Tainted Scholar /rant

[AriasDerros]

The ClassThe TrickComparison, Being Undead
[spoiler]
Sorcerer, Charisma score 18, save DC 14 + spell level, bonus spells / day 1,1,1,1
Tainted Scholar, Charisma score 18, save DC 15 + spell level, bonus spells / day 2,1,1,1,1
Sorcerer, Charisma score 24, save DC 17 + spell level, bonus spells / day 2,2,2,1,1,1,1
Tainted Scholar, Charisma score 24, save DC 16 + spell level, bonus spells / day 2,2,1,1,1,1
Sorcerer, Charisma score 30, save DC 20 + spell level, bonus spells / day 3,3,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1
Tainted Scholar, Charisma score 30, save DC 17 + spell level, bonus spells / day 2,2,2,1,1,1,1
It gets worse from there. You get the idea.
Being undead, the turning point is at a score of 24, and for outsiders it is at 25.
[/spoiler]

Comparison, Not Undead
[spoiler]
Point the FirstPoint the SecondOther Points on StatsEvaluation: Pros and Cons
[spoiler]
Pros
[spoiler]
1) Tainted Scholar gets the most spells per day. Any trick that can be used on the other stats, can be used to increase Wisdom too, and since the Depravity score you go insane at is [(Wisdom/4, round up) * 14] and the Tainted Scholar gains bonus spells based on Depravity +10. He gets the most out of each stat point: other classes get 1-1; he gets 1-3.5 out of each stat increase.
2) Feats, the Scholar gets them. All of those high-stats above have evil stuff, so any can devote themselves to an Elder Evil to get bonus feats, and all will likely accrue Taint, gaining those feats. But with the Scholar, it is not an assumption that he MIGHT, like the others, or that he CAN, he WILL get those feats. And feats are good.
[/spoiler]

ConsHow you make your wizard like a spontaneous caster
[spoiler]
So that is my synopsis. Tainted Scholar gets a lot of spells. War Weaver gets to buff the party quickly, breaking action economy. Effigy Master gets mini-mecha, which can get more broken than Gurren Lagann. Shadowcraft Mage, can do whatever he wants. Et cetera.

Incantatars, Planer Shepards, Illithid Savants, Beholder Mages, Dweomerkeepers, and Artificers get to own the world.

Tainted Scholar gets spells per day. Whoopee. Feats that others can get too, yay. And has to deal with the penalties of Taint in the process.
[/spoiler]

But, Wait! Hope for being broken Yet!

As you mentioned, the Ritual of Alignment from Savage Species can explicitly add the evil subtype.  So that's fairly easy.  (For some reason I thought that the Fiendish template gave you the evil sub-type as well, but blargh, it just gives you the Extraplanar subtype.  That seems silly.)

2)
Divine Minion[/spoiler]

End of Rant, feel free to post now.

[AriasDerros]

And the First Refutation

There is actually no line that says that the taint of an undead character is set and more cannot be accrued. Furthermore, the class ability makes no such distinction either, and it is distinct from the mechanic at large. Specific trumps general. It's like getting a class ability that says "when you use a power with ability burn, you take no burn" when ability burn powers state that you cannot use them if you prevent the burn.

[AriasDerros]

Also, before anyone else points this out, I do know there are ways to get more bonus spells per day than the example Tainted Scholar.  Some involve T.S. and many do not, but I feel my point was made for the purpose of that section.

[Phoenix00]

Tainted Sorcerer (UA) > Tainted Scholar (HoH)

[AriasDerros]

Tainted Sorcerer (UA) > Tainted Scholar (HoH)

I realize this.
However: the Scholar still gets thrown around a lot; many DM's don't allow UA (even when encouraging optimization); and in the thread that Kuro responded in, the question that prompted me to rant was "what makes Tainted Sorcerer > Tainted Scholar?"

So I responded with the fact that Tainted Scholar tricks don't work. My comment was refuted, so I decided I would detail my argument in a new thread, rather than derail an existing thread.

[RobbyPants]

So I responded with the fact that Tainted Scholar tricks don't work. My comment was refuted, so I decided I would detail my argument in a new thread, rather than derail an existing thread.

I didn't know that people used the Tainted Scholar for those tricks. I think I've always seen Tainted Sorcerer references. I've always assumed the Tainted Scholar was written to adapt the class to the new HoH taint mechanics, and possibly to plug a couple of holes in Unearthed Arcana.

[Unbeliever]

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. 

You can characterize this as an example of specific overriding general, or just common sense.  It seems bizarre that Gorkathok, Lichlord of Elder Dark cannot possibly do anything to increase his Taint score.  Ever. 

But, as others have stated, if you wanted to break Taint there's another ready option.  Not that I've ever been in a campaign that allowed a taint-based spellcaster to the table. 

