I'd like to ask that people not make disparraging remarks about my DM in this thread. He is a friend and I'd like to show him this thread. I asked for helpful suggestions not to turn this into another "My DM is an idiot thread" like the link someone posted.
He has cited that requiring material components is a check against spellcasters which many people here seem to overlook.
So far no one has said anything that negates his assertion that ToB makes core melee classes obsolete.
If someone felt like being civil and eloquent so I can show him a properly thought out perspective on the matter, I'd love to be able to articulate why classes like Monk and Paladin suck that DOESN'T rely on "x classes are better." In other words if one was playing core-ish only why would one choose to not play a monk? And please no "Just play Druid 20" suggestions. We all know casters are god, but not everyone wants to play a caster all the time.
Help me out here!
Thanks...
Okay, I'll try to help and be constructive. I'll even do it from a DM's perspective, as I spend a lot of time "behind the screen" (I don't roll with a screen, but you get the point).
Material components are fairly negligible. You get all the cheap ones for just carrying a pouch. You may also carry multiple pouches, so trying to disarm a character of their pouch won't do much for you. The few spells with expensive components are often actually expensive focuses, which are not expended in the spellcasting. The few that are components can be replicated by spells with cheap components.
Trying to argue that ToB classes don't make core melee classes obsolete is an exercise in futility. They do, there's really no way around that. However, as a DM, he needs to consider whether the core melee classes *SHOULD* be viewed as desirable. Technically, you can make a pretty powerful barbarian, so I don't really view that class as incredibly awful (though it requires a specific style of build). As a DM, I take the following perspective: ToB classes are what the Fighter, Paladin, and Rogue (Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage respectively) should have been in the original print. In order to create intra-party balance, characters of all classes need to be somewhat on the same level. Wizards, clerics, and druids played intelligently make the other classes look like Skippy the Punk. ToB classes played with even an average level of intelligence bring melee closer to the power level of casters, possibly to a similar level as a caster played with average intelligence.
ToB classes help remove the mindlessness of melee combat. Instead of a player being relegated to "I press A and auto-attack!" every...single....round...they get a selection of abilities that act like magic. ToB classes allow melee characters to actually participate in the strategic game, rather than being hopelessly relegated to smashing on their "attack button" (I can't help but compare core melee to video games, they're just that mindless). You see, D&D encounters are a fast, lethal game where if you can't do something more than auto-attack, you lose. Martial adepts make melee classes able to participate in a similar strategic setting as spellcasters. The only remotely viable strategic maneuver that a fighter can do is trip, and the party wizard can do it more effectively than the fighter at level 1. By level 8, tripping is virtually impossible for the fighter. Now, he has invested in a tactic that doesn't work anymore. Creatures are too large, too strong, flying, or whatever, and cannot be affected by his trips.
Disarm, sunder, and the other core melee strategic options are bad. Disarming quickly becomes nearly impossible after level 1, and never really matters all that much in the grand scheme of combat. Sundering destroys your loot, and your party will hate you for it. Grappling is a good way to get yourself eaten alive, if you can even pull it off. Pretending that non-spellcasting humanoids are a threat beyond level 7 is a mistake, and spellcasters don't care if you can grapple them because they laugh at being grappled (Dimension Door, Teleport, Travel domain, freedom of movement, etc.).
In summary: the core melee classes were poorly designed as an afterthought to the magic system. Ignoring this clear and simple fact is a mistake. What the Tome of Battle brings to the table for melee classes is the ability to participate where they could not. If it is not yet clear why this is true, I can continue to explain in a later post.
Monks are bad because they have no relevant class features. They pay through the teeth for enhancement bonuses that are something like 4 to 8 times more expensive than a +1 sword (don't feel like looking it up). Stunning fist is a joke, as it targets the strongest creature save and doesn't even have a relevant effect (being stunned doesn't matter). Evasion comes on a ring, or with spells. Disease and poison immunity don't matter, as by the time you get them you've stopped caring about disease and poison (they are both low level threats, and even then are hardly a threat). Spell resistance isn't useful, as by the time you get it spellcasters have a myriad of options with SR: No that obliterate you. IIRC, you don't have any way to get reach, even when enlarged (maybe that was just a houserule from my last DM, though). You have 3/4 BAB and you are a melee-focused class. You are subpar in almost every way to any other melee class, and none of your class features matter.
Paladins are bad because their class features are terrible, with perhaps the notable exception of level 2. Smite Evil grants negligible bonus damage a small number of times per day. Your spells aren't great. You can't turn undead, even though you get it as a class feature. Also, you're highly restricted in your actions due to that pesky "Paladin's Code" thing that gets in the way of smart gameplay consistently. Rather than actually doing your job, you spend time considering how this might affect your alignment. You are, in pretty much every way, worse than even a fighter since you're a melee class without bonus feats.
In summary, again, ToB classes bring to the table the ability for melee classes to actually participate is a reasonable way to the strategic nature of a fast, deadly game where if you can't do more than hit point damage you lose. When I DM, I hand players the ToB and say "Use this" because I want them to have fun, rather than be a waste of space. In fact, I combine the core classes with the ToB classes to some level.
When spell casters are changing the nature of reality with a standard action, being the "big dumb guy with a sword" that only has the ability to pewpewpew for fairly negligible damage as a full round action isn't fun.
Sorry for the Wall of Text.