Shadow Blade feat: How does anyone justify stacking str and dex to damage?

[Windrammer]

Got in an argument with a friend about this the other day. He insisted that he should add his dex on top of his strength to his melee damage with this feat, because while it says that you don't in the summary, in doesn't say so again in the longer description.

He said he looked up opinions on that feat and said they agreed with him, and lo and behold... They did. All of their reasoning was summed up by "description trumps the summary", which in this case seems more like "completely ignore the summary and exploit any ambiguity to be found in the description if it gives you an advantage".

I mean, the mistake is obvious. They just didn't reiterate what most would assume anyways. The feat is almost literally the damage equivalent of Weapon Finesse. It even serves as a substitute for Weapon Finesse for prerequisites. You don't add strength and dex together for weapon finesse. Why would you do it for damage? That would make it a pretty silly feat.

[Forrestfire]

... Because text trumps table, it's not really something that's broken or even overpowered, and it creates a neat MADness to an otherwise mostly SAD build? There are things that replace Strength outright, so the actual rules on the feat makes it a fairly uniquely neat option to take. For all we know, it was the opposite, and they forgot to update the table. In my experience working with game designers, I feel like that's the more likely case, since the short-description versions are often written, then forgotten about until the end.

[Windrammer]

... Because text trumps table, it's not really something that's broken or even overpowered, and it creates a neat MADness to an otherwise mostly SAD build?

Ah, that's what the phrase was, "text trumps table". That's what I called it in the post that you didn't read. In this case, it sounds more like "table trumps logic".

As for MADness, doesn't that even more make the case against this feat? Weapon Finesse saves you from the penalty posed by low strength, because it gets rid of it. How can you rationalize that the damage equivalent still make you suffer that penalty? Especially when it says otherwise OUTRIGHT? Because it forgets to say it again?

It's honestly making me flustered that there is such a bizarre consensus about this.

edit for your edit:


There are things that replace Strength outright, so the actual rules on the feat makes it a fairly uniquely neat option to take.

Like what, if I may ask?


For all we know, it was the opposite, and they forgot to update the table. In my experience working with game designers, I feel like that's the more likely case, since the short-description versions are often written, then forgotten about until the end.

That makes A LOT more sense, especially with the "Shadow Sun" typo present there as well. Genuinely relieving lol... I still don't quite buy it but you've just made it a lot more palatable for me.

[Doctor Awkward]

Got in an argument with a friend about this the other day. He insisted that he should add his dex on top of his strength to his melee damage with this feat, because while it says that you don't in the summary, in doesn't say so again in the longer description.

He said he looked up opinions on that feat and said they agreed with him, and lo and behold... They did. All of their reasoning was summed up by "description trumps the summary", which in this case seems more like "completely ignore the summary and exploit any ambiguity to be found in the description if it gives you an advantage".

I mean, the mistake is obvious. They just didn't reiterate what most would assume anyways. The feat is almost literally the damage equivalent of Weapon Finesse. It even serves as a substitute for Weapon Finesse for prerequisites. You don't add strength and dex together for weapon finesse. Why would you do it for damage? That would make it a pretty silly feat.

The feat description is remarkably consistent in its instruction to add Dex to Str for that to be the misprinted part.

Note that the feat summary table also says that:

Use Dex modifier instead of Str modifier on damage rolls with Shadow Sun weapons.

What exactly are those? Anything wielded by a Shadow Sun Ninja?

[Windrammer]

The feat description is remarkably consistent in its instruction to add Dex to Str for that to be the misprinted part.

Note that the feat summary table also says that:


What exactly are those? Anything wielded by a Shadow Sun Ninja?

What consistency are you referring to? All it says is "add dex to damage" and leaves out "instead of strength".

But yeah, I recall that mistake. That's just typing "Sun" instead of "Hand" on accident, quite a different mistake from something like "add dexterity to damage instead of strength", which is a logical concept really without margin for an error of the aforementioned type.

[Aegis013]

Ah, that's what the phrase was, "text trumps table". That's what I called it in the post that you didn't read. In this case, it sounds more like "table trumps logic".

It seems to me Forrestfire did read your post and your accusation otherwise is unfounded and uncalled for.

It's also important to keep in mind that things that are "obvious" about the intention of the developers to you, are not obvious to others, and things that sound insane to you about the intention of the developers are actually "obvious" to others. There is simply no way to truly know what the developers actually intended, there is only what our assumptions lead us to believe they may have meant.

As far as my own opinion on the matter, whether the developers wanted Shadow Blade to replace Str with Dex or to combine the relevant bonuses doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that, by RAW, they add together, and it isn't overpowered or problematic in game play beyond the lowest levels of optimization, and even there it isn't guaranteed to cause problems.

Houseruling it to replace the Str bonus instead isn't an unreasonable thing to do, but in some players' eyes it will reduce the potential uniqueness/interesting/cool factor of the feat in question, while not substantially altering its benefit.

[Doctor Awkward]

What consistency are you referring to? All it says is "add dex to damage" and leaves out "instead of strength".

Basically there are two parts to all feat descriptions, the fluff and the crunch.

The fluff is the intro part of the feat right under it's name, that gives an in-universe explanation for how the feat functions. The crunch is anything listed after Benefit: in the feat description, which is the actual rules.

In the case of Shadow Blade the fluff says this:


In the course of your training in the Shadow Hand discipline, you learn to use your natural agility and speed to augment your attacks with certain weapons.

Not a hint of replacing something with anything else. You are augmenting. Making it better.

Then in the crunch it instructs you to add your Dex bonus to damage rolls. That is most definitely an increase.


I find the fluff parts especially important as a DM, because that gives you clues to the intent of the feat, which can help you decide how to rule on a discrepancy. When the fluff and the crunch in a feat are consistent like that, the intent is pretty clear.

[Forrestfire]

Ah, that's what the phrase was, "text trumps table". That's what I called it in the post that you didn't read. In this case, it sounds more like "table trumps logic".

The table often has the issue of being written and rewritten and it's more likely for typos to show up in the table than the text, because what people are looking at in playtesting and rewriting and balancing is often the text. Thus, the text is the thing that matters, and the table is mostly ignored unless there's nothing else to go on (this is the attitude regarding precedence they told us to use in their erratas, after all, so it must be what they intended).


As for MADness, doesn't that even more make the case against this feat? Weapon Finesse saves you from the penalty posed by low strength, because it gets rid of it. How can you rationalize that the damage equivalent still make you suffer that penalty? Especially when it says otherwise OUTRIGHT? Because it forgets to say it again?

Because Str 10 isn't incredibly difficult to get, and at that point the build is SAD. However, if someone wants to be someone both strong and agile, they can get use out of both ability scores, instead of having to pick only one to focus on and having zero benefit from the other one. I personally think that the ability for people to do that outweighs the cases where someone wants to completely dump Strength and focus on Dex. In such a case, I'd likely houserule that they don't take the penalty, but otherwise, I think that the character-building space opened up by being able to get a benefit out of a secondary focus on an ability score is awesome enough to go by the RAW in most cases.


It's honestly making me flustered that there is such a bizarre consensus about this.

The general way of life here seems to be "we discuss RAW (beyond a few really dumb things that are assumed to be houseruled) because it's the common ground, and the DM can change things in his own game if something's wrong," which is probably where this consensus comes from.


Like what, if I may ask?
Not as many as I had thought there were, sadly. Also, amusingly, I was entirely wrong about several of them. The Champion of Corellon Larethian and Hit and Run Fighter add Dex on top of Str, as does the Fierce weapon enchantment from Arms and Equipment Guide. The ones that don't are the Corsair from Dragon 321 and Sword of Graceful Strikes from the A&EG, which replace.

That's... all the ones I could find. Of them, three of the five add Dex on top of Strength, so precedent for Shadow Blade could go either way.


That makes A LOT more sense, especially with the "Shadow Sun" typo present there as well. Genuinely relieving lol... I still don't quite buy it but you've just made it a lot more palatable for me.

Well, if it helps, it helps, I guess. Your game is your own to houserule, but I'd say to let him, since it's really as incredibly strong as it might seem at a first look. It's not like he's taking Power Attack, after all (although he could still).

[RolkFlameraven]

How is it 'silly'? A base class lets you add INT to damage that stacks with your STR and there is at lest one PRC that does the same with DEX already.

Both that class (swashbuckler) and that PRC (Champion of Corellon Larethian) are rather subpar but exist and are mostly used as a dip (swash) or forgotten about (CoCL). This feat forces you to be a class from ToB, and if that is the case dex to damage really isn't going to matter after a few levels, or burn a feat to pick up the needed stance.

Also, while this feat acts as weapon finesse for prerequisites, it doesn't give you weapon finesse. So, unless you are rocking both a high strength and dex scores you are going to want to get finesse anyway, and most likely before you pick this feat up. Thus making that rider mostly pointless.

Also, keep in mind the ToB was one of the last books released for 3.5. So they had a chance to look back as some of the more foolish things from the past and try not the make the same mistakes (just some new ones). Dex to damage being a non-thing is one of those.

Or it was just really bad editing and was fixed in the mythical ToB errata.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Tome of Battle is one of my tables favorite books.. people love the martial classes. And I've gotta say since every Sword sage i've seen other than 1 that went unarmed has used that for Dex and Str to damage.. I haven't had a single issue with them. They still were sub par to chargers in damage and lets not touch the fact that Spellcasters still do more than melee, with out even trying. If you want to make the non Full bab, low Fort save MELEE class even weaker... All I can guess is that the average power level of your table is below tier 3 otherwise that small amount of damage shouldn't be a big deal.

[lsfreak]

There is consensus because it's an official rule.


When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It's hardly the only option that allows adding another stat to damage.
Like the Champion of Corellon Larethian, the Drow Fighter sub levels, the Crossbow Sniper and Deadeye feats, with a lot more options for stats beside dex.

You're still limited by your abilities, and you'll never get 1,5x damage with two handed weapons or double PA bonus, so in the end your damage will likely still be worse than the barbarians, so i don't really see a problem.
It's practically required to make TWF and ranged combat worthwhile at all.

[SiuiS]

Ah, that's what the phrase was, "text trumps table". That's what I called it in the post that you didn't read. In this case, it sounds more like "table trumps logic".

As for MADness, doesn't that even more make the case against this feat? Weapon Finesse saves you from the penalty posed by low strength, because it gets rid of it. How can you rationalize that the damage equivalent still make you suffer that penalty? Especially when it says otherwise OUTRIGHT? Because it forgets to say it again?

It's honestly making me flustered that there is such a bizarre consensus about this
.

It does not say otherwise outright.

What you are missing is that there are rules about which thing matters most; this is not bizarre consensus. This is what D&D tells us to do. If there are contradictions, specifics best generalities, descriptions of abilities trump the summaries from tables, and the core books trump the splatbooks (except in "specific>general"). This is not weird. This is the rule for how the game works.

The rule says if the table and summary disagree, the table is wrong. That's the 100% truth. It doesn't need to be justified.

[Pluto!]

The Text Trumps Table rule is RAW, but that isn't to say that it's not without its own batch of oversights and oddities (various Complete Divine spell advancements come to mind).

[Necromancy]

What's the worst that could happen? Other than a decently optimized dex 2wep fighter?

[Psyren]

Even if you add Str and Dex together most folks are not going to bother doing that. It's cheaper to focus on one ability score than two, and you already need to have a decent score in Con also if you want to be anywhere near melee (or be undead.)

[Troacctid]

The Text Trumps Table rule is RAW, but that isn't to say that it's not without its own batch of oversights and oddities (various Complete Divine spell advancements come to mind).

I like to run it as table trumping text for the purpose of prestige class spellcasting advancement. It makes things more consistent. It's a pain in the neck having to triple-check to figure out exactly what parts are advanced and what aren't--like how Eldritch Knight doesn't advance spells known and Archmage doesn't advance caster level. And then you have stuff like Wavekeeper and its "Whoops, it's actually 0/10, not 9/10!" silliness. Pfff. Screw that.

With Shadow Blade, though, I don't see how you could have the table trump the text, considering that the version in the table is basically gibberish.

[Karl Aegis]

The weapons the feat works with either are mostly bad. Daggers are bad, short swords are bad, sai and siangham require exotic weapon proficiency and siangham are bad. Spiked chains look funky and require exotic weapon proficiency. Unarmed strikes are bad without significant feat investment. You lose out on cool options when using the feat.

The stances the feat works with are that good. I'd rather be in Leaping Dragon Stance for Unreal Air than one of those "you can move over water, but differently than the stance 10 levels earlier" stances. You lose out on cool options when using the feat.

Without swordsage levels you need 3-5 feats to use this one feat - Martial Study, Martial Stance, Shadow Blade and either Exotic Weapon Proficiency or Improved Unarmed Strike and Superior Unarmed Strike. With swordsage levels you lose one of your limited stances to a shadow hand stance, most likely one that isn't good. You also can't use any other stance in combat.

All in all, 1/2 strength (for light weapons, most of the weapons are light weapons) + dexterity to weapon damage probably isn't worth as many build resources as you're putting into using this feat. I don't see your problem.

[sleepyphoenixx]

The weapons the feat works with either are mostly bad. Daggers are bad, short swords are bad, sai and siangham require exotic weapon proficiency and siangham are bad. Spiked chains look funky and require exotic weapon proficiency. Unarmed strikes are bad without significant feat investment. You lose out on cool options when using the feat.

The stances the feat works with are that good. I'd rather be in Leaping Dragon Stance for Unreal Air than one of those "you can move over water, but differently than the stance 10 levels earlier" stances. You lose out on cool options when using the feat.

Without swordsage levels you need 3-5 feats to use this one feat - Martial Study, Martial Stance, Shadow Blade and either Exotic Weapon Proficiency or Improved Unarmed Strike and Superior Unarmed Strike. With swordsage levels you lose one of your limited stances to a shadow hand stance, most likely one that isn't good. You also can't use any other stance in combat.

All in all, 1/2 strength (for light weapons, most of the weapons are light weapons) + dexterity to weapon damage probably isn't worth as many build resources as you're putting into using this feat. I don't see your problem.
Short swords are pretty much the standard TWF weapon. And they're not significantly worse than any other light martial weapon, so i don't really see how they're "bad". A TWFer also usually doesn't get strength above 10, so they don't care about only getting 1/2 of nothing.

Most Shadow Blade users will likely use either Assassin's Stance for SA or Island of Blades for flanking, which are both more useful in combat than Leaping Dragon Stance unless you actually use jump to improve your damage. Most of the better Tiger Claw TWF maneuvers don't even need a jump check, so i don't see how it helps you fight better.

And there aren't really any gamebreaking low level stances. Assassin's Stance is pretty much right up there with the other damage boosting stances, with the others being from disciplines Swordsages don't get. And Warblades and Crusaders don't generally go for TWF. They go for 2H and Power Attack.

The point is that you don't get Shadow Blade on a character that doesn't use TWF in the first place. It's part of a style that you build around.

[Xerlith]

The weapons the feat works with either are mostly bad. Daggers are bad, short swords are bad, sai and siangham require exotic weapon proficiency and siangham are bad. Spiked chains look funky and require exotic weapon proficiency. Unarmed strikes are bad without significant feat investment. You lose out on cool options when using the feat.

Wouldn't an Aptitude weapon basically rectify all this?

[lsfreak]

The Text Trumps Table rule is RAW, but that isn't to say that it's not without its own batch of oversights and oddities (various Complete Divine spell advancements come to mind).

Yea, I should have added that Text Trumps Table is RAW and usually basis for consensus, but in addition - unlike things like monk being non-proficient in unarmed strikes or Iron Heart Surging mortality - there is also a consensus that it's not broken to do so.

[Tvtyrant]

Wouldn't an Aptitude weapon basically rectify all this?

Or Dragonsplints. Also Shadowblade brings about the possibility of PAing with TWF, which is worse than with THF but still better than not using power attack.

[Pluto!]

Yea, I should have added that Text Trumps Table is RAW and usually basis for consensus, but in addition - unlike things like monk being non-proficient in unarmed strikes or Iron Heart Surging mortality - there is also a consensus that it's not broken to do so.
I wouldn't go to a game with a new group with a Warmage 1/Rainbow Servant 10 build, assuming that the text usage will be accepted over the table, regardless of RAW.

Similarly, I wouldn't go to a game with a build that relies on the Dex+Str interpretation of Shadow Blade.

[Boci]

I wouldn't go to a game with a new group with a Warmage 1/Rainbow Servant 10 build, assuming that the text usage will be accepted over the table, regardless of RAW.

Similarly, I wouldn't go to a game with a build that relies on the Dex+Str interpretation of Shadow Blade.

Spontaneous caster drawing from a prepared casters list...melee guy getting two stats to damage. Yeah, those are about equal power and cheese wise. Seriously, is extra stats to damage meant that much, the Swashbuckler / Paladin / Blade of Corellion would be the melee king. (Hint: they aren't)

[Tvtyrant]

I wouldn't go to a game with a new group with a Warmage 1/Rainbow Servant 10 build, assuming that the text usage will be accepted over the table, regardless of RAW.

Similarly, I wouldn't go to a game with a build that relies on the Dex+Str interpretation of Shadow Blade.

I wouldn't go to a new group with a build at all... I have had a Sorcerer whine that his spells weren't any good because he didn't have fireball and wanted to swap Haste for it.

[Firechanter]

Gee, I already lost track.
Anyway, to your question:
As I read it, Shadow Blade allows you to add your Dex _as a bonus_ to damage. Nowhere does it say that it _replaces_ Str to damage. So you get both (as long as you are in a Shadow Hand stance).
Compare to Weapon finesse, where it says "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls." There is no such clause in the Shadow Blade description.

Besides, what's the issue? If you are Dex based, your Str probably won't be that great anyway. You probably already spent one feat on Weapon Finesse for Dex to Attack, and now you are spending another feat on Dex to Damage, so in essence you spend _two feats_ to do exactly what a Str fighter can do with zero feats. Does that sound like a good deal? So maybe you have Str 14 or something and get another 2 points to Damage -- so what??

Conversely, if you are Str based, your Dex will probably be somewhere between 10 and 16. So again, if you take the feat despite not being Dex-based, you're adding maybe 2-3 points to your damage. Not the best investment for a feat if you ask me.

Anecdote: just a couple weeks ago, a player of our group wanted to roll a Dex-based Swordsage. In the end, he was unhappy with all the feat taxes he had to pay just for being a Dexer, and scrubbed everything and went for something completely different.

[Seharvepernfan]

Besides, what's the issue? If you are Dex based, your Str probably won't be that great anyway. You probably already spent one feat on Weapon Finesse for Dex to Attack, and now you are spending another feat on Dex to Damage, so in essence you spend _two feats_ to do exactly what a Str fighter can do with zero feats. Does that sound like a good deal? So maybe you have Str 14 or something and get another 2 points to Damage -- so what??

This, on top of the fact that you're probably TWFing with all it's downsides vs. a two-handers numerous advantages.

It is not broken to let them add dex & str together. As I read the feat, I thought that's what it allowed as well.

Let's not forget that this is likely a swordsage using the feat, not a rogue. Swordsages don't get too much benefit from full-attacking, unlike rogues. They use maneuvers, which are usually standard actions.

[Windrammer]

Gee, I already lost track.
Anyway, to your question:
As I read it, Shadow Blade allows you to add your Dex _as a bonus_ to damage. Nowhere does it say that it _replaces_ Str to damage. So you get both (as long as you are in a Shadow Hand stance).
Compare to Weapon finesse, where it says "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls." There is no such clause in the Shadow Blade description.

Besides, what's the issue? If you are Dex based, your Str probably won't be that great anyway. You probably already spent one feat on Weapon Finesse for Dex to Attack, and now you are spending another feat on Dex to Damage, so in essence you spend _two feats_ to do exactly what a Str fighter can do with zero feats. Does that sound like a good deal? So maybe you have Str 14 or something and get another 2 points to Damage -- so what??

Conversely, if you are Str based, your Dex will probably be somewhere between 10 and 16. So again, if you take the feat despite not being Dex-based, you're adding maybe 2-3 points to your damage. Not the best investment for a feat if you ask me.

Anecdote: just a couple weeks ago, a player of our group wanted to roll a Dex-based Swordsage. In the end, he was unhappy with all the feat taxes he had to pay just for being a Dexer, and scrubbed everything and went for something completely different.

That's what I'm saying. Instead of being the damage equivalent of weapon finesse, it's incredibly bad for most dex based characters, and in other cases, a little too strong. There's little sense to it as a dex+str interpretation. Interpreting it as such seems like capitalizing on an oversight.

[Boci]

That's what I'm saying. Instead of being the damage equivalent of weapon finesse, it's incredibly bad for most dex based characters, and in other cases, a little too strong. There's little sense to it as a dex+str interpretation. Interpreting it as such seems like capitalizing on an oversight.

That's not what Firechanter said though. Its not incredibly bad for most dex based builds. Sure you cannot dump it entirely, but that's only an issue in roll only/low point buy games, otherwise a negative strength modifier isn't that common, and even then its only one damage. You are vastly overestimating what getting two stats to damage represents, the feat is never "a little too strong" in the grand scheme of things.

[Crake]

That's what I'm saying. Instead of being the damage equivalent of weapon finesse, it's incredibly bad for most dex based characters, and in other cases, a little too strong. There's little sense to it as a dex+str interpretation. Interpreting it as such seems like capitalizing on an oversight.

I have never seen a dex fighter dump str completely, mainly because having no carrying capacity will almost certainly result in you being in at least medium encumbrance, which gimps your max dex and gives you armor check penalties and reduced move speed. The likelihood of a dex fighter with shadow blade recieving a str penalty to damage is minimal at best, and even then, only in the worst of scenarios.

[Windrammer]

It seems to me Forrestfire did read your post and your accusation otherwise is unfounded and uncalled for.

It's also important to keep in mind that things that are "obvious" about the intention of the developers to you, are not obvious to others, and things that sound insane to you about the intention of the developers are actually "obvious" to others. There is simply no way to truly know what the developers actually intended, there is only what our assumptions lead us to believe they may have meant.

As far as my own opinion on the matter, whether the developers wanted Shadow Blade to replace Str with Dex or to combine the relevant bonuses doesn't matter, the fact of the matter is that, by RAW, they add together, and it isn't overpowered or problematic in game play beyond the lowest levels of optimization, and even there it isn't guaranteed to cause problems.

Houseruling it to replace the Str bonus instead isn't an unreasonable thing to do, but in some players' eyes it will reduce the potential uniqueness/interesting/cool factor of the feat in question, while not substantially altering its benefit.

It was initially clear that he didn't, but he then edited his comment.

You raise fair points, but I think it is problematic in both an overpowered and underpowered sense. Let's say you have a character with 16 str and 16 dex. That's a +7 to damage on a moderate stat array. It outclasses weapon specialization in that regard, and while that is a lame feat, I don't see WoTC throwing it in the can like that. Then you have a character with 8 str and 12 dex, stuck with bad rolls I guess. He goes from -1 damage to +0 damage. Utterly negligible. It seems this feat either exacerbates unreasonable strength or falls utterly flat.

I can see why people would enjoy the feat through your interpretation but the descriptions of the feat still seem damning to me... It explicitly stated that str is replaced, and never actually says otherwise. It just doesn't repeat the information. To say that it because it doesn't repeat that we should ignore it really just seems like looking the other way, not interpreting the rules in a logical manner.

[Windrammer]

That's not what Firechanter said though. Its not incredibly bad for most dex based builds. Sure you cannot dump it entirely, but that's only an issue in roll only/low point buy games, otherwise a negative strength modifier isn't that common, and even then its only one damage. You are vastly overestimating what getting two stats to damage represents, the feat is never "a little too strong" in the grand scheme of things.

In campaigns that linger in the low levels, these things actually do count. It's nothing compared to the silly power attack options with shock trooper and combat brute and whatnot, but those things come into play a level beyond that which campaigns reach before a fairly long period of time, at least in my experience. But my concern with the feat isn't so much its power, it's the bizarre interpretation that seems to be the thriving consensus. My concern is mainly that it seems to me to be an unintended interpretation, and to interpret 3.5 content as such I feel that one needs a better reason than "they didn't tell me that detail enough times". This interpretation strikes me as both better and worse than necessary, and at the end of the day it's still undeniably supposed to be the damage equivalent of weapon finesse.

[DarkSonic1337]

As stated earlier in the thread, the feat adding dex to damage (not replacing strength) is not a consensus, it's actually just the rule.

What is written in the detailed text overrides what's listed in the table because there exists a rule that tells us what to do when an item's table description and it's detailed description do not match. Nobody is "interpreting" anything here, they are simply following the rules.

From that point you should then figure out if this is a rule that is problematic enough to be worth changing. And here most people would say no because it simply doesn't break anything (unless you're playing at very low levels and with a low level of optimization, but at that point ANYTHING in tome of battle can cause problems since it's optimization floor is fairly high). Adding multiple stats to damage isn't uncommon (hell a swordsage is ALREADY going to add Wis to damage on his strikes later on).

Don't worry about someone pumping a bunch of stats and then adding them to damage. Raising multiple stats gets expensive extremely quickly.

[Aegis013]

You raise fair points, but I think it is problematic in both an overpowered and underpowered sense. Let's say you have a character with 16 str and 16 dex. That's a +7 to damage on a moderate stat array. It outclasses weapon specialization in that regard, and while that is a lame feat, I don't see WoTC throwing it in the can like that. Then you have a character with 8 str and 12 dex, stuck with bad rolls I guess. He goes from -1 damage to +0 damage. Utterly negligible. It seems this feat either exacerbates unreasonable strength or falls utterly flat.

That stat array is only +6 to damage. The same bonus as two handing with a strength score of 18, except it takes two 16s, a feat, and a Shadow Hand stance. I'm still not seeing at all how that is overpowered.

If the answer is because you can get the bonus damage on multiple weapons, you have to deal with large feat expenditure into the TWF chain and all the drawbacks that come with it.

As for your underpowered argument, if for some reason you're stuck with an 8 str and 12 dex, you wouldn't take the feat anyway. You wouldn't take Weapon Finesse either, a 12 isn't sufficient to merit the expenditure of a feat.

You already agree that Weapon Specialization is a lame feat, so why would the balance point be uninteresting garbage that nobody wants to take? It seems like throwing it in the can is exactly what they would've done by the end of 3.5's run.

[Zanos]

It was initially clear that he didn't, but he then edited his comment.

You raise fair points, but I think it is problematic in both an overpowered and underpowered sense. Let's say you have a character with 16 str and 16 dex. That's a +7 to damage on a moderate stat array. It outclasses weapon specialization in that regard, and while that is a lame feat, I don't see WoTC throwing it in the can like that. Then you have a character with 8 str and 12 dex, stuck with bad rolls I guess. He goes from -1 damage to +0 damage. Utterly negligible. It seems this feat either exacerbates unreasonable strength or falls utterly flat.

I can see why people would enjoy the feat through your interpretation but the descriptions of the feat still seem damning to me... It explicitly stated that str is replaced, and never actually says otherwise. It just doesn't repeat the information. To say that it because it doesn't repeat that we should ignore it really just seems like looking the other way, not interpreting the rules in a logical manner.
I'll do a quick, probably not super accurate or thorough numbers crunch.

I'll use human as a baseline for no ability score bonuses, but it's probably worth noting as an aside that strength is much easier to increase than dexterity. I'll also use level 3, because the only class with access to the shadow hand school can't actually get weapon finesse at first, due to the bab requirement.

Strong guy has 18 str, for a +4 mod. He wields a greatsword, because he likes taking advantage of his huge muscles. His Attack at 3rd is probably 1d20+7 for 2d6+6 damage, average of 13. Pretty good. He has spent no feats to accomplish this. His ac varies based on how much he can afford, but is probably at least 16 from a breastplate, and might go up to 18 if he can afford full plate.

Agile guy has 18 dex, for a +4 mod. He can't take weapon finesse, but spends one of his first level feats on shadow hand, and picks up weapon finesse at third. With two feats spent, his attack is probably 1d20+6 for 1d6+4, because the best shadow hand weapon that isn't an exotic is the shortsword. His ac is probably around 18 if he can pick up a chain shirt.

Assuming 10 in dex/str, each of these characters has spent 18 points on strength and dex combined.

For strong and agile guy, a 16/16 would cost 20 points, but we'll go with it anyway. To qualify for shadow blade he's still most likely a swordsage, and at level 3 his feats are pretty similar to agile guy. So we've gut 1d20+5 to hit, for 1d6+6 damage, and his ac is probably around 17 or so, with a chain shirt.

Mithral armor throws off the ac calculations a bit, and there's a lot more to consider from a full analysis, but it doesn't seem that broken to me for a dex character to get +3 damage out of the 16 he put into str that isn't doing anything else for him. So yeah, shadow blade is better than weapon specialization, a feat often considered a very poor option by your own admission, if you bought a 16 or more in strength.

The rules are inconsistent, yes. The rules have also established a precedence for resolving these inconsistencies. As far as I can see, nothing is breaking the bank, so you may carry on with your 16/16 build that really doesn't impact encounter balance much, if at all.

[ImperatorV]

In campaigns that linger in the low levels, these things actually do count. It's nothing compared to the silly power attack options with shock trooper and combat brute and whatnot, but those things come into play a level beyond that which campaigns reach before a fairly long period of time, at least in my experience. But my concern with the feat isn't so much its power, it's the bizarre interpretation that seems to be the thriving consensus. My concern is mainly that it seems to me to be an unintended interpretation, and to interpret 3.5 content as such I feel that one needs a better reason than "they didn't tell me that detail enough times". This interpretation strikes me as both better and worse than necessary, and at the end of the day it's still undeniably supposed to be the damage equivalent of weapon finesse.

You realize 3.5 rules are an utter cluster**** of contradiction and ambiguity right? This is a fairly straightforward case compared to some of the stuff that comes up.

Also, with regards to your last sentence: Nowhere does it say it's an equivalent to weapon finesse. In fact, since it has more specific requirements then weapon finesse and comes from a book all about empowering melee, logic would dictate it should be superior.

[Anlashok]

You know. I can understand someone not liking a feat. Or considering it overpowered. It's wrong and silly, but understandable.

But is anyone else getting really irked by this constant posturing and attempts to frame it as something more vague and hazy than it actually is?

There's no "consensus" or "interpretation". There's literally what the feat says it does.

I mean yeah. I guess there's a consensus that the feat works that way. In the same way that there's a consensus that the print version of the book has words and some form of paper. Which is to say it's not really a consensus so much as it is stating the obvious.

[ImperatorV]

You know. I can understand someone not liking a feat. Or considering it overpowered. It's wrong and silly, but understandable.

But is anyone else getting really irked by this constant posturing and attempts to frame it as something more vague and hazy than it actually is?

There's no "consensus" or "interpretation". There's literally what the feat says it does.

I mean yeah. I guess there's a consensus that the feat works that way. In the same way that there's a consensus that the print version of the book has words and some form of paper. Which is to say it's not really a consensus so much as it is stating the obvious.

It's because the OP came here expecting vindication. He's trying to re-phrase things to make it seem like there is some unseen group that agrees with him, because otherwise his thread did exactly the opposite of what he wanted. We probably aren't going to get him to agree with us. Perhaps a thread abandonment is in order?

[rrwoods]

Because I feel like adding to the pile:

DEX based characters often dump STR, and in Shadow Blade's case, it means there's actually still a penalty to damage for doing that. So in a sense, it adding instead of replacing is often *worse*.

Example: I rolled up a whisper gnome swordsage. Whisper gnomes take a penalty to STR. If Shadow Blade replaced STR, I'd have spent no points on STR and been happy with my 6; instead, I spent 4 points on it to get a 10.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Because I feel like adding to the pile:

DEX based characters often dump STR, and in Shadow Blade's case, it means there's actually still a penalty to damage for doing that. So in a sense, it adding instead of replacing is often *worse*.

Example: I rolled up a whisper gnome swordsage. Whisper gnomes take a penalty to STR. If Shadow Blade replaced STR, I'd have spent no points on STR and been happy with my 6; instead, I spent 4 points on it to get a 10.

Unless your DM ignores encumbrance anything lower than 10 is pretty much reserved for Wizards and people who change form.
8 strength usually means you carry a middle load just with armor and weapons alone, so not even a Handy Haversack will get around it.

Anything beyond a light load is a pretty heavy penalty for a melee character, so investing the points for a 10 Str is usually the better option unless you have really bad rolls or really low point buy.

[Curmudgeon]

Unless your DM ignores encumbrance anything lower than 10 is pretty much reserved for Wizards and people who change form.
8 strength usually means you carry a middle load just with armor and weapons alone, so not even a Handy Haversack will get around it.
You can make 8 STR work for a martial character with a light load; it'll just cost you more. You get a robe and spiff it up with an armor bonus (Magic Item Compendium, page 234). Your clothing isn't counted against your encumbrance, so this is "free" (except for being expensive :smallsmile:). You fight unarmed, because unarmed strikes are considered light weapons and thus work with Weapon Finesse. Again, it's "free" in terms of encumbrance (but not in feats). Get your party spellcasters to add Magic Vestment and Greater Mighty Wallop and you're actually fit for combat. (Not great, mind, but acceptable.)

[sleepyphoenixx]

You can make 8 STR work for a martial character with a light load; it'll just cost you more. You get a robe and spiff it up with an armor bonus (Magic Item Compendium, page 234). Your clothing isn't counted against your encumbrance, so this is "free" (except for being expensive :smallsmile:). You fight unarmed, because unarmed strikes are considered light weapons and thus work with Weapon Finesse. Again, it's "free" in terms of encumbrance (but not in feats). Get your party spellcasters to add Magic Vestment and Greater Mighty Wallop and you're actually fit for combat. (Not great, mind, but acceptable.)

At higher levels when you can afford it, maybe. At first level? You might be able to pull it off with a monk build, but you won't really be carrying anything. You'll also be a monk.:smallamused:

I tend to be a bit of a packrat who carries around all kinds of cheap tools and alchemical items just in case, so dumping strength like that is close to unthinkable for me.:smallbiggrin:
Even less well prepared players will frequently go over their light load limit just with the normal amount of stuff that accumulates, so it's pretty annoying.
I can't even imagine playing with a 6 in strength.

[Boci]

Example: I rolled up a whisper gnome swordsage. Whisper gnomes take a penalty to STR. If Shadow Blade replaced STR, I'd have spent no points on STR and been happy with my 6; instead, I spent 4 points on it to get a 10.

2 damage isn't that significant, and probably shouldn't be the deciding factor in how you spend 4 stat points, as annoying as dealing 2 less damage is.

[atemu1234]

2 damage isn't that significant, and probably shouldn't be the deciding factor in how you spend 4 stat points, as annoying as dealing 2 less damage is.

And there are still many better feats.

[Jowgen]

I'm in the "Tome of Weeabo Fightan Magic" camp myself, consider the whole book to be woefully unbalanced, and try to stay as far away as possible most of the time. But, I can contribute something to the Dex and Str logic debate.

In martial arts, the power of any given punch or kick is never simply the result of muscle strenght, but also in large part the ability to coordinate different muscle groups as to generate greater speed/momentum for a strike (i.e. Dex). Muay Thai is a big one in this, in that each strike to some degree on the proper pivoting of feet in order to get circular power generating up the legs/back/shoulder etc. Obviously, having each muscle group involved stronger increases it. Other styles (e.g. Shotokan karate) are a lot more rigid and thus don't rely on this concept as much, but they are in my personal perception the generally weaker ones.

Bottom-line, in martial arts Str and Dex are generaly synergistic, so the idea that a character can add both Str and Dex to damage really isn't far-fetched at all.

[Karl Aegis]

I'm in the "Tome of Weeabo Fightan Magic" camp myself, consider the whole book to be woefully unbalanced, and try to stay as far away as possible most of the time. But, I can contribute something to the Dex and Str logic debate.

In martial arts, the power of any given punch or kick is never simply the result of muscle strenght, but also in large part the ability to coordinate different muscle groups as to generate greater speed/momentum for a strike (i.e. Dex). Muay Thai is a big one in this, in that each strike to some degree on the proper pivoting of feet in order to get circular power generating up the legs/back/shoulder etc. Obviously, having each muscle group involved stronger increases it. Other styles (e.g. Shotokan karate) are a lot more rigid and thus don't rely on this concept as much, but they are in my personal perception the generally weaker ones.

Bottom-line, in martial arts Str and Dex are generaly synergistic, so the idea that a character can add both Str and Dex to damage really isn't far-fetched at all.

If you thought Tome of Battle was unbalanced, just wait until you see the Player's Handbook!

[Necroticplague]

He said he looked up opinions on that feat and said they agreed with him, and lo and behold... They did. All of their reasoning was summed up by "description trumps the summary", which in this case seems more like "completely ignore the summary and exploit any ambiguity to be found in the description if it gives you an advantage". Um, because that's what the rules actually say to do in scenarios like this? Text trumps table, the longer 'benefit' section of a feat trumps the short summary.It's a subset of the Primary Source rule found in the errata (which is not ambiguous in this matter at all). It's not exploiting anything, there's nothing ambiguous to even exploit, it's just doing what the rules plainly say.


I mean, the mistake is obvious. They just didn't reiterate what most would assume anyways. The feat is almost literally the damage equivalent of Weapon Finesse. It even serves as a substitute for Weapon Finesse for prerequisites.

Yeah, the mistake is that the forgot to update the short summary to what the feat actually does.

Also, reading it as being Weapon Finesse for damage isn't very accurate, as it requires a certain stance from a certain school while wielding certain weapons (notably, ones which are a subset of finesseable weapons). It's a damage boost based on the primary/secondary stat (depending on build choices) for certain types of characters.


You don't add strength and dex together for weapon finesse. Why would you do it for damage? That would make it a pretty silly feat. Easy: because weapon finesse says it's a replacement, while Shadow Blade says it's added. They are different feats that do different things. What would be intrinsically silly about having DEX+STR to damage? 'I have the coordination to hit a vulnerable spot, and the strength to follow through with the blow'.

[bekeleven]

Um, because that's what the rules actually say to do in scenarios like this? Text trumps table, the longer 'benefit' section of a feat trumps the short summary.It's a subset of the Primary Source rule found in the errata (which is not ambiguous in this matter at all). It's not exploiting anything, there's nothing ambiguous to even exploit, it's just doing what the rules plainly say.
But there is no disagreement between text and table because the text never mentions STR to damage, whereas the table mentions losing it.
turns out lights, looks into mirror: Curmudgeon Curmudgeon Curmudgeon
All text is rules text, right?

[Curmudgeon]

But there is no disagreement between text and table because the text never mentions STR to damage, whereas the table mentions losing it.
turns out lights, looks into mirror: Curmudgeon Curmudgeon Curmudgeon
All text is rules text, right?

Use Dex modifier instead of Str modifier on damage rolls with Shadow Sun weapons

Benefit: While you are in a Shadow Hand stance and attack with one of the discipline’s preferred weapons, you can add your Dexterity modifier as a bonus on melee damage for attacks made with the weapon. There's a clear disagreement, as the table summary of the Shadow Blade feat only applies to Shadow Sun weapons. Consequently you use the full Shadow Blade feat text instead, applying it when using Shadow Hand weapons. The damage calculation is different, too, but that's actually a secondary consideration.
No, not all text is rules text. But all rules text is RAW.

[Elric VIII]

Unless your DM ignores encumbrance anything lower than 10 is pretty much reserved for Wizards and people who change form.
8 strength usually means you carry a middle load just with armor and weapons alone, so not even a Handy Haversack will get around it.

Anything beyond a light load is a pretty heavy penalty for a melee character, so investing the points for a 10 Str is usually the better option unless you have really bad rolls or really low point buy.

Yet another reason why VoP is overpowered. :smallbiggrin:

I've had players use this in my games and I think even requiring a shadow hand stance is too much. I usually roll this into the same feat as weapon finesse because I hate feat taxes.

I think the real question the OP needs to ask is "would this even matter in the grand scheme of things?" I say let your players choose the ruling most favorable to them. If they want to be a 3 str dex-fighter dwarf that doesn't care about loads, let them. Heck, if you added every stat to damage, it still wouldn't be too powerful.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Do people not understand the concept of a pack mule? they are extremely cheap and allow for more characters to have lower strength values.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Do people not understand the concept of a pack mule? they are extremely cheap and allow for more characters to have lower strength values.

