RAI Argument for Swordsage (6+int)x6 skill points.

[Sziget Pengék]

In The Tome of Battle section for the swordsage, the skill points text says they gain (6+int)x6 (as opposed to the normal x4) at first level. By RAW this is correct, but it is often simplified to x4 with the perception that it is an error. I would like to present an argument as to the legitimacy of the x6 as RAI.

The swordsage is a very skill based melee type, not unlike the rogue, but it is focused on combat skills and knowledge skills(Evidence: access to several knowledge skills as well as martial lore; Less importantly it is fluffed as such, which while fluff does not represent mechanic, it often represents intent) rather than utility+combat skills.

Given that swordsage has less need for skill points at higher levels due to being less spread thin on skills than the rogue, but needing more from the start to be effective in combat, it mechanically requires higher skillpoints from the start and less as it grows in level as compared to rogue. This can be done by making the swordsage less INT dependent from the start and more training dependent(Represented by skill point allocation((6+int)x6) which makes skill point allocation more deliberate and less pick n' max. (training focused intent supported by fluff again, which again does not represent mechanic but can represent mechanic intent).

Here is a table of the point where rogue equals or surpasses the swordsage in skill points based on int(represented mathematically):

Int Swordsage Rogue Point before Rogue >/= Swordsage

6 4x +24 6x+24 4x+24=6x+24>>2x=0>>[x=0]

8 5x +30 7x+28 5x+30=7x+28>>5x+2=7x>>2=2x>>[x=1]

10 6x +36 8x+32 6x+36=8x+32>>6x +4=8x>>4=2x>>[x=2]

12 7x+42 9x+36 7x+42=9x+36>>7x + 6=9x>>6=2x>>[x=3]

14 8x+48 10x+40 8x+48=10x+40>>8x+8=10x>>8=2x>>[x=4]

16 9x+54 11x+44 9x+54=11x+44>>9x+10=11x>>10=2x>>[x=5]

18 10x+60 12x+48 10x+60=12x+48>>10x+12=12x>>12=2x>>[x=6]

20 11x+66 13x+52 11x+66=13x+52>>11x+14=13x>>14=2x>>[x=7]

22 12x+72 14x+56 12x+72=14x+56>>12x+16=14x>>16=2x>>[x=8]

24 13x+78 15x+60 13x+78=15x+60>>13x+18=15x>>18=2x>>[x=9]

26 14x+84 16x+64 14x+84=16x+64>>14x+20=16x>>20=2x>>[x=10]

28 15x+90 17x+68 15x+90=17x+68>>15x+22=17x>>22=2x>>[x=11]

30 16x+96 18x+72 16x+96=18x+72>>16x+24=18x>>24=2x>>[x=12]

32 17x+102 19x+76 17x+102=19x+76>>17x+26=19x>>26=2x>>[x=13]

34 18x+108 20x+80 18x+108=20x+80>>18x+28=20x>>28=2x>>[x=14]

36 19x+114 21x+84 19x+114=21x+84>>19x+30=21x>>30=2x>>[x=15]

38 20x+120 22x+88 20x+120=22x+88>>20x+32=22x>>32=2x>>[x=16]

40 21x+126 23x+92 21x+126=23x+92>>21x+34=23x>>34=2x>>[x=17]

42 22x+132 24x+96 22x+132=24x+96>>22x+36=24x>>36=2x>>[x=18]

44 23x+138 25x+100 23x+138=25x+100>>23x+38=25x>>38=2x>>[x=19]



The table took so long to make that I lost my place, but I think this is enough evidence to support my claims as RAI supported by fluff/mechanic(math).

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[SilverLeaf167]

I agree that it makes sense, pretty much for the reasons you already stated, but the reason I don't think it was actually intended (and thus not RAI) is that not a single other class has an abnormal skill point multiplier at first level, even if it would fit them in the same way it fits the Swordsage. It's probably just a typo, or maybe an idea they meant to change before publishing the book but simply forgot.

