So there is a lot of talk about fighters and how well they measure up to spellcasters in terms of versatility, variety, complexity, and usefullness (especially at higher levels). While I personally feel that the fighter class is in a good place in terms of pure numerical balance in combat, I find it to be one of the most lackluster classes in 5e. It has no "wow" factor. It is Combat Numbers the class.
While the battlemaster is cute, its maneuvers are too limited in both scope and availability. A battlemaster can run out of maneuvers in the first round of combat, then have nothing to do but spam basic attacks for the rest of the day. The battlemaster maneuvers are also rarely all that exciting; they mostly accomplish tasks that players already could through improvisation.
I want a martial warrior that is more interesting than that. I want to have the option to make tactically interesting choices on a round by round basis. I want a more interesting system for resource management, more versatility, and more utility both in and out of combat. While I accept that a martial character will never be as "impactful" as a spellcaster in terms of overall utility and capabilities, I still believe that martial characters are capable of much more than 5e has given us.
To that end, I created the 5e Warblade. It draws heavily from the 3e Tome of Battle martial adepts, but utilizes the streamlined structure of 4e martial exploits to achieve a variety of interesting capabilities in combat. The class is not as tough as the fighter, nor as lethal in combat, but it has much more versatility. Tell me what you think!
Well I will say this, I wanted to play one in the first 4 pages of my read through, but that also make me wonder about how powerful it would be. I usually find the mechanical options that work best for me by instinct as I am no theory gamer, and alot of yours jumped out at me as vastly superior to the fighter we have now.
For instance: I have wanted to make a duelist/swashbuckling character for a run through the Mines in a friends upcomming game. The swordsman I could make with your class vs. the 5th ed swashbukling fighter would simply out class the 5th ed fighter in every way. Better saves (with reflex not having to be bought with a feat), better abilities (more interesting and effective attacks and stances), better use of a finese weapon with advantage vs a small damage boost. It looks like you removed heavy armor from the class, so that looks like a trade off, but I always play dex fighters, so Ill take reflex save vs. heavy armor any day 
Now that doesn't mean this isn't good work, tbh I don't know how to balance abilities within the 5th ed system at all, but I would wonder about the power disparity, especially with the weapon style options.
It would be great to have the opinion of someone who is very good at understanding the numbers balance within the system, because if this was considered a balanced alternative to the phb figher, I would play it happily.
Thank you for posting your work either way
I really loved the Swordsage and Tome of Battle more generally. Excellent product, one of the best things WotC ever wrote. If only 4E had stuck with that and not gone full on minis game.
A few comments:
D12 is not quite as nice in terms of expected value as 2D6, and if you throw in any kind of reroll effect, it's nowhere near as nice. However, ignoring resistance is not bad.
Gaining advantage on all attacks is a massive benefit. It's essentialy getting a +5 on the roll, plus doubling the crit chance. (Not exactly but close.) Um... wow?
Very nice, but some things are off the charts powerful.
Because of the very strong skills early on, I feel your unique class is more tempting as a multiclass. Push some of those abilities later.
The unique offerings are overshadowed by poaching from other classes. What makes this different?
Some of the bonuses are just feats or partial feats.
For example:
Nimble blade just screams 1-level-dip for rogue.
3 maneuvers at level 1. Could I be satisified with 3 maneuvers my entire career? I have a druid and pact-lock who say "Ohhhh Yea"
Martial discipline is a level too early. Most other classes get their sweet sauce at level 3 (Barb, Rogue, Monk, Pally, 'Lock, etc)
Furthermore, this class has a LOT of unique, class definingideas going on. Mixed in is a fair bit of the other classes class defining traits.
For example:
Level 2: Diamond mind is the monk defenses
Level 3: Jr. Paladin Bonus to saves, 3 levels before pally gets it.
