>>97299931
Thank you for a real thread.

>>97299931
>TQ
That seems a very specific kind of limiting. Do people actually do this? I guess there's always the guy that makes nothing but fighters or what have you, but "all my characters worship Selune" or whatever seems pretty weird to me.

>>97300319
Not a stipulation, just as a generic go-to. For instance I have a predilection for Olidammara unless there's a striking reason for my character to lean another direction. Just a casual preference.

I have on a number of occasions gone hunting for what the fuck the Two-Weapon Fighting penalty for the Armor Spikes+Two-Handed "trick" is (usually brought up in the context of covering adjacent space when using a "normal" Reach weapon) and never found it. The latest cause being the desire to 'brew Double Weapon support making them competitive with that and easing their nightmares of feats to furnish both the two-weapon and two-handed applications.

>>97299931
Yeah. Tymora the lady of lack really draws me in and almost all my chaotic characters over the years are her followers t the point that i tried 2 different times to play a fortune's favored which is on of the worst prestige classes of 3.5

>>97300503
>5 typos in a single sentence
this is what i gt for phoneposting

File: TORM THE GOAT.jpg (620 KB, 1672x1030)

620 KB JPG

>>97299931
>TQ
Not any one specific Deity, but I tend to default to Torm or Heironeous types.
Specially if there's some dragon adjacency as with Torm and his rad ass gold dragon buddy.

Is there a complete Index anywhere of character options?
Tried looking at CK but Warlock Invocations doesn't have any splat in it so I know it's not complete.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-05 at (...).png (302 KB, 1903x1406)

302 KB PNG

>>97300794
The links in the OP under
> Tools
is probably the closest you'll get.

>>97300716
Odd shaped dragon

>>97300491
Exactly the same as normal TWF with a light off-hand weapon. It's really hard to qualify for it in a way that makes it worthwhile, but it works.

File: 2540-worldgorger-dragon-3(...).jpg (172 KB, 900x562)

172 KB JPG

>>97302116
It's a very special Gold Dragon I guess.

>>97301095
Somewhere a guy has undoubtedly made a tier list ranking all know 3e feats and I'm curious to see what such a masterful work of autism looks like.

>>97302911
Would be quite the undertaking.
https://files.catbox.moe/i640ae.pdf

>>97302982
Beautiful, thank you. :)

5e or 3.5e

>>97303082
3.5 when playing with my friends, 5e when introducing people to ttrpgs

>>97303082
3.5e simply because the options are already there and it's up to me as a DM to curate what I want and don't want at my table.
In 5e, the content is so limited by comparison that I have to pretty much homebrew all the gaps.
Also Bounded Accuracy is utter cringe to me.

File: ancient-gold-dragon-mtg-clb[1].png (2.92 MB, 1644x832)

2.92 MB PNG

>>97303023
Thank the anon that made it.
It is an incredible resource.

>>97303082
I'd play either (and do play both).
But 3.5e.

>>97303082
if i were to play 5e i simply wouldn't play dnd

>>97303115
I feel like 5e is kind of a bad introduction because it's so heavily weighted towards the DM having to arbitrate, improvise, and fill in gaps in the system. A basic one-page system would at least reinforce that TTRPGs are ultimately collaborative with everyone putting in effort to keep the game running, rather than something the players enjoy and the DM endures.

>>97303231
I can enjoy DMing 5e just fine, and it also introduces players to a lot of the lingo, terminology and concepts that they will have to also use when moving to 3.5, so it helps with that too

>>97303254
I suppose that's fair. I'm mostly speaking from watching a friend completely burn out from trying to run 5e's Curse of Strahd for a group that was reasonably experienced with simpler TTRPGs but wholly unprepared for something more structured.

>>97303264
Oh yeah, it is very much not for everyone, but I have found it makes for a pretty handy way of getting people into ttrpgs, specially ones that are only interested on D&D (which is most of them)

>>97303254
if you want someone to learn something teach them the thing.
if countless groups of teenagers managed to learn 3rd edition as their first rpg 25 years ago then i m sure your friends can do so as well.
Going about it in a roundabout way helps no one.

>>97303082
5E is just 3.5 for retards.

>>97303287
It's helped me with several groups so far, so I'd say it's working pretty well. You are of course not keeping in mind the many, many other groups of teenagers that bounced off 3.5 (and ttrpgs altogether) because of how dense and complex it was

>TQ
If I'm playing a human, generally a LG or NG deity like Tyr or Pelor, depending on the setting. For non-humans, generally whoever their chief deity is (Corellon, Moradin, etc)

also I still want to hear more about Diruengrey

>>97303307
Is 5e even that much simpler to learn as a newbie or is it more a question of reputation?

>>97304706
Than 3.5? Absolutely, 5e is extremely streamlined and dumbed down compared to previous editions, there's wayyy less shit the players have to keep in mind at all times and since the interactions are so watered down, they also have a much harder time making characters that fall behind from the rest of the party

>>97304706
Its seen as easier because you make fewer decisions.

>>97304706
5e has infinitely fewer decisions during character generation, less support for multiclassing, and fewer options during gameplay. On every axis it is easier for the player. The issue is that a lot of rules scaffolding that was discarded is now on the DM to make up when questions arise, and a lot of mechanical cruft that's still around is strange vestiges of decades of iterative design rather than a unified structure. It'd be easier to learn than 3.5 but harder to understand, if that makes sense. In either case it's a poor introduction to the medium.

Why play anything else but a Cleric or Druid?
A Wizard if you have too.

>>97305439
because rolling a fistful of d6s when I stab a guy is more important than efficacy or optimization

>>97305439
Because my players want to play guys with swords, not really cast spells.
It helps that I'm not running some OSR adversarial dungeon crawl that necessitates optimisation.

>>97305439
Because they wouldn't fit the character concept as well as some other class or combination of classes, I guess.

>>97305439
Psions can go blow-for-blow with much less cognitive load.

>>97299931
>Do you have a deity that you default to for your characters to worship?

No, and unless the character is specifically a divine caster the god issue never even comes up.

>>97305439
Because DM only allows us to play Warmage, Healer, Warblade, or Factotum

Savage Tide DM here. We're getting close to starting Sea Wyvern's Wake, just doing some in-between sidequests to get the party of 6 up to lvl5.

>>97305439
Stylistically, I just prefer spontaneous characters, even if they're a little weaker. Sorcerer and Psion are my favorites, and they're not so far behind the top three that it's a serious problem.

>>97305439
Why eat anything other than nutripaste and water, anon?

>>97305439
tl,dr - complicated characters can easily turn into homework and your average gaming session into an exam.

for example Cleric has ~2600 spells between D&D 3.5 and PF1, if you are just using 3.5 that's still 1600+ or so.
You have to always be picking the right spells, trying to guess what's coming up next and you have to actually know what every spell does to be effective because everyone starts getting annoyed at you when that stuff has to be figured out mid session for you.

As you get higher up in level the work load constantly grows. Soon you have 40 spells memorized and that means every single round you need to try and pick the optimal one out of like 200 choices and everyone wants you to have made the decision before your turn comes up.

Meanwhile martials can just come home from work, pull out their sheets and dice and start playing and they can actually relax and enjoy the game, pay attention to the story and the banter. and their decision space remains about the same through the whole game.

its a very different kind of game when you are playing one of those.

>>97305937
whichever one has holy prostitutes in its temples to reward her best champions and can reliably send an angel girl companion to provide... moral support during the adventure.
Sexual healing is a big plus too.

should protection from evil be protecting from a rast gaze attack?
>Paralyzing Gaze (Su)
>Paralysis for 1d6 rounds, 30 feet, Fortitude DC 13 negates. The save DC is Charisma-based.
closest spell effect I know of to this is Hold person and that's
>Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
from which PoE would protect.

File: 1494452833161.jpg (137 KB, 736x981)

137 KB JPG

I'm working on an alchemist class for 3.5 and I'm curious:

1. Would you find it more interesting if there were (1) escalating versions of alchemist's fire, dealing 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, etc. or (2) escalating damage items with escalating prices / craft DCs, but they did different damage types instead, or (3) both? Basically if you played an alchemist it'd be like bombs from Pathfinder, except you actually crafted them, but instead of always dealing fire damage, it'd be a set-in-stone thing that the 2d6 ones did, say, electricty, the 3d6 ones did cold, the 4d6 ones did half-fire-half-acid, or something like that.

2. How overpowered would it be for a 15th level character to be able to create potions of spells with a range of personal? They also would be able to make potions of spells level 1 to 9, from a limited number of spells "known" for the purposes of making potions out of them. But this would allow them to make potions of any personal-range spell they chose to learn. How broken would this be?

>>97308440
>1
Don't forget damage rising with potion size. So:
First track - Potion Quality
Second track - Potion Size
Third track - Potion type
>2
As opposed to any full caster already being able to do worse? It's a solid ability but I would compare to something like ToB classes abilities, not full-casters. Too many limitations.

>>97308512
Alright. My goal is to make it a tier 3 class. I forget what tier warlock is but I'm hoping for similar capabilities, but stronger to make up for them requiring potions instead of being at will.

>>97308512
>Don't forget damage rising with potion size. So:
Potion size?

>>97308546
>Potion size?
D&D normally assumes all potions are of the same size or that it is irrelevant.
Personally I like to add that by making a potion a size larger you can make it more powerful - 1 size increase doubles the potency, but multiplies the price by 10.

So if a normal potion is of Fine size and costs say 10gp while providing 1d6 points of fire damage at current alchemist level you could also make a bigger bottle that would provide 2d6 points of damage (and possibly larger effect radius) but also cost 100gp. Most of the time it isn't very useful but sometimes when players try to make traps or you need to eyeball the amount of damage a big pile of explosives does it is useful.

File: IMG_0625.png (1.27 MB, 1320x1270)

1.27 MB PNG

>>97303082
if you have the chance to play 3.5, play 3.5.
i miss this system so much but nobody around me plays it anymore.

Is it possible to intentionally inflict non-lethal damage with a Wounding weapon? so as not to inflict the bleed effect?

>>97299931
Why aren't you using the KINO ART! We've been and done book covers, it's getting repetitive.
Say what you want about last thread, but the retardanon at least had taste.

>>97311014
You can intentionally deal non-lethal damage with any weapon, you do take -4 penalty to hit, IIRC.

Has anyone here tried the Slayers D20 System?
Specifically I was wondering how well the Magic system in that would work in an otherwise non homebrew 3.X game.

It's basically a skill roll stamina system. Roll casting check, if fail take non lethal damage based on spell level. Can make it lethal damage for bonus on casting check. That sort of thing.

Would it be safe to use in 3.X? Maybe make it it's own class variant

>>97312926
It will probably be easier to mitigate the downsides of it with D&D materials, but due to the writers flagrantly misunderstanding the setting, the spells also tend to be weaker than they should be (for example, Lina at one point uses Summon Monster to conjure a bird, and the Slayers d20 writes this up as a discrete bird summoning spell). I think it should be safe enough.

>>97313082
>discrete bird summoning spell

I was thinking use the vanilla 3.X spells with the casting mechanic. I guess with still needing to learn spells you are still limited

>>97313082
I actually decided to open up the book and take a look at it again instead of griping about The Bird Spell. Yeah, it still looks pretty cool to me. Kind of like a wizard retooled around skill checks. It struggles a bit with long-term effects and variety, but has a cool vigor effect and nifty item crafting. Unless you do a bunch of custom spell research, I'd say it's almost compares better to the warlock than the wizard. More favorably, perhaps, but then the warlock isn't as good as the wizard, so that's fine.

>>97313180
Do you think it would work better Sorcerer style (learn as you level) or Wizard type (spellbook, prepare X from book)?

It's a simple pleasure, but hitting all 4 iterative attacks (thanks hastes!) and dealing 253 damage does feel pretty good.

>>97311014
Not by RAW, but RAI you could say you're striking with the wrong part of the weapon, just like you would when doing what >>97312193 says, and thus it wouldn't be the enhanced bit

>>97308440
>1
3 would be the most interesting, but would also preclude the class from effectively dealing with some higher level threats once immunities become plentiful
>2
Not at all; Brew Potion requires 3 HD, Reach Spell is requirement-free, and between those you already have most spell effects available to everyone. Getting personals to touch is a bit harder (there's only two or three PrCs that let you do it), but by lvl15 you'd be dealing with much, much bigger stuff than getting weird buffs onto your other characters

>>97312926
>Slayers D20
Thank you for mentioning this, finding out there's a parallel universe dragon magazine that prints manga was a fucking twilight zone moment.

>>97312926
Yes, it would work perfectly fine in D&D. Slayers d20 is basically D&D with less material to draw from. The only problem is that in D&D proper you can get your concentration checks way higher.

>>97314353
Any suggestion on rebalancing it?
Would it make Casters more powerful than intended? Maybe having guaranteed subdual damage will be a fair balance.

>>97314374
Same poster

Rules as written so far
>Take Actions to cast spell
>Roll Fort Check (DC 15+5 per spell level)
>Take Drain (Non Lethal damage determined by Spell Level)
> More or Less depending on Fort Check
> If Fort Check failed, roll Control to still cast the spell
> If Fort Check failed by 10 or more caster also Fatigued/Exhausted
> +5 on Fort/Casting Check if declaring Spell Name
> +5 on Fort/Casting Check if making casting a Full Round Action
> +5 Fort/Casting Check if taking Lethal Damage instead
> +15 with all 3
> Caster Level also added to Fort Check
> Multiple casters can combine their actions for a single spell, add assistant caster level to primary casters check or assistant increases spell caster level/apply metamagic

Given it's a Fort Save and at best you take half the drain damage I think mostly it will balance out.
The base Drain is D6 but the Wizard class in Slayers also has D6 HD so might need to drop that to D4 base.
The other thought is that at a certain level, some spells will basically become infinite use when your modifier beats the base DC. Cantrips will be DC 15, Level 1 is DC 20. Even with Drain taken into account, a Full Round action can get that almost guaranteed as a 1st Level caster even.

Maybe the DC needs to be altered. Or scrap the modifiers being allowed and keep it base only. This leads to a problem the other way of course that a Level 9 Spell already has a DC of 60. With a max Fort Save of +6 (+Con) it is impossible to make without the bonuses. You would cast with a Casting Check but that would be Double Drain and likely Fatigue most of the time.

tl;dr acts fine at low levels, gets all warped at higher levels

>>97314533
Low level spells being spammable is okay with Slayers magic. If you use Slayers spells of course, not D&D ones. It's designed specifically to be able to do so. Same for high level spells being always draining without enormous investment. Slayers mages are basically solid T3 classes on par with Warlock.

You could also dip into ToB Diamond Mind and a few other options to find substitutes for Fort Save, even if limited ones in most cases. So I'd say it would work pretty good.
>>97314374
If you are using Slayers spells you don't really need to rebalance it. Don't forget that having multiple spells up at the same time is incredibly hard with Slayers magic unlike with normal D&D spells where you can layer them on top of each other by the dozens.

>>97314686
The idea is to use this in place of vancian. Using the standard 3.5 spells

>>97314717
Wouldn't work. Standard 3.5 spells are a mess that barely works with current setup. Slayers magic will just allow you to abuse the hell out of the bullshit ones. That's one of the main problems with 3.5 - games that replace its magic with something more reasonable work way better. Slayers, old Conan d20, and so on.

>>97314803
Could you elaborate on what the problems would be?

>>97314829
Same as they are now. A lot of spells are way better than the should be. For the most obvious offense see Polymorph and its derivatives. Not only is it bad from a power/versatility to spell slot view but simply from a narrative standpoint in how much problems it creates for the game and how hard it makes it on the GM to manage. And same applies to a lot of other spells with them being little rule cut outs that supersede general rules of the game.

Only with Slayers you can laser focus on the spells you want and spam them to your heart's content. Especially with how easy the non-lethal damage is to heal.

There is a good reason why spell-point variant Wizard from UA is jokingly called a Tier 0 class.

>>97311014
>>97313524
I wonder how one would strike for non-lethal that with something like a morning star or a heavy flail.
the best I can think of is trying to stab with the end of the wooden helmet but at that point you are better off punching the guy.

>>97315711
My guess is either aiming for the limbs, or using the handle as extra mass for your punch

>>97308859
That's actually a neat system for determining explosions but I would probably assume the higher damage is due to a more concentrated explosive or more powerful formula. Like gunpowder bomb v.s. C4.

>>97313557
>Not at all; Brew Potion requires 3 HD, Reach Spell is requirement-free, and between those you already have most spell effects available to everyone. Getting personals to touch is a bit harder (there's only two or three PrCs that let you do it), but by lvl15 you'd be dealing with much, much bigger stuff than getting weird buffs onto your other characters
Okay. So it'd be worth a feat-equivalent special ability? I won't make it a feat, but I figure if a fighter is a baseline, then every other level the class features should at least be equivalent to a bonus feat. I know power level doesn't work that way but it's a good baseline.

What would you say would be the minimum level an alchemist should be able to turn personal-range spells into potions? And should it be limited to the alchemist being able to drink them? Because I really hate the Pathfinder alchemist's "look at all the cool stuff I can make, but only I can use it" shtick that just makes it another superpower class that doesn't take advantage of the power of an alchemist.

But the problem with that is, people will look at a class whose strength is giving his allies stuff, and say "underpowered!" or "unfun!" in the latter case because he is giving away his "fun" stuff to other players.

Anyway I am rambling but right now I have the personal-range spell potion ability requiring minimum level alchemist 15 to be picked as an alchemist "talent"

>>97313557
>but would also preclude the class from effectively dealing with some higher level threats once immunities become plentiful
The way around it would be some kind of energy substitution. Which I would add in in the former case, similar to the Pathfinder alchemist, which gets bomb damage escalating like sneak attack (which I aim to replicate, but through a crafting system instead of a per-day thing) but then can also pick new energy types as "talents" as the levels go up.

File: complete psi lute.jpg (401 KB, 755x784)

401 KB JPG

>>97311578

Improve the book covers before posting, then. Using actual book covers makes it easily identifiable as the 3.X thread.

>>97318049
The bigger issue with that concept is always the problem of stockpiling. Downtime isn't a real cost, even gold isn't a real cost in many ways. If you give the player the option to have a month's worth of their strongest spells in a bag of holding, they'll do it.

>>97320692
agreed partially about players doing that.
however as for this
>Downtime isn't a real cost, even gold isn't a real cost in many ways.
It very much should be, its on the DM to make it so.
There must be time limits to make time precious, otherwise nothing matters. its almost like playing a game with the houserule that none of the PCs can ever die.

once time becomes precious, so does gold because opportunity cost becomes a factor.
and that is why I don't think ideas like this >>97318058
>through a crafting system instead of a per-day thing
once time and gold matters, crafting stops being viable unless your DM is just not giving you access to any merchants.
The game is built so that the most efficient thing the PCs can do with their time is always to go adventuring. If you need something crafted, its more effective to find NPCs who can craft and than pay them with the money you get from loot.

>>97322148
Seems like Monster Hunter approach is again the best one. Could of course buy the parts, but your income then becomes pretty slim after selling the potion. Way better to go and hunt the monsters yourselves.

>>97322283
Monster Hunting is for newbs.
pick on NPCs so you can take their stuff

>>97323517
That's just monsters hunting with extra steps. Assuming you don't count humans as the true monsters.

Can magical traps be detected with Detect Magic before they trigger?

>>97324090
I don't see why not. The rules for magic traps say "A successful Search check (DC 25 + spell level) made by a rogue (and only a rogue) detects a magic trap before it goes off. Other characters have no chance to find a magic trap with a Search check." Nothing there says its magical signature is masked.

>>97322148
>It very much should be, its on the DM to make it so.
Just like the old advice for 5 minute work day.
Run a background timer, the world doesnt wait for you.

Or if you are running sandbox, well if the players are spending 2 months on downtime then I sure hope they can afford accommodations.

>mwk warhammer +12/+7 (1d8+2/x3 plus 1 fi re)
vs
>Locked Bronze Doors: 3 in. thick; Hardness 9; hp 60;

>okay DM, describe how about half an hour of me hammering with a one handed mallet is going to crash through three inches of metal

this system is broken and needs to be fixed.
The amusing part is literally in the next room:
>Stone Secret Door: 4 in. thick; Hardness 8; hp 60;
...
>A total of 20 biers, each once holding an armed and armored warrior held in stasis, line the walls of this room.
...
>some of the warriors awoke on their own only to find themselves trapped within the room with their sleeping companions. Scars on the back of the secret door attest to their failed attempts to batter
their way out.
...
>Eventually those who were awake were forced to prey upon their sleeping companions in order to stave off starvation.
...
>Treasure: The warriors of Argos were not interred with any treasure per se, but their equipment is of such high quality as to constitute a treasure unto itself. Though much has been damaged over time, consider there to be at least one of each type of weapon or armor listed in Chapter 6 of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game of masterwork quality. In addition, a DC 18 Perception check locates a masterwork cold iron battleaxe buried under a pile of gnawed bones.

So 8 warriors, armed with every kind of masterwork weapon available, could not get out of a room that one guy can dig through in half an hour if going by the rules. All it would take is strength 10 + any blunt weapon with a d10 damage dice.

>>97326127
>>okay DM, describe how about half an hour of me hammering with a one handed mallet is going to crash through three inches of metal

You don't

>>97326127
Destroying objects has always been iffy once scaled past tiny/small sizes, especially given that by RAW you can't damage objects or sunder with a fucking PICKAXE, the thing MADE to break stuff

>>97326463
>Vulnerability to Certain Attacks
>Certain attacks are especially successful against some objects. In such cases, attacks deal double their normal damage and may ignore the object’s hardness.