3.5 ToB DM question

[Turkagent]

I started DMing not too long ago. I only really played about 4+ games as a player before I started DMing for people and it has been going quite well thus far. I run a group about 7-8 people and everyone is having fun.

Without knowing what I was doing I let a player use a Crusader from ToB. Looking at the book and reading into it I am finding that the fighter seems to be pointless if you use ToB. I don't like supplementals making core classes useless. I plan on finishing up this campaign and then banning ToB now that I am more experienced with it.

I just wanted to know if someone could provide some valid points against banning it for the reason i provided(making core classes obsolete).

[Urist]

In a lot of ways, the ToB classes do make the fighter obsolete, the monk more obsolete then it already was, and make the Barbarian obsolete except as a dip class. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The Fighter and Monk are both barely serviceable classes as it is; Monk might as well be 2 levels long unless making a Tashlatora, and Fighter is at most 6 levels long if taking Dungeoncrasher(maybe more for niche Zhentarim Fighter builds). They just don't function against CR appropriate encounters without a lot of aid.

Therefore, it might not be a bad thing to obsolete them. Unless a player is strictly against anything more complicated then "I roll to attack", they are, IMO, likely to have more fun playing a Crusader, Warblade, or Swordsage than a core melee class.

[gkathellar]

Conventional wisdom hold that classes like the fighter are boring, lacking in versatility and, past a certain level, useless. A reasonably competent player can make the fighter obsolete in its given role with most classes, even ones like the Wizard which seem like they shouldn't be able to do that.

The great love of ToB you will find on this forum stems from that: many people see it as a wonderful way of making dedicated melee combatants relevant again, and a fair number of people see classes like the warblade, swordsage and crusader largely as replacements for the ineffective, poorly designed fighter, monk and paladin.

If your game experience was that the crusader was too powerful, more power to you. Different groups have different optimization thresholds. On the other hand, if the crusader seemed to be just about right, you may want to consider whether or not the fighter is actually a hideously underpowered class and a paragon of poor design.

You may also want to consider whether it seemed like playing a crusader was more fun than playing a fighter would have been, for reasons other than power. Because conventional wisdom also holds that it largely is — fighters are boring one-trick ponies, but ToB classes are a joy to play.

Personally, I'd counsel you to use ToB extensively and well. It's a finely crafted system designed to make the game just as mechanically interesting for melee-types as it is for casters. It doesn't get there, but it gets close.

[Boci]

If everyone is having fun then what's the problem? ToB classes pretty much come pre-optimized, which can be a problem in low OP groups. As for rendering the fighter obsolete, it a wasn't a very well designed class, since its only class features were fighter only feats. Also, fighters are still useful when competing with ToB for a feat intensive melee character (such as a lockdown reach wielder), and for all the other situations, you have a tactical warrior. One that can actually use tactical options like movement and readied actions without losing out on their damage potential.

[Thrawn183]

The great thing about ToB classes is that they're pretty much the only ones designed to multiclass well out of the box. If you want to say that everyone has to take levels of fighter with their crusader, that actually works out really nicely.

[Metahuman1]

ToB is more powerful then Core Melee focused classes.

Core Cleric and Druid, with out any help form Fancy DMM: Persist or the like, are substantially more powerful Melee classes then that. Heck, Core Druids PET is just as good or better then any Core Melee focused class except MAYBE Barbarian and Paladin, the former only when on a heavily optimized Charge build combined with Trap Killer AFC form Dungeon scape as it's now a bit more Versatility then the Druids pet, the latter only when it's a mounted combat Uber Charger, and event then it's debatable. Not to mention that that's Core + Splat books vs. Core only. Allow the Pet to have splat books or take the Splats away form the pet, it is flat better then all the core Melee classes.


The core Melee classes are only "Balanced" against full casters at low levels. Get up to about level 7 or 8 or ANY point in the game beyond that and the casters will quickly begin to show you that they don't need anything except the other casters.


ToB is NOT as powerful as Full casters, as I said, but it does help shrink the gap. It allows the Melee characters not to get made utterly pointless and Irrelevant when the game get's past the point were fighting Kobolts and Orcs is a Challenge. Further, it gives Melee some Versatility, options other then "I Charge/Full Attack/Trip again."

