>>93879657
>Mutants and Masterminds; 5e based games like Tales of the Valiant and A5e and DC20; Weird jank like PF2. They are just not (out of the box) mechanically cross-compatible with 3.0/3.5; OSR-Compatible stuff. You can bring them up in the context of converting stuff to use a 3.x d20 system, but don't expect any discussion of those systems directly.
Fuck. Editing error. I'll fix it for next thread.

*SHOULD SAY*
>Mutants and Masterminds; 5e based games like Tales of the Valiant and A5e and DC20; Weird jank like PF2. OSR-Compatible stuff. They are just not (out of the box) mechanically cross-compatible with 3.0/3.5; You can bring them up in the context of converting stuff to use a 3.x d20 system, but don't expect any discussion of those systems directly.

>>93879657
>3e Resource Index Version 2024-04-17
>https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/92491374/#92530275

If someone wants to start getting me links to resources like are in here, but for other d20 systems (PF1, d20 Star Wars, d20 Conan, whatever), I'm happy to make a link index PDF for them as well. Homebrews people like, cool forum homebrews, "rare" PF1 playtest stuff, downloadable links, useful reusable maps and shit, tokens, 3.x-discussing blogs, whatever you guys like.

>>93879657
I haven’t ever played or read Trailblazer so if someone could enlighten me and anyone else about it that would be most excelent.

In regards to CMB/CMD: stripping away everything the things that must be involved in such an equation should be at minimum
-Size: It should be harder to grabble or trip a giant than a goblin, to what degree requires a lot of playtesting to find the sweet spot
-Ability Modifier: Your strength should be usefull when attempting manouvers that requer brute strength (grappling tripping, bull rushing)

This leads to an odd problem. If one makes attributes work with doferent manoivers you basicaly get the 3.5 style, a slap dash idea would be to have strength add to your CMB, while dexterity adds to your CMD (note here CMD is Size + Dex. Not Size + Dex + Str)

-BAB: This is a where the real conondrum happens, obviusly it makes sense that a martial character would be better at grappling than a wizard. Yet for monsters it is variable to such an extent i can’t rightly put my finger on what it should be.

And with these three components you more or less arrive at the CMB/CMD we have already

>>93879766
I have a metric ton of stuff like that. But i don’t know if you can access it those links these days sadly. I’ll see what i can scrounge up and post them here

>>93879822
Here's the section being discussed, shortened for charlimit.

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

Iterative Attacks
[Iteratives slow combat to a crawl, because of the different modifiers, making players do arithmetic several times per turn. Particularly when buffs started needing to be tracked. Calculation time just gets too slow]
[So we did the math and realized the last two attacks often contribute little to DPR, but people won't give them up, just in case they hit.]

When we set to revising the iterative attacks, we had two goals:
• the bonus for iterative attacks was a flat bonus, applied equally to all attacks;
• the expected damage output didn’t drop off.
We crunched hundreds of iterative attack bonus/penalty permutations, and finally settled on the following:
• At 6th level, you get a 2nd attack, but both attacks suffer a -2 penalty (-2/-2 instead of 0/-5).
• At 11th level, the penalty drops to -1/-1 (instead of 0/-5/-10).
• At 16th level, the penalty drops to -0/-0 (instead of 0/-5/-10/-20).
This method returns results that actually increase damage by up to 15% across the vast majority of monsters that the fighting man will face. (This is a nice “invisible” improvement to the fighting classes that is not explicitly called out in the class improvements.)
Against the edge cases— [when] you only miss them on a natural 3 or less, and [when] you only hit them on a natural 18+ — the expected damage goes down.
[Note that this change applies only to iterative attacks, not natural attacks.]

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

The criticism is they supposedly underestimated people's to-hit bonuses and this results in a damage nerf for a well built THF powerattacker, which is the standard they should have been comparing against.

>>93879838
Give me your dead links.

I'll test them in the Wayback machine later. A ton of the ones in my 3.5 Index go to Wayback archives of otherwise-dead links.

We really need to start archiving our stuff from Wayback in case it goes down though. There's a tool you can supposedly use to do it, but its for linux machines and depends on ruby, so it's outside of my wheelhouse.

File: 1710402463110764.png (6 KB, 216x297)

6 KB PNG

Context:
>Homebrew PB d20 game guy.
>Conjure Creature spell rework.

I went back to basics, and stripped it down to the PF1 SNA list for now. I used Summon Minor Monster as the basis for little critters like squirrels, which gives me L0 spells that give you just one, and the L1 version gives you 1d3.

Arcane, Divine, Nature - they all use the same list of creatures for the moment, it's a pretty elf/fey -centric setting so thematically it fits. I'll likely add exclusives for different factions and churches later, but these work pretty well as 'the common things everyone has learned how to conjure in their magic system of choice'.

I have that spreadsheet I made that I posted last thread, which I will use to selectively add more beasties to the list, and also for summoning some basic spearmen and archers. I haven't remade my CR+Modifiers table or the spell-schema yet. Just rounding out my basic list a bit. It'll be mostly plants and beasts for now to keep shit simpler. I'll look into adding more exotic stuff later.

But here's my stuff for the L0 list. They all just give you one, then 1d3 at L1, and 1d4+1 at L2.

After that, beyond L2 - what would you guys recommend: switch to swarm rules immediately? Extend out the number of summons you get according to the encounter CR guidelines for using multiple creatures? A bit of both?

I'm leaving the idea of long-lasting conjured creatures (and possibly getting a flying mount early) alone for now.

>>93879488
>I know PF1's Power attack is also seen as a nerf, for similar reasons
That's a very partial view. For a power-builder it kinda is because these people build characters that have +9864812364918364 to hit so the -20 of the roll for full PA will be ignored (or transferred to an AC penalty exploited in a different way).
But for the casual player PF1e Power Attack is more bang for your buck. I think PF1e did good here, and they also introduced Deadly Aim which solves a lot of problems.
... then they completely misunderstood what Manyshot was used for but hey. 1d2 steps forward 1d2 back with that game.

>>93879488
>A lot of it also comes from the size bonuses becoming bigger
Size bonuses were sliced in half in PF1e compared to 3.5. On a simulationist (uhu) standpoint one would argue too much to make sense.
Is the fact that you have huge outsiders with BOTH Dex and Str high that makes things difficult. To add, stupid decisions like "you cannot trip from the sky mechanical flyers with bolas like you did in 3.5".

>>93880118
That's basically my view on Trailblazer iteratives, too. It's a buff for the casual player, and a nerf for the heavily optimized powerattacker.

>>93879909
Different anon, but thanks.
How does this take into account Haste? Frenzy?
I mean that's a +50% to your attack numbers

>>93880135
>Size bonuses were sliced in half in PF1e compared to 3.5. On a simulationist (uhu) standpoint one would argue too much to make sense.
I don't disagree. But it contributes significantly to combat maneuvers becoming of minimal usefulness after ~level 7.

>Is the fact that you have huge outsiders with BOTH Dex and Str high that makes things difficult. To add, stupid decisions like "you cannot trip from the sky mechanical flyers with bolas like you did in 3.5".
That also makes it worse.

I would be interested in hearing how your couple of playtest combats with revised CMB/CMD work out.

>>93879822
>And with these three components you more or less arrive at the CMB/CMD we have already
I thought wether that "you choose Str OR Dex for your CMD" could help.

A Pit Fiend would drop from 53 to 44
A Balor would drop from 54 to 47
A Marilith would drop from 42 to 38
A Wendigo would drop from 47 to 39
An Astradaemon would drop from 41 to 36
A Marut would drop from 43 to 40
A Nightwing would drop from 38 to 34
... A Storm Giant from 42 to... 40.. uh
A Dread Wraith (40) would be unchanged (but also immune to a lot, so moot point I guess)

It helps, but could be very situational

Challenging topic.
I think if one wants to go back to the 3.5 maneuver system, one has two massive issues
1) The initial touch AC attack is pointless in 80% of cases, making if feel like a waste of time. Touch AC becoming sometimes a formality is an underrated 3.PF problem
2) While many could like the opposite roll, this is more time used for a single event in a game that can have brutally short fights, but also protracted ones

>>93880174
>That also makes it worse.
I do wonder if a "collapse" of the Improved and Greater maneuver feats in a single feat for each (So just "Improved Trip" with a +4), alongside a SINGLE maneuver feat at high levels (BAB +12 or something) which gives another +4 to ALL maneuvers you have a feat on, and allows you to be considered 1 size larger for this purpose, could help.

>>93880164
I have not tried it. I've been considering it for my d20 homebrew which includes a differently nerfed 3.0 haste though.

>>93880331
The structuring of the feats themselves is definitely part of the problem. They really fucked up the implementation of everything to do with combat maneuvers, even if the core premise of "unified maneuver mechanic" was arguably a good one.

>>93880433
Homebrew creators also toyed with combat feats that gave them access to "no AOO" for 4 maneuvers.
I think both types can exist to be honest.

PF1e has an excellent "play smart" feat in this regard called Dirty Fighting (you can give up the +2 to flanking to avoid an AOO for the maneuver even if you don't have the feat).
That's smarter design because it encourages smart play in-universe.

>>93880474
>PF1e has an excellent "play smart" feat in this regard called Dirty Fighting (you can give up the +2 to flanking to avoid an AOO for the maneuver even if you don't have the feat).
>That's smarter design because it encourages smart play in-universe.
Oh. I like that. Forgot about that one.

What's the action it takes for a creature with "web" to make it as a 'sheet'? Can they do it midcombat?
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules#TOC-Web-Ex-

>>93880050
I've never actually used any enemies with swarm rules. How do they work?

>>93880416
Nerfed how anon, tell us

File: 1706430845310403.png (1.03 MB, 780x780)

1.03 MB PNG

>>93881812
I restricted your spellcasting whilst hasted, while otherwise using the 3.0 Haste.

/3.5g/ Seemed to find it an acceptable compromise when I shared it a few weeks ago.

File: 1725326765895983.png (1.5 MB, 1563x782)

1.5 MB PNG

>>93880050
So, I've been going through all the SNA entries (in PF1) up to SNA 4; + Mad Monkeys, Summon Swarm; and Summon Minor Monsters. I think I reverse engineered the criteria Paizo are using.

It *might* ignore the 'Dodgey' modifier, but everything else seems to line up with where they placed it.

Anyways; It should make it a bit more practical to add in a few more summoned animals, magic beasts, and plants for now; and then add more later - while knowing which spell level they should fall under; which should be useful for when the PCs capture monsters to study. It's a bit better than the formula I had before, though this one doesn't go past 4th level spells. I haven't analyzed the higher level ones to break them down yet.

So far the list is just a subset of the spells listed above, but with 1 creature per spell, and the spell can be prepped as that level, or the two levels above it. So if you know Level 3 Conjure Beast (Leopard), you can prepare it as a level 4 or 5 spell without needing to relearn it, to cast it for 1d3 or 1d4+1 Leopards.

I *think* that should play reasonably, I don't see why it wouldn't. It is overall a bit of a nerf to the SNA line of spells, in addition to being a template for learning new individual summons.

