Break this for me please.

[Skjaldbakka]

I am working on my next campaign, and I want to see what some of the nastiest things people can do with it.

The following books are allowed:

Core 3 (not using PHB classes)
Tome of Battle
Magic of Incarnum
Tome of Magic

No magic items are allowed that could not be crafted by an Adept or one of the PC classes from those supplements, but otherwise follow normal WBL.

I am looking for level 5, 10, and 20, to get slices of what players can do, and how bad it can get.

32 pt. buy, standard races + player races from MoI.

I am also allowing this discipline: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45205

And these disciplines:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48255

[Kurald Galain]

Been there, done that, wrote the book.

Druid/20.
Cleric/20.
Wizard/20.

[Eldritch_Ent]

Core 3 (not using PHB classes)

Aren't Druid, Cleric, and Wizard PHB classes...?

[Behold_the_Void]

As I understand it the only allowable classes are from Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnum. So the Druid/Wizard/Cleric answer isn't valid.

[Zincorium]

Well, seein' as (traditional) magic trumps nearly all else, I'd have to go with the Mystic Swordsage adaptation, along with Adaptive Style for additional endurance in battle.

Now, it does list recommendations for the swordsage spells as abjuration, evocation, and transmutation, but it's certainly not a hard and fast rule, so it's basically whatever your DM will allow you to get away with in practice. Frankly, it's vastly superior over a sorceror or even warmage per volume of spells castable in battle, and while the volume of spells known isn't as high as a sorceror, the melee ability kind of makes up for some of the shortcomings. At the very least, you can use the Arcane Strike feat to your heart's content. Considering the only analogous spellcaster would be the shadowcaster, which personally seems dramatically underpowered, you'd be hard pressed to find a better way of going about it.

[Skjaldbakka]

Unarmed and mystic swordsage are possible variations, not any of the base classes in ToB, and as such don't count. Which means no freakin mystic swordsage! I was hoping to see some builds, not knee-jerk Cleric/Druid/Wizard which doesn't even fit the question at all.

this isn't a challenge people, I just want to see what people have/can come up with.

[MeklorIlavator]

Well, Bears with Lasers posted a build for crusaders awhile back, with the feats here,

Try this. Use a guisarme.

1: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack
3: Stand Still
6: Dodge
9: Karmic Strike
12: Imp. Bullrush
15: Pushback (MiniHB) or Deft Opportunist
18: Shock Trooper

You could fit in Improved Trip at the cost of two feats. You use the 3rd-level Devoted Spirit stance Thicket of Blades combined with Stand Still to keep anyone from closing with you, though; combine this way increases of your reach, like Enlarge Person potions/spells. Karmic Strike means that even if they get to attack you, you get to attack them back when they hit you, at full AB (+4 via Deft Opportunist). If you took Pushback instead, you get to bullrush them with each hit, moving them 5' if you succeed; when they move, they'll provoke an AoO.

Combine this with various Devoted Spirit and White Raven strikes, and you're set.

and the maneuvers here.

Just a note--you could do battlefield control more effectively as a fighter, psychic warrior, or fighter/psychic warrior. You'd be much less effective overall, however, so I don't recommend that. ;)
Incidentally, I forgot to work Extra Granted Maneuver into the build. It's a really good feat for crusaders. Take it instead of Dodge, then push Dodge and Karmic Strike back three levels, give up Imp. Bullrush, and get Deft Opportunist at 15, then Martial Stance (Immortal Fortitude) as your level 18 feat, I guess. Or Imp. Bullrush/Shock Trooper as level 15/18.

On maneuver selection, here's what I'd do:
Level 1: Leading the Attack (WR), Charging Minotaur (SD), Crusader's Strike (DS), Vanguard Strike (DS), Stone Bones (SD), Martial Spirit stance (DS)
Level 2: Iron Guard's Glare stance (DS)
Level 3: Battle Leader's Charge (WR)
Level 4: swap Stone Bones out for Stone Vise (SD)
Level 5: White Raven Tactics (WR), perhaps the best maneuver in the book
Level 7: Revitalizing Strike (DS 3)
Level 8: swap Battle Leader's Charge out for Divine Surge; Thicket of Blades (DS 3) stance
Level 9: Elder Mountain Hammer (SD), or Flanking Maneuver (WR) if your flankin' buddy does a lot of damage
Level 11: Rallying Strike (DS)
Level 12: swap Charging Minotaur out for Irresistible Mountain Strike (SD)
Level 13: Swarming Assault (WR) if a lot of your allies melee one creature at the same time as you, Colossus Strike (SD) otherwise
Level 14: Aura of Perfect Order stance (DS)
Level 15: White Raven Hammer (WR) - no-save stun FTW.
Level 16: swap something out for Greater Divine Surge (DS)
Level 17: Strike of Righteous Vitality (DS)! Heal yourself. You can combine this with Greater Divine Surge by burning 17 CON with GDS for a crapton of damage, using White Raven Tactics on yourself, then using Strike of Righteous Vitality to Heal yourself, removing the CON damage, right away... as long as you had all three of'em granted.
Level 19: War Master's Charge (WR)
Level 20: swap an old Stone Dragon maneuver out for Mountain Tombstone Strike.

I don't think that this is really broken, but it can be brutally effective, especially at controlling the battlefield.

Edit: You may want to pay attention to the "of Smack" builds, as I believe on of them used incarnum(the pauper?)

[Fax Celestis]

You may want to pay attention to the "of Smack" builds, as I believe on of them used incarnum(the pauper?)

The Pauper of Smack relied mainly on Wild Shape for its main beatdown. However, a lesser version is still available via Vow of Poverty coupled with the Totemist.

[tainsouvra]

Unarmed and mystic swordsage are possible variations, not any of the base classes in ToB, and as such don't count. Which means no freakin mystic swordsage!
[...]
this isn't a challenge people, I just want to see what people have/can come up with.

No offense, but you didn't actually tell them that, and you're being rude to the people you just asked for help. Not really a good approach, you might want to take a deep breath and re-explain your conditions.

[Zincorium]

Unarmed and mystic swordsage are possible variations, not any of the base classes in ToB, and as such don't count. Which means no freakin mystic swordsage!

Ok. It certainly wasn't specified anywhere in your post that only the base classes without adaptations were allowed, so don't flip out that it was suggested, it is a broken build using the books that you stated were usable.

That said, you're asking for something odd that takes a lot of work (four examples? right) and you're apparently adding in restrictions that weren't evident beforehand.

[Fax Celestis]

Shadowcaster/Binder/Tenebrous Apostate can be downright terrifying if done correctly.

[Skjaldbakka]

Ok. It certainly wasn't specified anywhere in your post that only the base classes without adaptations were allowed, so don't flip out that it was suggested, it is a broken build using the books that you stated were usable.

So if I had asked for a broken build using only the core 3, and people had come up with Constant Items of True Strike and Cure Light Wounds, I wouldn't have been justified in saying no, that's ridiculous. There is no mystic swordsage in ToB. It is not a base class from ToB. All "mystic swordsage" is is a suggestion on how one might modify the class for different compaigns. As such, I should not have to say "No mystic swordsage". No mystic swordsage is the baseline.

As for flippin' out, the first response kinda got my goat.

Been there, done that, wrote the book.

Druid/20.
Cleric/20.
Wizard/20.

I apologize to Zynconium if it seemed that I was "flippin' out' on him. It wasn't his post that got under my skin.

[SadisticFishing]

Shadowcaster/Binder/Tenebrous Apostate can be downright terrifying if done correctly.

Ooh this sounds cool (ToM is my favorite book, though I've still never had the chance to play a character from it in a "real" campaign).

Mind posting/linking a cool build?

[blue_fenix]

Actually, I think your biggest concern with that set of books would be the tome of battle classes outshining pretty much everything except maybe the binder. Look on the wizards forums for the shadowcaster fix and then you'll have a decent arcane caster class available, at least.

And here's how you fix every single broken build, cheese, and campaign-ruining overpoweredness: require your players to tell you what their plan is for their character (prestige classes they want, feats, any other odd choices, etc.) and then if you don't like it, say "No."

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, you can switch the Shadowcaster to a per-encounter system rather easily. Spend a full round in concentration to refresh a "tier" of spells (either Initiate, Apprentice, or Master).

[blue_fenix]

Actually, you can switch the Shadowcaster to a per-encounter system rather easily. Spend a full round in concentration to refresh a "tier" of spells (either Initiate, Apprentice, or Master).

Ooh! I really like that! The only other fix they really need besides spells per day is getting rid of their MAD by having either Int OR Cha as casting stat, not both as per RAW.

[Bassetking]

And here's how you fix every single broken build, cheese, and campaign-ruining overpoweredness: require your players to tell you what their plan is for their character (prestige classes they want, feats, any other odd choices, etc.) and then if you don't like it, say "No."

Which is, in truth, how my DM treats two of the members of my gaming group; Myself, and another player.

We have to present to him a full character synopsis, including all planned feat-trees, spells, possible combinations, equipment, synergies, prestige class considerations and the ramifications of those abilities, and any combat or socio-political strategies we plan on using with our characters.

To the best of my knowledge, he does not require this of any of the other members of our group.

This handling is one of the single greatest annoyances I have with my DM, as it belies a gigantic lack of trust in my cooperation in the game as a player. Particularly when I am told that "I don't want you using these combinations/feats/spells/abilities...but would have no problem with another character playing this same set-up."

Requiring your players to detail everything about how they plan to play their character to you from the start says both "I don't trust you as a player, and, as such, must make your decisions for you." and "I cannot DM well enough to adapt to your actions within my world."

Don't do this to your players. Ask them to dial back; if it becomes a problem, sit down with them and describe how their playstyle is affecting the group or campaign. Ask them to consider their actions within the scope of the other players (DM included!) enjoyment of the game.

Saying "Tell me what your plan is for your character (prestige classes you want, feats, any other odd choices, etc. and I'll decide whether or not I trust you not to abuse it" is tantamount to saying "Prove to me you're not cheating."

[Dausuul]

Which is, in truth, how my DM treats two of the members of my gaming group; Myself, and another player.

We have to present to him a full character synopsis, including all planned feat-trees, spells, possible combinations, equipment, synergies, prestige class considerations and the ramifications of those abilities, and any combat or socio-political strategies we plan on using with our characters.

To the best of my knowledge, he does not require this of any of the other members of our group.

This handling is one of the single greatest annoyances I have with my DM, as it belies a gigantic lack of trust in my cooperation in the game as a player. Particularly when I am told that "I don't want you using these combinations/feats/spells/abilities...but would have no problem with another character playing this same set-up."

Requiring your players to detail everything about how they plan to play their character to you from the start says both "I don't trust you as a player, and, as such, must make your decisions for you." and "I cannot DM well enough to adapt to your actions within my world."

Don't do this to your players. Ask them to dial back; if it becomes a problem, sit down with them and describe how their playstyle is affecting the group or campaign. Ask them to consider their actions within the scope of the other players (DM included!) enjoyment of the game.

Saying "Tell me what your plan is for your character (prestige classes you want, feats, any other odd choices, etc. and I'll decide whether or not I trust you not to abuse it" is tantamount to saying "Prove to me you're not cheating."

Certainly it's bad policy to apply such an approach to some players and not to others.

However, I don't think it's at all a bad policy to ask players what their plans are for their characters, including feats and combos. Then you can tell them up front, "No, I'm not okay with that combo in my game. Come up with another build."

The alternative is to wait until some player finally completes his or her elaborate advancement plan and busts out the uber-combo, and only then say, "What? No, I'm not allowing that!" At which point the player has to rebuild the entire character.

It's not reasonable to expect your DM to foresee every possible combination of abilities that he or she will find objectionable. Asking players for their plans up front is a perfectly sensible way to head off any such problems before they manifest.

And of course, if you don't have a long-term plan for your character, then you obviously aren't making your choices in the expectation of achieving some spectacular combination later on, and it's all good.

[blue_fenix]

Well, first off I don't mean that level of detail. "I'm planing to play a half-giant hulking hurler" is enough info to make a decision. Secondly, when I DM, if it's banned, it's banned for everyone. I can't go making a list of every banned item, PrC, feat, etc. without wasting a lot of time, so I make decisions as things come up.

[magicwalker]

The problem with "as things come up", is that some things require a lot of set up beforehand. Which means for their truly godlike combo to be pulled off at level 17, they spent 16 levels building up to that. If after a few encounters at level 17 with the combo finally working, if my DM told me to stop ... I'm pretty sure I would react poorly.

[Bassetking]

Well, first off I don't mean that level of detail. "I'm planing to play a half-giant hulking hurler" is enough info to make a decision. Secondly, when I DM, if it's banned, it's banned for everyone. I can't go making a list of every banned item, PrC, feat, etc. without wasting a lot of time, so I make decisions as things come up.

No issue with "I'm planning on playing a Half-giant Hulking Hurler", that's an overwhelmingly reasonable request. I take issue when my description is "I plan on playing an Egoist focused on damage payback, augmented by unarmed melee." and the response is "Explain, in detail, every power you plan on using to accomplish this, every feat involved, all additional powers you plan on manifesting, all buffs planned, all possible synergies within these elements, possible cross-class synergies, and I'll tell you if I allow it."

Especially when I see nothing for the next five sessions other than Mindless Undead and Constructs...

Regardless, this is off topic, and I apologize for dragging it into your thread, S.