PDA

View Full Version : Tome of Magic classes?



Titanium Dragon
2008-03-06, 05:53 AM
I looked through the tome of Magic, and at least the first two classes (the Shadowcaster and the guy who puts spirits into himself, whose name I have somehow forgotten despite reading it two days ago) seemed a bit underpowered (I haven't read about the third class yet). Are these guys weak for being "Full casters", or am I missing something? Have any of you had experience playing any of these classes? How do they stack up?

JBento
2008-03-06, 06:11 AM
They ARE weak for full casters, which I think was actually the point. The "guy who puts spirits into himself", as you call it, is named the Binder and is actually the strongest of the three (which is to say, it's actually balanced compared to most other stuff going around). He's very versatile and has some pretty nifty combos (say, WarlockX/Binder1 (for Naberius ALL the time)/Hellfire Warlock 3).
The shadowcaster IS usually regarded as a bit underpowered, but, strangely enough, the weakest of the three is actually the last guy (a fact I missed the first time around, too), due to the way the DC for the check to use its abilities scales (i.e., your check modifier rises at little over 1/level, while the DCs go up with target's HD, which go up FAR faster)...

All in all, however, I find ToM to be much better in terms of both flavour and balance than the standard casting classes

kamikasei
2008-03-06, 06:20 AM
From the commentary on these boards: Binders are decent and fun, Shadowcasters are all right except that they run out of daily mysteries waaaay too fast, and Truenamers suck horribly due to how their DCs scale. There are a bunch of fixes around for the latter two classes; giving Shadowcasters more mysteries per day or a recovery mechanism a la ToB, and changing the DCs for Truenamers to something more attainable. Have a look around the homebrew forum or the PbP recruitment thread (where DMs may specify their house rules for these classes), or the various discussions of the classes on this forum.

They're not meant to be as good as regular full casters.

Titanium Dragon
2008-03-06, 06:26 AM
I actually felt they felt underpowered as compared to the Tome of Battle classes; I don't really consider being weaker than full casters underpowered because full casters are so broken.

I'm surprised that people consider the Binder to be useful though; while they looked versatile, they didn't really have any abilities which leapt out at me as "this is nice". Some struck me as okay, but none really as "this makes me want to play this class". Is being largely a binder a viable option, or is it mostly just a dip class?

I'm unsurprised by the weakness of the shadowcaster, though; his spelllist was not exactly inspiring, and when making NPC shadowcasters I was not particularly impressed by their breadth of useful options.

JBento
2008-03-06, 06:30 AM
From what I've seen around a full Binder (or mostly full Binder) is quite playable, as long, of course, as you don't have to compete with a full caster played half-well. I toyed around playing with a Warlock Binder once, switching between Naberius (for the Hellfire Warlock blasts) and the elf Vestige (can't recall name) to strike two folks with the Eldtrich Blast at the same time.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-03-06, 06:37 AM
In terms of power levels, they are down there right above monks and soulknives (assuming no cheesy builds); although in terms of fluff,they're full of 'em.

Binder is considered by many people to be the strongest of the three. This is due to the inherent lack of diversity in the other two classes (especially Shadowcaster, who has a rather limited selection of 'mysteries'-spells- to choose from), while Binder excels in being adaptable, much like classes from MoI. Being *adaptable* however, is rarely favoured in current 3.5 rule- the lack of potent signature ability (read 'cheese') is a major reason behind why binder is considered second-tier (often along with Warlock). It's sort of like Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.

As I mentioned above, Shadowcasters suffer greatly from its lack of diversity. Its Uses per Mysteries per Day is appalling (3/3/3/2/2/2/1/1/1 at 20th level, no increase from a high ability score), the selection of them even more so. The mechanic of the class is also a limiting factor, forcing one to learn useless mysteries in order to learn something at least remotely useful (such as Flicker). This narrows down the choice of mysteries to a precarious level, making it quite unplayable, even.

Truenamers, I'm not really familiar with them (neither am I fond of them at all), so I'll reserve my judgement until I get to see one in action.:smallannoyed:




Edit: Sometimes I think it's only fair to them (ToM classes) if we compare them not with Batmans and ToB classes, but with other sub-par classes. Compared with Bard (no sublime cord), Monk (no trip-monkey of doom or such), Soulknife, Dragon Shaman, Soulborn (ha-ha!!) etc etc, they're really decent. Shadowcasters can cast 9th-level spells and Binder is one versatile... person, you know.

Edit 2: Personally, I believe Binder has a good potential for some cheesy builds (Anima Mage, anyone?).

puppyavenger
2008-03-06, 07:20 AM
Edit 2: Personally, I believe Binder has a good potential for some cheesy builds (Anima Mage, anyone?).

