Could you use Guidance of the Avatar and/or Divine Inspiration for the Ride check on Mounted Combat to basically give your mount comical AC against a single attack? Not sure what it would actually do, but it seems kinda funny.

>>97431627
1-20, change as needed based on the game. Too many whiffed builds because I forgot a prerequisite in games like NWN to not plan all the way ahead.

>>97432753
Yes, although if you are investing such in to mounted combat, your ride check should be good enough out of hand.
>>97431627
Usually have a good idea from levels 1-13, not more than that due to varying factors during the game being accommodated for.
My current pc was going to be much different, then I became a werewolf, and changed up everything outside a handful of ideas.

>>97431627
>Thread Question: How far many levels in advance do you plan out your character's progression? Do you know your entire build from level 1? Do you take it as it comes?
Been playing my first and only character for the last 4 years, but I loosely planned his whole build beforehand and revised it as I learned more about the system, figured out new options, as the world changed around my character and as my character changed too.
Loosely as in I had several options of prestige class, feats, etc that could be combined in different ways and in different orders.
I never planned a Crusader dip for example, but the Warblade Half-Dragon PC is too cool to not end up influencing my guy in some way.

>>97432753
>Could you use Guidance of the Avatar and/or Divine Inspiration for the Ride check on Mounted Combat to basically give your mount comical AC against a single attack?
Casting Divine Insight and using it as a defensive reaction does sound like a pretty decent use of a Lvl 2 spell slot at higher levels.
Are there other instances of using skill checks to defend against attacks like that? Substituting AC, Saving Throw, etc, for a Skill Check?

>>97433807
ToB has Concentration in place of saving throws and damage rolls.

Thread Question Answered: When I level up.

>>97431627
I know most of my classes up to like level 15 or 17 and a list of feats I want but not when to get every feat.

>>97431627
So a player of mine is rolling up a new character after his last one died, campaign's at level 12, and he says he wants to make a new class by kitbashing Druid and Barbarian together. It would have 3/4 BAB, d12 HD, normal barb skills with like 2-3 added on, good Fort & Will saves, and the class features would be barb rage, and all the associated additions, greater rage, tireless, etc, and druid wild shape & animal companion, with all the associated additions, size, elemental, etc. Barb rage is not an equivalent exchange for spellcasting, not by a longshot, but I can't help but feel he's trying to pull a fast one on me.

>>97431627
>How far many levels in advance do you plan out your character's progression?
All the way to level 30. Only one campaign in 30 years has ever gotten that far, but I still do it.

File: Steel Dragon.jpg (112 KB, 800x579)

112 KB JPG

*unsteels your steel dragon*
*defangs your fang dragon*
I hate 5e. All Steel Dragons just being Silver Dragons, and Fang Dragons becoming Grey Dragons. They should have just made Basilisk dragons and called them Grey Dragons.

>>97434975
Honestly it sounds like he just wants to be a barbearian and claw the hell out of people. A melee-focused class with 3/4 BAB is a bit of a letdown, so that does increase the odds he's going for some sort of multiattack cheese, but all things considered like you said anything he can do in a rage is less of a problem than by-the-book druid spellcasting.

Also have him take a look at Druidic Avenger from Unearthed Arcana, if you'd prefer having something that's not homebrew.

>>97435100
I'm also bothered by similarly reducing the "Weredragons" to a subculture rather than distinct breed, though given how much page-space for not much difference the age categories take up I can understand why the content-averse 5e team did it.

>>97435100
I get what you mean but even in 3e Steel and Silver dragons are so similar in their nature(even if not in exact abilities) that the change simplifies things comparibly.
Personally I find it even reconciles well with the existence of Silverbrow Humans, who are the decendents of Silver Dragons who've long lived among humans and bred with them in hiding.
Like that backstory makes a lot more sense if a number of the Silver Dragons actually lived like Steel Dragons.

Though I'd have preferred if they had just made Steel Dragons even more distinct from Silver Dragons instead.

Like maybe make them a kind of Arcane Dragon Instead(which fits with the oddly high CLs Steel Dragons have) of a metallic dragon.

Do you think a proper wielder carrying a Rod of Embassy would actually experience the effects of being on their native plane?
>Embassy: There are actually many varieties of this item, and they vary so widely in appearance that it is practically impossible to characterize them at all. Each kind of rod of embassy is keyed to a different plane of existence, most to a specific Outer Plane. In general, the design and decoration of a given rod is strongly reminiscent of the plane it is keyed to.
>Thus, a rod of embassy keyed to the Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia is made of precious metals and includes images of archons, while one keyed to the Ever-Changing Chaos of Limbo is almost amorphous, resembling an elongated ooze, though careful exam ination reveals the likenesses of slaadi lightly etched into its surface.
>When a creature carries a rod of embassy keyed to its home plane, it is considered to be on that plane for as long as it holds the rod. The creature’s type does not change, but it is no longer considered an extraplanar creature. Thus, it cannot be sent away by banishment or dismissal, or even the powerful blasphemy, dictum, holy word, and word of chaos spells. In addition, it can use similar spells to banish other extraplanar creatures as if it were on its home plane.
>If a creature holds a rod of embassy keyed to a plane that is not that creature’s home plane, the rod has no effect.
>Caster Level: 9th; Prerequisites: Craft Rod, plane shift;
>Market Price: 20,000 gp
Like for example would a dark creature carrying one keyed to the plane of shadows, benefit from having all their Shadow Spells maximized as if they were actually on the plane?
Or do you just read it as a way of not counting as extraplanar with the effects of the plane you are actually on?

>>97436403
I'd say the latter. The enhanced shadow magic is a trait of the plane of shadow, not a facet of creatures from the plane of shadow while on their home plane.

>>97435609
>>97436165
I like the idea of Song Dragons being to metallic dragons what True Cambions are to demons.

That is, when a male metallic dragon impregnates a dragonblooded female human, the resulting child is born looking human but is actually a unique kind of dragon that lacks an ancestral memory.

>>97431627
I'll be doing my first 3.5 campaign in about a month. I've done a bit of PF so I'm not completely blind, but I understand it's still different.
I know I want to use a Guisarme because I like the aesthetic. I'm torn between Stand Still and doing Improved Trip. SS seems actually useful in 3.5, but is it a trap? not dealing damage seems kinda lame.

>>97437815
I'd lean towards improved trip, as it's more proactive. Prone enemies are very easy to dispatch, whereas Stand Still only helps you when an opponent specifically moves out of your reach. Mind you, a Guisarme's reach is a 10ft ring so enemies will move out of your threatened area to get within 5ft of you, but that's still more situational. Also note that Stand Still replaces your damage, but a trip attack doesn't do damage either. Improved trip lets you get a followup attack if you succeed, but the touch attack itself doesn't deal damage. The real perk in SS's favor is that tripping is an opposed strength check which is very easy to lose against melee monsters, whereas attacking their reflex save is a lot more likely to work.

For me the tiebreaker is that Improved Trip is a prerequisite to a lot of amusing feats like Curling Wave Strike and Knock-Down. If you're already trying to control the battlefield, additional rewards and opportunities to do so are important.

>>97437815
Stand Still does deal damage and uses that damage to set the DC (To nearly unbeatable levels) It's a fort save and only applies to creatures meaning the undead and construct immunity to fort saves that don't work on objects apply

Wait no the non psionic one that made it into the SRD (From what?) says Reflex, so nobody can bypass it.

>>97437878
>>97437879
>Benefit
>When a foe’s movement out of a square you threaten grants you an attack of opportunity, you can give up that attack and instead attempt to stop your foe in his tracks. Make your attack of opportunity normally. If you hit your foe, he must succeed on a Reflex save against a DC of 10 + your damage roll (the opponent does not actually take damage), or immediately halt as if he had used up his move actions for the round.

>Since you use the Stand Still feat in place of your attack of opportunity, you can do so only a number of times per round equal to the number of times per round you could make an attack of opportunity (normally just one).

Doesn't seem to say it replaces damage.

I'm lost.

>>97437885
>(the opponent does not actually take damage)

>>97437889
FUck sorry it's 3:30 am

I copied that from one spot but I was still remembering the 3.0 psionic version and only noticed the Reflex vs Fort change

>Prerequisite

>STR 13, reserve power points 1+,
>Benefit

>When a foe's movement would otherwise grant you an attack of opportunity, you may give up that attack and instead attack your foe prior to your foe's actual movement. This is akin to a readied action, but Stand Still doesn't affect your initiative count or actual readied actions, if any. The foe must succeed at a Fortitude save against a DC equal to 10 + the damage you deal, or be unable to move into or out of the area you threaten-essentially, this ends the movement of a foe who is closing, and prevents any movement of a foe who is fleeing (if you are normally allowed an attack of opportunity against the fleeing foe). Since you use the Stand Still feat in place of your attack of opportunity, you may only do so a number of times pet round equal to the number of times per round you could make an attack of opportunity (normally just one).

This one So there's a psychic version that does damage but can't work on undead or constructs. (And is I suppose technically depreciated since it's 3.0 content.)

File: Gnome.jpg (62 KB, 464x455)

62 KB JPG

How far many levels?

File: 0.jpg (608 KB, 1224x1584)

608 KB JPG

I know it used 2e, but I'm posting the novelisation of Baldur's Gate 1 over on /vr/

>>>/vr/12339660

>>97437878
>The real perk in SS's favor is that tripping is an opposed strength check which is very easy to lose against melee monsters, whereas attacking their reflex save is a lot more likely to work.
The real trick is to take both and use whichever one is more effective

>>97439719
If wishes were fishes we'd all have 40 feats that did various niche bullshit but at a certain point you have to make tradeoffs.

