Martial Study?

[GnomeGninjas]

My party was fighting some mooks (war1) who had taken the martial study feat to get mountain hammer. One of my players said that they couldn't because there initiator level wasn't high enough. I think he might be right but martial study only says you have to meet the prerequisites. Mountain hammer doesn't have any prerequisites so I thought they could take it. I think I believe him but I can't find the rule that says that.

[Greenish]

Mountain Hammer is a 1st level maneuver, and thus requires IL 1.

[Terazul]

Ugh. This again. When it refers to prerequisites, it's not referring to just the line labeled Prerequisites. As outlined in the maneuvers chapter, those are prerequisites in addition to have a high enough Initiator Level to use the maneuver in the first place.

[NeoSeraphi]

Mountain Hammer is a 1st level maneuver, and thus requires IL 1.

Mountain Hammer is Stone Dragon 2, actually. It thus requires IL 3 to use and learn.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Martial Study is weird like that. Also, by RAW, you have separate initiator levels for each class. So, a maneuver that reads "Warblade 5, Swordsage 5" could be grabbed by a Fighter 2/Warblade 10 (Warblade IL is 10 by the time you get access to your 12h level feat) but not by a Fighter 10/Warblade 2 (IL is 7 for Warblade schools/maneuvers).

It gets wonky when you start going things like Swordsage 2/Warblade 5/Crusader 1, naturally, as each has a different initiator level. (In this example, Swordsage IL is 5, Warblade IL is 6, Crusader IL is 4).

As you can learn maneuver "levels" of up to .5 IL+1 (think wizard casting progression, kind-of) it can get really weird really fast for multiclassing characters. Also, the minimum IL is 1. Yes, this leads to silly things like straight wizard 18 qualifying for a bunch of 5th level maneuvers (assuming he somehow can meet the "Know X Desert Wind maneuvers" requirement or what have you).

EDIT: NeoSeraphi has the gold. Mountain Hammer is a 2nd level maneuver, so Warblade 1 doesn't qualify for it. So, your player is right in this example, but not on the general rules.

[GnomeGninjas]

Thank you.

[Draz74]

Ugh. This again. When it refers to prerequisites, it's not referring to just the line labeled Prerequisites. As outlined in the maneuvers chapter, those are prerequisites in addition to have a high enough Initiator Level to use the maneuver in the first place.

The rules don't specifically confirm (or deny) what Terazul says, but it's required if you want any semblance of sanity or balance in your ToB game. (Otherwise, Level 1 characters could take maneuvers significantly more game-breaking than Mountain Hammer ... like Shadow Blink or Mountain Tombstone Strike.)

So regardless of whether the book actually says so, I highly recommend a ruling that a high enough initiator level is, indeed, required for maneuvers selected using Martial Study. (Probably a good idea for maneuvers selected via magic items, too; but those are expensive enough that it's not usually a big deal.)

[Glimbur]

There's also a side argument about non-Initiator characters taking any Martial study at level 1, because their IL is half their HD, which is 1/2. Do you round up or down? If you round down they do not qualify to take any maneuvers. This hurts, especially if you are using Martial Study to add a skill to your skill list.

[tyckspoon]

There's also a side argument about non-Initiator characters taking any Martial study at level 1, because their IL is half their HD, which is 1/2. Do you round up or down? If you round down they do not qualify to take any maneuvers. This hurts, especially if you are using Martial Study to add a skill to your skill list.

I don't think the RAW is at all in question there, really; fractions round down unless a specific rule tells you otherwise. Tome of Battle does not tell you otherwise, ergo standard rounding applies, so a level 1 non-initiator class's Initiator Level is 0. You can talk about intent or balance effects of ruling otherwise, but the RAW start is pretty clear.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I don't think the RAW is at all in question there, really; fractions round down unless a specific rule tells you otherwise. Tome of Battle does not tell you otherwise, ergo standard rounding applies, so a level 1 non-initiator class's Initiator Level is 0. You can talk about intent or balance effects of ruling otherwise, but the RAW start is pretty clear.