One caster level and ten levels in a full-casting prestige class, and you cast as an eleventh level binder!

Starbuck_II
2008-03-06, 08:42 AM
I actually felt they felt underpowered as compared to the Tome of Battle classes; I don't really consider being weaker than full casters underpowered because full casters are so broken.

I'm surprised that people consider the Binder to be useful though; while they looked versatile, they didn't really have any abilities which leapt out at me as "this is nice". Some struck me as okay, but none really as "this makes me want to play this class". Is being largely a binder a viable option, or is it mostly just a dip class?

Low level Vestiges
AC:
At low levels, you can wear full plare far before anyuone is allowed to afford it (due to wealth per level and not spending more than 1/3rd on one item rules).
Savnok gives you it. If tsake Improved Binding (I think this is it) you count as higher binding level for which Vestiges you can get.
Also gives DR/peircing.

Archety: Leraje:
+1 compentence bonus to bow attacks )if already profiencent: otherwise just grants proficiency.
Precise Shot (without needing Point blank)
Ricochet ability (hits 2 adjacent targets with same standard action). Basically, you roll one attack roll and apply to both. Either hit takes normal damage.

Fire resist/fireshield type effect Amon I think.

Paimon grants cleave ability allowing you tro move while attacking. You provoke an attack of opportunity from moving, but can hit every person you walk by. Also grants Whirlwind type ability (like the feat, but useable 1/4 rounds).

Chronos
2008-03-06, 04:01 PM
You know what I don't like about binders? The names. I mean, if you tell me your wizard has a set of abilities called "transmutation", I know that he turns things into other things. If you tell me your psion has a set of abilities called "telepathy", I know that he can mess with minds. If you tell me that your swordsage has a set of abilities called "shadow hand", well, I'm not quite sure what that means, but I can at least take a guess that it's probably something sneaky. But if you tell me that your binder has a set of abilities called "Naberius", I know... What, exactly?

Maerok
2008-03-06, 04:17 PM
Remember that Truenamers rarely have to bother with saving throws or spell resistance. But I take up more issue with the rather uninspired 'spell' thingamajigs rather than any mechanical issues people so eagerly tote.

If the standard casters (Druid, Cleric, Wizard) were replaced with the Tome of Magic trio, would that balance out magic vs. melee at low/medium/high levels?

Farmer42
2008-03-06, 04:24 PM
You know what I don't like about binders? The names. I mean, if you tell me your wizard has a set of abilities called "transmutation", I know that he turns things into other things. If you tell me your psion has a set of abilities called "telepathy", I know that he can mess with minds. If you tell me that your swordsage has a set of abilities called "shadow hand", well, I'm not quite sure what that means, but I can at least take a guess that it's probably something sneaky. But if you tell me that your binder has a set of abilities called "Naberius", I know... What, exactly?

That's like complaining about the deities a cleric chooses to worship. Wee Jas means nothing to anyone out of context, and tells you absolutely nothing about what she grants a cleric.

Kurald Galain
2008-03-06, 04:38 PM
That's like complaining about the deities a cleric chooses to worship. Wee Jas means nothing to anyone out of context, and tells you absolutely nothing about what she grants a cleric.

Yes it does - he/she/it grants the exact same set of spells as every single other deity.

Farmer42
2008-03-06, 04:40 PM
Yes it does - he/she/it grants the exact same set of spells as every single other deity.

So, all deities grant the same domain abilities? What domains do the deities grant?

Maerok
2008-03-06, 05:17 PM
Binder is a fine name. Many of the pacts have mythological followings anyway, so even then it isn't as arbitrary as other things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naberius
"He makes men cunning in all arts (and sciences, according to most authors), but especially in rhetoric, speaking with a hoarse voice."

So your point is moot.

Like Farmer says, gods, for instance, are far more arbitrary. What on earth would Velsharoon preside over if you didn't know him. There is no precedent to base that name from. Arbitrary. And for gods who aren't as arbitrary, it becomes tacky. "I worship Hammereye, the god of Hammers... and Eyes!"

Chronos
2008-03-06, 07:59 PM
What on earth would Velsharoon preside over if you didn't know him.I have no idea. But I do know most of what a cleric of Velsharoon can do. They have a first level spell called "cure light wounds", which heals a little damage, they have a second level spell called "silence", which stops sound in its area, they have a third level spell called "magic vestment", which makes armor or other clothes magical, and so on. And even though I don't know what domains Velsharoon offers, if you tell me the names of the domains, I can pretty much figure them out, too.

