File: warpriest.jpg (1.27 MB, 2272x4400)

1.27 MB JPG

>>93361191
Fuck, I'm the kind that has issues choosing favorites.
The first name that came to mind was the Ordained Champion so I'll go with that instead of thinking too hard about it.
If I had to justify it, I'd say that the class has a good trade between a Cleric's power budget (of which it has plenty) and the addition of fun gimmicks.
It reinforces that warpriest/"divine gish" fantasy so well to me.

>>93361191
Math 3.5
Lol y’all mfers fr fr gay as hell. touch grass go outside talk to women. Of all the type of games in /tg y’all need it the most

>>93361191
Mind Mage. It might be a theurge class, but it's so cool that it doesn't matter and it has a bunch of useful features unlike most theurge(or prestiges in general, most of what WotC put out was garbage on that front)

>>93361191
Eternal Blade.

>>93361657
I have a wife and a toddler. It's not that difficult, and you dont need to be an antisocial lunatic to do the math. "touch grass."

What’s the ideal scenario for running a campaign for a group that only play storyteller (VtM, WtA and so on)? They’ve been asking me to run an adventure for a while, but knowing them, they’ll want intense roleplay.

>>93362535
Your wife is a gross unfeminine consumerlard, and your toddler is doomed to suffer under your awful tastes and grow up as inept and disgusting as you two dysgenic retards. I practically smell your vapes, funko pops, and sour sweat soaked rick and morty shirt from here. I bet gauge earrings are also part of the mix

This is what, the third thread this anon has been shitting up. Is the janny going to do their job or what?

>>93362836
>baseless insults
K.

>all that projecting
>vapes
nope
>Funko pops
ugly consumer junk trash.
>sweat soaked
neither of us sweat much, and we do laundry weekly and bathe and shower regularly.
>Rick and Morty
was kindof funny. Not funny enough to want dumb merch though.
>gauge earrings
gross.
0/5. Touch grass, loony.

You're just salty because you're too stupid to do basic arithmetic without a calculator, and also too stupid to set up an auto calculating character sheet if you don't want to do the arithmetic in your head.

Maybe some day you'll finish hifhschool and then you too will be able to handle a TTRPG that's calibrated for a higher level of mathematical and literary competence than found in the average Ethiopian 8 year old.

>>93362855
Third? The last two threads were the ESL guy who actually likes 3.5 just obsessively picking fights with everyone. I don't remember this guy who can't handle grade 2 math in the other threads.

>>93362935
Not in a row, remember when anons were trying to skub war over ToB? This guy was shitting 2 threads picking fights with both sides

>>93361191
>>93361329
Ordained champ is good, I really like Bone Knight though it's hard to get into without an OC dip. (And advancing both can cost three full CLs which is pain, especially when looking at 7 veils getting full progression)

>>93361191
Probably Red Wizard. I just like the concept of Circle Magic. And it is also pretty bullshit.

>>93362825
I guess my first question is why does the party want to play 3.5 specifically? Much as I love this system the balancing around the non-combat skills are notoriously lax, and a lot of the mechanics for social navigation are extremely barebones.

>>93362825
I'd probably take E6 to make the setting more grounded for them - mind you competent level 6 character is still very much bullshit - and then run something like rebellion in a city. Maybe use diabolists or even straight up devils as the big bads. Country was taken over by diabolists or devils puppeteering them from the shadows and for a couple decades it was basically a magocracy where people were run into the ground to collect their souls.

But, the results of such policie made the country militarily weak and it lost a multiple minor conflicts which made diabolists look weak. Add some internal political problems and the country gets ripe for a civil war.

PCs are bunch of guys who are organizing rebellion around a descendant of former royal family or some other noble. You can even make one of the PCs to be the main candidate for the throne as long as others get comparably weighty roles.

>>93362980
Oh right. Yes, I do vaguely remember that a few threads back. The math in 3e is really not that fucking hard, and it's not that hard to make a sheet that tracks your math for you in 2024, to use on either a laptop, or a tablet, or a phone, if you're lazy or have memory problems.

>>93362825
do they want 3.5 specifically, or do they just want you to run a fantasy game and you prefer 3.5?

if they want intrigue, consider looking at some of the procedures in the Alexandrian (party planning, the festival), and then see what you can get out of: FFG city works, WotC cityscape, Atlas Dynasties & Demagogues, and Atlas Crime & Punishment.

C&P locks investigation stuff to class features (a mistake) but you could likely adapt it to just skill usage.

File: undead ooze.png (454 KB, 1911x856)

454 KB PNG

I was thinking about how theres no dr x/piercing monsters like how we have skellies and zombies for bludgeoning and slashing. Oozes seemed like a good one; like I can see them have a stretchy bouncy rubbery membrane on the outside and a less viscous interior. Bludgeoning just squishes it, like punching a beanbag chair. Slashing too, like if youve ever tried to cut the fat on a thick steak with a regular knife, but a good point can find purchase and poke through.

However, pairing an ooze with two undeads to finish the triangle feels wrong. While looking up pictures of oozes and slimes and such on google, I saw that many depictions have eyes and mouths, or eye holes and mouth holes at least, which doesnt sense on an ooze, but it gave me an idea: an undead ooze (technically not an "ooze") that is like the lowest tier of ghost.

Incorporeal floating balls of light that have to manifest a physical form in order to attack, in which case they are an ooze similar to pic-related. Not sure what they actually *are*, or how a necromancer would make one; but them being undead and having something to do with souls is a reason for them to have a "face".

>>93361191
>What's your Favorite Prestige Class
Swiftblade by a mile. Yes its strong, but thematically its right up my alley, and it seems custom built to mix my favorite base class with my favorite school of magic: scout and transmutation.

>>93362914
quit responding to it
all they want is attention, insults are attention; it doesnt hurt their feelings

File: file.png (29 KB, 283x242)

29 KB PNG

>>93363974
If you need more visual inspiration, Hollow Knight has enemies called mistakes and follies of roughly that description. They're souls whose bodies have decayed and deformed into gelatinous masses.

>>93363996
That's fair. I tend to think that when someone says something stupid and you make that plain got everyone to see, they stop posting idiocy, but you're right, some people keep going. I'll ignore the dumbass.

>>93361191
Legendary Dreadnaught because of this:
>If an effect that would move the character either physically or magically does not normally allow a saving throw, the legendary dreadnought can use this ability (Unmovable, Ex) to gain a Will saving throw. He or she still gains the +20 bonus on the saving throw in such a case.
He can legally force a Will Save against gravity, as an extraordinary effect.

>>93364442
Fitting for an Epic.

File: 1630947604849.jpg (621 KB, 1920x2715)

621 KB JPG

What monster is this?

>>93363279
>>93363947
3.5 is just the one I'm most familiar with. They just want a fantasy game.

>>93364899
go with fantasycraft
its based on 3.5, but its designed to be cinematic/narrative-based
3.5 is for logistics/combat/exploration/loot nerds

>>93364908
fantasycraft has very little cross-compatible material though. If he goes FC he'll likely be dependent on converting stuff from 3.5/PF1, which is certainly an option.

>>93364899
you might also consider L&L black-book beta. its a finished game that failed at kickstarting for art to publish it. ita on the Alexandrian. 3.5 cross compatible, but simplified. Designed as 3.5 for newbies.

>>93364899
You could take a look at ICON. Still in development but it's designed to give everyone a combat and non-combat role so that no one's ever useless. Mechanics are pretty simple, but it has the same sort of modular design as 4e in terms of explicitly demarcating which keywords interact and how.

>>93364899
OH! They're all WoDguys right?

You might consider grabbing Ghosts of Albion + Dungeons & Zombies. Cinematic Unisystem feels very similar to WoD and they'll pick it up quickly. I haven't played it since ~2011, but it was alright, back in the day. I also liked OWoD Dark ages around the same time, but its not elves and dwarves and orcs.

>>93364899
anyways. you have some other options. nothing wrong with using 3.5, but it might be a bit crunchy for them. But if you run it a bit fast and loose and introduce the more fiddly rules as they want them, it could still work.

Suggested 3.5 house-rules for such a group:
1. Test-Based Prereqs from UA (its on d20srd).
2. Maybe ignore AoOs and some other more fiddly combat rules until they start to get the hang of things.
3. They level every 13 CR appropriate encounters. You can simplify that to a flat 4.3333 CR = APL encounters in XP per session for less tracking.
4. Choose a WBL replacement of your choice for less loot bean-counting.

They may not need those simplifications. but those 4 things will make 3.5 pretty beginner friendly.

>>93364861
A Female Human. An unpredictable creature that is far more dangerous than it first appears.

File: Thinking about Unbound Scroll.png (525 KB, 727x644)

525 KB PNG

>>93361191
>TQ
Unbound Scroll. It's not actually good, it's just got a few features that really activate my monkey brain. It works great for Artificer, my favorite base class. It reduces crafting costs for scrolls. It can even cast from scrolls without using them up. That's essentially free magic items! But, its limitations are... limiting. First off, it's very tightly tied to Eberron, a setting I don't get to spend much time in. It also requires gnome, a race that I hate, and Dragonmark feats, which I generally avoid. It loses a level of spellcasting and 5 levels of class features. Not a complete bust for the class-featureless Wizard, but to an Artificer delays Metamagic Spell Completion by 5 levels and falls behind on craft reserve. In exchange for all that, you get... a sixth level spell, once a day. Oh, and it can't have expensive or XP components. You get a couple of 4th level scroll castings for free a day, and a handful of 2nd level. If you take even more feats, you can up the amount of free scroll uses you get per day, but you know what else gives you free spells every day? Just being a straight-classes wizard, druid, cleric, or what have you. Then, you get up to 9th level spells, you get more feats, real class features for divine casters, and you don't have to worry about all the Eberron baggage.

If you're allowed to use the prestige class and its features, either because you're in Eberron or your DM has adjusted it for the setting you are in, there is one potential saving grace of the class. There's no limit to the caster level of scrolls you can cast without using up. If you can find lower spell level spells with high caster levels, like a 20th caster level Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon, Shield of Faith, or whatever works best for your party and what else you've got going on, then you can start using them every day from ECL 10 onward. This relies on being able to actually have access to the scrolls, however.

>>93367547
This reminds me that there's an Item I've been looking for, but can't remember the book. It's essentially a metal scroll that could be re-used.

>>93361191
>What's your Favorite Prestige Class
The best I can do is narrow the range down to Verdant Lord and Planeshifter. If I include the theurge-types, geomancer and many others make the list.

