Tomes Campaign: What are the ramifications?

[Andorax]

I've seen each talked about a lot, but never the two in combination.

What would happen if you ran a campaign where the PC were only allowed to create Tomes characters (Book of 9 Swords or Tome of Magic)? As in...the class list and PRC list was restricted to just what's in those two books...nobody may take a level of any class outside it.


What would be the consequences for balance?

What changes would have to be made to preserve balance?

How would it play out?

Would anyone, even then, play a Truenamer?



One of my first thoughts is that it would dramatically shift the balance of power between caster and melee, such that the binders and shadowcasters would be the rarity and most players would want to do an initiator.

The first 'required role coverage' change that came to my mind is giving Swordsages and Shadowcasters access to disable device, open locks, and slight of hand....and making Trapfinding a feat with a 4 ranks search preq.

I'm also thinking that core-only, or similar, restrictions on races to avoid the "well, I just go around the requirement by playing a race that gives me everything" approach.

Your thoughts?

[Novawurmson]

You'd have some bored PCs after the first game, especially if they've already played Bo9S before. I think "everything but core" is an intriguing concept, but limiting it to just those two books cuts out the variety of character concepts that can be played.

On the other hand, for a single campaign, it could lead to some fun fluff. What if, in the void left by Clerics, everyone turned to worshiping vestiges?

[Psyren]

Actually, I think it could be fun. Grabbing the fixes for Shadowcaster and Truenamer (mouseferatu's and Kyeudo's respectively) would result in T3s across the board. Just watch the Binder, as Zceryll will put him head and shoulders above everyone else in seconds.

[Andorax]

Some further thoughts, after I've done some research.

1) Casting the shadowcaster in the "rogue" role was a mistake. I think that would be a nitche that the Truenamer (with Medium BAB, D6 HD, and synergistic abilities such as Universal Aptitude and the Recitation of Mindful State) actually belongs in more readily, and as such, I'd recommend giving the Swordsage and the Truenamer access to disable device, forgery, open locks, slight of hand and search on their skill lists, and make Trapfinding a general feat (requiring 4 ranks in Search). What else would be necessary? I'm thinking 4+I on the skills for Truenamer should prove sufficient, given that they'll be boosting Int anyways.

2) I'm thinking we ought to add Incarnum to the mix to complete the triumverate of alternate systems...and I'd welcome opinions for how they would fit into (and alter) the mix.

3) I'm thinking of prestige classes with dual progression, and it's bugging me. So here's what I've cooked up...let me know where the hole is.
Cast the Tome of Magic classes in the role of "arcane casting class" for the purpose of dual progression. That means that Soulcasters can progress their shadowcasting, and Jade Phoenix Mages can become better binders.
Cast the Magic of Incarnum classes in the role of "divine casting class" for the purpose of dual progression, similarly. Ruby Knight Vindicators can progress their Soulborn abilities, and the disturbing prospect of a Tenebrous Apostate (obviously after dropping the rebuke undead requirement) becomming a better Evil Incarnate comes to mind as well.

This does, however, create a couple of odd corner-cases, and your take on it would be appreciated. The simple solution, to my mind, is to bar dual-progressing the same class, but pre-requisites would have to be reworked accordingly.

Anima Mages, for example, would require access to 2nd level Mysteries or 2nd level Utterances, and "existing arcane class" could only be applied to Shadowcaster or Truenamer.
Sapphire Hierarchs would be trickier...the "Law domain" requirement is impossible, but requiring, say, the ability to "shape 2 soulmelds exclusive to each of two different meldshaper class" and "Incarnate or Soulborn with a Lawful component to their alignment" could work...which would then create a dual meldshaping progression in two different meldshaping classes.

4) Item identification is bugging me as well. Does the party have to suck it up and have a 7th level Truenamer to do Analyze Item, or would it not be too far fetched to drop it to a L1 Utterance and put it within reach of the Utterance of the Crafted Tool feat, for a sufficiently determined individual...or at least accessable sooner and with less Truenamer levels (drop it to only a 4th level Truenamer being required)?

5) Are there other critical "roles" or "party supporting abilities" that these three books can't provide? I don't consider "ability to hide in a rope trick" a critical role, but I do think "being able to find and remove traps" and "being able to identify items" as fairly important roles. Don't think in terms of one-man shows here...think of the typical "4 players, everyone works to be good at a different role" environent. I'm still ok with the PCs having to go to NPCs for some support functions (identify for a few levels, raise dead, etc.).

6) If you were playing in a Tomes campaign, what would you like to play? If you could pick your three companions, who would you want to be adventuring alongside?

[Psyren]

1) Just add Dungeonscape's Factotum for the rogue role imo. He's off by himself anyway, so let him play with the others. If you decide to add Incarnum though, Incarnate can fill this role too (just not as well.)

2) You'd get a lot more melee options but little else; Incarnum isn't very good at "casting" or ranged without a theurge of some kind. (Though Necrocarnate can at least get some semi-decent necromancy going.)

3) I like the idea of relaxing theurge prereqs, though I think Binder should be considered divine rather than arcane due to fluff and role. A Binder/Incarnate/Sapphire Hierarch would be a lot of fun to play, or you can use that really nice homebrew PrC someone made on these boards. And yes, you should bar dual-progressing the same class. Also, make sure that PrCs that progress Incarnum also grant access to new tiers of chakra binds (at the same levels the base class would have.)

4) As I suggested earlier, you should definitely use Kyeudo's Truenamer fix, as he addressed this problem.

5) See #1, a Factotum can easily fill any gaps that the other classes miss.

6) If you allow Factotum and Incarnum almost any combination can work well. Personally, I'd be melee (either a Binder or Totemist, if they're allowed) or maybe a casty binder with Focalor+Balam+Geryon for 10d6 per round at-will with other abilities.

[Urpriest]

For a moment I thought you were proposing a campaign using Frank&K's Tomes. Shudder.

This seems more feasible, though I agree with others that adding Factotum/Incarnum would make things more fun.

[GenghisDon]

I think it would be fun. I'd use truenamer fixes/re-writes, of course, and the suggested shadow caster boosts.

It's probably the only way I'd use TOB classes at all.

Adding Factotum makes sense, but I'm not certain it's needed, if one makes up a "trapfinding" feat (or if one exists) or even without.

It would be very unique:smallbiggrin: (well, maybe not to those that use TOB constantly now)

slate of identification: command word activated, identify 3/day 9,600 gp, slotless.

[Andorax]

My concern about factotem is that I've heard, repeatedly, that it's T1...and the rest of the proposed classes are T3 (or lower).

If Factotem is allowed, who would play anything else?

[Novawurmson]

What...? Factotum is one of those "definition of tier 3" classes: Useful in any situation, though usually not game-breakingly so.

[Wyntonian]

My concern about factotem is that I've heard, repeatedly, that it's T1...and the rest of the proposed classes are T3 (or lower).

Um.


No.


It's versatile enough that if you're really lacking someone to fill a role, it can fake it. It'll never out-tank a crusader, or out-damage a warblade, or out-suck a truenamer, our out-cast a wizard (you don't have those, but w/e). They'll be fine, in all likelyhood.

[Psyren]

Factotum is not T1, it's T3.

They're good at being skillmonkeys but they definitely need the rest of the party; they're weak in a fight (though less so than rogues.) They have one very specific melee build (which is itself easy to counter) and very minor "casting."

[Randomguy]

My concern about factotem is that I've heard, repeatedly, that it's T1...and the rest of the proposed classes are T3 (or lower).

If Factotem is allowed, who would play anything else?

Where on earth did you hear that factotum is T1? It's a solid T3.

[Andorax]

I stand thoroughly corrected...and need to read up on it some more.

Guess I've just seen it mentioned a time or two too many in some of the "out there" TO threads.

So, Tomes and Factotum has sufficient coverage of roles, then?

[ThiagoMartell]

For a moment I thought you were proposing a campaign using Frank&K's Tomes.
So did I. I even had pop corn ready. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

So, Tomes and Factotum has sufficient coverage of roles, then?

Yes, even without Incarnum. Incarnum adds fun options though so I would consider including it as well. (But definitely look on these boards for a Soulborn fix; Person_Man had a good one.)

[Wyntonian]

Yes, even without Incarnum. Incarnum adds fun options though so I would consider including it as well. (But definitely look on these boards for a Soulborn fix; Person_Man had a good one.)

I'd agree with this. Incarnum is pretty neat, and not as hard as people say.


Although, the Blueness and Blueosity and Bluetrifaction that The Big Blue Book of Blue Stuff inflicts on the mind of the reader is slightly painful to read. Ah well. It's a sacrifice for neat mechanics.

[Eldariel]

Well, that'd be a lot of fun. Though I'd prefer Psionics + ToB (well, that's by extension what I'm already running though with hefty use of homebrew on the ToB-side of the spectrum to expand upon things like archery, assassination & shielded fighting). Yeah, ToM (with fixes) + ToB + Factotum covers basically everything. Though default ToB does leave some gaping holes.

