PDA

View Full Version : Over 9,000 Swords



vartan
2010-08-05, 04:15 PM
In a recent campaign I am running I allowed ToB, and one player utilized it. To take a break from the present campaign I proposed another and asked that we not use it, but instead allow some other stuff I don't typically for trial.

The player is not happy. He thinks I'm handicapping him. I want the Playground to have this argument for us. Pro-ToB. Anti-ToB. Discuss.

Shadowleaf
2010-08-05, 04:17 PM
Become familiar with the class tier system, then show it to him. It's always fun to player lower tier characters, if everyone is doing it. Removing higher tier martial classes makes fighters, rogues, monks and so forth more viable.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-05, 04:19 PM
In a recent campaign I am running I allowed ToB, and one player utilized it. To take a break from the present campaign I proposed another and asked that we not use it, but instead allow some other stuff I don't typically for trial.

Why are you no longer using it?

It's always easier to give new material to players than to take stuff that they use away.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-05, 04:29 PM
Be prepared for heated discussion incidentally. Sore topic on the boards

Fax Celestis
2010-08-05, 04:33 PM
ToB is about the epitome of what a melee-type character can do in 3.5. It is still a far cry behind spellcasters, but at least it is versatile and capable in combat. Generally, non-ToB fighter-types end up either versatile or capable, but never both (at least, not without lolzy multiclassing, etc).

Let's start with the question: why are you disallowing it?

Keld Denar
2010-08-05, 04:35 PM
Substitute in other alternate source material. ToM and MoI are both amazing books (well, some parts of them), that contain alternative systems that are just as fun as ToB. If the player loved his Warblade, having him try on a Totemist. If the player rocked out as a Swordsage, suggest Binder. Just some ideas...

gallagher
2010-08-05, 04:40 PM
ask your player if he has looked into the psychic warrior. having a monk2/psychic warriorX with that feat that lets them stack for the monk things really works. have him focus his attack powers on the things that pump his fists, and he is good to go.

is he against sneaky guys? concealing amorpha turns them into glorified pickpockets

is he against beefy fighters? inertial armor takes care of that.

need some ways to augment your attacks? you can pounce, grow, gain extra move actions, and things like that.

also, with the bonus feats, he can get deep impact pretty easily. couple that with hustle so he can keep regaining his focus, and he is good to go

Aroka
2010-08-05, 04:54 PM
I want the Playground to have this argument for us. Pro-ToB. Anti-ToB. Discuss.

It's been had over and over. Pro-ToB is right, anti-ToB is wrong, except if you're banning druids, clerics, wizards (and all other full casters, pretty much).

Prime32
2010-08-05, 05:17 PM
The tier system was mentioned, but not linked: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0

(that's the most recent version)

derfenrirwolv
2010-08-05, 05:18 PM
My understanding of TOB wasn't just that it offered classes that replace the fighter, but that it changed the entire combat system.

ZeroGear
2010-08-05, 05:18 PM
If he ends uo being a character who only sees the classes for their power, and not the concept they reprisent, then I can understand banning the book. Similarly, if the guy actually has a decent backstory for this, and plays according to it, I can agree with him and the book should be allowed.

It's all about balance: is his character overpowered and stealing the limelight of all the other players? If yes, then suggest a class that fills a similar nitch at a lower level. Swordsage can easily be replaced by rogue, ninja, soulknife, or spellthief, maybe even ranger, and can then progress into a fitting prestige class like invisible blade, darvish, or whisperknife (if he is a halfling). If warblade was more his thing, barbarian, hexblade, or knight, maybe even duskblade, would fit nicely; likely advancing to kensai, frenzied beserker, blackguard, or dwarven defender (if a dwarf). Crusaders may find the paladin, favored soul, samurai, or incarnare, maybe even soulborn, right up their alley, and progress as gray guards, shadowbane inquisitors, or incarnum blades.

If you are intent of banning the book, simply suggest something in his line of thinking and ask him if he could try it out. He may end up liking it.

Prime32
2010-08-05, 05:21 PM
If he ends uo being a character who only sees the classes for their power, and not the concept they reprisent, then I can understand banning the book. Similarly, if the guy actually has a decent backstory for this, and plays according to it, I can agree with him and the book should be allowed.What? :smallconfused: You can easily have a backstory which matches the abilities of a class without matching "the concept they represent". The psion class, for instance, has abilities closer to many spellcaster concepts than the actual spellcasting classes do.

