Edited TOB errata

[Elves]

TOB Errata
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R0oEpi6McP1OGaesi_YKTN6sbkjdCEo6/view?usp=sharing)
Tome of Battle never got a proper errata. This is a revised, cleaned up and expanded version of Minmaxboards' errata for the book (original here (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=335.0)).


What do you think of the White Raven Tactics nerf? Is it merited?


Page 94 - White Raven Tactics
You can’t target yourself, despite being your own ally.

It seems like this errata just makes it less friendly to solo play, since in a group a turn from you isn't likely to be significantly more important than a turn from a friend.


Should unarmed swordsages only gain their AC bonus while unarmored, as monks do?

---

Are there any changes here you disagree with? Are there any you would add?

[Aegis013]

Whether or not you let WRT work on self or allow it all is just a matter of taste and preferred power level.

Most of the games I run I allow WRT on self. I would also ask the player to choose a different route if it was an infinite combo in most of the games I run.


When I read the SSN ability it says "In the round after you use this ability" you can use the positive energy charge, suggesting the positive charge already lasted only one round. That ruling appears to just make it so you don't have to use a swift action to heal yourself, which is a straight buff that I don't think is necessary but wouldn't break anything. Having an option that competes with a boost that heals you (or a friend in reach) for unarmed attack + wis mod seems in line with other material in the book.

[Pex]

Yay! They realized the stance progression problem of Crusader and Warblade and fixed it. Way back when in 3E's heyday in WOTC Forum and other online discussions I felt like the only one who noticed or cared. Mike Mearls didn't even realize it and responded to a post of mine about it on Ye Olde rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup.

Despite the joke they could have given errata for Iron Heart Surge. Mainly they could have declared yes or no whether you can still use a standard action for the maneuver to remove a condition that normally prevents you from taking a standard action such as nausea.

[MisterKaws]

Here's their original errata for it:




I thought all those details kind of ruined the mood.

And they still let you do silly stuff like permanently IHS-ing away a Karsite's inability to cast spells or an elemental's energy weaknesses.

Or even IHS-ing a Succubus's demon subtype, which may or may not remove the Evil type and allow her to become a Paladin.

[Remuko]

And they still let you do silly stuff like permanently IHS-ing away a Karsite's inability to cast spells or an elemental's energy weaknesses.

Or even IHS-ing a Succubus's demon subtype, which may or may not remove the Evil type and allow her to become a Paladin.

According to official lore, thats not needed. There is a succubus paladin who still has the evil subtype afaik.

[Telok]

And they still let you do silly stuff like permanently IHS-ing away a Karsite's inability to cast spells or an elemental's energy weaknesses.

Or even IHS-ing a Succubus's demon subtype, which may or may not remove the Evil type and allow her to become a Paladin.

I think there is an unstated assumption there that since the racial trait stays around the condition is only removed until the trait would reimpose it.

[GrayDeath]

Since IHS has a clear duration and they write this:


Any racial trait currently affecting the initiator (such as Light Sensitivity or a vampire's weakness to sunlight). The source of this detriment is not removed, only the condition caused by the racial trait.

Id say more than implied. Unless you allow anything that does not specifically state that OF COURSE circumstances that continue to exist will affect you after an effect has passed to do the same (and that would neither be RAW nor sane ^^).

[MisterKaws]

Since IHS has a clear duration and they write this:


Any racial trait currently affecting the initiator (such as Light Sensitivity or a vampire's weakness to sunlight). The source of this detriment is not removed, only the condition caused by the racial trait.

Id say more than implied. Unless you allow anything that does not specifically state that OF COURSE circumstances that continue to exist will affect you after an effect has passed to do the same (and that would neither be RAW nor sane ^^).

So you could go Karsite and IHS to cast a single spell? Huh, I like that. Feels anime as ****.

[LibraryOgre]

{{bu mp}}

[Silent Alarm]

I really adore how despite this being an unofficial errata, they didn't even bother fixing Mountain Tombstone Strike to not having NO prerequisites.

[Elves]

Thanks Mark. Added new PDF and some changes.


I really adore how despite this being an unofficial errata, they didn't even bother fixing Mountain Tombstone Strike to not having NO prerequisites.
I think the consensus is that it's fine as-is. Adding a 4-maneuver prerequisite would make it harder for warblade to get their four 9th level maneuvers and would require buffing the discipline to an even greater extent.

What do people think about giving it a 3-maneuver req like the Devoted Spirit capstone?

[Silent Alarm]

What do people think about giving it a 3-maneuver req like the Devoted Spirit capstone?

A three maneuver requirement across all maneuvers would be fine. As you've stated, 4 maneuver reqs kinda suck and prevents martial adepts from really making use of their high level kit.

Furthermore, you should PROBABLY add the IHS errata. This PDF errata for it while a joke, is neither helpful nor productive.

[Mordaedil]

Yay! They realized the stance progression problem of Crusader and Warblade and fixed it. Way back when in 3E's heyday in WOTC Forum and other online discussions I felt like the only one who noticed or cared. Mike Mearls didn't even realize it and responded to a post of mine about it on Ye Olde rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroup.

Despite the joke they could have given errata for Iron Heart Surge. Mainly they could have declared yes or no whether you can still use a standard action for the maneuver to remove a condition that normally prevents you from taking a standard action such as nausea.

It's been like a cruel joke for all these years.

[Vault756]

White Raven Tactics is bonkers and I'd say the errata is fine. Unarmed Swordsage imo is under powered. I think the monk like defense should just work the same way the regular Swordsage's ability does. You can get it with Light armor equipped as long as you don't have a shield. Seems simple enough. I'd personally like to see errata to the unarmed Swordsage where they gain Improved Unarmed Strike but maybe that's just me.

[holbita]

White Raven Tactics is bonkers and I'd say the errata is fine. Unarmed Swordsage imo is under powered. I think the monk like defense should just work the same way the regular Swordsage's ability does. You can get it with Light armor equipped as long as you don't have a shield. Seems simple enough. I'd personally like to see errata to the unarmed Swordsage where they gain Improved Unarmed Strike but maybe that's just me.

Definitely not just you. As it is right now Unarmed Swordsage causes AoO when trying to punch people unless they take the feat themselves, that's absurd and definitely needs errata.

[Elves]

White Raven Tactics is bonkers and I'd say the errata is fine.
It's bonkers, but the errata doesn't make it any less bonkers, it just makes it less friendly to solo play. You can have an extra turn, it just can't be your own. The question is whether there are enough self-WRT loops that are problematic.



Unarmed Swordsage imo is under powered. I think the monk like defense should just work the same way the regular Swordsage's ability does. You can get it with Light armor equipped as long as you don't have a shield. Seems simple enough. I'd personally like to see errata to the unarmed Swordsage where they gain Improved Unarmed Strike but maybe that's just me.


Definitely not just you. As it is right now Unarmed Swordsage causes AoO when trying to punch people unless they take the feat themselves, that's absurd and definitely needs errata.
My reading of unarmed swordsage is that it gets the entire Unarmed Strike class feature, which includes IUS, because the unarmed strike damage is part of that feature. As you point out, it has to be this way for the ACF to be functional. This is stated in the errata.

[Elves]

For WRT, how about instead of no use on self, limit it to once per round per target? The real problem has never been the warblade who uses it on himself but the party who buy a bunch of crowns of white ravens to let the wizard cast 5 spells in a round.

It means infinite action loops go out the window but that may be a sign of balance.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'll never understand why anyone thinks Iron Heart Surge requires an errata. "Conditions" (https://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) is a game term defined in the PHB glossary and numerous other places. The flavor text of the maneuver makes the author intent abundantly clear.

[Elves]

I'll never understand why anyone thinks Iron Heart Surge requires an errata. "Conditions" (https://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) is a game term defined in the PHB glossary and numerous other places. The flavor text of the maneuver makes the author intent abundantly clear.

It says "one spell, effect, or other condition". Spells aren't a listed condition, so it's using the word in a nonstandard way.

[Vault756]

I'll never understand why anyone thinks Iron Heart Surge requires an errata. "Conditions" (https://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm) is a game term defined in the PHB glossary and numerous other places. The flavor text of the maneuver makes the author intent abundantly clear.
What qualifies as a "Condition"?

[Elves]

The standard definition refers to this list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) from Rules Compendium but see my post above.

[Vault756]

The standard definition refers to this list (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm) from Rules Compendium but see my post above.

Can I Iron Heart Surge a curse? What about a poison I accidentally drank? Or that an assassin inflicted upon me?

[Doctor Awkward]

Can I Iron Heart Surge a curse? What about a poison I accidentally drank? Or that an assassin inflicted upon me?

If the curse is the result of the spell bestow curse, then yes, as spells are explicitly covered by the maneuver.

You can remove the ability damage (provided you survive), but poison is not a spell, effect, or condition so you cannot eliminate the poison itself. Note that unlike bestow curse, which is permanent, the poison spell has a duration of instantaneous.

[Elves]

"Effect" doesn't have a glossary definition, so in cases like the poison it's up to the DM. This is where the memes about using IHS to turn off the sun come from.

If someone wanted to they could command-f all the books for how "effect" is used.

[NigelWalmsley]

Iron Heart Surge should just have a list of things it removes that is finite and explicit, like spells do. The way it's worded is dumb, even if you don't believe "IHS the sun" nonsense is RAW. Just make it say something like "targeted Dispel Magic (CL = IL, you may choose to skip positive spells or effects) or Restoration, can be used when you normally cannot take actions".


I really adore how despite this being an unofficial errata, they didn't even bother fixing Mountain Tombstone Strike to not having NO prerequisites.

Frankly, maneuvers probably shouldn't have prerequisites. All it does is force martial adepts to specialize, which the limited maneuver lists already achieve.

[Darg]

Even the dictionary definition of "effect" works. The important text is "with a duration of 1 or more rounds." The sun does not have a duration and therefore IHSing the sun is not even legal from the text. Spells, effects, and/or conditions that are affecting you specifically that have a duration that can be measured in rounds is legal for removal.

Area spells that affect an area (not a number of targets) and instantaneous duration spells and other similar effects are not removed.

I have to agree with the doctor, the maneuver is pretty explicit. Googling doesn't uncover anything ridiculous that makes sense using the text as written.


"Effect" doesn't have a glossary definition, so in cases like the poison it's up to the DM. This is where the memes about using IHS to turn off the sun come from.

If someone wanted to they could command-f all the books for how "effect" is used.

"Magical Effect" isn't defined either; however we all know what it means. It's literally an effect of the magical variety. This means that effect is exactly like magical effect, but not limited to magic. This means it can apply to extraordinary effects and psionic effects. It really helps when it mentions the duration quality to cut a lot of the riffraff out.

[Elves]

The important text is "with a duration of 1 or more rounds."
"Anything with a listed duration" seems like a good conclusion.


Frankly, maneuvers probably shouldn't have prerequisites. All it does is force martial adepts to specialize, which the limited maneuver lists already achieve.
The main function they serve right now is to limit the power of martial study, discipline items and TOB dips. In the abstract I agree with you, the system should either double down on disciplines being a coherent set of powers that go together or a fully a-la-carte list. But that change is outside the scope of this errata.


Any objections to WRT nerf by limiting to once per turn per target? [Still usable on self.]

[Darg]

ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases,
references to “allies” include yourself.

I can't see that it was actually nerfed and instead the intention of the rules. It says ally which means not you. It's like the difference between inspire courage and inspire competence. The first includes you because it mentions allies. The second does not include you as a target because it wants you to specifically target an ally (not you).

Luckily WRT doesn't allow you to bypass the one spell cast per round limit either.

You should limit it to once per round per target. If it's per turn the martial could blow their maneuvers on WRT to take a lot of turns before anyone else has a chance to act.

[rrwoods]

I can't see that it was actually nerfed and instead the intention of the rules. It says ally which means not you. It's like the difference between inspire courage and inspire competence. The first includes you because it mentions allies. The second does not include you as a target because it wants you to specifically target an ally (not you).

Luckily WRT doesn't allow you to bypass the one spell cast per round limit either.

You should limit it to once per round per target. If it's per turn the martial could blow their maneuvers on WRT to take a lot of turns before anyone else has a chance to act.

From a "having fun" perspective it's totally reasonable to come down on WRT shenanigans; the degree to which you do this depends on your players and your idea of what fun is. No argument there.

But given the definition of "ally" presented, how are you getting that WRT as written doesn't allow you to target yourself with it?

Further, is there actually a rule that says you can't cast more than one spell in a round? Quicken Spell doesn't explicitly except the Quickened spell to such a rule, so I'd be surprised to learn it exists.

[NigelWalmsley]

WRT is just action economy shenanigans. You should allow or disallow it to the degree that you would allow people to screw around with Celerity or Arcane Fusion or whatever. It doesn't even particularly matter if you can target yourself, because the people you want taking extra standard actions are spellcasters, not martials.


"Anything with a listed duration" seems like a good conclusion.

Don't make it "anything". That's just begging for a stupid outcome where it turns out that Genesis has a listed duration and the Warblade gets to blow up demiplanes. Just give it a list of what it removes, like Restoration or Heal.


The main function they serve right now is to limit the power of martial study, discipline items and TOB dips. In the abstract I agree with you, the system should either double down on disciplines being a coherent set of powers that go together or a fully a-la-carte list. But that change is outside the scope of this errata.

I'm not terribly concerned about those things. Discipline items aren't any more problematic than regular magic items. Martial Study is not particularly impressive even if you can take any maneuver you want. ToB dips should be encouraged because they make characters more interesting and more effective.

[Darg]

But given the definition of "ally" presented, how are you getting that WRT as written doesn't allow you to target yourself with it?

Further, is there actually a rule that says you can't cast more than one spell in a round? Quicken Spell doesn't explicitly except the Quickened spell to such a rule, so I'd be surprised to learn it exists.

The definition as presented in the glossary is directed towards others. Then it presents a specific instance by using quotations in which it can also refer to yourself. Expecting a rule or definition to use quotations in "slang" fashion is pretty silly.

The one spell per round rule is found in the PHB under free actions:


You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat, page 98) or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free action (such as the feather fall spell) as a free action. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don’t count toward your normal limit of one spell per round.

And under casting time:


A spell with a casting time of 1 free action (such as feather fall) doesn’t count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round.

[rrwoods]

The definition as presented in the glossary is directed towards others. Then it presents a specific instance by using quotations in which it can also refer to yourself. Expecting a rule or definition to use quotations in "slang" fashion is pretty silly.
The only difference between what's in quotes and the glossary entry heading (other than the quotes themselves, which I'm not arguing about) is singular vs. plural. Are you saying that the phrase "most references to 'allies' include yourself" only applies to the plural?


The one spell per round rule is found in the PHB under free actions:

And under casting time:
I did not know about this rule, because I almost exclusively reference the SRD since it's much more easily searchable than physical text. It's disappointing that, as I'm slowly discovering, lots of stuff just isn't represented there. So cheers, TIL.

[Darg]

The only difference between what's in quotes and the glossary entry heading (other than the quotes themselves, which I'm not arguing about) is singular vs. plural. Are you saying that the phrase "most references to 'allies' include yourself" only applies to the plural?

That is what using quotations means. It's quoting the specific word "allies." If it was being more fluid with the meaning, quotations created the opposite effect because that is their purpose. Notice how I quoted you? The point is to take the exact phrasing and apply it's meaning to my response.


I did not know about this rule, because I almost exclusively reference the SRD since it's much more easily searchable than physical text. It's disappointing that, as I'm slowly discovering, lots of stuff just isn't represented there. So cheers, TIL.

Yeah, the SRD cuts a lot out and it changes the meanings of things. Take the Soulknife's Free Draw ability as an example. They took it word for word, but cut the parenthetical that explains the entire second sentence. At first glance you would think that it is limiting the ability to once per round. However, the XPH included a parenthetical that explained it was for attempts to manifest in an anti-psionics field. It makes sense after reading that because you never make attempts to manifest the mind blade unless some outside source is causing interference. So basically it's saying you continue to only make one attempt per round in an APF and use that as the result as to whether you can manifest your mind blade or not.

[NigelWalmsley]

It seems pretty clear to me that "your normal limit of one spell per round" refers to the fact that A) most spells take standard actions to cast and B) you normally get only one standard action per round. Inferring that there's a fundamental rule from off-handed references elsewhere is, at best, suspect.

[Darg]

We don't have to agree. I don't think casters need any more love than they already received and that's fine with me. The real question should be why mention the 1 cast per round limit at all when actions and their interactions were previously explained? It's not even a holdover from the 3.0 handbook. The fact that it was stated in 2 separate locations lends credence to it being legitimate. Not to mention the obvious lack of copy and pasting. Both times it is mentioned in appropriate locations where the casting interactions could leave a question mark. It can hardly be an offhand remark with these being the case.

[Elves]

the fact that
- the rule is never stated positively, only in reference
- there's no mention of it in Rules Compendium
- the bit about free actions and feather fall was outdated by the introduction of swift actions and the changing of feather fall to a swift action
- it's inelegant
makes me press doubt, but it's awkwardly written enough to rule otherwise. The last point is important, it's an ugly rule. You can justify anything that hurts casters with class balance but ruleset integrity comes first.


I'm not terribly concerned about those things. Discipline items aren't any more problematic than regular magic items. Martial Study is not particularly impressive even if you can take any maneuver you want. ToB dips should be encouraged because they make characters more interesting and more effective.
I'm not fond of discipline items to start with. Don't like the way scrolls or wands work either. I agree with you on prereqs by the way, but the doc is meant to be compatible not invalidate 15 yrs of builds.

[NigelWalmsley]

We don't have to agree. I don't think casters need any more love than they already received and that's fine with me.

It's not about how much love casters get. Casters by unambiguous Core-only RAW can get as much power as they are able to describe as early as 11th level. It's about "I think this reference means this rule that was never directly stated exists" being an absolutely terrible way to interpret rules. The Archer's Eye utterance says it allows "ranged attacks ignore penalties for concealment". Concealment does not impose penalties, it creates a miss chance. Are we supposed to infer from this utterance that there exists an otherwise-unstated penalty of some kind to attacking people with concealment? Should we assume that a miss chance is a "penalty" now?

The rules say the things they say. Some of those things are stupid. Some of those things are broken. Some of those things are too favorable to one class or not favorable enough to another. There are plenty of reasons to not like the rules. But if you don't like the rules, you should change them explicitly, not invent ever more complicated glosses about how they actually say more reasonable things. Because that's not only clearer for whoever you're playing with, it produces better results. If you were going to fix the balance problems with 3e, "casting two spells in a round" wouldn't be the first, second, or even tenth thing you'd address.


The real question should be why mention the 1 cast per round limit at all when actions and their interactions were previously explained? It's not even a holdover from the 3.0 handbook. The fact that it was stated in 2 separate locations lends credence to it being legitimate. Not to mention the obvious lack of copy and pasting. Both times it is mentioned in appropriate locations where the casting interactions could leave a question mark. It can hardly be an offhand remark with these being the case.

I think if you need to make these types of arguments, your "rule" is not on firm enough ground to be worth considering. Do you know how I know what the rule for the weapon proficiencies of the Fighter class is? I don't look at a couple PrCs, see that they don't add weapon proficiencies, look at the sample characters, see that the Fighters wield martial weapons but not exotic ones, and decide that means the class gives you martial weapons. I just go to the Fighter class and read the "Weapon and Armor Proficiency" entry. That's what an actual rule looks like.


I'm not fond of discipline items to start with. Don't like the way scrolls or wands work either. I agree with you on prereqs by the way, but the doc is meant to be compatible not invalidate 15 yrs of builds.

Removing pre-reqs doesn't do that. It can't do that, because it strictly increases the number of legal builds. It might make some builds less optimal, but so does any kind of power-level errata, and the document's definitely going to have that.

[Darg]

It's about "I think this reference means this rule that was never directly stated exists" being an absolutely terrible way to interpret rules. The Archer's Eye utterance says it allows "ranged attacks ignore penalties for concealment". Concealment does not impose penalties, it creates a miss chance. Are we supposed to infer from this utterance that there exists an otherwise-unstated penalty of some kind to attacking people with concealment? Should we assume that a miss chance is a "penalty" now?

What a terrible example. First, 1 cast per round does not conflict with any other stated rule or definition. Second, ToM is probably the least edited and play tested rule book for 1st party 3.5. Third, the rule is directly stated to exist under "Casting Time" in the PHB.


It seems pretty clear to me that "your normal limit of one spell per round" refers to the fact that A) most spells take standard actions to cast and B) you normally get only one standard action per round. Inferring that there's a fundamental rule from off-handed references elsewhere is, at best, suspect.

This conjecture is even more suspect. The rules make no mention of referring to the limitation of actions. It makes specific reference to a limitation on casting spells.


I think if you need to make these types of arguments, your "rule" is not on firm enough ground to be worth considering. Do you know how I know what the rule for the weapon proficiencies of the Fighter class is? I don't look at a couple PrCs, see that they don't add weapon proficiencies, look at the sample characters, see that the Fighters wield martial weapons but not exotic ones, and decide that means the class gives you martial weapons. I just go to the Fighter class and read the "Weapon and Armor Proficiency" entry. That's what an actual rule looks like.

I have to ask, where in the rules would you look for what happens when you get extra actions or cast a spell more than once? For the content of the core rulebooks that would be under quickened spells as an action and free action cast times. Exactly where the rule is found. In the two most appropriate places.


the fact that
- the rule is never stated positively, only in reference
- there's no mention of it in Rules Compendium
- the bit about free actions and feather fall was outdated by the introduction of swift actions and the changing of feather fall to a swift action
- it's inelegant

- at the time of the core rulebooks there was no need to state it positively. Quicken spell and free action spells were the only time there was a need to state it.
- Rules Compendium compresses some rules, expands others, changes some, and yet leaves others out. It's not surprising it's not there. The relevant information is that it doesn't conflict with the text in the PHB.
- the rule change only references "free action" cast times and the "1 free action cast per round" rule.
- inelegant isn't much of an argument when there are plenty of uglier and less elaborated rules available for perusal.

My original statement wasn't meant to overturn decades of play experience. My desire was to present a different perspective on the role of WRT.