TOB: Stance progression: problems for crusader

[Puggins]

No other base class besides crusaders has access to Devoted Spirit. Therefore it's my stance. Having to use a feat or multiclass just to pick up immortal fortitude is as stupid as a wizard using a feat or multiclassing to pick up 9th level spells.

I'm sympathetic, but there's a core precedent for this- the fighter has to burn a feat to get weapon specialization, even though the weapon specialization tree is the fighter's only exclusive class feature. They might have designed Immortal Fortitude that way....

... though I doubt it.

 

[pawsplay]

No other base class besides crusaders has access to Devoted Spirit. Therefore it's my stance. Having to use a feat or multiclass just to pick up immortal fortitude is as stupid as a wizard using a feat or multiclassing to pick up 9th level spells.

How so? Why do you assume that your crusader is, in the spirit of this analogy, a wizard and not a bard?

 

[IanB]

How so? Why do you assume that your crusader is, in the spirit of this analogy, a wizard and not a bard?

The bard doesn't have to burn a feat to get access to her high level abilities either. She can *choose* spells from her list when she gets access, just like a crusader chooses (or should be able to choose) her maneuvers and stances. She doesn't have to take a feat to get the option to learn her 6th level spells.

The fighter isn't a very apt comparison either, as his bonus feat mechanism gives him the resources he's designed to use to get those feats which constitute his class features.

 

[pawsplay]

The bard doesn't have to burn a feat to get access to her high level abilities either. She can *choose* spells from her list when she gets access, just like a crusader chooses (or should be able to choose) her maneuvers and stances. She doesn't have to take a feat to get the option to learn her 6th level spells.

The fighter isn't a very apt comparison either, as his bonus feat mechanism gives him the resources he's designed to use to get those feats which constitute his class features.

My point was that bards only get 6th level spells. Why is everyone so sure crusaders were intended to get final stances without spending a feat? To me, it's like complaining psychic warriors have to burn a feat for astral construct.

 

[IanB]

My point was that bards only get 6th level spells. Why is everyone so sure crusaders were intended to get final stances without spending a feat? To me, it's like complaining psychic warriors have to burn a feat for astral construct.

If the bard spell list had 7th level spells, and they couldn't get them, then I would agree this is a good comparison.

 

[pawsplay]

If the bard spell list had 7th level spells, and they couldn't get them, then I would agree this is a good comparison.

Let's go a different tack.

If the higher level stances didn't exist, what would a multiclassed crusader or a Master of Nine get from that style? Therefore, the stances are the answer to the question, "What high level stance is readily available to a Master of Nine using this style?" not the question, "What is the highest level stance a basic, no frills crusader learns?"

Why don't wizards get Spell Mastery automatically? No other class gets it.

Why is virtually everything at epic levels feat driven?

 

[hong]

Let's go a different tack.

Why?

If the higher level stances didn't exist, what would a multiclassed crusader or a Master of Nine get from that style? Therefore, the stances are the answer to the question, "What high level stance is readily available to a Master of Nine using this style?" not the question, "What is the highest level stance a basic, no frills crusader learns?"

Why is a multiclassed crusader or master of nine considered more fundamental from the point of view of class design, than a basic, no frills crusader?

Why don't wizards get Spell Mastery automatically? No other class gets it.

Now if they had to take another feat to get the spells that they could use with Spell Mastery, you would have a point.

Why is virtually everything at epic levels feat driven?

Because the epic rules are stupid.

 

[Nifft]

Wizards do get access to Spell Mastery -- it's one of the options for their 4 bonus feats.

Cheers, -- N

 

[pawsplay]

Why is a multiclassed crusader or master of nine considered more fundamental from the point of view of class design, than a basic, no frills crusader?

I don't know. You tell me, because I did not make that argument.

Given the existence of those situations, the designers can't very well write "Here Be Dragons" as the last stance for that style. Therefore, it exists. It's also there for crusaders who wish to invest in a high level stance, bully for them, in the same way Psychic Warriors can take astral construct as a power, if they wish; it may not be central to their concept, but it is an option.

Why is that senseless or stupid?

 

[hong]

I don't know. You tell me, because I did not make that argument.

No, you tell me why I should care about a multiclassed crusader or master of nine.

Given the existence of those situations, the designers can't very well write "Here Be Dragons" as the last stance for that style.

WTF?

Therefore, it exists. It's also there for crusaders who wish to invest in a high level stance, bully for them, in the same way Psychic Warriors can take astral construct as a power, if they wish; it may not be central to their concept, but it is an option.

Why is that senseless or stupid?

Because it's entirely irrelevant to the fact that an 8th level stance, in a school that only crusaders can get, but can't be obtained by said crusaders without resorting to finagling the ruleset, is stupid.