Level 6: Become a monk without KI (Or a level 2 rogue)
Level 8: Gain one of the best warlock invocations (super darkvision) (Note that this is redundant with the level 12 power)
Level 11: Gain the paladin's bonus damage feature, except better
Level 12: Gain the warlock's level 15 (and possibly best) invocation (truesight)
Level 20: Barb's capstone
Finally, the class is dipping into feats to get power. If the class needs power, use the Fighter/Rogue method of allowing an extra ability/feat at certian levels
Level 2: Iron Heart gets partial Alert
Level 8: Diamond body gets the meat of Resilience (WIS)
Solodan wrote:
Ugh... I really disliked the 3.5 Tome books. I came to enjoy 4E and I like the Battlemaster as a part of 5E, but the idea of a fighter performing something like a "close blast 9 for 5[W] (10d6) damage" seems very antithetical to the concept of "Fighter" and weapon combat in general for every edition of D&D except 4th. I especially dislike it when it's described as "You jump super high into the air, and just when people think you're gonna stop, you jump again, then you clone your sword into 500 similar but distinct magical swords, and they rain down in a large area, making sonic booms and explosions. Then you land, looking totally awesome, with your back to the explosions."
I was pretty happy when the 4E Essentials were released and the D&D pendulum swung back a bit from "mmo on paper" toward "role-playing game." I think the Eldritch Knight and Battlemaster (or Warlock, Paladin, Monk, et al.) along with creative roleplaying can cover most warrior and warrior-wizard tropes pretty well.
I'd rather leave the over-the-top stuff to "magic," and let warriors do extraordinary amounts of damage or feats of physical strength without resorting to shockwaves, explosions, battle cries that cause damage, etc.; isn't using Action Surge and a bonus action to perform 7 Maneuvers in a round enough of a superhuman display of martial prowess?
Just one quick question first.
Lawolf wrote:
I like that you took the suggestions to modify it for multiclassing. It is absolutely wonderful work, a warrior who has actual options and choices to make.
Kavrek wrote:
Yay, pretty awesome and thank you!
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Ok, I took a look at it, but I have to say I did notice some stuff that set me off.
"Time stands still," for example, is the first flagrant offender I saw.
Beyond the aesthetic issues, a lot of the features seem really overpowered in a 5e context. Doing 3d12 with a melee attack? Then you double it on a "strike?"
I get a strong 4e vibe from this work, but I don't think it fits with the 5e rules very well.
I suggest players who want strong single attacks to take a look at the 5e Paladin for motivation or inspiration.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
A lot of the issues weren't with inherent power level but rather how the abilities were constructed to be magical rather than martial.
However, the 3d12 melee attacks-
There was a class feature that lets you ignore resistance and roll a d12 for maul or greatsword damage. There's also the good old Greataxe.
Then there were some level-up features somewhere that doubled (and then tripled) the dice you rolled on a melee attack, 4e at-will style.
Yeah, if you want to drop all your damage into one attack (or two), why not use the paladin? It's already there. It's magical, and it does what people apparently want from this homebrew. Or does paladin not have enough anime flavor?
I looked at the class and saw immediate abuse potential, but if you see it as underpowered, that's not good either. I think it would need a vast amount of tuning to approach the same balance as the PHB classes or subclasses.
FWIW, I've been excited to playtest it at some point since I first saw it. But we need to get our campaign done using the regular options first, so I have more comparison points...
My interest in Swordsage is purely because I want a warrior that has choices to make every turn. Paladin's 'do I smite yes/no' is not exactly on that level.
Didn't strike me as omganime, either, just ooh samurai movie stuff.
I posted a damage comparison HERE if you want to look at it. The Swordsage deals less damage than a fighter or barbarian across all levels. Not so much less that it isn't competitive, but still noticeably less. While swordsages individual attacks and strikes do deal more damage than a single attack from a fighter, the fighter is making many more attacks each round. What the Swordsage lacks in damage, it makes up for in utility.
The point of the Swordsage isn't to be magical or anime. Thus, a paladin doesn't cut it here. The point of the Swordsage is to have a martial warrior who can make tactically interesting choices on a round by round basis. Most of the swordsages maneuvers are actually quite mundane compared to what paladin smites can do. Also, the swordsage does not have limited use ammo like spell slots or superiority dice. I feel those types of mechanics seem more magical than mundane. Instead, I opted for a dynamic mechanic that ebbs and flows throughout combat.
The Swordsage also has abilities that are representative of what a high level warrior should be capable of. I don't mean high damage and durability here. I mean things like the ability to grapple giants, shrug off magical effects through willpower alone, fight in total darkness, smash through magical barriers through the sheer force of your attacks, lift massive objects, and leap great distances. These are all abilities that non-magical heroes can accomplish in myth as legend. They should be abilities that high level warriors can accomplish in D&D too.
Macv12 wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Update: I changed the name of the class to warblade. I keep going back and forth on this. Swordsage sounds better, but the class is closer to the 3e warblade so that might be better to avoid confusion, Let me know what name you prefer (or an alternate name altogether such as blademaster, bladedancer, kensei, etc).
Also, I'm looking for big broken balance issues as well as minor things to cut or tweak. I think that from a damage standpoint, the class is in a good place; not too strong and not too weak. I do want to look into the features give people red flags and see if they can be toned down. So if you notice any balance issue at all, feel free to bring it up.
Lawolf wrote:
Whir wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
There are plenty of tricks a fighter, especially a Battle Master, can pull without resorting to improvisation- just using the action options in the basic rules. I don't see a real need for them to be packaged into a once per turn special action, or for them to be upscaled into more elaborate versions bordering on magical ability.
Novacat wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
That's pretty much what Battle Masters are for, Diffan - they get to do all the special actions that you want to perform and still do roughly twice the damage per action compared to standard melee attack, as opposed to losing damage.
The effects of spells can be used for creative purposes, but the spell itself always does one thing (or one of a specific list of things).
I think using 4E as an example of what a fighter or wizard "should do" in total is a bit off-base, as it is distinctly different than the rest of D&D history. It's fine if your goal is to recreate 4E, but I don't think it has a place in general D&D. The Tome of Battle is basically 4E preview, the way that Essentials were paving the way for 5E.
Question to the OP, why did you try to make an entire new class instead of another fighter subclass. You mention your goal as being a fighter with interesting tactical options every round, so to be it would make sense taking the fighter and building a new subclass that has uses a per round resource for small bonuses. I appreciate what you are trying to do as I have never found the stock fighter to be interesting but you seem to be taking the difficult route of achieving your goal.
woif wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
So if it's creative and "promoting agency" to let a Wizard burn down a tapestry with burning hands or telekinetically spring traps, why is it "too limiting" for a Fighter to use an attack to hack the rope securing a counterweight and go flying through the air or use two attacks to grab an orc, move it to the edge of a cliff, and then push it off. Any of these situations require DM adjudication.
In the end, the difference is just that a Wizard has a bigger "toolbox" but can only use one tool at a time.
The Fighter's selection of "tools" may be more restricted, but he or she can use up to eight of them in one turn, not to mention moving between each use.
Additionally, I'd say about half (if not more) of a Fighter's "epicness" comes from his or her durability.
How many legendary fighters are described as winning their epic battles in under 6 seconds? Saint George fought his dragon for what, 3 days? Hercules also is often described as fighting creatures in extended scuffles rather than just walking up and executing his super god-smash and collecting the reward. In all of these legends from my childhood, I don't ever recall hearing about the "special move" that the hero used to defeat the creature, just that it was a really impressive fight, and that the hero was very tough and determined. The closest to any "special moves" that I recall from Greek myths would be akin to remembering to bring a ball of twine with you to a maze, using a magical shield or breastplate to reflect a hideous beast's petrifying gaze, having your valet help you burn the head-stumps of a regenerating lizard, or deciding to choke a lion that can't be hurt by blades. Those all seem to be well within the ability of a 5e Fighter.
So you are falling into the trap of believing improvisation leads to agency. It really doesn't in D&D, especially 5e. Improvisation will simply be worse than attacking in almost every scenario. Only when the perfect conditions arise is it worthwhile to attempt (fighting near a cliff, a chandelier overhead, etc). Even then, spellcasters are better at it and have more opportunities to improvise.
For example a wizard could cast burning hands in a small pool of water to create obscuring steam. A wizard could cast freezing ray on a puddle to make the ground slick causing on rushing orcs to trip and fall. A warlock with forceful blast simply pushes all creatures hit with eldritch blast 10 ft (no matter how large and without giving them a save), so it could push a giant off a ledge that was 40 feet away!!!
On top of having more opportunities to improvise, the spellcasters have more versatility when not improvising as well. With multiple cantrips, the spellcaster always has multiple at-will options to fall back on. That is completely ignoring the plethora of actual spells the casters learn in addition to their spell slots.
