[3.5] ToB and fighters/paladins/swordsages

[Myou]

I tend to tell players who want to be a fighter/paladin/monk to just play a warblade/crusader/swordsage, but a lot of people don't want to do that.

So what if the fighter/paladin/monk were given the manouevre/stance progressions of their counterparts? What would they have to lose to make that balanced?

[Elfin]

Have someone play a warblade, and call it a fighter.

[Myou]

Have someone play a warblade, and call it a fighter.

Err....

... a lot of people don't want to do that.

[Elfin]

What I'm saying is this- if you give a fighter/paladin/monk a maneuver/stance progression to replace their other abilities, they basically are their ToB counterpart. So I'd say to either refluff and rename the ToB classes, or let you players play the unaltered Core classes and, if they wish, take Martial Study feats.

[Amphetryon]

I tend to tell players who want to be a fighter/paladin/monk to just play a warblade/crusader/swordsage, but a lot of people don't want to do that.

So what if the fighter/paladin/monk were given the manouevre/stance progressions of their counterparts? What would they have to lose to make that balanced?

Balanced against what? Roughly, they'd have to lose... nothing. They'd still be less powerful than any full-casting class.

[Fako]

If you do a search of the homebrew forums, you can find dozens of people giving their ideas on how to balance adding ToB to base classes. My favorite is FaxCelestis' adjustments, which can be found on his wiki by clicking here.

And while I do agree with you, Elvenblade, some people link their character's identity with their class name, so they don't think they're playing a Fighter unless their character sheet says "Fighter"... it's bizarre, but I've come across it a few times...

[Myou]

Balanced against what? Roughly, they'd have to lose... nothing. They'd still be less powerful than any full-casting class.

Against the ToB classes.

If you do a search of the homebrew forums, you can find dozens of people giving their ideas on how to balance adding ToB to base classes. My favorite is FaxCelestis' adjustments, which can be found on his wiki by clicking here.

And while I do agree with you, Elvenblade, some people link their character's identity with their class name, so they don't think they're playing a Fighter unless their character sheet says "Fighter"... it's bizarre, but I've come across it a few times...

Oh, super, I didn't know Fax had done it for me. :D

As you say, it's bizarre, but some players really want to have to name 'monk', plus don't forget that these classes do get one or two signature abilities that their replacements lack, so while I don't agree with it, I understand it.

[Godskook]

I tend to tell players who want to be a fighter/paladin/monk to just play a warblade/crusader/swordsage, but a lot of people don't want to do that.

So what if the fighter/paladin/monk were given the manouevre/stance progressions of their counterparts? What would they have to lose to make that balanced?

I'm confused. The biggest reason people don't want to play ToB classes is because of ToB mechanics, followed closely by the flavor. How is adding flavor/mechanics from ToB going to solve the problem, without simply doing the logical, as ElvenBlade pointed out.

[Myou]

I'm confused. The biggest reason people don't want to play ToB classes is because of ToB mechanics, followed closely by the flavor. How is adding flavor/mechanics from ToB going to solve the problem, without simply doing the logical, as ElvenBlade pointed out.

Some people want thier monk to be able to flurry or their paladin to be able to smite. It's a smaller group, but it's there.

[imperialspectre]

Crusaders get to smite. For a flurrying monk, I suggest looking up the new Penny Dreadful release here. It even plays nice with swordsages.

[Myou]

Crusaders get to smite.

Wow, I didn't notice. xD

[Salvonus]

I'm a tad unsure about Fax's Bard ToB-variant, though... Trading one spell/level for full Crusader maneuver progression seems a bit much compared to the other variants (given that Paladins and Rangers are forced to give up all their spellcasting).

[Myou]

I'm a tad unsure about Fax's Bard ToB-variant, though... Trading one spell/level for full Crusader maneuver progression seems a bit much compared to the other variants (given that Paladins and Rangers are forced to give up all their spellcasting).

I actually wouldn't allow that one - I agree that it gets far more than it should. Same goes for the rogue and barbarian, but that's fine - I wasn't looking at those classes. :3

[Golden-Esque]

So what if the fighter/paladin/monk were given the maneuver progressions of their counterparts? What would they have to lose to make that balanced?

Personally, in my campaign I don't usually allow the Crusader or the Warblade.

I gave Ranger, Paladin, and Psychic Warrior (still play testing this last one) the Crusader's slightly smaller list of maneuvers known, as well as recovery mechanics that take longer to balance out the fact that I let them keep their relatively bad spellcasting.

Fighters, Rogues, Monks, and Soulknives are going to get the Warblade's better progression, as well as have better recovery mechanisms. These are also still being tested. Finally, Swordsages are getting a small makeover, and ending up with the overall best maneuver list and recovery mechanism. It's still a work-in-progress, but you're more then welcome to take a look at my paladin class; it got decent reviews here :P.

[Godskook]

Some people want thier monk to be able to flurry or their paladin to be able to smite. It's a smaller group, but it's there.

That's a horse of quite a different color than was described in the first post. It is more of 'likes the mechanical feel of these core class, but wants an upgrade', and not so much a 'doesn't want to play ToB'.

(And for the record, Crusaders can smite, just not as often as Paladins do)

[Myou]

That's a horse of quite a different color than was described in the first post. It is more of 'likes the mechanical feel of these core class, but wants an upgrade', and not so much a 'doesn't want to play ToB'.

(And for the record, Crusaders can smite, just not as often as Paladins do)

Well, I never said why they might be objecting, some people just assumed certain things. ^^;

That's a better way to put it though, thanks.

[Godskook]

Well, I never said why they might be objecting, some people just assumed certain things. ^^;

That's a better way to put it though, thanks.

No problem, I'm here to help, even if I might chafe a little in the delivery.

[Doc Roc]

No problem, I'm here to help, even if I might chafe a little in the delivery.

Anything worth delivering chafes a lil. Or chaffs a lil.
It's okay!

[Myou]

No problem, I'm here to help, even if I might chafe a little in the delivery.

Anything worth delivering chafes a lil. Or chaffs a lil.
It's okay!

Must... not... flirt....

[Doc Roc]

Must... not... flirt....

THIS IS A SNEAKING MISSION, SNAKE!

[Myou]

THIS IS A SNEAKING MISSION, SNAKE!

Oh dear, I have no idea what the correct response to that is. Stupic lack of meme knowledge.

Maybe it means I flirt with you... stealthily.... ;D