And when suddenly the leader of the highwaymen is shouting "Guys! This is silly! Can't we just talk it over?" it kinda pulls the teeth on their attack.
The spell is broken only if your allies attack the target of the spell. You can slaughter his friends and he'll do his best to assume you had no other choice.
@Rob Well, then there's the fact that with the right feats/features/items you can make any spell a combat spell.
@SimonGill Well, that too. Because if the GM is playing them at all realistically they're going to be confused and disorganized when their leader suddenly wants to play UN.
@Lord_Gareth Please remember this is a public, archived, and Google-botted forum in which character assassination and ad hominim attacks are frowned upon.
@KRyan - #Giantitp doesn't want to hear it and Afroakuma forbids it in #Legend when he's there regardless of how much everyone else is participating in the sympathetic condemnation.
So I really don't have many places to "OHGODWHY" anymore
@SimonGill And it's equally inappropriate to make character attacks on members of this community, so that kind of trenchancy is just all-around better off at a minimum.
...Great Scott, I'm turning into a mod. Quick, what's something irresponsible I can do?
One thing I don't comprehend is the common trend in homebrew artifacts to make them overwhelmingly powerful - I've seen folks try to get +150 swords to fly past the radar because they're artifacts
@BESW - MODS ARE ASLEEP, POST STUFF FROM FOODPORNDAILY
@Lord_Gareth Ah, but in a system that has created rules for everything (or tries to), an object without explicit rules relating to it therefore has no rules at all.
Extrapolation and generic design standards become less obviously relevant when they're constantly overshadowed by micromanaging subsystems.
Well, the thing is @BESW that WotC never published design rules or guidelines for almost anything, and custom items of /all/ stripes are included in that "almost anything"
Our main characters, whom we'd just spent the entire film getting to know and were finally getting to see them in action, fled like scared rabbits while the actual rabbits and a guy we hardly knew got to do the cool stuff.
Say 'Tada! You're blind!' during character creation, remind the player that he should probably fail any absolutely sight dependent tasks when they come up and play the game as normal. If Steve wants to play his Fighter as Zatoichi then go with it. The game supports people that turn into bears, sw...
@Lord_Gareth That sounds like it'd be worth a trip to The Meta Side if you really want to see if it'd be okay, but otherwise your question here is "where can I get this kind of assistance?"
(My question there had a lot of misunderstanding running around about what I was asking for, just generally. I learned a lot about how to ask questions.)
There’s a lot of material out there about class design, both specific to Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 and to games in general. Even stuff about non-role-playing game design can provide good insights. So reading is my #2 suggestion.
My #1 suggestion, though, is to put your work out there. There are...
Alright, so the basic concept behind the Benefactor is a combination of rogue + party buffs, and their key feature is the [NAME UNDECIDED] - a group of supernatural buffs that can be used as Swift actions 1/4 class level (minimum 1) + charisma modifier times per encounter.
I kept trying to figure out a method of bonus damage for these guys, and I think I finally have one and that's what I wanted to ask about: the Benefactor adds +1d6 damage to each attack for every [NAME UNDECIDED] she has active.
Because I look at it and see "D&D has rules that let people do weird stuff, so just tell him he can do another weird thing without any rules," and then something about... darkvision...?
@BESW As far as his answer goes - it's basically the same as Soulrifts. There are no mechanical changes (he's assumed to have worked around the disadvantages already) and the PC fails at anything he absolutely must have sight to do.
@Lord_Gareth sounds... pretty good for level 1, where you can get 1d6 the first round (likely more reliable than Sneak Attack), 2d6 the second (more than any other character has), etc.
@BESW Yeah... just ignore that answer. It's awful. I think the Darkvision is supposed to be a feat tax that explains how he can break the rules about needing light. So he's picking and choosing what rules are relevant.
@SimonGill I guess so. I was very confused because I thought I'd been pretty clear about wanting mechanical disadvantages to be overcome mechanically through the character build, but I got multiple answers that didn't seem to see that at all.
Take a look at Soulrift's edits at the bottom of his post. They are not comprehensive.
Blindfighting Sentinel, Deep Delver theme, familiars....
(And I wish I could upvote @soulrift more than once, because despite thinking my premise was silly and pointless he put in a lot of due diligence on his answer.)
@BESW yeah.... but just granting Blindsight wasn't what I really meant. There are more things you could do with magic powers that you can use if you're blind.
" Originally Posted by JaronK View Post Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity."
@Vi the Lycanthropy template requires that the animal in question be a carnivore that is within 1 size category of the base creature; that'd have to be a pretty big slug.
@Lord_Gareth The better ones are the articles by Jared Hines from Head Injury Theatre. That guy went way back to find the crazy in D&Ds monster history.
"As mind-numbing as the Brain Golem is (it has brains for FEET for the love of God), it doesn't completely convey the horror here. You see, the Brain Golem is created by a race of creatures called Mind Flayers....lovecraftian horrors that EAT brains. So what you're seeing is possibly the only golem made of FOOD. It's like a bunch of PETA vegans creating a Celery Golem. It makes about as much sense."
I got in at least one argument here with a guy who said you should ban everything not-Core because you don't want someone to stumble upon the next Frenzied Berserker. When I commented on the problems of the Frenzied Berserker going after his teammates, the response was something like "who cares about that, he's immune to death!Complete Warrior is the most broken book ever."
You invited me here just because you knew from GitP that I'd spend the rest of my life trying to class up the op quality, didn't you? THIS IS WHAT YOU PLANNED!
also, to be fair to the answers in that question, most of them were not addressing 3.5 in particular because the question was originally tagged system-agnostic, and then the asker swapped out the tags after every one answered -.-
though the highest-rated guy did bring up 3.5 on his own so not a lot of slack for him
Currently DMing a campaign - I set up an easy encounter with a twist: a creature that could infect the players with the Abyssal plague. I was planning for the 4th level characters to struggle to deal with the level 8 disease, and use the infection as a story hook for the next part of the campaign...
@KRyan Nothing is truely broken, Banning things however breaks the core mechanic of the game itself. Imagination. Ingenuity. to put it simply Banning things in large quatities is a bad idea. If you plan for said immune to death creature it is not broken.
besides there are far worse things than death in the dark depths of Dungeons and Dragons.
There’s a lot of material out there about class design, both specific to Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 and to games in general. Even stuff about non-role-playing game design can provide good insights. So reading is my #2 suggestion.
My #1 suggestion, though, is to put your work out there. There are...
