ToB Class and Feat Questions (3.5)

[Twilightwyrm]

Two questions occurred to me as I was responding to another question on these forums, with regards to the Swordsage mostly.
First, another thread on this site already answered that the Weapon Focus gained from the Swordsage's Discipline Focus ability, and the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude ability, cannot interact because the Swordsage ability is only giving the "benefits" of Weapon Focus, not the feat itself. Two questions spring from this: First, does this mean that a Swordsage's class ability does not qualify them for PrCs that require the Weapon Focus feat? And, in that case, and in light of the Swordsage ability not actually giving Weapon Focus with a specific weapon, does this mean a Swordsage can take, say, Weapon Focus (Rapier) and have it stack with Discipline Focus? It's a bit petty, but if the class ability does not qualify them for PrCs, it would be good to know if one would gain any benefit from taking the feat, other than entering the PrC.

The Second (or third, depending on how you want to track) question is, since many of the maneuvers in Tiger Claw require high jump checks, and since at least one boost and one stance give bonuses to these, it becomes a simpler matter to get 10 or more over your opponent's head. In the case that, during a maneuver such as Dead from Above or Leaping Dragon Strike, a Swordsage/Warblade with the Battle Jump feat gets 10ft. or more over the opponent in the process of jumping, what exactly happens? Do they gain an extra charge in addition to the effects of their maneuver? Does Battle Jump not activate because they are jumping in the context of the maneuver? Is the attack from their maneuver counted as a charge (along with all that implies), with its damage doubled? And if both activate, which activates first? (Such as if they want to Power Attack for Shock Trooper, which only activates on a charge)

Information on either of these questions would be helpful.

[Twilightwyrm]

Not sure whether I should bump this or not...

[Darrin]

First, does this mean that a Swordsage's class ability does not qualify them for PrCs that require the Weapon Focus feat?


Hmm. Not sure. If they wanted to give just the benefit of the feat, why not just call it a +1 for associated discipline weapons? Why even mention Weapon Focus at all if the intention wasn't to allow it to satisfy prereqs as well as provide an attack bonus?



And, in that case, and in light of the Swordsage ability not actually giving Weapon Focus with a specific weapon, does this mean a Swordsage can take, say, Weapon Focus (Rapier) and have it stack with Discipline Focus?


No, doesn't stack. It's the same benefit, coming from essentially the same source. (Although there is another way to stack Weapon Focus: Rapier with something very similar... only works for Rapiers, though. Ghostwalk p. 30.)



In the case that, during a maneuver such as Dead from Above or Leaping Dragon Strike, a Swordsage/Warblade with the Battle Jump feat gets 10ft. or more over the opponent in the process of jumping, what exactly happens?


Whoa whoa whoa, stop there. Battle Jump is a very poorly written feat, and it's very difficult to parse out how exactly the designer intended it to work. You're better off just discussing the feat with your DM, and working out how both of you think it should work. In fact, I think the official custserv answer on Battle Jump was "Ask your DM."



Do they gain an extra charge in addition to the effects of their maneuver? Does Battle Jump not activate because they are jumping in the context of the maneuver? Is the attack from their maneuver counted as a charge (along with all that implies), with its damage doubled? And if both activate, which activates first? (Such as if they want to Power Attack for Shock Trooper, which only activates on a charge)


Ok, I'll give it a swing. When you execute a Tiger Claw maneuver involving a jump, as part of your movement you pick your "ending square" where the jump is completed. That's presumably where the attack takes place, although I suppose there's an argument that the attack happens while you're in mid-air. In any case, your "ending square" is part of your jump movement, and is most likely a piece of solid ground adjacent to your opponent. Even though you're coming down as part of the jump, you're not "falling" yet, you're just finishing a controlled jump. In other words, since you're not actually in an uncontrolled fall yet, Battle Jump doesn't activate.

Now, that changes if your "ending square" happens to be 10' above your opponent's head. When you end your jump... NOW you're about to fall. Before that happens, if your opponent is within the reach of your weapons and the maneuver allows it, then presumably you can execute your attack. But it's likely that you don't have that much reach and can't attack your opponent from that square. Once that's settled, then you go into an uncontrolled fall, and Battle Jump activates, turning your fall into a Charge attack.

And this is where some clearer wording for Battle Jump would have helped immensely... because it's essentially creating a full-round action out of thin air, even if you didn't have any actions left or can no longer make a full-round action. Battle Jump allows you to turn movement (and not just move actions, but any movement, even accidental or not-initiated-by-you) into a full-round action. If you can manage to find a way to make multiple moves in a round (shadow stride, dimension hop, abrupt jaunt, etc.), then you can make multiple charges in a round. If your DM is OK with that... well, party on, compadre.

[Twilightwyrm]

Thank you very much for the information, and your interpretation. I was aware Battle Jump suffers from...poor wording, but I guess I supposed some sort of standard agreement with regards to how it functions had come into place, if only due to the lack of official clarification on the subject.

[huttj509]

Thank you very much for the information, and your interpretation. I was aware Battle Jump suffers from...poor wording, but I guess I supposed some sort of standard agreement with regards to how it functions had come into place, if only due to the lack of official clarification on the subject.

Oh, I'm sure there's a standard agreement.

I'm sure there's at least 3 different standard agreements, that's the problem. :-)

It's obfuscated enough that it really does need to be discussed with the DM. They might already have an interpretation they feel is "obvious" or something, and if you come in with "GitP says ____" when it's pretty much up in the air how it gets handled, it might not go over well if the DM has a different preference in how to handle it.

[Twilightwyrm]

Oh, I'm sure there's a standard agreement.

I'm sure there's at least 3 different standard agreements, that's the problem. :-)

It's obfuscated enough that it really does need to be discussed with the DM. They might already have an interpretation they feel is "obvious" or something, and if you come in with "GitP says ____" when it's pretty much up in the air how it gets handled, it might not go over well if the DM has a different preference in how to handle it.

This would seem all too true. Unfortunately the other option, since the DM consent is required for all non-Core setting/Dragon Magazine material at my table (in part for this very reason), the other option is the DM just electing not to give consent because it is too much of a hassle. Hence why I was hoping something more definitive would pop up here. I'm thinking, however, a clear answer isn't possible in this case. Maybe I should just stick with Leap Attack...