[Loki_42]

I've actually been considering something similar, but an all subsystems campaign. You'd only be allowed tomes classes, incarnum, and psionics. I think it would be fun, and encourage use of things my group doesn't use all that much(Okay, we all love Tome of Battle, but I don't even think I've had a psion, let alone an incarnate or a binder)

[Kazyan]

I'd agree with this. Incarnum is pretty neat, and not as hard as people say.


Although, the Blueness and Blueosity and Bluetrifaction that The Big Blue Book of Blue Stuff inflicts on the mind of the reader is slightly painful to read. Ah well. It's a sacrifice for neat mechanics.

Magic of Incarnum is like the Tome of Battle guys scribbled all of the mechanics down, then got the Truenamer editing squad to write the book.

[Darth Stabber]

I think "everything but core" is an intriguing concept, but limiting it to just those two books cuts out the variety of character concepts that can be played.

I agree with this entirely. There was a thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=190380) a while back that covers the "no core" idea. But just the ToM and ToB would be a touch too restrictive.

As a note, that thread is well into the realm of Thread Necromancy, so read but don't reply.

[Andorax]

And to those mentioning Psionics...I didn't mention it because it covers high-powered options (Psion/Erudite tier) and is well-enough supported that it would overshadow the other systems.

Done with a little care, a Psionics-only campaign is viable...and another topic entirely.



In a Tomes, Incarnum and Factotum campaign, what would you envision your four-man party being? What rule changes would you need to make (beyond the proposed class 'fixes' that have bene suggested) to make it work?

[Glimbur]

Skill monkey is easy: Factotum can do it, Incarnate can do it, swordsage can sort of do it. Melee is trivial. The difficult thing will be support/misc magic. Binder gets some things, Incarnate gets some things, but for problems like 'the party has an invisible opponent', 'the party needs to fly', 'a party member is dead', and so on, it is less easy. Possibly shadowcaster and/or truenamer (possibly with fixes applied) can step up here.

I'm thinking Factotum, Warblade, Totemist, Shadowcaster (with a fix for more mysteries/day and possibly a wider mystery selection via homebrew). Possibly swap Totemist for Incarnate.

[AmberVael]

In a Tomes, Incarnum and Factotum campaign, what would you envision your four-man party being? What rule changes would you need to make (beyond the proposed class 'fixes' that have bene suggested) to make it work?

Hmmmm...

Crusader, Factotum, Binder, Shadowcaster


I'm mainly thinking there are four real roles to fill:
1) Tank/Melee Combatant: It's good to have someone who can help soak up hits or deal a ton of damage- either is a viable strategy so long as they can do it well enough. In this slot I think Crusader is a bit more classic, and the healing really helps, but you could also go with the more fighter style Warblade, or barbarian-ish Totemist. Some Incarnate and Swordsage builds could fit here too (Incarnate might be lower power though, and Swordsage would be far less tanky and more dps).

2) Rogue/skilled type: Having someone around with a lot of skills and some dabblings of other powers is just a good idea. That's basically the definition of Factotum, too. The factotum further adds a source of healing, turn undead, and spells. This slot could probably also be filled by Incarnate or in some circumstances, perhaps a Swordsage. Using a Swordsage will give more of an assassin/sneak attack rogue feel to the role, which some may prefer. Swordsages should try and pick up trapfinding somehow if they want to do this though (you can get it through Incarnum if you'd like).

3) Back Up Powers: Someone with the ability to be a secondary combatant, pull out some magic, or even skills- basically, the back up and support guy with options. Generally what I'd think of as the 'divine' slot, because this is the kind of role a cleric would fill. I put Binder there because I think they fit pretty well- they have a lot of passive powers that can be switched up as needed. An Incarnate or perhaps even a Totemist, properly built, could also fill this role, or maybe even a factotum in a pinch (though I think they're a bit different, but no one will complain about having another factotum and they are just that versatile).

4) Ye Olde Caster: Someone to put down the hurt without weapons, to mess with the enemies in new ways and do things that give the whole party more options. Generally, the arcane caster. Shadowcaster and a fixed Truenamer go here- but I tend to like Shadowcaster better as there is less than needs fixing about them.

Now, all this assumes you want a more typical four man party. There are plenty of combinations that can work that don't follow this theme, but I think most of them will have a much more heavy combat bent.