File: 1702563011570301.jpg (77 KB, 602x438)

77 KB JPG

Next game is saturday, my lvl4 wizard is going into trials to get to 5th. First test was leaked to my character at end of last session.
We have a day to make one scroll to impress the judges. Bring you're own materials and the base price must be at least 500gp.
Im 4th lvl, 25x2x4 is only 200 gp, how am I supposed to make a scroll 500gp? Am I suppoed to buy some extravagant paper or ink or some shit to get it over the top?
My only thinking it casting some kind of (semi)permanent spell on it to make it look like it's worth more. what spell would that even be?

>>93879909
Doesn't even have to be a serious 2H power attacker to be a nerf past 10. Something as simple as Heroism plus flanking is +4 to hit. Trip involved? +8.

>>93882830
>the base price must be at least 500gp.
Hmm. Here's what I can think of: Get creative invent something new for your test rather than just copying the default process.

IE: Spell Completion is half the value of use-activated, yes?
Ergo a first-level spell-completion scroll that can be used 1/day rather than single-use should be Spell Level x Caster Level x 200. = 1x4x200 = 800gp.

Alternately, the *simple* option, is to choose a spell with XP and GP Components.

If you make a scroll of a spell that costs 60xp, you will spend the extra 60xp in making it, and the item will be worth an additional +300GP Base price.

Or you could find a spell with 300gp worth of material components to make a scroll of.

If you take a use-activated item (2000); make it spell completion (*1/2); make it 50 charges (*1/2), and then strip that down by 49 charges (*1/50); you get SL*CL*10, for a single use scroll. This tells us that the price break for buying 50 vs single use, is a -60% reduction in price, IE (*4/10).

IE a single X-charge scroll is worth scroll-price * X * (1-(0.6*(X/50)).
Y = SL*CL*25*(X*(1-(0.6*(X/50))).
Y = 1*4*25*(6*(1-(0.6*(6/50)))
Y=556.8

If you make a single 6-charge, 1st-lv spell 4th-lv caster scroll, that's worth 556.8 gp.

>>93883049
So what do you think would fix it, add a third attack but add another equal penalty to all attacks, and then math it out in a spreadsheet to find a new equilibrium? I really do like the idea of speeding up iterative attacks by giving all the attacks the same math, but I don't want to nerf martials to do it, you know?

>>93883060
>This tells us that the price break for buying 50 vs single use, is a -60% reduction in price, IE (*4/10).
(Because 10 / 25 = 4/10)

>>93882830
If I gave you this "get creative" problem to solve, I would be looking for you to come up with a way to invent a scroll that's worth 2.5x as much as the typical 2nd level scroll by a 4th level caster. Any of my options I just suggested would be legitimate, assuming you could show your math. But you would want to make sure that whatever it is still *functions* as a scroll with modifications, rather than falling under the Complete Arcane "Alternate Item Types" rule, where it fully behaves as another item type and thus you must have both crafting feats.

If you *HAVE* both Scroll and Wondrous though, you could make a 1/day command-word activated scroll anyone could use for Spell Level x Caster Level x 400 x 1800 / 2000. If you dropped your CL down to 2, you could make a SL1 CL2 scroll *Anyone* could use 1/day for 720gp, or a consumable command word scroll anyone could use for SLxCLx50x18/20 AKA SLxCLx45 - but for your Lv that will be worth at most 360 gp unless you do a spell with expensive materials or a an xp cost, it doesn't get you all the way to 500gp.

>>93883082
If recalculation is the problem, cap the iterative penalty at -5. But it's not the recalculation that throws the game's pacing off, it's crit threat and miss chance.

>>93880151
To me as a DM that seems like a good idea, since it keeps players who want to break the game in relative check while still keeping most characters fun and strong

>>93881021
Since it isn’t specified i would asume a standard action, however if just shooting webs is a standard action it would make sense for the sheet to be a full round action

>>93881621
For 3.5 they work like this: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#swarmSubtype

For pathfinder: https://www.aonprd.com/MonsterSubtypes.aspx?ItemName=Swarm

But in both cases they work rougly like this
-Immunity or resistance to weapon damage
-weakness to AoE’s
-Immune to single or multi target effecting (unless you have a thing that effects an area instead of creatures)
-Immune to Mind-Affecting unless its a hive mind or area effect
-Automatically deals xd6 damage when in your square and distraction
-can’t make AoO

>>93882709
This looks a lot better than before. Now you can easily-ish estimate how powerfull a monster is compared to the spell level. Making players able to know if they could actualy use such a creature.
I woudn’t ignore the “Dodgey” modifier since a highly evasive creature can be a real pain in the backside for a monster, or near imposdible to fight if it can fly and your foes can’t and only has melee attacks

Keep up the good work.

>>93881882
So no Full Attack buff - but there can be an additional Standard Attack. I see.

>>93884391
what I meant is sometimes it seems the monsters on the lists have it and seem like they should be bumped up to the next spell level as a result, but aren't, which makes me wonder if maybe Paizo didn't consider it a relevant factor.

But, glad to hear that looks better.

>>93885518
which is to say, it *almost always* accurately predicts which SNA the creature should go in, but once in a while it seems to overestimate the spell level by a slot compared to where Paizo put it.

>>93882830
Item Components of spells get added to the cost to create a scroll i think

Let's talk economy and trades, so to speak.
Any crafting rules worth the ink they are written with?
Any argument against shifting every coin of 1 step (silver economy)?

>>93884135
>But it's not the recalculation that throws the game's pacing off, it's crit threat and miss chance.
I'd say it's all of the above, but you're right, those also slow crap down.

