So, I have these two Warblade builds, and I'm trying to decide which one to take. The second of these builds is more theoretical because I didn't know about the Legacy Champion until rather recently. The two builds in question are:

Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Psychic Warrior 1/Barbarian 1/Warblade 16


Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Psychic Warrior 1/Barbarian 1/Warblade 7/Legacy Champion 9

The key thing to note is that the Legacy Champion advances any base class features by 1 upon level up for 7/9 levels. This can be used to advance Warblade class features, and it stacks with fact that half of each cross-class level counts towards a Warblade's initiator level. So, the second build's Wartblade level is effectively 14, and its initiator level is 20. However, I recognize that there are some tradeoffs to taking the second path. The things I lose from choosing the second build includes the following:

  • Two points of BAB (if using partial BAB rules)
  • Less Fortitude
  • Battle Mastery
  • Two new maneuvers known
  • One maneuver replacement
  • One maneuver readied
  • One new stance
  • One general feat

And what I gain includes:

  • More Will
  • Possibly two more 9th-level maneuvers
  • A lot of class features involving legacy items on top of regular class features

Now, the question is, from an optimizer's perspective, which one of these two choices is a better commitment here? It looks like I'd lose a lot if I were to opt for the second build, but 9th-level maneuvers are undeniably powerful. The opportunity to get the same amount of 9th-level maneuvers as a 20th level Warblade seems like it could be worthwhile. Which option would you choose?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Has the DM already approved the the second build's double counting of legacy champion levels toward your initiator level (i.e. improving warblade initiating both directly via the class feature class feature and indirectly via gaining levels in a non-martial adept class--that kind of doubling up might seem shady to some DMs) and the inclusion of weapons of legacy in his campaign? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 13, 2014 at 11:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Well, right now I'm approaching this matter with a strict RAW perspective. If he house rules this combo away, it won't work. As for the second part of your question, I honestly haven't talked to him about it yet. However, you do seem to indicate that the second build may be preferable if I can convince the DM to allow both qualifiers in his campaign. Am I correct in this assumption? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 13, 2014 at 23:32

1 Answer 1


The Weapons of Legacy rules are generally considered terrible. If the DM has already committed to them, and the DM's using them as written, a character is often better off not having a weapon of legacy than he is having one. The difficulty of meeting higher-level legacy requirements means that the quests to activate the legacy weapon's next ability can occupy a significant table-time; in exchange for that the character gets the ability to spend a large amount of cash upgrading a weapon that gives him larger and larger penalties to the things he's supposed to be good at. It's... just not very good.

That said, if the DM's house rules make weapons of legacy as good as they're promised, that's something else entirely, and may make the legacy champion class worth taking.

However, in the absence of that, I'd take a build that went warblade 16 (and even consider warblade 20 and taking cross-class ranks in the skill Use Magic Device) instead of any build that takes levels in the prestige class legacy champion if only to avoid having to deal with the deeply flawed rules in Weapons of Legacy.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for the advice. it think I'm still going to go with the second build because those are the bare-minimum needed to make a Hood-type character, but I do believe that I have a more clear understanding on why I may want to veer away from the first build. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 13:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .