Aah DM says no Tome of Battle, now what lol.

I have no idea why so many DMs hate Tome of Battle. Apparently melees aren't allowed to have fun.

Enilas, a lot of people say that. They say things like, "Well, the fighter can do clever things like swing from ropes, use terrain, and try clever tricks. You just have to think out of the box." The problem is that those same options are available to the casters, and they have many more ways to take advantage of them.

This isn't to say noncasters have to suck. But they require more work, and not all non-caster classes are equal. Fighter is one of the weaker classes because it has the fewest useful options in combat. Warblade is a better non-caster option, and will be much more useful to the party.

EDIT: That sucks. ToB is much better balanced than the vanilla melee classes.

So suggestions?

Well, for one thing, I'd probably take one level of Barbarian. I know it's a little cheesy, but if you have access to Complete Champion, you can pick up Pounce and Rage 1/day in one level, while keeping the full BAB thing going, which is nice. As you level a little, Pounce can be really helpful. And if you have access to Unearthed Arcana, you can get the Whirling SomethingOrOther mechanic instead of Rage, which still gives you STR, but also gives you DEX and +AC, and an extra attack a round, which combos nicely with Pounce.

I haven't built a non-ToB or Swift Hunter melee in a long time.

Swash3/Rogue3/Dread Pirate 10

You might as well buckle your swash with style.

If you weren't locked into swashbuckler levels, I'd suggest a Horizon Tripper build.

But since you are, you might consider dipping 3 levels in Rogue, pick up the Daring Outlaw feat, then go back and dump the rest of your levels into Swashbuckler.

But it is, it is a glorious thing to be a Pirate King

In my experience, it generally boils down to one of the following:

• "It feels too much like magic." In their minds, melee characters shouldn't be tossing around spell effects. Don't ask me why these guys allow paladins, rangers, and hexblades in their games.
• "I don't want to learn another set of mechanics." 3.5 already has rules on top of rules: melee, arcane magic, divine magic, psionics, soul melds, truenaming, skill tricks ... taking the time to learn how martial practices work is simply overwhelming. Personally, I don't agree. I found the rules to be elegant and easy to master.
• "It's not balanced." For some reason, a lot of people seem to feel that martial practices unbalance the game. This is bunk, of course, as they merely give melee types the ability to come a bit closer to balance with pure casters. Given that most martial practices have absolutely NO utility (i.e., they are purely combat-focused), caster still rule.
• "I don't like the mechanics." I think this is a cop-out, as the mechanics for martial practices are pretty much the same as a melee attack or a swift-action spell. It's the refresh mechanics that are a bit odd in some cases, but not prohibitively so.
• "I'm protesting." WTH? Like not using ToB is somehow going to bring back development of the 3.5 rules?!

I, for one, LOVE Tome of Battle. I haven't had that much fun playing a sword-and-board type (a drow warblade) since my very first AD&D fighter waaaaaaay back when I was 9. A swordsage focused on unarmed strikes and Setting Sun maneuvers is more of a monk than a monk. Never really got the crusader ... but then I've never been one for the overly pious types. Give me a sap and a pool of shadow any day.

As a DM who formerly didn't allow ToB, I can answer that question.
Because in their minds, melee actions attacks shouldn't be spell effects. If a character casts a spell, let them use a spell effect. If they use a magic item to produce a spell effect, let it be a spell effect. If they swing a sword, that's not a spell effect thematically, so it shouldn't be, mechanically.