# The Shadowcaster -weak?



## WarlockLord

I have been having a lot of trouble trying to make a decent shadowcaster.  Thus, I have concluded it's kinda weak.  The path system and lack of decent combat fundamentals dooms it.  Which is sad, as it has well-thought-out flavor.


If anyone has a decent single-classed shadowcaster, or disagrees with me, posts it here. If you disagree, post a good one.


----------



## blargney the second

I'm really curious to see what people say about this class, particularly actual game play experience!


----------



## Laman Stahros

It isn't designed as a direct combat type. It uses a more tricksy style to defeat its enemies.


----------



## Greylock

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I have been having a lot of trouble trying to make a decent shadowcaster.  Thus, I have concluded it's kinda weak.  The path system and lack of decent combat fundamentals dooms it.  Which is sad, as it has well-thought-out flavor.




Strongly agreed. Haven't played one, but I tried statting out one for various levels over the past week as backup chars. 

I stopped after the third day. Lost all desire to actually play one. Damned shame. The flavor text is awesome.

hth


----------



## Kishin

Its main flaw seems to be the relatively low amount of Mysteries per day it can cast, and since they don't receive bonus Mysteries based on a high ability score, the only way to counter this is by learning Mysteries multiple times, thereby increasing the number of usages at the cost of decreasing your available palette of abilities.

I admittedly haven't had the chance to play one myself or otherwise witness a Shadowcaster in action, but I can't see it measuring up to an arcane or divine caster, which perhaps, is the point. Were I to make one, I think I'd strive to pick up the Noctumancer PrC for some added punch.

Its definitely a class that requires some mulling over, but as many have said already, the flavor is awesome.


----------



## WarlockLord

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> It isn't designed as a direct combat type. It uses a more tricksy style to defeat its enemies.





What kind of tricks would you recommend?  It has stealth, but lacks the ability to dish it out from hiding.  At low levels, one is heavily reliant upon the arrow of dusk fundamental (ranged touch, 2d4 *nonlethal*, but x3 crit.  The mysteries at low level aren't good enough to justify their lack of uses.  I am not sure if you can take the Extra Spell Feat (from complete arcane) to learn an extra mystery.  That might help.

Another thing - there don't seem to be many good feats for an SC.  Ideas?

If anyone has played this class, I urge you to post below.  It would be appreiciated.


----------



## WarlockLord

Also, Ari, if you'vbe taken a look at this thread, could you tell us how the "iconic shadowcaster" you submitted to WoTC for playtesting was built (feats, mysteries, so on).


----------



## Mouseferatu

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> Also, Ari, if you'vbe taken a look at this thread, could you tell us how the "iconic shadowcaster" you submitted to WoTC for playtesting was built (feats, mysteries, so on).




I've been watching, yes.  I'm as curious as anyone to see what people think of the shadowcaster in play. While it's far from the only class I've ever designed, it _is_ the only one I've designed to date that was intended to operate on a brand new system of magic and powers. If it's flawed, I want to know, so I can do better next time.

The playtest shadowcaster was a pre-development version of Irrin Corradran, as depicted on p. 116. I'm afraid that, between my own spotty memory and the fact that a lot of mysteries changed in development, telling you how I built her up originally wouldn't offer much insight.

I _am_ happy to explain my reasoning--even if it turns out be flawed--for any of the design aspects of the shadowcaster itself. However, if you'll humor me a bit, I'd rather wait until the thread's gotten a few more replies before I do so. I'd really like to see what more people think of the shadowcaster, as written and in-play, before I start delving into the whys and wherefores.


----------



## Cadfan

I think the shadowcaster is fine, and I'm looking forwards to playing one soon.

My plan is, up to level 12,

Eyes of Shadow path
Shutters and Clouds path

Dark Reflections path
Bolster, Warp Spell, and Echo Spell.

Past level 12, I'll either go with Heart and Soul for coolness (path focus and greater path focus augmented), or Ebon Walls because it has both fort and will saves.  I'll pick up Shadow Calling either way because it doesn't have saving throws, and I won't need path focus to power it up.  My last few mysteries will either be for more castings of my best 9th level mysteries, or for more warp spells.  I'm not sure yet.

For feats, I'll pick up Still Mystery, Shadow Reflections (book isn't with me, the 50% miss chance for attacks of opportunity), and Path Focus and Greater Path Focus for Dark Reflections.  At level 13, I'll use my bonus feat for Favored Mystery: Shadow Evocation, Greater.  I'm looking forwards to shadow evocation forcecages that ignore SR and have a 60% chance of working even if the target makes its save.

At low levels, the plan is to use my mysteries as per a normal caster, but with a backup plan of flanking and demoralizing with intimidate.

I personally think the power level is just fine.  I think a lot of people feel it is weak because they devalue defensive options and overvalue offensive abilities.  The shadowcasters defenses are great.  So many mysteries give concealment or otherwise permit the use of hide checks, and since the Shadowcaster can wear armor (still mystery removes arcane spell failure), they can wear Shadowed Shadowsilk armor, meaning their hide checks will be well nigh unbeatable, giving them a sort of permanent invisibility.

I'm happy with the class and the system.  I don't think its at the high end of the power curve, but I think its on there at a respectable point, and that it is worth playing.

------------

Editted to add:

There are a few things on my wish list as far as the Shadowcaster is concerned, and since Mouseferatu is here, I might as well say them.

Black Fire is reflex negates?  That's sad, it makes it almost unusable at higher levels.  Reflex Half would have been a better call, in my opinion.

Echo Spell is fun, but it would have been phenomenal if, instead of being limited to 4th level spells, it was limited to spells of, say, 2 levels lower than the highest level mystery you can cast.  Then at higher levels it would still be useful in combat, instead of just for echoing your own cleric's healing and such.

I wish a lot of the lower level spells with "will negates" had partial effects on successful saves.  Since you can't drop those mysteries in favor of other spells like a wizard would, you need to count on them being saved against quite frequently.  A mystery like Killing Shadows is fine with will half even at high levels because you can easily maximize your apprentice mysteries at that point, and even with a save for half, its still 40 damage in an area of effect.  Afraid of the Dark is similar.  Shadow Vision, on the other hand, seems destined to fall into disuse at high levels, which is sad given how few mysteries you know.  If instead of will negates it was will save for half penalty and partial concealment, it would be worth using.  Its not such a big deal for higher level spells, but for lower level ones, this would be a nice change.

Final thought: the one change I'd make if I could only make one change, total, would be that if a mystery grows with caster level, but reaches a cap, Path Focus would increase that cap by one level.  So a path focused Curtain of Shadows would max out at 16d6.

Really, this is nitpicking.  Overall, I like Shadowmagic quite a lot.  But what the heck, you're here, so I figured I'd tell you my thoughts.

Thanks.


----------



## genshou

Experiences from play:

I played a grey elf shadowcaster with the dark template in a World's Largest Dungeon game.  Coriantos was frighteningly good at vanishing into the shadows at will, but her ability to do much of anything else was effectively nil.  She got a few uses out of Black Fire, but even cold resistance 5 makes that spell pretty ineffective.  Her Arrow of Dusk was about the only way she could deal any damage, and after three of them she was done for the day.  She got some use out of some of the other mysteries, but since I had her wearing shadow silk hide, she didn't need an armour bonus (otherwise Steel Shadows would have been a lot more useful for her to cast on herself rather than the thri-kreen), and she already had Hide in Plain Sight as a racial ability, so she didn't need the mystery that granted that.

I think the mysteries are powerful enough to match up with core spells, but the shadowcaster just doesn't get enough uses of them per day.

Ari, in the last thread about shadowcasters, didn't you say that the editors altered the class quite a bit from your original version?


----------



## Mouseferatu

genshou said:
			
		

> Ari, in the last thread about shadowcasters, didn't you say that the editors altered the class quite a bit from your original version?




Not the class itself. A lot of the individual mysteries. (And I'll admit that most of the changes were for the better, though there are perhaps a couple I disagree with.)

It's certainly true that low-level shadowcasters don't get many mysteries--perhaps too few.  :\  But I'm curious if anyone's had the chance to see if that still holds true at higher levels, when their earlier categories of mystery jump to 2/day or even 3/day.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

I've had a slightly different experience with the shadowcaster as DM. I combined a shadow (Standard Monster Manual) with six levels of shadowcaster focusing on the terrain abilities (I'm working off of memory here but I'm sure you guys know the ones I mean).

This thing's purpose was to guard an "exploding McGuffin"(1) and make sure no one could stop it from "exploding". The PCs tried but this shadow shadowcaster immobolized the PCs preventing them from preventing the "explosion". It eventually served it's purpose and served it very well.

I suppose what I have learnt from this is that the shadowcaster when focused, is very good at doing what they do. I have reservations for the class in terms of utility though. I can only speculate but I think that mechanically they are better suited to an NPC role rather than a PC role.

In terms of roleplaying a Shadowcaster though, I think it's the bees knees. I like to play weird or slightly different characters and the Shadowcaster most certainly fits the bill. By higher levels, the important crossover from magical abilities to supernatural abilities will be complete meaning this guy will have a couple of real cool tricks up the sleeve. Not everyone's cup of tea but certainly mine.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Cadfan

Hah, one more thing.

I liked the sidebars in Tome of Magic.  Most of them were very useful, especially the ones in the shadow magic section, which helped with some of the more technical bits of shadow magic (incorporeal, spell like abilities versus supernatural abilities, etc).

But one sidebar that the book needed, was one summing up the weirdness with Hide, hide in plain sight, concealment, hiding in combat, attacking from hiding, returning to hiding after attacking from hiding, and so forth.


----------



## genshou

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not the class itself. A lot of the individual mysteries. (And I'll admit that most of the changes were for the better, though there are perhaps a couple I disagree with.)
> 
> It's certainly true that low-level shadowcasters don't get many mysteries--perhaps too few.  :\  But I'm curious if anyone's had the chance to see if that still holds true at higher levels, when their earlier categories of mystery jump to 2/day or even 3/day.



Oh... I was mistaken about that, then.

I think at high levels the same problem will still be there, but less pronounced perhaps.  We didn't get to the high levels in the WLD game before it was cancelled, but looking at the class the high-level mysteries are still 1/day, and that means the shadowcaster really has to conserve the mysteries that are high enough level to actually be effective against CR-appropriate foes, just like at the lower levels.  And without anything to make the shadowcaster effective in combat when not using mysteries, that means less usefulness overall.

Maybe if I get a chance to play in a high-level game I'll try out a shadowcaster and let you know how it works out.


----------



## Particle_Man

I would be curious to see what would happen if shadowcasters were simply given the infinite uses/day ability of the Warlock.  Obviously it would up the power level, but would it unbalance the game?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I would be curious to see what would happen if shadowcasters were simply given the infinite uses/day ability of the Warlock.  Obviously it would up the power level, but would it unbalance the game?




I think it would. There's an art to balancing invocations, and it's very different than that to balancing spells. I designed the mysteries to be much closer to the latter than the former.

I suppose it might be doable if you dramatically cut back the number of mysteries known--to roughly 12 over the course of the class--and limited them to apprentice and initiate paths, and dramatically raised the level at which they access initiate-level mysteries, you might be able to make it work.


----------



## WarlockLord

I tried playing a drow shadowcaster.  It bombed, but I think that was more due to the LA (and the fact that I didn't build him right) than to the class.  This time, I'm going to take the shutter and clouds and eyes of darkness path, and max out intimidate (something to do when I'm out of mysteries).  6 arrows of dusk should work quite well.


----------



## Cadfan

If you do that, tell me how it goes.  That's the plan I have for my upcoming shadowcaster, if/when I'm ever not the DM.

The other thing I want to do with shadow magic is create a shadowsmith with Flicker, and charging based feats.  Each round I'll flicker back 20 feet and charge again.  It will be great.


----------



## WarlockLord

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The other thing I want to do with shadow magic is create a shadowsmith with Flicker, and charging based feats.  Each round I'll flicker back 20 feet and charge again.  It will be great.





Sounds cool.


P.S.  I have my next session Thursday.  I'll let you know how he works out.


----------



## Land Outcast

Hum... what about increasing the progression rate of misteries per day?[sblock=Say: 1st level misteries]
Uses per day:
lvl 01 - 1
lvl 02 - 1
lvl 03 - 1
lvl 04 - 2
lvl 05 - 2
lvl 06 - 2
lvl 07 - 3
lvl 08 - 3
lvl 09 - 3
lvl 10 - 4
lvl 11 - 4
lvl 12 - 4
lvl 13 - 5
lvl 14 - 5
lvl 15 - 5
lvl 16 - 6
lvl 17 - 6
lvl 18 - 6
lvl 19 - 7
lvl 20 - 7
[/sblock]
and/or 

allow bonus misteries per day based on charisma?


----------



## lukelightning

Laman Stahros said:
			
		

> It isn't designed as a direct combat type. It uses a more tricksy style to defeat its enemies.




A wizard with the right spell selection or beguiler could do this "tricksy" style far better.  All you need is _invisibility_ or, even better, _greater invisibility_ and you are as sneaky as you need to be, without being straightjacketed into a limited range of damage types (shadowcasters mostly do cold and subdual damage), and effects (mind affecting things which a zillion creatures are immune to).


----------



## ehren37

Its appears to have less versatility than a sorcerer, with less spells. That speaks mountains. It doesnt need split ability scores... none of the classes in ToM did, since all are fairly weak. The class should have begun with the mysteries as supernatural abilities, not spells. 

Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.


----------



## Plane Sailing

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.




This is being borderline rude to another Enworld poster. It is unwarranted and unwanted. Please be careful to phrase things better in the future.

For reference, if you had said something like "Didn't Ari design the marshall as well? Both of these classes seem a little weak to me" I wouldn't have stepped in.

I would appreciate it if you would edit your post.

Thanks


----------



## Bisquet

Speaking about the Marshall from seeing it in play, I believe it to be an outstanding support class.  The character by itself wasn't a combat machine or anything, but his auras and other abilities were invaluable.  Believe me, we sure missed the character when the player wasn't around.  

I don't believe you can judge a class just on a standalone basis, especially if its one that is focused on improving the group as a whole.  Which I feel the Marshall does very well.


----------



## Cadfan

Bisquet: The marshall is an ok class, but I believe the lesson from these discussions is that most people judge a class entirely by its offensive powers.  The marshall's auras and skills are primarily defensive in nature, or intended for use out of combat, and for most people therefore do not count.

Its their loss.


----------



## Mouseferatu

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.




Not only did I _not_ design the marshal--_Miniature's Handbook_ predates any work I did for WotC--but I happen to feel the marshal is, while a really nifty concept, too weak as written. (Compare it to the more recent "aura-based" class, the dragon shaman, to see what I mean.) I'm playing one in an upcoming campaign, and the DM and I modified the class to bring it a little more up to par.


----------



## ehren37

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not only did I _not_ design the marshal--_Miniature's Handbook_ predates any work I did for WotC--but I happen to feel the marshal is, while a really nifty concept, too weak as written. (Compare it to the more recent "aura-based" class, the dragon shaman, to see what I mean.) I'm playing one in an upcoming campaign, and the DM and I modified the class to bring it a little more up to par.




Ahh, thats it. I knew you had experience with the class, and were playing one. I personally dislike the "sit there and buff" aspect of the class, since its basically a low skill point aristocrat in terms of active abilities. What did you guys do to buff it up to be enjoyable?


----------



## ehren37

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> This is being borderline rude to another Enworld poster. It is unwarranted and unwanted. Please be careful to phrase things better in the future.
> 
> For reference, if you had said something like "Didn't Ari design the marshall as well? Both of these classes seem a little weak to me" I wouldn't have stepped in.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you would edit your post.
> 
> Thanks





Its not intended to be rude. Some classes are weaker than others. The marshall, the  samurai, etc are weaker classes, the cleric and druid are stronger classes. For me to imply that someone favors making classes at one end of the power scale shouldnt be taken as an insult.


----------



## ehren37

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Bisquet: The marshall is an ok class, but I believe the lesson from these discussions is that most people judge a class entirely by its offensive powers.  The marshall's auras and skills are primarily defensive in nature, or intended for use out of combat, and for most people therefore do not count.
> 
> Its their loss.




Its not weak because it lacks offense, its weak because it lacks appreciable value over another support class. Sure, its buffs stack with other things, but unless you're running a 9 person game, another class adds buffs and additional options. If you're running a 5 man game, you add a bard. If you're running a 6 man game, you add a druid. And so on. The marshshall, a buff only class, isnt particularly good enough at buffing (over and above other classes) to make up for its limited scope. Add in that its *boring*, since all you do is fire up your aura and wade around whiffing with your 3/4 bab (and not hurting things when you hit), yields not a lot of fun in combat. Add in lowish skill points, and you've got issues out of combat. 

Giving him a few more abilities , a few more active combat options, or more skill points, and the marshall could have been more fun. 

Regardless, this thread is supposed to be about the shadowcaster. Someone brought up earlier about how a wizard can be tricksy with the right spell selection, which is a very good point. An arcane trickster has even more potential at the sacrifice of a few spell levels. Given that wizards, druids and clerics can change their spells on a daily basis, its hard to design a 20 level niche base class that one of these 3 cant duplicate or surpass with the right spell selection (and still have the option of changing their spells to fill a different role the next day). When designing a new class that fills a small role, I think a good baseline would be to make the class NOTICABLY superior to a wizard/cleric with proper preparation, then go from there. This is even more important when its a class limited product support. Basically every new book expands the potential for wizard/cleric/druid, yet there the support for new mysteries, invocations, etc are limited. Even if new material is published, the static nature of resource selection of some of these classes limits the usefulness. A new spell or vestige that becomes available is pretty much immediately useful, as the caster/binder can add it the next day. A new invocation adds less to a warlock since they cant easily replace the ones the know.


