Tome of Magic classes?

[Mikeal]

I was reading through Tome of Magic the other day and the new base classes sound pretty interesting to me, but I was wondering how good they are in comparison to other base classes, because I dont particularly want to play something thats underpowered.

[Epinephrine]

I was reading through Tome of Magic the other day and the new base classes sound pretty interesting to me, but I was wondering how good they are in comparison to other base classes, because I dont particularly want to play something thats underpowered.

Truenamer is absurdly underpowered. You are truly ineffective.

Shadowcaster is underpowered, but the fixes suggested by the author do resolve some of that (mentioned in a thread in the past week or so).

Binder is a really strong gestalt class, and can serve as a nice flexible member of a party. Certainly not on the power level of a true primary caster, but a strong class on its own. In gestalt it's particularly effective, as many effects are passive, thus adding to your other class without requiring the use of your precious actions.

[Aidan305]

Of the three, the binder is the only class playable at all levels.

Shadowcaster is not particularly useful at all at lower levels, whereas the truenamer, while a strong class at lower levels, becomes almost impossible to play at higher levels without serious optimisation.

[Mikeal]

Truenamer is absurdly underpowered. You are truly ineffective.

Shadowcaster is underpowered, but the fixes suggested by the author do resolve some of that (mentioned in a thread in the past week or so).

Binder is a really strong gestalt class, and can serve as a nice flexible member of a party. Certainly not on the power level of a true primary caster, but a strong class on its own. In gestalt it's particularly effective, as many effects are passive, thus adding to your other class without requiring the use of your precious actions.

Do you, or does anyone else, happen to have a link to these changes?

And by your comments Aidan im assuming shadowcaster becomes more powerful at higher levels?

[Epinephrine]

Do you, or does anyone else, happen to have a link to these changes?

And by your comments Aidan im assuming shadowcaster becomes more powerful at higher levels?

Try this thread, I left a link in there, and a summary.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99794&highlight=shadowcaster

[woodenbandman]

Truenamer isn't all that bad, when you get a + 30 competence, + 30 enhancement, + 30 circumstance item to your truespeak skill. Other than that, though, it's pretty much impossible to use.

Binder is the greatest ever in my book, I love them a lot. Not the strongest, but really awesome.

Shadowcaster just sucks.

[The Mormegil]

Awww... I like the Shadowcaster... And the binder is just lame flavor to me...
Vestiges are cool, binders are not.

[esorscher]

I'm planning a Binder/ Cleric. It has good RP options, since Binder is generally looked down upon by the established churches.

Binder is a pretty neat class; a lot of the early vestiges become very powerful as you progress, and are still capable at early levels. Some of them give offensive effects, powerful ones, that you can use more often per day than a wizard's spells. I haven't given much look at Truenaming and Shadow magic, because they suck.

[Aidan305]

And by your comments Aidan im assuming shadowcaster becomes more powerful at higher levels?

At higher levels, the shadowcaster can become a decent controller (to use the 4th ed. terminology) but still doesn't really compare to most other casting classes.

[Kaiyanwang]

At higher levels, the shadowcaster can become a decent controller (to use the 4th ed. terminology) but still doesn't really compare to most other casting classes.

Yes. Movement hampering mysteries are powerful, IMHO.

And anyway, the single mystery casted by a shadocaster is most times better, expecially damage-wise, regarding a spell of the same level. The only problem they finish quickly. :smalltongue:

[Username]

The Binder's power shoots up to almost wizard levels if you allow this web enhancement vestige:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070718

Uunlimited use summons are very powerful.

[Username]

Shadowcasters are greatly underestimated. They get one of the best defensive abilities in the game via flicker, which as far as I know is the only immediate action teleport in 3.5. This means you can teleport in response to an opponent's movement, with careful planning, they'll never even reach melee range with you.

Then there's field of shadow, which provides free empower for all your mysteries in its area of effect.

Finally, if a shadowcaster goes noctumancer, they can wreck fellow casters by becoming a counterspell machine.

[imperialspectre]

Shadowcasters are greatly underestimated. They get one of the best defensive abilities in the game via flicker, which as far as I know is the only immediate action teleport in 3.5. This means you can teleport in response to an opponent's movement, with careful planning, they'll never even reach melee range with you.

Then there's field of shadow, which provides free empower for all your mysteries in its area of effect.

Finally, if a shadowcaster goes noctumancer, they can wreck fellow casters by becoming a counterspell machine.

What about the conjurer's Abrupt Jaunt alternate class feature? That's also an immediate action teleport.

Shadowcasters aren't bad, they're just not on a level with full casters. In a game with ToB, psionics, and factotum or bard for skill monkeys, they would be fine.

[Fax Celestis]

What about the conjurer's Abrupt Jaunt alternate class feature? That's also an immediate action teleport.

...which you get a finite number of times per day. Shadowcasters get it as a spell that has a duration measured in rounds.

[StickFan291]

Binders can be a lot of fun if the DM works with you to create custom Vestiges that are appropriate for the world you are in. It also is great for RP purposes. One Binder I DMed ended up bi-polar later in the campaign.

[Username]

Another thing most people don't notice about shadowcasters is their skill list. Take a look at it, notice something normal casters don't get? That's right, you have hide and move silently as class skills, go grab yourself a collar of umbral metamorphosis for Hide in plain sight and you're good to go non-invisibility based and thus immune to true seeing (although admittedly not stuff like blindsense) caster sneaking shennanigans.

[RTGoodman]

Another thing most people don't notice about shadowcasters is their skill list. Take a look at it, notice something normal casters don't get? That's right, you have hide and move silently as class skills, go grab yourself a collar of umbral metamorphosis for Hide in plain sight and you're good to go non-invisibility based and thus immune to true seeing (although admittedly not stuff like blindsense) caster sneaking shennanigans.

[Cheesy TV Voice] And wait, there's more! [/Cheesy TV Voice]

There's a feat in Lords of Madness called Darkstalker that forces creatures with special sight (tremorsense, scent, blindsense, blindsight) to STILL have to make the Spot and/or Listen checks to detect you while you're hiding. Congrats, now there's VERY few monsters that can find you! And the flavor works pretty well with a Shadowcaster, too!

[Username]

I had an idea for an awesome shadowcaster aerial assault: Jump, throw down flood of shadows when in range. Next round (You should have time, I think) flicker into the flood and proceed to throw out an offensive spell, hide, or whatever you feel is best.

[Fax Celestis]

Shadowcasters also make good Shadow Adepts (PGtF): it's thematically appropriate, and the Insidious/Tenacious/Pernicious Magic feats synergize with their mysteries very very well.

[Tokiko Mima]

The Binder's power shoots up to almost wizard levels if you allow this web enhancement vestige:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070718

Uunlimited use summons are very powerful.

True, but summon monster has a duration of 1 round/level, and you can only summon once every 5 rounds. So you'd be limited to only 4 at a time at most at level 20, I should think. So it's not ridiculously powerful, it's more useful because it's very versatile.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Binder is playable. Truenamer isn't.

[TerrickTerran]

It's too bad as Truenamer was a great IDEA for a class but unfortunately it was obvious when I read it that it could not be nearly as good as it should be.

[The Antigamer]

I really enjoy dipping into Binder to add some nice bonuses. Especially when combining the Naberious vestige and the Hellfire Warlock.

[Mikeal]

What exactly is so bad about the truenamer?

[Eikre]

They have to make skillchecks to do anything. At low levels, the DCs on those skillchecks are surmountable, but as you gain levels, the DCs increase exponentially relative to what you should be able to do.

[Blackfang108]

What exactly is so bad about the truenamer?

The way the DC of Truenaming scales with the HD of the monster.

At low levels, it's merely difficult to successfully make a Truespeak check against a CR appropriate encounter.

At high levels, it's nearly impossible.

I havent' done the math myself, but the formulas ARE clunky.

[Fax Celestis]

The way the DC of Truenaming scales with the HD of the monster.

At low levels, it's merely difficult to successfully make a Truespeak check against a CR appropriate encounter.

At high levels, it's nearly impossible.

I havent' done the math myself, but the formulas ARE clunky.

Let's compare. A 20th level Truenamer will have a Truespeak check of 23 (ranks) + 3 (skill focus) + 10 (amulet of the silver tongue) + 5 (Int), for a total modifier of +41. Our Truenamer is rolling 42 to 61 each time he casts.

Meanwhile the Tarrasque, at equal CR, has 48 HD. The DC for a 48 HD creature is 15 + (2*48) for a grand total of 111. Our truenamer has no chance.

Furthermore, even if he were more optimized (say, via a few levels in Exemplar or some such else or knowing the Tarrasque's truename), he's still subject to the Law of Resistance, so that DC will be raising by 2 each time. He also still has to overcome SR, so even if he successfully pops that spell off, it may not even land.

What it frankly comes down to is that the Truenamer does a lot of rolling with no results.

[Eldariel]

Actually, Truename DCs are based on CR. Insane, I know, the only mechanical thing based on CR (and a great reason not to allow Truenamers - you can work much better without CR if you don't have to worry about the DCs) and such a crappy system too. Anyways, that makes Tarrasque a mere 55, perfectly doable. However, it also makes the possible truename check much higher as a party can take on an opponent 4 CR higher than the party ECL. Which, for example, would leave you at level 16, meaning you're rolling for 18, 19 and 20 the first time. And since the encounter is that tough, it isn't going down with one success. So second one requires 20. Third can't even be done. And the worst of all, buffing allies is tough (at that level, with those numbers, 14-20 first time) and will always be. Simply, the DCs are just insanely high. And they grow for repeat performances. And yea, SRs. And many have Saves too.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, Truename DCs are based on CR. Insane, I know, the only mechanical thing based on CR (and a great reason not to allow Truenamers - you can work much better without CR if you don't have to worry about the DCs) and such a crappy system too. Anyways, that makes Tarrasque a mere 55, perfectly doable. However, it also makes the possible truename check much higher as a party can take on an opponent 4 CR higher than the party ECL. Which, for example, would leave you at level 16, meaning you're rolling for 18, 19 and 20 the first time. And since the encounter is that tough, it isn't going down with one success. So second one requires 20. Third can't even be done. And the worst of all, buffing allies is tough (at that level, with those numbers, 14-20 first time) and will always be. Simply, the DCs are just insanely high. And they grow for repeat performances. And yea, SRs. And many have Saves too.

Right, right. I used the formula for PCs. Still, 15 + (2*20) comes out to 55. My aforementioned 42-61 will hit it a little under half the time...for the first spell. The next one will be 57, then 59, etc etc. and they still might fail to SR>