Are truenames worth it, and if so, how would I go about using it?

[RPGaddict28]

The Tome of Magic makes it seem very good, but I wanna ask you guys if its really worth it.

[Lord_Gareth]

The Tome of Magic makes it seem very good, but I wanna ask you guys if its really worth it.

There's going to be a much longer answer to this from someone else.

However: no. There are large numbers of non-obvious hinderances that make it very difficult or, frankly, rather impossible to play.

[Epsilon Rose]

Technically, there's are handbooks that can makes them playable, sorta, if you don't mind cheese. One of them can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214115).

In general, though, it broken in the "Does not actually work" sense. Sort-of like a styrofoam riot shield. You're much better off using a fix, if you like the flavor.

Kelus has a very good one here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961).

[Jeff the Green]

Kelus has a very good one here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90961).

I like Kyeudo's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11971747#post11971747). It was worked on by some of the paragons of the playground, is well playtested, and is quite intelligible.

[Emperor Tippy]

Truename Dispel and Unname are about the only two things in that section of the book that are really worthwhile (and both of those is very good).

Conjunctive Gate would be worthwhile, except that it takes 20 levels of Truenamer to get it.

[Chronos]

Truename Dispel and Unname are about the only two things in that section of the book that are really worthwhile (and both of those is very good).
And they're also both spells, not utterances, and so are not actually available to the truenamer. Well, aside from scrolls, I suppose.

[Flickerdart]

The Tome of Magic makes it seem very good, but I wanna ask you guys if its really worth it.
Long answer: Zaq's Truenamer Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114269)

Short answer: Truenamers were not playtested, they don't work as intended, and you will spend most of your turns doing nothing. The turns you don't spend doing nothing will be used to maintain the short duration mediocre effects your class gives you.

Truenamers have tons of amazing flavour but the mechanics are literally the worst written in the entire game.

[TiaC]

Use the Truename feat from Dragon 317. It's far more useful.

[eggynack]

And they're also both spells, not utterances, and so are not actually available to the truenamer. Well, aside from scrolls, I suppose.
True, but they require a truename to operate, and thus fit in with the parameters of the OP. At least I think that it fits in, because the post didn't really say anything about truenamers.

[Psyren]

I like Kyeudo's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11971747#post11971747). It was worked on by some of the paragons of the playground, is well playtested, and is quite intelligible.

More importantly, it keeps the same skeleton as the ToM Truenaming system, just with much better math.

Kellus' is functional, but I see it as closer to an Epic Spell fix than actual truenaming.

[Pickford]

Here are the eclipse points:

Assuming max ranks, and nothing else, an 8th level Truenamer would be able to affect a CR 8 opponent one time with each utterance before the law of resistance makes future applications that day impossible. (+11 to roll vs DC 31)

With Skill Focus (Truespeak) for +3, the eclipse point is an 11th level Truenamer vs a CR 11 opponent (+17 to roll vs DC 37)

With max starting Int (for a human) and maximum investment of additional ability points (at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th) for another +6, the eclipse point is 17th level (+29 to roll, 49 DC)

Assuming a +2 Int enhancement item, eclipse point is 18th vs CR 18, +4 brings it to 19, +6 to 20th. The Additional +5/+10 Truespeak items bring the eclipse point to a CR 22/25 respectively.

Bear in mind, this is just to affect, once, a thing of this CR.

At 1st level, assuming elite array (+2 int mod, skill focus truespeak (+3), and 4 ranks), the Truenamer would be able to use their utterance 5 times before the law of resistance made it impossible to succeed again. By way of Comparison, a Wizard can only cast 4 spells (total) at 1st level. /shrug.

edit: This doesn't take into account the likelihood (highly likely) that you have Universal Aptitude up for 10 rounds, giving an additional ~2.5 or so castings (pushing the CR eclipse cap up to CR 24/27 at those respective levels)

edit 2: That same 8th level character could have say, +5 int mod, +3 skill focus, 8 ranks, universal aptitude +5, +5 truespeak enhancement, and a further +2 int mod (say, from Fox's Cunning) for a +28 to his truespeak check, making it possible to beat the 31 DC up to 8 times per utterance.

With 10 utterances (excluding universal aptitude, since we're assuming you apply it to yourself) that's up to 80 castings per day vs an opponent you're only likely to meet 4 times per day.

So, as long as your combats last <20 rounds each, you should be fine. Of course...this ignores that some utterances last up to 5 rounds, giving you an effective combat viability of up to 100 rounds. Give or take.

[eggynack]

Your analysis seems to ignore the actual chance of succeeding at one of these rolls. For example, your 8th level truenamer against a CR 8 opponent has such a low chance of success that he'd probably be better off just stabbing the enemy in his mediocre way (though knowledge devotion can help). Is there any utterance (apart from gate) so powerful that it's worth taking a 1 in 20 chance for the privilege? I find it doubtful. The idea that you should be fine based on these numbers seems to be an inaccurate one.

The point at which you're physically incapable of hitting the opponent isn't a very useful calculation. Reasonably, if we're talking about wizards here, we should be talking about the point where your utterances stop working nearly every time. It's a tough number to hit, but a doable one. However, that isn't even touching the real problem with utterances, which is that most utterances suck. You're not doing much better than a warlock, and you're likely doing worse, and that's before considering these skill checks. It's just not worth the effort.

[Pickford]

Your analysis seems to ignore the actual chance of succeeding at one of these rolls. For example, your 8th level truenamer against a CR 8 opponent has such a low chance of success that he'd probably be better off just stabbing the enemy in his mediocre way (though knowledge devotion can help). Is there any utterance (apart from gate) so powerful that it's worth taking a 1 in 20 chance for the privilege? I find it doubtful. The idea that you should be fine based on these numbers seems to be an inaccurate one.

The point at which you're physically incapable of hitting the opponent isn't a very useful calculation. Reasonably, if we're talking about wizards here, we should be talking about the point where your utterances stop working nearly every time. It's a tough number to hit, but a doable one. However, that isn't even touching the real problem with utterances, which is that most utterances suck. You're not doing much better than a warlock, and you're likely doing worse, and that's before considering these skill checks. It's just not worth the effort.

Ok, if you want we can just math it out.

TN check: +28
DC 31
probability of success per utterance
1st: 95%
2nd: 85%
3rd: 75%
4th: 65%
5th: 55%
6th: 45%
7th: 35%
8th: 25%
9th: 15%
10th: 5%
11th: No longer possible

Where would you put the cutoff on 'not really worth it to try'?
Please bear in mind each of these 'castings' represent up to 5 rounds before it need be tried again. (Obviously mileage may vary)

By comparison, the save DC on say, a 4th level spell will be 10+4+intmod, and if sf/gsf another +2. So a comparable mage's DC would be 25. If it's targeting an equal level enemy with a good save that's down to DC 19, minus and wis/dex/con mod bonus (so maybe as low as 15). That's a 75% chance of success, equivalent to the 3rd utterance of a Truespeaker. And that's the Wizard's best DC.

I think the Truenamer is just getting a bad rap because people see the difficulty which appears to scale too much, but if you math it there's a reasonable chance of using the abilities many times per day at CR appropriate encounters.

The thing is, a Truenamer isn't actually a pure caster. They have average BAB and can wear armor, this means a Truenamer is probably best off using their Truespeaking as a supplement to combat. (i.e. Buff themselves and focus on melee), pre-multiple attacks I'd suggest even going as far as using a heavy crossbow with rapid reload. You can truespeak (standard action) while reloading (move action), for example.

[Steward]

The truenamer class can be optimized. Plenty of information has been given on how you can make it playable, although the fact that you have to put this much thought and planning into it should kind of indicate how little effort was put into the actual class's design.

The truename mechanic however, the one where you just flat-out research the true name of a monster and gain some kind of supernatural influence over it, isn't really worth it though. As written, it's more of a plot device than something you could actually use as a player -- the time and resources it takes to learn the personal truename of an entity would be better spent just killing it/capturing it and moving on with your life.

[eggynack]

Ok, if you want we can just math it out.

TN check: +28
DC 31
probability of success per utterance
1st: 95%
2nd: 85%
3rd: 75%
4th: 65%
5th: 55%
6th: 45%
7th: 35%
8th: 25%
9th: 15%
10th: 5%
11th: No longer possible

Where would you put the cutoff on 'not really worth it to try'?
Please bear in mind each of these 'castings' represent up to 5 rounds before it need be tried again. (Obviously mileage may vary)

By comparison, the save DC on say, a 4th level spell will be 10+4+intmod, and if sf/gsf another +2. So a comparable mage's DC would be 25. If it's targeting an equal level enemy with a good save that's down to DC 19, minus and wis/dex/con mod bonus (so maybe as low as 15). That's a 75% chance of success, equivalent to the 3rd utterance of a Truespeaker. And that's the Wizard's best DC.

I think the Truenamer is just getting a bad rap because people see the difficulty which appears to scale too much, but if you math it there's a reasonable chance of using the abilities many times per day at CR appropriate encounters.

The thing is, a Truenamer isn't actually a pure caster. They have average BAB and can wear armor, this means a Truenamer is probably best off using their Truespeaking as a supplement to combat. (i.e. Buff themselves and focus on melee), pre-multiple attacks I'd suggest even going as far as using a heavy crossbow with rapid reload. You can truespeak (standard action) while reloading (move action), for example.
Getting a +28 requires a bigger expenditure than you've indicated. Anyway, consistency is probably around 75-85%. Things get tricky when you use quicken utterance, which is one of the few cool things about truenamers. Additionally, the idea that all utterances are going to be consistently viable, which means that perfect cycling is possible, seems somewhat wrong. As for save DC's, wizards don't need to touch saves, which is one of the reasons for their coolness.

Anyway, while the immediate apparent reason for the truenamer's lousiness is the skill check thing, that is ultimately a surface issue. The reason for their lousiness is that when what they do works, it's not all that great. Let's assume for a moment that you can always make all truenamer checks, except maybe for the quicken checks, because those can be harder to hit. What are you actually doing with your turn? When you do the whole self-buff and stab thing, what self-buff are you using, and how effective is it actually going to be? What utterance is worth the effort?

As Zaq notes in his truenamer handbook, the real problem with truenamers isn't the law of resistance. It's the law of sequence, which hampers their ability to actually do things with their sky high truenaming checks. More accurately, it's their actual utterances, which are horribly under-leveled. Moreover, even if you do find the decent utterances and do make the checks, you only end up looking like every other truenamer, because the effective options are so narrow in scope. Being an effective truenamer requires a decent dosage of optimization, and what you get out of it is a cookie cutter character. That's a bit of a turn off for optimizers, who would usually be the market for a mediocre class like this one.

[Harrow]

Congratulations, you get to be a Bard with worse skill points, a worse skill list, worse spells, a worse spellcasting mechanic, split casting stats, effective Arcane Spell Failure that is practically impossible to get around, no bardic music, and no bardic knowledge. In exchange for all of that, you gain access to a couple rare/unique effects, mostly in mid-late game. Honestly, utterances are generally much better on items than they are from a dedicated Truenamer.

The chance of failure is huge. How many people play characters with so much as 5% spell failure? Generally only happens in low-op groups, the kind where fireball is the Wizard's only saving grace and druid's are completely underpowered.

Generally, the only Wizard spells (that people like) either don't have a save or take out anyone in an entire group if they fail their save. Single target spells, direct damage, spells that allow saves, these are all not good things and 'good' spells generally only have one of the three, with the best not having any. Buffs, touch attacks, battlefield modification spells, that kind of thing. Truenamers still have to make a check for a buff, which uses a standard action and can only be used by one party member at a time. The direct damage they have is near impossible to avoid, but also not impressive even compared to normal direct damage casting and Truespeak checks are significantly harder to make than the touch attacks effective casters use. And they are severely lacking in battlefield modification. They get a couple nice single target save-or-sucks, but those check off two things from the list of things not to do.

I guess the intention was to make some sort half-caster similar to a bard that gave up reliability for more spells per day. But it didn't work ; reliability is just too important and they don't get nearly enough spells per day to make up for it. Combined with everything else they lose compared to a Bard it makes it clear they shouldn't be used unmodified without serious cheese behind them.

[Emperor Tippy]

The truename mechanic however, the one where you just flat-out research the true name of a monster and gain some kind of supernatural influence over it, isn't really worth it though. As written, it's more of a plot device than something you could actually use as a player -- the time and resources it takes to learn the personal truename of an entity would be better spent just killing it/capturing it and moving on with your life.

If you play high op, high level D&D then you quickly grow to love Truename Dispel. It's a no save, no SR, no attack roll, medium range, spell that allows you to remove any and all magical protections on an enemy without any dispel check.

You never go against a BBEG without spending the week or so of down time to learn its Truename so that you can rip off all of those problem defenses that are standard. Learn your parties True Names and get a Greater Rod of Chain and you can also rip off any hostile magic on your entire party with a single standard action without touching any of their buffs.

It's also the only way to rip off Cosmic Descryer applied Epic buffs.

[Pickford]

Getting a +28 requires a bigger expenditure than you've indicated.

What're you talking about?

18 Int + 2 ability points (4th, 8th) = +5 int mod
2,500gp lesser amulet of the silver tongue = +5 truespeak enhancement
Skill Focus (Truespeak) = +3 bonus
8th level max ranks (lvl + 3) = 11
Fox Cunning +4 int enhancement = +2 more int mod
Universal Aptitude = +5 to skill checks

That's actually 31 (5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 11), I for some reason miscounted max ranks at 8th level (oops) and well within the price point (27,000gp) for said character.

Seeing as my numbers were off by 3, that's an extra casting, the first cast will 'always' succeed. Of course, this means you can easily afford to extend/empower/enlarge utterances

edit: My picks for utterances?

I'll go by levels:
1st - Universal Aptitude
2nd - Word of Nurturing, Minor
3rd - Silent Caster
4th - Perceive the Unseen; Keen Weapon
5th - Temporal Twist
6th - Energy Negation
7th - Word of Nurturing, Moderate; Analyze Item
8th - Temporal Spiral; Fog from the Void
9th - Vision Sharpened
10th - Magic Contraction
11th - Word of Nurturing, Potent; Rebuild Item
12th - Spell Rebirth; Energy Vortex
13th - Word of Bolstering
14th - Word of Nurturing, Critical
15th - Preternatural Clarity; Suppress Magic Item
16th - Seek the Sky, Greater; Lore of the World
17th - Essence of the Lifespark
18th - Word of Nurturing, Greater
19th - Breath of Recovery; Metamagic Catalyst
20th - Ether Reforged; Anger the Sleeping Earth


I'd also consider swapping in Deny Passage and Thwart the Traveler, as those have some great synergy potential, perhaps with Seize Item.

[Lans]

Long answer: Zaq's Truenamer Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114269)

Short answer: Truenamers were not playtested, they don't work as intended, and you will spend most of your turns doing nothing. The turns you don't spend doing nothing will be used to maintain the short duration mediocre effects your class gives you.

I'm pretty sure they were just playtested at a low-mid level, where the +10 truespeak item balanced the class out, compared to the warlock.

[eggynack]

What're you talking about?
You were making the assumption of extremely low expenditures in your numbers. You did revise that later though. Missed that bit.


18 Int + 2 ability points (4th, 8th) = +5 int mod
2,500gp lesser amulet of the silver tongue = +5 truespeak enhancement
Skill Focus (Truespeak) = +3 bonus
8th level max ranks (lvl + 3) = 11
Fox Cunning +4 int enhancement = +2 more int mod
Universal Aptitude = +5 to skill checks

That's actually 31 (5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 2 + 11), I for some reason miscounted max ranks at 8th level (oops) and well within the price point (27,000gp) for said character.
Universal aptitude probably shouldn't be counted, given that you're spending an action every encounter to pull that off. It really reduces your effectiveness overall. Anyway, hitting skill checks is absolutely within a truenamer's price range at level 8. It gets a bit tricky later on, because you've already used up the main sources of skill boosts, but that's beside the point.

The point is, you need to invest all of this stuff, which means a feat, a decent chunk of money, and apparently an action every combat, just to hit basic levels of competency. It's a lot of effort, and as I keep telling you, you don't get that much out of it. So, you succeeded on your truenaming check. What did you get out of it? You have access to 3rd level utterances, so that probably means greater speed of the zephyr, seek the sky, and some third thing, I guess. Maybe moderate word of nurturing. So, you're probably using greater speed of the zephyr, which means a single slowed enemy for three rounds, and you can't slow or haste anyone else during that time, so you need to go with something else. Maybe you toss out one of your mighty LCT utterances, like analyze item, I guess. It's just not enough. It's never enough, and there's nothing to justify the effort put in, or having to deal with the horribly constructed rules. We haven't even talked about those yet. It's a tragic thing.

[Pickford]

I prefer Temporal Spiral, with Extend Utterance your target is dazed for 6 rounds. That's 'probably' a game over for it.

edit: And preternatural clarity can give you a +5 insight bonus on truespeak, if you're past your limit on a particular utterance and want it to work again.

[eggynack]

I prefer Temporal Spiral, with Extend Utterance your target is dazed for 6 rounds. That's 'probably' a game over for it.
The effect is decent, but the save DC is problematic. You're expanding the number of rolls from one to two, and that introduces a strong element of inconsistency, especially when the save DC's are charisma based. It's also worth noting that your DC estimates rely on equal CR'd enemies, when they have a decent chance of not being that. This also generally fails to work efficiently against groups of smaller enemies, which cuts down on the number of situations where this is effective by a lot.


edit: And preternatural clarity can give you a +5 insight bonus on truespeak, if you're past your limit on a particular utterance and want it to work again.
That seems pretty terrible, given that it's of the second highest level of utterance, and that you're once again spending extra actions to make your mediocre tricks work. I mean, by that level you could be tossing around... something, I think. Maybe sensory focus? Zaq thinks that energy negation is the way to go, so let's use that one or something. High level utterances are really really bad.

Edit: Except for gate. Gate is pretty amazing.

[Harrow]

I prefer Temporal Spiral, with Extend Utterance your target is dazed for 6 rounds. That's 'probably' a game over for it.

edit: And preternatural clarity can give you a +5 insight bonus on truespeak, if you're past your limit on a particular utterance and want it to work again.

Remember that you won't be getting your Universal Aptitude bonus on Universal Aptitude, so that one's a lot more likely to fail.

Temporal Spiral also also allows a save, the DC of which is based off of your Charisma modifier and the base DC is lower than what a full caster would be spitting out at that level, and they wouldn't have to make a check to get the privilege of forcing a save.

So, you get, effectively, a single target save-or-suck with a sub-par save DC that only works if you make a check that, especially after Extending it, is going to take up a good deal of character resources, possibly including in-combat prep-time, just to have a decent chance of succeeding on. The first time. And you can't use it again on another combatant until you dispose of the first one. I have used this myself, and it was awesome (was fighting a group of Monstrous Crabs), but my Truenamer also had to be dripping with cheese to pull it off effectively. You shouldn't need to spend gold, non-bonus feats, in combat actions for prep time, or do things like join organizations just to reach moderate effectiveness with your classes primary feature.

[Pickford]

The effect is decent, but the save DC is problematic. You're expanding the number of rolls from one to two, and that introduces a strong element of inconsistency, especially when the save DC's are charisma based. It's also worth noting that your DC estimates rely on equal CR'd enemies, when they have a decent chance of not being that. This also generally fails to work efficiently against groups of smaller enemies, which cuts down on the number of situations where this is effective by a lot.

Yes, it's significantly more likely that one will encounter multiple enemies whose CR is each 'much' lower. (i.e. Way easier to reliably hit) rather than the single enemy who you're just going to hit almost every time prior to its death.

That dang crab, for example, is vulnerable.


That seems pretty terrible, given that it's of the second highest level of utterance, and that you're once again spending extra actions to make your mediocre tricks work. I mean, by that level you could be tossing around... something, I think. Maybe sensory focus? Zaq thinks that energy negation is the way to go, so let's use that one or something. High level utterances are really really bad.

Edit: Except for gate. Gate is pretty amazing.

I think it's kind of awesome considering you can use it to either auto-pass spell resistance or eek out extra castings.

edit2: Harrow: Universal Aptitude is practically guaranteed success.

DC vs self at 8th level is 16 + 15 + 2 (33)

You get a +4 on self truenaming, so it's only 29 effectively, that lets us extend duration to 10 rounds by increasing to 34. -11 ranks (23), -3 skill focus (20), -5 int mod (15), -5 lesser silver tongue (10), -2 int mod enhancement (8).

Is there anyone who wouldn't consider having to roll over an 8 laughably easy?

[eggynack]

I think it's kind of awesome considering you can use it to either auto-pass spell resistance or eek out extra castings.
Ultimately, it's just not worth an action to get yourself to succeed at the actions you'd be causing yourself to succeed at. It's an alright thing, but it's not particularly good, and it's double not particularly good when you get it at level 14. That is such a frigging high level for this tiny boost.


edit2: Harrow: Universal Aptitude is practically guaranteed success.

DC vs self at 8th level is 16 + 15 + 2 (33)

You get a +4 on self truenaming, so it's only 29 effectively, that lets us extend duration to 10 rounds by increasing to 34. -11 ranks (23), -3 skill focus (20), -5 int mod (15), -5 lesser silver tongue (10), -2 int mod enhancement (8).

Is there anyone who wouldn't consider having to roll over an 8 laughably easy?

Me? Very much me. That's a 65% chance, which is even below your stated boundary wherein you're not really consistent. Wait, I can't tell. Did you mean 8 or higher, or actually over an 8? Cause over an 8 is a 60% chance, and that's really low.

[TuggyNE]

Is there anyone who wouldn't consider having to roll over an 8 laughably easy?

Yes. Me. "Laughably easy" is "2 or higher" or maybe "3 or higher". "8 or higher" is "hmm, it'd be nice if I could take ten on this".

And that's, what, the first encounter of the day? Now recalculate for the fourth or fifth, keeping in mind you might want to use that utterance for other purposes (and other targets!) than just "first combat action to make sure I'm useful".

[Morithias]

Yes. Me. "Laughably easy" is "2 or higher" or maybe "3 or higher". "8 or higher" is "hmm, it'd be nice if I could take ten on this".

Hardened Criminal.

[Chronos]

Plus, you don't get a +4 to affect yourself, either. First of all, in order to get the +4 for yourself, you have to be using your personal truename, which also gives you a -2 penalty. Second, the +4 bonus is a competence bonus, which is the most common bonus type for skills, so if your quest for the optimized skill check that you absolutely need included any sort of competence bonus at all, suddenly that bonus for affecting yourself is completely useless.

In any event, the argument of "You can do that reliably; you have a +5 from Universal Aptitude" is inaccurate, since you need to be able to reliably use Universal Aptitude to begin with. You'll never have Universal Aptitude up when you're casting it (absolutely can't, due to the Law of Sequence), so your threshold needs to be "Can reliably make check with a +2", not "Can reliably make check with a +5".

[Pickford]

Plus, you don't get a +4 to affect yourself, either. First of all, in order to get the +4 for yourself, you have to be using your personal truename, which also gives you a -2 penalty. Second, the +4 bonus is a competence bonus, which is the most common bonus type for skills, so if your quest for the optimized skill check that you absolutely need included any sort of competence bonus at all, suddenly that bonus for affecting yourself is completely useless.

Given that there's no other source of competence bonus it doesn't seem to matter. Also I accounted for the net +2 in the math above.

And, this may just be a typo but too bad, the Truenamer ability: Known Personal Truename; indicates the truespeaker gets a +4 bonus. That's untyped. Only in the Truespeak skill does it say the speaker of their own personal truename gets +4 competence bonus. So...RAW, the Truenamer gets a +4 untyped bonus, anyone else would get +4 competence. /shrug.


In any event, the argument of "You can do that reliably; you have a +5 from Universal Aptitude" is inaccurate, since you need to be able to reliably use Universal Aptitude to begin with. You'll never have Universal Aptitude up when you're casting it (absolutely can't, due to the Law of Sequence), so your threshold needs to be "Can reliably make check with a +2", not "Can reliably make check with a +5".

Yes, I literally just explained how probable this is.

[Harrow]

edit2: Harrow: Universal Aptitude is practically guaranteed success.

DC vs self at 8th level is 16 + 15 + 2 (33)

You get a +4 on self truenaming, so it's only 29 effectively, that lets us extend duration to 10 rounds by increasing to 34. -11 ranks (23), -3 skill focus (20), -5 int mod (15), -5 lesser silver tongue (10), -2 int mod enhancement (8).

Is there anyone who wouldn't consider having to roll over an 8 laughably easy?

Your math is off. You only added +1 to the DC to Extend which actually adds +5. You have to roll at least a 12 to be able to cast the buff you need on yourself in order to cast further spells at all reliably. You fail more often than not to do even that.

Compare that to an 8th level Fighter trying to hit something. You didn't need to spend any skill ranks. For your non-bonus feat, you picked up Shocktrooper at level 6 (you could have picked it up with a bonus feat, but that would require having Improved Bull Rush for several levels before you needed it, and that just wasn't about to happen). We'll assume 20 STR, like you did for INT.For items, a +1 Greatsword and +4 STR item, roughly equivalent to your items. Instead of spending a Standard action to attempt to make himself half-way decent the rest of the fight, he charges and actually has a chance of weakening the enemy side on the first round.

We're looking at 8(BAB)+5(STR)+2(STR Enchancement)+2(Charge)+1(Weapon)-0(Shocktrooper swapping the to-hit penalty on Power Attack) for a total of +18. What's average for a CR 8 opponent? 20? 22? Let's say 22. That means you have to roll at least a 4. You only have a 15% chance of failure. And when you hit, you deal 2d6+29. Against multiple lower-CR monsters you're looking at only 5% failure chance and over half their health in one action. Compared to what, 4d6 that a Truenamer at this level could do? Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that 55% failure rate you have is on an action that lowers your failure rate in subsequent rounds. They could pull off the 4d6 damage against multiple lower CR monsters without needing the buff and without a noticeable failure rate, but that still isn't very much damage, and you're spending daily resources to do it, while the Fighter can stab all day long.

It's apples and oranges, to some extent. It can be hard to out-damage even a decent Melee character. But that's kind of the point. Truenamers can't do anything right. They can't do direct damage, they can't heal, they can't buff or debuff. The high DC to even attempt to do something means they aren't good at anything they do and their Laws prevent even maximum cheese from making them anything more than decent. Seriously, just remove the Heighten effect and the check to Utter, making Utterances closer to Invocations than spells. Even with 'free' metamagic (still costs feats) they aren't fantastic.

[Pluto!]

If we're talking about using Universal Aptitude to go from a + bonus to a + bonus against level 8 monsters, the tactics we're talking are:

0% chance of doing nothing round 1 (whether Universal Aptitude succeeds or not, it doesn't affect the battlefield, doesn't make your allies better at killing things, doesn't make your enemies any more dead).

93% chance of doing something round 2. (65% chance of Universal Aptitude succeeding for a total +31 skill bonus v. DC 31, 35% chance of Universal Aptitude failing for +26 bonus).

The most powerful effects that can be used in round 2 are a single-target save-or-lose that allows a save, an extra attack for any ally or an extra move action for an ally. The first two of those are analogous to level 1 spell effects, and the last of those is often about the same effect as a dimension hop (level 2 spell).

Now please understand that I don't dislike the Truenamer. I know this forum's rhetoric defaults to hyperbole, and I don't want this post to come off that way; the class can be played, and can even do some pretty cool stuff if you put in the elbow grease to dig up the obscure references, variants and abuseable rulesets needed to reliably quicken utterances against CR-appropriate enemies. But the Truenamer's bad rep isn't unjustified - it does have to work a lot harder than other magical classes to generate effects that are just less impressive than the things spellcasters can do.

[sideswipe]

some people seem to have a bad idea at how bad truenaming is.

when i built a truenamer from scratch it was not fully optimised, and i auto succeeded on about 3 or 4 checks for each utterance each day. (against same cr) so after using an utterance more times a day then a wizard can usually cast his highest level spells on average i will point out i finally started making checks. and i averaged 6 or 7 daily usages of EACH of my utterances.

truenames are not great by any measure. but people who think they are unplayable are wrong. just dont expect to be the power force of the party.

[eggynack]

some people seem to have a bad idea at how bad truenaming is.

when i built a truenamer from scratch it was not fully optimised, and i auto succeeded on about 3 or 4 checks for each utterance each day. (against same cr) so after using an utterance more times a day then a wizard can usually cast his highest level spells on average i will point out i finally started making checks. and i averaged 6 or 7 daily usages of EACH of my utterances.

truenames are not great by any measure. but people who think they are unplayable are wrong. just dont expect to be the power force of the party.
First off, what level were you? I think that mid-level is the place where truenaming checks are easiest, because it's where you have the resources to afford the best skill boosts, and a DC that's low enough to be hittable. Second, how are you defining not fully optimized here? Third, and most importantly, what were you actually doing when you succeeded? If what you were doing was equal to or less than what a warlock would be bringing to the table, then it doesn't really matter how consistently you're hitting the checks. Honestly, the skill DC thing is a little overblown, even if it is a barrier to entry for low skill players. The problem is that you're just not doing much with your actions.

[Chronos]

There's another problem with large numbers of smaller creatures. Yes, it's easier to affect them... Or at least, to affect one of them. But even if you auto-succeed on your check, if it's something with a duration, you can't use that utterance again for that duration. So now what do you use against the second monster, or the third one?

[sideswipe]

First off, what level were you? I think that mid-level is the place where truenaming checks are easiest, because it's where you have the resources to afford the best skill boosts, and a DC that's low enough to be hittable. Second, how are you defining not fully optimized here? Third, and most importantly, what were you actually doing when you succeeded? If what you were doing was equal to or less than what a warlock would be bringing to the table, then it doesn't really matter how consistently you're hitting the checks. Honestly, the skill DC thing is a little overblown, even if it is a barrier to entry for low skill players. The problem is that you're just not doing much with your actions.

i was level 5. i did not have every single boost available to me and i did not multiclass to gain benenfits from things like auras etc.

looking at the character sheet i just dug out. i had a 28 in truespeak 8 ranks, +5 to int (2 from race and 18 in stat) a masterwork skill tool. +5 amulet of silver tongue and i was a member of the pragnostic assembely.

no magic items boosting int and obscure boosts so not fully optomised.

equivelent cr 5 makes dc 25. my dm runs not crit fails/ success on skill checks so min 1 makes 29.

sorry my original statement was slightly wrong. i auto passed 2 and then still got about 5-6 uses a day before i got less than a 33% chance of passing and thats without truenaming to get my checks higher.

when i succeeded i softened opponents in combat allowed my team mates to attack again. buffing, all sorts of stuff, but ,my character was not built for combat. it was built for knowledge checks.

with only 5 ranks in a knowledge and uttering twice and a couple other bonuses (again there were so many other things i could have used to OP) i was hitting dc 40 regularly and dc 50 sometimes.

my dm agreed truenamers are bad, but the one thing they do is knowledge checks and the do that sickeningly good

[eggynack]

i was level 5. i did not have every single boost available to me and i did not multiclass to gain benenfits from things like auras etc.

looking at the character sheet i just dug out. i had a 28 in truespeak 8 ranks, +5 to int (2 from race and 18 in stat) a masterwork skill tool. +5 amulet of silver tongue and i was a member of the pragnostic assembely.

no magic items boosting int and obscure boosts so not fully optomised.

That honestly seems like most of what I'd expect out of a truenamer optimizing truenaming. It's not as deep as you can theoretically go, but it's nowhere near shallow, especially if you're using the prognostic assembly.



sorry my original statement was slightly wrong. i auto passed 2 and then still got about 5-6 uses a day before i got less than a 33% chance of passing and thats without truenaming to get my checks higher.
That's alright, but it's not particularly great. I would probably just not use an utterance rather than use it at that kind of success rate, unless I just didn't have anything else to do, which is possible.


when i succeeded i softened opponents in combat allowed my team mates to attack again. buffing, all sorts of stuff, but ,my character was not built for combat. it was built for knowledge checks.

with only 5 ranks in a knowledge and uttering twice and a couple other bonuses (again there were so many other things i could have used to OP) i was hitting dc 40 regularly and dc 50 sometimes.

my dm agreed truenamers are bad, but the one thing they do is knowledge checks and the do that sickeningly good
Truenamers can do knowledge like crazy, as zaq notes in his handbook, but that doesn't really carry you any higher than tier four, which is where truenamers are. It's basically as simple as that. If you can't hit the checks, which is fully possible on an unoptimized truenamer, then you're at tier five or six. If you can hit the checks, which is fully possible on a decently optimized truenamer, then you're at tier four. It seems like a reasonable placement.

[sideswipe]

i do agree they are low tier. but they are definatly playable. i also had umd and some low level wands at my disposal.

in an investigation campaign they are great which is what we were playing.

i will state again you will not be great as a true namer. but you can be very useful.

[eggynack]

i do agree they are low tier. but they are definatly playable. i also had umd and some low level wands at my disposal.

in an investigation campaign they are great which is what we were playing.

i will state again you will not be great as a true namer. but you can be very useful.
Indeed. Tier four useful. That's more useful than a fighter, less useful than a beguiler, and approximately as useful as a warlock, though maybe a little less. Unless you think they're at a power level that is not that power level, it seems like there's some sort of agreement to be had here.

[sideswipe]

Indeed. Tier four useful. That's more useful than a fighter, less useful than a beguiler, and approximately as useful as a warlock, though maybe a little less. Unless you think they're at a power level that is not that power level, it seems like there's some sort of agreement to be had here.

the agreement is that truenamers despite them being a mediocre class, do officially have the coolest method of casting spells :) i like to think of it like programming and coding. they manipulate and change the coding of the universe to gain effects of their will.

and the second coolest spell in the game (after m.i.n.d.r.a.p.e, take out the full stops)
is a spell with the truename component. un name.

the truenamer basicly deletes the binary code of the universe for the creature. removing them from all forms of existance. not even true res can bring them back as they are technically not dead. and a ritual and then a true res is needed.

thats cool to me

[Harrow]

Wait! They do have one possibly redeeming cheese, something I haven't seen mentioned before, not even in Zaq's guide. They have really good Knowledge checks. +15 from their own buffs, all Knowledge skills in class, INT focus, Knowledge Focus class feature, Paragnostic Assembly synergy, it all comes together nicely. Now, being the group sage *really* should be up to a DMPC or something. In fact, their low power also lends them well to DMPCs. I happen to like Truenamers, regardless of their lack of effectiveness, so I think I'll try that some time.

But there is one useful abuse you can pull out of Knowledge checks. No, not Knowledge Devotion, that's simply 'ok'. Sacrifice. The BoVD has rules for sacrificing people to dark powers for rewards. And get this. The rewards are based off of a Knowledge (religion) check!. The list of possible rewards includes lots of nice 24 hour buffs, including Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon (both at caster level 20), Divine Power, Limited Wish, Control Weather and the Planar Ally line. The top reward is Wish, which requires a check of 50 (doable rather early on, especially if you stack a few of the special sacrifice modifiers) and can only be done once per person.

You can also get check DC (set before hand) X3 Experience or X5 gold that can only be used in making magic items.

This system is, by RAW, really good. Too good for most campaigns. But, there are limits. First, you need a ready supply of sentient creatures. Not too difficult, but it is a limitation. Further, each person may get one reward each day. If they don't like they're result, they can forgo a reward and make further sacrifices hoping for better rolls, but you are still stuck with one reward per character per day. the +15 you can give to your allies Knowledge checks suddenly became a lot more relevant.

Most importantly, the makers recognized the system as unbalanced and so instead of fixing it they covered it in DM fiat. By RAW anything with an INT of 3+ works, but deities can also demand specific sacrifices. They may also demand sacrifices for failing to do as the deity demands of them just to avoid some from of punishment. Most importantly, while you can state before hand which reward you are trying for, it is still actually up to the deity, e.i. the DM, to decide what reward you get.

But you should really be working with your DM if you want to play a Truenamer anyway, so if it fits the campaign I would certainly ask about using the sacrifice rules.

[Psyren]

There's also, you know, the fact that doing so is horribly evil and so not suited to most campaigns. Though I guess any PC dedicated to RAW truenaming has abandoned sanity and peace of mind long ago.

[sideswipe]

Wait! They do have one possibly redeeming cheese, something I haven't seen mentioned before, not even in Zaq's guide. They have really good Knowledge checks. +15 from their own buffs, all Knowledge skills in class, INT focus, Knowledge Focus class feature, Paragnostic Assembly synergy, it all comes together nicely. Now, being the group sage *really* should be up to a DMPC or something.

i already mentioned the high knowledge checks.

and with my experience yes 50 is a very easy target number lol

[Harrow]

There's also, you know, the fact that doing so is horribly evil and so not suited to most campaigns. Though I guess any PC dedicated to RAW truenaming has abandoned sanity and peace of mind long ago.

Like I said, it has to fit the campaign. But I have known lots of people to specifically run 'evil' campaigns, and when you're trying to be evil the sacrifice rules work out great. They also lend themselves to BBEGs.

Heh. I can see it now. Someone makes a BBEG out of a Truenamer making sacrifices. The PC's fight valiantly, eventually disrupting a ritual and taking him out. The parties Dread Necromancer was taken out by an Extended Empowered Mortalbane Reverse Energy Negation and needs to roll up another character. He likes the dark feel he got from the villain, so he rolls up a Truenamer, a little perplexed that it doesn't seem to have all the stuff he remembered on the villain, so he talks to the DM about it.

"Oh yeah, he got a lot of that stuff from making sacrifices. You can't do that, by the way. Yeah, he worshiped a pantheon, so he made nearly a dozen sacrifices a day. Gave bonuses to his followers to do the same so they could share some of the group buffs with him. Cat's Grace, Bull's Strength, GMW, Magic Vestment, Divine Power... oh yeah, and he got lots of craft xp and craft gold, so he had a lot more treasure than he should have. Oh, all you're loot is tainted by the way. Uh, You feel a dark presence emanating from the horde of magic items recovered. Sorry, forgot about that. But yeah, Truenamers aren't that great without the sacrifice stuff. Maybe play an Archivist instead?"

[Aharon]

Wait! They do have one possibly redeeming cheese, something I haven't seen mentioned before, not even in Zaq's guide. They have really good Knowledge checks. +15 from their own buffs, all Knowledge skills in class, INT focus, Knowledge Focus class feature, Paragnostic Assembly synergy, it all comes together nicely. Now, being the group sage *really* should be up to a DMPC or something. In fact, their low power also lends them well to DMPCs. I happen to like Truenamers, regardless of their lack of effectiveness, so I think I'll try that some time.

But there is one useful abuse you can pull out of Knowledge checks. No, not Knowledge Devotion, that's simply 'ok'. Sacrifice. The BoVD has rules for sacrificing people to dark powers for rewards. And get this. The rewards are based off of a Knowledge (religion) check!. The list of possible rewards includes lots of nice 24 hour buffs, including Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon (both at caster level 20), Divine Power, Limited Wish, Control Weather and the Planar Ally line. The top reward is Wish, which requires a check of 50 (doable rather early on, especially if you stack a few of the special sacrifice modifiers) and can only be done once per person.

You can also get check DC (set before hand) X3 Experience or X5 gold that can only be used in making magic items.

This system is, by RAW, really good. Too good for most campaigns. But, there are limits. First, you need a ready supply of sentient creatures. Not too difficult, but it is a limitation. Further, each person may get one reward each day. If they don't like they're result, they can forgo a reward and make further sacrifices hoping for better rolls, but you are still stuck with one reward per character per day. the +15 you can give to your allies Knowledge checks suddenly became a lot more relevant.

Most importantly, the makers recognized the system as unbalanced and so instead of fixing it they covered it in DM fiat. By RAW anything with an INT of 3+ works, but deities can also demand specific sacrifices. They may also demand sacrifices for failing to do as the deity demands of them just to avoid some from of punishment. Most importantly, while you can state before hand which reward you are trying for, it is still actually up to the deity, e.i. the DM, to decide what reward you get.

But you should really be working with your DM if you want to play a Truenamer anyway, so if it fits the campaign I would certainly ask about using the sacrifice rules.

Zaq was very thorough. It's in the cheese section under "Hear my words, oh dark master!".

He didn't include the garbler polymorph and the cania imp, AFAIK.

[Lans]

What's average for a CR 8 opponent? 20? 22? Let's say 22.

The AC of monsters depends on optimization level of the DM. I know at least 2 DMs who added fullplate to monsters.

One thing that isn't being discussed is the other perfected map utterances, they are at least a little useful.

[Pickford]

Harrow:

Your math is off. You only added +1 to the DC to Extend which actually adds +5.

Might as well start with this. No, you miscounted.
Base DC at 8th level for a Personal Truename is 15 + 2 x LvL (8) + 2 = 15 + 16 + 2 = 15 + 18 = 33
However, the Truenamer gets a +4 bonus on their own Personal Truename, so the net result is the DC is, effectively, 29 (33 - 4 = 29).
Extend Utterance increases the DC by 5, so we're back up to 34 (29 + 5 = 34)
11 skill ranks cuts the DC to 23 (34 - 11 = 23)
Skill Focus (Truespeak) drops it another 3 to 20 (23 - 3 = 20)
Having an Int of 20 gives a +5 int mod which drops it to 15 (20 - 5 = 15)
An amulet of the lesser silver tongue gives a +5 enhancement bonus to the skill check, effectively dropping it to 10 (15 - 5 = 10)
And a +4 int enhancement will grant another +2 int mod, say from Fox's cunning, which drops the DC to beat on the roll of effectively 8 (10 - 2 = 8)

For the rest of your post:
Putting skill points into truespeak isn't a cost for someone who's maximizing their int already. A human truespeaker could, for example, max out all their listed skills + 5 knowledge skills of their choice. The Fighter? Not so much.

If you want unfair comparisons:

1) The Fighter has to use a full-round action for the charge, whereas the Truenamer could use their standard action on buffing and move, behind a wall for example, preventing any such charge.

2) You're ignoring the vast to hit bonus for anyone attacking said shock trooper (Since he just reduced his AC by what? 2 (charge) + power attack bonus (up to 8) so up to 10 AC, making it likely his AC is now as low as 4. Anyone with at least a +4 will auto-hit on attack rolls.

3) As for AC at 8th? Let's say your opponent is an 8th level Fighter. +2 full plate armor/+1 heavy shield is an easy 24 AC, but that doesn't include feats (+1 AC for shield spec/Phalanx fighting is another +1, if there's a shield wall that's another +2 on top of that for a total AC of 28. The example Shocktrooper now has a 50/50 chance of hitting/missing.

And that's a quite plausible equal CR foe, who has only used up '2' feats out of a possible 9 (human). Heck, if we layer on Dodge that's another +1 (45/55 hit/miss), and combat expertise could be another +5 (20/80 hit/miss) and fighting defensively is +2 (10/90)....not great odds.


Chronos:

There's another problem with large numbers of smaller creatures. Yes, it's easier to affect them... Or at least, to affect one of them. But even if you auto-succeed on your check, if it's something with a duration, you can't use that utterance again for that duration. So now what do you use against the second monster, or the third one?

I'd guess this is why they get an average attack bonus instead of poor like a wizard. Though at 17th level they can affect multiple targets at once (each additional target only increases the DC by 2, so for example, if you know you'll auto-succeed by 6 you could impact 4 targets at once with no fear of failure). That being said: Teammates. Generally you'll either be all ganging up on one target, or you'll each get 'a' target (maybe). It's a rare scenario where you must each fight multiple enemies alone.

[Bonzai]

I played a Truenamer from lvl 3 to lvl 15. I kept an online diary of my games here (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1193391). You can read it for yourself and decide if it's for you.allows

To summarize my experience though, I would not consider playing one unless I had a DM that was willing to homebrew. There were two home brew fixes that made the character playable to me. 1st was a watered down item familiar feat (I.E. just let me invest extra skill points like the feat, with no other benefits). This allowed me to deal with the scaling DC's and actually improve my character over time instead of playing constant catch up. Second, was a feat that let me effect more than one target with my utterances. This buff the party to near bard levels, and do some decent de-buffing.

With those two small fixes, then the class becomes ok. At least till 20th, when the class becomes broke with nearly free gate.

[Kyeudo]

I like Kyeudo's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11971747#post11971747). It was worked on by some of the paragons of the playground, is well playtested, and is quite intelligible.

If it's well-playtested, nobody told me about it. :smalltongue: I mean that literally. Several hundred people have downloaded it, but I hear almost nothing back from them.

[Lans]

Though at 17th level they can affect multiple targets at once

Or at level 8 when you grab fog from the void

[TuggyNE]

If it's well-playtested, nobody told me about it. :smalltongue: I mean that literally. Several hundred people have downloaded it, but I hear almost nothing back from them.


A concerned mother has a six year old son who has never spoken a word. She asks the local old maid for advice, and is told to pour pepper into the boy's porridge. The mother obeys. The boy takes one taste and spits it out. "GAhh, this is HORRIBLE, Mum, whadja do to it?"

Elated, the mother says "You can speak! But why didn't you say anything before?"

The boy looks at her and says "Well the porridge has been fine up until now..."

And That's Like Life. (People don't complain unless there's something wrong.)