PDA

View Full Version : Quick ToB Question!



Defiant
2010-06-30, 05:44 PM
In the manuevres and stances, is the "Level: Crusader 3" a prerequisite?

For example, can my level 11 character who is just going into Crusader (initiator level 5.5, allowing 3rd level manuevres and stances) take the stance "Roots of the Dragon", which has no prerequisites, but has listed "Level: Crusader 3, swordsage 3, warblade 3"?

Greenish
2010-06-30, 05:47 PM
Many hold that at the first level of a martial adept, you have to select a 1st level stance. Otherwise, yes.

Reynard
2010-06-30, 05:48 PM
That's the Maneuver Level, like a Spell Level. Not Class Level.

Defiant
2010-06-30, 05:48 PM
Many hold that at the first level of a martial adept, you have to select a 1st level stance. Otherwise, yes.

Here, I'm going to have to request RAW-only... I don't feel like bugging my DM any more than I already have.

Il_Vec
2010-06-30, 05:49 PM
That is the level of the maneuver, and the classes that usually get them, but it is not a pre-requisite. Keep in mind that conservative readings of the ToB RAW only allow you to take first level stances on your first level on a ToB class.

Defiant
2010-06-30, 05:50 PM
That's the Maneuver Level, like a Spell Level. Not Class Level.

So.... you're saying that for my trip-focused character, who too-often fails trip attempts and gets tripped back, I can take the stance Roots of the Mountain at my very first level??? :smallbiggrin:

Defiant
2010-06-30, 05:51 PM
That is the level of the maneuver, and the classes that usually get them, but it is not a pre-requisite. Keep in mind that conservative readings of the ToB RAW only allow you to take first level stances on your first level on a ToB class.

Provide specific passages... I'm not quite that familiar with the readings.

(please and thank you)

Never mind, found it. Thanks!

Ranos
2010-06-30, 05:52 PM
Yup.
texttext

Reynard
2010-06-30, 05:52 PM
Yes, yes he can.

Defiant
2010-06-30, 05:56 PM
Yes, yes he can.

RAW clearly states that a Crusader begins play with one first-level stance...

No, I cannot :smallfrown:

(barring talking to the DM, but seeing as he's not familiar with the book and I'm not willing to waste his time explaining things, I will honourably follow the strict word of RAW)

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 05:59 PM
RAW clearly states that a Crusader begins play with one first-level stance...

No, I cannot :smallfrown:

(barring talking to the DM, but seeing as he's not familiar with the book and I'm not willing to waste his time explaining things, I will honourably follow the strict word of RAW)

Seeing as you don't begin play if you take a class level after 1st, it's arguable either way.

And yes, "Crusader 3, Warblade 3" listed under a maneuver is just like "Cleric 2, Sor/Wiz 3" under a spell.

Defiant
2010-06-30, 06:01 PM
So three yesses, and one "yes, but there's contention"... I think I'll take your word then, guys! :smallbiggrin:

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 06:21 PM
So three yesses, and one "yes, but there's contention"... I think I'll take your word then, guys! :smallbiggrin:

Mine's more of a "yes, I'd allow it, but check with your DM first".

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-06-30, 06:23 PM
One note on the "Crusader 3, Warblade 3" bit is that your initiator level is half your level, rounded down. So, a Crusader 6 could take Martial Study to grab a "Swordsage 2 (only)" maneuver since his initiator level for whatever that discipline would be would be 3, qualifying him for it.

Susano-wo
2010-06-30, 06:29 PM
...not allowing you to take that because of the phrasing "begins play with 1 level 1 maneuver" is silly. >.>

Since begins play is ambiguous, it needs to be interpretation either way, so there really is no RAW on this. Though the RAW-est would probably assign the same reading as in other instances...the only one i can think of is a Wizard's spellbook. Which specifies that the spellbook begins with all 0th and 3+INT mod 1st level spells.

But really, why should you be restricted in stances, but not powers? it makes no sense. If Stances are Maneuvers, you must acquit. >.>

Edit: Thrice: initiator classes count as full initiator levels for other classes. And Martial Study ignores class restrictions for taking the maneuver

Curmudgeon
2010-06-30, 06:41 PM
Seeing as you don't begin play if you take a class level after 1st, it's arguable either way.
It's not arguable if you follow the rules. Maybe you just need to be aware of what those rules are.

The "begin play" statement is part of the Class Features section of the Crusader class. The Player's Handbook dictates the steps you follow whenever you attain a new class level on pages 58-59. Here are the instructions for the last step:
9. Class Features: Check your character’s class description in this chapter for any new capabilities your character may receive. Many characters gain special attacks or new special powers as they advance in levels. On your first level in the Crusader class, "Stances Known" is a new capability for your character. You follow the rule there:
You begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from the Devoted Spirit, Stone Dragon, or White Raven discipline. At 2nd, 8th, and 14th level, you can choose an additional stance. Because the PH dictates that you only reference the Class Features section of a class when you attain a new level, you "begin play" in a class when that's new for your character: i.e., always at the first level in each class. There is no global "begin play" in the rules; it's only a feature of individual classes.

lsfreak
2010-06-30, 06:44 PM
Because the PH dictates that you only reference the Class Features section of a class when you attain a new level, you "begin play" in a class when that's new for your character: i.e., always at the first level in each class. There is no global "begin play" in the rules; it's only a feature of individual classes.

And even if you reject the RAW argument as not RAI, there's the issue that ToB is dip-friendly enough. Getting only a 1st level stance with your first level is perfectly fair, and how I run ToB dipping.

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 06:49 PM
It's not arguable if you follow the rules. Maybe you just need to be aware of what those rules are....It is arguable if you follow the English language, which those rules are written in. Of course, then you run into problems ("Always X" comes to mind). :smalltongue:


There is no global "begin play" in the rules; it's only a feature of individual classes.

Which is one interpretation; the other is that you "begin play" when you take your first class level at a total ECL of 1.

Again, ask your DM. Personally? I give melee nice things occasionally.

Il_Vec
2010-06-30, 06:55 PM
Which is one interpretation; the other is that you "begin play" when you take your first class level at a total ECL of 1.

Or that you "Begin Play" when you finish doing your character sheet and describing your background and the DM starts saying stuff.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-30, 06:58 PM
Which is one interpretation; the other is that you "begin play" when you take your first class level at a total ECL of 1.
You "interpretation" requires violating the "LEVEL ADVANCEMENT" step specified in the Player's Handbook in order to disregard the rules context where the phrase is used. In my gaming group that's usually referred to as "munchkinism".

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 07:05 PM
You "interpretation" requires violating the "LEVEL ADVANCEMENT" step specified in the Player's Handbook in order to disregard the rules context where the phrase is used. In my gaming group that's usually referred to as "munchkinism".

I have my Player's Handbook in front of me, open to page 58-60. I see nothing in either "Level Advancement" or under "Multiclass Characters" to suggest that either of our interpretations is correct, aside from the paragraph at the bottom of 59 that continues onto 60...

Picking up a new class is not exactly the same as starting a character in that class. Some of the benefits a 1st-level character gains (such as four times the usual number of skill points) represent the advantage of training while the character was young and fresh, with lots of time to practice. When picking up a new class, a character does not receive the following starting benefits given to characters who begin their careers in that class.
Maximum hit points from the first Hit Die.
Quadruple the per-level skill points.
Starting equipment.
Starting gold....which has cursory application, at best.

So now that we've both stated our opinions, I give to the OP for the third time: Ask your DM for his ruling.

Saph
2010-06-30, 07:07 PM
Have to agree with Curmudgeon on this one. Maneuvers don't have the "begins play" clause regarding your level 1 picks, whereas stances do. Obvious conclusion: that line about 'begins play' is there for a reason. I don't see much ambiguity.

As a DM, I'd be much more favourably inclined towards a player who came to me and said "I know the rules say X, but it would really help my character if I could start with a higher-level stance in this case" than I would to someone who tried to argue that "begins play" meant whatever was most advantageous to him.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-30, 07:09 PM
I have my Player's Handbook in front of me, open to page 58-60. I see nothing in either "Level Advancement" or under "Multiclass Characters" to suggest that either of our interpretations is correct
Beginning of page 59, at the end of the "LEVEL ADVANCEMENT" steps. That specifies when (and only when) you reference the Class Features of any character class for new capabilities.

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 07:14 PM
Beginning of page 59, at the end of the "LEVEL ADVANCEMENT" steps. That specifies when (and only when) you reference the Class Features of any character class for new capabilities.

I looked at that. Then I looked at the Crusader description, saw "begins play", and wondered what that meant. I decided that it meant if you begin play as a 1st-level Crusader with no other class levels.

This may not fly under some DMs. It definitely wouldn't under you. If I were going to take a level of a ToB class after 1st level, I'd ask my DM for his ruling. I'd probably say something along the lines of "Hey, I was thinking of picking up a level of Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader and I saw this line in the book; can you tell me what you think it means?"

Susano-wo
2010-06-30, 07:17 PM
Isfreak: so you would be ok, with, to take a maneuver I think is cool, Finishing Move [Iron Heart 7 strike] with on a 13th level Warblade dip, but not, say Tactics of the Wolf [White Raven 3 stance]? It just seems silly. And no, there is no direct rules on what begins play is. The interpretation that it is when the character begins their 1st level of that class is reasonable, in a general sense, but why use it when it makes no sense regarding the rest of the power level gained from that level?

If ToB dipping needs to be nerfed, then so be it, but it seems like a silly way to do it.

And Curmudgeon:

It's not arguable if you follow the rules. Maybe you just need to be aware of what those rules are.

Perhaps its just me, but that comes off as very confrontational and arrogant, as well as essentially personally attacking anyone who disagrees. Is that your intent or am I just misreading here?

balistafreak
2010-06-30, 07:27 PM
And Curmudgeon:


Perhaps its just me, but that comes off as very confrontational and arrogant, as well as essentially personally attacking anyone who disagrees. Is that your intent or am I just misreading here?

Just going to throw in my backing and say Curmudgeon's just a really down-to-earth, that's-the-facts kind of guy, with a near-flawless grasp of RAW. He doesn't attack people not because he's nice, but because he generally doesn't need to. :smallwink:

lsfreak
2010-06-30, 07:35 PM
Isfreak: so you would be ok, with, to take a maneuver I think is cool, Finishing Move [Iron Heart 7 strike] with on a 13th level Warblade dip, but not, say Tactics of the Wolf [White Raven 3 stance]?
For one thing, you can't ever do that without levels in warblade to begin with. You'd need 24 non-warblade class levels in order to get it. In reality, the choice is, at most, 5th level maneuvers with a 1st-level stance, and for practical applications, 3rd-level maneuvers with a 1st-level stance. And no, I don't have a problem with that at all, as stances tend to get more use than maneuvers, and 1st level stances tend to be good enough. Getting some of the better maneuvers, such as Thicket of Blades or Assassin's Stance, with a single dip is too good, in my mind.


Perhaps its just me, but that comes off as very confrontational and arrogant, as well as essentially personally attacking anyone who disagrees. Is that your intent or am I just misreading here?
Curmudgeon takes his rules seriously. If you want to argue something from a houserule, so be it. But don't ever try and pass off RAI/houserules/iffy interpretations as RAW with Curmudgeon around :smallwink:

Curmudgeon
2010-06-30, 07:40 PM
I decided that it meant if you begin play as a 1st-level Crusader with no other class levels.
There's usually very little regard for other classes in a base class description. This context always uses "level" to mean the levels only in that particular class. If you're going to use "begin play" only in the context of 1st character level, then you would need to consistently apply that same reasoning.
At 2nd, 8th, and 14th level, you can choose an additional stance. If you "begin play" only at 1st character level, then only at 2nd, 8th, and 14th character levels would you be able to learn a new Crusader stance -- but you'd still be limited to the "Stances Known" specified on Table 1–1: The Crusader. So by choosing your interpretation to favorably impact stances known with a multiclass Crusader at Crusader 1, you'd also be deleteriously impacting the stance options for that same character at other levels. Somehow I don't think your interpretation was intended to be consistent in this regard.

In any case, I'm mainly concerned (as usual) with getting at the best understanding of the rules. House rules are fine, but you should be up front about changing things you don't like. Selectively ignoring parts of the rules to gain more character power just isn't honest.

acid_ninja
2010-06-30, 07:45 PM
Weighing in on Curmudgeon's side. No other class that grants a (user of particular abilities) level allows you to advance that level by taking levels in another class.

No matter how many levels of Bard you have, when you dip into psion you get 1st level powers. When you dip again at 18th level you only get the stuff a 2nd level psion would get. Admittedly, powers and spells and a lot more versatile, which is why you can even increase your IL through mutli-classing at all. But you still need to learn the basics.

Tar Palantir
2010-06-30, 07:56 PM
Weighing in on Curmudgeon's side. No other class that grants a (user of particular abilities) level allows you to advance that level by taking levels in another class.

No matter how many levels of Bard you have, when you dip into psion you get 1st level powers. When you dip again at 18th level you only get the stuff a 2nd level psion would get. Admittedly, powers and spells and a lot more versatile, which is why you can even increase your IL through mutli-classing at all. But you still need to learn the basics.

However, this is explicitly not the case with non-stance maneuvers. Following a strict RAW reading, I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the 1st level stance only is closer to RAW. However, that seems to me to be about on par with monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes, particularly given the nature of other maneuvers; ie an unintentional oversight, rather than a conscious design decision.

Susano-wo
2010-06-30, 08:12 PM
Isfreak: :smallredface: sorry, I Fail Math Forever, apparently ^_^

So we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess. I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems like the maneuvers at X level are more potent in general than the stances, so getting 3-6 of them would balance out 1 stance regardless of the stances almost always on factor.
(how about the fact that level+1 feat (or 2 feats) gets any stance that they could have gotten through single classing? Seems like, depending on the build, that would be just about as painless.)

EDIT: @Tar: I agree, that's basically my point on the "why not interpret in a way that makes the abilities consistent" thing.

Curmudgeon
2010-06-30, 08:17 PM
... that seems to me to be about on par with monks not being proficient in unarmed strikes
In case you're interested, here's my core set of house rules:

You can cast Feather Fall (redefined as an immediate action spell) when flat-footed.
Monks are proficient with their unarmed strikes.
No ranged full attacks without provoking attacks of opportunity. Going strictly by the letter of the rules full attacks (melee or ranged) never provoke. Each ranged shot provokes an AoO.
Bonus damage from the Factotum's Cunning Insight is negative energy damage when used with a spell or effect that deals negative levels or ability damage, making it consistent with the treatment of bonus damage from sneak attack when used with weaponlike spells.
Rules Compendium made all miss chances, regardless of source, non-stacking (see page 32) — but also allows the DM to vary miss chance percentage situationally. This DM always sets the percentage to be exactly what it would be if that first rule didn't exist. :smallwink:
I'd rather acknowledge rules problems and address them directly, than pretend those problems don't exist.

Greenish
2010-06-30, 08:43 PM
Edit: Thrice: initiator classes count as full initiator levels for other classes.I do believe that to be untrue. To the ToB mobile!

[Edit]: Initiator classes count as full IL for themselves (d'oh) and for prestige classes, but half IL for other initiator classes. The example in the book is a crusader 7/swordsage 5 with crusader IL 9 and swordsage IL 8.

lsfreak
2010-06-30, 09:00 PM
I don't have the book in front of me, but it seems like the maneuvers at X level are more potent in general than the stances, so getting 3-6 of them would balance out 1 stance regardless of the stances almost always on factor.

Personally, I've always found that ToB dips tend to be specifically for the stances. Crushing Roots of the Mountain, Assassin's Stance, Thicket of Blades. The maneuvers themselves are incidental, but highly useful, side bonuses; the stances are what the dip is really after and what gets the most use, and thus a single-level dip is probably too good. If you're dipping into a second ToB class, rather than dipping from a non-ToB base, I don't feel like the extra power from a higher-level stance should be needed.

It's not a rigid rule for me, though. If someone presented a concept, I would be open to letting them go straight into higher-level stances. Part of the reason I default to 1st-level-only is RAW, partly because I feel it's generally better, and partly because I optimize a lot more than the rest of my group and it's a way to keep myself a bit more on their level.

Siosilvar
2010-06-30, 09:01 PM
If you're going to use "begin play" only in the context of 1st character level, then you would need to consistently apply that same reasoning. If you "begin play" only at 1st character level, then only at 2nd, 8th, and 14th character levels would you be able to learn a new Crusader stance -- but you'd still be limited to the "Stances Known" specified on Table 1–1: The Crusader.

How do you get that? "Begin play" and "at X level" are two COMPLETELY different phrases. One refers to, well, beginning play, and the other refers to X level of that class, like all other "at X level" clauses.


In any case, I'm mainly concerned (as usual) with getting at the best understanding of the rules. House rules are fine, but you should be up front about changing things you don't like. Selectively ignoring parts of the rules to gain more character power just isn't honest.I'm not ignoring any part of the rules; I want to know which interpretation here is correct. So far, I have no conclusive proof either way, so I'll go with the "PCs get nice things" interpretation.



I'm going to conclude this post with a sarcastic note: you can't prove I'm wrong, neener neener neener! :smalltongue:
Of course, I can't prove I'm right, either.

Susano-wo
2010-06-30, 09:20 PM
@Isfreak. I think I see your postion more now. For me both together is what makes me drool over ToB, so I was thinking that the dipping would be for both.
@Greenish. can you give me page number for that?

Greenish
2010-06-30, 09:26 PM
@Greenish. can you give me page number for that?Page 39, Multiclass characters.

Susano-wo
2010-06-30, 09:54 PM
Danke, I'll have to look that up tonight....(just like that Rules Compendium theng from last week....:smallredface:)

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-01, 02:11 AM
Just a concern about the 1st level stance RAW interpretation:

Does the book say that your first stance is ALWAYS level 1 - regardless the level you acquire it?

Because the interpretation that leads to force level 1 Martial Adepts to take level 1 stances - even if their level 1 martial Adept level is not their level 1 CHARACTER level brings in one inconsistency.

Say I have a fighter. A take the Martial Study feat at level 4 and level 10 - I can select a maneuver of level 1 and level 3, in order.

Then, at level 12, I take the Martial Stance feat. There's something in the book that hinders me to take a level 3 stance (if I meet the oher prerequisites)?

If not, why should I be able to acquire the stance by feats, and not by a dip in a Martial Adept class?

Escheton
2010-07-01, 02:37 AM
Does not the fact that you mostly want to dip them to get the higher lvl stances, too the point that you are willing to weasel your way around rules and citations, make you consider that doing this might be unbalanced?

Saph
2010-07-01, 05:56 AM
Just a concern about the 1st level stance RAW interpretation:

Does the book say that your first stance is ALWAYS level 1 - regardless the level you acquire it?

No, only the ones you get via taking the first level of Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade. If you check the text for their level 1 class features, the book says that at level 1 they begin with a level 1 stance.

Note that maneuvers do not have the same clause, so you can dip a level of a ToB class and take a bunch of 2nd- and 3rd-level maneuvers providing your Initiator Level is high enough.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-01, 11:00 AM
I see. But to answer to you both..

My point is: that interpretation of RAW makes less sense, becuse how can an high level fighter get (theoretically speaking) directly a 3rd level maneuver with feats, and be forced to take a 1st level one dipping?

couldn't be the case that the sentences in the Martial Adepts class entries assume 1st level CARACHTER?

Escheton
2010-07-01, 11:19 AM
Because having higher lvl maneuver needs lower ones to qualify, which you do because you strategically use your couple of maneuvers you get.
Which is a trick or optimation or however you wanna call it.

You master the lower lvl ones before you get the higher lvl ones. It just all happens during the same lvl-up.

You never mastered stances in the same way, as you only get one. It would make sense ( I know, who uses that?) that you need a first lvl stance first too master stances before you can move on to the higherlvl ones.

Rothen
2010-07-01, 11:27 AM
I see. But to answer to you both..

My point is: that interpretation of RAW makes less sense, becuse how can an high level fighter get (theoretically speaking) directly a 3rd level maneuver with feats, and be forced to take a 1st level one dipping?

couldn't be the case that the sentences in the Martial Adepts class entries assume 1st level CARACHTER?

Because he already wasted 2 feats on Martial Study?

If you look at it from another point of view, it's fair that a fighter who spends 3 of his bonus feats (which equals 6(!) levels worth of class features) gets more than a fighter who dips Crusader at higher level.

Edit: I also see another flaw in your reasoning. You seem to assume that RAW should make sense...

DragoonWraith
2010-07-01, 11:41 AM
I don't think the RAW is as clear-cut as Curmudgeon makes it out to be, since I would generally read "begin play" as applying to 1st level and not to anything else. I'll agree that the interpretation presented probably fits the text best, but I still would argue that it is not without ambiguity, and therefore ultimately it's a DM's interpretation that goes into play, not RAW. I think it was simply an ambiguous, careless statement on the part of WotC writers that assumed that people would start play as a 1st level character with 1 level in a Martial Adept class.

I think Saph's argument that "the maneuvers section doesn't say that, so the stances section must for a reason" assumes far too much care on the writers' part. WotC is often careless about these things, I don't see this as likely to be any different.

And finally, at any rate, even if RAW was explicit and clear about things and 1st level Martial Adepts did only get 1st level Stances despite a possibly higher Initiator Level, I'd houserule that away immediately anyway. The Initiator Level rules are extremely elegant, and I see no reason why there should be this special exception here; it really makes no sense to me. The stances' prerequisites will prevent any shenanigans just fine.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-01, 11:52 AM
The Initiator Level rules are extremely elegant, and I see no reason why there should be this special exception here;

Yeah, this made me wonder, too. Seems counter-intuitive compared to the other mechanics about making easier multiclassing :smallconfused:

Susano-wo
2010-07-01, 12:40 PM
SO yeah, I feel silly about the initator levels thing...your IL for other classes is clearly half of *all* other classes. Though it still seems that through martial study you could still learn shadow hand maneuvers with a WB at normal IL--it just adds it to maneuvers known, regardless of school (or do I need to re-read my 9-sworsd book about 5 more times? >.>

In any case, a that was a useful clarification for me--I've got a WB/Sorc/modded jadePMage that will be taking a dip in SS for story reasons--I don't think I was going to try for anything too high, but now I know I'll be within the rules. ^ ^

DragoonWraith
2010-07-01, 12:46 PM
One point: Prestige Classes count as their full level for Initiator Level of all base classes. So a Warblade 1/Swordsage 1/Sorc X/JPM Y would have a Warblade Initiator Level of WB 1+(Sorc X + SS 1)/2+JPM Y, while the Swordsage would have the same IL of SS 1+(Sorc X + WB 1)/2+JPM Y. This is a pretty nice benefit. Almost makes up for the fact that dipping Warblade and Swordsage does bad things for your Caster Level...

Saph
2010-07-01, 12:47 PM
I think Saph's argument that "the maneuvers section doesn't say that, so the stances section must for a reason" assumes far too much care on the writers' part. WotC is often careless about these things, I don't see this as likely to be any different.

It's possible, but a general rule of interpretation is that you assume whenever possible that the writers were trying to say something that makes sense. Deciding that a line is a mistake and should be disregarded is a last resort, and the problem with the "it only applies to first-level characters" interpretation is that it makes the line essentially meaningless (it doesn't add anything to what the level/maneuvers/stances table on page 39 tells you already).

DragoonWraith
2010-07-01, 12:50 PM
Mistake, no. I do believe they meant it to make sense - as a guide for first time Martial Adepts on how to start off. I don't think it was intended to be a limitation so much as explanatory.

It was careless because it did not handle the possibility of a Martial Adept's first level not coming at ECL 1.

Susano-wo
2010-07-01, 01:46 PM
Dragoon: yeah, that one is nice. Basically, at this point, I'm WB2, Sorc4, JadePMage3, with Practiced spellcaster. So my caster level at least won't take a hit yet, though I think its winds up with CL18 if I dump the last three levels into Sorc... ah well. Casting PLus maneuvers is still quite sweet :P

Curmudgeon
2010-07-01, 02:25 PM
Mistake, no. I do believe they meant it to make sense - as a guide for first time Martial Adepts on how to start off. I don't think it was intended to be a limitation so much as explanatory.
Generally when WotC tries to offer advice it's pretty obvious, such as the "Feats to Avoid" sections in Complete Mage. When they state that you begin play with a single 1st-level stance, that's not phrased as advice; that's phrased as a rule.

Trying to intuit what you "believe they meant" isn't going to yield the same result for different readers. Following what the rules actually state is always going to be more consistent.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-01, 04:10 PM
Generally when WotC tries to offer advice it's pretty obvious, such as the "Feats to Avoid" sections in Complete Mage. When they state that you begin play with a single 1st-level stance, that's not phrased as advice; that's phrased as a rule.

Trying to intuit what you "believe they meant" isn't going to yield the same result for different readers. Following what the rules actually state is always going to be more consistent.
Except that if I take a level of Warblade after having played through four levels of Fighter, I'm not "beginning play" at all, I'm at least 25% of the way through. Seems to me, RAW, that clause would not apply. My comment to Saph was only as an explanation for why that line is there to begin with.

Kaiyanwang
2010-07-01, 04:13 PM
Except that if I take a level of Warblade after having played through four levels of Fighter, I'm not "beginning play" at all, I'm at least 25% of the way through. Seems to me, RAW, that clause would not apply. My comment to Saph was only as an explanation for why that line is there to begin with.

This was my point. Thank you for explaining it better.