[Solo]

So if the hivemind can think of a way to gain the Evil subtype, w/o being an outsider, then insanity is back on. (Savage Species rituals or wish options, maybe?)

Demonbinder from DotU, though it's a class for Warlocks and only applies when you're under the effects of a bind.

[Faithless tbe Wonder Boy]

As you mentioned, the Ritual of Alignment from Savage Species can explicitly add the evil subtype.  So that's fairly easy.  (For some reason I thought that the Fiendish template gave you the evil sub-type as well, but blargh, it just gives you the Extraplanar subtype.  That seems silly.)

[Nunkuruji]

Regardless of the legality of undead scores,

I've always found the taint rules particularly interesting for making (living) CON based casters, given that it generally controls the upper bound of your taint score. Granted, you generally still need to have a respectable WIS score as well.

Your 'old' primary casting stat need only be 13, or perhaps less with dirty tricks, to qualify for casting 3rd level spells before entering a tainted casting PrC. I don't think it's as MAD panic as you claim. The general rule is usually (PriCast > Con > something), and it becomes (Con > Wis > OldPri(13)). I'm pretty sure there are more Con/Wis bonus options for race/templates as well.

Another potential PRO is this nugget "All spells a tainted sorcerer casts are evil spells" (UA) or "All arcane spells you cast are evil spells" (HoH). Personally I interpret that as [evil], and you can do plenty of fun things when everything you cast is [evil], particularly with the Elder Evil feats you've already mentioned. I'm curious to how others interpret it, if at all. I think there are some DC boosters in there, so unless you're talking epic level ability scores, I think it's a wash anyways.

Tainted Sorc actually scales off full taint instead of 1/2, but is also capped by the wisdom penalty you're willing to take. I'm not sure how that really stacks up in the grant scheme of things.

I'll have to go dig up some books & notes on an old BBEG to see what I had actually come up with...

[AriasDerros]

@ RobbyPants
Google Tainted Scholar. Ignore this thread. the Scholar gets thrown around a lot. Most recently that I know of were: "Naberius: sacking your stats for fun and profit"; and "I want to destroy other spellcasters." And in actuality, there is the issue that the Sorcerer was written for a different, older version of the mechanic.

@ Unbeliever

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, ^[1]unless stated otherwise^[1].  

^[2]You can characterize this as an example of specific overriding general, or just common sense.  It seems bizarre that Gorkathok, Lichlord of Elder Dark cannot possibly do anything to increase his Taint score.  Ever.  <sup>[2]

[3]</sup>But, as others have stated, if you wanted to break Taint there's another ready option.^[3]  Not that I've ever been in a campaign that allowed a taint-based spellcaster to the table.  

1) There is no mention of an otherwise. There is no precedent for an otherwise given what-so-ever in this case. You can house rule it otherwise, but this is my interpretation of the RAW.

2) umm, okay. You do realize we're talking about the rules of D&D here, right? In this game, most people end up house-ruling the way certain skills or abilities work w/o realizing that they're doing so because SO MUCH of this game's rules are nonsensical by RAW. That is why we sometimes have to go by RAI, or house-rule, just to get things done. The issue is that RAI is up to the interpreter, and thus why I said at the top that Your Mileage May Very. Thus while it may make sense that Gorkathok would have a high taint, if you want him to gain the benefits of the Scholar's class, that would be an individual interpretation or a house rule. Bizarre, yes. Lacking in common sense, yep. No argument here, but RAW is RAW and RAI is RAI. I see no RAW that argues as yet.

3)
A) I have no personal desire to break Taint, this thread exists because there are those that still think this class can be used to gain exorbitant spells-per-day (somewhat true) and exorbitant spell save DC's just by being undead. I disagree with this.
B) The entire point I was trying to make is that taking the other options available were better for the purpose of min/maxing.

The main argument on the RAI, is what the "effective" affects. Do you even get the feats?
Also, it's hard to justify my viewpoint against yours when you state one interpretation, then recant it and post a different one. So you disagree with mine, yours and yours? I chose to refute the second in this case.

@ Faithless
 

@ Nunkuruji

Your 'old' primary casting stat need only be 13, or perhaps less with dirty tricks, to qualify for casting 3rd level spells before entering a tainted casting PrC. I don't think it's as MAD panic as you claim. The general rule is usually (PriCast > Con > something), and it becomes (Con > Wis > OldPri(13)).

I'm pretty sure there are more Con/Wis bonus options for race/templates as well.

@ Everybody

[Nachofan99]

AriasDerros,

I completely understand your argument and your interpretation, however, it all comes down to what "effective" means according to the RAW.  I have never seen something whereby the "Effective" level of something did not stack additively with bonuses.  Like if you get 1 "effective" level of Sorcerer somehow, and then take a level of Sorcerer, you are "effectively" level 2 sorcerer even if you do not have 2HD in Sorcerer or did not take 2 levels of it, etc.

I do not think "automatic" is meaningful rules text in this case, and I personally would not spend time on it.  Of course I understand your position.

[AriasDerros]

I completely understand your argument and your interpretation, however, it all comes down to what "effective" means according to the RAW.  I have never seen something whereby the "Effective" level of something did not stack additively with bonuses.  Like if you get 1 "effective" level of Sorcerer somehow, and then take a level of Sorcerer, you are "effectively" level 2 sorcerer even if you do not have 2HD in Sorcerer or did not take 2 levels of it, etc.

TYVM. The only argument that I have with this is that in every, and I do meant every, example of gaining effective Sorcerer levels it specifically states how it stacks, if you take levels in the class. The feats, the Kobold ritual, all of them. Specifically.

Taint says nothing of the sort for undead.

The precedent was set, but they didn't include the text for this. Thus why I interpret the mechanic the way I do. As Unbeliever pointed out, it would make a lot more sense. However, the text is not there.

[Nachofan99]

Believe me, I oftentimes interpret some of the rules *exactly* the way you are now.

Usually I filter and process it to make sense with the rules or house rules for the particular campaign I'm running or playing in, but other times I just let my mind wander in theory for a bit.

Would any rules text that better defines what "Effective" means pass muster for you, or will you never have that kind of proof because there is nothing written in the Heroes of Horror entry for Taint/Corruption *specifically* calling out any kind of exception or interaction?

[Bauglir]

But increasing your taint isn't a bonus, it's a change. If you have a special ability that says "Your Strength score is automatically equal to your level", then it doesn't matter if you level up and decide to boost Strength. Too bad for you, in that case.

[AriasDerros]

@ Nacho
IDK, right now my opinion is based on looking at the text, its lack of clarity, and making a judgement call based on precedent. In other words, if you have an example, show it. It may be what changes my mind, it may change the minds of others. It may not. Even if I refute it though (or if someone else does), it may be what leads to a definitive answer. We are here to learn from one another.

To that end though, even if my mind is changed, there are always going to be those that think differently. I've been taking a hard-line stance mostly just to see if someone could come up with something that was absolute RAW. I'll likely continue to do so, playing devil's advocate if need be. Honestly, with how many games actually run with Taint, we all must be bored.

Though, it would be nice to find a way to hack the mechanic outside of the most banned book in the game.


@ Bauglir
To what are you referring? Are you referring to the mechanic of Taint based off of Charisma?
If so then it sounds like you are agreeing with me, but your comment is out of context.

[Nachofan99]

@ Arias,

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.

[AriasDerros]

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?

[awaken DM golem]

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.

[Unbeliever]

@ Unbeliever

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, ^[1]unless stated otherwise^[1].  

^[2]You can characterize this as an example of specific overriding general, or just common sense.  It seems bizarre that Gorkathok, Lichlord of Elder Dark cannot possibly do anything to increase his Taint score.  Ever.  <sup>[2]

[3]</sup>But, as others have stated, if you wanted to break Taint there's another ready option.^[3]  Not that I've ever been in a campaign that allowed a taint-based spellcaster to the table.  

1) There is no mention of an otherwise. There is no precedent for an otherwise given what-so-ever in this case. You can house rule it otherwise, but this is my interpretation of the RAW.

2) umm, okay. You do realize we're talking about the rules of D&D here, right? In this game, most people end up house-ruling the way certain skills or abilities work w/o realizing that they're doing so because SO MUCH of this game's rules are nonsensical by RAW. That is why we sometimes have to go by RAI, or house-rule, just to get things done. The issue is that RAI is up to the interpreter, and thus why I said at the top that Your Mileage May Very. Thus while it may make sense that Gorkathok would have a high taint, if you want him to gain the benefits of the Scholar's class, that would be an individual interpretation or a house rule. Bizarre, yes. Lacking in common sense, yep. No argument here, but RAW is RAW and RAI is RAI. I see no RAW that argues as yet.

3)
A) I have no personal desire to break Taint, this thread exists because there are those that still think this class can be used to gain exorbitant spells-per-day (somewhat true) and exorbitant spell save DC's just by being undead. I disagree with this.
B) The entire point I was trying to make is that taking the other options available were better for the purpose of min/maxing.

The main argument on the RAI, is what the "effective" affects. Do you even get the feats?
Also, it's hard to justify my viewpoint against yours when you state one interpretation, then recant it and post a different one. So you disagree with mine, yours and yours? I chose to refute the second in this case.

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.