Truenamer for Pathfinder

[ThiagoMartell]

Does anyone know of any PF conversion for the Truenamer, homebrew or 3rd party? (since I know there is no official conversion)
Spare me the truenamer hate, please.

[grarrrg]

Does anyone know of any PF conversion for the Truenamer, homebrew or 3rd party? (since I know there is no official conversion)
Spare me the truenamer hate, please.

Well, the quick and dirty method is:
If HD are d6 or less, bump up a notch.
Condense the Class Skill list (Spot&Listen merge into Perception, etc...), in this case you will have to add Truespeak as a Skill (duh).

Done!


Although, you should probably go through and "touch up" the wording on some of the abilities...and fix the Scaling...and......

[Qwertystop]

Isn't there a class in Pathfinder that basically creates their own spells by mixing together short words that are spell-fragments or something? Very similar fluff to Truenamers, the tiny bit of difference can be refluffed easily, and it actually works.

Note, this is based on very vague memory, so I could be wrong about any or all of that. However, if I remember correctly, it could work fairly well.

[radionausea]

Words of Power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power) variant and using true names of outsiders to bind them (Binding Outsiders (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/outsider-categories))

Mechanically different but the theme is the same

[Rentaromon]

saddly words of power are terrible, its just regular casting with a bit more flexibility in how to target things but the number of effects and power diminishes greatly.

[radionausea]

Oh, agreed, but its still better than Truenaming in its original form and it does fit the feel. Then again, so do normal spells with verbal components...

[Qwertystop]

Oh, agreed, but its still better than Truenaming in its original form and it does fit the feel. Then again, so do normal spells with verbal components...

Yeah, good point.

See if the DM will let you be a spontaneous caster, with all spells being Stilled but all spells having Verbal components, at no cost. Or be a Bard with Perform Oratory as the Perform skill.

Alternately, go Psion, and replace the Displays with Truespeech. The powers that have especially visible displays, just say that the Speech is complex enough to need to be uttered loudly and clearly.

[Starbuck_II]

saddly words of power are terrible, its just regular casting with a bit more flexibility in how to target things but the number of effects and power diminishes greatly.

The beta isa better than final version.

[ThiagoMartell]

You guys are not really familiar with truenaming, right?

Truenaming is not just "spellcasting, but skill-based!". There are plenty of unique effects in truenaming, and that's the good thing about it. Most of these uniques effects are unique in that there is no defense against it (like Words of Nurturing).
It seems there is no conversion, though, I might have to cook one myself.

[Boci]

You guys are not really familiar with truenaming, right?

Truenaming is not just "spellcasting, but skill-based!". There are plenty of unique effects in truenaming, and that's the good thing about it. Most of these uniques effects are unique in that there is no defense against it (like Words of Nurturing).
It seems there is no conversion, though, I might have to cook one myself.

What exactly do you want this conversion to accomplish? Take the truenamer, and apply the pathfinder skill merging to its list. Optionally think up some favoured class bonuses. That's it. You can make more changes, but that is the bare minimum. Basically, how much further than the minimum do you want this conversion to go?

[ThiagoMartell]

What exactly do you want this conversion to accomplish? Take the truenamer, and apply the pathfinder skill merging to its list. Optionally think up some favoured class bonuses. That's it. You can make more changes, but that is the bare minimum. Basically, how much further than the minimum do you want this conversion to go?

That would be a rather imperfect conversion. First it would be necessary to go through each utterance and check which of the rules changed in Pathfinder and say how it fits (there is a low level utterance to bull rush, for example, it would now need an assigned CMB). Second, it is necessary to see which ways to increase skill checks in Pathfinder might apply to a Truenamer and see if it changes the class dynamic.
If there was already an imperfect conversion around I might use it our of laziness, but if I'm making one myself, it better not suck.

[Answerer]

If you're interested in not sucking, I suggest starting with either Kellus's or Kyeudo's homebrew fixes. They're not (to my knowledge) converted to Pathfinder, but they're much better than the Tome of Magic version. I'm told Kyeudo's stays closer to the original system.

[ThiagoMartell]

If you're interested in not sucking, I suggest starting with either Kellus's or Kyeudo's homebrew fixes. They're not (to my knowledge) converted to Pathfinder, but they're much better than the Tome of Magic version. I'm told Kyeudo's stays closer to the original system.

The original system is necessary for my purposes. The only problem is the DCs and I'll have to mess with those during conversion anyway. Thanks for the suggestion though.

