A quick and dirty ToB fix to Core classes.

[ngilop]

The Fighter:
Fighters gains 4 skill points per level and gain Spot as well as Listen to thier class skills. A Fighter starts out with access to any 5 Disciplines of his choosing, gaining a 6th at 10th level. A Fighter recovers expended manuevers as a standard action that does not provoke an attack of oppurtunity if he has had a successful attack, or combat maneuver in the round.

{table=head] Level |
Maneuvers Known |
Maneuvers Readied |
Stances Known

1 | 6 | 4 | 1
2 | 7 | 4 | 2
3 | 8 | 5 | 2
4 | 9 | 5 | 2
5 | 10 | 6 | 3
6 | 12 | 6 | 3
7 | 13 | 7 | 3
8 | 14 | 7 | 4
9 | 15 | 8 | 4
10 | 16 | 8 | 4
11 | 18 | 9 | 5
12 | 19 | 9 | 5
13 | 20 | 10 | 5
14 | 21 | 10 | 6
15 | 22 | 11 | 6
16 | 24 | 11 | 6
17 | 25 | 12 | 7
18 | 26 | 12 | 7
19 | 27 | 13 | 7
20 | 28 | 13 | 8
[/table]

The Paladin:
Paladins gain 4 skill points per level. A Paladin starts out with access to the Devoted Spirit, Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon and White Raven Disciplines. A Paladin recovers maneuvers as a full round action that does not provoke an attack of oppurtunity. Alternatively a Paladin can recover 1 maneuver when he Lay on Hands an ally as a swift action.

{table=head] Level |
Maneuvers Known |
Maneuvers Readied |
Stances Known

1 | 3 | 2 | 1
2 | 3 | 2 | 1
3 | 3 | 2 | 1
4 | 4 | 2 | 1
5 | 4 | 3 | 2
6 | 4 | 3 | 2
7 | 4 | 3 | 2
8 | 5 | 3 | 2
9 | 5 | 4 | 2
10 | 5 | 4 | 3
11 | 5 | 4 | 3
12 | 6 | 4 | 3
13 | 6 | 5 | 3
14 | 6 | 5 | 3
15 | 6 | 5 | 4
16 | 7 | 5 | 4
17 | 7 | 6 | 4
18 | 7 | 6 | 4
19 | 7 | 6 | 4
20 | 8 | 6 | 5
[/table]

The Ranger:
Rangers start with access to the Desert Wind, Stone Dragon, Setting Sun, Tiger Claw and Iron Heart Dsciplines. A Ranger recovers maneuvers as a full round action that does not provoke an attack of oppurtunity. Alternatively The Ranger can recover 1 maneuver upon a successful attack on a favored enemy as a swift action

{table=head] Level |
Maneuvers Known |
Maneuvers Readied |
Stances Known

1 | 3 | 2 | 1
2 | 3 | 2 | 1
3 | 3 | 2 | 1
4 | 4 | 2 | 1
5 | 4 | 3 | 1
6 | 4 | 3 | 1
7 | 4 | 3 | 2
8 | 5 | 3 | 2
9 | 5 | 4 | 2
10 | 5 | 4 | 2
11 | 5 | 4 | 2
12 | 6 | 4 | 2
13 | 6 | 5 | 2
14 | 6 | 5 | 3
15 | 6 | 5 | 3
16 | 7 | 5 | 3
17 | 7 | 6 | 3
18 | 7 | 6 | 3
19 | 7 | 6 | 4
20 | 8 | 6 | 4
[/table]

The Rogue:
Rogues have access to the Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, Setting Sun, and Tiger Claw Disciplines. Rogues can recover all expended maneuvers as a full round action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity, or 1 maneuver as a swift action upon a successful sneak attack. At first level and at every 4th level a Rogue gains a +1 bonus to Initiative and a +1 dodge bonus to AC.

