Why is Warblade tier 3?

[Unbeliever]

EDITed for politeness: 

The things CycloneJoker mentions are high level options.  They are things that are 7th level spells or greater.  There's a lot going on for the other 13 or so levels of the game.  Likewise, he's neglecting the action economy.  A Sorcerer over 8 rounds(!) can throw Enlarge Person and Polymorph on the entire party.  And, burn through his spell slots in doing so.  Or, the Bard can grant huge bonuses in a single round, maybe 2.  Even with Arcane Fusion -- another high level option -- it's still 4+ rounds. 

The same goes for the comment about White Raven Tactics.  WRT may solve Adaptive Style's full-round action, but that was a round just spend refreshing WRT that could have been spent doing something else (and it sort of begs the question why you'd be using WRT in the first place). 

I indicated that in my experience the CO BFC staples are overstated.  There are many monsters that can avoid or circumvent them, especially once you get CR 9+.  That doesn't mean they don't work, but as I've indicated I think they are overstated.  I don't really see this as controversial, especially since a non-trivial number of monsters are casters themselves.  I don't really want to go through a blow by blow set of examples, as I don't see how that would get anyone anywhere.  Also, I already noted that it may be due to DMing.  Anything that a player could use could be added to most monsters, after all.  Again, I don't see how this is contentious. 

CycloneJoker's post strikes me as the usual sort of caster fetishism that is common in charopp.  As I already said, I think such things are overstated.  There's a lot of space between "useless" and "automatic I win button."  I think people tend to treat casters more like the latter than is deserved.  Also, like I said, I don't see much purpose in the tier-based discussion.  Especially since this Sorcerer v. the World seems to have strayed far from the OP's question.


P.S.:  I think the "people like you" that Sor_O referred to were either people who could help new players understand the game's pitfalls or were able to build reasonably optimized versions of the archetypes.  Though I could be wrong.

[Cyclone Joker]

Chill out bros. It's not like you're discussing politics or anything, so you don't have to get so passionate and borderline rude.

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that.

EDITed for politeness: 

The things CycloneJoker mentions are high level options.  They are things that are 7th level spells or greater.  There's a lot going on for the other 13 or so levels of the game.  Likewise, he's neglecting the action economy.  A Sorcerer over 8 rounds(!) can throw Enlarge Person and Polymorph on the entire party.  And, burn through his spell slots in doing so.  Or, the Bard can grant huge bonuses in a single round, maybe 2.  Even with Arcane Fusion -- another high level option -- it's still 4+ rounds. 

First off, you're assuming I want to buff the whole party. Given the buffs we're talking, that'd mean I'd want everyone in the whole party to be in melee, which is totally not the case. Yes, the bard can do his nice little boosts to the whole party, but the guys not stabbing people at that moment won't care. Now, let's assume a relatively standard party with a bard, bard, melee, cleric, wizard. Now, the wizard won't care much, the melee guy might, or he might be doing enough damage to insta-salsa everything he touches, but the attack bonus is nifty. The cleric probably also likes it. Total bonus from a mid-level non-exalted bard is, what, 5d6+5 or thereabouts? Now, replace the bard with a sorcerer. The Sorcerer will drop his Ocular Bite of the Werebear and his Ocular Arcane Fusion(Polymorph and Enlarge Person). I'm sure your melee guy will enjoy being a firbolg or troll, or something else looking at over 50 strength massive reach. From a damage perspective, the Sorcerer wins.

The same goes for the comment about White Raven Tactics.  WRT may solve Adaptive Style's full-round action, but that was a round just spend refreshing WRT that could have been spent doing something else (and it sort of begs the question why you'd be using WRT in the first place). 

Explain. WRT lets you refresh, and then get a full round to move and kill crap.

I indicated that in my experience the CO BFC staples are overstated.  There are many monsters that can avoid or circumvent them, especially once you get CR 9+.  That doesn't mean they don't work, but as I've indicated I think they are overstated.  I don't really see this as controversial, especially since a non-trivial number of monsters are casters themselves.  I don't really want to go through a blow by blow set of examples, as I don't see how that would get anyone anywhere.  Also, I already noted that it may be due to DMing.  Anything that a player could use could be added to most monsters, after all.  Again, I don't see how this is contentious. 