----------



## BryonD

I really like the class.

I've only used one npc so far and I've found it to be a bit on the weak side.  But not terribly so.

I'll point out that the nature of his abilities have allowed him to escape from direct conflicts on two seperate occasions.  So they certainly are not weak on that count.


----------



## Cadfan

Except that spell selection isn't all the shadowcaster has.

What's the tricksy wizard's hide check?  Move silently check?  Spot check?  What bonuses is he getting from his armor?  His buckler?  Do his spells have material components?  Somatic components?  Verbal components?  Are his hit points as high?  How's his fort save?  Not to mention that shadow magic mysteries tend to be on a 1 for 1 level superior to comparable spells (dancing shadows grants actual concealment, not fake concealment like displacement, killing shadows is d8 instead of d6, etc).  Or that the shadowcaster is largely emancipated from issues like casting defensively, or having his spells countered or dispelled, and gets a permanent, better form of the darkvision spell.

You can't just consider offense.  Defense is a factor.  If all we considered was offense, of course the glass cannon classes would always win.


----------



## jcfiala

I remember enjoying the flavor of the shadowcaster at the time, but I really didn't take a hard look at the mechanics then.  I had another look last night, and it seems to me that there's a problem there with power, alright.

A fifth level Shadowcaster has five fundimentals, two level 1 mysteries, two level 2 mysteries, and 1 level 3 mystery, or can have more lower-level mysteries at the cost of the higher ones.  Although the fundies can be cast 3/day, each of these mysteries are one each.

On the other hand, a wizard at 5th level has 4 first level spells, 2 second, and 1 third, and that's assuming the minimum INT 13.  Assuming at least an INT 16 (not unreasonable, I think), that's 4 first, 3 second, 2 third... and then there's specializing, which brings it to 5/4/3.

Admittedly, a shadowcaster could throw two or three fundies into the 2d4 subdual trick, but that's not as good as our wizard just studying five copies of Magic Missile, which at 5th is now a 3d4+3 effect that could even be broken up between targets.

It seems to me that either each mystery needs to be two or three times more powerful than a spell of the same level, or our poor Shadowcaster should have his mysteries/day doubled or trebled.


----------



## lukelightning

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Except that spell selection isn't all the shadowcaster has.
> 
> What's the tricksy wizard's hide check?  Move silently check?  Spot check?




_Greater invisibility_ + _fly_ takes care of hiding and moving silently. I'm sure there is a low-level spell that adds a bonus to spot.  

Or be a Shadowcraft Mage from Races of Stone.

I should be clear that I _like_ the shadowcaster and think they can be a useful addition to a party (especially one that already has a wizard).


----------



## GVDammerung

The Shadowcaster (as a PC) is a class for which a DM needs to design specific adventures, something a lot of people seem to no longer do much, preferring “off the rack” adventures from Dungeon, Goodman or Necromancer Games etc.  In an “off the rack” adventure, the Shadowcaster tends to be weak, especially in a small party where versatility counts for more.  If you do your own adventures, the flavor of the Shadowcaster is so strong that making sure the adventure works for Shadowcaster PCs is acceptable.

When designing niche PC classes, as someone noted, they should be made powerful enough to hold their own in a 4-5 character party, when compared to the PH base classes.  This way, they will better function in “off the rack” adventures, that seem to be the fashion, as those are designed (mostly) with the PH base classes in mind.


----------



## ehren37

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Except that spell selection isn't all the shadowcaster has.
> 
> What's the tricksy wizard's hide check?  Move silently check?




Prety good with the right spells. Also, compare this to an arcane trickster. The AC is generally going to be better.



> Spot check?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What bonuses is he getting from his armor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 less really. A +x mithril chain shirt of twilight (0% ASF) vs whatever the shadiowcaster is wearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His buckler?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same really. Mithril bucklers have a 0% ASF chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do his spells have material components?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Most of the material components are a non issue. The ones with serious costs are much better than a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somatic components?  Verbal components?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are his hit points as high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd guess the same. The shadowcaster averages 1 better. However, while the shadowcaster has to have both intelligence AND charisma thanks to the needless MAD, the wizard can have intelligence AND con. Overall, its a wash, if not leaning towards the wizard.
> 
> 
> Not to mention that shadow magic mysteries tend to be on a 1 for 1 level superior to comparable spells (dancing shadows grants actual concealment, not fake concealment like displacement, killing shadows is d8 instead of d6, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that the shadowcaster is largely emancipated from issues like casting defensively,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Casting defensively is a non issue for wizards after a certain point in their careers. The DC is 15+spell level. So max of 24. A +23 means you never fail to cast defensively. By the time the shadowcaster is able to cast meaningful  mysteries as supernatural abilities (remember, they begin as spells), the wizard is easily able to cast defensively, using a cheap +concentration item to boost his check total even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or having his spells countered or dispelled,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, countering while casting happens relatively infrequently. Maybe it occurs more often in your games, in which case it would be more of an advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and gets a permanent, better form of the darkvision spell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He gets a free magic item. /shrug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't just consider offense.  Defense is a factor.  If all we considered was offense, of course the glass cannon classes would always win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have, and the wizard/rogue/arcane trickster still comes out ahead IMO. If there is a slight situational adantage, I dont think it makes up for the flexibility of picknig your spells on a daily basis. The loss of flexibility in daily mystery selection and MAD seriously hurts the shadowcaster.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Wraith Form

ehren37:  So, you're saying you like the class?

LOL


----------



## Mouseferatu

I think the potential problem is the way I designed the class's advancement. At _most_ levels, it's actually pretty comparable to the wizard in terms of total spells per day. The wizard has the benefit of bonus spells for Int, but the shadowcaster has a lot more fundamentals, and eventually gets the ability to cast them at will. Fundamentals aren't all that powerful, but are usually at least equal or superior to cantrips.

Unfortunately, there are a few specific levels where this is not the case. The shadowcaster falls behind, and then rapidly catches up upon gaining a new type of mystery, as the prior types gain extra uses per day. I thought it was a nifty mechanic--and I still like it _conceptually_--but maybe it doesn't play as well as I'd hoped.

I really do believe that, these two or three scattered levels aside, the shadowcaster does pretty well. But again, I'd like to hear about people's actual experiences, whether they support this or disprove it.


----------



## Mouseferatu

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Ahh, thats it. I knew you had experience with the class, and were playing one. I personally dislike the "sit there and buff" aspect of the class, since its basically a low skill point aristocrat in terms of active abilities. What did you guys do to buff it up to be enjoyable?




The main problem with the marshal, as compared to the dragon shaman, is that the DS is just as good a "buffer," and can _also_ wade in and take some truly significant actions on his own. The bard has lots of spells that aren't just good for buffing. But buffing is all the marshal has.

We wanted to do something to make the marshal truly effective as an _active_ participant. We've raised the BAB to a fighter's, and raised the skill points to 6/level. Honestly, I think it's _still_ a little weak, but I'm at least prepared to give it a shot and see how it goes.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The main problem with the marshal, as compared to the dragon shaman, is that the DS is just as good a "buffer," and can _also_ wade in and take some truly significant actions on his own. The bard has lots of spells that aren't just good for buffing. But buffing is all the marshal has.
> 
> We wanted to do something to make the marshal truly effective as an _active_ participant. We've raised the BAB to a fighter's, and raised the skill points to 6/level. Honestly, I think it's _still_ a little weak, but I'm at least prepared to give it a shot and see how it goes.



 I've had some success with buffed variant marshals.  I still have never had a player who actually wanted to play a marshal, but in one game, a caster headed for a massively difficult ritual Spellcraft check is desperate to enlist the aid of a marshal NPC so he can buff up her Charisma and add it to his Spellcraft check--some of those auras are massively useful for hitting a hard skill check.


----------



## Nalfeshnee

well ive had tome of magic for abot three months now, and im playing a bariaur truenamer and another player had a shadowswyft binder/rogue (its a planescape campaign). when i first got the book both us thought the truenamer was useless. now that ive played with it and ive found ways to pump up the Truespeak skill (at level 6 his check is +20 - all legal and within his gp limit), so he is good enough at using repeat utterances

but the shadowcaster...ugh, i had enough faith in the truenamer to actually use him, thogh i cannot see how the shadowcaster is good (at least at low-mid levels - i can see it being 'quite' good at high levels, thoug hagain, nowhere as effective as a wizard/warlock/warmage/sorcerer). too few spells, the promise of good skills that never delivers... i just think it was a half thought class tha thas so much potential.

i think the shadow caster should have better stealth skills and perhaps more skill points and maybe sneak attack (1d6 every 5 levels or so) or something similar. i think the spells are ok the way they are, if anything to make it different from the other spellcasting classes. though as it is (and especially since our games tend to happen between levels 5 - 10) im convinced ts not even worth trying. perhaps ill try one as an NPC to use against the party and experiment with ways to use it, though for the time being id rather use a FRCS shadow mage


----------



## Plane Sailing

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Its not intended to be rude. Some classes are weaker than others. The marshall, the  samurai, etc are weaker classes, the cleric and druid are stronger classes. For me to imply that someone favors making classes at one end of the power scale shouldnt be taken as an insult.




1. If you don't understand or disagree with a moderator request, email them - don't discuss it further in the thread.

2. Say what you want about a class. But say it in a way that doesn't denigrate other posters. If you can't understand why your post was mean spirited just edit it anyway - it's no skin off your nose.

Happily Ari wasn't personally involved with the marshall, and is a good sort who isn't likely to take offence anyway. Nonetheless, I still would like you to edit that post if you wish to continue posting in this thread.

If you don't follow this, please feel free to email me for clarification.


----------



## Soel

Not having looked indepth enough at the class, nor seen one in play, I would like to hear people's opinions on a little tidbit I read about the shadowcaster. Namely, the point someone made was that the wizard can do everything the shadowcaster can, even better. 

If the wizard outperforms the shadowcaster in its own niche, then something is needed to bump up the shadowcaster.

Anyone have anything to say regarding this?


----------



## Thomas Percy

What mfundamental mysteries do you prefer, how do you use it?

Imho *Arrow of Dusk* is must be. It's something like magic missile. 

*Black Candle* is another must be, because this is a sourse of darkness impossible to dispel and counterspell. 

*Caul of Shadows*? it's good to have deflection bonus imposible to dispel, but 
1. +2 to +4 deflection bonus means nothing if the enemy dispels the rest of my AC boosts.
2. I don't seen yet PC without ring of protection. 

*Umbral Hand*? Any creative solutions?


----------



## ehren37

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> ehren37:  So, you're saying you like the class?
> 
> LOL




Its not a terribly designed class, (its definately in the better half of non-core classes) its just on the weak side when compared to other options. Were I running a low magic/power game, I'd include it instead of a wizard or sorcerer as an option, since I feel its less powerful than those. Its not my favorite however, and I detailed why (MAD between Int and Cha for casting, low number of mysteries per day at various levels, etc). While I understand the background reasons for the transition from spell to supernatural ability of the mysteries, I think its a design decision that works against the class, and it wouldnt overpower it to have them using the mysteries as supernatural abilities from the start.

I feel the same way about the runecaster in Arcana Evolved... its a powered down magister with a few tricks (but not necessarily enough to compensate for what it loses), and a magister who prepared the right spells could do virtually everything the runecaster could do.


----------



## Schmoe

I"m not trying to be harsh, and I haven't actually played the class, but after looking at the Shadowcaster closely I found it to be extremely limited and unsatisfying.  I wrote a post on another thread here, but essentially it boiled down to the following limitations:

1.  Multiple required ability scores leading to lower save DCs for mysteries, which dilutes their power
2.  No way to increase number of known mysteries (which is already less than a sorcerer)
3.  No way to increase number of mysteries per day (which is already less than any wizard)
4.  Path structure which forces you to take potentially worthless mysteries in order to access the mysteries you actually want
5.  Extremely limited selection of mysteries to choose from
6.  *Uses per day tied to mysteries known*

In the end, you have a class which has very limited number of known mysteries, drawn from a very limited pool of available mysteries, who can cast them a very limited number of times per day.  This is ostensibly counteracted by the mysteries being more powerful and versatile, but the multiple ability score requirement means that save DCs will be lower, reducing the power.  In addition, the actual mysteries available only allow the shadowcaster the following: cold or subdual damage, concealment, limited battlefield control, limited senses augmentation/scrying.  Finally, even though the shadowcaster knows, say, two of his most powerful mysteries, *he can only use each one a single time per day*.  The shadowcaster is very limited in what his actions will be - he can't choose to use one of his most powerful mysteries twice in lieu of using his other - he can only use each once per day.

I found the combination of all of these limitations to be overly restrictive and they really put me off of the class.  I'll likely not use it without some serious revisions.


----------



## Particle_Man

What if we go the other way, and give Shadowcasters total access to the "spell lists" on their levels, a la Beguilers, War Mages, etc.?  Would that unbalance the game, or just bring the Shadowcasters up to par?


----------



## Fishbone

I'm just at a loss with the class. I really like the concept and I think all the little abilities are nice but what does this thing have over something rocking mithril or custum made Shield and Mage Armor items? Not a whole lot, as far as I can tell. Also, another point not raised is that the Shadowcaster is one of those classes where you are married to for the character's life. No multiclassing, no prestige classing.


----------



## Schmoe

Fishbone said:
			
		

> I'm just at a loss with the class...




Me too.  I think the concept is great, and I really like the background, but I can't see actually enjoying playing the class in a campaign as it currently stands.

Particle Man's suggestion may be a good one.  I really think the class needs more flexibility in _some_ area - right now it doesn't really have flexibility in _any_ area.  It may even be a simple matter of not tying uses per day to mysteries known.  It might be better if, at each class level you could A.) choose another mystery known, and B.) mysteries/day were tied to the total number of mysteries known for that level.  So if you knew two 4th level mysteries (your highest level), you would have two daily uses of 4th level mysteries, chosen at the time of casting from those you know.


----------



## Cadfan

Alright, my final comments, then I'll probably bow out of the discussion.

I have only one gameplay experience to contribute.  A group of my friends ran through a troll related one shot adventure posted on the wotc website, and used the PHBII and the Tome of Magic to create their characters, just to test them out.  The shadowcaster was, I believe, level 12.  It contributed well to the party in spite of being played by a less than expert player, particularly due to the level 5 wall mystery, and sight obscured (sorry, don't have my book here, don't recall exact names).  The wall mystery is very solid, has no save, has a duration, has high damage, and blocks line of sight.  Sight obscured is great if the target fails its save.  I could easily see their view of it as being different, however, if their target had made its save.  Other than that, the shadowcaster waltzed around enjoying his Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, and did not do a whole ton of stuff.  The heroes were the Duskblade and the Monk with Decisive Strike.

Regarding Ehren37's comments: The various builds you suggested are solid, but of course have drawbacks.  The Arcane Trickster, for example, requires less than useful feat prerequisites, and lowers your max spell level and your caster level.  Yes, it contributes other things, but its not a wash.  I had forgotten about Twilight armor.  The only thing I can say regarding it is that I think publishing Twilight armor was a mistake on wotc's part.  It gives armor to classes that previously did not have much reason to use it.  I recognize that normal casters are freed from concentration checks eventually, but using no custom items, that level is approximately level 15 for a caster with a 14 constitution and skill focus concentrate.  That's the level the caster can cast a 9th level spell and succeed at casting defensively while rolling a 1.  The shadowcaster, at the same cost of one feat, can get Shadow Cast, which, the vast, vast majority of the time, negates the need for concentration checks while casting.  This can be obtained at level 2 by use of a bonus feat.

When I review a class, I tend to think its ok if I can make at least one decent character out of it.  I think I can do that with the shadowcaster.  Its probably a little weaker than a tweaked out wizard, but to be honest, I've always felt that the primary spellcasters were overpowered.  Maybe I feel more comfortable with the shadowcaster because I don't see the power of a primary spellcaster as appropriate for the game.

Finally, I don't diagnose the shadowcasters problems the same as everyone else does.  Everyone seems to have a problem with the way the shadowcaster's mysteries known translate to mysteries per day, and the total number of mysteries a shadowcaster has per day.  Personally, I think this is what makes the shadowcaster unique and interesting.  If you took away this mechanic, you'd just have an alternate version of the beguiler.  So, I'd like to make a change without altering the path system.  What I'd do is, rather than complain about mysteries per day, I'd worry about GOOD mysteries per day.  The path system forces you to choose mysteries you may not want if you intend to get past them to better options.  For example, to get the very fun mystery Flicker, you need to go through the first level mystery that mimics the Command spell.  At level 1, that's ok.  But at level 14, being able to cast 3 supernatural Commands per day with a saving throw of 11 + cha is pretty weak.  You're probably never going to use them at all.

Here's the change I would make.

"The DC for a mystery is equal to one half the caster level of the mystery user's casting class, plus the caster's charisma bonus, rounded down."

I would then alter Path Focus to no longer give a bonus to mystery DC, merely the bonus to caster level.

Now, apprentice level paths that were previously very, very weak (the one with Flicker, Umbral Mind) and initiate paths that were so so (basically anything that forces a save negates mystery on you) would now grow in power level as your character grows.

This would have the following effects.

First, at low levels, Shadow Hood would actually be a good choice.  Right now no one even discusses it because after a few levels it becomes 100% useless.  Making it worthwhile increases the shadowcaster's offensive options.  It would still be weak, but its a fundamental, so that's ok.

