Warblade Conversion - A different take

[Ringanomnom]

Greetings fellow Pathfinders / players! I am Ringanomnom, and I am relatively new here on the forums (actually, I just signed up). Forgive me for bringing up such a topic, which I am sure has been gone over a lot of times. I could not find a more 'updated' thread, and I don't like want to necro old threads. But before some of you decide to plant an axe to my face, I just want to say that this is mainly for my own little homebrew. But rather than keep it to myself, I thought of sharing it with everyone, and try to get some feedback on it. So, please, help me out, and let's keep the destructive criticism to a minimum :)

Note: I do not have a document or anything on me, so this may look a little confusing.

HD: d12 (Although some have suggested this be dropped down to a d10)
BAB: Full, just as the Fighter
Saves: Same as the Fighters, although I have seen some add Reflex as well
Skills: PF equivalents, not sure if I should change something here

Class Features

Weapon Aptitude: Still the same, gained at 1st level, but not sure if I should expand it to fill in some gaps (see 'Pseudo-Weapon Training').

Combat Prowess: Gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC at 2nd level; this increases every four levels, to a max of +5 by 18th level. Note: this mimics the placement of the Fighter's Bravery. I dropped Uncanny Dodge and Imp. Uncanny Dodge.

Battle Skills: I spread it out 'evenly', but that means you get them a little later. Battle Clarity is gained at 3rd, and the others follow every four levels). Note: This mimics the placement of the Fighter's Armor Training. So...

3rd - Battle Clarity
7th - Battle Ardor
11th - Battle Cunning
15th - Battle Skills
19th - Battle Mastery

Bonus Feats: Pushed it up a level (or is that dropped?), and is gained every 4 levels (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th). Notice the additional one at 20th? Just to go with the 'pattern'.

Maneuvers Learned / Known: I, err, do not how to explain the spread. Rather than keeping it at 3-4-5-5-6-6... and so on, I changed it to something like 4-4-5-5 (becoming around 13-13 by 19th to 20th). For Known, I found the spread weird, so I changed it to 3-3-3-3-4-4-4-4 (becoming 7-7-7-7 from 17th to 20th). True, the advantage of learning more Maneuvers early on is made moot and that you get more 'Maneuvers Known' earlier, but the numbers do not go beyond the original count.

Stances Gained: This is where the problem begins. I wanted to keep the same number of stances as the original (4 stances by 20th level), but that meant making some weird spread. So, for now, I changed it - gain the first stance at 1st level; gain a new stance every four levels. Thus gaining a fifth stance by 17th level. Any thoughts on this? Note: Stance Mastery stays at 20th level as normal.

'Pseudo-Weapon Training': After filling everything up, I noticed that 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th are still blank. By following the 'Fighter Archetype' notion, these levels are where the Weapon Training class features are. Rather than give the same Weapon Training, I thought of expanding the Weapon Aptitude through these levels, like giving a free Weapon Focus / Weapon Spec or something. Any thoughts?

So there you have my friends. Let me know what you fellows think.
Thanks, fellow Pathfinders XD

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think there was nothing wrong with the original class. Other than the timing of the 2nd stance being 4th level instead of 5th-6th.

[Ringanomnom]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I think there was nothing wrong with the original class. Other than the timing of the 2nd stance being 4th level instead of 5th-6th.

Well, in a way yeah, but I just wanted to fix it around. Like I said, it's a homebrew project, but I am just asking for feedback on it. So, what are your thoughts?

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think the original is fine...

Your stance progression is a modest improvement, your maneuver changes is hard to understand w/o the table. I see no reason to push back the "+Int to something" features. I like Uncanny Dodge, it's actually interesting, unlike another boring +1 bonus (and if you think +1 save vs. fear is anywhere near as good as +1 AC, you're nuts). Speaking of boring +1 bonuses....I see no need to give WB weapon training.

