Do PRC's count as a full initiator level?

[CyberThread]

Am quoting this spot for the question

Prestige classes work a little differently. In most cases, you
add the full prestige class level to your martial adept level to
determine your initiator level. See the prestige class descriptions
in Chapter 5 for details.


I looked at chapter 5, it really only explained if you got such from feats, or whatever, but if am a level 5 fighter with 5 levels of a prc, and then go a level of warblade.

Would I have 2 1/2 +5 +1 = 8 1/2 initiator levels

While a fighter with 10 levels and then 1 level of warblade, would only have 6 initiator levels?

[Greenish]

The general consensus is that only PrCs that advance initiating (such as RKV) advance IL at 1:1, while the PrCs that don't (Bloodstorm Blade, and everything not printed in ToB), won't.

[Nettlekid]

As Greenish said, people take that to mean that full initiator PrCs add IL like that (so all in the ToB except Bloodstorm Blade, and nothing else), but you are in fact right that RAW, it says PrCs without any qualifier, which would mean any and all PrCs. But that's just a bit lame, because levelling up in Incantatrix or Beholder Mage shouldn't improve your capability to kill someone by jumping on them.

[Crake]

As Greenish said, people take that to mean that full initiator PrCs add IL like that (so all in the ToB except Bloodstorm Blade, and nothing else), but you are in fact right that RAW, it says PrCs without any qualifier, which would mean any and all PrCs. But that's just a bit lame, because levelling up in Incantatrix or Beholder Mage shouldn't improve your capability to kill someone by jumping on them.

Well actually, by RAW it says to see the individual PRC description. Most of the PRC in ToB will specifically say that they add their entire class level to initiator level, thus those that do not, do not, simple as that.

[Nettlekid]

Well actually, by RAW it says to see the individual PRC description. Most of the PRC in ToB will specifically say that they add their entire class level to initiator level, thus those that do not, do not, simple as that.

Hmm, I'm not sure, because this is a rule stating that usually PrCs add their full level, which makes it a general rule, meaning that if another PrC doesn't negate that rule then there's no "specific trumps general" to oppose this general.

[Douglas]

Hmm, I'm not sure, because this is a rule stating that usually PrCs add their full level, which makes it a general rule, meaning that if another PrC doesn't negate that rule then there's no "specific trumps general" to oppose this general.
It states that PrCs counting full is the usual case and then immediately refers to the PrC chapter of the same book for details. The obvious implication is that it is the usual case in the context of that book. Further, the fact that it says "most" rather than "all" and gives no criteria for distinguishing which ones is a strong indicator that the statement is an observation, not a rule.

Bottom line: 7 of the 8 PrCs in Tome of Battle explicitly state they count full for initiator level. The quote in question is nothing more than an observation of this fact and has no rules implications.

[Red Fel]

I agree that PrCs only grant full initiator levels if they explicitly say so.

What you are describing is basically "fluff" text, which informs the reader that, yes, some PrCs will fully advance IL. "Most" does not mean "all unless they say otherwise," it means some number greater than zero, and it specifically refers to the PrCs in that chapter - most of which explicitly say they grant full IL.

Further, the fact that these PrCs explicitly say it suggests that where a PrC does not explicitly say it, it does not advance IL; it's the whole "proof by absence" thing.

No, PrCs that don't say they fully advance IL don't fully advance IL; they give 1/2 IL like any other class. The cheese is moldy.

[relytdan]

this sums it up as well -

A: Only Prestige Classes that state specifically that they count towards Initiator level do so. This information is given in the specific Prestige Class descriptions. All other prestige classes that lack this distinction would be counted at a 1/2 ratio as per the multiclass rules.

[Nettlekid]

It states that PrCs counting full is the usual case and then immediately refers to the PrC chapter of the same book for details. The obvious implication is that it is the usual case in the context of that book. Further, the fact that it says "most" rather than "all" and gives no criteria for distinguishing which ones is a strong indicator that the statement is an observation, not a rule.

Bottom line: 7 of the 8 PrCs in Tome of Battle explicitly state they count full for initiator level. The quote in question is nothing more than an observation of this fact and has no rules implications.

