Warblade in Pathfinder


Homebrew and House Rules


I'm porting over the Warblade from ToB to Pathfinder, and I'm curious about balancing it. The rogue got a lot stronger, as did the paladin, and the casters haven't really gotten any worse (sor/wiz have gotten better, possibly), so I'm looking to bring the martial adepts over to compete. Would it be feasible to grant the Warblade the PF fighter's Weapon and Armor Training (at slightly adjusted levels, probably) and/or a few bonus feats to try to make them competitive with the rogue, if not quite with casters?

Thanks!
E3


They will get a power boost from the change in feats to every odd level rather than every third level to start with. Personally, I'd just allow them to actually use a missile weapon and call it a day. If that isn't enough you can always add in stuff later.

Any changes should be minor and try to keep the flavor of the class as written. And remember that is always easier to add in stuff later than it is to take things away once they are there. The former is seen as a correction, the latter may very well be seen as a punishment, even though it is not.


Warblade is pretty fine off as is, to be honest. It's power comes from maneuvers, which don't really need to see a change. The increased number of feats is a huge boon for non-casters, so that's probably the biggest upgrade the warblade will get - and the only one he needs.


I agree with Jason, I wouldn't really add anything. Skill consolidation and extra feats are already going to help the Warblade, and while I haven't played one in a game, the general consensus seemed to be that they were already stronger, or at least more versatile, than 3.5 Fighters and Rogues in combat. I don't think those two classes got so many new features that they've left the Warblade behind. I would definitely try the Warblade as-is (well, with the skill and feat changes of course) before giving it anything extra.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:

They will get a power boost from the change in feats to every odd level rather than every third level to start with. Personally, I'd just allow them to actually use a missile weapon and call it a day. If that isn't enough you can always add in stuff later.

Any changes should be minor and try to keep the flavor of the class as written. And remember that is always easier to add in stuff later than it is to take things away once they are there. The former is seen as a correction, the latter may very well be seen as a punishment, even though it is not.

Thanks for your suggestions. I've always regarded the idea that warblades can't used ranged weapons as a mistake anyway. The trouble with relying on increased number of feats from the PF conversion to power up the class is that it's applied to all the classes, and doesn't help melee fighters quite as much now that the combat maneuver feats have been split.

Scarab Sages

The Warblade rocks as it is.
I think the added feats from the PFRPG progression will be fine.
If you want to have him able to use a ranged weapon, give it a go.
I'd try it without modifications first. Then change it if you think it won't work.


any adjustments you make just remember that all the existing base classes gain something every level.


So if I add weapon/armor training, I should fit them in a dead level?

Another thought: add nothing but proficiency with heavy armor. Thoughts?


EpicEvokerElf wrote:

So if I add weapon/armor training, I should fit them in a dead level?

Another thought: add nothing but proficiency with heavy armor. Thoughts?

yes, like i said as of now no class has dead levels in pathfinder so if you want it to be comparable to pathfinder that's what i would do, you may want to downgrade some of the warblades abilities just to balance it a bit.

what exactly do you mean by nothing but heavy armor proficiency? do you mean no weapon proficiencies?


EpicEvokerElf wrote:

So if I add weapon/armor training, I should fit them in a dead level?

Another thought: add nothing but proficiency with heavy armor. Thoughts?

Honestly, even the heavy armor is probably too much.

Warblade already advances every level with their maneuvers - spellcasting classes don't worry about dead levels, neither do ToB classes.

Additional feats gives Warblade a gigantic advantage in the form of Martial Study.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
EpicEvokerElf wrote:

So if I add weapon/armor training, I should fit them in a dead level?

Another thought: add nothing but proficiency with heavy armor. Thoughts?

Honestly, even the heavy armor is probably too much.

Warblade already advances every level with their maneuvers - spellcasting classes don't worry about dead levels, neither do ToB classes.

Additional feats gives Warblade a gigantic advantage in the form of Martial Study.

no class worries about dead levels, even spell-caster get something every level, i haven't look at the warblade in a while but in 3.5 there wasn't a single class that gained something every level which is one of the best things about pathfinder.


Hmm ... in the interest of leaving the Fighter some unique qualities, I'm going to say you NOT give his "kit" to the Warblade.

Make up something else if needed, but do NOT rip weapon training or armor training for them.


northbrb wrote:
no class worries about dead levels, even spell-caster get something every level, i haven't look at the warblade in a while but in 3.5 there wasn't a single class that gained something every level which is one of the best things about pathfinder.

What does a Wizard get at 2nd level? What does a Sorcerer get at 10th level? What does a Cleric get at 6th level? Gaining new spells at each level seems to be considered sufficient under PRD as far as "something cool each level". Martial maneuvers and stances would apply in this way.

I see no need to improve on the BoNS base classes in order to use them in PRD. You might need to convert the "smite" ability of the crusader to function in some way like the paladin's, and you have to remove some skills and such, but otherwise they don't really need to be improved to be on par with existing classes.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Hmm ... in the interest of leaving the Fighter some unique qualities, I'm going to say you NOT give his "kit" to the Warblade.

Make up something else if needed, but do NOT rip weapon training or armor training for them.

all in all i do agree with this, if the warblade has some dead levels come up with somthing new for them, i always follow the rule when making a new class, never give them a core ability of another class.


As others have pointed out, there really isn't anything that the Warblade should get to cover "dead levels" because they gain new maneuvers as they advance. Wizards, sorcerers, and druids all have dead levels, and the cleric gets an advancement of a class ability that they get at 1st level, for example.


KnightErrantJR wrote:

As others have pointed out, there really isn't anything that the Warblade should get to cover "dead levels" because they gain new maneuvers as they advance. Wizards, sorcerers, and druids all have dead levels, and the cleric gets an advancement of a class ability that they get at 1st level, for example.

the warblaed has 4 levels they don't gain something, 8th, 12th, 14th, 18th level, but if you look at the other classes they gain something every level even if it is more spells for existing spell levels or new spell levels altogether or even improvements to existing abilities.


northbrb wrote:
the warblaed has 4 levels they don't gain something, 8th, 12th, 14th, 18th level, but if you look at the other classes they gain something every level even if it is more spells for existing spell levels or new spell levels altogether or even improvements to existing abilities.

Classes are also supposed to get something cool at level 20, but the cleric doesn't. If you feel that those four levels are a major concern then give the warblade one extra known maneuver at each of those levels. Not an extra readied, just an extra known, and no more stances. With all those extra feats he or she can pick up the extra stuff they want along the way.


northbrb wrote:


the warblaed has 4 levels they don't gain something, 8th, 12th, 14th, 18th level, but if you look at the other classes they gain something every level even if it is more spells for existing spell levels or new spell levels altogether or even improvements to existing abilities.

True . . . so, let me posit this. Instead of adding anything to the Warblade, wouldn't it make more sense if we looked at level where the Warblade gets more than one thing and move those "somethings" into other levels?

Its probably not as popular, because in some cases these would actually make the Warblade a little weaker at a given level. Personally, the class works as it is, and while its nice to match up 100% with Pathfinder norms, if you can't do it with something that's logical or easily implemented, I'd leave it as it.


i think that would work just fine, for me i feel that if you are going to update a class or make a new one you should follow the patterns of the existing classes. i think just moving some of the classes abilities around should work fine.


Well ... {@Knight} it's not exactly just move/lower ability like for PF. Look at the Barbarian - they just tossed on Rage Powers whole-sale to the existing framework (changed nothing, really), and at that, the rage powers even couple with existing other abilities at times.

None of that saves the class from the final release nerfs, but hey - what can you do?

Point being, I'd leave the progression as is and, if anything, add in to those few levels something that seems to fit and makes sense w/out stepping on some other classes toes.

{I really know next to nothing of the warblade, though the system of maneuvers itself made me feel ill when I first encountered it and read it ... so ... yeah}


Thought: Cut the part of Weapon Aptitude that lets you switch weapon-specific feats, add heavy armor proficiency. Workable?

I need to get my copy of ToB back before considering the dead levels and whether they need anything. They're all even, so no feats... Bonus "combat feats?" Extra maneuvers known?

@Speaker: The reason I was considering taking Weapon/Armor Training is that like it or not, the fighter is still vastly underpowered, and I'd like what seem to be nifty abilities to see some play. I gather from the response that it's a bad idea. Consider it dropped.


EpicEvokerElf wrote:

Thought: Cut the part of Weapon Aptitude that lets you switch weapon-specific feats, add heavy armor proficiency. Workable?

I need to get my copy of ToB back before considering the dead levels and whether they need anything. They're all even, so no feats... Bonus "combat feats?" Extra maneuvers known?

@Speaker: The reason I was considering taking Weapon/Armor Training is that like it or not, the fighter is still vastly underpowered, and I'd like what seem to be nifty abilities to see some play. I gather from the response that it's a bad idea. Consider it dropped.

Eh, I dunno. Weapon Aptitude is actually one of my favorite abilities - it helps show the warblade as being a variable fighter who can grab a weapon, practice it for a few minutes, and pick up how to use it very well.


If the powers aren't 100% set in stone where they occur, I think this is what I would do.

Take Battle Cunning (damage) from 7th level and bump it to 8th level.

Take Battle Skill (opposed checks)(which has to work a little differently now) from 11th level to 12th level.

Move Battle Mastery (AoO) down to 14th level from 15th level.

