TOB: Bo9S question - Warblade

[Rhun]

I notice when looking at the sample warblade in TOB "Vardalak Axebearer" that he has a 3rd level stance (Absolute Steel Stance). However, according the the Warblade progression chart, the warblade receives his second stance at level 4, and thus only qualifies for 1st and 2nd level stances.

So my question: Is the sample PC incorrect (my guess), or can a warblade actually delay picking a new stance until he is of higher level (which I doubt)? I looked for an errata, but couldn't find one for the book.

 

[blargney the second]

Yup, that'd be an incorrect statblock.

 

[Zurai]

Find me an entirely correct NPC statblock and I'll give you a cookie. I don't think there are any, myself.


Although, in this particular case, the designers have said that the extremely stupid stance progression for crusaders and warblades is a design error. They shouldn't "skip" stance levels the way they do.

 

[Nifft]

Sample NPC stat blocks are always done before final editing of the class layout itself, and they're always done by summer interns on their last day at WotC. And the interns are always stoned.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rhun]

I figured the statblock was wrong, but I thought I'd better check just to be safe. Thanks!

Although, in this particular case, the designers have said that the extremely stupid stance progression for crusaders and warblades is a design error. They shouldn't "skip" stance levels the way they do.

Yeah, it is a little strange that they did that. 6 levels is a long time to go without picking up a stance.

 

[Scribble]

Yup, that'd be an incorrect statblock.

What's interesting is that technically he's "allowed" to have a stance of that level... There'd just be no way for him to have it yet. (Unless delaying the picking of a stance is a legal maneuver...)

I ran into this problem myself when I made a 15th level Swordsage. You have to sort of go through the motions of picking stuff, and trading out maneuvers, as if you were starting from level one. (Unlike say a wizard or something where you already know how many spells of each level you have each day...)

 

[blargney the second]

Hey Zurai, where'd they say that, and did they suggest any fixes?

 

[Zurai]

Hey Zurai, where'd they say that, and did they suggest any fixes?

Somewhere on the Wizards forums. You could probably find a link in the Tome of Battle FAQ thread.

The suggested fix was to move the "new stance" levels that are nonsensical (ie, 1 or 2 levels before a new stance tier becomes available) up to the minimum level. For example, the warblade should get a new stance at 5th level instead of 4th. Any stance gains that are "late" should be left alone, though. For example, the warblade keeps the 10th level new stance; don't move it to 9th or 15th.

 

[Mistwell]

You know something is wonky when multi-classing HELPS the base class.

 

[Nifft]

You know something is wonky when multi-classing HELPS the base class.

*ahem* Fighters? *ahem*

Cheers, -- N