Your standard level 9 monsters have Freedom of Movement up? Or are bad enough to memorize Gust of Wind? And are shapechangers who are immune to poison/nausea/don't breathe? Sounds dubious, and all of those spells are 4th level or lower.

CycloneJoker's post strikes me as the usual sort of caster fetishism that is common in charopp.  As I already said, I think such things are overstated.  There's a lot of space between "useless" and "automatic I win button."  I think people tend to treat casters more like the latter than is deserved.  Also, like I said, I don't see much purpose in the tier-based discussion.  Especially since this Sorcerer v. the World seems to have strayed far from the OP's question.

I'm having trouble thinking of an encounter that can't effectively be defeated by one or two spells that any sorcerer worth anything has, or at least has a runestaff/drakehelm/knowstone. Spells really are just that good.

P.S.:  I think the "people like you" that Sor_O referred to were either people who could help new players understand the game's pitfalls or were able to build reasonably optimized versions of the archetypes.  Though I could be wrong.

Oh, huh. In my experience, "People like you," has only been used insultingly, so I took it as such. If it was not, then I apologize.

[Zionpopsickle]

Cyclone, the people like you comment was probably because there was a spate of posters on this board before you joined who insisted on a style of play in which anything less than a full-caster was too weak to positively contribute.  These posters really poisoned the well for certain types of argument.

Personally, I think you are conflating capability and ability a bit in your posts, namely that the capability for a Sorceror to be a buffer does not mean that its innate ability as a buffer compares well with a class like Bard.  Frankly, any full-caster can perform any role it chooses, this is simply the power of the big 3 spell lists.  That being true does not mean that full-casters necessarily want to perform those tasks if other characters with similar abilities are present.  It represents less opportunity cost for the Bard to be a buffer over the Sorc.  In some ways, these kinds of interactions are the things that make any tier system of minimal use, because synergy tends to be of very close power to the intrinsic power of a characters.

My opinion on Warblade vs. other maneuver classes is that they are pretty even, each just has a different play style.  Warblade is the in your face basher who just wants to kick ass.  Crusader has more area control with Thicket of Blades and has a lot of longevity for slugging matches with Devoted Spirit.  Swordsage has high mobility and versatility.  Which one is the best depends a lot of the type of encounters that are usual for the group.  Warblades and Crusaders both have a style which can be shut down by certain team monster set ups, where as the versatile nature of the Swordsage makes this harder but the Swordsage doesn't have the raw ass kicking that a Warblade has in a favorable encounter. 

I think that it is interesting and a testament to the balance of ToB that three different players from three different groups may all find a different class to be the most powerful and within the context of their experience they are probably right.  One of the hardest aspects of class evaluation is to construct a rigorous and yet varied enough metric to represent the possibilities of play present in what can be considered typical games.  This is an area were so many players run into trouble because they unknowingly will put artificial constraints on their evaluation and once they have gone through the chain of logic once are unwilling to go back and see if their logic truly holds under a different but similar set of constraints.

[radionausea]

Cyclone, your posting style sounds like Basket Burner and his previous incarnations, i.e chill the fuck out, its a game not something to become genuinely upset about.

[Cyclone Joker]

Cyclone, the people like you comment was probably because there was a spate of posters on this board before you joined who insisted on a style of play in which anything less than a full-caster was too weak to positively contribute.  These posters really poisoned the well for certain types of argument.

Oh, okay. Apologies, I was unaware of this.

Personally, I think you are conflating capability and ability a bit in your posts, namely that the capability for a Sorceror to be a buffer does not mean that its innate ability as a buffer compares well with a class like Bard.  Frankly, any full-caster can perform any role it chooses, this is simply the power of the big 3 spell lists.  That being true does not mean that full-casters necessarily want to perform those tasks if other characters with similar abilities are present.  It represents less opportunity cost for the Bard to be a buffer over the Sorc.  In some ways, these kinds of interactions are the things that make any tier system of minimal use, because synergy tends to be of very close power to the intrinsic power of a characters.

This is entirely correct.

My opinion on Warblade vs. other maneuver classes is that they are pretty even, each just has a different play style.  Warblade is the in your face basher who just wants to kick ass.  Crusader has more area control with Thicket of Blades and has a lot of longevity for slugging matches with Devoted Spirit.  Swordsage has high mobility and versatility.  Which one is the best depends a lot of the type of encounters that are usual for the group.  Warblades and Crusaders both have a style which can be shut down by certain team monster set ups, where as the versatile nature of the Swordsage makes this harder but the Swordsage doesn't have the raw ass kicking that a Warblade has in a favorable encounter. 

Again, entirely correct, though I did intend to say this. I blame my total failure with the English language.

I think that it is interesting and a testament to the balance of ToB that three different players from three different groups may all find a different class to be the most powerful and within the context of their experience they are probably right.  One of the hardest aspects of class evaluation is to construct a rigorous and yet varied enough metric to represent the possibilities of play present in what can be considered typical games.  This is an area were so many players run into trouble because they unknowingly will put artificial constraints on their evaluation and once they have gone through the chain of logic once are unwilling to go back and see if their logic truly holds under a different but similar set of constraints.

Now this I hadn't thought of. You are correct, yet again.

Cyclone, your posting style sounds like Basket Burner and his previous incarnations, i.e chill the fuck out, its a game not something to become genuinely upset about.

Who is this Basket Burner? And no one appears to be, genuinely or otherwise, upset.

[Halinn]

Given that you apparently think that any full caster can end all combats in a single round, why even bother playing D&D? There's no challenge left. The reality is that most combats won't be over after a single spell, either because of the number of enemies or a protective factor in the opposition. Sure, if you're comparing stock CR X vs optimized characters of level X, the character will win, but that happens with almost any class, even the lowly commoner. It's just not a reality in how the game is actually played, where enemies get customized or are pulled from a quite higher CR.

[SorO_Lost]

I agree with Unbeliever, but yet a step farther in.
All the vets don't need Tiers because they already know what they are doing.
The noobs people don't need tiers because people like you exist.
New players can get a crash course of tiers in thirty seconds, relative to the DM's campaign, without being bogged down with BS.
So what good is arguing about how your favorite class isn't #1 going to do, and more importantly, who the hell cares?

Tiers matter because the OP ASKED ABOUT THEM. It's not that complicated, bro.

Define "People like me."

Actually, he asked why is the Warblade T3, not is it better than the Swordsage, not is the Bard better than a Sorcerer, not is a Wizard better than a Warblade. He asked why a Warblade is T3. And he has had several responses that sum up to it's awesome enough to be so.

And people like you apparently contains an aspect of reading dyslexia. As you can't understand half the stuff told to you and bitch about the topic while failing to discuss it your self. Again for instance, this absolute focus on IHS like proving its value some how relates to the story in general. You'll run down the paths of things like Third Eye Freedom (totally worthless vs Slow and such) for FoM, Third Eye Clerity (what's that, lv15+ item?), Minor Schema, of one of the most OP spells in D&D the, Favor of the Martyr and so on. Yet, just like the Swordsage these are selfish points. Sure you could blow 400k on FoM, Mindblank, Divination handlers, immune to Fatigue, Exhaustion, etc, etc, etc, but you're still subject to things like AMF, Maze, tricked out Geas, etc. The WRT user? He picks up a Belt of Battle and covers ALL of those things cheaper with no real action loss, and many of them are area effects so the Warblade cures the problem for the entire party.

Dynamics like this don't occur to you, maybe because you're either blind and "arguing about how your favorite class isn't #1", or because you just plain lack game experience to have a wide enough view of things. To beat the dead horse here, your three feats (or two feats+item) in to pick up WRTs as a Swordsage and using the extra turn to refresh WRT which means you're not gaining anything. You actually have to add in yet more action breaking abilities to make the trick useful. As great as it may seem, the Warblade picks this aspect up for free and readily uses it for free. You don't understand the difference between them any more than you don't understand the team dynamics of having one guy solve everyone's problems vs everyone must individually buy their own counter measures. And yet, you claim I'm not following the rules or have a limited view on things despite you attracting the attention of several people whom in their own ways are telling you you're wrong, rude, and making foolish arguments.