*insert link to "Miko is a samurai" strip here*

Makiru
2010-08-05, 05:21 PM
Well, about how long is this "holiday campaign" going to be? Does the player know that you'll be going back to the old one, or does he think you're restarting and getting rid of ToB to punish him? To me, this doesn't seem to be a system issue more than a player issue, mostly because there are some specific points that have been left out.

Also, like the others have said, run some other options by him like Totemist and Psychic Warrior; see if anything else strikes his fancy.

EDIT: blarrgh, ninja'd...kinda

Aroka
2010-08-05, 05:23 PM
My understanding of TOB wasn't just that it offered classes that replace the fighter, but that it changed the entire combat system.

No. It just has classes that have maneuvers (like spells but not) that they can use in combat, on top of using the exact same regular combat system.

ZeroGear
2010-08-05, 05:23 PM
What? :smallconfused: You can easily have a character concept which matches the abilities of a class without matching "the concept they represent".

*insert link to "Miko is a samurai" strip here*

Despite that, many still simply see these classes as "oh, I can kill more people than the fighter can without the hassle". I have met numerous people who take classes soley for that reason.

Morph Bark
2010-08-05, 05:23 PM
It's been had over and over. Pro-ToB is right, anti-ToB is wrong, except if you're banning druids, clerics, wizards (and all other full casters, pretty much).

Except Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer and Healer.

And maybe Wu Jen and Shugenja. (Probably would just be easier to say "ban Tier 1 classes and the spontaneous ones with the same spell lists. And Psions, if you want to be really fair.)

KillianHawkeye
2010-08-05, 05:24 PM
My understanding of TOB wasn't just that it offered classes that replace the fighter, but that it changed the entire combat system.

That's an exaggeration. More accurately, it introduces a new subsystem to combat in the form of maneuvers (strikes, counters, boosts, & stances). However, all of the original combat subsystems are still well in place (bull rush, grapple, trip, disarm, sunder, etc.). Some maneuvers and stances work with those other forms of special attacks by granting bonuses or special effects. The only thing really being replaced is iterative attacks, and those are still available (and can still be useful especially with certain boosts or stances). Really, it is just adding more options if you choose to allow ToB classes.

Prime32
2010-08-05, 05:29 PM
Despite that, many still simply see these classes as "oh, I can kill more people than the fighter can without the hassle". I have met numerous people who take classes soley for that reason.But then you get concepts like "I want to kill people with a sword I summon from my mind", and the soulknife can't do the "kill people" part. :smalltongue:

The Core melee classes can exceed the power of the ToB ones in specific builds, it's just that the ToB classes are hard to mess up and generally have more options at any one time.

Mojo_Rat
2010-08-05, 05:31 PM
You dont specifically need to Ban ToB what you do need to do though is decide if you are using it all out (basically h base fighter Paladin etc are removed as options) and the Tob is used as the default melee classes.

or ignore it all together, it doesnt work well when it isnt fully embraced my my view.

Reynard
2010-08-05, 05:47 PM
Become familiar with the class tier system, then show it to him. It's always fun to player lower tier characters, if everyone is doing it. Removing higher tier martial classes makes fighters, rogues, monks and so forth more viable.

:smallconfused:

Hardly. Removing the ToB classes makes the core melee-ers the only options for people who want martial characters, it doesn't do anything to make them any better.

Removing the higher tier casting classes might make the lower tier martial classes viable.

Siosilvar
2010-08-05, 05:50 PM
Substitute in other alternate source material. ToM and MoI are both amazing books (well, some parts of them), that contain alternative systems that are just as fun as ToB. If the player loved his Warblade, having him try on a Totemist. If the player rocked out as a Swordsage, suggest Binder. Just some ideas...

I believe this was the intention - DM is tired of ToB, wants to try something new. Player thinks the DM is out to get him.

JBento
2010-08-05, 06:22 PM
I believe this was the intention - DM is tired of ToB, wants to try something new. Player thinks the DM is out to get him.

I don't know what the DM's intention is, since the OP hasn't told us yet - if it's the one you say, it's just wrong. A player should never be forced to play a character concept/mechanic because the DM "wants to try it" (which, incidentally, he won't be doing, seeing as it's the player who'll be doing the, y'know, playing).

