Mixing Monk and PsyWar: Why Tashalatora and not Ascetic Warrior? [answered]

[TuggyNE]

I'm always a little curious why people recommending Monk/PsyWar builds seem to stick to Tashalatora (and the required Monastic Training), rather than simply taking the specialized Ascetic Warrior and freeing up a Monk bonus feat. Any insights, or is it just a near-universal oversight?

[Tvtyrant]

Tashalatora grants you flurry of blows as well as unarmed strike progression.

[Urpriest]

Isn't Ascetic Warrior DSP content?

If you're using 3rd party, you can probably find a fixed psionic monk with no multiclassing required.

[Snowbluff]

I am still trying to figure out why people want to drop ML for Psywar to take monk levels. I think it's worth the feats to take Tashalatora without monk unless you really want Stunning Fist.

[The Glyphstone]

I am still trying to figure out why people want to drop ML for Psywar to take monk levels. I think it's worth the feats to take Tashalatora without monk unless you really want Stunning Fist.

PsyWar20 vs. PsyWar19/Monk 1 gives:

BAB +15, 1 bonus feat off a large list, 12 PP, and 1 6th level power known
vs.
1 bonus feat off a narrow list, +1 Fort, +2 Ref, +2 Will.

..I don't know either.


Because while RAW most DMs won't allow you to stack monk and psionic levels when you have no real monk levels. Besides monk 2 is a very strong dip.
Besides this.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Because while RAW most DMs won't allow you to stack monk and psionic levels when you have no real monk levels. Besides monk 2 is a very strong dip.

[Snowbluff]

PsyWar20 vs. PsyWar19/Monk 1 gives:

BAB +15, 1 bonus feat off a large list, 12 PP, and 1 6th level power known
vs.
1 bonus feat off a narrow list, +1 Fort, +2 Ref, +2 Will.

..I don't know either.

I mean for progression I don't know how many people play starting at 20, but when I have to play a Psywar, getting ML and Metamorphosis a level later sucks really bad.

[Morcleon]

I am still trying to figure out why people want to drop ML for Psywar to take monk levels. I think it's worth the feats to take Tashalatora without monk unless you really want Stunning Fist.

...because Tashalatora requires Monastic Training, which requires levels in monk. Also, you sort of have to have the monk levels to advance monk class features via the feat.

And it's only 1 ML, so if you have the feat to spend, get Practiced Manifester or something...

EDIT: Dammit, my dreams of not being ninja'd have been shattered...


I mean for progression I don't know how many people play starting at 20, but when I have to play a Psywar, getting ML and Metamorphosis a level later sucks really bad.

It's one level. In exchange, you can get some monk stuff too! :smallsmile:

[The Glyphstone]

I mean for progression I don't know how many people play starting at 20, but when I have to play a Psywar, getting ML and Metamorphosis a level later sucks really bad.

If you're starting at Progression, it's much better. The Bonus Feat can be spent on Monastic Training to get Talashatora online sooner, that +2/+2/+2 to saves can be nice, and only 1-level delay on powers isn't that harsh.

[Snowbluff]

If you're starting at Progression, it's much better. The Bonus Feat can be spent on Monastic Training to get Talashatora online sooner, that +2/+2/+2 to saves can be nice, and only 1-level delay on powers isn't that harsh.

Well, Psywar sit on a lot of feats as-is. With flaws or human, you can have Tashalatora really early. Plus, actually having some BaB is nice early on.

[TuggyNE]

Tashalatora grants you flurry of blows as well as unarmed strike progression.

Ah, well, I guess those are useful in some builds.


Isn't Ascetic Warrior DSP content?

What do you know, it is. Well, I suppose that answers that. :smallredface:


PsyWar20 vs. PsyWar19/Monk 1 gives:

BAB +15, 1 bonus feat off a large list, 12 PP, and 1 6th level power known
vs.
1 bonus feat off a narrow list, +1 Fort, +2 Ref, +2 Will.

Because the bonus feat generally doesn't require meeting prerequisites. Same with Monk 2.

[Rubik]

In the right build, a level of monk or two can be really good. I mean, the monk AC works when using Metamorphosis (which monk's belt doesn't always do), and since by RAW your entire body is an unarmed strike, adding unusual weapon enhancements to it (such as ghost touch) can be amazing.

Also, you can take Monastic Training and Tashalatora as monk bonus feats, IIRC.

[Snowbluff]

In the right build, a level of monk or two can be really good. I mean, the monk AC works when using Metamorphosis (which monk's belt doesn't always do), and since by RAW your entire body is an unarmed strike, adding unusual weapon enhancements to it (such as ghost touch) can be amazing.

Also, you can take Monastic Training and Tashalatora as monk bonus feats, IIRC.

Except, like, you don't NEED Monk levels to get a Monk's AC bonus. :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Except, like, you don't NEED Monk levels to get a Monk's AC bonus. :smalltongue:How do you fit a belt on a beholder? Or a mimic?

[Snowbluff]

How do you fit a belt on a beholder? Or a mimic?

Tashalatora gives you the Monk AC bonus without actually needing levels in monk. So take your choice or any Psionic Class, or get other similar AC bonuses from Swordsage or Battledancer.

God, I hate Monks. Even when you don't need them they won't go away!

[Rubik]

Tashalatora gives you the Monk AC bonus without actually needing levels in monk. So take your choice or any Psionic Class, or get other similar AC bonuses from Swordsage or Battledancer.

God, I hate Monks. Even when you don't need them they won't go away!And treating your entire body as an unarmed strike so you can put throwing and ghost touch and flaming on there?

[Snowbluff]

And treating your entire body as an unarmed strike so you can put throwing and ghost touch and flaming on there?

I am going to have to read the exact wording of the Feat again, but Tashalatora probably does that. If not, Unarmed Swordsage gets the contents of the Unarmed Strike ability.

[Hirax]

For what it's worth, when I recommend monk/psywar builds, I usually recommend monk2 as the starting base, too. Combat reflexes (or deflect arrows), +1 to BAB, +1 to all saves, and evasion aren't that bad. If you wanted to be an optimal psychic warrior, you'd be better of just ditching monk and tashalatora altogether and augmenting claws of the beast. It lasts hours/level, and is a swift action to cast if you weren't able to anticipate when you'd need it at low levels.

[Draz74]

For what it's worth, when I recommend monk/psywar builds, I usually recommend monk2 as the starting base, too. Combat reflexes (or deflect arrows), +1 to BAB, +1 to all saves, and evasion aren't that bad. If you wanted to be an optimal psychic warrior, you'd be better of just ditching monk and tashalatora altogether and augmenting claws of the beast. It lasts hours/level, and is a swift action to cast if you weren't able to anticipate when you'd need it at low levels.

QFT. Monk levels get put in Tashalatora builds for the same reason Tashalatora does: to enable a Monk concept/flavor. Fortunately, the first two levels of Monk aren't exactly crippling. But they're not strictly optimal either; you'd be marginally better off with pure PsyWar. The perks of the Monk are a bunch of minor bonuses, including more skill points (which no one has mentioned so far).

Also, any DM who's rules-savvy enough to allow Tashalatora builds should probably be ok with Fractional BAB (and Save) progression, too. Hurts the build's Fort save a bit, but avoids the cruel lost point of BAB that comes from combining two Medium-BAB-melee classes.

[Psyren]

Tashalatora gives you the Monk AC bonus without actually needing levels in monk.

You know, I can't stand that interpretation. "I stack my 20 levels of Psywar with my 0 levels of Monk to get the benefits of a monk 20!" I'm sorry, but having no levels in monk does not count as levels in monk from where I'm sitting. Dip the level and pay to play, it's hardly going to cripple you.

[Snowbluff]

You know, I can't stand that interpretation. "I stack my 20 levels of Psywar with my 0 levels of Monk to get the benefits of a monk 20!" I'm sorry, but having no levels in monk does not count as levels in monk from where I'm sitting. Dip the level and pay to play, it's hardly going to cripple you.

It's not like there's no cost to it, it's just the way I like to play the feat. I would feel rather crippled if I was ECL 11 and the 2 monk levels push my PsyWar, Mantled progression low enough that I don't have Metamorphosis yet.

[lord_khaine]

Instead of Psywar i think i would chose Ardent instead, it might be a little weaker physicaly, but in return you get level 9 powers :smallsmile:

[Snowbluff]

Instead of Psywar i think i would chose Ardent instead, it might be a little weaker physicaly, but in return you get level 9 powers :smallsmile:

Yeah. PsyWar are really strong physically, but the AC bonus is really nice for Ardents as well. Wilder would be nice as well.

[HunterOfJello]

It's not like there's no cost to it, it's just the way I like to play the feat. I would feel rather crippled if I was ECL 11 and the 2 monk levels push my PsyWar, Mantled progression low enough that I don't have Metamorphosis yet.

Then play an Ardent. You'd get access to Metamorphosis even faster than you would as a pure Psychic Warrior.

Monk/Ardent with Talashatora, Monastic Training and Practiced Manifester can get Metamorphosis at level 7.

Pure Psychic Warrior won't get it until level 10 even if you use a bizarre and unrealistic interpretation of the Talashatora text.

[Snowbluff]

Then play an Ardent. You'd get access to Metamorphosis even faster than you would as a pure Psychic Warrior.

Monk/Ardent with Talashatora, Monastic Training and Practiced Manifester can get Metamorphosis at level 7.

Pure Psychic Warrior won't get it until level 10 even if you use a bizarre and unrealistic interpretation of the Talashatora text.

King of Smack style builds that make the PsyWar so good require a ton of feats. The extra BaB and feats are really helpful benefits.

The RAW of the text is neither bizzare or unrealistic. It's certainly not RAI, but PsyWar have Wisdom as a stat and Monastic Training covers the fluff perspective.

[Answerer]

The reason is because some people insist on being a "Monk" and therefore need Tashalatora to feel like a Monk. An unarmed Psychic Warrior is probably better off just taking Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat... or just sticking the PsyWar's natural tendency for natural weapons.


...because Tashalatora requires Monastic Training, which requires levels in monk.
It does not.

Monastic Training has no prerequisites at all, and the Benefit section says only "Pick one class. Taking levels in this class does not prevent you from taking monk levels. [...]" You don't even actually have to have levels in Monk or the chosen class (though that would be entirely pointless).

[Morcleon]

It does not.

Monastic Training has no prerequisites at all, and the Benefit section says only "Pick one class. Taking levels in this class does not prevent you from taking monk levels. [...]" You don't even actually have to have levels in Monk or the chosen class (though that would be entirely pointless).

... :smalltongue: That is hilarious.

[Snowbluff]

... :smalltongue: That is hilarious.

That is exactly what I said when I found out. :smallbiggrin:

[Morcleon]

That is exactly what I said when I found out. :smallbiggrin:

It's like how you can take metamagic feats without having a whit of spellcasting ability...

[Keld Denar]

Not everyone plays PsyWar with Metamorphosis, though. Tash builders are still just fine without it. Especially if your DM doesn't make EVERY foe have Freedom of Movement. PsyWar with Expansion is still very combat ready. And you don't need Tash much before ECL4 because there isn't really any benefit to it at that point. You don't even have your first UAS damage bump.

And the extra feats from Monk2 are definitely still worthwhile on a PsyWar base. Tash builds are incredibly feat intensive. Imp Nat Attack, Snap Kick, Link Power, Psionic Meditation, PsyCrystal Affinity/Containment, Superior Unarmed Strike, Practiced Manifester. And thats without optional combat modes like Imp Grapple or dropping feats for Mantled Warrior.

More feat intensive than a bard, even, for sure.

[Snowbluff]

Keep in mind that the only they need for Psionic Focus is Linked Power. Link it to Hustle, use Psionic Meditation to refocus, and get a Swift action manifestation out of it, so no need to sink feats into Pyscrystal Stuff.

Practived Manifester does nothing unless you did dip monk. Superior Unarmed Strike averages around 2-4 points of damage IIRC.

Snap Kick is actually good, though. If Dragon is allowed, pick up Beast Strike.

[Keld Denar]

Psicrystal Affinity is often cited, along with Share Pain/Vigor, as one of the crowning perks of being a psionic class (which, btw, I know Share Pain doesn't appear on any Mantle, and I don't think Vigor does either).

Just saying, a lot of the stuff I see touted about here for Tash builds don't actually work in practice. I've played a handful of Tash and similar builds, and made a few others, actually built them for different ECLs, and it is really hard to fit in everything you want or need without those monk levels or with Ardent levels.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, it can be tricky, which is why I prefer the PsyWar over Ardent if you want to melee.

Though, you won't need linked power or psionic meditation until later, and with all of the feats I openly consider useless for being quantitative rather than qualitative, it gets easier.

[Answerer]

Psicrystal Affinity is often cited, along with Share Pain/Vigor, as one of the crowning perks of being a psionic class (which, btw, I know Share Pain doesn't appear on any Mantle, and I don't think Vigor does either).
Vigor is on the Physical Power Mantle.

[Keld Denar]

Expansion isn't. Share Pain isn't. Inertial Armor isn't. Weapon if the Vampire isn't. Lots of important powers aren't on mantles. Even with power swapping from Minds Eye, picking all of the best ones with Ardent gets tough.

[lord_khaine]

Expansion isn't. Share Pain isn't. Inertial Armor isn't. Weapon if the Vampire isn't. Lots of important powers aren't on mantles. Even with power swapping from Minds Eye, picking all of the best ones with Ardent gets tough.
Today 02:17 PM

But with a bit of power swapping, and a couple of feats spend on expanded knowledge, you generaly get enough other stuff to make up for it, like fx temporal acceleration :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

... :smalltongue: That is hilarious.

Makes sense, as it doesn't seem to give the ability to take monk levels back if you've already left the monk class and lost that ability. So that you can take it with levels of whatever class you were going to have before entering monk, especially if you were going to stagger levels before you'd gain enough monk levels to get it as a feat.

The fact that it lets you be a Tashalatora without any monk levels is just icing on the cake.

[Rubik]

Then play an Ardent. You'd get access to Metamorphosis even faster than you would as a pure Psychic Warrior.

Monk/Ardent with Talashatora, Monastic Training and Practiced Manifester can get Metamorphosis at level 7.

Pure Psychic Warrior won't get it until level 10 even if you use a bizarre and unrealistic interpretation of the Talashatora text.Except ardents suck, and not in a good way. They're awful. And honestly, psychic warriors can be quite useful and powerful if you don't water them down at all, and can be fully capable of hanging out with T1s and T2s. They don't get as many power points, or the highest level powers, but the powers they do get scale insanely well and do a ton with very few pp if you use them wisely.

[Morcleon]

Except ardents suck, and not in a good way. They're awful. And honestly, psychic warriors can be quite useful and powerful if you don't water them down at all, and can be fully capable of hanging out with T1s and T2s. They don't get as many power points, or the highest level powers, but the powers they do get scale insanely well and do a ton with very few pp if you use them wisely.

