The Sage on White Raven Tactics

[Rystil Arden]

It leaves everything the same about the initiative system except how this manuever works. Unless there are other abilities which trigger off of specific initiative numbers? But then since the actual number are still kept there is not a problem there either.

Other than that, the only thing that matters is order. It is a thematic change which shows the cyclical nature of initiative.

Think of it as a way of representing the initiative system more holistically and adding in a slight change to White Raven Tactics. Other than that manuever no game mechanics have changed.

I believe it would be incapable to stop the abuse, though. Unless you would prevent the initiator from delaying to go after the guy he last round WRTed and before the next guy. But if you did that, you'd be changing the way delaying worked in a huge way for everyone in initiative.

 

[Slaved]

I believe it would be incapable to stop the abuse, though. Unless you would prevent the initiator from delaying to go after the guy he last round WRTed and before the next guy. But if you did that, you'd be changing the way delaying worked in a huge way for everyone in initiative.

He could delay, but since the two people are tied for initiative then at least one other person would get to go in between, there would be no infinite chain of only two people taking actions.

Again though, this is mechanically only a change to White Raven Tactics with an added nicer, in my view, way of representing the initiative cycle. Nothing else is changing mechanically from what I can see.

Chaining through can be abused, but then so many things in the system can be abused when combined.........

 

[Rystil Arden]

He could delay, but since the two people are tied for initiative then at least one other person would get to go in between, there would be no infinite chain of only two people taking actions.

Again though, this is mechanically only a change to White Raven Tactics with an added nicer, in my view, way of representing the initiative cycle. Nothing else is changing mechanically from what I can see.

Chaining through can be abused, but then so many things in the system can be abused when combined.........

Hmm, does that mean that if the WRT target has lower Dex then the next person that that person goes before the WRT target? Also, what if the next person after the WRT user has the same initiative count # but lower Dex (in other words, the Warblade has 19 Init with 16 Dex, and the next guy has 19 Init with 12 Dex). Or maybe the next person is just an accomplice ally who always delays to 1 after. Those changes open up a can of worms. I'm pretty sure that only allowing WRT to move someone up in initiative is simpler and fixes even more opportunities for abuse.

 

[Slaved]

Hmm, does that mean that if the WRT target has lower Dex then the next person that that person goes before the WRT target? Also, what if the next person after the WRT user has the same initiative count # but lower Dex (in other words, the Warblade has 19 Init with 16 Dex, and the next guy has 19 Init with 12 Dex). Or maybe the next person is just an accomplice ally who always delays to 1 after. Those changes open up a can of worms. I'm pretty sure that only allowing WRT to move someone up in initiative is simpler and fixes even more opportunities for abuse.

But then someone could delay to an arbitrarily high initiative number and then do what you are worried about. It would not change anything.

 

[blargney the second]

I think I still like the house rule that WRT allows an ally within 10' to make a single attack action while removing flatfootedness due to not having acted yet in initiative.

 

[Rystil Arden]

But then someone could delay to an arbitrarily high initiative number and then do what you are worried about. It would not change anything.

Sure it would. First, the Warblade has to delay all the way through the round, through all allies and enemies, until she gets to the top of the round and jumps out of the initiative order. Now she grabs the nova-caster and plops her up at the beginning. But now what? She can never actually give the nova-caster another boost for the whole fight. Why not? Well she could waste another whole round to delay arbitrarily higher, but that won't help, since the nova-caster already goes really early, so it makes no practical difference. The abusive WRT is to use it on somebody who just acted so they essentially go twice in the same round. That can work at most once (if your nova-caster or other WRT target is last in the init order. If she is already first, it will work 0 times) with my edit. After that, you can never use it again unless the nova-caster delays to go last in the round, in which point she just lost her opportunity to act first anyway, so it isn't really a gain at all.

 

[two]

errrr

I am not argueing about 3.0 Haste. So how can I be wrong about something I am not arguing about? And furthermore, I did not realize that opinions could be wrong. Can you please explain to me how my personal opinion on a topic can be wrong? I think vanilla is better than chocolate as well, care to refute that as well?

I'm not going to restate the obvious (at length). Both haste 3.0 and WRT allow casters to pump out two or more spells a round. Haste 3.0 was thoroughly nerfed because this was egregiously too powerful. If you can't see the parallel (anything allowing casters to cast 2+ spells a round), I don't know what to say. If it was so bad that they changed haste 3.0, it is reasonable to assume something that allows it to happen again (even in slightly limited fashion) is VERY powerful, and likely over-the-top bad/crazy/stupid. And should be watched closely or simply banned (remembering th past).

And I am constantly amazed that people think personal opinions can't be "wrong" because they are "opinions." Of course they can. "In my opinion, the world blew up yesterday." That's your opinion, and it's wrong. "In my opinion, JS Bach is a worse musician than the lead singer of STRYKER." That's also an opinion, and it is wrong. "In my opinion, the sun is green." Also wrong. "In my opinion, a burned overcooked fragment of an old McDonald's hamburger makes a better dessert than anything the best French cook could come up with." That's a legitimate opinion, and also wrong.

Many people say things that are quite stupid, and/or base their opinions on partial knowledge, or simple ignorance. People also change their opinions, and don't (on a personal level) find it difficult to admit mistakes about their previous opinions. I've held opinions in the past that were - in a nutshell - both stupid and wrong. Flat out wrong. When I widened my horizons, I realized this, and my opinions altered.

I'm not saying you don't believe your opinion to be true. People generally do. But your belief that it is true does not make it true, even for yourself.

You might make a distinction between trivial opinions, such as "I like vanilla more than dirt," and opinions which in turn touch and comment upon the wider world, where other truth systems have to be put into play (not just your own). "In my opinion, JS Bach is a worse musician than the lead singer of STRYKER:" here is an example of a personal opinion which touches upon the outside world (comparing musical qualities between two people of radically different generations) and to judge them you can't simply go "by the gut," you also have to consider both performer's body of work, critical opinions, historical impact, etc. That's not to say you CAN'T state: "In my opinion, JS Bach is a worse musician than the lead singer of STRYKER." You can. You can even believe it. But you will be, nevertheless, wrong, and likely with a little education your opinion will change and you will see the narrowness of your original claim.

Or are you telling me that the opinions I held when I was 10, which I view as shallow, stupid, and in many cases flat-out-wrong, were not, in fact wrong? Who else can best judge these things, if not myself?

Another easy topical example is "In my opinion Haste 3.0 is perfectly well balanced, and a good example of a Level 3 Arcane Spell." That is an opinion, and it's wrong. The designers think it's wrong; the vast majority of players thing it's wrong; logic and sense argue that it's wrong. Yes, you can still believe it. I am not telling you what to believe. I am just telling you that some of your beliefs are sometimes wrong.

Why is that such a shocking or surprising thing?

Don't we all know people who believe things fervently that are, however, "wrong..." -- unless you reduce the word "wrong" to mean "something which is not correct unless somebody believes it is correct in which case it is correct for that person regardless of any external circumstance or examination."

Which really means that nothing is "wrong." C'mon. We live in the real world here.

If nothing else, the criminal justice system laughs at your claim that "opinions can not be wrong."

 

[RigaMortus2]

Since the initiative order is there merely to be cyclical in nature and not indicative of the real world why not just have everyone roll initiative, have their comparitive results, and then be placed in that order ignoring the actual scores from then on. If a new combatant comes in you can look at all of the scores and such, it should not be a problem.

When White Raven Tactics is used it moves one character within 10 feet of the initiator to the initiative slot below theirs and is treated as being tied with the next person below them in the cycle but with the new person winning a tie. That way the ability will do nothing without some delaying tactics along with the sacrifice in other options and it will cycle through the initiative order automatically.

Isn't this essentially what it does already? It pulls someone to the init count just below the initiator. Doesn't matter if the target goes before or after the initiator, though if they have gone before the initiator is when they effectively get to go twice. So how does this 'fix' the problem you are suggesting?

Once they are pulled below the initiator, the initiator can always delay again to go after the caster and then pull them down again.

I've read your other replies, but I am afraid I don't follow how this "solves" what you want it to solve...

 

[RigaMortus2]

I'm not going to restate the obvious (at length). Both haste 3.0 and WRT allow casters to pump out two or more spells a round. Haste 3.0 was thoroughly nerfed because this was egregiously too powerful. If you can't see the parallel (anything allowing casters to cast 2+ spells a round), I don't know what to say.

Apparently the designers didn't see it either, so I'm not alone...

If it was so bad that they changed haste 3.0, it is reasonable to assume something that allows it to happen again (even in slightly limited fashion) is VERY powerful, and likely over-the-top bad/crazy/stupid. And should be watched closely or simply banned (remembering th past).

Because 3.0 Haste and WRT only share 1 common factor. Their mechanics and implimentation are totally different, and I think the balancing factor is the limitations of WRT vs. 3.0 Haste. Apparently the designers of ToB felt the same since they designed it.

And I am constantly amazed that people think personal opinions can't be "wrong" because they are "opinions." Of course they can. "In my opinion, the world blew up yesterday." That's your opinion, and it's wrong.

Actually, that would be a fact. It can be proven wrong. Opinions are basically feelings, and I don't think they can be proven wrong... My opinion, my feeling on the issue, is that WRT is just fine.

"In my opinion, JS Bach is a worse musician than the lead singer of STRYKER." That's also an opinion, and it is wrong. "In my opinion, the sun is green." Also wrong. "In my opinion, a burned overcooked fragment of an old McDonald's hamburger makes a better dessert than anything the best French cook could come up with." That's a legitimate opinion, and also wrong.

These examples are both opinions, but I can't see how they could be wrong. They may be impracticle to you and I, but if someone legitimately feels that way, who am I to tell them Bach is better? That too would be my opinion... Do you know the different between opinion and fact?

