D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
More like ignores itself to just place some classes in locations as according to how much people love ToB.
as has been said, Crusader has a higher optimization floor, but what im adding is it isnt as remotely flexible as paladin is.
Ignoring Request:
Warblade can force reset their maneuvers
Crusader loves its D4, you can potentially go longer, but it is all chance
Fixed that for you. Like I said: If you think it's wrong, then fix it. Don't complain and then ignore the solution -.- You seem to have a well defined point of view; it might actually help the debate you say you're after if you defined it for the rest of us in a clear and concise manner. Perhaps a new tier list.
On Crusader healing outside combat - all of the strikes that cause healing have qualifiers that you must hit an opponent who's alignment is at least one step away from yours. This limits what they are effective against. I don't think unworn rags and chunks of rock (sans Earth Elementals) get alignments.
However, the Martial Spirit stance doesn't have this clause, or any clause about the target being a viable threat, only that you must make a successful melee attack against an opponent. So it falls upon the DM to place a definition of what an opponent is (unless there is a given definition somewhere, it's not in the PHB's glossary).
If your DM says you can declare some unworn rags or the ground as your opponent and punch your knuckles bloody to heal everybody in the group to full, well ok then, but I doubt it will fly in most games.
Well. This has been...quite useful. Off-topic arguments aside it seems to me that I could use any of the three and have a blast, and that I'm probably best off filling a role for my party depending on what we need.
As a side note, I am quite interested in that unarmed variant, but it seems rather vague in the book itself. Just a sentence mentioning it. Does anyone have a drawn-up progression that I could present to my DM?
As a side note, I am quite interested in that unarmed variant, but it seems rather vague in the book itself. Just a sentence mentioning it. Does anyone have a drawn-up progression that I could present to my DM?
In short, you drop the swordsage's light armor proficiency for Improved Unarmed Strike and the monk's unarmed damage progression. Note that you also have to modify the swordsage's AC Bonus a bit, as the RAW on it actually requires you to be wearing light armor (as opposed to setting light armor as an upper limit. (If your DM is wary, remind him that unarmed combat really isn't as good as armed combat, even with the monk's higher damage.)
One of the very nice things about unarmed swordsage is that it works well with the Shadow Blade feat, which allows a swordsage to run with minimal need for Strength. I highly recommend it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KKL
D&D is its own momentum and does its own fantasy. It emulates itself in an incestuous mess.
Another little thing about the versatility of Adepts: they can pick up maneuvers from their peers more easily. There are certain maneuvers that don't have maneuver prerequisites, and thus can be picked up by way of item or feat - technically by anyone, but you still need have the necessary Initiator Level.
Prime example, the Shadow Teleport line of Shadow Hand. There are three of them, allowing you to teleport 50' as Standard, Move or Swift Action, respectively. A non-Adept will qualify for the Move Action Teleport only very late in their career, and have a refresh problem. A Warblade or Crusader can get it at about the same level as the Swordsage and spam it. And a non-Adept can never qualify for the Swift one. (Though some people argue that the Move one is better, because you need your Swift Actions for other things.) Teleports also tend to have excellent out of combat utility, for that matter.
As for the question of out of combat healing and what constitutes an opponent: I'd say that at the very least, an opponent has to be able to roll Initiative. Which rules out floors and rags. So yeah, the Crusader can't really heal out of combat.
__________________ So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
On four hours sleep a night.
With no sex.
You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.
As a side note, I am quite interested in that unarmed variant, but it seems rather vague in the book itself. Just a sentence mentioning it. Does anyone have a drawn-up progression that I could present to my DM?
Here's the block I usually use in my games:
Unarmed Swordsage adaptation(Tome of Battle): As Swordsage, but lose light armor proficiency, gain the Monk Unarmed Strike class feature(Improved Unarmed Strike, unarmed strike as manufactured & natural weapon, monk damage progression)
I would just like to point out, in response to Aegis, that Martial Spirit stance doesn't, by RAW, actually require you to strike an opponent to heal, only that you make a successful melee attack. As far as RAW is concerned, you could make your full attack against a wall and (assuming you don't actually miss the wall for some reason) heal a person.
What it DOES require an opponent for is to change the target of the healing, so you can, out of and between combats, heal a single person up to full.
__________________
Morituri nolumus morit - We who are about to die... don't want to
"BUT, LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPERMAN." - Death, "Reaperman"
Or you just attack the air. Can't have very high AC. :p
While that kind of interpretation is pretty silly, it's kind of an understandable reaction to the inherent silliness of limiting the Crusader's Band-Aid to in-combat use.
If all else fails, you can do a bit of unarmed sparring. For each 1d3 subdual damage, you heal 2 points of lethal damage, then you rest a couple of hours until the subdual damage is gone, or maybe someone in your party is immune to subdual damage and just serves as punching bag.
Of course, the flavour text shows rather clearly that it's meant to be used in combat, against actual enemies. But players tend to find ways to heal up fully between encounters anyway. So what the hell.
__________________ So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
On four hours sleep a night.
With no sex.
You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.
If all else fails, you can do a bit of unarmed sparring. For each 1d3 subdual damage, you heal 2 points of lethal damage, then you rest a couple of hours until the subdual damage is gone, or maybe someone in your party is immune to subdual damage and just serves as punching bag.
Better yet, find a way to pick up Stormguard Warrior, and then you can make attacks which deal no damage at all to heal people.
For an added bonus, if someone in the party can Dominate, they can tell your (now opponent) target to "try to kill him with your bare hands," and now you can heal everyone, forever, for free.
Unfortunately, all Devoted Spirit maneuvres without prereqs suck, so that'd be two feats spent on the tactic if you were a warblade. On the other hand, SG Warrior is awesome regardless.
__________________
Morituri nolumus morit - We who are about to die... don't want to
"BUT, LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPERMAN." - Death, "Reaperman"
Hopping into this conversation(with little to no knowledge of the actual mechanic) from what I can understand, from a flavor context the sparring makes sense, though if you had that maneuver that lets you destroy physical objects you could probably argue that it's in the same area as sparring if you destroy a 10x10 section of wall.
I would just like to point out, in response to Aegis, that Martial Spirit stance doesn't, by RAW, actually require you to strike an opponent to heal, only that you make a successful melee attack. As far as RAW is concerned, you could make your full attack against a wall and (assuming you don't actually miss the wall for some reason) heal a person.
What it DOES require an opponent for is to change the target of the healing, so you can, out of and between combats, heal a single person up to full.
The last sentence of the ability reads:
Quote:
Each time you hit an opponent in melee, you can choose a different recipient within range to receive this healing.
I think that leans itself toward needing to hit an opponent, as you can't choose a recipient within range if you didn't hit an opponent. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can wildly swing your weapon at nothing in particular and fully heal yourself between combats, but I doubt many DMs will allow it.
Except that the first sentence says only a "successful melee attack." That last sentence could be interpreted as "you have to heal the same person with this stance until you hit an opponent, upon which time you can change the recipient of the healing."
Now, I'm pretty sure that's not what it was MEANT to say, but it remains a valid reading and unless all your wizards do is fling direct damage and your clerics are nothing but walking band-aids, how the devs intended the game to be played is irrelevant.
Keep in mind that ToB has quite a few places where what is written makes no sense, Ironheart Surge being the most ridiculous culprit.
EDIT: Also, "opponent" isn't defined anywhere, which makes things even more tricky.
__________________
Morituri nolumus morit - We who are about to die... don't want to
"BUT, LORD, WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT FOR THE CARE OF THE REAPERMAN." - Death, "Reaperman"
Except that the first sentence says only a "successful melee attack." That last sentence could be interpreted as "you have to heal the same person with this stance until you hit an opponent, upon which time you can change the recipient of the healing."
...
It could, which is why I keep adding the "many DMs probably will not allow this interpretation" clause to my posts. The OP (and the subject of this thread) is for building a character and using it in a game, where readings like that typically don't fly.
I'm not trying saying that it's not a RAW reading, I'm saying that it's not an interpretation you're going to get to use, probably, ever.
Swordsage definitely. I've played one many times and I like them because I am a big of high Dex SAD characters with a high damage output. Crusaders are great tanks, and Warblades are awesome primary melee types. A sworsage can easily float between primary melee, secondary melee, crowd control, skill monkey, stealthy party rolls without batting an eyelash.
Alright I love this question. If your party is low-op you may want to use swordsage, its generally the weakest and desperately needs the adaptive recharge feat or whatever its called. That said it's a lot of fun in my opinion, and Shadow hand is cool if you don't already have a thief or assassin. They are generally the most adaptable, which in my book makes up for low power.
Warblades are the opposite end of the spectrum, much more specialized, excellent primary melee, and really hard to lock down if they decide to be defensive in their selection of effects. They are also really fun, but only if you like what they already do. They are considered the strongest, and may not fit with your party.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Tome of Battle: Which Class?