>If recalculation is the problem, cap the iterative penalty at -5
I... Don't hate that instinctively. I would want to see what that does to the DPR numbers. You don't want them to skyrocket.

>>93885420
Yes. though obviously you can use that Standard Action for just about anything. A combat maneuver.

Effectively the 3.5 buff still sort of gives you an extra action, but it forces it to be a move action. My change is the restriction preventing you from casting an extra 9th level spell or the like.

>>93888801
> Any argument against shifting every coin of 1 step (silver economy)?
What do you charge for essential common goods priced in copper?

>Any crafting rules worth the ink they are written with?
I don't hate the DMG magic item crafting rules; and I like Book of Strongholds and Dynasties for construction projects (the prices in Stronghold Builder's Guidebook are about 20x what they should be, by my estimates.)

I have heard good things about Experts 3.5, and I gave it a brief skim, but I haven't given it an indepth read or tried it at a table.

>>93879909
>The criticism is they supposedly underestimated people's to-hit bonuses and this results in a damage nerf for a well built THF powerattacker, which is the standard they should have been comparing against.
They're overestimating people's AC.
Everyone in core 3.5 has Brilliant Energy on their weapon at higher levels. If your level 16 martial with four attacks has trouble hitting a Young Adult+ Red Dragon's 8- touch AC at -15, the problem is the person who put together the character. Core Rogues are dual wielding acid flasks as soon as they can afford to. Pretty much the only deflection bonus on most monsters is incorporeal or the rare unearthly grace. Most creatures have abyssmal touch AC; the few with high dex still lose it if flat footed.

>>93882830
There are two answers
1) Scribe a spell with an expensive material component or an XP cost
Unfortunately there aren't super expensive spells at 1st/2nd level that would make it naively, so you have to be at least a little clever about it. You were on the right track with
>Am I suppoed to buy some extravagant paper or ink or some shit to get it over the top?
The material component for Identify is "A pearl of at least 100 gp", which means a more expensive pearl can be used. Same for Illusory Script, "A lead-based ink (cost of not less than 50 gp)" (and create magic tattoo from PGtF). You can make an identify scroll of any base price by using a more expensive pearl.
2) Scribe multiple spells onto one scroll.
>A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8 ½ inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each extra spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather.
Don't listen to the retards.
>>93883060 >>93883164
You guys are expelled.

>>93888801
>Any argument against shifting every coin of 1 step (silver economy)?
Any argument for? What's your goal here?
>Any crafting rules worth the ink they are written with?
There had to be a tier 0 and I'm glad it's crafting because downtime activities are fucking gay.

>>93890461
Tier 0 would be the best tier, anon. the tiers get worse as the numbers get bigger.

>>93890508
Here's your (you)

>>93890459
>There are two answers
>2) Scribe multiple spells onto one scroll.
>>A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8 ½ inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each extra spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple strips of leather.
>Don't listen to the retards.
Not 4th lvl wizard guy, but this has got to be the answer. Multiple spells because you can work on up to 1000gp of a scroll a day, so it doesnt matter how many spells it holds as long as the total base price is less than and you've got them memorized.
>1) Scribe a spell with an expensive material component or an XP cost
>Unfortunately there aren't super expensive spells at 1st/2nd level that would make it naively, so you have to be at least a little clever about it. You were on the right track with
>>Am I suppoed to buy some extravagant paper or ink or some shit to get it over the top?
>The material component for Identify is "A pearl of at least 100 gp", which means a more expensive pearl can be used. Same for Illusory Script, "A lead-based ink (cost of not less than 50 gp)" (and create magic tattoo from PGtF). You can make an identify scroll of any base price by using a more expensive pearl.
This is the angle I didnt think of, probably all the npc students are going to load up their scroll with most of their spells that day to try impressing the judges. But if you just went with the one Identify with a super expensive pearl, then you'd have a lot left over. Remember you can only craft 8 hours a day, they likely are going to through you into the next challenge the night after scribing and you'll be sitting pretty with a headful of spells still.
All-in-all a pretty based test at least from a metagame perspective. Anon, after the session come back and tell us the rest of the tests so can know if your DM is truly kino or not

File: 1698715558240872.png (2 MB, 1920x1080)

2 MB PNG

>>93890545
>Here's your (you)
Oh. If we're going to be passive aggressive, alright then

>>93890461
>Hurr there had to be a tier [S] and I'm glad it's [Fox, Marth, Falco, and Jigglypuff] because [those characters] are fucking gay.
Here's your (you)

Does anyone have any experience with the 3rd party Pathfinder stuff from Dreamscarred Press? I've toyed with it here and there, but haven't done any deep dives. Normally, I'd look at handbooks and community guides, but a lot of that content wasn't updated beyond playtest versions, when it exists at all. Just not a lot of discussion. Which feels weird, because what I've seen is generally pretty fun.

The psionics stuff I have no clue about. Never got a chance for psionics in 3.5, so I don't really know what changes were made or what effects they may have had. I can't say it's bad, I just don't think I can claim any authority when talking about it.
Path of War looks disappointing in the same way Tome of Battle was. "It turns fighters into casters!" No, not that I've seen. Mostly, it gives bonus damage. Some combat maneuver support, the occasional status condition. Nothing that I would trade away the ability to cast Forcecage for. Very little out of combat utility. The accusations against them feel overblown, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
I really like what I've seen of Akashic Mysteries. Vizier is probably my favorite 3.P class, just barely above Eberron's Artificer. I do a lot of solo play, but I hope to find a DM that will let me play one in a real game some day.