A pack mule doesn't help much if your armor and weapons alone already put you over your light load. A character with 8 strength is already over that limit just with a chain shirt and 2 short swords, with no other equipment.

[Metahuman1]

Really? Are you sure about that? *Checks.* Son of a, who set the totals that way? They need to be slapped! That is utterly Asinine!

[NeoPhoenix0]

A pack mule doesn't help much if your armor and weapons alone already put you over your light load. A character with 8 strength is already over that limit just with a chain shirt and 2 short swords, with no other equipment.

A chain shirt is also very expensive for a level one character unless you just want your armor and almost nothing else, also the heaviest light armor. Get a couple levels and you can afford some chain shirt with extra light weight material or other light weight armor depending on how dex heavy you are going to get. I have played a lot of low level games and have never started with chain shirt, the other adventuring equipment you can get for that gold is just too valuable especially at level 1.

[Psyren]

A chain shirt is also very expensive for a level one character unless you just want your armor and almost nothing else, also the heaviest light armor. Get a couple levels and you can afford some chain shirt with extra light weight material or other light weight armor depending on how dex heavy you are going to get. I have played a lot of low level games and have never started with chain shirt, the other adventuring equipment you can get for that gold is just too valuable especially at level 1.

^ that - by the time it really matters you should have no trouble getting a mithral chain shirt instead. Until then, you can rock studded + 2 short swords for only 1 AC less and stay under light, or use daggers or lighter armor.

[sleepyphoenixx]

A chain shirt is also very expensive for a level one character unless you just want your armor and almost nothing else, also the heaviest light armor. Get a couple levels and you can afford some chain shirt with extra light weight material or other light weight armor depending on how dex heavy you are going to get. I have played a lot of low level games and have never started with chain shirt, the other adventuring equipment you can get for that gold is just too valuable especially at level 1.

You mean the other adventuring equipment you can't carry without going into medium load? A pack mule is fine and all but you won't be able to take it everywhere, and most of that equipment is stuff you want to have on hand when you go into the cave/dungeon, where your pack mule often can't follow.

Even at higher levels you'll constantly run into your weight limit. Got a Handy Haversack? That's 5lb. Even going for lighter materials you'll still only have 2-3lb of free capacity to work with, and that's easily eaten up just with a belt and a pair of boots.

Sure, you can have the stronger characters carry your stuff. I'm not saying that low strength is insurmountable, but it is highly inconvenient imo.
That's why i'd rather spend the points for a 10 strength if it's at all doable. It's a massive hassle otherwise unless you spend most of your time polymorphed or don't wear armor.

[NeoPhoenix0]

There is almost always a lighter armor, for example, one of my favorite armors is shadow silk hide. Without getting any fancier it offers +3 ac, +6 max dex bonus, is light and weighs 5.5 pounds. Of course you can get fancier and depending on your build armor bracers might be a good investment. Also, being from a group that apparently min/maxs the adventuring gear section (based on recent games where the gear is more destructive than a rampaging blasting sorcerer), you can be quite useful carrying around things that weigh only fractions of a pound or are even considered weightless. There are of course some things that weigh more that you should carry with you, but you can generally leave most of the absolute must have heavy stuff behind, like beds and tents, in early levels. In later levels a wand of tensors floating disc is a decent investment.

10 str is definitely preferable to 8 str but 8 is far from insurmountable.

[Marlowe]

Really? Are you sure about that? *Checks.* Son of a, who set the totals that way? They need to be slapped! That is utterly Asinine!

A common houserule is to halve the weight for armour that is actually worn, as opposed to just carried. You might even consider that !!!Historical Accurate!!!

Of course, so many things that people think are historically accurate aren't. So you might like not to use those words.

It tends to become a negligible factor after a few levels. Which doesn't make it any less silly.

I'm a little concerned by this "Weeaboo Fighting Magic" slur. I tend to use ToB mainly to build characters that follow western archetypes. I could be accused of building the same swashbuckling duelist all the time, and I use ToB to do it because it's the best way of building that archetype in a way that it is competent in play.

I'm a little disturbed that so many seem to think that wanting some complexity and variation to meleeists makes you, if I understand this "Weeaboo" expression correctly, a person obsessed with things Japanese. In fact, it strikes me as rather insulting to every non-Japanese melee warrior that ever lived and even attempted to do something other than "I hit the guy next to me really hard." There's nothing even overtly Japanese about ToB.

I'm a little more disturbed that this word "Weeaboo" is somehow acceptable. It's perilously close to an ethnic slur and it certainly is a cultural one. We don't have insulting terms for people who like French historical novels, Norse Sagas, or, god forbid, American pulp fiction and who allow these tastes to be reflected in their characters; why is it somehow acceptable to give Japan the back of our hand for something that isn't even Japanese?:smallconfused:

[Kraken]

I tend to use ToB mainly to build characters that follow western archetypes... and I use ToB to do it because it's the best way of building that archetype in a way that it is competent in play.

I'm a little disturbed that so many seem to think that wanting some complexity and variation to meleeists makes you, if I understand this "Weeaboo" expression correctly, a person obsessed with things Japanese. In fact, it strikes me as rather insulting to every non-Japanese melee warrior that ever lived and even attempted to do something other than "I hit the guy next to me really hard." There's nothing even overtly Japanese about ToB.

Seconded, strongly. I know very little about Japanese culture, and for years had no idea what anyone was talking about with such references. Even knowing what I know now, I still don't see the connection that ToB has to Japan as being any stronger than its connection to Europe.

[NeoPhoenix0]

the term "weeaboo" is definitely not a good word. It started as a slur for accusing someone of "liking something just because its japanese and therefore somehow better."

The reason people started using it to describe ToB is because you can use ToB to make some very anime-esque characters. and that is a brief history of a word and how it applies to ToB.

I must also state i utterly detest how people use the word in ANY fashion.

[bekeleven]

That term sure has picked up some baggage since it was coined (http://www.pbfcomics.com/71/).

[NeoPhoenix0]

That term sure has picked up some baggage since it was coined (http://www.pbfcomics.com/71/).

yeah, that can happen, especially with things like 4chan.

[Marlowe]

If ToB had been illustrated in the most flowery of Shoujo styles with lots of willowy Bishonen Warblades preening their hair under a gentle rain of Sakura while Genki Swordsages squee at them from the shadows and Bokuko Crusaders inform them loudly that they're not following them into this dungeon because they like them or anything, it still wouldn't justify using a borderline racist insult to refer to it.

Nor, for that matter, would it have been any worse than the art we actually got.

[atemu1234]

If ToB had been illustrated in the most flowery of Shoujo styles with lots of willowy Bishonen Warblades preening their hair under a gentle rain of Sakura while Genki Swordsages squee at them from the shadows and Bokuko Crusaders inform them loudly that they're not following them into this dungeon because they like them or anything, it still wouldn't justify using a borderline racist insult to refer to it.