To be fair, yes, but all of the examples used in the book seem to indicate a round-up. So we get in that hazy bit of "Well, the general rule is X, but this implies Y." Wat do?

[Coidzor]

If there is an apparent conflict that RAW doesn't settle, then I believe, generally, the answer is to houserule things.

Traditionally at least.

[Suichimo]

There's also a side argument about non-Initiator characters taking any Martial study at level 1, because their IL is half their HD, which is 1/2. Do you round up or down? If you round down they do not qualify to take any maneuvers. This hurts, especially if you are using Martial Study to add a skill to your skill list.

I'm almost completely confident that Tome of Battle says that everyone has a minimum Initiator Level of 1. So anyone should be able to get a 1st level maneuver/stance through Martial Study/Martial Stance.

[Runestar]

I think you round down IL, minimum 1. So a non-adept character has IL1 from lv1 to 3, enough to get a single 1st lv maneuver via martial study (and possibly a 1st lv stance if you pair it up with martial stance). :smallsmile:

[sonofzeal]

BG's ToB errata: Learn it, love it, use it (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0)

[Greenish]

I'm almost completely confident that Tome of Battle says that everyone has a minimum Initiator Level of 1.I've seen many people claim that, but no one so far has managed to come up with an actual citation. I'd be most grateful for a page number (and location on said page) for such a rule, since I've been unable to find it.

[sonofzeal]

I've seen many people claim that, but no one so far has managed to come up with an actual citation. I'd be most grateful for a page number (and location on said page) for such a rule, since I've been unable to find it.
It's not in the book, but it's in the unofficial errata (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0), which is a good resource to use for a number of reasons.

[Runestar]

I've seen many people claim that, but no one so far has managed to come up with an actual citation. I'd be most grateful for a page number (and location on said page) for such a rule, since I've been unable to find it.

I inferred it from the tome of battle. One of the npcs (the half-orc shadow sun ninja monk) has taken martial study thrice as a 6th lv monk in order to qualify for said prc. This means that one his his martial study feats must have been taken at 1st lv, which implies that he has an IL of 1 at 1st lv. :smallsmile:

[Ivellius]

I inferred it from the tome of battle. One of the npcs (the half-orc shadow sun ninja monk) has taken martial study thrice as a 6th lv monk in order to qualify for said prc. This means that one his his martial study feats must have been taken at 1st lv, which implies that he has an IL of 1 at 1st lv. :smallsmile:

But we all know that WotC doesn't pay attention to their own rules when building characters...

More seriously, though, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use those example characters when trying to adjudicate such questions as these. If rules are unclear, we can look at how official sources used these rules. It's a game; it's about fun. And when you consider what druids can do, is allowing Martial Study as a 1st-level feat really overpowered?

[NeoSeraphi]

And when you consider what druids can do, is allowing Martial Study as a 1st-level feat really overpowered?

Oh man. You just gave me the best idea ever! From now on, all my animal companions are going to be taking Martial Study as their feats. :smallbiggrin:

[Elfin]

There's also a side argument about non-Initiator characters taking any Martial study at level 1, because their IL is half their HD, which is 1/2. Do you round up or down? If you round down they do not qualify to take any maneuvers. This hurts, especially if you are using Martial Study to add a skill to your skill list.

Chapter four of Tome of Battle says that IL for non-initiators is one-half their character level (ie HD) rounded down, to a minimum of 1.

[Elfin]

Accidental double-post. My apologies.

[Darrin]

Chapter four of Tome of Battle says that IL for non-initiators is one-half their character level (ie HD) rounded down, to a minimum of 1.

Chapter 3, actually, and the bolded section is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the book. That's inferred from the general rules from the PHB for rounding down, and the "minimum of 1" is implied mostly from other examples of "rounding" class levels.

