[3.5] Multiclass tome of battle classes

[Laniius]

I'm making a Swordsage 2/Warblade 5/Bloodclaw Master 3 for a campaign.

I would be able to initiate manuevers as a 7th level Swordsage or 9th level warblade, correct?

What about readying manuevers? And regaining expended manuevers? Do I have to keep my swordsage and warblade manuevers separate? What about the manuevers from bloodclaw master?

When I do my recovery, do I have to recover my warblade manuevers and swordsage manuevers separately? Or could I regain all of my manuevers, including the swordsage manuevers, with the warblade recovery method? What about if I have the Adaptive Style feat?

Edit: And what about learning manuevers? Can I only learn Swordsage exclusive manuevers with my swordsage levels, and warblade manuevers with warblade levels? Or is it once I have access to the class I can choose any I qualify for via initiator level?

Thanks.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

you can only know and prepare a maneuver once, either as a swordsage or a warblade.
recovery systems work as usual: you recover swordsage maneuver with swordsage and warblade maneuvers with warblade.
For example, you know Sudden Leap as a Warblade and Dancing Mongoose as a swordsage. You can only prepare Dancing Mongoose in the Swordsage pool and you can only recover that maneuver when recovering swordsage maneuvers.
Known maneuvers count as prerequisite for the other class.

[Laniius]

Thanks. What about switching out old manuevers? Is that based on character level or class level? I.e. single classed characters can switch out manuevers at 4th, 6th, 8th, etc. Since I'm multiclassed, does that mean that I'm stuck with my early manuevers, or can I switch at character level 4th, 6th, 8th, etc as long as I meet the IL and known manuevers prereq's?

[Answerer]

you can only know and prepare a maneuver once, either as a swordsage or a warblade.
I would argue that Tome of Battle is ambiguous about this.

Either you have completely separate lists of manuevers known for each class (and can therefore learn a manuever with each), or you simply know a maneuver or you don't, and thus cannot ready a maneuver twice. The ramifications of the latter approach, however, are that any maneuver you know, you can ready with any class you have (that meets its Initiator Level prerequisites).

Considering that maneuvers you know from one class count towards prereqs for learning new maneuvers "with" another class, I suspect the latter is correct, but I'm not sure how many groups would allow a Warblade 4/Swordsage 1 to ready Shadow Jaunt as a Warblade maneuver (i.e. refreshed as part of that Swift+Attack).

But the idea that a maneuver is simultaneously class-specific (i.e. can only be readied for the class that learned it) and known across classes (i.e. cannot be learned again and counts for prereqs) is, to my mind, preposterous. It either is or it isn't.

[Malachei]

I agree that it is scattered all over the rules text.


A character with two or more martial adept classes keeps track of his readied maneuvers, expended maneuvers, and recovery of expended maneuvers separately for each class.


When you initiate a maneuver, you expend it for the current encounter, so each of your readied maneuvers can be used once per encounter (unless you recover them, as described below).

Also, there was a clarification in a Q&A / sage advice:


Q: If you are a multiclass martial adept (from Tome of Battle), a swordsage/warblade for example, do you have to keep your maneuvers known and maneuvers readied separate for each class?
A: If a character has multiple martial adept base classes, the maneuvers known and readied from each class are kept separate. Knowing a maneuver for one class does not mean you can ready it for the other, or vice versa.

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19525942/Tome_of_Battle_Q38;A

And, so nobody has to post it again: Sage Advice is not RAW, we all know that. Some like to look at it, some don't. If you're the DM, you're free to houserule RAW anyway...

[Laniius]

Sage Advice is the closest we are going to get to RAW for Tome of Battle errata though.

[Answerer]

Not really. The Sage didn't have anything to do with writing the book and more often than not doesn't bother to check with the authors. He's literally just another DM, just one who gets paid to expound on his personal interpretations.

Anyway, yes, if you go by the Sage ruling, they are separate. If they are separate, then that means you can learn and ready them separately – including the same maneuver twice.

Or they're one unified list, and you can ready them from any class that meets the IL requirement.

But half one way and half the other is not an option supported in any way by the rules.

[Laniius]

Have you LOOKED at the Tome of Battle errata? It switches to Complete Mage halfway through. Sage Advice isn't exactly RAW for most things, but in absence of actual errata it is "more official" than most.

[Malachei]

There are a lot of examples when " half one way and half the other is not an option"

People come here for information and turn to other to gain more insight on an issue they are unsure how to deal with in their game.

I don't quite understand why people fight the Sage Advice. It is an additional source of information. At least it is from a person on the publisher's payroll, and it is not like we're getting any official errata from the publisher for a game system that is out of print.

I often see Sage Advice dismissed with condescending remarks. Yes, some of the rules are messy. Yes, some of the answers don't help. But it's not like the people on this board are infallible. It is somehow like people watching sports on TV: they're all better trainers and players, until you put them on a playing field. Let's have some respect for people who do it for a living.

[Lord_Gareth]

There are a lot of examples when " half one way and half the other is not an option"

People come here for information and turn to other to gain more insight on an issue they are unsure how to deal with in their game.

I don't quite understand why people fight the Sage Advice. It is an additional source of information. At least it is from a person on the publisher's payroll, and it is not like we're getting any official errata from the publisher for a game system that is out of print.

I often see Sage Advice dismissed with condescending remarks. Yes, some of the rules are messy. Yes, some of the answers don't help. But it's not like the people on this board are infallible. It is somehow like people watching sports on TV: they're all better trainers and players, until you put them on a playing field. Let's have some respect for people who do it for a living.

Except...the people doing it for a living suck. We really ARE better at it than they are most of the time, at least partially because we understand the game they designed (something WotC never quite managed to do). Some folks from this forum have even tried to break into the business with the Legend system; others simply let their work speak for itself.

Sage's advice gets denounced because it's consistently stupid and unhelpful in more or less every possible way. It being 'from the publisher' doesn't actually make the game any better.

[Answerer]

Have you LOOKED at the Tome of Battle errata? It switches to Complete Mage halfway through. Sage Advice isn't exactly RAW for most things, but in absence of actual errata it is "more official" than most.
That's my point: it's not. The Sage doesn't really have access to any better resources or knowledge than anyone else, most of the time. In this case, he's made up a rule to cover something missing from the book, but there's no particular reason that he's "right" or "official".

The errata is, of course, useless, but the Sage is only marginally less so – and he has no particular authority on the subject.


Let me make this clear: when you claim something is "official," I take that as an Argument From Authority – and in this case, there is nothing authoritative about the source. As a result, your case is fallacious.


There are a lot of examples when " half one way and half the other is not an option"
Care to name any that are generally accepted as RAW but are not explicitly called out?

There is no indication anywhere in Tome of Battle that maneuvers known should be treated one way in some cases and another way in other cases. It does not say, or imply, any such thing. It does leave the correct way to handle things ambiguous, but the ambiguity is between "unified list" and "separate class lists" – not some weird, completely unspecified, "half one way and half another" solution.

In essence, Occam's Razor: to have it half one way and half another assumes something that is not indicated by the rules. To rule one way or the other makes no assumption of special exemptions, which is thus, at least to my mind, the superior option (why assume a special exception when you could avoid doing so?).


People come here for information and turn to other to gain more insight on an issue they are unsure how to deal with in their game.
Yes, and my commentary on how the rules are written is, what, detracting from people's insight?


I don't quite understand why people fight the Sage Advice. It is an additional source of information. At least it is from a person on the publisher's payroll, and it is not like we're getting any official errata from the publisher for a game system that is out of print.
See, this is my problem with going to the Sage: people see "on the publisher's payroll" and assume he knows what he's talking about, above and beyond what you or I know. In most cases, this isn't true; it's a rare FAQ entry where the actual author of the book answers. Thus, despite being paid to do it, the man isn't particularly in a position of special knowledge or awareness; he's just making interpretations or running with what seems most reasonable to him, just like the rest of us.

Also, he's very frequently wrong, and a lot of his "gut reactions" turn out to be terrible ideas.


I often see Sage Advice dismissed with condescending remarks. Yes, some of the rules are messy. Yes, some of the answers don't help. But it's not like the people on this board are infallible. It is somehow like people watching sports on TV: they're all better trainers and players, until you put them on a playing field. Let's have some respect for people who do it for a living.
I respect those who do it well, regardless of their payment or lack thereof for their work. I can name a lot of forum-goers who know a lot more about the system and do a better job writing about it than most authors at WotC. This goes double for Paizo.

[Lord_Gareth]

This goes QUINTUPLE for Paizo.

Fixed it for you bro. Awesome post ^_^

[Varil]

A reasonable interpretation might be that any class that could normally ready a given maneuver can ready that maneuver, regardless of what class actually learned it.

So a Warblade 5/Swordsage 5 could only ready Desert Wind maneuvers on his Swordsage side, but could ready Diamond Mind on either side(no matter which side learned it), but a given maneuver could only be readied once.

This seems more reasonable to me than readying Action Before Thought twice, once as a Swordsage and once as a Warblade, but lets a multiclassed initiator make good use of overlapping maneuver sets.

[Malachei]

Except...the people doing it for a living suck. We really ARE better at it than they are most of the time, at least partially because we understand the game they designed (something WotC never quite managed to do). Some folks from this forum have even tried to break into the business with the Legend system; others simply let their work speak for itself.

Sage's advice gets denounced because it's consistently stupid and unhelpful in more or less every possible way.

I will try to remember when I've last read something that came across as condescending and disrespectful to other people's work. Hmmmmm... that's a long time.

I think it is a general problem of hobbyists that they overestimate their capabilities compared to professionals. At least in gaming, compared to sports, you don't end in hospital with a broken bone.


It being 'from the publisher' doesn't actually make the game any better.

Well, the publisher has paid for the game design. The publisher owns the copyright. You can play the game thanks to the publisher. The publisher decides on RAW.

I think the game would be a lot worse if nobody would have taken the business risk of paying people to work on it. By the way, these are mostly enthusiasts, because as a game designer, you have to be, because you earn extremely low wages. I think we as players should show respect for the people who work overtime to bring us a good game, under time pressure, for small money.

Maybe everybody who is so clever should design their own game and play it -- on their own, because then the person is only playing with people as smart as himself/herself.

[Answerer]

Maybe everybody who is so clever should design their own game and play it -- on their own, because then the person is only playing with people as smart as himself/herself.
Yeah, they did exactly that (http://www.ruleofcool.com/).

Turned out basically better than 3.5 in almost every way possible.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yeah, they did exactly that (http://www.ruleofcool.com/).

Turned out basically better than 3.5 in almost every way possible.

And, IIRC, they did it for free. If WotC is being paid to create a system, we should expect higher quality from them. Since it's become increasingly obvious over this last ten to fifteen years that we cannot, we've got no reason to trust their word or rulings about jack squat.

[Malachei]

I know that. It is probably the best system in the world and everybody has to play it, or they are not smart?


Yes, and my commentary on how the rules are written is, what, detracting from people's insight?

No, and that's not what I said. You state your opinion, other people state theirs. This may help a lot. Some people may want to include information from the sage, knowing it is not RAW.

And yes, the sage is an official source: More on the term --> here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official#Adjective) An official source does not need to be the author, and the author is of course not an official source if he/she does not work for the publisher anymore. If person A agrees that person B writes his/her biography, that makes it official. If the publisher agrees with the sage giving clarification on the rules, he is an official source.


Also, he's very frequently wrong

And you know when he is right or wrong, of course? I guess you're not very frequently wrong? Of course not, because you get to decide whether you are right or wrong? And your buddies agree with you? Absolute truth is a concept that is a more complicated issue.

[Answerer]

And, IIRC, they did it for free. If WotC is being paid to create a system, we should expect higher quality from them. Since it's become increasingly obvious over this last ten to fifteen years that we cannot, we've got no reason to trust their word or rulings about jack squat.
It's not free, actually. But 100% of proceeds (not profits but proceeds, which means they're paying for all costs out of pockets) from the core book go to charity (Child's Play). So there is that.


I know that. It is probably the best system in the world and everybody has to play it, or they are not smart?
Didn't say that; I still play 3.5 sometimes because it's what friends are playing. And 3.5 does have native support of various cool settings and there are a few things you cannot build in Legend.

Nonetheless, the game is far better designed, for exactly the reasons I've stated: the designers knew what they were doing, much better than WotC did when making 3.5. They knew 3.5 better than WotC, and set out to do better.


And yes, the sage is an official source: More on the term --> here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official#Adjective) An official source does not need to be the author, and the author is of course not an official source if he/she does not work for the publisher anymore. If person A agrees that person B writes his/her biography, that makes it official. If the publisher agrees with the sage giving clarification on the rules, he is an official source.
WotC has never stated that the Sage's rulings were official or authoritative. This is what is meant by RAW; by your own statements, you recognize that he is not.

For the purposes of this conversation, he is not official. Do not insult my intelligence; I know the meaning of the word (hell, I could give you the etymology of it if I were so inclined, since I know the Latin root). But his rulings, while posted on the official site, are not official rules.


And you know when he is right or wrong, of course? I guess you're not very frequently wrong? Of course not, because you get to decide whether you are right or wrong? And your buddies agree with you? Absolute truth is a concept that is a more complicated issue.
Ahaha, you think I'm talking about myself? No, I'm talking about the wider 3.5 community. There are plenty examples of the Sage stating things that are blatantly and unambiguous contrary to the rules actually in the book.

Again, he's not official, and he's not a particularly good interpreter of the books as written.

[Malachei]

You do realize that you are expressing an opinion?

That when you say something is "far better", or you talk about the meaning of the term "official", you are explaining your understanding?

Do you agree that another person's understanding may differ from yours?

Does that make them wrong? I.e. do you really believe that everybody who is not sharing your point of view is wrong?

By the way, regarding the meaning of the term "official", I'd still rather consult wikipedia than you.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I will try to remember when I've last read something that came across as condescending and disrespectful to other people's work. Hmmmmm... that's a long time.

I think it is a general problem of hobbyists that they overestimate their capabilities compared to professionals. At least in gaming, compared to sports, you don't end in hospital with a broken bone.

Speaking of condescenscion, you're coming across as disrespectful towards homebrewers/gamers as Lord_Gareth did towards WotC. The difference being that the criticism of WotC is quite deserved, while that of homebrewers is less so, as was pointed out above.

It isn't even a failing on WotC's part that any individual gamer understands 3e better than any individual designer; that's what happens when one of them is paid 9 to 5 to work on a small subset of the rules while the other one devours the entire ruleset for fun. It is a failing when WotC fails to playtest material and ignores obvious rules interactions, when CustServ and the Sage not only make rulings without having read the relevant material but contradict themselves on a regular basis, and when they ignore feedback from rules gurus after they specifically asked those gurus to playtest new material for them.

It's all very well and good that WotC took the risk of making the game, but that doesn't guarantee quality. WotC decides the RAW for something, but once that game is printed, someone at WotC completely unrelated to the group that worked on that something saying "Well, I think it's supposed to work this way..." has no authority over what the rules actually say unless errata is issued. And gamers respect the errata, because those are actually rules changes; someone's idle musings on RAI are not.


Maybe everybody who is so clever should design their own game and play it -- on their own, because then the person is only playing with people as smart as himself/herself.

Well, first of all, been there, done that: see Legend, d20r, etc.

Second of all, I hate this argument. "Oh, if you know so much, why don't you make your own game, huh?" I'm a computer science graduate student with prior experience in software development. Quite often, my friends and I critique various software products, and sometimes less-tech-savvy people say "Oh yeah? Well, if you know so much why don't you make your own programs/apps/fixes for [e.g.] Windows 8?"

And guess what? I can, and I have. I've done plenty of low-level systems programming, I've built plugins, I've written drivers, and a friend of mine was even hired by Microsoft thanks to a particularly nifty module he wrote. But some people just assume, for some reason, that the people who made a certain thing are infallible where it's concerned and the rest of us mere mortals just don't understand it the same way, and that the designers should be given credit just for having done it. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The same way art critics don't have to be good artists to be able to critique it, and that you're often a poor objective judge of your own work, the designers shouldn't be put up on a pedestal as the One True Authority on their material if it's badly-done in the first place.

/rant


And yes, the sage is an official source: More on the term --> here. An official source does not need to be the author, and the author is of course not an official source if he/she does not work for the publisher anymore. If person A agrees that person B writes his/her biography, that makes it official. If the publisher agrees with the sage giving clarification on the rules, he is an official source.

You know, back on the WotC forums, the saying used to be "Customer Service: 100% official, 0% correct." The fact that the Sage was the official source (i.e. the company spokesperson regarding rules questions) does not mean that he made official rulings (i.e. proclamations of errata or designer intent), as Answerer noted--only errata is given the authority to change the rules, anything else is merely opinion. (Also as Answered noted, insulting everyone's intelligence is unnecessary.)


And you know when he is right or wrong, of course? I guess you're not very frequently wrong? Of course not, because you get to decide whether you are right or wrong? And your buddies agree with you? Absolute truth is a concept that is a more complicated issue.

Absolute truth is not a complicated issue when the statement "Book X, page Y, sentence Z states the following: W" is obviously and undeniably false. The Sage is infamous for making those kinds of statements, starting with Skip Williams quoting chapter and verse claiming that the 3.0 PHB explicitly disallowed sorcerers from using Quicken Spell (when it said no such thing) and going downhill from there. When Andy Collins took over, he tended to be better about this, usually saying "You might want to rule..." rather than "The books state..." but he still got more answers wrong than right.


By the way, regarding the meaning of the term "official", I'd still rather consult wikipedia than you.

Since we're being supercilious today, I'd check Wiktionary as well for further clarification, viz. the difference between official, endorsed, authoritative, and correct.

[Answerer]

You do realize that you are expressing an opinion?

That when you say something is "far better", or you talk about the meaning of the term "official", you are explaining your understanding?

Do you agree that another person's understanding may differ from yours?

Does that make them wrong? I.e. do you really believe that everybody who is not sharing your point of view is wrong?
My opinions are based on various facts, however; this isn't really about my opinions. I only brought up Legend as a snarky response to your fallacious argument re: doing it yourself.

Further, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion; no one is entitled to their own facts." When I'm talking about the Sage being wrong, I mean that he has, many a time, claimed that "the books state X" when the books say no such thing at all, or even specifically state "not X". So yes, he is frequently wrong, in an absolute, objective manner.

Fun fact: people can, in fact, be wrong. It is a possibility. They can also be right. Not every question is a matter of opinion.


By the way, regarding the meaning of the term "official", I'd still rather consult wikipedia than you.
Random and strange insult number... five? six?

[Malachei]

The difference being that the criticism of WotC is quite deserved, while that of homebrewers is less so, as was pointed out above.

Again, this is your opinion. I respect your opinion, but I must insist that Truth =/= Surveys =/= Opinions...

I am always surprised when expressing opinions, they are stated as if they were facts. Also, the term "better" is highly doubtful when referring to game systems (and many other aspects of life) --> What is better for one person is not necessarily better for another.

If you feel your opinion equals truth, I fear we have a disagreement more significant than game systems.

If you don't, adding "I think" or "IMO" to statements probably helps conveying the message.


people who made a certain thing are infallible

Exactly. You know, I'm aware that I am fallible. I think reflection and doubt are among the most wonderful gifts we possess as human beings. Actually, fallibilism is something I happen to know a lot about.

And this is where this discussion started: People stating that "any individual gamer understands 3e better than any individual designer" (your statement), game designers do a really bad job, hobbyists do a much better job... system A is so much better than system B... and all these very subjective statements and generalizations.

IMO, in a discussion, when we argue that our opinion is a fact and our point of view equals truth, we have effectively stopped talking to the other person, and we've decided not to learn and consider their point of view. Then why talk at all? Just to repeat one's mantra?

[Answerer]

There were exactly two points made:

1. Just because he's working for WotC, does not necessarily make his ruling better.

2. He has, in fact, been objectively wrong on many occasions.


Do you disagree with either statement?

Because the rest was just responding in kind to you.

[Malachei]

The points that were made are all in the posts in this thread, and I read them differently than what you summed up now. It began when I gave information on a possible interpretation of the rules, including sage advice, explicitly stating it is not RAW.

As I said in my first post in this thread:

And, so nobody has to post it again: Sage Advice is not RAW, we all know that. Some like to look at it, some don't. If you're the DM, you're free to houserule RAW anyway...

I'm somewhat tired of being argued with for citing sage advice.

I see nothing wrong with adding information, the OP can decide if he wants to use the sage's explanation, or yours, or anybody else's or come up with his/her own.

I think this discussion has moved the thread OT. Let's leave it at that, because I fear we'll never agree.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

EDIT: Malachei, You posted your last message while I was writing this. If you do want to "agree to disagree" and discontinue this line of conversation, I will if you will.


Again, this is your opinion. I respect your opinion, but I must insist that Truth =/= Surveys =/= Opinions...

I am always surprised when expressing opinions, they are stated as if they were facts. Also, the term "better" is highly doubtful when referring to game systems (and many other aspects of life) --> What is better for one person is not necessarily better for another.

If you feel your opinion equals truth, I fear we have a disagreement more significant than game systems.

If you don't, adding "I think" or "IMO" to statements probably helps conveying the message.

That you for that profound bit of wisdom. I have never encountered the concept that one's opinions are not fact.

Snark aside, it is true--not opinion, true--that much criticism of WotC is deserved. Not all, perhaps not most, but much. It is true that the designers have made verifiably incorrect statements about rules they or their colleagues wrote, as their statements can easily be fact-checked. It is true that individual gamers are more knowledgeable about 3e than individual designers, as the designers have admitted having less-than-current rules knowledge at conventions and such. It is true that homebrew projects avoid many of the problems of published games and thus avoid the same criticisms being leveled at them--though whether they introduce other problems is another matter.

Avoiding discussing this with an epistemological treatise gets you (and us) nowhere.


And this is where this discussion started: People stating that "any individual gamer understands 3e better than any individual designer" (your statement), game designers do a really bad job, hobbyists do a much better job... system A is so much better than system B... and all these very subjective statements and generalizations.

IMO, in a discussion, when we argue that our opinion is a fact and our point of view equals truth, we have effectively stopped talking to the other person, and we've decided not to learn and consider their point of view. Then why talk at all? Just to repeat one's mantra?

Note that the statements regarding designer skill were aimed only at WotC. There are plenty of designers at other companies and plenty of homebrewers that possess good working knowledge of their respective games, subscribe to good game design principles, listen to feedback, etc., but with few exceptions WotC designers tend to lack those skills. Note also that when we're talking about hobbyists and homebrewers, we're talking about those active in this and other online communities, who have better rules knowledge than the average gamer. So yes, statistically speaking, any individual hobbyist here will have a better working knowledge of 3e than any individual WotC dev.