Finally, you mention that epic warriors don't have a variety of maneuvers at their disposal. Well you could not be more wrong. Medieval fencing techniques had hundreds of specific maneuvers all for various purposes. If you watch movies with swordplay in them, you rarely see anyone repeating the same strikes over and over. Why should spellcasters have a half dozen ways to deal 3d6 damage to someone, but weapon users are limited to only making basic attacks?
The game is an abstraction. HP is an abstraction, as are "attacks." If your sword attack doesn't do anything functionally different in the game than the 20 other sword strikes you also did, why should it have a different name or rules?
This is also true of magic- pretty much every spell is unique in its combination of range, AoE, element, and effects. You don't have 9 levels of separate "magic missile" spells, or multiples on the same spell level, so why should a fighter have 9 different "melee basic attacks?"
Magic can generally only be customized in a few ways: the options present in the spell itself and possibly the ability to increase the spell's slot level for greater effect. This is why each specific iteration of a magical attack has to be defined as a discrete spell.
An "attack" is much more customizable than burning hands. Your attack can be a slashing melee attack that does 1d8+mod damage, a piercing melee reach attack that does 1d10+mod damage, or even a bludgeoning ranged attack that does 1d4+mod damage.
Let's compare cantrips to attacks, as they are both sustainable:
A wizard knows fire bolt. He or she can make a 120' ranged attack that does 1d10 fire damage. That's pretty much it. He or she can't decide to change it to 240' range or deal cold damage or make it a melee attack to avoid disadvantage.
A fighter has proficiency in all weapons. That attack can be almost any form of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage in melee, at "reach," or at range. It can be used for opportunity attacks. It can also be used to knock targets prone, reduce their speed to 0', or push them 5'.
But that wizard knows 3 cantrips, maybe? Okay, now he or she knowns fire bolt, ray of frost, and shocking grasp, because this wizard hates utility spells and only learns combat magic. He or she now has the choice between 3 damage types, 2 damage dice, and 2 special effects (-10' speed or no reactions), but he or she still can't mix or match these options to the degree that a fighter can. 2 special effects is still fewer than the special abilities a fighter can enact with just an "attack."
The difference is that a wizard expands upon these limited options by learning completely new options and a fighter learns how to enhance and combine these existing options for greater effect.
Additionally, don't ignore the fact that fighters generally have better AC and much higher HP than a spellcaster. The guy who is weaker should logically get a bit more of something else to compensate.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
FluffyBunbunKittens wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
The original argument was that with the Battle Master firmly in the game, why do you need to reinvent the class completely to make it seem more spell-based or anime/wuxia-inspired?
I sincerely doubt that many people who have played extensively pre-4e are lobbying for fighters to become closely modelled after spellcasters.
One of the clearest character-creation decisions that one can make outside of early 4e is whether you will be predominantly a spellcaster (i.e.: have a limited pool of discrete but powerful effects) or a martial-type (be tough and have a bottomless supply of usually iterative attacks). Why would you do this system a disservice by muddying the waters until the two are basically the same thing?
You know what were generally the strongest and most desired powers in 4e? The ones that gave multiple attacks. You know what 5e fighter-types do in combat? Make multiple attacks. I don't see this as coincidental.
There's a difference between a Fighter and a Wizard trying to effectively "fight." Just because a Wizard can choose to "fight" in melee or ranged combat does not make a Wizard remotely close to a Fighter in terms of combat ability. A Fighter can take a feat to cast ritual magic or some first-level spells and cantrips if you really want to. But is the difference the (rather unimportant) fact that you have to be specifically allowed to cast magic as opposed to fight, even if you're functionally useless at fighting? Is this what people are looking for? Do they not feel special and unique enough because they have less pages devoted to their class in the PHB? Do they not like the idea that other classes can technically take the same actions their character can (even though the results would be vastly different)?
I think these kind of people don't really appreciate the D&D fighter or warrior from the start and are probably better served by a hybrid half-caster class or even multiclassing. A lot of these complaints sound similar to the complaints about classes in an MMO - "the other class has more options than me" / "my class doesn't do X well enough" / "It's not fair that they have more developer attention than my class." This smacks of Millennial entitlement to me and is why I have a hard time believing that the people who don't like the 5e Fighter came from a long background playing D&D.
I played warrior-type characters in editions where conventional wisdom dictated that spellcasters were simply better than fighters at higher level. However, I still enjoyed my time playing these characters. So did my friends, many of whom for which I DMed. 5e is a lot closer than those editions, and yet apparently a subset of people aren't happy until fighters are functionally wizards. Fighter is the most popular class in D&D, that's why there are two included in the Starter Set.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
The issue isn't whether or not you can "do this (design a homebrew class)," the issue is that it is presented on a public forum for review and I'm highly critical of it because:
- I don't think it serves a useful purpose
- I don't personally like the aesthetic of it
- barring the first two points, the mechanical execution appears poorly balanced
The OP and others such as Diffan have presented reasons as to why they think this should exist. I present reasons as to why I think it's silly and unnecessary.
More options are not necessarily more fun if they're superfluous or clearly superior to the alternatives.
Creating a new, convoluted class to contend with the mostly elegant design of the 5e Fighter (or any of the 5e classes, really) for the sake of complexity seems like a marginal ideal.
Pet project classes tend to generally be overpowered compared to objectively designed ones, because the creator obviously has a dog in the fight.
Many of the arguments about the "necessity" of this class are ultimately ringing hollow. (Is "agency" a new buzzword? Can we leverage it?)
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
As far as balance goes, early in this thread I pointed out that this class can get default 3d12 melee weapon attacks. That seems pretty out-of-synch with the rest of 5e to me.
Don't present something for criticism if you don't want it critiqued. So far, the OP hasn't really complained about the mere existence of dissenting opinions.
Why not have players figure out how to make their schemes work before coming to the DM to adjudicate edge cases? I can think of ways to push people off cliffs or restrain them using the PHB without resorting to house rules. That's true player agency.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Re: 3d12 melee attacks. The wizard has 4d10 fire bolts. The fighter makes four 2d6 melee attacks. The paladin who cast elemental weapon makes two 2d6+2d4+1d8 damage melee attacks. I posted a link to a detailed damage analysis on page 1 if you want to compare warblade damage to that of a fighter or barbarian. I assure you, the warblades damage is lower, but take a look at it yourself.
Re: Anime/Wuxia
You use those words to denigrate the warblade, but I don't think you actually know what they mean. In anime, the weapon users can fly, teleport, shoot fireballs, turn invisible, create mirror images, paralyze their foes, and more. Hmm...what D&D class can do all that. The warblade can't do any of those things, so certainly not the warblade. Oh, that's right, the spellcasters do those things. Yep, basically D&D spellcasters are anime super warriors.
Re: Options
A number of people have expressed the desire for a mythic warrior such as the warblade. A number of people have expressed dislike of the battlemaster due to it being so mundane. If you already have what you desire from the fighter (from the champion), you really shouldn't argue about others not having what they desire from D&D. It would be like me starting arguments saying the D&D wizard shouldn't exist because Vancian casting is a terrible magic system that creates multiple rippling issues throughout the system (like the 5MWD, Godwizards, LFQW, etc). If you don't like the warblade, fine that's ok. But don't say it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it.
Oh, it's less about trying to rub it out of existence as much as exposing the flaws in it to others so they can make informed decisions about whether or not to adopt it.
"Warblade" damage being lower than the classes it's trying to emulate probably isn't good for balance either. I'm pretty sure this isn't the case, though.
6d12 + (modifiers * 2) at will is better than a 4d10 fire bolt. It's also better than a Paladin's two melee attacks, buffed with spells as tendered as an example.
3d12 OAs are significantly better than 2d6 OAs. Same with bonus action attacks, hasted attacks, etc. Twice as good.
A level 11 "Diamond Mind" can make up to 5 of these ("only" 2d12 at level 11) attacks in an action 1/rest.
Oh yeah, they also ignore all resistance on their attacks, and can "silence" spellcasters with no saving throw (ending their concentration and preventing them from casting any spells of level 1 or greater).
Is that specific enough for you?
That was just from a page or two that I glossed over quickly.
As far as "my class isn't a spellcaster analog /anime!"
The raindrops themselves stand still as you act at the speed of thought. You move like a blur, catching your enemies by surprise with a complex action carried out in a tiny fraction of the time normally needed to complete it.
