>>93841710
I personally feel the old dispel/disjunction arguments are the classic divide of the game world as a world with any verisimilitude whatsoever and the world as a game. Most mid/high level threats (i.e. the fuckers you're up against when you have ready access to permanency) would know that mages are busted and being able to turn them off and wipe out their bullshit is phenomenal. They'd likely do so proactively, and have contingencies for when the party encounters them. Hell, they'd have anti-magic fields over the doors to catch invisible dipshits the way airports have meta detectors. However, that's not actually interesting to play, because the DM always has more resources and more time than the party.

The main argument for magic items over permanency is that it's far easier to transport, trade, and store. The XP penalty also racks up pretty quickly if you're trying to get the entire party hooked up with a full suite of buffs. It's also far more interesting to find treasure than it is to spend party downtime suiting everyone up.

>>93841710
Man, I miss Dungeon and Dragon so much, bros. It was great getting them in the mail every month. Can't get that experience ever again. :(

>>93844224
True. I just want some nice darkvision honestly. On a character that's got trollblood and needs to fight out of sunlight, tossing no-light (Nerfed or unnerfed) around without dealing with its downside is pretty useful.

>>93844224
>However, that's not actually interesting to play, because the DM always has more resources and more time than the party.
Yep. And when it gets to Disjunction, it can't be thrown around as often as it should in-setting without disrupting the game so massively you're not really playing it. Honestly it shouldn't exist in the form it does at all.

>>93844480
I still love how we have an entire Demon Lord with Disjunction touch attacks because Gary deeply regretted giving two players Vorpal Swords.

>>93844224
A big thing that gets ignored in this is the rate of access to, as AMF is still higher level than Plane Shift while a load of ongoing effect quality of life magic it would shut off lives at 1st to 4th. There's very much room to get wizards dicking around because the hard shutdowns just aren't logistically feasible outside duels until you get into the big leagues of the Planes.

>>93844224
The issue with Disjunction is the permanent damage to items and stats re-calculations.
The first is an actually issue, because of the way high-level games work. I recommend to just have Disjunction suppress items for some time (say 2d4 rounds).
Keep the Artifact-makes-you-lose-powers tho, reworking it ad-hoc.
The second one is not such a big deal for 3e players anyway.

Guys, I need suggestions for ship costs, properties and naval combat outside of Stormwrack book. Also any sources on general naval campaign would be nice

>>93845674
The second is a big deal because you don't calculate that many stat changes at once outside of Polymorph, where you can have your changes pre-prepared per form. Can't do that with Disjunction.

>>93844224
I also just realized Darkvision's a self-only permanency anyway. 16k to be passive, or 7200 for a CL5 2 5-hour charges per day version.

The vorpal enhancement gains three new additions:

1. Vorpal weapons are automatically considered keen.
2. Vorpal weapons have their crit modifier increased by one.
3. On a natural 20, a vorpal weapon severs the head of any creature affected by critical hits. If a creature is not affected by critical hits (includes people in fortified armor), the vorpal weapon instead gets a crit as normal (with the increased multiplier), but not the beheading effect.

If you want an explanation for how that works on a creature immune to crits (like a golem or a zombie), I imagine the vorpal weapon magically damaging the link to the creature's power source.

Which setting had a continent that was cursed such that a sufficiently large group of people (In the tens of thousand range) caused everyone to go violently insane?
I'm being stupid today and can't remember.

>>93845820
earth

>Is getting a permanencied buff ever worth it vs a magic item?
We usually play that dying clears your buffs, so it's comparable to a consumable magic item. In short: not really.
>How often do your enemies throw dispells
Very often. It's mostly done to disable magic items, though.
>>93845674
>>93844480
If people are throwing around disjunction then you should be doing stuff like using astral projection, anyway.

>>93845882
>It's mostly done to disable magic items, though.
This. It's so much easier to tag an item than it is a buff.

>TQ
If you can get a dweomerkeeper to cast the spell as a supernatural spell and then permanency that, it should only get suppressed rather than totally removed, as per the rules on supernatural abilities.

>>93845729
>The second is a big deal because you don't calculate that many stat changes at once outside of Polymorph
Ok but how many stats you ACTUALLY calculate.
It's main stat, Con, saves and AC.
Any decent Sheet has that covered for you. If you REALLY cannot do subtractions, just write the magic bonuses in a different color and write on the side an "AMF AC/save" etc when these spells start to come into play.
You don't need this at level 1 so this doesn't scare off the newbs.

>>93845782
Why so.. keen to improve Vorpal?
Are you Lewis Carroll?

>>93845946
I just found vorpal to be a little wocky the way it was

>>93845922
Not sure you could because then they'd be supernatural effects on you, not spells. And permanency works on spells.

>>93846330
If that's how you rule it, then I can't think of a way to make permanency really useful. The fact that it will get dispelled during your adventure and be unusable until you can get more down-time to renew it makes it too unreliable.

>>93846431
Yeah it seems almost more useful for non-adventurers. Build up some XP to give the locals of a town some buffs. If you're long lived the benefit to you over selling a magical item is their child's gonna need their own buff.

Not that many of the ones you can cast on people are all that great for civilians either/ See invisiblity, tongues, read magic, detect magic, darkvision arcane sight and comprehend languages are all self-only.

Oh wow you can make someone Larger or Smaller or make their dog's teeth magic. Or telepathically bond some lovebirds.

>>93846238
Frankly, jokes aside, you are absolutely right on one thing: Keen should be included. It makes sense.
In 3.0 we used to keep the beheading at 20 and limbs went off on any other critical threat.
Ah, good times.

>>93848295
A pseudo sword of sharpness is a good idea since 3.x just ignores them.

Really, it's funny how many things have limb regeneration when there's no way other than attacking someone already helpless to take off anything BUT the head.

>>93848206
I guess they didn't want people converting XP to GP without a crafting feat (And initial downpayment of gold for the crafting materials before they make and sell it?)

>>93848359
True.

>>93846431
>If that's how you rule it
NTA but I think he's right. If you change the nature of the spell it stops being an eligible target.

