PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]Vestigial Twin vs. Dvati



Thurbane
2009-11-23, 09:41 PM
So, in general, which would be better for an NPC villain - Dvarti (DMC p.14) or Vestigial Twin (DMG II p.160)? Does it depend on the class? What other factors come into it? General thoughts/suggestions welcomed...

Darrin
2009-11-24, 12:06 AM
So, in general, which would be better for an NPC villain - Dvarti (DMC p.14) or Vestigial Twin (DMG II p.160)? Does it depend on the class? What other factors come into it? General thoughts/suggestions welcomed...

Vestigal Twin is (two?) heads above better than Dvati. Two standard actions a round to cast spells is a big jump up in the action economy. Dvati casting spells mean they both have to cast or the other one can't act at all, not even free actions, so they take a big step down in the action economy. As far as melee... I can't tell if Dvati get to move and attack independently of each other.

Emy
2009-11-24, 02:05 AM
Vestigal Twin is (two?) heads above better than Dvati. Two standard actions a round to cast spells is a big jump up in the action economy. Dvati casting spells mean they both have to cast or the other one can't act at all, not even free actions, so they take a big step down in the action economy. As far as melee... I can't tell if Dvati get to move and attack independently of each other.

They do get to move and attack independently. They're just not good casters.

Grumman
2009-11-24, 02:42 AM
As far as melee... I can't tell if Dvati get to move and attack independently of each other.
They do. Although some people think they shouldn't, they ignore the fact that it's the only thing they've got going for them, paid for with a +1 LA and a crippling weakness to damage.

Thurbane
2009-11-24, 03:33 AM
So basically - Vestigial Twin is better for casters, Dvati is better for melee?

Grumman
2009-11-24, 03:48 AM
So basically - Vestigial Twin is better for casters, Dvati is better for melee?
More or less. A full caster would be better off with a Vestigal Twin (apart from the LA), a melee or archer character would be better off as a Dvati, while a Gish could work for either (the Vestigal Twin grants extra actions for buffing or mobility, the Dvati gets twice as many attacks).

Prime32
2009-11-24, 10:27 AM
A dragonfire adept dvati with vestigial twin would be just ridiculous - they get four heads, so their breath weapons are quadrupled.

Thurbane
2009-11-24, 06:59 PM
That's a scary thought!

I've been looking at trying to get the Dvati to qualify for the Multivoice feat (Savage Species), but it's ridiculously feat intensive...

arguskos
2009-11-25, 12:04 AM
They do. Although some people think they shouldn't, they ignore the fact that it's the only thing they've got going for them, paid for with a +1 LA and a crippling weakness to damage.
No, they don't, actually. This was clarified over on the Paizo boards by the writer of the Dvati 3.5 update. Sadly, they are meant to only get 1 full round action between them: Proof. (http://paizo.com/dragon/messageboards/compendium/twoCharactersForOnePlayerIsItBalancedTheDvati&page=1#31) This makes me REALLY SAD, cause the Dvati are pretty fun and my favorite race. It's my opinion that you should be right, and I houserule to that effect, but that IS a houserule. :frown:

Darrin
2009-11-25, 12:21 AM
No, they don't, actually. This was clarified over on the Paizo boards by the writer of the Dvati 3.5 update. Sadly, they are meant to only get 1 full round action between them: Proof. (http://paizo.com/dragon/messageboards/compendium/twoCharactersForOnePlayerIsItBalancedTheDvati&page=1#31) This makes me REALLY SAD, cause the Dvati are pretty fun and my favorite race. It's my opinion that you should be right, and I houserule to that effect, but that IS a houserule. :frown:

In this case, I think it's best to assume the designer is wrong, didn't playtest the mechanics enough, and should be ignored. Forcing a dvati to split its move/standard/full-round actions between two characters with only 1/2 HP for +1 LA means its life expectancy is about half as long as the proverbial 1st level wizard going up against a housecat. There's just simply no advantage to playing such a character for +1 LA (or even +0 LA).

I can understand limiting spellcasting and SLAs to once per round, that's a valid balance issue, but melee-wise I just don't see why you'd pay so much for no upside.

Myrmex
2009-11-25, 12:27 AM
Vestigial Twin makes me think of Total Recall. Open your mind to Quato.


I can understand limiting spellcasting and SLAs to once per round, that's a valid balance issue, but melee-wise I just don't see why you'd pay so much for no upside.

You are truly sacrificing power for flavor.

