For discussion of D&D 3.0 and 3.5e

> Tools
https://srd.dndtools.org
https://dndtools.one/
https://d20srd.org
https://www.realmshelps.net/

> Indices
> 3.5
https://archive.burne99.com/archive/4/
http://web.archive.org/web/20080617022745/http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/index.php
> 3.0
http://web.archive.org/web/20060330114049/http://www.crystalkeep.com:80/d20/rules3.0.php
> Book PDFs
https://mega.nz/folder/GMMUDLCK#1IXzJk1_yxlgNmPABGjcyw
> Dragon Magazine Index
https://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/
> Web Articles Orbital Flower Index PDF
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/91811106/#91824954
> Errata
https://web.archive.org/web/20201111205827/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

>3e Resource Index Version 2024-04-17
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/92491374/#92530275
Previous thread: >>95816384
Thread Question: Have you ever used one of the "special item" options (WoL, DMG2 Bonded Items, Item Familiar, etc)? Which one(s) and how did it go?

>>95898738 (OP)
Only in the sort of "sessions" where it'd be me and two or three buddies theorycrafting builds and rolling up characters for a few hours then playing for 15 minutes. The amount of overhead just seems on par with an especially onerous hireling otherwise.

>>95898738 (OP)
Yup, we use Legacy items all the time, we just had to make some changes to how they work. The rituals and feats were fine, but we got rid of all the stat penalties, they just don't make any sense, Legacy weapons are simply not good enough to warrant that. Personally I'm a fan of Sling of Dire Wind, it's hilarious.

>>95901750
>The rituals and feats were fine, but we got rid of all the stat penalties, they just don't make any sense, Legacy weapons are simply not good enough to warrant that.
You get the feats for the ritual as a "marker" for it, so without the stat penalties the ONLY cost is the Ritual. One costly and convoluted enough is quite the diversion for a campaign, especially with the level delay involved.

>>95899753
>theorycrafting
Only time I've ever considered using item familiar is on an iaijutsu master build. But I'm not sure even the skill boosting power of an item familiar can make iaijutsu focus useful :p

>>95901925
The rituals do cost gold, and you have to learn what they even are.

>>95902715
I suggest you check this out:
>https://web.archive.org/web/20080611071141/http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=966877
It goes over the "expected" value of each Legacy ability to demonstrate just how ridiculous the return-on-investment using only the stock Rituals are, while at the same time using this to explain a few different options replacing the Personal Costs.

>>95901750
I remember there being a thing about Mutable Legacy Items. Ever done anything with that?

>>95905021
As in changing weapon type?

I remember a while back someone mixed tiem familiar and a bunch of other stuff to one-ring up some item.

If I have a character that has lost an eye, are there any items from official materials that he could slot into or over his eye socket that would give him his vision back? (Or maybe give him enhanced vision?)

>>95909825
I can certainly think of one

>>95909825
Hmm. Our rogue has a magic eye that he can activate for a True Seeing effect, but I don't know if that's some sort of homebrew or whatever.

Just curious, have there been any RPG systems since PF1e that attempted to iterate over 3.5's d20 system?

>>95911261
Legend RPG IIRC.

>>95909892
That'd technically just be a slotless magic item with X/per-day true seeing, which would be magic item crafting. Lots of DMs like to pretend crafting is homebrew, but it's RAW.

>>95911261
There's an attempt to iterate further from combined 3.pf called "Corefinder", but I dunno how far it got.

>>95913262
Custom items are not a deterministic procedure, so no particular output is solid RAW. Hence why so many separate yet exactly overlapping procedures exist for procedurally-defined items.

>>95913678
>Custom items are not a deterministic procedure
They literally give a specific gold and xp cost. The addendum that encourages DMs to mess with the price to fit their campaign doesn't make it non-deterministic any more than Rule 0 makes all D&D rules non-deterministic.

Book of Nine Swords + Weapons of Legacy campaign
How would I make this work?

>>95914391
You'd need to start with players that were down for that level of mechanical complexity. In some ways that's harder than actually gelling the systems.

>>95914391
The weeb magic book isn't really all that complex. It's basically playing a sorcerer with a limited number of recharging spell slots.
Remove the WoL penalties and let players buy their own powers on level-up. Not even for balance, it just removes unnecessary complexity.

>>95914391
No actual ToB base classes, but everyone picks a different discipline as their specialty

>You always treat the discipline's associated skill as a class skill
>You start with one of the Nine Swords as appropriate to your discipline; its abilities unlock automatically at no cost
>You can initiate maneuvers as a crusader of a level equal to your BAB, except that your maneuvers known are fixed - you know every maneuver of appropriate level from your chosen discipline

>>95915005
What should they play then? Fighters?

>>95914548
I have at least a couple 3.5 autists who'd be down for it and I could probably get others to get on it too. I just mean more mechanically. Cause I remember weapons of legacy being kinda shit and I didn't know if there was a quick way to rebalance it so it's not overpowering the characters but also not being cripplingly overcosted.

>>95914947
>Remove the WoL penalties and let players buy their own powers on level-up. Not even for balance, it just removes unnecessary complexity.
All of them? No tradeoffs for the extra abilities or is the tradeoff they take them as feats or something? I haven't read the book in 10 years sorry I only recently unearthed it.

>>95915340
No trade-offs. If you play by WBL, discovering and performing the rituals is supposed to cost money, which puts them on the same level as any other magic weapon.

>>95913702
A single step of explicitly stated "DM-May-I" is all that is necessary to make any advice predicated on a thing completely fucking useless, because there is none of the hesitation actual Rule Zero would bring. For fuck's sake, the "body slot affinities" are solely natural language with all the shitshows of semantic ambiguity and risks of the DM disagreeing something fits a category that entails, and it (as well as the discount for special prerequisites) is in a "Behind the Curtain" sidebar to boot which per page 4 is "not part of the rules per se".

The system does not assume it and has a GREAT many ways to be HORRIBLY disrupted by it, a player assuming it can be fucked over AT LEAST three ways for it, and a DM is INSTRUCTED to make decisions on basic functionality in one area while needing to do so to fill a gap in the procedure in a second. Again, no particular output is RAW.

>>95915359
No it does not. I refer back to >>95903125, if you want to treat them like normal items then that link has cost estimates for all the individual options. Am I going to have to extract it into a shitty .txt table for you?

>>95916464
>explicitly stated "DM-May-I"
This is not a thing. There are two places where the player must ask DM permission before they can proceed according to both the DMG and MiC; those being creating a magic item from a custom spell and creating an custom item with an effect that's incompatible with it's item slot. All other magic items are given the thumbs up and the DM is only given the power to increase/decrease the price without rule 0.

>TL;DR: Magic item creation is like Wish, there's a list of things you can do before asking "DM-May-I". DMs often screech or don't read and Rule-0 it.

>>95916650
>This is not a thing.
The final price being on the DM's sensibilities per the formulae being ESTIMATES is, in fact, DM-May-I. There is no avoiding that, and so expecting ANY SPECIFIC RESULT is retarded. Especially when other more specific procedures without these issues cover such a wide variety of the reasons to try it.

>and creating an custom item with an effect that's incompatible with it's item slot
Again, this is undefined in RAW, and the not-quite-RAW that should is subject to semantic ambiguity.

>>95916735
>The final price being on the DM's sensibilities per the formulae being ESTIMATES is, in fact, DM-May-I
I disagree. Several portions of the section refer to it as a hard rule. It's called an "estimate" once, in the table. As we know, text trumps table.
>this is undefined in RAW
They have a chart for exactly what effects correspond to which slots on the next page anon. Did you not read the section in either the DMG or MiC?

>>95916781
>I disagree. Several portions of the section refer to it as a hard rule.
What portions of the section even EXIST outside "Behind the Curtains" sidebars? Again:
>You’ll see blocks of text that look like this one frequently throughout this book. The information in these sidebars is not part of the rules per se, but you’ll find them useful and interesting in their own right.

Furthermore:
>Behind the Curtain: Some sidebars provide a further explanation of why the rules are the way they are—a look “behind the curtain” into how the game’s designers make decisions about the rules. If you’re the sort of DM who likes to tinker with the rules of the D&D game, these sidebars offer some advice and inspiration as you customize the game for yourself and your players.
Sounds like for-the-DM material to me.

>They have a chart for exactly what effects correspond to which slots on the next page anon.
In a "Behind the Curtains" sidebar, which the opening text of the book states are not actually rules, using natural language subject to differing interpretations rather than clear rules categorization.

>>95916859
>What portions of the section even EXIST outside "Behind the Curtains" sidebars? Again:
All of the ones that allow players to do things without restriction. All of the "This is for DM only" rules are in Behind the Curtain sidebars. If you want to argue the stance that "behind the curtain" is a series of highly reccomended houserules, then the DM has even less power.

>>95917002
>All of the "This is for DM only" rules are in Behind the Curtain sidebars
...So the "Magic Item Gold Piece Values" with the multiple effect upcharge and discounts for restrictions and the body slot affinities literally required for the custom item guidelines to function are, in fact, for DM only?

Am I going to have to post the screenshots to get the point across?

>>95917515
Read "Adding new abilities" section on page 288 of the DMG. They literally use the example of putting a Spell onto a ring or protection.

>>95917572
And the discounts for restrictions and body slot affinities? It only takes one piece not being replicated for your point to fall through.

>>95917764
Anon, at what point is it that you thought I talking about discounts? I think you have me confused with another anon you were arguing with. I have Only argued the custom magic items are a core rule that is RAW unless a DM homebrews to remove them.

>>95918045
>Anon, at what point is it that you thought I talking about discounts?
The point is that a number of the "example" items use it yet as far as I can locate it only lives in the "Magic Item Gold Piece Value" behind the curtain sidebar.

>I have Only argued the custom magic items are a core rule that is RAW unless a DM homebrews to remove them.
The table may be referred to repeatedly, but without the body slot affinities it doesn't WORK and THOSE ARE IN A SIDEBAR. On page 288. Get yourself a PDF and look at the actual fucking book.

>>95909825
Eye of vecna

Are things in the cosmology supposed to be really close together? Spelljammers travel 100 million miles per day but that is like 160 times slower than light so travel would take ages in our universe. Like centuries to reach the nearest planet.

What do you guys think about
>https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Standardized_Bonus_Types_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)
Is it something worth considering?
Seems way too convoluted, but I wonder if there's merit in limiting bonus stacking in some way.
I guess the easiest way would be to simply declare that bonuses of type x,y,and z are now the same type and don't stack?
And no, I don't have any specific issue I'm looking to fix. I just stumbled upon that article by accident and am pondering the idea.

>>95919734
>Spelljammers travel 100 million miles per day but that is like 160 times slower than light so travel would take ages in our universe. Like centuries to reach the nearest planet.
...No? Pluto the no-longer-"officially" most distant planet is only 4,583,190,000 miles, taking a little under 46 days. You may be mistaking with the nearest STAR, which is approximately 2.5 quadrillion miles away, taking approximately 28,519 years at such speed.

So it's a solid "naval travel throughout the solar system" speed, which is the speed it needs to be because the cosmology turns incomparable with Crystal Spheres and the Phlogiston Flow beyond that. Forcing distance analogy still isn't "really close together" because we're talking thousands upon thousands of times the distance any human as ever traveled, just "less mind-bogglingly huge" such that human travel is vaguely meaningful on the scale.

>>95920684
I didn't understand it on first read and I'm not going to try again.
>I guess the easiest way would be to simply declare that bonuses of type x,y,and z are now the same type and don't stack?
This would work somewhat but then again in my opinion it's pointless, getting a myriad of bonuses together is part of the fun.
If anything a bigger issue is having 10 gorillon spells cast on you before major fights. In one campaign I was running the paladin had over 30 fucking spells (if I recall correctly) cast on him before a dragon fight. I'd sooner consider porting 5e concentration or having some vague rule along the lines of "You may have up to 3 beneficial spell effects on you".

