OSSR: Tome of Magic (3.5)

[Maxus]

The Dresden Files started off with True Names being, well, how you say your actual name.

Then it shifted into that, but also that mortal True Names are tricky because people can re-evaluate their life and change their ways and you know, be mortal and changeable, unlike the Sidhe or the Fallen or all that, so True Names are generally only good for a while, and then you have to get the name from them again.

[Username17]

The bottom line on this book is that even for what it was it didn't make any sense. The obvious plan was to sell it to people and get feedback on the resource management systems from the community. But with each of the magic systems being presented as ~95 page tirades with a metric shit tonne of fiddly bits and bizarre flavor text. If people give thimbs up or thumbs down to the Binder chapter, it's a review of 102 fucking pages of material - how anyone intended to meaningfully figure out what elements of that blob were good or bad is totally beyond me.

Each chapter was padded with at least 30 pages of crap that actually had nothing to do with the class at all. And that's over and above the fact that prestige classes were given four and a half pages each instead of the single page they deserved. All that crap was basically just there as a Trojan, to try to convince people that these things were "real" and not just quirky test balloons of potential 4e mechanics. But not only was that misdirection failed, it was pointless. The original Tome of Magic was a collection of quirky optional mechanics, no one would have thought it weird if the 3.5 version was the same thing. It's not like they hadn't printed Unearthed Arcana.

Obviously, what should have been done was to give each class a much simpler system to highlight just a little bit of crazy and give each one like 15 pages to showcase their class, their special mechanics, and their special powers. With good writing you could get it down much more than that, but I don't think 15 pages is at all unobtainable. Then you keep the same page count and have 19 fucking classes with various changes on the core themes. And yeah, some of them would be really stupid or damn near unplayable. Some of them would be basically exactly the same as other ones in the same book but better/worse. And honestly, that's OK. Because with 19 fucking classes highlighting different design sensibilities, some of them would float to the top and you could go back to the higher ups and claim victory.

Now as it was, all three of the class proposals were garbage. And without that power creep element, the book sold poorly. So they just got some noncommittal negative feedback and not even much of that. All three of the playtest pack books dropped with three classes each. Why? Why not a dozen? In hindsight that was a terrible development decision, but I don't understand how it seemed like a good idea at the time. It was like Andy Collins' insistence that they were going to go into 4th edition with 8 classes and if anyone wanted to add one, one on the current list had to go. What the fuck was that about? Why did the powers that was think that D&D players wanted there to be less classes instead of more?

-Username17

[Prak]

Also, is the picture below bumblebee Bender supposed to be an ad for iFastNet?

It should be this:


It sounds like the 5 level prestige class I made based on a magic card is a better truename using character than the entire Truename Magic section of ToMagic. Not a great one, I mean, but better.

[name_here]

Now as it was, all three of the class proposals were garbage. And without that power creep element, the book sold poorly. So they just got some noncommittal negative feedback and not even much of that. All three of the playtest pack books dropped with three classes each. Why? Why not a dozen? In hindsight that was a terrible development decision, but I don't understand how it seemed like a good idea at the time. It was like Andy Collins' insistence that they were going to go into 4th edition with 8 classes and if anyone wanted to add one, one on the current list had to go. What the fuck was that about? Why did the powers that was think that D&D players wanted there to be less classes instead of more?

-Username17

Maybe whoever decided how the books would be formatted felt confident all the mechanics would succeed conceptually and just wanted to nail down implementation flaws, or the order to have the playtest pack books came down from on high and the people in charge of writing them didn't think it was necessary. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the design team opted to undermine the intent of the whole thing by publishing so few ideas they couldn't be jettisoned for negative feedback.

Alternately, the theory might have been to have a small number of elaborate classes in the hopes of getting clearer feedback in the form of up-down votes on Truenaming as a system instead of on numerous different classes with the same general concept. But then they ruined that through loading too much into each class.

Or maybe they just figured too many people would balk at seeing a ton of new base classes and reject it out of hand.

What I have to ask is why they made them all suck. I mean, there's no need for the power schedule testbed to be scaled to the power level of the next edition. They should have made them deliberately overpowered to attract attention and get people to pick between the new base classes. And the crap with the meta feats is just dumb; they should have just opened the feat sections with a sidebar saying that people could use metamagic feats for the new powers and it's priced like this.

[Schleiermacher]

Why did the powers that was think that D&D players wanted there to be less classes instead of more?

Personally I think you should avoid total classplosion -the heaps of additional base classes in 3.5 expansion materials were 90% redundant and pointless- but the 3.x PHB had 11 classes, and there's certainly no reason to have fewer than that. 12 seems like a good number to me -enough for three 4-person parties with no duplication.

[GâtFromKI]

You forgot the best part of truespeak: clic.

Yes, a whole part of the truespeak check didn't even have a stated DC, because nobody gave a fuck.

Anyway, the lexicon of perfected map is the only thing that make truemaners playable: there is a level 4 utterance that reproduce Gate, without xp cost. You can access it at level 17, and the DC is 45, which is the DC to give a random FP 15 mook a -1 to AC: that DC should be an autosuccess. And that DC doesn't change with your level: at level 20, the DC to give +1AC to an ally is 55, while the DC of gate is still 45; it means that, if you're able to use truespeak on an ally at all, you are also able auto-gate several monsters of twice your level several times per day.

So, this is how truenamers work:
1/ from level 1 to level 16, you throw some shit around and give -1 AC to BBEG when you roll high enough.
2/ from level 17 to whatever, you solve every problem by gate-ing some monsters without xp cost.

[Antariuk]

How does Pathfinder's Words of Power compare to ToM?

[Schleiermacher]

Two different flavors of useless crap, as I understand it. But the Pathfinder system at least has the distinction of being technically playable.

[codeGlaze]

For most utterances (and other things), you don't need the personal truename of your target, but if you have it then your utterance is more powerful. Not like, a lot more powerful or anything - we're talking weeks of research and thousands of gp to get a +2 DC and +2 caster level - but personal truenames are also needed for certain truename spells and crap.

I get stuck in a nerd-loop when I start thinking about how magic words and runes work. Their being 'one true word' or 'one true letter' for things in the entirety of the cosmos is sort of weird to me.

Ignoring that for a moment, though.

I could see a person's truename being akin to their universal/cosmic ID. So Truenames are long, complicated things because really they're a hash value in a giant, cosmic, database index. Truenamers on a particular world learn to short-hand the plane, galaxy, system and planet they are 'searching' on while casting. But they still need to query for one of billions of hash-IDs for that planet.

e.g. A true truename would be -
(translated to common) : Prime-Material ' Milky-Way ' Sol ' Oerth ' [Race?] ' [soul-hash].
or in CRC 32 : a6399459 ' b203cc70 ' 37da13e0 ' 1a9a88db ' [Race?] ' [soul-hash]

The bold parts would be condensed into a personalized/custom power word each truenamer uses as a short cut, then they'd recite the [race (maybe?)]+name-hash.
(e.g SHOOP-DA-WOOP! HYOOMUHN ' LEeRoiY-JAyngKUNz! )

The entire sub-casting system is developed and used by super-specialized wizards. Soul hackers!

There could be an entire cosmic black market devoted to trading 'mined' truenames, because having an actual truename gives you access to that person's entire life API. Boom, instant blood-bending and/or existence rewriting (for high level, powerful truenamers/casters).

High level/powerful beings could have potential access to their own soul-hash, and be able to defend themselves versus truename hacking.

[fectin]

I think truenamers were actually going for a minor antagonist from a fairly obscure Zelazney book called The Changing Land. It's a great book, and extremely D&d-like (in some ways), but that's kind of a stretch for a new class.

[Prak]

For most utterances (and other things), you don't need the personal truename of your target, but if you have it then your utterance is more powerful. Not like, a lot more powerful or anything - we're talking weeks of research and thousands of gp to get a +2 DC and +2 caster level - but personal truenames are also needed for certain truename spells and crap.

I get stuck in a nerd-loop when I start thinking about how magic words and runes work. Their being 'one true word' or 'one true letter' for things in the entirety of the cosmos is sort of weird to me.

Ignoring that for a moment, though.

I could see a person's truename being akin to their universal/cosmic ID. So Truenames are long, complicated things because really they're a hash value in a giant, cosmic, database index. Truenamers on a particular world learn to short-hand the plane, galaxy, system and planet they are 'searching' on while casting. But they still need to query for one of billions of hash-IDs for that planet.

e.g. A true truename would be -
(translated to common) : Prime-Material ' Milky-Way ' Sol ' Oerth ' [Race?] ' [soul-hash].
or in CRC 32 : a6399459 ' b203cc70 ' 37da13e0 ' 1a9a88db ' [Race?] ' [soul-hash]

The bold parts would be condensed into a personalized/custom power word each truenamer uses as a short cut, then they'd recite the [race (maybe?)]+name-hash.
(e.g SHOOP-DA-WOOP! HYOOMUHN ' LEeRoiY-JAyngKUNz! )

The entire sub-casting system is developed and used by super-specialized wizards. Soul hackers!

There could be an entire cosmic black market devoted to trading 'mined' truenames, because having an actual truename gives you access to that person's entire life API. Boom, instant blood-bending and/or existence rewriting (for high level, powerful truenamers/casters).

High level/powerful beings could have potential access to their own soul-hash, and be able to defend themselves versus truename hacking.

...goddamnit, that's brilliant.

Jigoku, you better fucking write this book because we both know I'm never going to get around to it.

[Maxus]

For most utterances (and other things), you don't need the personal truename of your target, but if you have it then your utterance is more powerful. Not like, a lot more powerful or anything - we're talking weeks of research and thousands of gp to get a +2 DC and +2 caster level - but personal truenames are also needed for certain truename spells and crap.

I get stuck in a nerd-loop when I start thinking about how magic words and runes work. Their being 'one true word' or 'one true letter' for things in the entirety of the cosmos is sort of weird to me.

Runes: I'm having a forming idea about a system of runic magic coming into two versions: Lite, and Hardcore.

Lite would just posit the existence of runes which you can put onto things to make them magic; this is much like that bit in Salvatore when Aegis-Fang was forged. If you can put them in correctly, and pronounce them right, you can use them.

Hardcore would be a system of runic magic by which people who don't normally know magic, can be taught, or learn, a means to do some useful effects. Pretty much a ripoff of them in Eternal Darkness.

In either case, I think the following basis would work best:

Any alphabet or lexicon of symbols with funky names only has magical power for one reason: They're the result of a pact with powerfully magic creatures (outsiders, deities, Elder Gods, what have you), the specifics of which involve the creature(s) involved agreeing to have their power on tap when these symbols are drawn and/or their names said. That's a big sacrifice for the creatures who are supplying the power, but it can still happen every now and then. It means there's many sets out there, of varying complexities and uses (one might be a general-purpose set which was born during a war, while there might be a set powered by the Dwarven pantheon which is very oriented towards making magic weapons and armor).

Also, real languages aren't directly used for this sort of thing; you don't want to be having a conversation and then have some spell effect go off. This means the runes are arbitrarily agreed upon. The magic side of the negotiating table could totally say, "I don't like how the rune for fire looks, draw another one for me and we have a deal."

Anyway, the runic magic would have some effects on the world...

-Hardcore would let you learn to do some magic, whether by learning the runes, or by having someone drill you on the pronunciation.

-Both of them would mean you can craft stuff without actually knowing magic yourself. You could totally get someone who knows what they're doing to draw out the runes and a pronunciation guide and copy that to make a magic weapon or produce another effect.

From an idea I had and ran out of steam on.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I think truenamers were actually going for a minor antagonist from a fairly obscure Zelazney book called The Changing Land. It's a great book, and extremely D&d-like (in some ways), but that's kind of a stretch for a new class.

I've had that sitting on my bedtable for, like, two years.

I should get around to reading it.

[fectin]

Its actually a sequel to an even more obscure series of short stories he wrote, collected as Dilvish the Damned (IIRC). They're all good, because Zelazny is an amazeballs writer, but they're all sort of generic Zelazney-flavored velveeta.

[codeGlaze]

...goddamnit, that's brilliant.

Jigoku, you better fucking write this book because we both know I'm never going to get around to it.

I'm glad I was able to contribute.... something!

Runes: I'm having a forming idea about a system of runic magic coming into two versions: Lite, and Hardcore.

Lite would just posit the existence of runes which you can put onto things to make them magic; this is much like that bit in Salvatore when Aegis-Fang was forged. If you can put them in correctly, and pronounce them right, you can use them.

Hardcore would be a system of runic magic by which people who don't normally know magic, can be taught, or learn, a means to do some useful effects. Pretty much a ripoff of them in Eternal Darkness.

In either case, I think the following basis would work best:

Any alphabet or lexicon of symbols with funky names only has magical power for one reason: They're the result of a pact with powerfully magic creatures (outsiders, deities, Elder Gods, what have you), the specifics of which involve the creature(s) involved agreeing to have their power on tap when these symbols are drawn and/or their names said. That's a big sacrifice for the creatures who are supplying the power, but it can still happen every now and then. It means there's many sets out there, of varying complexities and uses (one might be a general-purpose set which was born during a war, while there might be a set powered by the Dwarven pantheon which is very oriented towards making magic weapons and armor).

Also, real languages aren't directly used for this sort of thing; you don't want to be having a conversation and then have some spell effect go off. This means the runes are arbitrarily agreed upon. The magic side of the negotiating table could totally say, "I don't like how the rune for fire looks, draw another one for me and we have a deal."

Anyway, the runic magic would have some effects on the world...

-Hardcore would let you learn to do some magic, whether by learning the runes, or by having someone drill you on the pronunciation.

-Both of them would mean you can craft stuff without actually knowing magic yourself. You could totally get someone who knows what they're doing to draw out the runes and a pronunciation guide and copy that to make a magic weapon or produce another effect.

That's a pretty good step in the right direction, I like it.

[Username17]

I just want to say that it offends me on a deep level that using someone's personal true name makes the difficulty of affecting them with word magic go up. I can follow the design process that got them there (using a personal name makes the effective caster level go up, and all augmentations have to be paid for), but it really makes the whole true name research thing into a wet pile of smelly ass.

Really, personal true names should just be a prerequisite for casting rituals on people. One of those rituals could be Raise Dead, and then we'd have a reason why Clerics can't just solve all murders by raising the dead. And one of those rituals could be Demand, and then people would keep their true name fairly secret. Problem fucking solved. Actually, a bunch of problems fucking solved.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Really, personal true names should just be a prerequisite for casting rituals on people. One of those rituals could be Raise Dead, and then we'd have a reason why Clerics can't just solve all murders by raising the dead. And one of those rituals could be Demand, and then people would keep their true name fairly secret. Problem fucking solved. Actually, a bunch of problems fucking solved.

Arcana Unearthed/Evolved basically did this. There were also a bunch of feats you could only take if you were initiated by someone who knew your true name. And not having a true name was totally an option, for those who were comfortable being unraiseable and so on.

[name_here]

Yeah, that seems pretty stupid. Since it's a huge pain to get someone's true name in the first place, using it could just be strictly better and it wouldn't be a huge problem.

[codeGlaze]

Yeah, that seems pretty stupid. Since it's a huge pain to get someone's true name in the first place, using it could just be strictly better and it wouldn't be a huge problem.

Using it should (not just could) be immediately better. If you know a person's actual truename then your spells should affect them more easily, hands down.

Now creating mechanics that prevent truenames from being common would be the hard part (imo). Throttling back a Truenamer's access to actual true names would be absolutely necessary, it should be really difficult to find out someone's super-cereal for realz truename.

There could be mechanics that allow you to wreak more havoc on a target as you start to pin them down more accurately (Prak has mentioned something along these lines with descriptors). But their universal ID should be really fucking difficult to get your hands on.

Sort of like mining for bit coins.

[Prak]

Well, the real question is "how poweful should true name use be?" As well as "how hard should it be to find a true name?"

Should a spell using the target's True Name just automatically affect them (I don't think this is the case). Should it be a free maximize spell?

Should finding a true name require in game weeks or months of research and meditation? I suppose that once there's actually a system, I should go back and rework the True Name Nemesis class I wrote, so that Wizard+True Name Nemesis isn't the path to real ultimate power...

[Ancient History]

The best use of true names I can think of offhand was for Shadowrun - yes, Earthdawn used it more, but in SR true names were fairly straightforward and simple, if not always common.

[codeGlaze]

The best use of true names I can think of offhand was for Shadowrun - yes, Earthdawn used it more, but in SR true names were fairly straightforward and simple, if not always common.

Would you be able to break it down in a quick, easily digestible manner? I'm intrigued.

Well, the real question is "how poweful should true name use be?" As well as "how hard should it be to find a true name?"

Should a spell using the target's True Name just automatically affect them (I don't think this is the case). Should it be a free maximize spell?

Should finding a true name require in game weeks or months of research and meditation? I suppose that once there's actually a system, I should go back and rework the True Name Nemesis class I wrote, so that Wizard+True Name Nemesis isn't the path to real ultimate power...

My current idea-boner would say:
"Actual true names should be pretty damn powerful by themselves."
-and-
"Yes, actual true names should be pretty damn hard to find." But you can sort of skirt around that with enough descriptors.

For the third question : "True names should be fucking handy as shit right off the bat, but no, not all powerful. That would be determined by caster level and ritual completion."

I base a lot of that thought off of (probably) two or three pre-existing treatments of true names.

---

Demons and True Names
First, how demons are treated in stories with true names. In some stories just knowing a demon's true name fucks it pretty bad. In some stories you can banish it by just SAYING it's true name, in other stories you can bind it by USING it's true name in a ritual and beating it in a competition of wills (which the ritual pads in your favor). That last bit would indicate room to brow beat a demon into servitude with out it's true name and/or ritual if your will power (caster power) was strong enough. Demons who had their True Names uncovered have classically been at a distinct disadvantage. (Amongst their 'peers' and in the realm of humans)

Folklore and Fae-centric
Second, how in a lot of of fey-centric (plus random other) stories, true names are kept super-cereal ultra secret because they allow people to hold power over you. Eragon pops to mind, actually (I know it's not the only implementation, but it's what I just thought of). Knowing your true name opens up all the flood gates of casting on your ass. Binding you is now possible (like a demon!), spells can more easily and accurately affect you.

---

Essentially in all cases knowing your true name drops your save DC by a fuckton.

IMO, that leaves room for a few interpretations and plenty of room for Prak's descriptor system (which I find interesting).

Actual True Name?
What I mean about an actual true name ties into Prak's idea. As stated above, I think a true name could be a series of descriptors that sort of nails down a person's origin/existence, with the final key being their personal signature. That entire string is their actual true name. But, using descriptors you can still do a pretty bang up job of nailing a target down.

So a Truenamer's magic is directly limited to controlling a manipulating things through researching, practicing and guessing descriptors. They cast very specific spells restricted by their casting abilities (spell level / caster level) and maybe trade off increased casting times for increased spell effects/higher save DCs. So as they get closer to a target's full true-name, the harder it is for that target to resist or avoid the spell (their save DCs go down).

Levelling Up
As they level up and become more experienced Truenamers improve their understanding of naming conventions and universal querying. They can search/research and compile more sophisticated names, descriptors and "shortcuts". So as they get more powerful as a caster, they can shortcut lower level descriptors thereby casting them faster, making their ability to use longer names less cumbersome.

Full Names
By the nature of true naming, a full-on truename would be extraordinarily long, take a long time to cast and leave plenty of room for error. That alone would mean an experienced caster would be required to use them with any accuracy. Top-tier Truenamers would be required to use them to their full potential.

Low levels and Full Names
Low-level or untrained people would need scrolls, instructions and plenty of time to use a recorded true name (artifact). Even then, there'd still be plenty of space for error or problems.

Trying to figure out whether it should be 'truename, 'true name', 'true-name', etc.

[OgreBattle]

I imagine truenames could work something like Shadowrun's SIN and wireless connections, it can enhance your powers but also leave your vulnerable.

[Ancient History]

The idea of a true name should be a bit Rumplestiltskin-ish - if you know the entity's true name, be they a kobold or a genie, then you can do pretty much anything to them, and they don't get a saving throw. Now, what you can do to them depends entirely on how much you know, but the basic potential there is to destroy them or bind them. You could go full ba'al shem on it, though not everyone would want to.

[Windjammer]

Ari Marmell is best known for an astroturfing sockpuppet scandal, where it turns out that he was a tireless booster for 4th edition posting on message boards under the name “Mousferatu” without revealing his financial connection to the product – and for being besties with the poster Massawyrm, who was also being a tireless booster of 4th edition online without revealing his close association with one of the designers (both posed as plebian fans who had been reluctantly won over by 4th edition's great mechanics). Good times were had by all.

This is factually incorrect. Marmell never disguised that we was Mouseferatou, or that he was freelancing for 4E. He vocally defended WotC for many years on Enworld and elsewhere, and deliberately reminded everyone, all the time, that it was him, Marmell. His hopes were that he'd get hired as a full employee, beyond the on and off freelance gigs. That didn't materialize, and Schwalb was taken in instead. That's when, if you paid attention, you saw Marmell stop give a shit.

The idea that Marmell tried to hide his vocal defending WotC is wildly inaccurate, as is the allegation that Massawyrm did not mention an (unnamed) friend of his was going to freelance for WotC. Again, that Massawyrm would be thereby, if only indirectly, linked to the commercial success of 4E tainted his reviews right away in the perception of many.

Neither Marmell nor Massawyrm were therefore involved in any sockpuppetting scandal. They were complicit, however, of claiming that the skill challenge rules were 'awesome', which was a fabricated lie. And the Massawyrm reviews were the single most aweful ones amist the pre-release hype (he literally depicts himself as chunking away any and all 3.5 supplements that are not predominantly edition neutral fluffy). So they're arguably among the more despicable figures in the 4e pre-release clusterfuck. But that's no excuse to get the facts wrong.

Truename Magic

FrankT:

The thing about the Truename Magic section here is that unlike the previous two chapters that were based on good ideas but designed incompetently, Truename Magic is based on an idea that is actually terrible. The concept is “What if spellcasting was a skill, and being more skillful at casting made you better able to cast spells?” That's the kind of thing that sounds good enough that they tried it in True20, Epic Level Handbook, FantasyCraft, Iron Heroes, and a fuck tonne of other d20 hacks. But it's completely incompatible with a level-based system. It's completely incompatible with a level-based system in the specific manner that 3e D&D handles skills, but it's important to remember that it is also incompatible with a level-based system using every other skill system it is possible to have.

See, any skill system it is possible to have is either going to have a 1:1 correspondence with level or it isn't. Those are literally the only two options. And if your skill system is exactly the same as levels, shifting spellcasting from level to skill is pointless. While if your skill system isn't exactly the same as levels, then setting spellcasting to “not levels” makes it broken. There's no middle ground possible.

That's a non sequitur (or a fallacy of excluding the middle, I don't know). You can have a magic subsystem operating on skill checks in d20. The problem is simply, the effects cannot interact with the standard spells system. See the Turning rules for clerics. The problem is, you have to seal off such subsystems from the remaining magic system, or you have to ditch the extant magic system, create a new one, and then everyone can be happy. That's what we got in 4e, and as your review admirably points out, this is one of many points on which Tome of Magic tried to testrun 4E concept ideas.

On the whole, I enjoy the OSSR reviews, but as with the one for DMG 2, I'm beginning to increasingly dislike the fact that inaccuracies and polemic exaggerations begin to distort factual truth to a degree that wasn't the case around a year ago. Just saying, as I'm an irregular lurker and rarely if ever post here.