Anyone ever applied ToB maneuvers to the core classes.

[Tal_Akaan]

Pretty much what title says. Has anyone given maneuvers to the core classes and tried it out?

Just thought I'd ask.

[MeeposFire]

One of the best aspects of ToB is that strikes allow you to deal excellent damage with a standard action thus allowing you to not completely suck when you need to move or are slowed. To get this for all base classes I made a houserule that had you take your BAB and subtract 5 from it. Whatever number is left is how many extra d6s you deal with an attack action (not just any attack but the attack action). So if you have a bab of 6 you would deal +1d6 damage. 20 would yield +15d6 damage. This made other classes much more mobile and less dependent on full attacks.

So while not exactly what you are asking it gives you an idea of how to implement some of the theory behind ToB.

[gbprime]

Someone has. I make reference to THIS PAGE, which is currently cached on google.

[Empedocles]

I've never done this, but it strikes me as a good idea.

Do something like...

Monks get Crusader progression and access to Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, and maybe Stone Dragon. Or just play an unarmed swordsage.

Fighters get warblade progression but are limited to iron heart and stone dragon.

Paladins also get warblade progression, and are limited to Devoted Spirit, Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and White Raven.

Barbarians...not as weak as the other core melee classes. You might have to give them their own weaker progression or just give them Martial Study and Stance as bonus feats. For schools though, limit to Iron Heart, Stone Dragon, and TIGER CLAW.

If you want to include rogues, you could do warblade progression with diamond mind, shadow hand, and possibly desert wind.

Not so sure about rangers, but as far as schools go I'd say Iron Heart, Tiger Claw, and possibly white raven.

Just my 2 cp.

EDIT: Swordsage'd (ironic...) in a major way.

[BlueEyes]

I do it from time to time by taking the Martial Study and Martial Stance feats.

[Emperor Tippy]

Just tack the Swordsage maneuver mechanics onto the monk, give the Warblade fighter bonus feats, and give the Barbarian the Crusader maneuver progression.

That's a quick and dirty method that looks alright balance wise.

If you want something real good it would take a while longer to tweak.

[danzibr]

No, but I just considered a Warblade applying Strike of Perfect Clarity to a Monk. Ouch.

[JadePhoenix]

There was a project in the homebrew section of these forums with ACFs adding martial maneuvers to most melee classes. It was very well done.

[Alienist]

Pardon my naivety, but I thought that the ToB classes were intended as pretty much drop-in replacements for the core classes.

Fighter -> Warblade
Monk -> Swordsage
Paladin -> Crusader

I know I have my share of criticisms for the tier system that many people round here worship, but interestingly those are all the 'tier 5' melee classes (Barbarian and Ranger being (I am given to understand) tier 4 classes).

So score one for the tier system there. // slow clap //

Anyway, if you introduce the ToB to your already existing campaign, then you should probably just ban Fighter Monk and Paladin outright, and anyone who has the misfortune to have taken one of those classes should slowly (so as to get used to the new system) have their class features from the old class replaced with the class features of the new class.

[Talionis]

I don't do much if any home brew, but I find that almost all of the core classes do better with dips in the martial classes. As for fluff, my group has just pretended like the maneuvers were taught as part of the normal martial training for the base core classes.

I.e. Paladin might dip Crusader at level 1 and then again later to pick up a second stance with another level of dip at 5.

[JadePhoenix]

Pardon my naivety, but I thought that the ToB classes were intended as pretty much drop-in replacements for the core classes.

Yeah, that must be why in the Crusader class description it's mentioned they "(...) generally get along well with paladins, clerics, fighters, and
warblades, as long as their alignments are compatible with yours" (emphasis mine) or that Warblades "(...) have great respect for fighters and paladins (...)".

TL;DR ToB is not meant to replace anything. It's just another option.

[Greyfeld85]

Yeah, that must be why in the Crusader class description it's mentioned they "(...) generally get along well with paladins, clerics, fighters, and
warblades, as long as their alignments are compatible with yours" (emphasis mine) or that Warblades "(...) have great respect for fighters and paladins (...)".

TL;DR ToB is not meant to replace anything. It's just another option.

While the designers surely intended them to be played alongside the Core classes, the point that you so egregiously missed is that it's generally accepted that the ToB classes are in every way superior to their Core counterparts.

So, instead of being pedantic and attempting to nitpick the person's statement whom you quoted, you could simply give your opinion on why anybody should even consider trying to rebuild the Core classes from the ground-up using ToB mechanics when you could simply play the ToB classes themselves.

[gbprime]

You play a Paladin or a Fighter for the mechanics of what they can do. Paladin gets the turn undead and spellcasting foo, and if you play one you capitalize on that. Fighters get the feat chains online early in game, like Three Mountains. (But after level 8 or so, yeah, you're switching out to Warblade...)

[Draz74]

There was a project in the homebrew section of these forums with ACFs adding martial maneuvers to most melee classes. It was very well done.

Fax Celestis had the most popular such project, but his site seems to be down again these days.

Of course there are also lots of homebrews that are a little more extensive than ACFs, such as PId6's ToB-based versions of the Marshal and Swashbuckler.

[JadePhoenix]

Fax Celestis had the most popular such project, but his site seems to be down again these days.

Of course there are also lots of homebrews that are a little more extensive than ACFs, such as PId6's ToB-based versions of the Marshal and Swashbuckler.

Hm, what I'm thinking about is not any of those.
it's really just a few ACFs. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT: Found it. It's this, by T. G. Oskar. Great homebrewer.

[Tal_Akaan]

The thought process that led to this question wasn’t so much about balance, but making combat a bit more dynamic . I thought if I gave the more martially minded classes a handful of maneuvers for each encounter it would help eliminate the stand still and full attack it until it’s dead mentality. I know there are many other ways to handle that situation, but I liked the idea of my players using maneuvers tactically like they use spells.

[eggs]

I've used the Dreamscarred Press guys' Sublime Marshal and Ranger.

One of my players wanted to play a Paladin with the Mount and Spells swapped out for crummy progression from Iron Heart and Devoted Spirit. I gave him the go-ahead. It worked alright, but the refresh mechanic he proposed wound up screwing him over - it was supposed to work really well mounted and really poorly on foot, but his mounts kept dying.

If the goal is to make things fresh and interesting, I'd recommend this along with digging up some homebrew disciplines to flesh it out further. The same few maneuvers can get a bit stale when they're the core of the combat system.

[Boci]

I know there are many other ways to handle that situation, but I liked the idea of my players using maneuvers tactically like they use spells.

So the maneuvres would be per day rather than per encounter?

[sonofzeal]

While the designers surely intended them to be played alongside the Core classes, the point that you so egregiously missed is that it's generally accepted that the ToB classes are in every way superior to their Core counterparts.

Not in every way, no. Except Unarmed Swordsage over Monk, but that's almost a given.

Crusader is generally superior to Paladin, but there's a few reasons that Pally might fit you better. Sorcadins get a little more synergy than Sorcaders. There's a lot of Paladin-specific content out there like ACFs and PrCs, that Crusaders can't get access to. Paladins are still pretty much the kings of mounted combat (a niche role, but not an unpopular one). Crusaders are better tanks, often better healers, usually better damage dealers... but Paladins still have a few niches.

Warblades over Fighters is a bit more obvious, but the Warblade bonus feat list is pitiful, and what with all the splatbooks out there you can usually find productive things to do with Fighter Bonus Feats. Fighters are very much a "make your own niche" class, and that still applies. Fighters can be better Trippers or Archers than Warblades can, just as two examples. If a Fighter focuses on one particular trick, they'll usually be able to get that trick above the level a Warblade can match. The Warblade is decidedly the better all-around warrior, but the Fighter class still has its uses.


tl;dr - beware categorical claims or phrases like "in every way".

[JadePhoenix]

While the designers surely intended them to be played alongside the Core classes, the point that you so egregiously missed is that it's generally accepted that the ToB classes are in every way superior to their Core counterparts.

And the point you so egregiously missed is that I was replying to someone claiming they were intended as replacements.

[Tal_Akaan]

So the maneuvres would be per day rather than per encounter?

To be honest, I haven't thought that far ahead yet. It could be a possibility though.

[Lans]

I like the idea of giving fighters paladins, monks and damn near everybody else a bit of ToB. Maybe at half level or restricted to one school, or even the daily use idea.

[Lans]

I like the idea of giving fighters paladins, monks and damn near everybody else a bit of ToB. Maybe at half level or restricted to one school, or even the daily use idea.