PDA

View Full Version : Tome of Battle, Learning Maneuvers



Thrawn183
2007-03-05, 10:36 PM
I have a question regarding learning maneuvers in Tome of Battle: I understand the requirements for learning a maneuver (ie. maneuvers previously known) but what happens if you switch a maneuver out once you have learned one that required it?

Example Illustrating my Question:

Greater Insightful Strike requires the character to already know two other Diamond Mind Maneuvers to learn it, if you only know two other Diamond Mind Maneuvers when you learn it and then switch one of them the next level to a maneuver of a different school can you still use Greater Insightful Strike?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can give!

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-05, 10:44 PM
Meeting prerequisites are only required to learn the maneuver. Unlike a feat, you can use a maneuver without meeting the prerequisites. In your example, nothing would prevent you from using greater insightful strike.


At certain levels, martial adepts may replace known maneuvers with new ones. If as a result of this replacement, my martial adept no longer meets the prerequisite of a previously selected maneuver, what happens?

According to page 44 in Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords, the prerequisite applies only to learning new maneuvers, not to using them.

Once you've learned a maneuver or stance, you may continue to use it normally even if you no longer meet the prerequisites.

Gralamin
2007-03-05, 10:48 PM
The requirement is only for learning the maneuver.

Thrawn183
2007-03-05, 10:56 PM
Thank you very much.

I believe we can now allow this thread to quietly die.
*tear*

PnP Fan
2007-03-06, 11:42 AM
But what about the inherant power difference between high level casters and high level fighters!!!!

Just kidding! ;-)

Seriously, though, thanks for the info guys, I had kind of wondered about the same thing myself.

SpiderBrigade
2007-03-06, 11:54 AM
Yeah, the way that book is written is kind of...odd. I love the material, but you really have to sit down and read the whole thing before you're comfortable with how it works. And even then, there are a lot of questions that come up because the wording is slightly ambiguous, or a mechanic is partially explained in two different chapters, and you have to put those rules together yourself.

The real headache is if you want to do any multiclassing, or any kind of more complicated optimized build. Figuring out all the Initiator Levels and when you meet prereqs for the different Maneuvers, and which ones can be used by which of your martial classes....it's worth the work, but it can get a little confusing. Reminds me of any build using that weird wizard/bard PrC. Sublime Chord I think? Gah, headaches.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 08:27 AM
Okay...

I just recently got Dragon #354 in the mail. The Sage Advice article fields the question I just quoted from the FAQ again. It is the exact same question word-for-word. Yet the answer is different.

It now reads:


"If at any time you no longer meet the prerequisite for a maneuver or stance, you can't use that menaeuver or stance until you once again meet the prerequisite."

Yay, contradiction.

((Edit: I have reason to believe that the answer given in the FAQ may have been first published in Dragon #346, but I am having trouble finding my copy of that issue. If anyone else can verify that for me, I would very much appreciate it.))

Piccamo
2007-03-22, 08:32 AM
I'd say FAQ > Sage.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-22, 08:36 AM
It was not changed in the FAQ of tomorrow (today in parts of the world).

Update Version: 03/23/07


The question and answer (Page 95 now) is identical to Shhalalalalahr Windrider's earlier FAQ quote.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 08:47 AM
I'd say FAQ > Sage.

Problem is, everything in the FAQ started out in Sage Advice.

And the FAQ has included those Sage Advice answers that contradict themselves before. For example, questions on page 2 and 3 contradict each other, one claiming ECL determines when you go epic, the other correctly stating that it is based upon character level instead. I sent a message about this to Customer Service. Given tthat it is still in the FAQ update that just came out, they have not fixed it.

Anyway, since I got Simu-ninja'd while editing in one last comment in my previous post, I'll repeat it for the sake of visibility:

I have reason to believe that the answer given in the FAQ may have been first published in Dragon #346, but I am having trouble finding my copy of that issue. If anyone else can verify that for me, I would very much appreciate it.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-03-22, 08:53 AM
I sent a message about this to Customer Service.

Keep us updated on how that goes, please. :smallsmile:

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 02:42 PM
Well, they just said they were passing it on to the errata department. Who knows how long it'll take them to get to actually fixing that?

As to the original question at hand, I want make sure it's clear that I side with the original FAQ respsponse that prerequisites are only required to learn a maneuver, as it is more in line with the actual rules text in Tome of Battle.

Fax Celestis
2007-03-22, 02:44 PM
Shhalalalalahr

Shhalalalalalala-bamba.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-22, 03:19 PM
Shhalalalalalala-bamba.
Hm.

I thought it was "Para bailar" la bamba.

Jack Mann
2007-03-22, 04:11 PM
I seem to recall reading at some point that a maneuver could act as its own prerequisite, after you'd learned it. So long as you have a total of X number of Y maneuvers, you should be fine, even if that includes the one with the requirement. It's only when you've changed out at least two to end up with X-1 of Y that you would have these problems.

Shhalahr Windrider
2007-03-23, 01:39 PM
Well, I've skimmed through every Dragon that came out between Tome of Battle and the FAQ update that added the maneuver prerequisite question. I've even done a check on Sage Advice Online. I cannot locate the original pre-FAQ version of the question. If anyone happens to come across it, let me know. I want to send an e-mail off to Sage Advice, but I want as much detail as possible.

Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find time to double check things.