Swordsages 6+intx6 skill points, why keep?

[Vertharrad]

I have noticed some people want to keep the misprint of 6+intx6 skill points for 1st lvl of swordsage, why not just change to 8+intx4 like a rogues? I know its not the same...but why not keep it to whats been shown as the max number of skill points you can get?

[Firechanter]

There really are such people? This is clearly a clerical error, nothing more, nothing less.

[HalfQuart]

Huh? That seems like a weird suggestion... I think folks either want to go with strict RAW and use x6, or the perceived RAI -- the standard x4 multiplier. Whether you want house rules to give more/less skill points for any class is kind of a totally different conversation.

[Larkas]

why not just change to 8+intx4 like a rogues? I know its not the same...

Huh? Why would you do that? It's quite obvious it was supposed to be (6+Int)*4.

[Snowbluff]

It's quirky and I like it. I don't think ~8 points matter much in the long run.

[IronFist]

There really are such people? This is clearly a clerical error, nothing more, nothing less.

The other day there was a guy in the forums freaking out because his DM did not allow him to deal 1d43 damage with a scorpion whip. Really, we still get people thinking DWK are true dragons.

It's a weird crowd around here.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I have noticed some people want to keep the misprint of 6+intx6 skill points for 1st lvl of swordsage, why not just change to 8+intx4 like a rogues? I know its not the same...but why not keep it to whats been shown as the max number of skill points you can get?

One, for the coolness factor.

Two, Changeling Rogues (Racial Substitution level, Races of Eberron) get (10+Int)*4 at first level.

[Fax Celestis]

One, for the coolness factor.

Two, Changeling Rogues (Racial Substitution level, Races of Eberron) get (10+Int)*4 at first level.

I also hear a common houserule is to give the Exemplar 10+Int/lev.

[Chronos]

The other day there was a guy in the forums freaking out because his DM did not allow him to deal 1d43 damage with a scorpion whip. Really, we still get people thinking DWK are true dragons.

One of these things is not like the others. The swordsage's x6 skill points and the scorpion whip's 1d43 are both clearly typos, and were not at all intended. By contrast, the writers of Races of the Dragon clearly did intend for kobolds to have age categories, and just didn't think through the implications of that decision. They might not have realized that they were defining kobolds as true dragons, but that's not the same as saying they did it accidentally.

[Psyren]

Let's not do the Kobold Dance in this thread too.

Yeah, I make it 6+Int skills - they already crush rogues in damage and utility, they don't need to be better skillwise on top of it.

[tomandtish]

Why some might want to keep it? There’s certainly an initial advantage. 1) (6+INT)*6 is certainly greater initially than 2) (8+INT)*4. However, the advantage will be cancelled out as additional levels are taken. After a certain level, it then is more beneficial to be on the (8+INT) method (assuming Swordsage only).

INT: +0.....1) 36.....2) 32.....Level where points balance: 3
INT: +1.....1) 42.....2) 36.....Level where points balance: 4
INT: +2.....1) 48.....2) 40.....Level where points balance: 5
INT: +3.....1) 54.....2) 44.....Level where points balance: 6
INT: +4.....1) 60.....2) 48.....Level where points balance: 7

So if you never planned on taking more than X levels of Swordsage (where X is the point at which the points balance), then it’s certainly to your advantage to go with (6+INT)*6. For example, if I started with 18 INT and plan on no more than 7 levels, then not only did I end up with the same number of skill points, but I had 12 of them sooner (namely at creation).

Note: This is WHY some might want to do it. I’m not saying they should be allowed to do so, as it was a clear typo.

[MukkTB]

I've never seen (8+int)*4 before. Either its (6+int)*6 as RAW or (6+int)*4 as RAI. Given the RAW is a result of an obvious typo, most of us use RAI.

[eggynack]

Well, the reason I'd want to keep it is because it's kinda cool. It makes pretty much no sense for swordsages to have an extra couple of skill points at first level, but they do, and it differentiates them from everything else in the game.

[Ernir]

I occasionally see people keeping it because it's funny... and it doesn't matter that much in the long run.

[eggynack]

I occasionally see people keeping it because it's funny... and it doesn't matter that much in the long run.
I forgot funny. Make that cool, unique, and funny. Sometimes there are mistakes or flaws in RAW that hurt the balance of the game, or detract from play experience. I'm sure there are situations in which this is one of those times, like if you're increasing your power advantage over low tier party members, but in many cases, this isn't one of those mistakes. It's low impact, somewhat amusing, and maybe creates a new, if minor, factor in optimization. I would understand if someone wanted to just normalize the swordsage's skill points, but I would also understand if someone wanted to keep them in their current state. It's just not that big a deal, and that means that humor and cool factor is a relevant factor, in that same way that it's often not in those weird footnote typo situations (like the scorpion whip).

[Gorfnod]

Really, we still get people thinking DWK are true dragons.

But DWK are True......


Let's not do the Kobold Dance in this thread too.

Yes sir. :smallsigh:

[Chronos]

Note that I'm not actually arguing here that DWKs are true dragons: That argument, as you say, belongs elsewhere. I'm just saying that it's a different kind of argument than the swordsage's skill points or the scorpion whip's damage.

Out of curiosity: Of those few who keep the swordsage's RAW skill point peculiarity, do you also keep their peculiar RAW BAB advancement?

[Fax Celestis]

Out of curiosity: Of those few who keep the swordsage's RAW skill point peculiarity, do you also keep their peculiar RAW BAB advancement?

Never noticed that. That is bizarre.

[Venger]

Never noticed that. That is bizarre.

Me neither. that is weird.

[eggynack]

Never noticed that. That is bizarre.
Same here. It's just so subtly different that I've never noticed it before, or perhaps it's been presented to me in some form, and then I arbitrarily forgot about it. In any case I'd probably default it to standard BAB, and if pressed I might allow it to switch over. I edge more towards not allowing it than in the skill points case, because it's about as anomalous without being nearly as amusing or cool.

Like, for skill points you can have some vague story about how those who begin their career as a swordsage gain some special insight into the nature of reality, and you can write the ridiculous skill points on your sheet, and giggle to yourself about it when no one's around. For slightly higher BAB at some levels, I don't really have a clever narrative like that. Like, they're a one BAB more powerful than rogues at some levels, because at those levels they, what? Decide that rogues are dumb, and try to race ahead to +15 as fast as they can go? There's just nothing there. It's dumb without having the natural absurdity and uniqueness that *6 skill points has. Thus, I guess I wouldn't allow it on the grounds of it not being cool enough to allow. If someone gave me some reason why slightly faster BAB advancement is cool or interesting, I could change my mind, but those are my thoughts on the topic currently.

[Sith_Happens]

Me neither. that is weird.

Same here. They appear to have rounded up by mistake at 13th and 17th level.

[Larkas]

Same here. They appear to have rounded up by mistake at 13th and 17th level.

What? I don't even... Yeah, never noticed that either. Certainly a rounding mistake.

[Chronos]

Or a counting mistake. You get into a rhythm, zero one two three, three four five six, six seven eight nine, and so on... But then you get distracted by something for a moment, and accidentally break into a different rhythm.

[DR27]

How is this even a discussion? I know that the spirit of the boards is to keep to RAW so that we are all discussing the same thing, but is it really worth adherence to obvious typos?

[TuggyNE]

Or a counting mistake. You get into a rhythm, zero one two three, three four five six, six seven eight nine, and so on... But then you get distracted by something for a moment, and accidentally break into a different rhythm.

This is why you should construct your rules documents programmatically. Eliminates wacky one-off errors like this.

(No I'm not just saying that because I'm a professional software developer, what are you talking about? :smalltongue:)

[Snowbluff]

This is why you should construct your rules documents programmatically. Eliminates wacky one-off errors like this.

(No I'm not just saying that because I'm a professional software developer, what are you talking about? :smalltongue:)
:smallsigh:

Tell an oncologist your arm hurts and he'll say it's probably cancer. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

How is this even a discussion? I know that the spirit of the boards is to keep to RAW so that we are all discussing the same thing, but is it really worth adherence to obvious typos?
Well, that's the question, isn't it? It's not like I'm talking about blind adherence to the RAW, because that's the RAW, and that's the only thing that matters in cases like these. I'm talking about looking at the pretty obvious typo, evaluating it within the context of the game, and deciding whether or not it's worth keeping. Is giving the swordsage (6+int)*6 skill points at first level to the benefit or the detriment of the game?

I think that it may be to the benefit of the game, because it adds a humorous and cool quirk to the class, and I like my games to have some rough edges. They give us something to talk about, and they give us something to be interested in. You don't get as much of that when what you're talking about is perfectly smooth. I've made some other points in other posts, and I stand by them.

Now, the question is whether you think that this typo is beneficial or detrimental to the game, and why you think that. We probably shouldn't show blind obedience to RAW without questioning it, but that's not what we're doing. More importantly, we probably shouldn't show blind deference to RACSD without even considering the alternative, which seems to be what you are doing. If you don't like the rule, that's fine, but don't just discard it out of hand because of your preconceptions about how the game should be.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, this isn't a RAW topic. We know it's an error, but the OP is asking for why would not fix it. :smalltongue:

[Alex12]

I don't keep it (and since I'm the only one in the group who uses ToB stuff to a meaningful degree, that means we don't keep it) but I'd be perfectly open to doing so if someone else were to play a swordsage when I DM.
For that matter, I don't think I'd object to a rule like "all classes get 6x skill points rather than 4x at character creation. You won't be able to keep all your skills maxed with this, so put some of those points into making the character well-rounded."

[Chronos]

Quoth TuggyNE:

This is why you should construct your rules documents programmatically. Eliminates wacky one-off errors like this.
Frankly, I would have thought that, by the late point when ToB was published, Wizards would have a LaTeX template (or the equivalent in some other language) for books, classes, etc., and was surprised when I saw the Swordsage, which was clear evidence that they didn't.

And I'm not a software developer; I'm a physicist. But we have things like that that we use for our publications, too, and I would expect D&D developers to tend to be nerds like us.

[holywhippet]

How is this even a discussion? I know that the spirit of the boards is to keep to RAW so that we are all discussing the same thing, but is it really worth adherence to obvious typos?

It's an odd typo though. You'd expect whoever was writing the book to go to an existing table like the monk/cleric table and copy and paste it across then update as required. Why would they type it out from scratch?

[Spuddles]

It's a rounding error. Maybe when they copied it from one excel file to another, they forgot to modify the settings.

[Coidzor]

I have noticed some people want to keep the misprint of 6+intx6 skill points for 1st lvl of swordsage, why not just change to 8+intx4 like a rogues? I know its not the same...but why not keep it to whats been shown as the max number of skill points you can get?

I usually see it as more tongue in cheek myself or people seeing the weirdness and rolling with it since it gives them a little bit of extra flexibility for building towards prerequisites at first level.

[Fax Celestis]

Frankly, I would have thought that, by the late point when ToB was published, Wizards would have a LaTeX template (or the equivalent in some other language) for books, classes, etc., and was surprised when I saw the Swordsage, which was clear evidence that they didn't.

And I'm not a software developer; I'm a physicist. But we have things like that that we use for our publications, too, and I would expect D&D developers to tend to be nerds like us.

I'm a not-quite-third-party semi-pro wannabe homebrewer, and I have stuff that calculates that in multiple formats (http://pifro.com/dnd/NEW/). It's thanks to the programming prowess of one SweetRein, but still.

[Kuulvheysoon]

:smallsigh:

Tell an oncologist your arm hurts and he'll say it's probably cancer. :smalltongue:

No it's always Lupus, dammit.

But I honestly never noticed the BAB mistake. That is incredibly odd.

[Snowbluff]

No it's always Lupus, dammit.
Pftt... HAHAHAHA!


But I honestly never noticed the BAB mistake. That is incredibly odd.
I always calculate it manually, and I've never taken SS that far. It is strange.:smalltongue: