Everyone says Fighters are awful anyway...

[Drakevarg]

Next campaign I run, I'm cutting out casters entirely, limiting magical options to Warlocks and DFAs. This is with the consent, and at the suggestion of, my players, so let's skip the inevitable declarations on how that's an unholy awful idea.

End result of all this is that the base class list is reduced to 9, which can easily be divided into four categories:

Martial
Barbarian
Fighter
Swashbuckler

Skillmonkey
Rogue
Scout

Magic
Dragonfire Adept
Warlock

Ki Nonsense
Monk
Ninja

Now then, the ki classes can easily be tossed out when I find the concept too ridiculous (as is, the only culture that produces ki-users are elves), but there's a slight incongruity that bothers my mild OCD, in that there are three martials but only two of everything else. So, here's my idea:

Remove Barbarian's Non-Lawful limitation (and illiteracy, which I've never used anyway), and throw out Fighters. Barbarians become STR-based martial, and Swashbucklers are DEX-based martial. Thoughts?

[HunterOfJello]

You're dropping all the magic classes. Okay. What do you mean by ki-classes? Is this a Pathfinder thing? I thought DFA weren't in Pathfinder.


Are you sure you want to drop the barely magical classes? And if so, why not leave them with non-magical versions?

I would consider allowing Hexblade, Paladins, and Rangers to still exist, even if you cut out their magic and give them something else instead.

Also, Swashbuckler is a pretty horrible class. Fighter is a lot better and far better to go in to. I hate Fighter being referred to as the 'default' class in comparisons, but I think it has an important place in the game.

I'd also consider adding in the Scout class since it is an outdoor class that can be taken to cover some bases, since you are banning Rangers and Druids who normally take those places. Also, what about Dragon Shaman and Binder?

[Drakevarg]

Are you sure you want to drop the barely magical classes? And if so, why not leave them with non-magical versions?

I would consider allowing Hexblade, Paladins, and Rangers to still exist, even if you cut out their magic and give them something else instead.

I already use the prestige variants of Paladins and Rangers since they already felt more like prestige classes to me, and they'll of course be impossible to get into once I remove the casting classes.

Hexblade I just think is a crappy class and I have it banned by default anyway.


I'd also consider adding in the Scout class since it is an outdoor class that can be taken to cover some bases, since you are banning Rangers and Druids who normally take those places.

Scout is listed under Skillmonkey. It has 8 Skill Points/Level, like Rogue.

Rangers and Druids are already banned to begin with in this setting, Rangers being converted into the UA prestige class and Druids being replaced with Spirit Shamans. Once next campaign starts, both will be out entirely.


What do you mean by ki-classes?

Monks and Ninjas both use ki to power their pseudo-magical abilities. It's fluff, mostly. Only reason I have them at all is that their powers aren't entirely in conflict with the setting's lore, even if I'm not a fan of wuxia.


Also, what about Dragon Shaman and Binder?

I've only recent peeked at Dragon Shaman and it's up in the air as to whether I'd pick that or DFA (but definitely one or the other, not both), and I don't know where Binder is from. But it's not in the books I own, which are the only ones I intend to use (DFA is from Dragon Magic which I don't have, but a friend of mine is eager to get it so he can play the class. He has until this campaign ends).

[Corwin_of_Amber]

What is your take on Initiators, Binder, and Meldshapers?

[Drakevarg]

What is your take on Initiators, Binder, and Meldshapers?

Not in my books, not allowed. Either way I know nothing about them.

[Psyren]

Well, on the caster side you may have to give them plenty of items, since no divine caster means healing and restoration will be tricky.

For your actual question, I think dropping Fighter to keep things even should be fine.

[Lord_Gareth]

Well, at the barest minimum Warblade and all of his maneuvers are available in a free-and-legal web release (just google "wizards of the coast warblade web release") so you should really take a look. Not game-breaking levels of power, functions wonderfully out of the box, and replaces Fighter with not so much as a blip of flavor problems.

[The Glyphstone]

Not in my books, not allowed. Either way I know nothing about them.

What books do you own? The Factotum would be perfect to fill a third Skillmonkey slot.

[Lord_Gareth]

What books do you own? The Factotum would be perfect to fill a third Skillmonkey slot.

For that matter since DFA and Warlock both shine as gish-type concepts Hexblade (with Dark Companion, perhaps?) could fill in the third Magic slot.

[JKTrickster]

Hmm...this is rather odd

The problem is that so far you haven't provided any real....reasoning for your choices other than "Meh...cause I feel like it". Even the reason for banning Fighter is pretty arbitrary - there wasn't even the same number of classes between those roles in the PHB, so why bother? :smallconfused:

On the actual question - no I don't think it would be a good idea. The fighter class is extremely useful, even if just in 2-4 level dips. There's no reason to dump it (especially not for the reason you stated).

[Yora]

If full casters are gone, fighters become a really good class, both on their own and for multiclassing.

[Lord_Gareth]

If full casters are gone, fighters become a really good class, both on their own and for multiclassing.

Eh, Barbarian still does it much better.

Although, admittedly, Swashbuckler does it much worse. Three level dip and then go rogue, waiter!

[Drakevarg]

What books do you own? The Factotum would be perfect to fill a third Skillmonkey slot.

*points at sig* Those. If I started this new campaign tomorrow, DFA wouldn't be allowed since I don't own Dragon Magic, though as I mentioned earlier the friend who introduced me to DFA really wants to play one, so he'll probably wind up solving the 'I don't have the book' problem.


For that matter since DFA and Warlock both shine as gish-type concepts Hexblade (with Dark Companion, perhaps?) could fill in the third Magic slot.

Hexblade casts spells. I'm rather pointedly banning anything that casts spells. I consider them conceptually messy when they have to share a room with invokers.


Hmm...this is rather odd

The problem is that so far you haven't provided any real....reasoning for your choices other than "Meh...cause I feel like it". Even the reason for banning Fighter is pretty arbitrary - there wasn't even the same number of classes between those roles in the PHB, so why bother? :smallconfused:

Mostly because I feel like it.

[Urpriest]

I'd suggest throwing out Swashbuckler rather than Fighter, and modifying Daring Outlaw so it multiclasses Fighter and Rogue rather than Swashbuckler and Rogue. Swashbuckler is much less versatile than Fighter, and you don't have any heavily Int-based classes that would get much mileage out of Insightful Strike.

[thethird]

I wouldn't dump fighter...

On the other hand complete warrior, a book that your signature says that you own, has adaptations for the ranger and paladin to work without spellcasting (in case you want to give them a look).

Also, a question, Dragonfire Adept is from Dragon Magic, a book that based on your signature shouldn't be among your owned books, and thus disallowed why is it allowed? Nvm I just reread the thread carefully.

I also see a mention of the spirit shaman up there... so I assume that you should have access to the player's handbook 2?

Then why aren't there Knight (PHB II) and Samurai (complete warrior) on the table?

Ps. In case you want to look at it: Dragon Fire Adept (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060912a&page=2). Similarly other good classes are free out there... such as the Warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2).

[Drakevarg]

I'd suggest throwing out Swashbuckler rather than Fighter, and modifying Daring Outlaw so it multiclasses Fighter and Rogue rather than Swashbuckler and Rogue. Swashbuckler is much less versatile than Fighter, and you don't have any heavily Int-based classes that would get much mileage out of Insightful Strike.

A nice, straightforward answer. Thank you. Admittedly yeah, the only two abilities from Swashbuckler I really like are Insightful Strike and Acrobatic Charge.

The reason I was considering going with it and not Fighter is because in my opinion, the only reason Fighter is preferable to Barbarian once you take out the alignment limitations and illiteracy is because it lets you get into prestige classes faster. At least Swashbuckler clearly does something DIFFERENT from Barbarian.


On the other hand complete warrior, a book that your signature says that you own, has adaptations for the ranger and paladin to work without spellcasting (in case you want to give them a look).

Because they've always smelled to much like prestige classes to me.


I also see a mention of the spirit shaman up there... so I assume that you should have access to the player's handbook 2?

Then why aren't there Knight (PHB II) and Samurai (complete warrior) on the table?

Spirit Shaman, not Dragon Shaman. Complete Divine.

As for Samurai, it's a rubbish class that I have had sitting on my banned list for like a year and a half now. As for Knight, I've given it a look and while not unacceptable, I do think it does just look kinda dumb. Code of honor and such nonsense.

[Eldan]

You'll run into problems, with that setup. Rather a lot of monsters you can't deal with without casters, and you don't really seem to have any kind of healing.

[Lord_Gareth]

A nice, straightforward answer. Thank you. Admittedly yeah, the only two abilities from Swashbuckler I really like are Insightful Strike and Acrobatic Charge.

The reason I was considering going with it and not Fighter is because in my opinion, the only reason Fighter is preferable to Barbarian once you take out the alignment limitations and illiteracy is because it lets you get into prestige classes faster. At least Swashbuckler clearly does something DIFFERENT from Barbarian.

The trouble is that Swashbuckler sucks, and the only reason it doesn't suck as much as Samurai is the three-level dip.

[thethird]

Spirit Shaman, not Dragon Shaman. Complete Divine.


True, my bad, sorry if I offended you.

The internet is vast and full of errors.

Ps. Swashbuckler sucks as much as Samurai and it was on the list...

[Drakevarg]

You'll run into problems, with that setup. Rather a lot of monsters you can't deal with without casters, and you don't really seem to have any kind of healing.

Last time I tried a low-magic campaign, the party wiped because they came across Gargoyles (DR 10/Magic) without any magic weapons. Apart from that, they didn't have any real problems.

I'll probably have to sit back and think on how to work around other encounters that are flat-out unwinnable without casters (can't think of any off the top of my head), and how to survive without healing apart from lots of downtime.

Magic items will also be incredibly rare, since only 12th level warlocks can make them, of which you could probably count the number of living NPCs at that level in my setting on your fingers.


The trouble is that Swashbuckler sucks, and the only reason it doesn't suck as much as Samurai is the three-level dip.

I suppose the crucial difference between the two is that I haven't had any Swashbucklers in my party to teach me this firsthand. Barbarian and Fighter it is, then.


True, my bad, sorry if I offended you.

Nah, was just correcting you.

[rot42]

If your group finds the game fun and engaging when limited to the classes you list (which it certainly can be with the right group and story), dropping Fighter will not impact viability. Especially at higher levels, CR and published encounters will tend to assume abilities that your party will not be able to access readily, so keep an eye out. I am not saying to go easy on them, just be aware that wading into a nest of vampires is significantly more dangerous without Protection from Evil.

Have you considered E6?

[Sacrieur]

The reason different classes exist is flavor.

Fighters and barbarians play the same role in combat, but they go about it differently. Fighters wear heavy armor and make use of feats, barbarians make use of rage and hit points.

Players tend to get a bit unhappy when you take away flavors. It's like giving them one of those three flavor ice cream things and telling them they're only allowed to pick chocolate.

[Lord_Gareth]

The reason different classes exist is flavor

This is incredibly untrue, as demonstrated by this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11466790&postcount=772) explaining how everyone is, in fact, a Ranger variant.

[thethird]

Nah, was just correcting you.

Then I would like to ask you to read your own words carefully before clicking the post button, some seem a bit over toned.


This is incredibly untrue, as demonstrated by this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11466790&postcount=772) explaining how everyone is, in fact, a Ranger variant.

Man... I love ranger.

[Drakevarg]

Then I would like to ask you to read your own words carefully before clicking the post button, some seem a bit over toned.

My apologies. The emphasis was to say 'notice this', not to imply irritation. Merely clarifying that X is not Y.

[Snowbluff]

I'd rather lose Barbarian than Fighter. Fighters can actually be useful outside of "OMG UBERCHARGER", which doesn't fit with lowered power levels.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'd rather lose Barbarian than Fighter. Fighters can actually be useful outside of "OMG UBERCHARGER", which doesn't fit with lowered power levels.

So can Barbarian, and Barbarian has Real Actual Skills with Real Actual Skill Points.

[Psyren]

A nice, straightforward answer. Thank you.

I gave you one too, as well as a recommendation you haven't addressed yet...


Last time I tried a low-magic campaign, the party wiped because they came across Gargoyles (DR 10/Magic) without any magic weapons.

The fact that your party wiped for lacking a first-level spell should be an indicator of the problems you might be heading for.



Have you considered E6?

This is a great way to let people play whatever they want without hurting balance much at all. OP, if you're not familiar with it, I suggest a quick read.

[Drakevarg]

So can Barbarian, and Barbarian has Real Actual Skills with Real Actual Skill Points.

Well, to be fair, I've thrown out Class Skills after realizing that the Fighter, the archetypical class for a town guard, can't take Listen and Spot as class skills.


I gave you one too, as well as a recommendation you haven't addressed yet...

Sorry. Though to be fair Urpriest gave an answer and an explanation to his answer. :smalltongue:

As for the "more items" thing, I doubt that'll be too much of an issue. In the current campaign, the party has a personal flying city and the priest has his WBL in bling alone.


The fact that your party wiped for lacking a first-level spell should be an indicator of the problems you might be heading for.

It's an indicator that I need to read a monster's statblock and not just its CR before throwing it at the party.

[Snowbluff]

So can Barbarian, and Barbarian has Real Actual Skills with Real Actual Skill Points.

With the lower number of feats, choosing any one combat role would cause them to pigeon-hole their feats. Due to the awfulness of feats chains, many combinations won't ever be an option for barbarian. As for dipping, I'd rather take Feral than take Barbarian for the one level that will ever matter.

Nobody will miss the barbarian's skills. They couldn't even read. OH SNAP!

[Drakevarg]

This is a great way to let people play whatever they want without hurting balance much at all. OP, if you're not familiar with it, I suggest a quick read.

I like higher-level campaigns. I just really don't like Swiss Army Knife casters. Many of my limitations are taste-based anyway.

[limejuicepowder]

I'm in a gritty low-magic campaign right now (or was....it's on hiatus), and the DM has banned most casters. Psionics are allowed to a certain degree, but arcane and divine are out.

To help with the no healing, he has modified the heal skill to actually matter - that is, mundane heal kits can be bought/found that allow the user to heal others based on the heal skill (heal check determines how many hit points are recovered). The kits take a few minutes to use and are disposable, so healing is still very limited and of no use in combat, but it does help a lot if you when we want to have more than 1 battle per day.

He has also greatly increased the amount healed when resting, so it only takes a day or two to reach full hit points.

[Aliek]

I remember reading somewhere on the ol' BG board about how barbarians and fighters are actually about equal in power if you don't consider ACFs. Without Pounce/Whirling Frenzy, there's little the barbarian can do that the fighter can't do better.

The bonuses from Rage, you say? When it gets down to it, weapon focus/specialization could grant about the same bonuses, if I'm not mistaken. Not that it's much, but eh... It's pretty well balanced.

Why don't you go for some generic classes on UA, other than the generic spellcaster?

[Drakevarg]

Why don't you go for some generic classes on UA, other than the generic spellcaster?

I've given it some thought.

[Lord_Gareth]

The bonuses from Rage, you say? When it gets down to it, weapon focus/specialization could grant about the same bonuses, if I'm not mistaken. Not that it's much, but eh... It's pretty well balanced.

Weapon Focus and Spec don't increase your Constitution. They also don't add time and a half to two-handed weapons, and by the time you get up to Greater Focus/Spec rage is outperforming both with a host of additional side-benefits, even in core.

Plus skill points.

[Snowbluff]

Weapon Focus and Spec don't increase your Constitution. They also don't add time and a half to two-handed weapons, and by the time you get up to Greater Focus/Spec rage is outperforming both with a host of additional side-benefits, even in core.


Yes... like a limited duration. Fatigue. Dependancy on current stats. Clearly a great class feature.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yes... like a limited duration. Fatigue. Dependancy on current stats. Clearly a great class feature.

A limited duration that lasts longer than most fights, fatigue that eventually stops being a penalty, and a greater overall increase to to-hit and damage than Weap Focus/Spec can ever possibly provide, yes.

[Psyren]

Barbarians outperform Fighters in most ways even before you account for pounce.


I like higher-level campaigns. I just really don't like Swiss Army Knife casters. Many of my limitations are taste-based anyway.

That's fair, and since you're allowing for a lot of magic items I have no remaining complaints. The Warlock can play healer fairly easily, even in combat, with Deceive Item.

[Snowbluff]

A limited duration that lasts longer than most fights

Citation needed. I'd like to your records. I am sorry I have not been able to submit my groups battle information, we have had issues with our timers.

[Drakevarg]

That's fair, and since you're allowing for a lot of magic items I have no remaining complaints. The Warlock can play healer fairly easily, even in combat, with Deceive Item.

I think I'll houserule that one, since I normally disallow UMD. Since a warlock is legitimately magic, I'd make it a Spellcraft check instead and say he's basically just mage-hacking the thing.

[Psyren]

Citation needed. I'd like to your records. I am sorry I have not been able to submit my groups battle information, we have had issues with our timers.

It's common knowledge that most encounters last roughly 5 rounds, which a level 1 barbarian can hit even with 10 Constitution - and few barbarians are likely to be that low. More often you'll see rage that lasts 7 rounds or more. If your combat takes that long you're probably playing 4e.


I think I'll houserule that one, since I normally disallow UMD. Since a warlock is legitimately magic, I'd make it a Spellcraft check instead and say he's basically just mage-hacking the thing.

The problem there is that UMD is a Cha check while Spellcraft is an Int check, but Warlocks benefit from Cha for other reasons too. Are you going to modify the Warlock so all his abilities run off Int? And also, are you going to allow Deceive Item and Imbue Item to be based off Spellcraft as well?

[Arcanist]

If your combat takes that long you're probably playing 4e.

HAHAHAHA It's funny cause it's true! :smallfrown:

[Theoboldi]

Citation needed. I'd like to your records. I am sorry I have not been able to submit my groups battle information, we have had issues with our timers.

Rage lasts for 3 + (modified) CON mod rounds. At low levels, assuming a 14 in Constitution., that's 7 rounds. At higher levels the constitution of this hipothetical barbarian will be even higher, through items and possibly level-ups. I've rarely seen combat last longer than 5 rounds, and I've played with plenty of different DMs with different playstyles. I don't know much about 4E, but 3.5 definitly doesn't lend itself to long lasting battles.

Now, a complaint that I would agree on would be that barbarians are limited to a certain amount of rages per day, of which they only get very few over their 20 levels. On a long adventuring day, they can certainly run out if they waste them too early.

[Eldariel]

It's an indicator that I need to read a monster's statblock and not just its CR before throwing it at the party.

As a rule, a low-magic game should be themed towards low-magic enemies; humanoids, animals, dire animals with everything else being superrare. For instance, the campaign I'm journaling is working just fine with some houserules in place; magic is rare though it exists (we went two steps further and PCs don't have access to caster classes or magic items at all).

[Drakevarg]

As a rule, a low-magic game should be themed towards low-magic enemies; humanoids, animals, dire animals with everything else being superrare. For instance, the campaign I'm journaling is working just fine with some houserules in place; magic is rare though it exists (we went two steps further and PCs don't have access to caster classes or magic items at all).

I generally keep my stuff relatively low magic anyway. I essentially never use 'proper' magical beasts and instead prefer animals with templates on them. Well, that and elementals and drakes/landwyrms.

[MagnusExultatio]

If your combat takes that long you're probably playing 4e.


HAHAHAHA It's funny cause it's true! :smallfrown:

This hasn't been true since Monster Manual 2/Monster Manual 3/Monster Vault/Dark Sun Creature Catalogue and I'm probably forgetting a lone book or two. Well, barring freak occurrences of dice or DM/Player incompetence.

In certain instances it wasn't even true at MM1, but it skirted the line.

[Psyren]

As a rule, a low-magic game should be themed towards low-magic enemies; humanoids, animals, dire animals with everything else being superrare. For instance, the campaign I'm journaling is working just fine with some houserules in place; magic is rare though it exists (we went two steps further and PCs don't have access to caster classes or magic items at all).

Plants and corporeal undead work well too. Oozes and fey are dangerous.

[Drakevarg]

The problem there is that UMD is a Cha check while Spellcraft is an Int check, but Warlocks benefit from Cha for other reasons too. Are you going to modify the Warlock so all his abilities run off Int? And also, are you going to allow Deceive Item and Imbue Item to be based off Spellcraft as well?

Sorry, didn't see this edit. Actually, this is making me mull over an idea I heard the Angry DM bring up. The idea that different skills will have different dependent attributes based on the situation. While inviting too much of that just makes the place stink of cheese, it wouldn't be too hard to argue the following:

- Intimidate can be made with STR if you're threatening to violence at someone.
- Spellcraft should be based on the user's core casting attribute, if they have one. After all, that's the venue through which they understand the mechanics of magic.

This would mean that a big, muscly dwarf barbarian wouldn't be bad at convincing people to do what he wants on pain of limb removal just because he's an ugly social inept, and more importantly to the discussion at hand, a Warlock could use CHA to make a Spellcraft check and hack a magic item.

[Lans]

The bonuses from Rage, you say? When it gets down to it, weapon focus/specialization could grant about the same bonuses, if I'm not mistaken. Not that it's much, but eh... It's pretty well balanced.

It takes PHB 2 feats for the weapon focus line to be equal to rage. Melee weapon mastery makes the line 3/4 hit and damage vs 2/3 and later 3/4-5 that the improved rage gives. By around which the fighter could get GWS and GWF making it 4/6 at 12th. So hitting a bit harder and 2 AC, till 20th level vs other rage benefits.

[SowZ]

I don't like how there is no real option for the holy warrior archetype. You could be a religous Fighter, sure. But you have no holy powers. I don't think Barbarian should be the only option for Fighter. One thing I don't really like is DMs saying I have to use option A because it is better when option B does my concept better. Some people don't want to be a raging strength fighter, they want to be a strong, disciplined fighter.

[Drakevarg]

I don't like how there is no real option for the holy warrior archetype. You could be a religous Fighter, sure. But you have no holy powers.

Be a devout Fighter/Warlock and use the Hideous Blow blast shape? Or have an artifact weapon. Arthur had Excalibur, Lancelot was just a badass.


I don't think Barbarian should be the only option for Fighter. One thing I don't really like is DMs saying I have to use option A because it is better when option B does my concept better. Some people don't want to be a raging strength fighter, they want to be a strong, disciplined fighter.

The options are Barbarian/Fighter now, not Barbarian/Swashbuckler. I've been thoroughly convinced that Swashbuckler is rubbish.

And you can easily fluff Rage as Heroic Willpower or something if you don't like frothing at the mouth.

[Telok]

Um, Soulknife (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)? Or Truenamer from Tome of Magic?

They don't cast spells.

Edit: Ah, I see now that you don't own ToM.

[Drakevarg]

Um, Soulknife (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/soulknife.htm)? Or Truenamer from Tome of Magic?

They don't cast spells.

Edit: Ah, I see now that you don't own ToM.

My understanding is that Truenamers are broken. As in, they just don't work, at all.

As for Soulknife, for lore reasons there are no psionics in the setting at the moment, though this may change if one of the party members manages to do the impossible.

But yes, the fact that I don't own ToM is also a factor.

[SowZ]

Be a devout Fighter/Warlock and use the Hideous Blow blast shape? Or have an artifact weapon. Arthur had Excalibur, Lancelot was just a badass.



The options are Barbarian/Fighter now, not Barbarian/Swashbuckler. I've been thoroughly convinced that Swashbuckler is rubbish.

And you can easily fluff Rage as Heroic Willpower or something if you don't like frothing at the mouth.

But you still get the -2 AC and "While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function" doesn't really work with a disciplined willpower. Regardless, you are keeping Fighter in so it is irrelevant.

The warlock thing is an option, I suppose, but you don't get any abilities associated with a godly blessing. Buffs and heals and such. It just seems an arcetype is missing, is all.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Two of your books say that magic item rarity isn't necessarily appropriate.

Frostburn's midgard dwarves are capable of crafting most of the items that the remaining classes are reliant on and Races of Stone's Battlesmith PrC can have regular dwarves or any of the stoneblessed (members of the PrC of the same name in the same book) crafting basic arms and armor by level 7-8ish.

Were you aware of these and if so had you considered them?

[Hiro Protagonest]

With the lower number of feats, choosing any one combat role would cause them to pigeon-hole their feats. Due to the awfulness of feats chains, many combinations won't ever be an option for barbarian. As for dipping, I'd rather take Feral than take Barbarian for the one level that will ever matter.
Whirling Frenzy Wolf Totem Barbarian with Pounce. Human.

Lvl 1. Power Attack, Stand Still.
3. Improved Bull Rush.
6. Shock Trooper.

Take whatever you want after this. You can go for Steadfast Determination (or delay acquisition of Shock Trooper until 12th level so you get it at 6th), go for Knockdown or Combat Brute, whatever.

Nobody will miss the barbarian's skills. They couldn't even read. OH SNAP!

As long as I exist, this statement is a lie.

[Drakevarg]

Two of your books say that magic item rarity isn't necessarily appropriate.

Frostburn's midgard dwarves are capable of crafting most of the items that the remaining classes are reliant on and Races of Stone's Battlesmith PrC can have regular dwarves or any of the stoneblessed (members of the PrC of the same name in the same book) crafting basic arms and armor by level 7-8ish.

Were you aware of these and if so had you considered them?

Midgard Dwarves don't exist in my setting, and I never use racial limitations to my prestige class. Battlesmiths will likely be present, yes, but being a prestige class magic arms and armor will still be rare and usually relics. Just not as rare as other magic items.

[SowZ]

Well, to be fair, I've thrown out Class Skills after realizing that the Fighter, the archetypical class for a town guard, can't take Listen and Spot as class skills.



Sorry. Though to be fair Urpriest gave an answer and an explanation to his answer. :smalltongue:

As for the "more items" thing, I doubt that'll be too much of an issue. In the current campaign, the party has a personal flying city and the priest has his WBL in bling alone.



It's an indicator that I need to read a monster's statblock and not just its CR before throwing it at the party.

Well, I think experts actually represent cops better. A Fighter should represent a soldier. In reality, a cop having more street type skills and a soldier having more combat ability makes sense. Though listen would still be useful for a guy fighting in melee battles.

[Drakevarg]

Well, I think experts actually represent cops better. A Fighter should represent a soldier. In reality, a cop having more street type skills and a soldier having more combat ability makes sense. Though listen would still be useful for a guy fighting in melee battles.

I don't use the NPC classes except Commoner for a Level 0. And the idea is that the guards are merely soldiers who are given something to do during peacetime.

[Eldariel]

Well, I think experts actually represent cops better. A Fighter should represent a soldier. In reality, a cop having more street type skills and a soldier having more combat ability makes sense. Though listen would still be useful for a guy fighting in melee battles.