I don't really have a point to this post. I'm just hoping either someone with experience (or at least someone willing to trawl through the Library of Metzofitz) is willing to strike up a discussion on it and related content.

>>93891611
I own a bunch of it but none of my players ever wanted to use it when I was running PF1. The Psionics looked like a pretty fun revision of 3.5 Psionics (which I've also never seen anyone use); and PoW just looks like ToB to me, so pretty meh overall.

What’s the best class for a mad, magical clown? Bard comes to mind as it’s a magical performer with a lot of good jester skills as well, though AFAIK jesters aren’t really associated with music and they definitely aren’t musicians before they are clowns. Sorcerers are another potential choice, being charisma casters and being that way from birth, making sense for natural fools. A trickery cleric could be an interesting approach though a high wisdom score seems contradictory to the whole idea. For the same reason a wizard multiclass would seem illogical. So far bard seems like the best choice even though it’s not perfect. What are your thoughts?

>>93892209
I think for that concept, you should go for a cleric with the trickery and 3.0 madness domains. You get a scaling "insanity" score that improves your DCs and bonus spells, but penalizes all other Wisdom uses. Once per day, you can flip the Wisdom penalty to an equal bonus instead. Most of the time, you're a babbling fool, but then you'll just say something really insightful out of the blue, then go back to your schizo nonsense.

>>93890249
>Experts 3.5,
Uh, thanks

>>93890461
>downtime activities are fucking gay
Massive fag opinion. Also crafting is an essential element of modern fantasy AND classic mythology.
Worst opinever.

>>93890249
>>93890461
This would make gold more special in-universe and less of a common currency.
Gold is over used.
Most stuff shown as sold in copper can be conveniently sold in multiples of 10 anyway or should have the price slightly adjusted.

>>93891611
They did good with psionics. Akashic gets points even just for giving an actual flavor that is not "it's blue" to incarnum.
ToB falls in the same trappings of 3.5 one.
When 4e (!!!) Fighter maneuvers pay more attention to the weapon used and it's effects, you failed at remaking a combat system.

>>93893600
You still haven't clearly explained what you're doing.
>Most stuff shown as sold in copper can be conveniently sold in multiples of 10 anyway
So you're just multiplying the value of copper/silver/gold/plat by 10? People already traffic almost exclusively in platinum at higher levels anyway. All this does is cut currency weight by a tenth.

>>93893582
You have achieved peak nogames.
Downtime breaking the economy is bad because it means you can never have downtime.
Crafting that isn't gamebreaking or economy breaking is just printing stacks of c4, which is a nice gag but ultimately doesn't really contribute to systems with real combat. Again, it also fags up timekeeping since you can never have time pass under any circumstances.

>>93890878
>If we're going to be passive aggressive
>t. author of >>93890508
wew
Pick up a book or run a game of 3e sometime

>>93890249
Mind showing giving me a hint where in the grand archives i can find the Experts book?

>>93890459 #
“A brilliant energy weapon ignores nonliving matter. Armor bonuses to AC (including any enhancement bonuses to that armor) do not count against it because the weapon passes through armor. (Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.)” Unless i am blind theres not a way to target only touch AC as a weapon enchantment

>>93891611 #
DSP stuff Psionics is very fun but some of it is very strong and some of those powers are infuriating to deal with as a GM, thuroughly recomend as a player, ask your gm before you delve into the expansions since they are generaly stronger. If you want more psionics for PF check out Spoonbender games, they made some neat books.
Regarding the veilweavers i can only give it a thumbs up as i love them as a gm and player. They are flavourfull, not OP and just cool.
I havn’t given Path if War a thourogh look or played it to tell you if its good or bad, but many of my players like it.
TLDR: DSP great stuff but can be very strong, so in a High optimization game it can get silly

>>93892209
Bards don't actually need music, just performance, so they'd probably be the best class for a mad magical motley jester. Feels like nobody ever really talks about non-musician bards. A trickery and madness cleric would be interesting, though clerics have few skill points.

>>93893933
>the lower number tiers are more effective and/or versatile than the higher number tiers and contribute more to party success.
>wew
>Pick up a book or run a game of 3e sometime
Right right of course. Tier 6 mops the floor with tier 1 in terms of party contributions. How silly of me. Commoner Best Class.

>>93895434
I couldn't find it in any troves. Went and bought it from the publisher. It's this one though.
https://skirmisher.com/supplements/experts-v35-a-comprehensive-ogl-sourcebook-for-fantasy-role-playing-games?rq=experts%203.5

>>93893933
>You have achieved peak nogames.
You have reached peak retard, because you assume as standard your incredibly shitty gamestyle.
I mean, you are the same sperg obsessed with tiers, I am not surprised.
Games with long downtime do exists, your inability to handle it means you should just not contribute to the topic.

>>93893933
>Downtime breaking the economy is bad because it means you can never have downtime.
Maybe this is why that anon asked for alternative crafting systems, you fucktard?

>>93893933
>All this does is cut currency weight by a tenth.
It also makes the term "gold" in universe not feeling like a gold coins is more or less a dollar/euro/pound for us.

>>93895894
The alternative is having no crafting or crafting that may as well not exist
This is a binary. There isn't a synthesis or whatever other bullshit hegel told you you'd be able to find. If downtimes matter you have to play them out and if they don't you don't.

>>93895537
You're not very clever, yes, we know.

>>93896905
Crafting breaking the economy isn't inevitable, though. There's a wide range of far more interesting activities that can be more profitable per unit of time, and a wide variety of potential competition for liquid asset inputs to character power outputs.

