Unarmed Swordsage.

[Gharkash]

The "variant" is familiar to me as an idea, not as to what you actually get.

Any good (houseruled i suppose) Unarmed Swordsages out there?

[prufock]

You get the monk's unarmed strike progression (and presumably Improved Unarmed Strike) and lose the light armor proficiency. Page 20 of ToB.

[Saintheart]

You have to have the DM agree to even start it up. Played by RAW, an unarmed swordsage doesn't even get Improved Unarmed Strike, which makes the monk's unarmed damage progression ludicrous.

When arguing the point with your DM, the fallback will probably be the tier system: unarmed swordsage is tier 3, monk is tier 5. You aren't giving the swordsage any world-destroying powers as such, though he'd be a competent enough melee'er.

Minimal changes version:
(1) Improved Unarmed Strike
(2) Monk's unarmed damage progession
(3) Lose armor proficiency
(4) Gain monk's AC bonus stacking onto swordsage's WIS to AC.
(5) Right to have DM at least consider swordsage qualifying for monk-only feats, abilities, racial variants.

Better changes version:
(1) Improved Unarmed Strike
(2) Monk's unarmed damage progession
(3) Lose armor proficiency
(4) Gain flurry of blows, monk's saving throws, monk's fast movement, monk AC.

Major changes version: basically, gestalt. Swordsage picks up all the monk's abilities, flurry, saving throws, fast movement, and keeps all his own abilities.

[Lateral]

No, the minimal changes functioning version is that you get Improved Unarmed Strike and unarmed strike progression in return for loss of armor proficiency. No more, no less. Some people like to also make the AC bonus not apply in light armor, as well; personally, I don't really see the point. There's no reason to have the AC bonus on there too, although you could if you like.

[Saintheart]

Should've clarified: that's what I see as a minimal acceptable changes version, not the minimum required per RAW. :)

[Urpriest]

No, the minimal changes functioning version is that you get Improved Unarmed Strike and unarmed strike progression in return for loss of armor proficiency. No more, no less. Some people like to also make the AC bonus not apply in light armor, as well; personally, I don't really see the point. There's no reason to have the AC bonus on there too, although you could if you like.

More commonly, people just make the bonus apply when unarmored, since by default it doesn't.

[St Fan]

Sorry for the slight thread necromancy.

The Tome of Battle is one of the most errata-ed book. For any discussion concerning it, you should have the official errata at hand.

For the Swordsage AC bonus, it is the following:


"Starting at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom
modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light
or no armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This
bonus to AC applies even against touch attack or when you
are flat-footed. However, you lose this bonus when
immobilized or helpless. This bonus does not stack with other
abilities named AC Bonus unless those abilities apply to a
different ability score."

As you can see, the bonus always was supposed to apply unarmored, and it doesn't stack with the AC Bonus of a Monk (unless you add in feats like Kung Fu Genius/Carmendine Monk/Ascetic Mage/Ascetic Psion...).

My take on the Unarmed Swordsage...

What you lose:
- Light Armor proficiency
- at 2nd level, the AC bonus only apply when unarmored, even if you get Light Armor proficiency from another class.

What you gain:
- Improved Unarmed Strike
- all the unarmed strike advantages of a Monk: can attack with any body part, even with two hands full; no off-hand attacks; unarmed strikes count as both manufactured weapon and natural weapon for effects enhancing them.
- damage progression identical to a Monk; stack with Monk levels or other classes improving this damage (but no other Monk abilities); stack with magic items or effects improving this damage.

Here you are, an Alternate Class Feature that should be rather balanced.

[Lateral]

Sorry for the slight thread necromancy.

The Tome of Battle is one of the most errata-ed book. For any discussion concerning it, you should have the official errata at hand.
No, it isn't. The official errata changes to the Complete Mage errata after the first three changes, and that one isn't in there.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You gain IUS and monk unarmed damage, you lose light armor proficiency.

[Urpriest]

You gain IUS and monk unarmed damage, you lose light armor proficiency.

IUS is often assumed, but not given in the entry.

[phlidwsn]

The most straightforward way I've found to define it:

Add the entire text block of "Unarmed Strike" from the monk class description:
Unarmed Strike

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

Remove Light armor Prof.

If your DM won't let the AC bonus work unarmored, wear a suit of padded or leather armor. ACP of 0 means no penalty for the missing prof.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Sorry for the slight thread necromancy.

The Tome of Battle is one of the most errata-ed book. For any discussion concerning it, you should have the official errata at hand.

...You know that the BG/MinMax errata is unofficial and basically just a list of houserules, right?

[St Fan]

...You know that the BG/MinMax errata is unofficial and basically just a list of houserules, right?

If that's not an official errata, then it should just as well be. The Book of 9 Swords is full of needed corrections, and this one is certainly the most sensible I've seen.

Great, now not only players disagree on RAW, but also on which errata applies. This is just pointless.

[Siosilvar]

Sorry for the slight thread necromancy.

The Tome of Battle is one of the most errata-ed book. For any discussion concerning it, you should have the official errata at hand.

Full text of the official errata (up until it turns into Complete Mage):


When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.

Page 74-75 - Strike of the Broken Shield [Deletion]
Remove last two sentences of maneuver's text.

Page 77 - Five-Shadow Creeping Ice Enervation Strike [Deletion]
Remove "Duration: 1 minute."

Page 53 - Firesnake [Deletion/Substitution][/I]
Remove last two sentences of first paragraph.
Substitute last two sentences of second paragraph with "A c

That's it. That's all we have.

I imagine you're citing the BG/minmaxboards errata, which is completely awesome but in no way official.

EDIT:
If that's not an official errata, then it should just as well be. The Book of 9 Swords is full of needed corrections, and this one is certainly the most sensible I've seen.

Great, now not only players disagree on RAW, but also on which errata applies. This is just pointless.

We're not disagreeing on which errata applies. The MinMax errata was created by a group of homebrewers well-versed in the nuances of the game. It is in no way official errata created by WotC - their errata is on the WotC website, look it up yourself. (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a)

You're correct in that it's what the official errata should have been, though.

[Hiro Protagonest]

If that's not an official errata, then it should just as well be. The Book of 9 Swords is full of needed corrections, and this one is certainly the most sensible I've seen.

Great, now not only players disagree on RAW, but also on which errata applies. This is just pointless.

You don't see me automatically assuming that "monk" means "JaronK's monk fix".

[kitcik]

You don't see me automatically assuming that "monk" means "JaronK's monk fix".

Heathen...