>>93848652
If they didn't still behave as spells in any way, they wouldn't cost spell slots, but they still do. Additionally, the ability says that "the spell functions as it normally would," and permanency doesn't apply to spells as a general rule, but only to specific spells as an explicit interaction.

>>93848667
Hrm. Maybe. Though I usually play in Mystraless settings and isn't Dweomerkeepr FR exclusive?

File: link.jpg (153 KB, 928x414)

153 KB JPG

How would one best build Link in 3.5?
He's medium-sized at the biggest, he's always on the lighter/skinnier side (no high str score without enhancement), he uses a one-handed sword and a large shield and a bow, and he wears medium armor (chainmail) at the heaviest

Is there a way to use a longsword with weapon finesse while wearing some armor and using a shield? Preferably at lower levels and without magic or special materials. If there was, I'd just say fighter or ranger + that and be done with it.

>>93849290
I think you're underselling Link's main feature as a protagonist; his unfailing ability to find random shit on the ground and use it with perfect mastery instantly. Where my mind goes is actually Temple Raider of Olidammara from Complete Divine. It'd need some refluffing, but he certainly does quite a bit of dungeon delving and artifact retrieval on behalf of Hylia/Din/Nayru/Farore/etc. He's not a knight in plate armor, he's a scrappy improvisational fighter that's more likely to use the environment and his magic items in clever ways than try to go toe to toe in a brawl.

Navigating traps, rolling with punches, using/stealing magic devices, and casting small spells like locate object or see invisibility are all very much in Link's wheelhouse. He usually starts as a woodsy sort and typically has an animal companion, so probably start him off with a few levels of ranger for martial weapon/shield proficiency.

>>93849485
Look man, I just need the basics

>>93848359
The original justification during the lead up to 3.0, was that the Keen property was the new version of Sharpness and it is likely that the playtesters playtested Keen weapons as if they were Swords of Sharpness and monsters with regen kept their legacy regeneration even as the rules behind regeneration changed. No one noticed that limb removal wasn't an effect of those weapons.

How do >you rule the time limitations on True Resurrection in your setting(s)? If someone stuck a corpse in a time accelerated demiplane, would it become unrevivable, or do they need to get at the petitioner? Do you allow wish/miracle/epic spells/deities to override these limitations?

>>93848699
3.5 dweomerkeeper isn't even from a FR book. (It's a complete divine web enhancement)
There's a purely flavor section outside of the class itself for suggestions if the DM wants to tie it to a god/organization, and nowhere in this section or anywhere else in dweomerkeeper does it even mention FR gods. Even in FR you don't need to worship mystra to take dweomerkeeper in 3.5.
>Adaptation: Because the dweomerkeeper prestige class intentionally blurs the border between divine and arcane magic, making it specific to clerics of a deity of magic (such as Boccob or Wee Jas) is a good idea. It’s also easy to tie the dweomerkeeper to a specific group of organization-especially one that includes the first spellcasters to figure out how to convert their arcane spells to divine ones (or vice versa). Such an organization might be quite secretive, and its members should be loath to tell others how they managed to manipulate the very fabric of magic.

File: 1685405170783916.gif (97 KB, 118x128)

97 KB GIF

>>93850336
did not read the spell award! the limit is not on the body
"This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed" + "has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level."

>>93851203
You're an actual retard
The status "Dead' is on the body. If you cook the body 22000 years then they have been "Dead" for 22000 years (so a CL220 requirement), and you can't revive them without the body if the body still exists.

>>93851277
excet this spell can bring back creatures without a fucking body where is the "dead" status now?
>and you can't revive them without the body if the body still exists.
where are you getting this from?

>>93851408
>where are you getting this from?
The spell? Maybe you should read it.

File: file.png (6 KB, 404x27)

6 KB PNG

>>93852049
i did again now what?

The hand axe-throwing ace split sucks. Why do you need to spend more gp for a worse version of what is basically the same weapon just to be able to throw it? Plenty of small axes (namely tomahawks) can be used for both throwing and chopping. Even if they want a version of an axe specially suited for throwing like a double bitted axe or whorlbat you should still be able to throw the normal hand axe in a pinch. Also I don’t like how you have to spend an exotic weapon proficiency feat to be able to use nets without penalty because it means they only ever get used by builds specifically made for them, which is rare. The -4 penalty is huge at low levels as by the time you’re high enough level to not care you’d probably have a magic item instead.

>>93852096
That is literally not the spell lmao
That was a good one though

>>93852131
>That is literally not the spell lmao
>>93850336
>How do >you rule the time limitations on (((True Resurrection))) in your setting(s)?

bro????????

>>93852117
>Also I don’t like how you have to spend an exotic weapon proficiency feat to be able to use nets without penalty because it means they only ever get used by builds specifically made for them, which is rare. The -4 penalty is huge at low levels as by the time you’re high enough level to not care you’d probably have a magic item instead.
It's a touch attack though, who cares.
>Even if they want a version of an axe specially suited for throwing like a double bitted axe or whorlbat you should still be able to throw the normal hand axe in a pinch.
You can? It even has the same range increment.
Weapons are hardly realistic anyway.

>>93852150
This one wasn't very good, go back to the drawing board

File: SneedIfHeReal.gif (143 KB, 163x172)

143 KB GIF

>>93852189
Take your meds schizo
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericSpells.htm
True Resurrection M: As resurrection, plus remains aren’t needed.

>>93852131
>This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

Are you interpreting this as a conditional statement for "if" the body has been destroyed, rather than a general capability of the spell to resurrect without a body at all?

>>93852549
Yes.
Specifically, True Res inherits Raise Dead's target ("Dead creature touched") and all other limitations except where it contradicts them. So it has a proviso for creatures whose bodies or an undead creatured they were turned into was destroyed, but not for dead creatures you can't target.
Compare/contrast, regular Resurrection which makes comments on the state of the body but makes no comment that you have to have access to it because that requirement is inherited from Raise dead.

WRT >>93850336 I'm pretty sure that SDA don't have these limits, but I'm more talking about player-accessible miracle effects

Also, purely from a fluff/verisimilitude perspective, it's obvious that locking something up (with Imprisonment or in the wells of darkness) is considered a more permanent solution in-setting than just killing them. Even the epic level handbook organization that's about assassinating people permanently collects the body and then sends it to a 'void dimension' rather than destroying it. I can't see that it's intended that TR should let you revive people whose body exists when clearly the writers don't think that:
>Anifer wears a cloak whose interior can open into a void dimension. When the remains of a victim are sent to her for utter removal, she allows her cloak to fall over the body and speaks a command word. When the cloak is pulled free, the body is gone forever, beyond even the recall of greater gods.
>For a contract that requires permanent removal, the body is sent through the closest field house, and then on to the Guild Mother and her cloak-shaped void.

>>93852989
Resurrection does comment that you need to have acess to a part of the body, while True ressurection does not
True resurrection only say you can't use it if somone is a undead not if you dont have acess to the corpse
"The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. "

File: 1716628300641937.png (2.06 MB, 1212x1575)

2.06 MB PNG

>>93845720
This one.

You might also want to look at Dragon 301 in the Swashbuckling section.

>>93849290
He's an elven Switch-Hitting Sword & Board + Archery fighter with an assortment of wondrous items. The hard part is getting him good at both Archery and Sword-And-Board

>>93849543
Interesting. What other 2e rules did the 3e playtesters use and just forget that they weren't actually including them?

>>93852131
I once had a player who *never* read spell descriptions, and only read the one line summaries, and was convinced that /was/ the spell. It was infuriating how many false assumptions he made.

>>93853157
True ressurection says you need access to the body. It's in the very first line of the description.
Don't reply to this post if you're not a human.

>>93849290
There are weird-ass elvish swords that still are finesseable despite being longswords or bastard swords or something.

File: 1718891826609a.gif (208 KB, 721x789)

208 KB GIF

>>93853451
the spell text literally state that you dont need it
"This spell functions like raise dead, (((except))) that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method)."
It never states that you can only do that if the body is destroyed, nor does it say that it doesn't work if the original is still around. How can you have such a flawed RAI?

>>93852096
the spell list state the same thing but you are getting extra rules from the far realm

>>93853157
The basic idea behind the Raise Dead -> Resurrection -> True Resurrection series of spells is how complete a corpse you need for someone to come back to life. Raise Dead needs a mostly complete corpse or the raise is going to be incomplete (i.e. the corpse missing an arm means the recipient comes back missing an arm), Resurrection will bring someone back to life from being "ashed" by say a disintegrate spell, and True Resurrection will bring someone back to life even if their corpses is totally destroyed or rendered in accessible say by a manticore eating it or being dropped into a volcano.

>>93853451
>True ressurection says you need access to the body. It's in the very first line of the description.

No, it doesn't. This is the first paragraph of True Resurrection:

> This spell functions like raise dead, except that you can resurrect a creature that has been dead for as long as 10 years per caster level. This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

This is taken straight from the d20 srd.

>>93853519
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
>This spell functions like raise dead

>>93853897
Read the rest of the paragraph. It explains the exceptions to the raise dead rules.

> This spell can even bring back creatures whose bodies have been destroyed, provided that you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method).

This is the part that explains that True Resurrection does not need a body.

>>93849290
>How would one best build Link in 3.5?
Eternal Blade is specifically meant to emulate Ocarina Link (it comes with Navi), and is an elf-restricted prestige class designed to feed in from Warblade (an intelligence-focused Fighter retrain that can swap out weapons quickly and easily). You have a few levels to play around with, but it's simple and effective, unless you just hate Tome of Battle.

>>93853986
No, it needs a body or for their body to have been destroyed. It doesn't change the fact that you must target and touch the body if it exists.

I'll once again reiterate that this is incontrovertible RAI per >>93853088 and every other sourcebook that actually has true res in it.

File: file.png (29 KB, 389x185)

29 KB PNG

>>93854014
>I'll once again reiterate that this is incontrovertible RAI per >>93853088 and every other sourcebook that actually has true res in it.
fake
It's not the dimension that blocks true resurrection is the epic level poison that does that.
"Mortu: All garroters carry mortu, a poison substance
applied to the eyes of a dead body. Mortu renders a dead
body incapable of being brought back to life by raise dead,
resurrection, or true resurrection. Wish, miracle, and other
extreme methods can still do the trick, but even then
each use of a spell of this power is only 50% likely to be
effective—multiple attempts can be made. For a contract
that requires permanent removal, the body is sent
through the closest field house, and then on to the Guild
Mother and her cloak-shaped void. Mortu has no effect on
living creatures, constructs, or undead."

AND this shit block wish and miracle that literally state it creates a new body

>No, it needs a body or for their body to have been destroyed. It doesn't change the fact that you must target and touch the body if it exists.
[citation needed]
by your logic resurrection does not work because it's "Target: Dead creature touched" and resurrection only need a arm or leg and both are not a dead creature

>>93854235
>by your logic resurrection does not work because it's "Target: Dead creature touched" and resurrection only need a arm or leg and both are not a dead creature
The arm or the leg is a dead creature.
The reason that Raise Dead doesn't work is because unlike Res/TR it doesn't heal injuries. The only proviso in TR that lets you revive someone from disintegrate dust is that it heals them to full health and vigor like resurrection does.
>It's not the dimension that blocks true resurrection
It does also block true ressurection, though.
>AND this shit block wish and miracle that literally state it creates a new body
The dimension does, yes, because you need people's bodies to revive them.

>>93854293
>TR that lets you revive someone from disintegrate
wrong. resurrection can revive from desintegrate and dust is not a dead creature and by your logic does not work
"The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body."
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm

TR can revive you from the destruction spell
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/destruction.htm
how is that posible if there is no creature for me to touch?

>It does also block true ressurection, though.
[citation needed]

>>93854360
>dust is not a dead creature
It explicitly, unequivocally is.
>(The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.)

>how is that posible if there is no creature for me to touch?
TR can revive creatures whose bodies have been destroyed. It has a special exception for this.

>>93854377
small portion of its body is not a dead creature or are you going to tell me if i cut 500g of fat from you its now a creature?

>>93850336
An accelerated demiplane is like 1 day per hour outside, and it takes +170 years for them to not be able to resurrect. How can it take them so long to get there?

>>93854963
1 day inside = one week outside*

>>93854399
If it was on me when I died and was harvested subsequently, it continues to be the same creature as the rest of my dead body.

>>93854963
There aren't any limits on how mismatched planar time can be.

Anyone have some good Forgotten Realms published adventures to recommend?

>>93855585
When I run FR I grab the more sandboxy supplements. Waterdeep + 2e Waterdeep + Skullport is good. I've run that several times. Does that count?

>>93850336
Petitioner's time or the body's whichever favors the caster.

>>93849290
Bard. Maybe throw in some paladin or fighter/Bo9S classes. Power Braclet is just a +Str bracer. A few magic instruments, Rod of Ropes for a hookshot. No need to get complicated

>>93854235
is there a pricing for Mortu?

Is there a list for 3.5 "weird" places? Like the Crossroads for FR or the Shadowlands in Oriental Adventures?

I was planning to move one level up all flight spells and effect (say move overland flight to level 6th, and Fly to level 4th.
Is that a bad idea?
I would be even more drastic in fact, with shorter flight spell at lower levels and an actual overland that lasts hours.
The latter would be combined with a "move up" of other effects, like teleports.

>>93860632
Not that I can find.
It's from the ELH so if it did have one it's presumably a fair cop.

>>93861094
Depends on what you're doing with items/races/animals.
It's the sort of question that presupposes other questions because if you have e.g. someone who can cast fly as a 4th level spell, all else notwithstanding, the same person can probably cast polymorph as a 4th level spell. Again, there's no clear throughline of no-nonsense design that strictly cuts enemies that you probably can't deal with without flying above a certain CR (or the opposite).

I feel like trying to make systematic changes rather than just talking to your group and trying to establish some of how you want it to work in the first place is a pretty dumb idea overall. If flight is problematic then making it a problem at 7 instead of 5 doesn't solve most problems.

>>93861160
>If flight is problematic then making it a problem at 7 instead of 5
I think your answer is reasonable and thoughtful, therefore you deserve more elaboration.

I never had a campaign "broke", but for me worldbuilding and exploration are very important.
I think fly removes part of the fun on a local dungeon feature challenge and arguably tactical encounter level, while Overland flight do it on a long distance level. This is the same for "quality of life" spells that kill Survival.
EVENTUALLY the player must get these, but I think if I delay a few levels, the tactical and small local feature exploration involving other solutions have time to "breathe" so to speak and be enjoyed by the player.
Tactical encounter-wise, more monsters would be equipped to deal with flight.

Teleports also have limitations, will be made dangerous unless special locations are used. New locations can be created and unlocked. The feat Craft Portals (Manual of the Planes) would be also used to craft teleportation locations.
(for the record, I never had issues with scry&fry because it's a counterable and retarded tactic, I am more focused on the players enjoyment, pacing of exploration and sense of wonder)

Speaking of which, also Plane Shift at 5 for clerics would be moved up, but Planar Portals made more integral part of the planes. This also pushes the players to search for planar pools.

Polymorph - I use PF1e, and therefore Fly as movement would be removed from Beast Shape I.

> Again, there's no clear throughline of no-nonsense design that strictly cuts enemies that you probably can't deal with without flying above a certain CR (or the opposite).
This is good advice, and I will have to review the monsters carefully before doing what I wrote above.
There was more I wanted to address, but I don't recall it at the moment.

>>93861358
Have you told your party "hey it's going to be boring for both of us if you fly around every problem" rather than try to nudge them towards the outcome you want indirectly?

>>93861515
Forget about it anon. Will ask elsewhere.

>>93861094
it annoyed me when I asked questions like that and anons would ask me 'why' instead of answering them, but it also kind of helped in the end.
so not meaning to annoy you, but why are flight effects a problem for you at the levels where they are?

>>93863424
>>93861358
sorry, page updated after I posted above question.
I have this same problem, and I resolved it by bits worldbuilding that essentially curtailed these spells to emergency only scenarios.
Not by changing the spells though.
For example Plane Shift needs a rod
in 3.5 its described as
>Focus:A small, forked metal rod. The size and metal type dictates to which plane of existence or alternate dimension the spell sends the affected creatures.
in PF1 its
>F (a forked metal rod attuned to the plane of travel)
Those rods are like keys that are very hard to get in my game. The players will only be finding one when we need it for story purposes. And I will probably make them finite-use focus item too.
I've not had a problem with Fly - its too short duration to significantly alter exploration and survival mechanics.and its single target so in combat it's liable to result in party separation and thus has to be used very judiciously

For Overland Flight - I just warned players that their chance of encounters with flying predators is going to be going up significantly because they would stand out starkly. That said, we are into level 9 now. its not unreasonable to grant a level 9 character to move about 60 to 90 miles in a day. These are about the levels where overland travel on the Material plane should be something trivial and non-threatening to you.
Now if they using Overland Flight in places that are supernaturally dangerous - well at that level there are plenty of flying predators that can challenge you in the air, Dispel your Overland Flight or ground you with weather effects

>>93863665
oh and for Teleport on the same plane - for world building purposes every kingdom and faction of note has emplacements that magically interfere with any teleports where the caster is not carrying a rod key.
So if you are on good terms with a given kingdom, you can teleport within its borders, though getting that key is a very major privilege as you are essentially allowed to bypass primary security measure of the kingdom.
Outside of controlled borders, you can teleport in the wilderness, but there might be random enclaves with the same measure. Basically everyone that wants to protect a border will, if they are advanced enough, built a teleport blocking fortification. Its in fact the primary way to establish control over an area.

>>93861358
>EVENTUALLY the player must get these, but I think if I delay a few levels, the tactical and small local feature exploration involving other solutions have time to "breathe" so to speak and be enjoyed by the player.
This isn't an uncommon perspective, though I can't say I understand it. Why not just run different campaigns (with different limits on the player) if you want one to confrom to one style and the other to the other? One of the problems with solutions that kick the can down the road is that player access to tools isn't monolithic. As you say, you can get short term flight at an earlier level than long term flight. But you can get hovering before that, and before even that you can get temporary sources of hovering/flight.
If you're dictating what player access to magic items is from the start and you are patrolling their options in terms of e.g. spells than I feel like you already have solutions that exist between you and your players. I can't really give an answer to you about if Fly as a 4th level spell is a problem (either too late or too early) because in my games either everyone is mostly stuck indoors (I would say "or to the ground" but I don't think we've ever played a low magic 3e game) or people usually have flying mounts long before they have reliable access to 5th level fullcasting.

>>93863665
Yeah, this isn't dissimilar to the approach we usually take either.

>>93863424
>but why are flight effects a problem for you at the levels where they are?
Not really a problem, I just want to give more "space", more levels at which the payers must come up with a different solution.
>For example Plane Shift needs a rod
That's true, you need a sort of attunement.
I am also considering a rarity system like in PF2e. I don't like PF2e, but a few ideas are nice.
>>93863665
These are about the levels where overland travel on the Material plane should be something trivial and non-threatening to you.
I see your point, but it also cheapens stuff like binding a flying creature, or taming one, or finding a magic carpet.
>>93867575
>This isn't an uncommon perspective, though I can't say I understand it. Why not just run different campaigns (with different limits on the player) if you want one to confrom to one style and the other to the other?
As I said, I don't really want limits - player accessing X is fine, is just, for their enjoyment and for world-building reasons, it should happen later.

>>93853088
>is considered a more permanent solution in-setting than just killing them.
Some of the enemies could not be mortal. A Demon or Devil can reform their essence unless killed in the Abyss/Hell, and powerful ones could come back even then (shown in the fluff).
For this reason, binding them is great. It also fits old stories like a buddhist monk binding a oni under a rock or some shit.

>>93869953
>A Demon or Devil can reform their essence unless killed in the Abyss/Hell
Anon, 99% of the occupants of the wells of darkness are demons beaten by demons while in the abyss.
>and powerful ones could come back even then (shown in the fluff)
Yes, which is why binding is considered a more permanent solution. How do you think this is disagreeing with what I said?
It's not (just) a mechanical consequence that powerful people don't tend to stay dead in D&D. It's intended. It's a unity of fluff and crunch.
>It also fits old stories like a buddhist monk binding a oni under a rock or some shit.
Sure, and there's a fair amount of that, but that's not the case for the examples I listed which is why I chose those examples.

>>93869870
I think you're making strong assumptions about the binary nature of access to tools (or writing as if you had made those assumptions, I don't actually think you're as dumb as some of the things you've said sound if taken out of context,) that just aren't true. I mean, maybe you're fine with flight consumables trivialising fights but I don't see a substantial difference between that and doing it with a preparred spell.
>These are about the levels where overland travel on the Material plane should be something trivial and non-threatening to you.
That's just like, your opinion, man. I don't really conflate level with campaign concept like that and don't think that it holds up to human ingenuity either.

>>93870052
>Yes, which is why binding is considered a more permanent solution. How do you think this is disagreeing with what I said?
Is not.

>>93870052
>I don't actually think you're as dumb as some of the things you've said sound if taken out of context
Well, fuck you anon. I am doing something dumb here, which is reading this shit thread with a lot of condescending assumptions and no strong advice.

>>93870096
You were given strongly worded advice, people just accepted when you disagreed with it conceptually being what you wanted.
Only condescending faggot here is you.

>>93870196
Nope. I didn't call names, I said thank you, and i explained better my point of view to have better feedback.
You came out with
>I don't actually think you're as dumb as some of the things you've said
So what happened here is quite clear.
Now, if you are so socially inept to do not understand such basic human interaction, it's not my problem, and you aren't for sure someone whose advise is worth listening to.

>>93870276
Sure thing fag. Still don't know better than to read this shit thread and it's condescending replies?

>>93870768
Learn to live and interact with other you utter failure. Holy shit.

>>93869870
>but it also cheapens stuff like binding a flying creature, or taming one, or finding a magic carpet.
a magic carpet and bound flying mount are still valuable to someone who does not have access to Overland Flight.
>Range personal
on that one. So its good for explaining how the villain got away from the group, but not for letting a whole group fly around.

Personally, I found a lot of my issues with powerful magic being resolved when I start to carefully pay attention to material components and details like weight, range etc...
+ inventory management
+ weight management
+ keeping players honest about volume, carry capacity etc...
+ most importantly, not allowing magic marts anywhere.
its all time consuming but with group chat it gives everyone something to do between sessions and keep the whole thing going.
try to make mounts, beasts of burden, hirelings an important part of your play. And as soon as you have those, many easy magical solutions stop being so game breaking because the party has more things to take care of.

>>93872907
>its all time consuming but with group chat it gives everyone something to do between sessions and keep the whole thing going.
That's a nice way to go about it.
Our group has two group chats for in between sessions, one for IC and one for OOC, the IC one sadly doesn't see much use, but when it happens it's always cool. Almost feels like playing a PbP hybrid.

Gents, i have a changeling rogue problem. I am a wizard who gets access to some clerical spells, dont ask. I'm looking for spells. I'm looking for spells that will let me see a changeling for what it is, and i'm looking for spells that serve as good rogue countermeasures.

>>93874701
"A changeling reverts to his natural form when killed."

Strictly speaking as long as you bring them back afterwards if you guess wrong, it's not murder

>>93874701
Gonna need a level range and books allowed list here, chief
Greater Prying eyes is the core no MC true seeing spell

So, I know we have the Dragon indices, but do we have any for Dungeon other than for the adventures? Flipping through 82-154 I'm finding scattered templates, magic items (that are useful outside of their intended adventures), the occasional feat, and even new mundane weapons (though the guns from the post-apoc Greyhawk adventure that teleported projectiles through solar orbit to accelerate them was really stupid).

I'm considering compiling what I can find, but I'd rather not do the work if someone already has.

>>93875736
Have you checked the crystal keep indices (in the OP index). I half-remember remember they had dragon mag templates. Beyond that, ai don't know of one. Dungeon is much more obscure thanks to being mostly DM content.

>>93877557
I didn't see anything for the player-centric content. Guess it's time to compile. I'll post the result when it's done, though it'll take a while to sift through the 3/3.5 era of Dungeon with how bad the OCR is in the archives.

Fun related note, the archives available don't include the issue #87 CD that has a couple of unprinted adventures but I found it on a poorly marked archive. One of the adventures has a rather entertaining specific magic sword that turns treasure hoards into a "coin dragon" construct.

>>93879087
Please include the 3.0 content, and just clearly mark it. It's a bit frustrating that the Dragon Compilation explicitly leaves out all of the 3.0 stuff.

>Scan Quality
You can use Google Lens for text recognition. To use it from your PC rather than needing an app, you just get your screenshot and upload it into google image search like you would if you're trying to do a reverse image search. After it does that it'll give you a bunch of options onscreen which now include text extraction.

Way faster than typing it out, and better recognition than I ever got from Acrobat.

>>93879613
Don't worry, I will include everything 3/3.5. The intent for this compile is to retrieve all adventure-agnostic content, player or DM, for 3/3.5 and skip only content that was later officially printed (for example the Kender stat block in #86 since they were later officially printed in Dragonlance Campaign Setting) and anything that only has a purpose in the adventure introducing it (like an artifact used to transfer divinity to a unique bigbad).

What I have is already OCR'd with Tesseract (at least I assume it's Tesseract given some of the artifacting). The problem is, even using Lens to try and re-OCR the raws, the scan quality of the archive I'm working off of causes textured text boxes to completely fall apart in the OCR, even if negative'd first, and textured text boxes is where about half of the content in the 3E era issues is held. I could try to denoise it first, but at that point the amount of effort needed would be more than manual transcription as needed.

File: living_blasphemy.png (281 KB, 400x588)

281 KB PNG

How do we fix Living Spells? They're one of the coolest ideas in 3.5 but the template is so underpowered.
My suggestion:
>scale its AC off of caster level instead of spell level
>give it deflection bonus to AC equal to caster level instead of spell level
>make Strength and Constitution equal 11 + Caster Level
>Living blasphemy would then have a +15 to hit instead of +10, and have a 25 AC and 162 hit points, instead of a 17 AC and 110 HP (an absolute death sentence for a CR 13 creature)
>compare to glabrezu demon or hezrou demon, both of which have more hp and the latter can cast blasphemy along with tons of other spells while having better stats

(Previous post deleted due to using an invalid spell as an example)
>>93880291
Let's see

Living Blasphemy
Huge ooze
Hit Dice: 13d10+39 (111 hp)
Init: +2 (Dex)
Speed: 40 ft. (opinion, range doesn't conform to template schema)
AC: 17 (-2 size, +2 Dex, +7 deflection)
BAB/Grp: +9/+20
Attack: Slam +10 (1d8+4 bludgeoning plus spell effect)
Space/Reach: 15 ft./15 ft.
Special attack: Spell effect (Blasphemy on slam), Engulf (free space-diameter grapple with arguably two spell effects - one from free slam, one from Engulf itself - every round)
Special qualities: Ooze traits (immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects), gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, other attack forms that rely on sight, poison, sleep effects, paralysis, polymorph, stunning, critical hits/precision, and flanking; blindsight, DR 10/magic, SR 17
Saves: Fort +10, Ref +9, Will +9
Abilities: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 17, Int -, Wis 14 Cha 17
Skills: -
Feats: -
Spell effect: Blasphemy (13th CL, DC 20) on all slams (including grapple melee) and while any creature is engulfed, meaning checking up to twice every round for dazed, weakened, and paralyzed based on target HD.
Challenge Rating: 13

I don't see the issue here. AC and HP are low, but dazing (cannot act for one round) level 13 or under (significantly worse for those under) every round and getting to grapple everything in a 15' square is pretty threatening regardless of CR. I'd throw this at a group as a harrier but not as a bigbad. It also really depends on the spell. A Living Fire Storm, for example, also CR 13, has the same stats but makes everyone hit and/or engulfed save up to twice per round against 13d6 fire damage.

These are things players are supposed to try to kill before they get close, jump scares rather than actual battles. At least that's my DM opinion.

Thought: RAW, A Dire badger can't burrow in a forest because of tree roots, right?

When you guys play higher levels, say over 12, how much do you try to shore up your defenses?
How much does the system "expect" you to be immune to? As in, what kinds of afflictions/effects become more common.
Say, negative levels, instant death, paralysis, nausea, that kind of thing.
I ask because our group is pretty light on optimization for the most part, and while our DM doesn't try to murder us willy-nilly (he's pretty lenient for the most part actually), there will come a moment where the party's decisions will make us face some threat that will but us through the wrangler. It's just something that's bound to happen in this sandbox style of campaign given the direction the game is going so far.
For my part, I don't have tons of immunities, but I at least keep my saves pretty high, in comparison to the rest of the party at least.
And Restoration (and that damn diamond dust) always handy, of course.

>>93880904
If it can't face a group of level 13 characters and bring at least one of them to low hit points, it's not CR 13.
Doing a d8 + 4 will never accomplish that with any amount of stunlock.
I admit Blasphemy is a terrible spell for this template though.

> A Living Fire Storm, for example, also CR 13, has the same stats but makes everyone hit and/or engulfed save up to twice per round against 13d6 fire damage.
That's a lot better yeah. Probably what I should be basing my analysis on instead.

My other way of looking at it, would be that a level 13 wizard is also CR 13, and he can not only cast firestorm but also come in with defensive spells like mirror image up, and also throw in a quickened spell for even more damage or crowd control. Now, maybe a wizard isn't really CR 13 what with caster supremacy and all, but I feel like it stands to reason as a comparison.

>>93853344
Half-Elven. He's a Hylian not a Sheikah.

>>93881923
>Half-Elven. He's a Hylian not a Sheikah.
There are no humans to be half with. It's a setting with a bunch of elven subraces.

>>93881743
The problem is that the CR system in 3/3.5 is more of a guideline than a rule. Per the MM, "This shows what level of party for which the creature would make a good encounter of moderate difficulty. A party of four fresh characters (full hit points, full spells, and an assortment of equipment appropriate to their levels) should be able to win the encounter with some damage, but no casualties, given reasonable luck. This victory should consume no more than 20% of the party resources (hit points, spells, and consumable magic items)."

A Living Blasphemy would probably consume ~10% of a balanced level 13 4-man, assuming moderate luck. A Living Fire Storm would consume a lot more than that. Remember, hit points ARE a resource, especially when you translate them into spells cast to restore them (worse so if the DM actually follows the "divine spellcasters can only refresh spells once per 24 hours" RAW.)

Templates in general are horrible in terms of calculating adjusted CR as a lot of bonuses and effects can be worthless to some applications and extra synergistic to others. I think I've only ever seen one template that takes that into consideration: the Dark template from Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave which dedicates a sidebar specifically to adjusting the CR adjustment based on how much the affected creature actually gains.

Rather than fixing the template, fix the CR on an application by application basis. Living Fire Storm, I'd personally set to CR 14 at minimum since a single failed save is enough to do ~40 damage to a single target. Living Blasphemy, I'd leave at CR 13 but award reduced experience (unless the party suffers from unlucky dice) since its very effects are level comparison dependent.

>>93882018
The Gerudo back in Ocarina of Time had round ears and are pretty well inside "normal" skin tones, Ganondorf's greenness aside, and is directly used to distinguish the residents of Koholint Island in Link's Awakening, Labrynna and Holodrum in the Oracles games, the Ordona Province of Twilight Princess, and Hytopia of Tri Force Heroes from Hylians like Link.

Half-Elf also works as a benchmark to help distinguish the Link and Royal Family stuff from the general population.

>>93882081
The template outputting a sensible "Genericon" baseline with some averaged assumption of spell value makes it practical to use as a "normal" template instead of just a vague category description.

>>93882138
>The Gerudo back in Ocarina of Time
Fair point. But in later games they're also depicted with pointy ears. Also, looking at the Zelda wiki (I have not kept up after Oracle of Ages / Seasons) - they're all just considered human ethnicities it seems, except for the Kokiri who "take the form of human children" and never grow up.

So, I'm changing my answer from Elf to human, and just making a note that humans often have pointy ears in Zelda franchises.

>>93882081
CR is one of the things that was improved in PF1. It made it closer to the expected analogue that "CR+1=a PC of a given level with PC WBL" as the default target level of threat.*

*Though yes I know you can minmax a character much better than the B1 CR math table even in PF1.

>>93882018
>There are no humans to be half with
OoT-era Gerudo
Ordons
The people from Labrynna and Hololdrum
Multiple games flat-out saying "Hylians are humans granted longer ears to hear the voices of the gods" and calling Hylians "Humans blessed by the white goddess"

>>93882194 see >>93882402
If not half-elf, then the Hylians are Aasimar.

>Fair point. But in later games they're also depicted with pointy ears.
This is explained by them no longer having access to outlander males, and only intermarrying with Hylians for so long the took on the blessing of the goddess.

>>93882081
Yeah I agree on all points.
Sometimes I like to pretend, with the "statistics by CR" tables in Pathfinder and 5e, that I can somehow fit the same sort of thing to 3.5e. That's hard to do with regular monsters, let alone templates, let alone a template as weird as living spells.

So I guess the question would be, is a 25 Armor Class on the living firestorm enough to definitely push it past CR 13 or 14? Fighters at that level are gonna easily have +20 to hit so they're basically always hitting, it's just a matter of how much they can power attack. Level 13 DMG fighter has 102 hp so he could survive 1 or 2 rounds of living fire storm. A whole party getting engulfed? Now that would be a different matter... The base template still feels too weak in almost all instances.

>>93882416
Hylians as Aasimar makes decent sense thematically, though the specific abilities Aasimar get are obviously not a 1:1 match for Hylians, and coult be customized if you're actually doing a LoZ game. This would be a good use for the PF1 Race-Builder mechanics.

But Starting from Aasimar is a good call.

>>93882789
AC and HP - effectively sponging - is never really a good metric for bumps in CR in any game system as that's just as situational as the template itself. For something like Living Blasphemy you're just prolonging an already boring fight, while for Living Fire Storm you're giving it more of a chance to wipe the party. The Blasphemy wouldn't qualify for a bumped CR with more AC/HP, but Fire Storm most certainly would.

The template isn't weak. It just doesn't apply CR well. The only way you're going to "fix" it that doesn't end up boring the table is to modify CR and rewards as appropriate to a given application of the template. Not every encounter will be equal, that's why DMG 3.5's "Modifying XP Awards and Encounter Levels" subsection exists. The best way to handle this is not to apply "fixes" to the template, but to the given encounter either by adjusting rewards accordingly or giving the ooze some sort of tactical advantage such as being in a narrow hall so players can't surround it or in an area being affected by a suppression effect hampering a school or two the party casters rely on.

Again, I bring up Cormyr: Tearing of the Weave as a good use of this: The final chapter sees the party hunting a relatively mediocre black dragon as the final battle. On their way, the dragon occasionally harries the party and pays attention to magic used, tailoring a magic suppression effect in the "boss room" to hamper schools the casters rely on. This advantage augments the EL without changing the monster directly.

File: file.png (37 KB, 1361x340)

37 KB PNG

The fuck is this
Did they censor something, there's an extra few page PDF here labeled fiendish fun but i'm not certain that wasn't always there, I do recognize one of the images in it

File: file.png (9 KB, 312x137)

9 KB PNG

>>93885736
Oh wait no I think it is indeed the fiendish fun thing, it says it's a web enhancement, maybe this was an online addition they used to have

>>93885736
>>93885745
It felt like almost every 3e book got a web enhancement. Pretty sure that's just the one for Fiend Folio

>>93841710
>Thread Question
Depends on the DM. And I don't just mean "Do they actively counter party tactics in a way that make sense in-universe". Permanency has a line that I missed for years, but I actually started using it after seeing that it "can be dispelled only by a caster of higher level than you were when you cast the spell. " This is a little vague. I would rule that this includes the caster level cap. So CL 11 makes you immune to Dispel Magic, and 21 makes you immune to Greater Dispel Magic. Disjunciton says that it "disjoins" spells rather than using the language "dispel", but it also says that it ends effects "as a dispel magic does", so I could see an argument in favor of that needing a higher caster level there, too. There is no caster level cap on Disjunction, but, by the time that's getting thrown around (if it ever sees use in the first place), you should be utilizing some pretty serious caster level buffs, to the point where your Permanencied spells are only in danger if you allow a caster with 9th level spells to fight you on his terms. In which case, you're lucky he didn't do something more immediately lethal.