>>93896905
>This is a binary. There isn't a synthesis or whatever other bullshit hegel told you you'd be able to find. If downtimes matter you have to play them out and if they don't you don't.
We are operating at levels of autism previously considered impossible.
Just adding special, quest- or reputation- rare items, you avoid the economy break and you transform the issue into an item selection instead of random drop, but still within boundaries.
Listening to massive faggots like you is like no unified system ever came out.
You are cancer.

>>93895453
>Feels like nobody ever really talks about non-musician bards
It's maddening. You could have a dancer or mime bard within core rules.

>>93895453
>>93897500
They're forced to add Verbal components, not Somatic, and are barred from Silent Spell, not Still Spell. And the feature is called Bardic MUSIC.

While the rules technically support motion-based Bards, there's significant mechanical disjoint.

>>93895453
I did a bard with Perform Oration whose thing was rousing speeches and telling people tactics mid-battle. It was a little bit of a stretch, but it was fun.

>>93896905
>Says retarded shit.
>You're not very clever for disagreeing with me are you.
Come back after you've at least played a session of the game.

>>93897637
>They're forced to add Verbal components, not Somatic, and are barred from Silent Spell, not Still Spell. And the feature is called Bardic MUSIC.
I have been BTFO. Ok.

>>93895453
>Feels like nobody ever really talks about non-musician bards
They get powercrept on 3.0-allowing tables by snowflake instruments. I feel like they (together with whistling/singing/oratory) are the standard in 3.5-only to such a degree that it doesn't bear specific mention.

>>93897491
>Just adding special, quest- or reputation- rare items, you avoid the economy break
Your solution to the economy being broken by downtime with magic crafting is to completely throw out the economy and make anybody who's not using fucking magic crafting of all things unable to get access to items? Without doing anything to curtail magic crafting? And this is supposed to be an improvement.

>>93898172
I see you've hit the point where you can't even try to quote things out of context to manufacture a narrative where you don't look retarded.
Artificer is t0. It's stronger than wizard. Magic item crafting is the strongest thing in the core book, probably the strongest thing in the game, Sarrukh etc. included. The system for wondrous item crafting (and it's infinitely nastier roidbitch older sister tied to the same feat, Magic Trap crafting) is completely open ended and the only guardrails are going out of your way to work with the DM to limit what you do. This is little surprise; the system was designed for DMs and is in the DMG for good reason.
Anybody who has so much as skimmed the book and seen the 'other considerations' would understand that it's not a finished system that players are supposed to have open ended access to.

I mean, (you) specifically are flip flopping between calling artificers t1 and t6 based on a moments whimsy and also acting as if the difference between t1 casters abusing every loophole in the game and naked commoners is some minor qualitative difference like on the framedata/hitboxes of a fighting gay character so nothing I'm saying is news to anyone who plays the game, but other reply chains imply that unsurprisingly there are plenty of people who have never actually looked at 3e magic item crafting rules.

>>93901692
>Artificer is t0
>Arguments for magic item crafting being good
Jesus fuck nonsequitur much? I thought we were discussing the uselessness of the crafting rules for mundane equipment. When did we start discussing the fucking Artificer?

>I mean, (you) specifically are flip flopping between calling artificers t1 and t6 based on a moments whimsy and also acting as if the difference between t1 casters abusing every loophole in the game and naked commoners is some minor...
Nah m8. I straight up thought your argument was 'downtime actions are fucking gay. good thing mundane crafting takes a whole bunch of time to still suck. lol t0'. You never mentioned Artificer, so I never assumed you were talking about some random Eberron class.

I can answer no questions about Artificer. I have never seen anyone even ask to play one. Closest I've gotten is a Wizard using the DMG crafting rules to craft items from the DMG. Which, while good, I would not classify as T0.

>>93905634
(you)

>>93901689
>is to completely throw out the economy and make anybody who's not using fucking magic crafting of all things unable to get access to items?
I am amazed. How did you extrapolate this, retard-kun?

>>93901692
>Sarrukh
NTA but anyone that talks about Sarrukh beyond funny theorycrafting is a no game retard. These are not the issues of the game and if you treat them as such you are a cretin or disingenuous or both.

My memory is failing me today. Which setting had a continent with a curse on it that caused violent insanity on groups that got above ten thousandish people in an area?
Like it was a plot point that some settlement was getting really close to the limit and was going to trigger the curse soon.

>>93906690
Unironically this. TO is just for fun, not a serious problem with the game.

>>93906690
>NTA but anyone that talks about Sarrukh beyond funny theorycrafting is a no game retard.
You're the only person who has.

>>93909756
Nope, reread the thread, failure-kun.

>>93901689
>They get powercrept on 3.0-allowing tables by snowflake instruments
Splat? Song&Silence perhaps?

Already asked in the 3.5 thread so..

Any feat or mechanics for battle cries of some sort?
Either "debuffs" like Kiai Shout, or something instead buffing your allies, not dissimilar from the bardic Inspire Courage.

I am already aware of the Marshal class and of White Raven in ToB, of course.

I am looking for any 3pp doing this, or even good homebrew findable online. Thank you.

>>93879657
Out of interest, the creature in this art an actual Pathfinder monster with a statblock?

>>93910777
I believe I saw it inside one of my books. But I can't remember what it was called. I'll dig through them when I'm home in a few hours and see if I can find the name.

>>93910347
AOE debuffs mostly seem to be spells. I don't know of any that are generally applicable battle cries off the top of my head, Marshal and White Raven stuff notwithstanding.

Did you look at the Path of War classes and Spheres of Might? They may have what you want.

>>93911075
Thanks anon.

