TOB: Stance progression: problems for crusader

[pawsplay]

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

You don't have to care. Nonetheless, they exist.

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.

Except that they can get it, if, whether any finagling is intended or not, they multiclass. Or if they are a master of nine.

Thus, you argument ("only crusaders get this school") is wrong. If the stance existed, but absolutely no one qualified, that would be stupid. If it were only accessible to characters who spent a feat, that would be strange, but not without precedent (Spell Mastery, Expanded Knowledge, most epic improvements). However, neither is true.

Therefore, however much it might personally rankle you, I fail to see how it is "stupid."

 

[hong]

You don't have to care.

Ah. So REALLY, you were just making that argument to hear yourself talk. Hey, I can do that too!

Nonetheless, they exist.

This is getting needlessly existential.

Except that they can get it, if, whether any finagling is intended or not, they multiclass. Or if they are a master of nine.

... IOW, by finagling the ruleset. Do you enjoy making other people's arguments for them?

Thus, you argument ("only crusaders get this school") is wrong.

It is exactly as valid as the statement "only fighters get Weapon Spec". The fact that a multiclassed crusader can get it is just another way of saying the same thing. The fact that a prestige class can get it is irrelevant when talking about the mechanics of base classes. The fact that you can get it by burning a feat is exactly what is referred to by "finagling the ruleset".

If the stance existed, but absolutely no one qualified, that would be stupid.

The stance exists but nobody qualifies unless they multiclass or burn a feat. Therefore it's stupid.

If it were only accessible to characters who spent a feat, that would be strange, but not without precedent (Spell Mastery,

Which can be obtained without multiclassing, and is a class-specific feat. And if there was a spell somewhere that ONLY Spell Mastery allowed you to get, then it might be relevant.

Expanded Knowledge,

Which is in fact entirely irrelevant. Now if there was a psionic ability somewhere that ONLY Expanded Knowledge allowed you to get, then it might be relevant.

most epic improvements).

The epic rules are stupid. NEXT!

Therefore, however much it might personally rankle you, I fail to see how it is "stupid."

That's your problem, not mine.

 

[pawsplay]

Which is in fact entirely irrelevant. Now if there was a psionic ability somewhere that ONLY Expanded Knowledge allowed you to get, then it might be relevant.

You can also get that last stance by multiclassing or by becoming a master of nine. So I don't see how your statement here follows the analogy. That stance isn't ONLY available by taking a feat. I believe my point has withstood your position so far. Try again?

 

[IanB]

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?"

I honestly don't see how multiclassing and prestige classes are relevant to the base design of the crusader. My opinion is that the designers either overlooked the fact that they were creating un-takeable stances entirely or forgot to change something after a revision.

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

Like the fighter, the wizard design includes class features delivered via bonus feats. Spell Mastery is one of those feat choices.

Why is virtually everything at epic levels feat driven?

Because *all* classes move to a bonus feat delivery system for class features.

 

[hong]

You can also get that last stance by multiclassing or by becoming a master of nine.

I thought you'd go back to beating that tin drum again.

So I don't see how your statement here follows the analogy. That stance isn't ONLY available by taking a feat. I believe my point has withstood your position so far. Try again?

The stance is available ONLY by finagling the ruleset, of which "taking a feat" and "multiclassing" are subsets, oh finagly one.

So, one more time for the pedants:

If there was a spell that could be obtained ONLY via Spell Mastery or multiclassing, then it would be relevant.

If there was a psionic ability that could be obtained ONLY via Expanded Knowledge or multiclassing, then it would be relevant.

In no other situation is it necessary to jump through hoops to gain access to something that is not called out as particularly different to the rest of a spell/power/maneuver list.

PS, since you seem to have forgotten this the first time round.

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 try a different tack.

Why?

 

[pawsplay]

I honestly don't see how multiclassing and prestige classes are relevant to the base design of the crusader. My opinion is that the designers either overlooked the fact that they were creating un-takeable stances entirely or forgot to change something after a revision.

My guess is that they noticed that school needed a top stance in case someone multiclassed, went Mo9, or just really wanted one badly.

You can see something similar with the warmage advanced learning feature and prestige classes; if you take a few prestige levels in the middle and delay the feature, you get higher level wizard/sorcerer spells.

 

[hong]

My guess is that they noticed that school needed a top stance in case someone multiclassed, went Mo9, or just really wanted one badly.

Exactly. They overlooked the fact that the crusader can't actually get it.

 

[pawsplay]

If there was a spell that could be obtained ONLY via Spell Mastery or multiclassing, then it would be relevant.

If there was a psionic ability that could be obtained ONLY via Expanded Knowledge or multiclassing, then it would be relevant.

Explain to me why the requirements in your scenario are relevant. I don't see your point at all; your complaints appear irrelevant to the arguments I've put forward.

 

[pawsplay]

Exactly. They overlooked the fact that the crusader can't actually get it.

Or they never intended crusaders to get a top level stance, and this particular case is just a specific example of an intended result.

 

[hong]

Explain to me why the requirements in your scenario are relevant.

Because that's the exact problem with the ToB stance?

I don't see your point at all; your complaints appear irrelevant to the arguments I've put forward.

That is because your argument is itself irrelevant to the problem at hand.