You could always play a Psion, and take Faerie Mysteries Initiate... Vigor+Share Pain+Psicrystal picks up the rest of the slack. Then get Tashatalora, the psionic adaptation for Abjurant Champion and Slayer. :smallsmile:

[Snowbluff]

You could always play a Psion, and take Faerie Mysteries Initiate... Vigor+Share Pain+Psicrystal picks up the rest of the slack. Then get Tashatalora, the psionic adaptation for Abjurant Champion and Slayer. :smallsmile:

Ouch. You'd need Kung-Fu Genius for the Int to AC as well. You're forgetting the problem is that these builds are feat starved, right? You shouldn't be using a class with less synergy. :smallyuk:

[Morcleon]

Ouch. You'd need Kung-Fu Genius for the Int to AC as well. You're forgetting the problem is that these builds are feat starved, right? You shouldn't be using a class with less synergy. :smallyuk:

Give your psicrystal a bunch of psionic feats, persistent feat leech them, and save yourself the trouble of taking them. :smalltongue:

[gkathellar]

Ouch. You'd need Kung-Fu Genius for the Int to AC as well. You're forgetting the problem is that these builds are feat starved, right? You shouldn't be using a class with less synergy. :smallyuk:

You could if you really wanted, but it's skippable, since the best way to run a Psion-gish is actually just to use the Control Body power on oneself. That makes a character Int-SAD, and by handing Control Body over to a Psicrystal, allows them to use theirr actions for manifesting and focusing while their psicrystal directs physical actions.


You could always play a Psion, and take Faerie Mysteries Initiate... Vigor+Share Pain+Psicrystal picks up the rest of the slack. Then get Tashatalora, the psionic adaptation for Abjurant Champion and Slayer. :smallsmile:

Honestly, if you have a GM who lets you use Faerie Mysteries Initiate, you should probably just go for an infinite action build because Int just won the game.

[Psyren]

Except ardents suck, and not in a good way. They're awful.

Vanilla Ardents are indeed weaker than Psions, but I would hardly say that makes them "suck." There are plenty of decent mantles to choose from even purely as-written, such as Conflict, Creation, Deception, Freedom, Magic, Physical Power and Time.

Once you add in bonuses like Mantle Substitution and Dominant Ideal, they match Psions in most respects and even clearly surpass them in others. Very few Psion ACFs even come close.

[candycorn]

With Practiced Manifester, a Tash Ardent doesn't even slow down power acquisition, as long as he dips for no more than 4 levels.

An Ardent 9 can have 5th level powers
A Monk 2 / Ardent 7 with PM can have 5th level powers.

Because of this interaction with Max level known, Ardents are, hands down, the best psionic class for multiclassing.

Add on some of the web enhancements that allow Ardents to play really nice with metapsionic feats, and Ardents can become nasty indeed.

The specific enhancement I refer to is Dominant Ideal (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070629a). It gives a cost reduction of 2 for metapsionics and augmentation, for 1 mantle. Which means if you link Bestow Power onto a Vigor, for example, you don't expend your focus, and it costs 3pp (as opposed to 5).

From there, it's easy enough to add on Metapower, lowering the cost down to 1pp. Oddly enough, it gives you 2pp, so you now also have the ability to recharge your own PP, at a rate of 1 per round. With earth power, and one other method of lowering PP cost by 1, you can increase it to 2 per round.

Dominant Ideal/Metapower provides added ability to Nova, as you only need 1pp to refill all your PP in a matter of a couple minutes (10 per minute, so even high level manifesters could fully refill their power points in under 20 minutes).

No, Ardent is certainly not weak. In fact, by doing that full combo (-6pp per power), you could Vigor for 1pp, link vigor for 0pp, and augment 5 more pp into one or the other, granting you 30 temp HP for 1 pp. Add on Share Power (via expanded knowledge), and that's effectively 60 temp HP for 1pp.

[Morcleon]

With Practiced Manifester, a Tash Ardent doesn't even slow down power acquisition, as long as he dips for no more than 4 levels.

Actually, Practiced Manifester only gives ML, not powers known/power points.

EDIT: nevermind, read the text again. It's a very nice synergy. :smallbiggrin:

[Keld Denar]

With Practiced Manifester, a Tash Ardent doesn't even slow down power acquisition, as long as he dips for no more than 4 levels.

Not saying that Tash Ardents don't have the best class features, cause they do. Dominant Ideal is amazing. Having 3x as many PP is amazing. They have crappy power selection for the Tash lifestyle, however, as I stated above (twice, I think). No Expansion, no Inertial Armor, no Weapon of the Vampire...yea, you can pick up cool stuff like Time Hop, but that doesn't make a Tash monk any better at being a Tash monk.

[candycorn]

Not saying that Tash Ardents don't have the best class features, cause they do. Dominant Ideal is amazing. Having 3x as many PP is amazing. They have crappy power selection for the Tash lifestyle, however, as I stated above (twice, I think). No Expansion, no Inertial Armor, no Weapon of the Vampire...yea, you can pick up cool stuff like Time Hop, but that doesn't make a Tash monk any better at being a Tash monk.

They're better for endurance, and powers can be learned via feat. True, the damage isn't stupid high without the feats, but you definitely get more versatility out of it, and more options.

[Keld Denar]

If you are gonna Tash, Tash. If you want versatility and options, do yourself a favor and drop the monk and the feats, grab some full plate and a great sword and get your Dominant Ideal on.

Otherwise you are spending like, 3 feats, 2 class levels, and a couple dozen top end PP for a mediocre trick.

[candycorn]

If you are gonna Tash, Tash. If you want versatility and options, do yourself a favor and drop the monk and the feats, grab some full plate and a great sword and get your Dominant Ideal on.

Otherwise you are spending like, 3 feats, 2 class levels, and a couple dozen top end PP for a mediocre trick.

The PP is practically a non-cost (DI Ardents can recover PP pretty easily), and the levels are a very minor cost (given that they don't impact power level). The only real cost is the feats.

One can still Tash and get versatility, and options to not tash, when tash doesn't work well.

[Psyren]

Not saying that Tash Ardents don't have the best class features, cause they do. Dominant Ideal is amazing. Having 3x as many PP is amazing. They have crappy power selection for the Tash lifestyle, however, as I stated above (twice, I think). No Expansion, no Inertial Armor, no Weapon of the Vampire...yea, you can pick up cool stuff like Time Hop, but that doesn't make a Tash monk any better at being a Tash monk.

While I agree in principle, Mantle Substitution is all you need to get pretty much any Tash power you can justify. Expansion certainly has a place in Physical Power for instance, Inertial Armor can be placed in Force or Guardian easily, and Vampiric Blade is tailor-made for Consumption. So from a potential power standpoint, Ardents come far out ahead of any other Tash option.

[Answerer]

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to judge what Ardents might be capable of with respect to Mantle substitution. Keld has a good point about the ramifications of the Mantles as-is, and I could easily see a DM deciding not allowing those substitutions for the express purpose of protecting the Psychic Warrior's niche.

[Psyren]

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to judge what Ardents might be capable of with respect to Mantle substitution. Keld has a good point about the ramifications of the Mantles as-is, and I could easily see a DM deciding not allowing those substitutions for the express purpose of protecting the Psychic Warrior's niche.

What I'm saying is that MS and DI are the options for high-powered campaigns. This is the kind of gish that gets to play at the big-boy table with JPM/RKV builds; I wouldn't advocate it for just any run-of-the-mill melee-with-nice-things combo.