I don't particularly like this whole "dead levels" fad where people feel compelled to fill up every single level with something. Even if that something ends up being a meaningless little thing no one ever cares about. Having a ton of dead levels is certainly bad, but the other extreme, filling every level just for the sake of it...is the other extreme. I would rather (spread out evenly) over 20 levels get 14 really awesome abilities than get 20 weaksauce to mediocre ones. Quality > quantity.
That being said, if the warblade's getting a maneuver readied or new stance, or even to a lesser extent if he's so much as getting a maneuver known or a swap-out, it's not a "dead level."
That's the other thing that annoys me about "dead levels" -- they (the writers of the original WotC web article on the subject) claim the 3.5E cleric and Sorcerer have NINE_FREAKING_TEEN of these so-horrible "dead levels", because...they don't consider spells per day gained as a "class feature." So to them, Sorc gets a familiar and cleric turn undead and then...those poor, poor bastards have nothing to look forward to. *eyeroll*

You wanted my thoughts, sorry. They tend to come in bitter ranting format.

[Ringanomnom]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I think the original is fine...

Your stance progression is a modest improvement, your maneuver changes is hard to understand w/o the table. I see no reason to push back the "+Int to something" features. I like Uncanny Dodge, it's actually interesting, unlike another boring +1 bonus (and if you think +1 save vs. fear is anywhere near as good as +1 AC, you're nuts). Speaking of boring +1 bonuses....I see no need to give WB weapon training.

I don't particularly like this whole "dead levels" fad where people feel compelled to fill up every single level with something. Even if that something ends up being a meaningless little thing no one ever cares about. Having a ton of dead levels is certainly bad, but the other extreme, filling every level just for the sake of it...is the other extreme. I would rather (spread out evenly) over 20 levels get 14 really awesome abilities than get 20 weaksauce to mediocre ones. Quality > quantity.
That being said, if the warblade's getting a maneuver readied or new stance, or even to a lesser extent if he's so much as getting a maneuver known or a swap-out, it's not a "dead level."
That's the other thing that annoys me about "dead levels" -- they (the writers of the original WotC web article on the subject) claim the 3.5E cleric and Sorcerer have NINE_FREAKING_TEEN of these so-horrible "dead levels", because...they don't consider spells per day gained as a "class feature." So to them, Sorc gets a familiar and cleric turn undead and then...those poor, poor bastards have nothing to look forward to. *eyeroll*

You wanted my thoughts, sorry. They tend to come in bitter ranting format.

Haha, it's alright. I have an open mind; besides you did bring up a few good points that make sense: the +1 to Saves is a better than a mediocre bonus to something (as the saying goes, 'it was just an idea' hehe). Also, good point on the Spell per Day / Spells Learned for Sorc and Cleric. Never thought of it like that when looking at those 'dead' levels. Since WB get maneuvers, Dead Levels shouldn't be a concern.

[kyrt-ryder]

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I would rather (spread out evenly) over 20 levels get 14 really awesome abilities than get 20 weaksauce to mediocre ones. Quality > quantity.

I would prefer to get 14 really awesome abilities in 14 levels, and if the class is out of awesome things to give in-theme, just cut the class off at level 14 and let the player take something else.

EDIT: I need to note this isn't actually in the context of an Initiator class and I should probably just delete this post because it's somewhat off-topic. I was referencing the theory in general.

[Ringanomnom]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

I would rather (spread out evenly) over 20 levels get 14 really awesome abilities than get 20 weaksauce to mediocre ones. Quality > quantity.

I would prefer to get 14 really awesome abilities in 14 levels, and if the class is out of awesome things to give in-theme, just cut the class off at level 14 and let the player take something else.

EDIT: I need to note this isn't actually in the context of an Initiator class and I should probably just delete this post because it's somewhat off-topic. I was referencing the theory in general.

Sorry, I wasn't able to read it :( But theory is fine. That's what I am looking for, feedback on the theory of the warblade. True, they look fine as they are, but it seems fine to talk about the theory

[nomadicc]

Funny, I was just looking to make a PF conversion of this class! I planned to keep the class more or less the same as the 3.5 version, with PF skill list. I like your ideas regarding the maneuver/stance progressions. I'm a fan of the d10 hit dice argument.

There are some suggested errata from Richard Baker regarding the maneuver refresh, but I think the WB mechanic is fine. The random crusader one is goofy as heck, so I'd change that for sure (N/A for the WB).