Non-Core Class Survivor: Round 2

[Glyfair]

BTW, I forgot to set a time limit when I set up this poll. I'll probably be closing it in about 2 hours (maybe a little more if it's really close).

 

[Presto2112]

Actually, there's a Goad feat which first appeared in the Miniatures Handbook and was reprinted in Complete Adventurer. You insult someone as a move action, and he must make a Will save. If he fails, and he threatens you at the start of his turn, and he chooses to make a melee attack, he cannot attack anybody but you. To me, the knight's test of mettle ability is just Goad cranked up to the max: works faster, affects more people, and is not limited to melee attacks.

Page 129 of RoS also has an optional use for the Bluff skill, where you can hackle. It's more for social settings, but it still counts.

 

[Jdvn1]

Too many Necromancers! Get rid of them!

That's just not possible.

-Samir

You only ever need two--one to bring back the other.

 

[Glyfair]

OK, I'm declaring this round closed (if a Mod drops by, could they close the poll?)

The top vote-getters are the Truenamer, the Marshal and the Divine Mind.

 

[FireLance]

Can't say I like a feat like that.

IMO, at worst the villain should suffer penalties, not be forced to attack. Alternity had a Temper flaw like that; if you set off someone's temper, they might attack, but they're suffering penalties to everything they do. (So even if they avoid a fight, they're going to suffer penalties to skill checks, etc, and generally feel bad.)

That's not a bad idea, actually. It could work something like the shaken condition (-2 to all attack rolls, skill checks and ability checks) unless they attack the object of their anger. There needs to be some disadvantage for spellcasters, also. Perhaps a flat 10% chance of spell failure unless they cast an offensive spell that targets the character who angered him?

But this still put the decision in the hands of the player or GM. A player who takes the Temper flaw knows they're giving themself a flaw. A GM who gives temper to a villain knows they've given the villiain a weak spot. It's more RP than mind control at this point.

I suppose the difference in our perspectives is that I don't see the need for a character to take a specific flaw before he reacts badly when provoked. A character doesn't need to take a Cowardly flaw (say) before Intimidate works on him, nor a Gullible flaw before he can be Bluffed.

Now, the rules do state that certain skills work on NPCs but not on PCs (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate) because losing control of his character is generally not a fun thing for the player. In the spirit of that rule, I might decide that test of mettle has no effect on PCs, or I might only use it on PCs whose players are willing to "roleplay" the fact that their character now wishes to target the NPC knight with every attack that he makes.

No, I think that's perfectly silly. Villains are allowed to be successful, and I have a hard time picturing most villains having excessive tempers. Villains who kill off their own minions, tell the hero what their plans are right before they kill them off, etc, are just fools. You have to wonder how they lived long enough in the dangerous world of villainy in order to pose any kind of threat to the heroes.

Having flaws does not mean that you cannot be successful. CEOs, generals, presidents, prime ministers, professors, judges, etc. in the real world are not perfect. Anyway, although insults and provoking anger can be one way in which the ability works, it need not be the only way. A knight could capitalize on his opponent's pride or overconfidence. The opponent might want to attack the knight because he seems to be the most dangerous opponent, and should be taken down quickly, or (in a 180-degree twist of logic) because he seems to be the weakest opponent, and can be taken down quickly.

As a DM, I would simply tailor the reason why an opponent chooses to attack the knight based on what I know of his personality and motivations (and perhaps, in doing so, give the players some insight into what kind of person he is).

 

[Rystil Arden]

Anyway, although insults and provoking anger can be one way in which the ability works, it need not be the only way. A knight could capitalize on his opponent's pride or overconfidence. The opponent might want to attack the knight because he seems to be the most dangerous opponent, and should be taken down quickly, or (in a 180-degree twist of logic) because he seems to be the weakest opponent, and can be taken down quickly.

As a DM, I would simply tailor the reason why an opponent chooses to attack the knight based on what I know of his personality and motivations (and perhaps, in doing so, give the players some insight into what kind of person he is).

What if the character was an intelligent sellsword hired to kill the PCs who reviewed the past battles of the PCs and even watched them fighting some simple opponents that he arranged to get in their way, and he carefully analysed that the only way to beat the PCs was to make sure he absolutely unequivocally does not attack the Knight, ever, until all the other characters are dead because the others who tried keep wasting their attacks and missing against the Knight, who otherwise contributes less than all the other characters. He is convinced that he will lose and die if he attacks the Knight and that he will win and kill the PCs if he saves the Knight for last. How could anything short of magic force him to attack the Knight at that point?

 

[Stalker0]

What if the character was an intelligent sellsword hired to kill the PCs who reviewed the past battles of the PCs and even watched them fighting some simple opponents that he arranged to get in their way, and he carefully analysed that the only way to beat the PCs was to make sure he absolutely unequivocally does not attack the Knight, ever, until all the other characters are dead because the others who tried keep wasting their attacks and missing against the Knight, who otherwise contributes less than all the other characters. He is convinced that he will lose and die if he attacks the Knight and that he will win and kill the PCs if he saves the Knight for last. How could anything short of magic force him to attack the Knight at that point?

The most intelligent people often will do things they know they shouldn't do. Because very intelligent people also have big egos Hitler went into Russia knowing full well what it did to Napolean. But he thought he could do it better.

 

[Agent Oracle]

What if the character was an intelligent sellsword hired to kill the PCs who reviewed the past battles of the PCs and even watched them fighting some simple opponents that he arranged to get in their way, and he carefully analysed that the only way to beat the PCs was to make sure he absolutely unequivocally does not attack the Knight, ever, until all the other characters are dead because the others who tried keep wasting their attacks and missing against the Knight, who otherwise contributes less than all the other characters. He is convinced that he will lose and die if he attacks the Knight and that he will win and kill the PCs if he saves the Knight for last. How could anything short of magic force him to attack the Knight at that point?

(shrugs) momentary lapse in judgement caused by caving to an 's taunts, I mean, look at the World cup game

Player 1: "your mother's a terrorist whore"
Player 2: (Improved-unarmed-strike!)
CRACK!

Seriously, he gets a saving throw if he's targeted.

The rules only say that the targeted victim has to show preference in attacking the Knight. It never says he has to attack the knight exclusively, if he stays away from the knight, and only engages in melee with the other party members (never give the knight a chance to close for melee) he could avoid the effect.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The most intelligent people often will do things they know they shouldn't do. Because very intelligent people also have big egos Hitler went into Russia knowing full well what it did to Napolean. But he thought he could do it better.

And if this NPC was confident he could win whether or not he attacked the knight, that is fine and makes perfect sense. But what if he made the mental decision ahead of time that he couldn't win if he attacked the knight, and it would be a mistake that killed him. Or what if it was a PC who did so?

By the way, I actually don't have a problem with the Knight class or its mechanics--they can work in a game just fine (I might make it Su, Mind-Affecting, and Language-Dependant though). My only problem is with the rationalisations which assume additional information that might not be true.

 

[airwalkrr]

Every level above first, the DC to affect yourself or your allies (of the same level) goes up by 2 but you can only put 1 rank into the skill. This creates the problem where it becomes more difficult to do the exact same thing that you did last level. Why is it more difficult to give your ally a boost to AC or attack - the exact same boost, same "spell" and everything - simply because said ally went up a level? Yes, there are magic items and spells that help out with this but these shouldn't be needed. Does a cleric need a magic item to cast Cure Light Wounds on his ally? Does it become harder for a wizard to cast Magic Missile at the average enemy just because he went up a level?

So what was your opinion of the sidebar on page 196 that explained this unusual side effect? Personally, I think it was a very clever rationale for the system. I.e. as a character becomes more powerful, the universe pays closer attention to him and therefore his truename becomes more difficult to say because slight variances in tone or pronunciation are less tolerated. That's the short of it, but the sidebar goes into a more lengthy explanation.

Your objection seems rooted in the core concept of D&D magic: that there are simple spells and that there are complicated spells and that the only thing holding one back from casting complicated spells is training, but once you know how to cast a simple spell, you should never be able to forget. Truename magic is an entirely different kind of magic system. You aren't giving the same benefit to the same ally, you are giving the same benefit to an upgraded ally. From a balance perspective, this has a rationale as well. Who is the more powerful character: the level 5 character with +2 to AC or the level 6 character with better equipment who has a standing AC equal to the level 5 character with the same boost? Also with respect to balance, the truenamer has be to kept in check by SOMETHING because he is not limited to a number of spells per day like most spellcasters. With the truename system this limit is the chance of failure, and if that chance of failure does not scale somehow with his level, then the limit evaporates. Plus, I like the side effect that a high level truenamer ALWAYS succeeds on casting spells against lesser creatures while he has a challenge with more powerful ones. That is as it should be IMHO. He shouldn't have difficulty pronouncing the truenames of weak creatures, he should have difficulty with the tough ones.

Anyway, it doesn't seem a wholistic interpretation of the class if you don't take balance issues and the sidebar explanation into consideration. I haven't seen the class in play (although I certainly hope to), but after reading the entire truename chapter other than the prestige classes, I do believe this system is much better thought out than most people are giving it credit for.