Lawolf wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
"Fluff" has been an issue of contention.
I think you should double check your math. Specifically in the Paladin example. Arbitrarily putting numbers into a spreadsheet doesn't mean that this is the maximum capability of your class, especially with multiclassing as an option.
With Great Weapon style, 2d6 (8.33) + 2d4 (6) + 1d8 (5.25) is 19.58. This is practically the same as your un-buffed Warblade, who incidentally could also benefit from elemental weapon (which this particular paladin has decided to cast with his daily level 5 spell slot) and involves a specific combat style. Elemental weapon does not give a static damage bonus. Additionally, the Warblade ignores resistance and can hit invisible things.
If your Warblade picks up Great Weapon Style (and why wouldn't he or she?), they do strictly more damage than the Paladin (22 per hit).
I don't think a level 11 Action Surge of 12d6+30 (72 damage) is going to beat 10d12 + 25 (90 damage). Even if you factor in great weapon fighting (+8 damage) or even duelist style (+12 damage somehow applied to the greatsword used in the example), the fighter is still behind.
I didn't even mention that starting at like level 7 or something, your class can Dodge and attack in the same turn, eventually doing two (3d12) attacks and a dodge together. So they get a version of Cunning Action, Improved Divine Smite on steroids, Extra Attack, and Feral Senses. Then they get a form of spellcasting in maneuvers. Seems like you just cherry-picked from existing classes and does not seem balanced to me.
There we go, back on track, exact number concerns!
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
If the paladin could reliably do as much damage per hit as the warblade, while still having enough spell slots left over for smites, why would anyone play a warblade.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think a major miscommunication here is what various people think of when we talk about abilities being "like spells."
To me, and probably some others that hold the same view, "like a spell" means that the ability is described in a block with a name, some targeting, range, or action cost fields, and then a description. They're learned at specific levels and generally fit into groups or schools. The specific "power source" or damage type of the ability is not important.
Your "Adamantine Hurricane" is a lightning bolt with a different damage type and "non-spell" damage. It's presented in a format equivalent to a spell.
Your Dodging is example is a bit weighted because you picked a level at which Fighters just hit a major power spurt, namely Extra Attack (2). Additionally, as the designer of your class I believe you should mention that when the "high CR" monsters start rearing their heads, you have provided a better class feature that allows a Warblade to attack twice and Dodge.
(There's a faster way to calculate critical damage using base damage: damage * (1 + cc * cd), where damage is the expected damage on a non-critical hit, cc is crit chance and cd is (only the) bonus damage (in terms of multiples of normal damage) from a critical hit.)
Here's my counterexample:
Warblade has a 17 AC (Breastplate and 14 Dexterity) and deals 18 damage on a hit. Warblade also has Earth's Endurance class feature and an 18 Con (+4).
Champion has a 19 AC (Plate Mail and Defensive Style) and deals 13.33 damage on a hit.
The Fighter attacks 3 times at +9 to hit (20 strength, 4 proficiency) with disadvantage: (0.6 * 0.6) * (13.33) * (1 + 0.1) = 5.28 5.28 - 4 = 1.28, 1.28 * 3 = 3.84 DPR
The Warblade attacks once at +9 to hit. (0.5) * (18) * (1 + 0.05) = 9.45 DPR
The Dodging Warblade does nearly 2.5 times the DPR of the Fighter.
Without the Dodge, the Fighter coud deal (0.6)/(0.36) more times damage, or 6.4 DPR
Without the Dodge, the Warblade could easily deal twice the damage, or 18.9 DPR
I think this is a more accurate simulation (at least by a hair), because it doesn't use magic weapons (something that you can't "build" into a fighter). It also more closely models the fact that in general, D&D characters are not balanced to fight each other but rather to fight NPCs and monsters, the majority of which do not have magical weapons.
The contention is not that "Dodging is always the go-to move in combat," but having the option to Dodge and fight starting at a low level makes the class deceptively "tanky" for a class that is supposed to be balanced around its "bad defenses." Dodge also gives advantage on Dex saving throws.
Against a monster, the Warblade can make one attack (which hits as hard as 1.5 to two Fighter attacks) with an AC roughly equivalent to 21 or 22, or attack twice which is equivalent to 3 or 4 Fighter attacks.
A Fighter can choose to Dodge and do no damage (AC roughly 23) or attack 3 times with an AC of 19.
Having 3d12 OAs, special 3d12 reactions with extra effects, 3d12 bonus action attacks (sometimes multiple per action), two 3d12 attacks per action (or one 3d12*2 attack), a passive +3 bonus to saving throws and a choice of: +4 str/con, permanent advantage, or +2 to attack rolls, DR 5/magic, the ability to ignore resistance, a choice of short-rest spell-like "attacks", many of which take features directly from the high-level features of other classes, the ability to be permanently "large size" for size comparisons, Cunning Action (with Dodge!), et al. seems very "high powered" to me.
Swarming Assault - Commander's Strike (but without the bonus action part)
Tactical Strike - Distracting Attack (for every attack in the next round)
Douse the Flames - Goading Attack (but with no save)
Clarion Call - Commander's Strike (but without the attack part)
Bolstering Voice - combination of two Paladin auras, at the high level 30' range, but not immune, just advantage
Battle Leaders Charge (sic) - Charger feat
Wolf Fang Strike - Shield Master feat; two weapon fighting + shove action; Pushing Attack
Swooping Dragon Strike - Action Surge
Sudden Leap - expeditious retreat
Stalking Panther - Vanish, Stalker feat, Naturally Stealthy/Mask of the Wild
Soaring Raptor Strike - basic D&D 5e rules, Athletics skill
Raging Mongoose - Reckless Attack (but better in scope)
Rabid Bear Strike - Reckless Attack
Prey on the Weak - Great Weapon Master feat
Leaping Dragon Stance - jump spell
Hunter's Sense - Stalker feat, Natural Explorer
Girallon Windmill Flesh Rip (?) - Action Surge, but really? 6 attacks at up to 3d8+mods for one action?
Dancing Mongoose - two-weapon fighting, but better
Overwhelming Mountain Strike - Tripping Attack, but with a strange alternative to a saving throw
Iron Bones - blade ward (bonus action, but worse)
Earthstrike Quake (Earthquake Strike?) - destructive smite/wave, thunderwave, earthquake
Crushing Weight of the Mountain - Rage, enhance ability, enlarge
Colossus Strike - Pushing Attack + Tripping Attack (or Way of the Open Fist)
Charging Minotaur - Charger Feat, Pushing Attack
Adamantine Bones - Action Surge for the damage part, I don't know what to make of the immunity
Wall of Blades - Defensive Duelist feat (but better)
Supreme Blade Parry - pretty similar to Dodge
Strike of Perfect Clarity - true strike / Precision Attack + Action Surge
Mithral Tornado - Whirlwind (Multiattack)
Iron Heart Focus - Indomitable
Iron Heart Endurance - Relentless Endurance, Relentless Rage
Exorcism of Steel - Disarming Attack
Dancing Blade Form - Lunging Attack, reach weapon
Adamantine Hurricane - lightning bolt
Absolute Steel - Escape the Horde, longstrider, Mobile feat
Time Stands Still - Action Surge, Mobile feat, basic D&D rules
Stance of Alacrity - expeditious retreat, Cunning Action, Step of the Wind
Rapid Counter - Mage Slayer, Sentinel feats
Quicksilver Motion - expeditious retreat, but better
Moment of Perfect Mind - Indomitable, Gnome Cunning, Diamond Soul
Mind over Body - Indomitable, Diamond Soul
Hearing the Air - blindsight 10' (granted by several classes or features)
Bounding Assault - basic D&D rules, Charger feat
Avalanche of Blades - Action Surge
Action Before Thought - Indomitable, Diamond Soul
Awaken the Stone Dragon - Primal Champion
Strength of Stone - Aspect of the Beast (Bear)
Steely Resolve - Slippery Mind
Combat Reflexes - Feral Instinct
Diamond Mind - Stillness of Mind, Aura of Devotion/Courage
Supernal Senses - Darkvision; permanent Perception advantage is pretty strong for a feature
Diamond Insight - mage armor
Battle Mastery - Cunning Action (but Dodge(!) instead of Hide)
Battle Clarity - Feral Senses
Weapon Mastery - Improved Divine Smite / Brutal Critical
Battle Cunning - Cunning Action / War Magic
Deadly Strike - Extra Attack
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
If you had the choice between that "Second Wind" box and, say, 12 other boxes that did different things, chosen from a large list that was divided into groups and levels (hey, like 4e power lists!), then it's effectively a spell.