{table=head] Level |
Maneuvers Known |
Maneuvers Readied |
Stances Known

1 | 3 | 3 | 1
2 | 4 | 3 | 1
3 | 5 | 3 | 1
4 | 5 | 4 | 2
5 | 6 | 4 | 2
6 | 6 | 4 | 2
7 | 7 | 4 | 2
8 | 7 | 4 | 2
9 | 8 | 5 | 2
10 |8 | 5 | 3
11 | 9 | 5 | 3
12 | 9 | 5 | 3
13 | 10 | 5 | 3
14 | 10 | 6 | 3
15 | 11 | 6 | 3
16 | 11 | 6 | 4
17 | 12 | 6 | 4
18 | 12 | 6 | 4
19 | 13 | 7 | 4
20 | 13 | 7 | 4
[/table]

Stone Dragon no longer requires one to be touching the ground, and desert wind and its (fire) association can be swapped out for Artic Wind (Cold) Cackling Wind (electricity) and Vitriolic Wind (Acid)

Maneuvers are also usable with ranged weapons.

So a Ranger could use Cackling Wind and use the Lingering Inferno Maneuver to deal +2d6 lightning damage with his Short Bow attack.

I know I did not include the monk here nor the barbarian and I will now explain wy those 2 classes are left out.

I did what i consider a near-perfect Monk fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266100)already, though I am still in need of what sets of bonus feats to place where ( id like those feats to be at 2nd, 6th, 10th. 14th and 18th levels)

I skipped the barbarian becuase to me the Barbarian is not a class, but an archetype, much like the guy who fights with a weapon and a shield, or the archer. To me you can be a barbarian fighter ( like Conan or Krull) a Barbarian Cleric (like a Witch Doctor ) or a Barbarian Bard (a Skald). in my world the Barbarian as a class does not exist and neither did the monk till I made this version. Instead Rage became a feat (one that orcs and half-orcs get as a bonus racial feat)

[ngilop]

saved for feats that I shall be posting shortly.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Is this necessary?

Fighter and Barbarian= Warblade.
Paladin= LG Crusader. Maybe swap the damage pool mechanic for the mount.
Monk, Rogue= Swordsage.
Ranger is the only one who really needs tweaking.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

As written, a Fighter with a swift action to spare can spam his best maneuver nonstop. Same with a Ranger who uses said maneuver on a favored enemy, or with a Rogue who lands a sneak attack with a maneuver (some of which can set up sneak attacks).

The Warblade gets around this by requiring nothing else in the round, or BASIC melee attacks (non-maneuver attacks). I'd recommend stealing that wording, as maneuvers were not made to just have one chain-spammed all day.

[Ashtagon]

You're rejecting the martial classes' patch and instead by patching up a halfway version of the patch? If you're going to implement ToB anyway, why not just use it all?

fwiw, I've never met anyone who seriously thinks fighters and warblades should exist in the same PC group.

[Prime32]

fwiw, I've never met anyone who seriously thinks fighters and warblades should exist in the same PC group.At least give fighters some kind of niche, like letting them turn stances into auras.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

At least give fighters some kind of niche, like letting them turn stances into auras.

You know, that would be an interesting basis for a ToB Marshal fix. Turn stances into auras, temporarily grant allies some maneuvers you know, refresh allies' maneuvers, increase DCs/damage/etc. for certain maneuvers based on how many allies are using them at once....

I might just write that up and post it if I have some time.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You know, that would be an interesting basis for a ToB Marshal fix. Turn stances into auras, temporarily grant allies some maneuvers you know, refresh allies' maneuvers, increase DCs/damage/etc. for certain maneuvers based on how many allies are using them at once....

I might just write that up and post it if I have some time.

Oooh, I like the sound of that...

[ngilop]

There is a difference between the fighter and Warblade.

the Warblade gets d12 HP and all of those class abilities.

