5th initiator level for a sword sage?

[CyberThread]

So you have your fun in other classes, you are bouncing around doing whatever, and you sudden dip into swordsage, and it gives you a 5th initiator level and 3rd maneuver level, what sort of maneuvers/stances do I qualify for, at this point and time?

[Gigas Breaker]

You qualify for 3rd level maneuvers and stances. You may choose maneuvers to qualify as prerequisites for other maneuvers at the same time.

[OldTrees1]

However the 1st stance in each ToB base class MUST be a 1st level stance.
So you can pick up 3rd level maneuvers and a 1st level stance (Child of Shadows?)
3 of the 4 maneuvers I would ready would be:
Shadow Jaunt (SH 2nd, no prereqs)
Mountain Hammer (SD 2nd, no prereqs)
Emerald Razor (DM 2nd, 1 prereq)

[Chronos]

Swordsages don't get access to White Raven. And the bit about only getting a 1st-level stance is debated.

[OldTrees1]

Swordsages don't get access to White Raven. And the bit about only getting a 1st-level stance is debated.

Thanks for the correction.
However I do not understand why there is debate about the 1st level stance.


Stances Known: You begin play with knowledge of one
1st-level stance from any discipline open to you. At 2nd, 5th,
9th, 14th, and 20th level, you can choose additional stances.

[Nettlekid]

If you have 8 levels in other classes and then take your 9th in Swordsage, then you'll be a (8/2)+1=5th level initiator. Swordsage 1 grants 6 Maneuvers Known and 1 Stance Known. You may choose maneuvers of up to 3rd level (Death Mark, Feigned Opening, Strength Draining Strike, etc), but the Stance chosen must be a first level one (this is a contested point, but I've seen more evidence and support in favor of this ruling than against.) As normal, in order to qualify for many of those third level stances, you'll have to take some first or second level stances with lower prereqs. At 10th level, if you take another level in Swordsage, you'll gain one more maneuver known (still 3rd level, 8/2+2=6th level initiator), and another Stance known, which can be up to a 3rd level stance. If you were to take two more levels of your other class before that second level of Swordsage, making you a Class 8/Swordsage 1/Class +2/Swordsage +1, you'd be a (8/2+2/2)+1+1=7th level initiator, granting access to 4th level Maneuvers, meaning that the next Maneuver you take from that Swordsage 2 can be a 4th level one, and the Stance can be 4th level too (if there were any, which there aren't.)

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

However the 1st stance in each ToB base class MUST be a 1st level stance.

Not so. It states you begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance, not that you must get a 1st level stance at your first class level. If you go something like Fighter 9/ Warblade 1, your initiator level is 5th and you qualify for a 3rd level stance. If you would be forced to take a 1st level stance for that class level, then you are entitled to that stance as a 1st level character (when you begin play) before you even have a level in Warblade. In that case, you can promise to gain a level in each initiator class at some point and gain three 1st level stances when you begin play, due to the above wording.

This is the most literal reading of the above wording, which is absolutely silly, so we'll put it into context: Assuming you're beginning play as a 1st level Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade, you begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from one of that class's disciplines. If you're not starting out as a 1st level character with your first class level in one of those classes, or if you're multiclassing into an initiator class later than 1st level, then your first stance can be one of a level that you qualify for.

To further clarify, if you just now gained your first level in Swordsage but you're not beginning play as a Swordsage, then the limitation to 1st-level stances does not apply.

[OldTrees1]

Not so. It states you begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance, not that you must get a 1st level stance at your first class level. If you go something like Fighter 9/ Warblade 1, your initiator level is 5th and you qualify for a 3rd level stance. If you would be forced to take a 1st level stance for that class level, then you are entitled to that stance as a 1st level character (when you begin play) before you even have a level in Warblade. In that case, you can promise to gain a level in each initiator class at some point and gain three 1st level stances when you begin play, due to the above wording.

This is the most literal reading of the above wording, which is absolutely silly, so we'll put it into context: Assuming you're beginning play as a 1st level Crusader, Swordsage, or Warblade, you begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance from one of that class's disciplines. If you're not starting out as a 1st level character with your first class level in one of those classes, or if you're multiclassing into an initiator class later than 1st level, then your first stance can be one of a level that you qualify for.

