PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Truenamer



Bugbeartrap
2009-02-25, 12:45 PM
I was wondering what was the consensus on the power of a truenamer. I have been playing a sorceror/malconvoker in a game of mine and I just ran across the fiendbinder prestige class in the Tome of Magic. The fluff seemed pretty cool, and I like the idea of a Fiendish ally rather then nameless mooks poofing up with every summon monster. The reason I ask rather than just nab it, is that my DM has gotten pretty brutal with the encounters recently. Our last encounter almost had a TPK if it wasnt for the DM forgetting some ongoing damage that would have hit downed PCs and I had to benign transposition our wizard, with 0 HP, to sudden maximize and sudden empower a Night's Caress on the BBEG. Yes, we have 2 casters in the party.

So is truenaming worth using all the extra mechanics?

Blackfang108
2009-02-25, 12:53 PM
So is truenaming worth using all the extra mechanics?

As it is mathematically impossible for Truenaming to work shortly after level 2, I don't think so.

Someone, post that proof, if you please?

Draz74
2009-02-25, 12:59 PM
Truenamer is generally considered the weakest caster class in the game, except maybe the Healer or Adept. The DCs it has to hit to use its abilities are just so high.

It's also a poorly designed class, because it depends on several things that shouldn't be determining factors of a battle:

whether Custom Items are allowed matters WAY too much
whether you face low-CR mobs or high-CR bosses matters WAY too much
you're actually better at buffing low-level allies than high level allies :smallconfused:
number of encounters/day matters more than for other casters


That said, I think the Truenamer can sometimes be playable, if not powerful, especially at lower levels when monsters' CRs haven't caused Truespeech DCs to scale to the stratosphere. OTOH, at low levels the Truenamer doesn't know a great variety of fun tricks to play with anyway. I still think he might do all right in the realm of Levels 3-8 or so.

Great flavor, though.

Note that Fiendbinder doesn't progress your Truenamer class features, including Utterances Known (a problem with all the truespeaking PrCs). So if you like Fiendbinder, you're best off just making a Wizard (or Archivist), taking the Truespeech Training feat, and just using Fiendbinder as a caster PrC (and not a great one, with 7/10 casting).

Darth Stabber
2009-02-25, 01:01 PM
The big problem with Truenaming is that if you don't have the skill maxed and skill focused, it's utterly worthless, (and to be just okay you need some really decent bonuses on top of that, to get to good you, you need some Serious help)! Just stick with Malconvoker and be happy.

sonofzeal
2009-02-25, 01:18 PM
Beg and plead with your DM to get that DC changed. Get it lowered to HD*1 from HD*2, and the class becomes playable.

Person_Man
2009-02-25, 01:59 PM
Item Familiar (www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/itemFamiliars.htm) fixes the class by essentially doubling your Truenaming Skill. But even then, it sucks.

Zaq
2009-02-25, 02:14 PM
Truenamers have two major problems. One has been covered, the other less so.

1) The DCs are, of course, ridiculous. An Item Familiar and/or custom items can alleviate this problem somewhat, but the very fact that you have to is an enormous red flag.

2) Utterances are rarely actually that good. While the flavor of the "Utterance/Reversed Utterance" is nifty, there is very little that a Truenamer can do that a Wizard can't do better AND more often AND more reliably. Or, if we don't want to compare them to (arguably) the best class in the game, compare them to the Shadowcasters from the same book. Shadowcasters are similarly limited in knowing a very small amount of mysteries and using them a small number of times per day, but at least those mysteries are, generally, on par with most spells of the same level. (Of course, the number of arcane spells in existence compared to the number of mysteries in existence makes it inevitable that shadowcasters will be, pardon the pun, overshadowed, but at least they tried.) The effects that a truenamer can make, though, really are generally not that impressive. The only really unique tricks they get are Inertia Surge (Freedom of Movement at 1st level? Handy, if it works.) and the one that lets them un-dispel a spell or other effect, something that (to my knowledge) no arcane spell can duplicate. See, if Truenamers had this ridiculously awkward system because they were holding back power that was OVER NINE THOUSAND and it would be just too good to have them use it reliably and consistently, that would be one thing, but the Utterances aren't that good. Combined with the fact that they don't get many of them and that they have a hard time actually making them work (Not to mention that many of them have two or three chances to fail! First, you have to make the check. Then, the enemy gets a save... which is tied to Charisma for some insane reason, despite Truespeech being an INT skill, not to mention that the "Spell level" goes up more slowly than a normal caster because it's a 6-level scale rather than a 9-level one, so the saves are going to generally suck. Finally, spell resistance applies. And even if you make the check but the enemy resists due to making its save or having good SR, you still have a harder time casting that same utterance again, thanks to the Law of Resistance. What fun!)

The fact that no prestige classes actually advance truenaming or teach new utterances is just icing on the slap in the face.

I love the concept of Truespeech, but even if I had an item familiar or a modified DC I don't think I would play one, simply because the utterances aren't actually any good.

(I've seen an argument that a truenamer should use utterances to boost himself or herself and fight like a gish, but the fact that you can't use Concentration to utter defensively but instead have to increase the already stupidly high Truespeech DC to avoid the AoO makes me think that I don't want Truenamers anywhere NEAR melee range.)

Some classes can be salvaged (You can make a monk viable with two or three houserules. Not CoDzilla powerful, but slightly more than just dead weight.). Some need to be given much larger makeovers (the shadowcaster, for example, leaves me saying "this is a great start, but now what?"). The Truenamer... well, it basically needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. (There have been efforts to do so, some of which look pretty sleek, but it takes more than a simple houserule or two to make the Truenamer playable, in my eyes.)

Edit: Added a parenthesis.

InkEyes
2009-02-25, 02:30 PM
Truenamer is generally considered the weakest caster class in the game, except maybe the Healer or Adept. The DCs it has to hit to use its abilities are just so high.

Don't bother being nice, the Truenamer is the weakest class in the game. Period. The Adept is better because it has some spells from the polymorph family on its spell list. The healer is better because at least the very mechanics the class is based on don't make the class unplayable after a certain point. Hell, the Complete Warrior Samurai is probably better, because at least it has armor and weapon proficiencies and can therefore last longer as a meaty wall.

Human Paragon 3
2009-02-25, 02:33 PM
Here's a link to Kellus's infamous truenaming fix, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961&highlight=truenaming) a completely homebrewed system that actually makes it playable.

Blackfang108
2009-02-25, 02:35 PM
Don't bother being nice, the Truenamer is the weakest class in the game. Period. The Adept is better because it has some spells from the polymorph family on its spell list. The healer is better because at least the very mechanics the class is based on don't make the class unplayable after a certain point. Hell, the Complete Warrior Samurai is probably better, because at least it has armor and weapon proficiencies and can therefore last longer as a meaty wall.

A decently built housecat can probably kill a truenamer, too.

InkEyes
2009-02-25, 02:38 PM
A decently built housecat can probably kill a truenamer, too.

I agree with this assessment. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5057178&postcount=24)

Blackfang108
2009-02-25, 02:56 PM
I agree with this assessment. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5057178&postcount=24)

I remember that thread.

*Makes a Shih-Tzu version, which proceeds to eat the cat.*

Bugbeartrap
2009-02-25, 03:11 PM
Curses, and the flavor was so cool. Looks like I'm going to have to rely on Planar Binding to get my semi-permanent fiendish allies. :smallfrown:

Person_Man
2009-02-25, 03:21 PM
Don't bother being nice, the Truenamer is the weakest class in the game. Period. The Adept is better because it has some spells from the polymorph family on its spell list. The healer is better because at least the very mechanics the class is based on don't make the class unplayable after a certain point. Hell, the Complete Warrior Samurai is probably better, because at least it has armor and weapon proficiencies and can therefore last longer as a meaty wall.

Agreed. Truenamer is the weakest class.

The Healer actually has the fastest spell progression in the game. You can improve their cruddy spell list with feats and domains, making them playable. The can also Share Spells with their Companion, which means that they can just heal every round while the Companion fights for them.

Adept is an NPC class, specifically written to be weaker then other classes. So I don't consider it in the same category. Even then, Polymorph can fix anything.

Samurai has full BAB and respectable hit points and armor. Although it's the weakest full BAB class in existence, it can still Power Attack and do something useful most rounds.

MammonAzrael
2009-02-25, 03:21 PM
I really suggest you look at Kellus' homebrew fix for Truenaming. It is very good.

Zaq
2009-02-25, 03:21 PM
Curses, and the flavor was so cool. Looks like I'm going to have to rely on Planar Binding to get my semi-permanent fiendish allies. :smallfrown:

Are you looking at the Fiendbinder prestige class? Look closely. That advances spellcasting, but doesn't teach you more utterances... nor does it require you to know any utterances. The class is completely unconcerned with Utterances. All you need are ranks in Truespeech, which you can get with a feat (Truespeech Training), or a dip into Factotum (with or without Able Learner), or I suppose Human Paragon. The Fiendbinder isn't that terrible of a class... there are better, of course, but they can't all be Incantatrix. The cool thing about Fiendbinder is that the Truespeech DCs are set. You have a number, and once you can reliably reach that number (what qualifies as "reliable" is up to the player. Do you want 50% success? 75%? 100%?) you're fine. It doesn't go up with different enemies, doesn't follow the Law of Resistance, or anything like that. Since it's completely independent of Utterances, the best Fiendbinders don't have any levels in Truenamer at all. You have to be at least 8th level to take it (qualify at 7th, access at 8th), so it's a little later than normal, but you don't have to be a Truenamer at all. Look at the example NPC on page 227, in fact... Cleric 7 /Fiendbinder 1.

The Fiendbinder is actually one of the best parts of the Truename Magic chapter of ToM... mainly because it has nothing to do with Truenamers. Ironic, isn't it?

Starbuck_II
2009-02-25, 03:38 PM
Or, if we don't want to compare them to (arguably) the best class in the game, compare them to the Shadowcasters from the same book. Shadowcasters are similarly limited in knowing a very small amount of mysteries and using them a small number of times per day, but at least those mysteries are, generally, on par with most spells of the same level. (Of course, the number of arcane spells in existence compared to the number of mysteries in existence makes it inevitable that shadowcasters will be, pardon the pun, overshadowed, but at least they tried.)


I agree with everything you stated except here:
Shadowcasters have 3rd level Dancing Shadows which is worth a 4th level Arcane spell if used on one target (Greater Invisibility) as both provide complete Concealment with no targetiong option.
And unlike G. Invis, only True Seeing gets through it.

So Shadowcasters get one up on Arcane casters... sadly, they only get one.

Zaq
2009-02-25, 03:53 PM
Well, as I read it, Mysteries are actually "supposed" to be more powerful than arcane spells of the same level. In a perfect world, the restrictions placed on a shadowcaster compared to a wizard or sorcerer means that the mysteries should generally be more powerful. You get fewer known, you get fewer per day, you're more restricted in which you can pick (with the path system), but what you DO get is incredibly powerful. (This is the ideal, of course. The reality? Eh, mysteries aren't shoddy by any means, but rivaling the Sorcerer list is a really tall order.)

The problem is that Shadowcasters get next to zero support (are there ANY WotC mysteries other than Tome of Magic and Cityscape?), while wizards get new spells in almost every book that comes out. With every spell printed, it becomes more and more likely that there will be something that is either more powerful on its own merits, or more powerful in combination with something else, than the existing and unchanging mysteries.

Yeah, Dancing Shadows is top-notch, but it's the exception that proves the rule. If they were ALL like that, people might consider Shadowcasters a better class, despite their horrifically limited number of mysteries per day and amazingly restrictive system of learning new ones. As it stands, though, most people ignore them or view them as underpowered (which they kind of are, I must admit. They're bursting with flavor and some mysteries are really powerful, but they're TOO limited.)

Dancing Shadows, I think, is the one they got right. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight and of thousands upon thousands of eyes looking at what a shadowcaster can and can't do, but we all know that WotC balance, while good in some respects, is often fundamentally flawed. Not so much that the game is unplayable (unless you ruthlessly exploit it at every turn), but enough that some classes are undeniably better than others.

I've always found it interesting that the shadow mysteries tend to be so oriented around battlefield control, debuffing, and other "smart wizard" tactics. Compared to a blaster wizard (not a metamagic-spanking, Orb-of-Whatever spamming powerhouse, but your first-timer wizard who really thinks that Fireball IS the best spell ever), the Shadowcaster IS more powerful, because they focus on what is ultimately the better form of tactics. It's just that the Wizards get most of that stuff too, and if they choose to use it (as most experienced players do), they can match or beat the shadowcaster at their own game. Not the intention, but the effect.

Of all the "forgotten" or "underpowered" classes, shadowcaster is one of my favorites. If I were in a group that started at a decently high level so I would have more then a tiny number of mysteries per day, I think I'd like to play one. But I think that all of the mysteries should be on the level of Dancing Shadows, to balance out the shadowcaster's downsides. As I said, Dancing Shadows is the exception that proves the rule. I believe it's what they were going for, but simply miscalibrated.

monty
2009-02-25, 04:31 PM
Adept is an NPC class, specifically written to be weaker then other classes. So I don't consider it in the same category. Even then, Polymorph can fix anything.

Which just makes the fact that it's still better than a Truenamer even more sad.

Irreverent Fool
2009-02-25, 04:34 PM
The Healer actually has the fastest spell progression in the game. You can improve their cruddy spell list with feats and domains, making them playable. The can also Share Spells with their Companion, which means that they can just heal every round while the Companion fights for them.

That is, they have the fastest spell progression in spells per day. Their level progression is the same as any full caster.

Thought I'd point that out before everyone runs out and starts trying to play healers. It's pretty dull... unless you really want to be a unicorn at level 8 with a companion with a lot of healing spells.

As for the Truenamer, I'm not sure if anyone said it because there was at least one block of text up there I didn't pick through: The basic problem with truenaming is that the DCs for their checks rises faster than their ability to make those checks. It has been said that it is the only class for whom (level-appropriate) things get harder to do as they increase in level.

obnoxious
sig

Starbuck_II
2009-02-25, 05:25 PM
You know if Truenamer got a faster progression (make 9th level instead of 6th) and better Truenaming mechanics (as mention 15 X2 CR/HD, sucks) I'd say it would be equal to or greater than the Sorceror.

Zaq:
The only Mysteries that you get decent usage a day are the 1-3rd. And I think only 7 are worth it (2 are Fundamentals).
Caul of Shadows: Deflection is pretty good for 3/day ability.
Umbral Hand is okay for utility.
Dancing Shadows: On 1 person if a G. Invis technically but better.
Black Fire: Decent battlefield control
Flicker: Very useful.
Flesh Fails is good, but touch attack. But damage + no save (but SR). Ability Damage will stack.
Voice of Shadows: Daze undead/Constructs. Wizards can't even do this.

Arrow of Dusk gets an honorable mention, but then again: it is only due to the low amount of useful stuff to attack enemies.

They get higher level good stuff, but limited in usage. So while good stuff exists: why not be a Wizard andf use good stuff equal in power more often.

Zaq
2009-02-25, 07:32 PM
They get higher level good stuff, but limited in usage. So while good stuff exists: why not be a Wizard andf use good stuff equal in power more often.