18th then becomes the only real issue, since there isn't anything "nearby" in levels to switch around.

The class already has a capstone in Stance Mastery.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised that the initial design work didn't take this into account, given that the guys at WOTC were already discussing dead levels and trying to eliminate them at this time, and none of these switches seem to do a lot to change the overall power level of the class.

EpicEvokerElf wrote:
Thought: Cut the part of Weapon Aptitude that lets you switch weapon-specific feats, add heavy armor proficiency. Workable?

I think part of the feel of the Warblade is that, normally speaking, he's a more mobile fighter that doesn't clank around in plate. I really wouldn't upgrade their armor access, especially since they already get a d12 hit dice.


@KnightErrantJR: I do like your suggestions. I also see what you're saying about the armor. I may just dip a level of fighter for heavy armor (heading to Deepstone Sentinel or DD or a hybrid thereof) and an extra feat (Martial Study?). Thanks!


Well, thought I'd follow up; my DM decided to give me heavy armor and ranged weapons essentially without prompting. I didn't ask for more after that. Thanks for your suggestions, everyone!


Well, I thought of an answer to the dead-level question: bump maneuvers up to even-numbered levels rather than odd. They won't coincide with feats in Pathfinder, and they'll eliminate every single current dead level (while only creating one more, at 19th).

Progression would be 3-4-4-5-5-6-6etc or 3-4-5-5-6-6-7-8-8-9-9etc. (Either shift the whole progression back one level by not gaining the fifth known until level 4 or shift everything back one level starting at level 8 (gain 8th one level earlier), which doesn't take effect until the dead levels start showing up. I prefer the latter, because it doesn't disrupt the earlier levels.


To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered even if you put them directly in scale with the PF core classes, despite the fact that they are nothing else than mobile walking hulks that can initiate maneuvers in other words "cast spells" like a wizard or sorcerer does.
So to say the truth, yes I like them, but also I hate them too. Why? Well, if you put all ToB Base Classes to scale with Wizards and Sorcerers, I would definitly say - no more cryouts arround the fighter/melee/tank-world because they are now even in powers. The only exception is the versatility of spells from mages, but therefore Crusaders, Swordsages & Warblades have more Hitpoints, more Skillpoints, Initiator Level = Caster Level = same as Wizard/Cleric/Druid and not as much empty Levels as True Caster Classes have anyway.
Nothing to blame on, but what about the rest of non-caster or low-caster classes?

My personal opinion on the first look would be, No to ToB or ToM classes in PFrpg! But that would be the hard rule, and since PFrpg is "adaptable" to any d20 campaign setting, this late 3.5 source books were great works for most of us (I have them too) that would be a pitty not to implement them to PFrpg. I've done by myself a progression to completely integrate at least the Maneuver System in the PFrpg in some manner, still beta but I think I am in final state. So if someone wants to learn maneuvers, all martial classes should have the same opportunity to do so if they like to.
I've done as a DM some alternate rules, to get for my crew Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade running if they would like to choose one of them to play:

1.Option: PF skills standardization, no empty levels, put some minor changes + bonus feats but therefore deleted completly maneuvers/stance progression - see below:

1.1 Created 5 "Maneuver Combat" feats that provide the whole maneuver thingy. Beginning with "Insightful Combat Maneuvers", then "Improved Insightful Combat Maneuvers", followed up by "Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers" and "Improved Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers" as well as "Greater Disciplinized Combat Maneuvers". If you are interested in these feats I will post the full text ofc as soon as I have tranlsated them into english. Short version is - by choosing the above feats you allow your character to use your Combat Maneuver Bonus as a base element for calculating your maneuvers known/readied as well as stances known/readied. That way, nearly any martial class has the chance to take a path as a Initiator of maneuvers. Exception is the non ToB classes are limited only to 1 martial school and are based on the themes that the crusader, swordsage and warblade share.
ie:
1.1.1: a rogue/monk could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: desert wind, diamond mind, setting sun, shadow hand, stone dragon or tiger claw. They are limited to 1 stance known.
1.1.2: a fighter/barbarian could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: diamond mind, iron heart, stone dragon, tiger claw or white raven. They are limited to 1 stance known.
1.1.3: a paladin/ranger could learn maneuvers/stances from one of the listed schools: devoted spirit, stone dragon or white raven. They are limited to 1 stance known.
1.1.4: Characters must choose the above feats if they want to get access to maneuvers and stances.
1.1.5: crusader/swordsage/warblade still have same rules about learning from martial schools, and are still limited to stances as indicated in their description.

2.Option: PF skills standardization, still empty levels, put no minor changes and no bonus feats but therefore the maneuvers/stance progression stays as it is, non ToB martial classes still have the opportunity to use rules from 1.1.1 - 1.1.4:

Hope you understood what I've written so far, because that's not my native language ;) and I've the problem too speak 4 more different too.

