Tome of Battle Eratta

[Mari01]

While I'm aware that there is no official errata from WotC, is it recommendable to use the errata posted over at brilliant gameologists? I've been through it and I can't see anything that wouldn't be a needed change or a quality of life improvement. What I'm most interested in is the tweaked progression for maneuvers and stances.

Link for those interested: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0

[animewatcha]

There is official errata for ToB.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Errata_ToB.zip

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

[Mari01]

There is official errata for ToB.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Errata_ToB.zip

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

That starts off Tome and then quickly changes to Complete Mage.

[HunterColt22]

There is official errata for ToB.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Errata_ToB.zip

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

It's know in this Errata though halfway through it they copy paste the wrong section in and it jumps to the one about either the complete mage or Arcana. I forget which, but the point is they fudged it up and never bothered to fix it. As to the OPs question, I am unsure, I imagine it is but I haven't had a chance to really go through it considering I am running through ToB myself at the moment with my current character for the first time.

[Big Fau]

I've put it to excellent use, but there are errors. It hasn't been updated in a long while either. Ultimately it's a list of house rules, but it's written by a well-rounded group. They did a respectable job, now if they'd only finish the Complete Psionic one...

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I think the maneuver and stance progressions are exactly what they wanted them to be, similar to how a Beguiler gets its Advanced Learning class feature on odd-numbered levels.

Looking over those unofficial fixes at your link, most of them are just common sense stuff (Warblade 1/ Fighter 4, Swordsage BAB) and others are probably changing something that the designers intended to leave as-is (Warblade stances known progression, Swordsage skillpoints at 1st level). Some of their reasoning behind their changes is completely off. (You can't target yourself with White Raven Tactics because it would result in an infinite initiative penalty? It switches the target's initiative to one less than your current initiative at the time it's initiated, it works just fine/as intended.)

Some of them are indeed good ideas, mostly just the common sense stuff that's obviously in error (Ironheart on the bonus feat list), but the rest are just house rules that not every group will like or even agree with. It's a slippery slope, and it would depend entirely on how your group handles house rules.

[eggs]

others are probably changing something that the designers intended to leave as-is (Warblade stances known progression, Swordsage skillpoints at 1st level).
I agreed with almost everything in your post, but when I got to this bit, I had to stop, go back, and see if I'd missed the joke.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I agreed with almost everything in your post, but when I got to this bit, I had to stop, go back, and see if I'd missed the joke.

It gives you four ranks in a bunch of skills that are never going to see additional ranks. It's good for getting synergy bonuses early on, but that's about it. I think they intended for Swordsage to have an extremely broad range of capabilities. Giving them tons of skill points at 1st level to have four ranks in stuff like Climb and Swim that they otherwise wouldn't have put a single point into is exactly the right way to accomplish that.

[Lateral]

It gives you four ranks in a bunch of skills that are never going to see additional ranks. It's good for getting synergy bonuses early on, but that's about it. I think they intended for Swordsage to have an extremely broad range of capabilities. Giving them tons of skill points at 1st level to have four ranks in stuff like Climb and Swim that they otherwise wouldn't have put a single point into is exactly the right way to accomplish that.

...It's completely out of line with every other class in the game. The whole point of getting 4x skill points at 1st level is that the maximum skill points in each skill at 1st level is 4, so you can have a number of skills maxed at every level equal to your class's skill points per level plus your INT modifier. It's an obvious typo, accidentally replacing that 4 with a 6.

[eggs]

It's a very plausible typo, and it's unusual and clumsy enough that if it were deliberate, I'd expect at least a reference in the accompanying text.

Edit: Also, the starting package would probably not use 4*(6+Int).

[Mari01]

I'm glad the stance progression got changed for a few dumb reasons. Like for example, a straight crusader cant actually get one his defining stances, the one where you're almost immortal, without burning two feats on it. That just seems wrong.

[deuxhero]

One problem the BG errata is it doesn't fix the fact that you can't use IHS to cancel out paralysis because you have to be able to move to use a maneuver (I PMed the TC and they said they would fix it, but haven't a year after the fact)

[molten_dragon]

While I'm aware that there is no official errata from WotC, is it recommendable to use the errata posted over at brilliant gameologists? I've been through it and I can't see anything that wouldn't be a needed change or a quality of life improvement. What I'm most interested in is the tweaked progression for maneuvers and stances.

Link for those interested: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=13292.0

Overall, it looks like a decent group of fixes. There are a couple I think they made mistakes on though.

For example, the fix for the Shadow Trickster feat. They changed the table to match the text, which fits the general rule that text trumps table, but it makes more sense to require a shadow hand stance rather than a shadow hand strike, since the feat is only usable if you have a shadow hand stance.

The Iron Heart Surge changes are still kind of confusing too. It says you can remove any spell or power with a duration longer than one round, but then it says you can't remove the dazed condition if it's caused by a spell.

There are other examples, but I just wanted to point a couple out.

Overall, they're good changes, but they don't quite get everything right. They're better than nothing though.

[sonofzeal]

It gives you four ranks in a bunch of skills that are never going to see additional ranks. It's good for getting synergy bonuses early on, but that's about it. I think they intended for Swordsage to have an extremely broad range of capabilities. Giving them tons of skill points at 1st level to have four ranks in stuff like Climb and Swim that they otherwise wouldn't have put a single point into is exactly the right way to accomplish that.
There is no possible way that 6x skillpoints at first level was intentional.

The stance progression... eh, maybe. Others have raised Immortal Fortitude oddness already, and this resolves it nicely, but it's hard to tell what's truly intended. But swordsage skillpoints is just about the most blindingly obvious typo I can think of outside of Scorpion Claws damage and Vigilante spellslots.

[Prime32]

I've put it to excellent use, but there are errors. It hasn't been updated in a long while either.It has. (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?board=25)

[Urpriest]

I just thought of something: there is a document for ToB errata. That means that somewhere in WotC, they told someone to make a ToB errata...which means that it's quite likely that somewhere a real ToB errata exists. I doubt that the guy who wrote the errata put in Complete Mage partway through intentionally. Who was in charge of writing errata?

[Answerer]

I think the maneuver and stance progressions are exactly what they wanted them to be, similar to how a Beguiler gets its Advanced Learning class feature on odd-numbered levels.
Pretty sure there is a quote by one of the authors saying they didn't think too hard about the ramifications of the stance progression and it wasn't intentional, for example, that a straight Crusader couldn't take Immortal Fortitude naturally. They had just eyeballed the stance progression without considering when stances actually became available.

Unfortunately, I can't find this quote now...

[Big Fau]

I just thought of something: there is a document for ToB errata. That means that somewhere in WotC, they told someone to make a ToB errata...which means that it's quite likely that somewhere a real ToB errata exists. I doubt that the guy who wrote the errata put in Complete Mage partway through intentionally. Who was in charge of writing errata?

One of the BG guys on the errata project actually found the WotC-made errata for Complete Psionics an posted it, so it's certainly possible.

[navar100]

A couple of years ago I had a brief communication with Mike Mearls. He admitted the stance progression problem was a mistake.