ToB vs. Core Caster (and ToM): How does it scale effectiveness?

[Maerok]

I haven't used ToB yet; I never really liked the "Oh, you got a melee character? Well slap some Swordsage on there!", though the same can be said for certain PrCs for other characters. What I've never had explained to me was how a ToB character stacks up against a caster; I guess the intention was the close the gap between the two. But it seems like it did that far better than ToM did trying to lower casters to melee standards than improve melee types.

But in the end, I guess it's hard to beat someone who can use magic to one-shot you from fifty feet away (I remember my DM's reaction the first time I cast phantasmal killer).

So, how do ToB characters compare to a Core spellcaster?

[Sucrose]

They still lose pretty handily at high levels. However, properly built, they are a bit better than casters at low levels, and roughly equal at mid-levels. They also tend to remain relevant for longer into the high levels than most melee characters.

I don't think that that was the only, or even the main, point of the book, but as that isn't the topic for discussion, I won't comment beyond noting this impression.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Martial Adepts continue to play the same game as everyone else for 20 levels. This game is called D&D. Spellcasters after 15th level get to play all-new games with names like "Rocket Launcher Tag" and "Let's bone reality up the ***" and no one else gets to play.

Fairly accurate. It gives melee characters options and starts them at a higher level of power than most non-martial adepts, but they can't be broken as much as many other classes. Up until about level 15, they have the same basic power level as a Sorcerer, IMHO.

[Maerok]

Until the casters get to cast divide by zero four times per day?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Until the casters get to cast divide by zero four times per day?

Exactly why I put the line at ~ level 15. At low levels, they're more survivable, at high levels Initiation is not enough like spellcasting to matter.

[streakster]

What everyone else said. It just makes martial characters workable. The big 5 still reign unchallenged.

Though it does make martial characters over 9000 times more fun to play.

[AslanCross]

I'm running a 9th-level game, but none of the martial adept PCs are purely Martial Adept. The Paladin has two levels of Crusader (he wasn't willing to switch all his levels for Crusader) while the ranger and rogue have 2-3 levels of Swordsage as well. The effect of the maneuvers has only really been visible on the ranger (TWF), and it's given the rogue some more options, but it hasn't really mattered to the paladin much.

Of course, the wizard is at level 9 and has defeated encounters on his own.

[Eldariel]

Really, the cutoff point is more around 11 or so - Adepts are very efficient, but at that point casters just start to do dumb stuff and become really hard to kill (ok, well, at the very last...).

Early on, they're about equally efficient - martial adepts do well in the long game while casters can just end a few encounters per day (and are the party's only real means to deal with CR inappropriate encounters like a band of 4 ogres on level 1 or a Purple Worm on level 5 or such), posing the critical ability of targeting saves instead of AC, and the ability to bone targets with one spell.

Later on, adepts are about on par with other well-optimized warrior types and well behind casters. Basically, the effect ToB has is that you need to optimize less. With ToB, the classes are pretty awesome right out of the box so there's less need for judicious multiclassing, careful feat-planning and so on - the characters are good enough to generally work even if the choices you've made aren't the best possible. Also, there're very few "lame maneuvers" - that is, generally whichever maneuvers you pick are at the very least passable, so you don't end up with a bunch of "Hold Portal"s and "Shout"s (like you do with magic if you're not careful).

All in all, ToB:
-Makes melee combat much more fun (unless you consider walking up to thing, rolling a die and repeating for 20000 times per game and sometimes doing Power Attack math fun)
-Makes melee characters require less splatbooks and less savvy optimization to be effective
-Makes your characters more durable: many "counters" (immediate action maneuver) and abilities the book offers makes straightout dying less likely and overall should help make the participants not using defensive magic last longer
-For those interested in optimizing, opens up a whole bunch of new horizons
-Makes more different types of melee characters worthwhile - Two-Weapon Fighting, Sword & Shield Fighting and Unarmed Combat (even non-Monks!) all get boost to contribute next to Tripper McChargersson
-Gives you the tools to realize a whole bunch of character concepts that would've otherwise required extensive homebrewing

This is why there's very little reason to not at least try the book out, give it a go and to strive to give your players access to it (since chances are, they'll enjoy playing a game with it more than a game without it; the sign of a successful addition).

[Saph]

At very low levels, ToB classes are probably the best in the game (I played one campaign from levels 1 to 3, and my Warblade outshone EVERYONE, cleric, druid, wizard, the lot). Bear this in mind if you're starting at level 1.

Spellcasters eventually catch up, but it takes a while. Probably at about level 11 they pull ahead, but martial adepts are still powerful, even at high levels - they're just not stupid powerful.

- Saph

[Telok]

When I have spare time at work I'll play with the crystal keep indexes and some other stuff. I've used a spreadsheet to prepare character builds and concepts. Two that have worked well (one is still being played) are here.

Mr. Bad Touch

Spoiler

Show

level class bab/ini pow/lvl feats
1 psywar1 0/0 1,1 psionic weapon, power attack, Force Screen
2 psywar2 1/1 2,1 psionic body, Float
3 warblade1 2/2 3-3-1 (1) improved toughness, Moment of Perfect Mind, 2m, 1s
4 warblade2 3/3 4-3-1 (2) Emerald Razor
5 psywar3 4/3 3,1 Expansion
6 warblade3 5/4 5-3-1 (2) deep impact, Battle Leader's Charge
7 psywar4 6/5 4,2 Body Adjustment
8 warblade4 7/6 t-4-2 (3) White Raven Tactics, Pearl of Black Doubt
9 psywar5 7/6 5,2 greater psi weapon, psionic meditation
10 warblade5 8/7 6-4-2 (4) diehard, Lightning Recovery
11 psywar6 9/8 6,2 Energy Adaptation, Specified
12 warblade6 10/9 t-4-2 (5) vital recovery, Iron Heart Focus
13 psywar7 11/9 7,3 Concealing Amorpha, Greater
14 warblade7 12/10 7-4-2 (5) Disrupting Blow
15 psywar8 13/10 8,3 open feat Empathic Transfer, Hostile

@12
{standard} emerald razor, PA 10, +str vs. touch AC, wp+(str*1.5)+20
{swift} lightning recovery if miss
{move} psionic meditation [regain focus]

{swift} regain maneuvers
{standard} deep impact [expend focus], PA 10, +str vs. touch AC, wp+(str*1.5)+20
{move} [open]

and Little Drummer Boy

Spoiler

Show

Human Two Weapon Fighting
Fighter 1 1/0 Power Attack Weapon Focus -Light Mace
Fighter 2 2/1 Lightning Mace
Fighter 3 3/1 Combat Reflexes
Fighter 4 4/2 Weapon Specialization -Light Mace
Warblade 1 5/3 *Emerald Razor *Wolf Fang Strike *Blood in Water *Moment of Perfect Mind
Warblade 2 6/4 Uncanny Dodge, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting *Disarming Strike
Warblade 3 7/5 *Iron Heart Surge
Fighter 5 8/5
Fighter 6 9/6 Melee Weapon Mastery-Bludegoning Improved Critical -Light Mace
Warblade 4 10/7 *Pearl of Black Doubt *Flesh Ripper (lose Wolf Fang Strike)
Warblade 5 11/8 Quickdraw (bonus feat) *Lightning Recovery
Warblade 6 12/9 Two-Weapon Rend, Improved Uncanny *Dancing Mongoose (lose one strike)
Fighter 7 13/9
Fighter 8 14/10 Crushing Strike

Note also that how well a ToB character stacks up is going to depend on how well the casters are built and played. If your arcanist in a boom-stick sorcerer with a Nerveskitter fetish and didn't learn Dispel Magic, a straight ToB class with a competent player can easily do better.

[Riffington]

my Warblade outshone EVERYONE, cleric, druid, wizard, the lot).

This is an important point. You might run the numbers and discover that Wizard beats Warblade in arena combat at level 1-20. But (especially at low levels), the Warblade will still outshine everyone through sheer awesomeness.

[Starbuck_II]

What everyone else said. It just makes martial characters workable. The big 5 still reign unchallenged.

Though it does make martial characters over 9000 times more fun to play.

Wait, over 9000? (DBZ joke?)

I daresay, a game of just Healer/other Complete divine classes, Wu Jen and other Complete Arcane classes, ToM, and ToB would be balanced at most level.

[Eldariel]

This is an important point. You might run the numbers and discover that Wizard beats Warblade in arena combat at level 1-20. But (especially at low levels), the Warblade will still outshine everyone through sheer awesomeness.

But again, there are many encounters, such as an Ogre or two on level 1, where you need a Wizard and that Warblade is just as unable to do it as any average Fighter (sure, they can win with enough luck - it's just quite unlikely).

[Saph]

But again, there are many encounters, such as an Ogre or two on level 1, where you need a Wizard and that Warblade is just as unable to do it as any average Fighter (sure, they can win with enough luck - it's just quite unlikely).

Bear in mind that the Wizard won't always have the right spell prepared. In normal D&D sessions, you don't have the luxury of knowing what you're going to be fighting during an adventuring day. Low-level casters also run out of spells, whereas a ToB character with a CLW wand carrier as backup can go all day. Of course, having a couple of ToB characters and a wizard for backup is even better.

ToB classes also require much less work to be awesome (like, pretty much none). This is probably why in every campaign that I've seen ToB classes used, they were easily the most powerful members in the party until the levels got up into double digits.

- Saph

[Eldariel]

Bear in mind that the Wizard won't always have the right spell prepared. In normal D&D sessions, you don't have the luxury of knowing what you're going to be fighting during an adventuring day. Low-level casters also run out of spells, whereas a ToB character with a CLW wand carrier as backup can go all day. Of course, having a couple of ToB characters and a wizard for backup is even better.

ToB classes also require much less work to be awesome (like, pretty much none). This is probably why in every campaign that I've seen ToB classes used, they were easily the most powerful members in the party until the levels got up into double digits.

Yea, but a low-level Wizard should prepare Sleep/Color Spray/Grease-trio almost exclusively just to be useful against practically anything and to have those encounter-ending powers when they're called for, since he's the only one with such potency at that point (Druid and Cleric have slightly less powerful spells on level 1, although Cause Fear, Entangle and company are still superb). He can't spare spells for protection at that point yet, but those spells work against most creatures you'd face - Grease works against anything and the other two work against most things you might encounter (that is, I'd prepare them unless the campaign was REALLY UD-heavy, but then again, if it's UD-heavy, the melee should already have it on those levels).

It's true that a Wizard with a poor spell selection would not contribute on the same level, and that ToB classes are far harder to screw up in terms of efficiency than casters. Well-built casters are up there in efficiency though. And yes, ToB can keep going all day while casters run out, but the casters can handle problems the ToB classes can. It all evens out.

It's also true that it'd rock if Wizard had more than a handful of spells on level 1 he could pick without sucking (like martialists!), but that's a topic for another day.

[Hadrian_Emrys]

Meh, just fuse the two together by rolling a party of Mystic Swordsages, and upping the CR of the encounters by 1 or 2. Everyone gets to be powerful/cool, and encoutners can still kick their collective butts.

[Riffington]

If your only consideration is "how many encounters can I overcome", then you'll probably leave ToB characters out of even a low-level party. A cleric, 2 druids, and a wizard (beguiler if there's too many traps) will do just great. If you get a 5th slot, consider a Barbarian or Barbarian/Rogue.

Adding a martial character or two will very slightly lower your "effectiveness", but will dramatically increase your awesomeness.

[Saph]

Yea, but a low-level Wizard should prepare Sleep/Color Spray/Grease-trio almost exclusively just to be useful against practically anything and to have those encounter-ending powers when they're called for, since he's the only one with such potency at that point (Druid and Cleric have slightly less powerful spells on level 1, although Cause Fear, Entangle and company are still superb). He can't spare spells for protection at that point yet, but those spells work against most creatures you'd face - Grease works against anything and the other two work against most things you might encounter (that is, I'd prepare them unless the campaign was REALLY UD-heavy, but then again, if it's UD-heavy, the melee should already have it on those levels).

Sleep/Colour Spray/Grease are the best of a bad lot as regards choice for a 1st-2nd-level wiz/sorc, but all three still have major drawbacks and depend upon a failed save. They're good, but they're not the auto-wins that they're often presented as. A ToB character, over the course of a 4-encounter adventuring day, will take out more monsters than a spellcaster and doesn't have to worry about running out of gas.

If your only consideration is "how many encounters can I overcome", then you'll probably leave ToB characters out of even a low-level party. A cleric, 2 druids, and a wizard (beguiler if there's too many traps) will do just great. If you get a 5th slot, consider a Barbarian or Barbarian/Rogue.

I disagree; I've found that at levels 1-4, ToB characters are significantly better than every core class. The only one that can keep up is the Druid. Spellcasters just don't have enough staying power, and picking and using spells to maximum efficiency is way too much work for most players.

- Saph

[Eldariel]

Sleep/Colour Spray/Grease are the best of a bad lot as regards choice for a 1st-2nd-level wiz/sorc, but all three still have major drawbacks and depend upon a failed save. They're good, but they're not the auto-wins that they're often presented as. A ToB character, over the course of a 4-encounter adventuring day, will take out more monsters than a spellcaster and doesn't have to worry about running out of gas.

Oh yes, level 1-3 Wizards aren't meant for ready combat (well, they'll just be firing their Longbow/Crossbow for most of the day) - they're meant for solving the sitiuations that are otherwise unsolveable. In other words, they're the doomsday weapons you use when you get in up over your head.

And yes, they depend on a failed save (except Grease, which still requires Balance-checks even on a successful checks and even if those are successful, still renders the target flat-footed), but the likelihood of a failed save is much higher than the likelihood of hitting an opponent, for example. Ogres have +1 Will, +0 Ref. VS. DC 15-16 (if you gotta play by Elite Array, they'll obviously be far less useful), giving them about 25-30% to just not die and that's a CR3 monster.

And they all can target multiple creatures, making them great encounter enders as taking out even half of the opposition is plenty for one action. There's nothing Warblades, Crusaders or Swordsages can do to target multiple opponents, save possibly making two attacks in the round. In other words, Wizards do what they always do - crowd control, big target removal and encounter ending. It's good to have others to mop up as the Wizard has very limited tools on level 1 (not enough money even for a relevant number of scrolls...), but the toughest encounters are going to be solved by the Wizard, not the Warblade. More kills? Warblade. Heck, Wizard doesn't even TRY to kill, he just makes killing easier for the rest of the party (and occasionally shoots things).

[Deth Muncher]

One thing I haven't seen people respond to is the actual title of the thread:

ToB vs. Core Caster (and ToM). How do the two Tomes go with/against each other? I've never really used either, so I'm curious.

[Eldariel]

Eh, ToM has Truenamer, which has a broken (as in disfunctional) mechanic, and Shadowcaster which is way underpowered without the online rewrite. However, Binders hold up just fine vs. ToB and are a great mechanic - indeed, ToM is worth it for Binders alone.

Fixed up Shadowcasters are fun too, and Truenamers could be interesting too if the skill system were functional. Actually, it's probably best to use Truenaming as a Truenamer level-check instead of a skill-check (with class level + Int) with DC 10+CR. But Binders measure up fine vs. ToB and the rest of ToM isn't worth much as written anyways.

[Saph]

And they all can target multiple creatures, making them great encounter enders as taking out even half of the opposition is plenty for one action. There's nothing Warblades, Crusaders or Swordsages can do to target multiple opponents, save possibly making two attacks in the round. In other words, Wizards do what they always do - crowd control, big target removal and encounter ending. It's good to have others to mop up as the Wizard has very limited tools on level 1 (not enough money even for a relevant number of scrolls...), but the toughest encounters are going to be solved by the Wizard, not the Warblade. More kills? Warblade. Heck, Wizard doesn't even TRY to kill, he just makes killing easier for the rest of the party (and occasionally shoots things).

This is all true, but you're leaving something out. You're only looking at the classes' offensive power, not their defence. A 1st-level wizard or sorcerer has 4 hp + Con, and an armour class somewhere in the toilet (unless they spend a spell on Mage Armour). A 1st-level warblade has a d12 Hit Die, and the crusader has slightly less but extra defensive power that makes up for it.

A 1st-level arcanist can be very powerful on the attack, but he's a liability defence-wise, while ToB characters are generally good at both.

- Saph

[The Glyphstone]

There's only two classes in ToM. The Shadowcaster isn't horrible, just bad - doesn't get enough daily uses of his "spells' to be worth it, though some of the effects are interesting. The Binder is a superb jack-of-all-trades meleeist/skillmonkey, and can be fun to play. Anyone have a link to this online rewrite of the Shadowcaster?

There's also a bunch of nonsensical rambling about something called truenaming in the back of the book, but I think that was a misplaced reprint from the head designer's drunken diary. It sure doesn't make sense as an actual class.

[Eldariel]

This is all true, but you're leaving something out. You're only looking at the classes' offensive power, not their defence. A 1st-level wizard or sorcerer has 4 hp + Con, and an armour class somewhere in the toilet (unless they spend a spell on Mage Armour). A 1st-level warblade has a d12 Hit Die, and the crusader has slightly less but extra defensive power that makes up for it.

A 1st-level arcanist can be very powerful on the attack, but he's a liability defence-wise, while ToB characters are generally good at both.

- Saph

Oh, I know - it's one of the main reasons I hate level 1 play; all but HD 12 characters, Crusaders (thanks to Steely Resolve) and perhaps high Con D10s are pretty much crit away from dying regardless of the opponents, and there's nothing they can do about it. Even D12 characters can plain die to a simple critical (say, bow critical - it's X3 making it easily 24 damage or so which is a highway to hell). It's also why I prefer the "HD+Con score" HP on level 1 with "Con score negatives till death". It sucks to have character death on level 1 because of circumstances the players could do nothing about. On higher levels, it's generally a bunch of bad rolls before it's truly at risk, but on level 1, the defenses are far weaker.

Wizards are definitely more squishier than the average and on level 1, it's very hard to efficiently block enemy movement and even harder to efficiently block arrows - generally, I have every Wizard with the Str to carry around a Tower Shield and use it for cover in combat-threatening areas, dropping it once being offensive. Also, it's why I prefer Toad-familiar (which incidentially pretty much sucks ever since, and since switching the familiar after level 1 even when picking Improved Familiar is nigh' impossible in a normal game, I usually screw myself up for the rest of the game).


EDIT: The creator's suggested fixes for Shadowcaster are here.

[Riffington]

Let's leave out the low level caster question (which obviously depends what kinds of challenges you tend to face).
A low level warblade is marginally less powerful than a low level Barbarian (Extra Rage if you need multiple encounters)... the Barbarian may only have one trick, but it's a really great trick. Adding a bit of multiclass (a level of Rogue for sneak attack, a level of fighter for trip cheese, etc) helps the Barbarian a bit more than the Warblade. And if you allow Whirling Frenzy, the Barbarian goes from "marginally stronger" to "much stronger".

At high levels, the Warblade overtakes the Barbarian in power, and at every level the Warblade is more show-stealing.

[Fishy]

Core fighters decide at level 1 whether they want to trip or power attack. As they increase in levels, they get better at it. But essentially, that's all they do, every round, of every encounter.

Core spellcasters get at least two shiny new power every time they gain a level. Every round, they do something flashy and interesting, something that dramatically affects the battlefield, something with italicized flavor text. They have different fields they can specialize in, and each field has different interesting things they can do. Heck, a wizard with a big enough spellbook and budget can play a different role every day.

ToB characters get a shiny new power every level. Every round, they do something flashy and interesting, something that dramatically affects the battlefield, something with italicized flavor text.

That's the difference. It doesn't even matter if they're more or less powerful, they're ridiculously more fun.

[sonofzeal]

One thing I haven't seen people respond to is the actual title of the thread:

ToB vs. Core Caster (and ToM). How do the two Tomes go with/against each other? I've never really used either, so I'm curious.

As previously stated, the only thing worth even thinking about from ToM is the Binder class, which is dramatically different from traditional spellcasting. So here's a breakdown by category of ToB vs Fighter vs Binder vs Druids vs Wizards, from best to worst. This is all based on personal experience and personal opinion, and might be most accurate around the lvl10-15 range, in games that have at least a modicum of "fair play".

Utility - Wizards, Druids Binders, ToB, Fighters. Binders can do some messed-up stuff that'll through everyone for a loop if played well; their main advantage is in doing things that traditional characters don't expect. ToB only gets a few things (healing, mobility, breaking stuff) that are useful outside of combat; Fighter gets pretty much nothing in this category.

Single Combat (1 vs 1) - ToB, Druids, Wizards, Binders, Fighters. Wizards win on the offense side, but depending on the setup need to count on initiative cheese or they can get screwed before they get an action; d4 HD with mostly poor saves does not make for a durable character... but save-or-die is always a good approach. ToB dominates the straight-damage category as well as the always-ready-instantly category, Druids get Wildshape + Animal Companion (and spells if they really feel like they need them), Binders can be quite impressive given the right vistages... and Fighters get to hit things repeatedly.

Group Combat (4 vs 4) - Wizards, ToB, Druids, Binders, Fighters. Suddenly the frailty of Wizards is not so much a concern, and they get most of the best area-effect stuff. Druids gain ground too, but I'd still put ToB slightly above them. Binders and Fighters are relatively unchanged.

Low-Level Power (levels 1-3) - ToB, Druids, Fighters, Binders, Wizards. ToB is horribly front-loaded and overpowered below level (say) 5; Druid has the same problem, mostly because the Animal Companion alone is practically as strong as most Fighters. Fighters do pretty well, as their feat margin is at its largest and they can already have some nice combo off the ground if they try. Binders and Wizards are hard to judge; Wizards can do very well if they chose the right spells, but get so friggin few that really it all comes down to one or two Saving Throw rolls, and if the enemy passes then the Wizard is next to useless... plus most low-level Wizards I've seen look at their HP and AC, panic, and spend most combats casting Mage Armor and Shield. I suppose a well-played one could be effective though. Binders on the other hand are hard to judge because it all comes down to which Vistage they've got, but at least there's good potential here.

Fun (highly personal) - ToB, Binders, Druids, Fighters, Wizards (I'm kinda biased though). Personally, I like characters that are {a} durable, {b} don't have to waste rounds buffing, and {c} give a lot of options without too much bookkeeping. I think ToB does all three beautifully and intuitively, and nevermind the whole "yell out attack name before you do it" thing, as maneuvers don't actually have the name as a verbal component. Binders are harder to track but get plenty of things to do, and generally make for interesting and quirky characters. Druids require buckets of bookkeeping on animal companion, wildshape forms, and spells... but make up for it in having something appropriate for just about every occasion. Fighters I enjoy because they're more of a challenge to play, but flexible enough that there's good material to work with in trying new combos. And Wizards... I've never liked vancian casting, I don't like the "glass cannon" nature of the traditional Wizard, and I don't like the rampant ludicrousness of the Batman/God Wizards. I don't find either method fun, either because it makes the game too nerve-wracking or because it totally removes the challenge.

But that's just me.

[Eldariel]

My take on your takes:

Single Combat (1 vs 1) - ToB, Druids, Wizards, Binders, Fighters. Wizards win on the offense side, but depending on the setup need to count on initiative cheese or they can get screwed before they get an action; d4 HD with mostly poor saves does not make for a durable character... but save-or-die is always a good approach. ToB dominates the straight-damage category as well as the always-ready-instantly category, Druids get Wildshape + Animal Companion (and spells if they really feel like they need them), Binders can be quite impressive given the right vistages... and Fighters get to hit things repeatedly.

Really, on most levels, Druids and Wizards beat ToB characters in 1v1. Druid simply has the advantage of being two characters instead of one, making the 1v1 actually 1v2. The buff spells means that Druid simply works with bigger numbers than anyone else and they still pack "save or die"-type effects. Simply, chances of the non-casters failing a save are larger than them being able to hit for lethal damage.

Wizard, on the other hand, has a very good chance of killing the opponent with every action they take and their defenses are incredible beyond level 3 (Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc.). A Dungeon Crasher Fighter can be right up there with ToB classes, and generally, an optimized Fighter is about equal to ToB classes in power due to the ability to be an efficient Charging Tripper quite fast. I'd say Binder is really the last of the crop in this regard, but they're so versatile that there's a decent chance they've got an approach the opponent simply isn't prepared for.

Group Combat (4 vs 4) - Wizards, ToB, Druids, Binders, Fighters. Suddenly the frailty of Wizards is not so much a concern, and they get most of the best area-effect stuff. Druids gain ground too, but I'd still put ToB slightly above them. Binders and Fighters are relatively unchanged.

Druid should be easily ahead of ToB here - they can cover more ground, they have battlefield control spells in addition to damage and pump, they're still two characters and overall just dominate. Druids aren't big 3 for nothing.

Low-Level Power (levels 1-3) - ToB, Druids, Fighters, Binders, Wizards. ToB is horribly front-loaded and overpowered below level (say) 5; Druid has the same problem, mostly because the Animal Companion alone is practically as strong as most Fighters. Fighters do pretty well, as their feat margin is at its largest and they can already have some nice combo off the ground if they try. Binders and Wizards are hard to judge; Wizards can do very well if they chose the right spells, but get so friggin few that really it all comes down to one or two Saving Throw rolls, and if the enemy passes then the Wizard is next to useless... plus most low-level Wizards I've seen look at their HP and AC, panic, and spend most combats casting Mage Armor and Shield. I suppose a well-played one could be effective though. Binders on the other hand are hard to judge because it all comes down to which Vistage they've got, but at least there's good potential here.

Druid should still be way beyond ToB - having a 3HD NPC Fighter on Level 1 is simply insane, and being able to get a new one for no cost if the first one dies is just dumb. They can also summon extras for few rounds if need be. That and they also pack encounter enders like Entangle. Oh, and they can use Wand of Lesser Vigor and have the original spell and so on. Basically, if you want an optimized party for levels 1-3, pack 4 Druids. There's very little that can challenge you at that point.

Wizard power is a difficult question - when they are doing things, they're the most powerful offensively, but they're in one-hit KO range and only have 3-5 spells of real power available (after that, they're reduced to poor archery).

[sonofzeal]

My take on your takes:

By all means!

Really, on most levels, Druids and Wizards beat ToB characters in 1v1. Druid simply has the advantage of being two characters instead of one, making the 1v1 actually 1v2. The buff spells means that Druid simply works with bigger numbers than anyone else and they still pack "save or die"-type effects. Simply, chances of the non-casters failing a save are larger than them being able to hit for lethal damage.

Having run lvl20 duels between totally pimped-out Druids (actually Druid17/Monk1/Saint2 with Draconic Wildshape) and a Warblade (actually Warblade17/PsiWar2/EternalBlade1)... the Warblade won, dominantly, both times we ran it under different conditions. Like, not even close. Like, he was forgetting some of the cool things he could do, and forgot to bring a dagger for grapples (which came up), and still ripped the Druid to shreds in something like three rounds.

YYMV, but I stand by my statement.

Wizard, on the other hand, has a very good chance of killing the opponent with every action they take and their defenses are incredible beyond level 3 (Mirror Image, Invisibility, etc.). A Dungeon Crasher Fighter can be right up there with ToB classes, and generally, an optimized Fighter is about equal to ToB classes in power due to the ability to be an efficient Charging Tripper quite fast. I'd say Binder is really the last of the crop in this regard, but they're so versatile that there's a decent chance they've got an approach the opponent simply isn't prepared for.

Wizards... well, I really haven't seen much of Wizards in high level games. Mirror Image and Invisibility both require actions, are bypassable, and have too short a duration to be effectively pre-buffed, even with Extend Spell. I've never played with a single Wizard who had remotely competent defenses AND an effective offense; I'm sure it's possible, but I'm speaking from personal experience here. As to Fighters... there's a very few, very specific builds that can keep pace with your basic vanilla ToB classes. However, if you give ToB the same leniency you end up with Leap Attack builds that deal ludicrous damage, or Thicket of Blades builds that are far more effective at battlefield control than a straight Fighter will ever be. I'm not saying Fighters can't be effective - far from it! - but I believe everything can be effective if played well (I have a nasty build for CW Samurai, for example), and that Fighters have significantly less to work with than ToB.

Druid should be easily ahead of ToB here - they can cover more ground, they have battlefield control spells in addition to damage and pump, they're still two characters and overall just dominate. Druids aren't big 3 for nothing.

You may well be right. I'm still biased by that Warblade-Druid duel I mentioned earlier, but it's entirely possible a Druid could outperform a ToBer in this context. I'd say it depends on the build though, and all things being equal they're probably just about on par with eachother, with the ToBer being more heavily weighted towards massive damage and the Druid towards slightly more indirect approaches. But if we're going with the "one druid spell combined with enough aggression" approach, I think the ToBer will still come out ahead.

Druid should still be way beyond ToB - having a 3HD NPC Fighter on Level 1 is simply insane, and being able to get a new one for no cost if the first one dies is just dumb. They can also summon extras for few rounds if need be. That and they also pack encounter enders like Entangle. Oh, and they can use Wand of Lesser Vigor and have the original spell and so on. Basically, if you want an optimized party for levels 1-3, pack 4 Druids. There's very little that can challenge you at that point.

Martial Spirit trumps Lesser Vigor as it doesn't require gold, spells, or ACTIONS, Crusaders have all-around better defenses than Druids, summons practically take longer to cast than you have them for, and your average ToBer can kill your average animal companion in something like a single hit at that level.

Druids are a close second, but I'll take a party of four Crusaders over a party of four Druids any day.

Wizard power is a difficult question - when they are doing things, they're the most powerful offensively, but they're in one-hit KO range and only have 3-5 spells of real power available (after that, they're reduced to poor archery).

Indeed. Personal opinion here, although I'd say my experience is they do better saving their spells for utility and letting the others handle encounters, until at least lvl5.

[Starbuck_II]

Druid should still be way beyond ToB - having a 3HD NPC Fighter on Level 1 is simply insane, and being able to get a new one for no cost if the first one dies is just dumb. They can also summon extras for few rounds if need be. That and they also pack encounter enders like Entangle. Oh, and they can use Wand of Lesser Vigor and have the original spell and so on. Basically, if you want an optimized party for levels 1-3, pack 4 Druids. There's very little that can challenge you at that point.

Can't you just do the PHB 2 retraining quest for your animal Companion to give him Martial study for one of his level feats?
Then you have a 3 HD Fighter with ToB powers.