Tome of Battle: Which Class?

[Eugenides]

So, basically, I'm looking at rolling a new character at some point in the future. I'm toying with Tome of Battle, since my DM is open to it, and it's highly touted here in the playground.

Now, our party is low-op, as far as I can figure. So the question becomes one of two flavors:

What roles do each initiator play in a party, and which is the most useful, per se?

Secondly, though this will be opinion based, which can be considered the most FUN, and why?

[Medic!]

In my humble opinion:

Crusader: This is the one I enjoy the most. It's the tank, the "paladin" the dauntless weapon of a vengeful god. The basic principle of the class is: Hit me, I hit you back but harder. Hit my friend, you pay the consequences (attack penalties, provoked AoOs, etc). Run away and I'll hit you. Stand there and I'll hit you. Most of the Crusader's maneuvers relate to giving bonuses to your allies, penalties to your enemies, healing while smacking things, or just flat out sticking your sword right up inside someone's guts.

Swordsage: The monk/rogue-esque class....I've never actually played one, so I won't comment much.

Warblade: The Fighter/Barbarian type. A walking weapon who uses intelligence to gain an advantage over his foe. More versitile than the Crusader by a hair, with access to more disciplines, but less than a Swordsage. Most warblade maneuvers make me think of an anime swordsman, doing things like deflecting a lich's disintegration ray with his sword or pulling off a quick DBZ-style power-up and smash by using his Concentration Check to deal damage.

Pretty watered down and overly simplistic explainations for the most part. I'm a full BAB kinda guy, so for me it usually boils down to playing a Crusader who refuses to die or a Warblade who refuses to let something live.


EDIT: In regards to working ToB into your table, my personal advice is to go with a Crusader. The others can come off (without even trying) as a bit much at some tables and down-right unbelievable at others. With a Crusader you'll be keeping your party alive without stepping too hard any any toes (maybe on your healer's a bit, but only at early levels or in light encounters). If you focus on the maneuvers and stances (at first) that enhance your party members (giving them attack bonuses or making your enemies incable of taking AoOs) it should ease the introduction.

[RFLS]

Shameless self plug. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259783)

But seriously, it depends on your playstyle.

[Medic!]

My 1st ToB character at our table was a Crusader, and everyone was like "Oh wow that's pretty cool!" when I was giving foes penalties to attack against everyone but me, and healing 'em for a dozen to 2 dozen damage.


First time I busted out Divine Surge some eyes popped out of their heads when I said "Hey...pass me your d8s....and yours too....AND yours...ok need a couple more d8s, gotta roll damage."

[Duskranger]

For the roles:

Warblade: Fighter/Barbarian
Crusader: Paladin
Swordsage: Monk/rogue combination depends mostly on maneuver choice

So two are primarily melee while the other can also do some more magical things and is actually a good guy to play as a skill monkey when the trapfinder part is allready taken.

My preferred class is the swordsage, but it needs some feats to really kick it in. Crusader is a good second and while I enjoy the warblade, it's a third place.

I really enjoy a small sowrdsage, with a shadowhand weapon and shadow hand stance, than combine it with shadow blade, adaptive style and you have a semi melee beast. Especially since his armor is quite good if you focus on dex and wis

[eggs]

Swordsage is probably the most appropriate in a low-op group. Not because it's weak, but because Crusader and Warblade tend to be overwhelming in those environments for hitting hard and just not going down. Swordsage is at least a little subtler in what it does.

As far as the roles they play, they all fall into the conceptual space that the Fighter or paladin were supposed to. Crusader and Warblade are most direct - melee tanks that can defend themselves against genuinely threatening effects like spells and that can get around adverse conditions like mobile opponents or battlefield control. Swordsage waters that down slightly in favor of some scouting abilities, but it doesn't have many of the special abilities normally associated with that role (traps, tracking, etc.).

Regarding which is the most fun, I enjoy the Warblade most. It gives the most control over what maneuvers to use when, as opposed to Crusader's random draw or Swordsage's 1/encounter (its recovery mechanic makes prepping additional uses per combat largely undesirable, even with Adaptive Style).

[Lord_Gareth]

Okay, so:

Warblades are sort of this odd cross between DPS, Tank, and Bard. They access both Diamond Mind (very high damage) and White Raven (group tactics and buffs) as well as having a lot of utility from Tiger Claw and Iron Heart. Though Warblades have no inherent method of encouraging enemies to attack them (well, outside of White Raven) they can make up for weak saves and armor class with Diamond Mind and Iron Heart. Play a Warblade if you're looking to emulate a barbarian archetype, a cunning warrior, a skilled swordmaster or a battlefield commander.

Swordsages use the most supernatural maneuvers of any class and are very close in nature to Rogues. They know the most maneuvers and can learn from the most schools. Swordsages also get the most utility maneuvers; they can walk on walls, on water, on air, do silly things with Setting Sun, flank people without having to flank them, gain Sneak Attack and more. Swordsages are great for setting up single, devastating strikes as opposed to complex attack routines and have better personal defenses than a Warblade. If you ever wanted to play a monk, a ninja, a chi-master or supernatural serial killer, play a Swordsage.

Crusaders take a lickin' and keep on tickin'. Their special school, Devoted Spirit, lets them heal themselves and others, smite those of other alignments and alter reality with their faith. They get a delayed-damage pool that also increases their attack and damage and have some of the only honest-to-god-tanking mechanics in the game. Crusaders are unique in that their maneuvers refresh automatically, needing no action on your part. Play a Crusader to be a paladin, a holy warrior, a tough-as-nails veteran or a demigod learning the trade.

[HunterOfJello]

How low-op are we talking about? What are the other character's classes? I love ToB, but one of the few times ToB is a bad idea is in low-op groups.

Also, Warblade is the easiest and simplest of the three. Assuming your group can use a melee damager / meat shield, I'd go with that. You can also compare it to those low-op characters and see if its too strong or not.


*edit*

P.S.
Remember to read the entire Blade Magic chapter carefully. It shouldn't be skipped. People make lots of rookie mistakes after not reading it properly. For instance: ToB characters get access to their levels of maneuvers at the same rate that wizards get access to spell levels. You don't get access to 2nd level maneuvers until level 3 and you don't get access to 3rd level maneuvers until level 5. Stances count as maneuvers for pre-reqs, etc.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Since what needs to be said already has been, I'll just say that my favorite is a tossup between warblade and swordsage. I usually blend the two and I'm rather fond of the Master of Nine PrC to boot, but if I absolutely had to choose one or the other I'd choose swordsage. I like the flavor and the versatility.

For a low-op group though, a warblade or crusader focused on White Raven maneuvers is probably your best bet.

[Lonely Tylenol]

All comparisons end here. (http://alt.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13644984&postcount=17)

[Firechanter]

My personal order of preference is: Warblade > Crusader > Swordsage

But that's not to say the Swordsage was bad or anything, it's just that I prefer Full BAB on non-casters. Apart from that, SS has one of the coolest discipline of all (Shadow Hand), imho it's the one with the most useful Stances especially at low level. You get a great number of maneuvers, but the worst refresh mechanism (with Adaptive Style it's decent).
Role: basically the SS is the Ninja done right. That's why you'll ofted read "swordsaged" below posts in this forum to denote what's a ninja edit in the rest of the internet. You can develop it more Monk-ish or more Rogue-ish or even more magicky.
However, it can't fully replace the Rogue because it doesn't have Trapfinding, Open Lock or Disable Device. So if you want that you'll need a bit of multiclassing.

