Why does anyone play fighter paladin rogue or monk?

[YossarianLives]

Really though. My friend recommended i play a swordsage for a new campaign as i had expressed the desire to play a roguish character. So i looked at the class on d&d tools and i looked at the manuevers available to them. And i realized just how good they are. Seriously swordsage is much better than monk and rogue and fills the same roles only better.
Warblade is better than fighter and barbarian combined. And crusader is so much better than paladin and you get the same holy smite-evil-thing.

But actually these classes are just better. They're much more interesting and customizable.The only reason to not play them is if you don't own ToB which is admittedly pretty rare.

[dascarletm]

My players refuse to use ToB.

One guy says, "I get so many feats with a fighter, why would I play anything else? Also it's lame I don't want to be some crazy magic fighter."
Another says, "The stuff from that book is OP."
The last one says, "It's too complicated."

I've tried to sway them, but so far to no avail.

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-25067-And-Here-We-Go-Joker-gif-Imgur-x71M.gif

[Azoth]

The same reason people play any class: They want to.

While TOB does offer much easier to customize characters that can out perform other classes, you can't get them to do everything.

A swordsage can't find traps like a rogue can.

A crusader can't abuse divine feats like a paladin can.

Warblades can't become as overspecialized by an over abundance of feats like a fighter can.

[Morrolan]

Not understanding/wanting to learn the ToB rules is a more or less valid reason to play those classes. They are also still viable dips.
Also, don't underestimate what you can do with barbarian. There are some very painful charge-jump-pouncing builds out there.

And from a non-optimizing point of view, rogue can still be better (more fitting) than swordsage, as can paladin vs crusader etc. If a player thinks one of the classes you mentioned fits his/her character better, they might and should take those classes.

[VoxRationis]

{scrubbed}

[dascarletm]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

A Scrag?

hmm...
How would he type it underwater?

[VoxRationis]

Maybe with one of those new-fangled waterproof phones.

[dascarletm]

Maybe with one of those new-fangled waterproof phones.

I refuse to use them,

I get so many apps on my current phone why would I play use anything else? Also I don't want some crazy magic phone
The phones from that carrier are too OP
Too complicated

[Morbis Meh]

Hey you! Stick to the schedule, yesterday was ToB Tuesday and today is Wizard Wednesdays so get it straight!

I personally love ToB and use it whenever I want to play a non magic based class (if I want a rogue then I will play a factotum) but like someone mention the original classes are great for dips. Crusader/paladins also go well together if you PrC in Windicator: battle blessing + more swift actions = awesome

Fighters are good for dipping if you have a feat heavy build, barbarian is fantastic for dipping to get rage, improved trip or pounce.

Every class has its place and people have their preferences. ToB has a high optimization floor but relatively low ceiling where as paladins/fighters/barbarians have utterly low optimization floors but decently high ceilings.

[Kazudo]

I forget who said it.

"To play a fighter is to understand how to play the game."
"To play a tier 1 class is to understand how to use the rules."
"To understand the rules and still play a fighter is to understand the game."

[John Longarrow]

Rogue - Skills/Trap finding / Sneak Attack / Evasion set.
Fighter - FEATS!!!
Paladin - Saves and mount you can summon at will plus detect evil and the church clout you normally get.

Why play any single class?
To get something that meets how you want your character to progress.

[Morbis Meh]

I forget who said it.

"To play a fighter is to understand how to play the game."
"To play a tier 1 class is to understand how to use the rules."
"To understand the rules and still play a fighter is to understand the game."

This is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one... whoever said this comes off as elitist and a tad BADWRONGFUN; anyone can understand the game and doesn't have to play as a fighter. Sorry if this comes off as rude but I really dislike subjective statements like this because their is no way to validate them. Understanding of the game can change from table to table and what is most important is this: everyone has fun. This is a hobby designed to have people/friends come together and enjoy themselves and if one table loves to play as all fighters that's great but they would be wrong to say that anyone who doesn't play as a fighter doesn't understand the game.

[Incanur]

Swordsages don't do the same thing as rogues. As mentioned, they can't find traps and they can't sneak attack very much. I would never recommend at player who wanted do classic rogue/thief things to play a single-class swordsage or build a mainly swordsage character. Instead, if rogue didn't seem strong enough for the campaign, I might suggest a swordsage dip. Rogues benefit greatly from a 1-2 levels of swordsage.

I do feel that warblade and/or crusader can fulfill most martial-character ideas that would otherwise use fighter and/or barbarian, but dipping in the latter classes often makes sense from an optimization perspective. And paladins have a few things going for them, mainly spells and mounts. For example, a 6th-level paladin can get a unicorn mount at -1-level special-ability progression according to the DMG. At level 6, this is downright awesome because of all the sweet power unicorns have. Various flying mounts are also available. At level 8 a dire lion becomes an option. I think most people forget about these options when assessing paladins, especially core-only paladins.

Mechanically I see hardly any reason to play a monk over an unarmed swordsage. I guess there are some decent prestige class and whatnot.

All that aside, many folks just dislike the flavor and/or crunch of ToB classes. I can understand that. I'm not terribly fond of either myself, depending on the discipline, but like both flavor and crunch as least as well as the martial default. (The fact that core fighters have to have above average intelligence and take a feat to defend themselves with a sword speaks volumes.)

[eggynack]

I tend to agree, as I just don't much see the appeal of those classes. They just seem kinda boring, and lacking in the massive quantity of constant decision making that appeals to me. I'd actually probably play an adept if placed in a game with those tier bars, or maybe a healer, because healers actually seem pretty sweet when you ignore most of their non-sanctified spells. I've gotta figure that my experience isn't the world's experience though, and that not everyone derives their satisfaction from making insanely complicated decisions, researching through piles of books for good creatures within particular types, or doing piles of bookkeeping.

[Kazudo]

This is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one... whoever said this comes off as elitist and a tad BADWRONGFUN; anyone can understand the game and doesn't have to play as a fighter.
Sorry if this comes off as rude but I really dislike subjective statements like this because their is no way to validate them. Understanding of the game can change from table to table and what is most important is this: everyone has fun. This is a hobby designed to have people/friends come together and enjoy themselves and if one table loves to play as all fighters that's great but they would be wrong to say that anyone who doesn't play as a fighter doesn't understand the game.

To begin with, this wasn't me who said it, I was just putting it in as a point of view since one was requested. And it's not saying that you can't understand the game and not play a fighter, it's that being willing to do so and not whinge on about how unoptimized they are says that you understand that the game is more than a collection of rules.

Secondly yes, this was very rude and borderline ad hominem which doesn't make for a good constructive debate.

Thirdly, If the guy playing the fighter doesn't understand the game, then someone didn't teach him well enough.

[Sir_Thaddeus]

In my experience, the high optimization floor makes ToB difficult for a low-op group to use. Pretty much every 3.5e group I've been able to play with has had enough new players that, if I played a Warblade or something similar, I would overshadow pretty much everyone. In a mid- to high-op environment, yeah, ToB classes are a great way for martial players to almost catch up with casters, but in games where the Level 1 Wizard spent all his spell slots on Magic Missile, a Level 1 Warblade is comparatively overpowered. In my current 3.5e game, the DM has banned ToB, and given the optimization environment I'm inclined to agree with him.

Overall, ToB is great, but situational. Situations where it's more appropriate to play a Fighter than a Warblade do exist.

[Red Fel]

I still remember someone posting (although it's been used so many times I forget who coined it originally) something along the lines of, "Even if you can eat steak every night, some nights you just want a burger."

That's the bottom line. On a purely mechanical level, there are better options than Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, and especially Monk. Many of those options come from ToB.

But the game is more than pure mechanics. Maybe there's a certain feeling of fun a player associates with his Rogue. Maybe the player is overwhelmed by ToB mechanics. Maybe he's stubborn and refuses to look outside of core for anything. There could be any number of reasons, non-mechanical ones, to choose less-than-optimal classes.

Instead of asking "Why would anyone play these lame classes," you should be asking "Why shouldn't someone play what they like?"

(The answer, of course, is "Because they like Truenamers.")

[dascarletm]

Secondly yes, this was very rude and borderline ad hominem which doesn't make for a good constructive debate.


Proverbs (which this looks more like) are not built on Aristotelian logic.

[Incanur]

Fighters are honestly fine in many if not most groups. In a low-op campaign that starts at level 1 and ends before level 10, for example, a player with a fighter PC isn't likely to feel useless or particularly outclassed. The limited options outside of a combat do always suck, but player cleverness and roleplaying can ameliorate that. Still, it's utter nonsense that a full caster like the druid randomly gets Diplomacy, Spot, and Listen as class skills and 4 skill points per level while the fighter gets jack.

P.S. Not owning ToB is only a problem if you're lawful-aligned. But various groups do play core-only games and so on.

[Kazudo]

Proverbs (which this looks more like) are not built on Aristotelian logic.

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse me. Let me say it like anyone else does:

This offended me! Ooooh! Ooooh! You talked bad about me! Oooh! Oooh!

[John Longarrow]

But MONK it totally awesome when you want to play a Bard that can start and survive bar brawls!!!

Plus better fort save for when your seducing that farmers daughter...

[Amphetryon]

Really though. My friend recommended i play a swordsage for a new campaign as i had expressed the desire to play a roguish character. So i looked at the class on d&d tools and i looked at the manuevers available to them. And i realized just how good they are. Seriously swordsage is much better than monk and rogue and fills the same roles only better.
Warblade is better than fighter and barbarian combined. And crusader is so much better than paladin and you get the same holy smite-evil-thing.

But actually these classes are just better. They're much more interesting and customizable.The only reason to not play them is if you don't own ToB which is admittedly pretty rare.

No real argument with the points about Fighter, Paladin, or Monk from me - I encourage my Players to use ToB instead of those options - but it's really difficult to make a Swordsage do the Rogue's typical party role well, in my experience. There are more powerful options, assuming you allow other Classes to find magical traps (that's a whole other can of worms), but I don't generally see ToB as the go-to option for alternatives to Rogue.

[Captnq]

Because I have invented a mental virus that makes people want to play those classes. It's imbedded in my sig file. I call it a blipvert.

Of course, occasionally, overweight and sedentary people have an unfortunate tendency to explode. Something about over stimulating the brain... a cascade of electrical impulses... something something blah blah blah. I'll have it worked out in with the next update.

[Shining Wrath]

Tradition; what they are familiar with; just fits the character concept they have in mind a little better.

Also, the Rogue gets some class features (open lock & UMD as class skills) the Swordsage lacks.

[Morbis Meh]

To begin with, this wasn't me who said it, I was just putting it in as a point of view since one was requested. And it's not saying that you can't understand the game and not play a fighter, it's that being willing to do so and not whinge on about how unoptimized they are says that you understand that the game is more than a collection of rules.

Secondly yes, this was very rude and borderline ad hominem which doesn't make for a good constructive debate.

Thirdly, If the guy playing the fighter doesn't understand the game, then someone didn't teach him well enough.

The is no need to get upset, I was in no way directing my comment at you, reread my comment and please point out where I made any mention of you. I was commenting on the quote which can be interpreted in many ways and I specifically stated whoever said this, not yourself, so please refrain from making accusations based upon this otherwise you are simply constructing a strawman.

I think a swordsage fits a rogue assassin type better than a rogue imo; if you want a social or a trapsmith rogue then swordsage is not a good class. Most of these classes would benefit greatly from a ToB dip but in turn these ToB classes can most certainly benefit with from a dip of the one the aforementioned classes. This is why I love 3.5, you can really combine classes to get the specific type of character you want.

[eggynack]

I think a swordsage fits a rogue assassin type better than a rogue imo; if you want a social or a trapsmith rogue then swordsage is not a good class. Most of these classes would benefit greatly from a ToB dip but in turn these ToB classes can most certainly benefit with from a dip of the one the aforementioned classes. This is why I love 3.5, you can really combine classes to get the specific type of character you want.
I think that just using a factotum is probably the best solution. All the skills, and piles of sneakiness and ingenuity.

[VoxRationis]

This is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one... whoever said this comes off as elitist and a tad BADWRONGFUN; anyone can understand the game and doesn't have to play as a fighter. Sorry if this comes off as rude but I really dislike subjective statements like this because their is no way to validate them. Understanding of the game can change from table to table and what is most important is this: everyone has fun. This is a hobby designed to have people/friends come together and enjoy themselves and if one table loves to play as all fighters that's great but they would be wrong to say that anyone who doesn't play as a fighter doesn't understand the game.

You complain about the proverb being "BADWRONGFUN" and elitist but not the post which disdainfully sniffed at anyone who would play four of the core classes?

[Telonius]

To the OP: Because I'm the DM, and I don't want to kill a character every session. (Also, I like a challenge).

[eggynack]

You complain about the proverb being "BADWRONGFUN" and elitist but not the post which disdainfully sniffed at anyone who would play four of the core classes?
The OP didn't really insult anyone. He just made the perfectly valid claim that those four classes have pretty boring design, and are rather weak, though the rogue is less so in both categories. At the same time, the post being responded to did insult people, by insinuating that wizard players somehow don't understand the game.

[squiggit]

Slight correction: Factotum is probably the better choice for your rogue replacement for general roguishness. Though swordsage does emulate a more aggressive rogue build really well.

You complain about the proverb being "BADWRONGFUN" and elitist but not the post which disdainfully sniffed at anyone who would play four of the core classes?

That's not what the post said at all though.

[Ravens_cry]

You want to play what you want to play, and unless your choices are dragging the rest of the party into a dirt nap, then it really shouldn't matter too much.

[eggynack]

You want to play what you want to play, and unless your choices are dragging the rest of the party into a dirt nap, then it really shouldn't matter too much.
I don't think this qualifies as an answer. The issue at hand here isn't, "People are silly for wanting to play fighters, and I will have no part of it," but, "Why do people play fighters in the first place?" I think it's a valid question, though I also think that some valid answers have been produced, ranging from character to complexity.

[ace rooster]

Build for fun, play to win.

You cannot 'win' an adventure by building the ultimate character (who would be a wizard anyway), as the DM should adjust the difficulty to suit. I tend to find I have most fun when I am playing in a team that is working effectively rather than a group of strong individuals, and so I try to build to encourage this. ToB will increase power levels, which will make combat shorter. Each character has more options per round, so it will probably take a similar RT, but the reduced number of rounds will give less scope for teamwork, even with things like white raven tactics.

ToB looks to me like an attempt to correct the imbalance between a wizard built for power and a fighter built for power, but not every group has this problem. If the wizard is having a great time fireballing the monk who makes every save (or has spellguard rings or ...), then ToB would just encourage the monk towards munchkinism (and it's infectious). It is sacrificing simplicity* for power, which is not always worth it, given that the goal of a build is fun.

*simplicity in the sense that go is simpler than chess. Moves are less obviously different, but the game rapidly gets complicated. Playing lots of moves quickly is also easier.

[T.G. Oskar]

Why do I insist on playing a Paladin when supposedly the Crusader is far, far better?

Well, for starters, I like the Paladin's spells. They're nifty when you know how to use them. Sure, there aren't that much, but those gems shine brighter than most other spells. Plus, there's only a few spells to memorize, not a whole book's worth like with Wizard, or tons of spells like with Cleric and Druid. Whatever I don't prepare, I seek a wand or scroll. A Crusader by no means can do UMD as well as other classes, and the Paladin on its own does UMD better; it doesn't need to, though, because the spells it has bring quite a bit of utility. Sure, I'd like to see more and better spells (and better spellcasting overall), but that doesn't mean I'm gonna through the sparklegem spells because of maneuvers.

Why else? I like the class. I like what it represents. I like the options I get with it: a free mount, or a spirit that provides a lot of buffs, or Bardic Music effects for virtually nothing, or a super-powered smite ability, or the ability to dispel curses...the ACFs are nice, and if I drop the Paladin, I drop all of those.

So what if there's a Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator that supposedly does everything a Paladin does but better? That's not just admitting the Paladin sucks; it's admitting the Crusader sucks because you have to pair it with Cleric, which on its own can make the Crusader beg for mercy. I could go jump hurdles for Turn Undead so I could exploit Divine feats and still get maneuvers and spells, but it'd force me to play a hyper-specialized build, when I want some freedom in options given the restrictions I define on (LG character, paragon of goodness, planning to use Divine feats, etc.) In my humble opinion, I find the Crusader can coexist peacefully with the Paladin; one may upstage the other in combat situations, but out of combat, suddenly the other's tools start to shine. Note that, of the three martial adepts, the Crusader is the one with the least benefit out of combat, since the few stances and maneuvers that work nicely out of combat that the Crusader can use are mostly on White Raven.

Again, but from a different perspective: why I'd like to play a Monk, if the unarmed variant of the Swordsage is better?

That one's harder, but it has its merits. Free feats. Evasion. Invisible Fist. Ki strike. Still Mind and access to Psionic Fist/of Zuoken (a very good PrC). Sure, reaching a Monk 20 is an elusive dream; sure, the Swordsage IS better...but I don't find it wrong to have a Monk around. Besides, how else are you gonna test a homebrewer's resolve if not giving it the task "fix the Monk"? Besides: Shadow Sun Ninja does Monk + Swordsage pretty well.

The only one I agree on, though, is Fighter replacing the Warblade. I'd like to say the Fighter has some merits, because Dungeon Crasher, Zhentarim Fighter and Thug are cool ACFs, but for the most part, save for a few of the Dungeon Crasher's traits, the Warblade eclipses the Fighter in its entirety. Being the class that recovers maneuvers faster, having a washed-down version of Fighter levels for Fighter-specific feats, and even a few bonus feats of its own, the only thing a Warblade lacks that the Fighter has in spades is Archery, and a Ranger (or a Cleric, weirdly enough), is far better.

There are good ideas in both sides of the fence, but there's one main reason I support those who play Fighters, Paladins, Monks, and yes, even Rogues: the fence must remain. Once you give up the idea of "hey, why not ban Paladins, Monks and Fighters since they suck!", it's only inevitable before "why bother playing any non-Tier 1 class? Just go Tier 1 and play whatever you want!" comes around, and that ALSO has strong support. Considering that I can play a Paladin and, with PrC support or not, I can do a few nice things with it, I wouldn't like anyone to suddenly deny me my favorite class and sag me with a class that, while good and while I'd be willing to play with it, I really don't want to play at that moment. That also goes with Soulborn and Divine Mind, BTW.

[Morbis Meh]

You complain about the proverb being "BADWRONGFUN" and elitist but not the post which disdainfully sniffed at anyone who would play four of the core classes?

...? The OP did nothing of the sort and you are the one deciding to take it as that while the proverb can come off as disdainful and condescending. I already commented on why people may want to play as the core classes but it seems that it is you who have problems with anyone that doesn't play only core. I personally don't care one way or the other as long as everyone at the table is having a good time so there is no need to get defensive.

Now in regards to the factotum directly replacing the rogue: true enough, they do a much better job as a skill monkey and have a multitude of other options but I think a beguiler also can take the reigns as well. Swordsages make excellent assassinlike rogues when you want a more combat focused character.

[The Insanity]

They're Core.

My DM and I fix it by perma-gestalting Warblade with Fighter, Swordsage with Monk, Crusader with Paladin and Factotum with Rogue.

[Shining Wrath]

Why do I insist on playing a Paladin when supposedly the Crusader is far, far better?

Well, for starters, I like the Paladin's spells. They're nifty when you know how to use them. Sure, there aren't that much, but those gems shine brighter than most other spells. Plus, there's only a few spells to memorize, not a whole book's worth like with Wizard, or tons of spells like with Cleric and Druid. Whatever I don't prepare, I seek a wand or scroll. A Crusader by no means can do UMD as well as other classes, and the Paladin on its own does UMD better; it doesn't need to, though, because the spells it has bring quite a bit of utility. Sure, I'd like to see more and better spells (and better spellcasting overall), but that doesn't mean I'm gonna through the sparklegem spells because of maneuvers.

Why else? I like the class. I like what it represents. I like the options I get with it: a free mount, or a spirit that provides a lot of buffs, or Bardic Music effects for virtually nothing, or a super-powered smite ability, or the ability to dispel curses...the ACFs are nice, and if I drop the Paladin, I drop all of those.

So what if there's a Crusader/Cleric/Ruby Knight Vindicator that supposedly does everything a Paladin does but better? That's not just admitting the Paladin sucks; it's admitting the Crusader sucks because you have to pair it with Cleric, which on its own can make the Crusader beg for mercy. I could go jump hurdles for Turn Undead so I could exploit Divine feats and still get maneuvers and spells, but it'd force me to play a hyper-specialized build, when I want some freedom in options given the restrictions I define on (LG character, paragon of goodness, planning to use Divine feats, etc.) In my humble opinion, I find the Crusader can coexist peacefully with the Paladin; one may upstage the other in combat situations, but out of combat, suddenly the other's tools start to shine. Note that, of the three martial adepts, the Crusader is the one with the least benefit out of combat, since the few stances and maneuvers that work nicely out of combat that the Crusader can use are mostly on White Raven.