I would agree that all of that is the reasonable and logical interpretation, and I would be sorely annoyed at anyone who tried to argue otherwise in an actual game, but the point stands that it does say "in most cases you add the full PrC class level" and doesn't qualify that. It says see Chapter 5, and some PrCs in Chapter 5 support that, but nothing negates it. So the RAW argument can be made, senseless though it may be.

[Emperor Tippy]

Remember though that such Prestige classes grant full IL to every initiator class that you have, not just one initiator class, so dipping one level in each of the other initiator classes at the end of a build can be great.

[Chronos]

Personally, I would read "most prestige classes give full IL advancement, see <chapter>" to mean "All of the prestige classes in that chapter give full IL advancement unless specified otherwise", and none of them specify otherwise. Though of course the other interpretation is also not unreasonable.

As many have already noted, Tome of Battle could really have used some better editing.

[Nettlekid]

Personally, I would read "most prestige classes give full IL advancement, see <chapter>" to mean "All of the prestige classes in that chapter give full IL advancement unless specified otherwise", and none of them specify otherwise. Though of course the other interpretation is also not unreasonable.

As many have already noted, Tome of Battle could really have used some better editing.

That interpretation is still faulty. Bloodstorm Blade doesn't state that it does progress IL, but it doesn't state otherwise. Being a class in the book's PrC chapter might make you say "Oh of course it progresses IL" but if that's the case, then a PrC need not advance maneuvers in order to progress IL at a 1:1 rate, so you can then extend the whole "all PrCs do this thing" thing further.

[Red Fel]

Actually, this debate is easily resolved.

As I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, the classes that fully advance IL also have a list of disciplines from which maneuvers are granted, don't they? Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade list disciplines; Bloodclaw Master, Deepstone Sentinel, Eternal Blade, JPM, RKV and SSN list disciplines; Master of Nine says "from any of the nine disciplines." These classes explicitly list maneuvers granted and from where. Bloodstorm Blade does not list maneuvers or disciplines granted, although its abilities key off of Iron Heart maneuvers; it does not advance IL.

See? It stands to reason that any class which advances IL would grant maneuvers, and that those which do not grant maneuvers do not advance IL.

Easy peasy, lemon-squeezey.

[Nettlekid]

Actually, this debate is easily resolved.

As I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, the classes that fully advance IL also have a list of disciplines from which maneuvers are granted, don't they? Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade list disciplines; Bloodclaw Master, Deepstone Sentinel, Eternal Blade, JPM, RKV and SSN list disciplines; Master of Nine says "from any of the nine disciplines." These classes explicitly list maneuvers granted and from where. Bloodstorm Blade does not list maneuvers or disciplines granted, although its abilities key off of Iron Heart maneuvers; it does not advance IL.

See? It stands to reason that any class which advances IL would grant maneuvers, and that those which do not grant maneuvers do not advance IL.

Easy peasy, lemon-squeezey.

Once again, "stands to reason" is interpretation. A lot of things "stand to reason" that are wildly contested, and sometimes are in fact not the most logical RAI.

But even this interpretation is flawed, because what you're suggesting is that IL is based on paths, not the type of initiator. If you're a Crusader, and then take levels in RKV, are you saying that the Crusader's IL is increased by its RKV levels only for Devoted Spirit, Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon, and White Raven maneuvers? Are you saying that a Crusader 4/Cleric 2/RKV 10/Swordsage 1 would have an IL of 15 for any Devoted Spirit, and White Raven maneuver it used or chose (shared by Crusader and RKV), an IL of 16 for any Stone Dragon maneuver it used or chose (shared by Crusader, RKV, and Swordsage), an IL of 14 for any Shadow Hand maneuver it used or chose (shared by RKV and Swordsage) and an IL of 9 for any Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, or Tiger Claw maneuver it used or chose (shared only be Swordsage)? Because I promise you that's entirely wrong. This build would have an IL of 15 for all maneuvers used as a Crusader, and an IL of 14 for all maneuvers used as a Swordsage.

[Red Fel]

Once again, "stands to reason" is interpretation. A lot of things "stand to reason" that are wildly contested, and sometimes are in fact not the most logical RAI.