File: 278902._SX1600_QL80_TTD_.jpg (174 KB, 1069x1650)

174 KB JPG

This looks like an appropriate place to ask my idea.
A concept I'm trying to explore in RPG context is 'which is more admirable/noble', and the two contrasts I chose are not quite polar opposites...
One is 'good', because he's inspired by a stellar, shining example, an Ideal to aspire to.
(A human who decided to adopt the god of the Elves as his patron. Setup for a holy-bow-adin)
The character is young, naive, and wears a silver mask in the gods likeness.

The other is 'Stoic' because he's seen some dark things, and survived them when others died horribly, and is convinced that SOMEHOW, something DARK AND HORRIBLE AND EVIL is trapped inside him, and will get free if he dies,
He could be insane, deluded and wrong, but his BELIEF is that he keeps this EVIL trapped in his mental labrynths that he designs and builds in his dreams, which he remembers fragments of.
(Call it the 'Diablo sickness', like the plot of Diablo 2, with the entity inside the crystal, but the crystal is his mental constucts of labrynths).
this character gave up on adventuring early, and spent nearly 20 years a haunted wreck, afraid to face the dangers of the world, having seen his allies die more than once.
Finally, somehow inspired by the optimism of the young idealist, he's trying to overcome his inner demons, his haunting terrors and aversion to danger, to try to become stronger than he was, and try to make a change... or at least stop the kid biting off more than he can chew.
(His role is more 'traditional warrior' (and ex bartender), with a focus on Labrynth design (traps,maps and engineering), and trying to become as hard as nails, and harder to kill.)

The forced 'dichotomy' (if you read this far) is this:

Which is more noble? Which is stronger?
The one who looks outward, for an ideal to aspire to.... or the one who has seen evil, been scarred by it, and somehow still finds the strength within himself to go on, and try and overcome his inner demons?

>>97435302
I suggested Bear Warrior, but he wants the shape variety, and full companion progression so his pet stays useful even without spell buffs.

>>97434975
>3/4 BAB
>d12 HD
I haven't seen a single official class that has D10+ on its HD, and not be a Full BAB class.
Heck, even some D8 Classes have Full BAB.
I don't know if it's just me, but slapping a D12 on a 'non-martial' is a pretty bizarre choice.
If the class isn't meant as a front-liner (which I assume it is), lower the HD to d8.
If it IS supposed to be a front-liner, up that BAB to full and lower the HD to d8 or d10 (as well as removing the good will save progression).

>>97441142
Dragon Shaman is d10 and 3/4 BAB

>>97441142
>>97441199
>I haven't seen a single official class that has D10+ on its HD, and not be a Full BAB class.


Bone Knight prestige is 3/4ths and d10. But I've never seen a d12.

>>97441082
Primeval prestige class but with more variety for the shifting?

Noted, in my defence nobody has ever played a dragon shaman at my table. Regardless, it looks more like an outlier if you ask me (and d12 / bab 3/4 seems like a jarring disparity).
>Cleric is D8, 3/4 BAB.
>Druid is D8, 3/4 BAB.
>Bard is D6, 3/4 BAB.
>Rogue is D6, 3/4 BAB.
>Psychic Warrior is D8, 3/4 BAB.
>Swordsage is D8, 3/4 BAB.
>Binder is D8, 3/4 BAB.
>Totemist is D8, 3/4 BAB.
>Psychis Rogue is D6, 3/4 BAB.
No core class with 3/4 BAB exceeds D8, and supplemental classes generally keep the trend (excluding Dragon Shaman I suppose, and Soulknife now that I'm looking at it).

>>97441286
>Primeval prestige class but with more variety for the shifting?
He might go for it

>>97441391
It actually stacks with your base stats while transformed which is crazy good. If there's a druid for venomfire maybe discuss not using it on him if he goes for Fleshraker dino. Three poisons to turn into acid are pretty brutal. It's alright as regular poison. Even if his con and HD would make the DC pretty high it's only 1d6 dex per attack and most fights end fast enough the secondary damage doesn't hit.

It's when they turn into 1d6 acid per caster level of his druid buffer that it gets silly.

>>97431627
When I play, I plan everything to make sure I meet prerequisites.

When I DM, I try to get my players to do it so I can give them story reasons to meet prerequisites or justify their choices. Sometimes, I had to house rule something to help a build make sense mechanically.

File: battletitan_dinosaur.png (2.4 MB, 1600x1572)

2.4 MB PNG

>>97441391
>>97441286
Sorry to shill but I actually just made a video about the Primeval prestige class. I left out the Swindlespitter dino, which was stupid, but other than that I'd be curious what you think of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuvXQaF2rfE

>>97434975
You could use some PF archetypes as a basis:

>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/barbarian/archetypes/paizo-barbarian-archetypes/mooncursed-barbarian-archetype/
>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo-ranger-archetypes/wild-stalker

Or adapt the Shifter class:

>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/shifter
>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/shifter/archetypes/rageshaper-shifter-archetype/

>>97441619
I'd recommend against the Shifter, it's well known for being one of the worst classes in PF.

>>97441592
I meant to link your vid when I made the suggestion but forgot.

>>97441634
I never got the chance to test it in my game. Ultimate Wilderness released a year before the preliminary 2E rules were released.

It looked good enough after the errata and the Adaptive Shifter archetype came out.

>>97441686
It's meant to be the Druid's answer to the Paladin or the Bloodrager, but the class was severely undercooked, and the claw ability it gives is functional for a newbie but quickly falls off as it has next to no real amping options in later levels.

File: Ranger (VanHarmontt).jpg (337 KB, 1280x1707)

337 KB JPG

>>97441706
...Like a Ranger?

>>97441754
Sorry you're right, it was actually meant to be akin to the Brawler. Not officially a hybrid between Druid and Monk, but a hybrid in spirit.

>>97441509
With an 18th level character who has 10 levels of primeval, you'd have +11 to Con in fleshraker form, say you did standard array and put your 15 in Con cause you really wanted to go for poison DC, that'd be a 26 Con so at 18th level your DC would be 27. Not bad but mature adult red dragon (CR 18) has +20 Fortitude save (I think they're also immune to poison but it's hard to find a CR 18 monster that isnt off the top of my head). I guess that's not a bad shot when it's 3 of them, but that's still only an average of 3.15 Dex damage per round. And I use the dragon of course as an example it's one of your best shots at incapacitating a monster with Dex drain.

Venomfire at that point would be 54d6 with some regularity so that'd be a better option IMHO.

I may have made some dumb statements here however.

>>97441646
That's okay, I'm just honored to know you thought of me

>>97441286
>Bone Knight prestige is 3/4ths and d10. But I've never seen a d12.
Dragon Disciple

If I cast silence on a creature in the middle of an enemy formation, but that specific creature resists the spell with its will save, does that dispel the spell entirely or does it mean that just this creature can still emit sounds while everyone around it is silenced?

>>97441814
Don't forget to shout TERRORIZE when transforming. Very important.

Or Maximize I guess if you're a goody two shoes.

>>97441850
Good call. THough doesn't that turn at the end into full bab Dragon RHD?

>>97442091
>Don't forget to shout TERRORIZE when transforming. Very important.
Based

been researching old posts to understand how silence works. The general consensus I am finding can be summed up as
>Have super-Archmage, Will Save +80, Spell Resistance 40, Wish granted to always reroll any natural one, never took Silent Spell feat
>Have a level 1 rogue with a scroll of silence
>if rogue tries casting Silence on the archmage, cannot possibly succeed.
>if rogue casts silence on a sticky spitball and than blow darts that spitball unto archmage's shoe, archmage is silenced
>because the spitball did not bother resisting the spell, it is now an active emanation and so the archmage doesn't get to try resisting that when it lands in his general vicinity or attaches to him

is this correct RAW?
I keep finding post after post opining that this is it and if so I wondering how that old debate about casters being powerful even came about when its this easy to shut them down.

> An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any.
I've previously been ruling that anyone in the area of silence, whether they are there as its first cast, or enter it after the fact, gets to do this for themselves only and if they succeed, they and their attended items can make sounds but the spell remains in effect for others.

>>97444620
Yep that's RAW alright. Only get a save and SR if you're directly cast on, or someone casts it on an attended object.

>>97442091
>>97442165
Oh yeah good point, maximizing that you would get a LOT of mileage out of it... that's horrifying.

>>97444620
Well you are correct but there is no RAW way to "stick" something to someone except maybe a tanglefoot bag. An arrow doesn't technically "stick" to the creature it hits and is destroyed on impact, which I believe would end the spell.

Also, it's a 15-foot radius. Odds are the wizard could simply move out of the radius. You would notice the effects of silence instantly. Especially in a battle.

>so I wondering how that old debate about casters being powerful even came about when its this easy to shut them down.
Well, you are shutting them down with another spell, so it's kinda hard for that to be a strong argument against caster supremacy. I mean UMD rogues can be build to fight spellcasters pretty well but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the base class' abilities, at least if you ask me.

>>97441287
His reasoning is, it's a medium armor class that's going to be in melee for every encounter, barbs get d12 and damage reduction, so he took the HD. And, when you can use Greater Rage as a t-rex, full BAB just feels like he's pushing it. I told him, this is 3.5 and you're giving up full casting, push it.

what are the common solutions to finding tens of thousand of copper pieces in treasure hordes?
I get that its funny to have players have to escort a pack team of donkeys the first time around. But after that, does everyone just start leaving them behind?
in some hordes it consistently a few thousand gold's worth of copper.

>>97446318
Shovel it all into a portable hole and move on. Unlike bags of holding they don't have a weight limit, and 280 cubic feet will hold a pretty respectable amount of coin. Otherwise, you can leave it as a seed fund that will inevitably regrow the dungeon as smaller scavengers like kobolds move in. Kinda like a whalefall in that way.

Have you ever had your players control more than one character at a time? I'm thinking of having my two players each make two sheets for our next campaign

>>97446519
I had a player with a cohort.

The PC was a Dwarven Warder (Path of War), and I let him choose the cohort's class and the direction for the build. He chose a Marksman with the Sniper style.

>https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/3rd-party-rules-systems/psionics-unleashed/classes/marksman/marksman-combat-styles/

I generated an NPC statblock with a few methods of attack and their skills so that combat wouldn't be slowed down too much.

>>97446318
Reinvest the money to make future runs easier. More containers, hired hands, labourers

>>97447048
They're not asking how to spend the spare change, they're asking how do you deal with ten thousand pounds of metal

>>97447243
>they're asking how do you deal with ten thousand pounds of metal
By hiring extra hands and containers to carry it

This is not Abbott and Costello

File: file.png (678 KB, 1024x731)

678 KB PNG

>>97447309
>not Abbott and Costello

>We finally killed all the monsters, but now we've got an issue
>What's that?
>Take a look at the loot
>I don't see any lute, it's just coins?
>That's what I'm talking about, the hoard
>We killed the horde to get in here, where's the treasure
>It's right there, look at the copper
>Why are the fuzz here, we didn't do anything illegal!
>...
>All I see is a bunch of cash, so what's the problem?
>The problem is that it's coins! It's too heavy to get out of here!
>Well that's easy we'll just hire someone to carry it
>And how will we pay them if all the money's stuck here with us?
>We'll hire someone to go tell them that the money's here, and wait for them to show up
>Hirelings, hirelings. Why can't you go?
>Well that's simple, I don't want you stealing it all while I'm gone!
>...
>Fine, how about we both leave, and hire guards to protect the money. That way we can just store it all down here?
>Who do you think we killed to get this treasure in the first place?!

>>97447524
Ok that one got a good laugh out of me. Well done.

>>97447524
I need more comical performances about D&D.

Playing a necromancer (wizard with corpse crafter feats) who focuses on a few huge powerful undead instead of an army of weak ones.
How do I prevent the DM from just having someone walk up and cast the command undead spell on my big skeleton guy? We are low level, so no awaken undead or high level spells/items.
All that effort and resources just to have someone call a level 2 spell and instant fail it.

>>97448864
Very few people are going to wake up in the morning and have that prepped, so if you're consistently running into it either you have a reputation that's attracting people after you in particular (unlikely at low level) or your DM is being a dick. Nothing's gonna save you from that second one, and like you said at low level awakening the undead or granting them spell resistance isn't a viable option.

What you might do is just get a wand of command undead to steal them back if and when it happens. Other option is make them wear earplugs because Command Undead isn't telepathic so if they can't hear the caster, they can't follow any orders.

>>97448864
In these circumstance you would roll opposed caster checks
I think so anyway

>>97448975
My mistake

> In most cases, both dominate effects would work normally. Each time one of the controllers gives the target a command, the target follows that command to the exclusion of all other activities. As long as the commands don’t conflict, the target simply follows all commands given.

>If the controlled creature receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers must make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the creature obeys.

So you keep control. If the wizard dies its still your undead

>>97448890
How would they be able to hear my orders if they can't hear?
I also have command undead, so I was thinking that if I ran into anyone that looks like they can use Command undead, I would just hold my action to counter spell.
What about protection from good? I have that spell as well.

>>97448864
Protection from Good/Evil maybe?

>>97448864
this is the primary weakness of necromancers.
They always have to either contend with the risk of someone contesting control over their mindless minions, or with the risk of their sentient undead rebelling.
in our game my players looted a wand of command undead early on, kept it on them for 6 levels and than used it to take over a gargantuan dinosaur skeleton during a siege. CR7 minions flipped to their side with a simple wand. ironically was destroyed soon after to several dozen simple skeletons and had no real impact.

as for fighting this, you can exploit this clause
>Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the commanded undead (regardless of its Intelligence) breaks the spell.
If you control the undead because you created it, this restriction does not apply to you, but it makes the Control Undead very fragile.
Of course that depends on the DM but really even firing a single missile or spell or charging in its general direction by anyone on the enemy's side, should end the spell
think of options of how you can help it along
>compel the enemy into doing such an act with magic like suggestion
>engage them in diplomacy: "what do you plan to do with this minion afterwards" -if they say they will dispose of it, that's a threat.
>learn ventriloquism and threaten it yourself, mimicking enemy's voice
>sleight of hand with magic that fools the undead into thinking that its being attacked from the controller's general direction
>Disguise Self yourself as the guy who just took control of it and order it to attack that other guy while screaming you will kick it if it doesn't
again up to DM, but most rule that in this clause
>A creature that interacts with the glamer gets a Will save to recognize it as an illusion.
interact means physically. If your DM agrees with that, the undead doesn't get to see through the glamer until it reaches you so this will become a fool proof way to break the spell with a level 1 spell

a creature is diving from above from a height of 330ft
>Round 0: Run (x4) dives 240ft
>Round 1: move action to fly down another 60ft to a position where it intends to hover
As it takes its move action, it triggers a readied charge which ends up with the creature grabbed and damaged heavily, with an opponent that is heavier than it can bear, prompting a fall.

What height should the fall be considered to be from?
technically its position was ~50ft when it got intercepted
However it had the momentum of a 240ft full dive before that and was just beginning to even out its flight when it got pounced

>>97449160
Whether or not Protection from Good works depends on two factors:
1.) Does the GM assume that Command Undead is an effect that "controls their mind" (IMO they should but since most of the examples given are Enchantment effects some super RAW-only GMs will say it doesn't), and
2.) If the opposing caster trying to Dominate your Undead is Good-aligned. Near as I can tell, the alignment spells in general only work when people of that alignment are involved, so if an Evil or Neutral opponent Necromancer tries to take your undead you might be screwed.

>>97453154
Protection from good/evil are weird because the block against mental control works regardless of alignment.

>>97448864
Here's some creature ideas I have planned: Skeleton Girallon, Skeleton Behir, Zombie Hydra.
What are some other good ideas? Ideally, ones with many natracks because I have the deadly chill feat, and all of my undead have +8 STR and +8 DEX from other feats. I can also give each one a single feat (Girallon - Improved Natural Attack?, Behir - Snatch).
It sucks that the Girallon won't keep rend, and the Behir won't keep constrict or breath attack.

>>97456121
Many Natural attacks*

>>97456121
I would recommend you not go for exotic things at all, unless you are playing a high optimization game, or the DM is already took the gloves off.
If you have the corpsecrafter line, something as simple as a basic giant skeleton, appropriately armed and armored, will serve you for a long time, on top of being fairly easy to replace when they inevitably are lost due to being, at the end, expendable resources.
In a past game, I had a crew of 3 frost giants with magic weapons and armor that basically lasted 1/3rd of the entire game.
An ettin early on is actually great stuff, especially at low levels where the party can take one out.

>>97450874
Physics do not work in D&D like that. It would take the fall damage from 50'.

>>97459145
Fall damage and everything to do with flying is a bit of a kludge just because once you start trying to put aerodynamics and physics into it the math very quickly starts saying things like "a dragon's wings would pop out of their sockets"

Do you feel dropping the [Evil] tags for stygian powers mirroring [Evil] spells is sensible to carry through to an undead-making effect, or are you a hardliner on Always Evil Undeath? In both cases, what are your thoughts on basing off of Seed of Undeath from Complete Mage, a zombie-making spell that already lacks the [Evil] tag?

>>97461185
You think that's air that your character is breathing?

>>97461185
ALL the rules are kludged together to approximate things, and the nature of the rules is such that they are presented as the only way things work in practice.

Why isn't the prc Legacy Champion used more often in conjunction with builds?
The WoL are kinda eh, but being able to improve them and still get class features is a useful tool.

>>97465857
Well, first you have to know if the GM will say it can extend a class and how much. That changes the power of it drastically. Second, you still need an item you've qualified for and that the costs aren't too bad. Third, because it can't come in before 10th level without seriously permissive shenanigazing, you will be pretty deep into most builds. You could very well have to decide if the slight delay is worth the gains after, especially if the class isn't allowed to expand shorter PRCs.

>>97465692
>You think that's air that your character is breathing?
Yes.
D&D and all its derivatives (as a general rule) take place in fictional settings.
However, there are some basic concepts that we take for granted so that there can be a narrative, basic shit like:
>People need food and sleep to sustain themselves.
>When it's cold, you need warmer clothing.
>Fire burns you.
The fact its a fantasy setting doesn't mean that all the laws we know collectively get thrown out of the window.
There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's being a retard.
Don't be a retard.

>>97466726
>>97465692
My setting (not 3.5 exclusively, and mostly for homebrew concepts that nobody other than me sees) has an atmosphere with a higher proportion of oxygen than in earth's air, which justifies the presence of large arthropods. However, it's also possible that arthropods would evolve regular lungs, since book lungs already exist.

File: maxresdefault-2349822657.jpg (40 KB, 1280x720)

40 KB JPG

>>97466726
>Don't be a retard.

>>97450345
>>engage them in diplomacy: "what do you plan to do with this minion afterwards" -if they say they will dispose of it, that's a threat.
But the undead is mindless, it can recognize orders and immediate physical threats, not verbal what ifs.

>>97467793
I am thinking if it can recognize an order
>go kill that thing
it should understand
>we will kill this thing once we are done with you.
If DM says that's too much, use the other methods.

>>97469090
Here's a thought
Order it to attack the competing wizard
If they defend against it, it is deemed hostile, automatically breaking the spell

>>97466623
>first you have to know if the GM will say it can extend a class and how much
Unless you are doing something stupid like Hellfire Warlock nonsense, being able to get class features of some value (some martial and caster base classes, not to mention prestige classes) gives flexibility.

>>97465857
I think it's in no small part because Weapons of Legacy kind of suck. They're a bunch of hassle, and while they do offer benefits raw WBL will usually keep you roughly at the same band of power regardless.

>>97434975
Just have him play a totemist or a totem rager

I keep trying to build paper copies of the 3e eberron books. It's really hard to even find them for sale anywhere, let alone at prices below 100€ per book.

>>97475713
How are you building them? Printing at home? Or getting someone to do it?
Might be able to find some unscrupulous print-on-demand company to do it for you. Or at Staples and spiral-bind it.

How far would you be willing to go with [Mindset] spells from Races of Eberron shifting the power out of the cast and into the preparation benefit? Long-duration discharge spells would be an obvious starting point, but the effect being outright indefinite and demanding the funky usually-high-level slot-burning effects to remove (possibly to the point of working under AMF...) would do a LOT to the power-budget of such an approach.

>>97482170
I mean reserve feats can be very powerful and this is a similar concept, but you don't have to burn a feat for it. So I'd say try to keep them less powerful than reserve feats.

The Blurring enhancement has saved my character's ass more times than I can remember these last couple years.
Should I invest into greater Blurring? Or would it be better to save my coin for a source of 50% concealment?

>>97485966
>Blurring enhancement
If you have the money and do not plan on adding any other real enchantments to the armor (and know you will not be running in to enemies with true seeing), it is perfectly serviceable.

>>97446318
10,000cp is 100gp (and weighs 200lbs)
>in some hordes (its "hoards" you dummy) its consistently worth a few thousand gold's worth of copper
a "few" is typically considered to be 3 or 4, so lets say 3
3000gp, thats not a "few tens of thousands", thats 300,000cp.

you're lying, you're wasting our time

File: adventurers vs dragon.jpg (897 KB, 3840x2336)

897 KB JPG

>>97431627
>How far many levels in advance do you plan out your character's progression? Do you know your entire build from level 1? Do you take it as it comes?

Ideally, you should play your character one level at a time and react to the game as it goes. The few of us who actually get to play have to just deal with whatever DM they get, and most DMs will bend over backwards to let you have what you want. On top of that, most games fizzle out right away. So really it doesn't matter.

I do have a few "ideal" characters that Ive built for fun and self-expression, that are meticulously planned to lvl 20.

File: HoardExample.png (482 KB, 1482x972)

482 KB PNG

>>97487376

>>97487987
Unrelated to the argument you're having, that snippet about specters being weak in sunlight made me realize I'd never seen something akin to a decanter of endless water for other materials or for light. I have to imagine a small portal to the positive energy plane that you could open on command would be like a flamethrower for most undead.

>>97479585
I've never seen custom PoD shops with the right kind of paper but maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

>>97490731
Celestial Brilliance spell is your decanter with light. You enchant an item to cast this spell once a week. Using PF1 crafting rules that would cost only 1,440 gp or with 3.5 rules, craft it in 2 days with 720 gp and 58 XP.
Most DMs would likely want to treat that as closer to continuous effect calculation, in which case it would cost 28,000 gp, but you might be able to bargain that down because unlike a real continuous effect, a 1/week spell casting item might get the spell effect immediately.

>>97496437
>unlike a real continuous effect
that's just cheesing it.
Just like continuous True Strike being a permanent +20, you treat it as a continuous effect

>>97487413
magic missiles vs a gargantuan red wyrm dragon. These guys are fucked

>>97496495
Aim for the eyes.
Magic Missile never misses.

>>97496481
I guess that depends on how many spell casters are among your undead, demons and devils.
>Celestial brilliance counters or dispels any darkness spell of equal or lower level, such as deeper darkness.
its a rare spell that is unlikely to be mentioned
I would allow it to be dispelled by any darkness spell of equal or higher level too.

in our game, I use Dispel against my players a lot. They use buffs a lot and often try to make spell combos work and that taught me that this would be bread and butter for any caster and used liberally. Especially as with 3.5 Dispel often gives you massive advantage in action economy.

so based on that, 28k for an item will get turned off almost every 3rd fight is going to be pretty steep. I would probably allow it at 14k

>>97496500
6th level caster is not getting past wyrm's SR 30

>>97496500
>>97496561
Can't target body parts with it either.

File: Bracers of Dawn.jpg (221 KB, 583x404)

221 KB JPG

>>97490731
it probably wouldn't be that expensive to make the Bracers of Dawn unlimited use, the difference in item creation of a x4 a day and unlimited is relatively minor.
the price should go from 26k to about 32k

>>97496542
>I would allow it to be dispelled by any darkness spell of equal or higher level too.
That's not how it works though. You are adding an extra caveat

File: allen-geraldino-goblin.jpg (455 KB, 1920x2528)

455 KB JPG

/3.5g/ what sort of story could I tell where the premise is the party are a bunch of mutant goblins? I wrote up some homebrew inspired by the Geomancer class in the Complete Divine. Essentially theyll earn mutation points as they level that can be spent on about 7 pages of options. Storytelling is not my strong suit so i cant think of any goal beyond: mutate and kill.

File: hexcrawl_wanderer.jpg (483 KB, 1927x980)

483 KB JPG

Has anyone here ACTUALLY run a West Marches 3.5 campaign? Or sandbox campaign? How did it go with the lack of "story"? Did people lose interest? Did you have issues at higher levels having players return to the dungeon each time? Got a long-running group with inconsistent attendance who will need a new DM soon. Been thinking of taking advantage of that by having it be a west marches game. But even right now at level 10 combats take quite a bit. I know I can run them faster on the DM's end than the current DM, but that doesn't change the players being slow to take their turns, and even aside from that, I don't know how they will feel about it.

>>97496930
i have run a sandbox but it was at the lower levels. Level 10 is already quite high for me.
I don't see why people would be less interested.
The story exists, it's just one that the players chose instead of the dm.
I ve never had more invested players.
I is much more work though.
I used the alexandrian's hexcrawling rules and pathfinder's encounters per terrain and a simple will save for morale

>>97496593
in the mainstream spells from core materials (Light/Darkness, Daylight/Deeper Darkness) it is clearly intended that these spells are to naturally oppose each other's effects, dispel each other and counter each other.
Why is it wrong to make rare spells from supplements fit what is clearly the intended theme for this category of spells?

>>97498412
Celestial Brilliance is specifically brighter than sunlight

>>97496930
I've been running a pbp campaign with three irl friends on a discord server for about 2 and a half years now.
All three are playing solo (each on their own dedicated channel), mainly because if I could actually get these guys to play together, there wouldn't be a need for a pbp campaign.
I have them sandboxing around in the same setting, occassionally hearing about what each one does through rumours and stuff (which I assume follows the basic premise of a West Marches campaign).
The general idea is that the world has 'ended', and that they are wandering around as semi-undead in the cosmic Void (The Negative Energy Plane, but with more cosmi debri).
There is no set cap on their Level, and I treat XP as "Souls" (straight from Dark Souls, yeah) because I was originally hoping that they would start carving out realms for themselves and whatnot (and a big vast nothing filled with whatever survived "The End" sounds like an okay testing ground for epic shenanigans).
Right now I have a Level 14 Warblade exploring the ruins of a divine city, a Level 15 Evil Favored Soul playing the mercenary/treasure hunter for a cabal of demons, and a Level 19 Crusader who kinda wants to restore his humanity and return back in time.
With that out of the way...
1) There is a 'story', as in there's lore on why and how the world ended as well as what the current factions are, but 2 out of 3 players see this as some sort of Idle/Grinding campaign so it doesn't really matter that much.
2) One player has been consistently posting since the start, the other two have kinda lost interest, although they post from time to time (and I'm running a much more conventional campaign for one of them, on his own request).
3) I don't run the same 'dungeon' per se, so there's no issue with levels.

is there any official source or ruling on how far a character of a given strength score can throw an object of a given weight?
Think a strong PC trying to throw another PC across a chasm.

>>97498332
>The story exists, it's just one that the players chose instead of the dm.
True. How do I create interesting plot thread potential? Or even just deal with the fact that every session has to be self-contained, thus long journeys are less viable. Unless I am less strict with the formula, and allow some sessions to end outside of town, and just do what we do now for absent players in those sessions, and have someone else run their character for that session?

>>97499355
That's a cool setting anon I like it. I'm guessing since it's solo and pbp though they don't have to return to town at end of each "session"? Reconciling that play format with "story" whether player or GM created, is my biggest struggling right now to figure out.

>>97500450
There is some RAI regarding how weapons are usually object two size categories smaller than the creature wielding it, range increments for thrown weapons, and the carry weight table

>>97500499
From my understanding of west marches is that you can play different sessions with different groups. I personally wouldn't mid pausing a journey in the middle of traveling having longer journeys. If you were to play a real time type of game and one group is stuck in the middle of nowhere for a month while the other parties have gotten 3-4 sessions under the belt might be something of a problem but still i dont see much reason why you cant do it.
>How do I create interesting plot thread potential?
Use factions. Dnd is very good for setting up factions. Churches, thief organizations the local kingdom/nobility etc. there is a faction generator in chaotic shiny that i have used in the past.
Then write a few things about the faction. goals resources, association, notable members, potential problems etc. Write a couple of things each faction is pursuing right now and give information to players depending on their inquiries and actions. Eventually they will choose what they ll do on their own and you ll develop what they chose while the rest will lowkey go on the background. Maybe roll for it if you want it to be more random

>>97500517
>I'm guessing since it's solo and pbp though they don't have to return to town at end of each "session"?
I make sure to present 'merchants' and other similar NPCs for them to get rid of unwanted loot at regular intervals, but the only actual hub I have presented thus far is a demon lord's demi-plane (from the Favored Soul's perspective). Conventional currency is more or less non-existent, but I've kept various gems with the excuse that they hold elemental power (so they have some use for trade and crafting).
>Reconciling that play format with "story" whether player or GM created, is my biggest struggling right now to figure out.
If you introduce a central hub, and have said 'story' take place within the confines of said hub, then I don't see the problem. You can have 2-3 factions which fund the various excursions of the party, each with their own ambitions and goals. Your players can do as much adventuring as they want, but they will have to eventually return (to sell loot, buy services and whatnot), and be 'forced' to interact with the story.

>>97431627
I have some old 3.0 guides at home that are barely used, are they worth money?

File: lick.gif (798 KB, 220x220)

798 KB GIF

>>97447524

>>97500499
as far as i understand it the entire point of west marches is running a different group with different characters depending on who is available at the time, so when less people are there then run a different party with other characters and yeah just end the session outside town if this is what happened otherwise it is way to restrictive and gamey

>>97500619
Thanks, will look that up.

>>97500935
Yes, but probably not enough to sell piecemeal. An ebay lot would probably go for $20-40/book depending on which ones you have.

File: bigtrouble.png (14 KB, 144x179)

14 KB PNG

>>97496500
t. never fought a swiftblade

>>97496495
its a dragon and its red, but its not a "red dragon"
anyway its trying to squeeze through a tiny door; they're fighting its head

>>97500750
True. I think basing it on NPCs in town will be important. I've never had a huge amount of "plot" with my D&D-style games anyway. It's always been more in-depth with generic systems that didn't have a built-in "gameplay loop" so they needed an intricate and intriguing plot to last.

>>97500738
True 3.5 has some underrated faction rules actually. I'm just not sure how many I could justifiably fit into a small city of 3,000 people.

>>97502709
>I'm just not sure how many I could justifiably fit into a small city of 3,000 people.
They don't need to be very large anon. 20 to 30 people can still be a relevant faction in a small town. You could have as many as you want but i could easily see 5 to 6 factions going on. A least i would start with that many to give players options.
One per alignment is the most easy rule of thumb for the minimum amount of factions to use (you can obviously skip some alignments which is where i come to my 5-6 initial number).
I would also like to point you to my personal favourite of the premaid 3.5 campaigns.
>The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde
This is a small contained sandbox style location with a couple of factions in different corners of the map like the paladin order, the mage tower etc.
All factions have a couple of prcs tied to them, by doing things for them you can gain favor points and eventually join and each can be a source of equipment, magic items etc
It just showed how to make a small contained sandbox in 3.5.
It is not without criticism though. it is very half baked and barebones imo but i recommend you check it out

>>97503105
>The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde
Thank you, I will check this out and report back. And yeah, putting PrCs into the setting is quite important to me.

>>97501897
>its a dragon and its red, but its not a "red dragon"
run that by me again

>>97508356
I think it's a
>That hyena is brown, but it's not a "Brown Hyena", it's actually a "Spotted Hyena"
kind of deal?
Actually, I've read those stories about dragons painting their scales or whatever, but are there any "canon" or official stances where an individual dragon's type/breed/species(?) is unclear?

>>97500450
Iirc, improvised thrown weapons have a range of 10', 4 increments.

>join D&D group
>want to do something the rules say I can do
>"sorry, our group doesn't really do that"
how do you handle this shit

>>97510788
If it's an already established group that has their way of doing things?
I go with the flow, then after the session I ask for a document of homebrew or something like that.

>>97510788
>>"sorry, our group doesn't really do that"
>how do you handle this shit
depends what it is

File: dwarf smith.png (315 KB, 308x588)

315 KB PNG

In my houserules, toughness grants +2 hp +1 hp/level
I am considering having it grant DR 1/- as well; I dont think that would be too powerful, honestly
however, I also considered having it grant temp hp = to your con mod that "heals" at the same rate as nonlethal damage

what do you guys think?

>>97516187
Last one sounds like too much bookkeeping.

Toughness+Improved toughness together should prooobably be enoug?

>>97516187
The Stone Power feat from ToB does something similar. -X on attack rolls in exchange for 2X temp HP for 1 round.

>>97516187
I think the Pathfinder version is perfect. Gives an initial boost that turns into a Con bump later on. Its not good but it's not meant to be. If you want to make it decent, make it 2 hp per level. It still won't be good but it'll be something. Keep it at +3 hit points to start though. Then it's +3 HP or +2 per hit die, whichever is higher.

>>97516187
grants 2 temp hp per level that heals back as the rate of nonlethal damage healing
thats better than just improved toughness, and its kinda like DR

>>97519950
ooh, I do like that
I think I'll keep it at the +2 hp +1hp/level, but as quick-healing temp hp

>>97503105
>The Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde
my group started in that module and than left the dale before encountering its main quest

>>97516187
in my game, I decided I will relegate bad feats like this to be story rewards, hand them out instead of loot sometimes, maybe allow mini-quests for them.
>Improved Toughness Base Fortitude save bonus +2,
>Dwarf's Toughness Base Fort save bonus +5, (+5 hp)
>Giant's Toughness Base Fort save bonus +8, (+9 hp)
>Dragon's Toughness Base Fort save bonus +11, (+12 hp)
>Arcane Toughness - spend spells to heal yourself when falling below 0
Not just with toughness, but all feats and traits that I find and deem to be under powered or just unlikely to make any character broken

File: disgust-chin.jpg (9 KB, 255x242)

9 KB JPG

>>97431627
>TQ
Absolutely cancerous behavior. Planning out your whole character progression would not fly in my games, conversely having a rough estimation of where you want to get is fair but you have to take for granted possible deviations. Character progression has to reflect the environment in which he's acting, not viceversa, if you want something you have to push for it in-world and not simply expecting to have it served on a silver plate by a doormat gm.

>>97520288
Question, how does a not-doormat GM prevent a player from pre-planning what class levels and feats they'll take at any given level?

>>97520288
>>97520336
I mean the DM gets control of Prestige Class access and downtime. But feats, and the spells learned on levelup are gonna be player controlled.

>>97520336
>>97520339
nta, but also if you want a build thats good in a certain way, but the campaign never quite gives that build a time to shine, thats the players fault imo
like if your campaign is set in the mountains and caves, or swamps and boats, and you build a mounted spirited charger, you might be pretty disappointed, especially if there are no alternative mounts that would work in those environments

>>97520336
By talking to them and explaining how you want things to go in your campaign

File: Screenshot_20260208-19071(...).png (1.12 MB, 925x1084)

1.12 MB PNG

>>97520336
>>97520339
>feats, and the spells learned on levelup are gonna be player controlled.
Wrong, you can always set prerequisites by RAW (picrel).

>>97520359
Literally what the fuck is that supposed to do? If anything, that just gives players more information that they can use to pre-plan their entire character from 1 to 20.

>>97520336
You can't really stop that. That is a built-in issue with 3.X D&D (and 4E, and probably 5E too). In fact just the notion that "builds" exist at all kind of implies that the players will design their characters in advance.

I get the complaint. Characters are meant to be living things shaped by their experiences, not buildings built from blueprints. But that's simply not how later editions of D&D work. Old editions are exempt from this only in the sense that they don't really have "builds" at all because you mostly don't get to choose things upon levelup, you just pick up whatever bonuses the rulebook says and say thanks.

>>97520503
It's called holding a conversation, anon. You tell them you want them to level their characters in a way that makes sense with how the campaign is going and what their actions within it are like, and hopefully, if you're talking to adults, they'll understand

>>97520546

Dude. Examine the basic facts.
>Fact the first:
The characters are the PLAYERS' sole property, their only means of interfacing with the game, their only opportunity for creativity, and it's flagrantly against the social contract for the DM to tell the players what to do with them. If you start telling players what kind of characters to run the players might seriously leave the game because of that, and certainly will have less fun.
>Fact the second:
The way late editions of D&D are set up is such that players in fact can design their entire characters all the way to retirement levels before the game even starts. This is because the options they have at each levelup are immutable and not affected by what actually happens in the game. This is not your fault and not their fault either, it's how the game is designed. For this to not happen, either the players would have to have no decisions at all during levelups (OD&D way), or the decisions they're given would have to be unpredictable and related to game events somehow (for example, instead of picking from all possible feats they might be presented with different feat picks as quest rewards).

"Just talk to the players" does fucking nothing in this case.

>>97520761
Nta but in my campaigns i enforce the rules from the DMG p.197 "How PCS improve" which plainly state that the DM can gate character advancements behind specific prerequisites. The player can bitch and scream as he likes, i'll just tap my finger on the DMG.

File: anglachel.jpg (130 KB, 736x911)

130 KB JPG

What's the consensus on spell-storing weapons if they are also throwing weapons? Can I discharge the inflict serious wounds if I threw the shortspear at the enemy?

>>97520928
I don't see why not

>>97520793
Taken at face value you're the kind of DM that gets posted on r/D&DHorrorStories

>>97520993
because you cant put it on ranged weapons
so I suppose it implies its not intended to be used that way

File: file.png (174 KB, 399x300)

174 KB PNG

>>97521046
The description doesn't say that. Ranged-only enchantments like Returning or Seeking specify a restriction, and Spell Storing is in the chart for melee weapons. But Spell Storing doesn't say "can only be placed on a melee weapon" like Throwing does, so I think it's fine.

>>97521106
>if the wielder desires
are you still the wielder?

does anyone remember which 3rd party books have martial stunts using skills and getting medium to large penalties on the roll?
I think it was something by necromancer games or sword and wizardry but i cant seem to find the book or books i am thinking about

what is the process in 3.5 for two PCs to assault and tie up an NPC, without rendering him unconscious first. Like take down and tie up an active combatant?

>>97521800
Grapple into pin, and when they're pinned someone uses the Use Rope skill to bind them, which takes 1 minute (10 rounds), with the target attempting to escape the grapple every round.

It's probably better just to deal subdual damage, and once they hit 0, proceed to tie them up.

>>97521027
For what? Reading the fucking manual? You're the one vomiting unsubstantiated nonsense, if anything you're more eligible in being a that guy than me.

>>97521866
We play a mix of PF1 / 3.5
PF 1 does not have Use Rope skill but one of our players invested heavily into it.
I am thinking of adding the following house rules:
>If you have a rope on hand, you can use Dirty Trick, Entangle as a standard action and may choose to replace your CMB with Use Rope bonus vs. target's CMD.
>If the opponent is already entangled with a rope and also currently has the Pinned condition, you may do the same substitution to tie him or her up as a full round action.
As in Pathfinder 1st edition that still makes the opponent only Pinned and not helpless (can't coup de grace him because he can still jerk or twist away from a killing bow)
If an opponent is already tied up Use Rope may be used to make him helpless as a Full Round action with a DC 10 check.

This is meant to replace PF1's Grappled than immediately tie up with -10 penalty, as well as Grappled, than Pinned, than Tied Up
But it also means that Tie Up action can be used by another person and not just the one grappling the target. So with 1 person would now need to spent 4 rounds to tie someone up, but 2 people could do it in 2 rounds. (One grapples, second entangles. Round 2, grappler pins, second ties up)

Any critiques, obvious problems?

>>97521941
For enforcing a shittastic optional rule. Reminder that it charges Rogues and Fighters extra but barely does anything to a Cleric. It's also dumb as fuck that you can't advance anything without someone else there to train you.

>>97521977
PF on the table? You can do it in 1 turn with the right feats. Greater Grapple if you have both your move and standard. Rapid grapple for a swift attempt at -5.

>>97521451
Is it that one Mike Mearls book with the called shots and stuff?
Book of might?

>>97520336
>served
>>97520546
>>97520793
>>97521027
>>97522630
A DM controls everything except those who want to play his game. A DM can say this class/feat/etc does it exist. However, a player doesn't have to tolerate a DM that acts this way. The best thing to do is play with friends & talk to them like normal socially well adjusted people

>>97522698
thanks anon. yeah that's the one. My god those penalties are atrocious

>>97520336
by only allowing multi-classing or even more importantly prestige classes through campaign play that you need to be initiated into etc.
Feats are a little harder, but if they cant predict their class build then they probably won't do so with their feats either.
You can also declare that certain feats, classes or prestige classes don't exist. You can say in this region my campaign setting has these prestige classes tied to these organisations and nothing else is out there.
The problem lies in the assumption of the people who are willing to play dnd 3.5 in this day and age.
They just want a sandbox of stuff to make whatever they have in their minds, try builds and feel strong af because they beat the character building minigame.
They don't view 3.5 as a simple and good enough way to play dnd the way most people view 5e. Most of the casuals have migrated to 5e

>>97523811
The depth and complexity in character building is the main draw of 3.5 compared to similar options, it makes sense why the people drawn to it would be attracted for that reason.

File: 1600553168806.jpg (44 KB, 640x628)

44 KB JPG

>>97522630
You're the one that made a case limit where "talking to the player does fucking nothing", in which case the only course of action for the DM is to enforce rules.
I'm not an unreasonable asshole that just shits on everything the players asks for and enabling that rule just serves to better integrate character development in-world, it doesn't prevent both parts in planning that down.

>>97523816
Different anon here but the way you presented it in >>97520288 makes you sound like kind of a cunt. Planning out a character is a sign that the player is invested in a game and punishing them for that isn't going to help. And not only are you focusing on the wrong problem (players making plans), but the actual problem you want to address (players doing things that don't fit the game) shouldn't even exist unless for some reason you didn't tell the players in advance what kind of things weren't going to be allowed.

>>97523925
I understand that my post seems to imply that but as a matter of facts it's my habit to ask the player about what they want their character advancement to be and then integrating the means to achieve that in-world, my case is about not making it an automatic and one-sided thing but something the character has to lay down over the course of play.

>>97523929
Your post here is claiming you work with your players to try and make their planned developments occur more organically, whereas your original post >>97520288 claims that you actively punish players for making functional characters and engaging with the game. The matter of fact is that you have reversed your position and are pretending to have just spoken unclearly the first time.

>>97523962
What part of
>having a rough estimation of where you want to get is fair but you have to take for granted possible deviations
...of the first post isn't clear to you?

>>97523970
The entire clause. It isn't clear what "possible deviations" actually means, nor is it a reasonable assumption that the players should enter with.

>>97523976
"Possible deviation" means what this >>97520354 anon specified with his mounted spirited charger example: the environment is clearly barring that possibility that has to be postponed for another one until a more feasible occasion for developing the character towards that direction arises in play.

>>97523791
I'm pretty sure there are other related books by the same company with more on the system.
There might also be something by some other company that has their own spin on the system, but I can't remember right now.

>>97524307
i am sure as well that there exists more than one thing about skills based maneuvers and stunts but my knowledge of especially 3rd party stuff is extremely rusty and kind of what i remember from 15 years ago when i was more actively playing the game.
I have the chance to introduce some newbies to 3.5 and adjacent stuff through a mini campaign but they are the opposite of buildfaggots and desu i am tired of it as well so i would like to add some more "cool" stuff to make the game feel more cinematic i guess.
I have already decided on the action points from Eberon/unearthed arcana.
Coincidentally if you have any more ideas about similar 3rd party stuff i am all ears

>>97524514
I think the relevant ones for these stunt systems, based on some research, would be
>The Book of Iron Might, Iron Heroes, Legends & Lairs: Cityworks, True20: Warrior’s Handbook (stunts), e20 System Lite

>>97523816
No, that wasn't me. My point is that the rule fucking sucks and is unevenly balanced so using it at all is questionable. Why does it take 8 to 10 weeks for a Rogue to get up to speed when it takes 2 weeks for a Cleric, and with Clerics having an obvious hierarchy of power, they get to have the easiest time finding a trainer? It's a bad rule that makes it harder on classes that don't need punishment, makes character building rote and interacting with subsytems harder when the main reason to play this game nowadays is character building and subsystems, and does nothing about problem classes.

Do you really want 2 weeks of the Wizard shitting out scrolls left and right because they have downtime waiting for the skill monkeys, every single level? Really?

>>97527321
>Why does it take 8 to 10 weeks for a Rogue to get up to speed when it takes 2 weeks for a Cleric?
Because the people that wrote the edition were biased towards spellcasters, and this extends to any and all rules they wrote. I've seen people claim online that 3.5e was never truly playtested (and to be honest I don't really care or have a way to prove these claims), but this goes beyond playtesting.
>You make skill-monkey classes, only to have spells that do everything they are supposed to be doing, but better.
>You wrote the fucking CODZilla, and literally saw nothing wrong with it.
>You made it so that non-spellcasters are entirely dependent on their wealth to deal with anything that has a double-digit CR, but is entirely optional for spellcasters to function as intended.
>Your entire reasoning for all of the above, I assume, was that a 'Fighter keeps his high BAB in an anti-magic field', as if he can do jackshit with a mundane sword in a battlefield where antimagic is tossed around.
Unless you are utterly retarded as a writer, this is not 'accidental'.

>>97527837
3E was never playtested beyond level 6

>>97527837
Clericzilla was "we needed some way to entice players to play the boring healer"
Druid was the playtester fighting with a scimitar wielded in one hand while never using their class features

>>97527837
An enormous amount of it stems from the fifteen-minute adventuring day. A lot of the high-flying bullshit spellcasters "can" do isn't even that hard to pressure with attrition, it's just that most playgroups prove to have insufficient patience and/or record-keeping for like five encounters a day.

>>97528068
To be fair the one time my party had a druid that's what she did. Routinely forgot she could cast healing magic unless her wolf got injured.

>>97528068
Cleric has literally gotten a buff in every single edition it's ever been in and it's STILL one of the least played classes in every game it's in because the game is largely played these days by nihilistic theater kids who think religion is only ever meant to be fought against, and not championed.

>>97528068
>Clericzilla was "we needed some way to entice players to play the boring healer"
Making it the poster child of what's wrong with 3.5e isn't an answer to that.
>Druid was the playtester fighting with a scimitar wielded in one hand while never using their class features
Literally all classes can be played entirely wrong. If I play a Fighter with 8 STR / 10 DEX / 10 CON and all my points in Charisma/Intelligence, does that mean the Fighter must now gain 9000+ new abilities by virtue of me making a retarded decision?
>>97528070
My main issue is not that its hard to 'control' casters (you can, if you are not a doormat DM, or focus on multiple encounters as you said), it is that they are functional out of the box across all levels (with minimal wealth required), yet all other core classes aren't unless you flood them with magical items. A Level 20 Wizard has his 9th-Level spells while a Fighter has 20 BAB minus feats/modifiers, and that's it. Supplements exist to make things viable, yeah, but when you have to rely on extensions for the core game to be playable, then something is going horribly wrong.

File: DungeonDoomer.jpg (70 KB, 720x511)

70 KB JPG

>>97527321
>Why does it take 8 to 10 weeks for a Rogue to get up to speed when it takes 2 weeks for a Cleric, and with Clerics having an obvious hierarchy of power, they get to have the easiest time finding a trainer?
Supposedly because it extends the timeskip giving more downtime to classes with less skills point, specifically casters, so they can craft magic items and consumables for the rest of the party. That doesn't negate the fact it's very poorly designed, i agree with you, that's why i try to mitigate it with other stuff (like obligations to patrons and shit), it's better than nothing because the bar is in the fucking ground in this regard rulewhise.

>>97530902
people act like the wizard shitting out buffs on scrolls or potions during downtime is detrimental to the overall balance of the party and not nearly a necessity for game balance to prop up the martial classes
At least that was the intent despite implementation practices.

How do you tackle someone?

Obviously it's a grapple, except you generally both fall prone as well.

>>97532293
Obviously all the rules around Special Attacks are a bit fucky, but I'd say it's a charge where the ending attack is a grapple.

Okay, so, if an enemy is blocking your way (like in a narrow tunnel) and you want to get through them, you can:
>kill them with an attack, or otherwise knock them unconscious, duh
>trip them and move through their space
>overrun them
>perhaps even bullrush them if you only want to go so far, or grapple and move while grappling
>tumble through their space
but I just realized there is another option
>start a grapple with them, then use another attack to escape from the grapple, in which case you choose whatever adjacent square you want to move to

>>97532404
I'd say this, except I'd put a small (-2) penalty on it and declare you are both grappled and prone at the end if you succeed.
-5 if you want to remain standing with the enemy prone.