Regarding systems being better than others, "better" depends on certain criteria. In an objective sense, a game that meets its design goals is better than one that does not, whether you personally agree with those design goals or not. In a subjective sense, game A is better than game B regarding aspects X, Y, and Z if it handles them better than B does. So while one cannot speak of the "best" game, one can certainly talk about games which are better than 3e. Left unstated is the assumption that it is meant that they're better regarding balance, cohesiveness, simplicity, and other attributes, because those discussions have been had before many times and it wasn't felt that repeating them was necessary.

If you'd prefer everything to be spelled out and would prefer to turn a discussion about the RAW into a contest to see who took more college philosophy courses, we can do that, too, but otherwise it would help if you addressed the points themselves instead of the metaphysics surrounding them.

-----------------------------

To actually answer the OP:


I'm making a Swordsage 2/Warblade 5/Bloodclaw Master 3 for a campaign.

I would be able to initiate manuevers as a 7th level Swordsage or 9th level warblade, correct?

Sort of. Initiator level determines the maximum maneuver level known only, not hte number of maneuvers known. You have the warblade maneuvers known of a 5th level warblade and swordsage maneuvers known of a 2nd level swordsage, but you can meet maneuver prerequisites as if you were a 7th level swordsage and a 9th level warblade.


What about readying manuevers? And regaining expended manuevers? Do I have to keep my swordsage and warblade manuevers separate? What about the manuevers from bloodclaw master?

You ready and regain maneuvers separately from swordsage and warblade. Each time you learn a bloodclaw master maneuver, you choose to add it to either your swordsage or warblade maneuvers.


When I do my recovery, do I have to recover my warblade manuevers and swordsage manuevers separately? Or could I regain all of my manuevers, including the swordsage manuevers, with the warblade recovery method? What about if I have the Adaptive Style feat?

You must recover both classes' maneuvers separately using each class's recovery method, but Adaptive Style re-readies all maneuvers regardless of source.


Edit: And what about learning manuevers? Can I only learn Swordsage exclusive manuevers with my swordsage levels, and warblade manuevers with warblade levels? Or is it once I have access to the class I can choose any I qualify for via initiator level?

You must learn swordsage maneuvers with swordsage slots and warblade maneuvers with warblade slots, with the exception that prestige classes let you add maneuvers known to any adept class you have (so a crusader could learn Tiger Claw maneuvers with bloodclaw master, for instance, despite not having access to Tiger Claw via crusader).


Thanks. What about switching out old manuevers? Is that based on character level or class level? I.e. single classed characters can switch out manuevers at 4th, 6th, 8th, etc. Since I'm multiclassed, does that mean that I'm stuck with my early manuevers, or can I switch at character level 4th, 6th, 8th, etc as long as I meet the IL and known manuevers prereq's?

Swapping out is based on class level, to provide a benefit for those who don't multiclass/PrC.

[Malachei]

It is true that the designers have made verifiably incorrect statements about rules they or their colleagues wrote, as their statements can easily be fact-checked.

Agreed, but we gamers make lots of mistakes, as well.


Snark aside, it is true--not opinion, true--that much criticism of WotC is deserved. It is true that individual gamers are more knowledgeable about 3e than individual designers, as the designers have admitted having less-than-current rules knowledge at conventions and such. It is true that homebrew projects avoid many of the problems of published games and thus avoid the same criticisms being leveled at them--though whether they introduce other problems is another matter.

Avoiding discussing this with an epistemological treatise gets you (and us) nowhere.

Again, unfortunately, these statements present opinion without evidence, claimed to be truth. To see the problem in this, I don't need epistemology (though it helps), common sense is enough.

[Psyren]

And, IIRC, they did it for free. If WotC is being paid to create a system, we should expect higher quality from them. Since it's become increasingly obvious over this last ten to fifteen years that we cannot, we've got no reason to trust their word or rulings about jack squat.

They make good judgments on some things. So does paizo. Throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't help anyone.

[Varil]

Another topic slain. Good job guys. Maybe you could take your argument to PM, though?