That middle one shouldn't even really be listed cause any monster with either it's Int or Wis above 5 has no business staying still long enough to allow a none pounce/martial maneuver/travel devotion triggered full attack to work. Doing otherwise means you as the DM are giving extra help to the player of the none ToB class to compensate them for there weakness. You should not have to do this just to let them do anything with any class.

So, more then one or two options for all none full casters, the ability to not be made utterly irrelevant by the existence of ANY caster that doesn't lobotomize his tactical moves, and giving Melee the fun of Variety that Casters enjoy as well as the ability ToB opens up to Melee through certain select Maneuvers and giving them more skills and better skill lists to do something when there's nothing to kill around, are all good reasons.

[OracleofWuffing]

A sort of recurring theme you'll occasionally see around these parts is that the Druid makes the Fighter obsolete via the Animal Companion and Wild Shipe (Oops, ninja'd). To a different extent, you'll see people say the same with the Cleric by Divine Power and similar buffs.

Fighters still have a possible niche (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19859046/Ubercharger?post_id=338074670#338074670) even in light of Tome of Battle classes.

[Big Fau]

I just wanted to know if someone could provide some valid points against banning it for the reason i provided(making core classes obsolete).

A large part of the counterargument is going to be "The Fighter/Monk/Barbarian aren't that good anyway". This is glossing over a larger issue: Core isn't well-designed.

The Core rules for this game work, to an extent. But the classes presented in the Core rulebooks are, with few exceptions, unbalanced on one end of the spectrum or another. Core is the primary source for broken spells, it houses the three most well-supported classes in the entire system, and it was not given a proper playtest. The Bo9S was the result of the developers trying to correct some portion of Core (the noncasters) by giving us a variant system that doesn't need much help at all.

Other posters will also mention that the Bo9S comes "preoptimized". Well, this is kinda true. The book "sets the bar" at shin height instead of at throat height. The Core noncasters are lucky to be able to clear the first hurdle without a poll to help them jump, whereas a Crusader can simply step over it.

A large part of using the Bo9S in a campaign is accepting that Core is not balanced, despite what the developers may have said about it (and ignoring one of them who tried to save face when he left the company).

[gkathellar]

A sort of recurring theme you'll occasionally see around these parts is that the Druid makes the Fighter obsolete via the Animal Companion and Wild Shipe (Oops, ninja'd). To a different extent, you'll see people say the same with the Cleric by Divine Power and similar buffs.

Fighters still have a possible niche (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19859046/Ubercharger?post_id=338074670#338074670) even in light of Tome of Battle classes.

Yes, non-ToB melee pulls ahead of ToB at maximum optimization. I suspect the OP is dealing with a fairly low optimization level (I could be wrong, mind), so that may be the issue here.


The Core rules for this game work, to an extent. But the classes presented in the Core rulebooks are, with few exceptions, unbalanced on one end of the spectrum or another.

If you really want to get into this and how much impact it has in-game, the best way to explain it is that Bard is the best-balanced class in core, and if Bards don't seem totally awesome in play than your group is probably at a pretty low optimization threshold.

[ZeroSpace9000]

The main argument against banning Tome of Battle, and non-core material in general, is that core itself isn't well balanced at all. Yes, a Crusader will make a Fighter inadequate, but then again a lot will. For example, your average Druid animal companion will stack up favourably against said Fighter, and represents only a small portion of the Druid's full abilities.

The Tome of Battle classes were not intended to play well with the core martial classes like the Fighter, Paladin, and the Monk; they were intended to replace them. In a bit of a reversal on this, classes like the Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer have variants on them in non-core material that is generally less powerful than they themselves are. This is not a case of later books staying away from upstaging these classes. It's WotC realizing those classes are very strong, and printing lower strength alternatives.

One generally accepted point on playing a more internally balanced game (ie all the classes are fairly close to one another in power) is to outright ban core material. This is because of a) the highest amount per book of overpowered material in the game and b) having the largest discrepancy between overpowered and underpowered material.

[Lord Ruby34]

If you do ban core, like the poster above me suggested, I'd leave in Bard. It's a fairly well balanced class.

[Vinyl Scratch]

Generally, Tome Of Battle classes do preform better than the older melee classes, but that's sorta the main goal of the book. At least in my eyes.

What really makes them better is the sheer options you get in the form of maneuvers and stances. They can do offense without needing a stand still full attack, utility with improved movement, scent, and teleport fun, and even battlefield control with Setting Sun throws and Thicket of Blades. They also get cool class abilities to boot.

