Question about D&D 3.5. I've heard that an unarmed Swordsage

>>48671110
There's a suggestion for a variant in the book that describes how you would do it.

>>48671110

Tome of Battle, page 20, under "adaptation". It is basically an Alternative Class Feature, where you trade the Swordsage's light armour proficiency for Improved Unarmed Strike and unarmed damage as per Monk.

>>48671158
>>48671259
Didn't really want to try and modify the class like that, but it seems harmless enough. Thanks.

>>48671285
It's a legit change cited in the same book as the class, so it's not even a real ACF per se, more like a subset of the class itself. You could say it's between an actual ACF and the choice you get with Rangers of which bonus feat you want with your Fighting Style.

>>48671110
that's weird the picture you posted won't load.

what's swordsage? sounds retarded

>>48671683
Read the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords. It's one of the only decent supplements to come out for 3.5, giving the system actually good martial character options.

>>48671764
What is wrong with your post man? How'd you do that?

>>48671683

The name Swordsage is indeed retarded, as is the fluff in the entire book. However, the rules for it are clearly meant to replace Rogues and Monks, they just slapped on some bullshit fluff because they did not want to admit it was an experiment for the next edition of D&D.

>>48671849

His post looks normal to me, its probably an error on your side.

>>48671871
Weird. Well, I still don't know what the hell you guys are talking about, I can't read a chunk of that post. Is this some kind of homebrew book you guys are talking about? What experiment?

>>48671897

No, it is not a homebrew book. Tome of Battle: the Book of Nine Swords is an official supplement to D&D 3.5 published by Wizards of the Coast in August 2006.

>>48671928
Okay whatever man neat trick, ha ha, cool joke on the new guy.

Fuck off

>>48671942
>>48671897
>>48671849
>>48671683

whatever bit you're trying to do isn't landing

File: scared.png (39KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 200x200px

>>48671683
>>48671849
>>48671897
>>48671942
I don't understand.

File: Level 20 Swordsage.webm (3MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x404px

Unarmed Swordsage is better than Monks purely because their options aren't limited to stand in one spot and Flurry

But what do I know the only time I ever played one was in a Gestalt campaign

>>48672800
It's novel. You'll have to give him that.

>>48671536
To be fair, so is the Arcane Swordsage and that is retarded broken.

>>48674258

You're getting trolled, bro. Some dude's decided to pretend that the Book of Nine Swords doesn't exist, comlete with saying any post mentioning it is nonsensical or broken. My guess is that he's a hardcore 3.5 fan who feels that the book is 2stronk because the classes in it are better than an unoptimized core fighter. He probably posts in /pfg/ about how the unchained monk is OP and the original version was perfectly good enough.

>>48675367
I have a friend that unironically believes ToB is overpowered. It hurts me every time we talk about it.

>>48675859
I have one, too. He gets this look on his face whenever I mention disciplines or maneuvers. He'll happily talk about "god-wizard" builds, but thinks that ToB is worse than psionics(which he also thinks is OP).

File: Fighter.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

If anything, Tome of Battle is not powerful enough. My own group uses pdf related as our "fighter" class: it is a mix of Swordsage and Warblade, and has the strengths of both.

>>48678769
Looks cool anon