>>95920940
>30 fucking spells (if I recall correctly)
I didn't recall correctly but I actually found the list of buffs on my pastebin:
6: superior resistance, energy immunity,
5: stone skin, draconic might, mantle of icy soul,
4: sheltered vitality, freedom of movement, contingent energy resistance
3: haste, blindsight
2: heroism, spider climb, eagle's splendor, freedom of breath, bark skin
1: crab walk, jump, divine favor

>>95918199
>anon gives you an exact page number to prove his point
>immediately starts talking about shit that doesn't matter, and pretends to "own" otheranon using the page number he point you toward

>>95920940
>consider porting 5e concentration or having some vague rule along the lines of "You may have up to 3 beneficial spell effects on you".
You know what? Having a limit of how many spells with a duration you can have affecting a character wouldn't be the worst idea.
Now your "buff slots" become another resource you might want to plan around considering things like short lasting buffs you can use in combat alongside lo lasting ones etc.
Yeah, that would be cool.
One could even tie the limit to the character's base physical attributes, before equipment and temporary modifiers.

>>95920962
My character usually walks around with
> Delay Disease
> Resistance, Superior
> Magic Vestment (Armor)
> Magic Vestiment (Shield)
> Snowshoes
> Delay Poison
> Greater Magic Weapon
> Elation
> Recitation
> Dragon Breath (because it's fun)
> Divine Power
> Divine Insight
Some extended, some Persistent.
Then sometimes there's a Hastes, Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, or some other short lasting spell.

>Crabwalk
What the fuck that spell is sick.

>>95920940
>>95921067
I think both of you are going to run into the issue that high level encounters in many campaigns Expect players to have a bunch of buffs and will steam-roll them if you implement that.
This is also easily solved in less gruesome encounters by adding a monster with a dispelling SLA. Players become a lot less liberal with persistent spells when they lose those 30 slots of buffs in one bad roll.

>>95920684
It's convoluted and somehow at the same time lazy. Much better approach would be to properly type all the untyped bonuses. So that you don't have myriad of abilities, feats and other stuff that is just "plus X" without any type mentioned. Or shit like fucking "city damage".

>>95922059
You'd roll 30 times, not once, and in my experience the moment they eat shit to a dispel PCs go full steam ahead on buffing up their CL and taking Spell Girding to make dispelling such a bad proposition action-wise that trying it is a waste of table time.

>>95922059
>I think both of you are going to run into the issue that high level encounters in many campaigns Expect players to have a bunch of buffs and will steam-roll them if you implement that.
Yeah, I played with that idea but after like level 6-8 it's not really viable.
If you want to limit number of buffs enough that it actually matters (1-5) you need to make them way more impactful and basically redesign the whole spell list.

>>95922139
>You'd roll 30 times
Roll once as the DM and make the player roll 30 time for each effect to see which ones survive. It's their BS, so they should shoulder the burdens.

>>95920751
Yeah I meant nearest system, not planet. Also forgot about the phlogiston flow making shit wonky.

>>95921039
Three points are in contention. Their citation was only one of them being replicated outside of not-quite-RAW sidebars. For the custom item guidelines to be RAW, the entire process must be. My own reference to the same page was pointing out that the most essential of the three in contention is under the heading that the beginning of the book declares game design explanations outside the proper game rules.

I have openly stated that my motive is because they horribly distort the game, with the point of the DM being INSTRUCTED to override the final price if they deem it inappropriate for the campaign seemingly unopposed being enough to render any advice predicated on it worthless.

>>95923759
>For the custom item guidelines to be RAW, the entire process must be.
Wtf are you talking about? The only thing that needs to be correct for custom magic items to be RAW is the one anon pointed to.
The other minutiae of whether or not players can put restriction onto custom magic items, how item slot effects effect price/DM approval, etc, are irrelevant to that core point.
Your trying to say that a specific customization option being non-raw means the entire process is homebrew. That's like arguing that because arcane sword-sage isn't RAW, then the entire sword-sage class is non-RAW homebrew.
It's a retarded argument.

>>95924070
...The body slot affinities are not a specific customization option, they are a vital integral step for how much effects cost for a given kind of item.

>>95924322
Not the fuck they aren't. They're a highly suggested houserule by DMG RAW. By default, you can put Any effect in any bodyslot.

>>95924807
"Uncustomary space limitation" in table 7-33 explaining the higher cost of the Helm of Teleportation compared to the Boots refers to the sidebar. It is in fact an integral part of the process responsible for basic opportunity cost considerations, and so being in a not-quite-RAW sidebar renders the entire setup on shaky ground.

>>95924858
>in table
Anon, text trumps table. WotC has a consistent habit of printing tables with incorrect information. To the point they made it a rule that if a table conflicts with text, the text wins.
Your table means nothing and your point is moot. Otheranon's point is unshakably correct.

>>95924917
The text only points to the table, which is the only formulaic coverage of most effects. There are many example items one could reverse-engineer from, but this only offers combining effects which is, to my awareness, covered only in these sidebars.

>>95924945
>this only offers combining effects which is, to my awareness, covered only in these sidebars.
>>95917572
>Read "Adding new abilities" section on page 288 of the DMG.

>>95925098
You're referring to this, correct?
>If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body (see Magic Items on the Body, page 214), the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection +2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.
Okay. Page 214 still doesn't cover the body slot to ability association that is the acutely-necessary-to-function point in contention, and has this sidebar:
>Variant: New magic items
>In the same way that you can invent new spells and monsters for your campaign, you can invent new magic items. In the same way that a P spellcaster can research a new spell, a PC may be able to invent a new kind of magic item. And just as you have to be careful about new spells, you need to be careful with new magic items.
>Use the magic item descriptions in this chapter as examples on which to base new magic items. A new magic item needs all the information that similar, existing magic items have, possibly including activation type, activation time, and caster level. You should also be ready to determine the market value of a new magic item, even one that the PCs simply find, in case a character wants to sell it or duplicate it.

Sounds like a rather unambiguous statement that the subject is DM-may-I.

>>95925303
Anon, are you retarded? Here it is Slowly.
There. Are. No. Slot. Affinities. By. RAW.
That is a recommended houserule in behind the curtain sidebars.
They aren't needed to make custom items
To enchant an existing item, you increase the cost multiplier by +0.5. That is the RAW, sweet and simple
Why do you keep circling back on affinities like they matter at all?

>>95925429
>Why do you keep circling back on affinities like they matter at all?
Because the context is CUSTOM items like novel charges-per-day effects per >>95913262, not merely stacking existing ones. The formulae required are only in a table that cites Behind the Curtain sidebars, and the entire subject is covered a Variant sidebar putting it in the same DM-may-I category as spell research.

>>95925429
Anon, the guy you're talking too lost the argument with another anon Many posts ago. He's circling the same point repeatedly because he's playing the willful ignorance card to try to avoid admitting he's wrong. You'll never get him to see the truth, just give up and stop wasting you time on him. He's just going to continue acting like he's mentally 5 years old until you leave anyway.

>>95925476
Apologies for stubbornly refusing the injection of something even the whiteroom optimizers balk at. And the point about missing body slots remains.

>>95925476
>He's circling the same point repeatedly because he's playing the willful ignorance card to try to avoid admitting he's wrong
Also, the points have not ALL been countered. I will readily admit to gish-gallop, but as only one point is needed to cripple what I'm arguing against it appears quite reasonable.

>>95925505
>And the point about missing body slots remains.
Body slot AFFINITIES, goddamnit!

>>95925505
>>95925516
So you proudly admit you're arguing in bad faith and have been wasting everyone's time? Okay then, good night.
>>95925476
I should have done this hours ago.

>>95925542
>So you proudly admit you're arguing in bad faith and have been wasting everyone's time?
Gish-gallop is the poor form practice of adding additional points to counter as a debate goes on, but is not necessarily bad faith. Given that 4chan's character limit prevents exhaustive quotation of relevant rules excerpts up-front, it's rather difficult to avoid.

You're welcome to try to map out the entire process annotating which elements end up in sidebars and which lack text, but given the utter shitshow that was the paper wall argument I'm well burned out on attempting any such thing on this site.

>>95925505
>Apologies for stubbornly refusing the injection of something even the whiteroom optimizers balk at
New entry into the argument, but even if most people agree a rule is stupid, that doesn't make the rule magically stop existing. This shit is common with IRL laws too, "fatus lex sed lex"(The law is strange/stupid, but it is the law) was a saying in the roman empire.
At the end of the day, no matter home much you hate a particular piece of RAW, trying to "fix" it is and will always be shitbrew.

>>95925806
People with a vested interest in stretching the rules far beyond their breaking point refusing to use something for breaking too much is not "shitbrew", and until I run out of points to add it has not been settled as RAW.

So, your counter-argument to the page 214 "Variant: New Magic Items" sidebar and body slot affinity step referring to the page 288 "Behind the Curtain: Body Slot Affinities" sidebar indicating truly custom magic items like arbitrary x/day spell effects are not full RAW as >>95913262 insists?

>>95925835
>and until I run out of points to add it has not been settled as RAW.
The other anons already won this though. The two points that unravel your entire argument were:
1. Additional effects on page 288
2. Text Trumps Table
It doesn't matter if the table references a behind the curtain section if the text says behind the curtain sections are recommended shitbrew. The fundamentalist RAW makes it clear that those parts of the table are irrelevant and can be thrown out even if another section of text directs you to the table as a whole. This doesn't invalidate the entire table, just that one part labeled :
>3 See the sidebar on Body Slot Affinities, page 288.
which is only referenced by one line in the entire table.
Every point you brought up in your... gobbly-gook?... or whatever... falls apart.
That and the fact the "new magic items" text you referenced here: >>95925303 was a variant rule(aka recommended shitbrew) that over-writes the actual rules given elsewhere in the book. It has no basis or authority on determining RAW.

>>95925806
>>95925895
Anon, why the Fuck are you engaging? That guy already admitted to using fuck-ass logical fallacies to try to get fake internet wins in a losing argument. He's just going to pull some mental gymnastic bullshit every time you call him out.

>>95925895
>1. Additional effects on page 288
Are combination, not the arbitrary x/day spell items of >>95913262 that I am arguing against and have re-reference TWICE already.

>2. Text Trumps Table
Where is the text covering arbitrary items possessing arbitrary spell effects?

>It doesn't matter if the table references a behind the curtain section if the text says behind the curtain sections are recommended shitbrew.
It does when the subject is things relying on that to determine a fundamental opportunity cost several example items use.

>It has no basis or authority on determining RAW.
That the subject was only directly addressed in such certainly demonstrates that the writers were not assuming it as a standard game element, reinforced by a number of elements found in such not-rules-per-se sidebars, and with missing elements for basic balancing factors in the standard interpretation framework the whole system's for-player-use becomes dubious.

>>95925946
>That guy already admitted to using fuck-ass logical fallacies
Gish gallop is not a fallacy, because there are areas of logic where any one of a very long list of elements being incorrect renders the whole of a position false. It's poor form because it is a continual addition of positions in a fashion that frequently results in moving goalposts, but again 4chan has a character limit that prevents the proper format of providing all contrary evidence at once and I can't be assed to compile that because of prior profound retardation in the face of attempts at it.

Anybody ever play a Dwarven Defender? I wanted to but the group I had was never dedicated enough to get past level 2 before wanting new characters.

>>95926041
>Where is the text covering arbitrary items possessing arbitrary spell effects?
Under "Creating Wonderous Items". The text refers to the table. The table has on line refering to a section the text classifies as a houserule, so that specific line can be ignored.
>It does when...
No. No it does not. You're adding imaginary qualifiers.
>That the subject was only directly addressed in such
It was directly addressed in other text that isn't a variant rule. In fact The placement of that variant rule makes it clear to me that the devs RAI for it were one of two things:
1. Items with entirely new, player-made spell effects as per the spell research rules
2. Using the research rules to simulate a player researching a way to make a magic item rather than have their wizard instantly know how like by default.
The "All magic items are DM-May-I" interpretation is very clearly people trying to twist one line of that variant rule to mean things it clearly doesn't. This also a variant rule, meaning anyone with this view is trying to twist homebrew like it's RAW.
>Gish gallop is not a fallacy,because there are areas of logic where any one of a very long list of elements being incorrect renders the whole of a position false.
This is not one of them. In fact it's the opposite. You are the one who holds a position that require all it's elements be correct to not fold immediately. You have been repeatedly, irrefutably proven wrong by multiple people from multiple angles.
You are wrong anon.
You're pushing a piece of homebrew as RAW because you hate a piece of actual RAW.
Infinite wish loop are also RAW, but we all know that and homebrew accordingly. We accept this.