But even this interpretation is flawed, because what you're suggesting is that IL is based on paths, not the type of initiator. If you're a Crusader, and then take levels in RKV, are you saying that the Crusader's IL is increased by its RKV levels only for Devoted Spirit, Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon, and White Raven maneuvers? Are you saying that a Crusader 4/Cleric 2/RKV 10/Swordsage 1 would have an IL of 15 for any Devoted Spirit, and White Raven maneuver it used or chose (shared by Crusader and RKV), an IL of 16 for any Stone Dragon maneuver it used or chose (shared by Crusader, RKV, and Swordsage), an IL of 14 for any Shadow Hand maneuver it used or chose (shared by RKV and Swordsage) and an IL of 9 for any Desert Wind, Diamond Mind, Setting Sun, or Tiger Claw maneuver it used or chose (shared only be Swordsage)? Because I promise you that's entirely wrong. This build would have an IL of 15 for all maneuvers used as a Crusader, and an IL of 14 for all maneuvers used as a Swordsage.

No. That's actually not what I'm saying at all.

I recall saying, and I quote, "the classes that fully advance IL also have a list of disciplines from which maneuvers are granted." I did not say that they only advance certain disciplines, or whatever other tortured logic you dragged out of that statement. I didn't follow half of what you claim I said, but if I did, I probably wouldn't agree with it.

I was making an observation about a trait common to those classes which fully advance IL.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Or on my screen.

[Nettlekid]

No. That's actually not what I'm saying at all.

I recall saying, and I quote, "the classes that fully advance IL also have a list of disciplines from which maneuvers are granted." I did not say that they only advance certain disciplines, or whatever other tortured logic you dragged out of that statement. I didn't follow half of what you claim I said, but if I did, I probably wouldn't agree with it.

I was making an observation about a trait common to those classes which fully advance IL.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Or on my screen.

Well then why bring up the disciplines, and the fact that different PrCs progress different disciplines, if it has no bearing on your argument? (Also, it doesn't really do you any favors to outright admit you can't follow a counterargument. Just saying.)

In any case, it still doesn't invalidate the blanket statement made by the line "In most cases, you add the full prestige class level to your martial adept level to determine your initiator level." The classes that list their disciplines and such perhaps reaffirm that they absolutely do progress IL, but there's nothing saying that's a necessity. To assume that if a class must have a list of disciplines in order to fully progress IL boils down to just saying that if you have one class feature then it must interact with a related class feature in some way. That would be like saying that because a Monk gets an increase in Unarmed Strike damage and also a Flurry of Blows progression, if a PrC increases Unarmed Strike damage then it must also increase Flurry of Blows, and we know that isn't true.

I want to reiterate that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT think that all PrCs increase IL at a 1:1 ratio. I'm just pointing out that it's really really hard to actually invalidate that RAW piece in the OP.

[Red Fel]

Well then why bring up the disciplines, and the fact that different PrCs progress different disciplines, if it has no bearing on your argument? (Also, it doesn't really do you any favors to outright admit you can't follow a counterargument. Just saying.)

In any case, it still doesn't invalidate the blanket statement made by the line "In most cases, you add the full prestige class level to your martial adept level to determine your initiator level." The classes that list their disciplines and such perhaps reaffirm that they absolutely do progress IL, but there's nothing saying that's a necessity. To assume that if a class must have a list of disciplines in order to fully progress IL boils down to just saying that if you have one class feature then it must interact with a related class feature in some way. That would be like saying that because a Monk gets an increase in Unarmed Strike damage and also a Flurry of Blows progression, if a PrC increases Unarmed Strike damage then it must also increase Flurry of Blows, and we know that isn't true.

I want to reiterate that I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT think that all PrCs increase IL at a 1:1 ratio. I'm just pointing out that it's really really hard to actually invalidate that RAW piece in the OP.

There is RAW, and then there is obiter dictum. The former is in a book and meant to be read as a rule. The latter is purely descriptive, illustrative or flavorful, and has little or no bearing on the rules themselves. Despite the emphasis placed on RAW, we cannot assume that every single word in print is gospel merely on the basis of it being in print.

There are innumerable topics dealing with this very point: The fact that something is written in the book, alone, does not make it a RAW-worthy rule.

If you absolutely do not think that all PrCs fully advance IL, then it seems pointless to continue to push that interpretation.

[Nettlekid]

There is RAW, and then there is obiter dictum. The former is in a book and meant to be read as a rule. The latter is purely descriptive, illustrative or flavorful, and has little or no bearing on the rules themselves. Despite the emphasis placed on RAW, we cannot assume that every single word in print is gospel merely on the basis of it being in print.