Again, but from a different perspective: why I'd like to play a Monk, if the unarmed variant of the Swordsage is better?

That one's harder, but it has its merits. Free feats. Evasion. Invisible Fist. Ki strike. Still Mind and access to Psionic Fist/of Zuoken (a very good PrC). Sure, reaching a Monk 20 is an elusive dream; sure, the Swordsage IS better...but I don't find it wrong to have a Monk around. Besides, how else are you gonna test a homebrewer's resolve if not giving it the task "fix the Monk"? Besides: Shadow Sun Ninja does Monk + Swordsage pretty well.

The only one I agree on, though, is Fighter replacing the Warblade. I'd like to say the Fighter has some merits, because Dungeon Crasher, Zhentarim Fighter and Thug are cool ACFs, but for the most part, save for a few of the Dungeon Crasher's traits, the Warblade eclipses the Fighter in its entirety. Being the class that recovers maneuvers faster, having a washed-down version of Fighter levels for Fighter-specific feats, and even a few bonus feats of its own, the only thing a Warblade lacks that the Fighter has in spades is Archery, and a Ranger (or a Cleric, weirdly enough), is far better.

There are good ideas in both sides of the fence, but there's one main reason I support those who play Fighters, Paladins, Monks, and yes, even Rogues: the fence must remain. Once you give up the idea of "hey, why not ban Paladins, Monks and Fighters since they suck!", it's only inevitable before "why bother playing any non-Tier 1 class? Just go Tier 1 and play whatever you want!" comes around, and that ALSO has strong support. Considering that I can play a Paladin and, with PrC support or not, I can do a few nice things with it, I wouldn't like anyone to suddenly deny me my favorite class and sag me with a class that, while good and while I'd be willing to play with it, I really don't want to play at that moment. That also goes with Soulborn and Divine Mind, BTW.

Well done.

And part of this is people think "Oh, Paladin is a melee type with charisma, therefore plug & play replaceable with Crusader", but as you point out, they aren't exact duplicates. What people expect a Paladin or Crusader to contribute to a party the Crusader arguably does better - but maybe those expectations aren't always valid.

And so on down the line for the other classes.

EDIT:

This seems like a good time to bring in the estimable Person_Man's Niche Ranking System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) and compare the ratings given to pairs of classes therein.

|Class | Book| BFC | Buff | Curios | Debuff | Dominate | Game C. | Heal| Meat S. | Melee | Mobility | Party Face | Ranged | Sage | Scout | Thief | Summon | Trapfind | Total
Crusader | ToB |2 |2 |4 |3 |4 |4 |3 |1 |2 |3 |3 |3 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |54
Paladin | PHB |3 |3 |3 |3 |4 |4 |3 |2 |2 |3 |3 |3 |3 |3 |4 |3 |4 |53
Rogue | PHB |4 |4 |2 |3 |4 |4 |3 |3 |2 |2 |2 |2 |2 |1 |1 |4 |1 |44
Swordsage | ToB |2 |3 |3 |3 |4 |4 |4 |3 |2 |1 |3 |3 |4 |2 |3 |4 |4 |52
Fighter | PHB |2 |3 |4 |3 |4 |4 |4 |2 |2 |4 |3 |2 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |57
Warblade| ToB |2 |2 |4 |3 |4 |3 |4 |2 |1 |3 |3 |3 |4 |4 |4 |4 |4 |54

In this ranking, lower is better. My table making skills seem to have departed.

Crusader is judged as better than Paladin for BFC, Buff, & Meat Shield, while the Paladin wins for Sage, Scout, and Summon.
Swordsage is judged better than Rogue for BFC, Buff, & Mobility, while the Rogue wins for Curiosities, Heal, Party Face, Ranged, Scout, Thief, and Trapfind.
Fighter beats Warblade at Ranged. Warblade beats Fighter at BFC, Game Changer, Melee, & Mobility.


Most of the time what you want from a Crusader or Paladin is BFC (Battlefield Control) and Meat Shield. That's why people prefer Crusaders. But the Paladin does win some stuff out of combat.
For the out-of-combat stuff a Rogue clearly beats a Swordsage. In combat there's pluses and minuses.
As noted, a Warblade is better than a Fighter at what a Fighter is supposed to add to the party, except Ranged.

[toapat]

Really though. My friend recommended i play a swordsage for a new campaign as i had expressed the desire to play a roguish character. So i looked at the class on d&d tools and i looked at the manuevers available to them. And i realized just how good they are. Seriously swordsage is much better than monk and rogue and fills the same roles only better.
Warblade is better than fighter and barbarian combined. And crusader is so much better than paladin and you get the same holy smite-evil-thing.

But actually these classes are just better. They're much more interesting and customizable.The only reason to not play them is if you don't own ToB which is admittedly pretty rare.

Swordsage Vs Rogue: there is significantly less overlap then you think

Swordsage vs Monk: Straight Replacement

Warblade vs Fighter: When commoner is better then you, everything is better then you

Crusader vs Paladin: The only advantage Crusader has over paladin is they dont need wisdom. In pretty much every way otherwise paladin when played properly is superior. Paladin spells natively do more then Divine spirit's whole discipline barring Thicket of blades, and that is at core. throw another book at the paladin and their power just spikes if its not MoI/ToM. as summarized above me: Crusader does whats expected of paladin better, but thats only a facet of what the paladin is

Barbarian > Warblade + Swordsage + Paladin > Ranger+Spelltheif > Every other mundane.

[Shining Wrath]

... SNIP ...

Barbarian > Warblade + Swordsage + Paladin > Ranger+Spelltheif > Every other mundane.

A well designed Warblade beats every Barbarian ever. Rage + Pounce doesn't make up for all those maneuvers and bonus feats.

[Brookshw]

This is a logical fallacy if I have ever seen one... whoever said this comes off as elitist and a tad BADWRONGFUN; anyone can understand the game and doesn't have to play as a fighter. Sorry if this comes off as rude but I really dislike subjectivse statements like this because their is no way to validate them. Understanding of the game can change from table to table and what is most important is this: everyone has fun. This is a hobby designed to have people/friends come together and enjoy themselves and if one table loves to play as all fighters that's great but they would be wrong to say that anyone who doesn't play as a fighter doesn't understand the game.


Pffft, this thread is already predicated on elitism and a derisive attitude to whoever may choose to play these classes.

Pot: hello kettle, you're looking awfully black.
Kettle: or your not getting what's going on here.
Pot:.....

Spare me.

[toapat]

A well designed Warblade beats every Barbarian ever. Rage + Pounce doesn't make up for all those maneuvers and bonus feats.

considering what the barbarian can do, and that Whirlpounce is the only one trick of that. No

[eggynack]

Pffft, this thread is already predicated on elitism and a derisive attitude to whoever may choose to play these classes.

Pot: hello kettle, you're looking awfully black.
Kettle: or your not getting what's going on here.
Pot:.....

Spare me.
You say this, and Vox previously said this, but I really just don't see it. It just seems like an honest question, asked in a non-offensive manner, to me. Honestly, I think you may just be predisposed to think that any question on this topic will be predicated on elitism and derisiveness. It's a fair assumption, because they often are, but I don't think this one is.

Really, it's a fair criticism to make. Especially in core, the design on these classes tends to be deeply flawed, with a low scale of mechanical complexity, and poor planning of progression. It's an issue that diminishes when you look outside of core, but it doesn't go away completely. There are valid reasons to play these classes, and they've been mentioned, but that's why the thread's title is, "Why does anyone play fighter, paladin, rogue, or monk?" instead of, "You need to stop playing fighter, paladin, rogue, and monk!" Cause it's a question with an answer, and that tends to mean that you should ask the question.

[The Oni]

Sheriff: {Scrubbed}

[da_chicken]

Why does anyone play fighter paladin rogue or monk?

Because not everyone who plays D&D is a gamist.

Personally, I don't play a Crusader because of the godawful artwork (http://i.imgur.com/JOLpjkn.jpg) that reminds me of the infamous Rob Liefeld Captain America (http://www.anawfulart.com/captain-america-by-rob-liefeld/).

[Shining Wrath]

considering what the barbarian can do, and that Whirlpounce is the only one trick of that. No

In Person_Man's niche rankings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), which I linked to and which more or less represents the collective wisdom of the Playground, Warblade ties or beats Barbarian across the board.

Warblade judged superior at Battlefield Control, Buff, Debuff, Game Changer, & MELEE. Barbarian judged superior at nada.

If you feel the Barbarian has been slighted you should probably make your case to Person_Man in the comments on his thread as well as to me. First, though, you should consider that the only classes getting a '1' in Melee are the Druid, the Duskblade, the Psychic Warrior, the Totemist, and the Warblade - all of which benefit from the ability to self-buff their melee attacks in some fashion. There's lots of feats out there, but the Barbarian doesn't get any more than the Warblade - fewer, actually, as the Warblade gets some extras from a limited list.

[Rakaydos]

The following happened with a new (to 4E) player in my 4e group, but I feel it may apply to Tome of Battle as well.

"I walk up and swing at him. *Rolls* does a 23 hit?"
"What did you use?"
"My sword."
"I mean, what power did you use?"
"Power? I just attacked him."
"You didnt use any of your abilities?"
"I SAID I swung at him with my sword! Did I hit or not?"

(Later I ended up making the player a battlerager with a flow chart to show what order she should use her powers in)

[squiggit]

Pffft, this thread is already predicated on elitism and a derisive attitude to whoever may choose to play these classes.
Not really. The OP asked a question, a perfectly valid question at that.

Honestly if there's any condescension in this thread it's stuff like this:

Because not everyone who plays D&D is a gamist.
encourage the monk towards munchkinism
Seriously where do we get the idea that you have to be a munchkin to like tome of battle?

[TheIronGolem]

Personally, I don't play a Crusader because of the godawful artwork (http://i.imgur.com/JOLpjkn.jpg) that reminds me of the infamous Rob Liefeld Captain America (http://www.anawfulart.com/captain-america-by-rob-liefeld/).

That's probably the most bizarre reason I've ever heard for avoiding a class.

[toapat]

In Person_Man's niche rankings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), which I linked to and which more or less represents the collective wisdom of the Playground, Warblade ties or beats Barbarian across the board.

Warblade judged superior at Battlefield Control, Buff, Debuff, Game Changer, & MELEE. Barbarian judged superior at nada.