The Crusader is pretty much the only real Tank in the entire _game_, because he can kinda "draw aggro", i.e. make enemies attack him or suck, and when they attack him they just do what he wants and make him stronger. Very cool. It doesn't have a proper capstone ability, so you don't need to feel bad if you take a few multiclass or PrC levels.
Slight drawback is that its maneuver selection is a bit monotonous; you only have access to three disciplines and one of those is not so hot... so basically most Crusaders will look very similar.
Replaces the Paladin and certain Fighter builds.

Warblade, now, is simply the best melee class ever. Their only drawbacks are a lack of Heavy Armour (which you might want at low levels) and lack of ranged weapon proficiency. They have access to excellent maneuvers, allowing them to develop various effective shticks, a good refresh mechanism, and some extra candy. Also an excellent capstone that makes going Warblade 20 very viable.
Role: Bruiser, or if you want Commander or even Battlefield Control. Not really a tank.
Replaces the Barbarian and certain Fighter builds.

So, the question is, what are the other characters in your party? If you already have a Rogue, rolling a Swordsage may be a bit rude. Likewise the other classes and their counterparts.

[AmberVael]

If you ask me, Swordsage is by far the most entertaining. Warblade and Crusader only dabble in maneuvers in comparison, and Swordsage gets access to a lot of the most interesting and diverse ones.

In addition, I agree with some of the others, that Swordsage is probably the best one to choose in a low-op group. Warblade and Crusader are likely to just be seen as a fighter or paladin but... better. Swordsage is a bit more distinct, and their power comes less from being able to tear things apart and do crazy powerful stuff, and more from having a range of interesting options.

[BowStreetRunner]

On the matter of playing ToB in a low-op group, I would just like to state that I do not think this should be a problem at all. The best way to do this is to use your maneuvers to gain a wide variety of abilities, instead of focusing on any one narrow theme. There are so many good but highly situation-dependent maneuvers and stances that you can take, that is easy to spread yourself out so that you shine a little in a lot of encounters, but aren't over-the-top in any.

Another great way to reduce the potency of a ToB build is to multi-class a bit more in non-initiator classes. This reduces your overall initiator level (each non-initiator level counting as only 1/2 initiator level) and keeps some of the most powerful maneuvers out of reach until later levels. ToB classes are in fact very dip-friendly if you want to just introduce them that way at first.

[Snowbluff]

Swordsage is probably the most appropriate for lower OP.

[toapat]

Warblade: Fighter, but better overall

Swordsage: Rogue and Monk's Combat philosophy done well.

Crusader: A Paladin, without anything that actually makes Paladins useful other then their healing. People rave about them, and just say play this, despite the fact that paladins are better in almost all situations.

[Snowbluff]

Crusader: A Paladin, without anything that actually makes Paladins useful other then their healing. People rave about them, and just say play this, despite the fact that paladins are better in almost all situations.

I disagree with Toapat's analysis.

Paladin is alright, the only thing is has that the Crusader is a few immunities (monk style!), special mount (not always very useful, shoud be stronger imo), and spells (At a terrible CL with out OP, and not very many are useful, AND it's the worst supported list from the PhB)

The crusader, on the other hand, is capable of making armies out of peasants. Additionally, dips are considerably more viable, it is incredibly tough, it's the only effective option for simultaneously taking the healing and melee roles.

[toapat]

I disagree with Toapat's analysis.

Paladin is alright, the only thing is has that the Crusader is a few immunities (monk style!), special mount (not always very useful, shoud be stronger imo), and spells (At a terrible CL with out OP, and not very many are useful, AND it's the worst supported list from the PhB)

The crusader, on the other hand, is capable of making armies out of peasants. Additionally, dips are considerably more viable, it is incredibly tough, it's the only effective option for simultaneously taking the healing and melee roles.

the Crusader has a higher starting floor for optimization.

their optimization ceiling is only T4 (the standard test is in so many ways wrong about the Innitators)

that doesnt change the fact that there are many ways to actually improve paladin well beyond where they are (High tier 5 as a result of bad attribute requirements).

[Emperor Tippy]

Dark Grey Elf Factotum 3 (or 4)/Swordsage 17 (or 16) is one of my preferred assassin/scout builds. It's quite fun but the power much be a bit much if you are going really low op.

[Firechanter]

Paladins being better than Crusaders? Srsly? oÔ You must have found out something that all the rest of the internet missed.

Pallies suffer from enormous MAD, and need high Point Buys / Rolls to be even functional, let alone good. Their spellcasting may be a wee bit better than the Ranger's, but it's still a book titled "Too little, too late". Their Smite ability is limited to a handful of rolls _per day_ for an amount of extra damage any Crusader can shake up at levels 3-5 as often as he freaking wants to. Divine Might / Shield used to be awesome in 3.0, but have been nerfed to oblivion in 3.5.

Sure, the Pally has _some_ stuff that is cooler than what Crusaders get. But not very much. In terms of staying power, damage output and party buffing, the Crusie is just superior. Add to that the whole tanking business.

But well, you can have both, after all -- take Crusie, add 3 or 4 levels of Pally, let rise, and maybe add a nice frosting of Ruby Knight Win-dicator whenever you feel like it.

[Snowbluff]

the Crusader has a higher starting floor for optimization.

their optimization ceiling is only T4 (the standard test is in so many ways wrong about the Innitators)

that doesnt change the fact that there are many ways to actually improve paladin well beyond where they are (High tier 5 as a result of bad attribute requirements).

Well, they aren't only good at one thing, is the thing. Also keep in mind things like the d2 Crusader, Eternal Blades, and Idiot Crusaders representing the ceiling for Crusaders, while the best Paladin gets is 4th level spells from the Wizard's list.

[toapat]

Well, they aren't only good at one thing.

Combat is one thing, its a large group, but it is still only one thing. breaking barriers is still combat. Paladins do healing better because they can heal people while not beating face inside out.

d2 crusader doesnt work (the wording of Imbued healing isnt specific enough for it)
Idiot Crusader is really Master of the Swords. it uses all the inniators except for RKV

the Ubercharger is a paladin build that yields a 99D12 HD dragon mount.


Paladins being better than Crusaders? Srsly? oÔ You must have found out something that all the rest of the internet missed.

using Officially published material, you can run paladin off of wisdom (a Charisma version of Serenity would be way better though)

A crusader only has white raven outside of combat (Mountain hammering Walls is still combat), paladins have healing and buffs in their spells.

Being good at only combat is within the definition of T4. not T3. T3 is good at combat, and useful when its not time to pound face, or good no matter what.

[eggs]

People rave about them, and just say play this, despite the fact that paladins are better in almost all situations.To a certain degree, that's true about all of them. Fighter feat combos can wrack up higher damage, comparable defenses and work around AC more effectively than Warblades. Rogue/Monks can rack up silly size-stacked sneak attack damage, lay out status effects, do the usual out-of-combat lurking around and negate most attacks made against them at least as well as Swordsages. Paladins can get downright abusive with shapeshifting and spell sharing, plus rolling around in the occasional ACF upgrade.

But on the same note, in almost every case, those optimized non-ToB classes would do little but gain by dipping into ToB - a couple Warblade levels to round out the Fighter's defenses, some Swordsage to push the Rogue/Monk's SA higher and give it even more immediate defenses, some Crusader/RKV to crank up the Paladin's endurance and support powers and to really exploit Battle Blessing to its fullest.

[Firechanter]

d2 crusader doesnt work (the wording of Imbued healing isnt specific enough for it)

Here I agree with you. The d2 crusader doesn't work on so many levels, I find it a miracle that it's still seriously referenced. Imbued Healing or not, the Chaos Aura it's supposed to use _specifically_ says that the die has to actually, physically _show_ the max result to trigger, not "be treated as the max result".


using Officially published material, you can run paladin off of wisdom (a Charisma version of Serenity would be way better though)

Where can I find that? I looked up my Consolidated Lists for a Serenity feat but nothing showing.
Personally I think the Pathfinder Paladin is a pretty good fix, getting rid of the Wis requirement and greatly improving Smite -- one of the few things that PF is doing better than 3.5.


