No Martial Study feat at first level? [Archive] - Wizards Community

No Martial Study feat at first level? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
fissionessence
03-12-08, 11:54 PM I read that the martial study feat is unavailable at first level because the initiator level of a non-martial adept is effectively 0, so the character would not meet the prerequisites of even a first-level maneuver. This all makes sense (although I would be perfectly pleased if it is not the case). However . . .

On page 130 of the Tome of Battle, the sample Shadow Sun ninja, Doomveil, is a monk 6/Shadow Sun ninja 2. In order to qualify as a Shadow Sun ninja, Doomveil would have had to take the Martial Study feat three times. This is evident in her list of feats, but in order to qualify by level 7 she'd need to have taken the feat once a 1st, once at 3rd, and once at 6th. I can't think of any other way to get her the feats necessary in order to take her 7th level as a Shadow Sun ninja, yet if Martial Study is unavailable at 1st level, then, well . . .

What's the deal?

~ fissionessence
Kouk
03-12-08, 11:58 PM I can't state categorically without digging out the book and looking myself, but a plain fact of these rulebooks is that example characters do not always match the actual rules.

If you look in some errata for other books, you will see that it frequently is the case that they make mistakes with example characters.

Why this is the case, I can only speculate -- they are using different versions of the rules when they make up the characters, or create example characters extremely quickly and sloppily, or just forgot how 3.5 works with all the work they were doing on 4th (if you want to be generous).
runestar
03-13-08, 12:02 AM Interestingly enough, all the npcs in the book follow the same trend of rounding fractional IL up, which makes me wonder if it was meant as a special exception to the rules that you normally round down.

However, the rest of the book is silent on this. Maybe the errata will clarify this.:)
Crimson_Concerto
03-13-08, 12:25 AM Please take a look at the picture of the Swordsage, Crimson Mask... wielding a bow. Look at his character sheet, he didn't even take the necessary proficiency and yet he still has no non-proficiency penalty to hit. Would you therefore conclude that they meant for Swordsages to be proficient with ranged weapons as well? Because that kind of goes against the entire class's concept...

Sample NPCs always have something wrong with them. :rolleyes:

A 1st level non-martial adept character has an IL of 0, so your initial conclusion is correct: it cannot benefit from Martial Study.
Mr_Teapot
03-13-08, 01:14 AM I recall reading somewhere that the minimum IL was 1, so you could take Martial Study at 1st level. But I can't find the text to back that up now. Perhaps it was in the custServ answers thread, or a Sage Advice answer.

But yeah, the sample NPCs in ToB (or any 3rd ed book, for that matter) don't follow the rules very well.
runestar
03-13-08, 01:30 AM But yeah, the sample NPCs in ToB (or any 3rd ed book, for that matter) don't follow the rules very well.

That does not mean they are all wrong.

When you see an entry that contradicts your understanding of the rules, it is typically due to 1 of 2 reasons - the entry really is in error, or your knowledge of the mechanics is flawed. However, how do we know which is which?

3 npcs all bucking the same rule and rounding their IL up. Seems like too much of a coincidence, even if it may be an error...:P
mplindustries
03-13-08, 01:33 AM No where does it say you need to have an Initiator level above 0 to take Martial Study or even to use a maneuver (I'm honestly hard-pressed to find any maneuver that uses your initiator level to determine anything). This is enough to convince me, but here's more just in case.

The closest thing is a chart detailing the "maximum level maneuver" an initiator of a given level can have. However, it does not list initiator level 0. So, there are two assumptions one can make:
1) There is no such thing as Initiator level 0, and so the minimum is 1st.
2) Initiator level 0 does not have a maximum level maneuver, meaning they can theoretically have any level maneuver (Of course, it'd be generally impossible to meet the pre-reqs of any higher than 1st level maneuver at initiator level 0, and you thereafter would not qualify for that feat as soon as you gained a level.)

There is no logical basis for assuming something not on the chart can not take any maneuvers, as the base assumption (by detailing someone's maximum) is that everyone could do it.

So, I guess the end result is, either way you look at it, and as silly as the argument for it becomes, you can take martial study with an initiator level 0.
Nirid
03-13-08, 02:02 AM This may be a case of round down, minimum one. They've done similar when uses of class abilities are linked to an ability modifier.
runestar
03-13-08, 02:11 AM This may be a case of round down, minimum one. They've done similar when uses of class abilities are linked to an ability modifier.

Now all we are left is the case of the jade phoenix mage, where it really is rounded up (his 5 wizard lvs provided an IL of 3, rather than 2). The ruby knight vindicator as well.:P
Nirid
03-13-08, 02:32 AM Just because I can work miracles doesn't mean I can teach the people of WotC basic arithmetic. Or apparently their own rule set.
navar100
03-13-08, 03:02 AM Similar anecdote: Vardalak Axebreaker, pg. 26, is a 5th level Warblade with Absolute Steel Stance, a 3rd level stance. However, Warblades get their second stance at 4th level and thus don't qualify for 3rd level stances. (Stance progression is screwed up in Book of Nine Swords in their own right.) Yet another NPC breaking RAW.
JulesCARV
03-13-08, 03:18 AM I think that the rule here should be "round down, to a minimum of 1."

2) Initiator level 0 does not have a maximum level maneuver, meaning they can theoretically have any level maneuver (Of course, it'd be generally impossible to meet the pre-reqs of any higher than 1st level maneuver at initiator level 0, and you thereafter would not qualify for that feat as soon as you gained a level.)

w00t! Mountain Tombstone Strike as a level 1 fighter!
mplindustries
03-13-08, 10:28 AM w00t! Mountain Tombstone Strike as a level 1 fighter!
Don't gain a level! Then its all invalid. ;P
LostZephyr
03-16-08, 01:13 AM If you have five other stone dragon maneuvers at first level...o_o
Howland Reed
03-16-08, 02:13 AM If you have five other stone dragon maneuvers at first level...

My ToB lists no maneuver prereqs for Mountain Tombstone Strike. That's why martial dippers love it.
aelryinth
03-16-08, 01:44 PM Level 9 manuver, still need the IL of 17. Unfortunately, if you dip Fighter to take a bonus feat to study it at 17, your Fighter IL is only 8 and you'll not qualify.

I would like to point out that by the rules, I believe almost every NPC in the book doesn't work. The Master of 9 has too many feats. Half-elves dont' get free bow proficiency (elves do), and you've pointed out some other errors.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

===Aelryinth

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fissionessence 03-12-08, 11:54 PM	I read that the martial study feat is unavailable at first level because the initiator level of a non-martial adept is effectively 0, so the character would not meet the prerequisites of even a first-level maneuver. This all makes sense (although I would be perfectly pleased if it is not the case). However . . . On page 130 of the Tome of Battle, the sample Shadow Sun ninja, Doomveil, is a monk 6/Shadow Sun ninja 2. In order to qualify as a Shadow Sun ninja, Doomveil would have had to take the Martial Study feat three times. This is evident in her list of feats, but in order to qualify by level 7 she'd need to have taken the feat once a 1st, once at 3rd, and once at 6th. I can't think of any other way to get her the feats necessary in order to take her 7th level as a Shadow Sun ninja, yet if Martial Study is unavailable at 1st level, then, well . . . What's the deal? ~ fissionessence
Kouk 03-12-08, 11:58 PM	I can't state categorically without digging out the book and looking myself, but a plain fact of these rulebooks is that example characters do not always match the actual rules. If you look in some errata for other books, you will see that it frequently is the case that they make mistakes with example characters. Why this is the case, I can only speculate -- they are using different versions of the rules when they make up the characters, or create example characters extremely quickly and sloppily, or just forgot how 3.5 works with all the work they were doing on 4th (if you want to be generous).
runestar 03-13-08, 12:02 AM	Interestingly enough, all the npcs in the book follow the same trend of rounding fractional IL up, which makes me wonder if it was meant as a special exception to the rules that you normally round down. However, the rest of the book is silent on this. Maybe the errata will clarify this.:)
Crimson_Concerto 03-13-08, 12:25 AM	Please take a look at the picture of the Swordsage, Crimson Mask... wielding a bow. Look at his character sheet, he didn't even take the necessary proficiency and yet he still has no non-proficiency penalty to hit. Would you therefore conclude that they meant for Swordsages to be proficient with ranged weapons as well? Because that kind of goes against the entire class's concept... Sample NPCs always have something wrong with them. :rolleyes: A 1st level non-martial adept character has an IL of 0, so your initial conclusion is correct: it cannot benefit from Martial Study.
Mr_Teapot 03-13-08, 01:14 AM	I recall reading somewhere that the minimum IL was 1, so you could take Martial Study at 1st level. But I can't find the text to back that up now. Perhaps it was in the custServ answers thread, or a Sage Advice answer. But yeah, the sample NPCs in ToB (or any 3rd ed book, for that matter) don't follow the rules very well.
runestar 03-13-08, 01:30 AM	But yeah, the sample NPCs in ToB (or any 3rd ed book, for that matter) don't follow the rules very well. That does not mean they are all wrong. When you see an entry that contradicts your understanding of the rules, it is typically due to 1 of 2 reasons - the entry really is in error, or your knowledge of the mechanics is flawed. However, how do we know which is which? 3 npcs all bucking the same rule and rounding their IL up. Seems like too much of a coincidence, even if it may be an error...:P
mplindustries 03-13-08, 01:33 AM	No where does it say you need to have an Initiator level above 0 to take Martial Study or even to use a maneuver (I'm honestly hard-pressed to find any maneuver that uses your initiator level to determine anything). This is enough to convince me, but here's more just in case. The closest thing is a chart detailing the "maximum level maneuver" an initiator of a given level can have. However, it does not list initiator level 0. So, there are two assumptions one can make: 1) There is no such thing as Initiator level 0, and so the minimum is 1st. 2) Initiator level 0 does not have a maximum level maneuver, meaning they can theoretically have any level maneuver (Of course, it'd be generally impossible to meet the pre-reqs of any higher than 1st level maneuver at initiator level 0, and you thereafter would not qualify for that feat as soon as you gained a level.) There is no logical basis for assuming something not on the chart can not take any maneuvers, as the base assumption (by detailing someone's maximum) is that everyone could do it. So, I guess the end result is, either way you look at it, and as silly as the argument for it becomes, you can take martial study with an initiator level 0.
Nirid 03-13-08, 02:02 AM	This may be a case of round down, minimum one. They've done similar when uses of class abilities are linked to an ability modifier.
runestar 03-13-08, 02:11 AM	This may be a case of round down, minimum one. They've done similar when uses of class abilities are linked to an ability modifier. Now all we are left is the case of the jade phoenix mage, where it really is rounded up (his 5 wizard lvs provided an IL of 3, rather than 2). The ruby knight vindicator as well.:P
Nirid 03-13-08, 02:32 AM	Just because I can work miracles doesn't mean I can teach the people of WotC basic arithmetic. Or apparently their own rule set.
navar100 03-13-08, 03:02 AM	Similar anecdote: Vardalak Axebreaker, pg. 26, is a 5th level Warblade with Absolute Steel Stance, a 3rd level stance. However, Warblades get their second stance at 4th level and thus don't qualify for 3rd level stances. (Stance progression is screwed up in Book of Nine Swords in their own right.) Yet another NPC breaking RAW.
JulesCARV 03-13-08, 03:18 AM	I think that the rule here should be "round down, to a minimum of 1." 2) Initiator level 0 does not have a maximum level maneuver, meaning they can theoretically have any level maneuver (Of course, it'd be generally impossible to meet the pre-reqs of any higher than 1st level maneuver at initiator level 0, and you thereafter would not qualify for that feat as soon as you gained a level.) w00t! Mountain Tombstone Strike as a level 1 fighter!
mplindustries 03-13-08, 10:28 AM	w00t! Mountain Tombstone Strike as a level 1 fighter! Don't gain a level! Then its all invalid. ;P
LostZephyr 03-16-08, 01:13 AM	If you have five other stone dragon maneuvers at first level...o_o
Howland Reed 03-16-08, 02:13 AM	If you have five other stone dragon maneuvers at first level... My ToB lists no maneuver prereqs for Mountain Tombstone Strike. That's why martial dippers love it.
aelryinth 03-16-08, 01:44 PM	Level 9 manuver, still need the IL of 17. Unfortunately, if you dip Fighter to take a bonus feat to study it at 17, your Fighter IL is only 8 and you'll not qualify. I would like to point out that by the rules, I believe almost every NPC in the book doesn't work. The Master of 9 has too many feats. Half-elves dont' get free bow proficiency (elves do), and you've pointed out some other errors. Ah well, c'est la vie. ===Aelryinth