Many people say things that are quite stupid, and/or base their opinions on partial knowledge, or simple ignorance. People also change their opinions, and don't (on a personal level) find it difficult to admit mistakes about their previous opinions. I've held opinions in the past that were - in a nutshell - both stupid and wrong. Flat out wrong. When I widened my horizons, I realized this, and my opinions altered.

As have I.

I'm not saying you don't believe your opinion to be true. People generally do. But your belief that it is true does not make it true, even for yourself.

Ok... And the same can be said for your opinion, that it is 'broken' and needs to be fixed...

You might make a distinction between trivial opinions, such as "I like vanilla more than dirt," and opinions which in turn touch and comment upon the wider world, where other truth systems have to be put into play (not just your own). "In my opinion, JS Bach is a worse musician than the lead singer of STRYKER:" here is an example of a personal opinion which touches upon the outside world (comparing musical qualities between two people of radically different generations) and to judge them you can't simply go "by the gut," you also have to consider both performer's body of work, critical opinions, historical impact, etc. That's not to say you CAN'T state: "In my opinion, JS Bach is a worse musician than the lead singer of STRYKER." You can. You can even believe it. But you will be, nevertheless, wrong, and likely with a little education your opinion will change and you will see the narrowness of your original claim.

Opinions can change, but that still doesn't mean the person was wrong. I suppose one could admit they were wrong, but I don't see how that is something a 2nd party can judge. If I say the lead singer of STRYKER is better than Bach, and you disagree with me, and then I listen to both of them intently and I say, "You know what, I was wrong, Bach is better". But that is something I would have to find out for myself. If then, your friend comes up to both of us and says, STRYKER is better, I don't think we can tell him he is wrong (even if I am newly converted). It is something he'll have to learn for himself (or not learn). As of right now, through my personal use of WRT (and watching another player use WRT in a different campaign) my opinion of the maneuver is that it is not broken or overpowered. In both campaigns we have fun shifting around the initiative with WRT, it makes combat more exciting IMO, especially because we can't wait for the maneuver to recover and use it again ("Just hold them off for one more round, and I'll be able to let you act twice again.")

Or are you telling me that the opinions I held when I was 10, which I view as shallow, stupid, and in many cases flat-out-wrong, were not, in fact wrong? Who else can best judge these things, if not myself?

I am sure at the time, for you, they were not wrong (if they were true opinions and nothing that could be proven as true/false facts). As you grew up and saw the bigger picture and changed your mind, you changed your opinion. Looking back on that period, only you can judge for yourself if you were wrong or not, not I. If you beleived Santa was real when you were 10, that is not opinion. It is a fact which can be disproven. Do you not see the difference?

Another easy topical example is "In my opinion Haste 3.0 is perfectly well balanced, and a good example of a Level 3 Arcane Spell." That is an opinion, and it's wrong. The designers think it's wrong; the vast majority of players thing it's wrong; logic and sense argue that it's wrong. Yes, you can still believe it. I am not telling you what to believe. I am just telling you that some of your beliefs are sometimes wrong.

A lot of this is also campaign based. In the campaigns I have played in, with the people I have played with, 3.0 Haste was just fine. Can you min/max 3.0 Haste to your advantage? Sure. But as I said in the previous post, a lot of what you are arguing about that 'could' happen is purely speculative and in practice hardly ever turns out as bad as you seem to make it. In campaigns I have played in, 3.0 Haste was fine and not over the top or broken.

Why is that such a shocking or surprising thing?

Not shocked or surprised. Did I come off that way?

Don't we all know people who believe things fervently that are, however, "wrong..." -- unless you reduce the word "wrong" to mean "something which is not correct unless somebody believes it is correct in which case it is correct for that person regardless of any external circumstance or examination."

Which really means that nothing is "wrong." C'mon. We live in the real world here.

If nothing else, the criminal justice system laughs at your claim that "opinions can not be wrong."

Well, when I argue about the criminal justice system, you can show me the flaws of my logic. When I argue about game mechanics, which effect only my campaigns, I don't see how you can disprove my opinions since you are not involved in them.

And I don't mean to add the adendum "in my campaigns 3.0 Haste/WRT is fine". I DO mean it in the broader sense, that it should be ok for the majority of campaigns. I only use the "in my campaign" adendum because that is how I judge mechanics, since that is obviously where I get my personal experiences from. In the broader sense, in general, WRT is going to be fine for 95% of the campaigns out there. When you have players purposely conspiring about creating 5 Warblades each with WRT and 1 nova caster, then is the problem really with WRT or the players? Though, I had to admit, I would really like to see a session with this class combination

What personal experiences can you share (which actually affected a game you played in) to display to us how broken WRT is? Or are you just looking at the ToB and coming up with possible scenarios in your head?

 

[Baby Samurai]

Eh, its not as bad as most people think. Sure, you can use it on your caster and have them dump a lot of spells out and end the encounter quicker, but what is he going to do once he runs out of spells and runs into more encounters later that day?

And this brings up the problem of the game being designed around the silly meta-game concept of their being an assumed 4 encounters a day.