We’ve all been there at one time or another: at some point, the party finds themselves fighting a regenerating creature, and the wizard casts disintegrate on it. The spell deals damage in excess of the enemy’s remaining hit points, and it goes down. But then the game grinds to a halt as everyone tries to figure out if its regeneration kicks in or not.
It’s easy to see why there’s a split of opinions in this regard. The spell says that if its damage reduces the creatures to 0 hit points or less, it’s reduced to a trace of fine dust. But the rules for regeneration say that, unless a particular damage type is specifically called out as bypassing a creature’s regeneration (e.g. acid and fire for trolls), then it’s actually dealing nonlethal damage, and so the creature’s hit points aren’t reduced to 0.
That, however, can seem counterintuitive, since it doesn’t explain why the creature hasn’t been reduced to dust (or if it’s regenerating back from dust, which seems like a bit much). But at the same time, the rules say what they say, and a straightforward reading makes it clear that regeneration trumps disintegration.
But is that really what the rules say?
Following the link above, the rules for regeneration note the following:
Regeneration does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage ignore regeneration.
However, those two sentences are presented as a single paragraph in the Monster Manual, and have an additional bit of text as well:
Attack forms that don’t deal hit point damage (for example, most poisons and disintegration) ignore regeneration. Regeneration also does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation.
And there you have it, as the parenthetical listing in the above text notes that disintegration ignores regeneration. Why it was excised from the 3.5 SRD is unclear (especially since that notation was included in the 3.0 SRD), though the scouring of examples from the 3.5 SRD in general may have something to do with it.
Now, that disintegrate “do[es]n’t deal hit point damage” is a bit odd, since in 3.5 it does deal hit point damage; presumably, that’s a leftover reference to 3.0, when the spell only dealt hit point damage if the target made their saving throw (on a failed saving throw they were disintegrated completely, regardless of their hit points). However, it’s worth noting that the reference that disintegration overcame regeneration was never corrected in any errata issued for the 3.5 Monster Manual.
Given that the text is somewhat contradictory in that regard in 3.5 (specifically calling out disintegration as bypassing regeneration, but saying that it does so because it bypasses hit points, which it doesn’t), the debate is one that will likely never be completely resolved.
The following is an addendum to my previous article regarding magic rings in the d20 System. While that article outlines several ways that a character can get around the two-ring limit, I also wanted to present an original option that lets characters push that limit rather than circumvent it. Hence the following new item:
QUINTESSOR (MINOR ARTIFACT)
Aura strong universal; CL 20th
Slot ring (see text); Weight –
DESCRIPTION
A quintessor appears to be a bracelet with five short lengths of chain dangling from it. As a standard action, a magic ring can be touched to one of the lengths of chain, which mystically attaches to it. A character can then wear the ring normally, with the chain stretching taut over the back of the finger. Up to five rings may be attached to a quintessor in this manner, and all attached rings function normally, superseding the standard limit on how many magic rings a character can benefit from at once. An attached ring is treated as having a caster level of 20 (unless its normal caster level is higher).
Wearing a quintessor disables all other ring slots that a character has, including if they have more than the standard two. They are similarly unable to make use of items such as a hand of glory or a meridian belt. A character can only benefit from a single quintessor at a time.
The person wearing a quintessor may remove a ring as a standard action. For all other characters besides the wearer, the rings are considered to be part of the artifact, and cannot be separated from it while worn. Attempts to steal or sunder attached rings automatically fail (though the quintessor itself may be targeted). If a quintessor is not currently worn, anyone may add or remove a ring from it. Adding or removing rings from a quintessor does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
DESTRUCTION
A quintessor can be destroyed if it is worn for a full year with five cursed rings attached. At the end of this year, the quintessor (and the rings) corrode into nothing.
For all that D&D 5th Edition isn’t my game of choice, I have to give credit where credit is due: its designers were quite earnest in looking to the whole of the game’s history for inspiration.
Nowhere is that more true than in 5E’s reintroduction of protection scrolls.
Last seen in AD&D 2nd Edition, protection scrolls (also called scrolls of protection) are the lesser-known cousins of spell scrolls. Whereas the latter have inscribed spells that are just waiting for a spellcaster to unleash them (though certain non-spellcasters can also make use of them), protection scrolls are able to be used by anyone. As their name suggests, they’re entirely defensive in nature, serving to safeguard the user against certain types of monsters, damage, or harmful situations.
