A PC wants to run a Dvati...

[atemu1234]

And I don't know if I should let him. Any tips? It's from Dragon Compendium.

[Segev]

Biggest advice I can give you is to sit down and figure out EXACTLY how many actions - per body and altogether - a dvati gets in a round. The RAW can be read in a few ways, ranging from "they get one full round's worth of actions between the two bodies" (which means they can't even move both of them at faster than a single move action each every round) to "they each get a full round of actions, but spellcasting makes one of them do nothing."

The latter interpretation is ludicrously powerful for non-casters, for the record.

Maybe not unbalanced, though.

Really, what you need to do is decide what you want to see him doing every round, then tailor your house ruling on it to allow that.

[VoxRationis]

I thought it was that they get two bodies' worth of actions, but one mind/soul's worth of spellcasting, if applicable. By that reading, they're great archers (the half-HP-per-body thing means you shouldn't be getting them into melee) or rogues, since twice the weapons means double the damage, or alternatively good as a mage/fighter (one body casts, the other fights).
Out of curiosity, does anyone know this:
If a dvati mage has one body close to melee and the other hold back, and the back one casts a touch spell (shocking grasp, chill touch, whatever), does the melee one get to deliver it? Does the melee one get the AoO?

[Nightraiderx]

Dvati initiators. nothing like each one using stances and white raven fun.

[killem2]

I think it's fine. I would allow it easy.

I would allow a full party of them if they wanted.

It's really not a big deal. Even with full round actions, it's really only the melee side that gets a huge boost, the race itself gets nothing else really. It is still just humanoid so it can be subjected to a lot of things.

They also get no ability increases.

Just make sure you both read the rules of them very clearly so you know what's up.

[Azoth]

They can be a bit of a headache when used with ToB classes or melshapers from MoI. You get to ask yourself if both bodies can be in different stances? Do both bodies get their own set of readied maneuvers? Can one body refresh both of their maneuver pools? Do they each have seperate meldshaping/binding limits? Can only one body shape/bind melds? Do they share an essentia pool?

[OldTrees1]

Dvati are fine as long as the other non casters get access to nice races/template too (Like Dark, Ghost 1, Half Minotaur ...).

However do note that they will be used for action economy intensive characters. I once used one for a Cleric Crusader dedicated to in-combat healing. If you know how subpar healing is, you can see how much the action economy was utilized.

Here is my interpretation of how they work:
Each body gets 1 full round action
All limited abilities (items, manuevers, spells, rages) are subtracted from their shared limit. (Rage 1/day does not mean Rage 1/day/body)

[Nightraiderx]

I don't think they can use the same stances, but I would say they use the same pool. I was actually thinking of making a master of nine build with them, with all the manuevers, but didn't finish through.

[killem2]

Oooo, my apologies. I never thought about the tome of battle.

I would have to take it based on fluff almost. I hate saying that, but I would need to know if there is any reference to the mind. If there is, then yeah keep it separate otherwise let them go together.

However, dual dungeon crashers would be absolute awesome. :)

[DarkSonic1337]

I'm using a Dvaati Swordsage in one campaign and it's a lot of fun (though with two bodies using two weapon fighting focusing on tiger claw....I end up rolling a lot of attacks).

The way my DM is running it is each body gets a full set of actions, only spellcasting causes one body to do nothing. And any limited resource abilities and or pools are shared between the two bodies. They share the same maneuver pool (and each body can refresh the pool which is really cool!).

But the strain on my wealth is really showing. Each body is noticeably under equipped. I'm depending a lot on the save replacement maneuvers because I can't afford save boosters and/or immunities, I'm depending on boosts for damage because enchanting 4 weapons is ridiculously expensive. Still, at the end of the day I'm able to inflict massive damage and swordsage (with a dip of warblade :))already has good enough defenses that I'm not completely lost without level appropriate gear. I do worry how the wealth issue would affect less sturdy classes though.

[killem2]

But the strain on my wealth is really showing. Each body is noticeably under equipped. I'm depending a lot on the save replacement maneuvers because I can't afford save boosters and/or immunities, I'm depending on boosts for damage because enchanting 4 weapons is ridiculously expensive. Still, at the end of the day I'm able to inflict massive damage and swordsage (with a dip of warblade :))already has good enough defenses that I'm not completely lost without level appropriate gear. I do worry how the wealth issue would affect less sturdy classes though.

That enough is for me to allow them to do both. wealth can be quite an issue.

[Nightraiderx]

this is why the master of nine build I mentioned uses unarmed strikes. Also grabbed levels in shadow sun ninja as well. Amulet of natural attacks would help mitigate the issue of 4 weapons and instead a kind of two weapon deal.

[VoxRationis]

If your campaign setting is closer to mine in tone, the difficulty in finding that many magic weapons would render the expense moot.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But the strain on my wealth is really showing.
Oooh, that's a good balancing element. At that point, it might actually be worth taking VoP, as long as your main build covers enough bases...

Also, echoing the "all resource pools are shared" thing.

[Rubik]

this is why the master of nine build I mentioned uses unarmed strikes. Also grabbed levels in shadow sun ninja as well. Amulet of natural attacks would help mitigate the issue of 4 weapons and instead a kind of two weapon deal.I suggest using unarmed strikes, but do your utmost to equip yourself cheaply to boost it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15474863#post15474863)

And I believe it's the necklace of natural weapons. It's in Savage Species. Don't -- I repeat, don't -- use the amulet of mighty fisting.

[Nightraiderx]

Yea I did NOT mean the amulet of mighty fisting.
I am now inspired to make this for an epic level campaign idea with tome of battle stuff.

[Curmudgeon]

I recommend going over the race description very carefully. Then, be prepared for some surprises when you look at the distinction between creature (two per Dvati) and character (one per Dvati) in the game rules. For example:
flank: To be directly on the other side of a character who is being threatened by another character. Dvati twins get a bonus to creatures they flank. However, they can't flank by themselves because that requires another character. What they can do is occupy two different positions around an enemy, making it easy for an ally to occupy one of the multiple flanking spots thus created.

[Segev]

I recommend going over the race description very carefully. Then, be prepared for some surprises when you look at the distinction between creature (two per Dvati) and character (one per Dvati) in the game rules. For example: Dvati twins get a bonus to creatures they flank. However, they can't flank by themselves because that requires another character. What they can do is occupy two different positions around an enemy, making it easy for an ally to occupy one of the multiple flanking spots thus created.
Except that the Dvati rule on better flanking bonus specifically only applies when the Dvati is flanking with himself as his own flanking buddy.

The race is poorly written. There are a lot of things in it that just don't work if you stick straight to the RAW. Either they never technically apply and are thus wasted word count (as in the example above if you read the "character" thing as recommended by the poster I quoted), or they literally are not adequately covered well enough to make a clear call (which comes up a lot when determining how many actions they get in a round).

Heck, the race's own rules on the bond between the bodies is inconsistent, varying from a weak empathic sense of "my twin is suffering" to a complete one-mind-in-two-bodies situation, depending on the paragraph.

Personally, I run with it always being one-mind-in-two-bodies, but that's a call one has to make as the rules are not consistent.

You really need to determine how you WANT them to work, then house rule as consistently with that underlying philosophy as possible.

[killem2]

Here is a question.

Lets say I made two nicely optimized Dungeon Crashers out of this race.

I attack an enemy and send him flying and that path just happens to cross a threaten square of my twin, and they have an attack of opportunity to spare, they then could in theory "knockback" that enemy in a different direction?

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Rubik]

I agree that the race needs rewritten, with more consistency and comprehensiveness. Just remember that the race needs to be quite strong for a +1 LA, since they're going to be seriously stretching their WBL really, really thinly. Err on the side of stronger for martial characters and weaker for casters, and you should be okay.

[OldTrees1]

Here is a question.

Lets say I made two nicely optimized Dungeon Crashers out of this race.

I attack an enemy and send him flying and that path just happens to cross a threaten square of my twin, and they have an attack of opportunity to spare, they then could in theory "knockback" that enemy in a different direction?

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Yes if you have the knockback feat and hit and he has not triggered an AoO from leaving one of your threatened squares from earlier in the round.

[Curmudgeon]

Except that the Dvati rule on better flanking bonus specifically only applies when the Dvati is flanking with himself as his own flanking buddy.
No, that's not what it says.
Echo Attack: By combining their voices into one maddening cacophony, a pair of dvati twins can confuse a creature they flank. If both twins speak as a move action while flanking an opponent, that creature must make a Will save. It doesn't say they flank the opponent by themselves; it only requires that they both flank the creature. And because flanking requires another creature, getting the Echo Attack bonus requires some maneuvering. It's a benefit that's only situationally useful, such as Dungeon Crasher for a Fighter (good with walls nearby; useless when fighting in open terrain).

[OldTrees1]

No, that's not what it says.
Wrong ability

Pair Link: The close relationship between dvati twins grants them several benefits when they work together. If two dvati twins team up to flank an opponent, they each gain a +3 bonus on attack rolls, rather than the normal +2 bonus. If a twin uses the aid another action to help his twin, he grants an additional +2 bonus (for a total of +4) on attack rolls or to Armor Class.

[Curmudgeon]

Wrong ability
Again, that doesn't specify an override to the regular rules for flanking. Pair Link's "team up to flank" works just the same as Echo Attack's stipulation that both twins flank an opponent: again, only in conjunction with another character.

[Segev]

Again, that doesn't specify an override to the regular rules for flanking. Pair Link's "team up to flank" works just the same as Echo Attack's stipulation that both twins flank an opponent: again, only in conjunction with another character.

It doesn't have to override. It specifies they get the bonus when working together to flank an opponent. Not whenever both happen to be flanking the same opponent. Thus, they must be "working together" to flank him. There is no way to read that that doesn't require the two bodies of the one dvati to be responsible for the flanking to occur. IF they both happen to be flanking with a third individual providing the second "character" for the flank, the dvati aren't "working together to flank." They are "working together" AND they are "flanking," but the important purpose-giving word "to" does not apply.

So, if they're doing it like you suggest, and flanking with another character, they get a normal +2 flanking bonus.

Their rule about working together to flank an opponent in order to get a +3 flanking bonus, instead, only applies if they are working together to flank an opponent.

[Curmudgeon]

Thus, they must be "working together" to flank him. There is no way to read that that doesn't require the two bodies of the one dvati to be responsible for the flanking to occur. IF they both happen to be flanking with a third individual providing the second "character" for the flank, the dvati aren't "working together to flank."
What support do you have for the bolded sentence? If both Dvati twins are on one side of an enemy, they're working together to provide an ally with an increased number of possible spaces on the other side of the enemy from which they can gain the flanking bonus: the Dvati twins are, in fact, "working together to flank".

[Segev]

What support do you have for the bolded sentence? If both Dvati twins are on one side of an enemy, they're working together to provide an ally with an increased number of possible spaces on the other side of the enemy from which they can gain the flanking bonus: the Dvati twins are, in fact, "working together to flank".

They are "working together to flank," but not with each other. To claim that "with each other" is not implied in the sentence is to stretch it so far that you could as well claim that the 1st amendment of the constitution forbids the government from protecting people from having their olive presses stolen, since "freedom of the press" obviously means all presses should be free for anybody who wants them to use them without charge.

The rule states the dvati twins get the bonus when they are working together to flank. It does not state that they get the bonus when they are working together AND flanking. If they cannot flank with each other, they cannot work together with each other to flank.

If the rule refers to working together with anybody to flank, then it means dvati get +3 as a flanking bonus any time they're flanking, whether both their bodies are involved or not. There are far easier ways to state that. "A dvati gets +3 when flanking instead of +2" would be a lot easier, and more natural, and even in something as badly written as the dvati rules, I would expect something closer to that than what is written if that was in any way the intent.

You can TRY to argue that RAW trumps RAI, here, but with something as badly written as the dvati, you are reading things into the RAW that aren't there to make your interpretation as-is. ...honestly, that one bit is one of the CLEARER parts of the dvati write-up. From context, it's very clear they're intended to be working together with each other to flank, not just getting it whenver they work together with anybody to flank. It is also clear they're meant to be able to be doing the flanking by themselves, from the same context and surrounding description of WHY the rule is in place.

Again, you can try to discard context when interpreting the RAW, but it's almost always a mistake. If an interpretation of the RAW leads to nonsense because you've discarded the context, or discarding the context makes the RAW a lot more obtuse than it needs to be to achieve the results you claim it does, then you're probably interpreting the RAW incorrectly.

[killem2]

Yes if you have the knockback feat and hit and he has not triggered an AoO from leaving one of your threatened squares from earlier in the round.

Could we "ping pong" people?

[Erik Vale]

Yes. But by the above rules, only once per body. Which is pretty damn funny.
Dammit, now I want to play Dvati pong.

[killem2]

Party of Dvati Dungeon Crashers playing hot potato with kobolds.

[OldTrees1]

Could we "ping pong" people?

As Erik Vale said.

Honestly I think the limit is a bad rule so I ignore it at my table.

[Vhaidara]

Party of Half Minotaur Dvati. We need large to qualify for Knockback.

[Curmudgeon]

They are "working together to flank," but not with each other. To claim that "with each other" is not implied in the sentence is ...

If there's ambiguity in the books I come down on the side of just what's in the RAW. Implying the meaning is made clear by a specific clause that should have been included, but wasn't, is a trick for Carnac the Magnificent. It's not helpful in playing with others who lack your gift for divining answers based on unseen content.

[Psyren]

I think DSP may have unwittingly fixed the Dvati, if you're willing to lift language from the Dread's Shadow Twin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/dread#TOC-Shadow-Twin-Su-) class feature and make a race out of it.

[OldTrees1]

I think DSP may have unwittingly fixed the Dvati, if you're willing to lift language from the Dread's Shadow Twin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/dread#TOC-Shadow-Twin-Su-) class feature and make a race out of it.

Isn't that most of the penalties/drawbacks with almost none of the benefits?

[Psyren]

Isn't that most of the penalties/drawbacks with almost none of the benefits?

Only have to equip one of you - benefit.
Only affected once by area damage - benefit.
Only have to buff one - benefit.
Can flank with each other and threaten separate squares - benefit.
Can use either twin as the origin of a spell/attack - benefit.

Seems fine to me. The drawbacks are stuff that needed to be there.

[OldTrees1]

Only have to equip one of you - benefit.
Only affected once by area damage - benefit.
Only have to buff one - benefit.
Can flank with each other and threaten separate squares - benefit.
Can use either twin as the origin of a spell/attack - benefit.

Seems fine to me. The drawbacks are stuff that needed to be there.

You only have to equip one? Ah, now I see it in the 2nd paragraph.

[atemu1234]

Great. Now I'm curious about what'd happen if one Dvati became a vampire. Would they both become vampires, or would it qualify as one dying, which would cause the other to sicken then die? If that happens, then does the vampire also sicken and die? It'd make an interesting situation. One Dvati seeks help while he's dying because his twin/brother is now a vampire, and he's sickening. His brother is seeking him out to turn him into a vampire so they're "reunited in undeath" sort of thing. It'd be kind of cool.

[OldTrees1]

Great. Now I'm curious about what'd happen if one Dvati became a vampire.

Or the general case of single creature inherited templates.

[Rubik]

Only have to equip one of you - benefit.
Only affected once by area damage - benefit.
Only have to buff one - benefit.
Can flank with each other and threaten separate squares - benefit.
Can use either twin as the origin of a spell/attack - benefit.

Seems fine to me. The drawbacks are stuff that needed to be there.It also only allows one set of actions between both bodies, which means that unless the player breaks the action economy in some other way, you might as well just leave one of them at home, because it leaves both bodies vulnerable to be attacked without any actual benefit to offset it.

So, no. Not worth it, even at LA 0.

[Psyren]

It also only allows one set of actions between both bodies, which means that unless the player breaks the action economy in some other way, you might as well just leave one of them at home, because it leaves both bodies vulnerable to be attacked without any actual benefit to offset it.

So, no. Not worth it, even at LA 0.

Dvati only had one set of the actions that actually mattered (i.e. spellcasting) anyway. If it's that onerous to you, you can add in stir in some one-off additions, such as letting both twins move and attack as a full-round action provided they stay within X feet of each other or something.

[Rubik]

Dvati only had one set of the actions that actually mattered (i.e. spellcasting) anyway. If it's that onerous to you, you can add in stir in some one-off additions, such as letting both twins move and attack as a full-round action provided they stay within X feet of each other or something.IIRC, the dvati could both move on their turn, but the standard for both had to be sacrificed for one when the other cast a spell.

It didn't apply to moving or maneuvers or standard action attacks or full attacks or charges, which means it gave a huge boost to martial characters, skillmonkeys, and gishes, the former two really do need some help, since they don't typically get to mess with the action economy at all, and any T3+ spellcaster who really wants to can break the action economy at will anyway.

[Psyren]

It didn't apply to moving or maneuvers or standard action attacks or full attacks or charges, which means it gave a huge boost to martial characters, skillmonkeys, and gishes, the former two really do need some help, since they don't typically get to mess with the action economy at all, and any T3+ spellcaster who really wants to can break the action economy at will anyway.

For maneuvers and psionics and vestiges etc., it didn't apply because those things didn't exist when Dvati was made, not necessarily because they were intended to be treated differently than spells. And as I said for the more mundane stuff, you can put those back in if it's a problem, the whole thing is homebrew anyway.

What I was pointing out is that the shadow twin's wording is much clearer in terms of what you can do and what you can't, so it's a good starting point for porting Dvati forward.

[Segev]

If there's ambiguity in the books I come down on the side of just what's in the RAW. Implying the meaning is made clear by a specific clause that should have been included, but wasn't, is a trick for Carnac the Magnificent. It's not helpful in playing with others who lack your gift for divining answers based on unseen content.

Except that you're the one who is coming down with an assumption that "work together to" means "work together and," which is an explicit change to the words.