So you'll claim you can Know them multiple times, Ready them multiple times, but it's impossible to recover them? Ok.
No. I'm affirming that you took a quote from a passage that does not discuss maneuvers known at all to try to prove a point about maneuvers known. The title of that section is "Recovering expended maneuvers", after all. I don't see what gave you that idea.
What I see you do now is put words into my mouth and attack that position to affect my credibility. You know what we call that.
Again, it does not include Known, it doesn't support you at all.
Your quote did not apply to maneuvers known to begin with so it had no value and wasn't used properly. However, it applies to maneuvers readied, which can ready maneuvers known, which is an important detail to be able to ready the same maneuver known by two different classes. It does not prove that two classes can know the same maneuver but proves that if that can be done, the rest works. What that texts details then indeed is in agreement with my position. Read the whole thing please before dismantling the argument and taking only the single element out of context you can argument against.
Affirming the consequent does not apply since if my argument needs both A and B to be true, then a statement proving B but not A nevertheless contributes to my argument.
I also missed this one before but you assert Maneuvers are to be treated like Spells, but unlike Maneuvers "same spell more than once" appears twice in the PHB when discussing Wizard Preparation and no such text appears for Maneuvers and it's only that text that matters, nothing else.
That argument was to show that there is continuity in terminology in the use of the term Known.
Also, the argument again isn't about comparing it with spells but with how multiclassing handles the resources of abilities known in general. The book specifies that a wizard can prepare the same spell more than once because that is a rule within its own class; it has no application to how that works when multiclassing so that argument is dodging the subject and going somewhere else entirely.
It isn't written anywhere that if a Bard gets a spell known, he cannot have it known as a sorcerer as well. That is an example of resources being handled separately between two different base classes that have access to the same thing. It is similarly not written in the book that maneuvers should be treated differently in the same scenario, so what in the book suggests that we should? The continuity in the terminology remains a good indicator of how it is intended to work.
The section you're talking about is about PrCing as a muticlass character and how if a PrC adds a new Known Maneuver you must associate it with a base Class which in turn determines IL/Ready/Recover rules. This has nothing to do with confirmation that you can, or cannot, learn the same Maneuver twice using two different classes
It certainly confirms that you cannot determine that what prevents two base classes from learning the same maneuver is that when a maneuver is known by all classes it is considered known for all classes. Disproving that argument is what I aimed to do and that serves my argument by itself. That taken out, what's left in the book that gives the rule or impression that two classes cannot or at least shouldn't learn the same maneuver?
Ultimately, the test in the Tome of Battle is ambiguous. It uses singular text, like the entire Martial Power section, but that isn't quite enough to confirm it's limited to Known being binary or not. Which causes people like you to spring up, but the lack of text that allows you to breed bad thoughts is also your undoing.
I've already given plenty of arguments in favor of how the texts seems intended to allow my point to function and, in the games, the DMing attitude that often trumps actual RAW is what seems to be read as intended. In the absence of a true RAW element to back a point, if such is the case, RAI has more weight than anything else.
So far all I got in favor of maneuvers not being knowable by more than a single standard class at once here is "that absence of proof in the text that disproves my point has less weight that the absence of proof that supports it" and a giant appeal to authority (not from you so far, though), which is only false logic.
Is there a logical argument in favor of that position, using whats in the text?
Also, I'll note that using terms like "people like me" and "bad thoughts" is getting into the personal attacks territory. I do not consider your efforts to be bad thoughts even though they may be wrong. I am equally perfectly aware that I may be wrong myself, which is why I even bother about this exchange, otherwise I'd just roll with it and internally consider the ruling as worthless for all future games and only something I have to put up with for now. If there is a logical reasoning on what is written behind the reason people accept that rule as the norm, I'd love to know it rather than assume there is one.
All that really matters is that officially WotC has already provided an answer.
Without entering into the whole "Ask the Sage credibility" thing in the matter of their given rules, I'll concede that if we stick to the notion that WotC gave them actual authority to decide on what is to be considered an official ruling, the Sage's word is the law.
If that is all that matters to you then that settles it as far as you are concerned. For me that feels unsatisfactory as the hired Sage offers no explanation to back up the rule he settles on; He just makes a statement. All DMs remain perfectly justified in using it as a way to align their decision on a matter if their own impression of the text doesn't suffice them. One could also claim that since they are hired by WotC they technically have as much authority on the rules presented in a book than the book itself has authority on the rules it presents so I'll accept it as a valid argument.
I do not recognize the Sage as a valid source for anything but that's my problem until I'm the DM. Thank you for solving the matter of RAW.
I'm still concerned about RAI.
And so has your DM.
That sounded more like an appeal to authority than a ruling based on logic, which is why I discussed it. The extra reference to the idiot crusader combo that isn't really related also made it feel like he confused two rules together, so I wanted to be sure. Which is why I immediately asked where the rule came from. Being answered by another appeal to authority didn't help confirming if that was indeed an actual rule.
If the only reason that rule is accepted so far is because of the Sage's rule, then he can certainly accept the Sage's authority on the matter.
I feel like personally adding if you're wanting to stage an appeal to the matter, IE you think he's cockblocking you with a houserule, you're probably going about it the wrong way.
I already said I'm all right with it if it makes him feel more comfortable about it, no matter the outcome.
I'm only debating the point for future reference (and because its entertaining). I've seen it before in other games, the DM let it work and I agreed with the reasoning.
I hope you've got not negative feelings on the entire exchange. I appreciate the exercise and the time you take to use your wits on the matter. Thanks.