I find Ranger with ACFs frankly works better for soldiers. Melee fighting is a lot about skills; Balance, Spot, Listen, Bluff/Sleight of Hand, Knowledge: Local, Knowledge: History, Concentration and Intimidation are all skills I'd consider important in a 1v1 combat and essential to any warrior's training (thinking about melee fighting as it actually works, not necessarily the D&D abstraction) and not one of those is on the Fighter skill list.

Oh, and Local and History 'cause Local covers knowledge of humanoids (know your enemy and all that; knowing anatomy is extremely useful for knowing where to hit) and History covers the knowledge of warfare (which is kinda useful for a warrior).

[SowZ]

I find Ranger with ACFs frankly works better for soldiers. Melee fighting is a lot about skills; Balance, Spot, Listen, Bluff/Sleight of Hand, Knowledge: Local, Knowledge: History, Concentration and Intimidation are all skills I'd consider important in a 1v1 combat and essential to any warrior's training (thinking about melee fighting as it actually works, not necessarily the D&D abstraction) and not one of those is on the Fighter skill list.

Oh, and Local and History 'cause Local covers knowledge of humanoids (know your enemy and all that; knowing anatomy is extremely useful for knowing where to hit) and History covers the knowledge of warfare (which is kinda useful for a warrior).

I'd count feats and and BAB as representing study of swordplay.

Balance, spot, and listen are certainly important. Bluff and intimidation are probably a little more important in a 1v1 than a line battle, because one guy isn't going to intimidate a line of guys and it is going to be so chaotic and I actually think BAB and feats make more sense to represent the typical feint than an actual bluff. Being able to lie in real life is only somewhat related.

[Lonely Tylenol]

In general, if you're already removing all classes with a caster level (or any variation on the theme), your focus should be on expanding the class list, not removing it. The thing is, a lot of classes that are "garbage" in a typical game become a lot less so in a low- or no-magic game; I mean, they aren't cable of reaching any higher, but when the ceiling is that much lower, they still come a lot closer to it regardless. Further, it will help your players realize a number of different character archetypes, and give you a larger list of "legal" classes to pick from as a DM for humanoid enemies.

This should be your complete list of options:

Player's Handbook
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Paladin (spell-less variant)
Ranger (spell-less variant)
Rogue

Complete Adventurer
Ninja
Scout

Complete Arcane
Warlock

Complete Warrior
Samurai
Swashbuckler

Dragon Magic (not in your books, but implicitly allowed in this case)
Dragonfire Adept

If other books were allowed, the Marshal, Dragon Shaman, Knight, and others definitely should be on this list (I won't speak to the ToB classes, as they're clearly not the type of game you're going for). I'll give a defense of each.

Barbarian represents your wilderness-themed adventurer. The "highlander", if you will; somebody who fights ferociously and by way of sheer, brute strength. There is a clear niche fit into this class, and it remains mechanically sound. There are urban variations of this class, many but not all of which are represented in web supplements such as this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a), if you need hard mechanics to back a refluff as an urban vagrant or something of the sort.

Fighter is your tabula rasa. It's the class you will be turning to when you have a ranged or melee concept out of, that is feat-intensive but potentially rewarding. This demands no explanation. Also useful as a two-level dip for literally any other class.

Monk is mechanically terrible--really, any game that would ban the Samurai and the Swashbuckler is just as well off banning this class. It is going to feel particularly useless in any low-magic game. It does fit a certain niche, however, as a sort of defensive fighter, with three good saves under its belt. It is also one of few classes with a built-in way of handling DR (though not a particularly good way, being that they come so late), which your party may need. It is also one of only two classes with anything of a WIS focus, an attribute otherwise left horribly under-represented. Also useful as a dip class (1, 2, and occasionally 6 levels).

Paladin is your holy warrior. It represents literally every "divine" theme and variation you may want to represent, since it will be the only thing even remotely resembling divine after everything else has been removed. It also represents the only class with built-in healing (via Lay on Hands), proclivity toward mounted combat, a meaningful CHA focus (Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts also matter for this, but not really, because they can just decide not to choose invocations with saves), and so on.

Ranger is your hunter. One of the only ways to represent "skilled melee", also known as Aragorn, or any variation of the theme. If their wilderness flavor isn't cutting it for you, there are urban variants in Unearthed Arcana and elsewhere, plus a number of other ACFs that you can basically just make the norm. There's really no fluff reason this class should be banned, since once you remove their spellcasting they basically just become Fighters that are more skilled than, and slightly less good at combat as, Fighters. Also worth including for Swift Hunter, if you feel your Scouts need love Complete Scoundrel not being on your book list must suck for melee who want nice things via multiclassing.

