[ToB] Ruby Knight Windicator

[Dornath]

So what's the hype? I've looked over the class.. I don't truly understand why this class is hyped as OP or broken. Can someone explain this to me, and should I ban it?

[TroubleBrewing]

Short version: Turn Undead attempts become swift actions. Wrap your mind around that one.

EDIT: Had to check the book real quick for this one: It's also an 8/10 spellcasting PrC that gives Martial Adept progression. That enough cheddar for you?

[Dornath]

Aren't you still limited to only one swift action a round?

That spellcasting and martial adept progression sounds like danger for someone who's lactose intolerant.

[Amphetryon]

Aren't you still limited to only one swift action a round?

That spellcasting and martial adept progression sounds like danger for someone who's lactose intolerant.

Nope; you can use your Turn Undeads to gain an additional Swift action. Enjoy.

[Keld Denar]

No, thats the point. You get EXTRA swift actions. If you have a way to cast spells swiftly, this is a HUGE boon. Even if you are just using it for standard stuff, this is still awesome. Go open Complete Champion and take a looksie at Travel Devotion. Move your base speed as a swift action. So...spend a turn undead attempt, most your land speed. Repeat. You could cover a mile in a heartbeat if you had enough TU attempts. Chuck, the Ruby Knight Windicator, the one you referenced in your thread title, uses a Rod of Greater Celerity for such and effect, effectively.

Also, its 8/10 casting + maneuver on a FULL BAB chassis. Its not the 2 things, its all 3 together that rock out the hardest.

EDIT: Do note that the Sage suggested only allowing one extra swift action per turn. This is just a suggestion, but a very good one. If you can't figure out what to do with 2 swift actions per round, you aren't trying very hard.

Also, intresting build...

Cleric4/Crusader1/RKV7/Ordained Champion4...

Convert all of your 5th+ level spells into Flame Strikes, which you can cast as a swift action, and then burn all of your TU attempts to cast all of your 5th+ level spells in one round for the giga-ultra-mega nuke. Oh, and you still have your standard and move action left to thumb your nose at the charred remains of your foe.

[Dornath]

No, thats the point. You get EXTRA swift actions.

Convert all of your 5th+ level spells into Flame Strikes, which you can cast as a swift action, and then burn all of your TU attempts to cast all of your 5th+ level spells in one round for the giga-ultra-mega nuke. Oh, and you still have your standard and move action left to thumb your nose at the charred remains of your foe.

Ohh.. Yes. I can smell the cheddar now.

Although I'm rather certain my DM would brain me with his entire collection of books if I ever tried this.

[TroubleBrewing]

Although I'm rather certain my DM would brain me with his entire collection of books if I ever tried this.

See, that's the thing. If you just keep this in the back of your head as a panic button, you can enjoy the benefits of one of the better gish builds out there without ever raising an eyebrow.

But come the time when you need to pull out the big guns and you drop a half-dozen Flamestrikes in one round... The look on the rest of the party's faces is priceless.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Divine Recovery: spend a turn/rebuke attempt as as swift action to recover an expended maneuver. (cost: -1 turn attempt, -1 swift action; benefit: +1 maneuver recovered)

Divine Impetus: spend a turn/rebuke attempt to gain an extra swift action for the round. (cost: -1 turn attempt; benefit: +1 swift action)

White Raven Tactics: spend a swift action to allow one ally (i.e. yourself, unless you are your own enemy) to act in the next initiative count, immediately after your current turn. (cost: -1 swift action, -1 maneuver readied; benefit: +1 round of actions)

I think you can see where this is going. First round you spend your swift action to White Raven Tactics yourself. Next round you spend your swift action and turn attempt to recover it, spend another turn attempt to gain another swift action, and then spend that swift action to White Raven Tactics yourself again.

Let's assume there are 8 opponents plus the RKV, each of whom act on the following initiative counts:

Initiative Count - Creatures acting on that initiative count
20 RKV (rolled)
19 Frost Giant 1 (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
18 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
17 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
16 White Dragon (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
15 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
14 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
13 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
12 Frost Giant 2 (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
11 Frost Giant 3 (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
10 Cold Spell Specialist Wizard (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
9 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
8 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
7 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
6 Cryohydra (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
5 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
4 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
3 Frost Giant 4 (rolled), RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
2 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
1 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
0 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
-1 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
-2 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
-3 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
-4 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
-5 RKV (cost: 2 turn attempts)
etc.

He can continue taking round after round of actions until he runs out of turn attempts (at which he'll be going dead last on initiative in future rounds) or he runs out of opponents.

[TroubleBrewing]

He can continue taking round after round of actions until he runs out of turn attempts

Yeah. This is the important thing. I'm currently playing a DMM Cleric with 66 TU attempts, and it required very little effort to get that number.

That's 33 rounds in which you can act. If you can't think of a use for 33 consecutive rounds, maybe this isn't the character for you. :smallwink:

[Jude_H]

Just the existence of Stealth skills, full BA and a few extra skillpoints on a melee cleric is enough for it to be interesting in my book. Any class features would just be icing... but then the icing is White Raven Hammer and extra actions, and everything gets crazy.

[Aemoh87]

White Raven Tactics: spend a swift action to allow one ally (i.e. yourself, unless you are your own enemy) to act in the next initiative count, immediately after your current turn. (cost: -1 swift action, -1 maneuver readied; benefit: +1 round of actions)

I was under the impression you couldn't White Raven Tactic yourself. Maybe this just came to mind out of mercy for my DM though.

[Veyr]

It hinges on whether or not the term "ally" used in White Raven Tactics is interpreted to allow it to be used on yourself.

[Claudius Maximus]

By RAW, you are your own ally, and it works.

[Ballis]

I would assume no given this
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070731a

[kardar233]

Could you use a chain of this to give an ally a crazy number of turns too? Say:

RKV uses WRT, burns TA to get it back, burns TA to cast it on ally. Repeat ad infinitum. Uses 3 TAs per iteration, but it's a nasty one if you have a really powerful ally to help you.

[Siosilvar]

One of the White Raven maneuvers specifies "You and allies within range", so I'd assume they didn't mean for the other ones to include "you" unless specifically stated.

Lion's Roar, specifically.

However, if you have two similarly-built RKVs, you could alternate actions.

EDIT:
Could you use a chain of this to give an ally a crazy number of turns too? Say:

RKV uses WRT, burns TA to get it back, burns TA to cast it on ally. Repeat ad infinitum. Uses 3 TAs per iteration, but it's a nasty one if you have a really powerful ally to help you.

No. Warblade needs both a swift action and a standard action to recover maneuvers. Specifically, "a single swift action, which must be immediately followed in the same round with a melee attack or using a standard action to do nothing...."

EDIT2: WRT, TA -> Belt of Battle, TA -> Recover, Belt of Battle -> continue recovery, TA -> WRT would work, if you aren't required to use the actions from Belt of Battle immediately (I don't have access to MIC right now).

EDIT3: Come to think of it, you'd need to target different allies to use that. You'd end up setting the ally's initiative to [yours - 1] multiple times, then they get one action at that point.

[CyMage]

I would assume no given this
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070731a

While the sage is a nice guy and all, he's not an official source for errata, etc.

[CyMage]

One of the White Raven maneuvers specifies "You and allies within range", so I'd assume they didn't mean for the other ones to include "you" unless specifically stated.

Lion's Roar, specifically.

ToB does suffer from the same problem a lot of the books did. Bad editing. That's why errata was needed to clarify things, and I'm glad we have that wonderful ToB errata.

[Firechanter]

FWIW, I read the limitation to 1 (one) extra swift action per round out of the RAW. It says "spend ONE turn undead attempt to gain a swift action". Never mind that the ability is clearly INTENDED to be usable only once per round, even if the wording is poor.

Apart from that, how do you get 66 TU attempts without nightstick stacking?

[Divide by Zero]

FWIW, I read the limitation to 1 (one) extra swift action per round out of the RAW. It says "spend ONE turn undead attempt to gain a swift action". Never mind that the ability is clearly INTENDED to be usable only once per round, even if the wording is poor.

So you spend one TU attempt to gain a swift action. Then you spend one TU attempt to gain a swift action...

[balistafreak]

That's why errata was needed to clarify things, and I'm glad we have that wonderful ToB errata.

:smallannoyed:

*pawnch*

[Darrin]

While the sage is a nice guy and all, he's not an official source for errata, etc.

Nor has that particular Sage read the "ally" entry in the glossary at the back of the PHB.

[TroubleBrewing]

FWIW, I read the limitation to 1 (one) extra swift action per round out of the RAW. It says "spend ONE turn undead attempt to gain a swift action". Never mind that the ability is clearly INTENDED to be usable only once per round, even if the wording is poor.

Apart from that, how do you get 66 TU attempts without nightstick stacking?

I think you've asked me this before. :smalltongue:

Here's a thread on it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191894)


So you spend one TU attempt to gain a swift action. Then you spend one TU attempt to gain a swift action...

That would be my reaction, too. I don't think the designers anticipated 66 TU attempts. I think they figured 3+Cha modifer = 8, maybe? 9 on a good day?

[Ballis]

Nor has that particular Sage read the "ally" entry in the glossary at the back of the PHB.

Odd, I know I've looked for that before, dunno how I missed it.

[The Rabbler]

Yeah. This is the important thing. I'm currently playing a DMM Cleric with 66 TU attempts, and it required very little effort to get that number.

That's 33 rounds in which you can act. If you can't think of a use for 33 consecutive rounds, maybe this isn't the character for you. :smallwink:

going back a bit, but how the hell did you get 66 TU attempts? spending 80% of WBL on nightsticks?

EDIT: swordsage'd

[Dusto]

going back a bit, but how the hell did you get 66 TU attempts? spending 80% of WBL on nightsticks?

Yeah, how are you getting anywhere near that in TU attempts?

[Shyftir]

And even without the cheese the class is incredibly fun to play, its every party roll in one character.
Controller: check. (thicket of blades/spells)
Defender: check. (thicket of blades/shield block(might have maneuver name wrong.)
Striker: check (all sorts of good stuff)
Leader: check. (healing maneuvers/spells)

Yeah, I made one who was a samurai/priest sworn to defend the temple of the "Water Dragon King." He used a no-dachii (keen great falchion, size-Large.) And was wearing the Armor of the Watching Master. (restyled into a samurai look.)

Even without the cheese this guy was just wrong. (Read: Awesome)

[TroubleBrewing]

Yeah, how are you getting anywhere near that in TU attempts?

+5 cha modifier, three classes granting TU-like abilities, one nightstick, and one reliquary holy symbol. Plus the extra turning feat twice.

[Dusk Eclipse]

+5 cha modifier, three classes granting TU-like abilities, one nightstick, and one reliquary holy symbol. Plus the extra turning feat twice.

To clarify, I assume he has turn undead, rebuke undead and destroy undead (which can be used to power abilities that require turn/rebuke undead) so that is 21+(Cha * 3)+ nightsticks+reliquary holy symbol (which by RAW affect any kind of turn/rebuke/destroy).

So it isn't as difficult really.

[AslanCross]

ToB does suffer from the same problem a lot of the books did. Bad editing. That's why errata was needed to clarify things, and I'm glad we have that wonderful ToB errata.

This opens old wounds. Old, festering, grievous wounds. :smallfurious:

[navar100]

Divine Recovery: spend a turn/rebuke attempt as as swift action to recover an expended maneuver. (cost: -1 turn attempt, -1 swift action; benefit: +1 maneuver recovered)

Divine Impetus: spend a turn/rebuke attempt to gain an extra swift action for the round. (cost: -1 turn attempt; benefit: +1 swift action)

White Raven Tactics: spend a swift action to allow one ally (i.e. yourself, unless you are your own enemy) to act in the next initiative count, immediately after your current turn. (cost: -1 swift action, -1 maneuver readied; benefit: +1 round of actions)


Before the switch to 4E, it was clarified that you cannot use White Raven Tactics on yourself.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Before the switch to 4E, it was clarified that you cannot use White Raven Tactics on yourself.

This has been brought up already (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070731a), that link is not a RAW source. The ToB errata makes no mention of any changes to this maneuver, so it stands as-written in its relation to game mechanics:

ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases,
references to “allies” include yourself.
White Raven Tactics makes no mention of 'ally' not including yourself, so as I said before, unless you are your own enemy, you are a valid target for this maneuver, RAW.

[TroubleBrewing]

The Sage, while a good source for most things D&D, is not RAW-approved.

[Greenish]

Just the existence of Stealth skills, full BA and a few extra skillpoints on a melee clericNot stealth skills. RKV gets Hide, but no Move Silently, and getting that as a class skill is rather tricky, without losing levels.

[TroubleBrewing]

That's why you cast Silence, centered on yourself.

Spellcasting solves everything. :smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

That's why you cast Silence, centered on yourself.Because nothing is as unconspicuous as a 20' radius sphere of perfect silence. :smallamused:

[TroubleBrewing]

Well, conspicuous to whom? The guards you just shredded with 15 actions? :smallwink:

[Boci]

Because nothing is as unconspicuous as a 20' radius sphere of perfect silence. :smallamused:

As long as you keep the guards out of the area....and anything else that creates noise like a fountain or a large fire.

And I know I'm a bit latre on this but:


Aren't you still limited to only one swift action a round?

What did you think that ability did?

[Morph Bark]

I would assume no given this
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070731a

Then have a party with two Windicators in it, using WRT on each other.

[Veyr]

Because nothing is as unconspicuous as a 20' radius sphere of perfect silence. :smallamused:
Barring a source of intrusive noise that suddenly gets silenced, or putting the guards themselves within the sphere (so that they hear nothing), it's wildly unlikely that noise has stopped coming from one particular 20' sphere of apparently-empty space.

[Firechanter]

Will you please stop going on about getting a dozen actions per turn? I guarantee you that is NOT how the RKV is supposed to work!
(Also, as for your link to the explanation how to get >60 TU attempts: I call Shenanigans on that; this can never be meant to work either. Turn/Rebuke/etc. are clearly _intended_ to all come out of the same, non-stacking pool.)

You can rules-lawyer the exact wording of the respective abilities all you want, it's simply not RAI, and any DM who allows to have the wool pulled over his eyes so thoroughly deserves what he gets, I guess.

/rant

[Veyr]

I'd like you to please cite the quote by the designer of the class where he states that this is not how he intended it to work, or otherwise prove that you are, in fact, the designer of the class?

Otherwise I would ask you to stop claiming knowledge of intent that you do not have.

[AslanCross]

If the RKV takes cleric levels, he also gets the Iron Silence spell, which completely cancels ACP for hours. (It's also a Lv 2 spell).

[Boci]

If the RKV takes cleric levels, he also gets the Iron Silence spell, which completely cancels ACP for hours. (It's also a Lv 2 spell).

Don't they get that by default?

[Firechanter]

Ability description, it goes along the lines of "spend ONE TU attempt to gain an extra swift action".

Apart from that, what makes _you_ think that the designer could have _possibly_ intended for a single character to act 30 times in a round? oO

As if acting twice per turn for about 10 rounds per day wasn't awesome enough. Noooo, we have to screw the RAW in any loophole we find and destroy the game, otherwise it just isn't fun. :smallannoyed:

[Divide by Zero]

Ability description, it goes along the lines of "spend ONE TU attempt to gain an extra swift action".

Nowhere in the description does it say only one.

[Veyr]

Ability description, it goes along the lines of "spend ONE TU attempt to gain an extra swift action".

Apart from that, what makes _you_ think that the designer could have _possibly_ intended for a single character to act 30 times in a round? oO

As if acting twice per turn for about 10 rounds per day wasn't awesome enough. Noooo, we have to screw the RAW in any loophole we find and destroy the game, otherwise it just isn't fun. :smallannoyed:
It's a non-action to do so, thus barring any rules to the contrary, you may do so as much as you like.

I don't think this is a good way to play, I'm just saying that those are the rules. I'm also saying that you do not know the designer's intent unless you are the designer or he's been quoted somewhere saying as much. It adds nothing to a debate to bring up RAI; it's an Appeal to Authority, and moreover it's an inaccurate appeal to authority. Stand behind your own words — you think that the rule should be once per round, because anything else is broken. I'd be fine with that. But you do not, and cannot, know the intent of the designer, and to state otherwise is insulting to the other members of the debate, because it is stating that your opinion is somehow better than theirs.

[NineThePuma]

Not stealth skills. RKV gets Hide, but no Move Silently, and getting that as a class skill is rather tricky, without losing levels.

There's a feat in heroes of battle that grants Hide & Move Silently as class skills.

[Hecuba]

I'm also saying that you do not know the designer's intent unless you are the designer or he's been quoted somewhere saying as much. It adds nothing to a debate to bring up RAI; it's an Appeal to Authority, and moreover it's an inaccurate appeal to authority.

I disagree. If discussing the presumed intent of a law is sufficiently relevant to a trial a court, discussing the presumed intent of a rule shouldn't be a stretch for a D&D discussion.

I am of the opinion that design purpose any rule that is problematicly powerful can be reduced to only a few possibilities:


The designer intended the rule to be powerful enough that it is problematic, and was intentionally trying to break the game.
The designer intended the rule to some other purpose than being problematically powerful, but lacked the system mastery to note the problem.
The designer intended the rule to some other purpose than being problematically powerful and included designs to limit the issue, but for whatever reason those did not make it through editing.


In only one of these cases is the intent in line with the result, and I am unwilling to presume malice on the part of the designer (or in general) without evidence.

Short of such a malicious intent, I have never been presented with any potential intent for designing a rule which results in game-breaking power for which the intent matches the result.

[Khal]

Ability description, it goes along the lines of "spend ONE TU attempt to gain an extra swift action".


So, if instead it said spend two TU attempts to gain a swift action, would that change your interpretation?

I say this because I believe this is how the people saying 66 swift actions in 1 round are interpreting it: spend X, gain Y, not spend ONLY X once to gain Y.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I disagree. If discussing the presumed intent of a law is sufficiently relevant to a trial a court, discussing the presumed intent of a rule shouldn't be a stretch for a D&D discussion.

Except we have no judge here. People can both claim RAI as support against each other with little such to support it.

[Veyr]

I disagree.
What Thrice Dead Cat said.

Moreover, I think it is not unlikely that the author of Divine Impetus was simply unaware of A. the synergy with White Raven Tactics, and B. the number of turning attempts one could get. As such, he may have very well intended to give Ruby Knight Vindicators the ability to gain more than one extra Swift Action per turn — thinking that in most cases this would be a foolish waste of scarce resources, and not realizing just how much you could do with that action.

[Hecuba]

Except we have no judge here. People can both claim RAI as support against each other with little such to support it.

Then they need to support their argument. The fact that an argument is made poorly does not mean that the that the line of argument is inherently invalid.

Moreover, "Rules as Intended" presents the idea as a positive presentation. Showing what someone planned is difficult. "Clearly Not Rules as Intended" is usually much easier.


What Thrice Dead Cat said.

Moreover, I think it is not unlikely that the author of Divine Impetus was simply unaware of A. the synergy with White Raven Tactics, and B. the number of turning attempts one could get. As such, he may have very well intended to give Ruby Knight Vindicators the ability to gain more than one extra Swift Action per turn — thinking that in most cases this would be a foolish waste of scarce resources, and not realizing just how much you could do with that action.

So #2 from my list then. They had an intent, you do not believe that their intent was to break the game, and believe that such was a result of lack of system mastery. Thus we have a significant departure from the intended result and the actual result.

I think it's worth noting that you need not know what the designer's intent was to make a very reasonable case that it was not their intent to break the game. My typical response when someone points out that I don't know what the design intent was is "No, I don't. But I'm pretty dang sure the intended result wasn't that."

[TroubleBrewing]

My typical response when someone points out that I don't know what the design intent was is "No, I don't. But I'm pretty dang sure the intended result wasn't that."

Regardless of their intentions, there is nothing by RAW that prevents it from being used that way.

If it's your game, feel free to veto it through the power of DM fiat. If it isn't, let the DM make a ruling. If they favor RAW over RAI, chances are they'll let it work the way it works.

If they favor RAI over RAW, it works how they interpret it to work. Simple as that.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Then they need to support their argument. The fact that an argument is made poorly does not mean that the that the line of argument is inherently invalid.

Moreover, "Rules as Intended" presents the idea as a positive presentation. Showing what someone planned is difficult. "Clearly Not Rules as Intended" is usually much easier.

The issue with that argument, however, is that a person is claiming to appeal to the authority on the matter because "clearly this was the intent." It's insulting and adds nothing to the argument. While a person may think a person could intend such, having that as any support in the argument isn't.

[Hecuba]

If they favor RAW over RAI, chances are they'll let it work the way it works.

Doing so would be considered objectively poor judgement in most other settings: legal, civil, financial, accounting, management, governmental.

In fact, I can't think of a place where someone who is trusted with the act of judgment would be considered to be showing good judgment by enforcing in a rule that clearly runs counter to its intended purpose for no other reason that it being a rule.

Why should a tabletop game be different? What would make something that is ordinarily bad judgement good judgement?

Now, placing your idea of what a rule was intended to do is far more questionable. But that is a distinctly different beast.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Doing so would be considered objectively poor judgement in most other settings: legal, civil, financial, accounting, management, governmental.

In fact, I can't think of a place where someone who is trusted with the act of judgment would be considered to be showing good judgment by enforcing in a rule that clearly runs counter to its intended purpose for no other reason that it being a rule.

Why should a tabletop game be different? What would make something that is ordinarily bad judgement good judgement?

Now, placing your idea of what a rule was intended to do is far more questionable. But that is a distinctly different beast.

Because, quite honestly, we don't know the intent. So it is far, far easier to simply judge what we do know, which is RAW.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Rules As Intended carries no more weight than Rules As Imagined, which is what I think of every time I see RAI thrown around.

You may as well rule that anyone playing a Tier 1 character must write on their character sheet holding the pencil in their mouth with their hands behind their back, because that's how the designers intended for the game to balance out.

Pointing out a Cost/Benefit and then stating that the cost is an implied limitation on its use is completely unprecedented. The ability can be used at least 3+Cha mod times in a single round, by both RAW and RAI, provided you have that many turn attempts remaining.

[TroubleBrewing]

You may as well rule that anyone playing a Tier 1 character must write on their character sheet holding the pencil in their mouth with their hands behind their back, because that's how the designers intended for the game to balance out.


In my RL groups, this actually would balance them.

Nobody would ever play a Tier 1 character, because we are lazy. :smallbiggrin:

[Firechanter]

The issue with that argument, however, is that a person is claiming to appeal to the authority on the matter because "clearly this was the intent." It's insulting and adds nothing to the argument.

All of what Hecuba said, and:
My axiom is that I presume good intentions. I give the designers credit that I believe they didn't want to break the game. That's really all you need to do to come to the conclusion that they never meant for RKVs to gain more than one extra swift action per round.
I'd find it more insulting to both designers and players to say "we can't know if the designer didn't, after all, want to break the game".

Or the other way round: basing the thought that RKVs can gain however many extra actions per round because the rules don't say they can't is akin to the idea that you can act freely when you're dead, because the rules don't say anything otherwise.

Edit:
On a lighter note. Is there any feat or feature that gives you extra damage based on your speed before the attack? Because with this infinite-actions abuse, that would make the RKV an actual Relativistic Kill Vehicle. XD

[Greenish]

Will you please stop going on about getting a dozen actions per turn?Why? Just because you don't like something doesn't mean people shouldn't discuss about it in a discussion forum.

There's a feat in heroes of battle that grants Hide & Move Silently as class skills.No, there isn't. Guerilla Warrior only removes the cost of putting CC ranks in Hide and Move Silently, it doesn't increase the max rank (without, as I said, dipping into a class which has Move Silently).

If it was a matter of just picking up a feat, I wouldn't have called it difficult (Skill Knowledge notwithstanding). I think there's a feat for halflings who worship whatsherface, but that's about it.

[Veyr]

All of what Hecuba said, and:
My axiom is that I presume good intentions. I give the designers credit that I believe they didn't want to break the game. That's really all you need to do to come to the conclusion that they never meant for RKVs to gain more than one extra swift action per round.
I'd find it more insulting to both designers and players to say "we can't know if the designer didn't, after all, want to break the game".
It has nothing to do with want, the designer may not have been aware that the rule would break the game, even if he intended it to work the way it is written.

Again, you do not know what the intent was, I'm going to again ask you to stop couching your opinions in rhetoric designed to make them seem superior to anyone else's, because that is insulting.


Or the other way round: basing the thought that RKVs can gain however many extra actions per round because the rules don't say they can't is akin to the idea that you can act freely when you're dead, because the rules don't say anything otherwise.
Non sequitur. There simply are no rules for death; there are rules for Divine Impetus. There is neither a per round restriction nor an action requirement for the use of the ability. Instead, there is a resource cost. RAW, the ability to use it repeatedly per turn is unambiguous and unassailable. RAI is meaningless. RAMS you can argue either way. Rules to balance the game, you need to do something; 1/round is a pretty good houserule.

[Greenish]

you can act freely when you're dead, because the rules don't say anything otherwise.That's silly. Everyone knows you can't act when you're dead because you're unconscious (your hp is below your non-lethal damage). :smalltongue:

[Seatbelt]

I've always looked at it thus: RAW is the way the ability works without considering anything but the wording of the ability. This lets us do things like have conversations about infinite actions and pun-pun and other TO builds.

RAI is everything else. RAI includes how a build is actually played, if the build should be allowed, how the rule was likely imagined to work by the creators, etc. Essentially how the rule/ability/whatever works in the real lived world.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a conversation about anything potentially broken in D&D. It's interesting. I wouldn't play with 75% of most of the builds presented on this forum. But they're fun to look at.

[Veyr]

RAI is everything else. RAI includes how a build is actually played, if the build should be allowed, how the rule was likely imagined to work by the creators, etc. Essentially how the rule/ability/whatever works in the real lived world.
That is not the definition used by anyone else, to my knowledge. RAI stands for "Rules As Intended", and refers only to what the designers were attempting to create. Without direct evidence of intent (quote by a designer), however, RAI largely becomes "I'm right because clearly this was the intent, and you are wrong because the designer definitely never intended that!" despite the fact that the first statement is definitely not clear, and the latter is not definite, at least in the absence of any such quote.

As such, any mention of RAI not only adds nothing to the topic, but is an attempt, unconscious or not, to prevent further discussion. It's a blatant appeal to authority and an incorrect one at that, and should not have any part of any reasonable discussion of anything. There's a reason logical fallacies are not allowed as a part of formal proofs and disdained in informal dialogue: they hinder, not further, the conversation.

[Quietus]

Non sequitur. There simply are no rules for death; there are rules for Divine Impetus. There is neither a per round restriction nor an action requirement for the use of the ability. Instead, there is a resource cost. RAW, the ability to use it repeatedly per turn is unambiguous and unassailable. RAI is meaningless. RAMS you can argue either way. Rules to balance the game, you need to do something; 1/round is a pretty good houserule.

Actually... it's a (Su) ability, without a listed action requirement.



Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities.

So RKV allows you to spend a standard action and a turn undead attempt to get a swift action. Fun!

[Veyr]

Huh, fair enough; I'll accept that as RAW. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense, so I suppose I'd houserule it, and I'd probably include a 1/round restriction as well.

I just get peeved when people present their houserules as "better" because they have some greater insight into designers' intent. Or when people claim their houserules are RAW, and fight tooth and nail about that.

[The Rabbler]

Actually... it's a (Su) ability, without a listed action requirement.

So RKV allows you to spend a standard action and a turn undead attempt to get a swift action. Fun!

someone please dig up something that disproves this. I don't want to have to go back to my DM and tell him that RKV is actually a whole lot worse than we understood. We both love RKV so very much.

[Veyr]

Just houserule it to work exactly as the two of you thought it worked and loved. It's not like you're playing the game strictly RAW anyway, right? I mean, Monk non-proficiencies, etc. should pretty much never be used.

[Gullintanni]

someone please dig up something that disproves this. I don't want to have to go back to my DM and tell him that RKV is actually a whole lot worse than we understood. We both love RKV so very much.

Technically speaking the White Raven Tactics exploit still works, you just lose the ability to stack swift actions in a single round. And you lose your standard action on every initiative count.

[Quietus]

Huh, fair enough; I'll accept that as RAW. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense, so I suppose I'd houserule it, and I'd probably include a 1/round restriction as well.

I just get peeved when people present their houserules as "better" because they have some greater insight into designers' intent. Or when people claim their houserules are RAW, and fight tooth and nail about that.

I agree. I've been on both sides of that argument, too - it's easy to get swept up in things. I think it could be interesting to try and start a series of posts to discuss the RAI of an ability logically, but this is clearly not the place for that. I do believe that the majority would agree that it wasn't INTENDED to be used to give someone 33 turns in a row. However..


Technically speaking the White Raven Tactics exploit still works, you just lose the ability to stack swift actions in a single round. And you lose your standard action on every initiative count.

And your swift, to recover WRT. So yeah, you can... spend two turn attempts for a free move action? I'm actually totally okay with that. :smalltongue:

[Gullintanni]

And your swift, to recover WRT. So yeah, you can... spend two turn attempts for a free move action? I'm actually totally okay with that. :smalltongue:

Makes you fantastically good at running away :smalltongue:

If your minions act on your initiative count, then you can still abuse this mind you.

[HalfDragonCube]

Makes you fantastically good at running away :smalltongue:

Running away at speed is always funny. A Whisper Gnome with the Quick trait and the ability to cast Swift Expeditious Retreat can make other small characters weep at the rolling bolder/hungry monster/failed bluff check coming up behind them. Attaching two small pots of oil to your feet and lighting them when you need to zoom off adds to the flavour. Saying 'Beep beep' also works.

[Hecuba]

Because, quite honestly, we don't know the intent. So it is far, far easier to simply judge what we do know, which is RAW.

Like I said, you don't need to make a compelling case for what the intent is to make a compelling case for what the intent isn't.

The former is very, very difficult. As such, I'm always suspicious when someone say that they know the purpose of a rule. There is a heavy burden of proof, and I expect to see it presented. Usually, at very best, such an argument can result in a mutually acceptable hypothesis about a specific rule.

Logical demonstration of the latter is much much easier-- you're just trying to disprove something to a reasonable level of certainty. The burden of proof here is, to my eye, much lighter: you merely need to demonstrate that the outcome is sufficiently unlikely to have been a goal. I should note that I still expect an argument to be presented if there is disagreement on such a topic. This will not tell you what the rule "should be." It merely tells you where reason and good judgement would, other elements being equal, compel you to say "no."


I agree. I've been on both sides of that argument, too - it's easy to get swept up in things. I think it could be interesting to try and start a series of posts to discuss the RAI of an ability logically, but this is clearly not the place for that. I do believe that the majority would agree that it wasn't INTENDED to be used to give someone 33 turns in a row.

That's always how I've understood the term: as a statement of reasoned examination of design. If it is being used to simply represent the opinion "I think the rule is stupid," I'll gladly concede Veyr's point of it being unsupported.

However, I should note that doing something because the rules say so is just as much an appeal to authority as discussing the designer's intent. That is the nature of operating within the constraints of a rule system. It is the equivalent of saying Law X is valid because it is a Law.

[Firechanter]

Again, +1 to Hecuba,

and also I am gloating just a little over Quietus' good catch that strictly by RAW the ability is actually not gamebreaking but (nigh) useless. :smallbiggrin:

(Again, I'm willing to bet that this isn't what the designers intended, either.)

[cfalcon]

See, that's the thing. If you just keep this in the back of your head as a panic button, you can enjoy the benefits of one of the better gish builds out there without ever raising an eyebrow.

But come the time when you need to pull out the big guns and you drop a half-dozen Flamestrikes in one round... The look on the rest of the party's faces is priceless.

A more polite thing (and one that won't have to make the DM houserule against you on the spot) is to bring it up with the DM and figure out what the rules are, because they are broken as they are written in the book and can't be left standing.

[Gullintanni]

Running away at speed is always funny. A Whisper Gnome with the Quick trait and the ability to cast Swift Expeditious Retreat can make other small characters weep at the rolling bolder/hungry monster/failed bluff check coming up behind them. Attaching two small pots of oil to your feet and lighting them when you need to zoom off adds to the flavour. Saying 'Beep beep' also works.

Always remember folks, you need not be faster than the monster giving chase, just faster than the rest of your party. :smallsmile:

[Quietus]

Again, +1 to Hecuba,

and also I am gloating just a little over Quietus' good catch that strictly by RAW the ability is actually not gamebreaking but (nigh) useless. :smallbiggrin:

(Again, I'm willing to bet that this isn't what the designers intended, either.)

Oh, I agree. I think it was expected that the ability be able to be used as a free action, either once per round or limited to the 3+cha/day. I also don't think that they considered the possibility of mixing it with WRT. In that role, I would have no issue with the ability as a DM. It's when you start mixing in WRT for effectively free turns that I start getting leery, and moreso when you go for maximizing your turn attempts to really abuse it. The limit of any argument regarding RAI here that I'd be willing to entertain is "This ability wasn't intended to produce 30+ free turns", and "This ability wasn't intended to spend one turn attempt to trade a standard for a swift". Beyond that, I have no way of guessing what was intended.

[HalfDragonCube]

Always remember folks, you need not be faster than the monster giving chase, just faster than the rest of your party. :smallsmile:

Yup, but once one party member gets a high speed, then others start trying to find it too. The trick is to stay one step ahead of them.

The Up the Walls feat us also funny in a cylindrical tunnel when you wear some boots of string and springing. Gnomes: Matrix style!

[Firechanter]

Yeah, WRT... the PHB glossary says that Ally usually includes yourself, but since WRT doesn't specify if it's the case here, it basically depends on the DM's stomach ulcers.

[HalfDragonCube]

Yeah, WRT... the PHB glossary says that Ally usually includes yourself, but since WRT doesn't specify if it's the case here, it basically depends on the DM's stomach ulcers.

After a while, everything does.

[Quietus]

After a while, everything does.

And woe be unto he who calls him on it..

[Dornath]

I feel like I instigated hostility around here with this thread.

It must be said though, thanks to all who responded. Your answers really cleared up my confusion.

[Cog]

Yeah, WRT... the PHB glossary says that Ally usually includes yourself, but since WRT doesn't specify if it's the case here...
The whole point of a default rule is that it's what you default to if nothing else is specified.


Attaching two small pots of oil to your feet and lighting them when you need to zoom off adds to the flavour.
Particularly appropriate on a Zerth Cenobite.

[Qwertystop]

Yeah, I agree with a few of the previous people that while it is probably not intended to get 30+ extra rounds, I do not think it was intended to be limited to one use per round. Seems to me that the main problem is that the designer didn't realize how many turn attempts someone could get.

[mykelyk]

I disagree with the 1/round houserule, if I were to DM a Vindicator I would ban the yourself is an ally thing and the 3 pool stacking things.

Why?
White Raven Tactics allow a Crusader to give yourself 1.5 Full Round/round and a Swordsage to recover maneuvers as swift, that is definitely much stronger then maneuvers even much levels later.

The x3 stacking things is basically free quicken/persist/actions.

If you nerf those two abilities than the abilities to waste all your rebuke in one round is nice, not gamebreaking.

[Gametime]

It ceases to be gamebreaking, but it's hard to plan dramatic encounters when a PC can unload a dozen Flame Strikes in a single turn (albeit only once per day).

[Divide by Zero]

It ceases to be gamebreaking, but it's hard to plan dramatic encounters when a PC can unload a dozen Flame Strikes in a single turn (albeit only once per day).

Wouldn't normal quickened spells still be limited, though? You may have more swift actions, but Quicken Spell explicitly says it can only be used once per round. Granted, that was because it was written before swift actions existed, but I don't think any later source removed the wording.

[LordBlades]

IMHO, the designer intended to allow the ability grant you more than one additional swift action, but they didn't have the system mastery to realize neither how easy it is to get huge amounts of turn attempts nor how many really useful things you can do with swift actions.

[Divide by Zero]

IMHO, the designer intended to allow...but they didn't have the system mastery to realize...

In other words, just like about 90% of non-core game breakers.

[Hirax]

In other words, just like about 90% of non-core game breakers.

And core. Really, this is no different than any of the other balance issues intrinsic to a lot of PHB spells such as polymorph. The designers didn't mean for something to be unbalanced (probably), but it is.

[Divide by Zero]

And core. Really, this is no different than any of the other balance issues intrinsic to a lot of PHB spells such as polymorph. The designers didn't mean for something to be unbalanced (probably), but it is.

I don't know if I'd really call that a lack of system mastery (since there was no system to master yet) so much as a gross underestimate of the power of versatility and a lack of proper playtesting.

[mrcarter11]

Technically speaking the White Raven Tactics exploit still works, you just lose the ability to stack swift actions in a single round. And you lose your standard action on every initiative count.

I'm confused now.. Where's the exploit.. You spend a TU, gain a swift action, and use that swift action to use WRT,, My first question is why not use your original swift action.. But I hardly see how this is exploiting something..

[LordBlades]

I don't know if I'd really call that a lack of system mastery (since there was no system to master yet) so much as a gross underestimate of the power of versatility and a lack of proper playtesting.

I also believe it had something to do with the lack of forethought regarding interaction between different parts of the system (designed by different people presumably). I doubt the guys that designed various monsters put too much thought into how their creations would interact with spells like Polymorph.

[Hirax]

I think it is most plausible that the designers simply didn't give it enough thought, and didn't think it was a big deal the it could be used more than once in a round. If this was the case, presumably they vastly underestimated both how many turning attempts it's possible to get, and how useful the extra actions could be.

If you weren't carefully examining it'd be an easy trap to fall into, given the fact that maneuvers are only 1/encounter, crusaders (the presumed entry class) don't get that many boosts, and you're limited to 1 quickened spell a round. Further, like was pointed out with polypmorph, the people who write monsters probably don't think about polymorph when they make them, and when writing maneuvers, they probably weren't thinking about divine impetus. So it's easy to see why when coupled with the typical lack of playtesting and editing, well, here we are.

[Gametime]

Wouldn't normal quickened spells still be limited, though? You may have more swift actions, but Quicken Spell explicitly says it can only be used once per round. Granted, that was because it was written before swift actions existed, but I don't think any later source removed the wording.

Complete Arcane has a sidebar about swift and immediate actions that updates Quicken Spell to a swift action. Other books with similar sidebars might have similar clauses.


I'm confused now.. Where's the exploit.. You spend a TU, gain a swift action, and use that swift action to use WRT,, My first question is why not use your original swift action.. But I hardly see how this is exploiting something..

Using it once isn't an exploit. Using the ability that lets you burn a turn undead attempt as a swift action to recover an expended maneuver, then using the ability to get another swift action to use White Raven Tactics again and take another turn immediately after the current one, is.

[Qwertystop]

Complete Arcane has a sidebar about swift and immediate actions that updates Quicken Spell to a swift action. Other books with similar sidebars might have similar clauses.

But I don't think it actually says that the 1/round limit is removed, just that it now takes your swift action instead of a free action. In other words, it's pretty much a nerf.

[Gametime]

True. It seems pretty clear to me, at least, that the intention was to change Quicken Spell from a 1/round free action to a swift action, which can inherently only be performed once per round. Given that this was before you could gain extra swift actions, the designers at the time probably thought it went without saying. Admittedly, that's just my interpretation of the rules as I think they should be.