Either way, I'll refrain from answering the OP's question until he answers important questions:

why are you removing ToB?

what are you allowing in?

what else is being removed? (because, well, if full casters are still in, then if the players wants to play a melee he might be going to feel a tad useless - depending on how the casters are played)

Caphi
2010-08-05, 06:27 PM
Despite that, many still simply see these classes as "oh, I can kill more people than the fighter can without the hassle". I have met numerous people who take classes soley for that reason.

I'm confused, what exactly is the problem with wanting to be a "fighter" but be actually good at your job?

nyjastul69
2010-08-05, 06:53 PM
It's been had over and over. Pro-ToB is right, anti-ToB is wrong, except if you're banning druids, clerics, wizards (and all other full casters, pretty much).

There is nothing right or wrong with banning, or not banning, ToB. Those words are not applicable in this situation. If that was supposed to be sarcastic, I apologize for missing it.

In regards to the OP, it would help tremendously to know why you're banning ToB. In my experience it's not likely to break a game.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-08-05, 07:09 PM
If he wants to be a powerful martial melee combatant, and you're removing ToB, then yes, you're handicapping him. Whether or not this is a good thing depends on your reasoning and the game as it stands.

(But if he just wants a powerful melee character, he can just go Druid + Natural Spell. ... + Fleshraker duo + Venomfire + Bite of the X + SNA X + Animal Growth + ...)

vartan
2010-08-05, 07:12 PM
This "holiday campaign" won't run very long unless it really catches on with my players.

Why disallow it?
Two out of the three players at my table are not optimizers or anything more than casual players. We used to be core only, but then discovered Crystalkeep and started utilizing the ill-gotten gains.

What will be allowed?
For the homebrew campaign setting I'm asking that wizards choose to specialize and I'm taking a player's advice on a monk patch that might make it more fun (no thread derail pls). I'd like to see psionics used, but I'm not going to FORCE anyone to try it.

Reynard
2010-08-05, 07:16 PM
This "holiday campaign" won't run very long unless it really catches on with my players.

Why disallow it?
Two out of the three players at my table are not optimizers or anything more than casual players. We used to be core only, but then discovered Crystalkeep and started utilizing the ill-gotten gains.

Soo.... Why is ToB banned, then? It's great for casual players, since it's hard to mess up when making a character using the classes. The core melee-ers need good optimizers in order to even attempt to keep up with casters.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-08-05, 07:18 PM
Soo.... Why is ToB banned, then? It's great for casual players, since it's hard to mess up when making a character using the classes. The core melee-ers need good optimizers in order to even attempt to keep up with casters.Yeah, but imagine two casual players taking weaker PHB classes and one casual player taking a ToB class. I can see the balance issues. That said, the guy who uses and likes ToB isn't going to like going back to Blandy McFighter. Totemist or Psychic Warrior seem up his alley.

Oslecamo
2010-08-05, 07:27 PM
What? :smallconfused: You can easily have a backstory which matches the abilities of a class without matching "the concept they represent". The psion class, for instance, has abilities closer to many spellcaster concepts than the actual spellcasting classes do.


By that logic you could just have everybody play cleric. But not everybody will look at a DMM persistant cleric with a ton of buffs and just be able to refluff it as a mundane warrior.

Or will be able to believe a character that could be gagged and with his limbs cut out could still use his "magic" as perfectly as before. Aka the main reason why psionics are psionics are not magic. Waving hands, special components and funny words are a part of every spellcaster concept out there. If you just need your mind then you're a psi dude.

Aroka
2010-08-05, 07:31 PM
For the homebrew campaign setting I'm asking that wizards choose to specialize and I'm taking a player's advice on a monk patch that might make it more fun (no thread derail pls). I'd like to see psionics used, but I'm not going to FORCE anyone to try it.

So you're forcing wizards to be better by specializing, and banning ToB? Huh?

Prime32
2010-08-05, 07:52 PM
Or will be able to believe a character that could be gagged and with his limbs cut out could still use his "magic" as perfectly as before. Aka the main reason why psionics are psionics are not magic. Waving hands, special components and funny words are a part of every spellcaster concept out there. If you just need your mind then you're a psi dude.For D&D's concept of what magic means. What if you want to play a character based on a universe where spells do not require "waving hands, special components and funny words"? Or just one with spells that vary in strength depending on how much energy they spend.