If you feel the Barbarian has been slighted you should probably make your case to Person_Man in the comments on his thread as well as to me. First, though, you should consider that the only classes getting a '1' in Melee are the Druid, the Duskblade, the Psychic Warrior, the Totemist, and the Warblade - all of which benefit from the ability to self-buff their melee attacks in some fashion. There's lots of feats out there, but the Barbarian doesn't get any more than the Warblade - fewer, actually, as the Warblade gets some extras from a limited list.

Person Man's list is as based off of Level 20, perfect optimization.

Sure, at level 20 they might slightly exceed what barb can do But NO ONE holds a candle to how far you can push the barb for a single level. the barbarian which competed against Dextercorvia's wizard? No other class can do that without fullcasting.

[Kaeso]

Really though. My friend recommended i play a swordsage for a new campaign as i had expressed the desire to play a roguish character. So i looked at the class on d&d tools and i looked at the manuevers available to them. And i realized just how good they are. Seriously swordsage is much better than monk and rogue and fills the same roles only better.
Warblade is better than fighter and barbarian combined. And crusader is so much better than paladin and you get the same holy smite-evil-thing.

But actually these classes are just better. They're much more interesting and customizable.The only reason to not play them is if you don't own ToB which is admittedly pretty rare.

I'd say some people play characters because they're fun? When I play in a group where the party consists of a fighter, a healer and a ranger, rolling up a paladin might be better than a crusader, who will outshine the entire party.

Furthermore, some diehard optimizers prefer taking a weak class and upgrading it to the point where it can function on a tier 3 level. Take for example the Paladin Supermount builds, or rogues that are souped up to allow them to use sneak attack in almost all circumstances. Yes, a crusader or swordsage is better out of the box, but doesn't offer you the challenge of making something weak into something playable.

[Shining Wrath]

Person Man's list is as based off of Level 20, perfect optimization.

Sure, at level 20 they might slightly exceed what barb can do But NO ONE holds a candle to how far you can push the barb for a single level. the barbarian which competed against Dextercorvia's wizard? No other class can do that without fullcasting.

I think you're trying to change the subject. This thread is about playing a class, not dipping a class or a class limited to level one. You asserted, without limitation, Barbarian > Warblade + others.

But let's part friends, shall we? Both are flavorful fun melee classes. Both have good out-of-game referents (Conan the Barbarian, a whole lot of anime weapons masters for the Warblade). There is no reason why you *must* choose one over the other because there's no BADWRONGFUN allowed around here. Furthermore, for a particular party, you might want a particular emphasis that would lead you toward one or the other.

May your next barbarian prosper and strike down the BBEG with a warcry that chills the souls of those who hear it :smallsmile:

[da_chicken]

Seriously where do we get the idea that you have to be a munchkin to like tome of battle?

From the first post. Class power is kind of OP's assertion.

Selecting a class based on mechanical power -- which is what OP stated directly in the first post as the reason for selecting ToB classes -- is gamism. I'm not being condescending. That's a factual statement. Complaints about the accuracy of power level assessments should be leveled at OP. He's the one making those claims. Rather than challenge his assertions, I provided a reason someone might choose to play a less powerful class in spite of them.

Additionally, neither I nor OP argued that ToB classes were munchkin or overpowered. The assertion is merely that they're more powerful than the listed core classes. Those classes are, I think, typically regarded as tier 3 or worse.

I'm not trying to make anybody feel bad for being a gamist.

[Kennisiou]

T4 is still a solid and valid space for classes to be in. Rogues are still fine power-level wise and are probably among the best t4 classes. Some multiclass shenanigans that shore up their weaknesses often can put rogue-centric builds over the top into low/mid t3 territory (daring outlaw rogue 4/swashbuckler 3/swordsage 2 is a segment that handily "fixes" the problem of Rogue having trouble dealing damage and surviving in combat, from there you can level in rogue, warblade, swordsage or factotum to either get even better in combat or better out of combat). Paladin with the right ACFs is basically just a bard that trades worse skills and slightly worse casting for better hitdie, base attack bonus, saves, and better use of the action economy. See "A-Game Paladin" for details. Even without doing those kinds of tricks, Paladin is still t4. Not a bad class at all. Monk can also play the ACF games and its early levels are ridiculously strong even without ACFs, probably partly to blame for "monkday" since a lot of inexperienced players tend to only have experience with low level play where monks heavily frontloaded clas features and two bonus feats at level one are great. It's a solid dip class, even though its scaling is poor. Fighter's in the same boat. Frontloads a lot of great features, has some solid ACFs, just has scaling issues. A lot of people give those classes ****, even though the same problems are faced by a lot of classes people don't seem to rag on as much, like Barbarian and Marshal.

I mean for real, none of the classes you listed are outright bad. If you're looking for bad classes look at Shadowcaster, Lurk, Soulborn, CW Samurai...

[squiggit]

It's still a false equivocation because you don't need to be a gamist to pick the warblade over the fighter though. Or even a gamist to consider which chassis is more effective at conveying a competent character.

You're either taking the position that picking better options makes you "gamist" which is silly, or that somehow not being gamist means you must take worse options, also silly. Either way it's not a particularly useful answer to the question and comes off purely as antagonistic.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's worth noting that ToB characters have high optimization floors and (relatively) low optimization ceilings. In my experience they are like (warning: TVTropes link) Skill Gate characters (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SkillGateCharacters). In their native low-op groups, players likely use them to great effect. Then they try that stuff out in an optimized group and get curbstomped or ignored by enemies designed to challenge shadowpouncers, chargers, WIS-SAD soulbows, and of course optimized casters.

For one, strikes aren't so awesome when you've already found ways to full attack each round. For another, there's little native to ToB can seriously pump your raw stats aside from damage (which, while often dismissed in these parts, are actually important). There are a few tricks, namely White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge and RKV shenanigans, but most of the maneuvers and stances are just ways to add mobility and damage. Again, great for groups that don't go dumpster diving to look for those things elsewhere, but not so great when you already have relatively easy access to mobility and damage and need accuracy and (to a lesser extent) defense.

To be fair, skilled players can definitely use ToB to their advantage - the shadowpouncer listed above used swordsage for instance - but I find that low op ceiling comes crashing down on new players' expectations.

[toapat]

Paladin is still t4

Monk can also play the ACF games

Fighter's in the same boat. Frontloads a lot of great features, has some solid ACFs, just has scaling issues. A lot of people give those classes ****, even though the same problems are faced by a lot of classes people don't seem to rag on as much, like Barbarian and Marshal.

I mean for real, none of the classes you listed are outright bad. If you're looking for bad classes look at Shadowcaster, Lurk, Soulborn, CW Samurai...

Paladin is T4 if you throw any of its ACFs, Substitution levels, or dedicated feats at it. Oh, and if we are judging Crusader vs Paladin, we can just grab ToB itself and with RKV, Invalidate the Crusader because you took a Devouted spirit manuver at 3 and a stance at 6/9

Monk: Doesnt really get to play Musical ACFs like paladin if you dont have Dragon material. Although like paladin they are very receptive to more books. Just not as many. And half of them are Dragon material

Fighter: Is actually that bad. Sure you can dump all of the ACFs into them and they become Passable, and they can do one thing incredibly well, but even then, with all the good ACFs combined, the class is only 9 levels long.

[Brookshw]

You say this, and Vox previously said this, but I really just don't see it. It just seems like an honest question, asked in a non-offensive manner, to me. Honestly, I think you may just be predisposed to think that any question on this topic will be predicated on elitism and derisiveness. It's a fair assumption, because they often are, but I don't think this one is.
.

If you find phrases such as "just better", "much better" or fail to see an inherit logical requirement of a thread regarding why you would bother with these classes to carry a sense and tone of superiority, well, that's on you I'm afraid. It's not even so much the op's phrasing (which is loaded and could use some work) so much as the reaction I quoted which was so much balderdash that I find ridiculous. The op's not free and clear though.

Edit: better? Compared to what? Mechanics? Why is that a measuring stick? There are a plethora of others after all.

[Incanur]

I suspect it'd take an optimized pure warblade a while to approach the raw power of a optimized pure barbarian. RAW White Raven Tactics comes close at level 5 - I really hate that maneuver - but beyond that you've got to wait until level 9 at least. Unless multiclassing is banned for some reason, though, many optimized martial character will combine barbarian 1-2, warblade x, and perhaps a few levels of fighter.

I'm not so sure rogues trump swordsages out of combat, or at least no so dramatically. In 3.5 rogues don't even have enough skill points to do traps, stealth, awareness, social, and curiosities all at the same time. Often they only manage to do the first three, if that. Swordsages get sense magic and various mobility/utility stances and maneuvers. Mobility can matter a lot outside of combat.


Monk can also play the ACF games and its early levels are ridiculously strong even without ACFs, probably partly to blame for "monkday" since a lot of inexperienced players tend to only have experience with low level play where monks heavily frontloaded clas features and two bonus feats at level one are great.

:smallconfused: This has not been my experience. While monks do get good stuff in the early levels, their lack of even basic proficiencies as well as MADness outweighs the advantages of some feats. It's hard to make a 1st-level monk that can match even a basic low-op fighter's damage and AC. (Try with a 25-point buy. Ouch!) It's in the mid levels - maybe starting around level 5 - that I see monks shining, and only then as a buff target for casters.

[squiggit]

If you find phrases such as "just better", "much better" or fail to see an inherit logical requirement of a thread regarding why you would bother with these classes to carry a sense and tone of superiority, well, that's on you I'm afraid.
Er, you understand the difference between talking about classes and talking about people playing said classes, right? The OP states that the swordsage is better than the monk, there's absolutely no character judgement at all... and I don't see anything particularly elitist about calling one class better than another.


so much as the reaction I quoted which was so much balderdash that I find ridiculous.
The piece you quoted contained no character judgements either though. It disagreed with a rather odd assertion someone else stated but it didn't attack anyone's opinion or position otherwise. You could instead explain why it's "balderdash" instead of just doing the thing you're complaining about other people doing though.

[VoxRationis]

The piece he quoted was hypocritical in that it criticized any prescriptiveness in gameplay styles as "BADWRONGFUN", using the dismissive rhetorical technique of reducing another's statement to a concatenation of simple words in order to make the statement itself seem simple, but at the same time was in support of a prescriptive gameplay style that evaluates classes purely on mechanical ability.

[toapat]

I suspect it'd take an optimized pure warblade a while to approach the raw power of a optimized pure barbarian. RAW White Raven Tactics comes close at level 5 - I really hate that maneuver - but beyond that you've got to wait until level 9 at least. Unless multiclassing is banned for some reason, though, many optimized martial character will combine barbarian 1-2, warblade x, and perhaps a few levels of fighter.