"People like you" meant misguided or misinformed at the best, thick-headed at worst. You take from that what you think you are.

[Endarire]

Please, people, simmer down!

I have my answers.  Spamming maneuvers works well for some situations, and the Warblade has enough breadth and utility to be the guy who Just Keeps Going.

[veekie]

For Tiers, the Warblade is really a severe borderline case.

For T4, it has options T4 normally doesn't. It can attack alternate(Touch mostly) and bolster defenses with Diamond Mind/Iron Heart, gain mobility and senses with Tiger Claw and Diamond Mind, bypass solid barriers with Mountain Hammer and  even pick up a feat to cross-train in some at will invisibility from Shadow Hand or healing from Devoted Spirit.

But before setting it as T3, almost all these options are available in the first six levels. After that, they taper off and he focuses on his core functionality of tons of physical damage. Int secondary and lots of favorable skills(again extendable by martial study), still leaves him without the setup to be a particularly good diplomat, sage or scout, hes mostly good at 'raw' skills of mobility and awareness.
So at low levels its a true T3, being as versatile as other T3 classes up to around 8th level or so when the fancy options disappear in favor of Fighter+.

The Swordsage meanwhile, has almost entirely the same, even easier access, in addition to energy damage, the ability to target Ref saves. It has the capacity to get all the same stuff the Warblade has, but is much less able to apply it in combat(in practice the Swordsage is a vancian martial artist, he gets to end a fight with the exact preparation he enters it with). It does however come with the required skills to actually perform as a scout on top, which might tip the balance slightly. It's solidly in T3 by that definition, but in practice also loses out as it approaches the teen levels.
So its easily T3 until level 12 or so, when it becomes Rogue+.

[Cyclone Joker]

I agree with Unbeliever, but yet a step farther in.
All the vets don't need Tiers because they already know what they are doing.
The noobs people don't need tiers because people like you exist.
New players can get a crash course of tiers in thirty seconds, relative to the DM's campaign, without being bogged down with BS.
So what good is arguing about how your favorite class isn't #1 going to do, and more importantly, who the hell cares?

Tiers matter because the OP ASKED ABOUT THEM. It's not that complicated, bro.

Define "People like me."

Actually, he asked why is the Warblade T3, not is it better than the Swordsage, not is the Bard better than a Sorcerer, not is a Wizard better than a Warblade. He asked why a Warblade is T3. And he has had several responses that sum up to it's awesome enough to be so.

Except that it really isn't. I was arguing that it isn't actually in T3, but, once again, I really don't expect much critical reading skills from someone like you.

And people like you apparently contains an aspect of reading dyslexia. As you can't understand half the stuff told to you and bitch about the topic while failing to discuss it your self. Again for instance, this absolute focus on IHS like proving its value some how relates to the story in general. You'll run down the paths of things like Third Eye Freedom (totally worthless vs Slow and such) for FoM, Third Eye Clerity (what's that, lv15+ item?), Minor Schema, of one of the most OP spells in D&D the, Favor of the Martyr and so on. Yet, just like the Swordsage these are selfish points. Sure you could blow 400k on FoM, Mindblank, Divination handlers, immune to Fatigue, Exhaustion, etc, etc, etc, but you're still subject to things like AMF, Maze, tricked out Geas, etc. The WRT user? He picks up a Belt of Battle and covers ALL of those things cheaper with no real action loss, and many of them are area effects so the Warblade cures the problem for the entire party.

Uh, bro? Third Eye Clarity is, like, 3000 GP. Getting immunity to all common effects at your level is dirt cheap. And AMF is PATHETICALLY easy to avoid. Oh, and Freedom of Movement absolutely beats slow, which anyone with any basic reading skills could tell you. The Minor Schema is only mildly superior to the Third Eye.