I made a mistake on the DR math for my "Dodging Example", but adding the magic weapon is still disingenuous from a "basic example." 20 Str and 18 Con is easily doable for a Warblade with 3 ability boosts (levels 4, 7, 10). I'll throw in an optimized one later. Also keep in mind that, when considering the "Dodge" example, level 11 is about the worst level for "Dodging plus attacking compared to a Fighter," because of Extra Attack.
Again, D&D is not a hero arena. PCs fight monsters or NPCs, so it's more accuracte to compare the two classes and how they function against monsters or NPCs rather than other PCs.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Yes options and choices that mirror the spellcasting conventions of D&D turn something into "spells."
I think you need to ignore the "it's magic!" / "it's not magic!" and just focus on the presentation in the rules, which is from where this observation comes. In early 4e, every class cast "spells" and had the same "spell progression."
I do have an issue with Earth's Endurance, I saw it after I had already made the example and went back to add it in - that's where I made my math error.
Dodging should never be superior in terms of damage to attacking, I thought that was a given. but getting the ability to Dodge and attack (the equivalent of twice, because of bonus damage dice) is a very strong ability. A Warblade may "only do 50% damage" while Dodging, but a Fighter does 0% damage while dodging. The only character that can really make a bonus action melee attack while Dodging would be a frenzied Barbarian (I think they can, I don't have my book- most other bonus action attacks are coupled to the Attack action), and that comes with its own trade-offs, like exhaustion.
Your spreadsheet isn't really any sort of definitive source. From what I can see, it's just a bunch of flat numbers in a list without the formula used to derive them.
The point about the "shift maneveurs" is that those are relics of 4e and do not fit with the 5e combat rules very well. For example, in 5e, no character "moves as an action." Even the Dash action does not involve movement "as the action."
The major issue is not that the class can do everything at once, although there is quite a bit of that. It's that you've taken almost every other class in the game and given some of its features to this class, which can pick a decent selection of them.
The class itself is also heavily styled after 4e rules, which do not work with the 5e rules very elegantly without serious deviation into a 4e-friendly campaign with variant combat rules.
I don't understand the argument for how this class can be more "mythic" than other warrior classes, given the amount and length of argument about how other classes do more damage or attack more times. If your concept of "mythic" is attacking 4 times in an action, why not just play Fighter 20? Want to move around and jump while making those attacks? Fighter 20 can do that, too.
What are the unique problems addressed by this class again? I really don't see much that I could do with this class that I couldn't do with an existing class, minus a few very "interesting" rules, such as becoming immune to all damage or stunning people without saving throws, which I don't really think are good for the health of the game anyway.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
If it's presented in a form similar to spell lists or 4e power lists, it's effectively a spellcaster. Roughly half of the classes in the 5e PHB do not have spell lists, and half of them do. Beyond these spell lists, both spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes have abilities that are not "spell-like" in their rules presentation. Warblades would fall into the "spellcaster" camp on this one: they have a spell list and they also have abilities that aren't presented in a spel list.
Spellcasters themselves have different capabilities as to what their magic can accomplish; this is based on the specific "spells," not the fact that they are spellcasters.
Look at the OP's Adamantine Lightning Bolt for an example of a Warblade "spell" that mimics a "real spell." I wouldn't say that's "remotely" related to lightning bolt.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
This class is hilariously overpowered.
Thank god it's someone's pet homebrew.
Nachturnus wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I'd still much rather see spellcasters powered down than see martial artists powered up.
But raising everyone to anime-style crazy power levels? No way--that way lies madness! Or worse...Exalted!
WhiteHarness wrote:
WhiteHarness wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Nachturnus wrote:
Those would be "anime style and crazy" if done by a warrior or lay person (non-wizard).
There's an accepted tradition in Western fantasy / Tolkein-inspired fiction that magic exists and can do things like make a person fly or turn invisible or shoot fire. However, those abilities are the purview of monsters or wizards, or magical items, not "fighters."
2Chlorobutanal wrote: