Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tectorman 02-18-08, 10:41 AM	The issue was raised on the thread "Tome of Battle: Opinions After A Year", and as such was drowned out by the main topic of the thread (I'm not complaining; it wasn't the main topic; it was a derail and deserved to be glossed over there). So here's where I bring it up in its own thread. IMO, the few comments never carved out a definitive answer, hence the thread. Take a Something8/(Any Martial Adept)1. His initiator level is 5th and as such has up to 3rd level maneuvers available for him to learn. Does this include his stances? The martial adept classes all say something along the lines of "gets a 1st level stance when he begins play", but does "begins play" really apply at 9th level? Begin the thread.
dman11235 02-18-08, 12:13 PM	Yes. You can choose any stance you qualify for. Just remember that some of the higher level stances have maneuver prereqs.
Reyemile 02-18-08, 01:10 PM	Wrong, I'm afraid. Check the language of the "stance" ability. It's written quite explicitly that you "begin play with knowledge of one 1st level stance".
dman11235 02-18-08, 01:34 PM	Hmm, you're right. I thought stances were treated the same as maneuvers for this sort of thing. And for prereqs and such. My bad.
navar100 02-18-08, 02:27 PM	Wrong, I'm afraid. Check the language of the "stance" ability. It's written quite explicitly that you "begin play with knowledge of one 1st level stance". I'm not quite convinced. I still see it as semantics. Classes are written in terms of starting as a 1st level character with that class. However, the Initiator classes are the first classes to take into account other classes to determine effective Initiator level. A 9th level rogue multiclassing into wizard at 10th level ignores the 9 rogue levels for determining wizard abilities. He's a 1st level wizard in all ways as far as the wizard class is concerned. He can only get 1st level spells, not 3rd level spells. However, if instead the rogue multiclassed into swordsage, the swordsage does not ignore the 9 rogue levels. He is a 1st level swordsage, but he's a 5th level Initiate. He's not limited to 1st level maneuvers; he can take 3rd level maneuvers. It's not the same multiclassing anymore. Ideally this should have been clarified within the multiclassing rules of the book.
StruckingFuggle 02-18-08, 02:36 PM	I'm in the camp of "the rules explicitly disallow it, but it's either a mistake (like stance progression), or it's silly and not at all an unreasonable houserule to ignore".
dman11235 02-18-08, 04:09 PM	I'm kind of in that camp too Strucking. I just thought it was that way RAW because that's the way it would make sense to run it.
Tectorman 02-18-08, 04:21 PM	"Begin play with knowledge of a 1st-level stance" would seem to apply when you're, you know, beginning play. Ergo, why would it be applicable eight levels later? And suggesting that it's for campaigns that begin at level 9 and above seems wrong, too.
Mad_Jack 02-18-08, 08:03 PM	I think this is another instance of "oh, we didn't even think about that...". How many of the class descriptions in any of the books actually specifically mention how multiclassing into them after level 1 might affect their various class features? I'm personally of the opinion that the authors put the whole "1st level stance" thing in there because it was simply the default condition - a first level character starting out as a level 1 swordsage can pick one stance. Since they've got an initiator level of 1, they only have access to the 1st level stances. It's not RAW and may not be RAI, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me to be able to pick a higher-level stance if you have an initiator level above 1st when you become a 1st level TOB character - it takes two Initiator levels to gain access to each level of manuevers, and non-initiator classes only count for 1/2 initiator levels, so the stances that a multiclassed character would have access to according to his initiator level wouldn't be that high above 1st level anyway. A tenth level fighter/1st level warblade has an initiator level of 6 which, going strictly by initiator level, would allow him to pick a third level stance. A fighter 19/swordsage 1 would have an initiator level of 10. That's only a fifth level stance for a 20th level character. I don't have the book at hand at this particular moment, but I think it's likely some of the higher level stances would have prereqs that couldn't be met (at least not without serious planning) by a 1st level TOB character. I really don't see this as overpowering.
Nephlite 02-18-08, 09:52 PM	The issue was raised on the thread "Tome of Battle: Opinions After A Year", and as such was drowned out by the main topic of the thread (I'm not complaining; it wasn't the main topic; it was a derail and deserved to be glossed over there). So here's where I bring it up in its own thread. IMO, the few comments never carved out a definitive answer, hence the thread. Take a Something8/(Any Martial Adept)1. His initiator level is 5th and as such has up to 3rd level maneuvers available for him to learn. Does this include his stances? The martial adept classes all say something along the lines of "gets a 1st level stance when he begins play", but does "begins play" really apply at 9th level? Begin the thread. I still read it as 1st level stance only. The manuevers aren't written with a 1st level limit byt the stance was. I think there is some reason for this. I mean, why not copy/paste if that will work? (If you've read enough of WotC work that is the usual way they do it). Same as a multiclass Fighter 1/Wizard 1: he gains a spellbook as well as a couple free 1st level spells based on Int mod.
NineInchNall 02-18-08, 10:22 PM	I'm kind of in that camp too Strucking. :rant: Which camp is that? The one that says that WotC designers have so little concept of the math that composes the game system for which they develop that they actually think the Samurai is a solid contributor? That one? The way the class descriptions are written disallows picking up anything beyond a first level stance. This is lame and "balanced" only insofar as it doesn't make a character that's too powerful. Unfortunately, it's unbalanced in that the stance that one gets is not appropriate to the character's level. :censored:
dman11235 02-18-08, 10:26 PM	What are you talking about NineInchNall? I said I agree with Struckings stance on this ruling. It's RAW one way, but I think it should be RAW the other. Why are you getting so worked up over this? EDIT: You put some many words in my mouth. Please don't do that.
NineInchNall 02-18-08, 10:41 PM	It's just me getting angry at WotC. Nevermind. :)
archerpwr 02-18-08, 10:54 PM	:rant: Which camp is that? The one that says that WotC designers have so little concept of the math that composes the game system for which they develop that they actually think the Samurai is a solid contributor? That one? The way the class descriptions are written disallows picking up anything beyond a first level stance. This is lame and "balanced" only insofar as it doesn't make a character that's too powerful. Unfortunately, it's unbalanced in that the stance that one gets is not appropriate to the character's level. :censored: It's an error, but it isn't that bad. Crusaders and swordsages get another stance at only level two, so it's no big deal for them. That only leaves iron heart stances that are a pain to pick up, which are frankly, pretty lame.
StruckingFuggle 02-18-08, 11:11 PM	:rant: Which camp is that? The one that says that WotC designers have so little concept of the math that composes the game system for which they develop that they actually think the Samurai is a solid contributor? That one? The way the class descriptions are written disallows picking up anything beyond a first level stance. This is lame and "balanced" only insofar as it doesn't make a character that's too powerful. Unfortunately, it's unbalanced in that the stance that one gets is not appropriate to the character's level. :censored: This is pretty much exactly why, when I say, "well, the rules do sorta clearly say you can't", I follow it up with "but it would be perfectly reasonable to houserule otherwise". :) Same with Stance Progression, but I can never remember offhand how to fix it, I need to sit down and figure it out by hand. :(
navar100 02-19-08, 12:48 AM	I still read it as 1st level stance only. The manuevers aren't written with a 1st level limit byt the stance was. I think there is some reason for this. I mean, why not copy/paste if that will work? (If you've read enough of WotC work that is the usual way they do it). Same as a multiclass Fighter 1/Wizard 1: he gains a spellbook as well as a couple free 1st level spells based on Int mod. But as I wrote earlier the Initiator classes are not the same multiclassing rules we've had before. The wizard abilities of a fighter X/wizard 1 totally ignore the X fighter levels. They might as well not exist. However, for a fighter X/warblade 1, warblade does not ignore the X fighter levels. They count for something as parcel to being a warblade. It is not logical for stances to be so restricted.
navar100 02-19-08, 01:02 AM	Same with Stance Progression, but I can never remember offhand how to fix it, I need to sit down and figure it out by hand. :( Delay stance progression by one level for all the classes starting at level 2, but allow swordsage to keep his 6th stance at 20th level. It's not a perfect fix, but it will do. Crusader still misses the 3rd and 6th level stances without a feat, but he gets his 5th level and 8th level stances. Since it's given he can't have every stance, at least Extra Stance is now a good option if he really wants it as opposed to must have just to be a decent martial adept. Warblade is no longer screwed at the 4th level/5th level cusp. He gets a stance that's not 1st level before level 10 now; 11th level in this case. After that, they get first access to level X stance when they get first access to level X+1 maneuvers. Not the greatest, but he never has to take Extra Stance feat to get at least one stance per level stances are given. Swordsage will be delayed one character level. It's like Sorcerer getting a new spell level one level later than wizard. The payoff is that swordsage now gets his 5th stance at 15th level instead of 14th level, thus he gets his 8th level stance where as there are no 7th level stances a RAW swordsage gets screwed out of. Like the warblade he never has to take Extra Stance feat for a particular stance level. Another solution is to leave stance progression as is but allow martial depts to change a stance known every odd level starting at level 5.
runestar 02-19-08, 03:48 AM	Is it possible that the odd stance progression in ToB might be deliberate after all? Perhaps to create some interesting synergies with multiclassing and initiator lv?:P
Talcon 02-19-08, 09:24 AM	Come on Runestar do you think they give that much though to the rules, this is Wotc after all. Look the writers were all looking forward to 4th edition, but still got to put out books to keep getting a paycheck. what we are really talking about breaks down to 3 level stances, is it going break the game if Melee types get a small boost at 9 level, no so give it to them. If you are running a campaign form low levels most PCs will go for the quick combat boost at lower levels, lately I have not seen a Rogue not take swordsage at 5th or 6th level for the goodies boost it is like a standard part of the rogue build. by the time players hit 9th level, magic items take over to fill the damage adds and most are going Pr classes or are spell casters an won't be giving up a caster level just when there power curve is kicking.
navar100 02-19-08, 03:32 PM	Is it possible that the odd stance progression in ToB might be deliberate after all? Perhaps to create some interesting synergies with multiclassing and initiator lv?:P No, it wasn't. I corresponded with Mike Mearls once about the problem. He said it was an oversight.
GuyrtheadamantineOne 02-19-08, 05:27 PM	Come on Runestar do you think they give that much though to the rules, this is Wotc after all. Look the writers were all looking forward to 4th edition, but still got to put out books to keep getting a paycheck. what we are really talking about breaks down to 3 level stances, is it going break the game if Melee types get a small boost at 9 level, no so give it to them. If you are running a campaign form low levels most PCs will go for the quick combat boost at lower levels, lately I have not seen a Rogue not take swordsage at 5th or 6th level for the goodies boost it is like a standard part of the rogue build. by the time players hit 9th level, magic items take over to fill the damage adds and most are going Pr classes or are spell casters an won't be giving up a caster level just when there power curve is kicking. You may be right, but WotC still gave us the marvel that is the ToB, so I won't complain at all.:P
Tectorman 02-20-08, 01:29 PM	There is a difference between the "begins play" phrasing for, say, the PHB classes and the ToB classes. Take the Sorcerer for example. PHB, page 54: "A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells (also called cantrips) and two 1st-level spells of your choice." If I'm right, then that phrase is no longer applicable once you hit second level. What then would adjudicate how many spells of which levels a sorcerer gets to learn at his first sorcerer level if his first sorcerer level is not his first level, period? Table 3-17: Sorcerer Spells Known. And at your first sorcerer level (whenever you may gain it), you get to learn 4 cantrips and 2 1st-level spells. The offending phrase "begins play" is no longer applicable, but the part that still is leads to the same conclusion. So it's still right by proxy. That isn't the case for the ToB.