Nor, for that matter, would it have been any worse than the art we actually got.

Maybe we should get Snowbluff in here to get into a .gif war. That would be fun.

[Metahuman1]

A common houserule is to halve the weight for armour that is actually worn, as opposed to just carried. You might even consider that !!!Historical Accurate!!!

Of course, so many things that people think are historically accurate aren't. So you might like not to use those words.

It tends to become a negligible factor after a few levels. Which doesn't make it any less silly.

I'm a little concerned by this "Weeaboo Fighting Magic" slur. I tend to use ToB mainly to build characters that follow western archetypes. I could be accused of building the same swashbuckling duelist all the time, and I use ToB to do it because it's the best way of building that archetype in a way that it is competent in play.

I'm a little disturbed that so many seem to think that wanting some complexity and variation to meleeists makes you, if I understand this "Weeaboo" expression correctly, a person obsessed with things Japanese. In fact, it strikes me as rather insulting to every non-Japanese melee warrior that ever lived and even attempted to do something other than "I hit the guy next to me really hard." There's nothing even overtly Japanese about ToB.

I'm a little more disturbed that this word "Weeaboo" is somehow acceptable. It's perilously close to an ethnic slur and it certainly is a cultural one. We don't have insulting terms for people who like French historical novels, Norse Sagas, or, god forbid, American pulp fiction and who allow these tastes to be reflected in their characters; why is it somehow acceptable to give Japan the back of our hand for something that isn't even Japanese?:smallconfused:

Right, that or house rule an increase in the formula for Carrying Capacity. Not a massive one, just, an increase so you can at least wear your slot using items, use your weapons, and carry a few smaller items your likely to use regularly yourself in the 6-8 strength range or so with out much issue.

(Though it dawns on me that 3 levels of Factotum and a high Int might over come it with the brains over brawn class feature.)




And yeah, I agree with the lack of respect for the use of the term Weebo. I also disagree with the full title it gets. "The Tome of Battle, Book Weebo Anime Fightan Magik!". Yes, I've always read it with a very heavily stereo typed, and very unacceptable, accent. Which is stupid since not only could the book just as easily be describing, say, Chinese or Indian martial arts traditions, it could also be talking about Germanic or Scottish or Roman (Including post Roman Empire.) historical martial arts and treaties.

[Zanos]

It's called the "Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic" because the ability to train super hard and perform obviously supernatural feats is a bigger aspect of eastern media. The Swordsage is the biggest "culprit" of this, mostly with the shadow hand and desert sun schools letting you walk on air or breathe fire by being really good at punching stuff.

I've never actually heard the term used to insult the book, but maybe that's because everyone I spend time around likes it. I honestly call it that myself sometimes, and I like the book.

Not really sure how people are offended by it. It's a mocking title of the book for people who don't like it that just kind of evolved into a minor meme that I see used more often ironically to mock the people who don't like the book.

[Karl Aegis]

It's called the "Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic" because the ability to train super hard and perform obviously supernatural feats is a bigger aspect of eastern media. The Swordsage is the biggest "culprit" of this, mostly with the shadow hand and desert sun schools letting you walk on air or breathe fire by being really good at punching stuff.

I've never actually heard the term used to insult the book, but maybe that's because everyone I spend time around likes it. I honestly call it that myself sometimes, and I like the book.

Not really sure how people are offended by it. It's a mocking title of the book for people who don't like it that just kind of evolved into a minor meme that I see used more often ironically to mock the people who don't like the book.

While in western media they get the ability to perform supernatural feats by tearing open their shirts and ripping off their pants.

[Zanos]

While in western media they get the ability to perform supernatural feats by tearing open their shirts and ripping off their pants.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by supernatural. The incredible feats of endurance, aiming, and ability to not get shot while standing still prevalent in western action films aren't possible, but it's not exactly breathing fire.

[Boci]

It's called the "Book of Weaboo Fightan Magic" because the ability to train super hard and perform obviously supernatural feats is a bigger aspect of eastern media. The Swordsage is the biggest "culprit" of this, mostly with the shadow hand and desert sun schools letting you walk on air or breathe fire by being really good at punching stuff.

Which is meant to replace the monk, which could teleport, turn ethereal, and through splat got flamming fists and shadow punchiness before the swordsage was printed.

[Karl Aegis]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by supernatural. The incredible feats of endurance, aiming, and ability to not get shot while standing still prevalent in western action films aren't possible, but it's not exactly breathing fire.

Wasn't there an extremely unimportant character that could breathe fire in Aladdin? He wasn't even wearing a shirt, either.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by supernatural. The incredible feats of endurance, aiming, and ability to not get shot while standing still prevalent in western action films aren't possible, but it's not exactly breathing fire.

Western literature has people doing crazy stuff; it just does not pop up as modernly. Think of the Paladin Roland who threw a sword and cleaved a mountain. Warblade and crusader honestly came off as more western and swordsage more eastern, at least to me.

[Zanos]

Western literature has people doing crazy stuff; it just does not pop up as modernly. Think of the Paladin Roland who threw a sword and cleaved a mountain. Warblade and crusader honestly came off as more western and swordsage more eastern, at least to me.
I agree.

And have broken some sort of internet law for doing so.

[Forrestfire]

Don't forget Cú Chulainn, who quite literally could go super saiyan, spiky hair and all. Or Fergus mac Róich, who had rainbow-colored sword beams that would put Ichigo Kurosaki to shame.

[Metahuman1]

Hither Came Conan. Do I really have to say more?

(Hell, how many fights in Arthurian Legend or Greek Myth are settled in either one blow or one exchange of attacks?).

[georgie_leech]

I think it makes perfect sense that the book that's full of defined powers that requires you to call attacks and such bizarreness as flying through the air unaided and making dozens of swords chop you to bits gets described as Weeaboo, and-

Hang on, we're not talking about the Player's Handbook? :smalltongue:

[Marlowe]

Nobody is forcing anyone to fill their slots up with flashy, explicitly magical Desert Wind and Shadow Blade maneuvers. You're not compelled anymore than Wizards are compelled to wear dresses, Sorcerors are compelled to wear revealing clothing, Bards are compelled to strum on lutes, or Barbarians are compelled to talk without pronouns. If you don't want them, don't take them. And if another player takes them; it's not your place to tell him he/she's doing something wrong.

Hell, two out of three of the ToB classes need to spend feats to get access to those particular moves.

More importantly, ToB is also things like blocking attacks with your own weapon, using your natural athleticism to outmaneuver the enemy, and making a careful, deadly strike as opposed to just swinging at the enemy like you're chopping wood. These thing should all be bread and butter for a competent melee fighter, and yet only in ToB do they become so.

[incog64]

On the unofficial errata, it says it wasn't a mistake. For whatever its worth.

http://drammelsnotes.wikidot.com/the-unofficial-official-errata

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy