TOB: Stance progression: problems for crusader

[hong]

Or they never intended crusaders to get a top level stance,

Prove it. Point to the designer notes, callout text or any other discussion that provides even a shred of evidence to back up this assumption. Because as it stands, it's an ability like any other ability, with nothing to suggest it should be treated different.

and this particular case is just a specific example of an intended result.

... or maybe you're just making it all up.

 

[pawsplay]

Prove it. Point to the designer notes, callout text or any other discussion that provides even a shred of evidence to back up this assumption. Because as it stands, it's an ability like any other ability, with nothing to suggest it should be treated different.



... or maybe you're just making it all up.

I'm not claiming to prove anything. I have stated a reasonable possibility, based simply on the idea that the presence of that stance might be the result of foresight rather than stupidity. It could be the result of bad editing and development, as you say, but I don't see any evidence for that.

And whether or not it's an intended result, it is the logical outcome of the crusader's stance progression.

If the stance did not exist simply because crusaders don't get top level stances, I'm sure people would be pretty annoyed as soon as they went Mo9 in that school, multiclassed, or thought, "Hm, what top level stance would be cool for my crusader, that would be worth a feat?"

Certainly, it would be stupid if a high level crusader could spend a feat for a high level stance from other schools, but not a school they do not share with any other base class.

Thus, intentionally or not, the presence of that stance actually prevents stupidity and serves a good purpose. Otherwise, stance-oriented crusaders would avoid their own school.

 

[Particle_Man]

I thought the author of the book said that it was a mistake, and the crusader was meant to get access to those stances, so the level at which the stance was given was meant to come later?

 

[hong]

I'm not claiming to prove anything. I have stated a reasonable possibility, based simply on the idea that the presence of that stance might be the result of foresight rather than stupidity. It could be the result of bad editing and development, as you say, but I don't see any evidence for that.

I see plenty of evidence for that.

And whether or not it's an intended result, it is the logical outcome of the crusader's stance progression.

If it's not an intended result, then it's stupid.

If the stance did not exist simply because crusaders don't get top level stances, I'm sure people would be pretty annoyed as soon as they went Mo9 in that school, multiclassed, or thought, "Hm, what top level stance would be cool for my crusader, that would be worth a feat?"

If you're a master of nine, you have access to... NINE schools (whoa!) from which to pick stances from. If you're a multiclassed crusader, then you can expect skewed progressions as a matter of course.

Certainly, it would be stupid if a high level crusader could spend a feat for a high level stance from other schools, but not a school they do not share with any other base class.

You appear confused on this matter. See below.

Thus, intentionally or not, the presence of that stance actually prevents stupidity and serves a good purpose. Otherwise, stance-oriented crusaders would avoid their own school.

The presence of that stance is not what is stupid, yo. The fact that regular, no-frills crusaders can't get it without finagling the system is what is stupid. As has been said numerous times, although possibly without 7-decimal-place precision.

 

[pawsplay]

You know what, hong?

Whatever.

 

[Beckett]

I was wondering if this came up in Ask Wizards. Here's the link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070405a

In brief, the word of the sage is that a crusader who wants a high level stance is spending a feat on it.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

Seems clear enough to me that is how it works. Whether intended or not, I have no idea.

And I am the type that tends to go by the rules as intended, rather than the rules as (mis)written.

As long as the stance can be gotten for a cost (by multiclassing or a feat) I see no real reason to worry about it. It is available, though not for as low of a cost as many seem to prefer. Brings to mind the whole duskblade-extra spell-wraithstrike debate. Hey, if you want it, and the rules make it possible, but not totally optimal, I am willing to go with the rules.

Now if there were no earthly way for teh crusader to get that stance, then there would be a problem, and a house rule or errata would be in order.

 

[Kurotowa]

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

That seems fairly nonsensical on the face of it. If you check, the stance progression for all three classes is borked.

Crusaders get two 1st level stances, don't get their 3rd level stance till 8th level (three level delay), pick up their 5th/6th level stance at 14th level (another three level delay), and have to spend a feat to get their 8th level stance.

Swordsages are better, and can at least get stances of each level, but there are still oddities. They also get a pair of 1st level stances, a 3rd level stance at 5th level (no delay), and the stance at 9th level would make sense if you assume that Fiery Assault should be 5th level like every other non-Devoted Spirit stance. But then they get their next stance at 14th level, just before the 8th level stances become available, and don't actually get to pick up one of those until 20th level.

Warblades are also slightly off. A 1st level stance at 1st level, then they have to take another 1st level stance at 4th level, skip the 3rd level stances entirely to get a 5th level stance at 10th level, and finally get their 8th level stance at 16th level.

With all those disjunctions I just have to believe that there was a mistake somewhere. The wrong progression version used, or a miscommunication somewhere. It'd be so much better to put the Crusader and Warblade on a regular progression that lets them get a stance of each level (as the matching number of stances gained and levels available would suggestion). 1st/6th/11th/16th would do nicely. Put the Swordsage on something similar with a couple extra slipped in.

 

[hamishspence]

Agree with previous post

Pushing the last stance of the crusader and the second last of the swordsage up by 1, as in, delaying learning it by 1 level, is the simplest fix. Push the warblades second stance up by 1, so it is delayed by 1 level, would also be a fair fix.

 

[Eloi]

When I perused the relevant pages, I came up with a solution that seems to fit the intended progression.

At those upper even Crusader levels (16, 18, 20), when the option to exchange an old maneuver for one of the new allowable range of maneuvers came up, why not swap out an old stance for a new stance? Stances count as maneuvers when counting how many prerequisite maneuvers a Martial character needs in one school in order to qualify for a later, high-ranking maneuver in that school - this would be another case of equivocation.

This would circumvent throwing a feat at the problem of those 8th rank stances.

Does this meet with approval, gentle ones?