(almost) Total change of base classes.

[YPU]

Today I was thinking about the classes in tome of magic and tome of battle filling almost every role of the standard classes, so my mind started brewing on (another) new campaign where you could only play a class from one of those book plus fighter and rogue. The idea behind this is this: magic is just plainly different, coming form three different sorts, pact true name and shadow. Divine fighters are crusaders monks an partly wizards are blade sages and in a way barbarians are warblades. But of course not everybody practises the art of battle and simply gets really good at swinging a blade so there are fighters. The same way not every thief is a shadown hand is a bladesage so there are rogues. Every other role can I think be filled by the other classes. Rangers falls a bit out of it, but I don’t think this is such a big problem. This setting would be a bit more oriental then European, I think. What do you people think, would it work, or would it need other classes added?

[Macrovore]

rouges aren't thiefy at all. maybe stealing from your wallet after sleeping with you, but not much more.
but if you mean rogues, then i totally see where you're coming from.

If you had all that, where would magic items come from?

[YPU]

actualy the the shadowcaster can make a few magic items and al the others would simply not exist. i like it that way.

[Khantalas]

I once required all spellcasters with game mechanics similar to the core classes (wu jen and warmage count, warlock doesn't) to take at least a level of binder and bind a vestige to themselves to grant them power for their spells. With the exception of spirit shaman, who already had an explained source of spellcasting. Of course, so do all other divine spellcaster classes, but it was at a Faerun where all gods had died, and the Weave was destroyed. Essentially, it was either risk gaining taint score everytime someone casts a spell, or bind a vestige. Woo, I just explained an entire adventure rather than making a point.

Which is, yes, it can work. If your players play nice and do not yell at you for adding a little flavor (especially when the devout paladin who had Pure Soul feat refuses to bind a vestige to himself and as a resul loses all his supernatural and spell-like abilities. Spells too. Yes, I am a bad DM. Sue me.).

[YPU]

I am not entirely sure there will be enough healing available, but I am not putting the cleric in. any idea’s on that topic. Perhaps I should switch heal with the treat wound from d20 modern.

[Fizban]

Well, crusader eventually gets strikes that can heal an ally if he stabs the baddie, but that doesnt help at low lvls. PrC's at higher levels could very well grant enough divine casting (divine crusader, ur-priest, and even minor divine casting probly opens up the use of wands/staffs). If you kept the bard, bards/divine bard variant's might become the only healers. I seem to recall truenaming having several healing spells. You could use the Planar Adept variant of the Shadowcaster, and make some healing paths (search the boards to find it). If you allow the Dragon Shaman from PHBII, it's aura of vigor and later lay-on-hands like ability could help out.

Baisically: you will be low on healing if you only use ToM and ToB. If you allow some funky classes from other books and the right PrC's, it shouldn't be too bad.

[Jack Mann]

I'd replace the fighter entirely. The fighter's already pretty weak in core D&D. The ToB classes simply... outclass him. This is especially true if you're limiting magical items. That hurts fighters far more that it will your casters (assuming ToM casters are at all comparable to core casters) or initiators. Fighters depend too much on their equipment. They need a fair amount of gear to be effective. Take that away, and they fall so far behind it isn't funny. For that matter, your initiators will be hurting as well, since their manuevers don't entirely make up for the loss of magical equipment.