Oh, and I should note, this function of Permanency only works when you cast it on yourself. Just another reason non-casters can't have nice things.

Anyone remember if there's a sourcebook or a setting book that has a revamped weapon system, specifically one that scraps the small and medium sized stuff? I'm about to DM a campaign and one of the players wants to play a halfling but the S and M sized weapon shit has always felt stupid to the entire group. The player has in mind a halfling ranger who uses a dagger and a sling.

>>93885745
It says web enhancement, so I assume they're integrating the old, free enhancements Wizards used to crank out and that DTRPG was caught selling for about $1 each.

>>93886869
The only "size change" I'm aware of was the transition from 3E to 3.5 when they scrapped weapon size in favor of character size.

>>93887064
I don't know about 3.0 on account of only jumping on board when 3.5 was released, but my 3.5 PHB has the weapon table with stuff like "Dagger, cost 2gp, Dmg (S) 1d3, Dmg (M) 1d4" etc., plus stuff how the weapons labelled Dmg (S) are weapons used by gnomes and halflings. There's also a bit how a character using a weapon of the wrong size would suffer a to-hit penalty (in case of the halfling ranger with a human-sized dagger I read that he would have a -2 to hit because he's a Small halfling with a Medium wepon).

>>93885736
Fiend Folio is one of the books that got explicitly converted from 3.0 to 3.5 in additional material and it got a web enchancement around that time, iirc
Wizards doesn't host a lot of their old stuff anywhere and you have to dig for it with wayback machine so it's probably something like that.

If anyone can link me the old flying rules web enhancement I'll buy you a sodapop when we're both in gensokyo

>>93887201
Yeah, in 3.0 all the weapons were human sized and creatures of different sizes just had limits on what they could use. Having weapons made for different sized creatures was a 3.5 revision, IMO one of the clear improvements.

>>93854014
Why the fuck would it work like? Which game designer actively thought "Yeah the spell is powerful enough to create a new body if the body has been destroyed but not powerful enough to do it if the corpse still exists".

>>93854377
This would make it practically impossible to use a 9th level spell to resurrect a creature who was disintegrated and who had it's ashes blown away

>>93887201
In 3.0, weapons themselves had sizes to determine handedness. For example, a Longsword might be "medium", and thus could be used one-handed by a Medium creature, but a small creature would have to wield it two-handed. Weapon sizes also caused circumstantial bonuses or penalties. It was a mess. 3.5 made all weapons universal and changed damage based on the size of the wielder instead.

>>93887226
Note: FF was already "halfway through" in monster design, it could be considered a 3.25 book to some extent.

File: 3e weapon sizes.jpg (225 KB, 437x615)

225 KB JPG

>>93888223
>>93887527
I looked at the 3.0 rules and this actually seems to me more sense to me than someone forging a a Small shortsword that's the size of a Medium dagger for the shortarse races of the world. I might actually use this.

>>93888053
>Why the fuck would it work like? Which game designer actively thought "Yeah the spell is powerful enough to create a new body if the body has been destroyed but not powerful enough to do it if the corpse still exists".
Probably all of them? You're not thinking the same way as they were, it was more about categories of effect
>died
Needs raise dead
>death spell or body destroyed but remains still available e.g. disintegration
Needs resurrection
>annihilated, e.g. orb of anihilation
Needs True Res
>Soul gets fucked up
Usually needs wish/miracle or w/m/tr with a failchance
>Imprisonment
Requires a specific level 9 counter spell cast at the location where it happened by someone who knows the creature

>This would make it practically impossible to use a 9th level spell to resurrect a creature who was disintegrated and who had it's ashes blown away
In the extremely unlikely event that every last speck of dust was blown away, sure. The idea that not even one grain remains seems like something that you'd have to engineer pretty deliberately. You'd be able to get your hands on a spec of the dust pretty easily in the future too, since it'd just be an object and you can divine it down.

>>93888330
I think those guidelines can be adapted sensibly when you're using a weapon designed for another sized creature, but I also think it makes sense that a spear for a 14ft tall ogre will be heftier than one for A 5'7" tall human.

>>93888443
Wait, True Resurrection can bring back an annihilated person? I always thought getting hit by an orb of annihilation was more "erased from existence" than "dead".

>>93895531
Anon is incorrect. Sphere of Annihilation specifically states "any matter that comes in contact with a sphere is instantly sucked into the void, gone, and utterly destroyed. Only the direct intervention of a deity can restore an annihilated character. "

True Res can bring back someone without the body so long as they didn't die of old age and you can unambiguously identify them (time/place of birth or death, etc.), but that's for bodies lost at sea or devoured. Annihilation is annihilation.

>>93896749
Arguably, Wish (two-cast effect) or Miracle (5,000 XP, is divine intervention by nature) would work. But RAW, True Resurrection would not.

>>93897280
If you are asking for something only a god would do, probably more power than 5k XP is required or be dangerous
Wish:
>You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)
Miracle:
>Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request. Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 5,000 XP because of the powerful divine energies involved. Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following.
>Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.
>Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to another through planar barriers to a specific locale with no chance of error.
>Protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster.

>>93895531
>>93896749
You're right about Sphere of Annihiliation (which I didn't realize had different rules, indeed I didn't even realize they were artifacts and not on the market) but blackballs (umbral blots) just disintegrate you without dust and have no special anti-TR protection
>Any material object that comes into contact with a blackball is immediately disintegrated unless it succeeds at a Fortitude save (DC 38). A character or object that has been disintegrated by an umbral blot disappears completely, leaving behind not even dust to mark its passing.