On the other hand, it wasn't fixed in the official ToB errata, but... that errata missed a lot of mistakes anyway.

[Sziget Pengék]

I agree that it makes sense, pretty much for the reasons you already stated, but the reason I don't think it was actually intended (and thus not RAI) is that not a single other class has an abnormal skill point multiplier at first level, even if it would fit them in the same way it fits the Swordsage. It's probably just a typo, or maybe an idea they meant to change before publishing the book but simply forgot.

On the other hand, it wasn't fixed in the official ToB errata, but... that errata missed a lot of mistakes anyway.

While no other class has x6, there are plenty of other abilities that are unique per class and it is not stated anywhere that every class must have 4x at first. This being the case, there is no reason why it would not be intended, and given the evidence i provided as to the fluff compared to mechanic as the intent, i feel like it still holds.

as for the errata, it was pretty terrible yeah haha. I'm hoping that they release a new ToB with errata like they are doing with core 3.5 and some of the side books including the spell compendium. Would finally end the argument.

[Darius Kane]

It's a typo.

[HunterOfJello]

Class Skills: This section of a class description gives the class’s list of class skills, the number of skill points the character starts with at 1st level, and the number of skill points gained each level thereafter. A character gets some number of skill points each level, such depending on the class in question, such as 6 for a ranger or 8 for a rogue. To this number, apply the character’s Intelligence modifier (and 1 bonus point, if the character is human) to determine the total skill points gained each level (but always at least 1 skill point per level, even for a character with an Intelligence penalty). A 1st-level character starts with four times this number of skill points.

First level characters start with four times their normal number of skill points. This is stated in the opening to the Classes section in the Player's Handbook.

The swordsage entry was a typo.

[Sziget Pengék]

Hmm, that it does. Touche. Its still possible with specific trumping general, but that gives a much better argument towards typo than previously thought haha.

In the future i need to compare the ss to ranger aswell, as a 6+int

[Lateral]

Having x4 skill points at first level is a convention of the game, the same as how you don't have a class with a 1d3 hit die or a class that has a BAB of 17 at 20th level. The reason for it is that to max out a skill at first level, it requires spending four skill points, and the idea with skills is that you can have (class points + Int modifier) skills maxed at any one time. Your post makes some sense, but ultimately it's really all just circumstantial and fluff-based, whereas the opposing argument has both backing in the rules (pg. 23, as mentioned) and in the standard rules conventions.

And, by the way, it's not in the errata because the ToB errata turns into the Complete Mage errata about three lines through. :smallannoyed:

[Zilzmaer]

Given that swordsage has less need for skill points at higher levels due to being less spread thin on skills than the rogue, but needing more from the start to be effective in combat

Would you care to offer anything to support this? My opinion is that the Swordsage is much more combat-capable than the Rogue, at any level and with any amount of skill points. In what way does a SS need skill points to be a viable combatant at low levels?

[ScrambledBrains]

Would you care to offer anything to support this? My opinion is that the Swordsage is much more combat-capable than the Rogue, at any level and with any amount of skill points. In what way does a SS need skill points to be a viable combatant at low levels?

The way I'm understanding his point of view, and admittedly this could be wrong, is that because Swordsages need to stick points into the skills their disciplines build off of(Jump for Tiger Claw, Hide for Shadow Hand, etc.), but they also need points to build a skill-monkey base, that giving them more points is necessary to keep them running at low levels.

[Sacrieur]

Would you care to offer anything to support this? My opinion is that the Swordsage is much more combat-capable than the Rogue, at any level and with any amount of skill points. In what way does a SS need skill points to be a viable combatant at low levels?

I think it's a bit unfair to throw core classes at the swordsage and go, "well barb + fighter aren't that strong, so why should he get more." It ignores that barb + fighter aren't on the same tier as swordsage.