Dynamics like this don't occur to you, maybe because you're either blind and "arguing about how your favorite class isn't #1", or because you just plain lack game experience to have a wide enough view of things. To beat the dead horse here, your three feats (or two feats+item) in to pick up WRTs as a Swordsage and using the extra turn to refresh WRT which means you're not gaining anything. You actually have to add in yet more action breaking abilities to make the trick useful. As great as it may seem, the Warblade picks this aspect up for free and readily uses it for free. You don't understand the difference between them any more than you don't understand the team dynamics of having one guy solve everyone's problems vs everyone must individually buy their own counter measures. And yet, you claim I'm not following the rules or have a limited view on things despite you attracting the attention of several people whom in their own ways are telling you you're wrong, rude, and making foolish arguments.

No, you're the one making wrong, foolish arguments. The Warblade is totally one-dimensional. I've received no counter-arguments that don't allow me to argue the monk's superiority to the warblade. But, it's not that hard considering your argument has mostly been "Yeah, I'll just say it's superior for no real reason and call it good lol." This is compared to the monk having two of the four best class features ever written.

And, anyways, you need to actually recharge, urdoinitwrong.

"People like you" meant misguided or misinformed at the best, thick-headed at worst. You take from that what you think you are.

...And, here's the rude part. Nice. I don't know where to even begin.

Given that you apparently think that any full caster can end all combats in a single round, why even bother playing D&D?

What is this I don't even...

Basically, the Warblade does one thing very well. That one thing is hitting things. It can do exactly nothing else well. Its damage is inferior to everything else that even tries to do damage in tier 3. It also lacks the versatility of everything else in tier three beyond the Crusader. So, it fails to meet the prereqs of tier 3. So, my answer to the OP, said again for those who appear incapable of reading, is that it is not in tier 3. It fits very nicely in the requirements for tier 4, as stated by JaronK, and compares well to the better classes in tier 4. So, I argue that it belongs in tier 4, as does the crusader

[Mooncrow]

Except that it really isn't. I was arguing that it isn't actually in T3, but, once again, I really don't expect much critical reading skills from someone like you.

To be fair, you did start off saying that, but you haven't been actually making that argument since your third post.  Instead, you went after another offhand comment about the bard that eventually devolved into the pissing match that you're in now. 

Back to your original argument, here is a rebuttal that has nothing to do with casters: Warblade has the best non-caster chassis in the game combined with low opportunity cost access to the two best maneuvers in the game, both of which are more useful than anything any of the T4 characters can do outside of combat.  Very good at it's specialty?  Check.  Useful in other ways?  Check.  Sounds like T3 to me. 

But the tier system is subjective as hell, frankly.  I find it somewhat useful for new players, just to point out in very broad strokes that some classes are better than others.  Exact placement would require a game with a far more rigorous and more strictly adhered to ruleset.

[Agita]

Please, people, simmer down!

I have my answers.  Spamming maneuvers works well for some situations, and the Warblade has enough breadth and utility to be the guy who Just Keeps Going.

Because this and veekie trying to stay on topic evidently didn't work...

Calm down, people. Endarire did not ask about the quality of the tier system, nor about how casters work within it, nor about your assessments of each other's reading comprehension skills. If he says he got the answers he was looking for, then he got them.

[Weaveshear2012]

well yesterday a played a warblade for the last time and he was .... well the best melee class i have ever played( first time playing a martial adept) at a lv 11 campaign. we hadn't had much action out of combat  due to the campaign being to short. but in combat, this guy was something else  i was dishing 200+ dmg per round and the duskblade was outshone in a campaign for the first time(when it comes to Melee dmg outpout) . the first encounter was with 3 purple worms which i killed in 4 rounds. So i can not imagine a tier 4 class doing things that are relatively this strong while maintaining its own defenses(wall of blades, moment of perfect mind,iron heart surge and of course high saves mainly due to a kind cleric's contribution). I know  you can counter some the things i said with examples from other classes BUT i play D&D for 2 years and  warblade was a class i played for the first time and served his role in the party remarkabely well(somenone who has experienced the class in greater depth surely can use it more ways than me ) . All in all iwas impressed .