Grumman
2009-11-25, 12:51 AM
It's my opinion that you should be right, and I houserule to that effect, but that IS a houserule. :frown:
No, it's not, it's just ignoring the creator's later insanity-induced attempts at retconning. Because it is stupid.

tyckspoon
2009-11-25, 12:59 AM
This makes me REALLY SAD, cause the Dvati are pretty fun and my favorite race. It's my opinion that you should be right, and I houserule to that effect, but that IS a houserule. :frown:

Unless he wants to get an official errata published, it's no more a houserule than the designer's claim that he meant the Dvati to be almost completely useless (less, because the actual book doesn't have that ruling.) Same thing applies with things that have suggested improvements from the original designer instead of suggested nerfs- just because the dude wrote some suggestions for the Shadowcaster, for example, doesn't mean the actual rules were changed.

arguskos
2009-11-25, 02:33 AM
Unless he wants to get an official errata published, it's no more a houserule than the designer's claim that he meant the Dvati to be almost completely useless (less, because the actual book doesn't have that ruling.) Same thing applies with things that have suggested improvements from the original designer instead of suggested nerfs- just because the dude wrote some suggestions for the Shadowcaster, for example, doesn't mean the actual rules were changed.
Since the rules don't say either way, the designer's word is the best authority. Note: I'm not saying I actually think the dude is right, since it's inane. However, in the absence of ALL indications about the state of such things in any way, I'm inclined to accept the designers word.

Anyways! Yes! Dvati! They should be awesome. Sadly, they usually aren't. Vestigal Twin, sadly, is probably better for nearly anything. :smallsigh:

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-25, 02:36 AM
No, it's not, it's just ignoring the creator's later insanity-induced attempts at retconning. Because it is stupid.

I find people like to claim that "RAI" is something that should be considered. The intent of the designer when the mechanic in question was made.

Then, when a designer comes out and states something they disagree with, they claim that the designer's clarification is wrongbad or badwrong, because...

It's like trying to correct Stephen King on the motives of a character in The Stand.

arguskos
2009-11-25, 02:44 AM
You've got to admit though, there really isn't any reason to play a dvati as intended. It is a stupid stupid decision, even if it's what the designer wanted.

I've actually considered contacting the original inventor of the race, who is not the 3.5 converter, interestingly. It's some guy who sent in the dvati to Dragon during second edition. I wonder what his take on this might be.

Grumman
2009-11-25, 02:50 AM
I find people like to claim that "RAI" is something that should be considered. The intent of the designer when the mechanic in question was made.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that you should believe them when they try to pass off a nerf as an errata.

As Arguskos says, if that was the designer's intent, his intent was to make the Dvati the most useless race in the history of useless races, possessing nothing but disadvantages, and expecting people to pay a level for it.

arguskos
2009-11-25, 02:52 AM
Okay, but that doesn't mean that you should believe them when they try to pass off a nerf as an errata.

As Arguskos says, if that was the designer's intent, his intent was to make the Dvati the most useless race in the history of useless races, possessing nothing but disadvantages, and expecting people to pay a level for it.
Hey now, they're not without advantages. For example, if you could somehow construct a build that did everything as a free action, they'd be twice as effective! :smallamused:

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-25, 03:08 AM
You've got to admit though, there really isn't any reason to play a dvati as intended. It is a stupid stupid decision, even if it's what the designer wanted.

I've actually considered contacting the original inventor of the race, who is not the 3.5 converter, interestingly. It's some guy who sent in the dvati to Dragon during second edition. I wonder what his take on this might be.

There's little reason to play most races with Racial HD and LA. It almost never matches close to what you can do with class levels. That doesn't mean it's not what it is.

Darrin
2009-11-25, 10:52 AM
I find people like to claim that "RAI" is something that should be considered. The intent of the designer when the mechanic in question was made.

Then, when a designer comes out and states something they disagree with, they claim that the designer's clarification is wrongbad or badwrong, because...


I do like to consider RAI, but in this case Mike McArtor is not the original designer, he's an associate editor, and I can't tell from the context of his responses if he's taking the original designer's intent into consideration or has actually playtested the Dvati. From what I can see, he's making an "armchair quarterback" call and from my armchair, he's throwing into triple-coverage.

In the case of the Hexblade and Shadowcaster, the designers came out and publicly stated "Hey, we goofed, after seeing this in play and getting a lot of feedback, these two classes wound up a lot weaker than we thought, and the mechanics probably need to be tweaked." They did not issue errata, either, but I'm more inclined to trust their RAI because it was backed up with playtesting and feedback.