Warblade: Will typically at least be competent in combat, unlikely to be able to specialize to a specific encounter

Barbarian: Will typically be competent in combat, may be specialized so specifically against a challenge as to be able to complete it. (Boar Totem barbarian, for instance, is one of the hardest to kill classes at level 1, and definitely the hardest to kill class under T2)

Edit: Also, There is a pretty atrocious ranking in the neiche table: White raven is considered Good buffing. except its not (WRT doesnt grant more actions, for instance, only a change in initiative order, the rest of the discipline is terrible). even core paladin does more then the whole White raven thing and thats without being annoyed that basically every objective analysis has completely screwed the paladin, monk, rogue, and ranger (fighter is just not redeemable without throwing every single book at it). (Classes are considered with all material from their book, and any books that that book works off of. Objectively, the Crusader is allowed 200% more material then the paladin, and the lurk is allowed 300% more material then the rogue.)

[Incanur]

(Boar Totem barbarian, for instance, is one of the hardest to kill classes at level 1, and definitely the hardest to kill class under T2)

Well, they've got a lot o' hp, sure. I don't know they're harder to kill than a crusader with Stone Power. More to the point, both barbarians and crusaders die to color spray like anybody else, especially if they lose initiative. Now, if you add the feat Troll Blooded to the mix, then you've got a really tough customer.

[toapat]

Well, they've got a lot o' hp, sure. I don't know they're harder to kill than a crusader with Stone Power. More to the point, both barbarians and crusaders die to color spray like anybody else, especially if they lose initiative. Now, if you add the feat Troll Blooded to the mix, then you've got a really tough customer.

well if you want pure Meatsack, Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold even with the -2 to con with 2 flaws is the raw HP hardest to kill, but its more then just 2 ranks of Epic Toughness that makes the Crusader/Barbarian hard to kill. What matters is that you get Diehard which is worth twice what the crusader gets.

Colorspray kills the entire game.

[squiggit]

The piece he quoted was hypocritical in that it criticized any prescriptiveness in gameplay styles as "BADWRONGFUN", using the dismissive rhetorical technique of reducing another's statement to a concatenation of simple words in order to make the statement itself seem simple, but at the same time was in support of a prescriptive gameplay style that evaluates classes purely on mechanical ability.

That'd only be hypocritical if the latter position also placed a character judgement alongside said mechanical ability. It didn't, so it isn't.

[eggynack]

Person Man's list is as based off of Level 20, perfect optimization.
That doesn't seem accurate at all. I'm pretty sure that the list is designed with the tier system in mind, which means a range of optimization as long as it's held equal across the board, and with the greatest emphasis placed on the 6-15 level range.


Sure, at level 20 they might slightly exceed what barb can do But NO ONE holds a candle to how far you can push the barb for a single level. the barbarian which competed against Dextercorvia's wizard? No other class can do that without fullcasting.
Just as the tier list/niche system is not based entirely off of level twenty play, so too is it not based off of level one play. That said, I've gotta say that I don't think your assessments of power level match up with that of anyone else.

If you find phrases such as "just better", "much better" or fail to see an inherit logical requirement of a thread regarding why you would bother with these classes to carry a sense and tone of superiority, well, that's on you I'm afraid. It's not even so much the op's phrasing (which is loaded and could use some work) so much as the reaction I quoted which was so much balderdash that I find ridiculous. The op's not free and clear though.

Edit: better? Compared to what? Mechanics? Why is that a measuring stick? There are a plethora of others after all.
I'm pretty sure that he meant that mostly in terms class design, which is strongly indicated in the last sentence. He may have also meant that partially in terms of power level. Seems accurate enough to me. If you think that he's mistaken, you can make arguments that mean that, but insulting the OP just seems pointless and mean spirited.

[toapat]

That doesn't seem accurate at all. I'm pretty sure that the list is designed with the tier system in mind, which means a range of optimization as long as it's held equal across the board, and with the greatest emphasis placed on the 6-15 level range.


Just as the tier list/niche system is not based entirely off of level twenty play, so too is it not based off of level one play. That said, I've gotta say that I don't think your assessments of power level match up with that of anyone else.

1: Bias exists, and the people who are on this site? tend towards higher optimization and less purely objective analysis. to claim that their work is correct, expecially when i pointed out that crusader doesnt have the ability to buff people, is just ignoring the fact that we are not supercomputers.
Crusaders have no access to buffing in any sense of the word because White Raven is a really poor discipline for that, It has one buff. Their other option for buffing is not buffing at all, but healing. to compare, with just the SRD paladins have 19 (17 ally targetable) buffs.

2: in general, the warblade will be more specific, where as the barbarian will be more focused on a single type of encounter

[eggynack]

1: Bias exists, and the people who are on this site? tend towards higher optimization and less purely objective analysis. to claim that their work is correct, expecially when i pointed out that crusader doesnt have the ability to buff people, is just ignoring the fact that we are not supercomputers.
Crusaders have no access to buffing in any sense of the word because White Raven is a really poor discipline for that, It has one buff. Their other option for buffing is not buffing at all, but healing. to compare, with just the SRD paladins have 19 (17 ally targetable) buffs.
I think you're underestimating white raven by quite a bit. A lot of those maneuvers, like tactical strike, seem pretty strong. You're tossing that one out at the same level as the paladin is running something like protection from evil or bless, except you get to still make your attack, and it's repeatable. Free movement can be pretty strong on occasion. A lot of the white raven abilities are like that, making the team's melee better, and maintaining your offense simultaneously. It seems somewhat arbitrary to call this stuff not buffing, though I suppose some of it could better be described as debuffing. White raven tactics is obviously ridiculous, and the other abilities seem strong as well.

2: in general, the warblade will be more specific, where as the barbarian will be more focused on a single type of encounter.
That comparison seems to favor the warblade to a significant degree. Focusing on a single type of encounter just seems somewhat problematic.

[Kennisiou]

Paladin is T4 if you throw any of its ACFs, Substitution levels, or dedicated feats at it. Oh, and if we are judging Crusader vs Paladin, we can just grab ToB itself and with RKV, Invalidate the Crusader because you took a Devouted spirit manuver at 3 and a stance at 6/9

Monk: Doesnt really get to play Musical ACFs like paladin if you dont have Dragon material. Although like paladin they are very receptive to more books. Just not as many. And half of them are Dragon material

Fighter: Is actually that bad. Sure you can dump all of the ACFs into them and they become Passable, and they can do one thing incredibly well, but even then, with all the good ACFs combined, the class is only 9 levels long.

If fighter were a prestige class as written it would be considered a solid prestige class for martial characters or characters who aren't martial but want some quick access to marital prowess. D10 HD, full BAB, proficiencies, and a bunch of fast bonus feats. That's what I mean when I say it's not a bad class. It is a great dip. Absolutely stellar. Monk is in the same boat. Two levels of monk nets wis to AC and three bonus feats, as well as improved unarmed damage and some other notable class features. Boss. ACF shuffle makes them even better, since you can get things like swift invisiblity via invisible fist or bonuses to hit on attacks via decisive strike. Pretty sure neither of those are dragon magazine (although the strongest monk ACFs are wild monk and martial monk, which are both dragon content). In this way it's comparable to the classes I listed. Barbarian's class features are super frontloaded. You want to get out of that class fast. Sure, they're a better later than the fighter/monk, but that's still far from having good later levels. Marshal is basically a one level class: if you take more than that there's really not much of a point. Its strongest features are at level one and everything after that is just not worth remaining in the class, but nobody looks at Marshal or Barbarian and scoffs like they do at fighter or monk, even though those first levels for each class are super valuable on builds that, you know, care about the things those levels provide).

Compare that to the classes I mentioned. Lurk for 20 levels is outright painful. As a dip it brings nothing to the table either. It's just overall a class that is completely worthless that has no real point on any build. Samurai 20 is... okay, honestly in an fear build it's probably better than fighter 20 or monk 20, but its early levels are awful and it's still far from good, and beyond that a fighter in particular can also pull fear shenanigans like a smurai does and is only a tad worse at it, but gets the benefit of being able to power attack and charge more effectively. Soulborn is one of the worst classes in the game and is just awful at all levels. Easily worse than fighter or monk. Shadowcaster? Downright bad. And none of the classes I listed are even valid as dips.

[toapat]

I think you're underestimating white raven by quite a bit. A lot of those maneuvers, like tactical strike, seem pretty strong. You're tossing that one out at the same level as the paladin is running something like protection from evil or bless, except you get to still make your attack, and it's repeatable. Free movement can be pretty strong on occasion. A lot of the white raven abilities are like that, making the team's melee better, and maintaining your offense simultaneously. It seems somewhat arbitrary to call this stuff not buffing, though I suppose some of it could better be described as debuffing. White raven tactics is obviously ridiculous, and the other abilities seem strong as well.

That comparison seems to favor the warblade to a significant degree. Focusing on a single type of encounter just seems somewhat problematic.

1: Order forged from Chaos is one of the only non-debuffs in that discipline. White Raven Tactics doesnt actually grant additional actions in the round, just another turn with the total actions retained from the previous turn (Timestop, for instance, says you take 1d4+1 Rounds (apparent) of actions, not turns). Tactics of the Wolf, while theoretically useful is irrelevant for a number of reasons.

2: The point is not that the warblade is superior in general, its that for any specific challenge you can make a barbarian that is superior so long as thats not "Be a better Warblade"

[eggynack]

1: Order forged from Chaos is one of the only non-debuffs in that discipline. White Raven Tactics doesnt actually grant additional actions in the round, just another turn with the total actions retained from the previous turn (Timestop, for instance, says you take 1d4+1 Rounds (apparent) of actions, not turns). Tactics of the Wolf, while theoretically useful is irrelevant for a number of reasons.
Buffs and debuffs are pretty much the same thing in a number of situations. Sure, not all debuffs can be effectively rewritten as buffs, but most white raven ones can.


2: The point is not that the warblade is superior in general, its that for any specific challenge you can make a barbarian that is superior so long as thats not "Be a better Warblade"
That's basically what I meant. The barbarian is incredibly good at some specific thing, and the warblade is very good at some variety of things. The former just seems somewhat better.

[MirddinEmris]

I forget who said it.

"To play a fighter is to understand how to play the game."
"To play a tier 1 class is to understand how to use the rules."
"To understand the rules and still play a fighter is to understand the game."

Only when you can balance a tackle on your head, you will have a balanced attack.