Aroka
2010-08-05, 08:03 PM
For D&D's concept of what magic means. What if you want to play a character based on a universe where spells do not require "waving hands, special components and funny words"? Or just one with spells that vary in strength depending on how much energy they spend.

Pretty sure using magic both in Eddings' Belgariad and Jordan's Wheel of Time, for instance, is a completely internal process with no motions or words. Claiming they're psionics because of this would be just semantics, playing with definitions - psionics is magic, anyway.

Agrippa
2010-08-05, 08:03 PM
For D&D's concept of what magic means. What if you want to play a character based on a universe where spells do not require "waving hands, special components and funny words"? Or just one with spells that vary in strength depending on how much energy they spend.

Simple, I'd just give psionic powers verbal or somatic components as I see fit, change the names and call it sorcerery. I'd even leave in the displays too.

Urpriest
2010-08-05, 08:37 PM
For D&D's concept of what magic means. What if you want to play a character based on a universe where spells do not require "waving hands, special components and funny words"? Or just one with spells that vary in strength depending on how much energy they spend.

Then you use an RPG set in that universe. Ta-dah!

JBento
2010-08-06, 05:59 AM
Yeah, but imagine two casual players taking weaker PHB classes and one casual player taking a ToB class. I can see the balance issues. That said, the guy who uses and likes ToB isn't going to like going back to Blandy McFighter. Totemist or Psychic Warrior seem up his alley.

Seriously? THAT's the balance issue you're seeing? Because I'm seeing a much bigger one with specialised, casual casters and optimised (not-uber optimised) core meleers. Fly alone...

Anyway, yes, casual ToB is much better than casual Core meleer.

On the other hand, totemist requires him to learn a whole new system (which is rather more complicated and can require loads of resource management - Incarnum is certainly NOT what I would recomend to a new player, for instance).

Psychic warrior? Not so much learning. Not so much resource management either (though more than ToB), so this might be better.

Either way, yes - you're gimping the meleer (while at the same forcing the casters to be better, unless they make not-so-good school selections)

What will your optimised and non-optimisers be going/want to play?

Goonthegoof
2010-08-06, 06:38 AM
I think JBento has the right idea- Allowing ToB completely depends on what everyone else is playing. If the non optimisers are playing melee classes then banning ToB is reasonable, but if they're playing full casters ToB is the only way for the optimiser to keep up.

Also forcing them to play specialist wizards will only make them stronger, as generalists generally suck.

Prime32
2010-08-06, 06:50 AM
Also forcing them to play specialist wizards will only make them stronger, as generalists generally suck.Unless they're specialist evokers who banned conjuration and transmutation or something.

Oslecamo
2010-08-06, 07:32 AM
For D&D's concept of what magic means. What if you want to play a character based on a universe where spells do not require "waving hands, special components and funny words"? Or just one with spells that vary in strength depending on how much energy they spend.

Far from it. Go read the classic fantasy stories. There's always at least one of those three components. Collecting exotic ingredients and chants was always part of the magic mysticism. It's mostly some recent fantasy writers that decided to have all that clean mathematical-precise "magic" that indeed looks a lot like psionics.

And then sure you can create your own custom magic that doesn't demand anything but your mind, but you could call it martial arts, or sci-fi with nano-bots, or whatever, because it's completely detached of the common concepts by this points. Names become meaningless by that aproach.

hamishspence
2010-08-06, 07:39 AM
Fantasy magic does come in many varieties:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FunctionalMagic?from=Main.Magic

true_shinken
2010-08-06, 07:52 AM
But then you get concepts like "I want to kill people with a sword I summon from my mind", and the soulknife can't do the "kill people" part. :smalltongue:

Wrong. It's been proved time and time again Soulknife is salvageable with a little optimization. I've even had a Soulknife/INCARNUM BLADE (yeah, right!) in a game who was actually the party's TANK... and the party included a whirling frenzy lion totem barbarian. So... yeah.



Hardly. Removing the ToB classes makes the core melee-ers the only options for people who want martial characters, it doesn't do anything to make them any better.

Well, not really. Of course it does not make the core melee fighters better, but it makes you actually try them. That said, there are other melee types outside core.

Peregrine
2010-08-06, 09:32 AM
In a recent campaign I am running I allowed ToB, and one player utilized it. To take a break from the present campaign I proposed another and asked that we not use it, but instead allow some other stuff I don't typically for trial.