[Greenish]

I inferred it from the tome of battle.I "infrerred" that Swordsages are proficient with longbows, as the sample swordsage on page 20 clearly demonstrates. :smallamused:

[Prime32]

It's not in the book, but it's in the unofficial errata (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0), which is a good resource to use for a number of reasons.You know, that's not the most up-to-date source. And the old boards will be closed any day now... (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=25)

Also, the prereqs based on numbers of maneuvers known are frequently ignored, for being silly and making character creation more complicated. (note: Stone Dragon has hardly any for some reason)

[Ivellius]

I "infrerred" that Swordsages are proficient with longbows, as the sample swordsage on page 20 clearly demonstrates. :smallamused:

At one point they probably were. Or that guy was an elf. Or...I don't know. They needed better editors, okay?

[Greenish]

At one point they probably were. Or that guy was an elf. Or...I don't know. They needed better editors, okay?My point being, to infer anything out of sample characters, you'd have to know which of the stuff is intentional, which just mistakes.

[Runestar]

And so I was pouring through my ToB, trying to look for more examples, and was dismayed when I chanced upon the sample RKV npc. Crusader4/cleric1/RKV3, IL of only 7, implying the cleric1 grants IL of 0. :smallfrown:

Current score, 1:1, and there doesn't seem to be enough material for a best out of 3 scenario. :smalltongue::smallannoyed::smallmad:

[NeoSeraphi]

And so I was pouring through my ToB, trying to look for more examples, and was dismayed when I chanced upon the sample RKV npc. Crusader4/cleric1/RKV3, IL of only 7, implying the cleric1 grants IL of 0. :smallfrown:

Cleric 1 does grant an IL of 0. IL is warblade/swordsage etc + .5 other classes. If he had cleric 2, that would be IL 1.

The question isn't whether 1 level of another class would give you +1 IL. It's whether 1 level of another class and nothing else gives you IL 1. (Do you round down to a minimum of 1, or just round down?)

[Douglas]

And so I was pouring through my ToB, trying to look for more examples, and was dismayed when I chanced upon the sample RKV npc. Crusader4/cleric1/RKV3, IL of only 7, implying the cleric1 grants IL of 0. :smallfrown:
That's evidence for "round down", but says nothing either way about the possibility of "minimum one".

[Greenish]

And so I was pouring through my ToB, trying to look for more examples, and was dismayed when I chanced upon the sample RKV npc. Crusader4/cleric1/RKV3, IL of only 7, implying the cleric1 grants IL of 0.Wait, so your interpretation was not that 1 is the minimum IL possible (like others have suggested), but that IL is always rounded up? :smallconfused:

[Edit]: Swordsages in a ToB thread, who'd have thought of it?

[sonofzeal]

That's evidence for "round down", but says nothing either way about the possibility of "minimum one".
To be fair, "round down minimum one" is generally the rule for most similar cases, with the notable exception of skill ranks. And the community ToB errata makes it "official".

So... not RAW, but probably RAI, and I highly recommend using that community errata for a number of reasons anyway which makes it RAW.

[Runestar]

Wait, so your interpretation was not that 1 is the minimum IL possible (like others have suggested), but that IL is always rounded up? :smallconfused:

[Edit]: Swordsages in a ToB thread, who'd have thought of it?

Oh, so you mean IL from non-martial adept classes is not tracked separately, then added to martial adept classes? :smalltongue:

I guess it makes sense. IL = 1/2 non-adept class + lvs in martial adept, min = 1.

So let me get this straight.

Fighter1-3: IL1.
Warblade1/fighter1: IL1
What if it is fighter1/warblade1? IL1 or 2? :smallconfused: Fighter1 has IL1, then you add a lv of warblade with IL1, do you get IL2, or IL1.5, round down to 1?

[Greenish]

What if it is fighter1/warblade1? IL1 or 2? :smallconfused: Fighter1 has IL1, then you add a lv of warblade with IL1, do you get IL2, or IL1.5, round down to 1?I still maintain there is no minimum IL, nor need for it, but apparently lot of people feel otherwise.

Either way, you'd calculate total IL before you start rounding things. That's just common sense.

[Elfin]

Chapter 3, actually, and the bolded section is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in the book. That's inferred from the general rules from the PHB for rounding down, and the "minimum of 1" is implied mostly from other examples of "rounding" class levels.

Ah, right – the introduction is not a chapter of its own.

I heartily apologize; I should not have cited rules from memory.