A crusader only has white raven outside of combat (Mountain hammering Walls is still combat), paladins have healing and buffs in their spells.

Being good at only combat is within the definition of T4. not T3. T3 is good at combat, and useful when its not time to pound face, or good no matter what.

And here I disagree. First off, applying Mountain Hammer outside of combat doesn't suddenly make it combat. It can just as well be puzzle-solving or dungeoneering. "A hammer is just a really heavy set of lockpicks".

Secondly, "Combat" is not a single category in itself, but consists of several categories such as Tanking, Bruising, Controlling, Buffing("Leading"). Most Melee classes have to focus on one of these tasks to be any good at them. The Crusader (and the Warblade) can easily be great at several of them and decent in the others, _in a single build_.

[Lord_Gareth]

Not to mention that Crusaders do, in point of fact, have access to a fairly sexy skill list that helps in all manner of non-combat situations.

[Hunter Noventa]

If you do go the Swordsage route, make sure to take Adaptive Style as your level 1 feat. There is no other choice. Their recovery mechanic is absolutely terrible, an Adaptive Style makes it much better.

[toapat]

Where can I find that? I looked up my Consolidated Lists for a Serenity feat but nothing showing.
Personally I think the Pathfinder Paladin is a pretty good fix, getting rid of the Wis requirement and greatly improving Smite -- one of the few things that PF is doing better than 3.5.

And here I disagree. First off, applying Mountain Hammer outside of combat doesn't suddenly make it combat. It can just as well be puzzle-solving or dungeoneering. "A hammer is just a really heavy set of lockpicks".

Secondly, "Combat" is not a single category in itself, but consists of several categories such as Tanking, Bruising, Controlling, Buffing("Leading"). Most Melee classes have to focus on one of these tasks to be any good at them. The Crusader (and the Warblade) can easily be great at several of them and decent in the others, _in a single build_.

Dragon 306/Dragon Compendium (Compendium is preferable because it has no diety Prerequisites) for Serenity

No, its not in combat, but the mechanics for busting down walls are combat mechanics.

Combat has Subcategories, and paladin can be good at all of them (A-Game Paladin is an example of this), its just that being good at multiple in combat roles is not being useful outside of combat, which is the significant problem with saying Crusader/Warblade are Tier 3.


Not to mention that Crusaders do, in point of fact, have access to a fairly sexy skill list that helps in all manner of non-combat situations.

the Tier lists pretty often state that Skills dont matter for tiering, stupid as that may be.

[Snowbluff]

Dragon 306/Dragon Compendium (Compendium is preferable because it has no diety Prerequisites) for Serenity

No, its not in combat, but the mechanics for busting down walls are combat mechanics.

Combat has Subcategories, and paladin can be good at all of them (A-Game Paladin is an example of this), its just that being good at multiple in combat roles is not being useful outside of combat, which is the significant problem with saying Crusader/Warblade are Tier 3.



Well, except Paladin does 2 things. Break stuff and heal. Crusader does the same 2 things, but effectively, and then does more.

[toapat]

Well, except Paladin does 2 things. Break stuff and heal. Crusader does the same 2 things, but effectively, and then does more.

except that the crusader heals cant be used without pounding someone's face in. Paladins have crap healing as a base class, but it can be used outside of brutally mauling people

[Dienekes]

the Tier lists pretty often state that Skills dont matter for tiering, stupid as that may be.

Where? Also weren't you called out on this in another thread?

I mean admittedly, spells are better in out of combat situation, obviously cause spells are better at everything, but skills are not ignored, which is a large part of why Factotum gets placed in Tier 3 as well.

And there is a difference between combat rules applying and in combat. If you can break down a door to escape a dangerous gas that is an out of combat situation even if using in combat mechanics. Now I don't have a good memory on all that a Crusader can do, but I bet someone else here can give out an out of combat trick or two.

[navar100]

I'm repeating what others said, but it's true. In simple terms:

Crusader = Paladin
Warblade = Fighter and/or Barbarian depending on build
Swordsage = Monk with a dash of Rogue

There is more to it than that, but you have a basis of familiarity to work with in terms of combat style.

[gkathellar]

Crusader: A Paladin, without anything that actually makes Paladins useful other then their healing. People rave about them, and just say play this, despite the fact that paladins are better in almost all situations.

I ... what. No. Look, Devoted Spirit is arguably the most powerful discipline in the book, with White Raven and Shadow Hand in runner-up positions*. Crusader gets two of those. Not only that, Crusader gets what is hands-down the best (and most interesting) recovery mechanic, which makes Crusader the best class for PrC entry despite its limits, since it can also use all 6 other disciplines better than the other two classes can. And let's not forget that delayed damage pool, eh? Or the access to sweet Tactical feats. Or Mettle. Or ... you know what, let's shift subjects. Let's talk about Paladins.

Paladins are crappy half-casters with good feat support. They can get some pretty good saves, but only if they somehow have some ability score points left over from getting a respectable Constitution and Strength, and decent Wisdom. Several times per day, they can make a few of their attacks slightly less terrible against evil opponents, which ... sounds a lot like Strikes, but not as good (or, hey, like the Crusader's Smite, but not as good; that one also works). Lay On Hands is not terrible by comparison with other standard action healing (read: it is terrible), but again, relies on the Paladin having a high charisma, which again, is MAD. To top this off, they ... get a horse? HELLO WILD COHORT MY NAME IS REDUNDANCY.

Now, paladins get some pretty slick feat support. Battle Blessing is almost as good as just having boosts and counters. And in the old news department, SotAO continues to exist and continues to make paladins and rangers playable if you can get around the fact that it imposes even more MAD on them. And then there's Serenity, I guess?

But, leaving aside debates about whether Dragon Compendium counts as official content (it doesn't), are you seriously asserting that Wisdom SAD is of equal value to actual functional class features? Hell, you don't need more than two levels of Paladin to grab Serenity. That's like saying Monk is good because I'll probably dip a level or two in it for a Wisdom SAD build. All Serenity ever really gives is a reason to dip paladin, not a reason to actually use the class as a whole.

Which leaves us with Crusader.


their optimization ceiling is only T4

Tiers describe relative ability with an equal degree of optimization, not where a class ends up with XYZ amount of optimization.


A crusader only has white raven outside of combat (Mountain hammering Walls is still combat), paladins have healing and buffs in their spells.

I see we've switched sides, since earlier you said the only things Crusaders have that Paladins don't are their healing.

*You can argue Diamond Mind, as well, and Setting Sun has a high optimization ceiling, and OH NO, a wild Well-Balanced Sourcebook attacked (should have stayed out of that tall grass).

[toapat]

Where? Also weren't you called out on this in another thread?

yes. i got called out by people who had not read the actual threads they were talking about.

Go read the main thread, and the rogue explaination. It says specifically, other then Factotum, that skills dont matter, because of Factotum. This is partially an extension of the fact that the skills system is too complex and not in and of itself strong enough to be effective.

As far as the tier system is currently concerned:

Skills (Barring Factotum) Do not matter
Being Useful only in combat is enough to make you Tier 3, despite the definition of Tier 3 being "Great at one thing, and useful when that one thing is inappropriate"
A standard view of each class as it is at lvl 12. (this isnt nearly a problem. but it does make the system slightly less useful as a gauge.)


I see we've switched sides, since earlier you said the only things Crusaders have that Paladins don't are their healing.[/SIZE]

Removed Content: Go look at paladin, the actual class. Dragon counts because it was published by WotC, even if it was written by Pazio.