The player is not happy. He thinks I'm handicapping him. I want the Playground to have this argument for us. Pro-ToB. Anti-ToB. Discuss.

Go for it. In my experience, most people don't have a problem with the core classes nor see the tier system happening in their games. Most people aren't forum dwellers. :smalltongue: Most casters play the way that (it seems) the designers intended when 3e was written -- blasters whose signature spells are magic missile and fireball. (There was this one group I played in, with people who considered the rogue to be the pinnacle of third-edition power, and wizards to be pretty weak, especially compared to their fond memories of AD&D -- because playing a blaster caster wasn't as effective as they wished. I'm quite sure they couldn't fathom a wizard gypping himself further by banning evocation...) And contrary to many forum dwellers' claims, a cleric or druid played non-optimally will not inherently outshine the melee characters anyway.

That, as I say, is just my experience. But it sounds like your group is similar, except for this one ToB fan. So I say again, go for it. Perhaps don't require specialist wizards; maybe even make it an "alternate magic only" campaign, with psions or binders or whatever and no arcanists. And do show the ToB fan the tier list, to convince him that with everyone playing something different (from the lower tiers), you're not taking away the fun by taking away his cool toys.


I don't know what the DM's intention is, since the OP hasn't told us yet - if it's the one you say, it's just wrong. A player should never be forced to play a character concept/mechanic because the DM "wants to try it" (which, incidentally, he won't be doing, seeing as it's the player who'll be doing the, y'know, playing).

On the contrary, it is always within the DM's purview to say, "I'm running a game using this system with these supplements and those house rules." So yes, the DM can (and to some level should) tell the players what mechanic to play. As for character concept, the DM shouldn't dictate every detail, but they can and should lay some boundaries -- whether it's just "what's right for the setting", or right up to "you're all playing as members of the thieves' guild".

The Glyphstone
2010-08-06, 09:50 AM
Wrong. It's been proved time and time again Soulknife is salvageable with a little optimization. I've even had a Soulknife/INCARNUM BLADE (yeah, right!) in a game who was actually the party's TANK... and the party included a whirling frenzy lion totem barbarian. So... yeah.


That's kinda like saying a go-cart can beat a Formula One dragster in a race, if the dragster driver decides to push his car instead of driving it.:smallcool: It's theoretically possible for the former to outdo the latter, but that says nothing about the quality of the classes.:smallconfused:

true_shinken
2010-08-06, 10:00 AM
That's kinda like saying a go-cart can beat a Formula One dragster in a race, if the dragster driver decides to push his car instead of driving it.:smallcool: It's theoretically possible for the former to outdo the latter, but that says nothing about the quality of the classes.:smallconfused:

But the example was more along the lines of 'a go-cart can't roll on wheels'.
Soulknives CAN kill people. Outside highly optimized environments, most classes work fine as written.

Draxar
2010-08-06, 11:52 AM
It's your game, you make the calls. You may want to consider why you're not allowing ToB, but if you've decided you don't want it in the game, even if it's just "Because I want a change" then that, to me, is reasonable.

If a particular person is fond of it, he may not be hapy about this, but there are other things he can play. Unless the actual reason you're not allowing it is because you want to gimp him, then I don't think there's any real problem with not allowing it.

JBento
2010-08-06, 01:45 PM
On the contrary, it is always within the DM's purview to say, "I'm running a game using this system with these supplements and those house rules." So yes, the DM can (and to some level should) tell the players what mechanic to play. As for character concept, the DM shouldn't dictate every detail, but they can and should lay some boundaries -- whether it's just "what's right for the setting", or right up to "you're all playing as members of the thieves' guild".

(I had to remove some of the stuff to leave only the part that referred to my post - I hope I didn't screw up someplace)

You're all playing as members of the thieves guild isn't as stringent as you might think - it still allows every class, background, and pretty much any character goal they want. (tackled this one first cause it was shorter - now, for the crux of the matter)

The DM is likewise fully entitled to say "you can only play specialised wizards or monks" - guess which of those two is going to feel useless. It's also a player's right to ask if he can use materials the DM hasn't listed, and to present his reasons why he thinks it would be fun to have it included.