A fighter gets all those bonus feats and the ability to if he so chooses to spam 1 maneuver every round.


also the big difference between the is the Warblade is locked into the following Disciplines: Diamon Mind, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw and White Raven. WHilst the Fighter (rather the Fighter's player) can select any 5 starting out and gaining a 6th at level 10. SO this gives a nice 'niche' to a fighter in that each fighter can be completely different from another due to lets say one that is focusing on being more sneaky and unleashing a sudden and power attack, so this fighter selects Diamond Mind, Desert Wind, Shadow Hand, Iron Heart, and Tiger Claw. while another fighter at the table is going for a toughened and toe-to-toe inspirational fighter, so she selects Devoted Spirit, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, Setting Sun, and White Raven.

WHich is not really any different that using say.. Power Attack every attack.

after all the base of 90% of maneuvers are 'i hit things harder' which is what Power Attack is.

also what does fwiw mean? Peopel using weird and random acronyms that i do not understand.

[Grod_The_Giant]

FWIW: For What It's Worth.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

A fighter gets all those bonus feats and the ability to if he so chooses to spam 1 maneuver every round.

The problem is that this breaks how maneuvers were supposed to work. They're supposed to encourage variety in combat, and cause a character to mix up their approach to an encounter. They're also designed to make it so characters can't simply spam a single effective technique forever.

Meanwhile, this Fighter uses Mountain Tombstone Strike for 2d6 Con damage to his target per round. Every round. Forever. Or forces a Save-of-Die each round forever with Feral Death Blow. Or just gets an assured +100 damage each round with Strike of Perfect Clarity. Or, perhaps worst of all, heal +150 hp per round with the Devoted Spirit 9th, and just out-tank any single enemy that deals hit point damage. There's no real reason or incentive to use anything aside from your most effective technique against the target.

It's a lot different than using Power Attack every attack because Power Attack comes with its own associated penalty: it hits your attack rolls, meaning it's a trade between damage and accuracy.

This, however, isn't making the Fighter less of a One-Trick Pony. He's still a One-Trick Pony in every fight: he just picks the trick which is SLIGHTLY more effective and then uses ONLY that for the entire encounter. Urgh. :smallyuk:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Oooh, I like the sound of that...

Ta-da! Probably a bit overpowered, but hey, I only spent 15 minutes on it.

[bobthe6th]

So wait... the fighter has more manuvers then a swordsage, can cherry pick his disciplines, has a better recovery method... and still has 11 bonus feats, Full BAB, and a d10 HD... what the hell? No really, why? This is flat out better then a warblade or a swordsage...

[ngilop]

Ok i'll readjust the recovery methods..

but the fighter still has ZERo class abilities.

besides in a stright up fight, shouldn't the class named FIGHTER be the best?

that is my theory behind that.

[bobthe6th]

It happens to have 11 of them. When you have maneuvers, this fact starts to suck a lot less.
When they have to be your entire method of effecting combat, they suck. When they are feats you can use to compliment swordsage grade maneuvers... yeah, they get better.


I mean, it can chose to just be a better sword sage then a swordsage... while out fighting a warblade.

like take shadow hand, diamond mind, white raven, iron heart, and devoted spirit.

[ngilop]

wait.,. im confused.. the Fighter is out fighting *gasp* the warblade and that is wrong?

and The fighter doesn't get Wis to AC nor quick to act or dual boost or does he get evasion or discipline focus.

[bobthe6th]

Then... why play a swordsage? you could have a better discpline selection, more manuvers known, and a better recovery method. All it would "cost" is trading 2 skillpoints level and trading some okish class features for bonus feats. Did I mention you get full BAB? I mean really, this is broken.

edit: and really, the fighter isn't all that better at fighting then a warblade. He has a much deeper pool of abilities, most of which are going to be utility... so it is more like a flat upgrade to an existing class. And yeah irony, but when you are "fixing" classes you shouldn't make them better then the classes in the existing system. Unlike when ToB did this to all the melee before ToB, you don't need to. The warblade or Swordsage are actually well built classes... Which you just made obsolete.

