3.5e thread - that which is dead may never die

>considered nobody play 3.5 RAW, which is your most useful/important houserule?
We dont have any house rules- we literally just switched from 5e to 3.5 on a whim.

The GM has some experience, but says he will run it RAW.

Is there something I should be careful of when playing a Druid?

You'll want the Natural Spell feat. This lets you cast spells in Wild Shape. There are also feats that let you turn into Abberations (in Lords of Madness iirc) and Dragons (Draconomicon iirc) without taking Master of Many Forms.

Cool, sounds useful. I dont suppose feats are quite as sparse as in 5e.

>considered nobody play 3.5 RAW
Ahem.
I play it pretty much RAW. I exclude one or two books (Ghostwalk and 90% of Tome of Magic) but I don't change anything much. House rules are for people that can't say no to broken builds.

Huh?

>3.5 houserules are the ones no one mentions and everyone just does
>Monks being proficient in unarmed strike is an obvious one
What universe do you live in where RAW monks don't have Improved Unarmed Strike as a class feature?
pic related

>"no natural attacks that uses a hand holding a weapon" so you don't get weird shit like a demon hitting you with a sword, then the claws on the hand holding the sword as part of the same fullattack
That's not a thing. You can make a class attack or a weapon attack but if you were to try and do both, it would have to be an off-hand and it would be two-weapon-fighting with appropriate penalties. Natural attacks are an exception to two-weapon-fighting only when it's a full attack routine using only natural weapons (or there is a feat I believe).

>We dont have any house rules- we literally just switched from 5e to 3.5 on a whim.
>The GM has some experience, but says he will run it RAW.
It's fine, user seems to have come from a group that has a very loose understanding of the rules and played with blatantly wrong and broken shit. A few house rules might creep in as and when they're needed, since the rules don't cover 100% of things but RAW is fine provided he can say no to any obviously broken character concepts.

>I dont suppose feats are quite as sparse as in 5e
You get a lot in the first few levels, e.g. a 3rd level human fighter has the most at 5. You get feats at 3rd, 6th, 9th etc. Plus 1 at 1st and 1 for human and some classes give bonus feats (usually from a list).

>I usually self-nerf when playing high-tier pcs, it's the easiest way to fix the problems.
Indeed, a little discipline in character design and it's really not a thing.

There aren't too many completely broken builds but if you're mixing Ur-priest and vow of poverty then you know something is going on.

>What universe do you live in where RAW monks don't have Improved Unarmed Strike as a class feature?
Anal-retentive people like to point out that IUS only makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage, it does NOT grant proficiency.

Pathfinder is essentially 3.5 on a 10 year long cocaine binge.
I don't think many people really ever knew much about regular 3.5 either. There were a lot of common misconceptions and common house rules that messed with things.
Most of the game breaking methods missed certain things, most popular builds weren't too good with a normal dm, most tier lists trivially missed the point.
Theory crafting for the pauper's munchkin also assumed you would have universal and instant access to everything every published in every single interpretation for any game.

Look if you take the brakes off your car don't look surprised when you hit 88 mph.

That and the monks really limited list of prof means that he misses out on unarmed strikes by default.

Cool houserule is a superfluous non rule based on patching your misunderstanding of the game.

But they still aren't proficient with wearing no armor so they STILL suffer penalties.

>There's never much discussion about 3.5e here

>game session
>Sunless Citadel
>charismatic draconic heritage Sorcerer sparks race war between goblins and kobolds
>convinces the kobolds to go full blitzkrieg
>inform the kobold leader we've already killed a bunch of the filthy greenskins and inform her of my noble draconic heritage and that I will gladly use my arcane might to their advantage
>mostly lawful party is now allies of kobold tribe
Honestly the way my little brother DM's I'm surprised my character didn't get hit on by kobolds looking to get with a powerful dragonblooded human, I'm glad he didn't because my character wouldn't be interested but it was a pleasant surprise.

I was in a game recently but I basically dropped out. The game and group was fun but one player has killed me twice and I don't think I'm going to join back in. I don't think we have anything against each other and the guy who killed me wants me to keep playing but I really don't want to put in the effort anymore in this campaign.

>IUS only makes your unarmed attacks deal lethal damage, it does NOT grant proficiency
Aah, I had to read some stuff pretty closely to see that.

