Truenamer potential power

[Heliomance]

So mostly everyone here knows that the Truenamer class doesn't work properly. This is not a thread about that. If you want to rant about that, I don't care. If you want to passionately argue that it works just fine, you just have to know how to use it, I don't care. Please keep such arguments out of this thread.

What I'm interested in, for the purposes of this thread, is its power level assuming it did work properly. If you fixed the DCs to be something more sensible (and again, I don't care precisely what fix you think it needs), or if you put in the considerable amounts of effort to make it work, how good is it? Just looking at the abilities, and not whether or not you can actually use them, how useful, powerful, and versatile are the things it gets to do?

[Xuldarinar]

Now someone asks the question. Alright, there are a few questions to address when assessing this question.


1. What can a truenamer do?

A truenamer is (in theory) the best when it comes to using utterances. They can also scry upon those who's name they know, speak to those from afar, effect groups of individuals with utterances in place of a single individual, and eventually come up with a name with which you can be summoned. In of itself, slightly nicer benefits than a wizard gets aside from their spells. Well, more specific benefits anyways.


2. How often can they use their utterances?

As it stands, not often and effectively, even less at high levels. With a fix, it strictly depends upon the how. It matters only so much if a commoner can cast Wish 1/day and nothing else. The ability to get additional word in can make the difference between life and death.


3. What do their utterances do?

This is the meat of the question. This is what we can evaluate in depth to get to the answer. Just as a wizard is nothing without their spells, a truenamer is nothing without their utterances. Truenamers, truly the masters of nouns.


The largest of their tool boxes, i think it is the best to address first.

Accelerated Edge (3rd): You can bestow the use of a feat, specifically Spring Attack. Alternatively, your target can perform a concentration check in order to cast a spell and move at the same time.

Archer's Eye (2nd): Your target ignores concealment, or your target is protected from arrows.

Breath of Cleansing (4th): Grants your target a second save attempt vs a spell/(Sp)/(Su), period, or make someone nauseated.

Breath of Recovery (6th): Its a breath of cleansing that actually ends effects, alternatively it can paralyze someone.

Caster Lens (4th): Increases CL/ML slightly, or decreases it by the same amount. No impact on Spells per day or spells known.

Confounding Resistance (4th): You can allow people to fully avoid partial effects via successful saves, provided your target is conscious, or you can reduce the effectiveness of evasion/improved evasion.

Defensive Edge (1st): You can give a minuscule bonus or penalty to someone's AC.

Eldritch Attraction (5th): You can move someone towards you, or away from you.

Energy Negation (3rd): You can grant resistance to an energy damage type, or make it so those who attack your target take damage.

Energy Negation, Greater (5th): Now it is immunity, or more damage (20 points instead of a small die roll).

Essence of Lifespark (5th): Remove a negative level ( and restore one experience level?), or bestow upon your target a negative level.

Ether Reforged (6th): Your target can effect corporeal and incorporeal creatures equally, or render your target etherial.

Hidden Truth (2nd): Bonus to a knowledge skill check and use of it untrained (Works with bardic knowledge and similar class features), or... the same bonus to bluff?

Incarnation of Angels (3rd): Bestows celestial creature template or fiendish creature template (yet nothing for the pseudonatural template.. I am feeling disappointed).

Inertia Surge (1st): Freedom of movement, or make someone incapable of leaving the space they occupy.

Knight's Puissance (1st): Bonus to attack, or penalty to attack.

Knight's Puissance, Greater (6th): A bigger bonus to attack and to damage, or a penalty.

Magic Contradiction (4th): Spell resistance.. or allow your target to apply empower spell for free.

Morale Boost (4th): Remove fear, or make target frightened.

Mystic Rampart (6th): Grants DR and bonus on saves, or a penalty on AC.

Perceive the Unseen (2nd): Grants Blindfight or an oddly flavored concealment.

Preternatural Clarity (5th): Grants an insight bonus on a roll, or bestows confusion.

Seek the Sky (3rd): Flight, or make something incapable of flight

Seek the Sky, Greater (5th): Better flight, or make something incapable of flight.

Sensory Focus (5th): Blindsight + true seeing, or blind and deafen.

Silent Caster (2nd): Free application of Silent Spell, or silence your target.

Singular Mind (6th): Ends enchantments/curses/possession, or functions as dominate monster.

Speed of the Zephyr (2nd): Grants a bonus to speed, allows movement over water, quicksand, snow, and even a spider's web without sinking or breaking through, even move up vertical surfaces. Or it can reduce speed.

Speed of the Zephyr, Greater (3rd): Grants haste, or slow. (This is greater?)

Spell Rebirth (4th): Restore a dispelled/dismissed effect, provided it had duration remaining. Or dispels an effect.

Strike of Might (2nd): Bonus damage to next weapon damage roll, which isn't multiplied by critical hits. Alternatively, reduce damage on next weapon damage roll.

Temporal Spiral (3rd): For all of its text, all it does is it grands an extra move action, or daze a target.

Temporal Twist (2nd): Allow your target to make an additional melee or ranged attack, but doesn't stack with similar effects, or make your target dazed.

Universal Aptitude (1st): Bonus or penalty on skill checks.

Vision Sharpened (3rd): See invisibility, or invisibility.

Ward of Peace (5th): No one can attack the target, but lose no actions for attempting to do so, or you banish the target.

Word of Bolstering (4th): Heals ability damage/drain, or inflicts an ability score penalty.

Word of Nurturing, Minor-Greater (1st-6th): Cure (something) wounds or Inlict (something) wounds.



Being the second tool box a truenamer gets, it is natural we come here next. Its.. basically the first tool box, but for things instead of people, and smaller.

Agitate Metal (2nd): Chill metal or heat metal

Analyze Item (2nd): You learn the properties of the object.

Fortify Armor (1st): Lightly fortify armor against critical hits/sneak attack. This effect can actually be increased.

Keen Weapon (1st): Keen edge, but regardless of damage type.

Metamagic Catalyst (5th): Apply one of a few metamagic feats to a potion or scroll.

Rebuild Item (3rd): Restore an item that was destroyed recently.

Sieze Item (5th): It brings an object to you, though you must make a disarm attempt if it is attended.

Suppress Item (4th): You can keep magical properties/effects on an item from working.

Suppress Weapon (3rd): As above, but only effects energy based weapon special abilities.

Transmute Weapon (4th): You can change the material a weapon is made of.



The third and final tool box for true namers. It is basically the Lexicon of the Crafted Tool, for places instead of things, and I think made last.

Anger the Sleeping Earth (4th): Earthquake spell.

Conjunctive Gate (4th): Gate spell.

Deny Passage (4th): Protection from evil, that doesn't care about alignment. Used to keep creatures out, or in.

Energy Vortex (2nd): You can actually do damage to creatures, energy based, in an area no loss.

Fog from the Void (1st): Fog Cloud spell.

Lore of the World (3rd): Stone Tell spell, but with more information.

Master of the Four Winds (3rd): Control Winds spell.

Shield of the Landscape (1st): You can reshape the land to grant cover, or reduce/take away cover.

Shockwave (1st): You can knock someone over and deal nonlethal damage.

Speak rock to mud (2nd): Guess.

Thwart the traveler (3rd): Dimensional Lock spell.

Transform the Landscape (2nd): You can create or remove difficult terrain.


Lets also consider that they get increases to the level of utterance they can use for LotEM at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 8th, LotCT at 4th, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th, and LotPM at 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th.

Bottom line, I'd say the truenamer, without the BS of its system, is a buff/debuff class. They assist allies and eventually get some battlefield control, and ultimately I find their abilities to be underwhelming over all in this effort. If their system worked, I'd say they are a tier 4 or 5 class, depending upon the answer to question 2.

[Psyren]

The two main problems with the Truenamer are:

- Math doesn't work without significant optimization, giving them a high chance of wasted actions especially after the day's first combat.
- The %@#$$!*@#$@ Law of Sequence, i.e. every utterance with a duration that you use effectively locks you out of using two for the rest of that combat (i.e. that utterance, and its reverse.)

Fix both of those (by whatever means) and it basically starts at T4 (not enough utterances early on for much versatility or combat power) before gradually shifting to T3, then eventually hitting T2 once you achieve the more gamebreaking ones like Conjunctive Gate and Ether Reforged.

[theMycon]

I have never played a truenamer. I do not intend to unless I'm in a "anything goes, low optimization" 3.5 game. I've never seen one in action; but I've seen a Runenamer (the 4e remake), so take my analysis with a grain of salt.

What do you mean by "assuming it did work properly"?

If you always have something like a 75% chance of the spell going off, then it's a solid tier 4 (or, by original definitions tier 3, but weak enough you hesitate to call it that). At most levels, less dangerous than a fighter, but wildly more flexible, so you don't have to design encounters around them to ensure they contribute.

If you keep the Law of Sequence bull, and adapt it to something like "always works first try cast of the day, 90% chance second try, 80% third)", then it should be about the same, but a little less flexible. You'd lose utility and out of battle healing quickly.

If you're giving them spells like a sorc/wiz, but keeping the functionality the same, they might be tier 2 throughough their career. It'd basically be a sorceror with a different, less reliable mechanic, but more total potential magic energy, which I'd be 100% OK with playing.

[Flickerdart]

Even if you gave Truenamers Warlock-style at-will utterances, they wouldn't be super great (obviously, until you get to Gate). The utterance effects are crappy and the truenamer knows very few of them from a very short list. Zaq has an excellent thread analyzing how good all the utterances are, and there are very few useful ones.

[Jormengand]

As JaronK actually says, they are up to Tier 4 when optimised properly, to the point where you don't actually need to roll to shove your choice of either quicken, or both extend and empower, on every utterance you cast (which isn't actually as hard as it should be). Getting them higher requires significant energy and knowing what you're doing (and exactly what rules you're... perhaps not abusing, quite, but exploiting) and you're still hanging off the duskblade's extended arm right at the bottom of the tier.

Conjunctive Gate at will with no XP cost nearly lobs the damned thing straight into tier 1: there is very little that cannot be solved by some manner of HD 44 (you know caster lens) beastie. That said, the tier system doesn't really measure that sort of level, so there's that. Getting into a tier higher than "I'm at the bottom of tier 3 I promise" requires you to break out hard cheese, probably going into TO levels.

The trouble, really, is that if you screw up, it's a little unforgiving. Like very unforgiving. But it is in the sort of rogue level - albeit in completely different areas - of power if you put in that effort to make it work.

[Larkas]

Zaq has an excellent thread analyzing how good all the utterances are, and there are very few useful ones.

Linky link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?214115-In-the-Beginning-Was-the-Word-and-the-Word-Was-Suck-A-Guide-to-Truenamers)

[Taveena]

For what it's worth, if your DM is leniant and allows both Item Familiars and custom Competence Items (maybe the same one! Why the hell not) then you can get up to +70 or so on Truespeak checks at around level 9. At which point you've got about 30 uses per day of each LEM (20 of which are auto-successes, and 10 of which are auto-successes even with Quicken).

Your effects are weaker than a Warlock and you get slightly less of them per day, but you get better use of the action economy with quicken being effortless for the most part, and the practical difference between 20 Solid Fogs and unlimited Solid Fogs is very little.

Granted, their Black Tentacles blows that out of the water, but hey.

[Brova]

For what it's worth, if your DM is leniant and allows both Item Familiars and custom Competence Items (maybe the same one! Why the hell not) then you can get up to +70 or so on Truespeak checks at around level 9. At which point you've got about 30 uses per day of each LEM (20 of which are auto-successes, and 10 of which are auto-successes even with Quicken).

You can get those same numbers on checks with abuse magic device though. That lets you hit a 80 on the "Emulate a Class Feature" check to emulate the class feature of "spells" for a Candle of Invocation, letting you prepare spells as a level 61 Cleric. That seems better than what the Truenamer is doing.

You can also do some wacky stuff with Knowstones, but it's not clear that Emulate Ability Score works for that. Also, it costs some money.

[ben-zayb]

You can get those same numbers on checks with abuse magic device though. That lets you hit a 80 on the "Emulate a Class Feature" check to emulate the class feature of "spells" for a Candle of Invocation, letting you prepare spells as a level 61 Cleric. That seems better than what the Truenamer is doing.

You can also do some wacky stuff with Knowstones, but it's not clear that Emulate Ability Score works for that. Also, it costs some money.

If that cheese works, I would like to know how this is somehow bypassed

This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class.

[Brova]

If that cheese works, I would like to know how this is somehow bypassed

The check isn't allowing you to cast any spells, the Candle is. The key is in the Candle of Invocation's description:


A cleric whose alignment matches the candle’s operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day if he burns the candle during or just prior to his spell preparation time.

So the effect of the Candle is to let you prepare spells as whatever your Cleric level happens to be plus two (so it's actually slightly better than I thought). Abuse magic device allows you to emulate having a class feature for the purposes of using a magic item. In this case that class feature is "Spells" class feature of the Cleric. It's not quite as good as being a Cleric, as you can't use DMM or PrCs, but you do still get to be a Rogue as well.

[Heliomance]

The check isn't allowing you to cast any spells, the Candle is. The key is in the Candle of Invocation's description:



So the effect of the Candle is to let you prepare spells as whatever your Cleric level happens to be plus two (so it's actually slightly better than I thought). Abuse magic device allows you to emulate having a class feature for the purposes of using a magic item. In this case that class feature is "Spells" class feature of the Cleric. It's not quite as good as being a Cleric, as you can't use DMM or PrCs, but you do still get to be a Rogue as well.

Congratulations! You count as being a level 61 Cleric when using your Spells class feature to prepare spells. As you don't have a Spells class feature with which to prepare spells, the point is moot. And even if you were a Cleric 1, you still have no ability to cast all those 9th level spells that you've prepared.

[Brova]

Congratulations! You count as being a level 61 Cleric when using your Spells class feature to prepare spells. As you don't have a Spells class feature with which to prepare spells, the point is moot. And even if you were a Cleric 1, you still have no ability to cast all those 9th level spells that you've prepared.

That's certainly an interesting interpretation of the phrase "operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day". The Candle can be activated to use the spells class feature of the Cleric to prepare spells as if you were two levels higher than your current level. The "Emulate Class Feature" function of abuse magic device gives you any class feature at level sixty for activating magic items. Worst case, you have to be an actual Cleric to do it.

[Troacctid]

That's certainly an interesting interpretation of the phrase "operates as if two levels higher for purposes of determining spells per day". The Candle can be activated to use the spells class feature of the Cleric to prepare spells as if you were two levels higher than your current level. The "Emulate Class Feature" function of abuse magic device gives you any class feature at level sixty for activating magic items. Worst case, you have to be an actual Cleric to do it.

UMD lets you activate it as if you were a Cleric of that level. It doesn't let you benefit from it as if you were a Cleric of that level. Since a Candle of Invocation can be activated by anyone, Cleric or otherwise, there's no need for a UMD check. UMD explicitly doesn't let you actually use the class feature you're emulating, which makes the candle's ability to improve that class feature irrelevant.

Even if it did work (which it doesn't), there's no benefit to emulating a level 61 Cleric, as Clerics stop gaining spells per day after level 20 and your caster level for those spells is stuck at zero regardless. Also, Truenamers have UMD as a class skill, as well as class features to boost it, so you'd be describing something that Truenamers do better than almost anyone else.

[Jormengand]

Even if it did work, and it worked the way you wanted it to, and it weren't stupid TO that no-one actually uses, that's about as valid as saying "Well, you could use the BoVD sacrifice rules at level 1 to get infinite wishes", but that's clearly not the point.

[Brova]

Even if it did work, and it worked the way you wanted it to, and it weren't stupid TO that no-one actually uses, that's about as valid as saying "Well, you could use the BoVD sacrifice rules at level 1 to get infinite wishes", but that's clearly not the point.

No, that's exactly the point. If using the Truenamer involves cheesing your skill checks up to +70, and there are better things to do with skill checks that high, why would you use the Truenamer? I mean, sure, you could hit people for 3d6 damage with 60ft range. Or you could prepare spells as a Cleric of twice your level. Or turn any intelligent creatures you encounter Helpful or straight Fanatic. Or poke a Knowstone of holy word. The fact that all you're using skill check cheese for is "being slightly less useless" is not a success, it's a failure.

[Jormengand]

No, that's exactly the point. If using the Truenamer involves cheesing your skill checks up to +70, and there are better things to do with skill checks that high, why would you use the Truenamer?

If the psion involves being a psion, and there are better things you could do with that psion (pun-pun), why would you use that psion to do anything else?

Oh. Wait.

[Troacctid]

The RAW-legal version of what you're proposing, Brova, is to spend the normal market price to use a normal scroll, which is then consumed, as normal. Not only is this thoroughly unimpressive, it's also something that's included in being a Truenamer, as UMD is in fact a skill that they have. If you're arguing for the power of UMD, that's an argument that favors Truenamers.

[Jormengand]

The RAW-legal version of what you're proposing, Brova, is to spend the normal market price to use a normal scroll, which is then consumed, as normal. Not only is this thoroughly unimpressive, it's also something that's included in being a Truenamer, as UMD is in fact a skill that they have. If you're arguing for the power of UMD, that's an argument that favors Truenamers.

Of course, what you actually do is use Metamagic Catalyst with your swift action, and then use Rebuild Item to get the scroll back.

[Taveena]

Doesn't Rebuild Item only apply to broken items? Thus the Potion Tile cheese.
I mean, if it didn't, then you could use Rebuild Item to refill a bottle of water.

[ComaVision]

Doesn't Rebuild Item only apply to broken items? Thus the Potion Tile cheese.
I mean, if it didn't, then you could use Rebuild Item to refill a bottle of water.

And hope that it wasn't a bottle of pee that just happened to have some water in it recently.

[Troacctid]

Of course, what you actually do is use Metamagic Catalyst with your swift action, and then use Rebuild Item to get the scroll back.

Hey yeah, I forgot about those. That's way better than how Rogues do it.

[Jormengand]

Doesn't Rebuild Item only apply to broken items? Thus the Potion Tile cheese.
I mean, if it didn't, then you could use Rebuild Item to refill a bottle of water.

Mm, yeah. I thought that the scroll was destroyed in its use. If you have a minion handy to sunder the scroll so you can repair it (thus restoring it to its original condition 1 round ago, with the spell on) that would work.

It's why I prefer Skull Talismans.


Hey yeah, I forgot about those. That's way better than how Rogues do it.

I'm confused, I thought rogues did it by dealing 4 damage and drawing a card (http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Rogues_Do_It...)? :smalltongue:

[Brova]

If the psion involves being a psion, and there are better things you could do with that psion (pun-pun), why would you use that psion to do anything else?

Oh. Wait.

Well, there are a couple of problems. First, for all your "real optimizers appreciate the Truenamer" talk, you're still stuck on the Pun-Pun chicanery. Pun-Pun does not work by RAW, being on exactly the same ground as the "greater effects" clause of wish. Second, you're missing the point. It's not "using the Psion but not to be Pun-Pun" it's "using manipulate form but not to be Pun-Pun". If you allow something in the game (skill checks at +70, wishing for items), you can't crow about how it makes something good (Truenaming, idk Fighters maybe?) if that thing is worse than another use already in the game (Diplomacy, The Wish).


The RAW-legal version of what you're proposing, Brova, is to spend the normal market price to use a normal scroll, which is then consumed, as normal. Not only is this thoroughly unimpressive, it's also something that's included in being a Truenamer, as UMD is in fact a skill that they have. If you're arguing for the power of UMD, that's an argument that favors Truenamers.

{scrubbed} it's not actually an advantage of the Truenamer. Because other classes do it better. The Warlock gets to take 10 from level 4. The Rogue gets to take 10 eventually, and is a competitive class without abuse magic device cheese. The Artificer gets all sorts of cheesy stuff. Seriously, the Truenamer is not good at anything.

[Sagetim]

Well, between the words of renewal and the breath of cleansing (which is admittedly very high level for a true namer) you could replace the clerics of a reasonably sized town by providing healing services. As long as the DC to affect someone isn't beyond your truenaming+20, you could keep uttering until your throat gets sore and you get a nat 20 to affect someone. Sure, it would be kind of embarassing to have to keep repeating the words later in the day if there are a particularly large number of people needing healing, but this is why you're aiming for like, a town rather than a metropolis: The number of people needing healing would probably be under your law of resistance limit.

A low level truenamer could probably handle most booboo's that people suffer with the fast healing from the various words of nurturing (and a low level truenamer would have maybe two of those at their disposal). Unfortunately, the only utterance that removes disease seems to be breath of recovery, which is a 6th level utterance and requires a truenamer to be level 18 before they could even look at it as a possibility. On the bright side, they would already have speak unto the masses at that point, so with some helpers they could mass target breath of cleansing to help deal with outbreaks of plagues and what not.

Analyze Item is useful, but the law of resistance is waiting in the wings to break it's knees. In a normal situation, you could set up shop identifying magic items for adventurers for a dastardly low price, and the only competition at that price would be artificers who have the right monocle. The main problem being that if there's a large influx of customers/items, you're going to hit the law of resistance ceiling rather quickly and that's when that artificer competition is going to clean house.

I still think that the law of resistance needs to be fixed, maybe by having it apply to targets individually. The main problem being that people will then jump on things like item familiar to make their skill checks so high that the only time they will matter is if they have been the main source of healing for the party over a very long day of fighting.

edit: While I'm skeptical that scrolls are destroyed and thus targetable with rebuild item (as I recall, the writing disappears when the spell is expended and you're left with a blank whateveritwaswrittenon). I think 1 charge wands would be where the abuse of rebuild item would come into play. As I recall, wands do in fact crumble/get destroyed when sapped of charges, which is where you could make an argument for using rebuild item with your DM. Unfortunately, I don't think the same holds true for staffs. If I remember correctly, using the last charge on a staff results in it reverting to a nonmagical staff (or to just being a magical weapon if it was already enchanted as such). It seems to me that using rebuild item like that is in the realm of theoretical optimization.

[Jormengand]

If you allow something in the game (skill checks at +70, wishing for items), you can't crow about how it makes something good (Truenaming, idk Fighters maybe?) if that thing is worse than another use already in the game (Diplomacy, The Wish).

Right, but your stupid UMD trick that doesn't even work isn't in use in the game, whereas truespeak and utterances are, so I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.

[Taveena]

Pun-Pun as far as I know doesn't abuse Wish abuse - certainly not with the arbitrarily large ability scores aspect of it. Assume Supernatural Ability + Manipulate Form + Ability Score increases is entirely within the defined aspects of it.

Unless you're referring to the potential use of Manipulate Form to grant abilities which don't actually exist in-game, but those aren't actually necessary for the trick.

[Brova]

Right, but your stupid UMD trick that doesn't even work isn't in use in the game, whereas truespeak and utterances are, so I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.

Look, you can maybe win that you have to be a Cleric for the Candle version of the abuse magic device trick. But that doesn't touch Knowstones (activating it to cast is written as a property of the item, the literal example of what emulating a class feature does is emulating expending a use) of holy word to blow people into oblivion. Or the diplomacy skill.

Seriously, y'all need to learn that arguments have multiple parts and that insisting one of them is false doesn't actually disprove the rest. Or even the one you insist is false.


Pun-Pun as far as I know doesn't abuse Wish abuse - certainly not with the arbitrarily large ability scores aspect of it. Assume Supernatural Ability + Manipulate Form + Ability Score increases is entirely within the defined aspects of it.

Unless you're referring to the potential use of Manipulate Form to grant abilities which don't actually exist in-game, but those aren't actually necessary for the trick.

Yah, I did an unmarked switch there from Pun-Pun to The Wish.

The Wish works by wishing for the best magic item. That can be defined a number of ways, but I currently have it as "all spells with all permutations of metamagic usable at caster level Graham's Number at will, all spells with an unambiguously positive effect active permanently at caster level Graham's Number, all unique magic item properties of unambiguously positive effect, and plus Graham's Number to all numeric character stats for which are larger value is unambiguously positive that can be enhanced by magic items". Of course, that's just because I don't actually want to spell it all out. You could just describe each effect you wanted - talking is a free action.

Pun Pun works by getting a wish to turn into a Sarrukh. That's already worse than The Wish, because it takes longer. What happens next is that people misread Manipulate Form and assume that "an ability" means "any ability". Also that the examples given for what alterations can be made are irrelevant. The only thing that unambiguously works is the ability boosting, and that takes too much time to take off.

[Jormengand]

Look, you can maybe win that you have to be a Cleric for the Candle version of the abuse magic device trick. But that doesn't touch Knowstones (activating it to cast is written as a property of the item, the literal example of what emulating a class feature does is emulating expending a use) of holy word to blow people into oblivion. Or the diplomacy skill.

Seriously, y'all need to learn that arguments have multiple parts and that insisting one of them is false doesn't actually disprove the rest. Or even the one you insist is false.

My point, really, is that your argument, when it comes down to it, is "Truenamer is bad because there is TO that uses, in some conceptual manner that doesn't really have anything to do with it, the same kinds of tricks - in radically different ways that no DM without serious issues would allow in anything far short of the Tippyverse - to produce a better result." That's the substance of your argument. At its core, it really is. And it is wrong. It is the base upon which your entire argument is built, and it is wrong.

[Brova]

the same kinds of tricks - in radically different ways that - to produce a better result.

It's not "the same kind of tricks", it's the same tricks (unless I missed the boat on some truenaming specific skill boost). It's not even "radically different ways", except insofar as skills are different from each other.


no DM without serious issues would allow in anything far short of the Tippyverse

I don't think you understand how the Tippyverse works. It's not a set of assumptions about balance level, it's a setting. You can totally have a game set in the Tippyverse where people play gimped classes like Truenamer or Monk.

Now, I do have problems with the Tippyverse. First, that it postulates unbound wishes but not The Wish. Second, that it assumes a level of engagement from high level Wizards that I don't consider probable.

[Psyren]

A lot of folks use "Tippyverse" as a shorthand for the kind of GM that is needed for it to function - i.e. one who is RAW-permissive, non-interventionist, and tends to rule in the player's favor when ambiguities arise.

[Brova]

A lot of folks use "Tippyverse" as a shorthand for the kind of GM that is needed for it to function - i.e. one who is RAW-permissive, non-interventionist, and tends to rule in the player's favor when ambiguities arise.

And that same kind of DM isn't needed to dumpster dive for every skill check boost needed to be Truenamer? The only difference between what Jormengand is doing and condemning is effectiveness.

[Jormengand]

And that same kind of DM isn't needed to dumpster dive for every skill check boost needed to be Truenamer?

No, it's not. TO that can get you sixty-whatever levels of clerics (assuming it worked, which it doesn't) is not something that most DMs would allow. Having a feat and using it exactly as intended is something that - while some would shy away from that particular feat - most DMs should allow.

The difference isn't in effectiveness. It's in whether or not you're using the rules as they were meant to be used.

[Brova]

The difference isn't in effectiveness. It's in whether or not you're using the rules as they were meant to be used.

Ah, but as they were meant to be used is an open question. While I would probably ban the Candle trick in a game I ran, I would certainly allow people to use Knowstones as I've described. Does that mean the rule was "meant" to be used that way? What about the rules for making people fanatic with diplomacy? They're fairly unambiguous about how to do it and what it does. Does that mean that they were intended to be used to amass an ever growing horde of minions? For that matter, how was ice assassin intended to be used? Or shapechange - a spell that was literally broken before it was printed.

My point is that you can't, with any authority, claim that one thing or another was how the rules were "meant to be used".

[Sagetim]

A lot of folks use "Tippyverse" as a shorthand for the kind of GM that is needed for it to function - i.e. one who is RAW-permissive, non-interventionist, and tends to rule in the player's favor when ambiguities arise.

Oh, I have one of those in my thursday dnd game. It's resulted in my truenamer being really quite effective. I've been running a truenamer in that since I joined the party at level 5, and we've been murdering our way through enemies and encounters to the point that we're level 13. As the party's representative from the mage's guild, my truenamer has been abusing his staff of fire (which has a badge of office on it) and we've engaged in such shenanigans as beating a bunch of wyvern riders and diplomancering their wyverns into being ours, obtaining a number of raptor mounts and getting some of them awakened (one of which was allowed to take levels of wizards with his awakening instead of animal hit dice). Getting my raptor a job at the mages guild as a professor. Hiring Professor Raptor to research an alternate version of awaken to use on wyverns, flying carpet bombing bandits that the party was supposed to deal with ages ago but put off dealing with for so long that they are now an army of bandits, fighting an evil party in a village that they had already attacked (including my truenamer intimidating their wizard into not opposing them because he has an official mages guild badge of office, and getting creative with Spell Rebirth to counterspell his casting of greater teleport to escape with the party, forcing them to leave the fighter's stuff behind as they use regular teleport to leave) and some other shenanigans.

My truenamer in that game is the party leader. Not because he's the most powerful, or most capable of dealing damage, but because I've been playing him with a strong and decisive personality and he knows friggin everything from all his knowledge skills. Knowledge Geography is super useful if you have to actually traverse distances and no one bothered to get a map. That's not to say that other classes can't use the knowledge skills better (good lord, archivist) but you can accomplish a lot by knowing all the things and having a fair minded personality about things. Admittedly, he has a lot of useful little magic items of various kinds that he loaded up on at the mages guild before leaving the main city. And those have gone a long way to pretending to be batman wizardson. The staff of fire in particular has seen really heavy use, including one time when we were going along a road and there was some mildly suspicious grass, so he used the staff of fire to fireball that location. It turned out to have undead in it, but I think that gets the idea across that this character is willing and able to shoot fireballs at things that are even mildly suspicious. When it comes to truenaming though, he generally doesn't have to use that many utterances. Most of the time it comes down to patching up party members post combat with words of nurturing, and I think he's only used words of nurturing offensively once...maybe twice? I wasn't aware of item familiar until I had a level 12 feat available, so up until then there were a number of targets that just had too many hit dice to bother rolling against (like the wyvern riders and their 15 hit dice, or the Tempest and it's 24 hit dice).

Edit: For reference, my truenamer currently has a +45 to truenaming. 16 ranks + 16 from item familiar + 5 int mod + 5 competence from item + 3 skill focus. This lets him reliably affect something up to about his level at the start of a day (15 hit dice without rolling, so a little above his level). Without item familiar, his truenaming bonus would be only 16+5+5+3= +29, which means he could reliably affect someone with 7 hit dice (about half his level) the first time he used an utterance in a day. Once we get some actual down time, my truenamer will be using his ancestral relic feat to pump his item up from a +5 competence bonus to a +15 competence bonus, but time constraints of the situation and setting have been preventing that.

[Jormengand]

Ah, but as they were meant to be used is an open question. While I would probably ban the Candle trick in a game I ran, I would certainly allow people to use Knowstones as I've described. Does that mean the rule was "meant" to be used that way? What about the rules for making people fanatic with diplomacy? They're fairly unambiguous about how to do it and what it does. Does that mean that they were intended to be used to amass an ever growing horde of minions? For that matter, how was ice assassin intended to be used? Or shapechange - a spell that was literally broken before it was printed.

My point is that you can't, with any authority, claim that one thing or another was how the rules were "meant to be used".

Okay, fine, but that still doesn't address the core issue: your belief that doing something is pointless if there's something better you can do with the same thing. That, I assume, extends to "Casting spells" (so casting spells is presumably pointless if you're not going to cast the exactly optimal spells for the situation), or indeed, "Being a psion" (or a whatever, if you're under the illusion that Pun-Pun doesn't work) or "Having hit dice" (you could have used those nice - oh, what are classes you think are acceptable, uh, here we are, sorcerer, beguiler, rogue, dread necromancer, arcane disciple or rainbow servant - hit dice to be a wizard, so why bother?). I mean, why would you say that the 20th-level sorcerer is powerful because he's 20th-level when you could have been a 20th-level wizard? Right?

It just doesn't ring true.

[Brova]

your belief that doing something is pointless if there's something better you can do with the same thing.

Sort of. There are two criteria to be optimized:

1. You have to be at whatever competence level. Maybe Rogue level, maybe Wizard level. Whatever.
2. Given that, there can't be some application for your optimization strategy that is just better - particularly if that build is game breaking. So if you're a flask throwing Fighter, you need to explain why you aren't a Flask Rogue. And if you're a Truenamer, you need to explain why you aren't a diplomancer.

Basically the problem with the Truenamer isn't that there's a better build, it's that you have to use cheese to make a viable build.


"Casting spells" (so casting spells is presumably pointless if you're not going to cast the exactly optimal spells for the situation)

Why don't we take that in the opposite direction. Is you contention seriously that all courses of action are equally reasonable? Should it be just as good a choice to cast command undead on a Bugbear as on a Wolf Skeleton?


if you're under the illusion that Pun-Pun doesn't work

You mean, I actually went to the book and checked what it said? Because Manipulate Form does not have the text it needs to to work the way people want it to. Why it persists I'm not sure. Probably a combination of interia, laziness, and ingroup bias.

EDIT: Extraneous "if" removed.


sorcerer, beguiler, rogue, dread necromancer, arcane disciple or rainbow servant - hit dice to be a wizard, so why bother?).

There's not necessarily a whole lot of marginal reason to be a Sorcerer. Fortunately, being an effective one doesn't do anything to bump another option to godhood. The Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are justified by being simple, being powerful, and having the best possible spellcasting mechanic. The core only Flask Rogue has DPS and utility to play with non-abusive Wizards. Arcane Disciple is a feat. Rainbow Servant is a PrC - and a pretty damn good one too.

And again, it's not like building an effective Sorcerer requires you to use some trick that would make for a broken Wizard. But building an "effective" Truenamer does require you to use a trick that would make for a broken diplomancer.

[Anlashok]

And if you're a Truenamer, you need to explain why you aren't a diplomancer.
I think part of the problem is that we're for some reason disregarding competency here as a reasonable metric. There are legal, unambiguous and straight forward applications of a wizard's toolkit that are far more problematic than a fighter who's playing fast and loose with the rules and using a moderate bit of cheese to eek out some extra effectiveness.

It wouldn't be remiss or even particularly strange to completely support the latter while being wary of the former.


You mean, if I actually went to the book and checked what it said? Manipulate form does not have the text it needs to to work the way people want it to. Why it persists I'm not sure. Probably a combination of interia, laziness, and ingroup bias.
Complaining about laziness while refusing to put the effort into actually forming a complete argument.

[Taveena]

Pun Pun works by getting a wish to turn into a Sarrukh. That's already worse than The Wish, because it takes longer. What happens next is that people misread Manipulate Form and assume that "an ability" means "any ability". Also that the examples given for what alterations can be made are irrelevant. The only thing that unambiguously works is the ability boosting, and that takes too much time to take off.

It doesn't need that Wish. That's ONE method, but far from the only one, and obviously one of the more flawed ones.

The method I'm familiar with is a Kobold with Divine Minion template (LA +1) who takes Master of Many Forms 3 to wildshape into Monstrous Humanoids. As Divine Minion gives Wildshape as an 11th level druid, and MoMF advances that by 3 levels, he can now wildshape into the 14 HD Progenitor Sarrukh. He has taken Assume Supernatural Ability (Manipulate Form).

No Wish there. I'm not sure where you got your information from.

[Jormengand]

Sort of. There are two criteria to be optimized:

1. You have to be at whatever competence level. Maybe Rogue level, maybe Wizard level. Whatever.
2. Given that, there can't be some application for your optimization strategy that is just better - particularly if that build is game breaking. So if you're a flask throwing Fighter, you need to explain why you aren't a Flask Rogue. And if you're a Truenamer, you need to explain why you aren't a diplomancer.

Basically the problem with the Truenamer isn't that there's a better build, it's that you have to use cheese to make a viable build.

Oh no! Not using a feat straight out of the book to do exactly what it's meant to! That's seriously cheesy!


Why don't we take that in the opposite direction. Is you contention seriously that all courses of action are equally reasonable? Should it be just as good a choice to cast command undead on a Bugbear as on a Wolf Skeleton?

No. Just that it's not binary. A truenamer dealing 3d6 damage is better than a wizard dealing 1d8 damage is better than a wizard doing 1d4 damage. A truenamer using utterances may not be as good as a fighter turning into a Cleric (not that you can do that) but he's better than, for example, someone using diplomacy on commoners. Certainly, dealing 1d8 damage isn't useless just because 3d6 tends to be more, and the free commoner isn't going to go amiss just because Conjunctive Gate exists.


You mean, if I actually went to the book and checked what it said? Manipulate form does not have the text it needs to to work the way people want it to. Why it persists I'm not sure. Probably a combination of interia, laziness, and ingroup bias.

Or maybe because every time someone says that Pun-Pun doesn't work, they either refuse to point out which bit of the build they have beef with, or turn out to be mistaken.


There's not necessarily a whole lot of marginal reason to be a Sorcerer. Fortunately, being an effective one doesn't do anything to bump another option to godhood. The Beguiler and Dread Necromancer are justified by being simple, being powerful, and having the best possible spellcasting mechanic. The core only Flask Rogue has DPS and utility to play with non-abusive Wizards. Arcane Disciple is a feat. Rainbow Servant is a PrC - and a pretty damn good one too.

Right. All of these are things they do well. They're worse than the wizard, sure, but hey, that doesn't matter.


And again, it's not like building an effective Sorcerer requires you to use some trick that would make for a broken Wizard.
Of course it does: it requires that you use your "Spells" class feature to good effect.

But building an "effective" Truenamer does require you to use a trick that would make for a broken diplomancer.

But wait, why would you pump diplomacy? There's this little thing I like to call "Knowledge (Religion)" which allows you to pull even more broken stuff.

Again, just because there is some trick you could pull that happens, by sheer coincidence, to use the same sort of mechanism as your trick, doesn't mean your trick is useless.

[Brova]

I think part of the problem is that we're for some reason disregarding competency here as a reasonable metric. There are legal, unambiguous and straight forward applications of a wizard's toolkit that are far more problematic than a fighter who's playing fast and loose with the rules and using a moderate bit of cheese to eek out some extra effectiveness.

First, competence as a metric fails to measure anything. At the extreme end, every build looks exactly the same - The Wish. But even beyond that, targeting competence won't show you relative differences. Is a Fighter better than a Wizard because you can build them with a competence gap? Second, I'm actually willing to accept competence, but it needs to either involve minimal dumpster diving, or be a plausible local maxima (i.e. with PHBII + Complete Divine, it's hard to imagine a non wish abusing build that eclipses Beguiler/Rainbow Servant at what it's trying to do).


Complaining about laziness while refusing to put the effort into actually forming a complete argument.

How about, instead of being snide, you challenge the part of my argument you think is problematic?


Or maybe because every time someone says that Pun-Pun doesn't work, they either refuse to point out which bit of the build they have beef with, or turn out to be mistaken.

Oh, so did I not point out specific parts of the text that are problematic? I remember saying that an and any aren't equivalent, and that the guidelines imply constraints, but maybe I forgot.


Right. All of these are things they do well. They're worse than the wizard, sure, but hey, that doesn't matter.

Again, it's a question of using things that break other strategies. Sure, the Sorcerer is generally worse than the Wizard, but he's doing the same stuff - by definition his build choices wouldn't break the Wizard. The Flask Rogue is actually a totally competitive option - it's much better at DPS than the Core Wizard.


But wait, why would you pump diplomacy? There's this little thing I like to call "Knowledge (Religion)" which allows you to pull even more broken stuff.

I know you think you've discovered something novel, but The Wish is not actually worth involving in this discussion.


Again, just because there is some trick you could pull that happens, by sheer coincidence, to use the same sort of mechanism as your trick, doesn't mean your trick is useless.

You mean, it uses "boosting skill checks" just like diplomacy does? What would be a more similar mechanism than that?

[atemu1234]

If the psion involves being a psion, and there are better things you could do with that psion (pun-pun), why would you use that psion to do anything else?

Oh. Wait.

Because it's difficult and complex to become Pun-Pun, and relies on the DM ruling in your favor.

As it is difficult and complex to competently play a Truenamer.

[Jormengand]

As it is difficult and complex to competently play a Truenamer.

It really, really, isn't.

[Taveena]

Because it's difficult and complex to become Pun-Pun, and relies on the DM ruling in your favor.

As it is difficult and complex to competently play a Truenamer.

As mentioned, there is nothing stopping a Kobold Wizard/MoMF 3 turning into a Sarrukh and unambiguously gaining Manipulate Form.

Both are reliant on DM rulings due to bad language, though. Manipulate Form barely functions by RAW... like many utterances.

[Extra Anchovies]

I don't understand the general fixation on pun-pun anyways. It's just an extended way of saying "hey guys, Manipulate Form is a poorly designed ability!".

Also, whether a class is difficult and complex is subjective.

[Brova]

It really, really, isn't.

It really is. Why don't you post a list of sources and interpretations for your build, so we can get a handle on its complexity. By the way, here's the list for The Wish:

1. Core
2. Nothing Else

And the Dweomerkeeper:

1. Core
2. Complete Divine
3. Spell Compendium

And the Incantatrix:

1. Core
2. Complete Arcane
3. Player's Guide to Faerun

Or the Flask Rogue:

1. Core
2. Nothing Else

Or maybe Dread Necromancer:

1. Core
2. Heroes of Horror

Seriously, those are all simpler and better than whatever you think you've stumbled upon.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Manipulate Form barely functions by RAW... like many utterances.

Huh? As far as I know all the utterances function by RAW. Someone are poorly written and do unintended things but they seem to work.

edit:
Seriously, those are all simpler and better than whatever you think you've stumbled upon.
Truenamer can function with just Tome of Magic and one feat from Unearthed Arcana. Many are certainly better but I would argue that playing a cleric is a lot more complex than a truenamer.

[Jormengand]

It really is. Why don't you post a list of sources

If you think that the number of sources a truenamer needs (one of which is the tome of magic, because that's the one with the truenamer in) has anything to do with how complex it is, I'm not sure how to help you.

But fine, three. Core, ToM, and UA. I'd prefer RoD and BoVD but I don't really need them.

[Anlashok]

First, competence as a metric fails to measure anything.
It can measure enough.

The question is why would you play a truenamer when the same optimization tricks applied to a different skill gives you much more effective options via diplomancy or UMD.

And "the diplomancer is going to warp the game in the way that a reliable truenamer won't" seems like an acceptable answer on its own regardless of the cheese investment.


How about, instead of being snide, you challenge the part of my argument you think is problematic?
Well, I don't really have a problem with your argument. I just found something amusing about complaining of laziness a moment after saying you couldn't be bothered to check the book.

[Xuldarinar]

Everyone. Im just going to cite one thing here because we have clearly gotten off topic.



So mostly everyone here knows that the Truenamer class doesn't work properly. This is not a thread about that. If you want to rant about that, I don't care. If you want to passionately argue that it works just fine, you just have to know how to use it, I don't care. Please keep such arguments out of this thread.

[Brova]

If you think that the number of sources a truenamer needs (one of which is the tome of magic, because that's the one with the truenamer in) has anything to do with how complex it is, I'm not sure how to help you.

So what's your alternate metric? Sources works because it gets a handle on most of the dipping and dumpster diving that occurs in optimized builds. And I recall that the last time we had this discussion, your 1st level Truenamer took Mortalbane, a feat from Book of Vile Darkness.


Well, I don't really have a problem with your argument. I just found something amusing about complaining of laziness a moment after saying you couldn't be bothered to check the book.

Oh. My intention was to say that I went to the book and Jormengand didn't. Looks like this sentence:


You mean, if I actually went to the book and checked what it said?

Has an extraneous "if" in it. It should read "I actually went to the book and checked what it said". I've fixed it now.

[Jormengand]

So what's your alternate metric? Sources works because it gets a handle on most of the dipping and dumpster diving that occurs in optimized builds. And I recall that the last time we had this discussion, your 1st level Truenamer took Mortalbane, a feat from Book of Vile Darkness.

Well, how hard is it to do? Truenamer amounts to "Here is a race and some feats, take them." If you've got simpler than that, I'm happy to hear it but wholly unconvinced that it still makes the truenamer pointless just because "Wizards/sorcerers/beguilers with this prestige class/whatever are better!"

It's like saying that swords are useless because you could have a machinegun: try saying that with a sword pressed to your neck.

[Heliomance]

I know you think you've discovered something novel, but The Wish is not actually worth involving in this discussion.



Uh - you're the one that brought The Wish up in the first place.

Regardless, this is all massively off-topic. Could everyone please kindly go and re-read the original post where I quite clearly said that I DO NOT CARE about the relative viability of the Truenamer, precisely because I knew that would descend into a general argument like this. If you want to argue about whether Truenamers are a waste of time or if you should all just play The Wish, kindly go and make your own thread for it. The purpose of this thread is "if the Truenamer functioned in a sensible manner, how strong would it be?"

[ZamielVanWeber]

Everyone. Im just going to cite one thing here because we have clearly gotten off topic.

Saying "everyone knows it doesn't work properly but let's ignore that" is just begging for people to argue it. It is, most likely inadvertently, an insult to everyone who does not agree with that statement.

On topic: Truenamer's power varies wildly. They eventually end up with experience free Gate, which is T2 at the minimum. It has a duration of instantaneous so the only thing holding you back is the DC which, IIRC, starts at a manageable 45 with the inflated DCs.
Before that it has an okay skill list with an okay number of skills per day and a narrow utterance list with only a few gems, so let us say T4? Honestly it is the rule prohibiting them from using an utterance that is already in effect that really holds them back.

[Jormengand]

Honestly it is the rule prohibiting them from using an utterance that is already in effect that really holds them back.

Only it's not, because you can just heighten the utterance and pretend the LoS doesn't exist.

[Brova]

@The Wish: Sure, I brought it up, but as a response to Pun-Pun and ... whatever Truenaming trick Jormengand is on about.


Well, how hard is it to do? Truenamer amounts to "Here is a race and some feats, take them." If you've got simpler than that, I'm happy to hear it but wholly unconvinced that it still makes the truenamer pointless just because "Wizards/sorcerers/beguilers with this prestige class/whatever are better!"

Cool, that's exactly how the Flask Rogue operates. Also the Dread Necromancer (actually, that's race agnostic and barely cares for feats - even simpler). Hell, even the Dweomerkeeper or Incantatrix is barely more than that. And yes, it does make it pointless. You could be doing better under the exact same constraints. And you wouldn't have to convince your DM that Item Familiar is kosher. Or (I assume) that you can go buy custom items of nonstandard bonuses.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Only it's not, because you can just heighten the utterance and pretend the LoS doesn't exist.

How does heightening bypass the Law of Sequence? It is still the same utterance.

[Jormengand]

How does heightening bypass the Law of Sequence? It is still the same utterance.

"It's also okay to use a higher-level version of an utterance while a lower-level version is active, because these constitute different utterances."

Now, this might be supposed to mean that Greater Seek the Sky and Seek the Sky aren't the same utterances, but we knew that, so why write it? "Higher-level version of an utterance" is only meaningful if you use the rules tellingly written just above the laws to increase the effective spell level.

[ZamielVanWeber]

"It's also okay to use a higher-level version of an utterance while a lower-level version is active, because these constitute different utterances."

Now, this might be supposed to mean that Greater Seek the Sky and Seek the Sky aren't the same utterances, but we knew that, so why write it? "Higher-level version of an utterance" is only meaningful if you use the rules tellingly written just above the laws to increase the effective spell level.

They could easily mean that difference. The wording is ambiguous, yes, but requires your DM to agree that a heightened utterance is a different version of the utterance which you cannot guarantee. All of its underlying mechanics are identical with you changing some external variables.

[Sagetim]

Because it's difficult and complex to become Pun-Pun, and relies on the DM ruling in your favor.

As it is difficult and complex to competently play a Truenamer.

I'll cite my thursday game: No it isn't difficult or complex to competently play a truenamer. I just rely on personality, character development, and skills more than utterances to get done what I need done. Admittedly, that same approach can be used with Any character, but I happen to be using it with a truenamer to play a truenamer because I'm the guy who speaks and the universe listens.

There are certain complications to playing a truenamer, hitting the dc is one of them and the law of resistance doesn't help with that. The law of sequence is a pain too, but that's okay. It just means you have to think about what you are doing instead of trying to spam the same thing over and over and over again. Any caster has to think about what they are doing to some degree, because most characters don't have a fire and forget approach to their spellcasting (or limitless blasting. Yes, the warlock can spam eldritch blast, yes a wizard could get unlimited magic missile with innate spell, but that's not my point). In most cases casters have to think about when it is appropriate to use their spells, and which spells to use. This same thing holds true for utterances, but instead of having spells per day, they have a dc that might sometimes be a moving target, and they can't spam most of their utterances.

[Jormengand]

They could easily mean that difference. The wording is ambiguous, yes, but requires your DM to agree that a heightened utterance is a different version of the utterance which you cannot guarantee. All of its underlying mechanics are identical with you changing some external variables.

The wording isn't really ambiguous. Greater Seek the Sky simply isn't a higher-level version of Seek the Sky. With Speed of the Zephyr, the two don't work the same way at all. Seek the Sky level 4 is a higher-level version of Seek the Sky level 3.

[daremetoidareyo]

Another fix regarding truenamer is to allow prestige classes that advance spellcasting advance utterances. You'de have to tweek a few things for each, but there are a number of prestige classes that would synergize very well.

[Sagetim]

I've always considered the law of sequence to function as a specification that Word of Nurturing Minor is a different utterance than word of nurturing lesser because they were expecting someone to be a jerk about that. As such, I've always read it to mean that different utterances by the same name are still different utterances, but modifying an utterance with quicken, heighten, etc does not count as a different utterance. This seemed like a reasonable limitation to me, even if it could be rather harsh in some situations.