However, those classes get no support out of their namesake book, while in theory fighters got more, but they could take some of the same feats, too. I would say fighters might be simpler and more new person friendly, assuming low optimization from the others.

As for your DM problem, since everyone is having fun, there is no problem. Fun is goal number one in D&D, in my opinion. What are the other party members? Are there other non-ToB fighter types?

[Metahuman1]

Second leaving the bard and a VERY carefully looked at list of feats, Magic items and spells. And skills.

Wouldn't want to hurt none core classes like the Beguiler or Duskblade by taking there spell list, or the scout or Knight by taking there magic items, or the Factotum by taking his skills, or any useful Melee focused class outside Core I may have missed by Banning the bread and butter of most Melee, Power attack.


As for the Ubercharger. I touched on it. I'd also like to point out with a bit of work a Cleric can be doing that at or around the same level, mounted on a disposable summoned mount more powerful then the Paladin's special mount or unmounted depending on his mood and the terrains allowance, and add DMM: Persist in not to long there after if he likes to make it that much more powerful. Or Add DMM Persist ahead of it and bring it online not to far there after.


So it's not exactly helpful to say that that can let Core Melee keep pace with Tome of Battle when Full casters and None Core Classes can do the exact same thing as well or better.

[ZeroSpace9000]

And for reference sake, the whole 'banning core' thing I mentioned was merely a hypothetical, not an actual recommendation. I will second the people who have mentioned that ToB makes melee more fun.

[Dusk Eclipse]

The main argument against banning Tome of Battle, and non-core material in general, is that core itself isn't well balanced at all. Yes, a Crusader will make a Fighter inadequate, but then again a lot will. For example, your average Druid animal companion will stack up favourably against said Fighter, and represents only a small portion of the Druid's full abilities.

The Tome of Battle classes were not intended to play well with the core martial classes like the Fighter, Paladin, and the Monk; they were intended to replace them. In a bit of a reversal on this, classes like the Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer have variants on them in non-core material that is generally less powerful than they themselves are. This is not a case of later books staying away from upstaging these classes. It's WotC realizing those classes are very strong, and printing lower strength alternatives.

One generally accepted point on playing a more internally balanced game (ie all the classes are fairly close to one another in power) is to outright ban core material. This is because of a) the highest amount per book of overpowered material in the game and b) having the largest discrepancy between overpowered and underpowered material.

I beg to differ, while ToB can replace core classes, it isn't intended to replace them entirely, my first argument being that ToB classes are extremely dip friendly, any non-ToB class can benefit extensively from a dip in any of those classes (a rogue dipping Swordsage for Island of Blades for easier flanking, Sapphire Nightmare Blade for instant Sneak Attacks, Shadow Jaunt for mobility, etc); but on the other hand ToB classes can also benefit from dips into other classes, heck in the case of the warblade they need to dip another class to "fix" their stance progression (whether this is a bug or a feature is up to you though).

Second they made pretty easy for any class to get some ToB material in the form of the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats (which BTW are fighter Bonus feats) there also are Magic Items to get maneuvers, you can't make it easier than that.

Thirdly, generally speaking ToB classes damage output is actually lower than their counterparts at higher levels, as melee damage is quite dependant on iterative attacks. True at lower levels (6 or lower) the damage is higher because the extra effect of strikes and possibly boosts; but once the Fighter and Barbarian get their combos on the damage difference begins to show.

Fourth, the main selling point of ToB for me is that they give out of combat stuff to do to melee classes, firstly they get more skills which is a slight boosts from the start, second many maneuvers have a lot of utility outside battles, from the top of my head, Hunter's Sense give you scent which is pretty useful, Shadow jaunt/stride/blink gives mobility to scouts, Mountain hammer is your lock pick when subtleness isn't needed and so on, and generally any class can get those as they are low-level maneuvers. Though high level ones are also pretty useful, Dance of the Spider gives Spiderclimb, and step of the moth (or something like that, I can't remember) gives flight.

Having said that I do agree that ToB Classes are definitely superior to their counterparts; but they can coexists with their counterparts without more problem.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Also, from a build perspective, delaying your maneuver advancement (especially the Crusader's due to the designer's mistakes on how they placed new stances known) with some non-initiator is a solid idea. From an optimization perspective, Fighter 2 (or nearly any other "fighter" type class like barbarian)/Crusader X is solid.