[Draz74]

I still maintain there is no minimum IL, nor need for it,

I concur. I see no reason why characters other than martial adepts should be allowed to take Martial Study at Level 1.

[Runestar]

I concur. I see no reason why characters other than martial adepts should be allowed to take Martial Study at Level 1.

Is there any reason why they shouldn't?

[Snowbluff]

I still maintain there is no minimum IL, nor need for it, but apparently lot of people feel otherwise.

Either way, you'd calculate total IL before you start rounding things. That's just common sense.

Actually, just don't round things at all. Common sense says that if you have 2 levels in war and 1 in fighter, then your IL is 2.5

Is 2.5 3 yet? NO. It's not rocket science people.

[Greenish]

Actually, just don't round things at all. Common sense says that if you have 2 levels in war and 1 in fighter, then your IL is 2.5

Is 2.5 3 yet? NO. It's not rocket science people.That makes no difference from rounding in a system where only whole numbers matter. :smallamused:

[Draz74]

Is there any reason why they shouldn't?

Cuz it makes them as good at martial arts as a class that specializes in martial arts? It's like being able to cast like a 1st-level Wizard just by taking a feat as a nonspellcaster class.

[Coidzor]

Cuz it makes them as good at martial arts as a class that specializes in martial arts? It's like being able to cast like a 1st-level Wizard just by taking a feat as a nonspellcaster class.

:smallconfused: No it's not, it's like spending a feat to be able to use a 1st level spell and one of the weak-to-moderate ones.

Considering that Martial Study is the thing intended to give access to some of the nice things of ToB to the pre-ToB classes, I see no reason to put additional obstacles in their way.

[Lans]

Cuz it makes them as good at martial arts as a class that specializes in martial arts? It's like being able to cast like a 1st-level Wizard just by taking a feat as a nonspellcaster class.

Theirs a whole host of feats that do that, and I don't have a problem with it. The initiator is still better at manuevers because he can use them more than once per combat, and has more than 1 of them to use.

[FMArthur]

:smallconfused: No it's not, it's like spending a feat to be able to use a 1st level spell and one of the weak-to-moderate ones.

Considering that Martial Study is the thing intended to give access to some of the nice things of ToB to the pre-ToB classes, I see no reason to put additional obstacles in their way.

If it was intended to be absorbable in perfect fashion by outside melee classes, the 1/2 IL rule doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why wouldn't it just be full IL? And it's not an 'additional obstacle' to follow the simple rule, you're talking about adding extra permissiveness here.

[SirFredgar]

If it was intended to be absorbable in perfect fashion by outside melee classes, the 1/2 IL rule doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why wouldn't it just be full IL? And it's not an 'additional obstacle' to follow the simple rule, you're talking about adding extra permissiveness here.

If they didn't follow the 1/2 IL rule, then Tome of Battle would be the Tome of Multiclassing. If I could get the best manuvers by simply dipping 1 level late in my carreer, what's to stop me from playing Druid19/Swordsage 1 to get all the best druid goodies and that 9th level manuver you qualify for by way of having an IL of 20.

[FMArthur]

If they didn't follow the 1/2 IL rule, then Tome of Battle would be the Tome of Multiclassing. If I could get the best manuvers by simply dipping 1 level late in my carreer, what's to stop me from playing Druid19/Swordsage 1 to get all the best druid goodies and that 9th level manuver you qualify for by way of having an IL of 20.

You're right. It really would be stupid if they did that. Which is why they didn't, and put a system in place that keeps other classes from doing the stuff martial adepts do with equivalent skill to them at equal levels.

[SirFredgar]

You're right. It really would be stupid if they did that. Which is why they didn't, and put a system in place that keeps other classes from doing the stuff martial adepts do with equivalent skill to them at equal levels.

Pretty Much, and I don't think the view that IL bottoms out at IL1 would encroach on that. Take for instance a Fighter Vs a Warblade. Sure the fighter could drop a few feats and pick up a Manuver and a Stance... but he'd be loosing out on Say power attack, or some other build-specific feat. The Warblade gets the same manuver and the same Stance, plus two more manuvers, some class features, and ALL of their starting feats. Not to mention his IL is going up faster, and any modifiers based on this level scale up at this increased rate as well. The fighter never gains more manuvers, doesn't have a refresh mechanic, and is generally much worse at that one manuver then a martial adept of equivlent level.