P.S. So mysterious...

[OldTrees1]

The following happened with a new (to 4E) player in my 4e group, but I feel it may apply to Tome of Battle as well.

"I walk up and swing at him. *Rolls* does a 23 hit?"
"What did you use?"
"My sword."
"I mean, what power did you use?"
"Power? I just attacked him."
"You didnt use any of your abilities?"
"I SAID I swung at him with my sword! Did I hit or not?"

(Later I ended up making the player a battlerager with a flow chart to show what order she should use her powers in)

^This is the reason I prefer Fighter over Warblade

The mechanical texture of ToB classes is different from the mechanical texture of the classes they replace. Some prefer Fighter for the focus on the attack action(included derivatives like Trip and Knockback) and some prefer Warblade for the Strikes and unreadied maneuvers.

The reason I play a Rogue over a Swordsage is that I like skillmonkeys. Rogue has more skillmonkey support.

Strangely I do prefer Crusader over Paladin

[Kazyan]

I play in a game in which people know about optimization, but we don't play it up to the hilt.

I like high move speeds, rolling lots of dice, and not ticking off my DM. So I could totally Monk as soon as my Soul Eater dies, and it would work non-terribly.

I played a Javelin-throwing Fighter/Master Thrower that was tons of fun. A "better" class would have been inappropriate because the ~35 damage per round that basically always hit was already a handful for the DM, despite optimization wisdom. No, I should not have Warblade'd; that would have ticked off the DM.

I could play a Factotum in that game, but if I wanted to stab someone in the kidneys without exploiting poor design choices at every turn, Rogue would be more appropriate.

And I'd play a Barbarian just for the novelty of playing a well-designed class instead of an overpowered one.

[Kennisiou]

What is this about lack of crusader buffs?

Bolstering Voice (Stance): Bonus to will saves to you and allies.
Flanking Maneuver (Strike): Strike a foe you flank, your flanking buddy hits them too. I cannot see how helping an ally to break the action economy is not a buff.
Leading the Attack (Strike): Allies gain morale bonus to hit an enemy you struck.
Leading the Charge (Stance): Allies gain bonus damage on charges.
Lion's Roar (Boost): Kill someone, allies gain a +5 morale bonus on damage for a round.
Order Forged from Chaos: Spend a move action to give allies a move action (by RAW should probably let you move as well)? Again, allowing allies to gain action economy advantage strikes me as a buff.
Swarm Tactics (Stance): Allies gain bonus damage against people standing next to you.

And just... I don't feel like wading through all of the maneuvers starting with "White Raven." Still, that's... that's buffs right there. Those are buffs. Crusader has them.

[MirddinEmris]

1: Bias exists, and the people who are on this site? tend towards higher optimization and less purely objective analysis.

Completely not true, otherwise Paladin would much higher in tier system, because on high optimization level he is at least as good as Crusader and arguably better (wizard spells, yes). Arguably the whole Tier sytem was build on assumption of low-to-mid optimization level.


Classes are considered with all material from their book, and any books that that book works off of. Objectively, the Crusader is allowed 200% more material then the paladin, and the lurk is allowed 300% more material then the rogue.

Also not exactly true. All material consideredm, but material from Core books and books with the class in question have greater impact than some obscure or setting specific books, because the purpose was to evaluate general possibilities of the classes, not the power of specific builds. Generally it was like this "Resources that class will almost always have access to" (Core book + class book, usually) + "Resources that probably will ba available" (something like material from completes or races of... series) + "Resources that will be available only in specific games" (obscure rulebook, setting specific books, third party books etc), the more available the resource was considered, the more impact he has on tier placement.

[MirddinEmris]

^This is the reason I prefer Fighter over Warblade

The mechanical texture of ToB classes is different from the mechanical texture of the classes they replace. Some prefer Fighter for the focus on the attack action(included derivatives like Trip and Knockback) and some prefer Warblade for the Strikes and unreadied maneuvers.

The reason I play a Rogue over a Swordsage is that I like skillmonkeys. Rogue has more skillmonkey support.

Strangely I do prefer Crusader over Paladin

I prefer paladin myself) He's got a little bit different feeling than crusader. Also with little restriction on sources available, core classes usually have more things to play with (it's sad how ToB classes have only their book)

[OldTrees1]

I prefer paladin myself) He's got a little bit different feeling than crusader. Also with little restriction on sources available, core classes usually have more things to play with (it's sad how ToB classes have only their book)

This is certainly true and a good reason to prefer either based on subjective preferences.
Would you expand on this?

[Curmudgeon]

I really like options. I prefer Rogues because they're the most difficult class I know of to build and play (I greatly enjoy the challenge) and they can use everything in their repertoire without limit. I don't like the feel of having some capability, except that I really don't have it — it's not available until the next day or the next encounter. With spells at least you can prepare multiple instances of a capability you want reliable access to. With maneuvers there's no way to just use the same power 2-3 times when you discover it's the most effective technique against a particular type of enemy. To my mind, a Swordsage is an annoying chassis. As GoodbyeSoberDay stated, while the optimization floor is OK, the ceiling is way too constricting. (In 4th Edition D&D my characters select the most at-will powers they can get, and use them by default.)

Starting with a Tier 4 base, I can leverage everything I know about the game to good effect yet (usually) don't overshadow the Tier 1 & 2 characters I play with.

[TuggyNE]

Rogue - Skills/Trap finding / Sneak Attack / Evasion set.
Fighter - FEATS!!!
Paladin - Saves and mount you can summon at will plus detect evil and the church clout you normally get.

One of these things is not like the others: "feats" is not even slightly a character concept, it's just a handy build resource. Basically the equivalent of one of those plain white one-by-two LEGO bricks: you may well need it to build something interesting, but by itself it's the most boring thing possible, and there's hardly anything interesting that focuses on those primarily.

Me, I can understand playing just about anything but a character with a concept based on "Fighter", because that just seems oxymoronic.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Regarding White Raven Tactics granting extra actions:
[...] If she has already acted in the current round, she can act again.That seems pretty straightforward to me. The big problem with considering this a "party buff" maneuver is the 10' limit; it's practically begging for you to use it on yourself.

To reiterate a theme in this thread, ToB classes are great for dipping. One level in Warblade or Crusader can get you Leading the Charge, which is a fine White Raven party buff in a melee-focused group. There are also some nice (relatively) low level utility maneuvers like Moment of Perfect Mind, Sudden Leap, Wall of Blades and Iron Heart Surge that one or two levels in Warblade can get you. Unless your melee build is so tight that you can't spare a couple of levels in a d12 HD full BaB chassis it's quite difficult to pass up. Not as difficult as Cloistered Cleric 1, but still.

The problem comes in when people overvalue the Warblade's capstone and decide to go single class from 1-20, in a high op game.

[Anlashok]

The problem comes in when people overvalue the Warblade's capstone and decide to go single class from 1-20, in a high op game.

That's not really a knock against ToB though because there's no class in the entire game that wants to spend all 20 levels in their main class. I'm not sure it's particularly overvalued either. I've never heard anyone say Warblade 20 was anywhere near optimal, merely that it's one of the few classes that can even attempt to justify it.


(re: Crusader) Would you expand on this?

Well at its most basic, the crusader is less magical than the paladin. The crusader is a big fat tank who can dish out some damage and not much else, while the paladin gets all his fun magical support. If you're building a bruiser paladin the two of them are gonna end up looking pretty similar, with the paladin using his spells to buff up his offense and the crusader using his not-spells as part of his offense, but the paladin differentiates himself in his much more versatile chassis and support ability.

Swordsage vs Rogue is similar. They're only similar if you're building a very offensive rogue, and in that case I do think the swordsage is better, but there's lots of other things you can do with a rogue.

Swordsage does entirely eclipse the monk though and ditto with Warblade and fighter. Not the fault of the ToB classes mind you, the monk and fighter just happen to be simultaneously narrowly defined and not particularly good at their niche either.

[eggynack]

That's not really a knock against ToB though because there's no class in the entire game that wants to spend all 20 levels in their main class.
Except for druid. And maybe some others. Truenamer is definitely one, if you're going truenamer anyway.

[Anlashok]

Except for druid. And maybe some others. Truenamer is definitely one, if you're going truenamer anyway.

Ah right, forgot about that gate SLA.

Druid can justify it pretty well, but the druid is probably gonna bail out into planar shepherd as soon as they can (since it was a question of optimality).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That's not really a knock against ToB though because there's no class in the entire game that wants to spend all 20 levels in their main class. I'm not sure it's particularly overvalued either. I've never heard anyone say Warblade 20 was anywhere near optimal, merely that it's one of the few classes that can even attempt to justify it.To clarify, I meant players in my experience overvalue single classing in ToB, not people on this forum. Although I have heard it touted as a "tempting" option.

[eggynack]

Druid can justify it pretty well, but the druid is probably gonna bail out into planar shepherd as soon as they can (since it was a question of optimality).
I guess, though I usually don't count that one, cause it's planar shepherd. At some point, I figure that you've gotta say that you're staying for 20 levels in your base class, less because it's the best way, and more because the alternative is just too horrific to contemplate. Apart from that, there's a good number of viable builds that do use prestige classes, but none that can claim strict superiority over straight druid, even if they can claim normal superiority in some respects.

[Anlashok]

To clarify, I meant players in my experience overvalue single classing in ToB, not people on this forum. Although I have heard it touted as a "tempting" option.

I think that's in part because so many classes don't really have a capstone (or have a capstone like monk 20) so it's sort of shiny and fun to contemplate. Warblade 20 certainly isn't awful at the very least.

The real travesty here is that the Crusader doesn't have a capstone at all. Dunno what the hell the deal with that was.



I guess, though I usually don't count that one, cause it's planar shepherd.
I suppose that's valid. I'll give you that, druid and truenamer are your best bets for finding classes that actively like the idea of spending 20 levels without a dip or PrC.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sure, at level 20 they might slightly exceed what barb can do But NO ONE holds a candle to how far you can push the barb for a single level. the barbarian which competed against Dextercorvia's wizard? No other class can do that without fullcasting.

"The barbarian which competed against dextercorvia's wizard"?

Hey! That's me! I'm famous, sort of!

Burnaby J. Rockefeller III lives on!

[Togo]

Why does anyone play a druid? Planar shepherd and Pun-Pun do it better, with more options...

...unless of course the reasons given in the OP are entirely spurious, in which case the question kinda answers itself.