Second, it would encourage taking multiple paths or unusual paths at low levels to pick up attack mysteries.  Selecting Umbral Mind is kind of a weak option right now, because Mesmerizing Shade, while ok at low levels, becomes terrible at higher levels.  With a scaling DC the ability to Daze a target as a supernatural ability is worthwhile even at very high levels.  With the scaling DCs, I could see a player taking Mesmerizing Shade or the mystery that mimics Command purely for their own value, and not merely for a way to get past them to higher level mysteries within their paths.  This would increase the combat spells per day available to a mystery user at lower levels, effectively increasing mysteries per day without changing the flavor and mechanics of the class to mimic a wizard.

Finally, at higher levels, the fact that mysteries like Mesmerizing Shade would be a viable combat option would lessen the need to desparately pursue attack mysteries.  Taking Dark Reflections would be less mandatory, and players could loosen up and select options like Step into Shadow or Bolster or Dark Air and Water with less guilt at the loss of offensive power.  This would encourage a larger variety of builds.

As of right now, when I say the shadowcaster is an ok class, I guess I'm really only referring to two possible builds.  One is the one I listed above, and even it is a little slow at low levels, and the other is a touch attack based build.  There are whole paths I would never even consider simply because they involve too much dead weight that cannot be dropped at high levels.  Scaling DCs would ensure that this would no longer be a problem by making that dead weight useful, and wouldn't meaningfully impact the overall power level of the game, because even a scaled DC Command mystery is still just one round of Command.

And it really fits in well with the whole "Shadow magic is different and superior to normal magic" thing the flavor has in it.  And with the way mysteries really aren't spells, they're something different that eventually matches supernatural powers.

Anyways, that's about all I have to say on the subject.  Thanks for your time, Mouseferatu.  I'll read replies, but probably won't comment much.


----------



## jcfiala

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Here's the change I would make.
> 
> "The DC for a mystery is equal to one half the caster level of the mystery user's casting class, plus the caster's charisma bonus, rounded down."
> 
> I would then alter Path Focus to no longer give a bonus to mystery DC, merely the bonus to caster level.
> 
> Now, apprentice level paths that were previously very, very weak (the one with Flicker, Umbral Mind) and initiate paths that were so so (basically anything that forces a save negates mystery on you) would now grow in power level as your character grows.
> 
> <cut out bits>
> 
> And it really fits in well with the whole "Shadow magic is different and superior to normal magic" thing the flavor has in it.  And with the way mysteries really aren't spells, they're something different that eventually matches supernatural powers.
> 
> Anyways, that's about all I have to say on the subject.  Thanks for your time, Mouseferatu.  I'll read replies, but probably won't comment much.




That might work - I'd have to have another look at the mysteries and see.  Unfortunately, they don't let me do D&D research while I'm supposed to be working.  ^_^


----------



## WarlockLord

I think the shadowcaster could use a combat fundamental that's a little better than arrow of dusk.  I recall one of the reasons my shadowcaster stunck was the fact that he was unable to fight undead.  Also, the touch of twilight path should be ranged, not requiring the loss of every low-level feat slot to achieve this.  One of the things my spellcasters have always shunned is touch attacks, as I fear they'd go like this:

Wizard:  Ha ha ha!  Eat shocking grasp!

Thokk the Orc: Wuss! Thokk still standing! Thokk SMASH!!!!

Wizard: AAAAH! NOOO!

(Wizard's severed head hits floor).

The class does seem to be too rigid.  It has less spells known than a sorceror, and less high-level casts than a wizard. The paths seem to lock you down into dead weight (i.e. taking the almost utterly useless congress of shadows to get flicker), and none of the 1st-2nd level mysteries are really any good at higher levels, except maybe thoughts of shadow.  Also, the split ability scores are incredibly annoying, and, I find at low levels, the class lacks offensive punch. All the defense in the world means nothing if you can't retaliate.


----------



## Thomas Percy

I have a question about Warp Spell mystery. 
There is unclear if enemy spellcaster MUST roll for Will saving throw or not againt this mystery. 
If yes, it's very weak, because I must win opposed caster level check first and then beat enemy spellcaster Will save (and they have powerful Will saves). 
In the mystery decsription there is "Will negates; see text" passage and there in no a single word about saves in the text below. 
In the statblocks of sample NPCs there is a save DC included for Thanielle, and there is no save DC for the same mystery for Crestian.
Eratta doesn't help me. 

Thanks for help.


----------



## Ranes

It is unclear, isn't it. Honestly, I think the Will save reference (and Thanielle's save DC) are mistakes, probably leftover from an earlier version of the mystery. It doesn't seem right that you have to beat a caster level check and a save.


----------



## Land Outcast

Would it be too much for them to get bonus misteries per day based on Cha and make their DC equal to CL/2+Cha?


----------



## Nifft

IMHO, after statting up a few NPC ("bad guy") Shadowcasters, I'm probably going to re-write the whole system. It's full of nice ideas, but the power level is off. This is particularly bad for low-level minions, but it's even noticable for CR 15 BBEGs, who don't have access to the sort of utility lair-set-up stuff that you really need to be a cool BBEG.

 -- N


----------



## Land Outcast

Yey!  

Nifft is fixing it... Right Nifft? I know you will


----------



## Wraith Form

Mouseferatu/Ari's been suspiciously quiet lately.  I've been watching to see when he'll weigh in again, and.....let's just say he's pulling a Keyzer Sose.

Nifft, will you be posting your re-work in this thread?


----------



## Greylock

Flavor text = Awesome. Blood churning stuff for either side of the table.


too bad the rest doesn't live up.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Heh. Sorry. Been out of town/busy for a few days. I'm also discussing the details of the shadowcaster with some other folk in the industry.

I'll post here in a few days with a few additional thoughts.


----------



## Nifft

Wraith Form said:
			
		

> Nifft, will you be posting your re-work in this thread?




I'll post a link, but the work should really go in House Rules. 

 -- N


----------



## Nifft

Land Outcast said:
			
		

> Yey!
> 
> Nifft is fixing it... Right Nifft? I know you will




I will try my humble best. 

 -- N


----------



## schatten-k.raehe

Nifft said:
			
		

> I'm probably going to re-write the whole system. It's full of nice ideas, but the power level is off.




Actually I have come to the same conclusion. The basic ideas behind shadow magic / the shadowcasters are great, however the conversion into game terms seems somewhat unfinished... Besides some minor flaws in the backround / flavor text, one of the main problems is the rules being too different [from the standard rules] in the wrong areas and not different enough in others.

Currently I plan, as time permits, to create my own version of shadow magic and the shadowcaster, strongly inspired by Ari's work, however taking a (slightly?) different approach.

Thus far I've got some really neat ideas, however it will be quite some work to realize them and balancing things out... *sigh*

We'll see, if I actually manage to finish it in the first place...

Ari? Would it be of any help to you, if we'd sum up what bothers us about the shadowcaster / your approach to shadow magic as it is? Giving reasons why of course... 
Thus far nearly all criticism is about the spellcasting mechanics, however I guess there are a bunch of other minor and major flaws, which would be worth a further look...


----------



## airwalkrr

ehren37 said:
			
		

> Its appears to have less versatility than a sorcerer, with less spells. That speaks mountains. It doesnt need split ability scores... none of the classes in ToM did, since all are fairly weak. The class should have begun with the mysteries as supernatural abilities, not spells.
> 
> Didnt Ari design the marshall as well? If thats the case, then maybe he just favors weak classes.




I have seen marshalls in several campaigns, one that I ran, and two that I played it. The marshal class is extraordinarily powerful and I don't see how anyone would see it otherwise unless they had never actually seen the class in action. As a long character, a marshal is not very effective, but in a party of 3 or more, he gives them the ability to do things they could have only dreamed of. Imagine a party with a rogue, wizard, and marshal disarming giants. It's happened.


----------



## Joël of the FoS

Am planning to add a Villain NPC with this class in my RL game. With this discussion going on, I'll start designing the dude and let you know of any comments afterward 

Joël


----------



## Schmoe

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Heh. Sorry. Been out of town/busy for a few days. I'm also discussing the details of the shadowcaster with some other folk in the industry.
> 
> I'll post here in a few days with a few additional thoughts.




Cool!  Can't wait to hear.


----------



## Mouseferatu

schatten-k.raehe said:
			
		

> Ari? Would it be of any help to you, if we'd sum up what bothers us about the shadowcaster / your approach to shadow magic as it is? Giving reasons why of course...
> Thus far nearly all criticism is about the spellcasting mechanics, however I guess there are a bunch of other minor and major flaws, which would be worth a further look...




I never turn down constructive criticism. (Emphasis on "constuctive." ) I can't promise to agree with everything you offer, but I'll certainly at least consider it.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

airwalkrr said:
			
		

> I have seen marshalls in several campaigns, one that I ran, and two that I played it. The marshal class is extraordinarily powerful and I don't see how anyone would see it otherwise unless they had never actually seen the class in action. As a long character, a marshal is not very effective, but in a party of 3 or more, he gives them the ability to do things they could have only dreamed of.



I have seen 7 marshals in play in Living Greyhawk now.  Every time I have judged the table or played at a table, the party with a marshal was among the most effective parties I have gamed with... and that would include over a hundred slots of LG gaming.  Marshals also make great cohorts as well and I almost picked one for my main character... I was a sceptic at first, honestly, but I am a convert after seeing many in play.

I can't say much about the shadowcaster, if it ever gets approval for play in LG however, I'll know if it is underpowered or not based on whether it is played by players.  The hexbalde, for instance... I've never seen a player play it, which is not to say there isn't one somewhere in LG.  I've seen bunches of marshals but no hexblades.  Odds are nothing in Tome of Magic will be approved for LG.  I wonder if Tome of Magic will be approved for the RPGA Xendrik campaign? Anyone know? I hear nearly everything WotC has published will be approved for the RPGA Xendrik campaign, including evil PCs.


----------



## Warbringer

Greylock said:
			
		

> Lost all desire to actually play one. Damned shame. The flavor text is awesome.




Then play one for "role-playing" puroposes


----------



## Wraith Form

schatten-k.raehe said:
			
		

> Thus far nearly all criticism is about the spellcasting mechanics.



Totally.  Flavor text is awesome--very, uh, flavorful.  Nice job, Ari!  The pictures are very evocative, too.


----------



## Cadfan

Well, if you're looking for constructive criticism, i wrote a massive post above.  

Short form:

When people say that he doesn't get enough spells per day, they mean the shadowcaster doesn't get enough attack spells per day, and he's a character who needs to cast spells for combat.  Part of the reason they feel this way is because most of the attack spells will never be selected by an experienced player, so they feel like there aren't many available.  Any spell with "save negates" that is of low level will be passed over because the experienced player.  Mysteries can't be traded out, so a "save negates" mystery becomes dead weight at higher levels when enemies' saves have grown faster than the mystery's DC.  So they won't be selected.  This means that low level combat mysteries are very, very rare.  Umbral Touch and Killing Shadows seem to be almost it for most players.

Mysteries, by their nature as abilities that can't be sacrificed later, need to be written to remain viable at high levels in order for players to select them for anything other than NPCs.

My vote is to make mystery DCs scale at 1/2 caster level + cha.

Then there's an honest amount of thought that goes into choosing mysteries like Mesmerizing Shade, or Shadow Vision, or even Shadow Hood.

This increases the number of choosable attack mysteries, lessening the feeling of low combat mysteries per day.

That's my only point.

Except please, if you do try to change the shadowcaster, don't listen to people who want to turn it into a clone of already existing classes.  I LOVE the flavor of having mysteries that, the longer you know them, the better you get at using them.  The mystery mechanic is very cool.  Its just the reality of so many mysteries that I basically cannot use because 6 levels later they'll be obsolete dead weight, that drags the class down.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Except please, if you do try to change the shadowcaster, don't listen to people who want to turn it into a clone of already existing classes.  I LOVE the flavor of having mysteries that, the longer you know them, the better you get at using them.  The mystery mechanic is very cool.  Its just the reality of so many mysteries that I basically cannot use because 6 levels later they'll be obsolete dead weight, that drags the class down.




No worries. Any tweaks that I may or may not eventually recommend for the shadowcaster will be just that: Tweaks. I have no interest in redesigning the class from the ground-up; potential problems with power level notwithstanding, it's still pretty much the class I wanted to design.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Cadfan said:
			
		

> My vote is to make mystery DCs scale at 1/2 caster level + cha.



That's a nice simple tweak. Maybe even one that can be delivered in an errata.


----------



## Joël of the FoS

Hey Ari! 

As promised, my comments on this class : 

There are some advantages to it, compared to a wizard (or sorcerer): 

-	d6 die (while I fail to see why the class got d6, since he is more or less a scholar like a Wizard)
-	At higher levels, roughly two-thirds of his mysteries are cast as spell-like abilities or supernatural ability, i.e. one of the advantages being silent casting.
-	The mysteries are well designed, and probably as powerful as wizard spells, contrary to what many said. Many of these spells are battle spells.

There are some important disadvantages to it, compared to a wizard (or sorcerer): 

-	the number of known mysteries is low, compared to a wizard and even to a sorcerer’s limited number of known spells, so they can be one-trick-ponies for a long time, before getting to higher levels.
-	or: The number of times they can use these mysteries is low too, IMHO.

---

I compared 13th levels Wiz, Sor and Shc (using the one on p 116)

Number of spell known: 
Shc: 13 + 6 lesser fundamentals
Wiz: choose daily up to 25 different spells from a potentially long list of spells
Sor: 32

Max number of cast spells per day: 
Shc: 31 + 18 lesser fundamentals
Wiz: 25 (int 16) + 4 level 0
Sor: 34 + 6 level 0

---

My suggestion, if I may:  Give them a much better variety of mysteries: increase the number of known mysteries, by perhaps giving a bonus of one every three level (plus perhaps more for low levels) 

That would make approx. these new numbers: 

Number of spell known: 
Shc: 17 + 6 lesser fundamentals
Wiz: choose daily up to 25 different spells from a potentially long list of spells
Sor: 32

(Variety is still low, but the number of spell compensates: )

Max number of cast spells per day: 
Shc: ± 39-40 + 18 lesser fundamentals
Wiz: 25 (int 16) + 4 level 0
Sor: 34 + 6 level 0

Rationale: I think the mysteries themselves are well designed and compare well to sorcerer’s or wizard’s spells. So the proposed changes would increase the number of mysteries known:  with a more limited number of spells than a Wiz, but a higher number of spells, the class would compare better with wizards, IMHO.

---

And yes, the flavour text is quite cool. I plan to add levels of Shadowcaster to a Fraternity of Shadows Ravenloft wizard.

Regards,

Joël

(edited for clarity)


----------



## Joël of the FoS

Quick comment to the poll designer: as a marketing guy, I have to say the poll is flawed  You should have put "don't know" at the end, _as a separate choice_. 

Because it's not possible to interpret the "In the middle/don't know" result %, since we can't know if people voted for "this is well balanced" or "I don't know" 

Just my 2c 

Joël


----------



## Nifft

Joël of the FoS said:
			
		

> the poll is flawed ... since we do not know if people voted for "this is well balanced" or "I don't know"




Yeah. And since it's in a rather obscure book, the "I don't know" is expected to be high.

 -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu

Okay, I've been giving this a lot of thought, taking into account what people here have been saying, as well as comments from other folks, and a few other RPG writers. The following alterations are what I'm currently considering. _This is not official errata._ This is not even _unofficial_ errata. I may well change my mind on one or all of these, before I give my "final" stamp of approval on any tweaks to the class. (And of course, even once I do, it'll have no official weight.)

Now, this doesn't go as far as some of you have requested, but it's where I'd like to start. If some of you would like to volunteer to run a few playtest adventures with these changes in place, I'd very much love to know how it goes.

1) Grant bonus mysteries per day based on Int. These would work just like bonus spells. For instance, if your Int is 14, you can cast one extra mystery of 1st-level equivalent and one of 2nd-level equivalent per day. (Note that each mystery does give an equivalent level, even though you don't learn them by level.)

2) Eliminate the rule that says you have to take mysteries in a given Path in order. If you want to jump around, so as to broaden your versatility, you can. You must still have at least one mystery of any given level equivalent (1st, 2nd, etc.) before you can get a mystery of the next higher level within a type (Apprentice, Initiate, Master), but they need not come from the same Path.

3) Eliminate the rule that says you get a bonus feat equal to half the number of paths you have access to. Instead, you get a bonus feat equal to the total number of Paths you _complete_. Thus, while you are no longer _required_ to take the entirety of a given Path, there's still encouragement to do so.

4) Allow the shadowcaster to swap out mysteries, like a sorcerer does spells, with the caveat that if you suddenly "un-complete" a Path, you lose a feat as well.

5) Once your Apprentice Mysteries become supernatural abilities, change the save DC from 10 + equivalent spell level + Cha to 10 + 1/2 caster level + Cha. This makes them useful even against high-HD opponents, and follows the pattern for other supernatural abilities.

(And BTW, the _warp spell_ mystery shouldn't say that it allows a Will save. The caster level check determines success or failure.)

Now, be aware that I have _not_ playtested the changes myself. I'm not running a game at present--my last campaign wrapped up a few weeks ago--nor am I currently playing a shadowcaster. I also haven't been able to devote _too_ much time to considering them, as I've just wrapped up a huge gig for WotC, and am about to dive into a short one for Vampire, before (tentatively) starting another for WotC. So I'll be the first to admit, there might be repurcussions to these ideas that I haven't yet seen. I'm quite eager to hear any thoughts you folks have, and any results that might come up in play. As I've said before, the shadowcaster was my first attempt to design anything so fundamentally different from the standard classes, and I won't pretend it's perfect.

So let's make it perfect.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 1) Grant bonus mysteries per day based on Int. These would work just like bonus spells. For instance, if your Int is 14, you can cast one extra mystery of 1st-level equivalent and one of 2nd-level equivalent per day. (Note that each mystery does give an equivalent level, even though you don't learn them by level.)
> 
> 2) Eliminate the rule that says you have to take mysteries in a given Path in order. If you want to jump around, so as to broaden your versatility, you can. You must still have at least one mystery of any given level equivalent (1st, 2nd, etc.) before you can get a mystery of the next higher level within a type (Apprentice, Initiate, Master), but they need not come from the same Path.
> 
> 3) Eliminate the rule that says you get a bonus feat equal to half the number of paths you have access to. Instead, you get a bonus feat equal to the total number of Paths you _complete_. Thus, while you are no longer _required_ to take the entirety of a given Path, there's still encouragement to do so.
> 
> 4) Allow the shadowcaster to swap out mysteries, like a sorcerer does spells, with the caveat that if you suddenly "un-complete" a Path, you lose a feat as well.
> 
> 5) Once your Apprentice Mysteries become supernatural abilities, change the save DC from 10 + equivalent spell level + Cha to 10 + 1/2 caster level + Cha. This makes them useful even against high-HD opponents, and follows the pattern for other supernatural abilities.




Looks like some sound suggestions, thanks Ari


----------



## green slime

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 3) Eliminate the rule that says you get a bonus feat equal to half the number of paths you have access to. Instead, you get a bonus feat equal to the total number of Paths you _complete_. Thus, while you are no longer _required_ to take the entirety of a given Path, there's still encouragement to do so.




Just my spontaneous thought here.

This change does actually just the opposite from what it was originally there to achieve. I find this quite strange and rather jarring.

Originally, the budding Shadowcaster got the bonus feat for knowing lots of different paths. Due to the Mystery Path mechanic, this meant that there was some kind of method in place to try and balance between getting better mysteries in a path or knowing lots of minor spells in the paths.

With the above suggestion, the focus isn't on general knowledge of weaker spells, but instead prioritises completing the Path. Also the rate of acquiring the feats is now slower. Also, gaining feats when a path is complete, means that the feats will not be acquired until 5th and 6th level, then 11th and 12th level, and then 17th and 18th level. Which is sort of clumping things together yet again into a kind of ketchup effect. Nothing, nothing and then 3rd level mysteries and feats. Nothing, nothing, and then 6th level mysteries and feats.


----------



## Schmoe

First, thanks for taking the time to discuss this with us!  I think it's great that the designer of the class is open to hearing all of our bit$%ing and moaning.  

I have a couple of comments on your proposed changes, below:



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 1) Grant bonus mysteries per day based on Int. These would work just like bonus spells. For instance, if your Int is 14, you can cast one extra mystery of 1st-level equivalent and one of 2nd-level equivalent per day. (Note that each mystery does give an equivalent level, even though you don't learn them by level.)
> 
> ...
> 
> 4) Allow the shadowcaster to swap out mysteries, like a sorcerer does spells, with the caveat that if you suddenly "un-complete" a Path, you lose a feat as well.
> 
> 5) Once your Apprentice Mysteries become supernatural abilities, change the save DC from 10 + equivalent spell level + Cha to 10 + 1/2 caster level + Cha. This makes them useful even against high-HD opponents, and follows the pattern for other supernatural abilities.




I really like these ideas, as I think they help to address some of the fundamental concerns I had with the class.  Namely, they provide a little more flexibility (especially if your bonus mysteries can be chosen on-the-fly from any you know of the appropriate level) and a small boost in power.  None of the changes are dramatic, so they keep the core concept intact.  I would even go so far as making the save DC change apply to spell-like abilities, but at that point it feels more like fine-tuning rather than making a significant change.



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 2) Eliminate the rule that says you have to take mysteries in a given Path in order. If you want to jump around, so as to broaden your versatility, you can. You must still have at least one mystery of any given level equivalent (1st, 2nd, etc.) before you can get a mystery of the next higher level within a type (Apprentice, Initiate, Master), but they need not come from the same Path.
> 
> 3) Eliminate the rule that says you get a bonus feat equal to half the number of paths you have access to. Instead, you get a bonus feat equal to the total number of Paths you _complete_. Thus, while you are no longer _required_ to take the entirety of a given Path, there's still encouragement to do so.




I'm not convinced that I agree with these.  One of the cool and interesting things about the class was the interplay between the desire to complete a path and the desire to spread your knowledge for the extra feats.  The combination of these two does address the limited flexibility of the Shadowcaster, but it eliminates the interesting tradeoff between breadth and depth of knowledge.

I think you might be able to increase flexibility while still retaining the tradeoff if the path structure was changed.  If each path had two (or more) mystery choices at each level, players would have more flexibility in progressing through a path, but you could retain the incentive for players to spread their knowledge across multiple paths.  Doing this would have the added benefit of forcing you to design some new, cool mysteries!


----------



## Deadguy

green slime said:
			
		

> Just my spontaneous thought here.
> 
> This change does actually just the opposite from what it was originally there to achieve. I find this quite strange and rather jarring.
> 
> Originally, the budding Shadowcaster got the bonus feat for knowing lots of different paths. Due to the Mystery Path mechanic, this meant that there was some kind of method in place to try and balance between getting better mysteries in a path or knowing lots of minor spells in the paths.
> 
> With the above suggestion, the focus isn't on general knowledge of weaker spells, but instead prioritises completing the Path. Also the rate of acquiring the feats is now slower. Also, gaining feats when a path is complete, means that the feats will not be acquired until 5th and 6th level, then 11th and 12th level, and then 17th and 18th level. Which is sort of clumping things together yet again into a kind of ketchup effect. Nothing, nothing and then 3rd level mysteries and feats. Nothing, nothing, and then 6th level mysteries and feats.



I think I understand the logic of this change. Under the original rules, you _had_ to complete Paths to get greater powers, and so there was a strong incentive to do so. The Bonus Feats were a counterweight that gives you an incentive to spread your choices around and widen rather than deepen your knowledge.

Now look at Ari's suggestions. Since you no longer need to follow a Path to get greater powers known, there's little incentive to do so. So now the Bonus Feats serve as a counterweight encouraging you to complete Paths.

I agree there are bunching effects, but this way the Bonus Feats do at least serve their original purpose.


----------



## Schmoe

Deadguy said:
			
		

> I think I understand the logic of this change. Under the original rules, you _had_ to complete Paths to get greater powers, and so there was a strong incentive to do so. The N#Bonus Feats were a counterweight that gives you an incentive to spread your choices around and widen rather than deepen your knowledge.
> 
> Now look at Ari's suggestions. Since you no longer need to follow a Path to get greater powers known, there's little incentive to do so. So now the Bonus Feats serve as a counterweight encouraging you to complete Paths.
> 
> I agree there are bunching effects, but this way the Bonus Feats do at least serve their original purpose.




Ah, that makes sense.  Now that I understand these changes better, I like them much more.  Looking back at what Ari suggested for changes, I think there's a significantly greater temptation for me to try the class.  There are still a few things that I just plain don't like (multiple ability dependency being a primary one), but I think the class would be much more workable under these changes.


----------



## Plane Sailing

It makes me wish I could get hold of this class now - unfortunately I don't have any interest in the other two kinds of magic in that book, and I don't think I can justify the book based on 1/3 of its contents!

Cheers


----------



## lukelightning

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It makes me wish I could get hold of this class now - unfortunately I don't have any interest in the other two kinds of magic in that book, and I don't think I can justify the book based on 1/3 of its contents!



I bought ToM for the shadow magic but quickly realized I liked the pact magic part much better.  A binder with the right vestiges (e.g. Tenebrous and Haures) may be a better "shadow mage" than a shadowcaster.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Deadguy said:
			
		

> I think I understand the logic of this change. Under the original rules, you _had_ to complete Paths to get greater powers, and so there was a strong incentive to do so. The Bonus Feats were a counterweight that gives you an incentive to spread your choices around and widen rather than deepen your knowledge.
> 
> Now look at Ari's suggestions. Since you no longer need to follow a Path to get greater powers known, there's little incentive to do so. So now the Bonus Feats serve as a counterweight encouraging you to complete Paths.
> 
> I agree there are bunching effects, but this way the Bonus Feats do at least serve their original purpose.




That's it exactly. I wanted to keep the trade-off between going focused and going for versatility. The feats used to encourage one; now, since there's no need to encourage the one, they instead encourage the other.


----------



## jcfiala

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 1) Grant bonus mysteries per day based on Int. These would work just like bonus spells. For instance, if your Int is 14, you can cast one extra mystery of 1st-level equivalent and one of 2nd-level equivalent per day. (Note that each mystery does give an equivalent level, even though you don't learn them by level.)




So, this is a floating mystery use - if as a 4th level shadowcaster I've got 4 first level mysteries, and an int of 14, then I can use one of those first level mysteries twice?

I really like the feel of these changes.  They sound like they'd be more useful.


----------



## Mouseferatu

jcfiala said:
			
		

> So, this is a floating mystery use - if as a 4th level shadowcaster I've got 4 first level mysteries, and an int of 14, then I can use one of those first level mysteries twice?
> 
> I really like the feel of these changes.  They sound like they'd be more useful.




Yep. It "floats," in that you need not choose in advance which mystery you're going to use it for.


----------



## Deadguy

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> That's it exactly. I wanted to keep the trade-off between going focused and going for versatility. The feats used to encourage one; now, since there's no need to encourage the one, they instead encourage the other.



Woohoo! I understood the mind of a games designer!



Should I worry now?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Deadguy said:
			
		

> Should I worry now?




Probably. But odds are good it's already too late.


----------



## Wraith Form

Thanks for the input, Ari.  I'll be trying an NPC in the very, very near future with your suggested changes.  We'll see how much my players think I'm a Rat Basterd DM, to determine how successful your changes were...


----------



## Cadfan

I like the basics of the changes.

I am interpreting the part about supernatural mysteries having the supernatural DC progression as applying not only to apprentice mysteries, but also to fundamentals and initiate mysteries modified with the Favored Mystery feat.  With that interpretation, mysteries like Shadow Vision are genuinely good.

I don't like the floating bonus mystery.  I don't like it at all.  It runs counter to the entire flavor of the class.  I'd prefer giving an extra use based on intelligence for all mysteries of that level.  I don't think this would create a problem, it effectively doubles the mysteries per day for all apprentice mysteries, and creates a motivation to pursue intelligence scores beyond 19.

I really don't want to change the basic flavor of mysteries known yielding their own uses per day in favor of some sort of floating use like every other caster.

I made a test character with the suggestions, and levelled it up a few times.  Here's what I found.

At low levels, I spread my mysteries around quite a lot between different paths in order to ensure that I had enough attack mysteries per day.  At higher levels when my higher level mysteries were taking over the burden, I began shifting my lower level mysteries so that they completed entire paths, giving me utility spells and bonus feats.

Eyes of Darkness (shadow?) is good for this.  At medium levels, Dark Reflections and Veil of Shadow are also nice.

Its a little funny though, that the save progression for your master level mysteries actually ends up with them being weaker than your mysteries cast as supernatural abilities.  Path Focus helps a bit with this, although the level 7 mysteries still lag.

I would happily play a character with these changes, with the caveat above that I don't like, and would prefer not to use, the floating mystery use per day.


----------



## Thomas Percy

Thanks for help with Warp Spell mystery and for new shadowcaster advancement system.


----------



## Ranes

Just want to echo what TP said about Warp Spell (wow - I wuz right) and thank you for your suggested changes, Ari. I'm enjoying the whole book but I think your unofficial revision makes the shadowcaster a whole bunch more enticing (although I was going to create an NPC shadowcaster or two anyway).

What do you reckon are the chances of you persuading WotC to incorporate them into updated errata?


----------



## Nifft

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It makes me wish I could get hold of this class now - unfortunately I don't have any interest in the other two kinds of magic in that book, and I don't think I can justify the book based on 1/3 of its contents!




It's funny. I often suggest the book to people on the basis of a different 1/3 (specifically, the pact magic). 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I don't like the floating bonus mystery.  I don't like it at all.  It runs counter to the entire flavor of the class.  I'd prefer giving an extra use based on intelligence for all mysteries of that level.  I don't think this would create a problem, it effectively doubles the mysteries per day for all apprentice mysteries, and creates a motivation to pursue intelligence scores beyond 19.
> 
> I really don't want to change the basic flavor of mysteries known yielding their own uses per day in favor of some sort of floating use like every other caster.




While I definitely see where you're coming from, I'm not sure I agree. The uses per day are still based mostly around the mysteries known. I don't think allowing a single "floater" of a few levels necessarily breaks that, and I _do_ think that adding one to _all_ mysteries of that level is too much. If nothing else, allowing a couple of floating mysteries adds a bit more flexibility, which a lot of people seemed to want, without altering the fundamental nature of the class.



> Its a little funny though, that the save progression for your master level mysteries actually ends up with them being weaker than your mysteries cast as supernatural abilities.  Path Focus helps a bit with this, although the level 7 mysteries still lag.




It's definitely odd, but I kind of like it. It's very different, and it really drives home the point that these have truly become supernatural abilities.



> I would happily play a character with these changes, with the caveat above that I don't like, and would prefer not to use, the floating mystery use per day.




I'm glad to hear it.


----------



## WarlockLord

Thanks Ari.  I hope I can get my DM to use this. 


Now, if only WoTC would endorse this errata.  Maybe you could take it to them.


----------



## WarlockLord

One more rules question: could I take Extra Spell to leran a mystery?


----------



## schatten-k.raehe

Sorry for not posting 'till now... Because of a major hard drive crash I've been busy recovering data... ~.~

First of all thanks to you Ari! It's good to see a game designer really caring about his creation and taking account into the suggestion of gamers for the benefit of all 

Okay, I still have to review the suggested tweaks to the mystery-casting system, however there are still some moderate flaws to the mechanics which IMHO need correction.

I've always been a friend of using existing rules first and adding new mechanics if absolutely necessary, only. Every new rule further complicates a game and makes a DM's live (and to a lesser degree a Player's live, too) harder, especially when introducing new claasses with new / different mechanics. Let's face it, in actual game play, players tend to remember all bonuses their characters get, but all too easy forget some penalties left and right... 

That said take a look at the _Mysteries and Paths_ section (TM, p. 138):
Some of the benefits / penalty sounded quite familiar, especially the penalties for spell/mystery interaction and the penalty to spellcraft checks.
Following the approach already given in the _Spell Thematics_ and _Tenacious Magic_ feats from _Players Guide to Faerûn_ (p. 44-45), I'd suggest a 'one-way' penalty only.


Further I don't know, if the introduction of Metashadow feats is *really* necessary. I haven't had the time to check every single Metamagic feat, however I guess restricting mystery-casting classes to Metamagic feats that do not use a higher level spell slot (because mystery-users don't have any spell-slots in the first place) would do just as fine. New [Metamagic] feats for mystery-casting classes only, could have the prequisite "mystery-using class". In my experience sticking to the rules already known to all is always better than introducing something new and I really don't know if the game needs just another kind of Feats, especially as I fear we won't see much (if any) support of shadow magic in future supplements. While there would be lots of new options for other classes, keeping them flexible, the shadowcaster would remain static and become more and more unattractive to players over time. 

Restriction of feats like Ability Focus and Empower Spell-like Ability is another matter I'd not see as a necessity. Do you really think access to those Feats would be that unbalancing? 
Haven't thought about it too intensely, but spontanously I'd suggest a mystery affected by e.g. Empower Spell-like Ability would become a _real_ spell-like ability and stop being a mystery. The consequences? Lower level mysteries won't become supernatural abilities and Metashadow feats cannot be applied to the ex-mystery anymore. At least at first glance it sounds like a fair trade-off to me, doesn't it?

Prestige class restriction (TM p. 117) is a really tricky matter. On the one hand it's quite hard to restrict shadowcasters to that few options, on the other hand I understand the reasons why. Hm... Maybe a simple official list (web enhancement?) of published prestige classes a shadowcaster would qualify for would do? 

Btw. I'd *really* like to see a ...uhm... 'more detailed' version of the _The Shadow Weave of Toril_ side-box given on page 110 of the TM. As it is, it's rather a bunch of useless information. Is a shadowcaster automatically considered a Shadow Weave user (e.g. gaining the _Shadow Weave Magic_ feat as a bonus feat?) ? Should a shadowcaster get access to the set of Shadow Weave Feats (two of them being Metamagic feats)? Shouldn't shadowcasters qualify for the Shadow Adept prestige class?
The suggestion about the Mysteries and Paths section above would solve some of the problems, as you actually could rule shadowcasters being shadow weave users, gaining the Shadow Weave Magic and Tenacious Magic feats for free.

Well, I'll try to take a deeper look at the suggested changes to the mystery-casting mechanics later that week.


----------



## Infernal Teddy

Quick thought - how do the Shades (From the FRCS) interact with shadow magic?


----------



## schatten-k.raehe

Infernal Teddy said:
			
		

> Quick thought - how do the Shades (From the FRCS) interact with shadow magic?




Quick answer  :
It depends on your / your DM's personal preferences.

After all "shade" is nothing but a template, thus shades should interact with shadow magic like any other template - it depends on the character class of the base creature only.

However here some spontanous thoughts of introducing shadow magic into a FR campaign: 

I. Replace the whole Shadow Weave mechanics by introducing shadowcasters, mystery-using prestige classes and heavy use of the _creeping darkness_ feature (TM p. 115) instead.

II. Use both shadow weave magic and mystery-users side by side. Mystery-users just have a deeper understanding of the shadow weave than 'ordinary' shadow weave users. The shades of the city of Shade naturally should be the ones who learned about 'real' shadow magic at first. On the other hands shadowcasters should be able to learn the ritual required to transform themselves into shades (or any other shadow being, like Dark Creatures, Shadow Creatures, Shadow-Walkers etc.).

III. As soon as a  weave user becomes a shadow weave user, he gains access to mystery-using classes. He cannot advance in any other spellcasting class as long as his mystery-using class level is not greater than the other spellcasting class level you want to advance. If possible, any time the character advances in a mystery-using class, he has to convert a spellcasting class level (if any) into another level of mystery-using class by means of the _creeping darkness_ feature.

Further thoughts (House rules only, as those represent my very personal view of shadow magic):
I don't like the approach of shadow magic requireing intensive study - It just seems plain wrong to me, being more appropriate for magic involving the Far Realm or psionics.
Shadow magic should be hard to discover in first place, but once you have unraveled its secrets, power should come to you easily, as it should be the nature of shadow magic to be seductive and corruptive. As a house rule in my campaign, instead of Intelligence, Wisdom will govern the max. mystery level you can cast. 
Further opening yourself to the pull of the Plane of Shadows (or the Shadow Weave respectively) should not be without risks. As an optional rule there'll be a cumulative 2 - 5 % (haven't decided yet) chance every time you try to advance in a mystery-using class the pull of the Shadow Plane will taint the character's soul, transforming  him into a Dark Creature (TM p. 158) instead of allowing him to unravel further mysteries (aka advance a level). 
Last minor change: good reflex and good will saves instead of good fortitude and good will saves. Although I like the explaination given to the good fortitude save, I think a good reflex save more appropriate to the elusive, corruptive and draining nature of shadow magic.


----------



## zypherillius

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> I have been having a lot of trouble trying to make a decent shadowcaster.  Thus, I have concluded it's kinda weak.  The path system and lack of decent combat fundamentals dooms it.  Which is sad, as it has well-thought-out flavor.
> 
> 
> If anyone has a decent single-classed shadowcaster, or disagrees with me, posts it here. If you disagree, post a good one.




yeah, the class is kind of weak by itself, which is why id multiclass with a wizard or sorcerer than take the noctomancer class as a PrC, its pretty good.  youd have lost three levels of one casting, but youre going to progress 10 more, then id just finish out wizard when i got done with the noctomancer.  then youd have a good shadowcaster indeed , but not single-class


----------



## Cadfan

I might as well use this thread to ask some questions.

1) The feat "Still Mystery" tells us what a stilled mystery is like, but it doesn't give a number of uses per day.  I presumed upon reading it that it was a poorly worded attempt at making all mysteries that are cast as spells stilled, automatically and permanently, after taking the feat, thus making armor a viable choice for the shadowcaster.  Can anyone (Mouseferatu) tell me if Still Mystery was intended to be used once per day, like the other metashadow feats?

2) If you have Hide in Plain Sight, do you still need cover or concealment?

3) If you have partial cover or partial concealment, do you still need Hide in Plain Sight?

4) Are there any rules on exactly when full concealment negates the need to even make a hide check?

5) The specific combinations that confuse me are: Dusk and Dawn on its own, Dusk and Dawn plus a Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, Dancing Shadows on its own, and Dancing Shadows plus a Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis.


----------



## schatten-k.raehe

Cadfan said:
			
		

> *1) The feat "Still Mystery" tells us what a stilled mystery is like, but it doesn't give a number of uses per day. I presumed upon reading it that it was a poorly worded attempt at making all mysteries that are cast as spells stilled, automatically and permanently, after taking the feat, thus making armor a viable choice for the shadowcaster. Can anyone (Mouseferatu) tell me if Still Mystery was intended to be used once per day, like the other metashadow feats?*




_I'm not sure about that, either. As the feat only affects mysteries cast as spells, it is much weaker than other Metashadow feats. Therefore I've been following the same reasoning as you thus far. After all it will cost a shadowcaster at least two feats (Still Mystery AND Armor Proficiency (light)) to use armor effectively without risking spell failure when casting his highest level mysteries._



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> *2) If you have Hide in Plain Sight, do you still need cover or concealment?*




_It depends. In most cases you don't need cover or concealment to hide anymore, however Hide in Plain Sight usually has some kind of special rules. For example the Shadowdancer can Hide in Plain Sight (without any cover or concealment) as long as he is within 10 feet of some kind of shadow (except his own) [DMG p. 195] and a Dark Creature can Hide in Plain Sight while not in full daylight, the area of a _daylight_ spell or similar effect [TM p. 161]. Thus cover or concealment would still come quite handy to a Dark Creature standing out in full daylight _



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> *If you have partial cover or partial concealment, do you still need Hide in Plain Sight?*




_It depends on the sort of cover or concealment, the kind of creature you try to hide from and the fact if someone is observing you. Hide in Plain Sight allows you to hide from creatures *even while being observed*. Thus without Hide in Plain Sight, partial cover / concealment is quite useless when being observed by a creature you try to hide from.

Further some kinds of concealment don't work for all creatures equally! For example you may hide from a human while being in an area of shadowy illumination (giving you concealment), but a creature with darkvision can still see you (at least while within range of its darkvision), because it can clearly see through the area of shadowy illumination (thus you don't benefit from concealment against that creature). You can, however, hide from a creature with darkvision by means of the Hide in Plain Sight feature easily._



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> *4) Are there any rules on exactly when full concealment negates the need to even make a hide check?*




_If you have full concealment from a given creature, you don't have to make a hide check, because the creature can't see you anyway (as long as you have total concealment you *are* in fact hidden). However again the kind of total concealment can be of different qualities. For example you'll have total concealment from an ordinary human in an area of complete darkness, however you do not have any kind of concealment from a creature with darkvision in the same area until you succeed on a hide check (if the circumstances allow a hide check, making the Hide in Plain Sight feature quite attractive again)_



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> *5) The specific combinations that confuse me are: Dusk and Dawn on its own, Dusk and Dawn plus a Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis, Dancing Shadows on its own, and Dancing Shadows plus a Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis.*




_I guess the other answers have already solved this issue as well, haven't they?_


----------



## Cadfan

So, my understanding is,

If I cast Dusk and Dawn, granting myself partial concealment relative to all opponents (who don't have darkvision), I still need Hide in Plain Sight if I'm currently being observed.  Otherwise, I can attempt to make a bluff check to create a distraction, if successful, I can move around freely within the shadowy illumination, remaining unseen as long as my hide checks are successful.

If I am in bright sunlight, and I cast Dancing Shadows, I am completely unseeable.  I have total concealment from all opponents.  I need not even make hide checks?  I am not so sure about this one.  The SRD says that total concealment "usually, but not always" makes hide checks unnecessary.  I suppose it is up to the DM to decide when this is the case?  The SRD says to see the "Special" section below, but that section does not discuss this issue.

Also, you can skip the light armor proficiency.  As long as you are wearing armor with no armor check penalty, the feat is unnecessary.


----------



## schatten-k.raehe

Cadfan said:
			
		

> *If I cast Dusk and Dawn, granting myself partial concealment relative to all opponents (who don't have darkvision), I still need Hide in Plain Sight if I'm currently being observed.  Otherwise, I can attempt to make a bluff check to create a distraction, if successful, I can move around freely within the shadowy illumination, remaining unseen as long as my hide checks are successful.*




Well, let's see:

1. You cast Dusk and Dawn, creating an area (20 ft. radius) of shadowy illumination.

2. Shadowy illumination gives you concealment against all opponents who have no means (e.g. darkvision, an active _true seeing_ spell etc.) to ignore the shadowy area.

3. Concealment is a prequisite to use the hide skill, thus you may attempt to hide now, as long as you are not being observed (even casually).

4. If you have the Hide in Plain Sight feature you may even try to hide while being observed. Otherwise you could try to create a diversion (Bluff check against the opponent's Sense Motive Check) and, when successful, may try to hide now.

5. As long as no given opponent beats your hide check with it's Spot check you are hidden (= have total concealment) and can move around the area of shadowy illumination at half speed or normal speed (-5 penalty to hide check), while running, attacking, charging etc. would impose a -20 penalty to your hide check.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> *If I am in bright sunlight, and I cast Dancing Shadows, I am completely unseeable. I have total concealment from all opponents. I need not even make hide checks? I am not so sure about this one. The SRD says that total concealment "usually, but not always" makes hide checks unnecessary. I suppose it is up to the DM to decide when this is the case? The SRD says to see the "Special" section below, but that section does not discuss this issue.*




Okay, I have to admit the descriptive text of the _dancing shadows_ mystery seems quite vague at first glance. However after taaking a deeper look at the mechanics behind total concealment and the somewhat confusing _"usually, but not always"_-clause given in the description of the hide skill, things look less complicated 

In game terms total concealment means your opponent has no line of sight to you, only. If she has other means to discern your rough position (e.g. successful Listen check or knowing you're somewhere within a 5-foot area totally concealed by absolute darkness), she may *guess* your position and attempt an attack with a 50% miss chance (the 50% miss chance being the actual main benefit of total concealment, as there's nothing _physical_ between you and your opponent, which could prevent a hit - As mentioned above: it's all about sight only!).

There are three major kinds of total concealment you can benefit from:

1. Something directly affects your opponent's [biological] ability to see you (e.g. your opponent is blind). You do not have to make a hide check against that opponent, because he does not have the option of *seeing* you available to him anyway, thus being forced to *guess* your position at all times.

2. Something affecting the area around you / your opponent hinders your opponent to see you. (e.g. in a pitch black room, deep underground without any means of even faintest illumination available, your opponant may try to spot you as hard as he wants, but he cannot succeed, because even the best spot check doesn't provide you with the biological or mystical ability to see in complete darkness.)
In that case you do not have to make any hide checks, either. The opponent may *guess* where you are, but under no circumstances he can actually *see* you!

3. Something affects you only, but not the surrounding around you (e.g. _invisibility_).
Your opponent can't see you, but the surrounding area may give hints to your exact position (e.g. by leaving footprints in the mud or displacing water while standing hip-deep within a lake). In that case, you *have* to make hide checks (gaining a bonus to the skill-check, however), because by observing your surroundings your opponent may be able to pin-point your exact position by means of a successful Spot check. (Btw. that actually was the major exception the _"usually, but not always"_-clause was all about.) If the spot check is successful, you don't benefit from total concealment against that opponent this round (next round the same procedure starts all over again). If the Spot check fails, your opponent may guess your exact position only and thereby has the usual 50% miss chance to hit you.

Now let's take a deeper look at the _dancing shadows_ mystery. When cast at a single target, the mystery sort of *deepens the shadows around the target*, giving the creature total concealment (imagine a bubble of pitch black shadows constantly shifting around you in your square). As the shadows (= area around you) are affected, an observer has no chance of discerning your *exact* position, however as only the immediate area around you seems to be affected at any given moment (instead of a larger [e.g. 10+ ft.] area around you), *guessing* your position should be possible in most circumstances. You do, however, always benefit from total concealment (= 50 % miss chance, no AOOs against you) without having to make any hide check!

Oh, by the way I'm not sure, if you could cast a mystery in bright daylight anyway 
In the "Mysteries and Paths" section (Tome of Magic, page 138) it says: _[Mysteries] function in darkness or any sort of *ambient* light [...]_, however it further states: _[...] he can manipulate a subject's "spiritual shadow" even where shadows cannot normally exist._
Well, that's quite confusing... What does "ambient light" mean? And can't a mystery user cast any mysteries in areas of brighter-than-ambient light, although he manipulates "spiritual shadows" only?!?


----------



## Mouseferatu

schatten-k.raehe said:
			
		

> Oh, by the way I'm not sure, if you could cast a mystery in bright daylight anyway
> In the "Mysteries and Paths" section (Tome of Magic, page 138) it says: _[Mysteries] function in darkness or any sort of *ambient* light [...]_, however it further states: _[...] he can manipulate a subject's "spiritual shadow" even where shadows cannot normally exist._
> Well, that's quite confusing... What does "ambient light" mean? And can't a mystery user cast any mysteries in areas of brighter-than-ambient light, although he manipulates "spiritual shadows" only?!?




The "ambient light" clause was meant to suggest, essentially, that they function in any lighting, regardless of the fact that they are shadow-based. You can cast a mystery more or less anywhere (odd effects like antimagic notwithstanding).


----------



## Nifft

Ari, while you're here, can I ask something about a Shadow Magic Feat?

The pre-reqs for *Shadow Familiar* rule out its use by normal mages (Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks who take a Feat, etc.), but it could be of good use for Wizards & Sorcerers who take PrCs, or who just want a cool template on their Familiar. 

Was that your intent, or do you think it should be available to other arcanists?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu

Nifft said:
			
		

> Ari, while you're here, can I ask something about a Shadow Magic Feat?
> 
> The pre-reqs for *Shadow Familiar* rule out its use by normal mages (Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks who take a Feat, etc.), but it could be of good use for Wizards & Sorcerers who take PrCs, or who just want a cool template on their Familiar.
> 
> Was that your intent, or do you think it should be available to other arcanists?
> 
> Thanks, -- N




Flavorwise, I wanted it to be shadowcaster only. However, the dark template is hardly unbalancing for the cost of a feat; I see no mechanical reason you couldn't house-rule it to make it available to others for whom you feel it's appropriate.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Cadfan said:
			
		

> 1) The feat "Still Mystery" tells us what a stilled mystery is like, but it doesn't give a number of uses per day.  I presumed upon reading it that it was a poorly worded attempt at making all mysteries that are cast as spells stilled, automatically and permanently, after taking the feat, thus making armor a viable choice for the shadowcaster.  Can anyone (Mouseferatu) tell me if Still Mystery was intended to be used once per day, like the other metashadow feats?




The metashadow feats went through some changes in development, so I can't swear that my interpretation of its current form is 100% correct. My interpretation, however, is that it applies to all mysteries. That might verge on being too good, but as pointed out elsewhere, it's a woefully underpowered feat if limited to one use/day, given the way mysteries progress.


----------



## Mouseferatu

WarlockLord said:
			
		

> One more rules question: could I take Extra Spell to leran a mystery?




Afraid not, at least by the rules as written. Mysteries function _like_ spells, at least at first, but they _aren't_ spells.


----------



## Nifft

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Flavorwise, I wanted it to be shadowcaster only. However, the dark template is hardly unbalancing for the cost of a feat; I see no mechanical reason you couldn't house-rule it to make it available to others for whom you feel it's appropriate.




Well, the feat has two effects: one is that it grants the Dark template (which is cool, but not quite worth a Feat by itself), and the other is that your familiar benefits from all arcane casting classes (which is also not quite worth a Feat by itself).

In a PrC-enabled game, I could easily see a Wizard wanting to buff his Familiar, and taking the feat.

Also, I could easily see a Wizard wanting to take the Shadow Master PrC, which has only that Feat as a troublesome prereq.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu

Nifft said:
			
		

> Well, the feat has two effects: one is that it grants the Dark template (which is cool, but not quite worth a Feat by itself), and the other is that your familiar benefits from all arcane casting classes (which is also not quite worth a Feat by itself).




True enough. I was only thinking of it in terms of the dark template; I'd actually forgotten about it allowing all the caster levels to stack.

Still, I think you could get away with it. I've rarely seen a game where allowing a multiclass character's familiar to keep up with the character's levels was game-breaking.


----------



## Nifft

Here's the start of my version (pimped here as promised):

http://enworld.org/showthread.php?t=169428

Thanks for feedback, -- N


----------



## Nifft

Ari: A couple of questions on the Shadow Magic PrCs, if you have a minute.

1/ The Shadowblade gets 2 skill points/level, but it looks like a skill based class (3/4 BAB, Sudden Strike). Was that your intent?

2/ The Shadowcrafter gets 6 skill points/level, but it looks like a melee based class (full BAB, high BAB prereq). Was that your intent?

3/ The Master of Shadow says it can advance a spellcasting class, but the prereq is Mystery-user only. Do you think it would be balanced to allow a Wizard to take this class?

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Mouseferatu

Nifft said:
			
		

> Ari: A couple of questions on the Shadow Magic PrCs, if you have a minute.
> 
> 1/ The Shadowblade gets 2 skill points/level, but it looks like a skill based class (3/4 BAB, Sudden Strike). Was that your intent?




The shadowblade changed a lot in development. I honestly don't remember, at this point, how my initial turnover might have differed.



> 2/ The Shadowcrafter gets 6 skill points/level, but it looks like a melee based class (full BAB, high BAB prereq). Was that your intent?




Yes. The high skill points fit the class concept as I envisioned it, and help to keep it balanced. If you think of it as more like a ranger (in terms of comparison to core classes) than a fighter, that might help.



> 3/ The Master of Shadow says it can advance a spellcasting class, but the prereq is Mystery-user only. Do you think it would be balanced to allow a Wizard to take this class?




I wouldn't allow it for flavor reasons, but I don't think it would necessarily be unbalanced in a mechanical sense.


----------



## Nifft

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Yes. The high skill points fit the class concept as I envisioned it, and help to keep it balanced. If you think of it as more like a ranger (in terms of comparison to core classes) than a fighter, that might help.
> 
> I wouldn't allow it for flavor reasons, but I don't think it would necessarily be unbalanced in a mechanical sense.




Cool. The two concepts I like are sound. Thanks! -- N


----------



## Thomas Percy

Thanks, Ari, for the answers. 

I have another question, maybe silly, but it probably WILL happen when the PCs confront BigBadGuyNoctumancer: What will happen when a PC imprisoned in the Tomb (or Prison) of Night Shapechanges to size bigger than H, into the dragon exactly?


----------



## Thomas Percy

I must to say, that i will buy for this BigBadGuyNoctumancer Favored Mystery feat to make hihgest level mysteries supernaturals and don't bother with SR of the PCs.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Thomas Percy said:
			
		

> I have another question, maybe silly, but it probably WILL happen when the PCs confront BigBadGuyNoctumancer: What will happen when a PC imprisoned in the Tomb (or Prison) of Night Shapechanges to size bigger than H, into the dragon exactly?




Hmm... I _thought_ there was a rule for what happens if a creature tries to polymorph/shapechange into something for which there is insufficient room, but I'm not finding it. Let me look into it a bit more--and give it some further thought, if I can't find any such blanket rule--and I'll get back to you.


----------



## beepeearr

Quick question foe Ari.  How powerful are the Mysteries intended to be compared to regular spells of the same level.  Are they intended to be equal, or more powerful.  I know the fundamentals are supposed to be, but wasn't sure about the Mysteries.  

As far as some of the changes go.  I'm not a huge fan of the floating mystery use.  Why not grant a new mystery known for higher ability scores (with the normal number of uses per day tied to it). 

Also not sure about the changes to the path/ feat dynamic as well, it was one of the nice quirks of the old system you traded power for flexibility and feats, know you are trading flexibility for specialization and feats.  I understand the why, just not sure if I like it yet.  

You are dead on about the power lag at certain levels, before the rapid catch up at others.  I changed up the Mystery uses per day progression and advancement to spell-like and supernatural ability progressions so that each spell level advanced at different levels instead of all 3 levels (1-3, 4-6, 7-9) advancing at once.   

I'm sure I'm problably the only one this bothers, but one of the quirks of the Shadowcaster that really bugs me is that as you grow more powerful, you lose the ability to counter the spells of lower level Shadowcasters.  It just seems wrong that as your spells become more and more inate, you lose the ability to do things like counterspell with them.


----------



## schatten-k.raehe

Thomas Percy said:
			
		

> I have another question, maybe silly, but it probably WILL happen when the PCs confront BigBadGuyNoctumancer: What will happen when a PC imprisoned in the Tomb (or Prison) of Night Shapechanges to size bigger than H, into the dragon exactly?




Hm... Actually there are two aspects to take into account:

1st: _Prison of Night_ / _Tomb of Night_ affects one creature of up to Huge size. Does the spell still affect the target if it becomes bigger than Huge?

I'd say, as the target was 'legal' (<= Huge) at the time the spell was cast, the spell stays in effect, even when the size of the creature changes later.
[It's like entering a room. If you enter the room through an open door you're in and it doesn't matter if somebody closes (and locks) the door later as you already *are* in.]

[_Edit: The official FAQ seems to follow my reasoning:_



			
				official D&D FAQ said:
			
		

> *If, while under the effect of a spell that depends on type (such as hold person), my character is transformed into a different creature type by polymorph*, does the spell’s effect remain?*
> _Yes. A spell only checks to see if you are a legal target when it is cast. If you become an illegal target later (such as via the polymorph spell), the spell remains in effect._




Guess you can apply that to the size-issue analogically.]


2nd: As the spells create some sort of actual 'prison' from shadowstuff, is there a chance of breaking that prison by becoming a creature bigger than the prison itself?

Like Ari I was quite sure the was a rule about what happens if a creature breaks confines of a room by shapechanging, but I'm at a total loss finding it.

However as _Prison_ / _Tomb of Night_ create some sort of 'mystical' prison out of shadow stuff and nothing physical (e.g. conjuring a prison made of stone), you shouldn't be able to break it (or else you would also be able to damage it by other means, e.g. hitting the prison with bludgeoning weapons). In the spell description a specific size of the 'prison' is not given, either.
Thus one approach would be to allow the shapchange with the spell remaining in effect, because the prison now kind of 'adjusts' to the new size (it's made of shadow stuff after all, and shadows can be quite flexible  ).
To acknowledge the creativity of the player, the approach I'd take, however, would be to allow the shapechanging player another Fortitude save (or maybe even an opposed caster level check) to break out of the prison, out of the row. If successful, the shapechanged player breaks the prison.

[_As you begin to change shape you feel the grip of your shadowy prison tighten around you - The shadows flicker in an last attempt to hold you in their cold embrace, but finally they give away and fade into nothingness. You are free._]

If not successful the 'prison' suppresses the shapechange attempt and the spell remains in effect.

[_As you begin to change shape you feel the grip of your shadowy prison tighten around you. The shadows seem to drain the arcane power from you and finally an overhelming exhaustion forces you to end the shapechangeing attempt. The shadows proof to be too powerful for your puny attempt to challenge them. You remain a prisoner to the darkness._]


----------



## Falcon42

Ari,

I LOVE the Shadowcaster class, both in conept and mechanics!  Is there any chance we'll see additional material for them in future publications, perhaps such as the Complete Mage?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Falcon42 said:
			
		

> Ari,
> 
> I LOVE the Shadowcaster class, both in conept and mechanics!  Is there any chance we'll see additional material for them in future publications, perhaps such as the Complete Mage?




Not in _Complete Mage_, but I certainly do hope to have the opportunity to do more with the shadowcaster in the future. Maybe a web enhancement or Dragon article, if nothing else.


----------



## Cadfan

If you do, perhaps a touch based mystery path for initiate and master levels?

It would be fun to make a character devoted to touch spells, and the shadowcaster, with Flicker and Umbral Hand, is the best start we've got.


----------



## Arbiter of Wyrms

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If you do, perhaps a touch based mystery path for initiate and master levels?
> 
> It would be fun to make a character devoted to touch spells, and the shadowcaster, with Flicker and Umbral Hand, is the best start we've got.



That would be cool.


----------



## nightjackal1977

> Okay, I've been giving this a lot of thought, taking into account what people here have been saying, as well as comments from other folks, and a few other RPG writers. The following alterations are what I'm currently considering. This is not official errata. This is not even unofficial errata. I may well change my mind on one or all of these, before I give my "final" stamp of approval on any tweaks to the class. (And of course, even once I do, it'll have no official weight.)
> 
> Now, this doesn't go as far as some of you have requested, but it's where I'd like to start. If some of you would like to volunteer to run a few playtest adventures with these changes in place, I'd very much love to know how it goes.
> 
> 1) Grant bonus mysteries per day based on Int. These would work just like bonus spells. For instance, if your Int is 14, you can cast one extra mystery of 1st-level equivalent and one of 2nd-level equivalent per day. (Note that each mystery does give an equivalent level, even though you don't learn them by level.)
> 
> 2) Eliminate the rule that says you have to take mysteries in a given Path in order. If you want to jump around, so as to broaden your versatility, you can. You must still have at least one mystery of any given level equivalent (1st, 2nd, etc.) before you can get a mystery of the next higher level within a type (Apprentice, Initiate, Master), but they need not come from the same Path.
> 
> 3) Eliminate the rule that says you get a bonus feat equal to half the number of paths you have access to. Instead, you get a bonus feat equal to the total number of Paths you complete. Thus, while you are no longer required to take the entirety of a given Path, there's still encouragement to do so.
> 
> 4) Allow the shadowcaster to swap out mysteries, like a sorcerer does spells, with the caveat that if you suddenly "un-complete" a Path, you lose a feat as well.
> 
> 5) Once your Apprentice Mysteries become supernatural abilities, change the save DC from 10 + equivalent spell level + Cha to 10 + 1/2 caster level + Cha. This makes them useful even against high-HD opponents, and follows the pattern for other supernatural abilities.
> 
> (And BTW, the warp spell mystery shouldn't say that it allows a Will save. The caster level check determines success or failure.)
> 
> Now, be aware that I have not playtested the changes myself. I'm not running a game at present--my last campaign wrapped up a few weeks ago--nor am I currently playing a shadowcaster. I also haven't been able to devote too much time to considering them, as I've just wrapped up a huge gig for WotC, and am about to dive into a short one for Vampire, before (tentatively) starting another for WotC. So I'll be the first to admit, there might be repurcussions to these ideas that I haven't yet seen. I'm quite eager to hear any thoughts you folks have, and any results that might come up in play. As I've said before, the shadowcaster was my first attempt to design anything so fundamentally different from the standard classes, and I won't pretend it's perfect.
> 
> So let's make it perfect.




Well I am play a Shadowcaster in game atm. He is 8th level and I asked the DM if I can use these rule changes for him, which he agreed.

So far I like to report that the changes made a difference in the power level of the class but did not make him over-powering...so far I say it help level the playing field a bit better. I ended up being a very supportive role and seems to fit the character very well. 

Rule #1 as it is, does make it a little easier to be liberal with the spells and not hold back to much in combat. Guess the 1 more casting of a mystery is noticable. 

Rule #2 and #3 it work better this way since jumping around paths allows you pick up the ones you want makes dealing with the limited number you can get of mysterys a little easier (1/level). I still ended up finishing 2 paths just to get the bonus feats. Only addition reccommendation for Shadowcaster is to add a feat called "Extra Mystery" and allow them to take that to get an addition mystery. Keep the same rule of it can only be of the one less then the highest "level" you can cast. That feat would add a bit more flavor.

Since he is only 8th level have not used the rule change #4 and #5 though, I know that rule #5 will be a big help and would give the low level spells a new lease on life.

Well I know this not a big report for you Ari but hope it gives more credence to your changes.


----------



## Moorcrys

The only problem with an 'extra mystery' feat is that you could potentially use it to close out a path, thereby gaining an extra feat. It would have to not count for that purpose which could be a headache.


----------



## nightjackal1977

Well then it would just need a cluase with "Does not count for closing a path, you would have to select the Mystery agian as part of your normal selection."


----------



## wykthor

Mouseferatu, I tend to lurk only at this board, but I couldn´t resist this topic. I loved the concept of the shadowcaster but was disappointed with the mechanics. I applaud the initiative to debate your material and I hope my comments below provide a positive feedback  



> Now, this doesn't go as far as some of you have requested, but it's where I'd like to start. If some of you would like to volunteer to run a few playtest adventures with these changes in place, I'd very much love to know how it goes.




It’s possible that in January I’ll play an one-shot of a 20th lvl adventure. Originally, I intended to use a warlock/evoker/eldritch theurge, but I talked with the DM and he agreed to a modified shadowcaster. If this session happens, I’ll post the results.    



> Grant bonus mysteries per day based on Int. These would work just like bonus spells. For instance, if your Int is 14, you can cast one extra mystery of 1st-level equivalent and one of 2nd-level equivalent per day. (Note that each mystery does give an equivalent level, even though you don't learn them by level.)




I really like the idea of bonus mysteries per se and tried to put some thoughts on it. If the calculations below are wrong, please correct me .  

Ex: A 20th lvl shadow caster has elite array (15 Int, 14 Cha), proper equipment (tome of clear thought +5, headband of intellect +6) but didn’t invest any of the ability points granted at 4/8/12/16/20, so the M.A.D. will have it’s full effect on INT, which will have a total score of 26 (+ 2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1/0 mysteries/day). I confess I didn’t understand the concept of a “floating” bonus, so I’ll stick with the extra mysteries applied to each level normally. So, assuming this shadowcaster learned two mysteries per mystery level, at 20th he has the following number of uses:

*1 (Su): * 3 x mystery, 3 x mystery,+2 bonus

*2 (Su):* 3 x mystery, 3 x mystery, +2 bonus

*3 (Su):* 3 x mystery, 3 x mystery, +2 bonus, 

*4 (Sp): * 2 x mystery, 2 x mystery,+2 bonus

*5 (Sp):* 2 x mystery, 2 x mystery, +1 bonus

*6 (Sp):* 2 x mystery, 2 x mystery, +1 bonus

*7 (Spell):* 1 x mystery, 1 x mystery, +1 bonus

*8 (Spell): * 1 x mystery, 1 x mystery, +1 bonus

*9 (Spell):* 1 x mystery, 1 x mystery 

For a quantitative analysis only, this shadowcaster will be able to cast, daily: 

8/8/8/6/5/5/3/3/2

IF the same shadowcaster wholly privileged INT for the bonus ability points, his final INT score would be 31 (+ 3/3/2/2/2/2/1/1/1 mysteries). The total uses of mysteries per day would be: 

9/9/8/6/6/6/3/3/3

Comparing with a wizard with 15 (initial) + 5 (ability points) +5 (Tome) +6 (headband) may cast: 

7/7/6/6/6/6/5/5/5 

I know this is hardly a reliable comparison and I don’t want to equalize the shadowcaster with the wizard (a class that IS powerful, to say the least). But I think there is a valid point, considering the shadowcaster has a smaller repertoire than the sorcerer, which has more spell slots than a wizard. HOWEVER, I think the “high INT” shadowcaster has a pretty decent number of uses/day which can make some compensation even though the wizard has the advantage on the three highest spell levels.     

Conclusion: The bonus mysteries are a necessity, but IMHO will only compensate if the multiple attribute dependence is somehow alleviated. 

Suggestion:  Conceptually, I like the need of INT + CHA to employ the art of shadow: one to learn the subtleties of shadowcraft and the other to force the shadow to coalesce to your whim. However, instead of dividing the Save DC and the Extra Mysteries between two ability scores, apply both to ONE of these abilities, while the other remains responsible for the maximum mystery level possible to cast (i.e. needs 10+ Mystery level). This also solves the low save DC problem without reducing the shadowcaster to a single-attribute spellslinger. The ability not responsible for the DC and extra mysteries would still be important enough to guarantee the 2nd or 3rd highest attribute number (so a 13/14 with a +6 wondrous item grants access to the highest mysteries). I’d lower the final base Fort bonus to +6, though. 

Regarding WHICH ability would be responsible for bonus mysteries and Save DC, I recommend CHA for two reasons. First, I think INT has enough mechanical attractiveness on its own (skill points), so a player wouldn’t complain to much for not upping CON, while the expense of Cha just to fulfill high mystery requirements might cause grumbling ;-). Second, for fluffiness, I believe CHA becomes a more interesting choice for shadow channeling and empowerment than INT

*In sum: I agree with the bonus mysteries’ idea, except I’d prefer Charisma and but maintain it in charge of the Save DCs.  * 



> Eliminate the rule that says you have to take mysteries in a given Path in order. If you want to jump around, so as to broaden your versatility, you can. You must still have at least one mystery of any given level equivalent (1st, 2nd, etc.) before you can get a mystery of the next higher level within a type (Apprentice, Initiate, Master), but they need not come from the same Path =)




I agree 100% on that. Respectfully, the worst trait I saw on the shadowcaster was the strictness of the paths. Eliminating this handicap goes a long way!



> Eliminate the rule that says you get a bonus feat equal to half the number of paths you have access to. Instead, you get a bonus feat equal to the total number of Paths you complete. Thus, while you are no longer required to take the entirety of a given Path, there's still encouragement to do so.




Agreed. It also gives meaning to the paths beside their natural coolness 



> Allow the shadowcaster to swap out mysteries, like a sorcerer does spells, with the caveat that if you suddenly "un-complete" a Path, you lose a feat as well.




Well, I’d support this idea, but not with the possibility of “losing” feats. I really don’t like that, sorry. Personally, I’d stick with the absence of “mystery-swapping” as, IMHO, it’s possible to plan ahead the mystery progression without much suffering. 



> Once your Apprentice Mysteries become supernatural abilities, change the save DC from 10 + equivalent spell level + Cha to 10 + 1/2 caster level + Cha. This makes them useful even against high-HD opponents, and follows the pattern for other supernatural abilities.




Personally, I’m not too fond of changing the mechanics of DCs in a class. Perhaps the suggestion above regarding a M.A.D less severe could solve the problem?  



> And BTW, the warp spell mystery shouldn't say that it allows a Will save. The caster level check determines success or failure.)




I agree 100%

Final Considerations: 

1) Regarding shadowcaster feats, I have a question: Do Ability Focus/Empower Spell-like Ability/Quicken Spell-like Ability feats affect Initiate Mysteries or one Master Mystery which has been chosen by the Favored Mystery Feat?   

2) Besides the problems discussed above, I believe there’s a last “underpower issue”:  the class lacks real offensive options from character levels 2-4. While at 1st level the shadowcaster can count on Arrow of Dusk and Mesmerizing Shades, from then on until level 5 (i.e. killing shadows becomes available), the character suffers from lack of good mysteries, especially from 2nd level.


----------



## Mouseferatu

wykthor said:
			
		

> Mouseferatu, I tend to lurk only at this board, but I couldn´t resist this topic. I loved the concept of the shadowcaster but was disappointed with the mechanics. I applaud the initiative to debate your material and I hope my comments below provide a positive feedback




Any comments provided thoughtfully and politely constitute positive feedback.  Thank you.



> It’s possible that in January I’ll play an one-shot of a 20th lvl adventure. Originally, I intended to use a warlock/evoker/eldritch theurge, but I talked with the DM and he agreed to a modified shadowcaster. If this session happens, I’ll post the results.




I'd love to hear them. Due to the nature of the campaigns I've been in, I _still_ haven't had the chance to play one myself, or to see one played.



> Conclusion: The bonus mysteries are a necessity, but IMHO will only compensate if the multiple attribute dependence is somehow alleviated.
> 
> Suggestion:  Conceptually, I like the need of INT + CHA to employ the art of shadow: one to learn the subtleties of shadowcraft and the other to force the shadow to coalesce to your whim. However, instead of dividing the Save DC and the Extra Mysteries between two ability scores, apply both to ONE of these abilities, while the other remains responsible for the maximum mystery level possible to cast (i.e. needs 10+ Mystery level). This also solves the low save DC problem without reducing the shadowcaster to a single-attribute spellslinger. The ability not responsible for the DC and extra mysteries would still be important enough to guarantee the 2nd or 3rd highest attribute number (so a 13/14 with a +6 wondrous item grants access to the highest mysteries). I’d lower the final base Fort bonus to +6, though.




Interesting thought. I don't believe I've ever seen a class where one stat was responsible for bonus abilities and DCs, while another was responsible for maximum level of abilities. Of course, the fact that I haven't seen it doesn't mean it's a bad idea; the whole point of _Tome of Magic_ was to do new stuff. 

I say go for it in your playtest. If it works out, I'll be happy to add it to my "official unofficial fixes." 



> Regarding WHICH ability would be responsible for bonus mysteries and Save DC, I recommend CHA for two reasons. First, I think INT has enough mechanical attractiveness on its own (skill points), so a player wouldn’t complain to much for not upping CON, while the expense of Cha just to fulfill high mystery requirements might cause grumbling ;-). Second, for fluffiness, I believe CHA becomes a more interesting choice for shadow channeling and empowerment than INT




Hmm... I'm torn. On the one hand, because shadowcasters have to learn and study so much, I'm inclined to say Int should be more important. On a mechanical level, however, I agree with you about emphasizing Charisma.

What the heck. Max power level is enough of an incentive for high Int. I'll side with you on this one, too.



> Well, I’d support this idea, but not with the possibility of “losing” feats. I really don’t like that, sorry. Personally, I’d stick with the absence of “mystery-swapping” as, IMHO, it’s possible to plan ahead the mystery progression without much suffering.




Hmm... I think this is one place I'm going to disagree. No matter how carefully someone plans, it's always possible that, as a player learns the ins and outs of the class, he'll realize that what he thought was a good choice is in fact a poor one. I figure if someone wants to trade out a mystery so badly that he's willing to lose a feat, he should have that option. 



> Personally, I’m not too fond of changing the mechanics of DCs in a class. Perhaps the suggestion above regarding a M.A.D less severe could solve the problem?




I could go either way on this one. I have no problem with the notion of changing the DCs, but I'm not married to the notion either.

Perhaps your discoveries while playing it will convince me. 



> 1) Regarding shadowcaster feats, I have a question: Do Ability Focus/Empower Spell-like Ability/Quicken Spell-like Ability feats affect Initiate Mysteries or one Master Mystery which has been chosen by the Favored Mystery Feat?




Not by my intent. My intention was that, if the shadowcaster wants to apply "Meta" feats to his mysteries, the meta-shadow feats are the only way to go.

That said, it probably wouldn't be broken if the DM allowed the ones you list. I just think it futzes with the flavor. 



> 2) Besides the problems discussed above, I believe there’s a last “underpower issue”:  the class lacks real offensive options from character levels 2-4. While at 1st level the shadowcaster can count on Arrow of Dusk and Mesmerizing Shades, from then on until level 5 (i.e. killing shadows becomes available), the character suffers from lack of good mysteries, especially from 2nd level.




Oh, I dunno. I think _black fire_ has some viable uses. 

But you're partly right; the shadowcaster doesn't have a lot of offense at those levels. Then again, I'm not sure they're necessary. He has plenty of mysteries that serve other purposes--stealth, protection, etc.--to make himself useful. 

I very much appreciate your thoughts, incidentally, and I'm happy to discuss any of my thoughts and decisions further.


----------



## Thomas Percy

Wykthor - I consider the problem with Cha+Int dependence too, and I think this kind of design makes this class more interested and less powerful simultaneously.

I'm playing a shadowcaster / noctumancer 12 upgraded by Mousferatu EnWorld "eratta",and I can say the class is more powerful, and more simple to build (you don't need to bother with all theses paths) then the original, but it's still less powerful than our party's incantatrix. But it's OK for me. 

The point is that 95% of my PC's felxibility and smart game solutions come from wizard's spell list, not from mysteries list. I cast bolster, bolster, bolster, bend perspective and killing shadows, killing shadows, killing shadows everytime. I think there are two reasons (besides my selection of mysteries):
1. All material is new, and not so 20-years-playtested as PHB spells, so mysteries are not so "smart" as eg. telekinesis spell. 
2. Shadowcaster is similiar to sorcerer, he's not flexible. 

Anyway, I like all these immediate mysteries and these like: bolster or thoughts of shadow - because they are simple and powerful - I hope 4e will be designed like that (not like complicated maths riddle eg. Divine Favor spell).

Few words about combo - I think Favored Mystery feat is one of most powerful for players feats of 3,5e, because it makes my ultimate (empowered maximized imposible to resist) weapon (killing shadow) supernatural ability, and I don't need to bother with SR. 



My mysteries:
Mysteries Known (CL12th, Greater Spell Penetration): 
5th—echo spell (spell, ○○/day, mogę powtórzyć rzucony przez innego w poprzedniej rundzie czar z kręgów 1–4)
4th—bolster (spell, ●○○/day, dodaje dotkniętemu 5hp/lev), warp spell (spell, ○○○/day, ►immediate, sporny test 1d20+CL, udany = countered i dostaję dodatkową apperentice mystery)
3rd—flicker (Sp, ○○○○/day, ►immediate, displacement do końca rd i dimension door), killing shadows (Su, ○○○○/day, SR no, cone 30 ft., d8/CL [144], Will DC19 halves)
2nd—shadow skin (Sp, ○○○○/day, ►immediate, 10/silver)
1st—bend perspective (Sp, z wand, ○○○○/day sensor, 100ft.)
0—arrow of dusk (Su, ○○○○/day, +9 ranged touch, SR no, 2d4/x3)


----------



## Razz

Ari, I haven't studied nor playtested the Shadowcaster in my games but there is an idea on how to at least make it more playable and interesting.

Either a Dragon Magazine article or web enhancement detailing some new feats, mysteries, and epic material for shadowcasters would help?

It's hard to make players want to try the new classes if they're not somewhat closer in power to the core classes. It's hard to play a Shadowcaster when the Clerics and Wizards are mustering up almost anything thanks to the enormous amount of material out there for them from all the WotC books released.

Though an article with new feats, mysteries, and epic material won't bring them up to par, it's a small helping hand to the class as a whole. (and maybe the same can be done for Binders and especially Truenamers, which I believe is the one class lacking in power compared to other spellcasters).

Better still is for you to write an article on the website detailing how to create your own mysteries. It was done for creating your own Vestiges and I think allowing us the ins and outs of creating mysteries would not only lighten a load off WotC but give the creativity into the gamers hands.


----------



## wykthor

> Hmm... I think this is one place I'm going to disagree. No matter how carefully someone plans, it's always possible that, as a player learns the ins and outs of the class, he'll realize that what he thought was a good choice is in fact a poor one. I figure if someone wants to trade out a mystery so badly that he's willing to lose a feat, he should have that option.




Heh, I believe my point came for two reasons: first, I always tried to plan a sorcerer as carefully as possible to avoid swapping and second and most important, I believe it was the expression “lose a feat” that made me disagree. If you change for “becomes unavailable until the mystery path is completed again” I will have no complains ;-)



> Not by my intent. My intention was that, if the shadowcaster wants to apply "Meta" feats to his mysteries, the meta-shadow feats are the only way to go.
> That said, it probably wouldn't be broken if the DM allowed the ones you list. I just think it futzes with the flavor.




I fully understand. But the point is: is there any game mechanic to prevent or approve the use of these feats? As much as I like the flavor, I do not want to let the fluffy aspect interfere in the game mechanics, as heartless as this may be  At the end of this post I put some thoughts regarding the Ability Focus feat, just for fun.



> Oh, I dunno. I think black fire has some viable uses.




One of the big problems with Black Fire, I think, it’s the damage of 1d6 per 2 levels. I’d much prefer the mystery inflicting less damage (5d4) but with a quicker progression of 1d4/level. Comparing to the sor/wiz repertoire, the Hail of Stone spell from Complete Arcane/Spell Compendium inflicts 5d4 area on a smaller area for instantaneous duration, but allows no save. I’d prefer a 1d6/level for Black Fire but comparing to 2nd lvl evocation spells from Spell Compendium (which generally use 1d6/2 lv), I believe it’s safer to allocate a maximum of 5d4, considering the duration of the mystery. If we compare the scaling damage from both versions of Black Fire: 

Lvl     Dmg       Average         
3 -     1d6         3.5                          
4 -     2d6         7           
5 -     2d6         7          
6 -     3d6       10.5        
7 -     3d6       10.5        
8 -     4d6        14           
9 -     4d6        14           
10 -   5d6        17.5         


Lvl     Dmg    Average   
3 -     3d4                7.5                  
4 -     4d4                10
5 -     5d4                12.5
6 -     5d4                12.5
7 -     5d4                12.5
8 -     5d4                12.5
9 -     5d4                12.5
10 -   5d4                12.5


At 3rd level, a shadowcaster using the standard Black Fire will inflict 1d6 damage, negated by save, affecting three opponents at most. At 5th level, he may learn Killing Shadows that IMO is far more effective than Black Fire from now on. Now, a 3d4/4d4 Black Fire at levels 3-4 can be serviceable until level 5 aaaaand at level 6 (if you follow the sorcerer’s mechanic) he could exchange the now- surpassed Black Fire for another mystery like Piercing Shadows or Shadow Skin . 

Finally, I ask for a clarification regarding the reflex save of Black Fire: If you cast this mystery directly below a foe, the save is rolled on his turn, when the damage will be applied, right?



> But you're partly right; the shadowcaster doesn't have a lot of offense at those levels. Then again, I'm not sure they're necessary. He has plenty of mysteries that serve other purposes--stealth, protection, etc.--to make himself useful.




I agree with the nature of more utilitarian mysteries (congress of shadows, thoughts of shadow, piercing sight), but I fear for the shadowcaster’s ofensive usefulness if he is the only arcanist in a group of four heroes. Another mystery path containing a 2nd lvl mystery whose ranged touch inflicts starting 3d6/4d6 damage could be a good thing 

*Thomas Percy*, I also love Killing Shadows. Regarding the noctumancer, I like the PrC but I’m trying to stick with the pure shadowcaster as the wiz/sor levels can get in the way of the evaluation ;-). Just a question: you said about an empowered maximized killing shadow. But using both feats, each extending casting time to a full round action, wouldn’t extend Killing Shadows’ casting time to 1 full round? 

*warning: rules rambling below* 

Ability focus: I believe it can be applied to ONE (Su) mystery or (Sp) mystery or even to one (Spell) mystery that was targeted by the Favored Mystery Feat. Considering this feat applies to just one mystery, if we look a 20-level progression with a Charisma of 31 (+10), I summarized below the Save DC for a mystery (Su) or (Sp) for each mystery level.

1 - DC 23
2 - DC 24
3 - DC 25
4 - DC 26
5 - DC 27
6 - DC 28
7 - DC 29 (needs favored mystery feat)
8 - DC 30 (needs favored mystery feat)
9 - DC 31 (needs favored mystery feat)

Another primary spellcaster with the same ability score and with Greater Spell Focus Feat would achieve the same DC spending two feats, but its effect would affect far more spells. So far, so good. An interesting point appears when we stack Path Focus and Greater Path Focus. A shadowcaster who purchases these three feats add +4 to one mystery and +2 to up to other two mysteries of the same path. If he wants to apply these bonuses to Master Mysteries, he needs to buy Favored Mystery as well.  The question is: does this DC stacking become too powerful? For mysteries 1-5 I’d say no, as their difficulty class will not surpass 31. Let’s consider the progression below:

13 - Mystery: Prison of Night (Ebon Walls Path)
14 - Mystery: Dark Soul (Heart and Soul Path)
15 - Mystery: Tomb of Night (Ebon Walls Path)
       Feat: Path Focus: Ebon Walls 
16 - Mystery: Dark Soul (Heart and Soul Path)
17 - Mystery: Consume Essence (Ebon Walls Path)
       Bonus Feat: Favored Mystery (Consume Essence)
18 - Mystery: Shadow Surge (Heart and Soul Path) 
       Feat: Ability Focus (consume essence)
       Bonus Feat: Greater Path Focus: Ebon Walls
19 - Mystery: Army of Shadow (Shadow Calling Path)
20 – Mystery: Shadow Time (Dark Metamorphosis Path)

So, in exchange for having a really restricted Master Mystery path until level 19 and for the expenditure of four feats, it’s possible to have a DC 33 Mystery. It’s not to say there aren’t any other drawbacks. Consume Essence is a touch spell (reach mystery can help) and it’s a death effect. If the Favored Mystery and Ability Focus were targeted at the Shadow Surge mystery, it’d have the inconvenient of being a mind-affecting effect. Alternatively, the shadowcaster could invest on the Ephemeral Storm mystery (which isn’t neither a mind-affecting effect nor a death effect and it spreads upon an area) if he desires to change the focus to the Breath of Twilight Path.  

Now compare this DC with other spellcasters. A wizard with Greater Spell Focus (enchantment) and with two fey heritage feats from Complete Mage (one gives +1 to Save DC to enchantment spells) could achieve DC 32 to all 9th level enchantment spells with four feats. If he wanted to surpass that, he could purchase Quicken Spell and Fell Frighten (Libris Mortis ) and use a quickened magic missile that automatically induces shaken condition (-2 on saves) on viable targets while using Dominate Monster on the same round. Six feats to expend with effective DC 34 on 9th level enchantment spells. 

Conclusion:  Ability focus can be scary, but I got the impression other spellcasters also have their way to maximize spell DCs. My initial impression doesn´t disapprove it if the player want to burn feats and mysteries so badly. I would like another´s perpective to this, however 

PS: Razz, could you please show the URL of this article regarding vestige creation? It really interests me.


----------



## Razz

wykthor said:
			
		

> PS: Razz, could you please show the URL of this article regarding vestige creation? It really interests me.




Sure thing, here's the link: *Designing Your Own Vestige* 

It's Part 2, I linked it to Part 2 because Part 1 didn't have a link on the page leading to Part 2. But the Part 2 page has a link leading to Part 1.


----------



## wykthor

So Kas is a vestige now, huh? That's interesting. Thanks a bunch for the link, Razz


----------



## Razz

wykthor said:
			
		

> So Kas is a vestige now, huh? That's interesting. Thanks a bunch for the link, Razz




Yep, him and the old Primus, too.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Razz said:
			
		

> Either a Dragon Magazine article or web enhancement detailing some new feats, mysteries, and epic material for shadowcasters would help?




Well, I actually do have a web enhancement in the pipeline that includes a few new mysteries. They're not the main point to the enhancement, but they're there.

As far as new feats or epic material... Well, I'll certainly give it some thought. If there's enough interest down the line, who knows?



> Better still is for you to write an article on the website detailing how to create your own mysteries. It was done for creating your own Vestiges and I think allowing us the ins and outs of creating mysteries would not only lighten a load off WotC but give the creativity into the gamers hands.




Hmm...

I'm honestly not sure there's a whole article's-worth of material there. Creating a mystery isn't all that different from creating a spell of the same effective level. The trick is simply to make sure that one keeps the flavor of the shadowcaster, by not going to "general" with the mystery. I could write about that, but I think it's more of a sidebar, as opposed to a whole article in its own right.


----------



## Mouseferatu

wykthor said:
			
		

> Heh, I believe my point came for two reasons: first, I always tried to plan a sorcerer as carefully as possible to avoid swapping and second and most important, I believe it was the expression “lose a feat” that made me disagree. If you change for “becomes unavailable until the mystery path is completed again” I will have no complains ;-)




Fair enough. "Lose access to," instead of just "lose," certainly works for me.



> I fully understand. But the point is: is there any game mechanic to prevent or approve the use of these feats? As much as I like the flavor, I do not want to let the fluffy aspect interfere in the game mechanics, as heartless as this may be  At the end of this post I put some thoughts regarding the Ability Focus feat, just for fun.




Yep. Page 138, last bullet point, includes Ability Focus and Empower Spell-Like Ability as feats that mysteries _cannot_ benefit from. More to the point, even if a feat is not specifically called out in that section, the implication is pretty heavy that mysteries are affected _only_ by metashadow feats.



> One of the big problems with Black Fire, I think, it’s the damage of 1d6 per 2 levels. I’d much prefer the mystery inflicting less damage (5d4) but with a quicker progression of 1d4/level. Comparing to the sor/wiz repertoire, the Hail of Stone spell from Complete Arcane/Spell Compendium inflicts 5d4 area on a smaller area for instantaneous duration, but allows no save. I’d prefer a 1d6/level for Black Fire but comparing to 2nd lvl evocation spells from Spell Compendium (which generally use 1d6/2 lv), I believe it’s safer to allocate a maximum of 5d4, considering the duration of the mystery.




Well, _black fire_ was really meant to be as much of a "battlefield control" mystery as a "direct offense" mystery. I myself have no problem with the 1d6/2 levels, but it certainly wouldn't be unbalancing to house rule it to 1d4/level. Of course, if you max it out at 5d4, you're technically breaking the pattern of when spells/mysteries of a given level max out, but so what? That's why it's a house rule. 



> Finally, I ask for a clarification regarding the reflex save of Black Fire: If you cast this mystery directly below a foe, the save is rolled on his turn, when the damage will be applied, right?




Nope. _Black fire_ isn't phrased as clearly as it could/should be. I don't remember if that's how I wrote it, or if it was tweaked in development, but I'll go ahead and take responsibility for it.

When it says "each of your turns," the "you" it refers to is the shadowcaster. _Black fire_ deals damage to any creatures in the area at the start of the _caster's_ turn, for every round until the duration expires. Thus, saves and damage are applied on your turn, not the enemy's.



> I agree with the nature of more utilitarian mysteries (congress of shadows, thoughts of shadow, piercing sight), but I fear for the shadowcaster’s ofensive usefulness if he is the only arcanist in a group of four heroes.




Oh, I do, too. But the simple truth is, the shadowcaster really isn't _meant_ to be a replacement for a "primary" arcanist. He's sort of a combination of caster, spy, and battlefield control expert. It's just like a party that tries to fill the "arcanist slot" with a bard, or a druid--it _can_ be done, but it won't be as effective.


----------



## wykthor

> Yep. Page 138, last bullet point, includes Ability Focus and Empower Spell-Like Ability as feats that mysteries cannot benefit from. More to the point, even if a feat is not specifically called out in that section, the implication is pretty heavy that mysteries are affected only by metashadow feats.




Ah, this solves any doubt about using non metashadow feats. I guess my speculation about ability focus went for nothing   




> When it says "each of your turns," the "you" it refers to is the shadowcaster. Black fire deals damage to any creatures in the area at the start of the caster's turn, for every round until the duration expires. Thus, saves and damage are applied on your turn, not the enemy's.




Thanks for the clarification.  However, I still have doubt on a point. Let´s say shadowcaster (SC) encountered two goblins (G) and won the initiative, creating Black Fire  (B) on a straight line as the diagram below:


G

BBBBB(G)BB

SC

It may be a silly question, but as the Black Fire inflicts damage at the _start_ of the shadowcaster's round, does that means the goblin caught in the line need not to make a reflex save if he just move out of the square before the start of the shadowcaster´s next round? By the same way, if that other goblin on the other side of the line crosses it and ends its turn on the other side (and thus will be out of the area on the beginning of the shadowcaster's round) does it means he won't need to make a reflex save to avoid the cold damage? 




> Oh, I do, too. But the simple truth is, the shadowcaster really isn't meant to be a replacement for a "primary" arcanist.




Good point.


----------



## Mouseferatu

wykthor said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification.  However, I still have doubt on a point. Let´s say shadowcaster (SC) encountered two goblins (G) and won the initiative, creating Black Fire  (B) on a straight line as the diagram below:
> 
> 
> G
> 
> BBBBB(G)BB
> 
> SC
> 
> It may be a silly question, but as the Black Fire inflicts damage at the _start_ of the shadowcaster's round, does that means the goblin caught in the line need not to make a reflex save if he just move out of the square before the start of the shadowcaster´s next round? By the same way, if that other goblin on the other side of the line crosses it and ends its turn on the other side (and thus will be out of the area on the beginning of the shadowcaster's round) does it means he won't need to make a reflex save to avoid the cold damage?




As with many spells that deal damage on the caster's turn, _black fire_ does damage immediately when cast. So if the SC casts it so it's directly on the goblin's square, the goblin must immediately save for damage, and then again at the start of the SC's next turn, and so on until he moves out of the area or the mystery expires.


----------



## Razz

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As far as new feats or epic material... Well, I'll certainly give it some thought. If there's enough interest down the line, who knows?




Yes, an epic Warlock article was done and has widely satisfied the many Warlock players ou there. I know epic gaming is rare in the community, but it's there nonetheless and it's even in the core books (DMG). Thing is, personally, my games start out at 1st-level with new characters, but none of my players ever intend on stopping them at 20th. Currently, one of my buddies made a Truenamer and I'm stumped on what to do if he takes it to 21st. 

But kudos on your upcoming WE. I do hope you fit in a few new feats that could potentially address the talks on this thread and epic content for those of us that wish to continue playing the Shadowcaster beyond 20th-level (or for DMs needing NPCs beyond 20th-level)


----------



## pawsplay

EDIT: Deleted, misread title.


----------



## wykthor

Mouseferatu, I´ve created a human shadowcaster 20 and hope to use it at the game table soon  . I use the modifications you proposed, including a liberal use of mystery swaping (and it helped!) and applying CHA to Save DC & Mysteries/day and INT for the highest mystery able to cast, and made Fortitude a low save. I will try to stat the character here next week (I´m having a mild tendinitis case right now) , but there are some points I´d like to discuss and I thank a lot in advance for any answers  

1) A shadowcaster with nocturnal caster feat on a plane of eternal night (like the plane of shadow) would always receive the bonus?

2) Shadow Vision Mystery: IMHO, I think the effect was a bit weak if compared to blindness/deafness (2nd lvl spell). Am I missing something?

3) Curtain of Shadows: When you cast this mystery, if there´s a target at one of the squares which the wall will ocupy does he: a) suffers nothing because the mystery fails for the line of effect of the spell is interrupted; b) automatically suffers the effect of the mystery and or c) gets a reflex save to avoid the effects and immediately after must choose to move from either side of the wall?

4) I know I´m nitpicking, but it´s good to point that Life Fades Greater mystery states on its description that you touch a target, but the mystery is summarized as an area effect.

5) The Truth Revealed Mystery states that you unconver information after "minutes of study" but the table refers to rounds of study. Which one of them is right? And regarding the chance of misleading information, how to handle it? Is it assumed you receive a false information if the target successfully saves?

6) Prison of Night/Tomb of Night: When the target is encased at _your_ turn, he does not gets a fortitude save to escape the mystery right away, right? He will have to wait for his round to make the first save (and receive 1d6 points of cold damage, regardless), yes?

7) Does Unravel Dweomer Mystery has the -4 to caster level checks (because it does not interact easily with spells) when trying to break a flesh to stone spell? 

8) It may be a silly question, but I have to ask: when counting the number of metashadow feats as requisite for another metashadow feat OR another use/day for an already existing metashadow feat (like quicken mystery 2/day needing 7 feats), do you count metashadow feats purchased more than once? That is, if you need three metashadow feats in order to pick quicken mystery, is it eligible to have enlarge mystery and 2 x empower mystery?

9) If neither Enlarge Mystery, Reach Mystery and Still Mystery demands a full-round action  to cast, they may be applied with Maximize Mystery freely, without any extra time, correct?

10) Is Twin Spell feat acceptable for a metashadow version? What about Mystery Penetration (the shadowcaster´s version for spell penetration)? And what about other metamagic feats, like transdimensional spell or uttercold spell? Personally, I´d have no problem with them (excepting persistent spell and innate spell). Regarding Twin Mystery, It would allow the classic combination of three mysteries/round as it´s done for the standard spellcasters. I´m not worried about the hit point damage pool, but I admit it´s scary a quickened Flesh Fails Greater followed by a twin Flesh Fails Greater at the same round (living creatures would receive without save 18 STR/DEX damage or 12 CON damage without save)


----------



## Mouseferatu

Wow. Um, let's see...

1) Yep.

2) I suppose it is, a bit, though it's also meant to serve a slightly different purpose. But not all spells and mysteries are meant to be entirely equal.

3) As with similar spells (i.e. _wall of fire_), the answer is B.

4) The spell stat block is correct; it's an area effect. The "touch" reference is a typo.

5) When I wrote it, I intended minutes. The table was changed to rounds in development; I assume the reference to "minutes" in the text was left by accident. Also when I wrote it, there was difficulties assigned to the different types of information, and failure by more than 5 on the roll indicated misleading info. Since those were removed, I suppose it's up to you decide if the misleading info occurs on a successful save, or under other circumstances. (Perhaps a save that succeeds by more than a certain amount would be appropriate.)

6) Correct. The save requires an action, and occurs on the target's initiative.

7) Yes, the -4 applies.

8) I don't see why not. You spent the feat slots on metashadow feats, so I'd say they ought to apply.

9) Correct. The mystery would take a full-round, due to the maximize, but is not further lengthened by the others.

10) I'd want to see them playtested before I said for certain. But my guess is, anything that works as a metamagic feat _probably_ could be transformed into a metashadow feat, using the existing metashadow feats as models.


----------



## Mouseferatu

So I've just realized one flaw in the shadowcaster changes I've been playing with.



> 3) Eliminate the rule that says you have to take mysteries in a given Path in order. If you want to jump around, so as to broaden your versatility, you can. You must still have at least one mystery of any given level equivalent (1st, 2nd, etc.) before you can get a mystery of the next higher level within a type (Apprentice, Initiate, Master), but they need not come from the same Path.




I just realized that this means a 6th-level shadowcaster can have one 1st-level mystery, one 2nd-level mystery, and _four_ 3rd-level mysteries. I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with that.

Those of you who have tested these alterations, how was your experience in this regard?


----------



## wykthor

> As with similar spells (i.e. wall of fire), the answer is B.




Great, that makes Curtain of Shadows even more useful   (a pity I had to drop it)



> I'd want to see them playtested before I said for certain. But my guess is, anything that works as a metamagic feat probably could be transformed into a metashadow feat, using the existing metashadow feats as models



.

Well, _at first glance_ only the matter of a twin + quickened Flesh Fails Greater bothered me, because even this quickened mystery in conjunction with another standard casting could paralyse in one round, say, a great wyrm dragon of DEX 10 if it surpasses the SR. So, If I could suggest, I'd recommend the mystery allowing a Save: Fortitude: partial, meaning that if one of the target's abilities is reduced to zero, a successful save instead reduces the DEX/STR/CON to 1 instead.    



> I just realized that this means a 6th-level shadowcaster can have one 1st-level mystery, one 2nd-level mystery, and four 3rd-level mysteries. I'm not entirely sure I'm comfortable with that.
> 
> Those of you who have tested these alterations, how was your experience in this regard?




Honestly, I haven't noticed that  I thought the requirements of "at least two mysteries of the same level to get one of one mystery of a higher level" would still apply.  IMO, I 'd strongly recommend to mantain this restriction, but without enforcing the need of following the same path.


----------



## Mouseferatu

wykthor said:
			
		

> I thought the requirements of "at least two mysteries of the same level to get one of one mystery of a higher level" would still apply.  IMO, I 'd strongly recommend to mantain this restriction, but without enforcing the need of following the same path.




That's very similar to what I was considering, actually. I was going to go with "Within a particular category (apprentice, initiate, master), you cannot have more mysteries of any given level than you do of the level below it."


----------



## wykthor

Hmm, respectfully, I have one point to disagree about this method. Even if you systhematically picked for each pair of levels (1-2, 3-4, 5-6 ...) two mysteries of the highest "standard" level (i.e 2 mysteries lvl 1 for 1-2, 2 mysteries lvl 2 for 3-4, 2 mysteries lvl 3  for 5-6 ...), after 18th level, you will be able to pick only one mystery of 7th (19th) and one mystery of 8th (20th). Personally, I fear this will unecessarily limit  more the SC's repertoire with a measure that, stated at this way, will only affect the character at terminal levels


----------



## Mouseferatu

Fair enough. I'll reconsider going with just the "must have 2 of X before you can have any of X+1."


----------



## Mouseferatu

New version of changes here: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=184955


----------



## njforrouk

Thankyou for making these very sensible changes.  I too was looking forward to playing this class but felt I might be quickly outshone by others.  I think this is now a far more sensible and playable build than before.


----------



## FireDrakeK

the problem with all of these classes is not that you can't make them work. hell with some creativity and the right feats you can make anything work. when properly focused any of these classes will work. the problem is that a class should not REQUIRE being that focused or certain feats or magic items in order to be able to function. the real problem here is that although the shadowcaster has incredible flavor. i don't see how a mage couldn't just do everything a shadowcaster does just as well if not better. 

love the class. love the flavor. dislike feeling like i have to bend myself over backwards just to keep up with everyone else.


----------



## WarlockLord

So I have noticed.

BTW, if anyone wants to play a decent shadowcaster but is forced to use RAW, focus on  a combo of:
Getting as much damage out of elements such as Rapid Shot, Maximize Mystery, Empower Mystery, Boots of Speed +Umbral Touch.  Requires a lot of focus, but will usually _slow_ your enemies while dealing a lot of damge 
In addition to this, take a lot of battlefield control mysteries.

It works.  The only problem is, a mage can do this stuff without the focus.  Ouch.


----------



## dmccoy1693

I'm currently playing an 8th level Grey Elf Shadowcaster in a Material Plane Greyhawk campaign.  Some of my thoughts:



> In terms of roleplaying a Shadowcaster though, I think it's the bees knees.




I can't agree with this more.  They're fun to play and they cover areas largely ignored by the PHB wizard/sorcerer.



> I have reservations for the class in terms of utility though.




Again, I can't agree with this more.  So few spells and, unlike a sorcerer, you can't trade them out.  For flavor I understand why its done, but it would be nice to swap out a low level spell that, through play, I have found useless for a spell that I constantly buy wands for.  

Also, compare Eldrich Blast of a Warlock with Killing Shadows of a Shadowcaster.  At first level, a warlock gets unlimited uses of this spell (provided they take it).  A shadowcaster gets 1 use per day of Killing Shadows at 5th level.  No comparison.  Mind you, at 8 level I have an orb of shadows that I dedicate for using with Killing Shadows, so I have 3 uses per day of it.  Now compare that with all the uses of Magic Missile, shocking grasp, summon monster, fireball, lightning bolt, and shout that a wizard/sorcerer gets.  No Comparison.

My group has 4 other players:  a Vampire (8 monsterous levels), a psion, a cleric, and a monk.  Compare to the vampire, the shadowcaster is nowhere near as sneaky, and is nowhere near as tough.  Compare to a psion (same holds true for a sorcerer), they can waste their total power points (spells per day) on a single spell if they so need to.  

In short, its fun to play something this different and unique, but it just doesn't hold is own (at least by 8th level).


----------



## dmccoy1693

Ok, well I just noticed the changes you made Ari and I sent them off to my DM asking him if I can use these.  Hopefully I can.


----------



## green slime

I'd just like to thank Ari again for his input and insights. I appreciate it alot! Thanks!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

FireDrakeK said:
			
		

> i don't see how a mage couldn't just do everything a shadowcaster does just as well if not better.



Shadowcaster has been allowed in the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign for a while now for a limited number of players. There have been a significant number of complaints that some of its abilities are broken.  One mystery that has received the most complaints, flicker. An obnoxiously powerful mystery in a game where tactics and strategy on the table map are utmost and combats can be over in under 3 rounds.


----------



## FireDrakeK

yes but there are tons and tons of mage abilities that are broken two. the issue isn't that you can't make it work or even break it. the issue is that it takes a skilled player to utilize it properly. i'm not saying it's unplayable, i'm saying it's poorly balanced. too powerful here, not powerful enough over here. it's lopsided. mind you most classes area  little lopsided, but they are at-least playable by anyone at any level without the need to pick up one thing or another to work.


----------



## master arminas

The only real change that I have made to the Shadowcaster in the game that I run is the following:

At 1st, 3rd, and every odd level thereafter, the Shadowcaster can select one Path of his choice.  He knows all Mysteries of that path (though he may not yet be able to use the higher level Mysteries).  The Shadowcaster must know at least as many Apprentice level Paths as he knows Initiate level Paths.  The Shadowcaster must know at least as many Initiate level Paths as he knows Master leve Paths.  The Shadowcaster does NOT receive bonus feats for Paths completed.  Instead, the Shadowcaster gains one bonus feat at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

For example, at 11th level, a Shadowcaster will have learned six Paths (and all of the Mysteries on those paths).  He can have learned six Apprentice level Paths, five Apprentice and one Initiate, four Apprentice and two Initiate, or three Apprentice and three Initiate.  If he has learned 3 and 3, then at 13th level, he could learn a new Apprentice level Path or a Master level Path, but could not learn a new Initiate level Path.  If he learns a Master level Path, then he currently only has access to the 7th level Mystery, even though he knows the 8th and 9th level (he gains access to those mysteries at 15th and 17th level).

Anyway, this is the fix that my group uses.  It does increase the power of the shadowcaster by a pretty fair amount, so it may not be good for all groups.

Arminas tar Valantil
Grand Master of the Order of the Ebon Rose


----------



## RogueHunter

*Shadow caster*

I Have a shadowcaster-ranger. In my opinion, the shadowcaster would SUCK alone but when multiclassing it takes on a whole new level. I can use my shadowcaster abilities to assist my ranger ones. For example, the fundemental Umbral Hand, combined with my normal shot gives me a more accurate arrow shot. Call me inventive or not playing the game how it should be or w/e. My group plays more creativly and if you can think out of the box some shadow caster works wonders with other classes (rogue would also work really well because of the teleport abilities)  

Another interesting prestigue class, not an offical one but if you look on the D&Dwiki, its called Ebon Bowman, Im pretty sure it was made by one of the site managers, its still under construction but it looks pretty decent, Very similar to the archane archer


----------



## Andor

Apparently Shadowcasters are also proficient at thread-necromancy! Go Shadowcasters.


----------



## Starbuck_II

I've found Shadowcaster only good in buffs and control/debuff. But the issue os they get so few uses that it a little un-useful.

They can get Improved Displacement by level 5 (Dancing Shadows is like Displacemernt but you can't target the creature so somewhat like Invisibility as well). Total Concealment is awesome.

Shadowskin can be useful after level 8, but before that a little weak.
Voice of Shadows can affect Constructs and undead: dazing them (rare).

I've plaued a Noctumancer so while the Shadowcaster side sucked (in some ways): I had wizard spells to stay effective in combat.


----------



## shadowgriffen

Prison of night states that the creature inside it is immobilized so unless you can still cast how are you shapeshifting.


----------



## shadowgriffen

Prison of night states in the spell the creature inside is immobilized so how are you shapshifting.


----------