There are innumerable topics dealing with this very point: The fact that something is written in the book, alone, does not make it a RAW-worthy rule.

If you absolutely do not think that all PrCs fully advance IL, then it seems pointless to continue to push that interpretation.

So where do you draw the line between fluff text and mechanics? The only ruling we have on the matter of how any class levels interact in order to progress IL is in ToB. If anything, the piece in Chapter 3, Blade Magic, which is the part of the book that actually discusses how to calculate IL, should hold greater validity than the chapter which discusses PrCs. While I agree that not everything in a book is RAW, when a book describes a rule as to how to do something, then that is by definition RAW. And the rule as to how to calculate IL here says "you add the full prestige class level to your martial adept level to determine your initiator level." Because it says "usually," it makes this a general rule that can be overwritten by a specific case, but such a case would have to say "The levels in this PrC only count half toward IL, much as a non-initiator base class" or something to that effect.

And you misunderstand again. I'm not pushing the interpretation. I'm pointing out that the book actually supports the OP's understanding of IL stacking, despite what most reasonable DMs would approve of.

[Chronos]

Quoth Nettlekid:

That interpretation is still faulty. Bloodstorm Blade doesn't state that it does progress IL, but it doesn't state otherwise. Being a class in the book's PrC chapter might make you say "Oh of course it progresses IL" but if that's the case, then a PrC need not advance maneuvers in order to progress IL at a 1:1 rate, so you can then extend the whole "all PrCs do this thing" thing further.
I'm not sure I see that last step? Yes, by my interpretation, a class that does not advance maneuvers can give 1:1 IL. But this does not imply that, say, Frenzied Berserker gives 1:1 IL, because Frenzied Berserker isn't in that chapter of Tome of Battle, and the reasoning only applied to classes in that chapter of that book. I acknowledged that my interpretation isn't universal, and that others can have other reasonable interpretations, but that doesn't mean that it's faulty.

[Nettlekid]

I'm not sure I see that last step? Yes, by my interpretation, a class that does not advance maneuvers can give 1:1 IL. But this does not imply that, say, Frenzied Berserker gives 1:1 IL, because Frenzied Berserker isn't in that chapter of Tome of Battle, and the reasoning only applied to classes in that chapter of that book. I acknowledged that my interpretation isn't universal, and that others can have other reasonable interpretations, but that doesn't mean that it's faulty.

Because the statement is that most PrCs add their full level, and it says that without any qualifier about chapter, then the rule it's laying out is that PrCs add their full level unless it states otherwise. Nothing about Chapter 5 PrCs only. It then says to see Chapter 5 for details, but that doesn't negate the general rule. In Chapter 5, it gives examples of maneuver-progressing PrCs, but their existence doesn't mean that other PrCs don't follow the general rule as well. Your reasoning was that non-maneuver-progressing PrCs can still progress 1:1 if they are in Chapter 5. But there's really nothing that supports the isolation to Chapter 5. Sure, you could say that ToB rules only apply to the book ToB, but if you're talking about Initiator Level then you're applying the ToB to other books already. So it's faulty to reason that it is locked only to one book when it doesn't state itself as such, and you aren't keeping to just one book either.

[Callin]

My group uses the ruling that all PrC's advance IL at a 1:1 because there are not enough prestige classes in the ToB. Also the General Rule that is in debate here is horribly written, but as a General Rule its law only superseded by a Specific Rule.

Now this only increases IL. It does NOT give access to more maneuvers known or readied or stances. It just increases the numbers. If you want more of those then you need to take a PrC that grants them or go back to your initial Initiator Class every now and then.

[Nettlekid]

My group uses the ruling that all PrC's advance IL at a 1:1 because there are not enough prestige classes in the ToB. Also the General Rule that is in debate here is horribly written, but as a General Rule its law only superseded by a Specific Rule.

Now this only increases IL. It does NOT give access to more maneuvers known or readied or stances. It just increases the numbers. If you want more of those then you need to take a PrC that grants them or go back to your initial Initiator Class every now and then.

So wait, your group ACTUALLY plays this way? Like, a Wizard 1/Binder 2/Anima Mage 10/Incantatrix 6/Swordsage 1 counts as a Swordsage 17, and as such can choose 9th level maneuvers so long as they choose maneuvers that fulfill the prereqs for those first?