Being scroll-specific, but not fitting in with the basic spell-in-a-can formula that scrolls otherwise used, it’s perhaps no great surprise that protection scrolls were dropped when D&D 3rd Edition came out, particularly since it was easy to scribe a defensive spell down and call it close enough. 4th Edition likewise had no use for them (though a ritual scroll for a protective spell effect was vaguely evocative of the same idea). And so that particular brand of magic items were ignored until 5E brought them back.
But what if we wanted to have protection scrolls in a d20 System game? What would they look like? What follows is my take on those questions.
d20 Protection Scrolls
The characteristics of a protection scroll are that they’re single-use items, that anyone can use them, and that they ward the user against (as noted above) some sort of damage, monster, or other hazard.
Fulfilling the first characteristic is fairly simple; the d20 System is full of single-use items, ranging from potions to feather tokens to ordinary spell scrolls. Likewise, the game has a vast array of defensive spells and abilities that can be made use of. It’s that second component, that anyone can activate them, which sets protection scrolls apart from spell scrolls. As written, the Scribe Scroll feat only allows for the latter, and their nature as spell completion magic items (which sets the conditions as to who can activate them) are an issue.
The resolution, therefore, is to simply say that protection scrolls aren’t actually scrolls (i.e. magic items made via the Scribe Scroll feat) at all: they’re wondrous items, albeit in scroll form.
If that seems like a rather convenient leap in logic, consider that there are already several other categories of magic items that are textual in nature and are wondrous items. These include blessed books, golem manuals, and various stat-boosting manuals and tomes. So we’re simply adding protection scrolls to that group.
And with that, most of the pieces fall into place…emphasis on “most of.” Since we don’t need to reinvent the wheel where protective effects are concerned, these are going to be a category of single-use spell effects. To that end, looking at the rules for estimating magic item gold piece values tells us that a single use, use-activated magic item has a formula of spell level x caster level x 50 gp.
Here’s where we’re going to start making a few changes. First, we’re going to tweak the cost modifier to spell level x caster level x 35 gp, and have the activation method be a command word. The command word reflects that, as scrolls, these need to be read out loud to take effects, and so can’t be activated in an area of magical silence, will alert anyone nearby who can hear you speaking (albeit possibly requiring a Listen/Perception check), etc.
A secondary restriction that justifies this lower price is that protection scrolls can only be used in conjunction with spells of the abjuration school. At the GM’s discretion, certain spells of this school are incompatible with protection scrolls (see below).
Safety First
Given the multiplicity of spells in the d20 System, and how arbitrarily some of them can be assigned to various spell schools, it’s possible that limiting protection scrolls to abjuration effects only might not be narrow enough. While protection scrolls are still more expensive than other types of scrolls, they’re markedly less expensive than potions, and have no corresponding cap on the level of the spells that can be used.
To that end, consider imposing the following additional restrictions. These necessarily require some GM discretion, since the d20 game rules don’t systematize what constitutes a defensive effects versus other kinds of powers, but shouldn’t be unduly difficult to adjudicate:
Protection scrolls cannot be used to attack creatures (including inflict hit point damage, ability damage or drain, or other “debuff” status effects such as confusion, paralysis, negative levels, etc.).
Protection scrolls cannot restore hit points, negative levels, ability damage or drain, etc.
Protection scrolls cannot be used to create or summon, or banish or dismiss, any creature or thing.
Protection scrolls cannot use movement/transportation effects (i.e. avoiding is different than protecting).
Protection scrolls keep characters from harm, rather than suppressing an enemy’s ability to act (e.g. antimagic field is thematically incompatible with how protection scrolls are supposed to function).
Protection scrolls serve to defeat incoming damage/conditions rather than overcome them (e.g. they don’t add to Armor Class or saving throws, but would instead grant damage reduction or energy resistance), though spells with multiple effects such as protection from evil can serve as exceptions.
Taking these guidelines into account, here are some example protection scrolls.
SCROLL, PROTECTION FROM ELEMENTS
Aura faint abjuration; CL 3rd
Slot –; Price 210 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTION
This scroll grants the reader the benefits of resist energy. The type of energy to be resisted is chosen when the scroll is activated.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, resist energy; Cost 105 gp
SCROLL, PROTECTION FROM MINOR MAGIC
Aura moderate abjuration; CL 7th
Slot –; Price 980 gp; Weight –
DESCRIPTION
This scroll grants the reader the benefits of lesser globe of invulnerability.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, antimagic field; Cost 490 gp
SCROLL, PROTECTION FROM PARALYSIS
Aura moderate abjuration; CL 7th
Slot –; Price 980 gp; Weight –
DESCRIPTION
This scroll grants the reader the benefits of freedom of movement.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, freedom of movement; Cost 490 gp
SCROLL, PROTECTION FROM SCRYING
Aura faint abjuration; CL 5th
Slot –; Price 575 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTION
This scroll grants the reader the benefits of nondetection.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, nondetection; Cost 312 gp
SCROLL, PROTECTION FROM VERMIN
Aura moderate abjuration; CL 7th
Slot –; Price 980 gp; Weight –
DESCRIPTION
This scroll grants the reader the benefits of repulse vermin.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, repulse vermin; Cost 490 gp
REPULSE [CREATURE TYPE]
School abjuration; Level cleric 5, sorcerer/wizard 4
Components V, S, F/DF (a pair of feline statuettes worth 10 gp)
Range 10 ft.
Area 10-ft.-radius spherical emanation, centered on you
This spell functions like repulsion, except as listed above, and only affects a single creature type as per a ranger’s favored enemy (e.g. evil outsiders, humanoids of a specific subtype, etc.); at the GM’s option, other groups of creatures may be designated (e.g. lycanthropes).
Each creature type counts as a different version of this spell; repulse dragons and repulse elves, for example, are two separate spells that must be scribed separately into a spellbook, count as two spells known, etc.
The takeaway here is that protection scrolls have a narrower range of effects than what standard spells scrolls or potions allow for, but are cheaper and can have higher-level spells than the latter while not requiring spellcasting or ranks in Use Magic Device the way the former would. Judicious use of protection scrolls can help safeguard your PCs from the dangers of your campaign world…or help safeguard your campaign world from them!
“A dragon can survive for centuries after reaching the great wyrm stage, but a dragon is mortal and cannot stave off death forever.”
Draconomicon v3.5, p. 15
In most campaign worlds, dragons who’ve reached the maximum age category, i.e. great wyrm, rank as some of the most powerful beings in the setting, a rank that they share with few other creatures. Only the most ancient of undead, elder titans, outsiders lords who sit at the top of their various planar hierarchies, and of course the gods themselves, can pose any real challenge to them, alongside the occasional mortal exemplar.
However, as the above quote makes clear, dragons are still beings with finite lifespans, and while they have alternative options available to them, such as guardianship (i.e. becoming a genius loci), undeath, or even trying for divine ascension, the default expectation is that they will eventually die. Insofar as the v3.5 iteration of D&D is concerned, this process is covered in detail in pages 14-17 of the 3.5 Draconomicon.
That same book puts forward an interesting discrepancy in this regard, though. On pages 99-100, it reprints (from the Epic Level Handbook) the rules for advanced dragons, central to which is the idea of “virtual age categories.”
Now, the operative word there is “virtual,” in that a dragon which has been advanced this way isn’t necessarily intended to connote that the dragon has advanced in age beyond the lifespan of its counterparts…but given that this is something which is only applied after it’s already reached great wyrm status, it certainly lends itself to that idea!
On a tangential note, I’ll confess myself to being partial to the idea put forward in The Immortals Handbook Epic Bestiary, Volume One, that each virtual age category a dragon has appends another “great” in front of its “great wyrm” designation. So a dragon that has two virtual age categories is a great great great wyrm.
But if we adopt the idea that these epic dragons (since the original presentation of virtual age categories in the ELH makes it clear that they’re a step beyond anything which could be called “normal” monsters) are indeed dragons who’ve simply kept on living, and growing, where their counterparts died of natural causes, we need to answer why that’s so. Why do some dragons continue to grow older and more powerful – presumably indefinitely – while others simply expire?
The v3.5 Draconomicon notes, in its section on the end of a dragon’s life, that a dragon who wishes to become a guardian must consume either 135,000 gp or 90% of its hoard, whichever is greater. In this regard, the book makes what I think is an insightful observation: that the hoard plays a key role in what happens as the dragon nears the end of its mortality. Rather than requiring it to consume its hoard, however, I’d posit that epic dragons need to have spent sufficient time sleeping atop a pile of sufficient treasure (nicely answering why dragons seem so intent on making beds out of coins, gems, and other valuables, and spending so much time napping on them).
Exactly how much time needs to be spent atop how much treasure is a variable I haven’t worked out, but in a very real way it doesn’t matter; the process requires a draconic lifetime to complete, so it’s not something the PCs or even the GM will ever need to work out over the course of a campaign. My personal benchmark is about three million hours’ worth of time sleeping (i.e. a little shy of four hundred years) atop one hundred fifty thousand gp worth of treasure, but that’s more of a placeholder than anything else (and probably needs to be adjusted upward, given the table for when great wyrms near the end of their lives on page 14 of the 3.5 Draconomicon).
A key aspect of this is that dragons don’t know that this is why they’re driven to sleep on treasure. That drive, which is propelling them toward immortality, is entirely subconscious. Even those few dragons who eventually figure it out have no desire to tell anyone; the good dragons don’t want evil dragons to find out, evil dragons don’t want more competitors, and neutral dragons are naturally self-absorbed even by draconic standards. So the greatest secret of dragons is one that remains secret even from dragons themselves. Even epic dragons may not know why they ascended where their fellows all died.
Or at least, that’s my take on squaring that particular circle. What do you think? Let me know in the comments!
Aficionados of the d20 System won’t be surprised by my pointing out that there are certain areas where the game’s presentation isn’t backed up by the rules…or at least, could be backed up more.
Take, for instance, the druid. Presented as nature’s defender, eschewing civilization in favor of the pristine wilderness, the druid as presented in the rules only has a faint suggestion of the archetype that it’s described as embodying. They can’t use metal armor or shields, have small bonuses to Knowledge (nature) and Survival, can move through “undergrowth” without being impaired, and leave no trail in “natural surroundings.”
Their spellcasting, however, still works just fine in an urban area. So does their ability to wild shape. There’s no real reason they can’t have an animal companion in a town (although the DMG comments on the practical difficulty of this, that advice is near-universally ignored). If you don’t care much about two small skill bonuses, aren’t worried about being tracked, and don’t care too much that there’s no undergrowth to move through, you can play an urban druid with no real difficulty.
This is also the case for less direct presentations. For instance, there’s an expectation that practitioners of a given type of elemental magic would be in a matching environment, e.g. you’d expect a fire elementalist to reside in a desert or near a volcano. But with the way the rules work, you’re far more likely to find them in an arctic tundra. After all, most of the creatures you’d find in an extremely hot area are probably going to be resistant – or even completely immune – to fire damage, putting the elementalist at a disadvantage. Far better to be in an arctic area where the monsters have vulnerability to fire damage!
Now, we can’t call any of these “discrepancies” per se, since as noted before, this is more of an area where the game rules aren’t backing up the flavor text and associated implications as thoroughly as they could, rather than contradicting anything. Given that, what rules can we use to better support the themes and ideas being put forward? Ideally without having to rewrite any classes or impose cumbersome new rules?
The answer is to simply repurpose a few old rules, specifically those on planar magic traits.
A quick glance at that page makes it clear that this is actually an idea that’s been around for a long time. Two of the traits on that page – “dead magic” and “wild magic” – have been used in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting at least as far back as the days of AD&D 2nd Edition. Given that we don’t need to worry about the “normal magic” trait, being the default unless something says otherwise, we’ll instead turn our attention to the remaining three: enhanced magic (note that this is different in 3.5 and PF1), impeded magic, and limited magic.
Natural Areas of Supernatural Influence
The idea here is that, in various parts of the game world, these “planar” traits kick in, affecting the use of magic within their boundaries just as they would on other planes. Exactly why this happens can be for any reason the GM determines; it can be because of ancient magical accidents, certain planes being “closer” in certain spots, a divine blessing/curse, the lingering vestiges from the death of an arch-fey, or any other reason imaginable. The justification ultimately matters less than the consequences.
And those consequences are that there are certain areas where a combination of limited, impeded, and enhanced magic suppress certain types of spellcasting (and related magic items) and enhance others.
For example, suppose your campaign world has an arctic tundra called the Frozen Lands. When you get within five miles of its border, the impeded magic trait kicks in for all spells with the [fire] descriptor, forcing characters to make a Spellcraft check (d20 + the level of the spell) to successfully cast those spells. Once you cross the border proper, however, then things escalate, and suddenly you have to deal with the limited magic trait making it so that ONLY spells with the [cold] descriptor work! Even further in, the limited magic trait is complemented by the enhanced magic trait, giving [cold] spells the effects of the Empower Spell feat for free…which becomes the Maximize Spell feat once you reach the center of the Frozen Lands.
Creatively applied, this can lend a lot of color to your campaign world. Why don’t high-level druids just cast storm of vengeance on cities whose loggers don’t respect the woodlands? Maybe because metropolises have the limited magic trait against “primal” spells (i.e. spells and spell-like abilities cast by druids, rangers, and creatures of the fey type). Why is the heretical lich-lord still ruling his twisted country, but can’t seem to muster and invasion of the neighboring human kingdoms? Because his lands have impeded magic against all divine spells and the spell-like abilities of creatures of the outsider type.
While using magic traits in this manner can make for great world-building, be careful to keep in mind how “game-able” they are as well. Impeded magic usually has a narrower scope and can potentially be overcome with a skill check, whereas limited magic can be much broader and is a blanket restriction. Enhanced magic works for monsters and NPCs just as much as PCs. Make sure that you don’t send your party into an area where lots of their magic is negated and their enemies’ magic is enhanced unless you know they can handle it; there’s a reason why so few adventures take place in dead magic zones!
That said, judicious applications of magic traits can make your campaign world much more dynamic in how its supernatural heavy-hitters organize themselves, forcing the flavor text to work that much closer with the mechanics.
For a complementary change, also consider removing immunities in favor of resistances. That’s a bit more work, as it requires coming up with resistance values for all creatures with elemental immunities, but it solves other problems. A fire elementalist in an area where all fire spells are Maximized might be able to deal enough damage to overcome even a red dragon’s fire resistance!
A while back, I was reading an article on a blog (I can’t recall which one) that was mulling the idea of making shields more disposable, in terms of having the damage they absorb come at the cost of their physical integrity. It was a fairly interesting proposal, and it got me thinking about how to implement that in the d20 System.
Of course, that quickly turned up how the d20 System already has the mechanics for that. After all, shields – and armor, for that matter – have hardness and hit points under the standard game rules. It’s having them take damage over the course of a fight that’s the issue. Aside from sunder attempts (which are often seen as a waste of an attack that should be directed against their wielder, even if you have the feat necessary to avoid an attack of opportunity for making the attempt; plus the idea that you’re destroying the gear you’ll take off your enemy’s corpse), there really isn’t any method whereby armor and shields suffer from wear and tear.
Now, it should be noted that for many players, that’s a feature rather than a bug. Even without getting into the idea of “why should martials have yet another strike against them, while casters are demigods in the making?”, there’s also the fact that checking for incidental damage done to objects over the course of a fight has the potential to slow down play. That’s a trade-off that a lot of players would rather not make.
The problem is that there isn’t really a system for those who would rather make that trade-off. So, this is a quick-and-dirty take on the idea of implementing “wear and tear rules” for armor and shields.
The Breakdown
For a quick(ish) way to check and see if a character’s armor/shield takes damage over the course of combat, the following system is used.
Step 1. If an attack roll fails to equal or exceed a character’s Armor Class, but would equal or exceed their touch AC, then the character’s armor/shield – if they have one – is potentially damaged.
For example, an enemy makes an attack against a griffon rider and the adjusted result of their roll is 19. That’s less than the griffon rider’s AC of 22, but more than their touch AC of 12. As a result, their armor or shield is potentially damaged.
Step 2. If the value by which the attack roll failed to hit the character’s total AC is less than their total shield bonus (i.e. including enhancement bonuses for magic shields, etc.), then the attack was stopped by the character’s shield. If the attack roll missed by an amount greater than the character’s total shield bonus, but equal or less than their total shield bonus and total armor bonus combined, then it was stopped by their armor.
The griffon rider has a total shield bonus of +3, thanks to having a masterwork heavy steel shield and the Shield Focus feat.Since their attacker’s roll was 19, three less than the griffon rider’s total AC, the attack was stopped by their shield. Since the griffon rider is wearing banded mail (armor bonus +7), if the attack roll had been from 12 to 18, it would have struck the griffon rider’s armor instead.
Step 3. Having determined that, roll the attack’s damage, and apply it to the armor or shield as appropriate. Remember to subtract the hardness value of the material the armor/shield is made from, and apply the rest to its hit points.
The attacker rolls 17 points of damage. A heavy steel shield has hardness 10 and 20 hit points. The hardness soaks up 10 points of damage, and the remaining 7 are dealt to the shield, leaving it with 13 hit points left.
That’s all there is to it. While it hasn’t been put through playtesting, my guess is that it goes faster in usage than it does on paper. That said, there are a few recommendations and reminders that I’d make when using this alternative rule:
Consider making attack rolls and damage rolls at the same time. That way the damage total is there whether you hit the enemy or their protective gear.
On the same token, make sure to have the hardness and hit points of your armor and shield written right there on your character sheet.
Each “plus” of an enhancement bonus increases the hardness of armor/shields by 1 and adds +10 to their hit points. So a +3 heavy steel shield will have hardness 13 and 50 hit points.
Remember that critical hits and precision damage (e.g. sneak attacks, etc.) don’t apply to inanimate objects, such as armor and shields.
Likewise, don’t forget that energy damage (e.g. fire damage, acid damage, etc.) is usually halved before applying hardness to objects, unless the GM says that the object is highly vulnerable to a particular energy type. That won’t come into play most of the time, since most attacks that cause energy damage call for saving throws rather than attack rolls, but things like the flaming magic weapon property can potentially make this relevant.
If playing Pathfinder 1E, remember that armor and shields which lose more than half their hit points gain the broken condition. This halves the AC bonus they provide, and doubles the armor check penalty for armor (but not for shields, strangely enough).
Step 2, above, is the most complicated. Because of that, it might be tempting to say that any attack roll which is less than a character’s total AC, but equal or exceeds their touch AC, potentially damages their armor or shield. The problem with that is that there are numerous bonus types that apply to touch AC, such as deflection bonuses, luck bonuses, insight bonuses, etc. Having anything which hits touch AC potentially damage armor artificially inflates the potential for armor to be damaged.
This system largely makes sundering obsolete. Consider allowing sunder attempts to be made by anyone without provoking an attack of opportunity, and allowing people with sunder-specific feats (e.g. Improved Sunder) to replace them with some other feat of their choice.
That’s the full range of it. If this sounds like something you think would work well in your game, consider combining this with the oft-forgotten rules for damaging cover and friendly fire. At that point you’ll be playing in a grittier, more lethal world, where characters will find their their protective gear will need to be maintained, lest it fail them at a crucial moment!
One interesting thing about the widespread proliferation of d20 System-derived games is that, in many cases, they have different takes on particular aspects of how a game world is developed. The way in which fantastical elements such as magic intersect with various social, political, economic, and other issues can help to set the tone for a campaign in a way that’s very different from what an alternative take would suggest.
Take, for instance, the remove disease spell. While it doesn’t alleviate the effects of a disease (i.e. it doesn’t restore ability damage or other adverse effects of a particular illness), it’s the go-to spell for curing infections and other sicknesses of the body. But it actually functions slightly differently across D&D 3.0, 3.5, d20 Modern, and Pathfinder 1E. Eschewing the standard presentation of the spell itself (i.e. the spell school, casting time, components, etc.), let’s take a look at the description of the spell in each version of the game and see how it differs, and what that suggests about how using magic to fight illness works in a setting which uses that iteration of the spell:
D&D 3.0
Remove disease cures all diseases that the subject is suffering from. The spell also kills parasites.
Note: Since the spell’s duration is instantaneous, it does not prevent reinfection after a new exposure to the same disease at a later date.
This spell is fairly straightforward in that it unfailingly removed all diseases that the subject has, as well as any parasites. It’s direct and unambiguous, being a perfect solution to what it’s designed to eradicate and having no effect on anything else (such as curses, etc.). The note at the end will be fairly standard in future versions of the spell, confirming that the spell has no lasting protection; you can be reinfected as soon as the spell ends.
d20 Modern
Remove disease cures all treatable diseases afflicting the subject. It does not rid the subject of a disease for which no cure exists. Since the spell’s duration is instantaneous, it does not prevent reinfection after a new exposure to the same disease at a later date.
Here we see a fairly major limitation introduced into what remove disease can do, sharply curbing its universal applicability in favor of only being able to replicate what can be done non-magically. In this, however, the first and second sentences seem to be somewhat in conflict; there’s a big difference between being able to treat a disease, and one for which a cure exists. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any sort of errata or FAQ clearing this up.