>>93910347
It's Ki Shout and Red Avenger's Deadly Shout, mostly.

>>93910285
S&S, yeah. I think there's similar stuff in a dragon mag but I wasn't able to track it down.

>>93910275
Yes. The first time anyone say anything like that is >>93906690

>>93910347
War Cry, Warcry, and Battlecry spells

>>93911132
>Did you look at the Path of War classes and Spheres of Might? They may have what you want.
>>93911663
>>93911997
>War Cry, Warcry, and Battlecry spells
Well anons, time to homebrew using all of that and what I posted in my question as a base.
My intention now is to give them available to all full BAB classes because they are "warriors" barring the "Ki" ones that are also available to monks.
> Red Avenger's Deadly Shout
This goes with the Ki

Thanks

>>93911997
>S&S, yeah. I think there's similar stuff in a dragon mag but I wasn't able to track it down.
I remember special effect instruments were also in complete adventurer, am I misremembering?

>>93906795
It is a funny meme to see how badly you can break the game, if yiu do it in a game you deseve whatever punishment the other players pr GM deal out to you

>>93910347
There could be some neat stuff in the Encyclopedia Arcane: Dragon Magic.
Legends & Lairs: Path of Magic could have some bardic stuff
Malhavoc Press: Complete book of Eldritch Might has bard stuff in it so could be some ideas in there.

For more homebrew stuff goodle skyrim shouts for 3.5/PF and im sure there are some stuff you’ll like

>>93879929
Sadly most of it was downloaded so i don’t have the links saved anywhere :(
I could create a archive for my piles of 3.5 and pathfinder 3PP stuff i got stored however

>>93913065
Thank you, anon.
So... much... 3rd party...

>>93913065
I'd appreciate seeing some of that, whatever you think is good. If it's stuff you can post to the thread, I can also include links to the archived post of the PDFs. I've done that a couple times.

>>93913185
Yeah, there's a ton of publishers who made stuff for 3.x.

Legends & Lairs is... Fantasy Flight?

Malhavoc is Monte Cook's, pre-numenera; He was one of the lead designers on the 3.5 PHB and DMG and a consultant on the PF1 versions of the same.

Encyclopedia Arcane is a Mongoose line. They had the license for d20 Conan, which was pretty good albeit not groundbreaking.

>>93911509
I can't find it. I'll ask in the Paizo thread. Sorry anon.

>>93916440

>>93916629
>>93917492
Its an Astradaemon, with a better color scheme than usual. Maybe slap a template on it to justify the variation.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/daemons/astradaemon/

File: download.jpg (111 KB, 681x1000)

111 KB JPG

>>93920068
>>93911509

>>93916436
Legends & Lairs is indeed Fantasy Flight
Any site you recomend since a lot of the files are larger than 8 MB?

And while im at it any specific books you anons want?

>>93921427
Here is a Mediafire folder with all the AEG stuff hopefully more stuff coming later

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/zbkwnyeg8a8ax/3.5_3PP

>>93916440
>>93920068
>>93920339
Thanks people. Damn, what a difference that colour scheme makes.

>>93921526
This one accidentaly showed a few things to many so i had to delete it sadly

Here is the working one
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/v9kvoq18gr24q/3.5_Treasure_Trove

>>93921590
Its more than just the color scheme if you look at the details. It'll like they told WAR to draw an Astradaemon and he said "let me make it look better". It's better all around. But they hire Reynolds for important pieces not random bestiary entries.

>>93921986
Correct. This one >>93920339
is more of a generic digital art piece compared to WAR.
To be honest tho, the Rogue on the right is not his best work. It's uncanny valley even for an elf.

>>93921427
>Any site you recomend since a lot of the files are larger than 8 MB?
Catbox.moe gets used here a lot; but if you can upload them here, the links will last longer.
I think Ideally we want a good link to the vault torrent, or something similar to it that's all d20 stuff, and then recommend people open it through a VPN.

>>93921427
>And while im at it any specific books you anons want?
I believe I have most of the 3.5 3PP, and all the PF1 3PP that sounded interesting. I'm more interested in the good stuff you said you archived from forums, since that stuff would be new to me.

If you have Experts 3.5 without watermarks though, I'm sure that anon upthread would appreciate it. I'm not sharing mine because it's not scrubbed.

>>93922010
Oh, yeah. I never looked that closely at her face. She's also more spidery in general. More ironic given he did the original character design.

>>93921427
If you have a source that expands on invocations more, I suppose that could be good. All I have is Deep Magic + UA + Occult Rituals. I wouldn't mind some more stuff fleshing that out. Especially if someone covered "epic" incantations that you wouldn't be able to consistently cast at L20 by yourself, but maybe if you had lots of assistants.

File: 49130.jpg (43 KB, 400x282)

43 KB JPG

Topic:

Do any of you guys have any d20 projects on the go right now? A campaign you're prepping / running / playing?

>>93932077
I'm working on a Warblade translation for my homebrew.

>>93932077
>the Rakshasa trying to lawfully explain and stick to the plan, and looking kinda frustrated
>the Vrock autistically screeching
>The Incubus (or male Erinyes?) not giving a single shit and being mildly bored or annoyed

This pic is wonderful.

>>93932077
Merging and compiling 3.X + PF1e, seeing what to keep when something is present in both and is better in one or another.
Then going to import 3pp and good ideas from 4e, 5e and PF2e when suitable.
Send help

File: 1709682784543055.png (1.1 MB, 778x781)

1.1 MB PNG

>>93932077
3.X Wilderness-Sandbox Homebrew. I've been working on spells the past week or so. You guys have seen my replacement for summon monster spells.