>>93364861
Would perhaps have to search in monster manuals by keywords to find a close match.
It
It clearly has the burrow movement ability, size Huge and start filtering from there. Can probably go down a size, filter for Large too and if there is a good monster match, can give it the advanced template to increase size.

>>93369218
Minor schema, from Magic of Eberron. IIRC, it's the only magic item that can explicitly hold an Artificer's infusion.

>>93364861
Me

>>93351317
As a newer DM, I found the same. Components and requirements of how to apply them is a huge part of keeping magic users in line.
In the example given, there is a huge difference between being able to run up to a freshly slain dragon slap your hand to its tail and 3 seconds later you have an undead minion vs. needing to get to its head specifically, spend at least a round placing the components into place and only than cast the spell.
PF1 version makes the spell significantly more powerful because a necromancer with invisibility and some good mobility enchantments now has a much easier time raising undead minions right in the middle of combat.
That said:
Our campaign is up to level 12 right now, and logistics of spell components are a huge limiting factor on the power of the group's cleric. Specifically right now, its the Diamond Dust component that the group is short on, and that's because I used the PF1 version of Restoration. And I did that specifically because I wanted vampires and wights to remain a problem.

>if this spell is used to dispel a permanent negative level, it has a material component of diamond dust worth 1,000 gp.

On a related note - I felt like our combat heavy game is raising levels a bit too quick for my comfort. So my solution was to start offering players to fulfill some of their in-game frivolous desires at cost of experience. Specifically those cases where player wants X, but doesn't quite satisfy the requirements - 'we can waive that requirement if you are willing to dip 10 to 20k xp points'
Mostly for things that don't quite aid encounter power, but improve their downtime roleplaying fluff.

>>93370130
Definitely not it. The item I'm talking about was called something like a steel/iron/[insert-other-metal] scroll, was for greyhawk, didn't require it's own feat, and was literally just a special material for making scrolls.

>>93371097
>On a related note - I felt like our combat heavy game is raising levels a bit too quick for my comfort.
Have you tried PF1's slow advancement for experience required? I like running combat-heavy games and that approach really helps out.

>>93371616
When our game started I went with PF1 standard exp track.I expected the game to be a meat grinder and wanted a relatively quick way for players to catch back up when they restart at level 1. In practice though, there were PC deaths but not nearly as many as I expected because after the first three deaths in the party, everyone started playing a lot more carefully, investing in contingencies, henchmen etc...
So I didn't really want to tell them 'you are guys are playing better than I expected so we are going to arbitrarily slow down you progress now'
This way that I am using, its up to them if they want spend their experience on these side opportunities I throw out. So far they jumped on almost every opportunity. I think they view the NPCs and base-building as being more permanent than their PCs (since I promised that I would kill them mercilessly if the dice declare it).

>>93371939
Then just adjust your campaign for the higher level. Your now free to throw more interesting monster builds and traps at them now that they're prepared to handle it. You've lucked the fuck out anon.

>>93372308
yes. in process of doing that. I just didn't expect the first game I would DM would be up to level 12-13 in less than a year. One of the reasons I aimed at a meat grinder was to knock PCs back to level 1 at every opportunity, so I wouldn't have to go into the deep end of the pool too soon. Anyway, I will just keep throwing dice adjusted CRs at them, eventually dice have to solve the problem for me.

>>93371939
It's always nice to get decent players willing to adapt and learn. My group's last campaign ended with the PCs around 13 and 16 being the highest. Had I used the 3.5 standard rather than the PF1 slow track, they would've been dipping their toes into epic levels with the amount of trouble they got into.
>>93373409
>I just didn't expect the first game I would DM would be up to level 12-13 in less than a year.
The above campaign I mentioned ran almost a year and half with regular sessions no less than twice a month. That was six PCs and a few pets that carved their way through the homebrew sandbox where the only thing that slowed them down was difficult terrain and obsession with monetizing every kill. Time really flies when a campaign just works and players stick to the schedule.

>>93373409
Even in a meat grinder you don't knock the PCs back to level 1. You put a level 1 character in a level 8 party and they're going to die again very quickly, on top of players getting frustrated at losing their relative strength and relative agency.

Just shy of 1 month and 58k words later, here's the first public version of my shitbrew. If anyone's interested in it, here it is: https://pastebin.com/3wx0KfQY

>>93374584
A suggestion anon, from mine.
Allow jump rules to both athletics and acrobatics.

>>93374584
>Average: 1 1/5+2/5/lvl
uhu?

>>93374584
Isn't the +6 threshold to AC for critical too low? How did you get that number?

>>93374584
The pathfinder bestiary baselines are solid, good idea anon

>>93374802
I actually do that at tables, I'll make a note of it.
>>93374812
Fractional BAB and saves work by adding the bonus from the save type (none for bad, 1 for average, 2 for good) and then adding the fraction. So the average save at level 3 would be 2 2/5. You never round up for those, so it'd be +2. But if you gained 4 levels, you'd add (8/5) and end up at +4. It was d20 Modern's middle save category.
>>93374826
Entirely possible it is, I was looking at what'd give a crit chance of about 5% if you had to roll a 10 to hit.

Does anyone remember the dragon magazine issue with the pet dogs and birds, and the magic houseplants?

I remember plane of air plant that made a huge quantity of fresh air, and a rock-skinned dog bred by Duergar.

>>93374882
>Entirely possible it is, I was looking at what'd give a crit chance of about 5% if you had to roll a 10 to hit.
Got to have a better look then. Thanks

>>93374882
For my shitbrew I have sn intermediate save that starts at +1 and ends at +9 at level 20th

>>93375283
Reasonable. for my homebrew (which is now a cpuple months in but some of that time has been campaign prep), I changed the formula and thus have 5 levels of saves from bad to good. Everything scales at half level, and it ranges from half level -2 to half level +2. This is equivalent at level 10, but with the same range spread from level 1-20.

>>93374584
the take 10/20 were implemented as a solution to the swinginess of the d20 to provide a modicum of standarised skill successes in simpler low DC checks (and they really should have been freely given out a lot more amongst classes), so i think there is that to consider.
I also dislike the use of attribute modifiers instead of attributes even if it simplifies the game, but it works best in a fixed array system, i guess.
What i vehemently hate is the PAthfinder skill list, not because it consolidated some skills (usually 2) into 1 but because it didnt do it for all the skills (and you didnt either) giving much greater weight to certain skills.

>>93376013
I'm not sure how much more folding you could do without it feeling a bit tortured. Disable Device and Sleight of Hand into Thievery, Disguise as a use of Bluff, Handle Animal, Diplomacy, and Intimidate into Persuasion, , Perform into Profession, Psicraft into Psionics, Spellcraft into respective knowledges, Survival into Knowledge(Nature)?

>>93376064
This is some folding i did but never got around to using because i stopped dming.
>Remove concentration(make it a caster level check or a wizardry check for casting on the defensive and a constitution check otherwise)
Ride(dex/cha)-Ride+handle animal(partial)
Athletics(str)-Climb+jump+swim
Acrobatics(dex)-Balance+Tumble+escape artist
Perform(cha)
Profession(wis)
Thievery(dex)-open lock+sleight of hand+use rope(partial)+disable device (partial)
Perception(wis)-spot+listen+sense motive(partial)
Deception(cha)-bluff+disguise
Influence(cha)-diplomacy+intimidate
Wizardry(int)-Knowledge arcana+spellcraft
Wilderness knowledge(int)-knowledge dungeoneering+knowledge nature
Survival(wis/cha)-Survival+use rope(partial)+Handle animal(partial)
Knowledge geography(int)-knowledge geography+knowledge local
Knowledge social(int)-Knowledge history+nobility+knowledge religion(partially)
Cosmic knowledge(int)-Knowledge religion(partially)+knowledge the planes
Stealth(dex)-move silently+hide
Mechanics(dex/cha)-use magic device+disable device (partial)
Linguistics(int)-Forgery+decipher script+speak language(partial)*(make learning new languages like a cantrip)
Knowledge sciences(int)-Knowledge architecture and engineering+any other science related knowledge
Craft(int)-Craft+appraise(partial)
Investigate(wis/int)-gather information+search+sense motive(partial)
Medicine(wis/int)-heal+craft(medicine)

>>93376190
That's really nice.
I'd personally keep knowledge arcane, religion, planes, and nature separate simply because I like what each of those represent, but that's me.
I'd probably still fold spellcraft into K:Arcana like you did however.

>>93375283
>>93375686
Here it is if interested. Feedback is in fact appreciated
1st +1
2nd +1
3rd +2
4th +2
5th +3
6th +3
7th +3
8th +4
9th +4
10th +5
11th +5
12th +5
13th +6
14th +6
15th +7
16th +7
17th +7
18th +8
19th +8
20th +9

>>93377815
If I correctly interpreted the d20 modern SRD, yours would be
>>93375283
>>93375686
1st +1
2nd +2
3rd +2
4th +2
5th +3
6th +3
7th +4
8th +4
9th +4
10th +5
11th +5
12th +6
13th +6
14th +6
15th +7
16th +7
17th +8
18th +8
19th +8
20th +9

Correct? This one seems better quite frankly.

>>93377901
That's it, yes.

For a while now I've been considering buffing the shit out of armor to make martials stronger at higher levels.
It'd essentially just be using the existing sunder and cover rules in a new way, Armor provides a number of temp HP equal to its item hp and its hardness absorbs damage to the wearer. Any armor that provides +4 or more to AC also acts as modified cover(+2 to reflex, immunity to AoO, no hide bonus, treated as if having Evasion, and line of effect broken for touch/ray spells[they target the armor instead of creature]), any armor providing +8 or more acts as modified improved cover(+4 to reflex, immunity to AoO, no hide bonus, treated as if having Improved Evasion, and line of effect broken for all spells[target armor instead of creature]).

>>93378216
i don't get the immunity to Aoo from simply wearing armor and i generally find this kinda meh but I think conceptually buffing armor is a decent way to buff martials because most monsters dont use armor so you dont break the internal balance of the game from the side of encounters.
Give it a try and tell us how it has worked for you.

>>93378216
I'd be pretty concerned about Clerics

>>93378216
I modified some PF1e fighter ACFs for shields that do that, smaller ones give evasion towers give IE.
I am toying with having armor that gives a small DR but like this anon said there are concerns >>93378338
Also it kinda removes the special aspect of the barbarian's DR.

>>93378328
>i don't get the immunity to Aoo
Same reasons as cover, there's a thing in the way of you attacking. My logic was that AoO happen as a reaction, basedou can't aim your shot as well as if it were your turn.
>>93378338
Easiest fix is have "breaks line of effect" work both ways. Self buffs become harder because the armor is in the way and firing a spell in too much armor has it go off Inside.

>>93378216
I've said it a million times before and I'll say it again, the problem in 3.5 is casters being too strong, not martials being too weak.

>>93378445
>Also it kinda removes the special aspect of the barbarian's DR.
They also don't get anywhere near enough DR for their level and DR doesn't do anything to magic. Barbarians and other martials need a number of buffs in a lot of different areas.

>>93378491
>I want a lower fantasy
Not everyone wants that anon.
Verification not required.

>>93378497
eh, it adds up. DR for PC (I repeat: for PCs) is supposed to support them for a long list of fights.
One should never compare PCs and NPCs DR.
This is why BTW DR for monsters should go back to 3.0 in some way.

>>93378491
Martials don't stack up great against monsters after a point, so no. You really need the power builds to hold your own later.

>>93378491
Mix of both, better to meet in the middle. Upper middle, in fact, because levelling should be meaningful and low and high level play radically different.

>>93378491
both are a problem and it is systemic besides the overturning of spellcasters.
The game punishes you the more you roll. The martial needs to succeed in a number of rolls to do the same damage a wizard does by declaring the use of a spell rolling nothing auto succeeding casting on the defensive checks etc.

People wanting to buff things upwards because it is easier will eventually face a wall and stop there either satisfied, or they will consider a massive overhaul, or finally a different system

I'd like to try and play a campaign with no changes to the system other than a large list of banned spells and powers.
Literally just ban stuff like most Summons, Grease, Divine Power, SoD, etc, spells that allow casters to be way too good at something or that just solve issues wholesale, narrow caster's toolbo by a whole lot, just to see how the game works as an experiment to test my own ingrained assumptions.

>>93378531
That argument falls apart with cheap and easy wand healing long available by the time PCs get DR.

>>93378594
>>93378690
I think the conversation was more constructive when people proposed rules instead of whining.

>>93378706
No, because the DR will make you use less charges anon.
This is actually an argument in favor - it must mitigate resource consumption - a PC issue - not just give avoidance.

>>93378732
It does, but wands are also so cheap that charges have long since ceased to be a concern. By the time Barbarians get DR 1 a single PC has 19k WBL.

>>93378507
In my experience it's typically less "too high of fantasy" and more "too trivial of fantasy". The Wizard can have godlike power fit to make a mockery of mundane concerns, but it should actually have costs and risks to that benefit non-casters can pressure to defeat them. Basically Conanesque encounters, where 90% of the trouble is getting in stabbing range through all the bullshit and the last 10% once there is usually not a big deal.

>>93378776
I am >>93378445
I also changed Wands to be more 5e like.

Additionally, I clarified the magic item availability - it's not a magic mart, the settlement just indicates if the item has a chance to be there, and its acquisition is not automatic like buying something at the supermarket.
It was like that before too, but CharOpt cretins pushed for this interpretation and internet ate it up.

Now trying to rework crafting.

>>93378830
>Now trying to rework crafting.
You checked out this yet?
>https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm

>>93378531
It adds up in saving you small amounts of healing against weak enemies, but it doesn't mater at all against the big fights were monsters have so many HD and natural attacks that they're able to power attack your entire health pool twice over. It only gets worse as levels go up and fights become rocket tag.

>>93378830
I mean, the game says anything below the GP limit of a community is most likely available, magical or otherwise.

>>93378902
Thank you anon. I had to specify - crafting magic items with specific prerequisites, formulas, plans, and so on.
For one, I gave Craft feats the prerequisites
>Caster level 5th OR Craft [XXX] 8 ranks

>>93378944
Not entirely correct but I am not going to argue with a min-maxing autist that cannot imagine a bunch of lower level enemies.
I would say that in case this points supports DR for armor, maybe starting with 1/- or 2/- for the heaviest

>>93378507
What would you define as high fantasy? Stuff that happens in the Drizzt novels? I don't think rebalancing the rules necessarily even affects the tone of the "fiction" so to speak.

>>93378551
>Martials don't stack up great against monsters after a point, so no.
To an extent yeah, but the monsters also need some rebalancing as well. The math of the game is what's really broken.

>>93378584
True. I would rather see the entire system changed rather than simply buffing armor (which favors only armored characters).

>>93378531
>This is why BTW DR for monsters should go back to 3.0 in some way.
That made some of the monsters ridiculously hard to kill to the point it made the game less fun because you wouldn't want any abilities on your sword because you needed that +4 enhancement bonus to be able to actually deal damage and not have it reduced by 40 per hit.

>>93364861
A Nigrasaurus Bixnoodi

>>93378782
A lot of those balance issues dry up when DMs doesn't go by the 30 minute adventuring day model and actually enforce the bookkeeping involved with spellcasting rather than giving casters unlimited hand-wavium. Tracking material components, protecting foci against sundering, spellbook page limits, and limited spell slots with no assurance you'll have 8 uninterupted hours of rest all work to make spellcasting less of an easy "I win" and more of a powerful weapon with extremely limited ammo.
Verification not required.

>>93379031
>Spell Component Pouch
>A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.

>>93378999
Do you play anything other than e6 anon?

>>93379044
Sure, they get enough to cast ant of their known spells once. Now they need to refill it.

>>93379052
No, that's not how that works.

>>93379044
Pretty sure that was what anon was referring to by "unlimited hand-wavium"

>>93379061
I know, however the way is does work is retarded and genuinely breaks the gamefor the sake of laziness. If you don't want to keep track of components, you can play a whole host of classes like warlock, binder, incarnate, psion, etc.

>>93379009
>That made some of the monsters ridiculously hard to kill to the point it made the game less fun
eh - damage also increased in 3.5
Old DR + new damage, or new DR + old damage would work.

>>93379046
Is this an attempt to strawman? Sad.

>>93379065
You aren't 'enforcing bookkeeping' when you conjure into existence bean counting that wasn't supposed to be there. All Eschew Material Components is is a spell component pouch as a feat.

>>93378956
>available
Which doesn't mean necessarily magic-mart.
Maybe the church has it, and needs a quest. Maybe you need to contact the rogue guild, or get friendly with an artisan guild.

>>93379115
>you conjure into existence bean counting that wasn't supposed to be there
Anon, why the fuck are there material components if you aren't supposed to keep track of them?
Do you think you aren't supposed to track arrows or encumberance either?

>>93379143
Spell components are there because of tradition, and if arrows had a nonmagical Quiver item for 15 GP and the Quiver item said you count as having all the nonmagical arrows you need to shoot a bow, I'd say you aren't supposed to track arrows. But they don't.

>>93379166
>because of tradition
And why is that tradition in place anon? Its a balancing mechanic for keeping casters in check and limiting specific spells. Notice how the edition they made way too many ways to circumvent it was the same addition where 90% of the complaints about casters began?

>>93379052
Even then, next time they get in town they will buy something like 20 or 30 of the and forget them for a couple of levels at last, the same way an archer will buy a couple hundred arrows and forget about it for a couple of levels

>>93379200
If they're available to buy in the first place.

>>93379196
the problems begin and end with the ability to recharge your spells outside of town. You could recharge spells in the wilderness or in dungeons in Adnd and full rest was only available in civilisation.
This simply changes things for spellcasters too much and also diminishes the value of one time use potions or scrolls because there is always the next day for those buffs.

Also players feel personally targeted and get salty when you throw night encounters at them 5 sessions in a row not letting the casters rest and restore their spells (not saying that you shouldn't)

>>93379196
The entire point of the Component Pouch is removing the constant source of obnoxious tangents for relatively minor benefits, because nobody writing 2e spells was concerned with how their acquisition would affect the gameplay loop. Spellbooks are also less troublesome than 2e, as preparing out of them takes FAR less downtime, acquiring contents is much more reliable, and many of the spells are simply less penned-in to begin with.

It's a genuine system problem because WotC did in fact gut the costs and risks like a particularly sadistic fisher. You can DM around SOME of it, but you have to overrule what's in the book quite often and a lot of the countermeasures are bullshit-level swings to basic campaign functions.

>>93379200
>>93379229
>Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use
The limitations on spellcasting should be natural to engage with in the campaign, not the above-mentioned 2e problem of constant tangents, and the wording on general rest requirements makes such a sheet-shredding slog. You still have the TSR editions for that, 3.5 can be fine taking just one or two steps back from the twenty or so forward to clear the actual campaign-breaking extremes of the issue without backsliding all the way to basic overland travel being a life-threatening logistical gamble.

>>93379229
>diminishes the value of one time use potions or scrolls because there is always the next day for those buffs
In my experience, potions and scrolls became more useful and powerful because they didn't require components or spell slots.
Granted, my player casters became habitual crafting-hounds when we playtested things. They spent far more time using one-use and charged items while saving slots for emergencies(which was honestly fine, there were no issues with overpowered spells or casters outdoing any class in their specialty).

>>93378216
Death due to HP loss is the least of martial problems.
-HP grows 10 to 20 times over the levels.
-Damage grows 5 to 10 times without even really trying that hard.

Speed - fuck you.
Defense against spells and other effects - fuck you
Skills - fuck you gently
Battlefield control - fuck you

Each martial class at best can claim one of those niches besides the HP/Damage. That's why a good chunk of them are Tier 5-4 with ToB getting to 3.

>>93379742
>Each martial class at best can claim one of those niches besides the HP/Damage.
Monk's slightly above half assed on all of them, in an excellent mirror of VoP that numerically fits together quite well. A whole load of not good enough.

So if I was looking for a concise place to find an SRD , and Epic 6/8/10 reference, what would be the best page/site for that?

>>93380262
d20srd and dndtools should cover most of your needs for referencing rules.

dungeons.fandom has all the basic rules for E6.

File: GrandandIntoxicating.jpg (57 KB, 600x800)

57 KB JPG

>>93380332
Thank you Kindly.

>>93379742
>Defense against spells and other effects
This was the largest thing I was tackling. Breaking line of effect, evasion, and boosts to reflex saves help with that. I'm half-considering throwing "mettle"(evasion for fort and wis) on heavy armor too.

>>93379166
>Spell components are there because of tradition
They are also there because it's a trope, and D&D often imitates existing tropes in fiction and legends. Which I am completely for BW

>>93380478
I'd also recommend to check out Incantations subsystem. It's semi-freeform ritual magic. Good thing to give to NPCs and to spruce up wizard's bag of tricks after level 6.

>>93380262
To be more specific than >>93380332, this is the "enhanced" SRD of dndtools:
>https://srd.dndtools.org/
Doesn't have the search functions of dndtools proper and is well away from feature-complete on non-OGL content, but if you've got the name it'll usually be faster. If you need a specific sourcebook PDF to double-check, most of them will show up if you search "D&D 3.5" followed by their name then "PDF", and most of the time you can find at least one that's downloadable.

>>93380812
This is good advice (different anon).
I am working on a shortened spell list but if one applies a "severe" banlist, can think about re-introducing spells with a limitation that are incantations.
I personally don't like that much, but the way many people would prefer playing, it seems, it can be the solution they need.

>>93376013
Take 10's also supposed to cut down on pointless rolling.

>>93377901
>>93375686 here.
Mine is a bit different than his. Your bad saves matter at low levels, and your bad saves are still relevant at high levels. I don't tend to do L1 games, whereas his is a variant on E6. So in practice his will cut off at the Level 6 mark, whereas mine will start at the L6 mark.

"Bad"
1. -2
2. -1
3. -1
4. 0
5. 0
6. +1
7. +1
8. +2
9. +2
10. +3
11. +3
12. +4
13. +4
14. +5
15. +5
16. +6
17. +6
18. +7
19. +7
20. +8


"Medium"
1. 0
2. +1
3. +1
4. +2
5. +2
6. +3
7. +3
8. +4
9. +4
10. +5
11. +5
12. +6
13. +6
14. +7
15. +7
16. +8
17. +8
18. +9
19. +9
20. +10

"Good"
1. +2
2. +3
3. +3
4. +4
5. +4
6. +5
7. +5
8. +6
9. +6
10. +7
11. +7
12. +8
13. +8
14. +9
15. +9
16. +10
17. +10
18. +11
19. +11
20. +12

>>93380993
>-2
Brutal

>>93377815
I think that's fine. It doesn't fix the gap being too big at 20, but you're doing an E6 variant where it won't be a huge range between bad and good saves.

>>93380993
Since I'm doing an Eclipse based thing, the automatic scaling follows the good save progression of half level, and a class may start you out on the good track for a save at L1. multiclassing won't affect your saves at all unless you buy it up (which you can do if you take a level of a class that's good at a particular save, put you will have to spend the points on it to raise it from (Lv/2)-2 up to (Lv/2)+2).

>>93381030
At 20th the gap is 3. You allude to this anon perhaps >>93380993
Which starts lower but ends up higher?

>>93381002
>-2
>Brutal
If they want it less rough, they are welcome to train it up or spend points to buy it up during chargen though. That's just the baseline.

>>93381040
No, the anon you think I was referring to is also me. I thought the >>93377815 anon was just adding a medium track, but still keeping the low track, so from low to high it's still a gap of 6 at 20., but with no way to buy it up, whereas I have a built in gap of 5 at all levels, but the people with low saves can buy them up.

>>93381078
That said, I may tweak the progression a bit. That gap of 5 is an arithmetic error, albeit one that looks nice, given that the number to remember is -2 to +2 (because the Half-ECL part is always the same). I was originally aiming to mimic the gap size from low to high at level 10, but that would be a range of 4 rather than a range of 5, and -1 to +2 is a bit clunkier to remember. It would be a bit nicer on the low saves, and people might feel it less necessary to buy it up.

>>93381109
Nope, I'm a dumbass, I did get it right the first time. I matched the level 10 gap from low to high properly, and I got it wrong today.

File: sonsofgruumsh.jpg (92 KB, 722x290)

92 KB JPG

Bump

>>93385452
So as I do some footwork for epic eight eberron game (working title e3), let me run some ideas by and see how people react.
>This is for Epic 8 where it needs repeating
• How would people react to bringing back 'Dead at 0 Hp' Rules. Would it make a big difference if I give those 'buffer' negative HP back as regular Hp, character could start at 10+Max HD Hp?
• How attached as people to PrC? Just looking thru Eberron most of them seem pretty tame, and from the DMG most of those seem pretty lame. I feel like 3.5 was known for it's endless PrC but looking thru Dnd tools at the end it seems like the move was to 'custom classes' entirely (and for epic 8 that makes a certain amount of sense). how would pushing people towards 'basic' and eberron based settings be received generally?
• Now that we've had ahh 20 years and 3 editions, what is the best implementation for Warforged. Is the 3.5 Haha half healing too punishing?
• Same question but for Monks
• Is getting rid of Sorcerer/ Merging spontaneous casting from the class list (cleric) or spell book (wizard) going to ruffle feathers?
• I always felt that the implimentation of Dragonmarks in Eberron 3.5 was underwhealming at best. Is a 3 or 5 level Pr. class that doesn't impeed spellcasting or gives very basic spellcasting (similar to magewright) the best way to go about this?
• If you were going to 'rebuild the core class list' from dnd 3.5 classes what would you include.

>>93385845
1. You'd be lacking rules for bleeding out and being knocked unconscious.
2. PrCs add flavor, the base classes are a bit boring by comparison. They're fine, but you might want other ways to customise. IIRC the common e6 approach is to make PRCs you can start at level 4. I like the Quest based progress variant.
3. I never liked Warforged. I would rather let players play a real construct. You'll need to wait for someone else to chime in on this one.
4. Monks: the rework on the Ruscumag blog or at least an optimised PF1 qinggong monk build.
5. sorcerer, cleric: probably with some, but all that matters is your personal group. you lost me at e8.
6. Dragonmarks. I dunno I feel like you ideally want those as feats, or maybe perhaps as magic items if they can be attached on in-play.
7. Class List. They'd get overhauled, but this:
Ranger, an Inquisitor/Warpriest, Blade-Singer/Arcane-Archer (Maybe PF1 Magus), Wizard, Priest, Druid, Bard. Only three spell lists, no spontaneous casting, no 'know all spells'.

>>93385845
You need some bleeding out and dying rules. If you remove that replace it with something.

I don't care for Prcs in an E8 game. I wouldn't play a low level E game for the Prc shenanigans.

About Warforged i would just use the 3.5 race. I don't care about half healing. the race is straight up busted.
If you find the monk lacking (and most do) just use any of the fixes that float around the net. Even a simple full BAB, 6 skill points per level and making slowfall decent or acf replaceable with something setting specific for extra flavour is enough imo

Yeah. Dont merge the sorcerer and the cleric. This change would be enough for me to not play in your game.

I would probably handle them like a minor/major bloodline. Sink some experience and get some levels in dragonmark bloodline.
The other way is to simply give a shit ton of feats to the players so they can actually invest some on dragonmarks.

I wouldn't for the most part. Just add more classes and change the things i dislike in the existing ones.
Definitely remove the "know all spells" feature of divine classes, restricting them to their niche/their deity's domains

>>93385845
1. No one will ever be able to fall unconscious. And considering the damage you can put out after level 6 there gonna be a lot of dead people. Including PCs. I used death at -HP for E6 and it was nowhere near forgiving.
2. PrCs are nice ti spice the things up. Hell even in E6 some of them offer interesting opportunities since a lot of things that would not be worth it to cultivate in a normal game in E6-8 become pretty viable.
I also used gestalting - after level 6 you can buy feats or levels with EXP. Thing is level cost as much as if you were advancing to levels 7-8-9-etc. in a normal game and you get to gestalt other classes for those levels. So if a player got exp for 18 level he can be 6/6/6 in three different classes layered on top of each other.
3. In my experience 3.5 warforged works perfectly fine. Especially if they get to add their racial feats after level 8. Again while in normal play they would be good but not great in E6-8 the calculations change a lot.
4. Pure monks suck. But Eberron has Tashalatora so Monk/Psychic Warrior or Monk/Ardent is very much viable ways to do it.
5. That seems like some strange bullshit.
6. If you want to make them stronger allow to pay for use of Dragonmark abilities with spell slots or PP.
7. Too much work for too little gain.

>>93385845
I mean, Eberron PRCs wise Bone Knight is really interesting, though you would odnly get to ONE interesting feature (Stun and nonlethal damage immunity) of it in Epic 8, and only if you went in as Paladin (Intended, but suboptimal vs cleric)

>>93390103
This https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/93052144/#93067200

File: Shields.png (2.3 MB, 1272x841)

2.3 MB PNG

Anybody ever make rules/stats for more realistic shields?

>buckler
>round
>kite
>heater
>scutum
>pavisse

I know they *roughly* conform with buckler/light/heavy/tower, but I'm just curious

>>93387644
Some of the Eberron classes are better then the other obvious options, but I was thinking of just making a flat rule that all of the 5 level Eberron PRC's can be opted into at 4 (aka you can fit the whole 5 level class in E8) and just put all of the requirements as 'You must find a mentor/trainer and convince them to train you/introduce you into this fellowship/inquisition, etc.
>Gestaulting
It's interesting, I sort of wonder if 'replacement levels' wouldn't be a better option. You would convert a basic class level into the PrC class levels (making those 10 level prC's that eberron is a little fond as like advanced classes).
>monk
That's fair. Honestly getting rid of all the psionic/monk/ wouldn't bother me but I know some people like it.

Thanks for the feedback, A fair amount of this definitely seems like too much work for too little gain

>>93390596
>>93390596
Mind you, you maybe don't want anyone in an Epic 8 to actually replace enough base levels to get eight levels of Bone knight because that gives them a massive list of immunities when the armor seals to them.

At 8th level, your bonecraft armor fuses to your body and cannot be removed without killing you. However, you gain immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, disease, death effects, fatigue, exhaustion, ability damage to your physical ability scores, ability drain, energy drain, and death from massive damage.

I guess if you can't replace your first level you get the nonlethal and stunning immunity and free 50% fortification vs crits, plus most of the fun necromancy options like intelligent 3hd skeletons/6hd zombies. You only miss out on the 8th level immunities list, 9th level 1/day deathstrike, and 10th level full crit immunity.

>>93390630
Yeah that seems a bit much for Epic 8. Letting them take it at 5th level (for Paladin or Cleric) Let's them get a fair amount of damage reduction, the key things to control and bolster undead, steed and immunity for stuns. And gives the 'epic' option for fill the ranks and bonecraft wepaons.

I think I'm more leaning to 5 nations for more PrC and Players guide to Eberon for feats.I guess the one PrC I would sort of consider making a regular class is dark lantern Silver pyromancer is great, Dark Lantern is good, Knight phantom is okay and Cyrean Avenger just hard to integrate.

So out of the in the book classes and the ones I listed, basically they would all require level 3 (Taking the first PrC level at 4th) with the exceptions being taking Dragonmarked Heir at level 3 (Req's level 2), Taking Master Inquisitive at 3 (Req's level 2), Taking Bone Knight at 5 (Req. Level 4 Cleric or Paladin). That means the 10 level classes basically get transformed into 5 level classes with a few exceptions (And the level 6 and 7 abilities if they exist becoming epic feats, the same as the other classes).

That still leaves what to do with the Action points which never seemed that great. But thanks again for the feedback.

>>93390925
Replacing down to baseclass 2 BK6 lets them get their talking skeletons and to make a Bonecraft Weapon. But no 50% crit resist

>>93390484
I am working on shields right now, nothing definitive but
+1 bucklers
+2 heater, larger targes, rotellas
+3 large kite, large aspis, some large africsn etc
+4 towers like pavise (and that chinese equivalent(, scutum, war door

+3 only fighters, cavaliers/knights and paladins. +4 fighters only (occasional PRC).

I am now working on a system for parry and block. Some shields in the same categories can add an additional +1 to the block attempt, others I will add bonus for defensive combat, others will be slighlty better for shield bash, other will have special rules like the pavise, or more practical in strapping.

For the above, I am ALL for suggestions and amends.

>>93391424
What about stuff like shields that protect the mount too?

>>93391451
I wanted to give that one to the large kite in the very least, of you have other types that deserve that, please add anon

>>93391424
I was thinking something like individual bonuses for each
like
>round: +1 AC to adjacent allies in a shieldwall
>heater: +1 additional AC vs melee attacks (if you aren't denied your dex bonus)
>kite: +1 additional AC vs ranged weapons and +1 AC to your mount
with all three being "heavy shields"

>>93391554
>>round: +1 AC to adjacent allies in a shieldwall
I like this - in fact, are there rules for shieldwalls and testudo?

>>93391626
It's a feat in Heroes of Battle. If you're adjacent to an ally with a shield while you're using one, your base shield bonuses increases by 2.

>>93391626
complete warrior as well, iirc

>>93391634
Thanks. I will think about adding it as a general option for people proficient with shields, but I would prefer that the rule makes you add a bonus to your ally, not yourself.
In any case, I will read anon, thanks.
I also appreciate the idea that some shield is more suited for phalanx/formation

>>93391634
>>93391665
A fucking feat? Yeah that needs to be a general thing.

>>93391688
should require you to squeeze in and share squares, not 5ft apart.

>>93391969
Very good point, 2-3 people per square before you can spill into the next.

>>93390484
The problem is that it's hard to do with how AC works. To have the space to properly differentiate shields you'd need to move to something closer to 4e where attacks can have bonuses or just straight up target different defenses.

So Instead of Full/Touch/Flat + Fort/Ref/Will you would have Parry/Armor/Ref/Fort/Will
Where bonuses from armor and shield do not stack directly.

This way you can go from +1 to around +10 for both armor and shield and then have different attack types/weapons/monsters have bonuses against different defenses.

Flail +5 vs Parry
Giant +5 vs Parry/Armor
AoE +5 vs Ref

And so on.

Or you need to accept constant damage tracking for shields and make Hardness/HP for items to make sense and not the half assed bullshit as it is now.

>>93392608
>Flail +5 vs Parry
I am this anon >>93391424
(certain) Flails indeed for me have an ability that goes around shields and gives penalties to parry and block.

>>93394887
The problem, as I said, is that you don't really have the space for the bonus differentiation with current AC setup. You basically have 1-5 for the shields themselves and 1-5 for magic bonus. Which is meh.
Though you can of course make flails and co outright ignore shields

Alternatively you could a choice for the character during defense if they want to parry or block - parry gets the normal bonus and block gets way bigger bonus but shield gets damage.

Question for any no-games anons here. I’m up for running solo pbp stories or simple encounters for any builds or characters you would like to try out. Nothing grand, just something to pass the time until you find an actual group. Is there any interest for this?

>>93395498
I do have a semi-regular table, but
>pbp
love that shit.
I'd be up for it.

>>93395531
johngr98 on Discord

>>93395193
>The problem, as I said, is that you don't really have the space for the bonus differentiation with current AC setup.
1 to 4 basic bonus for shields with a +1 to +5 enhancement is, in fact, up to a 45% change in hit rate using a flail.

>>93395193
>Alternatively you could a choice for the character during defense if they want to parry or block - parry gets the normal bonus and block gets way bigger bonus but shield gets damage.
I took the parry and block from ToB - namely elaborating Wall of Blades, mostly.
Here's my idea. Parry and Block are options. You can parry as a prepared (Standard) action if you are armed, and you can Block if you have a shield.
You can parry melee attacks, you can block melee and ranged. Also block attempts add the BASE shield bonus (e.g. a tower is better than a buckler - albeit bucklers have different advantages, namely being usable for parries).
You parry if you roll over the attack. You block if you roll equal. Use of combat expertise and defensive combat penalties don't apply to parry and block attempts. Follows 1/2

>>93395193
>>93395862
2/2
If you have improved Block or Improved parry, you can choose one of these in combat with the respective maneuver
a) You can now prepare a parry or block as a move action, allowing you to fight with 1 attack while being defensive
b) You can choose to sacrifice one of your attacks during a full attack. That attack can be used to parry or, if it's a shield attack, to block.

If you TWF, you can prepare a parry per arm. Certain weapons (swords, certain spears and polearms) allow to prepare multiple parry, and you can prepare X blocks, where X is the base shield bonus number - as long as you have available attacks to give up for these.
In this way albeit I give more combat option, I don't add rolls and keep choices meaningful. A 1 roll in the Parry or Block attempt counts the attacker's roll as a Sunder attempt.
You can combine this with other feats. If you have a "Dual Strike" feat to hit with TWF as a standard, you can move and prepare a parry and a block (or 2 parries depends what you are wielding) in the same Standard. You have a Reposte feat that grants AOOs on succesful parries. You have the ability to parry rays and block/reflect spells if you unlock certain knowledge and you have the Mage Slayer feat.

>>93395862
Oh, I forgot - if you have deflect arrows, you can parry them.

>>93395862
No one would use it. Anything above Immediate Action is outright useless as a defensive option outside of a few corner cases that happen like once or twice per adventure.

Why the fuck would I spend Standard Action on parrying shit when I can smack someone in the face for 20-50 damage with Power Attack? Dead people don't make attacks. Therefore I don't need to parry them.

>>93396428
That's the basic combat option. My bad
This
>b) You can choose to sacrifice one of your attacks during a full attack. That attack can be used to parry or, if it's a shield attack, to block.
Would indeed consume an immediate.

If everyone has it as a combat option that doens't consume attacks, it would be spammed. I am happy to hear from you an idea on how to avoid that.

In 3.5, some prestige classes have free action feints that they can do every 1d4 or 2d4 rounds, I presume i could work on something like that.

>>93396536
>If everyone has it as a combat option that doens't consume attacks, it would be spammed.
True, I do recall how heavily WHFRP and DH relied on the dodge and parry, but that was because those were almost your ONLY line of defense since it was a very rocket tag system.

>>93396536
>In 3.5, some prestige classes have free action feints that they can do every 1d4 or 2d4 rounds, I presume i could work on something like that.
To elaborate on that - I could allow more as parry and block options once the BAB scales up, while the feats could allow "unprepared" parry/blocks every 1d4 or 2d4 rounds, in the same way those classes have such interval for feint.
I also want to expand feints BTW, allowing that option outside of PrCs.

Thank you for the frank feedback anon.

>>93396536
I once had a parry/riposte system but I gave it up a long time ago.

Anyway, I added a shield enhancement to my current houserules that I think you'd find interesting:
>"Deflecting" enhancement for shields, grants shield AC bonus to touch AC vs spells & spell-like abilities, is a +1 enhancement on its own and is included with the Reflecting enhancement
players could block rays and orbs and shit

>>93396636
I like it.
I think these things for shields are essentially required.
I am tinkering with pathfinder's "shield is now touch AC/reflexes" class options as something to import.

The spell reflect above in fact - I was tinkering with magic shields OR shields made with specific metals or woods that can resonate and reflect magic.

>>93396636
>>93396660
Technically there are feats to do it.

>>93396691
Yeah. I have a character with that Parrying Shield feat.

>>93396636
>>93396636
I also like the fact you CAN add your regular AC to touch but it's a 2 feat chain, but very annoyingly 3 if you're not naturally psychic.

>>93396636
>I once had a parry/riposte system but I gave it up a long time ago.
What made you give up?
BTW this
>>93395862
>>93395866
Is already allowing more than what the optional swashbuckling rules in Dragon Magazine allowed.

Heyhey guys. Are there any reasonable valued feats or traits that just grant class skills? I'm trying to figure out exactly how much it's worth to have a skill as a class-skill. I want to use it with Eclipse, which is a little wishy-washy on the subject for my tastes, and I would like to have something a bit better nailed down. So like: If you were to take a feat that granted you X skills of your choice as class skills, how many skills should that be... Maybe 4? 3?

>>93396884
its too complicated for too little payoff
too complex and involved for most players

>>93396915
cosmopolitan, from the forgotten realms campaign setting book

I use it in my houserules, I call it "prodigy"

>>93396919
Which one, yours or the one above?
Because "opposite roll to counter attack" is used by ToB, Dragon Magazine, PF1e duelist, and PF1e Swashbuckler.

>>93396915
Divide the number of class skills for each class by 7, get the average and round up. That's your recommended number of class skills per feat.

Should 2-3 if I remember right. So 3 is a solid number.

>>93396949
mine

>>93396915
>>93396937
Cosmopolitan got nerfed from 3.0 into 3.5 in some source and no longer does that.

There's the one human origin feat that makes every skill cost 1 skillpoint but keeps the cross-class cap. It can be very useful if you're multiclassing or using a PrC with non-overlapping, because the skill cap is permanently raised if it's a class skill for any class, but each levelup is normally constrained by the 1-vs-2 point rule based on which class you are leveling.

>>93396937
Nice nice. Okay. So working my way through the logic:

> Cosmopolitan
> "Choose a nonexclusive skill you do not have as a class skill. You gain a +2 bonus on all checks with that skill, and that skill is always considered a class skill for you."
> [Adding one class skill of your choice and a +2 stackable bonus is worth a feat.]
And... This is a reasonable feat choice?

> Skill Focus
> "Choose a skill... You get a +3 bonus on all checks involving that skill."
> [Stackable +3 to a skill of your choice is worth a feat.]

∴ Taking Class Skill of your choice is worth 1/3 of a feat.

That sound right?

So if a Feat is worth 6 character points, would it be reasonable for me to calculate your class skills as being worth 2 character points each? Or is that only if the player is getting to cherrypick them all, and I should therefore be doing like PF1 does with it's Race Builder and charge half cost if the skills are preselected for their class and make it worth 1 pt per class skill for their starting class, and then 2pt if they want to pick up a new one of their choice specifically?

>>93396993
Player's Guide to Faerun. I don't need the feat to be some kind of 'legal' though, I'm just trying to estimate how many build points I should be pricing new class skills at.

>>93396956
Where are you getting the 7 from? That said, 3 is the number I arrived at here, >>93397061 through a different calculation method, so that's good.

>>93396949
>>93396967
>>93396636
>>93396536
To combat the problem of being cumbersome and not very good I'd suggest something like this:
Sacrifice one or more attacks from the number you can do as a full attack per round. Make one d20 roll per attack sacrificed and take the best result out of all of them. Add you Parry modifier to the rolls - this is your Parry AC until your next turn.

If you want it to be more grounded add that it falls by 5 points after deflecting an attack so that it could be overwhelmed.

>>93397143
You get 7 feats over 20 levels by default.

Parries are already conceptually handled by fighting defensively and combat expertise. Wouldn't be needed if it wasn't for how it's almost impossible for most characters to defend against touch attacks without building specifically for it.

>>93397176
Ohhhh, I see. I'm more essentially trying to figure out what all the class skills you get at level 1 are worth as a fraction of a 20 level base class progression.

But, it still works out to 3 class skills for a feat's worth of points (6) by my other calculation method. *MAYBE* six since they're a hardcoded selection (via PF1 Race Builder logic).

>>93397293
I always imagined Combat Expertise more as clever movement, both careful footwork and measured weapon swings, while a Parry would be an active deflection (which you would try instead of an open attack).

File: conjurer.jpg (977 KB, 1532x1849)

977 KB JPG

anybody know any spells like gust of wind except with a wave of water? I know about the one in the underdark book; thats not quite what im looking for

>>93397459
Hydraulic Push was a PF1 spell that bull rushed creatures/objects and soaked a 5ft square.

>>93397459
How up can you go, both 3.5 and PF have tsunami spells those push quite a bit.

Also check
>Waterspout
>Flashflood
>Rushing Waters
arguably
>Jet of steam

>>93397547
rushing waters is the closest to what Im looking for, but no dice
I'll have to make my own
thanks though

>>93397519
>>93397621
Hydraulic Torrent, PF1e?

>>93397632
Always forget about that one.

>>93397632
there we go, thats pretty close

I fucking love these 3e threads bros

>>93397655
>>93397660
I give to many choices PF made a lot of shit but they explored the elements in a more balanced way.
And the best shaman version, albeit I love the speshul spellcasting of the 3.5 Spirit Shaman

>>93397717
yeah, I nab stuff from PF sometimes
animal stats, certain monster traits, spells, haunts

>>93397717
Agreed. I like their takes on the core classes better, and I like the Magus better than Duskblade, and I like their Bestiaries more than MM2-5. They *really* put out a lot of shovelware trap options to discard and fucked up combat maneuvers and a few other things though. But the parts I think they did an okay job with, I'm happy to cherrypick and use.

>>93398045
>I like their Bestiaries more than MM2-5
I appreciate a lot a couple of things

1) The math is more consistent for a given level challenge, while steel keeping diversity - a mobile glass cannon is still possible.
1a) They are creative in giving appropriate powers for the above. Say this snek monster has a quick double bite to adjust for its level, and it's evocative of how snakes move and attack.
1b) You can also improvise using the guidelines for monster creation to play a monster of CRX if you are sensible with spell-likes and powers

2) Their monsters didn't go the 4e route of naming some monster MMORPG-style but tended to be more inspired by mythology.
2b) To be honest, some low level monster could get something from 4e - say giving hexes to cyclops.

One thing that disappointed me is the trend that started in the 3.0 to 3.5 transition of removing spell-like abilities from long lists, while I absolutely aodred long sp-like lists. I understand the rationale but I don't care - still using the 3.0 pit fiend list if some is missing.

Where can you get Devin Night vtt tokens or similar for free?

>>93398141
>Devin Night vtt tokens
I cannot say I have looked, but one possibility might be to export the NWN MDL files fro mthe game's BIF archives, import them into Blender using Neverblender, position your camera where you want it, and just render them out with transparency.

Wouldn't be super quick, but you could do it and they'd be a pretty good fit.

NWN2 has a similar Blender plugin
So does DDO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDmmEX49m3Y

-----------

This guy has some for free?
https://www.reddit.com/r/FoundryVTT/comments/10v69iq/free_top_down_tokens_oc/

I haven't tried the VTT thing yet, so I don't have a personally recommended option.

>>93398314
Thanks anon I'll look it up

>>93398108
There is good and bad.
>3.X Banshee
https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/block/Banshee
>PF1e Banshee
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/banshee/

The anti-silence measures of the PF1e banshee are cool, but look at the feats... no Spring Attack, which is an absolute beast on incorporeal. That Alertness could go with no issue. The 3.X version has also a touch that does more than damage and goes around energy drain immunity. - ability drain is different unless I am mistaken.

>>93399508
How ARE you meant to beat an incorporeal that keeps dipping into the ground?

>>93399553
Ready an action to get it as it comes back up

>>93399553
>>93399567
yep
seems like the majority of players underestimate readied actions and delays

>>93399553
Optimized strategy:
>Charger with Cometary Collision
>Casters with readied Transdimensional Spell

>>93399567
That's only a standard action, though.

>>93399668
Can you do this? >>93399626
Can you stay out of the range of the wail and shoot? Maybe you should all spread out.
Maybe you should NOT spread out and the wizard can prepare an AMF.
Maybe the party has weapon enchanted temporarily or permanently with Distrupting or similar undead-killing weapons.
Maybe you can lock her with a force effect or ghost touch effect.

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. This is what a proper 3.X battle should work out to be.

>>93399709
What, that you win if the enemy plays by the rules or you have the right spells prepared ahead of time?

>>93399626
>Cometary Collision
What? That lets you ready a charge against an enemy charge, not ready a charge.

>>93399752
This is what you get from my post?
It just means that monsters must be played smart and with the terrain in mind, and you will have to find a strategy based on the tools, setup and team available.

>>93399772
Oof. Did I mix it with Vigilant charger from pf?

>>93399567
>>93399709
Then you get one swing or spell, and possibly only against an arm.So cover on top of intangibility
Though for the Banshee you could force more of it up if it can't wail through a solid medium.

>>93399784
Yes, that's exactly what I got from it. You win if you had your build or equipment or spells set up right ahead of time, otherwise you don't and you're scrambling to not die.

>>93399581
it still baffles me that people haven't figured out that manyshot is for surprise attacks and readied attacks
"but its worse than a full attack!"
no shit retard; thats not the point!

>>93399899
It's for getting Greater Manyshot.

>>93399852
>You win if you had your build or equipment or spells set up right ahead of time
Anon, I implied above that you could have ONE of those, and therefore use a given strategy.
You can find a winning strategy even without those, and in the worst case scenario you flee, which is still an option.
On top of that, some preparedness is expected from adventurers.
I really don't understand how you read a post that shows how many way you can approach a problem in 3e and read it so negatively.
Lmao at your attitude.

>>93399899
>>93399903
based Manyshot appreciators

>>93399971
I'm pretty sure that you're not staying out of the range of an incorporeal enemy with an 80 ft fly speed.

>>93399971
>I really don't understand how you read a post that shows how many way you can approach a problem in 3e and read it so negatively.
its a zoomer thing

>>93400016
Yes, indeed mid-to high level characters have only running/walking as mean of transportation.

>>93400069
80 ft fly speeds are uncommonly fast. Unless someone's teleporting around on a whim, I'm not seeing it.

>>93399553
Ghost touch on gloves (or on your unarmed strikes, innately) and grapple the wraith/ghost/thing is how I did it. They don't know what to do when you just treat them like they're solid and pull them out of the ground and hold them still for your friends to hit them.

>>93400093
You can totally dimension door, for one.
You can also use force effects on incorporeals you cannot beat but you can delay enough to flee.

Just on the top of my head, I am sure creative people will come up with more

>>93400126
Sure, you can DD. But that gets you away from them once. How's that supposed to help against something that never has to pop its head out until it's ready to attack you?

what about ethereal jaunt?

>>93400154
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
You have a few rounds to grab your pegasus or cast Mount and fuck off, I presume.
Or to cast another spell that can move your party or counter the incorporeal.

>>93400169
I mean, if you want to run away from the banshee, yeah, that's an option.

>>93390925
For the Steed you may want to use the Skeletal Champion template from PF (With or without the Cha-as-con rule)

And let it share the master's BAB.

Because the Skeleton template has some weird contradictions with the copied Paladin mount buffs, namely one saying it should get 6 int and the other saying mindless.NM8t

>>93400523
Different anon - without going PF if it's not an option, BoVD has Bone and Corpse creature templates

>>93400615
Ignore the bit about charisma and apply the Skeletal Champion template to a level 1 human warrior and you get something very much in line with a Karnathi Skeleton. 3hd, baseline int, slightly boosted physical stats.

It felt like it was literally PF reverse engineering a template out of the Karrnathi skeleton.

>>93391424
Isn't there already a parry system in dragon magazine? It's terrible and unrealistic for anyone not a rogue because they require an entire feat chain to use it with anything other than light armor, light shields, and light weapons, but the actual mechanics are solid(spend an AoO when attacked to roll an opposed attack, weapons add etheir enhancement, but shields add their armor bonus + enhancement).

>>93403803
>Isn't there already a parry system in dragon magazine? It's terrible and unrealistic for anyone not a rogue because they require an entire feat chain to use it with anything other than light armor, light shields, and light weapons,
This is something that always bothered me, is that more difficult to parry in heavy armor?
Is this related to the visibility of the implied helm?

>>93400523
>>93400725
>It felt like it was literally PF reverse engineering a template out of the Karrnathi skeleton.
Looking at it, that does seem to be on the mark

One of the things that Eberron did was try to retain the constitution score some creatures that doesn't keep them raw. How do you guys feel about undead with con scores (and probably d8 hit dice) or even 'mindless undead' with minimal intelligence (3-6) instead of a negated score.