For tables that don't need that kind of power, a Psywar Tash is perfectly fine, or even a non-MS-Ardent Tash (which will be somewhat more comparable due to the weaker synergy in the mantles as-written.)

[Coidzor]

Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to judge what Ardents might be capable of with respect to Mantle substitution. Keld has a good point about the ramifications of the Mantles as-is, and I could easily see a DM deciding not allowing those substitutions for the express purpose of protecting the Psychic Warrior's niche.

If they're invested in the idea of protecting a class's niche what are they doing letting psychic warrior replace Monk entirely? :smalltongue:

[ThiagoMartell]

King of Smack style builds that make the PsyWar so good require a ton of feats. The extra BaB and feats are really helpful benefits.
You know, that is another reason to dip Monk. If you're trying to make the King of Smack, you're going to need those 2 feats more than a few PP.
Specially since Tashalatora KoS takes three feats to even begin building momentum - Monastic Training, Tashalatora and Beast Strike.

[Snowbluff]

What I'm saying is that MS and DI are the options for high-powered campaigns. This is the kind of gish that gets to play at the big-boy table with JPM/RKV builds; I wouldn't advocate it for just any run-of-the-mill melee-with-nice-things combo.

For tables that don't need that kind of power, a Psywar Tash is perfectly fine, or even a non-MS-Ardent Tash (which will be somewhat more comparable due to the weaker synergy in the mantles as-written.)

JPM? You mean Swiftblade, right? :smalltongue:

Can someone give the rundown on Mantle Substitution and DI? I am not so good on my Psionics. Scraped by in my last Psionics class with a D-.

[Answerer]

If they're invested in the idea of protecting a class's niche what are they doing letting psychic warrior replace Monk entirely? :smalltongue:
The Monk had already given up his niche by being awful.

[Psyren]

JPM? You mean Swiftblade, right? :smalltongue:

Yep, him too.


Can someone give the rundown on Mantle Substitution and DI? I am not so good on my Psionics. Scraped by in my last Psionics class with a D-.

Mantle Substitution basically says "Hey DM, you know how mantles are kind of like domains but we were too lazy to come up with 10 powers that fit each theme? Well, if your player comes to you with some ideas to fill those gaps, and they fit the mantle's theme, just go ahead and let him, okay? Also, if there are any powers already on the mantle they don't like, and they have a better idea of equal or lower level, go ahead and allow that too."

Dominant Ideal basically says "Hey player, you know how spellcasting lets you stack metamagic, since spellcasters don't need to burn move or full-round actions to apply it? Even though you're a manifester, we're going to allow you to do that too - and even make it a little easier - but only for your favorite mantle. Enjoy!"

[Snowbluff]

Mantle Substitution basically says "Hey DM, you know how mantles are kind of like domains but we were too lazy to come up with 10 powers that fit each theme? Well, if your player comes to you with some ideas to fill those gaps, and they fit the mantle's theme, just go ahead and let him, okay? Also, if there are any powers already on the mantle they don't like, and they have a better idea of equal or lower level, go ahead and allow that too."

Dominant Ideal basically says "Hey player, you know how spellcasting lets you stack metamagic, since spellcasters don't need to burn move or full-round actions to apply it? Even though you're a manifester, we're going to allow you to do that too - and even make it a little easier - but only for your favorite mantle. Enjoy!"

:smallconfused:
:smalltongue:
:smallannoyed:
:smallfrown:
:smalleek:
:smallyuk:
:smallmad:
:smallfurious:
:x2facepalmcombo:

The rules! They aren't home! Call back again when you are in Kansas anymore!

[Boci]

You know, I can't stand that interpretation. "I stack my 20 levels of Psywar with my 0 levels of Monk to get the benefits of a monk 20!" I'm sorry, but having no levels in monk does not count as levels in monk from where I'm sitting. Dip the level and pay to play, it's hardly going to cripple you.

Out of curiosity, do you also object to the Swordsage 1 / Swashbuckler 19 build that uses daring outlaw?

[Snowbluff]

Out of curiosity, do you also object to the Swordsage 1 / Swashbuckler 19 build that uses daring outlaw?

Swashbuckler20, just take Martial Stance at 12 and Daring Outlaw at 15. :smalltongue:

[olentu]

Out of curiosity, do you also object to the Swordsage 1 / Swashbuckler 19 build that uses daring outlaw?

It is a legitimate complaint in that counting as a level 20 monk does not actually do anything in and of itself. There are certain class features that give varying degrees of benefit depending on your monk level but someone without any levels in the monk class does not necessarily have those abilities. Now apparently taking the feat magically gives out said class features but I can see how someone might find feats giving out class features like candy a bit distasteful.

[Psyren]

Out of curiosity, do you also object to the Swordsage 1 / Swashbuckler 19 build that uses daring outlaw?

As a matter of fact, yes, because a Swordsage is not a Rogue. I also disagree with Anima Mage granting level 10 binding to a caster with no Binder levels. RAI is never easy to determine, but when it's so plainly in front of us I see no reason to disregard it.

[Snowbluff]

As a matter of fact, yes, because a Swordsage is not a Rogue. I also disagree with Anima Mage granting level 10 binding to a caster with no Binder levels. RAI is never easy to determine, but when it's so plainly in front of us I see no reason to disregard it.

Even though Swordsage is meant to replace monk, would you allow Ascetic Mage to work with the Swordsage's AC bonus?

[olentu]

Even though Swordsage is meant to replace monk, would you allow Ascetic Mage to work with the Swordsage's AC bonus?

Well that's not really the same type of question is it.

[Snowbluff]

Well that's not really the same type of question is it.

Yes and no. While we are talking about different effects, the point is whether or not we actually need to have the intended classes for Dual-Classing feats, since the bonuses can be found elsewhere.

[olentu]

Yes and no. While we are talking about different effects, the point is whether or not we actually need to have the intended classes for Dual-Classing feats, since the bonuses can be found elsewhere.

Ah, but that is what I mean. Ascetic mage is not the same type of dual classing feat as the others. I feel that it is sufficiently different to make the comparison improper. By that I mean, the stacking bit explicitly only works if the character has levels in monk and sorcerer. If you don't have levels in those two classes no stacking, making it rather hard for there to be the question of stacking the two classes without having levels in one of them.

[Snowbluff]

Ah, but that is what I mean. Ascetic mage is not the same type of dual classing feat as the others. I feel that it is sufficiently different to make the comparison improper. By that I mean, the stacking bit explicitly only works if the character has levels in monk and sorcerer. If you don't have levels in those two classes no stacking, making it rather hard for there to be the question of stacking the two classes without having levels in one of them.

Exactly. You have to have both classes, since it says so in the description. Tashalatora, on the other hand, never says you have to have monk levels. "If you have Monk + X Levels" would make it require monk levels.

[olentu]

Exactly. You have to have both classes, since it says so in the description. Tashalatora, on the other hand, never says you have to have monk levels. "If you have Monk + X Levels" would make it require monk levels.

And like I said, there is a perfectly reasonable disagreement on can have with those types of feats (namely that for the stacking to be of any benefit they feats must randomly grant class features for no reason), but the situations are different and so an opinion on one does not necessarily inform an opinion on the other. Or to put in other words "Well that's not really the same type of question is it."

[Snowbluff]

And like I said, there is a perfectly reasonable disagreement on can have with those types of feats (namely that for the stacking to be of any benefit they feats must randomly grant class features for no reason), but the situations are different and so an opinion on one does not necessarily inform an opinion on the other. Or to put in other words "Well that's not really the same type of question is it."

It worked in my opinion for the sake of argument, for the same reason I stated above. It shows the kind of wording required to produce the desired effect my opposition wants to see. :smallsmile:

[olentu]

It worked in my opinion for the sake of argument, for the same reason I stated above. It shows the kind of wording required to produce the desired effect my opposition wants to see. :smallsmile:

I suppose in a very, very, roundabout way one could get from "...would you allow Ascetic Mage to work with the Swordsage's AC bonus?" to "Would you prefer that these feats explicitly require levels in the two classes they are meant to stack?" And I do mean very roundabout considering that letting swordsage replace monk is as far as I know completely useless since swordsage AC bonus does not scale with level in my recollection.

[Snowbluff]

I suppose in a very, very, roundabout way one could get from "...would you allow Ascetic Mage to work with the Swordsage's AC bonus?" to "Would you prefer that these feats explicitly require levels in the two classes they are meant to stack?" And I do mean very roundabout considering that letting swordsage replace monk is as far as I know completely useless since swordsage AC bonus does not scale with level in my recollection.

Roundabout... like a roundhouse kick! I was thinking more like letting the Cha add to AC rather than Wis, since the paragraph starts with the earlier phrasing. Don't ask me why, I was half asleep. :smalltongue:

[olentu]

Roundabout... like a roundhouse kick! I was thinking more like letting the Cha add to AC rather than Wis, since the paragraph starts with the earlier phrasing. Don't ask me why, I was half asleep. :smalltongue:

Ah that part. You know I always found it a bit strange that they didn't split that up a bit better. But then again, I suppose WotC has put out some other rather confusingly organized things.

[Boci]

As a matter of fact, yes, because a Swordsage is not a Rogue. I also disagree with Anima Mage granting level 10 binding to a caster with no Binder levels. RAI is never easy to determine, but when it's so plainly in front of us I see no reason to disregard it.

But why should we regard RAI so highly? Surely consistent fluff and mechanical balance with regards to the rest of the party should rate higher? I'm of the opinion that if you have the former two then nevermind RAI.

[ThiagoMartell]

But why should we regard RAI so highly? Surely consistent fluff and mechanical balance with regards to the rest of the party should rate higher? I'm of the opinion that if you have the former two then nevermind RAI.

How is handing away 20 levels of key class abilities for so little cost consistent with fluff or balanced? Why would characters ever take levels in the class if they could just take the feat? :smallconfused:

[Boci]

How is handing away 20 levels of key class abilities for so little cost consistent with fluff or balanced?

Balance depends on what your party members are playing, not the default option for your character. As for fluff, some techniques are simply better and more powerful than others, just like the gestalt feats of Complete Scoundrel were more effective than equally multiclassing the two classes in question.

To answer your questions with a specific character, I rolled a swordsage whose interpretation of shadow hand was the spirirts of the dead guiding his hand to kill. That fluff could easily be adapted to the swashbuckler / swordsage.

[Snowbluff]

How is handing away 20 levels of key class abilities for so little cost consistent with fluff or balanced? Why would characters ever take levels in the class if they could just take the feat? :smallconfused:

You have to jump through hoops to get anything of the sort to work, so it's not like it's no cost for a large reward. A Swashbuckler has to level 15 to get the sneak attack. By then an actual rogue has talents, which are for more useful.

The same cannot be said for monk, though.

Besides, Tashalatora covers its own fluff. Read it and Monastic Training and it works out fluff-wise.

[olentu]

But why should we regard RAI so highly? Surely consistent fluff and mechanical balance with regards to the rest of the party should rate higher? I'm of the opinion that if you have the former two then nevermind RAI.

If you dislike the 'RAI" so much I could roll out a "RAW" argument for you to sink your teeth into.

[Boci]

If you dislike the 'RAI" so much I could roll out a "RAW" argument for you to sink your teeth into.

I dislike RAi when ignoring it is so harmless. Its not as if Swordsage 1 / Swash 19 is clearly superior to Rogue 4 / Swash 16 (penetrating strike being the most notable advantage of the second, but also some nice weapon proficiencies and more skills, including UMD). But go ahead with your RAW argument if you wish.

[olentu]

I dislike RAi when ignoring it is so harmless. Its not as if Swordsage 1 / Swash 19 is clearly superior to Rogue 4 / Swash 16 (penetrating strike being the most notable advantage of the second, but also some nice weapon proficiencies and more skills, including UMD). But go ahead with your RAW argument if you wish.

Oh, never mind then, I was just offering an alternative in case it tickled your fancy. No need to worry about me. If I wanted so much to make the argument I would have made it and not bothered asking, but thanks for the offer all the same.

[Answerer]

How is handing away 20 levels of key class abilities for so little cost consistent with fluff or balanced? Why would characters ever take levels in the class if they could just take the feat? :smallconfused:
Frankly, I think this was asked and answered:

The Monk had already given up his niche by being awful.
"Why would characters ever take levels in Monk?" was already a question answered by "they wouldn't" before Tashalatora ever existed. Tashalatora (and/or Swordsage) finally filled the niche that Monk left vacant.

[ThiagoMartell]

Balance depends on what your party members are playing, not the default option for your character.
There are several kinds of balance. Intraparty balance is only one of them.

As for fluff, some techniques are simply better and more powerful than others, just like the gestalt feats of Complete Scoundrel were more effective than equally multiclassing the two classes in question.
You're comparing apples and oranges.


To answer your questions with a specific character, I rolled a swordsage whose interpretation of shadow hand was the spirirts of the dead guiding his hand to kill. That fluff could easily be adapted to the swashbuckler / swordsage.
Which matters nothing, since you're usurping Rogue, not Swordsage.


Frankly, I think this was asked and answered:

"Why would characters ever take levels in Monk?" was already a question answered by "they wouldn't" before Tashalatora ever existed. Tashalatora (and/or Swordsage) finally filled the niche that Monk left vacant.
I'm not even talking about this.

[Boci]

There are several kinds of balance. Intraparty balance is only one of them.

Its the most important. Its also one of the very few I fell should trump a character concept. The DM does have an entire world to amuse himself with after all.


You're comparing apples and oranges.

How? I'm comparing two situations where a "new" technique is more efficient than the last. Or not, given that Sword 1 / Swash 19 isn't neccissarily better than Rogue 4 / Swash 16.



Which matters nothing, since you're usurping Rogue, not Swordsage.

And why does fluff care which class I am usurping? SA = spirit of the dead guiding my hand.


Oh, never mind then, I was just offering an alternative in case it tickled your fancy. No need to worry about me. If I wanted so much to make the argument I would have made it and not bothered asking, but thanks for the offer all the same.

I am interested in the RAW argument against it, I was just explaining why I felt allowing it was harmless.

[Snowbluff]

Nah, Monk is imbalanced. It's bad. Imbalance can be cause by underpowered things. Nothing of overpowered value is gained here. Balance maintained.

The fluff is fine as well. It all checks out.

[Psyren]

Look, if your DM is fine with "I stack my 10 levels of X on top of my zero levels of Y to be a level 10 XY" then more power to you and your table. For me, it reeks of gouda, and a simple 1-to-2-level dip to remove all doubt/concern is not some insurmountable barrier.

And no, I'm not against it simply because of what it means for the monk. It opens the door to abuse by much higher tiers, as I pointed out with my Anima Mage example.

[ThiagoMartell]

Look, if your DM is fine with "I stack my 10 levels of X on top of my zero levels of Y to be a level 10 XY" then more power to you and your table. For me, it reeks of gouda, and a simple 1-to-2-level dip to remove all doubt/concern is not some insurmountable barrier.