I'm still unclear as to the OP's reasons to remove ToB - maybe they're good reasons. From his post, he's not adding anything that can keep meleers competitive if the caster players do any optimisation - except maybe a well built PsyWar, and that for not much caster optimisation.

I'm still withholding judgement for when the OP has the time to tell us who'll be playing what :smallsmile:

Morph Bark
2010-08-06, 01:51 PM
I think JBento has the right idea- Allowing ToB completely depends on what everyone else is playing. If the non optimisers are playing melee classes then banning ToB is reasonable, but if they're playing full casters ToB is the only way for the optimiser to keep up.

Also forcing them to play specialist wizards will only make them stronger, as generalists generally suck.

Eh, it also really depends there. If they're non-optimizers playing blaster wizards, it's a different deal than a non-optimizer playing a druid that uses summon spells a lot.

deuxhero
2010-08-06, 01:57 PM
That's kinda like saying a go-cart can beat a Formula One dragster in a race, if the dragster driver decides to push his car instead of driving it.:smallcool: It's theoretically possible for the former to outdo the latter, but that says nothing about the quality of the classes.:smallconfused:

Or the track is mostly turns.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-08-06, 04:00 PM
Seriously? THAT's the balance issue you're seeing? Because I'm seeing a much bigger one with specialised, casual casters and optimised (not-uber optimised) core meleers. Fly alone...Fly alone won't completely overshadow the other players. It'll let them fly, as the spell *is* touch range. If you have a casual player with a fighter and another casual player with a Warblade, they both do the same job, but the Warblade does it better. If the Warblade player switched to a wizard, he may or may not get a more powerful character (since he won't optimize too much), but even if he does, it'll fit with the fighter better. There won't be as much of an issue of power imbalance, even if the wizard is more powerful than the warblade.

Of course, I can't say the same about Druids.

Reynard
2010-08-06, 04:16 PM
Alternatively, the Fighter switches to Warblade. Then, there's next to no imbalance, and the Warblade doesn't have to play a completely different role just to make the Fighter feel better.

I don't know how you can say that making the Warblade switch to Wizard will reduce the issue of imbalance in the party. Past levels 8-10, the Wizard can destroy 90% of an encounter in the first one or two rounds, leaving the fighter to mop up exactly one of the remaining mooks, before the Wizard ends it completely.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-08-06, 04:39 PM
Alternatively, the Fighter switches to Warblade. Then, there's next to no imbalance, and the Warblade doesn't have to play a completely different role just to make the Fighter feel better.

I don't know how you can say that making the Warblade switch to Wizard will reduce the issue of imbalance in the party. Past levels 8-10, the Wizard can destroy 90% of an encounter in the first one or two rounds, leaving the fighter to mop up exactly one of the remaining mooks, before the Wizard ends it completely.It was a hypothetical situation as a response to the idea that the wizard is more problematic than the warblade, not a suggestion of what this particular player should play instead of a warblade.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-06, 05:58 PM
Dropping ToB doesn't really exclude having a powerful and useful melee character, it just limits the ways of doing it a bit.
[Well, a lot. Whatever.]

Just to throw some ideas out there:

With Barbarian:

Add Spirit Lion or Spirit Bear Totem from Complete Champion for Pounce or Improved Grab and you have a damage machine. [Spirit Bear may require the Goliath Sub levels (Races of Stone) to affect Medium targets; I don't remember how it's worded exactly.]

You can also make a pretty decent Tripper out of it. The Wolf Lodge Berserker feat in Unapproachable East and the Wolf Totem variant in Unearthed Arcana each allow Improved Trip without requiring a feat.

Swap skills around if you need to (as offered in the PHB/DMG, or use the Cityscape Web Enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) if you really need these things spelled out for you)


With a Bard:

Either boost Inspire Courage (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869994/Bard_Inspire_Courage_Optimization) or use Lyric Thaumaturge/Sublime Chord+Sonic Weapon to build a gish. Either way, you'll be tossing out lots of damage dice and have lots of skills and spells for versatility.

People often advocate Snowflake Wardance, but I'd skip it - Bardic Music uses are valuable and it sucks to use a weapon one-handed. A lot.


With a Fighter:

Knockback+Dungeoncrasher+Karmic Strike+Shock Trooper+Resolute+Zhentarim Soldier+Elusive Target can make for a very strong melee character, outdoing most Warblades in terms of damage, survivability and control (though there's a considerable sacrifice of versatility).

Chain-wielding AoO machines are very useful for most parties, especially at low levels.

As with the Barbarian, you're probably going to want to swap skills around.


With a Monk or Paladin:

These classes place a huge emphasis on the supernatural. It shouldn't be a huge stretch to quickly multiclass out of them into something more supernatural, without compromising the concept. That could mean going into Cleric, Sacred Fist, Duskblade, Totemist, Psychic Warrior, Ardent, Warmind, Enlightened Fist, Abjurant Champion, Sanctified Mind, Sacred Exorcist, whatever.

...and yeah. I know I'm cheating. :smalltongue:


With Ranger:
Wild Shape Ranger (Unearthed Arcana) makes a versatile skill-user and melee character, making use of various pounce, trip and occasional improved grab abilities. Becomes especially useful with wild Shape-based PrC's like Master of Many Forms, Lion of Talsid, etc.

Mystic Ranger (Dragon ##) makes a highly competent Archer, if you have access to Spell Compendium and/or Champions of Ruin. You can add Swift Hunter to sweeten the deal, if you're so inclined. The Sword of the Arcane Order feat in Champions of Valor gives access to Wizard spells, but it's not usually necessary.

With Rogue:

This can make a strong melee character, multiclassed with Swashbuckler in a Daring Outlaw build. Take the Penetrating Strike ACF (from Expedition to Castle Ravenloft and Dungeonscape), add Craven (Champions of Ruin) and Staggering Strike (Complete Adventurer), poke a bunch of holes in things with a Rapier and Dagger and you should be left with a competent damage-dealer who should also have enough out-of-combat skills to remain interesting.


And then there are the good classes that play the same game as ToB without the extra effort like the Totemist, Duskblade, Incarnate, Psychic Warrior, etc. Or he could just go one step further and use a full caster/manifester like a Cleric, Artificer, Ardent, Educated (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a) Wilder, Druid or one of any number of gish builds.

The only concept that becomes dramatically more difficult to portray effectively without ToB is a non-magic sword-and-board fighter. I hear Knight sucks less than it's usually advertised, but a Jack-be-Nimble (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869062/6_hits_to_1:_Jack_B._Quick)-styled dual-wielder might be able to make it work. (I haven't done the legwork there, so I'm not actually sure.)

This guy should not be out of options.

Urpriest
2010-08-06, 06:11 PM
The impression I'm getting is that the DM wants the player to try another system because said player is overly reliant on ToB. That seems like a fine reason for such a rule in a one-shot, especially since there are other melee options (ToM, MoI, and XPH have all been mentioned).

Oslecamo
2010-08-06, 07:03 PM
I don't know how you can say that making the Warblade switch to Wizard will reduce the issue of imbalance in the party. Past levels 8-10, the Wizard can destroy 90% of an encounter in the first one or two rounds, leaving the fighter to mop up exactly one of the remaining mooks, before the Wizard ends it completely.

If the wizard is ending ecounters by himself in 1-2 rounds, the DM isn't doing his job properly.

Sure, if you throw single slow monsters whitout flying and abysmal will save the wizard is very happy. But those are badly designed monsters from the start. Unless you try to melee them head on they're plainly weak. The DM just using those monsters would be like a fighter only picking the toughness feat.

But when the wizard has to face oponents with high saves, immunities, SR, high mobility, tactics and other tricks then he'll be very glad to have the rest of the party there even if they're just dealing raw damage.

It demands work from the DM yes, but it's naive to think that monsters taken directly from the MM and told to charge the party blindly will be a proper challenge for an optimized player who knows several tricks already.

Just like batman wizard dominates ecounters, I've seen uber chargers dominate enemies by himself as well when the DM doesn't know how to properly use his monsters.

D&D demands at least as much optimization from the DM as from the players. An experienced DM will know ways to give the wizard trouble whitout need of changing the rules or making the rest of the party useless. After all, nobody says all those defences against magic will be worth anything against the pointy stick of the fighter.:smalltongue:

Runeclaw
2010-08-09, 11:12 AM
I don't know how you can say that making the Warblade switch to Wizard will reduce the issue of imbalance in the party. Past levels 8-10, the Wizard can destroy 90% of an encounter in the first one or two rounds, leaving the fighter to mop up exactly one of the remaining mooks, before the Wizard ends it completely.

Only if you have an unusually poor DM.