As others have said, though, core is silly to begin with.

[Lord Ruby34]

Oh, you can also find a good deal of well balanced ToB homebrew here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7315805&postcount=52) Not all of it's ToB derived, but a good deal of it is.

Personally 90% of the melee character in my campaign use ToB and it works out great. There's still use for non ToB melee, and that's mostly the fact that they deal more damage. (Well they hope do, those last few attacks miss a good deal against high AC opponents.)

[FMArthur]

They aren't designed to be equal. If melee is not having any problem in your game and you know some players will decide to play a Core/CW/CAdv melee class with no multiclassing regardless of what you suggest to them, you might indeed be better off banning it because it will disrupt the game.

In a higher-op game that is comfortable multiclassing and cleverly combining feats and features, ToB adds a ton of variety to the game, doesn't dominate it and allows the odd new player to mostly keep up by playing a ToB class straight through. That is a much more fun state of game in my opinion, but maybe it isn't yours. If you would like to get into ToB gradually you can always just ban the classes themselves and allow the feats and magic items that grant you single maneuvers and stances at a time. Those are much, much less impactful on the game but still keep the options in play.

[Machinekng]

I started DMing not too long ago. I only really played about 4+ games as a player before I started DMing for people and it has been going quite well thus far. I run a group about 7-8 people and everyone is having fun.

Without knowing what I was doing I let a player use a Crusader from ToB. Looking at the book and reading into it I am finding that the fighter seems to be pointless if you use ToB. I don't like supplementals making core classes useless. I plan on finishing up this campaign and then banning ToB now that I am more experienced with it.

I just wanted to know if someone could provide some valid points against banning it for the reason i provided(making core classes obsolete).

I don't see the problem. If people are having fun, then why ban anything :smallconfused:?

The ToB classes, above all else, are fun classes at all levels of play. If the Warblade or Crusader is more fun to play than the Fighter, I don't see why banning it would make things more fun.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I'm with Machinekng here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Either balance matters to your group or it doesn't. If it does, it's only a matter of time before you'll need ToB to maintain balance. If it doesn't, why bother banning something at least one of your players clearly enjoys?

[Phaederkiel]

Bard is the best-balanced class in core, and if Bards don't seem totally awesome in play than your group is probably at a pretty low optimization threshold.

time to play the noob: why especially bard?
(and i do not assume the diplomancer here...)


as for ToB:

if your players are afraid of options (one of mine said not long ago: "phew! 4th level spells only come next level...I was afraid i had to learn them NOW...), then pure fighter is gold. Easy in the beginning and customizable when you leveled up.

But as soon as people want more than charge / full attack / walk there, attack / one-trick-pony's trick (and note that this will be ever-so-often charge...) then ToB is better on every level.

It gives options to an option-derived subset of classes.


and, if your players use it, you can use it, too. Which gives mooks a lot of tactical interest.

[gkathellar]

time to play the noob: why especially bard?
(and i do not assume the diplomancer here...)

The short, entirely unsatisfactory answer is that aside from the Psychic Warrior, no other class nails Tier 3 so perfectly right on the heads. Bards are really good at the things they're best at without being game-breaking, and still useful outside of their specialty.

[sonofzeal]

I started DMing not too long ago. I only really played about 4+ games as a player before I started DMing for people and it has been going quite well thus far. I run a group about 7-8 people and everyone is having fun.

Without knowing what I was doing I let a player use a Crusader from ToB. Looking at the book and reading into it I am finding that the fighter seems to be pointless if you use ToB. I don't like supplementals making core classes useless. I plan on finishing up this campaign and then banning ToB now that I am more experienced with it.

I just wanted to know if someone could provide some valid points against banning it for the reason i provided(making core classes obsolete).
Counterpoint #1) Part of the disparity you noticed may have been the Crusader's player being more experienced with the system in general; these sorts of players will often overshadow newer players without it necessarily being any one element of their build. While ToB is a step up, the gap may not be as big as you think - an optimized Fighter can more or less keep up with Warblades, albeit less robustly, and Warblades are generally considered to be the best of the three.

Counterpoint #2) ToB offers awesome things to Core builds, especially Fighters. "Martial Study" is a Fighter Bonus feat, and a 10th level Fighter can grab some interesting maneuvers that way. Rogues love Shadow Blade (works best with a Swordsage dip), the Ranger might like Martial Stance: Hunter's Sense, and spellcasters love Action Before Thought and Mind Over Body. None of these options are unfairly good for what they cost you, but each adds something nice to the mix. Core loves ToB support.

Counterpoint #3) Why should Core be sacrosanct? The Fighter class overshadows the CW Samurai obsolete, but nobody suggests banning Fighter. The question shouldn't be whether it overshadows Core, but whether it functions in and of itself. And, generally speaking, it does. ToB follows a far narrower power curve than most other classes. A well-made Fighter can completely humiliate a naively-made one, but a well-made Wardblade and a naively-made one are within spitting distance of each other.

Counterpoint #4) What matters most is player fun, and while that's a very subjective concept, I think most of us can agree that "I full-attack again because that's the only thing I can do in every fight" is not exactly fun, while having a variety of options and tactics open to you generally is. ToB leads to richer melee combat than most other melee sources, and that usually translates into more fun. If the character is overshadowing others and making other players feel bad, that can be easily solved with a collective talk. The easiest solution is simply raise the Fighter's numbers slightly (+2 Str is usually nice), and/or lower the ToBer's numbers slightly (-2 Str hurts but is survivable). Note that this should only be done collaboratively, and only if other players feel they're having less fun because the ToBer is stealing the glory. I find that's rare though - even if one character is excelling, it usually takes a lot before the other players will stop having fun.

[Darrin]

I just wanted to know if someone could provide some valid points against banning it for the reason i provided(making core classes obsolete).

Every time someone bans ToB, God kills a puppy.

More seriously, the core problem here is not that ToB is too strong, but that certain core classes are too weak. So ToB is not the problem, it's actually one of the solutions. If you ban ToB, the problem still remains: fighters, monks, and paladins are still horrificly underpowered. At lower levels it's not so noticeable, but once the casters get up to 7th level (where they can end an entire encounter via tentacle-porn), you're going to have the same problem, only now you've banned one of the fixes.

You say you're experienced with ToB, but it sounds like you may not have seen much of it and mid- to higher levels? Yes, a Warblade or Crusader will absolutely tear apart a fighter or monk at levels 1-3, but in the 10-15 range they're much more balanced and much more interesting to play.

What kills the fun of melee is lack of flexibility and fewer tactical options. I just don't see how banning ToB does anything but make this core problem 10 times worse.

[Snowbluff]

I'm with Machinekng here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Either balance matters to your group or it doesn't. If it does, it's only a matter of time before you'll need ToB to maintain balance. If it doesn't, why bother banning something at least one of your players clearly enjoys?

This^

ToB brings Melee to Tier 3, a whole Tier higher than most melee classes.

[Aotrs Commander]

Personally, I just acknowlegded that several core classes (Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Paladin) were early-phase design flaws, before everyone (especially the designers) hammered the system in ways the designers hadn't thought of and bent it out of shape. (Look also at the Hexblade, which in the designer's own admission was weak in hindsight).

In my own games, I've been correcting the flaws by boosting those classes a bit: fighters, for example, get a feat every level, and get special benefits from certain feats that are exclusive to fighters (and I mean, really exclusive, not subject to "warblades can have 'em too!") While it certainly doesn't bring them up to the dizzy heights, it does give them a lot more options (and I've tended to find you run out of feats to pick if you just go for the one trick pony, so you alsmots have to have more than one trick!)

That said, my games are such that fighters can still contribute - a lot - even at Epic levels, mostly because the enemy tends to be not one or two monsters, but NPC classes, in large encounters with full melee, missile and most importantly, spellcaster support. The primary spellcaster usually have their hands full dealing with the other primary spellcasters, one way or another! Fighters tend to actually get most of their full attacks in my games, because they're usually dealing with a considerable number of melee enemies, who also want to use full attacks! (An encounter against 20-40 enemies, plus three to six enemy leaders including casters of within spitting distance of the PCs level or fewer an higher tends not to be unusual1.)

So, how powerful ToB is will depend entirely on how your gaming group works, what your players are like and, critically, what sort of opposition you will face. If your players are blaster-caster heavy (we admittedly do like our blasters, one and all in my group!), melee probably won't be made redundant as much, though even then, casters will likely still be doing the lion's share of the graft at higher levels, unless you give them enough targets to split their fire onto.



1My record for complexity was a battle with twenty-six casters and manifesters of various stripes (of which two were also martial adepts), ten crusaders and fifteen superflous non-specialised low-level fighters. It took us four sessions of about 2.5 hours to fight that one! Never again!

[NOhara24]

I don't like supplementals making core classes useless. I plan on finishing up this campaign and then banning ToB now that I am more experienced with it.



ToB didn't make core melee classes useless. They were useless(monk) or at best, severely underpowered (barbarian) at the moment of conception.

Tome of Battle, in short, makes melee viable at higher levels. We know that there are ways to make a fighter keep up, but unless the player is powergaming to the full extent of his abilities, he will still fall off as soon as the party hits level 15 or so.

Let it go. Most DMs aren't used to Melee actually being anything more than a meatshield, that's where the hate for ToB comes from.

[Person_Man]

Fighters (and Tier 4 or lower classes in general) are weak and often boring to play because they basically has very few viable options. Each round, a Fighter may:

Move.
Make a melee attack improved by Feats.
Make a full attack improved by Feats.
Use a magic item.


There's a few other things he might do with Skills or special actions which are also available to all other players, but that's pretty much it.
And that's pretty much it. Since Feats are generally quite limited in their effects, the Fighter is doomed to repetitive game play.

In contrast, Tome of Battle classes have a long list of fun and interesting things to do and elegant mechanics for their balance and use. I accept that some people don't like it as a matter of personal taste or style or tradition. But there's really not a compelling argument to be made for banning it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

In my own games, I've been correcting the flaws by boosting those classes a bit: fighters, for example, get a feat every level, and get special benefits from certain feats that are exclusive to fighters (and I mean, really exclusive, not subject to "warblades can have 'em too!") While it certainly doesn't bring them up to the dizzy heights, it does give them a lot more options (and I've tended to find you run out of feats to pick if you just go for the one trick pony, so you alsmots have to have more than one trick!)

Actually, with Weapon Aptitude, warblades can have them too. Except for Weapon Supremacy in the non-epics.

[The Glyphstone]

Actually, with Weapon Aptitude, warblades can have them too. Except for Weapon Supremacy in the non-epics.

He's saying he houserules extra feats that have 'No Warblades Allowed' as a prerequisite.

[Endarire]

If you're melee and not using ToB, you're probably in one of these categories:

-Destroying things reliably in one round or one hit
-Getting outpaced by polymorph and Wild Shape

Tome of Battle sets things solidly at tier three (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293). This is generally the comfort zone between "I feel awesome yet I'm balanced!" and "I'm gonna make a core-only grudge character and foil your plans just because I feel incompetent!"

[shadow_archmagi]

I don't like supplementals making core classes useless.

Most people find that Tome of Battle offers more options, and that the increase in competence is more or less a side thing. Basically, what most people want to avoid is this:


Hegurow the Wizard: Level 6 Wizard

Things He Can Do: Fly, shoot webs, summon a guy to do his laundry, turn invisible, reflavor food.

Thing's He'll Be Able To Do: If the game lasts long enough, everything forever.

Fihter the Fighter: Level 6 Fighter

Things He Can Do: Stab a guy.

Thing's He'll Be Able To Do: In ten levels, when his feat chain finishes, he'll be able to stab a guy pretty hard. Then he can start spending feats on being able to stab two guys.

[Aotrs Commander]

Actually, with Weapon Aptitude, warblades can have them too. Except for Weapon Supremacy in the non-epics.



He's saying he houserules extra feats that have 'No Warblades Allowed' as a prerequisite.

Yeah, that!

I mean, I added some extra benefits to feats that said "must have X levels of fighter, and no Warblade, you don't count, so bog off!" making them actually exclusive fighter abilities, as opposed to "fighter and Warblade two levels higher!"

(E.g, if a Fighter takes Iron Will under my rules, it doesn't add +2 to Will saves, it replaces the Fighter's save progression with the Good progression, or if you have eight levels of Fighter, you can stack Improved Crit with something like Keen, little stuff like that. It's not much, I'll grant you, but it helps a touch, especially with the nine extra feats (which don't have to be fighter feats, they can be anything, just like those at level up.)

[shadow_archmagi]

Wait, I just realized something-


I started DMing not too long ago. I only really played about 4+ games as a player before I started DMing for people and it has been going quite well thus far. I run a group about 7-8 people and everyone is having fun.

Without knowing what I was doing I let a player use a Crusader from ToB. I plan on finishing up this campaign and then banning ToB now that I am more experienced with it.


I'd be really really upset with my DM if he was like "You know that character you really enjoyed, that everyone was fine with? I'm banning him because I think that this book should be used before that book."

You havn't mentioned any ingame issues, like "The Crusader deals way more damage than I'm comfortable with! I don't know how to scale encounters properly now" or "He actually *is* overshadowing the fighter in the party and the fighter is really unhappy with that."

The most valid point against banning it is "Try it! It doesn't cause problems!" Which you've already done! You've given ToB a fair shake and it seems to be totally working out! Why would you ban it in favor of another class? That's like saying "I know that we've all been enjoying riding around town on Segways, but I want you guys to know that I sold them to gypsies because I think that since trains were around first we shouldn't try to replace them."

Core isn't magical in any way. I've been in plenty of games that didn't include any core classes, and they were generally more balanced and fun than the ones that had only core classes. The only reason to use Core over any other book, in my eyes, is that it's all on the SRD for free.

[ZeroSpace9000]

I agree with you on that, shadow_archmagi. It almost seems like the OP is taking a 'I ban Psionics cause of this one time a player used 300 kajillion pp and blah blah blah' stance. By this I mean not allowing something because it clashes with their view on what dnd should be. And I say almost because, as you've stated, the OP hasn't really spelled out what the problem actually is.

[Big Fau]

I do hope the OP has at least heard of the errata... (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=335.0)

[Chronos]

Personally, I see the problem that ToB was intended to correct, but I think that they tried to solve it the wrong way, and in the process made the original problem worse. The original problem was that warrior-type characters were easily overshadowed by other classes. This is true; I acknowledge it. But what ToB did was introduce yet more classes which overshadow warrior-types. Yes, a warblade bears a superficial similarity to a warrior-type, but they're also fundamentally different in some ways, and if you really do actually want to play a warrior type, then ToB is basically just saying "screw you, we won't even try to support that".

Personally, I think that a proper solution follows immediately from a careful statement of the problem. What's the fighter's problem? His only class features are bonus feats, and most feats are boring. OK, then, the solution is to create new feats which aren't boring, and create enough of them that even a fighter-20 isn't running out of interesting options, and different fighters can take different ones. A tall task? Sure, but then again, so was ToB itself.

With one exception: I won't shed any tears for the Swordsage replacing the Monk. The Monk is supposed to work differently from the Fighter et al., and the core Monk just doesn't really accomplish that (in addition to all the other things it just doesn't accomplish). So I don't actually have a problem with that. In fact, I really wouldn't have much problem with Warblade and Crusader, either, as long as the core classes like Fighter and Paladin were also buffed up to their level.

[Novawurmson]

TL; DR:

Ban the Fighter and Monk and add ToB.

[undead hero]

Look at it this way...

The ToB classes are basically the "class level up" from old Final Fantasy games.

Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger => Warblade
Rogue/Monk => Swordsage/Unarmed Swordsage
Paladin => Crusader

And really this is what the originals should have been more like. Sure it lead to 4e which some people don't like but is brings melee to the tier 3 section with the dread necromancer, warmage, and beguiler.

[Hiro Protagonest]

TL; DR:

Ban the Fighter and Monk and add ToB.

*deep breath*

No, just ban single-classed monk or fighter.

[sonofzeal]

*deep breath*

No, just ban single-classed monk or fighter.
Or just put a giant flashing sign on top of ToB saying "PLAY THIS INSTEAD", and let players come to their own decisions.

[Snowbluff]

Or just put a giant flashing sign on top of ToB saying "PLAY THIS INSTEAD", and let players come to their own decisions.

Exactly what I do. Make sure you aren't messing with a Player's Character Creation. It takes alot of effort, and is customizable to allow for PC to be representative of their players. Let it be!

[Novawurmson]

*deep breath*

No, just ban single-classed monk or fighter.

Ok, well...there are Prestige classes with strange numbers of levels (3, 9, etc.), right? So make the Monk and the Fighter 6 level maximum base classes :D