Agreed. I'll just refrain from discussing this further before old issues pop back up again.

[Answerer]

In the cases of Anima Mage and Tashalatora, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever from a RAW perspective. I respect your dislike of it, but please don't pretend reality is anything but what it is: the RAW is very clear.

[olentu]

I am interested in the RAW argument against it, I was just explaining why I felt allowing it was harmless.

Oh, well in that case here it is. Classes do nothing without class features (barring a few corner cases where classes are given explicit reference by other things such as a few magic items, improved uncanny dodge, etc.). The feats do not say they grant the class features so they do not. Thus you may have stacked up to counting as a level 20 monk but without the "Flurry of Blows (Ex)" special ability you're not getting those extra attacks out of it.

[Boci]

Look, if your DM is fine with "I stack my 10 levels of X on top of my zero levels of Y to be a level 10 XY" then more power to you and your table. For me, it reeks of gouda, and a simple 1-to-2-level dip to remove all doubt/concern is not some insurmountable barrier.

What about my shadow hand swashbuckler build, which would have little reasons to take rogue levels? Is that still cheesy?


Oh, well in that case here it is. Classes do nothing without class features (barring a few corner cases where classes are given explicit reference by other things such as a few magic items, improved uncanny dodge, etc.). The feats do not say they grant the class features so they do not. Thus you may have stacked up to counting as a level 20 monk but without the "Flurry of Blows (Ex)" special ability you're not getting those extra attacks out of it.

Does this apply to to the swashbuckler as well? because they have sneak attack from the stance?

[Psyren]

In the cases of Anima Mage and Tashalatora, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever from a RAW perspective. I respect your dislike of it, but please don't pretend reality is anything but what it is: the RAW is very clear.

RAW allows you to enter Anima Mage, I have no problem with that. Advancing Binding without Binder levels is still a gray area though. No pretense involved.

[Answerer]

olentu, that argument holds no water at all. Both Anima Mage and Tashalatora clearly state that you have those features as a (X+Y)th level (Binder|Monk).

There's plenty of precedent for this, such as Barbarian prestige classes that grant Greater Rage when your Barbarian+PrC levels equal 11. It's called out explicitly to avoid confusion, but the wording is "including gaining Greater Rage," indicating that this was already a part of what you were getting, they're just calling it out to make sure you get it. And still others that explicitly state you don't get Greater Rage, which would be unnecessary if it wasn't included.

[ThiagoMartell]

As a sidenote, per strict RAW, sneak attack from Assassin's Stance does not stack with sneak attack from Daring Outlaw.
Assassin's Stance specifically gives you Sneak Attack, so it qualifies for Daring Outlaw. However, the text on Assassin's Stance is very specific: "If you already have the sneak attack class feature, your existing sneak attack ability deals an extra 2d6 points of damage"
Emphasis mine. Since the only sneak attack ability you get is from Assassin's Stance, it can't actually stack with anything - Assassin's Stance only stacks with a sneak attack class feature you previously had. This is a weird RAW quirk of Sneak Attack - it only stacks when it specifically says so. Curmudgeon usually mentions several prestige classes that grant sneak attack that does not stack with other classes by RAW.
Of course, RAW here is silly. It is, however, still RAW.

[Boci]

As a sidenote, per strict RAW, sneak attack from Assassin's Stance does not stack with sneak attack from Daring Outlaw.
Assassin's Stance specifically gives you Sneak Attack, so it qualifies for Daring Outlaw. However, the text on Assassin's Stance is very specific: "If you already have the sneak attack class feature, your existing sneak attack ability deals an extra 2d6 points of damage"
Emphasis mine. Since the only sneak attack ability you get is from Assassin's Stance, it can't actually stack with anything - Assassin's Stance only stacks with a sneak attack class feature you previously had. This is a weird RAW quirk of Sneak Attack - it only stacks when it specifically says so. Curmudgeon usually mentions several prestige classes that grant sneak attack that does not stack with other classes by RAW.
Of course, RAW here is silly. It is, however, still RAW.

So you lose 2d6 SA (you can still use the stance to qualify). I doubt many DMs would be willing to do that though, it doesn't paint them in a great light.

Whilst we are one the topic, there is also the wording that says your first stance must be level 1. This one is less silly than the above as RAW goes.

[olentu]

Does this apply to to the swashbuckler as well? because they have sneak attack from the stance?

Eh, I don't remember the wording on the stance or the feat explicitly but I don't recall it granting the full rogue class ability.


olentu, that argument holds no water at all. Both Anima Mage and Tashalatora clearly state that you have those features as a (X+Y)th level (Binder|Monk).

There's plenty of precedent for this, such as Barbarian prestige classes that grant Greater Rage when your Barbarian+PrC levels equal 11. It's called out explicitly to avoid confusion, but the wording is "including gaining Greater Rage," indicating that this was already a part of what you were getting, they're just calling it out to make sure you get it. And still others that explicitly state you don't get Greater Rage, which would be unnecessary if it wasn't included.

Does it really. I don't see anything in those feats that says that the abilities are granted. If the statement granting those three monk class features is there you are going to need to direct me to it. Now there may be heavy implication that they are granted but don't be misled by that. Implication is not RAW and I promised a RAW argument.

Oh so a case where granting the ability is called out explicitly "to avoid confusion" automatically means that anything that kind of sort of hints that it gives out class abilities randomly does so. Nah, this is a RAW argument and if it doesn't say it does, it doesn't.

[Answerer]

Does it really. I don't see anything in those feats that says that the abilities are granted. If the statement granting those three monk class features is there you are going to need to direct me to it. Now there may be heavy implication that they are granted but don't be misled by that. Implication is not RAW and I promised a RAW argument.
The lack of the word that you want to see ("grants") doesn't mean anything. You have the ability as a (Binder|Monk) of (X+Y)th level. You don't have the ability if you cannot use it.


As a sidenote, per strict RAW, sneak attack from Assassin's Stance does not stack with sneak attack from Daring Outlaw.
Assassin's Stance specifically gives you Sneak Attack, so it qualifies for Daring Outlaw. However, the text on Assassin's Stance is very specific: "If you already have the sneak attack class feature, your existing sneak attack ability deals an extra 2d6 points of damage"
Emphasis mine. Since the only sneak attack ability you get is from Assassin's Stance, it can't actually stack with anything - Assassin's Stance only stacks with a sneak attack class feature you previously had. This is a weird RAW quirk of Sneak Attack - it only stacks when it specifically says so. Curmudgeon usually mentions several prestige classes that grant sneak attack that does not stack with other classes by RAW.
Of course, RAW here is silly. It is, however, still RAW.
Except that every other source of Sneak Attack in existence also says that it stacks with other sources of Sneak Attack (except, notably, the Factotum's version), so even if Assassin's Stance doesn't grant the stacking, wherever you're getting your other Sneak Attack from does.

[olentu]

The lack of the word that you want to see ("grants") doesn't mean anything. You have the ability as a (Binder|Monk) of (X+Y)th level. You don't have the ability if you cannot use it.

Oh "grants" is not important, the important thing is that it has to say (not imply say) in some way that the character gains the abilities. If not then what benefits does the monk class give a character that is missing all those abilities, answer no benefit.

Or as an alternative way of looking at things answer me this, if a level 20 monk suddenly lost their, say, Flurry of Blows (Ex) class feature how many flurry of blows attacks would they be getting from the monk class?



Edit: Bah leftover stuff. Not important.

[Answerer]

Oh "grants" is not important, the important thing is that it has to say in some way that the character gains the abilities. If not then what benefits does the monk class give a character that is missing all those abilities, answer no benefit.
It doesn't have to, is my point. Your Monk and Psionic class levels stack for the purposes of Flurry of Blows; you are a (X+Y)th-level Monk for those features.

The Anima Mage even explicitly states that gaining a level of Anima Mage grants you Soul Binding ability "as if you had also gained a level in the binder class."


Or as an alternative way of looking at things answer me this, if a level 20 monk suddenly lost their, say, Flurry of Blows (Ex) class feature how many flurry of blows attacks would they be getting from the monk class?
I'm not seeing the relevance of this in the slightest.

[olentu]

It doesn't have to, is my point. Your Monk and Psionic class levels stack for the purposes of Flurry of Blows; you are a (X+Y)th-level Monk for those features.

The Anima Mage even explicitly states that gaining a level of Anima Mage grants you Soul Binding ability "as if you had also gained a level in the binder class."


I'm not seeing the relevance of this in the slightest.

Yes and like I said counting as a level 1023e34 monk for the purpose of flurry of blows gives absolutely no benefit without having the Flurry of Blows (Ex) class feature.

Eh, I was actually not talking about anima mage, I just accidentally included it in my response addressed to your whole post. Anima mage is worded differently and so may not actually fall under the same umbrella as the feat and so may work just fine. Sorry for the confusion.

All right let's take a step back. Would you say that a character with 20 levels in the monk class counts as a level 20 monk for all purposes.

[Answerer]

Yes, I would. But trading away a class feature under an explicit ACF is different from this in every conceivable way, hence your previous question being irrelevant.

The statement in the rules would not be true if you could not use those features. I doubt I'm going to convince you of this, I'm sure, but it's a fact of English grammar and the rules. I suggest we just agree to disagree.

[ThiagoMartell]

Except that every other source of Sneak Attack in existence also says that it stacks with other sources of Sneak Attack (except, notably, the Factotum's version), so even if Assassin's Stance doesn't grant the stacking, wherever you're getting your other Sneak Attack from does.

Not at all, as I mentioned before, there are sources without any stacking wording. Do you want an example? What about the Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm)? Also, Rogue Sneak Attack is the basis for the Daring Outlaw ability.

[Snowbluff]

Um...


While you are in this stance, you gain the sneak attack ability, if you do not already have it, which deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. If you already have the sneak attack class feature, your existing sneak attack ability deals an extra 2d6 points of damage. See the rogue class feature for a complete description of sneak attack.

"I don't have sneak attack" yields "You gain 2d6 sneak attack"

"I have sneak attack" yields "Your existing sneak attacking deals an extra 2d6"

:smallconfused:

[ThiagoMartell]

Um...


"I don't have sneak attack" yields "You gain 2d6 sneak attack"

"I have sneak attack" yields "Your existing sneak attacking deals an extra 2d6"

:smallconfused:

You're reading it wrong. If you don't have sneak attack, it grants 2d6 sneak attack. If you had sneak attack prior to initiating the stance, you get +2d6 sneak attack. This issue only pops up if you're using a Swashbuckler build that uses Assassin's Stance to qualify for Daring Outlaw.
I think you could circumvent it by casting (Extended) Hunter's eye (from a wand?) then entering Assassin's Stance.

[Answerer]

He's claiming that since you got Sneak Attack after Assassin's Stance, it doesn't count. I don't think that's a particularly valid ruling, seeing as when order matters it favors the one who has the abilities, but even if that were the case there are numerous options for getting Sneak Attack that does stack.


Actually, you just brought up an obvious solution: take Assassin's Stance. Qualify for whatever, gain 2d6 Sneak Attack damage from whatever other source. Leave Assassin's Stance; you still qualify for whatever got your 2d6 Sneak Attack, since you have that without Assassin's Stance now. Use Assassin's Stance again.

At worst, you miss out on 1d6 Sneak Attack damage if you have to choose between that and Assassin's Stance.

[ThiagoMartell]

He's claiming that since you got Sneak Attack after Assassin's Stance, it doesn't count. I don't think that's a particularly valid ruling, seeing as when order matters it favors the one who has the abilities, but even if that were the case there are numerous options for getting Sneak Attack that does stack.

You don't seem to have understood the issue. I'm discussing using Assassin's Stance to qualify for Daring Outlaw, with no other source of sneak attack damage. Yes,there are plenty of options, such as using Rogue/Swashbuckler instead of just Swashbuckler for Daring Outlaw. What I'm mentioning is just the interaction between a Swashbuckler using Assassin's Stance to qualify for Daring Outlaw.
Order does not come into it.

[Snowbluff]

You don't seem to have understood the issue. I'm discussing using Assassin's Stance to qualify for Daring Outlaw, with no other source of sneak attack damage. Yes,there are plenty of options, such as using Rogue/Swashbuckler instead of just Swashbuckler for Daring Outlaw. What I'm mentioning is just the interaction between a Swashbuckler using Assassin's Stance to qualify for Daring Outlaw.
Order does not come into it.

Thiago. Assuming you were correct, you gain 2d6 sneak attack at Swashbuckler level 3 with Daring Outlaw. You can't qualify for Assassin's Stance until your effective Initiator level is 5 (Level 10 for a non-initiator).

[ThiagoMartell]

Thiago. Assuming you were correct, you gain 2d6 sneak attack at Swashbuckler level 3 with Daring Outlaw. You can't qualify for Assassin's Stance until your effective Initiator level is 5 (Level 10 for a non-initiator).

I really don't see how that is relevant.
The example being discussed was one Boci brought out - Swashbuckler 19/Swordsage 1. All I've said is regarding to that situation. It also applies to any Swashbuckler that gets Assassin's Stance at level 12 and then takes Daring Outlaw.
You can't take Daring Outlaw at Swashbuckler 3 at such setup. In fact, you can't do qualify with Swashbuckler 3 in any setup, since you need 2d6 sneak attack to qualify.

[Answerer]

Swashbuckler 8/Swordsage 1 gets Assassin's Stance (and I'm not going to listen to that "you start with" garbage; there are ways of dealing with that too but it's a red herring in this case and just fundamentally wrong to begin with), and then can take Daring Outlaw as his 9th-level feat. His 8 levels of Swashbuckler then grant him 4d6 Sneak Attack damage, more than enough to continue to be qualified for Daring Outlaw should he leave Assassin's Stance. He can then return to Assassin's Stance and gain +2d6 on top of this.

[ThiagoMartell]

Swashbuckler 8/Swordsage 1 gets Assassin's Stance (and I'm not going to listen to that "you start with" garbage; there are ways of dealing with that too but it's a red herring in this case and just fundamentally wrong to begin with), and then can take Daring Outlaw as his 9th-level feat. His 8 levels of Swashbuckler then grant him 4d6 Sneak Attack damage, more than enough to continue to be qualified for Daring Outlaw should he leave Assassin's Stance. He can then return to Assassin's Stance and gain +2d6 on top of this.

Bootstrapping?! I expected more from you, Answerer.

[Snowbluff]

Bootstrapping?! I expected more from you, Answerer.

Nah, that's how it works. Stances just make the world go weird.

[Answerer]

Bootstrapping?! I expected more from you, Answerer.
It's an established (and in the case of maneuver prerequisites, intentional so far as I can tell) mechanic. The only rules in the game that prevent it are the retraining rules from Player's Handbook II.

Moreover, I disagree with your point from the get-go. I think you're just wrong, this is just the easiest way to prove it.

[ThiagoMartell]

Nah, that's how it works. Stances just make the world go weird.
Erm, no, my issue is with bootstrapping (as in, qualifying for an effect with the effect itself).

Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat.
So when you leave Assassin's Stance, you can't use Daring Outlaw, since you don't have 2d6 sneak attack to qualify for it in the first place.

It's an established (and in the case of maneuver prerequisites, intentional so far as I can tell) mechanic. The only rules in the game that prevent it are the retraining rules from Player's Handbook II.

Moreover, I disagree with your point from the get-go. I think you're just wrong, this is just the easiest way to prove it.

You're right about maneuvers. Daring Outlaw, however, is a feat.

[Boci]

Bootstrapping?! I expected more from you, Answerer.

Assuming boostraping means qualifying for X with X, yeah its silly, but you yourself acknowledged that the problem is silly. So why not use silly RAW to sidestep silly RAW?

[ThiagoMartell]

Assuming boostraping means qualifying for X with X, yeah its silly, but you yourself acknowledged that the problem is silly. So why not use silly RAW to sidestep silly RAW?

Because it's not RAW.

[Boci]

Because it's not RAW.

Sorry, my mistake. I thought you were objecting to it based on the cheese factor.

[Answerer]

Because it's not RAW.
Absolutely it is. Retraining rules are the only rules that prevent it. For that matter, I don't even need to continue to qualify for things after I've taken them by RAW, unless that thing is from CWar or CArc. So I don't even have to justify what happens after I leave Assassin's Stance, I'm only doing that to appease you. And I'm doing that in a purely rules-legal way. Maneuvers are not called out explicitly as being bootstrappable – that is a ramification of the way the relevant rules are worded. I only mention them because it's the most common and accepted case. But the rules – and rule wordings – are extremely similar for feats, and the same rationale applies.

I'm done here. You are wrong, for myriad different reasons, but we're getting nowhere.

[ThiagoMartell]

Absolutely it is. Retraining rules are the only rules that prevent it. For that matter, I don't even need to continue to qualify for things after I've taken them by RAW, unless that thing is from CWar or CArc.
No, that's for prestige classes. Feats have different text. Please reread it.
I've just quoted it. Just scroll up.


I'm done here. You are wrong, for myriad different reasons, but we're getting nowhere.
I'm not and I've been trying to point out politely the ways in which you are mistaken. If you could please tone down the rudeness, it would be greatly appreciated. I've been treating you with respect and I'd very much like to be treated respectfully in return.

[Answerer]

"You are wrong," is not an insult or an attack, it is a statement.

You have a point about the wording of feats from the SRD. All that means, however, is that you cannot have both Assassin's Stance and Daring Outlaw until Daring Outlaw is giving you +2d6 Sneak Attack damage. Because when you leave Assassin's Stance, you still have 2d6 Sneak Attack damage and qualify for Daring Outlaw. Yes, the feat is qualifying for itself. Yes, it can do that, because you never hit a point where you weren't using the feat that would cause you to need to "use" it again. Then you can turn Assassin's Stance back on and enjoy +2d6 on top of that.

[ThiagoMartell]

"You are wrong," is not an insult or an attack, it is a statement.
I never said it was. I said it was rude.


You have a point about the wording of feats from the SRD. All that means, however, is that you cannot have both Assassin's Stance and Daring Outlaw until Daring Outlaw is giving you +2d6 Sneak Attack damage. Because when you leave Assassin's Stance, you still have 2d6 Sneak Attack damage and qualify for Daring Outlaw. Yes, the feat is qualifying for itself. Yes, it can do that, because you never hit a point where you weren't using the feat that would cause you to need to "use" it again. Then you can turn Assassin's Stance back on and enjoy +2d6 on top of that.

That depends on your definition of "use". I think if you're getting the benefit from the feat, you are using it. Then again, that is never stated anywhere, so I can see your reading as valid as well.

[olentu]

Yes, I would. But trading away a class feature under an explicit ACF is different from this in every conceivable way, hence your previous question being irrelevant.

The statement in the rules would not be true if you could not use those features. I doubt I'm going to convince you of this, I'm sure, but it's a fact of English grammar and the rules. I suggest we just agree to disagree.

So the counter example to your claim that counting as x level class y with regards to class feature z automatically means the character has class feature z is wrong because losing a class feature through any method (manipulate form, some of the polymorph spells, etc.) has an unwritten rule that makes it exempt from the other unwritten rule that grants class features for no reason. Yeah I'm going to have to agree that we are probably not going to agree, but then again it is not like there was really any chance of that in the first place.

So sure the discussion with Answerer has ended due to a irreconcilable fundamental disagreement but if anyone else wishes to jump in, I am still up for discussion.

[TuggyNE]

I actually have no idea why the thread is still going, when the OP was answered on the first page*. But that's forums for you, I guess?


*The second reply, no less. Efficiency!

[Answerer]

I never said it was. I said it was rude.
Then I think you're wrong about that too.


That depends on your definition of "use". I think if you're getting the benefit from the feat, you are using it. Then again, that is never stated anywhere, so I can see your reading as valid as well.
The way I see it is that there is no point in time in which your amount of Sneak Attack is less than 2d6. You have 2d6 from Assassin's Stance, and Xd6 from Daring Outlaw, where X>2. Your argument is that they don't stack and you're probably right by the strictest reading of RAW, so fine, they don't stack. That means you have to choose one or the other (whichever is greater). Since we already said X>2, that choice is (or could be) Daring Outlaw. If you leave Assassin's Stance, then, absolutely nothing happens with respect to your stats, because the bonus from Assassin's Stance was being overwritten by Daring Outlaw anyway.

I think for your version to be true, there would have to be a separate clause explicitly excluding the effects of the feat itself from meeting the prerequisite.


So the counter example to your claim that counting as x level class y with regards to class feature z automatically means the character has class feature z is wrong because losing a class feature through any method (manipulate form, some of the polymorph spells, etc.) has an unwritten rule that makes it exempt from the other unwritten rule that grants class features for no reason. Yeah I'm going to have to agree that we are probably not going to agree, but then again it is not like there was really any chance of that in the first place.

So sure the discussion with Answerer has ended due to a irreconcilable fundamental disagreement but if anyone else wishes to jump in, I am still up for discussion.
The counter example is irrelevant because you are explicitly not an Xth-level Monk for the purposes of Flurry of Blows if you trade away Flurry of Blows.

Again, if a Tashalatora could not use Flurry of Blows, the statement in Secrets of Sarlona that he counts as a (X+Y)th-level Monk for the purposes of Flurry of Blows would be wrong.

[olentu]

The counter example is irrelevant because you are explicitly not an Xth-level Monk for the purposes of Flurry of Blows if you trade away Flurry of Blows.

Again, if a Tashalatora could not use Flurry of Blows, the statement in Secrets of Sarlona that he counts as a (X+Y)th-level Monk for the purposes of Flurry of Blows would be wrong.

I thought we were going to disagree and drop the discussion. But anyway, there are more ways to lose class features then just the one, don't keep referring to the one way to lose flurry of blows as what you say must apply to all ways to lose a class feature. In either case if we can not agree that a character with 20 levels in the monk class counts as a level 20 monk we are not going to come to an agreement. Finally, are you are claiming that it is impossible for any character to count as something without actively being exposed to the condition(s), under which they count as that thing, at all times? For example a half elf must at all times be under "all effects related to race" because for those effects they count as an elf and like the character with Tashalatora if they were not always under all effects related to race the statement would be wrong.