Unarmed Strike is considered a simple weapon and Monks don't have Simple Weapons Proficiency and don't have Unarmed Strike as one of the specific weapons listed in their proficiencies and IUS doesn't grant it.

Ok, now that I know this, yeah...I'd houserule US prof as part of IUS. As it was, I just assumed that unarmed strike never needed proficiency. There's still an argument for that but the interpretation that it is a weapon that needs prof is fairly strong based on pic related.

>But they still aren't proficient with wearing no armor so they STILL suffer penalties.
So Monks must apply their armor check penalty to attack rolls and skill checks?

What's the armor check penalty for no armor?

I'm pretty sure it's zero. That's why there's no proficiency for no armor.

>The game and group was fun but one player has killed me twice and I don't think I'm going to join back in
I get that, why go to the effort of making a PC if they're just going to fuck it over because they're not reciprocating the trust necessary for adventuring in a party?

I joined a Cyberpunk game once, they needed a net-runner for occasional door hacking and stuff and asked me to make one. I built a Covert Tech, a hybrid net-runner/solo class that can shoot stuff when it's not doing the once-per-mission net-running. Two PCs got paranoid that I was a corporate spy and killed him in his sleep. Then they got mad because I rolled a Fixer for my next PC, "but we need a net-runner"

There isn't much 3.5 discussion that isn't 5e fanboys autistically shrieking about the game they hate.

That sucks. That was actually similar to my situation. I started as a hexblade and was focused on diplomacy and deception. I was on the enemy side at first and they captured me as a prisoner. I convinced them not to kill me and started helping them out. I used my ties with the enemy to infiltrate their base, gather information and manipulate them to save another PC and pick a few enemies off. During a fight I got knocked out and this other guy killed me while unconscious. This was our first session ever playing together. The second time he killed me was during a session I wasn't at. My group hasn't said anything except they still want me to play.

>During a fight I got knocked out and this other guy killed me while unconscious. This was our first session ever playing together. The second time he killed me was during a session I wasn't at. My group hasn't said anything except they still want me to play

Ask them whether that guy is still playing.

I thought you meant that the guy who killed your character wanted you to keep playing. They need to discipline/remove that guy, he's obviously a problem.

I don't mean that you should give them a 'him or me' ultimatum, I mean that they fucked up by not calling him on it on the spot and by standing by and letting it happen. You need to make it their responsibility to fix the situation if they want you back.

That guy wants me to keep playing too. I think the first time it happened he didn't think the DM would let it happen and the second time I figure it's because I wasn't there. But yeah, I don't really want to play with him anymore. He's not a bad guy but I don't want to play in a group where one guy keeps trying to kill me. I'll probably find another group or maybe play with them again way down the road.

There isn't a proficiency for no armor as well as no proficiency for no weapons you doofus. I seriously question how long people have been playing the game wrong for not understanding something so elementary simple.

Tables don't trump rules, the definition of unarmed is an attack not a weapon. The unarmed strike is only put on the tables for convenience sake but you can't find an unarmed strike in a treasure chest or buy one at a store.

Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon attack, humanoids by default are not proficient with their natural weapons, it is also a simple light weapon attack, so simple weapon proficiency gives it.
Monks have neither, obviously an oversight as most DM's just houserule it in such a way that no one thinks about it and treats Improved Unarmed Strike as granting proficiency because Monk's don't need to be any weaker.

shouldn't that be Gnoll Gnecromancer?

>the definition of unarmed is an attack not a weapon
They do in the absence of rules to the contrary. But regardless, the Simple Weapon Proficiency feat makes it fairly clear too:
>SIMPLE WEAPON PROFICIENCY [GENERAL]
>You understand how to use all types of simple weapons in combat
>(see Table 7–5: Weapons, page 116, for a list of simple weapons).
>Benefit: You make attack rolls with simple weapons normally.
>Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
>Special: All characters except for druids, monks, rogues, and wizards are automatically proficient with all simple weapons. They need not select this feat.
> A sorcerer or wizard who casts the spell Tenser’s transformation on himself or herself gains proficiency with all simple weapons for the duration of the spell.

So that's the basis for my interpretation that Unarmed attacks are simple weapons. I was in agreement with you until I read those two sections but I think your interpretation is not well supported and dependent on a reading of the word weapon to mean physical object whereas the alternative has two rules to support it and defines weapon as anything appearing on a weapons table, which includes Unarmed Strike.