Put it this way: If someone comes here and posts a thread saying "I'm making a cleric. What domains should I pick?", people can say something like "Travel and luck are both useful choices. Among the core deities, you can get them both from Fharlagn." Or maybe something like "You should take Competition and Wrath, but I'm not sure if there are any default deities for those." But if someone posts a thread "I'm making a binder. What vestiges should I pick?", then people have to refer to these non-intuitive names (which, yes, have some history behind them, but that doesn't help someone not versed in the history).

The_Snark
2008-03-06, 08:36 PM
Put it this way: If someone comes here and posts a thread saying "I'm making a cleric. What domains should I pick?", people can say something like "Travel and luck are both useful choices. Among the core deities, you can get them both from Fharlagn." Or maybe something like "You should take Competition and Wrath, but I'm not sure if there are any default deities for those." But if someone posts a thread "I'm making a binder. What vestiges should I pick?", then people have to refer to these non-intuitive names (which, yes, have some history behind them, but that doesn't help someone not versed in the history).

Well, presumably the people reading it own the books and can quickly flip it open and go, "Oh, Ronove gives monk abilities," or "Malphas gives stealth abilities." If not, they ought not to be giving advice and aren't really going to be getting anything out of the thread. Besides, part of this may just be that you're more familiar with cleric spells than you are with vestiges; I've played several binders at varying levels, and I don't really have much trouble with the names anymore.

You could rename the spirits to describe what they do, I suppose, but you would lose a lot of the flavor, I think. Binding the generic Spirit of Shadows or Spirit of the Wilds might tell you more about what they do, but it's not the same as binding Tenebrous and Buer. And the whole point of Tome of Magic is that it isn't generic magic.

But yes, I'll agree with the consensus. Binders are fine on their own, probably about equal with rogues, shadowcasters need something to bolster their endurance (especially at low levels), and truenamers need rehauling.

Danin
2008-03-06, 08:46 PM
Do consider, however, that anyone who comes on the forums and is asking about making a binder likely is at least moderately versed in them, has ToM that they could use to look up the vestiges and probably finds that if you refer to the vestige by it's full title they usually gain some insight into what is offered by the vestige? For example, Amon, the void before the altar. Well, voids are usually portrayed as dark, and a void before an altar seems like it wouldn't exactly be friendly to the gods... maybe something blasphemous? Fire is usually portrayed along with dark blasphemous things... How about Andras, the Grey Knight? Seems like he might grant a knight's abilities, like wearing armor or riding a horse. Paladins are also really knight like, maybe he grants a smite attack?

Now, I know I may have come off a little harsh and I do apologize if I offended you, but I find that the names of the vestiges a very unique and fun part of using them. A cleric might draw his power from his god, but I enjoy claiming to have the mystic mind of Karsus and the deadly skills of Marchosias.

Getting back on topic, I have found that the Binder is well matched against most non-overpowered classes and served me quite well at mid levels. Their versatility is nice and its a fun class to play as you can always change what you're built for. Compared against Batman or CoDzilla they appear a little lackluster but the same could be said for almost any class. They get a big resounding yes from me.

The Shadowcaster, although a very cool concept, hurts a little to play. With their limited spells per day I find them to actually be fairly on par with fighters and similar classes provided the encounters per day are limited. A number of people claim that their spells are underpowered but from what I've experienced they are generally more powerful that wizard spells of their level. If the Shadowcaster has a chance to go Nova, however, and blow all their spells in one encounter, well, prepare for a decent show. I'm not a fan of their lack of versatility but I would certainly like to play one myself (as most of my experience is from a friend playing in our campaign).

The Trunamer is, well, bad. A lot of people like the flavor (personally not my taste) but mechanically their abilities are unimaginative and the check DCs go up far faster that you can typically increase them. Maybe with a few fixes they could be playable or with a tremendous amount of optimization you can get them on par with normal classes, but in general, they aren't worth it.

On a personal note, I love ToM and play classes from it whenever I get the chance.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-03-07, 01:04 AM
I'm actually a fan of truenamers for their fluff, and even though I'm yet to see one in action, I don't think the truespeech DCs are too terrible. Consider the following.

Let's say your character starts with a modest 15 in INT. By level 20, assuming you boosted INT every time you could, you'd have a 20 INT. Let's also assume, using the Wealth by Level Guidlines, that you have invested in a Headband of Intellect +6, read a Tome of Clear Thought +4, and purchased the Amulet of Silvertongues +10. With 23 ranks in Truespeech and Skill Focus (Truespeech), you get the following check at level 20:
(10 INT, 23 ranks, 10 Amulet, 3 feat) = +46 truespeech check. (That's a +48, if you start with an 18 INT).

Against a CR 20 monster, you're rolling against a DC of 55. Using an utterance for the first time against such a monster, you only need roll a 9 or higher.

That's perfectly possible, and as long as the DM is up to snuff providing you with the gold and items needed to boost your INT, I think a truenamer could be a valuable addition to any party.

Sure, they're not as good as a core caster, but I see them as a secondary buffer / healer, with some interesting offensive options and debuffing.

Again, I'm yet to see one in action, but they seem like a flavorful, useful class if done right.

Chronos
2008-03-07, 01:32 AM
Against a CR 20 monster, you're rolling against a DC of 55. Using an utterance for the first time against such a monster, you only need roll a 9 or higher.Which means that, for all your optimization, you've still got a 40% chance to fail outright, before even considering any saving throw or whatever your target might get. And what happens to the DC on subsequent utterances? Meanwhile, a conventional spellcaster with the same degree of optimization probably has some spell or another with a 90% chance of working, since they can choose whether to go after the target's fortitude, reflex, will, or touch AC (at least one of which is bad, for almost any given opponent, and it's usually easy to guess which).

Maerok
2008-03-07, 01:43 AM
Most utterances don't have spell resistance or saving throws!

The_Snark
2008-03-07, 02:20 AM
Most utterances don't have spell resistance or saving throws!

Not really. All utterances allow spell resistance, which can be bypassed by adding 5 to the DC. And most utterances that don't allow saving throws have very minor effects, like -1 to AC; anything that has a crippling effect, like confusion or fear, allows a save. There are a few that are decent, but thanks to the resistance and sequence rules, you cannot rely on having only a few good utterances.

Also, note that that's a 40% chance of failure against a monster of equal CR, and that assumes you haven't used that utterance yet today. Against enemies of higher CR, you're stuck with using utterances to help your comrades.

CockroachTeaParty
2008-03-07, 11:07 AM
I agree that Truenamers are inferior to core casters in almost every regard, but I wonder if they are on the same level as say, the shadowcaster. The shadowcaster's abilities are very limited in a day, while the truenamer's DCs keep scaling as the day goes on.

Maerok
2008-03-07, 12:04 PM
Would substituting ToM casters for Core casters balance out the level of power between warriors and spellcasters? Or are they weaker than, say, the Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, and Ranger?

And if I was going to go Truenamer, I would definitely take up Fiendbinder. :smallwink: Don't even need Truenaming levels, so possibly get Malconvoker first. Fiendbinder looks UBER expensive, however.

Draz74
2008-03-07, 02:06 PM
Would substituting ToM casters for Core casters balance out the level of power between warriors and spellcasters? Or are they weaker than, say, the Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, and Ranger?

More or less works. I think you would have pretty good class balance if you played a low-powered game with a class selection like this:

Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, (and with books besides PHB and ToM:) Scout, Ninja, Wilder, Soulknife, Dragon Shaman, Warlock, Marshal, Swashbuckler, Warmage.

To make this really good balance, you would need to:
- Limit some of the good splatbook options (feats, alternate class features, & PrCs) for the Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, and Warlock
- Make sure the Fighter, Monk, and Swashbuckler have access to plenty of splatbooks for feats, PrCs, and alternate class features
- Nerf UMD so the Rogue and Warlock don't get too overpowered (but leave it decent for the poor Truenamer's sake)
- Ban a few of the better powers available to the Wilder
- Houserule some minor fixes for the biggest weaknesses of the Monk, Soulknife, and Truenamer
- ... with all these changes, the Binder will probably emerge as the most powerful class, by a slight margin. Followed, probably, by the Rogue.

Glyphic
2008-03-07, 02:32 PM
I -really- enjoy Tome of magic. I love the flavor, I love the different casting, and I really think it has tons of potential. We just need to make it. For everyone's pleasure...

Project shadow! One of my favorite things here at Giantitp.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44816&highlight=shadowcaster

Maerok
2008-03-07, 02:33 PM
Me too. I love Tome of Magic! I'm playing a Binder in an upcoming game. :D I also love Tome of Incarnum. If only I could play as a gestalt...

Lord Tataraus
2008-03-07, 02:51 PM
I love ToM, the shadowcaster is by far my favorite (with a recovery mechanic to make it more viable). The binder is something I've wanted to try for awhile, but never got the chance, I just can't work it in yet, though one of my players has played one with much success. The truenamer....yuck, I personally don't like how they interpreted truenaming and the execution was poor. The Avatar D20 (version 2) system proved that skill-based magic can be balanced and very fun as well as flexible, but the truenamer failed.

Chronos
2008-03-07, 03:24 PM
- Nerf UMD so the Rogue and Warlock don't get too overpowered (but leave it decent for the poor Truenamer's sake)I'm not even sure that's necessary... If there are no wizards etc., then there's also not going to be any scrolls or wands (or very few of them, at any rate), so there won't be anything to use UMD on. Or to put it another way, removing the primary spellcaster classes already nerfs UMD.