People rave about divine spirit, except, it is actually worse then Stone dragon. ok it can heal, in combat. Healing blows, mitigation is what you want. Stone Dragon has a Heavy Fortification stance and the ability to get significant DR. Divine Spirit? Piss off an enemy and heal through their damage like a WoW paladin, except DR>Healing. and at least Paladin healing can be used when not in combat, or be made useful with a free ACF that is in the book that The Giant wrote.

[eggs]

The Paladin does have access to a bunch of other effects, like skills through Divine Insight, flight/debuffs/senses through mounts and turning-based feats, the potential benefits of SotAO, and some utility-oriented ACFs (including greater dispels, earthglide and what I think is the best printed version of Hide in Plain Sight).

But I think it should be pretty reasonable to assume that for someone posting an advice thread about picking up ToB for the first time in a specifically low-op group, most Paladins in that game are going to suck, and most Crusaders are just going to walk around on top of them.

[Dienekes]

yes. i got called out by people who had not read the actual threads they were talking about.

The guy with the threads in his sig didn't read the thread...


Go read the main thread, and the rogue explaination. It says specifically, other then Factotum, that skills dont matter, because of Factotum. This is partially an extension of the fact that the skills system is too complex and not in and of itself strong enough to be effective.

I have. Rogue is listed as not being Tier 3 because frankly it's worse as a skill-monkey than the Factotum, not that skills are therefore useless, especially when that is not the focus of your class. And even then Rogue is considered a high Tier 4 and called the second best skill-monkey class.

So going by the Crusader and the definition of Tier 3: Good at one thing and not useless at a bunch of other things.

What is the Crusader good at? Tanking.

What are a bunch of other things that the Crusader at least can do? Healing, Diplomacy, Breaking things, can reroll a save. And that's without looking at their maneuvers to see what out of combat capabilities they have.

[toapat]

The Paladin does have access to a bunch of other effects, like skills through Divine Insight, flight/debuffs/senses through mounts and turning-based feats, the potential benefits of SotAO, and some utility-oriented ACFs (including greater dispels, earthglide and what I think is the best printed version of Hide in Plain Sight).

But I think it should be pretty reasonable to assume that for someone posting an advice thread about picking up ToB for the first time in a specifically low-op group, most Paladins in that game are going to suck, and most Crusaders are just going to walk around on top of them.

i think one of the questions this raises is, is exactly what qualifies as High Op? there is so much stuff that makes paladin reasonable powerful, that it becomes questionable. obviously Serenity and SotAO would be High Op, but the rest?

also, whats this HiPS ACF? you talking about UDK?

[gkathellar]

yes. i got called out by people who had not read the actual threads they were talking about.

Go read the main thread, and the rogue explaination. It says specifically, other then Factotum, that skills dont matter, because of Factotum. This is partially an extension of the fact that the skills system is too complex and not in and of itself strong enough to be effective.

You mean this line (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4874.0) (4th paragraph under top spoiler)?


The real reason that rogue is tier four is that factotum is just plain better. As a skill monkey, a factotum has no cross class skills and most likely has more skill points as well given its emphasis on INT.

It seems fairly transparent that the argument being made in the above quote is that rogue fails at being a skillmonkey because there are noticeably better skillmonkeys. It does not say that skills are worthless for other characters. Just that, you know, for a skill specialist, the rogue is pretty lackluster.

But okay, you don't buy that? Because two paragraphs down, we get this:


The rogue is a solid class, part of the must have four for a team. It's the second best skill monkey class out there with it's 8 points per level and easy ability room to pick up a good score in int.

It's important to remember that the "this is why class X is in tier Y" bits consist of a group of quotes from users who contributed.

And then, over on the reasoning for Paladin's T5 position (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4869.0), we get this little gem (third-to-last spoiler, second paragraph):


They have very little to offer skill wise outside of diplomacy, but to even take that a Paladin would require 12 int since their two skill points would be spent in Handle Animal and Ride.

Now, moving on.


Removed Content: Go look at paladin, the actual class. Dragon counts because it was published by WotC, even if it was written by Pazio.

I'm looking at a class that is strikingly devoid of abilities after 5th level, the only saving grace of which is, appropriately enough, Divine Grace.


People rave about divine spirit, except, it is actually worse then Stone dragon. ok it can heal, in combat. Healing blows, mitigation is what you want.

Conventional wisdom holds that healing sucks chiefly because healing eats actions. For exactly this reason, Devoted Spirit probably has the only non-terrible healing in the game, on account of having abilities that heal without cutting into its action economy.


Stone Dragon has a Heavy Fortification stance and the ability to get significant DR. Divine Spirit? Piss off an enemy and heal through their damage like a WoW paladin, except DR>Healing.

You know, you're right. Stone Dragon is yet another thing which makes Crusaders vastly superior to Paladins.


and at least Paladin healing can be used when not in combat

Wand of Lesser Vigor says hi. Out of combat healing is trivial, and perhaps more importantly to this line of argument, its necessity is mitigated by the presence of effective in-combat healing with low opportunity costs.

[eggs]

also, whats this HiPS ACF? you talking about UDK?
The Gnome paladin in the CoV web enhancement (Shadow Cloak?).

It's Extraordinary, but it gets the abilities that are normally reserved for the Supernatural version (hiding without cover).

EDIT: I have mostly seen it used in Underdark Knight builds, though. Mostly because Air Gnome's picked for its not-breathing thing, and at that point, HiPS is as good a Remove Disease replacement as any.

[toapat]

Conventional wisdom holds that healing sucks chiefly because healing eats actions. For exactly this reason, Devoted Spirit probably has the only non-terrible healing in the game, on account of having abilities that heal without cutting into its action economy.

You know, you're right. Stone Dragon is yet another thing which makes Crusaders vastly superior to Paladins.

1: Conventional Wisdom says Healing sucks if you can do anything to prevent that damage from being taken.

2: No, its not. Unless your DM is that much of a **** that they do not allow you to get a Homebrewed +5 Mithral Fullplate of Heavy Fortification, you shouldnt need a class feature to buy a pretty obvious to take peice of equipment.

[Aegis013]

1: Conventional Wisdom says Healing sucks if you can do anything to prevent that damage from being taken.

Steeley Resolve says hi. Crusader has a built in prevention mechanic.

I personally like Crusader a lot, so I'm pretty biased here, though I would guess that Crusader/RKV and Paladin's OP ceiling are pretty similar, just that Crusader takes a lot less effort and book-diving to have at a reasonably strong level.

[gkathellar]

2: No, its not. Unless your DM is that much of a **** that they do not allow you to get a Homebrewed +5 Mithral Fullplate of Heavy Fortification, you shouldnt need a class feature to buy a pretty obvious to take peice of equipment.

Yes, because Heavy Fortification is the only thing Stone Dragon does, right? And because saving yourself the room for other uses of your WBL is likewise worthless.

[Talionis]

The nice thing about Tome of Battle is that it can help craft a melee character to do decently at anything you want it to do. If you group is low op, any of these will work.


Access to disciplines -- Swordsage gets the most access and most maneuvers to start an encounter, but it a has a bad recovery mechanic (see below). Warblade has access to more disciplines, but you might reasonably argue that Crusaders disciplines are better.

Don't forget that the feats Martial Study and Martial Stance can add a maneuver to a base class that would not ordinarily have access to. So if one feat from a Shadow Hand maneuver would be interesting on your Crusader you can usually get it with some feat choices.

Recovery Mechanics -- Swordsage is the worst recovery mechanic of the three. Crusader will always have a maneuver ready for you to use, but you have less choice of which maneuver and Warblade lets you recover all your maneuvers simply by normally attacking.

Adaptive Style Feat can help improve Swordsage's recovery mechanic and to allow you access to maneuvers during an encounter that you might not normally keep readied. It still will cost you a whole round just meditating.