[Callin]

So wait, your group ACTUALLY plays this way? Like, a Wizard 1/Binder 2/Anima Mage 10/Incantatrix 6/Swordsage 1 counts as a Swordsage 17, and as such can choose 9th level maneuvers so long as they choose maneuvers that fulfill the prereqs for those first?

Yerp but you would only have 6 known 4 readied and 1 stance. And that would be IL 18 btw because of Wiz 1/Binder 2 = 3 - 1/2 = 1.5 round down to 1.

[Nettlekid]

Yerp but you would only have 6 known 4 readied and 1 stance. And that would be IL 18 btw because of Wiz 1/Binder 2 = 3 - 1/2 = 1.5 round down to 1.

Oh right, forgot the base class stuff. Well, it doesn't matter really, because you still qualify for 9s. So with your system, with the standard Base 5/PrC 15, or Base 5/Prc 14/Initiator 1, any build can get 9th level maneuvers? No one thinks this is unbalanced?

[Callin]

Whats that quote I see someone has in their sig

Raw 100% legal, 110% silly (or stupid.. something of that sort)


I never said it wasnt silly. But thats the way my group reads it. Im basically the only one who uses the ToB anyways and I never abuse it that way but I do still count PrC's as full IL for when I go back and can pick new maneuvers.

[Chronos]

So, Nettlekid, you're basically saying that if I interpreted it differently than I do, it'd be different from how I interpret it?

[Nettlekid]

So, Nettlekid, you're basically saying that if I interpreted it differently than I do, it'd be different from how I interpret it?

It's not a matter of my interpretation, it's a matter of you interpreting things that are not substantiated by what the text says, nor is there a reasonable and justifiable context for which your interpretation is valid. Thus, it is a faulty interpretation.

[The Insanity]

Some of the ToB prcs specifically say that they advance IL. Logic tells me that those that don't say that, don't. But I know logic has no place in RAW discussions.

[TuggyNE]

Some of the ToB prcs specifically say that they advance IL. Logic tells me that those that don't say that, don't.

While I do agree with the conclusion,*be careful about reading too much into possibly-redundant special cases; sometimes a general rule is repeated in some of the cases it applies to but not others. *and the subtext

[The Insanity]

While I do agree with the conclusion,*be careful about reading too much into possibly-redundant special cases; sometimes a general rule is repeated in some of the cases it applies to but not others. *and the subtext
I'm perfectly capable of differentiating cases of redundancy and actual rules.

[TuggyNE]

I'm perfectly capable of differentiating cases of redundancy and actual rules.

Heh. Mind sharing some tips with the rest of us? :smallwink:

[The Insanity]

Heh. Mind sharing some tips with the rest of us? :smallwink:
Use common sense.

[Chronos]

Common sense does not and cannot apply to abilities that no being in our world has.

[The Insanity]

Common sense does not and cannot apply to abilities that no being in our world has.
It doesn't have to apply to non-existing abilities. It has to apply to rules.
Maybe I used the wrong words. Substitute "common sense" with "logic".

[Douglas]

To borrow a good saying from somewhere: Common sense isn't.

[JaronK]

RAW, the "most PrCs" thing indicates that, well, more than 50% of all PrCs must give you full initiator level (and that some don't)... but then it goes on to say that you need to check the individual classes for rules. In fact, most classes don't have any such rule (because they're not printed in ToB). But if we interpret the earlier rule to mean that classes that don't say anything give full levels, then actually all PrCs give full initiator level. But that's not "most" either so there's no possibly correct way to interpret that rule.

So, there actually is no RAW here to be determined from that particular line. All we can go with here is judging intent of that line, which seems clear, namely that PrCs that say they advance initiator level do so, and that's most of the PrCs in that book. The fact that those PrCs increase initiator level is, of course, RAW and clear.

That said, if you want a silly initiator levels, you'll want to have fun with Bloodline Levels. It's easy to get an initiator level that's through the roof that way.

JaronK

[FullStop]

Oh right, forgot the base class stuff. Well, it doesn't matter really, because you still qualify for 9s. So with your system, with the standard Base 5/PrC 15, or Base 5/Prc 14/Initiator 1, any build can get 9th level maneuvers? No one thinks this is unbalanced?

