Basic classes updated to Tome of Battle

[Behold_the_Void]

So basically, what I'm asking here is how would I make a sensible maneuver and stance progression for all of the base combat classes (Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Fighter).

Right now I'm thinking giving the Barbarian and Fighter the Warblade progression and the Paladin the Crusader progression. I could see Ranger being either Crusader or Swordsage. But I want to know if I should tone down any of the progressions and modify it to the classes, as well as how I should go about doing the disciplines.

[Skyserpent]

Remove Combat Style and the spell progressions for the Ranger If you're adding that. You might also want to stunt their Animal Companion a bit more too...

[Fax Celestis]

Ranger: Remove Ranger spellcasting. Add in Maneuver progression and recovery as a Crusader. Give access to Tiger Claw, Stone Dragon, Shadow Hand, and Diamond Mind.

Barbarian: Remove Trapfinding and Damage Reduction. Add in Maneuver progression and recovery as Swordsage. Give access to Stone Dragon, Iron Heart, Tiger Claw, Setting Sun, and Desert Wind.

Fighter: Give Bonus Feats at every three levels, instead of every two. Add Maneuver progression and recovery as Warblade. Give access to Stone Dragon, Iron Heart, White Raven, Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, and Setting Sun.

Paladin: Remove remove disease and spellcasting. Add maneuver progression and recovery as Swordsage. Give access to Stone Dragon, Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, White Raven, and Devoted Spirit.

Monk: See Pax Chi's Monk of the Sublime Way variant in the Homebrew fora.

Bard: (OPTIONAL) Subtract 1 spell per spell level. Add maneuver progression and recovery as Crusader. Grant access to White Raven, Setting Sun, and Shadow Hand.

Rogue: (OPTIONAL) Remove trap sense. Give Sneak Attack at every three levels instead of every two. Give maneuver progression and recovery as Warblade. Grant access to Setting Sun, Shadow Hand, Diamond Mind, Tiger Claw, and Desert Wind.

[Siberys]

I did that for my games already. It can be found Here

[SpiderBrigade]

Fax, how come the ranger loses his spells, but the pally only loses Remove Disease?

[Fax Celestis]

Fax, how come the ranger loses his spells, but the pally only loses Remove Disease?

Because the Paladin doesn't have much else to give up. I could say he loses his mount or smite or lay on hands, but those abilities are actually tied into prestige classes and/or are signatures of the paladin class. The paladin is particularly sparse to begin with, and doesn't even have a capstone.

[SpiderBrigade]

I was thinking he'd also lose his spells?

[Fax Celestis]

Ooh, yeah. Good point.

[Behold_the_Void]

So would Fighter feat progression be 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 then? Or would it be 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19?

[Amiria]

@ Fax Celestis:

Why is your ranger like a crusader and your paladin like a swordsage with maneuver progression and recovery ? My guts say it should be vice versa.

[Lord Xaedien]

Having played around with maneuvers, i feel like most of the varients suggested here are WAY to handy for the specific classes. More on that later, as I need sleep

[Khantalas]

So would Fighter feat progression be 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 then? Or would it be 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19?

I think it should be 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18.

Wait... this looks familiar.

[Behold_the_Void]

Having played around with maneuvers, i feel like most of the varients suggested here are WAY to handy for the specific classes. More on that later, as I need sleep

Well the idea is to allow other melee classes to compete with ToB classes, which they really can't do right now.

I think it should be 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18.

Wait... this looks familiar.

Which is why that definitely doesn't sound correct.

[Fax Celestis]

1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20 for the fighter's feat progression.

As for the ranger as crusader, paladin as swordsage, I find the crusader's method too much of a "chaotic" thing for a lawful warrior. Hence, ranger.

Finally, as for them being "handy" for the classes...that's kinda the point.

Also note that all three naturally Maneuvering classes receive class features at almost every level, which would mean that the standard classes with the updates above are still worse than the ones presented in the ToB.

[Behold_the_Void]

If those classes are still worse, why are we stripping the abilities? If, for example, Rangers or Paladins kept their spellcasting, would they suddenly be highly overpowered in comparison to the other ToB classes?

[Fax Celestis]

Yes, because they'd have spellcasting and maneuvering, which is something you can only get as of right now through multiclassing or prc-ing (jade phoenix adept, ruby knight vindicator).