>>95928354
Nope, but it doesn't look like a great class, honestly.
Damage reduction is nice, and so is uncanny dodge, but the main feature, the Defensive Stance, seems pretty bad considering the way "tanking" is done in this game.
It really should have gotten a fighter bonus feat every 3 levels at least I think.

>>95928354
>never dedicated enough to get past level 2 before wanting new characters
Easy solution is to have a killer DM. They can reroll their characters as much as they want without stalling the campaign.

>>95928354
It's a very, very mediocre class whose main benefits are uncanny dodge, a d12 HD, full BAB, and a good Will save. Three of those are redundant with an already better class in the Barbarian. Defensive Stance sucks enormous ass and only gets slightly salvaged 8 levels in.

>>95928354
Dwarven Defender sucks at actually defending things because enemies can just walk around them and they have no way to stop it. It's not even great as a stationary obstacle because a wizard of equal level can cast stuff like Evard's Black Tentacles which does that better.

You're better off playing either a Knight from PHB2, or a Tome of Battle character focused on Stone Dragon maneuvers

Heck, look in Races of Stone, you can get free proficiency in Dwarven Warpike instead of Dwarven Waraxe. Pick up one of those, take the Improved Trip feat (plus Combat Reflexes and/or Hold the Line once you have the chance), and you've just gained more ability to defend your allies than Dwarven Defender gets in all 10 levels.

>>95922059
>>95922166
I'm not using any premade campaigns/encounters ever anyway, and it's easier to adjust the encounters rather than spell effects. If I ever run 3.5 again I'll play around with the idea.
It could also be done the other way round, rather than 3 buffs max it'd be each caster can only have 3 spells with a duration online, if they cast another one the oldest one ends. Or it could be both of these together, 3 buffs per character and 3 online spells per character.
>This is also easily solved in less gruesome encounters by adding a monster with a dispelling SLA. Players become a lot less liberal with persistent spells when they lose those 30 slots of buffs in one bad roll.
Been there, done that, the players will all invest in Ring of Counterspells with Greater Dispel Magic put into them, lol. Mage's Disjunction is the true fuck you button, but even when warned it will be available to the enemies, the players will buff themselves because there's usually little penalty for prebuffing, and with enough buffs they have a higher chance of preemptively murdering whoever does the dispelling.

>>95929775
I guess you could take levels in dwarf defender, go for a lockdown build, and take the Iron Vuard Glare Instance.

>>95928526
>Under "Creating Wonderous Items". The text refers to the table.
Immediately after this:
>Wondrous item costs are difficult to formularize.
Seems a pretty clear indicator that the Estimate table is in fact a non-binding Guideline.

>The table has on line refering to a section the text classifies as a houserule, so that specific line can be ignored.
That's not how process-flows or tables remotely ordinarily work.

>No. No it does not. You're adding imaginary qualifiers.
The Helm of Teleportation upcharge is a direct example, not an "imaginary qualifier". This sidebar is a "Behind the Curtain" rather than "Variant", indicating it is indicating the original design process so that more technical DMs can choose to follow it.

>In fact The placement of that variant rule makes it clear to me that the devs RAI for it were one of two things:
This line indicates it as a general case:
>a PC may be able to invent a new kind of magic item.
While this one is more of the "DM is told to caution results":
>And just as you have to be careful about new spells, you need to be careful with new magic items
And the entire sidebar is redundant with free-use table 7-33, which it does not point to.

>The "All magic items are DM-May-I" interpretation
No, novel magic items, not all. As I have repeatedly pointed out was the original point in contention. If this were the designer's intention, then the litany of more-specific cases with their own formulae are abhorrent wastes of page-space.

>You are the one who holds a position that require all it's elements be correct to not fold immediately.
My position is that novel custom items are not hard RAW. How does this require multiple points of contention to be true?

>You're pushing a piece of homebrew as RAW because you hate a piece of actual RAW.
I'm pushing many points that each cast some doubt on free-use of the table as wholly intended and deterministic. If either is not the case, advice predicated on the guidelines is bullshit.

>>95930044
Then you become huge with some buff and proceed to trip the whole battlefield from where you are rooted in place.
Not the best but you can make it sort of work I guess.
Not that DD is making that strategy any better.

>>95929775
>You're better off playing either a Knight from PHB2, or a Tome of Battle character focused on Stone Dragon maneuvers

The whole Stone Dragon fighting style is basically an attempt to do Dwarven Defender properly, including attacks that halt movement + stances that end if you move (but ToB stances aren't a per-day thing, so you're not pressured to stay in a stance that's keeping you out of the fight "to avoid wasting it").
And then the Stone Dragon specialist PrC is dwarf-exclusive and exaggerates it into outright Earthbending (well, they don't have the basic "throw a rock as a projectile" but their other moves fit right in).

>>95929775
DD is actually fine, for the situation is was imagined for, which is becoming a roadblock in a tunnel 15' wide, not an open battlefield.

>>95930412
I'd be more specific and say it's most useful when you're trying to pull a Benkei (i.e. defend a narrow chokepoint alone while your allies escape)

>>95930412
Give the man some reach and increase his size and he can block a tunel a lot larger than that right?

>>95930726
Yes, but those are contrivances to make it work outside it's preferred area. It's like saying sneak attack is just fine against undead because Greater Truedeath Crystals exist.
>>95930692
Better to have a back up line of pikes and crossbows, but that depends on the party actually working with you, rather than doing their own thing that occasionally works in synergy.

>>95930109
Anon, no one is saying that the exact specifics of the table are hard RAW. The rules themselves tell DMs to adjust prices. They're saying the ability to make magic items in the first place is hard RAW. The only places that say a DM can deny a player the ability to make a custom item are in variant rules. Bringing up examples of items that don't match the table does nothing to prove your side of the argument.

>>95930983
>Anon, no one is saying that the exact specifics of the table are hard RAW.
Yes, people are:
>>95928526
>The text refers to the table.

Copping out that a specific line isn't because it points at a "Behind the Curtain" sidebar is silly, especially with a "Variant" sidebar for the use-case in question. There are many red flags that it is not intended, an enormous amount of rules text redundant with it, and a very VERY long list of things it bricks.

>>95930983
>The only places that say a DM can deny a player the ability to make a custom item are in variant rules
NTA, but I would be cautious when asserting that the DM can not make calls because the rules do not say he can; that leads down the kind of idiot journeys that 3.5 is real good at making.

>>95930774
Having looked over DD again, I am a little surprised it has no bonuses against trip and bullrush maneuvers, nor does Defensive Stance end if you are forcibly moved.

>>95931113
>I would be cautious when asserting that the DM can not make calls because the rules do not say he can
I don't think that's what anyone was saying. Everyone knows what rule 0 is. They're arguing about RAW vs Homebrew. No DM has the power to decide what the rules in the book are, they can only homebrew their own alternatives.

>>95931060
>Copping out that a specific line isn't because it points at a "Behind the Curtain" sidebar is silly
I don't see how it's any more silly than ignoring variant options in a class description. an Anon above used swordsage as a good example. Does disregarding "arcane sword sage" from the adaptation section of swordsage invalidate the entire class? Fuck no. I also say its disingenuous to say the devs never intended the entire class just because one section of it isn't raw, which is what I see your current stance as.

>>95931415
The difference is that the element dragged out is wholly unnecessary for the game to function, as just from the DMG itself the pre-made magic items cover the necessary bases. And the thing being carved out of the table for referring to a sidebar acts as a major aspect of the opportunity costs outright stated as designer intent by the sidebar's header definition, making the counter-argument that the DM is supposed to allow items that are drastically cheaper than they are directly informed such effects should be. The same is true of Multiple Similar Abilities, as that lacks a Table 7-33 entry altogether.

So not only are you pushing to ignore all the things that soften the certainty of the formulae to insist it's hard RAW, but you are insisting that custom items be just better than the pre-made ones because multiple balancing factors were misfiled.

>>95931654
So you've moved from gish-gallop to unabashed strawman now?
>1. Anons already addressed the price thing.
As anon said: >>95916650 It was addressed in a section in the DMG that isn't a variant rule that the DM is expected to play with the price. You're arguing out of your ass if "price" has anything to do with it.
>2. Anons addressed the RAI argument
Anon: >>95928526 already pointed out arguing RAI doesn't align with your stance. The placement and actual text of the variant rule you're trying to hold up doesn't gel with the interpretation you're trying to force
>3. The rule you're holding onto doesn't even fix the issue
Uncustomary space limitations only applies to bodyslots in the first place. If you haven't noticed, not all wondrous items take up bodyslots, it doesn't address 99% of ways anons can break the magic item crafting system.
4. Holding up houserules like they're necessary for the system to work.
If you tear out that "Uncustomary Slot Limitations" the table works fine. In fact the majority of items you can make with it are drastically More expensive than compatible generic items. Compare the cloak of the Bat with a similar cloak of flying made using the system.

You're also apparently confusing the anon's you're arguing with. Looking through the chain, I'm like the 4th person to pick an internet fight with you I think.

>>95931860
>So you've moved from gish-gallop to unabashed strawman now?
Your position having dogshit second-order consequences may not be a formal disproof by contradiction, but it's certainly a good argument that the rule ought not be read that way.

>You're arguing out of your ass if "price" has anything to do with it.
Given that it's brought up as an EXPECTATION, the price not being deterministic due to the table being a soft rule still bricks advice based on it. The last time I recall getting involved in the argument, it was as a counter to the Truenamer's borked DC scaling, which is a case that is in fact extremely price sensitive.

>Anon: >>95928526 already pointed out arguing RAI doesn't align with your stance. The placement and actual text of the variant rule you're trying to hold up doesn't gel with the interpretation you're trying to force
It is not "forcing" to say that a sidebar labeled "Variant: New Magic Items" specifically using the line "you can invent new magic items" means that it's a Variant to so rather than default rules behavior.

>Uncustomary space limitations only applies to bodyslots in the first place.
But them missing altogether is an indicator of it not actually functioning properly, which addresses the ways players can break it by taking it out of their hands as not-a-rule the same way the DM having non-Rule-Zero final say on the price prevents it by taking it out of their hands as not-hard.
>You're also apparently confusing the anon's you're arguing with.
No, I'm just not bothering to try distinguishing in favor of focusing on the overall argument being made. Again, what I'm arguing against is >>95913262 specifically that I began with >>95913678 saying no particular output is solid RAW. Because it too closely mirrors the horseshit of "Truenamer's not broke because custom Truespeak item"

>>95932063
>"Truenamer's not broke because custom Truespeak item"
I've never heard of this. The common meme was that truenamer works if you give them the item familiar feat.

>>95929775
>Evard's Black Tentacles does that better
A dogshit spell that's completely negated by a successful Dexterity check.

>>95931168
Technically you already have those because you're a dwarf.

>>95914391
If you're looking for a complimentary book for martials, ditch the weeb fightan magic book and just pick up some Pathfinder supplements like Path of War, or Spheres of Might.

Alternatively, you could also just scavenge whatever you like from other books like Iron Heroes.

>>95938704
Retard.

>>95938937
Oh, I'm sorry, am I wrong? No, I'm not, fuck off dumb nigger faggot.

>>95938959
Yes, you are. You don't make a Dexterity check retard.

>>95938972
> the creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take 3d6 bludgeoning damage and be restrained by the tentacles until the spell ends
Wow, you're a stupid dumb nigger faggot, just as I said, next.

>>95939063
You're in the wrong thread you fucking moron.

>>95939075
Really? Disproving dumb nigger faggot retards is in some other thread? Then why are you in here?

>>95939085
This is the 3.5 thread. You're citing the 5E Black Tentacles.

>>95939087
>>95939063
Evards Black Tentacles is only in 5E you dumb faggot retard, in 3.5 it's just called "Black Tentacles".

>>95939099
Black Tentacles is the SRD version stripped of IP names, not the PHB version. Stop being a retard.

>>95939134
• Parsing input...
• Parsing input...
• Parsing complete.

Data successfully indexed. This entry will be retained for reference in future shitpost subroutines.

>>95939181
>I WAS LE TROLLING!

>>95939134
I don't think I've ever seen this used in my 20+ years of playing 3.5

>>95939288
Confusion is usually more fun

>>95939288
Count yourself lucky because it's an infamous encounter fucker while it's relevant. It's not as bad as Polymorph or Solid Fog on the same level, but it will fuck up anything that doesn't have a good Grapple check or Freedom of Movement. That's entire categories of enemies.

How do I make him in 3.5?

>>95939426
Totemist maybe, if I'm thinking of the right guy. Dissolving Spittle, Blink Shirt, Sphinx Claws, etc.

Incidentally there's a graft in Magic of Eberron which lets you shoot out a vine to pull enemies towards you.

>>95939599
>Incidentally there's a graft in Magic of Eberron which lets you shoot out a vine to pull enemies towards you.
That's Scorpion, not Reptile. Reptile is:
>Invisibility
>Acid
>Heavy zoning rushdown character

>>95939374
It was memed as Evart's Spiked Black Tentacles of Forced Intrusion for a reason, it fucks enemies up.
The warlock version is even better, especially when you stack it with the hallucinatory terraine invocation. Hope you can make your reflex And will save every round motherfucker!

>>95939840
Heck even stacking it with Web is hilarious, since they have the same AoE and each spell makes it harder to escape the other.

>>95938907
>ditch the weeb fightan magic book
>and pick up weeb fightan magic book, the sequel
huh?
>suggesting spheres of shit
huh?

>>95939840
>it fucks enemies up.
It fucks goons and mobs up. It can barely handle a brown bear.

What was the name of that item that a character carries in the back and that gives him two extra arms that can't be used for attacking?

>>95939426
Saurian Psionic Monk, with Rapid Strike from Draconomicon, Deep Impact psionic feat, and Invisible Fist from Exemplars of Evil.

>>95940056
Arms of the Naga?

>>95940028
(Evard's) Black Tentacles:
>Thus, its grapple check modifier is equal to your caster level +8.
Brown Bear:
>Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+16
At the CL 7 required to cast a 4th-level spell, that's a 45% chance per check.

>>95940123
That's the one.
Thank you.

>>95940174
Yea, like I said, "barely". Fighting an encounter-appropriate enemy like a 7 headed hydra makes it even worse. At best you've created an area denial for stronger singular enemies that they'll avoid. Doesn't even come close to "fucking them up".

>>95940233
So don't give them the option to avoid it. You're slowed by half by being in its radius and there are a ton of higher CR threats with shit grapple checks where them shrugging it off isn't even a concern. Learn how to use battlefield control, brainlet.

>>95940028
>Grappling spell doesn't work well against an enemy specialised in grappling
And that's why you pack multiple spells that require different defences. Almost any enemy with enough brute strength to outmuscle the tentacles is going to have shit Will saves in exchange, and it's generally easy to notice their muscles just by looking at them.

>>95940405
Or bad Reflex saves. Outsiders and dragons are the exceptions.

I just found out that our crafting expert made an item with the effect of the Teeth of Dahlver-Nar, (without the drawback of possibly getting possessed by the remnants of some long forgotten entity) by reverse-engineering (he's an engineer, so that tracks) the cost based on the crafting rules.
That has me thinking about how many other named items exist out there we could poach their unique effects from.
Can you guys think of any named items with such unique effects that could be worth doing that for?

newfag here, are there automated sheet for 3.5e like the one 5e have here or any site for character builder for lazyfag
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ApmbXHTln99fPTUpanyQRTXNzXbQ8UBTt3Uq8xInQKw/htmlview

>>95946591
To my awareness, not in full, because there has yet to be a man autistic enough to FINISH the pit of fiddly details.

>>95946608
>not in full
So are there any usable site/source? Google only result in non automated stuff

>>95946591
The closest thing I know is PcGen, but that thing is super jank.
I've read about a paid heroforge sheet that might have existed at some point, but I was never able to find it.
I just made my own bespoke mess of a sheet using gsheet and filled stuff up by hand.

>>95931384
DM has the power to interpret those rules, to their best judgment, if they are fuzzy or there is a different opinion.

>>95948622
That's called rule zero anon, and in discussions between tables it's homebrew.
Sifting through what's actaully RAW vs dm Homebrew is 90% of the autism of 3.5 and the reason people are still finding new ways to break the game.
For example: Did you know Grafts can be effect-stacked like normal magic items? That was a thing they only recently figured out on Gitp

>>95950198
>Did you know Grafts can be effect-stacked like normal magic items?
Why wouldn't they be? The effects of grafts are generally untyped, so would stack implicitly.
The problem is that most are either prohibitively expensive, hard to gain, come with downsides, or some combination of the above.

>>95950241
>The effects of grafts are generally untyped
Not the effects, I'm talking about enchanting the same graft multiple time the same way you can put a boot of striding and boots of jumping effect on the same pair of boots.

>>95950249
I would have to see the rules on that, as the graft is a specific item with it's effect tied to the item being there, unless you can get multiple of the graft, like arms.

>>95950249
>>95950260
Adding, this sounds like a RAW v RAI situation, out of hand.

>>95950260
The RAW of it comes down to the fact that graft have a list of ways they differ from magic items and then cap off with the line "otherwise works exactly like crafting a wondrous item". This line is in both Old style and Eberron style grafts.
Which means that anything not mentioned on the list of differences operates by Wondrous item rules. This includes "Additional Effects".
Ignoring the autism above about custom items/spells/etc, adding together the effects of existing items in one super item is on much less arguable RAW. The crunch is pretty sound.
The fluff is where things get weird. Do you need to harvest tissues from monster that fulfill all the monster types needed for the graft? Can you combine tissues from different monsters into one organ? Do you have to make an entirely new graft every time you upgrade?
All that is solidly in DM call territory.

>>95950467
>Do you need to harvest tissues from monster that fulfill all the monster types needed for the graft? Can you combine tissues from different monsters into one organ? Do you have to make an entirely new graft every time you upgrade?
I'd go with Yes, No, Yes personally. I might seem harsh, but reducer stacking is still a thing.

>>95950570
>I might seem harsh, but reducer stacking is still a thing.
...In case you missed the fifty posts of shit-flinging about custom item RAW, that's a sidebar and thus not-quite-RAW.

Serious question. Do people actually play RAW games out there? Why does RAW even matter when every game is RAI as the DM interprets it, and under the parameters they allow?
I don't think anyone i ever met would even entertain the idea of playing RAW 3.5 through ll of it's potential autisms.
Hell, most people think that base game RAI is still too broken a lot of the time and homebrew somewhere between some stuff and a ton of shit to make it suit their autism and preferred game style. And desu if you dont trust the DM with the game enough to do what a DM is supposed to do, aka craft a game using the rules as guidelines then dont play with them. RPGs aren't videogames with rules set in stone.

>>95956412
Because grognards like to pretend there's some universal "100% accurate" way to run 3.5e, and the DM has no say in it because this automatically makes it "not 3.5e". If your DM refuses to allow a loophole (even though it's RAW), your game is an unholy abomination and not the real deal. But if we follow that reasoning, 99.9% of sessions that have ever been played in 3.5e are actually "not 3.5e". So you might as well say that RAW 3.5e is as real as the elusive modern audience in video games.

>>95913702
>They literally give a specific gold and xp cost.
Which are explicitly GUIDELINES rather than rules.

>>95956412
I was discussing that with my friends the other day.
In the end, everybody plays a slightly homebrewed version of the game. Be it 5e or 3.5e or whatever, there's always slight variations due to purposeful homebrew, misinterpretations, forgetfulness, etc.
It's still interesting to understand RAW and RAI, I think, if only to serve as a subsidy to make conscious decisions on how to wield the game's material, and makes for good discussion too, which keeps the game "alive" in a way.

>>95940405
> Almost any enemy with enough brute strength to outmuscle the tentacles is going to have shit Will saves in exchange,
Unless, you know, they can climb...Or fly...

>>95940303
>Learn how to use battlefield control, brainlet.
Ironically, since you're the brainlet who just threw out a subpar spell and thinks that's "Battlefield control".

>>95956191
I wish it were that simple.
Item merging specifically is not in a sidebar, it's referenced in multiple places as a thing you can do and has nothing to do with the table all the anons were crying about.
The rules are over-complicated and I hate it.

>>95956191
Anon, reducer feats, organizations, locations, items, etc. still work just fine if reductions via item restrictions aren't a thing. The content for item-crafting is Extensive.

>>95957137
It's not a subpar spell. You're a dumbass who fired off with a dumbshit take, got caught, and keep doubling down.

>>95957121
The two conditions are typically obvious enough to not waste a slot.

>>95957137
Even a 25% chance of burning action economy on each following round of the fight is damned good, for all it's technically a volatile crapshoot on statistical analysis without favorable terrain.

>>95957738
>Item merging specifically is not in a sidebar,
But the discounts for restrictions are, which is the point brought up.

>>95958513
And the ones that both apply to Grafts and once taken apply to more than just Grafts are few enough that it's not likely to cause issues compared to the "proper" Wondrous Item use of them.

>>95959533
>which is the point brought up.
No it fucking wasn't, I'm the one who made that point.
>are few enough that it's not likely to cause issues
I can link you a guide that'll prove you wrong very quickly anon. Magic item cost reducers are very, Very common.

>>95959653
>No it fucking wasn't, I'm the one who made that point.
MY point IN RESPONSE was that the "free" reductions for restrictions the crafter meets are a sidebar.

>I can link you a guide that'll prove you wrong very quickly anon.
I repeat myself:
>compared to the "proper" Wondrous Item use of them
Enough of the value either can't apply to Grafts or must be dedicated to Grafts alone that it's a minor issue compared to "standard" items that have exclusive discounts and broader effects.

>>95959685
>minor issue
https://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=1000.0
There is an entire section here for "General" cost reducers that apply to everything you make. I am 100% unchanged on my stance that you should have to remake the graft from scratch every time you want to upgrade with a merged super-graft.

>>95959776
I'm well aware. The point remains because the grafts are in fact much narrower for the Artisan feats and have no reductions specific to them, and the non-conflicting Graft variants still require separate feats. Unless you mean to interpret the combination as allowing for effect relocation to permit arbitrary Wondrous Items moved into Graft slots, which there is no example of and clear intent is demonstrated via "Behind the Curtain" sidebars ought not be a thing so to suggest it for an actual game is at incredible risk of getting your return-on-investment crushed by upcharges.

Knight of the Raven giving a character the ability to talk to Ravens is so fucking funny.

>>95961136
but can you do it during the day

>>95961232
Of course.
Yesterday a suspicious bird landed on the Bard's shoulder when we were trying to figure out how to go through some seemingly not magical defenses, so I sent my character's sassy ass raven companion to try and talk to the bird, meaning that the scene was the bard standing there with two birds on his shoulders, the raven croaking to the sparrow, and my character croaking to the raven.
It's nothing that couldn't be done using a Speak with Animals spell, sure.
But still, wild shit.
The way the other party members react every time is pretty funny.

I have been going crazy trying to remember the name of a particular monster, or less of a monster and more of a humanoid race of evil creatures. All I remember is them being extremely gaunt, and the artwork had one of them holding a glaive. I remember them being an end-game level threat like the mindflayers are, but I can't for the life of me remember what the hell they're called.

>>95966638
Might be a thri-kreen? I love those guys

>>95966638
You're thinking of Ethergaunts from Fiend Folio, a color-coded three monster family of increasingly high CR (Red 9, White 13, Black 17) of NE humanoid aberrations from the Ethereal Plane.

>>95967214
Yes holy shit thank you! I poured over every single fucking monster manual, the book of vile darkness and lords of madness. Jesus christ I should have just asked here your spoonfeeding would have saved me like two hours of my time.
>>95966701
Also good, love Thri-Keen.

>>95898738 (OP)
What makes 3.5 e any better than 5 e?

>>95970650
>Clear Progression
As long as you follow the books, your Level 5 party won't have anything in common with your Level 10 party etc. Different caliber of monsters, challenges, and so on. Things are simply designed for their intended levels, there's no bounded accuracy.
>Prestige Classes
Arguably better than sub-classes, they do not shoehorn you on a specific class to play a certain archetype (e.g. Shadowdancer).
>Supplemental Material
Last time I checked, official material was... 100+ books or so (no, I'm not counting 3rd party OGL) and I'm not even exaggerating.
>Caster Supremacy
If you are into that sort of thing.
>Tome of Battle
If you are into that sort of thing as well.
>Epic Levels
Again, if you are into that sort of thing.
>Mechanics
A bit redundant since it's tied to supplemental material, but if you have some concept in mind, then 3.5e has rules for it (most of the time).

