Temictli Tzitziquiltic Amoxtli Nonotzaloc: Ichtacacalaquia

[Fax Celestis]

Spoilerrrrrrrrs~~


http://i.imgur.com/rddNa9v.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/1heVZ3m.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/bPpSDCQ.jpg?1

http://i.imgur.com/qZR3UWf.jpg?1

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm sorry, what is this? I am confused :smallconfused:

[Fax Celestis]

I'm sorry, what is this? I am confused :smallconfused:

It's a hint of what is to come.

Here's another hint: "Nonotzaloc" translates to "it was announced".

[AvatarVecna]

So...homebrew, or leaked 1st party PF material?

[Anlashok]

So...homebrew, or leaked 1st party PF material?

Some third party is making truenaming.

Apparently with an Aztec theming (which is a shame).

[Raven777]

Somebody's having a take on a PF Truenamer?

[T.G. Oskar]

Apparently it's content for an Aztec-flavored campaign setting: Tlatoani roughly translates to "chief" in Nahuatl, after all (unless I might be wrong, which I probably am). Not entirely sure if it's PF homebrew or meant for d20r, but it's a bunch of content while using Nahuatl terms.

Alternatively, it could be an Aztec-flavored version of the Truenamer, if Tzocatl as a skill name is any indication (though tzocatl apparently translates to "wart", not to anything referred to "word"...) Judging by the Oracle's Curse, the Sorcerer Bloodline, the new class, the new terms and whatnot, chances are it's...new content for Pathfinder from Dreamscarred Press, in their attempt to cross over all 3.5 content, with this time working with the Truenamer? Everything points to the second one.

[EisenKreutzer]

I'd love to see the truenamer actually function, not just flop helplessly on the floor.

[Raven777]

Well, not to be rude to Fax, but I hope they drop the mayincatek verbiage, because it sounds eminently stupid.

[Alent]

There's something amusingly wrong about using Aztec as a go to "unpronounceable gibberish" language for truenaming. :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

Well, not to be rude to Fax, but I hope they drop the mayincatek verbiage, because it sounds eminently stupid.


There's something amusingly wrong about using Aztec as a go to "unpronounceable gibberish" language for truenaming. :smallbiggrin:

While the material has some Aztec themes, (bastardized) Nahuatl is used mainly for the "example words" that go with each edict. Everything else is in plain English for ease of use at your individual tables.

I chose Nahuatl mostly because I like how it sounds, because Aztec culture is not often represented in D&D, and because the kinds of words it makes lends themselves towards an "ancient unknowable language" sort of feeling.


Alternatively, it could be an Aztec-flavored version of the Truenamer, if Tzocatl as a skill name is any indication (though tzocatl apparently translates to "wart", not to anything referred to "word"...) Judging by the Oracle's Curse, the Sorcerer Bloodline, the new class, the new terms and whatnot, chances are it's...new content for Pathfinder from Dreamscarred Press, in their attempt to cross over all 3.5 content, with this time working with the Truenamer? Everything points to the second one.

Tzocatl's not a skill, but you're pretty dead on. The original name was "Tozcatl" ("voice" or "throat"), but "Tzocatl" sounded better.

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, not to be rude to Fax, but I hope they drop the mayincatek verbiage, because it sounds eminently stupid.

I don't mind it, but I want a pronunciation guide. Maybe even a smallish paragraph with alternate names. Then again, Aztecs might be all the excuse my players need to keep chanting 'Blood for the bloodgod!' while killing anything in their path.

[Raven777]

They need an excuse?

[Fax Celestis]

Honestly at this stage, switching from Nahuatl to, say, Hawaiian would be practically effortless.

This thread's title (in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi) would be "Moeʻuhane'alina Paʻi Palapala Hōʻike: Wehiwa", as an example.

If it's that big of a deal, I'll consider changing it. But just know that Nahuatl isn't built into the system any more than the name (and even that is just faux-Nahuatl).

[Feint's End]

They need an excuse?

Seems like he is playing with quite the disciplined group.

On a more serious note this sounds pretty promising. I like the general idea of having aztec flavour since, like fax already mentioned, it has almost no representation in d&d and/or pf so far.

Very much looking forward to it.

I do think you should keep the original word though. Even if it is harder to pronounce it also makes the whole shtick more authentic. But maybe that's just me.

[KillianHawkeye]

I just want to extend my personal thanks to Fax Celestis for completely ignoring the purpose of thread titles. Well done! *applause*

:smallannoyed:

[Fax Celestis]

I just want to extend my personal thanks to Fax Celestis for completely ignoring the purpose of thread titles. Well done! *applause*

:smallannoyed:

It got your attention, didn't it? :smallwink:

Don't worry, though, this is just a teaser and testing-the-waters sort of post.

[Extra Anchovies]

It got your attention, didn't it? :smallwink:

Don't worry, though, this is just a teaser and testing-the-waters sort of post.

I was thinking it would have something to do with the Ixixachitl from MM2.

[EisenKreutzer]

Honestly at this stage, switching from Nahuatl to, say, Hawaiian would be practically effortless.

This thread's title (in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi) would be "Moeʻuhane'alina Paʻi Palapala Hōʻike: Wehiwa", as an example.

If it's that big of a deal, I'll consider changing it. But just know that Nahuatl isn't built into the system any more than the name (and even that is just faux-Nahuatl).

Just wanted to say I love the aztec flavour.

[T.G. Oskar]

While the material has some Aztec themes, (bastardized) Nahuatl is used mainly for the "example words" that go with each edict. Everything else is in plain English for ease of use at your individual tables.

I chose Nahuatl mostly because I like how it sounds, because Aztec Native American culture is not often represented in D&D, and because the kinds of words it makes lends themselves towards an "ancient unknowable language" sort of feeling.

Fixed. Note that I refer to "Native American" as the conglomerate of all Native American tribes, not just Native Northern American tribes, but Native Caribbean, Native Central American and Native South American tribes. There's a reason why "Mayincatec" is a thing, even though there's suggestions that tribes had contact with each other based on proximity. More anecdotal than anything, but there's suggestions that Tainos from Havana made contact with tribes of the Aztec Triple Alliance. Kind of a shame that there isn't a purely Native American setting that properly treats Mayans, Aztecs and Incas as separate cultures, and that makes clear mention of surrounding cultures (Toltecs and Olmecs for the Aztecs, the Guaraní for the Incas) and less-mentioned cultures (again, Toltecs, Olmecs and Guaraní, alongside Arawaks and Maipureans). There's a lot to know about Native American culture, after all, beyond Native Northern American cultures.

Though, that's the problem with bastardized languages, at least when taken at face value. Their meaning is lost without the line of thought that leads to it.

[KillianHawkeye]

It got your attention, didn't it? :smallwink:

My curiosity got the better of me. :smallamused:

[Anlashok]

Just wanted to say I love the aztec flavour.

I'm currently conflicted. Aztec flavor is all kinds of kickass and they have some great aesthetics and themes you can use to make anything more awesome.

But I'm not sure if Truenaming can really do it justice.

[Larkas]

Ooooh! Loving the prospect!


I do think you should keep the original word though. Even if it is harder to pronounce it also makes the whole shtick more authentic. But maybe that's just me.

That makes us two, actually.

[Fax Celestis]

I do think you should keep the original word though. Even if it is harder to pronounce it also makes the whole shtick more authentic. But maybe that's just me.


That makes us two, actually.

D'you think that including a pronunciation guide would be enough to make using the more difficult word feasible? I'm planning on including one anyway, but the prominence thereof would be heightened.

[Jeff the Green]

I don't mind it, but I want a pronunciation guide.

It's not that hard (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Nahuatl/Pronunciation). Most everything is pronounced as Spanish, except:

'X' is 'sh'
'Tl' is sort of like a 'sh' and 'l' hybrid, like the Welsh 'll'
Double vowels are held a bit longer
The stress is almost always on the second to last syllable.
'H' on its own is a glottal stop.


E.g. 'Mexihco', the Aztecs' name for themselves and the root of 'Mexico', is pronounced "meshee'ko". (The ' denotes a glottal stop, like in Xen'drik and Ba' man (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2604).)


Then again, Aztecs might be all the excuse my players need to keep chanting 'Blood for the bloodgod!' while killing anything in their path.

And (arguably) not be Evil!

[mythmonster2]

Honestly, the pronunciation isn't that hard, it's just that the words are relatively long and multi-syllabled.

[Larkas]

D'you think that including a pronunciation guide would be enough to make using the more difficult word feasible? I'm planning on including one anyway, but the prominence thereof would be heightened.

Eh, I'm not sure my advice would be any good, really. My native language is Portuguese, I speak English fluently, have advanced knowledge of Spanish, French, Italian and Japanese, and basic knowledge of German, Korean and Latin. As long as the spelling is at least loosely based on Latin (i.e.: like romanized Japanese but very unlike romanized Korean), I suspect I won't have any problems pronouncing anything. Seeing as the Aztecs were conquered by the Spanish, I think that is a given.

In any case, I think explaining the "tl" might be the most important part of such a pronunciation guide.

[Jeff the Green]

Honestly, the pronunciation isn't that hard, it's just that the words are relatively long and multi-syllabled.

That and the phoneme-space is radically different from Indo-European languages. At least it's not tonal...


In any case, I think explaining the "tl" might be the most important part of such a pronunciation guide.

I'm not sure that's possible. I mean, I can describe what you do with your tongue (put your tongue like you're saying "ul" and blow), but unless you hear what it's supposed to sound like you're not going to get it right in the same way that it's nearly impossible for people to learn to pronounce words correctly if they learn entirely from lip reading.

[Honest Tiefling]

Even something as simple as that would be greatly appreciated without taking too much space. I still suspect some people will not use the words (Apparently, a while back there was a game with Japanese names that kept confusing everyone).

If anyone forces me to use tonal words I'm throwing books at them and sacrificing their heart to an Aztec god at that point.

[Fax Celestis]

Even something as simple as that would be greatly appreciated without taking too much space. I still suspect some people will not use the words (Apparently, a while back there was a game with Japanese names that kept confusing everyone).

If anyone forces me to use tonal words I'm throwing books at them and sacrificing their heart to an Aztec god at that point.

Oh, no. Anything in there is fluff only. Knight-scholar and eagle warrior have a few things built into the class, but it's pretty malleable. Everything else is fluff.


Words of Power (Su): Starting at 4th level, an eagle warrior may spend expertise as a swift action to quickly gain a temporary effect against her enemies. Words of power require spending one point of expertise to activate. Unless otherwise noted, effects last for a number of rounds equal to the eagle warrior’s Intelligence modifier, and any necessary saving throw DCs are equal to 10 plus one-half the eagle warrior’s class level plus her Intelligence modifier. If the eagle warrior already has the words of power class feature (such as from taking levels in the knight-scholar class), she instead adds her levels in the eagle warrior prestige class to the level of the class granting the words of power class feature to determine her words of power saving throw DCs.

Timotlatiz: Starting at fourth level, an eagle warrior may use this ability to become invisible, as the spell.
Patlantinemi: Starting at seventh level, an eagle warrior may use this ability to gain a fly speed equal to her land speed, with good maneuverability.
Hacoittaloni: Starting at 10th, an eagle warrior may use this ability to become invisible, as the greater invisibility spell.

[Ssalarn]

Once I dealt with the nosebleed from trying to read that out loud, I got pretty interested in what I was looking at. Gonna keep an eyeball on this...

[Fax Celestis]

Once I dealt with the nosebleed from trying to read that out loud, I got pretty interested in what I was looking at. Gonna keep an eyeball on this...

Well, if it works well enough, I might end up doing akashic-tzocatl crossover.

[Snowbluff]

This might benefit from a less complicated title. DON'T HIT ME! :smallfrown:

[Ilorin Lorati]

Still don't know how I feel about this, since as I mentioned the first time it came up, I think Interjection Games has already done a good job with truenaming mechanics.

[Ssalarn]

Well, if it works well enough, I might end up doing akashic-tzocatl crossover.

We could call it "Trueveiling" or less ridiculously "Tezapoctli" (meaning "smoking mirror"), and you could speak veils into existence and animate them Sorcerer's Apprentice style. Each round the DC rises to keep your creation in existence until it pops as the strain of the universe self-correcting shatters the tenuous bonds you've imposed. We could do a line of feats that include effects like making it so that when you fail the check and the veil pops, it explodes in a torrent of arcane energy, or creates an untargeted dispel effect in a 10' radius.

**EDIT**

I was originally going to make some corny name jokes and then ask what you had in mind, but the more I read what I wrote the awesomer it feels to me. Instead of true veils, it could be summoned creatures that act like veils, and we could even do an archetype that takes small amounts of bleed damage to fill the creatures with essence.

[Fax Celestis]

We could call it "Trueveiling" or less ridiculously "Tezapoctli" (meaning "smoking mirror"), and you could speak veils into existence and animate them Sorcerer's Apprentice style. Each round the DC rises to keep your creation in existence until it pops as the strain of the universe self-correcting shatters the tenuous bonds you've imposed. We could do a line of feats that include effects like making it so that when you fail the check and the veil pops, it explodes in a torrent of arcane energy, or creates an untargeted dispel effect in a 10' radius.

http://media.giphy.com/media/QiynwgyRaBdXG/giphy.gif

[deuxhero]

I like the culture choice (as mentioned in the thread, very few use it) and would like to see truenaming actually WORK. I think you need further distance when using an extant language as a basis and definitely some way to make it more comprehensible. One option might be to give more easily said aliases to things (if speaking the word has serious consequences, I'd expect those studying them would have some alternative to saying them in a "he who must not be named" fashion).

Mechanically:
Nameless curse:
The initial effect is really painful. Durations will quickly be "the entire fight" anyways and many negative effects with a duration don't actually target you (example: entangle). Combining it with a Extended spell is a bit odd thanks to minimums and rounding.
The 5th level effect of the Curse is so underwhelming because Power Words are. I see there are some new ones introduced in the book, but that's awful niche.
15 is way too late for language dependent immunity, as language-dependent is a drawback keeping spells taged with it low level (the only spells above level 5 with it are some of Brilliant Inspiration and Vengeful Outrage (both buffs) some of the Litany line and Unconscious Agenda. Also there's a bit of an unstoppable force/immovable object with the spell called, funnily enough, Truespeak from the ARG (You aren't effected by language-dependent effects vs your language dependent effects WILL work).

I'd suggest the initial ability allow you to quarter harmful effects and making the 5th level ability make Litany spells allow a save for the Oracle

Bloodline is hard to judge without knowing the feats or spells.

I hope to see SOMETHING on giant talking stone heads.

[Anlashok]

You perhaps considering doing anything more complex than "roll skill, cast spell?".

I've always been intrigued by the idea of adding language-based components to Truenaming, since it's word-magic. Prefixes, suffixes, compound words. Pluraling, changing the tense. Probably not, I imagine, since that's basically a less crappy Words of Power rather than Truenaming (even if fluffwise they're the same thing).



We could call it "Trueveiling" or less ridiculously "Tezapoctli" (meaning "smoking mirror"), and you could speak veils into existence and animate them Sorcerer's Apprentice style. Each round the DC rises to keep your creation in existence until it pops as the strain of the universe self-correcting shatters the tenuous bonds you've imposed. We could do a line of feats that include effects like making it so that when you fail the check and the veil pops, it explodes in a torrent of arcane energy, or creates an untargeted dispel effect in a 10' radius.

**EDIT**

I was originally going to make some corny name jokes and then ask what you had in mind, but the more I read what I wrote the awesomer it feels to me. Instead of true veils, it could be summoned creatures that act like veils, and we could even do an archetype that takes small amounts of bleed damage to fill the creatures with essence.

I really like this idea, in part because Aztec themed veilweaving sounds really cool (and makes me wish that was the base theme instead of central and western asia).

I mean no offense to Fax, just don't really get how it gels with skillcheck based spellcasting.

[Manly Man]

While the material has some Aztec themes, (bastardized) Nahuatl is used mainly for the "example words" that go with each edict. Everything else is in plain English for ease of use at your individual tables.

I chose Nahuatl mostly because I like how it sounds, because Aztec culture is not often represented in D&D, and because the kinds of words it makes lends themselves towards an "ancient unknowable language" sort of feeling.

Really is a shame, the closest that Central American cultures got for attention was waaay back with First Edition AD&D Deities & Demigods. I went and made a psionic villain pair with a Thrallherd named Gaylord Asselin (don't laugh, you!), and his thrall was an Aztec warrior woman (gestalt Psychic Warrior//Warblade) that was even scarier than him. Was a very fun character, and she ended up siding with the party's half-giant, who sympathized with her and the mind control, once Old Greg died. Her name was Chachiuitl Yaotl, and she used a cold iron executioner's mace called Teotepoz, which I think translates to "gods' iron", or summat.

[Fax Celestis]

Hint: Tzocatl isn't a skill. A Tzocatl check is d20+1/2 class level+Int. Much more controllable values, which makes edicts have much more easily definable emphases and cadences.

I originally had it as a Linguistics check, but the values were just too unpredictable and ran into the same problems that the Truenamer has. So the advocate isn't really like the Truenamer: it's more like a warlock with Tome of Battle and psionics elements.

Edicts always go off, no matter your check result. Their scalability is based off your check, and you get to build your spell as you cast by spending your check on cadences or keeping it for emphases (or some combination of the two). Litanies are...functionally identical to stances, except their effects vary based on your Tzocatl check made at activation. And both edicts and litanies have esoterica, individual per edict, that advocates gain through their levels, which allows you to dynamically customize your character based both upon their known edicts and then the esoterica they learn from those edicts.

I haven't even gotten into Inscribed Barbarians and Inscribed Cryptics yet. Or the race template I came up with. Or the fighter archetype that integrates seamlessly with Lore Warden. Or all kinds of stuff.

[Raven777]

This actually sounds pretty interesting! Does the Advocate integrate elements tied to outsider true names and binding / summoning?

[Fax Celestis]

Not as of yet but I'm planning on doing so with an archetype.

As it is now the knight-scholar is actually a better minioner than the advocate: knight-scholars don't get edicts, just litanies, but they can use multiples at once, so using litany of living words means you get a nice pet and can still use other litanies.

[Extra Anchovies]

Is this homebrew, then? If so it should probably be moved...

[Dusk Eclipse]

Nope, Fax is working with/for Dreamscarred Press and he is giving us a sneak peak of what's to come. Or at least that is my understanding of it.

Also kudos on having Aztec influences.

[Arbane]

Really is a shame, the closest that Central American cultures got for attention was waaay back with First Edition AD&D Deities & Demigods.

ISTR there was a 2nd Ed sourcebook for an Aztec-ish empire. (Found it: Maztica. (http://www.amazon.com/Maztica-Campaign-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/1560760842))

[Zanos]

Have you used a camera to take a photo of your computer screen to upload?

That makes me incredibly angry.

(Truenaming is neat though.)

[Fax Celestis]

Have you used a camera to take a photo of your computer screen to upload?

That makes me incredibly angry.

(Truenaming is neat though.)

I did that to add to the mystique. Future shots will be more...conventional.

[PsyBomb]

We could call it "Trueveiling" or less ridiculously "Tezapoctli" (meaning "smoking mirror"), and you could speak veils into existence and animate them Sorcerer's Apprentice style. Each round the DC rises to keep your creation in existence until it pops as the strain of the universe self-correcting shatters the tenuous bonds you've imposed. We could do a line of feats that include effects like making it so that when you fail the check and the veil pops, it explodes in a torrent of arcane energy, or creates an untargeted dispel effect in a 10' radius.

**EDIT**

I was originally going to make some corny name jokes and then ask what you had in mind, but the more I read what I wrote the awesomer it feels to me. Instead of true veils, it could be summoned creatures that act like veils, and we could even do an archetype that takes small amounts of bleed damage to fill the creatures with essence.

Two words: Metabolist Scarf

[Manly Man]

ISTR there was a 2nd Ed sourcebook for an Aztec-ish empire. (Found it: Maztica. (http://www.amazon.com/Maztica-Campaign-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/1560760842))

Many thanks, mang.

[squiggit]

We could call it "Trueveiling" or less ridiculously "Tezapoctli" (meaning "smoking mirror"), and you could speak veils into existence and animate them Sorcerer's Apprentice style. Each round the DC rises to keep your creation in existence until it pops as the strain of the universe self-correcting shatters the tenuous bonds you've imposed. We could do a line of feats that include effects like making it so that when you fail the check and the veil pops, it explodes in a torrent of arcane energy, or creates an untargeted dispel effect in a 10' radius.

**EDIT**

I was originally going to make some corny name jokes and then ask what you had in mind, but the more I read what I wrote the awesomer it feels to me. Instead of true veils, it could be summoned creatures that act like veils, and we could even do an archetype that takes small amounts of bleed damage to fill the creatures with essence.

I suddenly want to play a Jaguar Warrior who can literally manifest jaguar claws

[malonkey1]

I'm not gonna lie, I'll probably use this when it comes out, but I'm probably gonna throw out the Aztec-ish flavor. For me, truenaming was always a Babylonian or Hebrew soundalike. I have nothing against the Aztec theme itself, I just feel like, maybe, this isn't the system to go with it.

[Extra Anchovies]

I'm not gonna lie, I'll probably use this when it comes out, but I'm probably gonna throw out the Aztec-ish flavor. For me, truenaming was always a Babylonian or Hebrew soundalike. I have nothing against the Aztec theme itself, I just feel like, maybe, this isn't the system to go with it.

Agreed. I've always thought of Incarnum, especially Totemists, as being the most aztec-ish of the supplemental magic systems, followed by soul binding.

[Larkas]

I'm not gonna lie, I'll probably use this when it comes out, but I'm probably gonna throw out the Aztec-ish flavor. For me, truenaming was always a Babylonian or Hebrew soundalike. I have nothing against the Aztec theme itself, I just feel like, maybe, this isn't the system to go with it.

Now that you've said it... Babylonian makes a LOT of sense.

[Fax Celestis]

I suddenly want to play a Jaguar Warrior who can literally manifest jaguar claws

Funny you should mention that.

http://i.imgur.com/Fhlv8hT.jpg

[EisenKreutzer]

I like the ancient south-american / aztec flavour for this. Not only is it a damn cool culture that feels exotic and has lots of potential in terms of depth, but it's so rarely used. The aztecs, inca and mayans had advanced tchnology, mathmatics and astrology, and particularly the astrology link makes it a good fit IMO.

[Raven777]

I'm not gonna lie, I'll probably use this when it comes out, but I'm probably gonna throw out the Aztec-ish flavor. For me, truenaming was always a Babylonian or Hebrew soundalike. I have nothing against the Aztec theme itself, I just feel like, maybe, this isn't the system to go with it.

I was reading about the Golem of Prague (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/criticalintel/12455-The-Golem-From-Jewish-Mysticism-to-D-D-Icon) earlier today and, sure enough, the Kabbalah does have a kind of truenaming tradition.

[Fax Celestis]

I was planning on making kabbalistic golems too, actually, using scribed edicts.

[Psyren]

It's Aztec for "unique fluff, you can't sue us!" :smallbiggrin:

Dotting for later.

EDIT:


We could call it "Trueveiling" or less ridiculously "Tezapoctli" (meaning "smoking mirror"), and you could speak veils into existence and animate them Sorcerer's Apprentice style. Each round the DC rises to keep your creation in existence until it pops as the strain of the universe self-correcting shatters the tenuous bonds you've imposed. We could do a line of feats that include effects like making it so that when you fail the check and the veil pops, it explodes in a torrent of arcane energy, or creates an untargeted dispel effect in a 10' radius.

This guy. This guy right here. [thumbsup.jpg]

[Sayt]

I'm not gonna lie, I'll probably use this when it comes out, but I'm probably gonna throw out the Aztec-ish flavor. For me, truenaming was always a Babylonian or Hebrew soundalike. I have nothing against the Aztec theme itself, I just feel like, maybe, this isn't the system to go with it.

Babylonian and Hebrew are the obvious choices, but I think there's actually value to be found in the unexpected option adn the unexplored road.

Looking forwards to it!

[Psyren]

Considering I have an inkling of how to pronounce Spanish, and absolutely none for pronouncing Babylonian or Hebrew, the choice is pretty clear for me.

[Jeff the Green]

Nobody actually knows how to pronounce Akkadian. (Babylonians spoke a dialect Akkadian rather than anything distinct enough to be named after them, as did Assyrians.) We can guess based on existing Semitic languages, but it's been dead for over two millennia and we don't have Greek or Roman sources telling us how it's pronounced.

[stack]

Maybe a re fluffing sidebar? I too would prefer a Hebrew/Babylonian theme.

[Fax Celestis]

Maybe a re fluffing sidebar? I too would prefer a Hebrew/Babylonian theme.

Yeah, I think that's feasible.

Another teaser today:


And You Shall Fear Me
Prerequisites: Say My Name feat, And Be Afraid feat, For I Am Great and Terrible feat, ability to speak grandmaster edicts
Benefit: Even creatures normally immune to fear effects and mind-affecting effects are not immune to your fear effects, though they do receive a +5 racial bonus on saving throws against them.

When a creature with at least one-half your hit dice dies within 30 ft. of you, you gain a +2 profane bonus to your Charisma score and 2 temporary hit points per character level for one minute. This is a supernatural ability.

You may cast speak with dead as a spell-like ability. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. Your caster level for this ability is equal to your hit dice.

Special: If you possess And You Shall Fear Me, you may not select And You Shall Be Saved. Should you somehow gain And You Shall Be Saved, you immediately lose And You Shall Fear Me, and you may not select a different feat in its place.

[Taveena]

aaaaa crappy but ever so fluffy subsystem being completely remastered by my favorite publishers? SO EXCITED.

[stack]

The similar feat to allow the dread to pierce immunity gives a +4 bonus. Might be good to match that for consistency across systems.

[Fax Celestis]

The similar feat to allow the dread to pierce immunity gives a +4 bonus. Might be good to match that for consistency across systems.

Oh, good point. I'll do that.

[Psyren]

Note also that the dread cannot affect mindless creatures. There is nothing there to pierce.

Now, in the case of truespeech, you are literally altering reality on a more fundamental level, so I could actually see this working on a skeleton or ooze. So I could go either way really.

[Anlashok]

Dreads are also really bad.

So probably not the best starting point.

[Ssalarn]

Dreads are also really bad.

So probably not the best starting point.

Hey, Dreads are pretty solid Tier 3's. Granted they have some issues when it comes to things that are immune to mind-affecting... But I've been running a Dread through Wrath of the Righteous and a lot of his fear aura powers and other abilities have made him almost impossible to kill up to this point. I suspect level is a factor though; probably by the time I hit the last book or two I'll be less enthused.

[Anlashok]

Hey, Dreads are pretty solid Tier 3's. Granted they have some issues when it comes to things that are immune to mind-affecting... But I've been running a Dread through Wrath of the Righteous and a lot of his fear aura powers and other abilities have made him almost impossible to kill up to this point. I suspect level is a factor though; probably by the time I hit the last book or two I'll be less enthused.

My experience has been the opposite. Between a meh chassis, asynergistic manifesting, generally unthreatening melee combat and the inability to really deal with anyone mind-effecting I just don't see much potential. Penetrating Fear helps with the last problem, but I don't really like that a problem was identified with the class and it was turned into a feat tax instead.

Then the entire class is propped up by how amazingly good Twin Fear is.

There's also lots of other little things that aren't really balance concerns per se, but stuff like the Dread Iconic using gear that the class isn't even proficient with seems to point to the effort put into it.

This is all radically off-topic though. The main point was that I felt that if we were comparing to the Dread's options, we should go one step higher (in this case it does, since the Dread has to burn focus on Penetrating fear and it only works once per usage.. and not at all on powers).

[Fax Celestis]

Mandate of Impaired Senses
Lexicon destruction; Level initiate
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range 50 ft.
Target one creature
Duration five rounds (D)
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
Base Tzocatl DC 21

Anitlachia

Your words warp the truename of the targeted creature, stripping them of their hearing and leaving them deaf. A deafened character takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Perception checks based on sound, takes a –4 penalty on opposed Perception checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components or speaking edicts.

Emphasis: For each three points you beat the Tzocatl DC by, increase this edict’s duration by one round and its range by 10 ft.

Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least four, you may subtract four from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, you may select one of the following senses to remove instead of hearing: low-light vision, darkvision, or the see in darkness ability.

Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least six, you may subtract six from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, you may select one of the following senses to remove instead of hearing: vision (inflicting blindness), tremorsense, scent, or all-around vision.

Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least nine, you may subtract nine from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, you may select one of the following senses to remove instead of hearing: tremorsense, blindsight, blindsense, lifesense, telepathy, or any gaze attack the creature may have.

Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least nine, you may subtract nine from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, this edict becomes permanent and may be removed by lesser restoration. When using this option, if you beat the DC by at least six, this edict may only be removed by restoration, and if you beat the DC by at least 12, this edict may only be removed by greater restoration.

Esoterica: You gain the Alertness feat as a bonus feat.

Well lookee here (or don't, depending on my Tzocatl check).

[Jeff the Green]

Given that this isn't the homebrew thread I'm guessing this is going to be published at some point. Plans? I'd really love to backport this; Mesoamerican religion and culture has always fascinated me and I love pronouncing Nahuatl words (once I figure out how).

[Dusk Eclipse]

Well lookee here (or don't, depending on my Tzocatl check).

Wow, that looks awesome, though it begs some question, for example are the cadences stackable? If got a Tzocatl check of 31 could I remove dark vision and tremorsense from the same enemy? Secondly by "substracting" from the DC am I assuming right that the DC the opponent has to beat its the result of the Tzocatl itself, so in the same example the enemy would have to pass a fort save DC 21? If so save DCs could potentially get silly quite soon (or not, I'm not sure how easy it is to optmize skill checks in PF).


Given that this isn't the homebrew thread I'm guessing this is going to be published at some point. Plans? I'd really love to backport this; Mesoamerican religion and culture has always fascinated me and I love pronouncing Nahuatl words (once I figure out how).

Common Nahuatl isn't that hard (says the Mexican-Spanish speaker :smallwink:)

[Fax Celestis]

Wow, that looks awesome, though it begs some question, for example are the cadences stackable? If got a Tzocatl check of 31 could I remove dark vision and tremorsense from the same enemy? Secondly by "substracting" from the DC am I assuming right that the DC the opponent has to beat its the result of the Tzocatl itself, so in the same example the enemy would have to pass a fort save DC 21? If so save DCs could potentially get silly quite soon (or not, I'm not sure how easy it is to optmize skill checks in PF).



Common Nahuatl isn't that hard (says the Mexican-Spanish speaker :smallwink:)

With the way the cadences are phrased ("instead of" rather than "also"), no, they don't stack.

The Tzocatl check is made by you at time of speaking (casting, basically): emphases base their effects upon how much you surpass that DC. Cadences allow you to "spend" some of the amount you surpass that DC by (and thereby lower the effects of emphases), lowering your result, to a minimum result equal to the edict's base DC. Basically the value you play with when speaking an edict is the amount over the DC you hit. And again, it's not a skill check: Tzocatl checks are 1d20 + 1/2 level of classes with Tzocatl Training (or, with a feat, 1/2 character level) + Int mod.

My expected max check value at 20th level is about 55.

Edicts themselves just use a universal 10 + 1/2 Tzocatl trained level + Int mod save DC.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I missed that, on one hand it is a shame cause it would be hilarious to completely remove your opponent senses (if a bit OP I guess), but on the other hand limiting it is definitely the wiser option.

[Jeff the Green]

Common Nahuatl isn't that hard (says the Mexican-Spanish speaker :smallwink:)

I can do the shorter words without repeating graphemes letter combinations, like up to 'temictli'. Something like 'ichtacacalaquia' takes me a few seconds to sound out for the first couple times.

[Psyren]

I missed that, on one hand it is a shame cause it would be hilarious to completely remove your opponent senses (if a bit OP I guess), but on the other hand limiting it is definitely the wiser option.

Perhaps there will be a feat (inflection?) that lets you choose two cadences from an edict if you beat both of their DC increases. (Or both +5 or something.)

[Gemini476]

With the way the cadences are phrased ("instead of" rather than "also"), no, they don't stack.

The Tzocatl check is made by you at time of speaking (casting, basically): emphases base their effects upon how much you surpass that DC. Cadences allow you to "spend" some of the amount you surpass that DC by (and thereby lower the effects of emphases), lowering your result, to a minimum result equal to the edict's base DC. Basically the value you play with when speaking an edict is the amount over the DC you hit. And again, it's not a skill check: Tzocatl checks are 1d20 + 1/2 level of classes with Tzocatl Training (or, with a feat, 1/2 character level) + Int mod.

My expected max check value at 20th level is about 55.

Edicts themselves just use a universal 10 + 1/2 Tzocatl trained level + Int mod save DC.
So do the Tzocatl Training classes give additional bonuses to your Tzocatl check or something? Because 20 (roll) + 10 (level 20) + 14 (intelligence 39, including +5 inherent, +6 enhancement, +3 age and +2 racial) only gets you to a maximum result of 44.

Or I guess the +11 might come from magic items or something, I dunno.

This projects looks awesome, and I look forward to seeing what happens with it. Although a pronunciation guide for the more common non-fluffy terms like "Tzocatl" might be nice.

[Psyren]

^^^ Yes, please include a pronunciation guide.

The original TS didn't need one because it was basically gibberish, but this is based on something we could actually potentially say at the table, kind of.

[Fax Celestis]

Perhaps there will be a feat (inflection?) that lets you choose two cadences from an edict if you beat both of their DC increases. (Or both +5 or something.)

Many cadences are already compatible. It's just this case where they don't work together, and that's intentional.

[Psyren]

Many cadences are already compatible. It's just this case where they don't work together, and that's intentional.

How about a higher-level version of this cadence that does let you strip all of someone's senses away?

I would peg it around the level of Fuse Flesh/Flesh to Stone.

[Ssalarn]

^^^ Yes, please include a pronunciation guide.

The original TS didn't need one because it was basically gibberish, but this is based on something we could actually potentially say at the table, kind of.



Thirded! Not only would a pronunciation guide be really cool (and educational!), it'd class up the project in a way that you could show off to your nerdy-but-not-gamer friends and maybe draw them in to your insidious web...

I corrupted an entire generation of nieces, nephews, and younger cousins by selling their folks on the educational value of tabletop RPGs :smallbiggrin:

[PsyBomb]

Thirded! Not only would a pronunciation guide be really cool (and educational!), it'd class up the project in a way that you could show off to your nerdy-but-not-gamer friends and maybe draw them in to your insidious web...

I corrupted an entire generation of nieces, nephews, and younger cousins by selling their folks on the educational value of tabletop RPGs :smallbiggrin:

Fourthed, and in a different sidebar you could add in notes about flavoring to a different language for pronunciation (Hebrew and Babylonian were mentioned before, though I'm partial to the former). There are probably a couple of native speakers who would be more than happy to help you out with Hebrew, in any case.

[Fax Celestis]

How about a higher-level version of this cadence that does let you strip all of someone's senses away?

I would peg it around the level of Fuse Flesh/Flesh to Stone.

Base initiate edicts are the equivalent of third-level spells. That increases functionally with cadences and emphases. Masters are 5ths and grandmasters are 7th, so I guess I could make a grandmaster greater mandate of impaired senses that let you remove multiples via emphasis and alter duration with cadence.

[Ssalarn]

Fourthed, and in a different sidebar you could add in notes about flavoring to a different language for pronunciation (Hebrew and Babylonian were mentioned before, though I'm partial to the former). There are probably a couple of native speakers who would be more than happy to help you out with Hebrew, in any case.

"And what did you do tonight Billy?"

"I learned how to say 'sensory deprivation' in Aztec, Hebrew, and ancient Sumerian! Also, I killed a demon and saved Joey from getting seduced by a succubus."

[Psyren]

Can someone arrange to videotape Zaq's tears of joy when he opens this book for the first time?

[Fax Celestis]

Can someone arrange to videotape Zaq's tears of joy when he opens this book for the first time?

I actually PMd Zaq to see if he wanted to preview it. Didn't answer. :(

[Psyren]

I actually PMd Zaq to see if he wanted to preview it. Didn't answer. :(

Thanks to the board's spiffy new stalking function I can see he's heavily involved in Iron Chef at the moment. So I'd give him some time :smallbiggrin:

[danzibr]

I was thinking it would have something to do with the Ixixachitl from MM2.
I thought it was Cthonian.

[stack]

The more I think of it the more I wonder if the mesoamerican theme won't put more people off than it brings in. I doubt people who don't like it are commenting much or even reading the thread. I suppose one could devise a sociological test by releasing material with different themes and see which sells better, but that would be wildly impractical I suspect.

I'd rather not just complain about the name, but it is a concern since I would like to see the product do well. Also, the actual material mostly isn't out for review anyway, so there is only so much to talk about.

[Fax Celestis]

Oh the things you can do! Oh the places you'll go!


Subvert Oath
Lexicon alteration; Level initiate
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range 50 ft.
Target one creature
Duration one round
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
Base Tzocatl DC 21

Tzozonalonimonetol

This edict twists and contorts the target’s truename, conning the universe into believing the target has violated their personal ethics. For the duration of this edict, the targeted creature is considered to be in violation of any code of conduct it might have (such as a paladin’s code of conduct, the edicts of a cavalier’s order, or a cleric’s code of conduct). Once the duration of this edict ends, the targeted creature is returned to normal, and their oath is restored (unless they committed acts during this edict’s duration that would normally violate their oath). A successful Will save negates this effect.

Emphasis: For each three points you surpass the Tzocatl DC by, increase the duration of this edict by one round and its range by 10 ft.

Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least six, you may subtract six from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, this edict instead allows the targeted creature to perform actions normally in violation with their code of conduct for the duration of this edict.

Esoterica: Choose an alignment (chaotic, evil, good, lawful, or neutral) that you do not possess. For the purposes of determining the effects of spells and effects that base their effects on your alignment, you count both as your true alignment and as the selected alignment.
Hell. You're going to Hell.

[Psyren]

Wait, you can turn off a cleric's entire class for 5 rounds? As an initiate level effect? And for a moderate increase, you can get paladins to commit murder or torture without penalty?

I'm not so gung-ho about this one.

[PsyBomb]

Wait, you can turn off a cleric's entire class for 5 rounds? As an initiate level effect? And for a moderate increase, you can get paladins to commit murder or torture without penalty?

I'm not so gung-ho about this one.

That's an SOS with style right there... pity that most code-based classes have good Will.

I don't like the code abeyance function, though. Just rankles for some reason, since power gamers will just use it to stack Profane bonuses on paladins and such.

[Fax Celestis]

Wait, you can turn off a cleric's entire class for 5 rounds? As an initiate level effect? And for a moderate increase, you can get paladins to commit murder or torture without penalty?

I'm not so gung-ho about this one.

WHOOPS, duration should be one round. Curse you copypasta! Still, if you think that's too much, I could bump it to a Master (even keeping the new duration). +6 on the check (or DC 27) is basically not an expected (>50%) result until 12th level.

[Psyren]

I know it's early days yet but we should have a full open playtest like Akasha and PoW did. It's hard to gauge the system's overall power and spot trends from these morsels (tasty though they may be.)

[Fax Celestis]

Oh we will. I just want to get a little more done first.

I've only got two grandmaster edicts, for instance.

[Raven777]

Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least six, you may subtract six from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, this edict instead allows the targeted creature to perform actions normally in violation with their code of conduct for the duration of this edict.

I love you. The world is more beautiful now that this exists.

Philosophical question : does a Paladin asking for that to be cast on him fall afterward because asking to cheat their ethics goes against their ethics?

[Fax Celestis]

The intent is that the paladin (or whatever) has a circumvent method that won't make them fall. As far as the universe is concerned, it never happened. Well it happened, but someone very not the paladin did it.

[Psyren]

I just don't see how that is going to fool a deity/universal power if that paladin commits murder or tortures a child or rapes someone etc. Even if it can, I don't think that it should.

For minor yet nevertheless line-skirting offenses I could see getting the universe to look the other way for a bit. Lying about your identity/alignment, theft, bullying an NPC or casting an evil spell I could maybe agree with, but there are some lines that just should not be possible to cross.

