Truenamer?

[dantiesilva]

So I have been trying to work around a concept for a long time of making an empire of dragon riders like in the book Eragon. However I keep running into the problem of the magic system being so different. Recently I have read over truenamers, and though they are extremely weak it seems I could see them having potential as the opposite side of a gestalt without granting that much of a problem power level wise most gestalt games involve. So for example

Fighter 3/Marhsal 2/Dragon samurai 10//Truenamer 15 would not be much more powerful then the class without truenamer. Is this a valid idea that has potential, or should I just scrap it?

[Jormengand]

You could take the Dragon Rider (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/super-genius-games/dragonrider) and replace the spellcasting with full truenaming?

[Red Fel]

As many have stated, the problem Truenamers face as-written is the degree of skill optimization required to make them effective.

Because DCs increase with your level, meaning that things get harder rather than easier, you have to maximize your Truespeech ranks by any means necessary, including skill ranks, magic items, tools, guild affiliations - anything you can do.

This will likely detract from the other side of your gestalt, as even though you get abilities, spells, and bonuses from both sides, you still only get so many skill points and so much WBL to use.

There are, frankly, better ways to get a feel for the magic aspect of those books, as long as you're willing to give up the speech-oriented component.

[Doug Lampert]

So I have been trying to work around a concept for a long time of making an empire of dragon riders like in the book Eragon. However I keep running into the problem of the magic system being so different. Recently I have read over truenamers, and though they are extremely weak it seems I could see them having potential as the opposite side of a gestalt without granting that much of a problem power level wise most gestalt games involve. So for example

Fighter 3/Marhsal 2/Dragon samurai 10//Truenamer 15 would not be much more powerful then the class without truenamer. Is this a valid idea that has potential, or should I just scrap it?

The problem is that Truenamer isn't all that bad compared to core melee, IF you optimize the crap out of it.

And if you don't optimize it at least to the extent of getting an Amulet of the Silver Tongue and decent Int, then you can't even target yourself by the level of your example. Additionally, truenamer is Int dependent, and the other classes aren't, are you trying to make everyone MAD? (i.e. is this a bug or a feature, certainly in this world any Int based melee prestige classes have a real bonus.)

I'm not that familiar with Eregorn, but consider something like every caster gets slots as a adept of their HD level, spells from the adept list but without any minimum casting wisdom and with no bonus spells for high attributes.

Edited to add: Customize the list as needed, this is homebrew after all, and since you're using actual spells you have THOUSANDS to choose from to get the right abilities available. You can also customize slots available, throw in one bonus spell of every level so those "0" entries on the table have meaning if you like.

Edited again to add: Maybe spellcasting based on an ability of your choice, that minimizes MAD as a character that's dumping ALL mental abilities probably shouldn't be a caster.

Make being a caster a feat in this system (presumably having a familiar would be another feat). Yeah, adept casting is VERY strong for a feat, but it's still a lot weaker than Leadership.

That way you don't wind up with wierd synergies in ability scores, and you're using a magic system that was actually more or less playtested and is far better written.

[Epsilon Rose]

As Red Fell pointed out, a normal truenaming gestalt isn't necessarily a good idea, because it eats a lot of resources that might be better spent on supporting your main class. It can also lead to a bit of MAD if you main class doesn't make use of int(?). I think most characters will just end up ignoring their truenaming half or using it for minor self-buffing and area effects (until they eventually pick up a free gate).

To correct this, please allow me to introduce you to Truenaming That Doesn't Make [Kellus] Cry [Himself] to Sleep (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961). It's a homebrew rework of Truenaming that fixes a lot of it's problems and adds a ton of content, including three base classes with different key stats and very different approaches to truenaming. I'm a big fan of gestalt, so I think you could do pretty well by allowing gestalt and requiring one of the sides to advance a truenaming class from this fix (this also opens it up to some interesting PRCs).

[dantiesilva]

The problem is I do not like anything homebrew, as I already do not understand the class very well. Looked at it maybe twice.

Also this is only an allowed side class for elves, or a human with a really good backstory explaining it well. Dwarves get fighter levels, Humans get ranger levels.

[eggynack]

You should probably check out Zaq's truenamer handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214115). It's probably the best existing work on the topic of truenamers, though it's not really a field that's teeming with folks. It's a handbook that's well worth a read, especially if you're planning on truenaming.

[Flickerdart]

Truenamers are terrible at gestalt.

A good gestalt has two sides: an active side, that uses up all your actions, and a passive side with abilities that don't take combat actions (or that provide more). Truenamers are bad at being the active side because the power level of their abilities is very low, and they learn very few effects. Truenamers are also bad at being the passive side because of how short utterance durations are, meaning that you would need to waste actions mid-combat keeping all your buffs up and not get to do anything. Oh, and using their crap abilities requires a large investment feat and money-wise, which takes away from the usefulness of the primary half rather than add to it.

In many ways, a Truenamer gestalt that actually tries to use his Truenamer abilities might be actually worse than a regular character with whatever the other class it.

[Epsilon Rose]

The problem is I do not like anything homebrew, as I already do not understand the class very well. Looked at it maybe twice.

If you don't actually understand the class well, I'd actually recommend the homebrew more strongly. It's simpler and more balanced and, more importantly, it doesn't require silly skill shenanigans to use. One of the biggest problems with truenaming is that the dc to effect things increases at a rate of hd*2. Conversely, skill ranks (which are what you need to effect things) increase at a rate of hd. There are also a few other factors that make it worse. That means, for vanila truenaming to be relevant it requires cheese.

Rather than simply declaring that you don't like homebrew, try not looking at it as a homebrew, but a web supplement. Forget that it's a fix for Truenamer and analyze it on it's own merits. If it helps you accomplish your goal better and it's more balanced, you shouldn't care about the source.


Also this is only an allowed side class for elves, or a human with a really good backstory explaining it well. Dwarves get fighter levels, Humans get ranger levels.

I'm not sure sure if that's a great idea. Dictating different sorts of gestalts for different races could be really unfair and unbalancing. Personally, I'd hate to be told that I have to burn half my classes on fighter or ranger while someone else got to play something cooler, just because I didn't want to play an elf. It also doesn't change the fact that for the elves, truenamer is inherently broken.

[dantiesilva]

And how is having free fighter levels, or ranger levels bad?
Wizard 5/Abjurant champion 1/Fighter 6

Both make gishing easier for the players, as well as help them specialize in something of their choosing.

[georgie_leech]

Also this is only an allowed side class for elves, or a human with a really good backstory explaining it well. Dwarves get fighter levels, Humans get ranger levels.

If you're trying to restrict magic to only those that understand the language of... it's been a while, I forget the name. Anyway, if you're trying to make magic less prevalent, giving free access to every human level 4 onwards access to spells from the Ranger list seems counter productive.

As for the Truenamer thing, I'd strongly recommend that you at least look into the homebrew fixes. As I recall, the Eragon universe has magic being one of the most powerful, versatile forces available. Military strategy is based almost entirely of "Protect our mages, and try to expose their mages" because they are literally battle-altering forces, able to snuff the life out of huge armies in an instant if they don't have protection. As written, Truenaming... can't do that. At all. Heck, until level 17, they can't even affect more than one target at the same time with the same Utterance, so even if there was a "Kill that thing, no save" Utterance, it wouldn't have anywhere near the same impact.

[Zombulian]

While I always encourage use of Truenamer since they are so cool, I don't think they'd work well in a gestalt, as you'd end up using too many leveling features to make sure your Truenamer side is useful.
I would also like to point out that Truename magic in D&D is almost nothing like the Truenaming in the Eragon series.

[Segev]

Yeah, sadly, Truenamer is...salvageable...at best. It requires that you behave like an optimizer through and through, and as such, it may be the only class that an optimizer can play to the hilt and merely hit Tier 3.

Any class that has so solid a focus on one single skill is going to encourage optimization through maximization of that bonus. Some will say that certain steps are "house rules" (most specifically, the magic item of +x competence bonus to that skill, which would stack with the Silver Tongue amulet's enhancement bonus), though I would disagree. Even so, it's a HEAVY investment, and it merely keeps you up with other casters in terms of numbers of uses per day of your vanishingly limited "spells."

To really make it on par with anything other than a Fighter or a Monk, it needs homebrew beefing-up.

[Jormengand]

it may be the only class that an optimizer can play to the hilt and merely hit Tier 3.

Most classes can't even hit T3 - basically everything without at least six-level spellcasting abilities or equivalent.

[Red Fel]

Ultimately, what you're looking for is the speech-based spellcasting component from Eragon. Sadly, as Zombulian and Georgie have noted, Truenaming simply isn't the same, or remotely as effective. And as basically everyone in this thread has noted, Truenaming is not well-adapted to multiclassing or gestalt.

In short, you either have to use a homebrew fix - and there are some decent ones out there - or find another basis for your magic component.

Even assuming you took another source for your magic, you face a problem with your gestalt - specifically, the "passive versus active" dichotomy. You have a dragon-riding melee-based character... Who also casts spells. The action economy will let you do one or the other in a round. That means you have to decide whether your character is a dragon-riding warrior with spells, or a dragon-riding mage with a weapon. You'd do well to consider making one side more predominantly "passive" in terms of boosts and bonuses.

[Epsilon Rose]

And how is having free fighter levels, or ranger levels bad?
Wizard 5/Abjurant champion 1/Fighter 6

Both make gishing easier for the players, as well as help them specialize in something of their choosing.


On it's own, it would be fine, but you're giving the other players classes with actual class features (even if one of them is broken). All fighters get is a feat track (you can't even say they're getting full bab, because rangers get that to). Conversely, one of the other classes gets feats, an animal companion spells, and actual features, while the other is supposed to be a full on mage (which will matter if you find a way to fix it). There's also the fact that Ranger is a t4 class and fighter is t5: you're giving some of your players a free class that is inherently more versatile then the one you're giving others.



Ultimately, what you're looking for is the speech-based spellcasting component from Eragon. Sadly, as Zombulian and Georgie have noted, Truenaming simply isn't the same, or remotely as effective. And as basically everyone in this thread has noted, Truenaming is not well-adapted to multiclassing or gestalt. In short, you either have to use a homebrew fix - and there are some decent ones out there - or find another basis for your magic component. Even assuming you took another source for your magic, you face a problem with your gestalt - specifically, the "passive versus active" dichotomy. You have a dragon-riding melee-based character... Who also casts spells. The action economy will let you do one or the other in a round. That means you have to decide whether your character is a dragon-riding warrior with spells, or a dragon-riding mage with a weapon. You'd do well to consider making one side more predominantly "passive" in terms of boosts and bonuses.


To be fair, there are some "magic" systems that can work with that. Warlock can give passive boosts and actions while you're at range and incarnum's all about passive boosts. Artificer also probably would work well. Of course, none of those actually touch Eragon 's flavor. On the homebrew side of things, the Truenaming fix I linked has its buffs eat up swift actions to maintain, so that's not too bad for a passive side, and spellshaping can probably support a non-mage side very well.

[Segev]

Thinking about it, you probably want Duskblade or Magus for your primary "side." (Depending on 3.5 or PF, respectively.) These are good to great gish classes that empower you to combine sword and sorcery in one round's worth of actions in an effective fashion.

To back such a thing up, I would go with Warlock or an Incarnate or something; take the passive-boost Invocations or stack your Soulmelds to complement your talents. I wouldn't actually recommend Dragonfire Adept despite it being a bit more flavorfully fitting to being partnered with a dragon; you can justify "warlock" with that as your source of power, too, with a minor refluff.

If you do go Magus, Barbarian or Fighter might be decent, as Magus is only a 3/4 BAB class, and the fighter feats are nothing at which to shake a stick; they'll help the martial side. Barbarian rage, too, is a nice effectively-passive buff (though it might interfere with casting spells for your off-hand "I dual-wield sword and sorcery" schtick; check the rules and with your DM).

Multi-classing Fighter and PsyWarrior on the non-Magus side could be fun, too; four fighter feats (or two fighter and two psionic) in four levels, and two psywarrior powers known (take decent buffs that you can fire-and-forget at the start of combat).

[Mcdt2]

If you are using PF rules, or don't mind backporting them, I'd suggest looking at the Words of Power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/words-of-power) variant. I haven't tried it out myself, as I've yet to figure out a good way to port it into the spell point system I use, but it seems pretty cool.

[dantiesilva]

I am still trying to get a grasp on PF so at this time it is out of the question as I would not ask my players to learn something new that I myself am not even sure on.

As for the Homebrew fix, I did read it over last night, and it is not broken. I may use it in the end.

As for the fighter vs Ranger mix,I could change fighter to Paladin as it is for dwarves. But that just seems odd, does the dwarf even have a racial substitution for Paladin?

[Epsilon Rose]

I am still trying to get a grasp on PF so at this time it is out of the question as I would not ask my players to learn something new that I myself am not even sure on.

As for the Homebrew fix, I did read it over last night, and it is not broken. I may use it in the end.

As for the fighter vs Ranger mix,I could change fighter to Paladin as it is for dwarves. But that just seems odd, does the dwarf even have a racial substitution for Paladin?

Paladin has a number of requirements and caveats (code, multiclassing, alignment) that aren't really fair to force on a player, unless you're willing to waive them. Why not go with a ToB class (or let them pick one) or an incarnum class (which is an excellent half for a gestalt and doesn't really force a build)?

[dantiesilva]

ToB makes it unfair for the Ranger frankly. And Incarnumn I do not own the book for, nor do I understand the system.

Dwarfs already have a strict lifestyle and are lawful, making them good is not so hard when you think of the fact they do what they can to bring honor to their Clan.

Hell I made a level 1 Dwarf crusader and it just about destroyed my entire party one day.

[Red Fel]

ToB makes it unfair for the Ranger frankly. And Incarnumn I do not own the book for, nor do I understand the system.

I don't understand the first part: What does ToB make unfair for the Ranger?

As to the second, the short version: Incarnum lets you shape Soulmelds, which give you passive powers, such as flight, dimension door, damage boosts, extra natural weapons, and so forth. Fantastic for a dip or one side of a gestalt. Doesn't inherently fit the Eragon theme, but fun stuff. Good book to own, also.

[dantiesilva]

A ToB class will outshine a ranger on most cases, especially if neither side is trying. So giving one character the chance to be as powerful as a wizard in melee form vs an animal companion, low level spells and a few favored enemies dose not add up to a stone Dragon 10d6 maneuver.

[Flickerdart]

The problem with Incarnum is that you can't wear a magic item in the same slot you have a meld, so if your primary class depends on specific magic items to work then it could get in the way.

[Epsilon Rose]

A ToB class will outshine a ranger on most cases, especially if neither side is trying. So giving one character the chance to be as powerful as a wizard in melee form vs an animal companion, low level spells and a few favored enemies dose not add up to a stone Dragon 10d6 maneuver. Yes and no. ToB classes do have a higher floor if neither player is trying. That said, do you actually want your players to not try? At more reasonable levels of optimization, and in a gestalt, I think it's less of an issue. The ranger's especially good as a passive side for many classes. For example, if you pair it with a rogue it gives you the twf chain and an animal companion for reliable flanking, and any mundane class can benefit from a few free buffs. Conversely, ToB classes tend to eat your standard actions with most of your features. That means you can use it to complement other classes and open various options, but it doesn't always perfectly reinforce a class.

As for your destroying a party, if they're all low op the melee is low tier, that's not too surprising. However, I don't think it should be two big of an issue in this scenario, since every character will be getting a t3 or t4 class, so the floor for everyone should be higher.


The problem with Incarnum is that you can't wear a magic item in the same slot you have a meld, so if your primary class depends on specific magic items to work then it could get in the way.


I don't think that's too much of an issue, because you get to choose which slots you bind meldshapes to. That means, if you need an actual item, that a meldshape can't replace, you could simply choose not to bind to that slot; you do get more slots than binds by a large margen.

[Red Fel]

I don't think that's too much of an issue, because you get to choose which slots you bind meldshapes to. That means, if you need an actual item, that a meldshape can't replace, you could simply choose not to bind to that slot; you do get more slots than binds by a large margen.

The other point is that you can shape a soulmeld without taking up a slot. You can use a shaped soulmeld and a magic item in the same slot, and many soulmelds have useful abilities even without binding.

And while it's true that you can't bind a soulmeld to an occupied slot by default, there are ways around that. Incarnum Focus equipment, while expensive, allows soulmelds to be bound to a slot, even though the IF item takes up that slot as well. Alternatively, you can take a feat for any slot in which you want both a soulmeld and a magic item. Finally, if you use Totemist, the Totem chakra does not correspond to any body slot, allowing you to bind that chakra freely without interference.