Post/Author/DateTime	Post
gmhack 04-29-07, 10:44 AM	I recently got the Tome of Magic, and I think the flavor of all the classes are great, and I really want to use the Truenamer. However, I think that the DC required to use truenames is very high. Has anyone experimented with changing the DCs? and if so in what way and how has it worked? Thanks in advance.
Bob Loblaw 04-29-07, 11:21 AM	The truenamer has it's problems to be sure. I think that the DCs are fine as is if you allow enough books in your game. How many is enough, I don't know. Check out (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=614007) what they've done on the optimization boards. There are so many ways to improve your skill checks that the best way to fix the truenamer would be to make it a non-skill based check. I also think that there should be more than a simple bonus from knowing the truename of a creature. The Book of Exalted Deeds has some stuff with truenames that should be incorporated.
Gideon_Gideonson 04-29-07, 12:00 PM	In my opinion, the entire system is f-ed up beyond repair, since you HAVE to optimize to make it work. I think the system should be based on a static check for each utterance level, although I seem to have misplaced my formula...
Tequila_Sunrise 04-29-07, 05:06 PM	The best way to edit the truespeak DC formula is to base it on what kind of bonuses a truenamer can reasonably be expected to have. What kind of bonuses a truenamer can be expected to have is based on what options the DM allows and how free he/she is with loot and buying magic items. TS
Otto the Bugbear 04-29-07, 09:45 PM	I recently got the Tome of Magic, and I think the flavor of all the classes are great, and I really want to use the Truenamer. However, I think that the DC required to use truenames is very high. Has anyone experimented with changing the DCs? and if so in what way and how has it worked? Thanks in advance. You want to fix the True Name magic system? The only thing I can do is point out how terrible an idea it was to use skill checks as a casting mechanic even before Tome of Magic came out. On this board and the Classes and Prestige Classes board, people had broached the subject of using a skill check to cast spells several times. Each time, it would basically boil down to 'terrible idea'. Then, ToM came out. Apparently without a bit of thought being put into it. Can you get a skill check high enough to do what you wish with regularity? Sure, as Bob Loblaw's link shows us, you can get a check high enough. The problem comes at a fundamental level. Without a few specific things, a True Namer's failure level is unacceptable. Without the corresponding things, the failure level of a wizard, psion, sorcerer, beguiler, druid, cleric, duskblade, etc., etc., etc. is non-existent. As in 0% failure to cast their spells. Without corresponding things, the True Namer is terrible (helpless?) at affecting creatures of an equal CR the higher level you get. Level 10, without the correct choices, you need to hit a DC 35 skill check to fight a single CR 10 creature. You're party is relying on your character to do something, anything to help out. If you failed to collect the items, select the feats, or multiclass correctly (marshal), you suck, and can't even make that check with regularity. With the correct combination of things, you become able to use a high level utterance on an target with a CR equal to yours 27 times without failure. (The one saving grace and damning condemnation of this is that the utterances are, for the most part, underwhelming compared to what spells are capable of.) It strikes me as ironic that the class is broken on both ends of the scale, dependent entirely upon your Optimization-fu / DM kindness. What would I do if someone wanted to play a True Namer? 1. Scrap the skill check idea altogether. 2. Copy the wizard's Spells per Day chart. 3. Continue to use the Utterances Known on page 199 and the Maximum Utterance Level Known on page 200 of ToM. 4. Use Intelligence to set DCs and bonus Utterances per Day. Normally, I'd say that with a "spell list" that isn't mutable like a wizard's (learning new spells) or a cleric's/druid's (knowing every spell on the list :rolleyes: ) should result in a larger number of spells per day. However, in this case, the True Namer will know quite a few Utterances that are reversible (every one from Lexicon of Evolving Mind). This reversible feature effectively increases the number of "spells" they know from that Lexicon, so they're going to have a lot more of those "spells" than even a beguiler has. Thus, the spells per day is lower than the other spontaneous casters (beguiler has, I think, the highest number known).
Soel Griffin 04-30-07, 02:03 AM	Here's a recent short thread with some different ideas (mine included.) http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=833693
loki_de_carabas 05-26-07, 05:28 PM	What do you folks think of reducing the Truename DC and leaving the rest as it is? If the DC gets bumped downwards from +4 to +2 it might just make things workable. Unfortunately I am moving house and cannot spare the time to check through it level by level to see if I am right.
Bob Loblaw 05-26-07, 06:02 PM	What do you folks think of reducing the Truename DC and leaving the rest as it is? If the DC gets bumped downwards from +4 to +2 it might just make things workable. Unfortunately I am moving house and cannot spare the time to check through it level by level to see if I am right. As long as the check is tied to a skill, it will remain unbalanced. You either cannot keep up with the skill very well or you can blow it away with little effort. There is no middle ground. The concept is good, but the implementation needs some work. Even if it were just a Truenamer check like a caster level check or Turn Undead check it would be better. You could have custom items that increase Truenamer level by a few levels rather than by +10 here and +10 there. You could instead have something like the Phylactery of Undead Turning that affected the Truenamer level.