Weigh how long your fights and encounters normally last, Swordsage is great, but it can't blast its maneuvers every round and last through a long fight. If you have other things to do other than use maneuvers, Swordsage can be a great class. If they last longer, then Crusader and Warblade are better choices.

I like ToB classes best as a splash to make a better rogue or make a better Paladin. Maneuvers get better at higher levels, but often just have some low level options makes playing a melee class so much more fun, so don't just focus on ToB, look to see how ToB can make other classes more fun for you and your group, especially in a low op game.

[Annos]

Be a swordsage with shadow hand, setting sun and tiger claw.:smallsmile:

[toapat]

WBL

By the point you can afford a +10 fullplate, your WBL gets you enough gold each level to get a few other peices of gear the next level/, the thing is, nothing has Heavy Fort that is published, making it unobtainable as far as TO is concerned barring one stance in ToB.

[Talionis]

What level are you planning on starting at and playing to?

Because low op, I think it would be fun to play:

Unarmed Swordsage Variant into Shadow Sun Ninja.
Focus on Setting Sun, Shadow Hand, and just a touch of Tiger Claw

That way you don't need a weapon you can just punch, since both advance unarmed damage. I would focus on Setting Sun maneuvers for Throws to be good at positioning enemies for your friend's characters. The Shadow Hand Maneuvers allow you to debuff enemies for your friend's characters.

You'll never get out of hand with number of maneuvers per encounter, but you'll have stuff to do when you don't want or have an available maneuver.

The first level Shadow Sun Ninja ability grants great in encounter healing for yourself and your friends. Plus, Shadow Sun has some great ways to help you get around on the battle field. Lots of fun ways to try to increase your unarmed damage to increase your healing.

I'm especially fond of Sudden Leap from Tiger Claw discipline as a way to move as a Swift action early in the game. Scent Stance or Blood in the Water Stance are fine prerequisites for Sudden Leap. Later the Dancing Mongoose line maneuvers are good to pick up since they add two additional attacks and four additional attacks as a boost.

Pick up the Adaptive Style feat eventually, then find a way to hide for a round and recharge all your maneuvers in an encounter.

If you go past level 15 you might look into picking up the Master of Nine Prestige Class. That will give you a great number of high end maneuvers from any of the different disciplines and its a good way to have a character that grabs the feel of Tome of Battle. My advice would be to dip into Crusader and or Warblade in the first few levels to help meet the prerequisites later for Master of Nine. Something like 4 Swordsage/1 Crusader/10 Shadow Sun Ninja/5 Master of Nine.

Just because you have Unarmed Strike doesn't mean you can't use a weapon for maneuvers.

[toapat]

*snip*

Arguing that Healing is preferable ever, even when both paladins with divine spirit (Dungeonscape) and anyone who bothers to get Divine Spirit (tome of lazy but effective execution) strikes get to heal as essentially free actions, does not change the fact that healing in 3.5 is counteracted by the fact that even if healing was consistently powerful enough to matter, you do not have things like the Healing Shields that healers in WoW get, where their overhealing becomes temporary HP.

In a little cleaner wording: Mitigation and Prevention cost less, last longer, and are more reliable then healing, because the math in 3.5 is screwed up at every level.

and no, I want the Tier System to be rewritten, because it either doesnt apply to its own definitions, nerfs classes when it shouldnt, and it treats combat as a much larger number of things then it should.

I wont argue certain classes (Fighter and Paladin are Tier 5, for obvious reasons that cant be argued, No class features, and horrible core attribute requirements, are both terribad.) as being out of place, it acknowledges that certain classes skirt the edges of tiers, and marks them. The points you made about Maneuvers, didnt change the fact that they are primarily, baring White Raven and Shadow Hand, Combat based. sure, you can be amazing at combat, but a crusader will be useless if he needs to heal the contact outside of combat. Saying "But they get a good skill list" is not justification, if the Rogue isnt T3 despite being the second best but more reliable skillmonkey, then you cant say that for anyone else.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255122) is probably the most comprehensive comparison ever done between crusader and paladin, under the assumption that core+ToB are the only available books.

The two are so close to equal that it's ridiculous to seriously argue that either is noticeably better than the other out-of-the-box.

Crusader has the higher op floor, paladin has the higher op ceiling. Can we drop this now?

[RFLS]

and no, I want the Tier System to be rewritten, because it either doesnt apply to its own definitions, nerfs classes when it shouldnt, and it treats combat as a much larger number of things then it should.

I wont argue certain classes (Fighter and Paladin are Tier 5, for obvious reasons that cant be argued, No class features, and horrible core attribute requirements, are both terribad.) as being out of place, it acknowledges that certain classes skirt the edges of tiers, and marks them. The points you made about Maneuvers, didnt change the fact that they are primarily, baring White Raven and Shadow Hand, Combat based. sure, you can be amazing at combat, but a crusader will be useless if he needs to heal the contact outside of combat. Saying "But they get a good skill list" is not justification, if the Rogue isnt T3 despite being the second best but more reliable skillmonkey, then you cant say that for anyone else.

In a non-provocative manner, I'd suggest you write one. It's been a while since there's been an update, it's a hodgepodge of various writers, and I'm sure an update would be appreciated.

If.

You take input on relative tiers, if you have a consistent set of definitions, and if you're willing to admit when you may be wrong. Don't tackle this and then just write "here's what I think." Be sure you're taking input and being consistent.

[Acanous]

Crusader. Most fun recovery mechanic, best low level survivability, great branching options for progression, decent school selections.

[Felyndiira]

In a little cleaner wording: Mitigation and Prevention cost less, last longer, and are more reliable then healing, because the math in 3.5 is screwed up at every level.
Fair enough


The points you made about Maneuvers, didnt change the fact that they are primarily, baring White Raven and Shadow Hand, Combat based.
There's a problem with how you're defining combat. For instance, you define using mountain hammer to smash through a wall as combat. Going that route, open lock (and maybe even disable device and the likes) are also combat-related, since they perform a function that can be duplicated by mountain hammer (namely, opening locks).

A crusader can perform out-of-combat healing as well. Hit a rock, a piece of cloth, or air, heal people; nowhere in any of the maneuvers (at least that I remember) does it ever say that a crusader must actually hit a CR-appropriate enemy to grant healing to anyone. At 17th level, they can duplicate a Heal spell, which is quite powerful if you need to heal the king of, say, taint (and if you need to bash in some unworn rags to do so, no one will complain).

In fact, there are a ton of uses for stuff that can be construed as "out of combat". Do you suspect that the king's dinner is poisoned? Is someone trying to poison you? Iron Heart Surge does that. Are you subjected to an out-of-combat save? Any of the save replacing lines will work wherever you are at the moment. Do you need to chase down a thief? You can always use quicksilver motion. Plus, crusaders also have diplomacy as a class skill, so

If you define "non-combat" as just "stuff you can only accomplish with skills" then sure, crusaders only really get craft, diplomancy, and knowledge (religion) as class skills. However, what makes an out-of-combat save so different from, say, a wizard's fly? Why is smashing through the environment "combat", but using illusions to recreate a different environment would be considered something else? It seems almost like you're defining "non-combat" like that to specifically boost the rogue while hurting all of the non-beguiler classes (keep in mind that under your definition, a lot of what the dread necro does is also "combat" - even creating undead armies and such).


sure, you can be amazing at combat, but a crusader will be useless if he needs to heal the contact outside of combat. Saying "But they get a good skill list" is not justification, if the Rogue isnt T3 despite being the second best but more reliable skillmonkey, then you cant say that for anyone else.
Rogues get 4 more skill points per level than crusaders do (8+Int instead of 4+Int). They also have Int as a dump stat, and are MAD enough that the prospect of a dump stat is significant to them.

Since crusaders get diplomancy (and intimidate as well as a knowledge skill), it really just falls on the rogue's superior skill list to define them as "reliable skillmonkey" - in order to add stealth, a rogue must spend points on move silently and hide. To add infiltration, the rogue must also spend points in disguise, gather information, and possibly forgery. A lot of rogues also want spot and listen to make sure that they can spot stuff, and diplomancy for social situations. Even if he could get most of the skills on his skill list somehow, it comes down to adding the following capabilities (that are "not combat", thus discounting stuff like tumble):

Stealth and Infiltration
Social Skills (all ToB classes can contribute to this with diplomacy)
Spotting Stuff

A rogue sacrifices every bit of combat versatility for these three things (he doesn't even get any more knowledge skills than the crusader!), forcing him to basically rely on either sneak attack or wealth to do other tricks. The rogue can perform marvelously at the stuff he actually spent points in (which for a rogue with 14 INT is only 10 skills per level), and will likely only cherry pick the top three + a few combat ones like tumble. He isn't an omnipotent skill monkey that can do everything under the sun like a wizard is; skills are still limited, and a rogue is similarly limited in the number of skills he could focus on (unlike the factotum, who can actually perform ALL of them including all of the knowledge ones, and isn't MAD in the least).

So yes, if you define stealth and spotting stuff as being inheritantly more important than combat, then the rogue can do more than a crusader and should be T3. Somehow, though, I really question that belief - it's easy to throw the word "skill-monkey" out there and glorify the greatness of rogues, but the idea of tiers is to think of it another way: how many times will a rogue actually be able to contribute to something in a typical D&D campaign? What about a crusader/warblade with diplomacy?

[toapat]

*snip*

1: Mountain Hammer vs Door is combat, because the rules it uses are the Hardness rules for combat. Barring the fact that Hardness is linked into HP (which only recently got errata'd out), anyone with a Pickaxe, Axe (if wood), or Hammer can beat their way through a wall. Open Lock/Disable Device are skill checks.

2: The point is, if rogue's Skillchimp hood isnt good enough to be said that it makes them "T3", then the tier system is not following the rules it set out. Skills themselves being built badly doesnt change that, and you cant say "But i have Diplomacy, the second most powerful skill" to say that your class belongs in T3.

[Felyndiira]

*snip*

I see that your look at tiers define "stealth" as having about the same weight as "combat" (as you define combat) as a whole. Which is fine - this is an area that we both will have to eternally disagree with. When I look at "versatility" as defined in the tier system, I see categories of skills as only a component of that, and as only one potential solution to a problem. A situation that requires "stealth" can be bypassed using other things - say you encounter a situation where you need to steal the macguffin from a royal vault: did you just kill that ogre that has been threatening the kingdom, and asked for the macguffin as a reward for your heroism? Did you just heal the king's disease and received the macguffin as a gift? Did you diplomacy your way into the king's favor or bluffed the king into it? Did you just smash the entirety of the

You can easily railroad something like "stealth" as absolutely mandatory for a campaign, but then again, I can easily railroad something like "combat with a flying, mind-affecting immune beastie" as an impossible situation for a beguiler. (Sure, the beguiler can use magic items to overcome this problem, but then again, so could the crusader or warblade.) You can try to bypass him, but if he's a threat to the kingdom and you have to kill him? The almighty, versatile T3 beguiler is now pretty helpless. A rogue is similarly disadvantaged against a pretty huge array of creatures. Sure, you can compensate for everything with wealth, but magic items throws all arguments of balance out as a monk who maxed UMD and has enough UMD boosters can, with a magic mart, do everything under the sun as well.

The core of our disagreement, I think, is the weight that you're giving to stuff like hide/move silently and forgery/disguise. Are they useful? Certainly. However, you think of them as vital as the agglomeration of things you call "combat", while I argue that they are simply a tool to a means. If you want something dead, you might approach that thing with fire, or a sword, or negative levels, or with an army of minions, or by finding that cupcake-shaped Achilles Heel and sticking in the +5 cupcakes of villain slaying. If you want an item behind the evil beastie, you can sneak past him, or you can try applying diplomacy, or you can blow the heck out of the thing with a maneuver. If an anti-magic field is ruining your plans, you can use more conventional means, or IHS the anti-magic field away and re-enable all of your options.

The crux of the argument being, a lot of the things you call "combat" can be applied to more general situations and give the very classes you're saying are "combat-only" a way to handle most situations. They won't handle everything with ease, true, but no T3 class should handle everything with ease. "Being useful in other situations" might mean that the crusader is using diplomacy to inspire troops while the rogue is infiltrating the enemy to prepare for a war. It might mean that the crusader is showing his might and getting the king to trust his skills enough to let him lead his soldiers. It does not extend to "solving all problems direct with a single roll of the dice."

The rogue T3/T4 argument also depends significantly on how much you value combat. If you think each individual (or each important) skill is as important as combat as a whole (or a significant part of combat), or if you think adding disguise and bluff makes a rogue that much better at versatility, you might weigh "skill points" as being much more important. I personally believe what you dismissed as "combat" to be itself a multi-faceted versatility; a good number of situations can be solved by brute force if you have enough firepower, and the crusader has a good arsenal of weapons while the rogue has a dagger and must depend on magic items to contribute adequately to many combat situations. In other words, the rogue is very poor at combat, which hurts it more than not having move silently or spot does for the ToB classes.

Basically, "if you give the monk invisibility, detect magic, and silence 2/day, does it suddenly make him tier 3"? I would say no even according to the tier guidelines, and you may choose to read it differently. Stealth isn't an entire distinct area; it's a sub-function - the number of times where combat would solve a problem should be, by D&D, much greater than the number of times where stealth would solve a problem (counting overlaps as ties).

[Dienekes]

1: Mountain Hammer vs Door is combat, because the rules it uses are the Hardness rules for combat. Barring the fact that Hardness is linked into HP (which only recently got errata'd out), anyone with a Pickaxe, Axe (if wood), or Hammer can beat their way through a wall. Open Lock/Disable Device are skill checks.

Using combat mechanics does not make something in combat. If that were the case you could claim that everything is combat since they use standard, move, and full-round actions which all only come into play in combat.

Out of combat is a situation not the use or lack thereof of a mechanic.


2: The point is, if rogue's Skillchimp hood isnt good enough to be said that it makes them "T3", then the tier system is not following the rules it set out. Skills themselves being built badly doesnt change that, and you cant say "But i have Diplomacy, the second most powerful skill" to say that your class belongs in T3.

Rogue isn't Tier 3 because it's skillchimp hood makes it just average at a whole bunch of things, but not great at anything. It can be said of the Rogue that it is passable in every single situation, but not the best. Martial classes are better in combat by a wide margin. In the ability to pull random crap through skills Factotum beats it. And in being the party face the Bard is just better designed for that niche. In sneaking around you can't beat a Beguiller. But the Rogue can pass at all that without actually being good in one thing without some optimization, and even then with the same amount of optimization the classes listed above are just better at it.

But the Crusader has one thing it is pretty damn good at, without optimization. Tanking, or if you really want to broaden out the whole category into the binary good in combat or out of combat it is good in combat. Very good.

In other things, it has a few good tricks that means it isn't useless in other situations. Breaking things is one. Healing is one. Diplomacy is one. Hell, I'm pretty sure it has a stance that technically let's it take 10 on skill checks or something like that, even in stressful situations, and probably more I'm forgetting since I don't remember the last time I played the class.

So yes it has 1 thing it's really good in. And a bunch of things it's passable in, but not great. That's the definition of Tier 3.

[Firechanter]

Are you quite done yet with your "is not" - "is, too" dialogue?

--

More on-topic:
Reading this thread or basically any page that talks about Warblades and Crusaders, you'll find that either class is described as having "the best recovery method". So which is it?

Well, they are totally different and in part a matter of personal taste. I guess you could write up a kind of "X is the best" in the way that Alignments are described in the PHB.

Note that the Swordsage is not a contender. ;)

So let me explore a bit what's good and what's bad about either method:

Warblade: spend a Swift Action; then either skip a Standard Action or perform an attack -- even a Full Attack will work.
Why it's good: it's both fast and simple. You refresh almost whenever you want to refresh, even if it's every other round. You can keep spamming your best moves with minimal cooldown.
Drawbacks: you don't get a lot of readied maneuvers, so you'll have to refresh pretty often, and regular attacks are a bit bland compared to all that maneuver goodness. Also, you can't double move while refreshing.

Crusader: this one's simple in theory but can get a bit tricky in the details. You simply refresh automatically when all your maneuvers have been granted.
Why it's good: Read the previous line again. You don't need to do anything, it's automatic and doesn't cost any kind of action. In theory you can never run out.
Drawbacks: Maneuver assignment is random. It can happen that the maneuver you really really need right now is withheld for up to three rounds. (or up to two with the proper feat.) Also, your maneuvers are kind of "use it or lose it" - if you haven't initiated a maneuver before there's no maneuver left to be granted, it goes back into the stack and may or may not be included in the new deal.
Lastly, you sort of have to make maneuver cards to keep track of them. Personally I'm not a friend of that, but it's a personal pet peeve.

On a different note, the Crusader recovery seems to leave some room for misinterpretations. I know of a group whose (otherwise quite D&D-savvy) players honestly believe - or used to believe - that Crusaders just never run out of maneuvers. Their interpretation ran somewhat along the following lines:
"Every round, a maneuver is granted to you. Any expended maneuver goes back into the stack of withheld maneuvers. Once all your maneuvers have been granted, you can spend a maneuver each round and immediately get it back at the end of the turn. You have all your maneuvers, all the time."

(In quotes and italics to emphasize that this is _not my opinion_. I explained to one of their players how it didn't work that way, but I don't know if they have corrected their interpretation.)

So, of course, if the Crusader refresh actually worked like the part in italics, then yes, it would be the best refresh by far. But it doesn't. I don't know if this interpretation is common for some reason, but it's totally not what the rule actually says.

My verdict: sure, both are good, but since I am convinced that Luck Is The Enemy, I personally definitely prefer the Warblade method.

[Snowbluff]

Even when you're not Idiot Crusader, the Crusader method can be really exciting. You can flip your card on your turn and go "Greater Divine Surge!? Hextor yes! You're going down!" It leads to some nice moments. :smallsmile:

[toapat]

*Snip*

You focus too much on combat solutions. The point is, a Rogue can beat the crap out of someone (to an extent), they can sneak around and steal the macguffin, they can (not well) help out the king with his sick daughter.

Combat is anything where the rules are built out to represent the abstract application of force. (Crusaders beat paladin here, but because they have more varied, less-meta needing options)

Stealth is the attempt to perform actions without detection. If you need a set of fake IDs, or to get into a space people dont want you do be. (Paladins and Crusaders have no advantage over eachother here)

Non-Combat Interactions such as the use of paladin as a medical doctor (their class features make them great ones), or the Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive skills, rely on primarily roleplay, but can be supported by class features. (crusaders have Intimidate, but they do not have the ability to use Maneuvers without combat interactions. A Paladin can use remove Disease, Dispel magic, and Lay on Hands outside of/without provoking combat)


*Snip*

Actions are a representation of approximate time it takes (as arbitrarily determined by WotC) to do something, not a combat mechanic.


Except here is the point you are missing: Being able to contribute no matter what (such as a rogue "can" do, but is limited as a result of a horrible in execution skill system) is the Criteria of T3, Not does one thing EXCEPTIONALLY well. Does one thing Exceptionally Well is T4.

[RFLS]

@Fire Chanter - I'm not entirely sure they even heard you. They didn't seem to earlier when I said something, either. I was seriously hoping toapat would take a crack at a tier list, given that he thinks the current one is flat out wrong.

[toapat]

@Fire Chanter - I'm not entirely sure they even heard you. They didn't seem to earlier when I said something, either. I was seriously hoping toapat would take a crack at a tier list, given that he thinks the current one is flat out wrong.

More like ignores itself to just place some classes in locations as according to how much people love ToB.

as has been said, Crusader has a higher optimization floor, but what im adding is it isnt as remotely flexible as paladin is.

Refreshing Debate:

Warblade can force reset their maneuvers
Crusader loves its D4, you can potentially go longer, but it is all chance

[gkathellar]

Combat is anything where the rules are built out to represent the abstract application of force. (Crusaders beat paladin here, but because they have more varied, less-meta needing options)

Good to see that you've changed your line on this.


Except here is the point you are missing: Being able to contribute no matter what (such as a rogue "can" do, but is limited as a result of a horrible in execution skill system) is the Criteria of T3, Not does one thing EXCEPTIONALLY well. Does one thing Exceptionally Well is T4.

Mm. Well, let's actually go to the source material, instead of just talking about it.


Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area.

Emphasis mine.

Now, of course, you have your argument that Crusaders only excel in combat ... but, as has been stated, they're useful in a variety of other situations, even if they specialize in ones that involve fighting. They have social skills to help out when it's time for talking. They have heals to help out when it's time for healing — and it has been graciously pointed out, a Crusader can always just punch the floor in order to heal out of combat (presumably through the power of sick drumbeats). And they have the ability to break things when object-based challenges present themselves. So, to me, that sounds like Crusaders could practically be used to codify Tier 3.

[Flickerdart]

Crusaders (especially Idiot Crusaders) can also use WRT to double someone else's actions, so if time's of the essence, the Rogue is going to unlock that door or check that trap twice as quickly as they otherwise would.

[toapat]

hey have social skills to help out when it's time for talking. They have heals to help out when it's time for healing — and it has been graciously pointed out, a Crusader can always just punch the floor in order to heal out of combat (presumably through the power of sick drumbeats). And they have the ability to break things when object-based challenges present themselves. So, to me, that sounds like Crusaders could practically be used to codify Tier 3.

1: Skills dont count for anyone other then factotum. Rogue would be low Tier 3 if they did.
2: No, you cant. The ground is not a Creature. Healing, as has been said, is useless because the math of the game does not allow healing to be viable. If the ground is a creature, have fun, you just aggroed a planet.
3: Saying "oh, but they can break things" is bull, anyone can break things, an Adamantine Pick and Adamantine Axe are pretty cheap if they dont have magical enhancements at later level.

[RFLS]

More like ignores itself to just place some classes in locations as according to how much people love ToB.

as has been said, Crusader has a higher optimization floor, but what im adding is it isnt as remotely flexible as paladin is.

Ignoring Request:

Warblade can force reset their maneuvers
Crusader loves its D4, you can potentially go longer, but it is all chance

Fixed that for you. Like I said: If you think it's wrong, then fix it. Don't complain and then ignore the solution -.- You seem to have a well defined point of view; it might actually help the debate you say you're after if you defined it for the rest of us in a clear and concise manner. Perhaps a new tier list.

[Aegis013]

On Crusader healing outside combat - all of the strikes that cause healing have qualifiers that you must hit an opponent who's alignment is at least one step away from yours. This limits what they are effective against. I don't think unworn rags and chunks of rock (sans Earth Elementals) get alignments.

However, the Martial Spirit stance doesn't have this clause, or any clause about the target being a viable threat, only that you must make a successful melee attack against an opponent. So it falls upon the DM to place a definition of what an opponent is (unless there is a given definition somewhere, it's not in the PHB's glossary).