To further clarify, if you just now gained your first level in Swordsage but you're not beginning play as a Swordsage, then the limitation to 1st-level stances does not apply.
It also says that you only gain additional stances "At 2nd, 5th, 9th, 14th, and 20th level". If we remember that classes use "level" to refer to class level, then it is obvious that the text(text trumps table) does not grant a high level stance for the first level of swordsage.

So you begin play (as a martial adept) with a first level stance and at 2nd level Swordsage you get a higher level stance.

Or we can put it in context and assume that a multiclassing adept learns a basic stance before they get to learn an advanced stance.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It also says that you only gain additional stances "At 2nd, 5th, 9th, 14th, and 20th level". If we remember that classes use "level" to refer to class level, then it is obvious that the text(text trumps table) does not grant a high level stance for the first level of swordsage.

So you begin play (as a martial adept) with a first level stance and at 2nd level Swordsage you get a higher level stance.

Again, taken in context the text presumes you're beginning play as a 1st level character with one level in that initiator class, i.e. it presumes your initiator level is only 1st. And again, it explicitly states that you begin play with that maneuver, so if he's going to be limited to a 1st-level stance by that wording, then he was entitled to begin play as a 1st level character with that stance, despite not taking his first Swordsage level until 9th level. If you take it literally and not in context, then every character ever created can promise to take a level in each initiator class at some point (at level one thousand), and gets to begin play with a 1st-level stance from each class. Finally, still taken literally, this limit to 1st level stances only applies when you begin play, not when you multiclass into an initiator class later on.

[OldTrees1]

Again, taken in context the text presumes you're beginning play as a 1st level character with one level in that initiator class, i.e. it presumes your initiator level is only 1st. And again, it explicitly states that you begin play with that maneuver, so if he's going to be limited to a 1st-level stance by that wording, then he was entitled to begin play as a 1st level character with that stance, despite not taking his first Swordsage level until 9th level. If you take it literally and not in context, then every character ever created can promise to take a level in each initiator class at some point (at level one thousand), and gets to begin play with a 1st-level stance from each class. Finally, still taken literally, this limit to 1st level stances only applies when you begin play, not when you multiclass into an initiator class later on.
I can see how you are stretching an ability to have a retcon effect on a lower level character that does not have the ability. Even with this (IMHO dubious)stretch the 1st level of a martial adept does not grant a higher level stance (since the text only grants a 1st level stance when play begins and holds off on granting additional stances until 2nd level in the Swordsage class)

So regardless of the interpretation of "begins play" the first level of swordsage does not grant a higher level stance.

If we look at RAI (what you referred to as context) then we have multiple interpretations (as in the nature of RAI). I interpret it as giving the adept a basic stance before advanced stance. However I can see you interpret RAI differently. So I agree that in RAI it is disputed.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I can see how you are stretching an ability to have a retcon effect on a lower level character that does not have the ability. Even with this (IMHO dubious)stretch the 1st level of a martial adept does not grant a higher level stance (since the text only grants a 1st level stance when play begins and holds off on granting additional stances until 2nd level in the Swordsage class)

So regardless of the interpretation of "begins play" the first level of swordsage does not grant a higher level stance.

If we look at RAI (what you referred to as context) then we have multiple interpretations (as in the nature of RAI). I interpret it as giving the adept a basic stance before advanced stance. However I can see you interpret RAI differently. So I agree that in RAI it is disputed.

Either it allows you to begin play with a 1st level stance regardless of what class you take at 1st level, or the limitation to a 1st level stance only applies when you begin play as a 1st level character in that class.

[Gigas Breaker]

Do people really force initiators to take a first level stance at say rogue 9/SS 1? Lolol. I agree with BF. It is obvious begins play means level one.

[OldTrees1]

Either it allows you to begin play with a 1st level stance regardless of what class you take at 1st level, or the limitation to a 1st level stance only applies when you begin play as a 1st level character in that class.

"You begin play with knowledge of one 1st-level stance."
I fail to see how there is a RAW limitation that is tied to when you take the class. I see a RAW limitation that is tied to the effect granted independently of when you take the class.

Your second interpretation would require a different wording:
"You have 1 stance at 1st level, it is a 1st level stance if you begin play as a swordsage"

@Gigas Breaker
Yes. Although 70% of those adepts were mine. Also it is one of the many places where I can be convinced to houserule otherwise.

[Emperor Tippy]

Thanks for the correction.
However I do not understand why there is debate about the 1st level stance.

It only must be a first level stance if your first level is in a ToB class, that being when you begin play.