While the CRB may say that it's x4, it ignores the golden rule that abilities, spells, classes trump the rules when there's a conflict. There's that and that the CRB doesn't say specifically that a fourth level character must start with four times his normal skill points, just that he does. It's just factual rather than as a command. This is probably just to simplify things for the CRB.

In any case, unless someone can show proof that it's a typo (emailing developers, errata) then we can't know for sure.

[Mato]

Swordsage's typo is RAI?

So an unprecedented trait in D&D going against the base rules without ever noting it's self beyond a single character change is RAI despite the intended and exemplified dozens of times that skill classes simply gain more spell points per level and not only at the 1st level?

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooolllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

[Amnestic]

First level characters start with four times their normal number of skill points. This is stated in the opening to the Classes section in the Player's Handbook.

The swordsage entry was a typo.

I thought Specific trumped General - meaning that the specific Swordsage entry would trump the general PHB statement.

I mean, I still think it was a typo and swordsages get x4 not x6, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the appeal to PHB is correct in this case.

[Slipperychicken]

Have him wield the whip which deals 1d33 damage too. It's RAI because whips are unpredictable and potentially devastating. Bonus points if you actually buy and use a d33 for it, or if you hash out what a size increase would do to a d33 weapon.

[Sacrieur]

Have him wield the whip which deals 1d33 damage too. It's RAI because whips are unpredictable and potentially devastating. Bonus points if you actually buy and use a d33 for it, or if you hash out what a size increase would do to a d33 weapon.

The point about the whip though doesn't require much debate to show it's a typo, physical d33 dice do not exist and is clearly overpowered if it did.

However, given that ToB is basically rife with maneuvers and stances that base themselves off of skills, how are we to know that it wasn't actually a power boost for low level swordsages that would fade when they no longer needed it.

[RFLS]

You know, it seems like everyone's arguing about something that a) we can't know, short of asking the original writer himself, and b) has been beaten to death over, and over, and over. The book says x6. Whether you decide to play that way is up to you (or your DM). There are arguments both ways.

[Tvtyrant]

You know, it seems like everyone's arguing about something that a) we can't know, short of asking the original writer himself, and b) has been beaten to death over, and over, and over. The book says x6. Whether you decide to play that way is up to you (or your DM). There are arguments both ways.

Agreedo. By RAW it is x6, and RAI is unknown.

[JoshuaZ]

So this is an interesting argument and is quite coherent. But there's one strong argument for this being a typo: if it weren't, and they did this for a single class and made the decision to do so, it seems likely that they would have stated it explicitly somewhere rather than just a bit in the table.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The point about the whip though doesn't require much debate to show it's a typo, physical d33 dice do not exist and is clearly overpowered if it did.

Does this mean that all I need to do is convince you that damage expressed in single dice is not overpowered for you to actually let this happen? (http://www.shapeways.com/model/248175/d33-frosted-edition.html)

[HunterOfJello]

I thought Specific trumped General - meaning that the specific Swordsage entry would trump the general PHB statement.

I mean, I still think it was a typo and swordsages get x4 not x6, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the appeal to PHB is correct in this case.

I made the reference to the PHB because there are two different conversations that could be going on right now and I wanted to make sure the correction conversation was occurring.

Conversation 1: There is no specific rule anywhere that classes specifically get "x4" skill points at first level. There is only a pattern set forth by all other base classes. The Swordsage example of having x6 at first level is a change in a pattern and should be regarded as such.

Conversation 2: There is a specific rule in the original book upon which all base classes originate, the PHB, which says that classes start out with "x4" skill points at first level. The Swordsage is an example of an exception to this rule that is stated in the PHB.


~~~


Those are two very different conversations. The fact that there was a rule which stated that all classes get "x4" skill points at first level was put into question at the beginning of the thread. It was my intention to clarify things.

Arguments for the Swordsage receiving a "x6" skill points at first level can be made, but they should be made within the context of Conversation 2, not purely conversation 1. The fact that all other classes have "x4", except for the Swordsage, is an additional point in favor of the Swordsage skills being a typo, instead of being the sole point of argument.

[Answerer]

Does this mean that all I need to do is convince you that damage expressed in single dice is not overpowered for you to actually let this happen? (http://www.shapeways.com/model/248175/d33-frosted-edition.html)
Unfortunately, Sacrietur is misremembering: Sandstorm specified a 1d43 for that whip.

[VGLordR2]

Unfortunately, Sacrietur is misremembering: Sandstorm specified a 1d43 for that whip.

It was 1d33 for Small creatures.

[Slipperychicken]

Unfortunately, Sacrietur is misremembering: Sandstorm specified a 1d43 for that whip.

Sandstorm has the Scorpion Tail-Whip, which deals 1d43 base damage.

PHB has the whip with 1d33, and the Bolas listed as 1d43.


Clearly, precedent supports these large, bulky dice being used as base weapon damage dice, making it obviously RAI

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I honestly don't see any problem at all with giving a Swordsage an extra 4 ranks in three or four skills at 1st level. It's not going to cause any problems, it's not going to break the game.

I'm sure you'll hear complaints from the party's diehard Rogue/Ranger/Ninja/etc. enthusiast that it's so unfair that his favorite class doesn't also get x6 skills at 1st level, when it obviously deserves it far more than a Swordsage ever would. I have absolutely no sympathy for this type of player, and no desire to project RAI on this issue. We cannot know the designers' intent, so all we're left with is the RAW which says x6.

[Tvtyrant]

I made the reference to the PHB because there are two different conversations that could be going on right now and I wanted to make sure the correction conversation was occurring.

Conversation 1: There is no specific rule anywhere that classes specifically get "x4" skill points at first level. There is only a pattern set forth by all other base classes. The Swordsage example of having x6 at first level is a change in a pattern and should be regarded as such.

Conversation 2: There is a specific rule in the original book upon which all base classes originate, the PHB, which says that classes start out with "x4" skill points at first level. The Swordsage is an example of an exception to this rule that is stated in the PHB.


~~~


Those are two very different conversations. The fact that there was a rule which stated that all classes get "x4" skill points at first level was put into question at the beginning of the thread. It was my intention to clarify things.

Arguments for the Swordsage receiving a "x6" skill points at first level can be made, but they should be made within the context of Conversation 2, not purely conversation 1. The fact that all other classes have "x4", except for the Swordsage, is an additional point in favor of the Swordsage skills being a typo, instead of being the sole point of argument.
If every class was supposed to get x4 at the first level, then why would they bother to put the x4 in the actual class entries? Clearly there is room for deviation that would not otherwise exist through this, and the placement is redundant if you already have a fixed and undeviating rule.

[Answerer]

the placement is redundant
Bingo. Redundancy is important in any thing you want humans to learn and internalize, because of how human memory works. There are many places where Wizards should have been more redundant, to reinforce things, but didn't out of carelessness or space constraints. These tend to lead to arguments or to groups ignoring important rules.

For an example, manifesters may not spend more Power Points on any one action than a number equal to their Manifester Level. Missing this line can allow Psionics to completely ruin a game.

(not the best example since they do repeat that one a few times, but maybe a great example since people still miss it)

[TuggyNE]

If every class was supposed to get x4 at the first level, then why would they bother to put the x4 in the actual class entries? Clearly there is room for deviation that would not otherwise exist through this, and the placement is redundant if you already have a fixed and undeviating rule.

Here WotC is between a rock and a hard place. If they don't put redundant reminders in, someone will forget and blame them for making the rules unclear and hard to remember. Actually, a lot of people will. If they do put in redundant reminders, any place they forget is taken as evidence that they didn't mean for the usual rule to apply there!

Really, Answerer is right: the only correct course is to be redundant in lots and lots of places and hope you got all the important ones without breaking consistency or bloating the books too much (which increases production costs). It's ... not an easy thing.