[Psyren]

I would start with Kyeudo's Fix* (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11971747), as it now gets something almost every level (bringing its power in line with other PF classes), is no longer MAD, and gets key abilities like Speak Unto the Masses and LCT utterances early enough to be relevant.

From there you only need a few changes. Any maneuver bonuses would simply change to "bonus to CMB checks used to {maneuver}" instead. All the things that need X ranks in Truespeak (e.g. feats) you would need to subtract 3. The actual Truespeak DCs for Utterances etc. would stay unchanged, because you get the +3 untyped bonus for it being a class skill. And... that should really be it.

*That's the newest version. If you'd rather read it without downloading a PDF though - the older version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120488) is in forum post form and it's close enough.

[Answerer]

The original system is necessary for my purposes. The only problem is the DCs and I'll have to mess with those during conversion anyway. Thanks for the suggestion though.
I don't know what your purposes are, but if you think the only thing wrong with the Truenamer is the DCs, well, I suppose this will be a learning experience for you.

[ThiagoMartell]

I don't know what your purposes are, but if you think the only thing wrong with the Truenamer is the DCs, well, I suppose this will be a learning experience for you.

Truenamers are a big part of my setting. One of the main villains in my last campaign was a truenamer. I know what they can do and what they can't. It's pretty much common knowledge for people who know anything about truenamers (it's in Zaq's guide, even) that a truenamer optimized to spam his abilities functions at tier 4, which is my intended balance point anyway.
I advice you actually use a truenamer once. I suppose it will be a learning experience for you.

[Khosan]

Bit of googling brought up this (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/conversions/pathfinderTruenamer&page=1). Having never looked at Truenamers before, I really can't say if that's what you're looking for or not.

[ThiagoMartell]

Bit of googling brought up this (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/conversions/pathfinderTruenamer&page=1). Having never looked at Truenamers before, I really can't say if that's what you're looking for or not.

That is more or less what I was looking for, yeah. Yay! Thanks.

[ThiagoMartell]

Bit of googling brought up this (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/conversions/pathfinderTruenamer&page=1). Having never looked at Truenamers before, I really can't say if that's what you're looking for or not.

That is more or less what I was looking for, yeah. Yay! Thanks.

[deuxhero]

The beta isa better than final version.

Tell me more.

[Answerer]

{{Scrubbed}}

Also, Zaq's guide never once mentions Tiers. Someone else brought up the notion of Tiers, and Zaq had this to say:

As for what tier the Truenamer is . . . I stand by the opinion that they just don't fit into the traditional tier system.

You should not put words in other people's mouths. Particularly when they flat-out contradict the words that person actually said.

Zaq does go on to say that Truenamers who got utterances at-will would be Tier 4-ish for their sweet-spot level range of 6-10. Which is not the same as 1-20. Moreover, he's talking about utterances that come automatically at will, not utterances that you can make effectively at will by having a high enough Truenaming check. He explicitly talks about how the investment required to get to that check is still preventing them from being Tier 4.

Changing the DCs could fix that, but Zaq's statement is not your statement. His is if the DC was always 0 and they could use Utterances at will. Moreover, your statement does not include the (extremely important) caveat that Zaq was talking about only five levels.


So let's analyze this statement. First, we have an assertion of consensus among an ill-defined group; this is a blending of several flavors of logical fallacy. Second, we see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that said group actually claims what is stated. Third, we see a parenthetical statement that directly contradicts reality. Fourth, we find that the reality is that the one person who we can be sure fits in the previously-mentioned ill-defined group (people who know about Truenamers), directly disagrees with the statement in question. (or agrees only with heavy caveats absent from your claim)


Your assertion is, flatly put, wrong. There is no group of people "who know Truenamers" among whom it is "common knowledge" that Truenamers are Tier 4. That's because as far as I can tell, only you think that.


I advice you actually use a truenamer once. I suppose it will be a learning experience for you.
I have, as it turns out. Was playing with a very low-optimization group, so I decided to gimp myself by trying Truenamer. Roleplaying the character was decent, and I could get my Truenaming to +Enough, but it didn't matter. There just wasn't a whole lot I could do. Debuff one guy. Buff one other guy. Etc. The Law of Sequence is much more serious than the Law of Resistance. That, and the lack of higher-level Utterances worth remembering that you have are what I was referring to when I stated there were bigger problems than the DCs.

[Starbuck_II]

I have, as it turns out. Was playing with a very low-optimization group, so I decided to gimp myself by trying Truenamer. Roleplaying the character was decent, and I could get my Truenaming to +Enough, but it didn't matter. There just wasn't a whole lot I could do. Debuff one guy. Buff one other guy. Etc. The Law of Sequence is much more serious than the Law of Resistance. That, and the lack of higher-level Utterances worth remembering that you have are what I was referring to when I stated there were bigger problems than the DCs.

Law of sequence is the law of resistance.
Increasing the level of an utterance is +4 DC and counts as a different utterancre and therefore bypasses Law of sequence.
This is also a neat little fix for the law of resistance.
Lesser Nurturing word use it three times is +6 DC, but then you increase level meaning DC is only +4 (these are seperate words).
You can increase the level twice after both +0 and +1 level are raised to +10 DC from resistance law. This lets you get back to just +8, and so on.

It also lets you bypass globes of invulnerability.

[sreservoir]

Law of sequence is the law of resistance.
Increasing the level of an utterance is +4 DC and counts as a different utterancre and therefore bypasses Law of sequence.
This is also a neat little fix for the law of resistance.
Lesser Nurturing word use it three times is +6 DC, but then you increase level meaning DC is only +4 (these are seperate words).
You can increase the level twice after both +0 and +1 level are raised to +10 DC from resistance law. This lets you get back to just +8, and so on.

It also lets you bypass globes of invulnerability.

based on the utterances at different levels are different utterances line, yeah -- it's a ... contentious reading, though. some might say that it refers more to the lesser/greater things.

anyway, under this reading, instead of +0, +2, +4, ..., from the law of resistance, you can utter at +0, +2, +4, +4, +6, +6, +8, +8, +8, ... -- one at +0 and +2 each, two at +4 and +6 each, three at +8 and +10 each, and so on.

which makes, say, the ten thousandth use only something like a +400 to the dc.

and hey, the 14400th use is around +240, the 7200th use is around +170, the 4800th use around +140, the 3600th use around +120, and the 2880th use around +110. extending reduces the increase necessary by about a factor of sqrt 2.

[ThiagoMartell]

based on the utterances at different levels are different utterances line, yeah -- it's a ... contentious reading, though. some might say that it refers more to the lesser/greater things.

Well, besides Words of Nurturing, are there even any lesser/greater utterances? The only thing that actually alters a utterance's level is Heighten...

[Psyren]

That is more or less what I was looking for, yeah. Yay! Thanks.

Hm. I like his Truespeak DC calculation. But the lack of changes to the Laws, the lack of changes to the Utterances themselves and the wonky abilities (which party will ever have two Truenamers?) seem very odd to me.

imo, the various Speak Unto the Masses come online too early. Changing reality with respect to multiple creatures should be harder than that.

[Answerer]

Yeah, I don't buy the "changing the DC changes the level and therefore doesn't apply the Law of Sequence" thing.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I don't buy the "changing the DC changes the level and therefore doesn't apply the Law of Sequence" thing.

Indeed - you may as well houserule the LoS away entirely as allow that interpretation.

[Answerer]

Exactly why I don't buy it, in fact.

Of course, I'd be houseruling more than that, but whatever. My only experience with the Tome of Magic Truenamer was done because it was an awful class.

[ThiagoMartell]

Indeed - you may as well houserule the LoS away entirely as allow that interpretation.

I didn't buy it when I read it for the first time, but take your time to reread the rules. That's pretty much what RAW is - Heighten is the only way to change an utterance's level (it's not just changing the DC - only Heighten changes level). RAI was probably to have it apply to Lesser/Greater versions, but those are not the same utterance. It's badly written and badly edited like most stuff about the Truenamer, but this is one of the few times where you can get something good out of it.

[Lord_Gareth]

Exactly why I don't buy it, in fact.

Of course, I'd be houseruling more than that, but whatever. My only experience with the Tome of Magic Truenamer was done because it was an awful class.

Next on the list: CWar SamuWHY!

(My advice: get one of the homebrew fixes. I tried Truenamer too. I said, "Man, this can't be as bad as Zaq's guide suggested. No way!" and then I woke up six days later, in another state, surrounded by liquor bottles and with a printout of the FATAL PDF on the table.)

[Psyren]

I didn't buy it when I read it for the first time, but take your time to reread the rules. That's pretty much what RAW is - Heighten is the only way to change an utterance's level (it's not just changing the DC - only Heighten changes level). RAI was probably to have it apply to Lesser/Greater versions, but those are not the same utterance. It's badly written and badly edited like most stuff about the Truenamer, but this is one of the few times where you can get something good out of it.

