Undiscovered Tome of Battle Bugs?

[Serenity]

I'm currently engaged in an argument about the Tome of Battle on the Paizo forums, and one of my opponents started bringing up the stuff that is broken. The usual suspects of White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge were there, of course. But he also brought up one I've never seen mentioned before: Firesnake.

He points out that the description seems to indicate it lasts multiple rounds, while the stat block says its an instantaneous effect--and that therefore, as written, the Firesnake lasts forever.

Now, I'm not ready to believe that this one guy has stumbled across a problem that has eluded the attention of every mechanics maven on the internet, which means there's got to be a simple and commonly understood explanation for why he's not right about how it works. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[Saintjebus]

Fireball has an instantaneous duration, too.

[Narazil]

Fireball has an instantaneous duration, too.

But doesn't describe an effect over several rounds, now does it?

[Tavar]

But nothing in fireball states that it lasts multiple rounds, either.

Frankly, considering what the text says, the idea that it lasts multiple rounds is based on a couple ambiguously worded sentences. In that case, I generally fall back to sentences that have clear meaning, and in this case it means that it only lasts for 1 round.

[Haven]

What in the description indicates it lasts multiple rounds? The "only once in a single round" line just means that only the first time you hit a given enemy with the snake counts.

[Ernir]

Hmm. Looks to me like this is indeed a mistake. It is clearly supposed to exist for more than one round, but there is no mention of it ever ceasing to exist.

I'd wait for more input, of course, but... I'd say the guy is right. Not that I'd ever use it that way.

Fireball has an instantaneous duration, too.

But Fireball isn't described as continuing to exist in the following rounds.

[Kylarra]

What in the description indicates it lasts multiple rounds? The "only once in a single round" line just means that only the first time you hit a given enemy with the snake counts.

Probably the fact it says it can move up to 60 feet each round, so it implicitly implies that it would exist for more than one round.

[Tavar]

Probably the fact it says it can move up to 60 feet each round, so it implicitly implies that it would exist for more than one round.

Eh, that could also be an artifact of the DnD movement system: it's easy to just add per/round after every movement. It really supports either side.

[Ladorak]

I believe the phrases in question would be:

'It can move up to 60 feet each round'
and
'Takes damage the first time a Firesnake touches it. After that it takes no damage.'

It does actually sound like Firesnake was meant to be a round/level ability. Which, as a 4th level maneuver would actually make it kinda useful (As opposed to useless).
That sound however it says 'Duration: Instant.' So that's what you go on.

[Weezer]

Hmm I'd never noticed that before, the "It can move up to 60 ft per round" line seems to indicate that it lasts more than a round as does the "A creature can only take damage from the firesnake once in a single round" but paired with the instantaneous duration I dont know which way to call it.

I would probably give it a duration of 2-3 rounds but that has nothing do do with RAW or RAI just a gut feeling as to what would be balanced

[Eldariel]

It's not undiscovered; there was a lot of stuff on 339 about it. I recall there's a CustServ answer pointing out that yes, the Snake should expire after one round and yes, they forgot to mention it. It's nothing major though since the intent is so obvious.

[tyckspoon]

But Fireball isn't described as continuing to exist in the following rounds.

Neither is Firesnake. It just has text explaining how it would work if it did last multiple rounds. It looks to me as if somebody got confused and tried to put their fluff vision of how it works ("a snake of fire.." like the swordsage is summoning an elemental creature to burn stuff for him) with the crunch description, which is "draw a line of up to 60 ft length. Unlike a normal line, this line can turn or even bend back on itself. Everything touched by this line takes 6d6 damage, Reflex for half. Nothing may be damaged by this ability more than once per use."

[jmbrown]

Firesnake moves across the ground therefor it moves like a normal creature. The 60' per round is there to remind you that difficult terrain can effect it. The duration is instantaneous so once the effect ends after it extends 60'.

That's how I'm reading it anyways.

Edit: Exact quote from the movement section

It pays the standard movement penalties for difficult terrain.

In Wizards vernacular, they have to describe the ability as moving 60' per round just in case a power or feat extends the duration (maybe, probably).

Edit 2: Actually, it seems like you control it. It can move up to 60' per round but it starts in an adjacent space and moves a maximum of 60' (in which case the effect ends) but at 60' per round speed.

Basically a swordsage can move the firesnake 5' per round for 12 rounds or 10' per round for 6 rounds and so on until the firesnake moves a total of 60'... if I'm reading this correctly which I'm probably not.

[Claudius Maximus]

If you think it's broken now, check out the errata. It's hilarious.

The errata instructs you to remove this text:

A firesnake starts in an adjacent square. It can move up to 60 feet each round. It can move out of your line of sight or line of effect, but you gain no special knowledge of the areas it moves into.

And replace it with this text:

Spoiler

Show

“A c

Page 37 – Alacritous Cogitation [Addition]
Revise end of first sentence to read, “...cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round.”

Page 47 – Storm Bolt [Addition]
Under benefits, add “A successful Reflex save halves damage.”

Page 50 – Becoming an Abjurant Champion [Substitution]
The section on becoming an Abjurant Champion should read, “...any martial-oriented character can qualify by taking minimal levels in an arcane spellcasting class, such as one level in wu jen or two levels in bard.”

Page 51 – Abjurant Champion Class Features [Deletion]
Under the abjurant armor ability, remove mention of “mage armor” at the end of the paragraph. The abjurant armor ability does not affect mage armor, but the spell is still useful to an abjurant champion.

Page 70 – Expanded Spellbook [Revision]
First sentence should read, “When you reach 2nd level, you can add one wizard spell of your chosen school to your spellbook.”

Page 71 – Moderate School of Esoterica [Addition]
Add the following to the last sentence of the first paragraph of this ability’s decription, “(Unless otherwise noted)”.

Page 96 – Arcane Fusion [Addition]
Include clause, “If applying a metamagic feat to a spell, use the adjusted spell level and casting time for purposes of determining eligibility for Arcane Fusion.”

Page 98 - Caustic Mire [Addition]
Spell type should read “Conjuration [Acid]”

Page 98 - Caustic Smoke [Addition]
Spell type should read “Conjuration [Acid]”

Page 99 - Channeled Sound Burst [Revision]/[Addition]
Area should indicate to “See text”
The option for expending 2 full rounds to cast the spell should indicate that the spell’s caster is unaffected by the spell’s effects.

Page 101 - Deadly Sunstroke [Substitution]
Spell type should read “Evocation [Fire],” not “Evocation [Light]”

Page 06 – Heart of Air [Substitution]
The spell’s “wu jen 2 (air)” tag should instead read “wu jen 2 (general).”

Page 108 - Immediate Assistance [Substitution]
Should be of the Transmutation school.

Page 110 - Melf's Slumber Arrows [Substitution]
Spell’s short entry should read “Will partial” instead of “Fortitude partial."

Page 114 - Reaving Aura [Revision]
The last sentence should read, “This spell has no effect on creatures that have more than 0 hp.”

Page 119 - Tactical Teleport [Deletion]
This spell targets only willing creatures, so the sentence that reads, “Only objects held or in use (attended) by another individual receive savings throws and spell resistance,” should be removed. Similarly, the Saving Throw entry at the top should not include a Will save for objects because they cannot be targeted.

Page 123 – Cold Comfort [Substitution]
“Least” should replace “Lesser.”

...Which may be hard to execute when the maneuver is initiated.

Here's the Sage's opinion on Firesnake:

Q The Desert Wind maneuver, Firesnake, has a duration of Instantaneous listed in its stat block. However, the game mechanics text refers to how far the snake can move in a round and how damage is handled from round to round. Is Firesnake intended to be instantaneous (deal damage once and then disappear)? Or is it intended to be an ongoing effect (deal damage as directed for X number of rounds)? If it is intended to be an ongoing effect, what should its duration be?

A It seems that the description that allows the snake to move around round after round is incorrect. the maneuver is instantaneous, in that you assign a line for the snake to follow, and it does so instantaneously and is done. Errata has not been put up for this yet, and until it is, it is up to your DM to adjudicate the effect of this spell as he or she sees fit.

[Darrin]

Another bug: read the description of Death Mark and tell me where the burst originates, particularly on larger opponents.

[AslanCross]

Ugh. I will never let WOTC off the hook for the haphazard publishing of the ToB Errata and how they NEVER even cared enough to fix it.