>>97532424
True, at the expense of time.

>>97532530
honestly, its really weird that the rules for grappling have 0 options for dropping prone, either you or your target

>>97532635
I wonder if it's a kindness to the players because they're typically going to be outclassed in strength by the average melee monster, so people getting slammed into the floor over and over wasn't the best play pattern.

>>97532789
well, they're already getting grappled to death, it wouldnt really make much difference

for a group of characters, an ally grappling a target AND having them prone is a double bonus

>>97532789
>>97532934
you know, I guess you could do an overrun, then grapple with your next attack, or the AoO if they try to get up
thats almost the same thing

however, if like a tiger pounces on you, I doubt you'd be standing through all of it

also, wrestlers and MMA guys pretty much always end up prone, so something is missing here

>"For each hand not free during a grapple, you suffer a -2 penalty to grapple checks"

Thoughts?

>>97535104
I understand the intent but it gets weird with things like oozes or people missing a limb. I don't think the way to fix grapples is with additional conditional +2/-2s.

>>97535141
It just wouldn't count with oozes, like how snakes can't be tripped and aren't considered prone. A person missing an arm would probably suck at grapping.

File: chocolate.jpg (199 KB, 1101x1303)

199 KB JPG

>For each hand not free during a grapple, you suffer a -2 penalty to grapple checks.

>You may grapple a prone opponent, and a prone opponent may grapple you. You may not damage an opponent with a grapple check, pin your opponent, move your opponent, or break anothers pin if you are prone and they are not. You can trip an opponent during a grapple (you count as one size smaller if you are prone yourself). Standing up during a grapple requires an opposed grapple check (you suffer a -4 penalty if your opponent is standing) and requires a move action. If your opponent is prone, you may drop prone as a free action with no check.

>If you grapple as part of a charge, you can make a trip attempt for free if you establish a hold.

>Creatures with pounce automatically make a trip attempt if they establish a hold. This works just like the knockdown ability.

?

>>97535104
do you get bonuses for each extra hand?
>>97532635
use PF1's system where you charge and trip them, but if you don't have improved trip, they can trip you as an AOO... or stab you in the face to spoil your trip attempt.

Ask DM for a circumstance bonus - 'I am putting everything into a tackle, succeed or fail, I end up prone'
I would grant at least a +2 bonus for that. Maybe +4 if you are wearing medium or heavy armor.

Both 3.5 and pf1 rules for this, I've got to keep reminding myself that
>a) this system is mostly made to simulate tentacle monsters trying to swallow you, not to simulate wrestling
>b) in PF1 the naming conventions for conditions are very misleading. 'entangled' is more like 'one limb is grabbed', 'grappled' is 'in a clinch'
>c) going to have to invent shit on the fly to rule through any wrestling situation.

in my game we tried to do a downtime event where two PCs make a friendly bet with a ghaele (PF1 version) on a two on one wrestling match, to get through a long break. We could not even get started properly, wasted 3 weeks trying to come up with rules that would cover the moves that each player wanted to try.

>>97532974
>if like a tiger pounces on you, I doubt you'd be standing through all of it
I bet the tiger would bounce back to its feet before anyone had a chance for an AoO. Maybe don't get too detailed - if attack roll exceeds AC by 5 or 10, assume the tackle went so well, the attacker simply regained his footing very quickly.

>>97535547
>do you get bonuses for each extra hand?
well, don't multi-armed monsters generally get grapple bonuses?

I downloaded all the PDFs in the mega in the OP but there are tons of them. Which PDFs are the ones I need to get started?

>>97538033
The Player's Handbook, The Gamemaster's book and Monster Manual 1

>>97538033
The core three books are the Player's Handbook 1, the Dungeon Master's Guide 1, and the Monster Manual 1. That'll be your foundation. From there, if you have any other tweaks you want to make, classes/races/settings that interest you, new items, or anything else, there's probably something in one of the others. Incidentally skimming them to get a feel for what they have will be fine.

>>97538080
>>97538396
Thanks fellas. I kind of figured those were the three but I wanted to make sure there wasn't something extra that was considered a must have.

>>97539177
That's always the rub with 3.5. You ask damn near any player about what three books to start with and they'll say those, but you ask them which five to start with and everyone has their own answer.

>>97538029
Grells get a bonus of +10 to grapple checks with 2 tentacles, or +0 with 1 tentacle, before taking into account their BAB/strength-based grapple bonus, so a total of +14 to regular grapple checks or +4 to grapple checks with a single tentacle. This is for a monster with a strength of 12, and most other tentacle monsters get massive grapple bonuses just from their size/strength, and have a lot of limbs to grapple with.

>>97542787
that\s easy for me at least
>add spell compendium and magic item compendium to the mix and you have the basic 5.

>>97543149
I agree with this.
The first books I bought, in fact, were those, the rules compendium for easy referencing of rules, and the draconomicon because it's such a lovely book.
So yeah, core 3 + MiC + SC.

>>97542787
For me it's UA and The Book of Vile Darkness (updated to 3.5e obviously) because it's very inspiring for designing eeeevil enemies.

File: aure dino.jpg (191 KB, 1024x1024)

191 KB JPG

https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=26357646&postcount=1

Here, I'm happy with this. Take a look at it and tell me why I'm stupid.

But don't be mean; I'm sensitive

>>97543853
It should have the penalty be -4 by default and grant a +2 circumstance bonus for every limb used to grapple (which must be either capable of holding an item, or capable of making an attack with the improved grab property), which benefits creatures with over 2 grappling limbs.

>>97544170
I considered something along those lines, but decided against it. I just want to reflect that somebody holding a sword in one hand and a shield in the other is worse at grappling than somebody with hands to use.

>>97542787
Core + Tome of Battle + Complete Warrior is what I'd go with.
Spell compendium really only helps classes that dont need it (except paladin) and dilutes the flavor of casters' specific spell lists
Magic Item Compendium is just an annoying book, a late 3.5 power push, and strips a lot obstacles with its cheap access to healing, teleportation, summoning, provisions, sleeping in armor, and later abilities like overcoming any damage reduction, criting/Sneak attacking constructs/undead whose HP are frankly already shit enough. No for the MIC to be included you'd need the DM to have access to virtually all the MMs plus a couple of the monster specific books, then yeah the players should have access to the MIC
With ToB+CW, it at least shores up the Fighter/Paladin/Monk with better alternatives in Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage. At least enough that outshined by the druid's wolf companion at 1st level. Tactical feats are good. Divine feats so in undead lite games the cleric can do something with turn undead. And the prestige classes really only help martials, or dock gishes enough its basically not worth it (except for Ruby Knight/Jade Pheonix but they'll at least be 2 whole levels behind).

File: cultured.jpg (42 KB, 679x375)

42 KB JPG

>>97545279
Wisest guy in the general

At what point does a nova-charger 'cap' in terms of feats, class features and item properties? (Assuming all first-party supplements)
Off the top of my head:
>Valorous Two-handed Weapon
>Pounce ability
>Frenzied Berserker's Supreme Power Attack
>Shock Trooper feat
>Leap Attack feat
>Spirited Charge (Although I don't know how it synergizes with the others, since you are mounted and I'm not exactly sure who 'charges' in a mounted charge. Also I don't see how it's compatible with Leap Attack)
I can think of a Level 1 Barbarian (For Pounce and Rage) / Level 9 Fighter (Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Cleave, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper covered by Fighter Bonus Feats) + Destructive Rage, Intimidating Rage, Leap Attack, Ride-by Attack and Spirited Charge (covered with human + level feats) as you hit Level 10, allowing you to take those 10 extra levels of Frenzied Berserker (for Supreme Power Attack). I included Leap Attack in there, even though I have no idea what it's use will be.
So what else can be added for nova-charging, even if it pushes you into the epic levels?

>>97547387
Get the psionic type so that you can take Psionic Charge to get even fancier with the charges, and Mantled Wilder or PsiWar ACFs so that you can get use of Physical Power Mantle's power on turns you're not using Psionic Charge. May also want Psionic Meditation. And if feats are really not a concern, get Improved Unarmed Strike, TWF line, Superior Unarmed Strike, Snap Kick, and the stuff needed to get the Shadow Blade feat. The SRD cuts it outside of the monk section, but you can make an unarmed strike with more than your occupied fists and unarmed strikes get the power attack bonuses too. Oh, and put in at least Enough Totemist so that you can really get into the natural attack train with the totem chakra bind.

against whom would one use Snare Astral Traveler spell?

am I reading this PF1 spell correctly
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/blood-of-the-martyr/
Anyone who fails the fortitude save and has no access to healing will just bleed to death within a minute or two?
and its range is 130+ ft?

>>97549592
It's one of those spells made for monsters/NPCs to use against players. The group wants to cheese a particularly heinous dungeon to get at the BBEG? BAM, now one of them is held captive by the BBEG

>>97550030
I mean, a 15DC check isn't the hardest thing to do, even untrained, since a lot of stuff can give circumstance bonuses to heal. But yes, they can die of eternal bleeding

Also with how it's healing works, two creatures affected by it can heal more than they lose by constantly drinking each other's blood

>>97550071
for some reason, I thought Heal skill was trained only till now.
RAW would a knowledge check be in order here to know that one must try that, or is that knowledge implied in the Heal check itself?

in the narrative of a game, I wonder what that heal check would even look like - how do you use mundane means to stop yourself bleeding from all orifices?
>you seem to be having sudden blood pressure issues
>so what do I do
>... lie down and take deep breaths to calm down?

>>97550130
Bloodletting, of course.
The cure to all blood related ills, even profuse bleeding.

>>97550130
ah, of course. Didn't think of that - slick up a vein to resolve the magical bleeding, than staunch the obvious wound.

Other than Dread Necromancer, is there any base class that benefits a lot from being undead?

File: Olaf see this once.png (223 KB, 534x1557)

223 KB PNG

>>97550130
Untrained healing just makes me think of this post

>>97520336
What's your intent?

If you just want to avoid the pre-planning, allow them (and everyone else in the world) to freely retrain. Five Moons allows characters to retrain their feats each day but there is probably no reason to disallow a character from retraining to a reasonable assortment of class levels after a longer period of downtime (a week, a month, a season, what have you).

If you want to enforce organic growth, offer three different choices inspired by actual play that confer a bonus if they play ball and diddly squat if they don't.

>>97520336
Each level you provide a curated list of options the player can pick from based on what happened in the game since the last level, I guess?

I'm trying to theorycraft the perfect party bus/mobile HQ

Living Astral Ship, Sacred Guardian (Travel)
>Folding Boat ability
>Walls of Force making a seamless barrier
Stronghold Upgrades
>Planar Travel
>Burrow Speed
>Veil of Obscurity
>Inscription of Falsehood
>Sigil of Antimagic (facing outward)
>Platform of Jaunting, Greater to leave
>Rogue Stone focus for Gemjump to get back in

Honestly I'd rather not have to rely on such a high level spell to return to the vehicle, so if anyone has suggestions I'm open to them

>>97550542
>and then the barbarian did the stupid funny thing
>we all cackled like retarded hyenas
>he wins everything forever
>big grin, stinky filthy barbarian, muscle himbo lovable idiot
>lol
>lmao even
>it's just a game lighten up
... Why do you even bother with dice? Just make shit up. What even is this whole "skill" thing? Why bother with a character sheet in the first fucking place? Why am I bothering with any of this when I should just play the social manipulation meta?
Make him roll, you fucking asshole.

Goofy idea. Take a set of Ring Gates, attach a glassteel or riverine bubble helmet to one of them. Get a combat body you can control with magic or something. Stick the bubble helmet on its head. Somewhere safe you stick your head through your gate so it appears inside the bubble helmet.

>>97553623
Yep, i never been a fan of it but the more i grow older the more i'm more accepting of the "roll first and the narrate what happens based on the result" procedure rather than the "describe your action and then roll the die". Right now i'm more of a "express your intent and leverage in general terms and then describe your action according to your die roll result" GM but every time i read/hear these stories i move one inch towards the "roll first -> describe second" way.

>>97553623
nta, and I dont mind the general principle, but it's weird in this case cause fail would also have been decently funny in the situation.

>>97553606
Look to Stormwrack and the spells Mordenkainen's Capable Caravel + Planar Navigation.

The caravel covers a lot of stuff at once, and despite its level can be crafted into an item fairly cheaply due to its long duration. Planar Navigation doesn't need to be cast very often so you could make it a Minor Schema.

any source book or 3pp that has a lot of pregenerated PCs with a level progression plan? Something I could hand to a kid just learning to play. I found 2 such characters in my trove by simply search pregen but maybe I am not searching for the right book names

File: taxonomy of D&D.png (53 KB, 941x1869)

53 KB PNG

>>97556614
I don't know of any, but if you tell us which books and what some character concepts, I'm sure the thread will be more than happy to make some.

>>97556740
I want to try to get them started on the PF1 Rise of the Runelords AP, but using 3.5 rules
two players, they will be rolling two characters each using the 3d6 method, and I want to have some pregens ready to stand in for losses.

The AP has 4 pre-generated PF1 characters, but they are quite a bit more powerful than what we will have with 3d6 rolling and 3.5 PCs

>>97556614
>https://www.kassoon.com/dnd/npc-generator/
check this out.
you simply put the parameters you want in along with the generation method and it gives you a basic character.
it doesn't have a fixed level progression but i think that's easy to come up with especially if you just go core for feats

>>97557112
thanks

>>97557052
>I want to try to get them started on the PF1 Rise of the Runelords AP, but using 3.5 rules
The first version of the books from Aug 2007-Feb 2008 are actually 3.5-native (though already using the "Pathfinder" title), though I can't find PDFs of them to link you.

>>97542787
Yeah, that's actually a pretty hard question, especially if since I think that the Player's Handbook has the least balanced classes, feats and magic, and I'd love to replace it.
If we're assuming that the core 3 are fixed, I'd take Tome of Battle, because it makes martial characters a lot more interesting to play, then I'd pick Magic of Incarnum because the Incarnate is my favorite skill-monkey.
If we're a bit more flexible with the core 3 and replace them with the SRD (which also has Psionics, which is at least slightly more balanced than core magic), then I'd likely add the Magic Item Compendium. The last one, I'm not too sure about, maybe Complete Warrior for the feats or Planar Handbook, as I am fond of a planar jaunt or two.

Does anyone remember the name of this one old, old site, probably gone by now, that had a lot of info on the planes? I think it was a lot of fan work borrowed from earlier editions, but definitely 3.5 focused.

IIRC it was run by a Catholic doctor and he had a few personal pages about himself, including a page where he explained how he converted.

>>97556017
I don't like the idea of a temporary shelter especially one that could be subject to antimagic attack.

The idea is to create the ultimate undetectable indestructible flying plane hopping vehicle.

>>97556614
>>97557112
There's also
>https://web.archive.org/web/20180218124938/http://www.pathguy.com/cg35.htm
I guess that neverwinter nights 2 website,
>http://nwn2db.com
could also be used to some extent?
I spent so much time in those websites before I had a 3.5e table.

>>97556740
I don't pay attention to any new stuff, what is "One D&D"?

>>97560961
It's the original name for the 5e revision.

>>97560980
The playtest name. It was never officially named that, any more than 5.0 was named "D&D Next" officially. Every playtest gets a name.

File: image.jpg (13 KB, 500x315)

13 KB JPG

Imagine a situation like this: there's a cliff, or a well/hole/whatever, the edge is between squares 1 and 2, square 1 is 10 ft. above square 2. A character starts their turn in square 1, they move 5 ft., hopping down into square 2.
The square 2 is covered with webs or thick vegetation or whatever and it's considered difficult terrain.
Does the character have to spend 5 ft. or 10 ft. of movement to move into square 3?

>>97561371
You're in a square of difficult terrain, moving out of it takes twice as much movement. Doesn't matter how you got there. I'm also pretty sure the 10 foot drop would count as movement for the turn, similar to a jump.

>>97561371
i would say 10 because it is difficult terrain and moving through difficult terrain costs double no matter how you got there.
If a wizard dimension door'ed there and wanted to move to the next square it would still be 10

File: image.jpg (185 KB, 536x782)

185 KB JPG

>>97561454
>>97561466
>You're in a square of difficult terrain, moving out of it takes twice as much movement
That's the problem, I actually agree but when googling most responses seem to say otherwise, they tend to say you "pay" the movement cost of the square you enter.
When I was taught how to play 3.5 years ago I was told that it's double to enter, move through and leave difficult terrain, but I can't find a rule that explicitly proves this. In fact, pic related (PHB) kind of seems to say otherwise: the character is leaving difficult terrain and only uses 5 ft. for it.

>>97561484
I just think the ruling you were taught and we were advocating for is the solution that makes sense. Honestly most people wouldn't bother looking up the books for something like this and instead use logic.
When moving through rubble you go slower, the fact that the next room 3 meters away is clear doesnt make you go faster
The example that you posted is indeed weird because it seems to work the opposite way.

>>97561513
I think the way this example show things is that you dont pay a movement speed cost for the square you are in but for the square you are moving to.
Now you really got me thinking about this.
I can't understand why they would make this work like that

>>97561371
>>97561484
I think the answer lies in the jump skill. The DC for jumping down from a height is 15; so your 10ft drop would be a 0ft drop if you passed it. Movement made while jumping counts as regular movement, and you are jumping down, so it counts. Therefor, you are moving into the difficult terrain square. 5ft out, 10ft down, +5ft for the landing square being difficult terrain, and 5ft out into square 3. 25ft total. Another factor is whether you have ranks in jump or not; if you don't, you land prone.

However, they could jump out and down, skipping the difficult terrain square and not paying the penalty for it.

>>97557052
3.5 is in no way built around using 3d6 for character generation.

>>97562383
Nta but you can always set a minimum threshold, that's how it worked even in ad&d and becmi if i'm not misremembering.

>>97562383
i like 2d6+6 personally. Penalties larger than -1/-2 in a stat are far too much for this game so having a min stat of 8 before racial mods sits very fine with me. Also at chargen the worst you will get a very average list and then we woudl usually all say, this one is unplayble and turn this over to the gm for some npc

>>97562461
Way of the Wicked (evil-aligned PF adventure path) had an interesting method called "Focus and Foible"
>Pick one stat to be 8, one to be 18, and for the others roll 1d10+7 in order

Just enough control over the randomness to ensure that your character can function, and your scores fall in a normal range rather than silliness like rolling a 3 on a half-orc and becoming non-sapient.

>>97562552
I feel like that just ends up with a party of 8 CHA/11 INT dullards. Not that the problem stems from that stat spread, you'll get the same with elite array, just saying.

>>97562730
that's why i dislike elite array or fixed stats in general. They create some super samey characters with the same dump stats every game.
If i wanted to charbuild everything i would play HERO, i like some randomness

>>97562785
I came up with a system years ago where you point buy your stats up to a maximum of 14, with a fairly low amount of points, then increase every stay by 1d4
pretty sure the point buy started at 7 rather than 8
other than that I cant remember the specifics

>>97562552
>>97562730
Nothing turning into a tree cant fix

>>97563187
Elaborate.

>>97564904
Pun-Pun tier of system abusing, don't worry about it

Alright lads, time to settle the debate once and for all
Are you team Hethrediah, or team Aamuel?

>>97564904
What >>97565325 said. Theoretically you can turn yourself into a tree & cast a stacked Empowered^n Maximized Awaken on it/you to change all of your mental stats to really high levels

Os there any armor that stacks with monk armor? No beekeeper suits.