Also, you came to 4chan for fucking answers?

>>95957137
I have never in the length of my gaming experience and being on this website heard anyone say 'black tentacles is a subpar spell'.
Congrats, you enormous faggot.

>>95971349
You forgot the most important one:
>It's so much easier on the GM.
Having an actually framework and examples to reference for whatever bullshit the players come up with, rather than needing to make up Everything on the fly, means the GM can focus on more important shit like plot and worldbuilding.
Every 5e game I've seen has always devolved into "Lol, So Random" eventually. It's very rare for one to maintain a consistent world and tone throughout a campaign.

>>95971478
I have, but that's the Pathfinder version where it runs into the brick wall that is CMD shockingly fast.

>>95972255
Literally the most important thing that everyone forgets.

>>95972255
>>95974848
>Literally the most important thing that everyone forgets.
Yeah, sure, but the 5e tourist will not understand this when you mention it in passing.
"It's easier to the DM."
The tourist will have a hard time believing that after years of the same meme being parroted to him "waaa 3.5e has maths waaaa".
You try the indirect route. Once they actually bother to look into 3.5e more, they will realize it by themselves.
>5e is simple, but 3.5e caters to any concept you might have without homebrew (mostly).
>5e is easy for newbies, but once you learn it then there's no depth to it. In 3.5e, you'll be learning things even after your first years of exposure.
>5e has bounded accuracy, 3.5e does not.
>5e functions by DM fiat when your game becomes remotely complex, 3.5e does not.
And so on.
You hit them with something osmosis has already taught them "Complexity and supplements" and you do not phrase it like everyone else does on the net; like it's a bad thing.

>>95978306
Complexity can be a wonderful thing for the player; it is rarely so for the GM.

>>95978948
Making systems explicit doesn't necessarily increase their complexity, merely demarcate it. 5e has the same breadth of scope and problems of system interactions as 3.5, but because 3.5 actually wrote them down and made some decisions that can play off each other, it's not wholly on the DM to create that context and those systems. They can look shit up and see how other people did it in the same ruleset, rather than having to freewheel it constantly.

>>95978970
>rather than having to freewheel it constantly
That was, in ages past and occasionally current, the expectation of the GM.
Even then, I rarely see books that do not have examples or suggestions of how to manage situations within the ruleset. It's a matter of taste, in that regard, especially since I have seen more than a few occurrences of the players weaponizing the system against the GM.

>>95979029
>It's a matter of taste
It's really not. I'm GMed for both. I know multiple people that've GMed for both(or at least pathfinder 1e and 5e).
GMing for 5e is just harder, period. There are so many more hoops you need to jump through and so much more bullshit you need to make whole-cloth in 5e.
3.PF is a lot more required reading, but it gives you a swiss army knife of options for whatever you need.

It's easier to pare down a detailed system than it is to build foundations from nothing.

>>95979919
You can say that again.
I'd rather have an explicit rule I can change or ignore than find myself wanting some guidance that doesn't exist.
Of course, for the sake of nuance, it's fair to acknowledge that too many rules badly organized could end up real bad, but that's not here nor there I think.

>>95980773
>it's fair to acknowledge that too many rules badly organized could end up real bad
5e is badly organized with its barebones rules anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

The thought has occurred to me to try integrating Spell Research rules as a Circumstance modifier to much-increased Spellcraft checks for deciphering magical writings and entering a spell into a spellbook.

What do you think would make for sensible breakpoints for similar costs to Sorcerer spell access, as is the purpose of doing this?

>>95980871
>Sorcerer spell access
N/a, because sorcerers can't research extra spells. You get your spells per level and spells from feats, that's it.
Only prepared casters can do research, that's the tradeoff of having all your spells available 24/7

>>95980891
>Hey what if i did this homebrew?
>Your homebrew wouldn't work because it's not RAW
PLEASE anon, i get this is the grognard-est edition, but you can do better than this

>>95980891
>N/a, because sorcerers can't research extra spells.
The point is that there's stuff like Magic Item Compendium's Runestaffs ((spell level^2)*400 gp) and Dragon #333's Knowstones ((spell level^2)*1,000 gp) they can access spells with. These are VASTLY more expensive than Wizards' methods, but compared to scrolls are reusable, just work, and are inter-class portable.

>>95980917
Anon, don't be retarded. I'm telling you why you Shouldn't homebrew this.
The limited spell selection of spontaneous casters is the entire point of the class. Take that away and they become objectively better than prepared casters.
It's been tried. Either sorcerers get zero research capability or they become objectively better wizards. There's no way around it.

>>95980950
The problem I'm wishing to solve is that in actual practice the baseline spell access is too close and there are too many tools to launder the cheap scroll access into on-hand spells for the Wizard's constraint to do what it's "supposed" to, leaving the Sorcerer just a worse Wizard. A major part of that is that the Wizard's "role" relies on a deep grab-bag of conditional answers like Break Enchantment or Stone to Flesh that a Sorcerer simply cannot afford to stock in such tightly limited Spells Known.

IDK if the guy that asked me (the Three Five Archive) guy to make a YouTube video about differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder will see this, but I did see your post and I plan to do it.
Essentially talking about why I think 3.5e is actually BETTER than Pathfinder, for multiple reasons. I actually am not a huge fan of CMB/CMD, for one thing.
I would say the changes to Dodge and Toughness, and the inclusion of Deadly Aim that lets you "power attack" at range a little bit, are some of the only nearly-objectively good changes in Pathfinder. But those are just feats.
When it comes to crit/precision immunity, I do like Pathfinder removing the immunity for undead/constructs, but not entirely. I'd make it a fortification thing personally.
But between Book of Nine Swords, Incarnum, and just the general more grotesque and bizarre nature of 3.5e monsters and stuff, it really leans into the Dungeonpunk aesthetic... I think 3.5e's a lot better.
Curious what other people think.

>>95981258
>I actually am not a huge fan of CMB/CMD, for one thing.
Uncontroversial, even among Paizo bootlickers.

>>95981258
One of the things people get confused about D&D and Pathfinder is the level of play. Pathfinder PCs start out way more powerful, but they also cap-out at a lower level of power than D&D PCs thanks to how much more limited pathfinder is with its math.
A big reason for this is prestige classes. Pathfinder kicked prestige classes to the side to focus on variant classes, but prestige class stacking is one of biggest sources of power in D&D 3.5.

>>95981258
That was me.

> I actually am not a huge fan of CMB/CMD, for one thing.
Same. So fucking hard.
Everything you wrote I agree with, wholesale.

>>95981258
Don't forget to bring up
>You get 10 feats rather than 7, but everything costs twice as many feats to do
>Rogues appear to get nothing but extras, but they lack a lot of their most powerful options from 3.5 like full attacking with splash weapons

But

>just the general more grotesque and bizarre nature of 3.5e monsters and stuff
IIRC a bunch of PF monsters were rebuilt to have Hit Dice closer to their CR.

>>95981258
>and the inclusion of Deadly Aim that lets you "power attack" at range a little bit
Technically you can do this in 3.5 via Bloodstorm Blade or Hank's Energy Bow, but it's not common. Hank's Energy Bow is an absolutely amazing weapon in general though, giving archers everything they ever wanted and more, especially if you're allowed to upgrade it.

>>95983327
>>95981258
Well, Power Throw exists but it's 3 fucking feats to get it.

>>95981258
PF's Favored Class mechanic is interesting even if it ends up doing something completely different from the 3.5 one of the same name. Just two issues: First that some benefits progress way too slowly (some classes get +1/6 of a feat when sorcerers can get +1 spell known per level). Second that "you select exactly one Favored Class" ends up clashing with the fluff, since an elf's style of Fighter-ing being influenced by elvish culture shouldn't stop the same elf's style of Rogue-ing from also being influenced by elvish culture.

>the changes to Dodge and Toughness
There's a reason 3.5 printed multiple feats that count as Dodge for prereqs (Desert Wind Dodge, Midnight Dodge).

The change to Toughness though is just a more fiddly version of Improved Toughness (which sadly never got the "counts as Toughness" clause). It would make more sense if it gave (2 + level) HP, rather than (level, min 3) HP.

>>95945078
Try it with the Eye of vecna

>>95987631
Iirc, you can not recreate artifacts.

>>95983310
>You get 10 feats rather than 7, but everything costs twice as many feats to do
Can you elaborate?
>Rogues appear to get nothing but extras, but they lack a lot of their most powerful options from 3.5 like full attacking with splash weapons
Very good point.

>>95983363
Yeah. Which I kinda like, because javelins and thrown axes need some love. Still it'd be nice if something like it existed for bows too.

>>95983398
Yeah there were some better versions of Dodge. I wish Dodge was just a +1 to AC though, and Improved Dodge was a +6 BAB that was the "select a foe" one, but for +3 or +4 instead. Armor Class isn't very strong in 3.5e and I wish it was. Outside of super-optimized builds. Maybe +3 or +4 would be overpowered, I dunno. But if it is, it's because it could be used in concert with other AC builds that are very very specific selections.

>>95983327
Wait it's just called "Hank's Energy Bow?" Is the energy from clean burning Propane?

>>95988726
Now somebody needs to draw that.

>>95988726
Funnily enough, by strict RAW the decision on when to use the Power Shot function isn't made by the wielder, it's made by Hank. And one of the entries in the random table for cursed items is "Wielder must change their name (item only works for wielders with a specific name)", so there's actual precedent for an item working that way.

>>95989402
This is up there with making a battalion of men all named "Han" to man your flamethrowers.

...Now how many flammable liquids and devices to apply them are there for that? Maybe a Flaming Heavy Aspergillum to start.

>>95988171
>Yeah. Which I kinda like, because javelins and thrown axes need some love. Still it'd be nice if something like it existed for bows too.
Personally I just allow to use PA for any muscle powered weapon. You just need a composite bow that can accommodate additional damage - so if you have STR +3 and BAB +6 you need a +9 composite bow to take full advantage of it.

>>95981258
>When it comes to crit/precision immunity, I do like Pathfinder removing the immunity for undead/constructs, but not entirely. I'd make it a fortification thing personally.

I keep thinking lately about how a lot of the parameters of armor and some of these related defensive abilities read like really blatant 2E holdovers, with the fuck-you immunities and flat percentage defenses and such. In my ideal 3E rewrite, I'd consider making precision damage a resistance type, and turn fortification/crit immunity into something like a penalty to the roll to confirm a crit. So a monster might have "Fire resistance 10, Precision resistance 10, Fortification 15 (-15 to crit confirm rolls)".

>>95983310
>IIRC a bunch of PF monsters were rebuilt to have Hit Dice closer to their CR.

There are precious few things I would do similarly to Pathfinder and most of them would be by accident, but this would be one of them. Ideally I'd try to make it a hard 1 HD = 1 CR = 1 character level, no LA/bloodline stuff/etc, no CR that isn't just the monster's total HD/level, etc. You'd have to adjust some other parts of the framework, but it would make a lot of things cleaner and easier to conceptualize if you could.

>>95988171
>Yeah. Which I kinda like, because javelins and thrown axes need some love. Still it'd be nice if something like it existed for bows too.

I see another anon just beat me to this, but personally I'd also be fine just using Power Throw (maybe with a rename) for any ranged weapon that allows your strength bonus - mighty bows, mostly, but I sort of also think there should be adjustable draw weight crossbows.

>>95990070
Their updates to undead certainly made that more viable.

>>95981258
PF completely fucked XP up by removing XP costs from spells and crafting. Damage to objects is weirder and oversimplified as well, and they drastically reduced a lot of "general" rules to just being printed on every. single. spell and item. A lot of converted monsters were, for the longest time, all shit. Hobgoblins were stronger and had better loot than gnolls, while gnolls were a higher CR despite being weaker, purely because of a shitty copy-paste job. This was for like 6-8 years.

d20 SRD Energy Attacks (because too lazy to open the 3.5e book and retype it):
>Acid and sonic attacks deal damage to most objects just as they do to creatures; roll damage and apply it normally after a successful hit. Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the hardness. Cold attacks deal one-quarter damage to most objects; divide the damage dealt by 4 before applying the hardness.

PF:
>Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object’s hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

3.5e is best played as core BOOKS (not SRD) only, no errata, no houserules (even the deity options), with the DM using the DMG tables for determining things like settlement item availability and to generate loot, random encounters, NPCs in settlements, and so on. ALL non-optional rules made use of as well, on top of the advice right at the start of the DMG that makes taking a "15 minute adventuring day" result enemies fortifying or packing up and abandoning their lair.