[Runestar]

If it was intended to be absorbable in perfect fashion by outside melee classes, the 1/2 IL rule doesn't make any sense to begin with. Why wouldn't it just be full IL? And it's not an 'additional obstacle' to follow the simple rule, you're talking about adding extra permissiveness here.

The only way this is possible at first lv is if a human fighter spent all of his 3 starting feats on martial study and/or martial stance. He would still be arguably weaker than a warblade, who has 2 "extra" starting feats, an extra maneuver or stance available, better skill list and can refresh his maneuvers as and when he needs.

Not to mention that as he levels, he is stuck with those low level maneuvers, while the warblade can eventually trade them out for higher level ones.

However I look at it, the fighter still gets the short end of the stick. :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

That makes no difference from rounding in a system where only whole numbers matter. :smallamused:

By applying another set of logic I have further validated that argument. :smallwink:

EDIT: Examining your, statement, I came to the conclusion that you are wrong.

Druid1/Cleric1/WB2 Has an IL of 3, since fractional IL would stack. By reducing this to a more basic level, where our sig fig is in the tenths place, rather than placing it on a whole number, allows this to work without rounding. Rounding would only adds complication to a problem that can be solved with the ability to add fractions.

[Greenish]

EDIT: Examining your, statement, I came to the conclusion that you are wrong.

Druid1/Cleric1/WB2 Has an IL of 3, since fractional IL would stack. By reducing this to a more basic level, where our sig fig is in the tenths place, rather than placing it on a whole number, allows this to work without rounding. Rounding would only adds complication to a problem that can be solved with the ability to add fractions.There's no complication added by rounding in that case, since there's nothing to round.

[Snowbluff]

There's no complication added by rounding in that case, since there's nothing to round.

EXACTLY! Isn't that the beauty of it? You never, ever, ever, have to argue about when rounding is done! Someone (who is totally wrong btw) could say that Druid 1 and Cleric 1 (for the sake of explanation, I think the min is 1 IL) both are 1/2 IL, and therefore both round down to zero. By never mentioning rounding, you have effectively eliminated the possilibilty of misinterpretation by people who would not read the rules themselves!

In other news, I am going to tell my DnD group we are using Fractional BAB from now on, for consistency. Cuz I like my DnD like I like my pudding, consistent, and good with Mountain Dew.

[Suichimo]

By applying another set of logic I have further validated that argument. :smallwink:

EDIT: Examining your, statement, I came to the conclusion that you are wrong.

Druid1/Cleric1/WB2 Has an IL of 3, since fractional IL would stack. By reducing this to a more basic level, where our sig fig is in the tenths place, rather than placing it on a whole number, allows this to work without rounding. Rounding would only adds complication to a problem that can be solved with the ability to add fractions.

Greenish is correct. There is no difference between an Initiator Level of 2 and 2.5. Either way, in your example, both fractional and rounding provide an Initiator Level of 3 for your Druid 1/Cleric 1/Warblade 1, because the only time rounding is done is after all of your classes have been accounted for.

The only issue here is whether there is a minimum IL, i.e. everyone in the game has a minimum of IL1 for the purposes of Martial Study and Martial Stance.

[Snowbluff]

Greenish is correct. There is no difference between an Initiator Level of 2 and 2.5. Either way, in your example, both fractional and rounding provide an Initiator Level of 3 for your Druid 1/Cleric 1/Warblade 1, because the only time rounding is done is after all of your classes have been accounted for.

The only issue here is whether there is a minimum IL, i.e. everyone in the game has a minimum of IL1 for the purposes of Martial Study and Martial Stance.

I haven't made myself clear. "A rounding system where only whole numbers matter" sounds an awful like 1/2 is zero in my head, and I argued against that.

As for the min IL, read the book. If it does not say so it is not so. Being at .5 IL does not qualify you for using maves, either.