RAW or not, I don't consider it "good" if it makes the Laws pointless wastes of ink. If an utterance becomes new every time you heighten it a little, there's no limitation to speak of. This is one of the few instances where we can clearly say it goes against RAI.

[ThiagoMartell]

RAW or not, I don't consider it "good" if it makes the Laws pointless wastes of ink. If an utterance becomes new every time you heighten it a little, there's no limitation to speak of. This is one of the few instances where we can clearly say it goes against RAI.

Agreed, but most things against the truenamer are basically against RAI as well, so I don't really mind that.

What really bugs me about the truenamer is how it has no parallels to the truename magic we already had in D&D before, such as planar binding or the Power Word line. When I get to making a pathfinder conversion, I'll probably use SLAs of the Power Word line like their even level power (you know, Rogues get talents, Soulknives get blade skills, Truenamer gets power word).

[Starbuck_II]

What could do is redo the Truenamer for PF.
Make the utterances spell-like abilities that they get (up to 6th). Similar to Alchemist in PF has spell potions "extracts". Or like invocations like Warlock.

Include Power Word spells at certain levels so they do get 9th level spells (power words).

Yes, it would remove the uniqueness of use/day (since it was stopped on by reaching DC and law of resistance but not anymore). But it would make it less complicated for new players and ease of useage by all.

Because some of the utterances themselves are decent. Sadly, they gave a Bard caster not a Wizard caster of Truenames so only up to 6th and slow progression.

[ThiagoMartell]

What could do is redo the Truenamer for PF.
Make the utterances spell-like abilities that they get (up to 6th). Similar to Alchemist in PF has spell potions "extracts". Or like invocations like Warlock.

Include Power Word spells at certain levels so they do get 9th level spells (power words).

Yes, it would remove the uniqueness of use/day (since it was stopped on by reaching DC and law of resistance but not anymore). But it would make it less complicated for new players and ease of useage by all.

Because some of the utterances themselves are decent. Sadly, they gave a Bard caster not a Wizard caster of Truenames so only up to 6th and slow progression.
What's wrong with it being Bard-like? The Alchemist you yourself mentioned are also Bard-like.
I think removing the Laws and the Truespeak skill would make for a very bad replacement. You basically throw anything unique about the truenamer out the window, you might as well call it by any other name at that point.

[sreservoir]

Well, besides Words of Nurturing, are there even any lesser/greater utterances? The only thing that actually alters a utterance's level is Heighten...

uh, seek the sky of the top of my head, but that wasn't the only one, I don't think.


Hm. I like his Truespeak DC calculation. But the lack of changes to the Laws, the lack of changes to the Utterances themselves and the wonky abilities (which party will ever have two Truenamers?) seem very odd to me.

imo, the various Speak Unto the Masses come online too early. Changing reality with respect to multiple creatures should be harder than that.

the law of sequence is slightly changed to allow use of the same utterance against different tagets. the base effects of the utterances themselves, yeah, don't change much, but pretty sure some of them are moved around and a few new ones are introduced? I don't have tom on me, though, so I can't check. the abilities ... eh, I guess wonkiness exists, yeah.

speak unto the masses ... I don't see more than one of them? and it exists only as the truenamer 13 thing. I see no problem with it being that early unless you're fluffing it in certain ways, though.


Indeed - you may as well houserule the LoS away entirely as allow that interpretation.


Exactly why I don't buy it, in fact.

Of course, I'd be houseruling more than that, but whatever. My only experience with the Tome of Magic Truenamer was done because it was an awful class.


RAW or not, I don't consider it "good" if it makes the Laws pointless wastes of ink. If an utterance becomes new every time you heighten it a little, there's no limitation to speak of. This is one of the few instances where we can clearly say it goes against RAI.

well, not quite. the law of sequence, for example, requires you to +4 to the dc under this interpretation for every other instance of that utterance you have up, which is a whole 20% off an imperfect success rate. keep in mind that they can be heightened only in +4-step increments as written. +4 is a pretty large step up.

and the law of resistance, to be sure, has effects at O(sqrt n), which is much smaller for large n than under the other interpretation, but it's still not entirely trivialised -- your truespeak dcs are still increasing without bound, so you can't really, for example, continuously truespeak any particular utterance without +hundreds to the dc -- and longer durations also only decrease by a sqrt factor.

essentially, the law of sequences is a less of a hard limit -- it's a "soft" limit the effect of which can be reduced by a high truespeak bonus. the law of resistance, too, is less limiting as a whole, but it becomes significant more of the time -- instead of being entirely inconsequential until the dc reaches bonus-19; it reduces the number of instances you can both reliably and potentially keep up at any given time (which is ... 5 apart, always) every time you use a single utterance a number of times equal to twice a triangle number or so, which is relevant more of the time -- especially because, in my experience, being able to do something (use an utterance more, use an utterance on multiple creature, in this case; also casting a new level of spell, a new active ability, a new Cool Thing one might discover) encourages all but the most ... logical, I suppose, of players to do things more than they might actually want to otherwise -- unless you actually have one of those truespeak bonuses usually reserved for item familiar users, which ... is more of a problem with that than with truespeak as written.

much of the reduced effect of the law of resistance gets eaten by use utterances on more targets by the reduced effect of the law of sequence.

mind, if you actually can get a +huge truespeak bonus, the laws are wastes of ink. but at that point, the law of resistance was a waste of ink under the other interpretation anyway. the law of sequences ... should die in a fire, but, well.

and as for intentions -- if it weren't for the book being terribly-written in the first place, the only reasonable way to interpret that line is that it applies to heightening. greater/lesser/blah spells, for example, aren't usually referred to as different "levels"; and there is no rule which declares they are considered as such. there is certainly no rule which claims the same for utterances. greater/lesser/whatever utterances are entirely different things which just happen to have similar names and effects, and were presumably written with similar intents in mind. and since the book is sufficiently horribly written, there is not much reason to think that designer intent can be clearly interpreted anyway.

so what we can take from this is that ... well, the truenamer, unlike most of the rest of 3.5e, seems to function more consistently strictly as written than as designed. or something.

[Psyren]

What really bugs me about the truenamer is how it has no parallels to the truename magic we already had in D&D before, such as planar binding or the Power Word line. When I get to making a pathfinder conversion, I'll probably use SLAs of the Power Word line like their even level power (you know, Rogues get talents, Soulknives get blade skills, Truenamer gets power word).

Couple of ways to fix this:

1) Give the Truenamer Planar Binding-style utterances from either LEM or LPM. After all, if it can get Gate, the lesser calling spells should be a cinch. Then, instead of having to draw the circle and all the other jazz, make it a Complex Skill Check for them (i.e. need X successes) otherwise either the utterance fails or the outsider shows up without being bound etc.

2) Add a feat (similar to Incarnum Spellshaping) that makes summoning/calling spells stronger if the spellcaster adds a Truename component. So, knowing an outsider/fey/elemental etc.'s Truename gives you added benefits if you try to Planar Bind them. Maybe the bargain is conducted at a discount, or maybe it's harder for the creature to escape. But if the Truespeak check fails, so does the spell (since you were trying to call a specific individual.)

[ThiagoMartell]

Couple of ways to fix this:

1) Give the Truenamer Planar Binding-style utterances from either LEM or LPM. After all, if it can get Gate, the lesser calling spells should be a cinch. Then, instead of having to draw the circle and all the other jazz, make it a Complex Skill Check for them (i.e. need X successes) otherwise either the utterance fails or the outsider shows up without being bound etc.
That looks good.


2) Add a feat (similar to Incarnum Spellshaping) that makes summoning/calling spells stronger if the spellcaster adds a Truename component. So, knowing an outsider/fey/elemental etc.'s Truename gives you added benefits if you try to Planar Bind them. Maybe the bargain is conducted at a discount, or maybe it's harder for the creature to escape. But if the Truespeak check fails, so does the spell (since you were trying to call a specific individual.)
That's more or less how it works in Pathfinder already.

[Psyren]

That's more or less how it works in Pathfinder already.

Not quite. What I meant was actually replacing Ultimate Magic's "True Names" with actual Truespeak. After all, fluff like this:

"In Hell, these sigils change as the devil changes in stature, and some that may once have held power over certain devils have become outdated."

doesn't actually mesh with Truenaming fluff the way we know it. Under standard Truenaming fluff, your Truename doesn't change (except by ritual) - rather, your name becomes harder to say. The universe more strongly resists any change involving you as your deeds grow in portent.

Furthermore, I don't like the PF fluff - why would beings who are literally made out of Law have constantly-changing True Names? For Demons I could potentially justify it, but Devils?

Furthermore, the PF True Name is in the Outsider's language rather than in the language of the universe, Truespeak.