D&D General The 3.5 Binder was a really cool class

[LuisCarlos17f]

It would be funny if somebody did a redesign of Truenamer but the uterances had a name (animal, aquam, corpus, herbam, ignem, imaginem, mentem, terram and vim(power)) and a verb (creo, intelego(I perceive), muto, perdo(I destroy) and rego(I control)).

I imagine the shadowcaster like a spellcaster who investigates the dark matter and the dark energy of the universe (I talk about astronomy and scientific cosmology.

How would be a bard playing "the music of the spheres" with a game mechanic like the truename?

 

[Voadam]

I had a player want to play a truespeaker in a game but I felt it was way too fiddly mechanically for specific DCs and scaling and specific buffing gear so I came up with houserules to simplify it a bit.

Truespeaking (Level Check + Int vs. 10+CR)

Law of Repetition houserule. Each use against the same target is at +1 DC after each successful use of specific utterance against same target. Utterances used with truenames are exempt from Law of Repetition.

This way you would have diminishing returns each day against the same target (both offensive against enemies and buffs for allies) unless you got an enemy's true name or your allies trusted you enough to give you theirs. This meant that the longer a fight went on the more a truespeaker would diminish over time against opponents, but they could handle multiple encounter foes and multiple encounters fairly consistently. It also meant their allies would get buffed less and less as the day went by unless they shared a truename.

The formula I felt scaled well with getting a better than 50/50 against equal or slightly above CR foes that scaled well. With a +5 bonus at 20 int it would be 3/4 success against a CR equivalent foe, close to what I think you want with weapon attack success rates.

 

[Tigris]

I had a player want to play a truespeaker in a game but I felt it was way too fiddly mechanically for specific DCs and scaling and specific buffing gear so I came up with houserules to simplify it a bit.

Truespeaking (Level Check + Int vs. 10+CR)

Law of Repetition houserule. Each use against the same target is at +1 DC after each successful use of specific utterance against same target. Utterances used with truenames are exempt from Law of Repetition.

This way you would have diminishing returns each day against the same target (both offensive against enemies and buffs for allies) unless you got an enemy's true name or your allies trusted you enough to give you theirs. This meant that the longer a fight went on the more a truespeaker would diminish over time against opponents, but they could handle multiple encounter foes and multiple encounters fairly consistently. It also meant their allies would get buffed less and less as the day went by unless they shared a truename.

The formula I felt scaled well with getting a better than 50/50 against equal or slightly above CR foes that scaled well. With a +5 bonus at 20 int it would be 3/4 success against a CR equivalent foe, close to what I think you want with weapon attack success rates.

But this rule makes most of the truename "metamagic" completly unusable.

Quicken especially with a check of +20. So this is after level 9 a lot weaker than a normal truespeaker who is allowed to get skill boosting items.

(Typical Crafted 5/10/15 competence item, silvery tongue amulet 5/10 enhancement bonus, masterwork truespeak item (+2), member of Paragnostic Assembly (+5/+10))

 

[jmartkdr2]

But, how would you get that result? In 2024, you could cast a Fireball but it's extremely unlikely. Like about .3% chance. And, even then, that's after you've surged. Most campaigns are never going to see that happen.

Having seen more than a few Wild Mages in action, I don't think anyone really seems to have much of an issue with it.

“It probably won’t happen” isn’t much comfort when it happens.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Shadowcaster doesn’t make sense as an entire class in 5e; Shadow Sorcerer captures the flavor almost perfectly and warlocks captures the mechanical feel pretty darn well. “A proper shadow warlock” is about all you can ask for and hexblade is already halfway there.

Which is broadly true of several other highly-specialized late 3.5 classes like Beguiler or Necromancer.

In PF2, Shadowcaster as a class might have some legs.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Binders, warlocks clerics and god-worshiping paladins are basically the same to me; they are literally lore-powered characters. When a PC plays such a class, they are signalling to the DM "one or more NPCs is going to be important to me, tying me more strongly to the setting than a rogue or wizard".

A fighter sees a goal and asks the DM "how do I do this?". A binder sees a character and asks the DM "how do I replicate this?"

 

[Voadam]

But this rule makes most of the truename "metamagic" completly unusable.

Quicken especially with a check of +20. So this is after level 9 a lot weaker than a normal truespeaker who is allowed to get skill boosting items.

(Typical Crafted 5/10/15 competence item, silvery tongue amulet 5/10 enhancement bonus, masterwork truespeak item (+2), member of Paragnostic Assembly (+5/+10))

Yep, we swapped those out to use the monster spell like ability metamagic feats, so no DC increase but usable x times per day. Keeping it simple.

The truespeaker was a member of the Paragnostic Assembly, but it was a flavor thing tying him into the plot, not the prestige class.

 

[Tigris]

Yep, we swapped those out to use the monster spell like ability metamagic feats, so no DC increase but usable x times per day. Keeping it simple.

The truespeaker was a member of the Paragnostic Assembly, but it was a flavor thing tying him into the plot, not the prestige class.

Ah ok sure can understand that. But for me what makes the truespeaker interesting is the different way of casting. Including the "rules" which some people hate.


(Given a high enough bonus to truespeak).

Lets say you have a 130-150% chance to hit. Each spell has 2 modes and each time you successfully use a spell the chance to hit decreases by 10%. A spell can only be "up" once at the time. (So increasing duration of a spell might have a negative side effect).

You can empower your spells by decreasing their chance to hit. Like -100% chance to hit for casting it at swift action speed. You lose (almost nothing just the swift action) if that spell does not hit. Or empower a spell (50% more effect) for -50% hit chance.


Its really different from normal casting and "forces" you to use many different spells. But the 2 different uses per spell allow to have with not too many spells still a broad variety of effects.


Also each 5% additional success rate does count! Because it gives not only sdditional spell uses, but also incresses the chance of your enhanced spells. Maybe enough to put 2 enhancements on some spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In general, I find it hard to discuss things with someone who's intent on misrepresenting the other person's outlook, particularly when they insist on doing so in the most over-dramatic way possible. Hence, I'll just point out that this "problem" is not in the least "unavoidable," as that's wildly overblown by even the most sympathetic take on things.

Really? "Whenever you like, however you like, as much as you like"? So the GM can change their divine caster's race?

I mean in D&D 5e, I wouldn't put it past them. But sure, fine. Only 90% of the sheet.

And their experience level? And what magic items they have?

As if GMs have ever needed a reason for doing either of those? What's your point here?

Don't even get me started on that "aren't allowed to say no, lest they lose all of their abilities completely" part, which is so ridiculously divorced from the reality of play that it's honestly not worth discussing.

Show me where 3e limits the GM's behavior in this. I was given to understand that it is--very literally--the case that a deity can take away a divine character's powers at any time and for any reason. It is, after all, always specifically a gift, a "granting" of power each day, and the deity can just decide not to do that if they feel like it. Doing so isn't even a violation of alignment. And a believer talking back to their deity? A believer telling that deity that their gracious boon of power is unfit? Sounds like a perfect recipe for having "grossly violated" the tenets of one's faith--you have, after all, back-talked your own god, telling them they're wrong to have failed to grant you your spells. At which point you literally don't have class features, you're a worse Fighter.

Like are you being serious here? This is the very thing that a lot of people hated about divine magic in 3.x. It's yours only until the GM decides otherwise, and guess who gets to set the standards? The GM. All power, no responsibility.

You've literally just described all of GMing, apart from any discussion of their relationship to divine casters.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Not even close.

There are plenty of ways to do things that do, in fact, actually put limits on what the GM can do. Rules the GM must abide by or they are--openly and explicitly--breaking the rules.

It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where there's this bizarre notion that the GM needs to never have any rules whatsoever, but the players not only can and should but must be hemmed in on every side by rules.

In fact, that's true for your entire post; it can be accurately summarized as "you can't give the GM that much power! What if they're a jerk?!"

No. It's "don't design rules which depend on foolish assumptions, like no one EVER being a jerk in even the smallest ways".

Well, what if they are? The game cannot correct for that, and so designing it around the idea that it should at least insulate players so that they can justly claim that jerk GMs are breaking the rules if they try to act on their jerk impulses, as opposed to being a good RPG, is a bad design goal.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good". Yes, perfect defense against jerk-GM behavior is impossible. Useful defense against the vast majority of jerk-GM behavior, however, is quite possible. Rules that actually set standards, that actually make consequences--and that make it just as easy for players to call out bad GM behavior as it is for GMs to call out bad player behavior--are quite possible. It's only D&D, as far as I can tell, where people deny that this is possible and pretend that the only way any game can be designed is "GM has absolute perfect latitude to do whatever they want whenever they want for as long as they want" or "the GM is never free to do anything at all".

 

[Hussar]

I loved the mechanics of the Shadowcaster. To me, it was a really great way to build a balanced caster that wasn't overwhelming to players. You could focus and get the powerful spells or you could go broad and do all sorts of funky stuff. Yeah, I know, in actual practice it was ... lacking.

But conceptually, I think the class had real legs. It just needed some extra loving.

The Truenamer? Again, a fantastic concept that ... well... wasn't so go in play. I actually played one. It could work, but, you REALLY had to fiddle with every possible way to get that casting skill up. Which made it more of an exercise in min-maxing, just to make a moderately equivalent character.

It reminded me a lot of a player I once had that took a halfling (maybe gnome? Been many years) paladin/monk for the specific purpose of driving his AC and saving throws into the stratosphere. The character was virtually (well, almost) unkillable. But, it was absolutely pathetic in play. I had to give him a holy avenger just to bring him on par with the rest of the group. :wow:

The character actually did die to a trap and a failed saving throw. It was freaking hilarious. But, my point being, if a class/concept needs to be min/maxed to that degree just to do one thing, that's a bad concept.