[Extra Anchovies]

I just don't see how that is going to fool a deity/universal power if that paladin commits murder or tortures a child or rapes someone etc. Even if it can, I don't think that it should.

For minor yet nevertheless line-skirting offenses I could see getting the universe to look the other way for a bit. Lying about your identity/alignment, theft, bullying an NPC or casting an evil spell I could maybe agree with, but there are some lines that just should not be possible to cross.

Seconded. The point of a code of conduct is to present a restriction, and when that restriction can be mechanically removed it might as well not exist in the first place. At least, that's my view on the matter.

[Honest Tiefling]

The code should add to a character, not restrain it. I think if your group needs a class to make it feasible, the group views on alignment and codes might need a bit of reworking. Why would a character even agree to circumventing his own faith, their beliefs, the core of why they fight? Might as well have an ability to remove pesky back story and troublesome relatives.

[Anlashok]

The code should add to a character, not restrain it. I think if your group needs a class to make it feasible, the group views on alignment and codes might need a bit of reworking. Why would a character even agree to circumventing his own faith, their beliefs, the core of why they fight? Might as well have an ability to remove pesky back story and troublesome relatives.

You're not thinking it through hard enough, this spell has incredible RP potential.

[T.G. Oskar]

I just don't see how that is going to fool a deity/universal power if that paladin commits murder or tortures a child or rapes someone etc. Even if it can, I don't think that it should.

For minor yet nevertheless line-skirting offenses I could see getting the universe to look the other way for a bit. Lying about your identity/alignment, theft, bullying an NPC or casting an evil spell I could maybe agree with, but there are some lines that just should not be possible to cross.

Then see it in two terms: What You Are In The Dark, and ruining the fun of sadistic DMs.

The first one is a challenge to a Paladin: do any depravity and keep your powers, so as long as you have someone who tells the Universe to ignore your actions. In the end, the power will fail, the individual will commit the action and fall, and all the karmic judgment will fall upon by deluding yourself you could cheat the Universe out of it. I could see a LE Advocate or a Tzocatli-using devil trying to corrupt a Paladin that way. If the Paladin, DESPITE the edict AND being notified accordingly, behaves according to the Code, then chances are the Paladin will rarely provoke its own fall.

Which ties well to part 2: when you fall because of an action, no matter the action. This edict is useful on pulling out of a Kobayashi Maru/Morton's Fork situation: when the best action is to choose the lesser of the two evils, and you have no chance of personally seeking a Third Option, the Advocate ends up providing the Third Option, some flexibility to act while serving the Greater Good. The Universe will never know who did the job, but the Advocate and the Paladin will. Considering the threads speaking of how to specifically make Paladins fall, the ability to have an ally secretly deny the DM the satisfaction of ruining its players is both enlightening and fair: if the DM bans the edict and then seeks to make the Paladin fall, the DM is not looking to let you have fun, especially if you find someone else capable of using the edict against your divinely-empowered ally.

...making that a third benefit of the edict: it lets you root out sadistic DMs.

[Honest Tiefling]

You're not thinking it through hard enough, this spell has incredible RP potential.

I just can't. Seems more like character lobotomy. Maybe if someone forced it on an unwilling target to force them to do something against their will, making them into a sham and a mockery of their beliefs. That's fine, but a willing target?

As for sadistic DMs, my way of rooting them out is to not play with them. If I have to use rules to protect my fun time from my friend, something went horribly wrong here.

[Fax Celestis]

I just can't. Seems more like character lobotomy. Maybe if someone forced it on an unwilling target to force them to do something against their will, making them into a sham and a mockery of their beliefs. That's fine, but a willing target?

As for sadistic DMs, my way of rooting them out is to not play with them. If I have to use rules to protect my fun time from my friend, something went horribly wrong here.

Of note: the "can act outside code" cadence doesn't alter or remove the "treated as violating your code" primary effect. It also doesn't have the Harmless tag on the save or SR lines. You want (or need) to not be restricted fir a little bit? Then you're doing it as a glorified commoner.

[Gemini476]

I just don't see how that is going to fool a deity/universal power if that paladin commits murder or tortures a child or rapes someone etc. Even if it can, I don't think that it should.

For minor yet nevertheless line-skirting offenses I could see getting the universe to look the other way for a bit. Lying about your identity/alignment, theft, bullying an NPC or casting an evil spell I could maybe agree with, but there are some lines that just should not be possible to cross.
If a Paladin does such deeds often enough that they move away from Lawful Good, won't they fall anyway once the utterance ends? It's not an effect that you can just casually use unless you have a personal Forgeborn Advocate speaking it at you 24/7.

I'm alright with this effect, to be honest. Twisting someone's truename would be the perfect disguise against the universe itself, after all.

[Fax Celestis]

I just don't see how that is going to fool a deity/universal power if that paladin commits murder or tortures a child or rapes someone etc. Even if it can, I don't think that it should.

For minor yet nevertheless line-skirting offenses I could see getting the universe to look the other way for a bit. Lying about your identity/alignment, theft, bullying an NPC or casting an evil spell I could maybe agree with, but there are some lines that just should not be possible to cross.

It's not so much looking the other way as it is God, the Universe, and basically anyone who isn't looking directly at you forgetting you exist.

[Honest Tiefling]

The fluff of the effect is fine, just...The narrative. Why would you believe in such a deity if you are willing to pull the wool over that deity's eyes? Why do you have faith in such a being if you think their methods don't work?

[Gemini476]

The fluff of the effect is fine, just...The narrative. Why would you believe in such a deity if you are willing to pull the wool over that deity's eyes? Why do you have faith in such a being if you think their methods don't work?

Those are excellent questions to ask yourself regarding your character's motivation! Add in "why would you want to circumvent your restrictions?" and "what would you do if you could do one thing without consequence?" and you're getting a pretty decent list started.

Personally I see it a bit like the "powderkeg paladin" school of thought - it's not the question of if you're going to fall, it's when and for what purpose. What would make you break your code of conduct? What circumstances could you think of where such a thing would be necessary, or the lesser of two evils?

Subvert Oath offers an out, a way for you to cheat around your code to do those grisly things without actually suffering the consequences for it. It's a bit of the coward's way out, perhaps, but I'm sure that some would choose it nevertheless. Feral orphaned goblin babies and whatnot.


But the main use of the utterance would be to shut down enemy clerics or whatnot anyway, and even then it seems unlikely that you'll get enough of a duration out of the effect that it would be useful for performing any more heinous deeds that require more than, say, six seconds. 50% chance until level 12, was it? So 35% chance until then that you get at least two rounds out of the code-hiding effect.

[Taveena]

It's a... very interesting idea. I presume that alignment restrictions remain in place? Like if a Paladin suddenly jumps off the deep end (but only for the duration of the effect) his powers are gone for good, because that's not part of the Code. (I mean. It is, but it's also a more permanent change and he'll be locked out once the code comes back on.)

[Gemini476]

It's a... very interesting idea. I presume that alignment restrictions remain in place? Like if a Paladin suddenly jumps off the deep end (but only for the duration of the effect) his powers are gone for good, because that's not part of the Code. (I mean. It is, but it's also a more permanent change and he'll be locked out once the code comes back on.)

The effect only blocks your code of conduct from interfering with actions taken during its duration - your alignment is not shielded by the edict. If you do enough non-good or non-lawful actions to turn you away from Lawful Good, that'll still stick around after the effect ends.

He could do an evil act or use poison or lie to someone's face or whatever during the effect as much as he wanted as long as that didn't actually change his alignment, but once it as much as shifts him to Neutral Good he's out of luck after the edict ends and he'll need to find a cleric to cast Atonement on him.

So basically what you said.

[Psyren]

Considering the threads speaking of how to specifically make Paladins fall, the ability to have an ally secretly deny the DM the satisfaction of ruining its players is both enlightening and fair: if the DM bans the edict and then seeks to make the Paladin fall, the DM is not looking to let you have fun, especially if you find someone else capable of using the edict against your divinely-empowered ally.

...making that a third benefit of the edict: it lets you root out sadistic DMs.

This is not nearly the same thing as a DM deliberately trying to make Paladins fall. This is a player who chose to be a Paladin colluding with a {Truenamer} to completely flout/trivialize that decision.


Of note: the "can act outside code" cadence doesn't alter or remove the "treated as violating your code" primary effect. It also doesn't have the Harmless tag on the save or SR lines. You want (or need) to not be restricted fir a little bit? Then you're doing it as a glorified commoner.

Being a Paladin is about so much more than having superpowers. O-Chul dumped Cha and has what looks like 1 smite/day, yet he would never want an ability like this used anywhere near him.


Those are excellent questions to ask yourself regarding your character's motivation!

They're questions that would only need to be asked in the most cynical or nonsensical of settings.

[Fax Celestis]

Being a Paladin is about so much more than having superpowers. O-Chul dumped Cha and has what looks like 1 smite/day, yet he would never want an ability like this used anywhere near him.

And yet Miko would probably have made liberal use of it on her descent. O-Chul is what Paladins aspire to be, but most end up being more like Miko.

[Gemini476]

Note that having the edict spoken on you does not mean that you actually need to perform a CoC-breaking act. It's not mind control. If O-Chul got it spoken on him, he wouldn't break his code of conduct anyway. If Miko got it spoken on her, she might take the opportunity to do something she deems necessary.

Not that the Paladin is necessarily the only class that would possibly be interested in getting the effect on them. Cavaliers and Clerics, for instance.

...Come to think of it, does this do anything to the Vow of X archetypes?

[Taveena]

As a 3.PF player, this sounds hella useful for a VoP character. "Damnit, cancel my vow and gimme your flying boots."

[Admiral Squish]

Firstly, this is awesome and I'm so annoyed I didn't learn it was a thing before. Wouldn't this be better placed in homebrew?
Second, I love the Nahuatl theme. I will admit, as one who's been wrestling with the language for many months now, I'll agree it's one of those languages that's incredibly had to pronounce. That and Inuktitut are right up there on my list. I still can't do the 'tl' properly.
Thirdly, damn you for tempting me to do something similar in my setting, even if I know for a fact it's gonna be too much work.

I also wanted to mention, in Mexica poetry, there's a practice whose name escapes me at the moment. It's similar to synecdoche, where you use part of a thing to refer to the whole of a thing, but in aztec poetry, they would use two parts, and often they heavily relied on metaphor to pick the words, so a soldier could be referred to as 'muscle and sword', or a wise leader could be referred to as 'mind and voice', or a squadron of troops as 'jaguars and eagles'. I'm not exactly sure if that would be able to help you in your work, but I think it's got some potential.

[shameless plug]
Oh, and to all those people who were mentioning that Mesoamerican cultures don't really have much/any representation in D&D, I would direct your attention to my world-building project, Crossroads: the New World (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?345327-Crossroads-II-I-m-on-a-Mammoth), a PF setting based on alt-history North America where, among many other changes, the Mexica killed Cortez and extracted the techniques of ironworking and making gunpowder from his captured men.
[/shameless plug]

[Psyren]

And yet Miko would probably have made liberal use of it on her descent. O-Chul is what Paladins aspire to be, but most end up being more like Miko.

The fact that this ability is aimed at Miko-Paladins is not exactly a ringing endorsement.


Note that having the edict spoken on you does not mean that you actually need to perform a CoC-breaking act. It's not mind control. If O-Chul got it spoken on him, he wouldn't break his code of conduct anyway. If Miko got it spoken on her, she might take the opportunity to do something she deems necessary.

That's my point - it's only useful for paladins who have no business being paladins. For the good ones, at best it is a debuff while they sit still and wait for their powers to come back.

I personally feel that connections like this - cleric/paladin and their deity/power - are too fundamental to be suspended by mortal magic. {Truenamers} are hackers, yes, but not gods.


Firstly, this is awesome and I'm so annoyed I didn't learn it was a thing before. Wouldn't this be better placed in homebrew?

I'd say this is more of a preview for upcoming 3rd-party material (similar to the other DSP playtests we've had here) than brainstorming something that doesn't exist yet.

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, what about a cavalier stepping outside the bounds of his oath? Or a druid that needs to wear plate for a royal guard disguise?

[Psyren]

Okay, what about a cavalier stepping outside the bounds of his oath? Or a druid that needs to wear plate for a royal guard disguise?

I'm fine with both of those. If there were some kind of "heinous acts" clause for the DM to invoke I would be fine with this.

I would even be fine with a cadence that lets a cleric cast off-alignment spells (probably from an item?), channel the wrong kind of energy, or lets a druid wear metal and still wildshape. (i.e. one that doesn't remove their Su abilities completely.) But some things should literally be held sacred.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm fine with both of those. If there were some kind of "heinous acts" clause for the DM to invoke I would be fine with this.

I would even be fine with a cadence that lets a cleric cast off-alignment spells (probably from an item?), channel the wrong kind of energy, or lets a druid wear metal and still wildshape. (i.e. one that doesn't remove their Su abilities completely.) But some things should literally be held sacred.

So if it said something more like:


Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least six, you may subtract six from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, this edict instead allows the targeted creature to perform actions normally in violation with their code of conduct for the duration of this edict. Particularly egregious or heinous acts (typically those that result in alignment shift) cause the targeted creature to be in violation of their code of conduct when this edict ends, and they suffer any resultant effects as normal.

...you'd be better with it?

Or are you more looking for something like:


Cadence: If you beat the Tzocatl DC by at least six, you may subtract six from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, this edict causes the targeted creature's alignment-based features to act as if they had the alignment directly opposed to their own: a good cleric would channel negative energy, for instance.

Obviously this second one is vague and needs clarification, but the general idea is there.

[Psyren]

The former is perfect.

The latter suggestion was more an off-the-cuff way to enhance the edict a bit further, giving you a way to use it on allied divine casters without removing their powers entirely. (For example, your druid that needs to infiltrate by wearing metal could still use Thousand Faces.) But if it just had the former I would be a-okay.

[Fax Celestis]

That's easy enough. I'll put it in.

[T.G. Oskar]

This is not nearly the same thing as a DM deliberately trying to make Paladins fall. This is a player who chose to be a Paladin colluding with a {Truenamer} to completely flout/trivialize that decision.

It's better than not playing the class(es) you want, no?

Note the line of thought: the second use of the Edict is to assist on catch-22 situations. DMs who use that resource can be grouped in three bands: one, a DM that does it unwittingly; two, a DM that does it responsibly; three, a DM that does it to grief.

The first DM probably has its first DMing experience, and didn't knew that was a catch-22, so it probably ignores that situation and allows the Paladin to remain, since it wasn't intentional. In that regard, the DM might find it useful that the Advocate/"Truenamer" has an option that allows it to do so, particularly if said situation is pointed out and the DM is allowing a way out.

Your concern seems to be towards the second DM, the one who does it responsibly (looking to add drama to the game). In that case, it's only trivialized as long as the event causing the drama is allowed to be trivialized: perhaps an NPC that opposes the Paladin openly or secretly knows the secret, and while its powers remain, its prestige may be stained. Alternatively, the Paladin may find itself at a crisis of faith; to avoid a situation where its power would be threatened, he resorted to cheating; his powers are intact, but the Paladin finds itself unworthy and seeks a way to rectify, perhaps even seeking Atonement even if it's not necessary. In that case, it's not trivial: the event still has its repercussions, but you don't lose your powers because of it; the repercussions end up strictly at the roleplaying side of the equation, rather than the mechanical side of the equation.

The third was a result of how the idea played out: what happens when the DM does it intentionally, because it wants to see you fall? The usual answer is "leave and never return", but you're losing a lot of time and potentially friends because of it. If you have a DM that denies the Advocate/"Truenamer" this benefit, it may have its reasons; if you then see the DM using an NPC Advocate or Tzocatli user uttering the same Edict, then you know that the DM probably has intentions to screw the players (because it uses an ability that was banned in its table). The third kind of DM that uses catch-22 situations now has a rules-based (as long as it allows) method to have that grief denied, or a sort of litmus test to figure if the DM doesn't have the best intentions of making a fair and fun game in mind.

I would have accepted your reply if you had used the whole quote, but you seem to extrapolate "not the same thing" without quoting the part that would support you the most; in that case, you can consider that as a flow of thought: one thing led to the other. Again: it relates a lot to What You Are In The Dark, since if you're intentionally working with an Advocate/"Truenamer" in order to cheat the Code, then the DM will easily find a way to break that out; after all, stopping being Lawful Good is grounds for immediate break, and doing those actions constantly IS grounds for alignment change.

Finally: it's necessary to define to what extent a player has no business playing a Paladin because it doesn't want to follow the Code, and to what extent a player's fun is restricted because of the Code. The reason is because the latter is entirely possible without the need of overlapping: someone who plays a Paladin finds the decision it has to make unfair, and the loss of powers by making a decision the player thought was right but the DM thought as wrong is grounds for ruining the player's fun. I wouldn't base my argument on the outliers, assuming that people will routinely cheat the Code just because it exists and take unfair advantage of it. I focus on the way this can solve a situation. After all, Subvert Oath is incredibly mild compared to, say, the Gray Guard's Sacrament of the True Faith class feature, which is constant and requires nothing but taking a PrC to its completion (almost as many hurdles, if not more, as finding an Advocate constantly using the Edict on your behalf). Because of this, do you see Paladins gravitating to the Gray Guard class because it allows them to effectively break their Code (not entirely, not absolutely, but effectively)?

[Psyren]

I'm not going to keep derailing this with the paladin discussion. Suffice to say, not all paladin fall scenarios are engineered ahead of time by the DM (as numerous threads from DMs about the actions of paladins in their game posted to this subforum have shown) - some are genuinely the player's fault. If you want an ability that lets said paladin doff and don their code like a pair of old sneakers, that's up to you; all I'm saying is that I find that concept unpalatable.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, in any case I've added the egregious clause, which I think covers the main concerns but still keeps the ability's functionality.

[Fax Celestis]

Something a little more mundane, today:


War Cry
Lexicon alteration [language-dependent]; Level apprentice
Casting Time 1 standard action
Range 30 ft.
Target one creature
Duration five rounds (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Base Tzocatl DC 15

Yaotlatoa

The targeted creature gains a +1 insight bonus on attack and damage rolls for the duration of this edict.

Emphasis: For each five points you surpass the Tzocatl DC by, increase the bonus provided by this edict by 1 and its duration by one round.

Cadence: If you surpass the Tzocatl DC by at least five, you may subtract four from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, you may target an additional creature with this edict. You may purchase this cadence multiple times, but you may not decrease your Tzocatl check below the Base Tzocatl DC when using this option.

Cadence: If you surpass the Tzocatl DC by at least five, you may subtract four from your Tzocatl check result. If you do so, this edict loses the language-dependent descriptor.

Esoterica: You gain a bonus fighter feat. You must meet the feat’s prerequisites to select and use the feat, as normal.

And my baseline assumptions:


Level½ LevelBase IntInt Item BonusWish BonusEffective Int ModOther Mods
11180040
21180040
31182050
42192050
52192050
63192052
73192052
84204072
94204072
105204072
115204072
126214074
136216084
147216084
157216084
168226194
1782262104
1892263106
1992264116
20102365126


Without appropriate recitation litany active

LevelExpected LowExpected AverageExpected High
161525
261525
371626
481727
581727
6112030
7112030
8142333
9142333
10152434
11152434
12182737
13192838
14202939
15202939
16223141
17233242
18263545
19273646
20293848


With appropriate recitation litany active

LevelExpected LowExpected AverageExpected High
161525
261525
371626
481727
581727
6112030
7112030
8142333
9142333
10152434
11152434
12213040
13223141
14233242
15233242
16253444
17263545
18354454
19364555
20384757


Using these assumptions:

A first level advocate who rolls average is going to give a +1 for 5 rounds. One who crits can do +3 for 7 rounds, or +2 to two for 6 rounds, or +1 to three for 5 rounds.

A fifth level advocate who rolls average is going to give a +1 for 5 rounds. One who crits can do +3 for 7 rounds, or +2 to two for 6 rounds, or +1 to three for 5 rounds.

A tenth level advocate who rolls average is going to give a +3 for 7 rounds. One who crits can do +5 for 9 rounds, or +4 to two for 8 rounds, or +3 to three for 7 rounds, or +2 to four for 6 rounds, or +1 to five for 5 rounds.

A 15th level advocate using recitation of alteration while speaking war cry who rolls average is going to give a +5 for 9 rounds. One who crits can do +7 for 11 rounds, or +6 to two for 10 rounds, or +5 to three for 9 rounds, or +4 to four for 8 rounds, or +3 to five for 7 rounds, or +2 to six for 6 rounds, or +1 to seven for 5 rounds.

A 15th level advocate not using recitation of alteration while speaking war cry who rolls average is going to give a +4 for 8 rounds. One who crits can do +5 for 9 rounds, or +4 to two for 8 rounds, or +3 to three for 7 rounds, or +2 to four for 6 rounds, or +1 to five for 5 rounds.

A 20th level advocate using recitation of alteration while speaking war cry who rolls average is going to give a +7 for 11 rounds. One who rolls an 18 or higher can give one creature a +9 insight bonus to attack and damage rolls for 13 rounds. Or two creatures a +8 for 12 rounds. Or three creatures a +7 for 11 rounds. Or four creatures a +6 for 10 rounds. Or five creatures a +5 for 9 rounds. Or...etc. etc.

A 20th-level advocate not using recitation of alteration while speaking war cry who rolls average is going to give a +5 for 9 rounds. One who rolls a 17 or higher can give one creature +7 for 11 rounds, or two +6 for 10 rounds, or three +5 for 9 rounds, or four +4 for 8 rounds, or...etc. etc.

[stack]

Bonus combat feat, not fighter feat. Minor quibble.

[Psyren]

Is there going to be a more universal way to multi-target edicts, like Speak Unto The Masses was (only less sucky)?

+1 to the party at level 15 is kinda eh.

[Fax Celestis]

Is there going to be a more universal way to multi-target edicts, like Speak Unto The Masses was (only less sucky)?

+1 to the party at level 15 is kinda eh.

Suffixes (read: "metaedicts that don't sound stupid") will cover that.

Also remember that war cry is effectively a first-level spell.

[Psyren]

Thanks - still not clear on how the scaling works. (i.e. whether it relies more on augmentation like psionics did or "Least X, Lesser X, X, Greater X" etc.

[Fax Celestis]

Right now, edicts only scale via emphases and cadences. There are a couple, though not many "Improved X" edicts.

I'm thinking about putting in a universal emphasis clause: for each ...5? you beat the DC, increase an edict's effective level by 1. Apprentices are 1st, Initiates are 3rd, Masters are 5th, and Grandmasters are 7th, effectively, to start out with.

[Gemini476]

So what would care about the spell level of edicts, anyway? Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Turning, stuff like that? Some assorted feats?

By the way, what type of ability are edicts? Are they spell-like, like Utterances and Invocations were?

[Fax Celestis]

So what would care about the spell level of edicts, anyway? Globe of Invulnerability, Spell Turning, stuff like that? Some assorted feats?

By the way, what type of ability are edicts? Are they spell-like, like Utterances and Invocations were?

Yeah, globe of invulnerability, et al. would care.

The "Edicts" class feature is (Sp). They function pretty much as spell-like abilities. They're not typed as either arcane or divine, either: they're sort of both, sort of neither.

[Psyren]

I'm thinking about putting in a universal emphasis clause: for each ...5? you beat the DC, increase an edict's effective level by 1. Apprentices are 1st, Initiates are 3rd, Masters are 5th, and Grandmasters are 7th, effectively, to start out with.

Is that automatic/passive, or does it stack with other DC increases? For example, if I'm trying to add a +5 cadence and I also want to heighten it, do I have to beat the DC by 5, or by 10?

Also, how will Laws work? (Sorry if that was explained and I missed it.)

How will items work? Is that still being decided? Who can use Tzocatl items?

ToM did items extraordinarily stupidly (e.g. a "truename scroll" that would only work on Bob the Orc, son of Gloin, who lives at 5337 Drury Lane and only until he gained 4 levels, at which point it was useless forever more.)

[Fax Celestis]

Is that automatic/passive, or does it stack with other DC increases? For example, if I'm trying to add a +5 cadence and I also want to heighten it, do I have to beat the DC by 5, or by 10? The DC doesn't change: it's a static number. Emphases care about how much you beat that number by, cadences take your amount past the number and allow you to spend it for effects. As a "universal emphasis", it would automatically happen if you sufficiently surpass the DC.


Also, how will Laws work? (Sorry if that was explained and I missed it.)There's only one, built into the Edicts class feature: if you speak an edict in concurrent rounds, you take a -5 penalty on the Tzocatl check.


How will items work? Is that still being decided? Who can use Tzocatl items?I haven't touched items yet, tbf. I have plans for icuiloa and machiotl, two new craftable items made via Scribe Scroll. Icuiloa are basically scrolls, machiotl are what happens when you inscribe a word of power into an object (or a body). The Inscribed Cryptic and Inscribed Barbarian function around the latter.

[Psyren]

The DC doesn't change: it's a static number. Emphases care about how much you beat that number by, cadences take your amount past the number and allow you to spend it for effects. As a "universal emphasis", it would automatically happen if you sufficiently surpass the DC.

I know, sorry - I meant to specify "effective DC."



There's only one, built into the Edicts class feature: if you speak an edict in concurrent rounds, you take a -5 penalty on the Tzocatl check.

Only for successful checks, right?



I haven't touched items yet, tbf. I have plans for icuiloa and machiotl, two new craftable items made via Scribe Scroll. Icuiloa are basically scrolls, machiotl are what happens when you inscribe a word of power into an object (or a body). The Inscribed Cryptic and Inscribed Barbarian function around the latter.

Ooh, so you can make temporary magic items - kinda like infusions, only they work on squishy people too?

[Fax Celestis]

Machiotl are more like psionic tattoos than anything, but yeah, you've got the idea.

And there is no "unsuccessful check". The base DC only describes how well you speak the edict. There's no penalty for failing the check, you just get the bog-standard, un-emphasized version of the edict. Having that failure chance was one of the biggest problems with the Truenamer: you had to pump your check to absurd levels to make sure you could use your features, which already had other failure mechanics built into them (saves and SR). Martial combat has two failure mechanics baked in: AC and miss chance. DR is there, but it's not a failure chance so much as a degradation of effectiveness. Similarly, spellcasting has two baked in: saving throw and SR. Since Tzocatl is based more on the latter than the former, it uses those selfsame failure mechanics. I don't see a need to add a third layer of "you do nothing": all that would do would be to make the Advocate and other Tzocatl classes worse than their non-Tzocatl counterparts.

in 3.5 terms, it's best to think of the Advocate as primarily similar to the warlock. Sort of like a psionic warlock, actually, except instead of having power points automatically, he has to make a special caster level check to determine how many PP he gets for this one invocation, of which they are all automatically allocated into one augment (emphases), but he can reallocate them as he invokes for other effects (cadences). And all his invocations have a verbal component but no somatic or material components. And he gets a couple ToB stances that he has to talk to use.

[PsyBomb]

Machiotl are more like psionic tattoos than anything, but yeah, you've got the idea.

And there is no "unsuccessful check". The base DC only describes how well you speak the edict. There's no penalty for failing the check, you just get the bog-standard, un-emphasized version of the edict. Having that failure chance was one of the biggest problems with the Truenamer: you had to pump your check to absurd levels to make sure you could use your features, which already had other failure mechanics built into them (saves and SR). Martial combat has two failure mechanics baked in: AC and miss chance. DR is there, but it's not a failure chance so much as a degradation of effectiveness. Similarly, spellcasting has two baked in: saving throw and SR. Since Tzocatl is based more on the latter than the former, it uses those selfsame failure mechanics. I don't see a need to add a third layer of "you do nothing": all that would do would be to make the Advocate and other Tzocatl classes worse than their non-Tzocatl counterparts.

in 3.5 terms, it's best to think of the Advocate as primarily similar to the warlock. Sort of like a psionic warlock, actually, except instead of having power points automatically, he has to make a special caster level check to determine how many PP he gets for this one invocation, of which they are all automatically allocated into one augment (emphases), but he can reallocate them as he invokes for other effects (cadences). And all his invocations have a verbal component but no somatic or material components. And he gets a couple ToB stances that he has to talk to use.

THAT changes a lot about the system right there. Need to make sure to make that VERY clear , or else people will take a failed check to mean "No Edict"

[Fax Celestis]

THAT changes a lot about the system right there. Need to make sure to make that VERY clear , or else people will take a failed check to mean "No Edict"

Here is the Edicts class feature.


Edicts (Sp): An advocate speaks edicts to invoke his will on the world around him.

To learn or use an edict, an advocate must have the appropriate minimum Intelligence score: 11 for apprentice edicts, 14 for initiate edicts, 17 for master edicts, and 20 for grandmaster edicts. The Difficulty Class for an edict is equal to 10 + ½ the advocate’s class level (minimum 1) + his Intelligence modifier.

Unlike other spellcasters, an advocate can speak his edicts as often as he is able: there is no usage per day limit on edicts. However, if an advocate speaks an edict more often than every other round, he takes a -5 penalty on the Tzocatl check for each prior utterance of that edict in that time frame. For instance, if an advocate speaks the eternal armament edict in one round, and then speaks eternal armament again in the round immediately following, he takes a -5 penalty on the Tzocatl check for the second utterance.

Edicts change when uttered via two mechanisms: most edicts have automatically scaling results based upon the result of your Tzocatl check made when you speak an edict (called emphases), and some edicts also have the option to willingly lower your Tzocatl check result for a new or different effect (called cadences). When determining the power of an edict, use the Tzocatl check result after any subtractions for cadences are made. Rarely, edicts may have multiple cadences: these may be combined, but you must make any necessary subtractions individually.

An advocate knows a limited number of edicts, as shown on the class table. At first through fifth level, an advocate may only select apprentice-level edicts. At sixth level, he may begin selecting initiate-level edicts. At 12th level, he may begin selecting master-level edicts. At 18th level, he may begin selecting grandmaster-level edicts.

Edicts do not have somatic or material components, merely verbal ones, and as such edicts are not subject to arcane spell failure chance. In an area of silence (or due to another effect that would render the advocate unable to speak, such as a gag), an advocate cannot utter edicts. If the advocate's ability to hear or speak is impeded (such as being underwater or deafened), any edict spoken by the advocate suffers a 20% chance of failure. Unlike other magic, edicts cannot be silent (unlike how a wizard can make a spell silent with the Silent Spell metamagic feat).

When speaking an edict, an advocate must make a special Tzocatl check: the result of this check augments the features of the edict as it is cast. See the individual edict descriptions for details. Like other magics, speaking an edict requires concentration.

An advocate's caster level is equal to his advocate level (but see Advocates and Prestige Classes, below). Apprentice edicts are the equivalent of first-level spells for determining how they interact with spells and effects reliant on spell level (such as globe of invulnerability or spell turning): similarly, initiate edicts are the equivalent of third-level spells, master edicts are the equivalent of fifth-level spells, and grandmaster edicts are the equivalent of seventh-level spells.


...and the Litanies feature:


Litanies (Sp): Starting at 4th level, an advocate begins learning litanies. Litanies are special edicts that are activated as a swift action and remain active until the advocate begins a new litany or specifically ends the litany. While an advocate may speak and perform other actions while speaking a litany, he must otherwise continue speaking the litany for as long as he wishes to be under its effects. For this reason, litanies do not function in an area where an advocate is unable to speak clearly (such as in an area of silence).

Litanies are otherwise identical to edicts; however, a litany may not be selected in place of an edict.

...and the Advocates and Prerequisites feature:


Advocates and Prerequisites: Classes that progress spellcasting also progress an advocate's caster level, his number of edicts known, and the kinds of edicts the advocate may select; it does not, however, progress Specialized Lexicon unless otherwise specified. In addition, when determining if an advocate can enter a prestige class or take a feat, treat apprentice edicts as first-level spells, initiate edicts as third-level spells, master edicts as fifth-level spells, and grandmaster edicts as seventh-level spells. Edicts are both arcane and divine in nature. Abilities that require the expenditure of a spell slot cannot be activated by an advocate’s edicts, as they do not expend spell slots, but abilities that work based upon the casting of a spell trigger as usual when an advocate speaks an edict.

[Psyren]

See, it's not clear from reading that, that failing the check would still make the base edict go off. Also, my assumption was that (as with Truespeak) that very few of these abilities would have saving throws, with only the most powerful ones getting that as a balancing factor. Of course, that only worked because they scaled with the monster's CR or HD in some way, which I thought would be the case here.

I feel like emphases should be the voluntary one and cadences should be the automatic one. Not a big deal though.

The prereqs thing needs to be careful of dual-advancement from theurges.

[Fax Celestis]

I'll put in language to the prereq thing that in the case of a class that advances multiple kinds of spellcasting, it only advances edicts once.

What could I add to the Edicts feature to make it clear that failing the check doesn't do anything? There's no language in there now about failing to speak an edict at all except in the case of deafness or silence.

[Psyren]

What could I add to the Edicts feature to make it clear that failing the check doesn't do anything? There's no language in there now about failing to speak an edict at all except in the case of deafness or silence.

The issue is you're using the term "DC" which means "chance of failure" (CRB 12). So DMs, especially the ones familiar with Truenaming (as Psybomb mentioned) will think "oh, you failed, nothing happens."

As for what I would do - I would add something that sounds like a penalty even if it isn't. For example "If you fail to beat an edict's Tzocatl DC, the base effect will still occur, but you cannot add any cadences, emphases, suffixes or other modifications to its result. If such additions were declared/attempted ahead of time, only the base effect of the edict will take place." This is not actually a penalty, because if you tanked your check enough to fail the edict DC you probably weren't getting any of those goodies to begin with. But this allows you to state "it still works" without it sounding like the DC is there for no reason.

[Fax Celestis]

The issue is you're using the term "DC" which means "chance of failure" (CRB 12). So DMs, especially the ones familiar with Truenaming (as Psybomb mentioned) will think "oh, you failed, nothing happens."

As for what I would do - I would add something that sounds like a penalty even if it isn't. For example "If you fail to beat an edict's Tzocatl DC, the base effect will still occur, but you cannot add any cadences, emphases, suffixes or other modifications to its result. If such additions were declared/attempted ahead of time, only the base effect of the edict will take place." This is not actually a penalty, because if you tanked your check enough to fail the edict DC you probably weren't getting any of those goodies to begin with. But this allows you to state "it still works" without it sounding like the DC is there for no reason.

Done and done.

[malonkey1]

Y'know, I mentioned using Hebrew for truenaming earlier, and after a brief chain of thoughts, I was curious. Is there going to be a "Golem crafter/commander" class using this system? I think it'd be neat mechanically, as well as fluff-wise, perhaps even making Truespeech/Tzocatl check to raise a golem, or to give it a special order or quality.

[Gemini476]

I'll put in language to the prereq thing that in the case of a class that advances multiple kinds of spellcasting, it only advances edicts once.

What could I add to the Edicts feature to make it clear that failing the check doesn't do anything? There's no language in there now about failing to speak an edict at all except in the case of deafness or silence.

To expand a bit on what Psyren said, I suppose: Pathfinder is a very binary system in how it works. You roll 1d20+modifiers vs. a DC - if you beat it, the effect is successful. If you do not beat the DC, you fail. That's how it works in most cases, although there are exceptions that are called out (like saving throws with partial effects).

Since this is so ingrained in how the system works, the base assumption is that if you do not succeed on a check nothing happens. So Tzocatl needs to call out that something does indeed happen. Which you've probably done by now.

I'd say something about "failing forward", but that's not really that much of a thing within 3.5 and its derivatives. I like that the Advocate doesn't end up wasting their turn, though.

[Fax Celestis]

Y'know, I mentioned using Hebrew for truenaming earlier, and after a brief chain of thoughts, I was curious. Is there going to be a "Golem crafter/commander" class using this system? I think it'd be neat mechanically, as well as fluff-wise, perhaps even making Truespeech/Tzocatl check to raise a golem, or to give it a special order or quality.

I already have a PrC centered around advanced uses of the litany of living words, which basically makes one of your edicts into a pet ooze that you can command. I do have plans for Kabbalistic golems, and when that template is drawn up I'll probably make a PrC to support that too.

Or I guess I could just make it a summoner archetype, but that might be more effort than it's worth.

[Honest Tiefling]

A hybrid with the summoner (Ala Bloodrager or the like) would be very nifty, but yes, a lot of work.

[Gemini476]

So Pathfinder already has some material regarding True Names and similar concepts in the form of some brief things regarding binding outsiders (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/binding-outsiders)and the more elaborate and ill-supported Words of Power (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/words-of-power) system. Both from Ultimate Magic.

I don't suppose that there's going to be any kind of interaction between those and Tzocatl? Or Words of Power and Tzocatl, at least, since the fluff of "fundamental building blocks of magic" seems somewhat similar to what I've been able to glance of the fluff of your Aztec psuedo-Truespeech.

I can understand if there isn't, since Words of Power is... pretty unsupported, to say the least. But I kind of like the subsystem, so I figured that I'd ask.

Adding the new Power Words to the list of effect words, for instance. Even if it's just a mention for adaption in a sidebar.

[Fax Celestis]

I don't have plans at this time, mostly because it'd involve learning a new subsystem. Being unfamiliar with it I'd worry about breaking it, you know?

[Gemini476]

I don't have plans at this time, mostly because it'd involve learning a new subsystem. Being unfamiliar with it I'd worry about breaking it, you know?

Eh, that's alright. I'll have to cobble together some quick homebrew for it later, then. (Although given how similar Power Word Kill (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/power-word-kill) and Kill (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant-magic-rules/words-of-power/effect-words/kill) are, that should probably be easy.)

[Fax Celestis]

Come to think of it, I don't think I've actually posted any litanies.


Dragonfire Litany
Lexicon alteration (litany) [fire]; Level apprentice (litany)
Casting Time 1 swift action
Range personal
Target you
Duration permanent until dispelled or until a new litany begins

While dragonfire litany is active, you gain the ability to breathe a 15 ft. cone of fire as a standard action. Creatures caught within the cone take fire damage according to your Tzocatl check (made as part of your standard action to breathe).
Tzocatl Check ResultFire Damage
15 or less
1d6
16-19
2d6
20-23
4d6
24-27
6d6
28-32
8d6
33-36
10d6
37-40
12d6
41-45
14d6
46-50
16d6
51-54
18d6
55 or more
20d6
A successful Reflex save halves this damage.

If you have the ability to speak master-level edicts, dragonfire litany may instead create a 30 ft. cone of fire. If you have the ability to speak grandmaster-level edicts, dragonfire litany may instead create a 60 ft. cone of fire.

Esoterica: You gain the evasion ability, as the rogue ability of the same name, except you may only use it against breath weapons.

[Psyren]

I like it.

What's the reflex DC for the poor rube on the receiving end?

[Dusk Eclipse]

I'd assume the normal DC for most abilities: 10+1/2 advocate level + relevant ability mod (I suppose Int)

[Fax Celestis]

I'd assume the normal DC for most abilities: 10+1/2 advocate level + relevant ability mod (I suppose Int)

Correct. Edicts all use the same save formula. It was easier than something like 11+INT for Apprentice, 13+INT for Initiate, 15+INT for Master, 17+INT for Grandmaster. Then you'd have to go look up what level edict you're using, which is another slowdown. Making them all the same makes for a smoother curve progression and lets the lower-level edicts that have lots of scalability options (like mandate of impaired senses) remain relevant without using funky esoterica/cadence scaling mechanisms (which have their own drama, see also energy missile and its DC scaling arguments).

[Psyren]

Minor comment: not sure if this is intentional but the range isn't uniform across the table - at 14d6 and 16d6 it bumps up to 5 possible values (e.g. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) but then drops back down to 4 at 18d6 (51, 52, 53, 54.) I would widen the 18d6 range by one (51-55), and then the final category would be "56 or more" to make it a little easier to grok.

[Fax Celestis]

Minor comment: not sure if this is intentional but the range isn't uniform across the table - at 14d6 and 16d6 it bumps up to 5 possible values (e.g. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45) but then drops back down to 4 at 18d6 (51, 52, 53, 54.) I would widen the 18d6 range by one (51-55), and then the final category would be "56 or more" to make it a little easier to grok.

Nope, that's me unable to math in my head. Fixin'.