If your DM says you can declare some unworn rags or the ground as your opponent and punch your knuckles bloody to heal everybody in the group to full, well ok then, but I doubt it will fly in most games.

[Eugenides]

Well. This has been...quite useful. Off-topic arguments aside it seems to me that I could use any of the three and have a blast, and that I'm probably best off filling a role for my party depending on what we need.


As a side note, I am quite interested in that unarmed variant, but it seems rather vague in the book itself. Just a sentence mentioning it. Does anyone have a drawn-up progression that I could present to my DM?

[gkathellar]

As a side note, I am quite interested in that unarmed variant, but it seems rather vague in the book itself. Just a sentence mentioning it. Does anyone have a drawn-up progression that I could present to my DM?

In short, you drop the swordsage's light armor proficiency for Improved Unarmed Strike and the monk's unarmed damage progression. Note that you also have to modify the swordsage's AC Bonus a bit, as the RAW on it actually requires you to be wearing light armor (as opposed to setting light armor as an upper limit. (If your DM is wary, remind him that unarmed combat really isn't as good as armed combat, even with the monk's higher damage.)

One of the very nice things about unarmed swordsage is that it works well with the Shadow Blade feat, which allows a swordsage to run with minimal need for Strength. I highly recommend it.

[Dienekes]

1: Skills dont count for anyone other then factotum. Rogue would be low Tier 3 if they did.

Please actually quote where it says this. You know like gkathellar used quotes from the actual page to disprove this notion up thread.

[Firechanter]

Another little thing about the versatility of Adepts: they can pick up maneuvers from their peers more easily. There are certain maneuvers that don't have maneuver prerequisites, and thus can be picked up by way of item or feat - technically by anyone, but you still need have the necessary Initiator Level.

Prime example, the Shadow Teleport line of Shadow Hand. There are three of them, allowing you to teleport 50' as Standard, Move or Swift Action, respectively. A non-Adept will qualify for the Move Action Teleport only very late in their career, and have a refresh problem. A Warblade or Crusader can get it at about the same level as the Swordsage and spam it. And a non-Adept can never qualify for the Swift one. (Though some people argue that the Move one is better, because you need your Swift Actions for other things.) Teleports also tend to have excellent out of combat utility, for that matter.

As for the question of out of combat healing and what constitutes an opponent: I'd say that at the very least, an opponent has to be able to roll Initiative. Which rules out floors and rags. So yeah, the Crusader can't really heal out of combat.

[phlidwsn]

As a side note, I am quite interested in that unarmed variant, but it seems rather vague in the book itself. Just a sentence mentioning it. Does anyone have a drawn-up progression that I could present to my DM?

Here's the block I usually use in my games:
Unarmed Swordsage adaptation(Tome of Battle): As Swordsage, but lose light armor proficiency, gain the Monk Unarmed Strike class feature(Improved Unarmed Strike, unarmed strike as manufactured & natural weapon, monk damage progression)

[JBento]

I would just like to point out, in response to Aegis, that Martial Spirit stance doesn't, by RAW, actually require you to strike an opponent to heal, only that you make a successful melee attack. As far as RAW is concerned, you could make your full attack against a wall and (assuming you don't actually miss the wall for some reason) heal a person.

What it DOES require an opponent for is to change the target of the healing, so you can, out of and between combats, heal a single person up to full.

[Firechanter]

Or you just attack the air. Can't have very high AC. :p

While that kind of interpretation is pretty silly, it's kind of an understandable reaction to the inherent silliness of limiting the Crusader's Band-Aid to in-combat use.

If all else fails, you can do a bit of unarmed sparring. For each 1d3 subdual damage, you heal 2 points of lethal damage, then you rest a couple of hours until the subdual damage is gone, or maybe someone in your party is immune to subdual damage and just serves as punching bag.

Of course, the flavour text shows rather clearly that it's meant to be used in combat, against actual enemies. But players tend to find ways to heal up fully between encounters anyway. So what the hell.

[Dienekes]

Now I have this picture of a crusader who caries with him a bunch of rats and between encounters he unleashes them and heals everyone up.

Personally if a player of mine would pull a stunt like that I'd throw a book or two at him, but it's fun to think about.

[JBento]

If all else fails, you can do a bit of unarmed sparring. For each 1d3 subdual damage, you heal 2 points of lethal damage, then you rest a couple of hours until the subdual damage is gone, or maybe someone in your party is immune to subdual damage and just serves as punching bag.


Better yet, find a way to pick up Stormguard Warrior, and then you can make attacks which deal no damage at all to heal people.

For an added bonus, if someone in the party can Dominate, they can tell your (now opponent) target to "try to kill him with your bare hands," and now you can heal everyone, forever, for free.

Unfortunately, all Devoted Spirit maneuvres without prereqs suck, so that'd be two feats spent on the tactic if you were a warblade. On the other hand, SG Warrior is awesome regardless.

[Eugenides]

Hopping into this conversation(with little to no knowledge of the actual mechanic) from what I can understand, from a flavor context the sparring makes sense, though if you had that maneuver that lets you destroy physical objects you could probably argue that it's in the same area as sparring if you destroy a 10x10 section of wall.

[Aegis013]

I would just like to point out, in response to Aegis, that Martial Spirit stance doesn't, by RAW, actually require you to strike an opponent to heal, only that you make a successful melee attack. As far as RAW is concerned, you could make your full attack against a wall and (assuming you don't actually miss the wall for some reason) heal a person.

What it DOES require an opponent for is to change the target of the healing, so you can, out of and between combats, heal a single person up to full.

The last sentence of the ability reads:


Each time you hit an opponent in melee, you can choose a different recipient within range to receive this healing.

I think that leans itself toward needing to hit an opponent, as you can't choose a recipient within range if you didn't hit an opponent. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can wildly swing your weapon at nothing in particular and fully heal yourself between combats, but I doubt many DMs will allow it.

[JBento]

Except that the first sentence says only a "successful melee attack." That last sentence could be interpreted as "you have to heal the same person with this stance until you hit an opponent, upon which time you can change the recipient of the healing."

Now, I'm pretty sure that's not what it was MEANT to say, but it remains a valid reading and unless all your wizards do is fling direct damage and your clerics are nothing but walking band-aids, how the devs intended the game to be played is irrelevant.

Keep in mind that ToB has quite a few places where what is written makes no sense, Ironheart Surge being the most ridiculous culprit.

EDIT: Also, "opponent" isn't defined anywhere, which makes things even more tricky.

[Aegis013]

Except that the first sentence says only a "successful melee attack." That last sentence could be interpreted as "you have to heal the same person with this stance until you hit an opponent, upon which time you can change the recipient of the healing."
...


It could, which is why I keep adding the "many DMs probably will not allow this interpretation" clause to my posts. The OP (and the subject of this thread) is for building a character and using it in a game, where readings like that typically don't fly.

I'm not trying saying that it's not a RAW reading, I'm saying that it's not an interpretation you're going to get to use, probably, ever.

[Myrddin0001]

Swordsage definitely. I've played one many times and I like them because I am a big of high Dex SAD characters with a high damage output. Crusaders are great tanks, and Warblades are awesome primary melee types. A sworsage can easily float between primary melee, secondary melee, crowd control, skill monkey, stealthy party rolls without batting an eyelash.

[Nabirius]

Alright I love this question. If your party is low-op you may want to use swordsage, its generally the weakest and desperately needs the adaptive recharge feat or whatever its called. That said it's a lot of fun in my opinion, and Shadow hand is cool if you don't already have a thief or assassin. They are generally the most adaptable, which in my book makes up for low power.

Warblades are the opposite end of the spectrum, much more specialized, excellent primary melee, and really hard to lock down if they decide to be defensive in their selection of effects. They are also really fun, but only if you like what they already do. They are considered the strongest, and may not fit with your party.