 BAB. The feat tax certainly doesn't make it better.
Yet everyone on the forums went on about how the Swordsage was the best of them... I never could see it, but kept my mouth shut, and thought I was just too daft to see it.
So, in short, I am inclined to agree with your analysis. However, since I have no actual play experience with the class, I am still abstaining from my vote in that regard.
Yeah, I don't get it. I love the Swordsage and its my kind of style, I love the flashy, somersaulting martial arts stuff. But it's clearly the weakest of the three to me.
I've played each ToB class multiple times, for what it's worth. Crusader less often than the other two because I find the heavy armor slow moving hard-hitting sort of "style" boring and their recovery mechanic is annoying to deal with (I play online; face to face you could just use cards).


I have seen Swordsages in play and I too agree that they're the weakest of the three. But they're definitely still T3, IMO.
They're borderline, IMO. I don't mind which side they fall on, though.


The high number of skills and useful out of combat maneuvers makes it at least equal and probably better (depending on what comes up in play) than the Crusader and Warblade out of combat.
They get a whopping 2 more skill points than Crusader and Warblade, and are more MAD than those two (and Warblade actually values Int), so the Swordsage probably has an Int mod 1 lower than them. And what sort of noncombat roles do they fill with these skill points? They can be scouts, but that's a FOUR skill investment (spot, listen, hide, MS). They really don't get much beyond that compared to the other ToB class's skill lists. Plus their disciplines more often require actual skill investment to use than the Crusader (none of his do!) or Warblade.


The tiers are not merely about combat effectiveness - this goes even further relating to dealing damage to enemies, which is only one solution to combat.

The Swordsage may not put out the numbers of the other two, but it still has multiple effective ways of going about combat. Furthermore, it has more out-of-combat solutions to problems. This is why it rates higher (and some may argue tiers higher) - it solves more problems than the other two.
I put Warblade above Crusader specifically because it's more well-rounded.
What out of combat problems is the Swordsage solving? People keep saying this and no one backs it up w/ examples.

They can teleport, and that's big. But you can grab Shape Soulmeld (Blink Shirt) or cheap MIC items to do that. They can turn invisible...till end of turn, yeah, that's a combat ability. They can set things on fire at will, that's...using combat to solve noncombat problems, I suppose, similar to Mountain Hammer being the hammer to everything looking like a nail... They can get scent and blindsense...so can Warblade. What else?
And while you answer, tell me what cheap magic item or low level feat lets the Swordsage replicate WR Tactics. Belt of Battle is pricy and doesn't even come close.

[GilesTheCleric]

What out of combat problems is the Swordsage solving? People keep saying this and no one backs it up w/ examples.

I can't speak to everyone else, but the swordsage in my game cleared a log jam by throwing a tree, and has been making heavy use of the teleport to navigate river/ raft/ banks. They're still at fairly low levels, though, so perhaps the utility will trail off.

[Lans]

They can teleport, and that's big. But you can grab Shape Soulmeld (Blink Shirt) or cheap MIC items to do that. They can turn invisible...till end of turn, yeah, that's a combat ability. They can set things on fire at will, that's...using combat to solve noncombat problems, I suppose, similar to Mountain Hammer being the hammer to everything looking like a nail... They can get scent and blindsense...so can Warblade. What else?
And while you answer, tell me what cheap magic item or low level feat lets the Swordsage replicate WR Tactics. Belt of Battle is pricy and doesn't even come close.

Blink Shirt is like 10 feet per essentia.

2 Martial scripts seem pretty cheap, use one of those then get a novice crown for WRT. For 1550gp it seems like a steal.

[Firechanter]

#1, Novice items are 3k, but anyway, that's still cheap.
#2, however, Martial Scripts are definitely NOT meant to qualify as prereqs for learning maneuvers!!

So if anything, the SS needs to pick up WR maneuvers via Martial Study, then can get one more by Crown.

The other way round works much better, in my experience: be a Warblade, and Martial Study one or two of the Teleports (Move Action or better), as they have no prereqs. Profit from much better Refresh.

[Troacctid]

Eh, Warblades have so few readied maneuvers, though. Losing a feat slot and a maneuver slot is a lot of opportunity cost. I'm not a fan.

[DEMON]

I'd put all 3 in T3, placing the Warblade the highest of the three.

[Zaq]

I have played a Swordsage and Warblade and can say Swordsage it is definitely the weakest at combat of the 3 ToB base classes.
Medium base attack bonus and no (or a very low number of, away from book) bonus feats make building for melee annoyingly difficult.
If your DM likes to scale enemy AC to "Challenge" the Full BAB party members hitting often enough to contribute can become an issue because of the Medium BAB.

The high number of skills and useful out of combat maneuvers makes it at least equal and probably better (depending on what comes up in play) than the Crusader and Warblade out of combat.

That's why I made the rankings that I did (Swordsage mid T3, Warblade/Crusader low T3). The Swordsage is worse at combat than the other two, but it's still good enough at combat to earn its ranking, and it's got more flexibility out of combat under most circumstances.