Greets
ultimate_illusionist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hell ya - 4 focused illusionist/
10 master specialist/
4 shadowcraft mage/
2 nightmare spinner
[Spells per Day without bonus spells:] 0x7,1x7,2x7,3x7,4x7,5x7,6x7,7x7,8x7,9x7
[Spells per Day without bonus spells:]
0x10,1x10,2x9,3x9,4x9,5x9,6x9,7x8,7x8,8x8
XD


ultimate_illusionist wrote:
To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered ...

Why so? I only ask because I was compiling a list of the why people don't allow ToB, but I got lazy and stopped. I am not saying some powers are not poorly written, but so are many core spells.

If you respond list all possible reasons since I don't want to derail the thread. I can probably reply in one post.


Did someone just say that Tome of Magic should be disallowed for power reasons?

What is this I don't even


when the ToB come out i was sooo happy, finally i could play a combat character that was on par with the power of a spell caster.

all the way up till pathfinder i felt that combat characters were left behind in the power department and it felt more like dnd was biased towards spell caster, this is simply my feeling on the matter and i know other people don't feel the same so I'm not here to argue this fact just giving the way i felt back in the old 3.x days.

i do feel that in pathfinder this is gone so i have no problems with the balance of combat characters and spell casters.


ToB really does need to be revamped - the maneuvers need to be rewritten to be more clear about what is or is not a supernatural effect (teleportation is not?) and so on. Healing others as an Ex ability seems off-kilter to me as well.

Is a warblade more powerful than a fighter at level 1 and level 20? Hard to say, though I suspect the answer is yes if the fighter specializes in melee combat. No doubt a warblade vs a ranged fighter in ranged combat will heavily favour the fighter, and so on.


IMO, Warblade does fine without changes (except the skill things: Concentration, a very important skill for Diamond Mind maneuvers, has gone - maybe changing that to perception suits you as well as me).

And - there are no dead levels. At each even numbered level starting at 4th, they can change a lower level maneuver to the highest level that is available to them - what every sane warblade does. This is on par with the sorcerers spell swap mechanic, and very powerful.

I really like weapon aptitude, and wondered why it wasn't ported over to pathfinder for the fighter... but since he now has armor training, another very nice class ability, both have something great and unique. Which is good for me.


+1 as is.
+1 perception for concentration.

Classes were upped partially BECAUSE classes like Warblade came out during Wizard's 3.5 end run.


I allow the ToB classes in my game, though I did change the way the crusader gets manuevers. He just has manuevers readied and known at my table, and a recovery method equivalent to the warblade. I didnt like the random method as it slowed the game down and required too much book keeping.


wraithstrike wrote:
ultimate_illusionist wrote:
To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered ...

Why so? I only ask because I was compiling a list of the why people don't allow ToB, but I got lazy and stopped. I am not saying some powers are not poorly written, but so are many core spells.

If you respond list all possible reasons since I don't want to derail the thread. I can probably reply in one post.

yo dude, no offense...as I said, I like ToB too, but as I told before it needs to be at least a fairness between combat and spellcaster classes!

And I think in PFrpg there is plenty of improvement for combat oriented classes. If someone is not that guess, ToM should be offered for players too...

Even if you guys or I don't change class progression etc. ...the CMB is a great feature to integrate "MARTIAL ART" like systems as it is introduced in ToB into your campaigns!

greets
ultimate_illusionist


ultimate_illusionist wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
ultimate_illusionist wrote:
To be honest with you all my dear PF-friends, my personal feeling about this whole thing is that the core classes in Tome of Battle are still overpowered ...

Why so? I only ask because I was compiling a list of the why people don't allow ToB, but I got lazy and stopped. I am not saying some powers are not poorly written, but so are many core spells.

If you respond list all possible reasons since I don't want to derail the thread. I can probably reply in one post.

yo dude, no offense...as I said, I like ToB too, but as I told before it needs to be at least a fairness between combat and spellcaster classes!

And I think in PFrpg there is plenty of improvement for combat oriented classes. If someone is not that guess, ToM should be offered for players too...

Even if you guys or I don't change class progression etc. ...the CMB is a great feature to integrate "MARTIAL ART" like systems as it is introduced in ToB into your campaigns!

greets
ultimate_illusionist

I am not upset at all. I never even had a problem with it in 3.5, and with the classes getting stronger in pathfinder it should be less of an issue. There were some poorly written abilities. I think Iron Heart Surge was a leading contender for that title, but its not too hard to fix.

I only asked why to see what the issues may have been. I also realize group dynamics can make something overpowered for a particular group, while it works perfectly well for another group. I am not saying you are "doing it wrong" or anything like that.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Warblade in Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules