Arcane Swordsage?

[umbergod]

I just learned of this....is there really any reason to play a sorcerer over an arcane swordsage? They seem to be superior in almost every way

[sonofzeal]

The top reason is to avoid having books thrown at you. Arcane Swordsage is unplayably-broken... assuming you allow spells to recover like Maneuvers. Take that out, and it becomes much more reasonable.

[Flickerdart]

Arcane Swordsage is a suggested adaptation, not a class. Since every DM will adapt it differently, you really can't say that Arcane Swordsages in general are better than a particular class that's actually written down. This is different from Unarmed Swordsage, which is much more specific in terms of what you get.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

1. Take Adaptive Style.
2. Pick Heroics as a 2nd level maneuver.
3. Initiate Heroics, temporarily gain Martial Study for any hour/level or 24-hour duration buff you want.
4. Adaptive Style to ready the new buff and to recover Heroics.
5. Initiate your buff, dismiss Heroics, initiate Heroics for Martial Study for a new long-duration buff.
6. Repeat.

Now the entire party has Greater Mage Armor, Greater Magic Weapon, Greater/Superior Resistance, Energy Immunity, Mind Blank, etc. all day on every party member. You have Heart of Air/Water/Earth/Fire always active, plus any other buffs you can find, for the cost of one 2nd level maneuver known. You also have any arcane spell in the game at your fingertips, usable within two rounds, so you've always got the perfect tool to handle any situation. If the party needs Protection from Energy for the current adventure, you can put it on everyone. If someone needs to cast Daylight, you've got it. Magic Circle against Evil, Remove Curse, Break Enchantment, etc. available as soon as you need it. Also note that maneuvers are always extraordinary or supernatural, so they cannot be dispelled or otherwise removed short of Disjunction or Iron Heart Surge, and never have costly material components or XP costs.

Even without all of that cheese, you can start every encounter with Haste, pick Ruby Ray of Reversal and use it at will, use Shrink Item shenanigans as often as you want, etc. With the above tricks, it's above-tier-one, without them it's still above tier 2 but not quite tier 1 due to versatility.

[sonofzeal]

1. Take Adaptive Style.
2. Pick Heroics as a 2nd level maneuver.
3. Initiate Heroics, temporarily gain Martial Study for any hour/level or 24-hour duration buff you want.
4. Adaptive Style to ready the new buff and to recover Heroics.
5. Initiate your buff, dismiss Heroics, initiate Heroics for Martial Study for a new long-duration buff.
6. Repeat.

Now the entire party has Greater Mage Armor, Greater Magic Weapon, Greater/Superior Resistance, Energy Immunity, Mind Blank, etc. all day on every party member. You have Heart of Air/Water/Earth/Fire always active, plus any other buffs you can find, for the cost of one 2nd level maneuver known. You also have any arcane spell in the game at your fingertips, usable within two rounds, so you've always got the perfect tool to handle any situation. If the party needs Protection from Energy for the current adventure, you can put it on everyone. If someone needs to cast Daylight, you've got it. Magic Circle against Evil, Remove Curse, Break Enchantment, etc. available as soon as you need it. Also note that maneuvers are always extraordinary or supernatural, so they cannot be dispelled or otherwise removed short of Disjunction or Iron Heart Surge, and never have costly material components or XP costs.

Even without all of that cheese, you can start every encounter with Haste, pick Ruby Ray of Reversal and use it at will, use Shrink Item shenanigans as often as you want, etc. With the above tricks, it's above-tier-one, without them it's still above tier 2 but not quite tier 1 due to versatility.
While most of the above combos work, note that Adaptive Style just lets you change your maneuvers readied, not maneuvers known. You can't have every spell in the game at your fingertips, just a select list of go-to's, most of which will be 1st lvl. It's still awesome (assuming spells recharge like maneuvers, which is not at all certain), but not quite what you claim.

[gkathellar]

The reason not to play an arcane swordsage is that it's barely a class at all so much as a series of vague suggestions, and the summary of those suggestions (particularly once optimized with Heroics) is a Tier -1 monster that makes the Psionic Artificier look balanced.

The reason not to play an arcane swordsage is because you can't win at D&D.


While most of the above combos work, note that Adaptive Style just lets you change your maneuvers readied, not maneuvers known. You can't have every spell in the game at your fingertips, just a select list of go-to's, most of which will be 1st lvl. It's still awesome (assuming spells recharge like maneuvers, which is not at all certain), but not quite what you claim.

He's not using Adaptive Style to change maneuvers known. He's using Adaptive Style to refresh Heroics, because every time he uses Heroics to gain Martial Study he gains a spell known.

Of course, he can only gain up to three spells like this at any given time due to Martial Study's internal limits, but for long-duration buffs that doesn't matter — he can just dismiss the previous casting of Heroics and keep the spell it helped him cast.

[Mato]

1. Take Adaptive Style.
2. Pick Heroics as a 2nd level maneuver.
3. Initiate Heroics, temporarily gain Martial Study for any hour/level or 24-hour duration buff you want.
4. Adaptive Style to ready the new buff and to recover Heroics.
5. Initiate your buff, dismiss Heroics, initiate Heroics for Martial Study for a new long-duration buff.
6. Repeat.1. Adaptive Style only works for maneuvers, the Arcane Swordsage has none.
3. Martial Study teaches maneuvers, not spells.

The problem you demonstrated is not Arcane Swordsage, but what would happen if the entire maneuver system were to change over. Which far exceeds the initial suggestion.

With less judicial use of rules manipulation a Wizard can simply use Mental Pinnacle to gain a huge allotment of power points and the ability to manifest as a Psion. When used in conjunction with Psychic Chirurgery a single spell slot can provide dozens of psionic buffs to the entire party.

And with no rules mongering the party buffing can be performed by any mid to high level spellcaster easy enough. Eight hours is four hundred and eighty minutes, so you buff up, shift over to Dal Quor, rest in a Magnificent Mansion or an equivalent for eight hours, planeshift back. To the party you've been gone for forty eight minutes, or not even long enough for the Cleric to finish praying for his spells.

Both of those listed "tricks" are not limited to Abjuration, Evocation, and Transmutation spells only like the Arcane Swordsage is either. Like most miss chance granting spells are Illusion based, Heroism and the like are Enchantment. Likewise both Simulacrum and Ice Assassin cannot normally be learned either, each greatly expanding a Wizard's spells per day. Even (Limited) Wish isn't part of their spell list.

TLDR; You exceeded the bounds of the suggestion to say the Arcane Swordsage providing buffs is over powered yet it still falls short of even what a Sorcerer can choose to do.

[gkathellar]

3. Martial Study teaches maneuvers, not spells.

"... giving the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level ..."


limited to Abjuration, Evocation, and Transmutation spells only like the Arcane Swordsage is either.

"... in general, spells from the schools of abjuration, evocation and transmutation are most appropriate for a swordsage of this type ..."

Now I'm not arguing that Arcane Swordsage is in any way a completed class, or that it should be used. But if you go by what is actually written in the three total sentences concerning it, none of the limitations you're talking about actually apply. This is a class variant that gets infinite nested Time Stop at 17th level, and is more Batman than a wizard could ever dream of being.

[sonofzeal]

"... giving the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level ..."
That only covers Arcane Swordsage. It says nothing about Martial Study. Martial Study specifically says it gives you "maneuvers", not spells. Since nothing changes that, it is still in force.

That is, unless you'd like to argue that the text applies to all maneuvers from all sources, in which case how about a Arcane Swordsage 1 / Crusader 19 or Warblade 19?




"... in general, spells from the schools of abjuration, evocation and transmutation are most appropriate for a swordsage of this type ..."

Now I'm not arguing that Arcane Swordsage is in any way a completed class, or that it should be used. But if you go by what is actually written in the three total sentences concerning it, none of the limitations you're talking about actually apply. This is a class variant that gets infinite nested Time Stop at 17th level, and is more Batman than a wizard could ever dream of being.
Again, only if you allow Martial Study to apply to spells (not RAW), and/or if you allow recovery mechanisms to apply to spells (not RAW). :smallconfused::smallconfused::smallconfused: I'm not sure how relevant that is...

[Mato]

The Arcane variant cannot be quoted as rules as they are a suggestion. But it does suggest learning spells in place of learning maneuvers, like always it would be talking about it's class abilities and not an else where printed feat or item. It also suggests a three schools limitation and personal/touch for range.

As I said, Biffoniacus_Furiou is taking the suggestion to the farthest extent possible to break it that exceeds what could be quoted as intent otherwise. And all he is getting out of it is a less effective Wizard. No, it's worse than that, it's like a Warmage with Persist but traded away his blasting spells and crowd control or a Beguiler with no hiding skills, it's a Transmutation focused limited caster that runs around layering enchantments over them selves for melee proficiency.

Don't get me wrong. They are a fun gish to play as, it's just they aren't half as over powered some may claim. Recall that the ToB is banned form many table top games from people thinking anything At-Will or directly overshadows the Fighter is a game breaking addition. Gishing it's self is ultimately a weaker concept to begin with and is a great alternative towards dampening the powers of a caster without banning anything. In fact, specialist casters are Teir 3 and yet they are still primary casters. They didn't even choose to bat for the weaker team but still sit two rows behind the power players.

[candycorn]

@SwordofZeal:
Maneuvers gained via martial study apply to the Swordsage's maneuvers, and are refreshed with the same mechanic. This is important. The feat ties itself intrinsically to the class features.

Maneuvers gained via warblade/crusader have their own seperate tracking and class list. They are not tied to the Swordsage features or recovery method in any way.

[sonofzeal]

@SwordofZeal:
Maneuvers gained via martial study apply to the Swordsage's maneuvers, and are refreshed with the same mechanic. This is important. The feat ties itself intrinsically to the class features.

Maneuvers gained via warblade/crusader have their own seperate tracking and class list. They are not tied to the Swordsage features or recovery method in any way.
Not quite. The feat does tie in with the initiating class, but is still explicitly giving you a "maneuver". Since the Swordsage Adaptation section never mentions it, it's not overruled, despite the tie-in. The text of Martial Study doesn't (quite) support your interpretation. You add a maneuver to your maneuvers known, but it's never compared to the process of gaining maneuvers from leveling up, which is what you need.

[candycorn]

Not quite. The feat does tie in with the initiating class, but is still explicitly giving you a "maneuver". Since the Swordsage Adaptation section never mentions it, it's not overruled, despite the tie-in. The text of Martial Study doesn't (quite) support your interpretation. You add a maneuver to your maneuvers known, but it's never compared to the process of gaining maneuvers from leveling up, which is what you need.

Are you sure about that? I don't see the adaptation stating that it only applies to maneuvers gained as a direct result of gaining levels in the class "Arcane Swordsage", as opposed to "when you learn a maneuver which would increase your maneuvers known as an Arcane Swordsage".

In other words, I believe you are using restrictions not listed to define the parameters as you wish.

Martial Study, when taken for an initiator class, grants a maneuver known, which must be readied and recovered in accordance with the class chosen for it. If you have 2 initiator classes, you choose one, and it is forever tied to that one class.

In other words, it amends class features, just as an ACF would.

[sonofzeal]

Are you sure about that? I don't see the adaptation stating that it only applies to maneuvers gained as a direct result of gaining levels in the class "Arcane Swordsage", as opposed to "when you learn a maneuver which would increase your maneuvers known as an Arcane Swordsage".

In other words, I believe you are using restrictions not listed to define the parameters as you wish.

Martial Study, when taken for an initiator class, grants a maneuver known, which must be readied and recovered in accordance with the class chosen for it. If you have 2 initiator classes, you choose one, and it is forever tied to that one class.

In other words, it amends class features, just as an ACF would.
I'm not adding any restrictions. The Arcane Swordsage text simply doesn't say one way or the other - and, barring a specific overruling, the default state of affairs prevails. Any other situation would involve adding specific clauses.

Note also that the wording of Martial Study specifically requires you to select a discipline, and then select a maneuver within it. There's simply no way to generalize it to spells without outright houseruling.

[candycorn]

I'm not adding any restrictions. The Arcane Swordsage text simply doesn't say one way or the other - and, barring a specific overruling, the default state of affairs prevails. Any other situation would involve adding specific clauses.And the default state of affairs is: When an arcane swordsage would learn a maneuver, he may substitute a spell.

It does not restrict a source, so there is no restriction.


Note also that the wording of Martial Study specifically requires you to select a discipline, and then select a maneuver within it. There's simply no way to generalize it to spells without outright houseruling.Yes, there is.

Select a school. Check.
Select a maneuver within that school. Maneuver would be learned, substitute a legal spell. Check.
Done.

Note, however, that there's no way to render the Arcane Swordsage class playable without houserule. No matter what, houserule is being used to render the class functional.

The question is, does the above interpretation follow all RAW in regards to the guidelines that ARE provided?

I say yes. I have stated why. If you would like to suggest otherwise, please cite book, page, paragraph that supports your view.

[sonofzeal]

And the default state of affairs is: When an arcane swordsage would learn a maneuver, he may substitute a spell.

It does not restrict a source, so there is no restriction.
You're changing the wording. It's not phrased the way you're trying to make it phrased. It never says "when an arcane swordsage would learn a maneuver". If it was, that would strengthen your interpretation, since "when" generalizes it somewhat, extending it specifically to the process of gaining maneuvers which Martial Study falls under. Instead, the way it's worded gives an alternative to gaining maneuvers. Martial Study no longer qualifies, as the feat is explicit in what it does.



Yes, there is.

Select a school. Check.
Select a maneuver within that school. Maneuver would be learned, substitute a legal spell. Check.
Done.

Note, however, that there's no way to render the Arcane Swordsage class playable without houserule. No matter what, houserule is being used to render the class functional.

The question is, does the above interpretation follow all RAW in regards to the guidelines that ARE provided?

I say yes. I have stated why. If you would like to suggest otherwise, please cite book, page, paragraph that supports your view.
You're asking me to prove a negative hypothesis. My whole claim is that, in absence of some clear text defining the useage as legal, it remains as-written. You have to change the text of the rules to make it do what you're trying to get it to do, even if the change is subtle.

So no, I don't think it's following RAW. It's the difference between changing the process of gaining maneuvers, and giving an alternative to gaining maneuvers, but it's there.

As to your other question, I think a rigid division between "spells" and "maneuvers", and not letting the one stand in for the other, works enough to make it playable. The only houserule I can see is giving an official Caster Level.

[DoctorGlock]

Ok, while I cannot give as much RAW knowledge as the others, I have actually played an arcane swordsage once.

It was a level 5 one shot, so I cannot claim to have spamed the big 9s, but i was under near constant haste, free alter self and spamable wraithstrike, though compared to all the persist stuff out there this is not that special.

The implementation was as follows, as reccomended: Maneuvers get switched out for spells, stances stay the same. Spells must be from abjuration, evocation or transmutation with a range of self or touch.

Heroics was not used, but that was just because i did not think of it

If I can remember, I think my stuff was alter self, wraithstrike, haste, heart of water, protection from evil, nerveskitter, lesser celerity, combust and a bunch of level 1s

Even with essentially at will free spells, I never outshone the rest of the party. Sure, i could fly around and haste and what not, but in combat i could never take the full round to refresh and burned readied spells way too fast, though this is more a function of the level. Most of the time I was essentially using "I hit it with my sword" on crack. Sure, I would always be fresh at the start of an encounter, but due to durations i'd also need to spend time buffing.

The sorcerer on the other hand was busy dropping fell drained everything, wings of covering everything, and more importantly using conjurations to BC everything. Without access to spells that ruined other people, I could not compete.

The rest of the party, in case it matters, was a half minotaur barbarian who enjoyed haste (and almost wrecked us when the beguiler boss started tossing mind controls, thank someone I took protection from evil to counter) and a dark creature rogue

Now, had this been a higher level i can see some terrifying potential for never ending celerity and timestops, but i do not think the arcane swordsage will ever be able to compete because it lacks the all important conjuration school. You will never teleport. You will never BC. You will never have necromantic debuffs. You will never have illusion's miss chance. Your "spells" being SU will never matter since you will never wish. You will never get arcane disciple to fix this since you do not truly cast. Sure, you can spam heroics and even get amazing stuff, but you lack the best school in the game and always will.

[candycorn]

You're changing the wording. It's not phrased the way you're trying to make it phrased. It never says "when an arcane swordsage would learn a maneuver". If it was, that would strengthen your interpretation, since "when" generalizes it somewhat, extending it specifically to the process of gaining maneuvers which Martial Study falls under. Instead, the way it's worded gives an alternative to gaining maneuvers. Martial Study no longer qualifies, as the feat is explicit in what it does.You are adding words where none exist.

"...by giving the swordsage the ability to learn arcane spells instead of maneuvers of equivalent level."

Martial Study: "A maneuver learned through this feat cannot be exchanged for a different maneuver if you are a crusader, swordsage or warblade."

Martial study allows you to learn a maneuver. This maneuver is a maneuver known, and is prepared, readied, and used exactly as any other swordsage maneuver.
The ability granted to arcane swordsages allows them to learn an equivalent level spell instead of learning a maneuver.
Thus, the maneuver learned via Martial Study qualifies, as it is a learned maneuver that applies to the swordsage class.

If you would like to say it does not, provide rules that say why.


You're asking me to prove a negative hypothesis.No, I am asking you to use existing RAW to disprove my statements... Rather than "it doesn't work that way by the rules that I'm not citing."

My whole claim is that, in absence of some clear text defining the useage as legal, it remains as-written.And, as-written, it works, unless you can provide compelling RAW to say why it wouldn't.

So no, I don't think it's following RAW.Show which rules it's violating, then.

[gkathellar]

That is, unless you'd like to argue that the text applies to all maneuvers from all sources, in which case how about a Arcane Swordsage 1 / Crusader 19 or Warblade 19?

By the tiny amount of existing RAW, sure, I'd argue that. There wouldn't be a point to it, since Swordsages get more maneuvers known, but sure.


if you allow recovery mechanisms to apply to spells

"The arcane spell is 'cast' as if it were a martial maneuver." That certainly seems to suggest you should, since you would then ready the spell as an expended maneuver.

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of the arcane swordsage. It's unusable for so many different reasons I don't want to list them all. What I'm arguing is just one of those reasons: that, exactly as written, the arcane swordsage takes the phrase "game-breaking" to nigh-infinitely stupid extremes.


The Arcane variant cannot be quoted as rules as they are a suggestion.

And that is another, perhaps even more salient reason not to ever consider using them as written.


They are a fun gish to play as, it's just they aren't half as over powered some may claim. ... Gishing it's self is ultimately a weaker concept to begin with and is a great alternative towards dampening the powers of a caster without banning anything.

Part of the problem is that there's nothing about the Arcane Swordsage to encourage use as a gish. It's a full caster.

I suspect your houseruled arcane swordsage is a solid Tier 3 and is quite functional. I also suspect it's roughly what the developers intended.

It's just that if you follow the suggestions exactly as written, the class is a whole new level of stupid-powerful.

[GoatBoy]

Hey guys

Guys

Guys listen

Hey

Guys listen

Let's judge the merits of a gameplay technique

Guys listen

Let's judge the merits of a gameplay technique based on an idle suggestion combined with high optimization from multiple books.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

We've been over this before, let's see if I can remember everything:

Arcane Swordsage gets to "learn spells in place of maneuvers of equivalent level." That means if you would learn a maneuver, you can learn a spell of equal level instead. There is no limitation apart from level, it doesn't matter what discipline the maneuver was from, it doesn't matter what school the spell is from, and the fact that a spell does not have a discipline is completely irrelevant.

If you could learn a maneuver limited to a particular discipline, then that restriction only applies to a maneuver and not to a spell learned in its place. Your maneuver has to be from this discipline, but it's a good thing a spell isn't a maneuver. Your spells are readied and initiated as though they were maneuvers, but they're not limited to the same restrictions that apply when learning new maneuvers apart from level.

Martial Study adds a maneuver to your class maneuvers know. The Arcane Swordsage 1/ Warblade 19 would only be able to replace Swordsage maneuvers with spells, but an Arcane Swordsage taking Martial Study to add an extra maneuver to his Swordsage maneuvers known can learn a spell in place of it. As I said above, if he takes Martial Study and picks Desert Wind, and could learn a Desert Wind maneuver of X level, then he can learn a spell of X level in place of it. Martial discipline restrictions only apply to maneuvers, just like school restrictions only apply to spells, and psiconic disciplines only apply to psionic powers, etc. You cannot use a restriction on apples to impose a limitation on oranges.

[Need_A_Life]

I just learned of this....is there really any reason to play a sorcerer over an arcane swordsage? They seem to be superior in almost every way
First reason: Style.
If you're gonna be a swordsage variant, be an unarmed swordsage. Those are awesome.

Second reason: Game balance.
Let's say that this level 1 swordsage could pull out the following in EVERY encounter: Magic Missile, Powerword: Pain (RotD) and Sleep.
Those are three encounter-ending spells that a level one sorcerer would keep as his ace-in-the-hole. For you, it's just warming up.

Third reason: Personal health.
Unless you are, in fact, a ninja, your dodging skills will be insufficient to avoid all the books, dice and soda cans being thrown your way as a result of using this poorly-thought-out idea.

Can the arcane swordsage be salvaged? Yes.
Would it be anything like what their vague suggestion is like? Maybe... depending on how far you're willing to stretch it.

[Gnome Alone]

What a curious DM this is, the theoretical combination of insane rules lawyer and doormat that would allow spells to be recovered like maneuvers. It's like that "drown yourself to get healed!" thing - it's a believable interpretation but practically speaking... It's absurd on its face.

[Talionis]

The real problem is that Arcane Swordsage is so very vague. Most adaptions suggested are far less complex. There is a lot of places where there just simply would not be enough RAW to do it without a DM filling in some rules. ToB in general didn't get very much errata. Of the errata given nothing was mentioned about Arcane Swordsage.

Its an extremely dangerous suggestion to give unlimited numbers of spells to a character. Essentially, that is what Arcane Swordsage does.

If you are going to use it in a campaign, I'd suggest a long thorough talk with your DM. Make sure that the other characters are fairly optimized, so you don't completely outshine them. And you may have to go so far as treating each spell learned as a creating a new spell/maneuver so that the DM has a chance to seriously think through allowing the spell to be put into your spell list.

If you are careful, this could be a very enjoyable character to play, but easily easily it can get out of hand and just plain stupid. A particularly liberal interpretation can easily be tier 1. The cheese that can be pulled off in tier 1 is so high, I don't think I would say Arcane Swordsage would be worst than the worst cheese, but I think it could be pretty close.

[gkathellar]

What a curious DM this is, the theoretical combination of insane rules lawyer and doormat that would allow spells to be recovered like maneuvers. It's like that "drown yourself to get healed!" thing - it's a believable interpretation but practically speaking... It's absurd on its face.

I think that's a false comparison. Drowning yourself to get healed just makes no sense at all, ever. Arcane swordsage is just ridiculously unbalanced.

Of course the solution is the same:

Ban, ban, ban that book,
Throw it at his face.
Angrily, angrily, angrily ban,
Something that rhymes with face.

[Mato]

The implementation was as follows, as reccomended: Maneuvers get switched out for spells, stances stay the same. Spells must be from abjuration, evocation or transmutation with a range of self or touch.

If I can remember, I think my stuff was alter self, wraithstrike, haste, heart of water, protection from evil, nerveskitter, lesser celerity, combust and a bunch of level 1sStances are part of maneuvers and should have been dropped. Also PoE is offered on items for a pretty cheap price and Heart of Water runs all day anyway. Lesser Celerity falls short of buying an item that grants Sudden Leap (only 3k) given it's tendency to daze you afterwards too.

A Wand of Waithstrike costs 4,500gp or 90gp per use. You need a tad less than 13 standard encounters per level, four of which present them selves daily and you only need to beat one quarter of the encounter to effectively be pulling the minimum weight. That is to say against one monster you only need to drain 1/4 of it's HP, or kill one mob if against four. Of course some encounters you won't use wands at all (traps, social, etc) and a few you will use more than one (50 minions and no fireball in sight) but if you averaged a single charge per encounter, an easy task if you were a better class, you only need a single wand to cover an entire level's worth of adventuring where your new WBL would forget that you ever used one before. It's to say the infinite casting of Waithstrike highly over valued. Not in the terms of how useful it is, but in the terms of what it costs you to have access to it.

Alter Self was the best thing you had. Haste is ok but you lacked the backing of BAB/Attack/AC and it was doing was playing catch up, not over powering anything, but it also did give you the option to be useful towards you party rather than soloing stuff which is still better than playing a Fighter. Your experience is a shining example of what a real practical application of the adaptation not being a shiny god descending from the heavens to lead us to the promise land.


Again, I'm not arguing in favor of the arcane swordsage. It's unusable for so many different reasons I don't want to list them all. What I'm arguing is just one of those reasons: that, exactly as written, the arcane swordsage takes the phrase "game-breaking" to nigh-infinitely stupid extremes.The only proof of such that you can provide is using Heroics & Marital Study to buff the party and that is based on a personal definition.

Next you're going to go on about how your Specialist Wizard levels are preventing you from learning Evocation spells on your Cleric side, or that you ignore Arcane Spell Failure Chance with your Wizard spell.s All because those effects have the same ambiguity in wording for you to manipulate. http://www.minmaxboards.com/Smileys/default/bg_rolleyes1.gif

What you see is a lie you created. Go back and pay just as much attention to how the PHB classes are written. And here is a hint, no you can't spontaneously convert your Wizard spells into Cure/Inflect spells.



Second reason: Game balance.
Let's say that this level 1 swordsage could pull out the following in EVERY encounter: Magic Missile, Powerword: Pain (RotD) and Sleep.
Those are three encounter-ending spells that a level one sorcerer would keep as his ace-in-the-hole. For you, it's just warming up.Power Words and Sleep are Enchantment basedand an Arcane Swordsage shouldn't be learning them at all. Magic Missile's Range is medium which falls more into a gray area and sucks anyway.

{Scrubbed}

[DoctorGlock]

Stances are part of maneuvers and should have been dropped. Also PoE is offered on items for a pretty cheap price and Heart of Water runs all day anyway. Lesser Celerity falls short of buying an item that grants Sudden Leap (only 3k) given it's tendency to daze you afterwards too.

A Wand of Waithstrike costs 4,500gp or 90gp per use. You need a tad less than 13 standard encounters per level, four of which present them selves daily and you only need to beat one quarter of the encounter to effectively be pulling the minimum weight. That is to say against one monster you only need to drain 1/4 of it's HP, or kill one mob if against four. Of course some encounters you won't use wands at all (traps, social, etc) and a few you will use more than one (50 minions and no fireball in sight) but if you averaged a single charge per encounter, an easy task if you were a better class, you only need a single wand to cover an entire level's worth of adventuring where your new WBL would forget that you ever used one before. It's to say the infinite casting of Waithstrike highly over valued. Not in the terms of how useful it is, but in the terms of what it costs you to have access to it.

Alter Self was the best thing you had. Haste is ok but you lacked the backing of BAB/Attack/AC and it was doing was playing catch up, not over powering anything, but it also did give you the option to be useful towards you party rather than soloing stuff which is still better than playing a Fighter. Your experience is a shining example of what a real practical application of the adaptation not being a shiny god descending from the heavens to lead us to the promise land.



Honestly I couldn't find much at those levels that was infinitely better. I generally try to build my characters as item independent as possible though, so that probably contributed (also working with 5k so a tighter budget). I'm sure it can be easily abused but what I wanted to tell the OP was that it is indeed playable. Though I should ask how you would have done it. These are spell I always pick for gishes at low levels and am always open for improvement.

The end result of my limited testing was a gear independent character that could perform competently alone and excels in groups. The spell restrictions, at least at lower levels, keep the arcsage from being a one man party. Sure once you grab polymorph all bets are off, but that goes for everyone, not just the sage.

The DM was more worried at the end of the day about the half minotaur template than the arcsage, which has become a valid class in my group ever since then, though most people still consider it below full casters. It really comes down to the same as anything else: It breaks when you break it. Infinite celerity+timestop? Constant shapechange? I see no difference from a high level wizard who will likely not be using more than 10% of his daily loadout anyway, especially when dealing with recharging staffs, persisted buffs and fast time demiplanes. The all day complaint is mitigated by the fact that there are few enough encounters daily that wizards can keep it up at least as long.

The low level concerns about sleep and power word pain only apply if you ignore the spell restrictions put on them. Considering the class as a whole is a recommendation it makes little sense to grab that while ignoring the recommendations less than two lines after.

On a related note, are there any touch range dispel effects?

[gkathellar]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

ToB is one of my favorite sourcebooks for Tier 3 play (which is my general balance preference). Arcane Swordsage is one of the very few bad parts of said book, because as written it's not even appropriate for Tier 1 play (which I also enjoy). You're drawing an equivalency between my dislike of the Arcane Swordsage and some presumed dislike of ToB that I honestly don't have or intend to project. (The only reason my song said "ban that book" was because I couldn't think of a word for "adaptation suggestion" that fit meter.)

Note that if I actually wanted to play the Arcane Swordsage, I'd try to persuade my DM to let me use this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187632)


The only proof of such that you can provide is using Heroics & Marital Study to buff the party and that is based on a personal definition.

Infinite Save-or-Dies and Save-or-Sucks? Infinite nested Time Stops? Infinite [insert trick here]? Even without Heroics, some of those tricks are uniquely game-breaking.

Besides, the likely problematic use of Heroics isn't buffing — it's playing uber-batman, getting any spell you need for any situation in just a single round.


All because those effects have the same ambiguity in wording for you to manipulate.

What you see is a lie you created. Go back and pay just as much attention to how the PHB classes are written. And here is a hint, no you can't spontaneously convert your Wizard spells into Cure/Inflect spells.

I don't see the equivalency there, but I see how you could. In any case, even if you take a more conservative reading, Biffoniacus_Furiou made the point nicely that Martial Study still works that way due to its own, specific language.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gain by "manipulating" and ambiguity in the wording, or why I'm supposed to have created this lie so I can deceive people over the internet. If I've somehow offended you, I apologize.


Power Words and Sleep are Enchantment basedand an Arcane Swordsage shouldn't be learning them at all.

Agreed. In any functional implementation of the class, it shouldn't even be able to learn those schools. This is why a more specific and limited implementation than what is suggested is required.

[Mato]

ToB is one of my favorite sourcebooks for Tier 3 playAhh good to hear then.


Infinite Save-or-Dies and Save-or-Sucks? Infinite nested Time Stops? Infinite [insert trick here]? Even without Heroics, some of those tricks are uniquely game-breaking.Name a Save Suck/Die that is both Touch and Transmutation for me.

Infinite nested time stops are not as good as you think. With a touch/Personal limitation all you can to is buff your self, and you probably have been doing so every round with that unlimited casting anyway. So in the end, you're using a 9th level spell for extra move actions or to throw thousands of gold at each encounter setting up dozens of traps.

I'm sure if you keep trying you'll find some useful trick. Like Celerity to Time Stop or something. Every class has them and some times you just need to stop and ask your self is it the class that is the problem, or the spell/feat?


I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gain by "manipulating" and ambiguity in the wording, or why I'm supposed to have created this lie so I can deceive people over the internet. If I've somehow offended you, I apologize.My rebuttals have pointed out the same so call ambiguous wording is present everywhere and it doesn't work like that.

Take the mentioned Inflict thing for example.
Rules: a Cleric can replace a prepared spell with Inflict/Cure.
Ambiguity: did you mean all my prepared spells as in Wizard too?
Answer: No.

Thousands of citations can be pulled and every single one of them can be read as ambiguous to mean it applies to other items, feats, and classes. Which is exactly like the ASS's (I mean arcane swordsage) suggestion. However those other 30ish Base Classes and hundreds of PrCs do not mean anything outside of their own class features. As the default rule of intent that the SS swaps it's own maneuvers out for spells and not all maneuvers such as those learned by feats or other classes and it is up to you provide a noted exception detailing the ASS otherwise we're talking about your personal definition on words. Which even then isn't too impressive.

[DoctorGlock]

Name a Save Suck/Die that is both Touch and Transmutation for me.



Glass strike, 5th I think. Not particularly special though.

[Helldog]

Ban, ban, ban that book,
Throw it at his face.
Angrily, angrily, angrily ban,
Something that rhymes with face. Teach him to know his place.
There you go.

[umbergod]

okay after re-reading and re-interpreting the adaptation, arcane swordsage isn't AS busted as I originally thought. Still fairly high power, but its ToB, thats nothing new right? :P

[sonofzeal]

okay after re-reading and re-interpreting the adaptation, arcane swordsage isn't AS busted as I originally thought. Still fairly high power, but its ToB, thats nothing new right? :P
Well, as this thread demonstrates, it depends somewhat on interpretation. If you keep to the suggested spells and don't let Heroics -> Martial Study grant your wildest dreams, it's merely decent - likely still Tier 3, although a high Tier 3. Possibly borderline Tier 2.

It only becomes broken if you can overcome the Maneuvers Known list somehow; even Battle Sorcerers get more spells, and off a much less restricted list. Arcane Swordsages get other benefits too, but really I think they just hit parity with Battle Sorcerers at their best. That's not generally something to be be proud of, when talking about "Full Casters", which the Arcane Swordsage effectively becomes.

[candycorn]

Well, as this thread demonstrates, it depends somewhat on interpretation. If you keep to the suggested spells and don't let Heroics -> Martial Study grant your wildest dreams, it's merely decent - likely still Tier 3, although a high Tier 3. Possibly borderline Tier 2.

It only becomes broken if you can overcome the Maneuvers Known list somehow; even Battle Sorcerers get more spells, and off a much less restricted list. Arcane Swordsages get other benefits too, but really I think they just hit parity with Battle Sorcerers at their best. That's not generally something to be be proud of, when talking about "Full Casters", which the Arcane Swordsage effectively becomes.

However, AS has one or two rather important class feature legit tricks.

1) Every 4 levels, they can eliminate an old spell, and learn a new one. This means that while total spells known is limited, there will be a higher ratio of high level spells. So, while there is less spell variety overall, there will likely be greater variety of spells known at higher levels.

2) The AS is not restricted to spells. It CAN learn spells when it would learn a maneuver. However, it is not obligated to. It still has an initiator level, and it can choose to learn maneuvers. Combine this with Adaptive Style and Heroics for Martial Study/Martial Stance, and you could, with a few rounds of preparation, have almost any maneuver/stance you wanted, with the ability to refresh it via adaptive style.

Now, combine the spell list available, with the ability to have a few selected maneuvers to augment that.

[candycorn]

Well, as this thread demonstrates, it depends somewhat on interpretation. If you keep to the suggested spells and don't let Heroics -> Martial Study grant your wildest dreams, it's merely decent - likely still Tier 3, although a high Tier 3. Possibly borderline Tier 2.

It only becomes broken if you can overcome the Maneuvers Known list somehow; even Battle Sorcerers get more spells, and off a much less restricted list. Arcane Swordsages get other benefits too, but really I think they just hit parity with Battle Sorcerers at their best. That's not generally something to be be proud of, when talking about "Full Casters", which the Arcane Swordsage effectively becomes.

However, AS has one or two rather important class feature legit tricks.

1) Every 4 levels, they can eliminate an old spell, and learn a new one. This means that while total spells known is limited, there will be a higher ratio of high level spells. So, while there is less spell variety overall, there will likely be greater variety of spells known at higher levels.

2) The AS is not restricted to spells. It CAN learn spells when it would learn a maneuver. However, it is not obligated to. It still has an initiator level, and it can choose to learn maneuvers. Combine this with Adaptive Style and Heroics for Martial Study/Martial Stance, and you could, with a few rounds of preparation, have almost any maneuver/stance you wanted, with the ability to refresh it via adaptive style.

Now, combine the spell list available, with the ability to have a few selected maneuvers to augment that.

That's not even getting into Metamagic effects, and how they would apply. I mean, they're cast spells, and they're not prepared casters, so they should be able to add them on the fly. Since the spells are not stored in slots, and there's no inherent limit to the increase except for that, it would follow that you could metamagic any spell you had, without regard for slot increase.

[DoctorGlock]

That's not even getting into Metamagic effects, and how they would apply. I mean, they're cast spells, and they're not prepared casters, so they should be able to add them on the fly. Since the spells are not stored in slots, and there's no inherent limit to the increase except for that, it would follow that you could metamagic any spell you had, without regard for slot increase.

There is no way to add metamagic as they do not have real spellcasting, therefore the arcsage has no access to it. Free metamagic can only be applied when a mechanic exists for it. Saying "there is no way to add metamagic" =/= "I have infinite free metamagic"

[gkathellar]

There is no way to add metamagic as they do not have real spellcasting, therefore the arcsage has no access to it. Free metamagic can only be applied when a mechanic exists for it. Saying "there is no way to add metamagic" =/= "I have infinite free metamagic"

This is correct. You can't apply metamagic to SLAs just because they mimic spells, and in the same way you can't apply metamagic to maneuvers even if they are actually spells.


Name a Save Suck/Die that is both Touch and Transmutation for me.

Infinite nested time stops are not as good as you think. With a touch/Personal limitation all you can to is buff your self, and you probably have been doing so every round with that unlimited casting anyway. So in the end, you're using a 9th level spell for extra move actions or to throw thousands of gold at each encounter setting up dozens of traps.

Again, these limitations on what schools and types of spells you can learn aren't actually there by RAW. But I agree that they should be, as does everyone else, so it doesn't matter much. This is a case where RAI is really clear because RAW is insane.

[Mato]

Glass strike, 5th I think. Not particularly special though.SpC says 7th and Close. Good try though, I can't think of any.


Again, these limitations on what schools and types of spells you can learn aren't actually there by RAW. But I agree that they should be, as does everyone else, so it doesn't matter much. This is a case where RAI is really clear because RAW is insane.Player: I just turned level 13 and want to learn Glass Strike. It is fine?
DM: Are there any Touch or Personal spells of the 7th level?
Player: Yes.
DM: You should especially learn those like AS says.

RAW is subjective, not supportive.

[candycorn]

This is correct. You can't apply metamagic to SLAs just because they mimic spells, and in the same way you can't apply metamagic to maneuvers even if they are actually spells.

Except that they are not SLA's. They are Spells.
They don't mimic spells. They are spells.
Arcane Swordsages don't learn spell-like abilities. They learn spells.
They aren't initiated, or activated. They are "cast".

Now that we've established that Arcane swordsages can cast (per the text) spells (per the text), and defining a spellcaster as a character who casts spells, then Arcane swordsage is a spellcaster.

Since metamagic can be applied to spells that are cast, then there's no RAW basis for disallowing it.

They are cast without using slots, so slots are irrelevant to them. Modifying slots would therefore be meaningless.

[sonofzeal]

Except that they are not SLA's. They are Spells.
They don't mimic spells. They are spells.
Arcane Swordsages don't learn spell-like abilities. They learn spells.
They aren't initiated, or activated. They are "cast".

Now that we've established that Arcane swordsages can cast (per the text) spells (per the text), and defining a spellcaster as a character who casts spells, then Arcane swordsage is a spellcaster.

Since metamagic can be applied to spells that are cast, then there's no RAW basis for disallowing it.

They are cast without using slots, so slots are irrelevant to them. Modifying slots would therefore be meaningless.
Here's the wording:

"The arcane spell is “cast” as if it were a martial maneuver."

Since you can't apply Metamagics to maneuvers, you couldn't apply them to spells "cast" in this manner.


SpC says 7th and Close. Good try though, I can't think of any.
Corporeal Instability is awesome. Bladesong and Deafening Clang might qualify indirectly. Unearthly Heat works too, but has a delay built in. Trait Removal is situational but could be significant.

Oh, and Touch of Juiblex is just classy if you're not actually restricted to traditionally arcane spells.

[candycorn]

Here's the wording:

"The arcane spell is “cast” as if it were a martial maneuver."

Since you can't apply Metamagics to maneuvers, you couldn't apply them to spells "cast" in this manner.

Doesn't matter how they're activated. They're cast spells. Cast spells can have metamagic. No matter what else they qualify as, Cast spells can have metamagic, by the rules of the game.

If you'd like to contradict this, please show evidence on how a spell that's cast cannot.

Just because it's cast as a maneuver doesn't mean it ceases being a spell.

[Tvtyrant]

That's not even getting into Metamagic effects, and how they would apply. I mean, they're cast spells, and they're not prepared casters, so they should be able to add them on the fly. Since the spells are not stored in slots, and there's no inherent limit to the increase except for that, it would follow that you could metamagic any spell you had, without regard for slot increase.

Ummm, no. The opposite would follow; an arcane swordsage couldn't apply metamagic at all. There are no slots to increase, so you could never meet the requirements.

[candycorn]

Ummm, no. The opposite would follow; an arcane swordsage couldn't apply metamagic at all. There are no slots to increase, so you could never meet the requirements.

I don't see a causal link. An effect of applying metamagic to a spell is increasing the slot that spell goes in. But that's an effect, not a cost. Since most spellcasters must expend that slot as a cost to cast the spell, it gets incorporated into the cost of a spell. But that's due to the way most casters cast spells.

If a spellcaster did not use slots to cast spells, the effect of increasing the slot would be irrelevant.

[Tvtyrant]

I don't see a causal link. An effect of applying metamagic to a spell is increasing the slot that spell goes in. But that's an effect, not a cost. Since most spellcasters must expend that slot as a cost to cast the spell, it gets incorporated into the cost of a spell. But that's due to the way most casters cast spells.

If a spellcaster did not use slots to cast spells, the effect of increasing the slot would be irrelevant.

Empower Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#empowerSpell) [Metamagic]
Benefit
All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by one-half.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell’s actual level.

If you do not have a slot to use, you cannot use the spell. Otherwise if you added metamagic to a caster and they didn't have the slot to use up, they would still be able to use the metamagic. There is no differentiation between the two cases such as you are making.

[sonofzeal]

Doesn't matter how they're activated. They're cast spells. Cast spells can have metamagic. No matter what else they qualify as, Cast spells can have metamagic, by the rules of the game.

If you'd like to contradict this, please show evidence on how a spell that's cast cannot.

Just because it's cast as a maneuver doesn't mean it ceases being a spell.
The quotation marks around "cast", as well as the rest of the context of the sentence, clearly and unequivocally indicate that the AS is not actually casting the spell - "as if it were a martial maneuver" means they are initiating it instead. They use the word "cast" (in quotes) because it's a convenient way to refer to the activation of a spell, but they put it in quotes because "cast" has specific meaning in D&D that they're deliberately trying to avoid. This does potentially open up some funky loopholes, but Metamagic specifically makes reference to casting:


As a spellcaster’s knowledge of magic grows, she can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the ways in which the spells were originally designed or learned

Now, you might dismiss that as merely the "fluff" portion of the description. However, consider the point at which Metamagic is applied. A "spontaneous spellcaster" needs to choose at the moment they cast. A "prepared spellcaster" chooses when they prepare spells for the day. These are the only two options given under "Metamagic" for when it can be applied. Since AS matches neither of these conditions, it never is given the choice of whether to apply any Metamagic feat it might have. It never casts spontaneously, and it never prepares spells, so Metamagic application is simply a null situation for it.

[RedWarlock]

I could see Sudden Metamagic feats being used here, though. Hypothetically, anyway..

[candycorn]

The quotation marks around "cast", as well as the rest of the context of the sentence, clearly and unequivocally indicate that the AS is not actually casting the spell - "as if it were a martial maneuver" means they are initiating it instead. They use the word "cast" (in quotes) because it's a convenient way to refer to the activation of a spell, but they put it in quotes because "cast" has specific meaning in D&D that they're deliberately trying to avoid. This does potentially open up some funky loopholes, but Metamagic specifically makes reference to casting:Then they could have said initiating. When the rules do not intend for something to count as being cast, they have used "activate" or similar. You can assume that "cast" does not mean cast. But I see that as no more evident than saying that they clearly don't intend for it to be considered initiating, as they don't say "initiating".

But we can argue intent all day long. The fact is, they use "cast". Not Initiated. Not Activated. Not used. "Cast". In absence of any better term, that's what I'm going with.

If you disagree that "cast" means "cast", well, that's your option.

Now, you might dismiss that as merely the "fluff" portion of the description. However, consider the point at which Metamagic is applied. A "spontaneous spellcaster" needs to choose at the moment they cast. A "prepared spellcaster" chooses when they prepare spells for the day. These are the only two options given under "Metamagic" for when it can be applied. Since AS matches neither of these conditions, it never is given the choice of whether to apply any Metamagic feat it might have. It never casts spontaneously, and it never prepares spells, so Metamagic application is simply a null situation for it.AS is a spontaneous Caster, as a spontaneous caster is simply defined as any spellcaster that does not prepare spells.

[Douglas]

Quote marks around something that is not actually a quote are an indication that the word between the quote marks is not actually what the writer means.

[Tvtyrant]

Quote marks around something that is not actually a quote are an indication that the word between the quote marks is not actually what the writer means.
I'm not sure who you mean here, so I am posting a question mark to indicate my hope that it is not me.



?

[candycorn]

Quote marks around something that is not actually a quote are an indication that the word between the quote marks is not actually what the writer means.

And there is absolutely nothing to indicate that it's anything else. You can bark up that tree all you want. The fact of the matter is that they're spells. The only word used to describe the means of their activation is "cast".

You can believe that "cast" doesn't mean cast. Your perogative. I will not entertain any further discussion on the matter, unless you can provide an established term that is referenced for the use of an Arcane Swordsage's spells. With no viable alternative that is explicitly referenced, there's no alternative.

In other words, you're saying what you think they don't mean, but not providing any RAW support to show what they do.

[sonofzeal]

Then they could have said initiating. When the rules do not intend for something to count as being cast, they have used "activate" or similar. You can assume that "cast" does not mean cast. But I see that as no more evident than saying that they clearly don't intend for it to be considered initiating, as they don't say "initiating".
Except, y'know, the entire rest of that sentence?!?!

Seriously. Putting a term in quotes is a standard way of indicating it's being used in a way that it doesn't technically apply. That's a pretty normal english practice. For example I could say that Miss ABC "acted" in TeenMovieXYZ, meaning she was actor in it but that I don't consider her performance as acting. I could say BlondSinger17 "sang" PopSong37, or that I "danced" at the club last night. In each case, my inclusion of quotation marks is a clear indication that the word is not being used in what I as the speaker/writer would consider the proper usage.

In the case in question though, we have more than that - the actual content of the sentence. It says to treat the process "as if it were a martial maneuver". This would override any previous loopholes, since it completely replaces the entire process. "As if" means it uses the process of. And using the process of martial maneuvers means no longer using the process of spells - meaning no longer do you get to do any of the things that you could do if and when you were using a spell. If you had a feat that gave +2 hp every time you cast a spell? Doesn't work. If you had a feat that gave +2 hp every time you used a maneuver? Does work!

Simply put, the sentence in question says the exact opposite of what you're trying to make it say, and makes its true point clear in two different ways that you have to completely ignore in order to twist it around to your own means.

[Flickerdart]

The obvious solution would be to treat a Quickened Shocking Grasp maneuver as a 5th level maneuver, thus satisfying both the spell nature of the thing, and the maneuver nature of the thing.

[candycorn]

Except, y'know, the entire rest of that sentence?!?!Except, y'know, not!?!?


Seriously. Putting a term in quotes is a standard way of indicating it's being used in a way that it doesn't technically apply. That's a pretty normal english practice.However, it's not the only practice used for quotes in the english language. There are many, many different ways they're used. You're latching on one, and assuming that the authors were using a bit of sarcasm. Problem is, that doesn't translate in the written language well.


For example I could say that Miss ABC "acted" in TeenMovieXYZ, meaning she was actor in it but that I don't consider her performance as acting.And regardless, if she was a performer in a movie, she was acting, even if you consider her acting subpar.


I could say BlondSinger17 "sang" PopSong37, or that I "danced" at the club last night. In each case, my inclusion of quotation marks is a clear indication that the word is not being used in what I as the speaker/writer would consider the proper usage.In each case, you are connotating that someone attempted to do something, and did it poorly.

But they still did it.


In the case in question though, we have more than that - the actual content of the sentence. It says to treat the process "as if it were a martial maneuver".No it does not. It says that the spell is "cast" as a martial maneuver. Not "as if it were a martial maneuver". Very important distinction. The former means "treat the spell as a maneuver". The latter means "the swordsage's maneuver mechanic can be used to cast the spells".

This would override any previous loopholes, since it completely replaces the entire process.If it were correct, which it is not.

"As if" means it uses the process of."As if" is also "not used".

And using the process of martial maneuvers means no longer using the process of spells - meaning no longer do you get to do any of the things that you could do if and when you were using a spell.Flawed conclusion from flawed logic based on a flawed premise.

If you had a feat that gave +2 hp every time you cast a spell? Doesn't work. If you had a feat that gave +2 hp every time you used a maneuver? Does work![/quote]Backwards on each.

[sonofzeal]

Except, y'know, not!?!?

However, it's not the only practice used for quotes in the english language. There are many, many different ways they're used. You're latching on one, and assuming that the authors were using a bit of sarcasm. Problem is, that doesn't translate in the written language well.

And regardless, if she was a performer in a movie, she was acting, even if you consider her acting subpar.

In each case, you are connotating that someone attempted to do something, and did it poorly.

But they still did it.

No it does not. It says that the spell is "cast" as a martial maneuver. Not "as if it were a martial maneuver". Very important distinction. The former means "treat the spell as a maneuver". The latter means "the swordsage's maneuver mechanic can be used to cast the spells".
If it were correct, which it is not.
"As if" is also "not used".
Flawed conclusion from flawed logic based on a flawed premise.
Backwards on each.
Then why are there quotes there? Heck, why is that sentence there at all? The variant would function without it.

But I can see I'm not going to convince you whatever I say. You'd rather take no explaination for what the quotes mean than a valid one that contradicts your assumptions.

This isn't worth discussing with you any more. I'm checking out.

[candycorn]

Then why are there quotes there? Heck, why is that sentence there at all? The variant would function without it.

But I can see I'm not going to convince you whatever I say. You'd rather take no explaination for what the quotes mean than a valid one that contradicts your assumptions.

This isn't worth discussing with you any more. I'm checking out.

I would not be so presumptuous as to try to assume knowledge of why designers put one piece or another of text in. There are many redundancies in the game, and many don't make sense.

I am only stating that the text is there, and it won't be argued away. If it said that the spells were initiated as maneuvers, I would be 100% onboard with your interpretation. As is, you ready spells in the swordsage maneuver slots. Once readied, you may cast them, in much the same way most initiators initiate a maneuver. Once cast, they are expended, and may be recovered via any method that allows a swordsage to recover swordsage maneuvers.

And you're right. I'd rather take no explanation for why they're there. Because the reason for text counts for nothing when determining the implementation of it. The meaning is all that matters, and you have not demonstrated that your interpretation of "cast != cast" is the only possible one. You have not demonstrated that "as a maneuver" can only be interpreted as, "the spell is considered a maneuver for all purposes, and is initiated, not cast".

You are interpreting these things in that manner. However, you are not providing a compelling reason as to why this is the only correct interpretation.

[MeeposFire]

I just love it when people argue about the vague details that don't even have fully fleshed out rules to argue about in any real manner. :smallsigh:

[DoctorGlock]

I just love it when people argue about the vague details that don't even have fully fleshed out rules to argue about in any real manner. :smallsigh:

I love it when it sparks a huge rage fit like the 15 page TWF thread. :smallsigh:

[Helldog]

Lets make a poll. Who's with SonofZeal, say "Ay."
Who's with Candycorn, say "Nay."

Ay.

[umbergod]

I love it when it sparks a huge rage fit like the 15 page TWF thread. :smallsigh:

man, didnt think getting some clarification on this would spark such an argument >.<

[DoctorGlock]

man, didnt think getting some clarification on this would spark such an argument >.<

Yeah. Look, the arguments over it prevent people from playing it so there is not much info out there. My experience is literally the only account I have seen/read of the class in play. I'd recommend allowing it with the recommended limitations- Evocation, Transmutation, Abjuration, touch/personal only, as SU maneuvers or SLAs, not spells. If you want metamagic, you burn a higher level "known". Given that, it is not a game ender in any way. In a mid op group it does fine, in a high op group with tainted ultimate incantatrixes and shadowcraft mages it will feel small. In a low op game where everyone is T4 and fireball is the be all end all, yeah, don't use it. That's as much clarification as you will likely get. Enjoy it so long as a DM allows it.

[candycorn]

Lets make a poll. Who's with SonofZeal, say "Ay."
Who's with Candycorn, say "Nay."

Ay.

My position is that the ability is so vague, that it could mean any of a dozen things.

His is that, despite having minimal information, and less text than the average skill trick, it's clearly spelled out to only work in one exact and specific way.

[sonofzeal]

Lets make a poll. Who's with SonofZeal, say "Ay."
Who's with Candycorn, say "Nay."

Ay.
Honestly, as much as the validation is gratifying, I don't think there's any purpose to it beyond reigniting hostilities. Let each person make up their own mind, but a vote is unneeded.



Yeah. Look, the arguments over it prevent people from playing it so there is not much info out there. My experience is literally the only account I have seen/read of the class in play. I'd recommend allowing it with the recommended limitations- Evocation, Transmutation, Abjuration, touch/personal only, as SU maneuvers or SLAs, not spells. If you want metamagic, you burn a higher level "known". Given that, it is not a game ender in any way. In a mid op group it does fine, in a high op group with tainted ultimate incantatrixes and shadowcraft mages it will feel small. In a low op game where everyone is T4 and fireball is the be all end all, yeah, don't use it. That's as much clarification as you will likely get. Enjoy it so long as a DM allows it.
Hear hear! :smallbiggrin:



EDIT:

My position is that the ability is so vague, that it could mean any of a dozen things.

His is that, despite having minimal information, and less text than the average skill trick, it's clearly spelled out to only work in one exact and specific way.
And you've openly stated to prefer to ignore things that don't fit your interpretation.

(See what I mean about reigniting hostilities, Helldog?)

Let's just leave it, mkay?

[DoctorGlock]

There seems to be another arcsage thread out every week, think there is enough interest to throw together a quick handbook for players and DMs? "Here's how do it, what to allow and what it works well with" kind of thing. Something that lets DMs see that it's a solid class but not completely out there and for players to have some hope of playing one without hearing everyone start offering sacrifices to the mighty cheesegods for mercy?

[candycorn]

And you've openly stated to prefer to ignore things that don't fit your interpretation.

(See what I mean about reigniting hostilities, Helldog?)

Let's just leave it, mkay?You've got a couple things wrong there.

First, I've openly stated to not try to read meaning into things that don't have a clear meaning. You've interpreted that as ignoring the text, whereas I see it as accepting the words literally, and not reading things that aren't printed.

Second, my interpretation is based on how I read the ability, not vice versa. You are mistaking correlation for causality. Did you know there was an ruler once, who, after hearing that in the places with the highest numbers of physicians, there was the highest amount of disease? He ordered all the physicians executed to lower disease. Seems silly, when we think about it, but people misinterpret correllation for causality all the time. Sometimes that correllation represents causality, but often, the causality is reversed. Sometimes, it's merely an indicator. For example, children in households with books tend to score better on tests... Even if those books aren't read. One could infer the children learn through osmosis... Or one could hypothesize that parents who buy books for their children are more likely to value intelligence, and more likely to value eduation, and pass that on. In this case, the books aren't the cause of the test scores, but indicate a different cause that impacts both.

And there's no hostility here.

[sonofzeal]

There seems to be another arcsage thread out every week, think there is enough interest to throw together a quick handbook for players and DMs? "Here's how do it, what to allow and what it works well with" kind of thing. Something that lets DMs see that it's a solid class but not completely out there and for players to have some hope of playing one without hearing everyone start offering sacrifices to the mighty cheesegods for mercy?
Problem is that you have to make at least a few judgement calls, no matter which side of the candycorn/yourstruely debate you're on, namely....

1) ...whether to, and how strictly to, enforce the suggested spell types. They're worded softly enough that not even a cynical reader like me would argue they're hard and fast rules, although for playability it's probably a good idea.

2) ...whether to limit to sor/wiz spells, any arcane list, or any spell in general. I'd have assumed Sor/Wiz, but it doesn't actually say anything to suggest that. A RAW reading leaves it wide open to pick off any list it wants (helloooooo, Trapsmith (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HelloNurse)!)

3) ...what the Caster Level should be. As-written, the AS has no CL, making its spells useless. Making it equal to IL is probably a good base, but how would it interact with other CL-boosters? Some care in wording is probably called for.

4) ...whether using spells provokes AoO's, whether material components are necessary, whether ASF applies, and all the other miscellaneous sundries that attend such matters. Again, no guidance is given beyond "as if it were a martial maneuver", which implies a favourable stance.

[Helldog]

There is no RAW for an AS. Heck, the adaptation section isn't even a guideline. It's just a suggestion. So in other words the AS works how you decide it to work and there's no point in arguing about it. Is that right?

[candycorn]

There is no RAW for an AS. Heck, the adaptation section isn't even a guideline. It's just a suggestion. So in other words the AS works how you decide it to work and there's no point in arguing about it. Is that right?

Pretty much.

[Helldog]

Pretty much.
So I decide that it works like SofZ says. Any objections?

[candycorn]

So I decide that it works like SofZ says in my games. Any objections?

Fixed that for you. With the fix, no objections at all.

In other words: Your decisions on the impact of what essentially amounts to homebrew loosely suggested in a sourcebook does not impact the games of anyone but you, and even then, only if you are the DM.

As SoZ said, a lot of other aspects of the adaptation must be decided from scratch, to even allow the adaptation to function. That qualifies the whole thing as homebrew.

[Helldog]

Fixed that for you. With the fix, no objections at all.

In other words: Your decisions on the impact of what essentially amounts to homebrew loosely suggested in a sourcebook does not impact the games of anyone but you, and even then, only if you are the DM.

As SoZ said, a lot of other aspects of the adaptation must be decided from scratch, to even allow the adaptation to function. That qualifies the whole thing as homebrew.
Obviously.

[candycorn]

Obviously.

Not as obvious as you'd think. By inquiring for objections, you imply that the decision affects others in the thread. Otherwise, the objection would have no meaning, especially since it's essentially "I'm accepting the homebrew of another poster".

By adding that, and implying there's an effect which extends beyond your table, it's no longer obvious that you only refer to your game... hence, the clarification to make it obvious.

[sonofzeal]

You've got a couple things wrong there.

First, I've openly stated to not try to read meaning into things that don't have a clear meaning. You've interpreted that as ignoring the text, whereas I see it as accepting the words literally, and not reading things that aren't printed.
Except in the other AS discussion we had, you went the opposite way - interpreting it as extending to Martial Study when it also didn't have a clear meaning.

As to the source of this disagreement, I just looked up uses of quotation marks on Wikipedia. Of the list there, the only ons that fits the context isSignaling Unusual Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Signaling_unusual_usage), which would indicate exactly what I was saying - that it specifically is not cast in the traditional sense of the word (and, hopefully, that the context will fill us in on how exactly to interpret it).

The quotation marks have at least one clear meaning, which I provided at the time. If you'd chosen to provide another, you could have at least argued it was ambiguous. I don't see how you can argue that it's irrelevant or that you are free to ignore it just because you didn't know how to interpret it, when a valid interpretation is being given to you.

I truly hope this is merely a result of me not explaining Signaling Unusual Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Signaling_unusual_usage) correctly. Hopefully reading it for yourself, and comparing it with the alternatives, should clarify matters for you.

If it's SUU, then it's bypassing the conventional usage, so things depending on conventional usage (like application of metamagic, provokation of AoO's, etc) don't apply. If there's another interpretation, hey, feel free to propose it.

But you can't say "no clear meaning" just because the clear meaning disagrees with you.


And there's no hostility here.
Good to know. :smallsmile:

[Helldog]

Not as obvious as you'd think. By inquiring for objections, you imply that the decision affects others in the thread. Otherwise, the objection would have no meaning, especially since it's essentially "I'm accepting the homebrew of another poster".

By adding that, and implying there's an effect which extends beyond your table, it's no longer obvious that you only refer to your game... hence, the clarification to make it obvious.
Obviously.

[candycorn]

Except in the other AS discussion we had, you went the opposite way - interpreting it as extending to Martial Study when it also didn't have a clear meaning.It does. You learn spells when you would learn maneuvers. There's no listed restriction on that. Martial Study lets you learn a maneuver. Unless you try to interpret additional unlisted restrictions, there is nothing preventing it.


As to the source of this disagreement, I just looked up uses of quotation marks on Wikipedia.There's a reason most places don't allow citing of Wikipedia. That reason is, in 5 minutes, I could have an entry that says, "when used around the word 'cast', it conveys a precisely literal meaning."

In other words, it is not authoritative, any more than Wizards CustServ is.

And I couldn't say "no clear meaning" if there was a clear meaning that disagreed. Luckily for me, that isn't the case, and there really is room for interpretation.

[DoctorGlock]

Problem is that you have to make at least a few judgement calls, no matter which side of the candycorn/yourstruely debate you're on, namely....

1) ...whether to, and how strictly to, enforce the suggested spell types. They're worded softly enough that not even a cynical reader like me would argue they're hard and fast rules, although for playability it's probably a good idea.

2) ...whether to limit to sor/wiz spells, any arcane list, or any spell in general. I'd have assumed Sor/Wiz, but it doesn't actually say anything to suggest that. A RAW reading leaves it wide open to pick off any list it wants (helloooooo, Trapsmith (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HelloNurse)!)

3) ...what the Caster Level should be. As-written, the AS has no CL, making its spells useless. Making it equal to IL is probably a good base, but how would it interact with other CL-boosters? Some care in wording is probably called for.

4) ...whether using spells provokes AoO's, whether material components are necessary, whether ASF applies, and all the other miscellaneous sundries that attend such matters. Again, no guidance is given beyond "as if it were a martial maneuver", which implies a favourable stance.

True, though I am willing to bet that most of the playground backs the more reasonable interpretation

I would base it off the following assumptions

1: The attempt is to create a workable class based off the given suggestions that is playable. It want to adress the issue so that when a new player says "i found this class" or a DM says "One of my players found" we have a base set of assumptions. In short I want to set how the playground defines arcane swordsage as a playable class rather than pile of contradiction.

2: They are not spells but spells as maneuvers. Thus they are SU effects, provoke no AoO, have no ASF, no material, no XP, and use your IL in place of CL and are refreshed via swordsage recovery mechanic

3: The suggestions, IE abjuration, transmutation, evocation, touch/personal only is a hard and fast rule

4: The list is generic sor/wiz, arcane spells from specific classes are specific class spells. There will be a section advising expanding the list to things like the wu jen (that's the arcane one? or is it shujenja?) and sorcerer only spells for higher op games.

[sonofzeal]

It does. You learn spells when you would learn maneuvers. There's no listed restriction on that. Martial Study lets you learn a maneuver. Unless you try to interpret additional unlisted restrictions, there is nothing preventing it.

There's a reason most places don't allow citing of Wikipedia. That reason is, in 5 minutes, I could have an entry that says, "when used around the word 'cast', it conveys a precisely literal meaning."

In other words, it is not authoritative, any more than Wizards CustServ is.

And I couldn't say "no clear meaning" if there was a clear meaning that disagreed. Luckily for me, that isn't the case, and there really is room for interpretation.
Seriously? You're going to selectively ignore the rules of the english language just because you don't like the source I used?

http://grammartips.homestead.com/generalquotes.html

http://messymatters.com/scarequotes/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scare+quotes

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/09/scare_quotes_continue_to_plagu.html

http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/Scare-Quotes.htm

I'm going to bed now.

[candycorn]

Seriously? You're going to selectively ignore the rules of the english language just because you don't like the source I used?No. I refer to Wikipedia as an aid to information gathering, not a definitive source that is beyond reproach. It's a place to start research, not a place to end it. When dealing with educational matters, such as grammar, I generally default to reputable educational institutions (.edu sites are preferred).

Using wikipedia is like settling a RAW discussion by citing what an anonymous source said about the SRD. It may be right, and it may be wrong. Either way, it's not authoritative, so it cannot be used to justify a position.

In other words, I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm saying the source you're using doesn't support either conclusion, as it cannot be considered proof.

If you don't like that? Well, I'm sorry. But that's the truth. Whether it's in my favor or not, I'm not going to consider Wikipedia an authoritative source, because it is inherently corruptible, and not subject to a uniform system of checks to verify accuracy.

Incidentally, using quotes to denote the word is being used in a special way does not mean that it always means the opposite. It means that it's different in some way. In this way, that could be, "using a readied maneuver slot, and not a traditional spell slot". This denotes it enough to show that it's not being cast like other classes cast spells. That doesn't mean it's not being cast, though. Just that it's being cast differently.

In other words, you keep accusing me of ignoring things. I'm not. I am considering the sources you provide, judging them on their merits, and accepting or rejecting them based on their content or the reliability of their source.

In this case, it's unclear meanings, a lack of other terms that support alternatives, and unreliable sources. If you would like me to stop rejecting your sources, then use proper sources properly.

[hex0]

Suggestions:

1. Throw out all of the 'spells known' from Arcane Swordsage and instead give it SLAs that are useable at-will. Copy and paste the Warlocks invocations or the Factotums Arcane Dilletante ability onto the Swordsage.

2. Throw out the Recovery method, but keep the 'spells known' clause. Let the Arcane Swordsage use the Recharge Magic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/rechargeMagic.htm) rules instead.

3. Throw out the recovery AND the spells known clause. Give the Arcane Swordsage its own spell list and have spells known/per day that the Bard gets. Make them Wisdom based spontaneous arcane casters, just to make them unique.