Anyways "Create Food and Water" was a bit much for a Wilderness Hex Crawl, IMO, so this was today's replacement.

I'm currently adapting Invocations + PF1 Occult Rituals into the system's Ritual Magic system. Going to pull some inspiration from AD&D's Elven High Magic a bit for downsides of the rituals, and then I'll look at Rolemaster 4e and the Buffy RPG and see if I can put together a decent miscast table.

>>93932458
It's one of my favorite pieces of D&D art. I believe it's from Savage Species. IIRC it's a WAR Piece.

>>93932458
I particularly like how it seems to be specifically set up to mirror this one >>93928949

>>93932612
Speaking of - Is this paper texture alright for the spellbook, or do you guys think I need to find or make a better one at some point?

File: Clipboard Image.jpg (147 KB, 1101x711)

147 KB JPG

>>93932458
>>93932622
Incubus. It's specifically from the Succubus/Incubus (Demon) racial class progression page in SS
I think this is the only racial class progression we've ever used? And then he leveled as a fiend of possession.
I don't know why but I thought that Succubi had Unearthly Grace.

>>93932637
It's perfectly legible but it makes me think of the Yellow Pages

>>93932702
>It's perfectly legible
Yeah, I was confident it was legible, just wasn't so sure about the actual color / texture

>But it makes me think of the Yellow Pages
Fuck, you know what, me too. That's probably why I don't like it. I messed with a parchment texture in photoshop and was trying to make it not too in-the way. And on my one monitor it looks pretty good and is a sort of beigy orangey yellow color, with the lighter parts looking almost white, and then when I open it on my other monitor when I post it here, it's wayyy more yellow.

I'm not going to redo it today, but yeah, it needs to go. Thanks for the feedback.

>>93932468
>Merging and compiling 3.X + PF1e
>Then going to import 3pp and good ideas from 4e, 5e and PF2e
That is *massively* ambitious. Jesus. At least mine is just "Rework the PHB and add in snippets of Eclipse and GURPS and shit to taste."

>Send help
No fucking kidding.

Are you automating a bunch of the work somehow, or are you trying to actually compile this 100,000 page monstrosity by hand?

I hope you're using a fucking database hooked up to a web frontend and not some giant word document.

>>93916436
>Malhavoc is Monte Cook's, pre-numenera; He was one of the lead designers on the 3.5 PHB and DMG

Point of order: He was one of the three leads on 3.0, he had left Wizards by 3.5.

>>93933575
Sure. But it's not like the 3.5 PHB was a *new* book. It was Andy Collins editing his work. Most of the 3.5 book content is almost the same as the 3.0. And IIRC they brought him back briefly to work on the DMG again.

>>93892209
https://srd.dndtools.org/
There is also the jester class from the dragon compendium, I don’t know if it’s any good though.

>>93932077
I am working on compiling a tome of all the shadowcaster stuff i can find (Including many of the homebrews i foudn), in addition theres a setting i am slowly cooking up a setting where there are no spell slots and instead use all the alternative magic systems for 3,5

>>93932468
You have some real powerfull autism to do such a thing. wish i could send you some help

>>93932767
It is fine for a first page but the main text probably shouldn't use the yellow page

>>93932800
>Are you automating a bunch of the work somehow, or are you trying to actually compile this 100,000 page monstrosity by hand?
eh, is less daunting than you think. Most of the times is trying to understand which approach of sub-system is the best one.
>You have some real powerfull autism
Yes

>>93932800
>some giant word document.
Even subclasses have their own document.

>>93937797
>Even subclasses have their own document.
Well, at least you're using multiple documents.

>>93938086
I also have meta-files anon, or navigating this shit would be nightmarish.

File: 1710359962290363.png (136 KB, 1176x645)

136 KB PNG

>>93938303
Meta-Files? What do you need those for (and how are you using them)? You don't just use a directory structure?

>>93938454
Yes, it kind of looks like that, my kindred spirit.

But some of this info could be in need to be connected, or need a commentary on a source, or a comment on the fact that the work is ongoing and the status of progress is not apparent from the document itself, or be linked to spell-list changes that then trickle down on rarity and item building.

As I said, send help.

>>93938714
>my kindred spirit.
Yeah, I realized as soon as you described what you were working on that I'm working on something similar, but I deliberately picked a smaller scope to hopefully finish it in a reasonable timeframe. I'm only replacing my PHB, and aiming for a more compact d20 game, with enough cross-compatibility with d20 stuff outside of the core book to import content on a case-by-case basis midcampaign, and the ability to use 3.X and PF1 Monsters as-is.

File: 1696130760114764.png (681 KB, 2200x3400)

681 KB PNG

>>93938714
>But some of this info could be in need to be connected, or need a commentary on a source, or a comment on the fact that the work is ongoing and the status of progress is not apparent from the document itself, or be linked to spell-list changes that then trickle down on rarity and item building.


I mark my stuff that's WIP by using the "Highlighter" feature in MS Word. If something is highlighted in red, it needs a rewrite.

But I get how you can need to keep track of status beyond that. 1 sec...

I now understand that your 'meta files' are serving the same purpose as this tracker. I just used a spreadsheet instead.

So - I'm looking at invocations right now, as mentioned, and one of the 'backlash' effects is -1 to DC per 2d6 damage.
And -2 per negative level.

What about ability damage? How much ability damage is 'equivalent' to 2d6 normal damage? Any suggestions on what my best point of comparison is? Should I just look for spells and then compare against same-level evocations, or is there a better option?

New Thread
>>93940576
>>93940576
>>93940576
>>93940576