Non-Core Class Survivor: Round 2

[D.Shaffer]

I also dislike incarnum, (though, I actually appreciate straight psionics). And I have DM'd over both systems. maybe if incarnum was more limited, or had lower damage compared to other non-spellcasters, or had to hit regular AC's instead of just ranged-touching everything. or if their fluff-text made them less zealous about law V. Chaos.)

Maybe it was just my experience. But the whole setup rubbed me the wrong way.

You COULD just look at the Totemist too. Mostly Melee focused, the few 'spell' like abilities avg out to less damage to similar mage spells, they mostly have regular attacks as opposed to touch attacks, and not a trace of alignment restrictions. Considering they have to give up magical item slots to use their strongest abilities, I think they're decently limited.

But I wont mind giving up the other two classes.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The Cheesemeister class requires high skill modifiers in profession (cheesemaker).

You mean maxed out, right? He should be able to make cheese without magic items. Wait a minute...

 

[JustaPlayer]

There were truenamer specific threads where people played it and found it to be weak at high levels, at least if they weren't using cheesy skill-boosting item. No other class that I'm aware of requires you to buy such items.

Exactly. I have tinkered with the class and incorporated an inherent bonus to truespeak. There is no way an magic items should be required just to make a class work. And in my eyes wizards should never be able to be as good at truespeak as the guys who's life it is.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Bye Bye truenamer. You're the only class I know that gets WORSE at doing something it could do at level 1... use the same low level ability on yourself. You're balanced on a razor's edge between too hard, and rediculously easy to pull off utterances, depending on how the DM allows item creation and various skill mods, not to mention the item familiar feat. Shelling out thousands of gold on researching someone's true name makes them HARDER to affect. Your terrible mechanics are tied to badly written non-consistent fluff, that consequentially ruins the entire class. If the universe cares so much about significant people/places, why is it just as easy to dump an earthquake in the middle of a field as it is on a world renowned monument? Why is the 3rd level aristocrat king harder to effect than a nameless shark? Why is a priceless work of art just as easy to shatter as a board? Its because you suck, thats why.

To add insult to injury, when the solution was dangled in front of your nose for errata... to make all utterances work like the revised perfected map utterances, you chose to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and remain broken.

 

[FireLance]

The knight's taunt ability works like non-FX mind control. It doesn't make sense that a cool customer is going to lose his mind and target the knight, if it makes more tactical sense to target the injured wizard. It's doubly bad when used against players who will simply be ticked off and probably refuse to be taunted, even if they fail the save. The DM is going to feel like an idiot trying to make them submit to being taunted, and for good reason.

It's found in MMOs. I doubt this is specifically an MMO concept; I think it's a bad fiction concept. Why does the hero win? Because the villain is an idiot.

It doesn't make sense that a highly respected football player with an illustrious career, minutes away from the final whistle of his last major international match, decides to headbutt a player from the other side over a few choice remarks.

People do silly things when their buttons get pressed.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

This thread prompted me to break out my Tome of Magic and actually read it for more than 5 minutes (I'm a collector so I buy all the books even if I don't plan to read them). I have to say I can't really see what all the fuss is about. Sure, the truespeak skill mechanic is not typical of D&D, but that is what this book is all about: introducing new kinds of magic. I think, as a skill-based magic system, it probably works pretty great. In fact, I'm now thinking of trying to play one in the Savage Tides Adventure Path which our group is planning to run once it is released (assuming our DM will let me, which I expect he will, being the softy he is). The only downside I can see to the system is that it is basically suicidal to not have your truespeak skill maxed out and pumped up at all times. But other than that, I can't see it being a problem at all. The simulationist in me wants to say that this is not a very realistic mechanic. But when I step back and look at all the possibilities, I realized that mechanically, this system probably works really well and is very balanced. I'd have to see it in play to give it my true opinion. How many of you truename magic nay-sayers have actually used this system and are badgering it based on experience and how many of you simply read it, thought to yourself "hogwash!" and never touched the subject again? I'm not casting stones or anything, I'm just curious if the sentiment against the system is genuine dislike based on experience or theoretical discourse on a system that hasn't seen play at many tables.

It doesnt work, and its poorly designed. This is from testing, and common sense. I dont like that skill focus: true speak is the "100% you are an idiot if you dont take it" 1st level feat, with item familiar following suit and breaking the class in two. I dont like that you require more and more magic items to use the same class feature available at level 1 on yourself, when the intelligent design decision (A static DC, +Zxnumber of times you used an utterance, where Z is based on the utterances level) was pretty obvious and makes sense. A high level namer is better at using low level utterances on people than high level ones (as opposed to the current broken system, where all utterances are of equal difficulty, so low level ones have no meaningful use). Its just a bad class that gets more problematic as you level, and borders on overpowered at low levels where the DC's are super easy to crank out. It uses a broken metagame mechanic (challenge rating), which gets more and more screwed up as you apply class levels (particularly non associated levels) to monsters, to represent fluff that doesnt jive with the stupid mechanics in the first place.

Dismissing the complaints as "theoretical" is like dismissing the disruptive qualities of the frenzied berserker class.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It doesn't make sense that a highly respected football player with an illustrious career, minutes away from the final whistle of his last major international match, decides to headbutt a player from the other side over a few choice remarks.

People do silly things when their buttons get pressed.

It's called soccer in the US and Canada Where are you from anyway?

No, people with bad tempers do silly things when their buttons get pushed. In game terms, that would be RPing his bad temper. (In real life, that was just bad. Save it for after the game! ^^)

It's rumored he was called a terrorist, which is a pretty good way to wind someone up. I got called "n-word" before and I haven't flipped out and tried to beat up someone (and I could have - the guy was old and scrawny and I've taken martial arts lessons). And I don't think I have a good Wisdom score, either. Sure there were witnesses, but Mr. Zidane was surrounded by witnesses, too.

While we're on that topic, why don't we make insult a skill? Anytime a bard insults someone, they have to make a Will save or flip out. Wait, right, that's a bad idea.

 

[FireLance]

It's called soccer in the US and Canada Where are you from anyway?

Sorry, slipped into the local lingo for a while.
<- Check the location on the left.

While we're on that topic, why don't we make insult a skill? Anytime a bard insults someone, they have to make a Will save or flip out. Wait, right, that's a bad idea.

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.

I suppose I find it easy to accept because I don't have a very high opinion of villains. I see villians as always having a fatal flaw which the heroes can exploit to secure their victory, and the knight just happens to be very good at drawing that out. If villains wanted to be perfect, they should have joined the good guys.

 

[Glyfair]

Right! Otherwise all us incarnum haters will end up splitting our vote between the 3 so we won't make any progress in our crusade.

Well, the idea is to vote off the class you don't like. It's not "book survivor." Maybe I'll do book survivor later so you guys can more appropriately gang up on the book you don't like

In the spirit of this you should vote off the Incarnum class you like the least.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Sorry, slipped into the local lingo for a while.
<- Check the location on the left.

Singapore. Gotcha.

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.

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.)

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 I find it easy to accept because I don't have a very high opinion of villains. I see villians as always having a fatal flaw which the heroes can exploit to secure their victory, and the knight just happens to be very good at drawing that out. If villains wanted to be perfect, they should have joined the good guys.

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.