Finally read through tome of battle

[Darth Stabber]

So as indicated in the title of this thread I finally gave a thorough read through of a the tome of battle in it's entirety. Still hate sword sages, still hate crusaders, love Warblades. Repeat: F'ING LOVE WARBLADES. Their fluff fits half of the fighters I have ever played, and still allow fighters to exist (atleast in fluff if not in function. In case you are wondering I have had several beers (8) while making this post and I may regret this post when I sober up, but I have a new favorite martial class, still doesn't replace my love of psions (favorite class of all time), but it comes really close.

[ex cathedra]

You hated Crusaders and Swordsages before you read it?

I'm just going to ignore that, for now. Yeah, Warblades are pretty okay. What's wrong with 'saders and swordsages, though?

[Darth Stabber]

Crusaders and sages just rub me the wrong way. Crusaders are Pallies with out the crazy restrictions, and UA already provided a solution to the LG requirement. And Swordsage's fluff was already covered by the feat rogue in the same book. Now Warblade is a fighter that does what the iconic fighter is supposed to do, only now there is specific fluff and decent mechanics behind it. It solves the weakness of stereotypical fighters with out completely invalidating existing material (since ToB material is not good for archery and several other things, and a couple of lvls of fighter can still easily fit into a warblade build). Whereas SS kinda invalidates the combat rogues (except archer rogues, which are still not as good as dagger stabbity types), and crusader delivers on all the limitations of the paladin class (which I like the RP weakness though I am fairly forgiving of as a GM). I view the Fighter vs. Wizard problem as the fault of the wizard, which tends to skew my views on the debate. Ultimately I now no longer think that ToB is the Weaboo handbook, but it still could use some improvement (but I think that most of D&D's classes could use improvement, though I think that Warblades and non-erudite psions are about dead on).

[Starbuck_II]

Crusaders and sages just rub me the wrong way. Crusaders are Pallies with out the crazy restrictions, and UA already provided a solution to the LG requirement. And Swordsage's fluff was already covered by the feat rogue in the same book. Now Warblade is a fighter that does what the iconic fighter is supposed to do, only now there is specific fluff and decent mechanics behind it. It solves the weakness of stereotypical fighters with out completely invalidating existing material (since ToB material is not good for archery and several other things, and a couple of lvls of fighter can still easily fit into a warblade build). Whereas SS kinda invalidates the combat rogues (except archer rogues, which are still not as good as dagger stabbity types), and crusader delivers on all the limitations of the paladin class (which I like the RP weakness though I am fairly forgiving of as a GM). I view the Fighter vs. Wizard problem as the fault of the wizard, which tends to skew my views on the debate. Ultimately I now no longer think that ToB is the Weaboo handbook, but it still could use some improvement (but I think that most of D&D's classes could use improvement, though I think that Warblades and non-erudite psions are about dead on).

Yes, Swordsages can make rogues (Assassin Stance = 2d6 sneak attack).
But they mainly for making viable martial artist (psuedo Monks).

[Natael]

Crusaders and sages just rub me the wrong way. Crusaders are Pallies with out the crazy restrictions, and UA already provided a solution to the LG requirement. And Swordsage's fluff was already covered by the feat rogue in the same book. Now Warblade is a fighter that does what the iconic fighter is supposed to do, only now there is specific fluff and decent mechanics behind it. It solves the weakness of stereotypical fighters with out completely invalidating existing material (since ToB material is not good for archery and several other things, and a couple of lvls of fighter can still easily fit into a warblade build). Whereas SS kinda invalidates the combat rogues (except archer rogues, which are still not as good as dagger stabbity types), and crusader delivers on all the limitations of the paladin class (which I like the RP weakness though I am fairly forgiving of as a GM). I view the Fighter vs. Wizard problem as the fault of the wizard, which tends to skew my views on the debate. Ultimately I now no longer think that ToB is the Weaboo handbook, but it still could use some improvement (but I think that most of D&D's classes could use improvement, though I think that Warblades and non-erudite psions are about dead on).

Swordsage doesn't replace the skill monkeying of a rogue. I'd look at it more of replacing the craptactularity of the monk.

As much as I love the paladin fluff, they kind of suck mechanically, so crusaders work a fair bit better.

If you enforced a stricter code for clerics (merely requiring a deity would probably help on that), druids, and crusaders, it'd mesh well fluff wise.

[Tavar]

Good luck dealing with traps if you're a swordsage, though. Plus, as someone else said, they're more in line with the monk's ideal than the rogues.

Regarding the Crusader, well; it does the Paladin's role better, but that intentional. Plus, it fulfill a role that's rather lacking in DnD 3.5; that of the defender.

[Myth]

The only thing i truly like about Paladins is the Detect Evil at will.

GM: The baker's cat walks in the room and rubs aganist your leg.
Paladin: DETECT EVIL!
GM: You see no evil aura emanating from the cat...

But Crusader has been stated time and agian to be the best melee class that doesn't chees up with magic. In a no-magic setting Crusaders would tear trough the game completely.

[FelixG]

The only thing i truly like about Paladins is the Detect Evil at will.

GM: The baker's cat walks in the room and rubs aganist your leg.
Paladin: DETECT EVIL!
GM: You see no evil aura emanating from the cat...

But Crusader has been stated time and agian to be the best melee class that doesn't chees up with magic. In a no-magic setting Crusaders would tear trough the game completely.

GM: "Not only do you detect evil but you identify this cat as a cat monster of legend rogue 20/assassin 10, good job."
Paladin: 0.o

[Tshern]

GM: "Not only do you detect evil but you identify this cat as a cat monster of legend rogue 20/assassin 10, good job."
Paladin: 0.o

"One of those days again..."

[AslanCross]

The Warblade is my favorite class of all as well. You can be the big dumb fighter or the smart little fighter. You can break stuff, fight with two weapons effectively, and even call the shots. I totally love it.

I dunno about the crusader and swordsage hate, though. The paladin's biggest issue is not so much the alignment restriction but the difficulty of working with the code AND the lack of meaningful abilities past Lv 5. It simply doesn't get anything new apart from slow spell progression. At that point, you're better off being a cleric.

The crusader can take damage well, and as such can actually fulfill the paladin's "defender of those with low HP and AC" archetype even better.

The swordsage isn't only a stealth guy. He can be a judo guy too (Setting Sun), be a good entry into Dervish (Tiger Claw and Desert Wind) or even multiclass effectively with psychic warrior. The swordsage is easily the most versatile of them all and is not shoehorned into a stealth striker role.

[hamishspence]

Tome of Battle tends to get a lot of homebrew support as well- I've seen quite a few homebrew TOB disciplines.

A serious example:

Undersea Tome of Battle school:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...ighlight=ocean

A less serious example:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...t=looney+tunes

[Psyx]

GM: "Not only do you detect evil but you identify this cat as a cat monster of legend rogue 20/assassin 10, good job."

My old GM running for you now, is he?

[Eldan]

Actually, there's a general thread where pretty much all ToB homebrew was collected:

Age of Warriors.

I think there are about 40 homebrew disciplines now.

[Sindri]

Yeah, the swordsage is nowhere near replacing the rogue; the rogue has always been about skill monkeying and thievery out of combat, and stealth-based crazy precision damage in combat. The swordsage is what the monk and the ninja should have been, and could theoretically be used in a similar way to the rogue if you tried, but isn't very good at it. I mean, +2d6 precision damage ever? Versus the dozens of dice for a real rogue or a swordsage used in a flashy, flamey, pseudo-martial-artsey way?