What impact would it have to allow heighten/quicken/etc to let someone drop out extra instances of the same utterance? Well, for one you would either have to track each of those separate instances as separate utterances for the application of the law of resistance, or you would quickly rack up dc's on the utterance that you are spamming with regards to the law of resistance. Remember, these laws don't exist within a vacuum, they all work together to make the truenaming system. Now, if I remember correctly, the rules for the law of resistance have it so that when you use an utterance, modified or not, you increase the dc to use it again by +2 if you're trying to use it again within 24 hours. So while this work around for the law of sequence seems like it would let you spam out utterances faster, you would still be eventually limited by the law of resistance. In the mean time it might let you get away with giving a lot of the party the best fast healing you could manage at the same time, or making multiple people invisible/fly/debuffed with ability score penalty. Even so, for it to have a meaningful impact on combat, the combat would have to last more than a handful of rounds. And most combats I'm in don't last more than a few rounds.

So, while this work around might let you do the same thing more often/within the same duration, I don't think it's going to break anyone's game any more than using utterances normally.

[Xuldarinar]

Saying "everyone knows it doesn't work properly but let's ignore that" is just begging for people to argue it. It is, most likely inadvertently, an insult to everyone who does not agree with that statement.
-snip-


While I can see where that case may be, the point was to get that out of the way so the question being asked can be addressed rather than being filled with a debate over the mechanics of Truespeak. Not everyone may agree with the statement, but given the class it is the most popular opinion and isn't unfounded.




Now, to address one thing in the discussion, I have a question. Is there a list somewhere of utterances that do not function? I'd like to have a look at these specific examples myself because in listing them I didn't see any that didn't work outright. I saw many that were underwhelming, some their progression didn't make a lot of sense to me to their greater version compared to their standard. But none that out right did not work.

[Jormengand]

Now, to address one thing in the discussion, I have a question. Is there a list somewhere of utterances that do not function? I'd like to have a look at these specific examples myself because in listing them I didn't see any that didn't work outright. I saw many that were underwhelming, some their progression didn't make a lot of sense to me to their greater version compared to their standard. But none that out right did not work.

There are no utterances that do not function. The CDH (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?267985-Completely-Dysfunctional-Handbook-3-5) contains utterances which don't function as intended. One utterance, Reversed Hidden Truth, is difficult but not impossible to use for this reason.

[Taveena]

The wording isn't really ambiguous. Greater Seek the Sky simply isn't a higher-level version of Seek the Sky. With Speed of the Zephyr, the two don't work the same way at all. Seek the Sky level 4 is a higher-level version of Seek the Sky level 3.

It's ambiguous because the example given is that LWoN and MWoN do not suffer from the Law of Sequence despite inherently not being subject to overlapping spell effects due to... being different spells, which is what it seems to be trying to clarify. It seems to be intended that it in fact means, rather needlessly, that 'utterances with similar effects and names are not subject to the law of sequence', so you can have Seek the Sky and Greater Seek the Sky up. As Zaq's guide says, "because no one bothered to look up “level” in the dictionary, you can make the argument that this works", but it's a bit of a stretch. Given they don't explicitly say higher SPELL level - in Zaq and my interpretations because they're using it to confusingly refer to the different prefixes given to express an utterance's power - then you could make the argument that you can entirely ignore the Law of Sequence by casting it at a lower caster level, too.

[Aharon]

@Heliomance
Taking your "or if you put in the considerable amounts of effort to make it work" as the base:
With sufficient optimization, the DC is you can use the utterance.
Given that, what you get is, at it's core, Rebuild Item, Universal Aptitude, and Reversed Word of Nurturing. The following build uses lots of cheese (among them, wands and scepters of utterances, since there's half a page that says, in the usual, poorly edited way, that Truename magic items exist). Also, the WBL-calculation is wrong, the guy has about a fifth too much stuff: http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=158919

So, it takes somewhat longer to reach this power-level, but it's around that amount - a more elegant way to reach a similar end-point: Skill boni are transferred by Polymorph. The garbler, an 11 HD aberration in the ToM, has the ability
Skills: A garbler always succeeds at his Truespeak checks.

[Jormengand]

It's ambiguous because the example given is that LWoN and MWoN do not suffer from the Law of Sequence despite inherently not being subject to overlapping spell effects due to... being different spells, which is what it seems to be trying to clarify.

Well, no. The example given, verbatim, refers to "A 2nd-level lesser word of nurturing" and "A 1st-level minor word of nurturing". It's clearly the fact that one's a 2nd-level utterance and the other's a 1st-level utterance that bypasses the law of sequence.

[Sagetim]

Well, no. The example given, verbatim, refers to "A 2nd-level lesser word of nurturing" and "A 1st-level minor word of nurturing". It's clearly the fact that one's a 2nd-level utterance and the other's a 1st-level utterance that bypasses the law of sequence.

No. They have different names. You even wrote out the difference in the names (Lesser and Minor constitute different names, even if the rest of the name is the same). Fabricate and Greater Fabricate are separate spells that you learn separately. You can learn one, the other, or both. However knowing the first one does not mean you know the second one. A bard can know cure light wounds without knowing cure minor wounds, or cure moderate wounds. And if you cast cure light wounds heightened as a second level spell it would still identify as cure light wounds. If the example stated something like 'minor word of nurturing does not count the same with the law of resistance as minor word of nurturing uttered as a second level utterance' then you would be correct. It does not specify the same name. So while it is confusing, perhaps even poorly written, it is basically a tautology: An orange is not an apple.

[Jormengand]

No. They have different names. You even wrote out the difference in the names (Lesser and Minor constitute different names, even if the rest of the name is the same). Fabricate and Greater Fabricate are separate spells that you learn separately. You can learn one, the other, or both. However knowing the first one does not mean you know the second one. A bard can know cure light wounds without knowing cure minor wounds, or cure moderate wounds. And if you cast cure light wounds heightened as a second level spell it would still identify as cure light wounds. If the example stated something like 'minor word of nurturing does not count the same with the law of resistance as minor word of nurturing uttered as a second level utterance' then you would be correct. It does not specify the same name. So while it is confusing, perhaps even poorly written, it is basically a tautology: An orange is not an apple.

No, what it says is, that if they're different levels, they're not the same utterance. It then gives the example: a 1st-level utterance, such as a MWoN uttered normally, is different from a 2nd-level utterance, such as a LWoN uttered normally.

Now, compare these sentences:

"It's also okay to use a higher-level version of an utterance while a lower-level version is active, because these constitute different utterances."

"Any spell whose name begins with lesser is alphabetized in this chapter according to the second word of the spell name. Thus, the description of a lesser spell appears near the description of the spell on which it is based. Spell chains that have lesser spells in them include those based on the spells confusion, geas, globe of invulnerability, planar ally, planar binding, and restoration."

Wizards are quite clear about this, having the same wording in lesser (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/lesserSpellName.htm), greater (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/greaterSpellName.htm) and mass (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/massSpellName.htm). Lesser, greater and mass spells are based on, not different level versions of, other spells. A higher level version of Minor Word of Nurturing is a version of Minor Word of Nurturing cast at a higher spell level. The example is of two different utterances, which are also utterances of different levels, being cast, but the LoS cares what level those utterances are as well as which utterances. MWoN Lv 1, MWoN Lv 2, and LWoN Lv 2 are three different utterances, and they only chose to give an example of the interaction between two of them (although, probably the worst two they could have chosen to make an example of, but what else is new?)