Which is exactly the problem. There's not a whole lot a Shadowcaster can do that a Wizard can't do better (or, if not better, equally well and more often). I believe that they are INTENDED to have more raw power than the wizard (as in, one mystery would be better than one spell of the same level), but the wizard pulls ahead in flexibility and in sustainability. That would be interesting in theory (if you're willing to really pace yourself and are adept at choosing exactly the right time to use the right mystery, you bring forth shining bursts of power when it's really needed, and take a more reserved role the rest of the time... that's a reasonable caster archetype.), but because there are so many really great wizard spells out there, very few mysteries can sufficiently outperform spells of the same level. Thus, you have a roughly equal power start on a one-for-one basis (mysteries don't suck, after all), but you have way fewer known and way fewer per day, so the wizard is empirically better and people ignore the poor shadowcaster.

One fix I've pondered would be to shift all the mystery levels down one. You don't get bonus fundamentals, but the ones you choose you get at will without waiting for 14 levels. 1st level mysteries are treated like fundamentals. Everything else is one level lower... so you can take your 2nd level mysteries immediately, take your 3rd levels when you would get 2nd, and so on. However, keep the limited number known and number per day. Now your power level is much higher, but you still have the careful juggling act of making sure you don't blow your big guns too soon. However, your big guns are actually big, and you're more than just another wizard. I think that would fit (how I view) the Shadowcaster archetype better, what with the whole "limited amounts of enormous power" deal. WotC tried; now we just nudge it a little farther in the right direction. What do you think of that?

Hey, weren't we talking about Truenamers? Um, Truenamers suck. There, still on topic.

Starbuck_II
2009-02-25, 08:23 PM
Which is exactly the problem. There's not a whole lot a Shadowcaster can do that a Wizard can't do better (or, if not better, equally well and more often). I believe that they are INTENDED to have more raw power than the wizard (as in, one mystery would be better than one spell of the same level), but the wizard pulls ahead in flexibility and in sustainability. That would be interesting in theory (if you're willing to really pace yourself and are adept at choosing exactly the right time to use the right mystery, you bring forth shining bursts of power when it's really needed, and take a more reserved role the rest of the time... that's a reasonable caster archetype.), but because there are so many really great wizard spells out there, very few mysteries can sufficiently outperform spells of the same level. Thus, you have a roughly equal power start on a one-for-one basis (mysteries don't suck, after all), but you have way fewer known and way fewer per day, so the wizard is empirically better and people ignore the poor shadowcaster.

One fix I've pondered would be to shift all the mystery levels down one. You don't get bonus fundamentals, but the ones you choose you get at will without waiting for 14 levels. 1st level mysteries are treated like fundamentals. Everything else is one level lower... so you can take your 2nd level mysteries immediately, take your 3rd levels when you would get 2nd, and so on. However, keep the limited number known and number per day. Now your power level is much higher, but you still have the careful juggling act of making sure you don't blow your big guns too soon. However, your big guns are actually big, and you're more than just another wizard. I think that would fit (how I view) the Shadowcaster archetype better, what with the whole "limited amounts of enormous power" deal. WotC tried; now we just nudge it a little farther in the right direction. What do you think of that?

Hey, weren't we talking about Truenamers? Um, Truenamers suck. There, still on topic.

Truenamers are supposed to be the opposite of the Shadowcaster, no?

In theory:
As Shadowcasters get few but powerful mysteries; Truenamers get low-meduim power that they can use more often than a spellcaster could generally?

Truenamers:
But in practice except at around 7-10th level: you can't use the same Utterance very often unless extremely optimized.

Back to Shadowcasters:
I rather like your idea...it is unique. So do 1st level myteries still count for paths? (do we need to choose the fundamental for the path first?)
Or Do 2nd levels count as 1st in each path?

Hmm, I'm not sure if one can find any balance issues in that idea. Would need to playtest it to be sure.