The things I dislike about pathfinder are just as present in 3.5.
The things i like about pathfinder were only in their infancy at the end of 3.5.
additional things I dislike are present in 3.5 but not pathfinder.

If i want to play something 3.5 like i play pathfinder and upconvert desired 3.5 stuff on demand.

Or play 5e with converted content.

I don't think pathfinder is perfect but any stretch, but the idea that it's "3.5 but better" is pretty widespread.

>55475919
Thank you for your contribution to the 3.5e thread.

It is not a natural weapon, it is an attack with the absence of weapons. It's very clearly stated, you can even look it up in the glossary of terms to get the definition.

I'm going to guess that you are not an English native speaker and not familiar enough with the language to have picked up on something obvious.

Unarmed attacks are not simple weapons at all. It is the absence of weapons and it's not even an unforeseen mistake in the rules, you just didn't understand something that was so obvious.

Will you also rule that a touch attack and a ranged touch attack require proficiency feats in order to be effective? This is obviously moronic and misunderstands the rules.

The class description even states that the unarmed attack is treated as a weapon for the purposes of effects, which would be pointless if the attack was already treated as a physical weapon. It would also be pointless to explain they get strength bonus or are treated as light weapons for the purpose of weapon finesse.

You are of course in your right to alter your home game as you wish, and if it makes you feel better to rule that no weapon is a weapon and requires proficiency, which monk does not have, for which you need to house rule they get proficiency to counter your other house rule ........ then by all means, go ahead and waste your own time by making things more complex for no change.

You'll also find that pathfinder is exactly the same as it does not give them proficiency, since it is not a weapon but an attack.

By the way, my so called interpretation is the official rules. Your interpretation is entirely homebrew and unnecessarily autistic.

>Gnoll Gnecromancer
Oh you

Lots of ideas are widespread but still wrong. Paizo continued publishing content but it's by no means superior. It exaggerated a lot of the problems that 3.5 had by making nullifying limitations on classes trivial and giving too many methods to achieve the same effects. Pathfinder quickly turned in to a hyper powered 3.5 for comparison.

The book specifically states that an Unarmed Strike is both a natural attack and a light simple weapon attack.

Okay so I need some help with this character I'm building.
Fochlucan Lyrist.
I know they're underpowered but I like the concept and I'm kind of filling the roll of party healer and rogue so it works, I guess.
So far I'm a Killoren Druid/Rogue at level 1/1 with 2HD.
DM has flaws, traits, and allowed me to grab the Lost Tradition feat to make all my casting Charisma so I wouldn't be so MAD.
Currently my stats are;
8 Str
15 Dex
15 Con
14 Int
10 Wis
16 Cha
My feats are Lost Tradition, Improved Initiative, and Beauty's Bounty.
My traits are Aggressive and Skinny, my flaws are Shaky and Wild.
I intend to take another level of Rogue, grab Weapon Finesse, take two levels of Bard, some Green Whisperer, and then Fochlucan Lyrist when I can.
Please advise. Outside of DM permission we can't take 3rd party stuff, but other than that anything goes. I'm not sure what feats to take later but I think I want Lyric Spell and Extra Music later when I get Bardic Music.

The books are very explicit in what they mean and so is the SRD which is contrary to your own interpretation which would have made all of absolutely no sense what so ever.

Here is a three part piece by the designer that explains piece by piece exactly why all the arguments you have just made are wrong. They're written for newbies that are unfamiliar with the game and just started playing, so considering your seeming lack of reading comprehension it should be understandable even for you.

archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070327a
archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a

We'll see how this goes because psychology predicts that even with this 100% clear refutation you'll be unwilling to admit being wrong on the internet.

Nowhere in there do they mention proficiency.
Improved Unarmed Strike removes attacks of opportunities and does not grant proficiency.
RAW you aren't proficient.

You like the concept? What concept?

They have interesting folklore roots but from what I saw that was all entirely ignored to create a very simple armored bard theurge that ignores druid's metal restriction.

The only reason to take it over something else like mystic theurge would be to wear metal armor.

Bravo!! Proving that once again psychology can perfectly predict human stupidity.

It's based in the classic Bard prestige class.
Also I like the folklore roots and the requirements, while weird, basically guarantee they'll have every core game skill as a class skill.
So basically I like them for fluff reasons not mechanical reasons.
Anyway my party doesn't have a healer or a rogue and this lets me fill both roles. Also I'm the only caster so I don't want to go full asshole caster and outshine the other two.

>Fochlucan Lyrist.
>I know they're underpowered
Full attack progression and full spell advancement in two domains?
They are the opposite of underpowered. They're only saving grace is that they have complicated prerequisites but they are actually quite overpowered.

They need 13 ranks of Perform, so you can't qualify for them before 8th level (13 ranks at 8th, take FL at 9th level).

>The only reason to take it over something else like mystic theurge would be to wear metal armor.
And full attack progression. You could go Mystic Theurge for a few levels and then go into FL later, that's probably the optimal path, at least if you want lots of spells.

What I would do is have your DM allow you to play a Lyric Thaumaturge as a Lyric Theurge instead. So in other words swap arcane for divine and then add bard music.

The Fochulann Lyrist is bare of any class features and you'll never have enough skill points to get decent ranks in all skills. Lysic Thaumaturge also has a lot more music based features which seems like it would better fit your idea.

Sorry but 3.5 has got rules for fucking ladders, it's really improbable you play it full RAW.

>3.5 has got rules for fucking ladders
Is that in Book of Erotic Fantasy or Nymphology: Blue Magic?
Because those aren't canon, they're third party.

Yeah in my eyes it's basically just a class that someone decided they wanted so they could niche powergame a druid gish. They looked around for how they could justify it, saw nobody had used Fochulann bards yet so slapped that on.
Doesn't seem like any thought about the folklore went into it at all.

kek, for the first minute I thought you were serious

Oh, so I'll actually be decently dangerous, neat.
So does that make Druid 1/Rogue 2/Bard 2/Green Whisperer 3/Fochlucan Lyrist viable?
I know about Lyric Thaumaturge, but I don't see how it suits the character better, even with theurge.
Plus it's probably bad enough I convinced him to let me use Lost Tradition, I don't want to push it by trying to homebrew a prestige class.
It's the definition Jack of All Trades, high skill, theurge casting, full BAB, above average saves.

>thought you were serious
Heh, thanks.

Seriously though, Nymphology: Blue Magic has rules for animated sex objects so it's sort of true.

Probably my only regret with tabletop gaming so far us that i never really got a chance to play 3.5, even if I ran a year long campaign in it for a group of friends. When I first started playing it was right at that point in time where 4e was about to come out and we were getting fed drops of info. about the rules for it, and literally everyone I knew was hyped for it, because they were experienced 3.5 players and had ID'ed most of the problems with the system at that point in time (rules bloat, RAW abuse, caster supremacy, etc).

But then they played about 4 sessions of 4e, said no thanks and went back to 3.5, which is when they told me to man up and run a game for them. Almost 10 years of Forever DM later, and I'm now running games in 5e and enjoying my group. But at the same time I never got to enjoy 3.5 from a players side.

And I know people ha e a love/hate relationship for it, but if I could play in a multiple session or even a campaign of 3.5, I'd probably roll up a Human or Half-Elf Swordsage from Book of 9 Swords (aka Book of Weeaboo Fighting Magic), just because I want to have fun when I make an attack with my weapon, which you can rarely do as a martial without a lot of minmax, splatbook cross-pollinization.

It's not really a jack class, it's a meh approach to something with rich history. Think of it as your lost tradition is ignoring your connection to nature and gaining two spell lists, with martial bab.

>It's the definition Jack of All Trades, high skill, theurge casting, full BAB, above average saves.
No, a Jack of All Trades is Master of None.

Fochlucan Lyrist is the Master of All Trades.

The only thing it lacks is the auxiliary class benefits like familiars, bonus feats etc. It gets the rest. It even has d6 hp, which beats d4 on Mystic Theurge which is the 'balanced' theurge template.

A true Jack of All Trades is something like the Factotum or Chameleon.

A wizard is shit at fighting, a Figher is shit at magic, ask yourself what is Fochlucan Lyrist shit at?

Anyway, if your DM is letting you have it then go for it, you won't be weak.

>just because I want to have fun when I make an attack with my weapon, which you can rarely do as a martial without a lot of minmax, splatbook cross-pollinization
Not that Book of 9 swords won't be run but a straight fighter can have a lot of fun.

I made a bandit captain NPC who was a very low-level Fighter with Combat Reflexes, Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm and Improved Trip.
Disarmed the Barbarian in combat, then tripped him next round, he was all:
>I stand up
Are you sure? That will provoke an attack of opportunity
>ok, I pick up my weapon
Are you sure? That will provoke an attack of opportunity
>ok, I draw my backup weapon
Are you sure? That will provoke an attack of opportunity
>ok, I run back to the other party members and then draw a weapon
Are you sure? That will provoke an attack of opportunity
>I 5' step and stand up
ok, they trip your ally and then 5' step to threaten you again

And with combat reflexes, they didn't really run out of AoOs either. It was sort of hilarious how neutralised the Barb was.

>rules for animated sex objects so it's sort of true
I did not doubt it.

How is it ignoring my connection to nature?
Killoren are fey, a fey using charisma to cast nature magic makes sense.
The character's concept is that they've taken the whole "defender of nature" role associated with Killoren super literally and has decided the best defence is a good offence, intending to kill anyone who harms the natural order, outsiders interfering with earth nature, aberrations, oozes, and undead who are considered blights on nature, and evil spellcasters who would despoil nature.
As well as that they are curious about how the Killoren came to be and want to study it from every angle, studying divine nature, and looking at it from an arcane angle while trying to gather any lore they can pertaining to the creation of their own race.
That's two of their nature aspects down, the aspect of the hunt is their drive to challenge themselves and survive.
Good point, I guess it's a direct upgrade on Jack of All Trades.
I honestly didn't think it was that strong, I figured d6 hit dice and 6 skill points made it average in those areas, and it's martial abilities and full theurge casting progression were made up for by its complicated method of entry, needing Evasion and thus sacrificing at least two levels of caster to get in seemed fair.
Guess it shows what I know, thankfully my stats aren't amazing or I really might outshine the others.

>rules for animated sex objects so it's sort of true
I did not doubt it.

A low level bandit with 13+ Int?
That's why it was the boss. Stat array?

Druids can't use metal. The main and only unique feature of Fochulann Lyrist is they ignore this bond and restriction to allow stronger martial builds.

Low-level but above-average stats across the board. I wanted a minor villain who may or may not be recurring depending on how things go. No built-in weak-points required because they're relatively low-powered and their mooks are push-overs.

Half Orc, Fighter 4
Str 17, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 13, Wis 13, Cha 13
Feats: Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip, Eyes in the
Back of Your Head.

Well with stats like that sure a fighter can try to have some fun.

That book is from that weird period where some male gamers thought about making their own rape magic rules. I think it's the one that has spells that force people to have orgasms and praise your sex appeal and other suspect stuff. The book of erotic fantasy was actually co-authored by a female WotC game designer and it more respectful and less rapey, it also has a list of beauty scores separate from charisma for monsters.

There is another book out there too where the authors discuss on how to handle rape scenes in your game. It's really off putting and gives a good sense of why games should never go there.

I hadn't thought about it like that.
I wasn't even really going to use unbound, though I guess Mithral Scale Mail would be useful if I got the feat to let my bardic casting ignore ASF for medium armor.
Other than that I'm already using a rapier from my rogue proficiency.
What's the fluff behind the unbound thing? Or was none written?

That's the point there is no fluff it's a bullshit class made for builds. Getting past ACF is easy too but the point is to be a dual casting martial class. You could have used oak armor but there's no need with the nature bond class feature.

And take Armoured Casting feat to wear medium metal armour with no ASF while you're at it. You could probably get up to Heavy armour if you really wanted. Since the build doesn't need a lot of feats, you might have one spare to take the exotic armour feat from Races of Stone.

Be an arcane/divine/full BAB wearing Dwarven Mountain Plate for 10ac.

If your DM will still talk to you after this, you should not respect them.

>That book is from that weird period where some male gamers thought about making their own rape magic rules
Indeed it is and yes, it has orgasm spells, remote groping spells and similar shit. It's definitely for games that must enter your Magical Realm.
Especially since it contains the Plane of Lust which in fact is a magical realm that literally turns everyone to kinky sluts as they spend any time there.

BoEF isn't nearly as bad but it's also pretty special in its way.

I guess I'll either think of some fluff for the unbound thing, like the knowledge of arcane and nature magic has allowed them to mildly unshackle themselves from the metal armor restriction or something, or I just won't use it.
I don't want to wear heavy armor, I honestly hadn't even considered medium until now.
It doesn't suit my character.
Also I wouldn't have the proficiency with heavy armor like I do with medium anyway.
I want to be a bardic druid fey, scholar of arcane, warrior of nature, and aspiring apex predator of earth itself.

Any fluff you come up with will just be contrived, even more so because your concept is that you're fey. While as you know fey have an aversion to metal mythologically, and in the game vulnerable to cold iron.

For armored casting there are more tweaks where I think you can essentially eliminate it. There are some special item properties or something which stacks with mithril too. If a tower shield is a problem the easy fix is to swap it out when casting, a shield only has a donning time of 1 move action.

Oh yeah good point about the metal and fey thing.
Guess I just won't use metal armor even with unbound then for roleplaying points.
What about my rapier, what kind of special material should I replace it with? It's mostly steel at the moment but that's just my basic starting weapon and can be replaced later.

Oh yeah, and didn't it have the really seedy spells to change people's sexual orientation? So you could do some really gross things. Not to mention the parts about summoning Unseen Servants to rape people invisibly around you, like what the actual fuck.

There really aren't any rules for weapons because the game assumes you will be playing a humanoid, monstrous races are an afterthought. So there are no rules for a fey wielding a cold iron weapon. For fluff you could still have it made from something else like silver, gold, or crystal like a psionic weapon.

You could also see if your DM will allow you to take a bard feat for dropping the unbound feature, similar to the rules for anti-feats.

Well Killoren do have cold iron anathema racial trait that gives them -2 when wielding cold iron but it's implied that their weakness was lessened against it by whatever made them (nature itself?) to make them better able to fight against cold iron, it's not like it's normal steel anyway.
I could have it be mundane crystal, 1 less hardness and hp to the weapon for no bonuses.
Considering the things weak against alchemical silver are generally unnatural, my character hunts unnatural things, and fey have a connection to silver in some folklore I could do that too, my sneak attack and smite damage will probably help counter that -1 against everything else.
I'll ask him about dropping unbound for a bard feat.

>Oh yeah, and didn't it have the really seedy spells to change people's sexual orientation? So you could do some really gross things. Not to mention the parts about summoning Unseen Servants to rape people invisibly around you, like what the actual fuck.
All of those and so much more. The sexual orientation was actually considered a kink, so you could change their orientation or make them a masochist or furry or whatever you wanted really.

It was pretty special.

>There really aren't any rules for weapons because the game assumes you will be playing a humanoid, monstrous races are an afterthought. So there are no rules for a fey wielding a cold iron weapon
Just use a quarterstaff or a silvered weapon or a crystal weapon from the psionic books

I need the weapon to be light or the rapier for weapon finesse.

Depends on how you want to do it. For example there aren't any stated restrictions for a full fey monster like pixie or nymph to not wield a cold iron weapon. By the rules or lack of rules they can.

On the other hand you might want to consider the root of the idea from folklore.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_in_folklore
>Cold iron is a poetic term for iron.
>Francis Grose's 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue defines cold iron as "A sword, or any other weapon for cutting or stabbing." This usage often appears as "cold steel" in modern parlance.
>"Cold iron" is historically believed to repel, contain, or harm ghosts, fairies, witches, and other malevolent supernatural creatures. This belief continued into later superstitions in a number of forms:
>Nailing an iron horseshoe to a door was said to repel evil spirits or later, to bring good luck.
>Surrounding a cemetery with an iron fence was thought to contain the souls of the dead.
>Burying an iron knife under the entrance to one's home was alleged to keep witches from entering.

So there is plenty room for taking it very literal in adherence to folklore or taking it only in strict game mechanic terms. That is you either can or can't use any common (not precious) metals, you can say cold iron is completely different, or the same as steel and iron. You can shy away from doors with horseshoes and fenced cemeteries or you can enter at will.

The interesting part about the warding of evil spirits is that in D&D fey are also considered a type of spirit. A spirit is either a fey, elemental, or incorporeal undead. How far you take that is up to you and your DM, I doubt most games ever consider it much.

An alchemical silver rapier is only 110gp (though it technically has a core of steel).
Adamantine rapier one is 3020gp.
Milthril Rapier is 1020gp.