Considering you'd have to drop a few of your maneuvers known on low-level ones to fulfill "know X maneuvers in [school]" prereqs for the 9th level maneuvers you could theoretically get, and thus your 1 or 2 9th-level maneuvers would be your only useful ones(by that level, anyway), probably not? No more so than a build devoted to martial adeptery that picks up Stormguard Warrior, Raging Mongoose, and Time Stands Still, anyway. Or like, a wizard.

[TuggyNE]

It doesn't have to apply to non-existing abilities. It has to apply to rules.
Maybe I used the wrong words. Substitute "common sense" with "logic".

Much as I love common sense, it's not super-useful in rules questions for three reasons:

Common sense is not commonly found ("people are stupid")
Common sense is not always a common ground ("people are disagreeable")
Common sense is not good at deriving exact meanings from tortuous semi-legal wordings ("common sense and RAW are not exactly on speaking terms")


Instead, it works better as a guide for how to correct/ignore RAW, once discovered, and better still if you put some effort into detailing reasons for your common-sensical beliefs to build consensus.

[FullStop]

I don't know how this works in terms of various sources superceding each other, but the example Bloodstorm Blade in the ToB(a fighter 2/warblade 5/BSB 8) explicitly gives its initiator level as 10 (meaning the BSB levels don't grant full IL advancement). So unless there's other contradictory text in the ToB I think it's fairly safe to say that default state here is "PrCs don't advance IL unless they explicitly say so".

[Fax Celestis]

In before someone brings up how inconsistent example creatures are.

[FullStop]

In before someone brings up how inconsistent example creatures are.

That was the source of my doubts, but in the absence of anything contradicting it that's sort of the best we have.

EDIT: and while I did notice that the examples have examples of non-initiator levels rounding up AND down (the JPM is a WB 1/Wizard 5/JPM 4 that is IL 8, the RKV is a Sader 4/ Cleric 1/RKV 3 that's IL 7), they are consistently given full IL progression for their PrC levels(as they all also grant maneuver/stance progression and list schools)

[Story]

So wait, your group ACTUALLY plays this way? Like, a Wizard 1/Binder 2/Anima Mage 10/Incantatrix 6/Swordsage 1 counts as a Swordsage 17, and as such can choose 9th level maneuvers so long as they choose maneuvers that fulfill the prereqs for those first?

On a side note, I'm curious what that second level of Binder is doing in there.

[Talya]

By strict RAW, all PRCs in any book grant full initiator level unless they specifically state otherwise.

Now, you can make an argument that that is not RAI, and I'd probably agree with you, but that isn't what the book says, and that little snippet about seeing the individual PRC descriptions doesn't change that in the slightest.

I've never seen a group that actually plays RAW, to the letter. The game is rather meant to use house rules, and assumed Rule 0 would be used a lot, even in the parts that are well edited. As far as initiator level goes, this is certainly less broken than many things that are obviously RAW and RAI, such as Shapechange. (Of course, the issue is you end up with people shapechanging and then also using level 9 maneuvers at the same time...)

[TuggyNE]

By strict RAW, all PRCs in any book grant full initiator level unless they specifically state otherwise.

That doesn't seem correct. If it said "Unless otherwise specified, prestige classes grant full initiator level advancement" or the like, you'd be correct, but merely saying "most" allows for the possibility of unstated exceptions. (There's also the problem of scope; primary source rules strongly imply that rules in a particular book don't leave that book's contents unless specifically indicated.)

[FullStop]

Makes you wish they went with a table column in the ToB base classes that was "max learnable maneuver level" and then did the spellcaster thing with PrCs, i.e. "+1 level martial adept class" to replace the Maneuvers known/Maneuvers Readied/Stances Known columns in PrC tables(and for max learnable maneuver level), and then when a more specific maneuver progression is needed, just lay that out in full. Then you'd handle your maneuver progression by adding up all your class levels in things that grant IL, and your maximum maneuver level known by adding 1/2 of your non-IL-levels to that total and finding it on your base class' table.

Kinda wanna draw up revised tables, since it's kinda hard to explain with just words.

[Fax Celestis]

Kinda wanna draw up revised tables, since it's kinda hard to explain with just words.

"I wish they used the same mechanic for advancing maneuvers that they use to advance spellcasting."

[Red Fel]

That doesn't seem correct. If it said "Unless otherwise specified, prestige classes grant full initiator level advancement" or the like, you'd be correct, but merely saying "most" allows for the possibility of unstated exceptions. (There's also the problem of scope; primary source rules strongly imply that rules in a particular book don't leave that book's contents unless specifically indicated.)

There's also the problem that no class explicitly states "This class does not advance initiator level."

I can't think of a single one that says that. Saying that all PrCs grant full IL unless they state otherwise is the same as saying that all PrCs grant full IL, period.

I can find no RAW whatsoever to support such a broad interpretation. Not even the dubious language cited in the OP could support that interpretation.

[FullStop]

"I wish they used the same mechanic for advancing maneuvers that they use to advance spellcasting."

Well I mean it's a little different, since you can't cast 9th-level spells as a wizard 14/fighter 6. But you have a good point.

Could go even more general than that: "I wish they had realized they could design this new system with consistent table notation to similar systems"

[The Insanity]

Much as I love common sense, it's not super-useful in rules questions for three reasons:
Read what you quoted again. Maybe that will help.

[TuggyNE]

Read what you quoted again. Maybe that will help.

Logic that is not fully explained is (as I have often found to my own sorrow, not least just now) no better than common sense in this regard; if you assume others can follow your intuitive leaps and see the same things as obvious that you do, you won't get very far. (Also, you may well annoy others.)

[The Insanity]

It works for me. But I tend to associate myself with reasonable people.

[Chronos]

What you mean when you say that is that you tend to associate with people who think in the same manner as you. There can be more than one reasonable way to think about things. And if you go around thinking that there can only be one way of thinking that's reasonable, then you're in for a very unpleasant surprise when you eventually do discover a counterexample.

And they couldn't have had the prestige classes just give "+1 to existing initiating class" like they do with spells, because they wanted some of the PrCs to have access to a different set of disciplines than the classes that are used to enter them.

[The Insanity]

What you mean when you say that is that you tend to associate with people who think in the same manner as you.
I'm very doubtful that you know better than me what I mean or don't.

[FullStop]

What you mean when you say that is that you tend to associate with people who think in the same manner as you. There can be more than one reasonable way to think about things. And if you go around thinking that there can only be one way of thinking that's reasonable, then you're in for a very unpleasant surprise when you eventually do discover a counterexample.

And they couldn't have had the prestige classes just give "+1 to existing initiating class" like they do with spells, because they wanted some of the PrCs to have access to a different set of disciplines than the classes that are used to enter them.

I'd think just having "new maneuvers granted as a result of progressing in [Prestige Class] must be selected from the [school1, school 2...school N] disciplines." in the rules text would be sufficient.

[georgie_leech]

I'm very doubtful that you know better than me what I mean or don't.

If that's the case you've done a very poor job of explaining haven't you? :smalltongue:

When you give "logic" as a reason, it behooves you to explain said logic instead of just claiming correctness. A teacher that taught science by saying "Because physics" would be a poor instructor indeed.

[The Insanity]

If I have to explain what "logic" or "common sense" is, then there's something wrong with the society.

[georgie_leech]

If I have to explain what "logic" or "common sense" is, then there's something wrong with the society.

Great, you're one of the magical few who have risen above society. Start fixing.

The point of a Forum is to debate and share your positions and ideas. You've made your position clear, so you've got the latter down. However, using the explanation "Logic!" with no qualifiers informs nothing. You could replace "Logic!" with "Magic!" or "Aliens!" or even "Wakalixes!" and you would convey just as much information.

[FullStop]

Great, you're one of the magical few who have risen above society. Start fixing.

The point of a Forum is to debate and share your positions and ideas. You've made your position clear, so you've got the latter down. However, using the explanation "Logic!" with no qualifiers informs nothing. You could replace "Logic!" with "Magic!" or "Aliens!" or even "Wakalixes!" and you would convey just as much information.

Aside: I'm going to start saying "a Warblade did it" in a vain attempt to start to counteract society's obvious pro-magic bias.

[The Insanity]

However, using the explanation "Logic!" with no qualifiers informs nothing.
Try the dictionary.

[georgie_leech]

Try the dictionary.

Oh woe is me! Undone by such scathing wit!

Try explaining your logical process. Are you using inductive or deductive processes? What antecedents do you take, and what postulates do you use? Have you double checked to ensure your results are valid?

Notice how I'm actually explaining my position. I'm not saying "No it isn't!" to your claim of logic. By explaining what qualifiers I'm looking for, I ensure debate continues, explain my position, and show I'm unafraid of being contradicted. Indeed, I enjoy being contradicted, as it means I'm learning/being exposed to something new. The caveat, however, is that said contradiction is explained. If you prefer, I could just say "You're wrong because wakalixes?"

[The Insanity]

Oh woe is me! Undone by such scathing wit!

Try explaining your logical process. Are you using inductive or deductive processes? What antecedents do you take, and what postulates do you use? Have you double checked to ensure your results are valid?

Notice how I'm actually explaining my position. I'm not saying "No it isn't!" to your claim of logic. By explaining what qualifiers I'm looking for, I ensure debate continues, explain my position, and show I'm unafraid of being contradicted. Indeed, I enjoy being contradicted, as it means I'm learning/being exposed to something new. The caveat, however, is that said contradiction is explained. If you prefer, I could just say "You're wrong because wakalixes?"
I'm confused. Where did I say "You're wrong"?

[georgie_leech]

I'm confused. Where did I say "You're wrong"?

I didn't say you did. What I'm pointing out is that short terse responses to requests for how you came to your conclusion are entirely unhelpful. They don't tell people anything new, and frankly, they come across as insecure.

Let me put it this way. People can reason different things based on the same base state due to unstated assumptions or qualities. Saying that you only associate with reasonable people is inaccurate, as every person on earth uses some form of reason to come to their decisions. They could use a coldly logical chain of deduction like a computer, or put all their faith into their emotional state, or anywhere in between. As my own post alluded to, there are multiple classes of logic so even the "absolute" of pure logic says little about what is actually being done.

Associating only with "reasonable people" also sounds really boring. What's the point of having other view points if they all come to the same conclusion as you anyway?

[JaronK]

Here's the thing about logic: you have to show your work. In your case, you did not show which logic you used. In fact, your logic was faulty... you assumed that since some PrCs said they did advance initiator level, that meant those that did not say it did not do so. While I agree with the conclusion, the logic is false. Some class feats say they require prerequisites, for example, and some don't... but the general rule is that class granted feats require prerequisites unless otherwise stated (such as the Monk). Your logic there would achieve the wrong conclusion, if you looked at the Fighter and then a War Domain Cleric and applied the same logic.

So your logic was faulty. Simply restating the word "logic" does not change this fact.

Saying "Try the Dictionary" does not strengthen this position.

JaronK

[Talya]

The problem is here, that while the examples given suggest not all PrCs give full IL, and some PrCs do state that they give full IL, the book also says that "Most PrCs give full IL. (See the descriptions for details.)" That makes full IL the default. If there are no details in the description, one assumes, by RAW, that they give full initiator level.

Now, this is probably a good thing to houserule away. It is (in my opinion, since nobody can prove any of this) against RAI, and can be too easily abused. But that has nothing to do with RAW. The qualifier there is that most PrCs (with no qualifier on where they are from, or what they need to say) give full initiator level. That right there is the rule.

[FullStop]

The problem is here, that while the examples given suggest not all PrCs give full IL, and some PrCs do state that they give full IL, the book also says that "Most PrCs give full IL. (See the descriptions for details.)" That makes full IL the default. If there are no details in the description, one assumes, by RAW, that they give full initiator level.

Now, this is probably a good thing to houserule away. It is (in my opinion, since nobody can prove any of this) against RAI, and can be too easily abused. But that has nothing to do with RAW. The qualifier there is that most PrCs (with no qualifier on where they are from, or what they need to say) give full initiator level. That right there is the rule.

The book specifies the PrCs in the ToB's PrC chapter (that is, it's something like "see the PrC descriptions in Chapter 5 for details") which says to me that's a generalization whose scope lies between the covers of the ToB.

[JaronK]

Indeed, interpreting "most PrCs" to mean only within the context of that book is the only way to read that line. Assuming it means all PrCs doesn't work, because then it wouldn't be "most" it would be "all". There are, after all, no PrCs that say you don't get full initiator level.

You really can't interpret the line any other way and get a correct result (that is, a result that actually gives you "most PrCs").

JaronK