Tainted Scholar /rant

[AriasDerros]

OA Maho caster is yet another almost the same.



iirc - the TO version of this is
1) ... gain the bonus feat from taint
2) ...  heal the taint, but keep the feat
3) ... repeat ad infinitum

but I've no idea of how legit this is/was.

In the new Taint rules, if you heal the taint, you lose the feat.
The Maho out of OA, the Tainted Scorcerer, and the Tainted Scholar are all technically the same class. While I have been ignoring that fact for which is greater comments (because that isn't what this thread is about). This is specifically stated in HoH on page 118. I only bring that up now because I know you've said you don't have that book.

[Phoenix00]

In the new Taint rules, if you heal the taint, you lose the feat.
The Maho out of OA, the Tainted Scorcerer, and the Tainted Scholar are all technically the same class. While I have been ignoring that fact for which is greater comments (because that isn't what this thread is about). This is specifically stated in HoH on page 118. I only bring that up now because I know you've said you don't have that book.

They are not the same class, Tainted Scholar is an adaptaion of the previous two classes, in other words a "variant" (my word not the WoTC).  Furthermore there are many differences between UA taint and HoH taint just like there are differences between UA action points and eberron action points.

Here is what is stated on page 118

Adaptation
The tainted scholar presented here is an adaptation of a class that has appeared in two earlier versions. The maho-tsukai prestige class in  Oriental Adventures was part of the ?rst exploration of the taint mechanics in D&D, and that class was revised and adapted for a more general D&D campaign in Unearthed Arcana. Comparing these different implementations of the same general concept is an interesting study in adapting a class to different settings and even genres of play. The tainted scholar is intentionally built like the loremaster class, as a way of highlighting the horror-genre role of a scholar who explores secrets too horrible for the human mind to grasp.

[Nachofan99]

Actually my DM is considering using Taint in the next section of our current campaign, so this actually matters to me somewhat in a mechanical sense.  We play mostly RAW with gentleman's agreement and very, very few houserules.

* jealous*

Hope we get this answered for you then.

Out of curiosity, The Gentleman's Agreement?

It's a little bit less that version and a little bit more an argument appealing towards flavor, with variety being main the spice.

Let me think; the last bunch of characters I've played were: Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard, Rogue.  All had some PrC's and stuff, but *none* them played like the other.  Each different character had entirely different capabilities.  So our sort of unwritten rule is to *always* try and play something different in each campaign - that way you DON'T always have the same overpowered "whatever" because we're all trying something new.  

For comparison's sake, our former Paladin is currently playing a Druid, Our Former Druid is playing a Rogue and our Former Monk is playing a Warmage.  

And that's part of why I'd like to figure out the Taint because Tainted Scholar is definitely something no one has played before.

[AriasDerros]

I have no idea where I am "recanting" an argument.  I presented a very reasonable claim:  that the Taint rules laid out presented a default score for all undead, etc., but that these scores could be subject to change by that particular undead, etc.'s acts. 

The absence of an otherwise statement does not speak one way or another.  The words as written are, as they often are, unclear.  RAW is not some magical silver bullet.  If the words are unclear, then we are left w/ interpretations of how it should play out in this seemingly unanticipated case.  If an interpretation leads to illogical (w/in the logic of the rules and the world they are supposed to create) results, then that's a black mark against it.  Reductio ad absurdum is a well-respected technique for argument and interpretation. 

In the face of ambiguity, you're welcome to cleave to your interpretation of the rules.  But, your interpretation is, at the very least, on no better ground than mine.  So, the hard line stance that you take throughout this thread is simply inappropriate. 

Where you recanted
[spoiler]

I would just disagree w/ your reading of "automatic" and "effective."  It seems to me that the passage in the Taint section means that all Undead have those scores. That is the default.  I see no reason why an intelligent Undead committing particularly depraved things or whatever couldn't have a higher Taint score. Actually, I read the automatic effective language as Undead, etc. having a Taint score of 0, but acting as if they have that automatic effective score, unless stated otherwise. 

I realize that sometimes my words may seem harsher than they are meant, there is no tone on the internet, but saying that my stance is "simply inappropriate" comes to me as rude. IMO: In My Opinion.
We come here to learn from each other, I have learned many things on this forum, including things from posts of yours in other threads.

My validation for my stance is the precedent set elsewhere with these terms.
I agree with you that Gorkathok should get more tainty when he wasn't a Lich, except his score is based on the fact that a Lich is already tainty by the very virtue of being an unholy blight on creation. The mechanic is not meant to allow for exorbitant scores on things while still being playable.
That is "common sense" as well.

We are each entitled to our opinions. Both are logical. Both are "common sense."  Read my post to Nacho. Let's not degenerate into a GitP-style war of semantics, opinions and flames. Any attitude perceived from my end is unintended, I am as laissez faire as it can get while still having a higher mind.

[AriasDerros]

They are not the same class, Tainted Scholar is an adaptaion of the previous two classes, in other words a "variant" (my word not the WoTC).  Furthermore there are many differences between UA taint and HoH taint just like there are differences between UA action points and eberron action points.

I stand corrected. Adaptation does not mean "updated" as I had thought.
*education received: +1 INT*

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I was agreeing with you, and disagreeing with the poster above my post. I think. Anyway, I think your interpretation is accurate because it's a specific exception to the Taint rules, and is an absolute statement.

If it said something like "An Undead creature's taint score begins at...", then it'd be something that could changed, but just saying, "An Undead creature's taint score is..." means that if the creature's taint ever isn't that number, it's violating RAW. Since the only thing that could make it do that is the general rule to which an Undead creature's taint score is a specific exception, that general rule doesn't apply.

[BeholderSlayer]

Honestly, the game that actually uses taint seems to be few and far between, at least in my experience. Whether or not the class is good theoretically doesn't really matter in practice.

[Bauglir]

Well, I can't argue with that. Unless I want to be a douche and argue for the sake of arguing, I suppose. This sounds like a poor course of action though.

[BeholderSlayer]

Personally, if somebody wishes to play these classes I just slap house rules onto it. Remove the Taint bullshit (because Taint is a headache) and let them keep the "all spells are [evil]," metamagic stuff, and other crap. Then they just become a class with decent (but not necessarily game breaking) class features. As I pointed out in the last thread, their metamagic abilities are capped at the level of spell they can cast. That's big.

They do get to keep things such as taking Malign Spell Focus to get +2 DC to all of their spells.

I'm not saying this makes the classes balanced as written, I'm just saying that I think most of the time DM's will do something similiar if somebody wants to use Tainted Sorcerer or Tainted Scholar.

[Unbeliever]

Sorry.  I missed the YMMV and IMO in the original post, and cued off of the declaritive statements in the spoiler blocks.  That's on me. 

The only thing I'd add is that I'm skeptical of the utility of RAW debates in light of clear ambiguity.  Like BeholderSlayer indicates, since the rules around Taint, et al. are so mushy, we are almost assuredly going to be in house rules or, at the very least, interpretation territory when these classes come up. 

[Nunkuruji]

Dug up some notes, while nothing new, these are the things I found entertaining


DC boost for [evil] - Malign Spell Focus, Enemy of Good, Demonic Conduit
CL boost for [evil] - Tainted Scholar Blood Component, (should be some others around somewhere...)
Damage/effectiveness for [evil] - Violate Spell, Corrupt Spell, Debilitating Spell
Wizard Abyssal Specialist - specialized in [evil], among others, lots of bonus spells
Ritual Sacrifice - Blessing of the Godless, Fell Conspiracy, Sacrificial Mastery/BOVD Sacrifice
And what to do with all that spilled blood - Tainted Sorcerer Blood Component


Last time I was looking at it, I was cooking something thematic tied to Pandorum.
Though I deterred myself from anything beyond skeleton class level ordering, since I had no where to place such a critter in either of my campaigns.

Scion of Pandorum
Arcane 1 / X 4 / Thrallherd 1 / X1 / Subverted Psion 1 / X 12
Cloistered Cleric 1 / Ardent 2 / Psychic Theurge 3 / Ur-Priest 1 / Tainted Sorcerer 1 / Thrallherd 1 / Psychic Theurge 7

Endless blood sacrifice


None of this is particularly T1/CO/TO, but it seemed like good (evil) fun

[awaken DM golem]

Ahh thrallherd sacrifice 

Having a Blood Golem around for the component (stab) ... was spotted back in the OA version.

[evil] just doesn't have all the mojo,
that doing something else has, while being evil aligned.

I suppose the OA "level" trading mechanic could be messed with
via Bloodlines + Legacy Champ + Uncanny Trickster.

[AriasDerros]

via Bloodlines + Legacy Champ + Uncanny Trickster.

Now I know ANOTHER way to get extra feats.

It's a little bit less that version and a little bit more an argument appealing towards flavor, with variety being main the spice.

Let me think; the last bunch of characters I've played were: Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard, Rogue.  All had some PrC's and stuff, but *none* them played like the other.  Each different character had entirely different capabilities.  So our sort of unwritten rule is to *always* try and play something different in each campaign - that way you DON'T always have the same overpowered "whatever" because we're all trying something new.  

For comparison's sake, our former Paladin is currently playing a Druid, Our Former Druid is playing a Rogue and our Former Monk is playing a Warmage.  

And that's part of why I'd like to figure out the Taint because Tainted Scholar is definitely something no one has played before.

Well, the only part that is up for dispute is the undead bit.
There are, as far as I can tell, four different ways to interpret that.
[spoiler]Three of which can be given logical arguments (logical both in rules obsevance,and in verisimilitude of the in-game world), as Unbeliever and I have done. The four ways I see are: stack exclusively; stack additionally; separate statistic with an either / or function; or as an overwrite function.
The fact that as I see is the precedent sets up for the fact that if it were either of the first two the text would say so. This is due to the text for other, similar abilities that do either stack exclusively or stack additionally specifically say so. Thus, with that text missing what I ass-u-me is that the text is missing because it is neither of those.
So we are left with option three, which makes no sense, or option four.

I still could be wrong. I still could be missing something.[/spoiler]

What I recommend is, if you do the T.S. in your next campaign, either work out with your group (not just DM, make sure everyone knows what is going on) why you want to be an undead T.S., and how it would work or just don't be undead.