Read DMG p283-284 and go to town.

Strictly speaking, Cold Iron is a very special kind of iron that is specially forged, not just any iron. Depends on how you and the DM want to play it.

I'll probably have my character instinctively shy away from metal if I can remember it.
DM ruled that I can switch Unbound for Battle Caster on my Bard casting, so now I'm trying to figure out what kind of armor to grab once I get it, I'll probably go a heavy darkwood shield, but the -3 penalty on hide armor kind of hurts, even with masterword bringing it down to -2. Any suggestions on armor?
I'm thinking I might just go mundane crystal masterwork rapier, later on anyway, for now I'll stick with the steel one.

Oh and yeah silver should be pretty kosher, there's nothing about fey or fairies that says they can't use precious metals. Leprechaun and their gold is a perfect example of affinity to precious metal.

On the other hand silver bullets are also used against some fey in legends, but not in D&D, but not silver charms in the same way as iron charms. This is one of the points where D&D just sort of breaks down and doesn't make much sense if you look too deep into it.

>in D&D fey are also considered a type of spirit. A spirit is either a fey, elemental, or incorporeal undead. How far you take that is up to you and your DM
user should take the half-fey template or an actual fey species (Killoren are perfect since they a PC race not a Monster Manual NPC race). There is also Fey Heritage from Complete Mage.

Once you have Fey Heritage, you can take:
>FEY SKIN [HERITAGE]
>Your fey heritage guards you against all weapons except those crafted from the dreaded cold iron.
>Prerequisites: Nonlawful alignment, Fey Heritage.
>Benefit: You gain damage reduction (overcome by cold iron) equal to 1 + the number of feats you have that list Fey Heritage as a prerequisite (including such feats that you take after gaining this one). For example, if you have Fey Skin and Fey Presence, you would have damage reduction 3/cold iron.
> This value stacks with any similar damage reduction you might have from your type, subtype, race, or class, but not from other sources, such as spells or magic items.

I think races of the wild has some special armor materials. Book of Exalted Deeds has a material for armor made from Yggdrasil.

user is already Killoren I believe, which is technically full fey.

>races of the wild has some special armor materials
So does Races of Stone but they're not really woodlands themed (Stone Plate Armour, Mammoth Hide Armour).

Yeah fey in a lot of stories I read had no problem with silver.
Already Killoren, using aspect of the hunt when stalking around, intending to switch aspects as required, ancient for studying magic, destroyer for when I find out someone deserves the wrath of nature.
Also it feels weird to take fey heritage when I'm already a fey, it's technically legal but feels wrong.
I'll have a look at those now thanks.

races of the wild
Looked it up, in races of the wild you want the material wildwood for your armor. It also specially works for druids, and self repairs in case your DM heavily uses item breaking rules.

Oh, I was looking at Masterwork Leafweave Hide for that glorious 0 armor check penalty on +3 armor.
Also I kind of want to spend a feat getting proficiency in elven thinblades, they look cool and would suit the character.

Reasonable, it depends on if you want more dex based or armor tankishness.

very dex based

>races of the wild
I meant what I wrote. Races of Stone has Stone and Mammoth hide armor which would work for druids even if they're not woodland themed armors.

>DM: Alright, make a Strength check. DC 20 should do it.
They should have used 3d6 for these things or doubled the bonus for these checks alone, holy shit. They're easily the most unreliable part of the system and I fucking hate it.

That's not a good example of a fun Fighter. You made that to challenge PCs, who have a fairly reasonable chance of having someone who can be tripped and disarmed. Make that guy for a party and he has a good chance of most of his tools being useless a fair amount of the time.

Locking gauntlets would have shut him down anyways.

>Locking gauntlets would have shut him down anyways.
Those are quite rare and generally too problematic for general use. And lots of things can be tripped or disarmed, not everything sure but one or other option will work most of the time.

You're not facing dire badgers and carrion crawlers at every encounter.

8 GP is not rare, what the fuck.

No but who the fuck bothers with them?
I've literally never seen them used.

I've seen them used all the time. +10 to not being disarmed is pretty good and the downside isn't a huge deal unless you get sundered. And considering sundering PC weapons is one of the biggest dick moves you can pull and is retarded to do as a PC because you're breaking your loot...

It's a full round action to draw your sword with a locked gauntlet.

That's why I never see them used.