With the other classes, they'd also still be better. For instance, with the barbarian, you'd get DR, trapfinding, access to four disciplines, and rage. That's a big deal. But get rid of the DR and trapfinding (one major and one minor aspect of the barbarian), and it should be fine.

[TheOOB]

I think I'm going to use Faxs ideas in my next game, Desert Wind Rogues are made of awesome.

[Behold_the_Void]

OK, just making sure. I like this idea a lot, it will probably see implementation.

[TheOOB]

I have no problum with the new classes in ToB, I wish wizards would have made their own adaptations of the old classes though. While ToB doesn't fix the gap between melee types and casters, it definatly shortens it to an accetible length.

[Fax Celestis]

I'll chalk it up in the "Variants" section of my catalogue.

[TheOOB]

In your varients section you should give a note to clarify how the new fighter feat/rogue sneak attack progress works. Also I'm fairly sure you ment trap sense for barbarians, not trap finding.

[Maclav]

Paladin: Remove remove disease and spellcasting. Add maneuver progression and recovery as Swordsage. Give access to Stone Dragon, Iron Heart, Diamond Mind, White Raven, and Devoted Spirit.

This completely puts the sword sage to shame. Its got all good saves, full BAB, better armour, better weapons, better HD, and arguably better toys.

[TheOOB]

This completely puts the sword sage to shame. Its got all good saves, full BAB, better armour, better weapons, better HD, and arguably better toys.

Not really, paladin saves are decent, but not overpowering, especially since they don't have evasion/mettle. The other paladin abilities are all pretty horrible. I would, however, removing the stone dragon disipline, so they dont have all the crusader disipline sin one package.

[Maclav]

Not really, paladin saves are decent, but not overpowering, especially since they don't have evasion/mettle. The other paladin abilities are all pretty horrible. I would, however, removing the stone dragon disipline, so they dont have all the crusader disipline sin one package.

Good fort is nothing to sneeze at, nether is divine grace. But mostly, its gota be the full BAB. Swordsage has 3/4's, d8 HD, light armour, etc because he has so much manoeuvrer power. I would be very leery of putting that progression on the paladin.

[TheOOB]

Well paladins don't have access to the same kind of manuvers as swordsages, and they also don't get the same kind of special abilities. Sure the saves are great, but thats pretty much all they have. Lay on Hands does very little, far less then a cheep healing spell of equal level. Smites extra damage is near pointless, and immunity to fear and diseases isn't to hard to get.

[Fax Celestis]

Right, and Swordsages get improvements to their maneuvers, weapon focus with a metric ton of weapons for free, wis-to-ac, and a variety of other abilities.

I might consider swapping the Paladin's progression to Warblade, but I thought the one-maneuver-at-a-time process fit the Paladin better.

[Jack Mann]

Keep in mind that with adaptive style, they can regain all of their maneuvers back at once.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Personally, I see Paladin and Crusader as bread and butter. The two are just too similar to not see a paladin with Crusader progression rather than Swordsage. I foresee Paladins using a lot of White Raven and Devoted Heart with some Stone Dragon thrown in. They are both holy fighters, I'd figure the match-up would be a natural.

Likewise, the Ranger has a lower hit die. Remove casting progression, favored enemy, and pet for Swordsage progression (keeping in mind, they don't get all the nifty abilities that modify the maneuvers like Swordsages do).

This gives you a full BAB with D8 hit die and fast maneuvers. This is going to be a damage dealer, but not a very good tank with only d8 hit die and sub-par AC (Light armor only if he wants to use his class features). Desert Wind and tiger fang in particular are ideally suited to a Ranger and his abilty to not get hit and to dish out obscene damage (particularly making a jump check vs opponent AC to make full attack on jumping charge, then using Spring Attack to vanish before his opponents ever know what was hit).

As for monks... mix a monk and a swordsage and you're golden. They both get the same unarmored bonus already. Give it monk unarmed damage and Flurry and call it all good. Maybe take out a couple of Swordsage class features to compensate, but not too much considering you can get nearly the same as monk unarmed damage for the price of a single feat.

[TheOOB]

I'd run paladins with crusader maunvers, Devoted Spirit, White Raven Tactics, and Iron Heart, take away spells, but keep remove disease. Remove Disease is a classic paladin ability, and its really not all that powerful.

[Behold_the_Void]

Yeah, Crusader just seems to fit the Paladin more, just like Swordsage really seems to fit the Ranger more.