Swordsage; x6!?

[Tyrael]

Ahoy, folks. My DM & I just got our hands on the Tome of Battle. He's very interested in the Swordsage class. I took one look and just about freaked out.

"Skill points: (6+INT modifier) x6 at 1st level"

What is THAT!? NOTHING I have ever heard of gets x6. Not the rogue, scout, skillmonkeys, bards, nada! This has got to be a typo. Is it? What do y'all say on it?

[Bears With Lasers]

Typo. Will be errataed.

[KoDT69]

Apparently when WotC bought out TSR back in the day they promised to uphold the strong D&D tradition, so they still didn't hire an editor! Not saying that the books are substandard, but it's pretty funny when I was picking out 20 errors per book just skimming pages at age 14. That's OK, my 2nd edition Sword of Kats is my favorite Magival Item!

[Ranis]

It surprises me that these don't go through a spellchecker in the computer, and don't have multiple editors going over them beforehand as well; as long as D&D has been around, you'd think they'd have done that by now.

[The J Pizzel]

I'm glad this popped up. I bought ToB yesterday and was flipping out over the x6 multiplier as well. While were on the subject, anyone else think this book is friggin kick @$$. I'll be making some NPC's at work today and see how they look on paper. Has anyone got any advice on some cool class/discipline combos. So far I like the Desert Wind and Diamond Mind. I havne't read through them all yet though.

jp

[Person_Man]

Yeah, they clearly meant (6 + Int modifier) x 4. It will probably be errata'd down to (4 + Int modifier) x 4, to be in line with the Monk.

[Bears With Lasers]

It'll be errataed down to 6+INT x4, I think; Martial Adepts often need to sink skill points into the key skills of Disciplines (i.e. Jump for Tiger Claw)... plus, Swordsages are better than monks in every other way; why not in this one?

[elliott20]

So then the Monks will feel a little better about their job security?

[Bears With Lasers]

Man, forget the monks. Who needs'em? We've got Swordsages now.

[elliott20]

oh no you've done it, you've made Tony Shalhoub sad.

[Bears With Lasers]

[elliott20]

at least with a swordsage I can finally make my fighting panda dream come true.

[Diggorian]

I'm betting on 6 + Int x4 too. Number of class skills determines skill points per level. Swordsage has more than Monks but much less than Rogues.

Do y'all think WotC uses customer service requests and input from forums to serve as their master editor? We buy their books, do further playtest in our games, sound off, then catch their ads when visiting their site for errata and FAQ?

[Bears With Lasers]

Do y'all think WotC uses customer service requests and input from forums to serve as their master editor? We buy their books, do further playtest in our games, sound off, then catch their ads when visiting their site for errata and FAQ?

No, they don't, or a whole bunch of important errata would've been issued already.

They're actually doing something like that with the upcoming Rules Compendium, though, so they've started to.

[Diggorian]

Yeah, ToB sparked alot of conversation. They had to pay Kim Mohan for something (Managing Editor of the tome). It is a minor typo at that, most of the book is great and I'm only level 3 in Warblade so far.

Rules Compendium, eh? I'll have to check that out.

[Person_Man]

No, they don't, or a whole bunch of important errata would've been issued already.

They're actually doing something like that with the upcoming Rules Compendium, though, so they've started to.

Gods, I am dreading the Rules Compendium. WotC has a long history of being very prolific and interesting, but never thinking anything through or editing or making a good attempt at balance.

I'm guessing that they'll fix some things, but that vague language and poorly written errata will create even more confusion about other things (Mounted Combat, Leap Attack, Polymorph, Natural Attacks, Flurry of Blows, etc).

[Bears With Lasers]

Gods, I am dreading the Rules Compendium. WotC has a long history of being very prolific and interesting, but never thinking anything through or editing or making a good attempt at balance.

I'm guessing that they'll fix some things, but that vague language and poorly written errata will create even more confusion about other things (Mounted Combat, Leap Attack, Polymorph, Natural Attacks, Flurry of Blows, etc).

Apparently it's more of a gathering of rules; it doesn't contain much errata. There should be a number of clarifications, though. They sent it to some CharOp board people to have it read through.

[Person_Man]

Apparently it's more of a gathering of rules; it doesn't contain much errata. There should be a number of clarifications, though. They sent it to some CharOp board people to have it read through.

Well that's good to hear. I don't know why they don't do that with every book. Just pick the 50 people who regularly visit the boards, send them a hard copy in the mail a few weeks before it goes to print, and ask them to critique it. They'd get free editors, and they'd double their board traffic because people would want a shot at getting advanced free copies of the books.

[waynethegame]

But that would involve admitting there's a problem, and the messy legal matter of making everyone sign NDAs so god forbid a sneak preview of that book not make the rounds on the ol' interweb. So pretty much it will never happen. They seem to think we're lucky that they're even printing D&D books at all, despite the numerous BASIC errors that are found in it

[Hallavast]

No, they don't, or a whole bunch of important errata would've been issued already.

They're actually doing something like that with the upcoming Rules Compendium, though, so they've started to.

And they're bastards for doing it, too.

[Cybren]

What you expected an internall consistent system that built apon its previous editions logically rather than eschewing them in everything but name only?
Go play GURPS or something, ya rascal.

[Yuki Akuma]

I remember getting an IM from the Logic Ninja that he was given an advanced copy of some book to read over... I think it was the Rules Compendium. He mentioned something about a non-disclosure agreement.

So, yeah, I don't see why it would be messy. Get them to sign it first, then e-mail them a PDF or something.