[ngilop]

Ok so is the fighter on par (or greater than) with a wild-shaped druid in terms of melee prowess?

if so then my goal is 100% accurate as to what i wanted.

[bobthe6th]

Well no. depending on cheese like natural spell... yeah, probably not.

really, balancing to ToB classes is ok. you could even shed half the feats and no one would shed a tear. You could just make the fighter limited to Iron Heart, Stone dragon, tiger claw, and devoted spirit. Make them really mundane, but still powerful. add adaptive style but for all the fighter bonus feats... and you might have a nice class

[ngilop]

Ok what will I need to do for this fighter to make him better at melee ( well ranged) too than a Druid?

[bobthe6th]

Ok what will I need to do for this fighter to make him better at melee ( well ranged) too than a Druid?

Give him Wild shape? Or some real buff spells? but the Druid is known Cheese... why try to balance off it?

[ngilop]

becuase the Fighter should be the dominating force when it come to combat.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

becuase the Fighter should be the dominating force when it come to combat.

But, due to how the system works, the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, with all their magical tricks, will be able to out-power the Fighter almost every time unless the Fighter's numbers are so astronomical that it will be overpowered 95% of the time.

[bobthe6th]

But, due to how the system works, the Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, with all their magical tricks, will be able to out-power the Fighter almost every time unless the Fighter's numbers are so astronomical that it will be overpowered 95% of the time.

Its better to just assume the Big 5 are off the table... and build from their. It makes life a lot easier.

Giving the fighter what it needs to be a legitimate choice alongside the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader is better then just giving it +1000 to attack so it will be better then a druid.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Its better to just assume the Big 5 are off the table... and build from their. It makes life a lot easier.

Giving the fighter what it needs to be a legitimate choice alongside the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader is better then just giving it +1000 to attack so it will be better then a druid.

That was largely my point. The Fighter would have to be overpowered to compete with the Tier 1 heavyweights, so balancing the Fighter to that standard isn't a good design decision.

[ngilop]

I don't want the fighter to be tier 1.

I just want the fighter to be a combat master, on par with or better than wildshapped druid.

What is so terrible about the way I have the Fighter with the ToB application.

[Fortuna]

If you want the fighter to outfight a wildshaped druid, you should be nerfing the druid as well as buffing the fighter (which, you know, wouldn't go amiss anyway). Warblades and swordsages and crusaders are all very combat-focused classes as well, but your fighter 'fix' not merely outclasses but obsoletes all three in all but the most niche of cases. Those classes are generally considered well-balanced, so if your addition to the game renders their existences basically pointless it's pretty drastically unbalanced.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Warblades and swordsages and crusaders are all very combat-focused classes as well, but your fighter 'fix' not merely outclasses but obsoletes all three in all but the most niche of cases. Those classes are generally considered well-balanced, so if your addition to the game renders their existences basically pointless it's pretty drastically unbalanced.

This.

Warblades, Swordsages, and Crusaders are widely considered to be incredibly well balanced classes (in combat situations, at least...their out-of-combat utility often leaves a little bit to be desired). You want to sit happily among that number, not eclipse it.

Although, if you DO wish to eclipse it, answer me this: What is the meaningful difference between a Warblade and a Fighter with maneuvers, conceptually?

[Ashtagon]

I don't want the fighter to be tier 1.

I just want the fighter to be a combat master, on par with or better than wildshapped druid.

What is so terrible about the way I have the Fighter with the ToB application.

I don't want the fighter to be tier 1, I just want him to beat a bear-riding bear who summons bears :smallconfused:

[Prime32]

Giving the fighter what it needs to be a legitimate choice alongside the Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader is better then just giving it +1000 to attack so it will be better then a druid.+1000 attack still wouldn't make it better than a spellcaster. Not when a spellcaster can turn invisible and incorporeal so the fighter can't hit him, mindrape the fighter, attack him from the other side of the world, or trap him in a bubble that can only be escaped with magic (plus the bubble is completely filled with black lotus extract).

[bobthe6th]

+1000 attack still wouldn't make it better than a spellcaster. Not when a spellcaster can turn invisible and incorporeal so the fighter can't hit him, mindrape the fighter, attack him from the other side of the world, or trap him in a bubble that can only be escaped with magic (plus the bubble is completely filled with black lotus extract).

It was more that you have to give to many passive buffs to get the fighter on par with a druid. Also no, the druid doesn't have any of that on its spell list. They just have a ton of buffs, some utilaty, a hair of healing, and some blasting.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Although, if you DO wish to eclipse it, answer me this: What is the meaningful difference between a Warblade and a Fighter with maneuvers, conceptually?

Also, this. And please don't say "heavy armor" or "bonus feats," because a Warblade still gets his fair share of bonus feats, qualifies for fighter-only feats, and heavy armor proficiency is a feat/two words of revision away.

[ngilop]

Im sort of confused here.. You all are harping on the fighter becuase he is a better fighter than the warblade.


but did any of you get this upset over the fact that the Tome of Battle's classes came out and the warblade was a better fighter than the fighter?


also hows about some looks at the other classes I edited such as the rogue, paladin, and ranger also my created Monk.. some bonus feat suggestions would be appreciated.

[bobthe6th]

The diffrence was the fighter was obsolete... and weak as ****. The warblade isn't either, so making a "swordsage, but better" is bad class making.

The other classes seem ok.. fighter just stood out as broken.

[ngilop]

So besides the fact of the fighter being keyed to what he is about. mastering combat and various methods of attaining that ( i.e each player can select his own set of discipines)

what makes the fightert so 'broken'

[Grod_The_Giant]

Im sort of confused here.. You all are harping on the fighter becuase he is a better fighter than the warblade.


but did any of you get this upset over the fact that the Tome of Battle's classes came out and the warblade was a better fighter than the fighter?

Invalid comparison. The PHB fighter is a weak class, and can be seen as one of the worst designed in the game (he gets nothing for himself-- even the Samurai gets some class features). The Warblade, meanwhile, does everything the Fighter is supposed to do, and is a good, well-designed class.

In short: the Warblade has the right power level, sitting at a high T3 for power/low T3 for versatility. Your fighter is flat-out better. (and can access the supernatural schools, which is kind of weird). Do the math.

[ngilop]

So my version of the fighter is tier 2 is what you are getting at...?

[bobthe6th]

So besides the fact of the fighter being keyed to what he is about. mastering combat and various methods of attaining that ( i.e each player can select his own set of discipines)

what makes the fightert so 'broken'

When a class can be described as "x class, but better" it is broken. I also listed why it was broken.

At best you should limit him to a one choice from like three lists, or just give him all of one discple. Something, not any 5. Also give him a warblades manuvers known/readied.

[ngilop]

so what you want me to do is make the fighter a warlbade with no class abilities and a smaller HD?

I fail to understand how player choice makes a class broken?

I mena i coul say 'the wizard is the sorcerer, but better, or the Beguiler... but better'
could I give them any 4 disciplines then have access to another at 7th and again at 14th. would that be better?

[Dumbledore lives]

so what you want me to do is make the fighter a warlbade with no class abilities and a smaller HD?

I fail to understand how player choice makes a class broken?

I mena i coul say 'the wizard is the sorcerer, but better, or the Beguiler... but better'
could I give them any 4 disciplines then have access to another at 7th and again at 14th. would that be better?

The point that everyone is making is there is no need for a fighter class. If you want you can call the Warblade a fighter. There is no reason for your fighter fix to exist alongside the Warblade and even other classes like the Crusader and Swordsage, though they fulfill slightly different roles and have some unique class features.

[Grod_The_Giant]

so what you want me to do is make the fighter a warlbade with no class abilities and a smaller HD?

Take a step back. What, exactly, do you want this fighter to do that the warblade doesn't do?

[ngilop]

my only complaint about the warblade is that as something that is ( fighter 2.0 lets just face that and admit)

is really,, he gets such a limited number of maneuvers. It just struck me as odd and aggravating that the class that is supposed to be the more skrimish based guy got a lot more to do with this new bag of tricks that the warlbade did really the only saving grace of teh warblade over teh swordsage in my eyes is the capstone.

f

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

So my version of the fighter is tier 2 is what you are getting at...?

No. It doesn't have the raw game-breaking power than Tier 2 classes require. Like all ToB classes, it's probably low Tier 3: it makes Tier 3 due to its number of options, but it is still combat-focused to a very heavy degree.


my only complaint about the warblade is that as something that is ( fighter 2.0 lets just face that and admit)

is really,, he gets such a limited number of maneuvers. It just struck me as odd and aggravating that the class that is supposed to be the more skrimish based guy got a lot more to do with this new bag of tricks that the warlbade did really the only saving grace of teh warblade over teh swordsage in my eyes is the capstone.

Well, he has fewer options because the Warblade has a handful of decent class features, a full Base Attack Bonus, d12 Hit Dice, and the ability to reset his maneuver pool as a Swift action with just a basic attack afterwards, giving him more reliable access to his power maneuvers at less cost than either of the other classes. He also has Iron Heart, which is a VERY powerful discipline. Would a small number of additional maneuvers overpower him? Probably not. You might be able to go as high as 20 maneuvers known and 10 readied, because you'd mainly be increasing his options, and only indirectly increasing his power. I wouldn't recommend it though, as the class works fine as it is.

But yes...he is the Fighter 2.0, and is considered both good as a melee combat monster and balanced as a class. Why do you need to redesign that over just tossing him another maneuver or two if you really feel that's an issue?

Also, the skirmish has more options, but pays a higher premium for using any again. Meanwhile, the melee monster has fewer techniques, but uses his more powerful techniques more often, and at less cost. Seems balanced to me.



The point that everyone is making is there is no need for a fighter class. If you want you can call the Warblade a fighter. There is no reason for your fighter fix to exist alongside the Warblade and even other classes like the Crusader and Swordsage, though they fulfill slightly different roles and have some unique class features.

Correct. If you have a good reason WHY this Fighter you're proposing is THEMATICALLY DIFFERENT from the Warblade, we're fine. But if both are just really good with weapons, we've got two overlapping classes that shouldn't exist together.

[Grod_The_Giant]

my only complaint about the warblade is that as something that is ( fighter 2.0 lets just face that and admit)

is really,, he gets such a limited number of maneuvers. It just struck me as odd and aggravating that the class that is supposed to be the more skrimish based guy got a lot more to do with this new bag of tricks that the warlbade did really the only saving grace of teh warblade over teh swordsage in my eyes is the capstone.

f

The warblade is the professional fighter, yes. He's the soldier of fortune, the captain of the guard, the seasoned soldier. He gets excellent martial skills and a solid selection of maneuvers. His special school (Iron Heart) is "supernatural skill with weapons."

The swordsage, meanwhile, isn't fluff-wise the "skirmisher--" that would be a Warblade with light armor, Tiger Claw and maybe some of the White Raven charges. The swordsage is the mystic, the kung-fu master who trained on a mountain for 50 years. He puts the "magic" in "blade magic." That's why he gets the explicitly magical Desert Wind and Shadow Hand.

If the warblade doesn't seem to be getting enough different maneuvers (and remember that retraining lower-leveled maneuvers is a key part of advancement), then give him a few more-- 2/3 level +3, maybe. (capping at 18). No need to squash a worse-designed class into his space.

[ngilop]

Ok what is thematically different between the fighter and the warblade and the sword sage is as follows.

The warblade is the haughty headstorng and impusive warrior, one who learned a set of base skills and then expounds upon then to make them deadlier ( disciplines that is)

The sword sage is the light skirmisher, they take their time and learn as many technicques as they can partly becuase in a striaght up fight they are not built for it and they need every edge in combat they need, and partly becuase they take their time to study the inner wroking of what happens when man and sword (weapon) are intuned with each other. Though they end up knowing more all around styles than the typicxal warblade. ( Again disciplines)

The Fighter, is the soldier, warrior, knight, mercanary, man-at-arms, the ultimate combatant. The fighter learns and studies several differn sets of styles (dsciplines) becuase to master combat one must to do, The fighter knows more tricks and form a more widely used base than any other combat focus class, as unlike the rest, that is the fighter's bread and butter. Unlike the Warblade or Sword sage who all have the same base set of skills (maneuvers) each fighters repertoire can be WIDELY different than the next.

SO tap into their inner selfs and find utter calm in battle, others find themselves in theri weapon and become preternaturally skilled, whilst others tap into reserves of powers that are not fully understood able to cause theri weapon to burst into flames and teleport short distances.

[Grod_The_Giant]

See, that, uh... sounds rather like the "official" fluff for the swordsage... also like "as the other classes, but moar boss!!!1!"

[ngilop]

i thoguth teh fluff of teh sword sage was about mountains and 50 years or some-such.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Your fighter: " SO tap into their inner selfs and find utter calm in battle, others find themselves in theri weapon and become preternaturally skilled, whilst others tap into reserves of powers that are not fully understood able to cause theri weapon to burst into flames and teleport short distances."

The swordsage: "When your mind is tempered like the blade, no feat of combat
prowess is beyond you...Through it all, you seek to understand the secret
knowledge of combat. Every blow is a revelation, and every wound an apocalypse. In the end, you and your sword are nothing without each other." (Direct from the PHB)

Not to be dismissive, but... have you read the fluff in the ToB?

[Kinsmarck]

After a quick read-through, I'm content with my conclusion that the OP is trolling.

[ngilop]

Actually Ive not read the fluff thorougly.

I looked at the tables, then skipped to the maneuvers, cried becuase that what fighters paladins/rangers and rogues should have been when they came out for 3rd ed

read a bit of teh lore relazied that it was WAAAY to specific for my tatses and thats about as much of the fluff as i got into.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah... take another look at the class-specific fluff... the "playing a ____" section after the write-up. And maybe read through the rules of the (popular, functional) classes you're trying to replace in full.

[ngilop]

well from what I gather from you, they basically took what a fighter or any combat focused class shoul dhave as is descriptor and gave it to the ToB classes?


I might be wrong here in what I am about to say and for that I apologice to all the ToB fans,

But to me high level fighters should be the D&D equivalents of Heracles, Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Roland and Indrajit.

At high levels a fighter should be capabel fo sundering mountains, fighting a diety for three days before dieing, or managing to take on an invuincible monster.

All thing that we in the real world know is impossbile with our real world science and what ever elses. But in the D&D world, things opporate a little differently.

I see no reason why a fighter could be so well trained and so skilled that from their own warrior's spirit burst their weapon into flames or move so fast that they effectively teleport ( like in that one anime.. idk its name though... it a dumb name is all i can remember)

SHould Wizards have given this stuff to fighters and the other classes when the came out with 3rd ed. yes they should have, but for some reason they though that mundane classes are not allowed to have good thns and so kept giving wizards, clerics and druid all the best of whatevers.

I mean to me, a high level rogue's stealth abilities should be no different that what a greater invisibility and silence nets you.

I guess a lot fo people just do not like the idea of the mundane classes being able to be capabel of such great and heroic deeds and actions.

I myself, refuse to allow them to be relegated to the realm of inadequacies.

I just wrote down what i expect from fighters in a universe where magic is teh norm and people can fly, laung firebalsl bring others back from the dead, shape shift into creature X, talk to a dragon one day and then come to battle the walking dead the next.

In D&D I think the a perosn born, raise,d and based upon the rules of the rest of D&D should be BASED upon those rules, not the rules from our real world. and Really to me that is the core problem of what is wrong with Fighters and Rgoues and to a lesser degree rangers, paladins, and monks.