Playing this way should see most "balance issues" with 3.5e evaporate.

>>95990269
No, you see them get exacerbated.

>>95990271
Incorrect.
For example, casters are forced to be at lower levels than other PCs because they have to keep crafting magic items in order to shore up the party's statistics, as the only NPCs that craft magic items for sale are wizards (and sorcerers if reading their passage a little more freely) and thus the availability of magic items becomes a problem. Even casters that craft magic items for sale can only craft those items that they have the requisite Item Creation Feat for AND that make use of spells they have available to them.

This also applies to PCs, levying not just an XP tax but ALSO a feat tax and making wizards have to either take the sure thing of grabbing useful craft-spells or hope that they can find a scroll or another wizard's spellbook to steal or study from. Given that wizards are only found at levels of 1d4+community modifier, they are horribly rare outside of cities and a large town has only a 50/50 shot of POTENTIALLY having a wizard that is a high enough level to know either Craft Magic Arms and Armor or Craft Wand. Or niether, if he has a different fear for his bonus.

>>95990287
No, they're not, and no, they don't. You get more XP when you're behind in level, by the way.

The 3e Book of Vile Darkness supplement should be required reading for GMs. Too much stuff that is "evil" is just fundamentally the same as "good" or "neutral" with extra horns or something else extremely superficial.
The BoVD really breaks down what the game means when it describes something as evil, the consequences of being evil, and the kind of shit evil beings do in their downtime.

For fuck's sake 5e has Warlocks making pacts with devils as a starter class option and that is treating them no different than any other mage type mechanically on the whole. BG3's big punishment for such a pact? You got horns now. In a game where about 20% of the population has horns anyway.

The tameness that infected the hobby after 3e is frankly mind boggling.

>>95990296
Per the DMG, the only NPCs that craft magic items for sale are wizards.
>You get more XP when you're behind in level
True, but the fact that crafting must keep occurring messes with this. The "assumed setting" that the rules imply from the probabilities has far less magic items than most people seem to assume. See the attached image and note how few magic items show up. With 13 encounters per level, that isn't much magical loot for 4 PCs - and consumables such as potions and scrolls take up probability space. Much will need crafting.


Additionally, you need to be using maneuverability classes for flying. Very few monsters can hover, and fewer spells allow you to.

>>95990319
>forgot image

>>95990269
"It works decently in a no-context dungeon-crawl-athon" does nothing about the absolute nightmares of anything else, and by stripping out the non-core rules down to the errata to do so you've removed any reason to use it for this over the far more suited TSR editions and their retroclones.

>>95990287
>For example, casters are forced to be at lower levels than other PCs because they have to keep crafting magic items in order to shore up the party's statistics
"Sometimes one level behind" is not worth outright asking the Wizard to sit down for weeks of crafting. Even just from core spells, the suite of value accumulation they can dump the rest of their slots into is nuts.

>and making wizards have to either take the sure thing of grabbing useful craft-spells or hope that they can find a scroll or another wizard's spellbook to steal or study from.
...There is no "hope that they can find a scroll", the entire reason people complain about bullshit with niche utility spells is because even a fucking Thorp can spot you problem-negating 1st-level spells.

The relevant text, from DMG pg. 137:
>Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical. While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.

Converting loot to your crafting reagents is considerably more constrained:
>To determine the amount of ready cash in a community, or the total value of any given item of equipment for sale at any given time, multiply half the gp limit by 1/10 of the community’s population.
So it literally doesn't fix the problem you need it to.

>>95990319
>The "assumed setting" that the rules imply from the probabilities has far less magic items than most people seem to assume.
Small towns of 2,001-5,000 people having scrolls of 8th level spells says otherwise.

>>95990379
>Small towns
...Mixed up adjacent rows, Large Towns are of that population figure with the 3,000 gp limit. Consumables of high-level effects are ABSURDLY easily available, which implies exactly the disruptive value accumulation I note as an issue because there simply aren't enough high-level casters to supply it if they aren't ROUTINELY dumping their slots into scrolls and potions. Sure, the party Wizard can't turn a profit on this without non-core material to break symmetry between crafting cost and sales price, but on the other hand they can still make an unreasonable amount of money off Fabricate.

>>95990319
You're not understanding the implications of what you're putting forward. IF I accepted your arguments, and I don't, the logical conclusion is to spread the temporary XP burden by taking as many spellcasters as possible (plus at least one PC with a dip into Rogue for trapfinding) to specialize in different items and that everyone who isn't doing that is going to have an inferior party because they're going to hit the need for rest much faster.

>>95990375
>>To determine the amount of ready cash in a community, or the total value of any given item of equipment for sale at any given time, multiply half the gp limit by 1/10 of the community’s population.
This means that a village may HAVE healing potions but they aren't for sale, because they will only have 10gp items for sale (200/2*0.1 = 10).
It scales up rapidly,
>Small Town: 40gp
>Large Town: 150gp
>Small City: 750gp
>Large City: 2,000gp
>Metropolis: 5,000gp

This means that you could not buy crossbows, rapiers, scimitars, tridents, warhammers, or greataxes, nor most exotic weapons save for the monk ones (which are derived from farming implements) bolas and whips, in anything smaller than a small town. They would also lack the resources to sell most armor, save for leather or padded, wooden shields, light steel shields, and locked gauntlets. Most of the "fancy adventuring gear also is not available, such as chain, bullseye lanters, locks, manacles, spyglasses, most of the tools and skill kits INCLUDING no silver holy symbols, spellbooks, or thieves tools. Most alchemical items besides acid, sunrods and tintertwigs would not be available. And THOSE would be only due to being part of the larger support networks as alchemy labs are only in Small Towns or larger.

All of this makes logical sense. The majority of these things are rather advanced in terms of resources, skill, or facilities needed and given their difficulty to replace would not be sold. It's like that "can you replace it in 15 minutes for 15 dollars?" mantra for decluttering, turned into game rules.

>>95990379
>>95990402
>there simply aren't enough high-level casters to supply it if they aren't ROUTINELY dumping their slots into scrolls and potions
I believe the fact that just because some things are available, and not for sale, disproves this. Large towns may have 8th level scrolls hidden away somewhere but they're certainly not selling them.
>>95990405
It means more downtime is all.

>>95992189
After writing that I did another look and realized my entire middle thing was messed by the following paragraph which uses the example of longswords from a hamlet. Still, the community only has a limited amount of these items which may make them reluctant to sell them.

Further thoughts:

>>95990375
>a no-context dungeon-crawl-athon
3e was presented as "back to the dungeon", a contrast to 2e's grand narratives.

>>95992189
Actually a few pages later, on 139 states:
>Spellcasters willing to make magic items or cast spells for hire can make a lot of money, although expenditures of personal power (experience points) are often involved, and the demand for such expensive items is unsteady at best and can be depended on only in large cities.

And then on 142:
>Magic shouldn’t be something that common people are unaware of. Spellcasters may be fairly rare in the big picture, but they’re common enough that people know that when Uncle Rufus falls off the back of the wagon, they could take him to the temple to have the priests heal the wound (although the average peasant
probably couldn’t afford the price). Only the most isolated farmer might not see magic or the results of magic regularly.
And further on the same page:
>The magic items described in Chapter 7 all have prices. The assumption is that, while they are rare, magic items can be bought and sold as any other commodity can be. The prices given are far beyond the reach of almost everyone, but the very rich, including mid- to high-level PCs, can buy and sell these items or even have spellcasters make them to order. In very large cities, some shops might specialize in magic items if their clientele is very wealthy or includes a large number of adventurer (and such shops would have lots of magical protections to ward away thieves). Magic items might even be available in normal markets and shops occasionally. For example, a weaponsmith might have a few magic weapons for sale along with her normal wares.

There are additional notes in that section on how a settlement would USE magic and magical items. Taken all together, alongside the examples of supply and demand on page 140, is that these things are not absent, but still relatively rare and uncommon, and may be in-use by NPCs.

>>95990269
>>95990271
>>95990287
>>95990296
I swear to god I've seen these exact same series of posts before.

>>95992189
>This means that a village may HAVE healing potions but they aren't for sale, because they will only have 10gp items for sale (200/2*0.1 = 10).
The formula is (gp limit/2)*(population/10), not gp limit/2/10, so a Village has at least 100*20.1 for 2,010 gp in circulation AND, if I'm understanding the gramatically-torturous clause correctly in relation to the gp limit, total for sale on-hand. The minimum-population Thorp "most likely" has access to any particular 40 gp item synonymous with its for-sale total, and it scales up from there.

>Large towns may have 8th level scrolls hidden away somewhere but they're certainly not selling them.
"May be hidden away somewhere not for sale" is not "most likely available", and it being EVERY 8th level spell without an expensive component does not change that there is a rather significant issue given the spell only disappears from the scroll if the copy is successful so it's only lost if the Wizard has gained the ability to replace it.

>>95992298
>3e was presented as "back to the dungeon", a contrast to 2e's grand narratives.
Doesn't change that 3.5 did horrible things to the dungeon-crawling experience relative to the incredibly well furnished b/x retroclone community within just the core rules (buff spell durations for a START) and that the persistent interest in the edition is the content mill that ever more spectacularly ruined it.

>>95993305
Thanks for the corrections. I struggle with 3.5e because it IS fairly well-made, but everything is so complex and rules lean on other rules that it's difficult to really play RAW. That's why I recommend using ONLY the core, without errata or anything. The books are so dense that you can quite literally play it for years and still be learning how to do so "properly".
>and that the persistent interest in the edition is the content mill that ever more spectacularly ruined it
True. The "ivory tower design" of this edition that Monte Cook admitted to is I think is really the meat of the game. All the (mostly freelancer-written) splatbooks are a distraction. Most people I knew back in the day would just use the SRD, which was more of a designer tool and had no explanations or examples, and almost none of the DMG info. Groups were running off of a fancy, dumbed-down PHB + oodles of supplementary material for character power purposes or new monsters.

I have never heard of someone use books like Ghostwalk, Stormwrack, OA, Libris Mortis, the XPH or Magic of Incarnum as the central foundation of their campaign.

>>95990269
>Playing this way should see most "balance issues" with 3.5e evaporate.
Ha! Most of the balance issues are baked into core. Nothing in any of the supplemental material beats candle of invocation wish-loops.

>>95993572
>candle of invocation wish loops
That's not how Gate or the candle works.

>>95993592
Anon, people use the candle to gate in monsters with Wish as a spell like. They then wish for a fully charged ring of 3 wishes or another candle of invocation. Repeat.

>>95990269
You must have DM'd so many fun and balanced games to come to this opinion, right?

>>95981258
How skills work is also very different. In PF there are no half-ranks and skills are capped to your level/hd, but you get a +3 bonus in any class skill you put a point in. There's also the way skills have been fused.

>>95993640
This entire loophole could have been patched (somewhat) if someone bothered to provide some errata for spell-like abilities.
Something like:
>Spell-like abilities that emulate spells that require XP provide the minimum required amount for the spell to function. XP costs derived from additional effects must be paid in full.
In this hypothetical scenario, an Efreet for example can cast Wish with no XP cost as long as the effect stays within the territory of 5,000 XP or pay the full XP cost if wishing a magic item into existence (and in the case of a Gate, require some additional service for wasting his own XP reserves for your fancy ring).

>>95981258
>just the general more grotesque and bizarre nature of 3.5e monsters and stuff
Personally i much prefer Pathfinder's monsters, they are significantly better constructed than 3.5 ones.

>>95983310
>You get 10 feats rather than 7, but everything costs twice as many feats to do
It's worse than that, if you're in a 3.5e campaign that allows flaws then you get 9 feats.

>>95993640
>Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord. This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures. This use of the spell has an XP cost (see below). If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual—for instance, a bearded devil or a ghaele eladrin—you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice your caster level can’t be controlled. Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time.

Wish also has limitations.
>You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. Such a wish gives the DM the opportunity to fulfill your request without fulfilling it completely. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.) For example, wishing for a staff of the magi might get you instantly transported to the presence of the staff’s current owner. Wishing to be immortal could get you imprisioned in a hidden extradimensional space (as by an imprisonment spell), where you could “live” indefinitely.

Candle of Invocation costs 8400 gp, and you need to find a LE one to summon an efreeti. As well...
>Efreet are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature, and ability to beguile and mislead.
That Efreet may just grant such wishes to someone else if they use 1 to fuck with you. It's like spell nukes - gating in efreeti starts a war.

>>95994254
Wish is in the weird position that your rule wouldn't work. The XP cost for making a magic item with wish is part of the xp component, not the effect. You'd need to overhaul wish completely to close the exploit.

>>95994284
Neither of the rules you posted apply. For example: Solars are neither deities or unique beings. Wishing for magic items is not a "Greater Effect", it's explicitly part of the allowed list.
>That Efreet may just grant such wishes to someone else if they use 1 to fuck with you.
They don't get a choice. Gate binds them to following the task you set out for them.
You can houserule otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact Core is fucked on a fundemental level. This is also only One example of said fuckness.

>>95994286
Or simply rephrase the ruling.
Regardless, Wish states:
>The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.
Under my ruling, the minimum cost to activate Wish is 5,000 XP. Anything else after the first period is an 'additional effect' and effectively forces you to pay the XP amount even if it is a spell-like ability and so on.

>>95994307
>Gate binds them to following the task you set out for them.
Wish can result in partial fulfilment, and and efreet has per its description the desire to fuck you over as much as possible.
A solar is a close attendant of a deity per RAW. So if you are gating one in to make a wish you better hope that you are neither taking him from an important task nor drawing the ire of his boss.

To just grant such things would blatantly ignore that the world as written is hostile as fuck. There's even an example way early in the DMG of a caster wishing to have double spell slots and an enemy miracle'ing to undo that.

>>95994307
>This is also only One example of said fuckness.
What are the others?

>>95994508
>Wish can result in partial fulfilment
Wish can only result in partial fulfillment if it invokes a "Greater Effect" by RAW.
Anon, your rule zero at your table is fine, Everyone does it, But for the love of god stop trying to pass it off as RAW.

>>95994532
NTA but I can think of at least two more.
>Polymorph Any Object
It's a can of worms that becomes more broken the longer you read it. The fact it's a core spell, and not from supplements, makes it worse.
>Locate City
A spell that can be snowcasted & flash-frosted & energy admixtured (among other metamagic feats) to cause damage way beyond anything the writers of 3.5e ever intended you to do.

>>95994532
I don't have an extensive list, just example I can remember.
Another is businesses. Unironically you can break the entire WBL system over your knee.
WBL in general is pretty non-functional, there are too many things that break it.

>>95994841
>Locate City
That's not core. It's from races of destiny.

>>95994828
It uses a Staff of the Magi as an example of a "greater effect". While it is a minor artifact, it's still a magic item - just one without a gold cost. A wish for more wishes would presumably count, and the example of an invalid wish is given in the DMG on page 13:
>For example, suppose a PC becomes an unbalanced character by using a wish spell to give herself the ability to cast all her prepared spells twice rather than once. (This should never happen from a wish, but DMs do make mistakes.) An in-game solution might be to have an enemy cleric use a miracle to rob her of that newfound ability. Whatever you do, try not to make it obvious that the situation is actually just a tool to balance the game. Instead, make it seem just a part of the adventure. (If you don’t, indignant players will get very angry.)
Additionally, since Wish cannot itself produce more Wishes (as it can't replicate level 9 spells) then it is reasonable to assume RAI that it also can't create items that require level 9 spells without said funny business.
Furthermore, the designers repeatedly used the Ring of Three Wishes as an example throughout the DMG, as well as other wish-granting items and an NPC. This is evidence of their awareness of how powerful a Wish is. Even if you wanted to use errata, it is not touched. Clearly, "obvious loophole" does not actually exist.

>>95994532
3.5e is too complicated RAW to run without studying it like a religious text. Playing it is fine, running it is a nightmare. Inevitably you run up against something that's only not-broken because of a line of text in the intro for the chapter 4 pages earlier that defines the context, or something from the often skimmed past very start of one of the books.
A lot of the issues with the game are really just that its "dungeonpunk" tone is just something that clashes with the intense amount of rules-within-rules. People who really like learning all the intricacies of things typically enjoy and expect other types.

>>95994874
Sure, but Polymorph Object still remains, which is Core.
Simulacrum is also Core, and also a contender from fundamentally broken things.

>>95994866
WBL is a guideline and cleaves close to the random treasure tables combined with the 13-encounters to level format. There are recommendations for taxation in the DMG, as well as clear assumptions that the players will have hirelings and other expenses.
>WH4MMY

>>95994918
>A wish for more wishes would presumably count, and the example of an invalid wish is given in the DMG on page 13:
That's not a good example. Wishing for the ability to cast twice as many spell slot was clearly a Greater Effect in the first place. It's also an example, which makes it not a proper ruling. The examples for metabreath feats still say you can stack them despite the feat itself clearly saying this isn't allowed.
The player is also not "Wishing for more Wishes". They're wishing for a magic item, which the spell clearly and explicitly allows. This is especially true if the wish is for a candle of invocation.

>>95994841
>Polymorph Any Object

>>95994920
>Simulacrum
Alright, I was aware of those two.

>>95994866
>businesses
That one, however, I was not.
Going to give that a read later.
Thanks.
Keep em coming anons. I always read about how all the most broken shit was in core, but nobody ever gives more than one specific.
It would be cool to have something close to a comprehensive list, if only to sate my curiosity.

>>95994943
>There are recommendations for taxation in the DMG
At the point that the king starts trying to drop the 90% tax necessary to keep businesses in WBL range, It'd be very clear in-character that the king a corrupt piece of shit that's about to start a civil war from his over-taxation.

>>95994954
Add Force Cage to the list, simply because it trivializes many creatures that do not specifically have disintegration or teleportation, with no save allowed (and anti-magic does nothing to it since it's a Force Effect).

>>95994947
The Anon you're arguing with has clearly already decided their homebrew is the actual rules. Arguing with him is pointless, he's just going to reach for less coherent "evidence" as the convo goes on. It'll be mental gymnastics all the way down.

>>95994947
>It's also an example, which makes it not a proper ruling.
This is 100% wrong and something that an SRD-player would say.

>metabreath feats
Not core, much of the content outside of core was done by freelancers and is only marginally better than Dragon and Dungeon mag content. It was barely playtested. Core isn't perfect but it's far FAAAAR better than the majority of supplementary material.
>They're wishing for a magic item
Which has a 9th level spell as a requirement, and Wish clearly cannot reproduce the effects of a 9th level spell without it fucking up somehow.

>>95994954
It's not really "broken" but a character who is immune to poison and/or disease (such as a sufficiently-high level monk) can be basically a walking bioweapon.

>>95994961
Guilds may intervene as well. You can find multitudes of examples in the Chapter 5: Campaigns section of the DMG that reveal constraints on silly "infinite money glitches" like that.

>>95994954
>Keep em coming anons.
The vast majority of broken things in core are spells. The actualy rules that break the game cause a lot of screeching from DMs that can't tell the difference between reality and headcanon.
Magic item crafting is the biggest source of schizo arguments, but businesses cause their own fair share.

>>95994992
>a character who is immune to poison and/or disease (such as a sufficiently-high level monk) can be basically a walking bioweapon.
By walking around infected with a bunch of infectious diseases?

>>95994994
>The vast majority of broken things in core are spells
Yeah, I figured as much, but it's fun hearing about the other stuff, even if heavily interpreted or whatever.

>>95994992
>"This is 100% wrong"
>Literally gave an example
>"Doesn't count"
Anon is a prophet: >>95994984

>>95994978
Forcecage lets you trivialize 1 encounter with a single enemy as long as it has has no magical or teleportation/astral travel abilities, at the cost of 1,500 gp of ruby dust.

>>95995001
>By walking around infected with a bunch of infectious diseases?
Coated in disease-filth and poisons. Makes big monsters (if intelligent enough) think twice about trying to utilize Swallow Whole.

>>95995003
I explained why it doesn't count. The examples within core are illustrative about how the rules work, and underwent rigorous testing.
The examples in splatbooks were done on strict deadline and page count constraints. They are not held to the same standard.

>>95995038
>Forcecage lets you trivialize 1 encounter with a single enemy as long as it has has no magical or teleportation/astral travel abilities, at the cost of 1,500 gp of ruby dust.
Yeah, that's what it does. You don't consider trivializing CR 13+ beatsticks (an Iron Golem for example) with 1 spell at the cost of 1 potion's worth og gp as 'fundamentally more broken that it should be'?

>>95995074
Nope. Iron Golems have no treasure so you're burning 1500gp to trivialize it. And you need to obtain said ruby dust from either the gems you find or a settlement of at least a large town.

Magic solves 1 problem, once. That's its core thing. Forcecage doesn't work against many other 12th-14th level encounters (page 81 DMG) but it IS very strong against 1 specific category of enemy, at a definite cost.

>>95989861
>You just need a composite bow that can accommodate additional damage - so if you have STR +3 and BAB +6 you need a +9 composite bow to take full advantage of it.
lol... jesus. It kinda makes sense though. That is why it's called "Deadly Aim" and not "Power Shot" in Pathfinder though. And fortunately it isn't considered precision damage despite that.

>>95990070
>In my ideal 3E rewrite, I'd consider making precision damage a resistance type, and turn fortification/crit immunity into something like a penalty to the roll to confirm a crit. So a monster might have "Fire resistance 10, Precision resistance 10, Fortification 15 (-15 to crit confirm rolls)".
Not a bad idea. I like the negation chance because it fits in well with miss chance which is used to represent incorporeal's semi-immunity to material magical attacks. Or displacement or anything of that sort.

>I see another anon just beat me to this, but personally I'd also be fine just using Power Throw (maybe with a rename) for any ranged weapon that allows your strength bonus - mighty bows, mostly, but I sort of also think there should be adjustable draw weight crossbows.
I completely agree. The lack of "composite crossbows" as well as a vital-strike-style feat tree for taking one dead-aimed shot with a crossbow, is criminal.

>>95990241
>PF completely fucked XP up by removing XP costs from spells and crafting.
Hard agree. Although I've seen people completely avoid crafting because of the XP cost, but that's what I call the "eternalism fallacy" (the idea that your campaign is gonna last forever so you should hoard potions and consumables and never use them, as well as never spend XP on magic items because you need to save it, even though you're eventually gonna reach the same level as everyone else anyway, and in fact you get bonus XP for magic item crafting since you get more XP from encounters for being lower level).

Pathfinder also has bullshit like Blood Money that lets you completely negate all material costs and reduce them to 100 gp. A player did a true resurrection with Blood Money and dealt himself 50 Strength damage then had an ally cast Restoration for 100 gp or something like that, allowing him to resurrect loads of old PCs who had died earlier in the campaign. It was a cool thing in that instance, but the potential for abuse was insane and I still cannot come up with a RAW argument against it.

>>95994258
>Personally i much prefer Pathfinder's monsters, they are significantly better constructed than 3.5 ones.
How so? I sort of agree, that they have better structure, even if the 3.5e ones have better art / concepts. But I'm curious why you think so.

>>95994992
No, core fucking suckis. It was not playtested worth a damn and was only playtested up to 6 to begin with.

>>95995192
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth is supposed to work. You're supposed to get the wealth spent on consumables back in some form.

>>95996179
The treasure tables overcompensate for it, see attached image.
But no, Iron Golems are listed as having NO treasure themselves in the MM.
Totally TOTALLY unrelatedly, beholders, also CR 13, have "Double Standard". What could they mean by this? Ivory tower design isn't just for players.

>>95995221
>I still cannot come up with a RAW argument against it
Blood money is the signature spell of a bad guy in one of the adventure paths, it's not something every wizard is going to pick up during their studies. They shouldn't have been able to learn it in the first place, especially not as one of the free level up spells

>>95996448
Can you cite a rule indicating a hard barrier preventing it, or is it mere conjecture about what "makes sense" for the setting?

>>95996338
>that spoiler
What a fucking plot twist.

>>95998475
Game is designed to give near infinite replayability through the fact you - both as a player and DM - constantly learn new stuff from studying it and notice things that balance each other, so the sessions get more and more involved over time (or over each campaign.)

>>95911261
Not a whole lot that I'm aware of. I've been working on one the past year that's coming along, but it's not super close to 3.PF at this point. Close enough to convert or use a 3e MM.