>>93404002
>How do you guys feel about undead with con scores
Undead have no metabolism. I like the Charisma solution in PF and late 3e ,frankly.
Alternatively, corporeal undead (especially skeletons of big beasts etc, and constructs too!) could use strength as a measure for structural toughness.
>even 'mindless undead' with minimal intelligence (3-6)
Frankly Int 2 to 4 on zombies and skeletons would match more how they are usually played.

>>93391424
>>93403803
Honestly I'd recommend against this, your violating the "don't mix passive and active defense in a singular system" rule.

>>93404002
I used Con on undead it's alright. But I don't see the need to have intelligence scores on mindless undead - I treat them as basically insects that react to a few basic stimuli and are dumb as bricks otherwise.
The biggest change I personally did was remove "immune to mind affecting" from non-mindless undead. Because they have minds.

>>93404465
It's why I suggested doing something like this >>93392608

>>93404465
I see where you are coming from, but then again consider the following

1) while is kind of an appeal to authority and not an actual argument, 3e designers did it twice and also PF1e designers did it twice again.

2) It adds to the combat options and allows martials to use immediate and swift actions.

5e has a tamer version with parries that occasionally add X to the AC (see: 5e Marilith). Perhaps, one could consider this option, in which renouncing to attacks (or occasionally every 1d4 rounds) a bonus to AC is added in base of the action used with no opposite rolls.

Say blocks double the shield bonus and add Str, and parries add to AC any bonus to hit with that weapon.
Something like that.

>>93405024
>5e Marilith
>Reactions
>Parry. The marilith adds 5 to its AC against one melee attack that would hit it. To do so, the marilith must see the attacker and be wielding a melee weapon.

>>93405024
>Say blocks double the shield bonus and add Str, and parries add to AC any bonus to hit with that weapon.
You need to add something else (say some function of BAB) to make it scale properly with the level.

>>93406708
There's a UA take for level-scaling AC, though as an Armor bonus replacement:
>https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm

>>93406742
Are you suggesting to use it as "bonus to maneuver" anon?
Or to be used as substitute AC for these attempts, perhaps + the shield +str for block, etc?

>>93403838
No, it's an entirely game-design thing. Rogues have shit armor and light weapons do shit damage when not sneak-attacking, so the parry system gives feat-taxes to classes who by all rights should be better at it.
It's the same logic of Heavy armor having Dex caps and skill penalties despite real armor not impairing movement very much(doing that would get the wearer killed in a real fight). A more accurate system would use fatigue and heat stroke the limiting factors.

>>93407142
Meh, the wall of blades stance is better anyway. Unlike the feat, it also affects magic that requires attack rolls. The Iron Heart school is basically the Fuck-Your-Caster school for maneuvers.

File: I you insist.jpg (5 KB, 301x167)

5 KB JPG

>>93407201
>Fuck-Your-Caster
Couldn't find the pic of the big-warrior-chick licking her lips as she prepares to grapple and silence a small wizard, so here's this instead.

>>93407421
>Anna as the new amazon template
This approach is the best way to wreck concentration, but most melee kids are so enraged at their lack of magic that they let good opportunities pass them by.

>>93361191
are there any character builder programs for 3.5? dndtools.net gave me a fishing popup saying i had a virus, ffs.

>>93407658
>dndtools.net
I only use https://srd.dndtools.org/ and https://dndtools.one/ for srd replacements.
As for character building programs, there's a software called pcgen.
I never used it however.

>>93407658
This reminded me how much I miss the old 3.0 character builder that shipped with the 3e PHB on a disc.

>>93407807
>now press this button to turn off my annoying voice

>>93407850
I'm sitting here trying to remember what the ambient music sounded like and completely forgot about the guide.

>>93407658
oh. That's obnoxious. When I get a chance I will remove it from my index, and we should also remove it from the OP. I use brave, so those sorts of popups tend to get blocked by my browser and I don't even realize they're there.

>>93407142
>A more accurate system would use fatigue and heat stroke the limiting factors.
The only thing in the game about that is the whole "resting in medium or heavy armor gives you fatigue" unless you get Endurance so it's just heavy ones.
And also
> A character in very hot conditions (above 90° F) must make a Fortitude saving throw each hour (DC 15, +1 for each previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. Characters wearing heavy clothing or armor of any sort take a -4 penalty on their saves.
Too bad it should differentiate among types of armor within the same category I think.
Time to work on that.g884s

>>93404002
Would need a massive rebalance of all the undead that stack tons of HD to make up for awful BAB and no con.

I'd sooner go with PF's Charisma and better bab if you're dropping the HD size to 8.

>>93404983
I'd always figured undead minds are just so different in how they're tied to the body.

>>93408146
And restfulness crystals at higher level (They're only like 500g too)

>>93408439
Probably no monster should have low BAB. Not even Feys.

>>93408597
How would you alter CRs for moving up to medium?

>>93408611
Good question. One would need guidelines and depends on the feats and how much melee-oriented the fey is.
Should the HDs be adjusted?

>>93409217
I feel like yeah, the total HD on a lot of the big hulking undead especially need to go down. I don't think it's so urgent for the Fey. They don't usually stack many HD to begin with.

>>93408611
Per CCR: +0.05CR/Lv. (0.15 vs 0.10)
Per Eclipse: +(1.5/32)(4.5/32 vs 3/32) (+0.0469CR/Lv.)

Either way, you're looking at ~+1CR over 20 HD. If you're rounding up, that's either +1 at10HD, or +1 at 11HD.

Only thing with bumping up undead HD power and dropping volume is that it makes Animate Dead and undead control spells really really fucky.

>>93409800
Oh yeah. That might be an issue.

>>93409800
Personally I think there really should be no non-epic monsters above 20 HD. If your monster is too weak either rethink your progression or add a leader that buffs the group.
Throwing around monsters with 30+ HD that none the less are something like CR 17 or less does some unpleasant things to the system math.

>>93410171
Unless they're giants or undead or many aberrations in which case they're STILL weak.

Remember they're supposed to take at least a little while to go down even when focused.

File: You.jpg (35 KB, 451x335)

35 KB JPG

>>93407421
In terms of 3.5 big titty martials fucking shota wizards, what's best in life.
>book of weeaboo fighting magic
>Giving Pure martials 1 cleave (Ranged or Melee) per BAB (likely everyone Power Attack and Improved Cleave for free at BAB 1 and then martials get Improved Cleave + Pseudo Great Cleave (limited to BAB , so +6 would allow up top six Cleaves per round) max 1x 5" step to adjust in there.

>>93408439
>>93408597
Yeah it's kind of wierd. I sort of feel like monsters should more or less work on a BAB 1 per level d8 HD or a BAB 1 per 2 level d4 HD for Martials and Casters and then apply racial/monster type templates all over that but that may be my OSR seeping in.

>>93409800
It's interesting, Anime dead won't really be a problem for what should be sort of max 2-4HD zombies and Skeletons , even create undead is fairly limited in abouts 8 HD except for one specifically high level option (would be fairly easily and to a certain amount sensical to make create undead's main limiting factor being requiring high level dudes bodies to make. The ghoul / mummy/ whatever is limited by finding high level corpses to drag into undead.

It's not until greater undead (with questionable insubstantial undead and self replicating ones), or jsut the tail end of create undead (haha, I want to play a 10HD + 8 Fighter level gestalt Mummy in Epic 8). but all fo that would basically be handwaiving for what I want (probably making 'create' undead a greater feat that works a bit more like golem making with corpses and a bit less like an infinite chain command shadow ball expanding at the rate of 30 ft per second).

It's interesting.

File: I ready to silence.jpg (994 KB, 1200x1734)

994 KB JPG

>>93407201
>>93407421
>Fuck-Your-Caster
If you insist.

>>93411356
Mage Slayer + Supernatural Opportunist are based.
PF1e has a few features you can steal too, some to parry rays some to Sunder spells.

>>93412442
Are these threads open to PF 1e now?

>>93412736
I thought it counted as homebrew in this case, I am not suggesting builds, just literally "steal this and make it a 3.5 feat".
Also, sometimes when something like this is posted, some anon points out that there is (say) already a version of it for 3e in Dragon Magazine or such.

>>93412736
No. Comparisons are inevitable and suggestions of individual elements to cherrypick are fine, but the Paizo general is still the ghetto to which Pathfinder is rightfully banished.

>>93413527
PF 1e is a 3.5 setting though. IF people can discuss Birthright, Planescape, Dark Sun, and Spelljammer, why not Pathfinder?

>>93413745
Two reasons. One, is that it was published under the OGL with a much different philosophy than things like Spelljammer, and that has lead to it having its own ecosystem and a more limited degree of cross-compatibility with 3.5's core rulebooks. Two, is that Pathfinder proponents are generally insufferable and conversation surrounding it is a distraction to the actual topic of the general because it is rarely germane to D&D 3.5.

If you are trying to discuss Pathfinder as a setting for playing 3.5 or trying to incorporate elements of it into a 3.5 game, that's fine. Straight up discussing Pathfinder is not, has not been, and will not be germane.

>>93412736
When comparing 3e editions and options, PF1 mechanics are usually fine to bring up, but all the Golarion shit and Paizo baggage should probably be left at the door. I run a heavily houseruled unholy fusion of PF1, 3.5, 3.0, and a few subsystems from other games for the regular group and I know better than to discuss purely PF1 issues here without any kind of lead-in.
Some anons won't tolerate any of it as the very thought of cmb/cmd and at-will 0-level spells turns them into sputtering spergs.

>>93413745
>>93413790
>Pathfinder proponents are generally insufferable and conversation surrounding it is a distraction
This is the main reason honestly.
Even other alien mutations of OGL products like d20 Midnight and d20 Arcana Unearthed(not unearthed arcana, it's monte cook's "Diamond Throne" setting) are fine to discuss here.
Paizofags are just so insufferable that they got excommunicated from the community.

>>93413914
>it's monte cook's "Diamond Throne" setting
WTF is diamond throne?

>>93412736
These threads seem (by most of us) to be open to "so I'm mixing some PF1 into my 3.5" but not open to "So I'm running an all Paizo PF1". A lot of us do like *some* of the PF1 stuff, and though the specifics vary, we all seem to agree Paizo fucked up combat maneuvers.

>>93413790
Paizo fanatics also seem to be all about "Paizo only", discarding the 3.5 stuff, while the others lack that purist segregationalism. And if they want to segregate out the 3.5 content, they can make a different thread. I'm not interested in what Paizo general does where it's really more like 3 unrelatex threads and you constantly have to specify which you're talking about and half the posts are for games totally unrelated to games you actually play. pass.

The AE / WoWd20 / d20Modern guys, are not trying to have a bunch of AE/etc exclusive discussions in this thread.

>>93414130
its a Monte Cook campaign setting with its own corebook and variant magic system and his own overhauls to 3.X not held to TSR AD&D baggage. Arcana Unearthed is the 3.0 version, and Arcana Evolved is the 3.5 version.

>>93416582
I did steal Arcana Unearthed's Total Harness or whatever it is. A truly massive like 12 or 14 base AC and 4 Maxdex.

>>93418112
I want to insert some rare late armor, will use as inspiration

>>93419314
The definitive harness* 10,000 gp +12ac +3maxxex –4check 25%arcane 20 feet (And only 8AC vs an attack you're flatfooted against I forgot to copy the weight.

Then of course you can hit it with the reinforced, lightened and segmented options from that one dragon mag about superior masterworks.

I sorta wanted it for my bone knight because if he's gonna wind up permanently stuck in that armor I want it to not wind up a detriment.

>>93419363
You mean artisan qualities from dragon #358? Those are great, especially when applied by a crafter from the "Master" class from dragonlance.
Little known factoid, Items of legends aren't just +5 masterworks, they multiply the masterwork qualities of an item by 5. Artisan qualities are masterwork qualities.
In most cases this isn't amazing, artisan qualities typically give a +1 or +2 bonus, but on armor you can increase Max dex by +5, Add + 5 AC, reduce ASF by 25%, and add +10 to AC vs confirmed criticals.

>>93420983
>Artisan qualities are masterwork qualities.
This isn't true at all, though it turns out that probably doesn't matter. I checked the wording of War of the Lance and it says:
>Item of Legend: With this knack, the master craftsman reaches the pinnacle of his ability to create superior items. The master craftsman can create masterwork items that are five times as effective as standard masterwork items - weapons confer a +5 bonus to attack rolls, armor check penalty is lessened by 5, and skill bonus items confer a +10 bonus. These items of legend must be created with the Craft skill specified by the master's item of distinction knack, take five times as long to create, and the additional cost to create them is quintupled (+1500 steel for weapons of legend, +750 steel for armor of legend, etc).
>The master craftsman can create masterwork items that are five times as effective as standard masterwork items
This seems to imply that it's not the masterwork quality that's multiplied, it's all the items unique qualities. A Dwarf Master could make a Dwarvencraft item of legend that gains +10 Hardness, +50 HP, and +10 to saves.

How this works with special materials is probably an exercise in dodging thrown DMGs though.

>>93421048
I'd honestly be fine with an Item of legend breaking normal item limits. It's called "Legendary" for a reason. If the item would unbalance the game, then don't have a living legend of crafting NPC waiting to take the party's order. If the player takes the Master class for making super items, let them. The master class is less effective than the average fighter, they need the stat boost to stay relevant in combat.

>>93420983
So it only takes leveling beyond superhuman competence to make armor that's only slightly worse than IRL equivalents rather than barely servicable? Is anyone else bothered by the fact D&D armor is so bad compared to armor in real history?

>>93421048
I'd question this definition, if only because this would mean the Autistic elf weapons from a few threads back wouldn't be +7 masterwork, they'd be +15. I don't accept elves being better than dwarves at their goddamn birthright.

>>93421999
>I don't accept elves being better than dwarves at their goddamn birthright
They aren't. One of the stacking +1's on the base masterwork is a feat dwarves can take as well and Elves can't make dwarvencraft items.
That +15 weapon would have the same hardness and hit points as any normal weapon(essential being a flimsy piece of tinfoil as far as rust, disintegrate, acid, etc) without wasting 3 artisan quality slots. In comparison, a +10 dwarven masterwork iron weapon would be as tough as a +5 magic weapon and have an even higher saving throw bonus, on top of having 3 more artisan slot to spend on extra damage, bonuses vs disarm, making it easily concealed, giving ludicrous diplomacy/intimidate bonuses, etc.
The dwarves are still kicking elven ass all the way to the bank, and it even better with the Armor house-rules anons were discussing above. The bonuses to hardness, hp, and saves would turn a dwarf in dwarvencraft armor into an unstoppable tank that eats hostile magic for breakfas.
The elven-made items have their place being templated with feycraft and given to a TWF Ranger so they can power-attack their full BaB on every swing without worrying about being able to hit(which is fitting for elf lore anyway).

>>93421048
>This isn't true at all
I most refute this even if it doesn't change the conclusion, my autism demands it.
Artisan qualities are part of masterwork calculation. The cost and DC are directly added to the masterwork component and requires a masterwork item to be applied in the first place.
Artisan qualities are part of masterwork for all intents and purposes.

>>93421048
Calculating special materials gets weird though.

Hardness and hitpoints should remain unchanged since they're a flat change rather than a bonus.

Adamantium is straightforward: You get extra DR 15/- on armor and can ignore hardness on items of up to 100 hardness(which would turn Anon's houserules above into an adamantium meta).

Mithral gets weird. I guess you'd multiply the bonuses as overpowered as that sounds. It'd mean +10 max dex and -50% asf just to start with, but we encounter the first weirdness with acp. You'd deduct 15 from acp from mithral bonuses, and while that has max of 0, the masterwork bonus would still be a thing and that doesn't have the =/-0 cap. Does that mean mithral armor of legend gives a +5 bonus to all acp skills(+10 to swim)? Thats how ability bonuses work so I guess?
What about the weight calc though? If it's -50%, then the legendary mithral armor has -250% weight and the wearer is basically subject to reverse gravity. If it's calced weight/2, then how does a x5 multiplier work? Is it X/2*5(making it heavier), Is it X/10 as a direct calc, or does a division work like multiplication and stacxk additive(meaning X/6 because x5 adds a +4 to multiplier)?

>>93422263
Seems straightforward to me anon. Legendary masterworks are five times as effective, so any reading that results in an item with horrible penalties isn't correct. Between x/10 vs x/6, the latter follows the spirit of D&D's multiplications rules(even when they makes zero sense in context). Don't get so lost in the sauce with raw that you forget what common sense is.

>>93421048
>>93422263
>>93422296
Reading it this way makes some of the more obscure materials monsterously overpowered. Draonmetal, a material from dragonlance just like the "master" class, has all the properties of mithral and gets a damage bonus on weapons based on the weapon's damage die(+1 on 1d6 or below, +2 on 1d8 or above). With the legendary multiplier, dragonmetal weapons would get +5 to +10 damage before factoring in artisan qualities like razor sharp(which would add another +5). An Oerthblood weapon, from the default greyhawk setting, would get a +5 luck bonus to attack and damage On Top Of being able to apply a -5 to all saves vs magic PER HIT(for 1 round, but still). Oerthblood is also an alloy component. You'd be able to mix it and dragonmetal to put all of that on 1 weapon or make a suit of armor with all the bonuses of mithral, the DR/- of adamantine, and a +15 luck bonus to all saves.

>>93422411
I see no problem with any of this honestly. Martial characters need the help at higher system mastery. Just keep these items out of the hands of casters and it'll be fine.
>verification not required

>>93378216
Since this was brought up again I'd critique that this destroys most of the benefit from tower shields and sword&board is already under-powered enough as-is.
I'd buff held(but not flying/dancing) shields to stack their item hp with the temporary hp Armor gives and have shields give progressive "modified" concealment(miss chance with no hide bonus). Heavy shield give basic concealment(20% miss chance) and tower shields give Total concealment(50% miss chance, immunity to ranged attacks that aren't AOE).
I'd also allow intelligent shields and armor to share saving throws with their wielder. If the item and/or user needs to make a saving throw, both roll and the highest roll is used for both/all.

>>93422453
>Just keep these items out of the hands of casters and it'll be fine.
And how the fuck are you going to do that?

>>93422616
>make the default cleric the cloistered version. druid cant wear metal either way.
nobody should want to nerf half casters like the paladin and the ranger.
wizards/sorcerers/wu jen dont wear armor.
i guess warlocks have better armors now but who cares

It's not nuclear science anon

>>93422616
Easiest fix is to do what anon says here: >>93378473 Though I'd include the ability to modify armor to remove the cover and LOE breaking so players don't feel persecuted(clerics can wear normal, unbuffed heavy armor).
Weapons don't matter as much, the spellcaster is still going to be less effective in melee than the average martial character unless the total encounters for the day amount to less than 30 minutes(in which case the caster with no worries about limited spell slots would be able to buff themselves into temporary demigod status with or without the awesome weapon)

>>93422115
>>93422605
>Heavily armored dwarven warriors become living demigods practically immune to magic and hp damage.
Do you seriously not see a problem with this?

>>93422766
No.

>>93422296
Anon, who in their right mind would use X/6 when X/10 is an easy calculation that doesn't create infinity decimals?

>>93365452
Underrated post

>>93422654
there are feats to be armored wizards.

>>93422766
>a group of heavily armored duergar step into the cavern. They seem unhappy to see you in their territory.

>>93425039
A wizard throwing away feats to get access to armor is a win in my book, but they would probably just get 1 level in fighter if they really wanted the armor proficiencies.
They would still have to get around the spell failure of medium and heavy armor

>>93422263
You missed one.
>A. X/(2x5) = X/10
>B. X/(2+4) = X/6
>C. X/(2*2*2*2*2) = X/32

>>93425098
I don't mean proficiency. I mean feats to avoid spell failure.

>>93425129
A proficient wizard will probably not find himself in serious danger from martials most of the time, so i dont really see that as a problem but i can see how the option may unbalance even more other tables.
In the end, 3.5 is a broken game. We all know it. No change in the rules that isnt a direct nerfing of a class/ability/feat/spell will be able to avoid the ripple effects. A level of greater control from the DM than other systems or even self-restraint from the players is required for high level games.
We are all here because we accept that and try to get around it, each in our own way.
Other with buffing martials or armor and weapon options (which i personally think is a much better target for significant buffs as far as abilities go cause they are always out of the realm of casters in a way that armors aren't). Others with allowing only certain class tiers, some with extensive homebrewing and rebalancing and others with different versions of E6/8/10/etc games.
A broken new idea is still better than no new ideas

>>93425287
Perhaps. I'm just saying making people totally invincible using some equipment anyone can put on is not the sort of "improvement" I would choose. whether because of armored wizard player, or (IMO worse) heavily armored enemies having no logical reason not to use a bunch of the same gear.

Youre right though, I lean towards nerfing casters rather than throwing out armor of invulnerability.

New Thread.

>>93425402
>>93425402
>>93425402