[eggynack]

Why does anyone play a druid? Planar shepherd and Pun-Pun do it better, with more options...
Pun-pun really has the opposite of options and customization, as he just kinda gets everything he wants, no decision making included. In any case, I think the major premise here is that the ToB classes are just generally better designed, with a number of interesting scaling abilities that don't set you too far behind on the power curve. I think that these classes, especially the monk and fighter, were just designed poorly.

[Togo]

Pun-pun really has the opposite of options and customization, as he just kinda gets everything he wants, no decision making included. In any case, I think the major premise here is that the ToB classes are just generally better designed, with a number of interesting scaling abilities that don't set you too far behind on the power curve. I think that these classes, especially the monk and fighter, were just designed poorly.

That's not the reasoning given in the OP.

Surely every game has a different power curve. Wouldn't making sweeping statements about a class just being 'better', not mechanically superior, but better to play, to the extent of not understanding how anyone could make a different choice, be a terribly subjective and foolish thing to do?

[Amphetryon]

That's not the reasoning given in the OP.

Surely every game has a different power curve. Wouldn't making sweeping statements about a class just being 'better', not mechanically superior, but better to play, to the extent of not understanding how anyone could make a different choice, be a terribly subjective and foolish thing to do?

Where did the OP mention Pun-Pun?

[Brookshw]

I'm pretty sure that he meant that mostly in terms class design, which is strongly indicated in the last sentence. He may have also meant that partially in terms of power level. Seems accurate enough to me. If you think that he's mistaken, you can make arguments that mean that, but insulting the OP just seems pointless and mean spirited.

/shrug, disagreed. Poor phrasing perhaps but the word choice of better already establishes a level of superiority. If we have two sides apparently and only one's called on elitism when both contain similar elements, well, that's hypocrisy. I'm not buying this mechanical bit you mention, its not as if the classes under evaluation are dysfunctional (looking at you truenamer!).

[Gwendol]

Well at its most basic, the crusader is less magical than the paladin. The crusader is a big fat tank who can dish out some damage and not much else, while the paladin gets all his fun magical support. If you're building a bruiser paladin the two of them are gonna end up looking pretty similar, with the paladin using his spells to buff up his offense and the crusader using his not-spells as part of his offense, but the paladin differentiates himself in his much more versatile chassis and support ability.

Swordsage vs Rogue is similar. They're only similar if you're building a very offensive rogue, and in that case I do think the swordsage is better, but there's lots of other things you can do with a rogue.

Swordsage does entirely eclipse the monk though and ditto with Warblade and fighter. Not the fault of the ToB classes mind you, the monk and fighter just happen to be simultaneously narrowly defined and not particularly good at their niche either.

This is a really good explanation of why one would pick any of the classes under scrutiny over the other. Also want to support the assertion several already have made of the limits of ToB: optimization ceiling is low, and the way maneuvers work means typically the best tool at hand is not always available which will show in actual play.
The core classes are not typically dysfunctional, with the monk being a possible exception (as in requiring fairly advanced system mastery to keep up).

[shadowseve]

rogues are a fun class. plain and simple. Sword sages are awesome. I love crusaders. Rogues are just fun.

[Shining Wrath]

This is a really good explanation of why one would pick any of the classes under scrutiny over the other. Also want to support the assertion several already have made of the limits of ToB: optimization ceiling is low, and the way maneuvers work means typically the best tool at hand is not always available which will show in actual play.
The core classes are not typically dysfunctional, with the monk being a possible exception (as in requiring fairly advanced system mastery to keep up).

The Adaptive Style feat must be regarded as a Feat Tax for Swordsages and it's pretty useful for Warblades as well. Lose a round, get all the maneuvers back and choose exactly the ones you need. If there's only one maneuver that works, being able to use it every other round is not so bad; compare to a wizard who might be able to cast the one necessary spell only two or three times before running out of prepared spells. It doesn't happen that often that there's only one trick that works for an encounter. Warblades of course are nice in that once they've used Adaptive Style to bring in that one key maneuver, they can get it back by making a full attack.

My experience with ToB classes is that you can almost always contribute in combat if you did a reasonable job choosing your maneuvers and also take Adaptive Style. Out of combat it gets harder, but melee types often do have that problem.

[OldTrees1]

The Adaptive Style feat must be regarded as a Feat Tax for Swordsages and it's pretty useful for Warblades as well. Lose a round, get all the maneuvers back and choose exactly the ones you need. If there's only one maneuver that works, being able to use it every other round is not so bad; compare to a wizard who might be able to cast the one necessary spell only two or three times before running out of prepared spells. It doesn't happen that often that there's only one trick that works for an encounter. Warblades of course are nice in that once they've used Adaptive Style to bring in that one key maneuver, they can get it back by making a full attack.

My experience with ToB classes is that you can almost always contribute in combat if you did a reasonable job choosing your maneuvers and also take Adaptive Style. Out of combat it gets harder, but melee types often do have that problem.

There is a difference between "contributing every round with the appropriate ability" and "contribution ever other round with the appropriate ability or contribution every round with a less ideal ability". Both are contributions but there remains an important difference between the two.

[Shining Wrath]

There is a difference between "contributing every round with the appropriate ability" and "contribution ever other round with the appropriate ability or contribution every round with a less ideal ability". Both are contributions but there remains an important difference between the two.

And even the mighty Wizard sometimes can't contribute every round with the ideal ability. Every class has to deal with the issue of resource management; and higher Tiers have more resources but still have to manage them.

If you're going for 100% power you will play Tier 1, optimized. And that's good fun. But if you're choosing between the Warblade and the Fighter, or the Swordsage and the Monk, or the Paladin and the Crusader, you've decided to play a class where you are pretty much guaranteed that there will be encounter rounds when you are doing something less than perfectly optimal. And that is also good fun, just different.

[Morbis Meh]

The piece he quoted was hypocritical in that it criticized any prescriptiveness in gameplay styles as "BADWRONGFUN", using the dismissive rhetorical technique of reducing another's statement to a concatenation of simple words in order to make the statement itself seem simple, but at the same time was in support of a prescriptive gameplay style that evaluates classes purely on mechanical ability.

Like many have said before me: That quote was judging the player playing a class; my statement was judging the design of a class based on its mechanics. I have stated time and time again that people can play whichever class suits their fancy and as long as they are having a good time at the table with their fellow PC's then they are playing the game RIGHT. It is BADWRONGFUN to be condescending towards the player for choosing a class that someone deems inferior. There is a large difference between the two and my statement was not in anyway hypocritical so please learn to differentiate between the player themself and the classes they play before making accusations.

Now in regards to Rogue being more usual out of combat than the swordsage depends on the role: Face? The rogue definitely can out face a swordsage due to their skill lists. Scout? Swordsage wins easily at lower levels by being SAD (Dex, Wis and Con is all you need), at will teleportation + invisibility; in laters games Rogues come back only because of UMD (realistically factotums out rogue rogues in this department). In combat Swordsage beats the rogue without effort, generally they have a much higher AC, have defensive buffs and can initiate sneak attack much easier than a rogue.

[Talya]

Thirdly, If the guy playing the fighter doesn't understand the game, then someone didn't teach him well enough.

If they did, he wouldn't be playing a fighter.

[ericgrau]

Because it's fun. If you have fun with ToB, that's fine too. It's two different styles, and groups will pick what they want. Or try both in two different campaigns.

[lytokk]

It just comes down to personal preference really, or sometimes group preference. I've played fighters who outclassed and outperformed the groups wizard in nearly every other way. Did I set out with that goal? no, just a more optimized character versus a less optimized character, after all I still think a wizards floor is lower or at least very close to a fighters. If I was to have played a TOB class in this game, I would have ran away with everything, not to mention TOB wasn't even out when this game was played.

When the group prefers lower optimization, sometimes you don't need to go all out.

My thoughts about the quote on page 1 that some have taken some exception to, I think its more about understanding what the game is about, which is having fun. When you don't understand the game, you play fighter, as its an easy class to learn. Once you know the rules and really understand the game, you play the tier 1 classes because you know what real power is and how to get there. When you understand the rules behind good character building and understand what the game is all about (fun) you're free to really play anything, even fighter, since the game isn't only about your fun, but fun for everyone. At least that's my interpretation of what was said.

Also, since I discovered ToB, I haven't had the opportunity to play. Only DM, always only DM...

[jedipotter]

It just comes down to personal preference really

Only some players, like the ToB and such things. The type of player that wants bucket loads of ''options'', wants to do something spectacular every round, and cares more about combat and roll-playing then anything else. And sure you can play a ''must use to have fun'' character like a warblade that can do lots of spectacular actions and damage in combat, and role-play actions like talking to a alchemist NPC , as the ''whirlwind slaughter'' maneuver really helps talk to NPCs, advance the plot and tell a story. Though not every player sees a couple of pages of combat abilities as useful or needed to have fun and role-play a character in the game.

Say you make a character: A dwarf, family killed, sold as a slave, escaped, and not looking to get revenge. Now you could make a warblade with tons of combat abilities, or a fighter with a couple of combat abilities. Then you go and role-play talking your way into the slavers as a bounty hunter, where your combat abilities don't matter. And sure, when a fight starts the warblade is tripping and disarming and whirling his blade so they get a -2 to hit as that is what the ability says or something. And the fighter just hits foes and kills them.

And then the other type of player that does not like the ToB, just likes to keep things simple. When the fight starts they don't want a ton of options, they want just one or two. When the actions starts, they just want to do something simple.

[Anlashok]

, and cares more about combat and roll-playing then anything else.
Do people actually believe tired, sad drivel like this?

[Shining Wrath]

Only some players, like the ToB and such things. The type of player that wants bucket loads of ''options'', wants to do something spectacular every round, and cares more about combat and roll-playing then anything else. And sure you can play a ''must use to have fun'' character like a warblade that can do lots of spectacular actions and damage in combat, and role-play actions like talking to a alchemist NPC , as the ''whirlwind slaughter'' maneuver really helps talk to NPCs, advance the plot and tell a story. Though not every player sees a couple of pages of combat abilities as useful or needed to have fun and role-play a character in the game.

Say you make a character: A dwarf, family killed, sold as a slave, escaped, and not looking to get revenge. Now you could make a warblade with tons of combat abilities, or a fighter with a couple of combat abilities. Then you go and role-play talking your way into the slavers as a bounty hunter, where your combat abilities don't matter. And sure, when a fight starts the warblade is tripping and disarming and whirling his blade so they get a -2 to hit as that is what the ability says or something. And the fighter just hits foes and kills them.

And then the other type of player that does not like the ToB, just likes to keep things simple. When the fight starts they don't want a ton of options, they want just one or two. When the actions starts, they just want to do something simple.

You make it sound as though the escaped dwarf wouldn't have devoted himself to mastery of his chosen weapon in order to best avenge himself upon the slavers. And having spent every waking moment for several decades mastering the urgosh, he can now do things that the slavers have simply never seen before. Once battle begins his years of devotion to his weapon pay off and he cries out "For my MOTHER!" as the lead slaver falls.

My roleplaying is just as good as yours with my Warblade. And BTW, Warblades get Diplomacy as a class skill so maybe they can talk their way past the slavers with more skill than the Fighter.

[eggynack]

That's not the reasoning given in the OP.

Surely every game has a different power curve. Wouldn't making sweeping statements about a class just being 'better', not mechanically superior, but better to play, to the extent of not understanding how anyone could make a different choice, be a terribly subjective and foolish thing to do?
It doesn't seem all that foolish, even if it is subjective. He perceives the classes in a particular way, and it's a way that makes some sense, and he's wondering why other folks see it in a different way. As for whether my listed reasoning is the OP's reasoning, I honestly can't say for sure. His arguments were somewhat vague. I'm beginning to think that people, myself included, are reading it, and seeing only what they want to see. "Better" could just mean so many things, some of whom are contentious, and some of whom are reasonable.

/shrug, disagreed. Poor phrasing perhaps but the word choice of better already establishes a level of superiority. If we have two sides apparently and only one's called on elitism when both contain similar elements, well, that's hypocrisy. I'm not buying this mechanical bit you mention, its not as if the classes under evaluation are dysfunctional (looking at you truenamer!).
I certainly don't think there's anything like hypocrisy here. I don't really see any insults directed at monk players in the post, unlike the quote which did seem quite insulting. I didn't really see much in the way of elitism either. As for mechanics, I think it's an issue that applies mostly to the fighter and monk, less to the paladin (though still some), and less still to the rogue.

To give a brief overview of the reasoning, monks are deeply asynergistic, have a hard time fighting with any degree of success out of the box, and have a couple of weird RAW issues, like unarmed strike proficiency and the body as weapon thing. Fighters are generic, and rely on poorly designed feat chains that are built to compensate for their plentiful nature by having several of them equal in power to one of another character's feats. The paladin just has this really weirdly slow progression after a certain point, with the spells acting as the only real point of advancement. All three of these classes depend on a combat system of simple repeated attacks, and they often have tactics that could be outsourced to a flow chart. The rogue, I have less problems with, though their tendency towards stealth and trapfinding is somewhat problematic, as they're both highly solo affairs. Trapfinding especially suffers from how linear it is, though encounter traps mitigate this. There are reasons to like these classes, I think, but some of them are deeply flawed.

[lytokk]

Do people actually believe tired, sad drivel like this?

that some people prefer the games to be 100% combat or that, by my guess, that only roll players like ToB?

Any class can be role-played. So long as the player realizes that his character is more than just a collection of feats and skill points. Heck, even the warblade maneuver recovery mechanic is very fluffy. Perform a flourish with your blade, and then immediately attack someone. Sounds like the opportunity for a lot of immersion and role-playing there.

I like playing fighters, and will defend them forever, but I acknowledge that there are some serious problems with that class which in my feeling, led to some of the bigger problems in 3.5, being all of those pesky feat taxes in order to get to the good ones. Needing combat expertise for tripping? Or all of those feats needed for whirlwind attack, which is just a level 4 maneuver for warblades. No feats required. And warblades get a +2 to all of those attacks.

I see the ToB classes more along the lines of fighter specializations. Crusaders are the tanky ones, Warblades are the damage dealers, and swordsages are the fighters who multiclassed to rogue simply for stealth. Ready built for your convenience, sort of how Duskblades have been referred to as "Gish in a can".

I like to play fighters to play the underdog.

[Shining Wrath]

It doesn't seem all that foolish, even if it is subjective. He perceives the classes in a particular way, and it's a way that makes some sense, and he's wondering why other folks see it in a different way. As for whether my listed reasoning is the OP's reasoning, I honestly can't say for sure. His arguments were somewhat vague. I'm beginning to think that people, myself included, are reading it, and seeing only what they want to see. "Better" could just mean so many things, some of whom are contentious, and some of whom are reasonable.

I certainly don't think there's anything like hypocrisy here. I don't really see any insults directed at monk players in the post, unlike the quote which did seem quite insulting. I didn't really see much in the way of elitism either. As for mechanics, I think it's an issue that applies mostly to the fighter and monk, less to the paladin (though still some), and less still to the rogue.

To give a brief overview of the reasoning, monks are deeply asynergistic, have a hard time fighting with any degree of success out of the box, and have a couple of weird RAW issues, like unarmed strike proficiency and the body as weapon thing. Fighters are generic, and rely on poorly designed feat chains that are built to compensate for their plentiful nature by having several of them equal in power to one of another character's feats. The paladin just has this really weirdly slow progression after a certain point, with the spells acting as the only real point of advancement. All three of these classes depend on a combat system of simple repeated attacks, and they often have tactics that could be outsourced to a flow chart. The rogue, I have less problems with, though their tendency towards stealth and trapfinding is somewhat problematic, as they're both highly solo affairs. Trapfinding especially suffers from how linear it is, though encounter traps mitigate this. There are reasons to like these classes, I think, but some of them are deeply flawed.

There are very few "deeply flawed" class - e.g., the Truenamer, where it becomes more difficult to do something at level 10 than the same thing was as level 5. That's just bad design. All other classes can at least accomplish something under the circumstances where their use was envisioned. If there's something around that can be hit, Monks and Fighters will hit it. That they won't hit it as well as some other class doesn't make them "deeply flawed", just not quite as good at hitting things as some other people. "Not as good" != "deeply flawed".

[eggynack]

There are very few "deeply flawed" class - e.g., the Truenamer, where it becomes more difficult to do something at level 10 than the same thing was as level 5. That's just bad design. All other classes can at least accomplish something under the circumstances where their use was envisioned. If there's something around that can be hit, Monks and Fighters will hit it. That they won't hit it as well as some other class doesn't make them "deeply flawed", just not quite as good at hitting things as some other people. "Not as good" != "deeply flawed".
It's more than just them being mediocre. The fighter's emphasis on bonus feats makes the whole class' progression problematic, as you end up taking feats that were competitive at level one at whatever level you're starting the new chain. Really, fighters only had one design element that had to be done right, the bonus feats, and they were done horribly, with access to feats poor enough that other classes actually get greater total value from feats than them.

As for monks, the design issues with that class are so well documented that I'm surprised I even have to make an argument. They get a speed bonus accompanied by an attack style the requires staying in place, a mass of attacks that are doomed to failure by medium BAB and an attack penalty, crappy feather fall at level 20, an inexplicably written outsider morph capstone, abilities that take just way too long to reload, and a bunch of others. It's not just about these classes being bad at hitting stuff. It's about their design just not working all that well. You don't need to be at truenamer levels to have poor design.

Edit: Also, for crappy paladin design, just look at level seven and thirteen. Just look at them, and really savor the moment.

[Hecuba]

If they did, he wouldn't be playing a fighter.

I wouldn't say that: it could be the optimization equivalent of a golf handicap.

[Blackfang108]

Edit: Also, for crappy paladin design, just look at level seven and thirteen. Just look at them, and really savor the moment.

Those are great levels. At least you get a point of BAB.

[OldTrees1]

And even the mighty Wizard sometimes can't contribute every round with the ideal ability. Every class has to deal with the issue of resource management; and higher Tiers have more resources but still have to manage them.

If you're going for 100% power you will play Tier 1, optimized. And that's good fun. But if you're choosing between the Warblade and the Fighter, or the Swordsage and the Monk, or the Paladin and the Crusader, you've decided to play a class where you are pretty much guaranteed that there will be encounter rounds when you are doing something less than perfectly optimal. And that is also good fun, just different.

Warblade cannot use the same maneuver in consecutive turns. Thus in a prolonged situation they can't use their most appropriate ability every round. To some this is not a problem or is even a positive. To others it is a negative. Those that consider it a negative will prefer classes (like Fighter) that always have access to their most appropriate ability. This personal preference of one mechanical texture over another is one of the reasons why some prefer Fighter over Warblade (or vice versa with the opposite preference).

And that is also good fun, just different.

[Vogonjeltz]

Warblade cannot use the same maneuver in consecutive turns. Thus in a prolonged situation they can't use their most appropriate ability every round. To some this is not a problem or is even a positive. To others it is a negative. Those that consider it a negative will prefer classes (like Fighter) that always have access to their most appropriate ability. This personal preference of one mechanical texture over another is one of the reasons why some prefer Fighter over Warblade (or vice versa with the opposite preference).

Nor does the warblade come with ranged or riding features. So it's rather inadequate for attempting a Robin Hood or any knight-like character.

Anyone know if there's a comparison of two groups (one containing a Fighter, Rogue/Monk, Paladin and the other containing a Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader) to see how successful they are against standard campaigns?

[Rakaydos]

Nor does the warblade come with ranged or riding features. So it's rather inadequate for attempting a Robin Hood or any knight-like character.

Isnt that a Ranger or Paladn/Crusader

[OldTrees1]

Anyone know if there's a comparison of two groups (one containing a Fighter, Rogue/Monk, Paladin and the other containing a Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader) to see how successful they are against standard campaigns?

I doubt such a comparison would be very enlightening. Both are complete parties and thus will complete campaigns.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Another reason (only lightly touched-upon) to play low-power classes is because you enjoy playing D&D on hard mode while not forcing anyone else to play on hard mode. This is also useful when your op-fu is higher than everyone else's... although that does lead to people wondering why everyone thinks [class] sucks when the [class] in their group kicks ass.

[HunterOfJello]

Fighter - because you want to go with the whole old-school d&d style melee character. (or dipping!!!)
Paladin - because paladins do get a few nice and you honestly want to play a lawful stupid character
Rogue - because rogues haven't ever been fully replaced by any other base class in the game and they do still have their place in the party. they are crazy skill monkeys who can dish out decent damage on opponents who aren't aware of them.
Monk - because they don't understand how the game really works, say that ToB is too much like anime (which is about equally true of any monk character who would actually be able to keep up with a barbarian in damage), and want to play the i-punch-people-while-naked guy in the party that everyone hates and eventually despises

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for further review. If I might humbly suggest, please avoid talking about: 1) other posters and 2) the discussion itself. Sticking to content, rather than trying to characterize other posters or the discussion itself, is far more constructive and and far less likely to violate the Forum Rules.