If I grabbed a 3e character of an arbitrary level (say 8), they'd be roughly the right power level in combat, but more narrow outside of combat; and WBL would push them way over the curve if you gave them the innate enhancements baked into level, so you'd need to ditch most of their gear.

Anyways. I posted about my project a couple times last year. It's coming along.

I don't know of any that are finished though. Legend is probably the closest.

Say a wyvern was trying to turn himself into a true dragon, or as close to it as possible, by using templates, class levels, feats, etc.
How would you guys build that NPC? What are the means available to the thing to, for example, get arms and a breath weapon?
No equipment, no grafts.

>>96000798
After already being born? The dragon disciple class lets them become a half-dragon and then they're shit out of luck.
If we include 3rd party, there's an arcane prestige class(must be related to a dragon) in the ecyclopedia arcana series that's 10th-level capstone is the power to be reborn as a true dragon wyrmling if you manage to convince a female true dragon of the same type you're related to.

>>96000828
>The dragon disciple class lets them become a half-dragon
They can't get levels in that class being Dragon type right?

>>96000828
>in the ecyclopedia arcana series that's 10th-level capstone is the power to be reborn as a true dragon wyrmling if you manage to convince a female true dragon of the same type you're related to.
Yo what the fuck.

>>96000828
...is the implication that she's your new mom

>>96000828
>If we include 3rd party, there's an arcane prestige class(must be related to a dragon) in the ecyclopedia arcana series that's 10th-level capstone is the power to be reborn as a true dragon wyrmling if you manage to convince a female true dragon of the same type you're related to.

>>96000828
*to eat you

>>96000856
>They can't get levels in that class being Dragon type right?
Oh right.
He's fucked basically. Unless third party is allowed, then I hope he can cast spells and like the idea of reincarnation.

>>96000905
lmao

>>96000905
So many anons are down Bad

>>96000919

>>95996179
>You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth is supposed to work. You're supposed to get the wealth spent on consumables back in some form.
That statement is how WBL is supposed to work in Pathfinder. In 3.5, the treasure given out was supposed to just be high enough to not need to count consumables in the WBL, so that after they consume the wands / potions they're still above WBL Different approaches to ensure the players are at WBL in permanent gear when they level up.

>>96000919
>So many anons are down Bad
When it comes to dragons, it's tradition.

>>96000989
>Image depicts the average silver dragon

>>96000798
Chapter Eleven at the back of Savage Species: Becoming a Monster. Ritual of Vitality will get them a transformation into a Same-ECL true dragon for 1000 x ECL of the dragon (as CL, min 7) x the ECL of the dragon. 1 day per CL.
It's not a very slow and gradual process. Dude just needs to gather up the money for the ritual.
This reading assumes that you have the base Experience points of your base ECL. Which I think is correct.

If he wants to do it less efficiently, he could do the Ritual of Unlearning instead. But then he loses class levels AND his Wyvern ECL, in exchange for Dragon ECL. it's strictly worse.

Rituals.

>>95911261
Technically Mutants & Masterminds 3e is exactly that.

>>96000798
Polymorph Any Object would be the cheapest option, but they'd be capped at juvenile forms and they wouldn't get most of a dragon's kit

>>96001116
If I was that Wyvern, I would grind out class levels (Sorcerer maybe, so the flavour matches dragon), and then Ritual of Vitality myself into a dragon of the target type age group, giving up my sorcerer levels and Wyvern ECL.

Wyvern has LA -. Not a lot of help in calculating its ECL. DM's going to have to decide what its LA is. LA Assignment project puts it at 0, so Lets take that as 0. Easy.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24868145&postcount=3

Say it wants to become a Red Dragon Wyrmling. the MM gives that a LA of +4 for a Wyrmling. LA Assignment says thats a -0; Negative LA Project says DNLA of -0; or a RHDR of 2 (making it CR5, if he picks up a level in Sorcerer he could swap to Very Young red dragon with 8hd). Young has a -4 RHDR.

RAW, turning into a red wyrmling is going to suck, and make him weaker than he is now. If the GM wants to use the LA Reassignment projects so its a fair trade, (I would) that will involve using the homebrew LA assignments described above.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624825
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629100-Negative-LA-Assignment-Resurrection-but-no-diamond-here

Anyways. RAW, he grinds 4 ECL worth of class levels (or HD advancements, or templates), pays (1000 x 11x11), does the ritual for 11 days, and turns into a 7HD Red Wyrmling, losing 4 levels in the process, but becoming a red wyrmling.

Going with the Negative LA + RHDR method (how I would run it as the GM, but not RAW): he grinds 2 ECL worth of class levels (or HD advancements, or templates), pays (1000x9x9), does the ritual for 9 days, and turns into a Young Red Dragon (still large sized), but with only 9HD; or grinds 5 ECL, pays (1000x12x12), and turns into a Juvenile Red Dragon with 12HD.

>>96001277
And Polymorph can be dispelled (The Rituals cannot).

>>96001328
If he's impatient (with the RHDR LA approach) - turning into a Wyrmling is your cheapest option (ECL5, 5RHD, base, and then you'd keep two dragon HD from Wyvern (or perhaps spend them on a template or class levels, whatever the GM thinks is reasonable for those two orphaned wyvern HD)), but then advancing in age categories will be pretty slow slow going. But, 1000x5x5 = 25k. That's a lot more easily attainable.

Anyways. You're the GM, you make the call. But if this was my NPC, I would go with the "he grinds up some levels and turns himself into a Young or Juvenile Dragon with the same RHDR-Based ECL as himself."

>>96001389 Here.
Whoops. I meant to tag you, >>96000798, not my previous post >>96001328

>>95994532
One of the easy ways to break the game is Planar Binding into a Wish loop.

>>95996448
>Blood money is the signature spell of a bad guy in one of the adventure paths, it's not something every wizard is going to pick up during their studies. They shouldn't have been able to learn it in the first place, especially not as one of the free level up spells
Yeah, and this is why I believe that having a free online SRD is a mistake. Characters can just look up every single stupid thing and you have to start from a mindset of "Core and APG/ACG only, and other things allowed on a case-by-case basis" but the problem is that then it makes it almost impossible for them to make their characters, cause they're all on their phones using RPGBot and d20pfsrd to do so. DnDtools causes the same issue for 3.5e, but it's not as navigable or searchable, so that helps.

>>96000913
Surely there are other classes out there that slowly gives you dragon characteristics.

>>96001116
>>96001277
>>96001328
>>96001389
>>96001407
Okay, yeah. I was thinking something more transitional, Frankenstein-ish, or even somewhat allegorical, like using soulmelds to get some dragon characteristics, taking levels in DFA, etc. Something closer to the Dragon Disciple suggestion.
That there's an actual ritual that could be used to shouldn't be a surprise, but holy shit.
That's sick.
And yeah, PAO would be the obvious "easy one" wouldn't it?
Well, lots for me to consider.
Thank you dudes.

Evening fellas.

So just to understand there's just crazy shit for epic levels, like there's that giant ball thing with long appendages with mouths big enough to eat giants, ancient elementals, etc.
What else was there for epic levels? I know about those super undead skeleton wizard guys

>>96003640
Neutronium golem.

>>95995229
I've found them very disjointed and underbaked, especially every monster made outside of MM and MM3. I also feel the art is worse on average.

>>96004019
Where 3e is concerned, I like the 3.5 MM and the Monsters of Faerun monsters for flavor, and occasionally some random Faerunian monster from an FR sourcebook; but otherwise I agree with you, I tend to like the PF Monsters better. They're a little lacking on the noncombat stats if they come up in a way that's not "fight them for 3-4 rounds and kill them" (but so are the 3.5 ones, while the 3.0 ones were more well rounded); but they're more consistently mathed, there's a bigger variety of them, and they do play pretty well (aside from CMB/CMD scaling being shit, which you can easily ignore if using them with 3.5).

What does a good 3.5 damage focused build look like with ToB? How about Without? I assume there's more to the high performance builds than "Full BAB and Power Attack".

>>96004716
>with
Swift action attack maneuvers or movement, Diamond Nightmare Blade, Time Stands Still, Avalanche of Blades, Stormguard Warrior, Leading the Charge plus Pouncing Charge
>without
Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian Power Attack Leap Attack Shock Trooper + AoO triggering feats

>>96003640

>>96005598
You missed the best part! Great Wyrm Time Dragons get Time Apotheosis, which lets them navigate timeline to always be in the best possible one. Mechanically it lets roll twice on all dice and take the best roll for each, plus lets them travel back and forth in time at will out of combat.
If you somehow piss off a time dragon, they can just go back in time to when you were a baby and kill you then.

>>96004733
>Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian
There's also Tripper or Dungeoncrasher fighter, but non ToB melee build optimization is pretty limited.

>>96005724
I also enjoy how the amount of time it takes them to grow another age category is random, to the point where even a wyrmling could suddenly grow to great wyrm mid-combat

>>96003680
...is that a nuclear golem?
>>96005598
So if I skinned it, can I get time powers or what?

Heck can I survive a Draeden with the skin and probably age the thing back to a small fetus?

>>96008973
>...is that a nuclear golem?
No, it's a neutron star golem. The density has exited standard nuclear physics.

>>96008973
It's from
>Immortal's Handbook: Epic Bestiary Volume One

>>96009087
The joke is a deity made with divine abilities from Ascension (the second book in Craig's Immortals), with 1/10 of the Golem's ECL, is actually more dangerous than what it will ever be.

>>96009233
And to clarify, I mean from the same general line of books (Bestiary & Ascension), not the D&D meta in general. The writer goes hard to setup the Neutronium Golem as this cosmic superweapon Overdeities use to clear up the trash, when said trash (if made with basic intelligence) can actually no-sell such golems.

>>96009087
>Moves at the speed of light
>Will have to stay still at the end of its turn
kek

>>96009087
What's even the point of having numbers this big?

>>96009087
>>96009043
Get the fuck out of here, you gotta be shitting me with this kind of thing.
>time lords
...so casually we got time masters, huh? >>96009608
>>96009675
real question is....HOW THE FUCK DO I KILL IT? what do I gotta tell a Time Dragon this thing was fucking it's mother's corpse to watch the damn thing get aged to death?
Especially with the time lords

>>96009709
>HOW THE FUCK DO I KILL IT?
My guy, a sub-20th level wizard can kill this thing. There are a shit ton of ways to break 3.pf's system and create an infinite loop.
Easiest way is Bloodline + 2 levels of uncanny trickster. Bloodline levels increase the level dependant features of all classes by your total bloodline level(including caster level). Uncanny Trickster, as a class feature, lets you pick one class and every level of uncanny trickster after the first will add to that class like you advanced a level in that class. Bloodline is a class with levels.
You now have a looping error that gives +Infinity to your caster level. Add the reserves of strength feat to ignore CL caps on spells and you can kill anything.

>>96009709
For an actually useful answer, that's from a third party book specifically published to be +big numbers. It's also a golem, and one with "+32 virtual size categories" at that. You can just ignore it and go around it unless you're playing with effectively a joke book.

>>96009756
>>96009801
>third party book
poo
still sounds like, if it was outside of DND, it would make a killer superhero villain or some kind of shonan villain.

I wonder how Etherites feel now that modern physics has basically accepted luminiferous ether as a thing, but re-branded it as "Field Theory"(literal only change is that fields aren't a fluid).

>>96009269
>>96009233
I mean, that makes sense right? It's a golem, a petty minion with Int -, basically a stat stick for menial tasks.

>>96009756
>unearthed arcana stuff
Nah just throw a shuriken at it as a crusader/cleric and deal infinite damage.

>>96016588
What's that one?

>>96009087
>CR 9721
A level-9720 party wouldn't quite be up for the task.

>>96016739
If I remember right it's something like - if you roll maximum damage on attack roll the damage again, repeat until you stopped rolling maximum damage.
Basically authors were complete idiots.

>>96017530
Shuriken is 1 damage on small (Not a roll so no infinite) and 1d2 on medium so eventually you're gonna roll a 1.

>>96017566
You use Imbued Healing from Complete Champion to get the luck benefit, which treats any die roll of 1 as 2 unless 1 is the max.

>>96017579
Oh, oh that's nasty. Would also work on small punches.

NEW THREAD
>>96017587
>>96017587