Rogue is your stabby guy. He's not particularly special as skills go, but he is mechanically best at the stealth-and-stabbing archetype.

Ninja is a slight reflavoring of Rogue. Really, he should not exist in any environment where the Ranger might be banned over the Scout, because he is the Rogue/Monk mish-mash in every way that the Ranger minus spells is a Fighter/Rogue mish-mash. Still, there is an archetype that Ninja represents that Rogue cannot (even if it's a narrow one), and a literal Rogue/Monk mish-mash is just terrible.

Scout represents the "mobile fighter" better than, I believe, every other class on this list. It's versatile and skilled, but not particularly adept at the fighting part. Best when mixed with Ranger, per the Swift Hunter variant Complete Scoundrel not being on your book list must suck for melee who want nice things via multiclassing.

Warlock is a caster with some semblance of balance. It's probably the strongest class on this list, except for the Dragonfire Adept (given that the few splats that support Warlock are not on your list, which is, again, a tragedy).

Samurai is... Well, Samurai is pretty terrible. There's no getting around that. Barring the Zhentarim Fighter ACF, however, it's the best way to represent an intimidating fighter-type, which is a meaningful niche unto itself in the right hands.

Swashbuckler is still a useful dip for Rogues (moreso with Daring Outlaw Complete Scoundrel not being on your book list must suck for melee who want nice things via multiclassing), and it's the only way to create a meaningful INT focus on a character in this whole game.

Dragonfire Adept is a good way to represent somebody whose powers are derived from dragons, which you've already demonstrated are totally a thing in your games. It will also probably be the most mechanically strong character in your entire game (though never overpowered, necessarily).

Knight represents the heavily armored "Arthurian" fighter better than the Fighter, and has perhaps the only meaningful mechanic available to your group for creating the "hey, look at me!" "tank". Also useful for controlling space.

Dragon Shaman best represents the worship of dragons, and would be the only other vaguely "divine" class on your roster. It would also be the best in the game at healing, via the Vigor aura and its lay on hands ability; a meaningful area-effect fighter via the use of breath; and a few other tricks.

Marshal represents every military leader. It is also a good way to "buff" the party via its major and minor auras for a number of things. It is useful as a dip for a number of other things as well, and, combined with the Paladin, can actually make for a meaningful CHA-based martial character (and, combined with the Warlock, a meaningful CHA-based martial spellcaster).

[Clericzilla]

First off I high suggest that you pick up Magic Of Incarnum... The Incarnate is fantastic and the Totemist is a tier 3 druid (eh more or less).

Fantastic read too ......

Anyways with the casters gone the Fighter can shine... Sort of... He will still need help though and is probably just good enough for a 2 level dip.

I also have to suggest the Hexblade fix, the creator posted (and playgrounders have posted on here somewhere) a fix to the Hexblade which makes it a playable class.

Also you should get Tome of Magic and look into the Binder... One hell of a class that has the best fluff (and a ton of it...) in all of WoTC.

Also one last suggestion (www.d20pfsrd.com), some of the allowed classes got an upgrade in class features but didn't get a tier change so you might want to allow some of the stuff from there. I know the Barbarian from PF is soooo much funner to use with his rage powers.

[Eldariel]

I'd count feats and and BAB as representing study of swordplay.

Balance, spot, and listen are certainly important. Bluff and intimidation are probably a little more important in a 1v1 than a line battle, because one guy isn't going to intimidate a line of guys and it is going to be so chaotic and I actually think BAB and feats make more sense to represent the typical feint than an actual bluff. Being able to lie in real life is only somewhat related.

Mhm, but the game places Feinting by Bluff. Since the mechanic already exists I didn't see need to change it. You're not intimidating a line of enemies but if you can cause them to be even slightly shaken.

And yeah, swordplay itself should definitely fall under BAB and feats but a warrior certainly has more Knowledge than just that. Though those two aren't that important, to be sure; even in modern armies it's merely recommended for soldiers to be on money.

[SowZ]

Mhm, but the game places Feinting by Bluff. Since the mechanic already exists I didn't see need to change it. You're not intimidating a line of enemies but if you can cause them to be even slightly shaken.

And yeah, swordplay itself should definitely fall under BAB and feats but a warrior certainly has more Knowledge than just that. Though those two aren't that important, to be sure; even in modern armies it's merely recommended for soldiers to be on money.

You're right, of course, in that feint is already a mechanic. But it isn't used very often and is used as its complete own thing, whereas feints would be part of most any advanced full attack action if we were trying to represent real fencing//swordplay.