[Nero24200]

I'm currently engaged in an argument about the Tome of Battle on the Paizo forums, and one of my opponents started bringing up the stuff that is broken. The usual suspects of White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge were there, of course. But he also brought up one I've never seen mentioned before: Firesnake.

Have you told them to look at their own stuff? A high level PF paladin can pretty much kill any evil foe hands down as long as he/she can reach them. Compare that to 9th level manuevers.

Ask them what's better, being able to add twice your level to damage for an entire fight, or +100 damage on a standard action attack once per encounter?

Also, are you arguing this on their forums? If so, I wouldn't bother. Never underestimate that forum's ability to conviently ignore any argument that even hints Paizo isn't perfect and WOTC splat-books aren't that bad.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Paizo forums, from my limited experience, were insular, close minded, xenophobic, and unpleasant.

[Gralamin]

Paizo forums, from my limited experience, were insular, close minded, xenophobic, and unpleasant.

Exactly what you'd expect from a company that ignores tester feedback.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Anti-Paizo groupthink is hilarious. It's even more hilarious if it's right - and, from my limited knowledge, it is indeed even more hilarious.

[Serenity]

Thank you, I'm well aware that Paizo has a controversial reputation on these forums, but it's quite irrelevant to what I want to know about. The person in question brought up specifically that he felt Tome of Battle suffered from glaring bugs, and listed several specifically. I want to respond to those, particularly, and I was specifically curious about one that had escaped my notice when I'd thought I'd heard them all. I would much appreciate it if this thread did not become a vehicle for the standard Pathfinder attacks.

[Telonius]

New idea for an item: Tome of Battle Bugs. Any insects summoned gain one free Maneuver.

[Sliver]

PF sucks! *fires into the air* Yeah I have nothing to add here..

[Nero24200]

The person in question brought up specifically that he felt Tome of Battle suffered from glaring bugs, and listed several specifically. I want to respond to those, particularly, and I was specifically curious about one that had escaped my notice when I'd thought I'd heard them all.

Well to be honest, if the only things they can find are issues probably the result of typoes and not proof-reading, then theres little you can do. If a manuever has a typo resulting in confusion, you can't really argue it, since it's there in black in white.

I would much appreciate it if this thread did not become a vehicle for the standard Pathfinder attacks.

That wasn't my intent, I just felt attempting to find arugments for their forums was pointless. In all honesty, I feel you could have the best arugments ever to use TOB, it won't do anything to convince those people though. That was what I was trying to say.

If you insist though, I think the best way is to point out such typoes in PF. As I said, you won't be able to convince them that the TOB book doesn't have problems, but if you at least show typos in PF, they might be willing to accept that typoes and poor wording don't make the book bad. That's really the best advice I can offer.

[Lamech]

Lets see... I don't have a handy tomb of battle, but...
First lets look at normal movement. Its all per round but it all happens in one instant burst. So "per round" is more accuratly "at some point in a round" The firesnake also have a movement rate, 60' per round. Now the firesnake CAN move at some point, speciffically 60'. Since it only exists for an instant, so it must move during that instant.

Therefore, for its instant of life it moves 60ft damaging everything it touches. Increadibly confusing, but it handles it with out contradicting anything. I think.

[Serenity]

At this point, I'm not really arguing with the guy anymore. It's clear that he finds these handful of typos to be more of a problem than I do, and we're not going to come to a consensus on that. That particular one just surprised me, and I was curious if he actually had stumbled upon an issue that everyone else had overlooked. Thanks for all your responses. It seems that the original point of this thread has been addressed. If we want to continue it, perhaps we could turn the discussion towards creating an unofficial ToB errata, since Wizards will never release an official one?

[hamishspence]

The fact that crusaders get their last stance before they can qualify for the best stance available (8th level ones) means that, as written, a crusader can never get an 8th level White Raven, Devoted Spirit, or Stone Dragon stance.

This seems iffy.

[Haven]

The fact that crusaders get their last stance before they can qualify for the best stance available (8th level ones) means that, as written, a crusader can never get an 8th level White Raven, Devoted Spirit, or Stone Dragon stance.

This seems iffy.

Stance progression is all sorts of screwed up. Supposedly WotC even mentioned somewhere they just weren't thinking when they did that.