Tome of Battle classes without the extras

dagger

Adventurer
Crusader/Warblade

I was looking over these two classes today and with some adjustments they would make decent base classes without maneuvers/stance rules.

What do you think?

A few of the powers would have to be adjusted somewhat…………like the 20th level power of Warblade.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

You could, I suppose. I'd throw some bonus feats in there to compensate though.

Why would you do it though? You think they're not balanced?
 

I'm not worried about the balance, mainly because I have not seen them played yet. I just worry adding even more mechanics could complicate things and slow the game down further.


I also just think they would make very cool base classes... :)
 
Last edited:

I've played with them, and its just a matter of reading the rules beforehand. Make sure you and your DM (or are you the DM?) understand how the martial adept classes work. I'm a big fan of them, and I don't think it's difficult to incorporate in games.

An easy way to introduce them is to have players or NPC's take the Martial Study feats, so they can learn a single manuever or stance. Once you get the hang of manuevers, then go fullbore on them.


edit: yes, i think if you took out the manuevers/stances they would still be interesting classes. I mean, crusdaer/warblade - full bab w/ decent skills. throw in a few special abilities and thats better than the fighter already.
 



Mouseferatu said:
I have to agree. It's pretty much like playing a cleric or a wizard without spellcasting.

I initially thought that. But it's not. If a cleric or wizard loses their spellcasting, the wizard is totally screwed. A cleric at least has heavy armor, 3/4 bab, and 2 good saves.

A warblade with no manuevers/stances, has full bab, d12 HD, 4 bonus feats, uncanny dodge, weapon aptitude, and 5 INT synergy abilities (none of which require manuvers/stances). oh yeah - and 4 skill points and an okay skill list.

edit: granted - they go back down to "might as well play a fighter" in terms of power level versus spellcasters, but they wouldn't be worthless.
 

dog45 said:
I initially thought that. But it's not. If a cleric or wizard loses their spellcasting, the wizard is totally screwed. A cleric at least has heavy armor, 3/4 bab, and 2 good saves.

A warblade with no manuevers/stances, has full bab, d12 HD, 4 bonus feats, uncanny dodge, weapon aptitude, and 5 INT synergy abilities (none of which require manuvers/stances). oh yeah - and 4 skill points and an okay skill list.

edit: granted - they go back down to "might as well play a fighter" in terms of power level versus spellcasters, but they wouldn't be worthless.

Right, I didn't mean to imply that they'd be worthless, per se. You're certainly correct that they can still hold their own. But frankly, I just don't see why anyone would bother. The whole point to these guys is the maneuver system, after all.

(And without meaning to start up the debate again, I don't think these guys are equivalent to fighters when you strip away the maneuvers, since I still maintain that a well-built fighter is equal, or at least close to equal, with a crusader or warblade with maneuvers.)
 

Mouseferatu said:
Right, I didn't mean to imply that they'd be worthless, per se. You're certainly correct that they can still hold their own. But frankly, I just don't see why anyone would bother. The whole point to these guys is the maneuver system, after all.

(And without meaning to start up the debate again, I don't think these guys are equivalent to fighters when you strip away the maneuvers, since I still maintain that a well-built fighter is equal, or at least close to equal, with a crusader or warblade with maneuvers.)

I agree with your first part. Don't feel like getting into your second part now. Tired. Must sleep.
 

Mouseferatu said:
I have to agree. It's pretty much like playing a cleric or a wizard without spellcasting.

Exactly! Not that a cleric couldn't survive without his spells, and noone's implying that.

But getting to cast spells is the whole point of playing a wizard, and a cleric without spells might as well play a paladin, they get more HP, a better BAB, better saves if you consider divine grace, and so on.
 

Remove ads

Top