This version of remove disease, only being able to do what can already be done normally, functions more like a convenience than a genuine area where magic eclipses the mundane. This is a spell that you use when it’s too cumbersome, expensive, or otherwise inconvenient to use the non-magical treatment/curative options. It’s also interesting to consider if the spell automatically modifies itself once someone, somewhere, comes up with a new treatment/cure. Imagine if someone in a far-flung laboratory suddenly creates a cure for, say, the common cold; suddenly remove disease can wipe that illness out, obviating issues of manufacturing and distribution, something that a pharmaceutical corporation in your game world might take issue with.
D&D 3.5
Remove disease cures all diseases that the subject is suffering from. The spell also kills parasites, including green slime and others. Certain special diseases may not be countered by this spell or may be countered only by a caster of a certain level or higher.
Note: Since the spell’s duration is instantaneous, it does not prevent reinfection after a new exposure to the same disease at a later date.
The first sentence-and-a-half are identical to the 3.0 version, but then this iteration of remove disease goes on to indicate that “parasites” includes green slime “and others.” While the definition of what “others” constitutes isn’t presented, this seems to suggest that the DM take a wider latitude in what’s considered a parasite, possibly with regard to other entries in the “slimes, molds, and fungi” entry in the SRD (though that’s certainly debatable).
More intriguing is that it now makes explicit allowances for “certain special diseases” which either can’t be cured by this spell, or which require a particular caster level to overcome. In essence, this brings back disease as something other than a modest inconvenience, since otherwise there’s no illness that this spell can’t fix. It’s a much more nuanced exception than the d20 Modern version, essentially allowing the DM to create exceptions to the spell’s effectiveness as they wish.
Pathfinder 1E
Remove disease can cure all diseases from which the subject is suffering. You must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against the DC of each disease affecting the target. Success means that the disease is cured. The spell also kills some hazards and parasites, including green slime and others.
Since the spell’s duration is instantaneous, it does not prevent reinfection after a new exposure to the same disease at a later date.
Here, we see a blanket reduction in what remove disease can do; no longer is it absolute, nor are there certain illnesses (whether ones which have non-magical treatment/cures, or special exceptions) which it can’t touch. Now, it can – as in, potentially – remove a disease, but it’s no longer guaranteed to do so. Instead, a caster level check against the disease is necessary.
One of the more notable aspects of this change is that it makes the spellcaster’s ability much more relevant to its effectiveness. A neophyte who has just learned the cast the spell might not have a very good chance of succeeding on the associated check, especially against an exceptionally virulent disease, whereas a wizened old master might be a near-perfect guarantee of its success (since there’s no failure on a natural 1 for a caster level check). It’s even possible to split the difference, as someone with multiple diseases might have a check against one succeed and another fail.
Of course, the subject of this spell won’t know immediately, nor will the caster, since there’s no reason for them to know the disease DC nor does the spell create any indication (immediate or otherwise) as to its success or failure. The caster simply has to use this on someone, send them home, and wait to see if they get better or remain sick; even if the latter happens, is it because they failed to cure the disease, or because they were reinfected somehow? This is, in many ways, the magical equivalent of mundane healthcare, where the person issuing the treatment simply has to hope for the best.
Conclusion
Which version of remove disease you use in your campaign world will make a lot of difference as to how much of a threat disease is to the population. While issues of accessibility, cost, and available castings remain salient factors (particularly in the face of something like an epidemic), how the spell functions will make a large difference to how illness is perceived by the people living in the game world. The 3.0 version is a perfect guardian of health, while its 3.5 version is mostly the same, the d20 Modern version can only do what traditional medicine does, and the PF1 version offers no guarantees. To a sick person, those can be huge differences, even if disease remains little more than a minor debuff for most PCs.
Some time ago, I talked about how the D&D 3.0 rules took it for granted that when you attacked someone behind cover and failed to hit them, there was a chance that you hit their cover instead.
That rule fell by the wayside as the d20 System evolved, becoming an optional rule in D&D 3.5 before being discarded altogether in Pathfinder 1E. While I can understand the thinking there, since determining if your cover is struck can potentially slow down gameplay (particularly with the “actually, they dodged out of the way, and so don’t give you cover at all” clause), that’s the sort of thing which strikes me as an overall loss for verisimilitude. After all, having combat where someone can shield you from incoming arrow fire with their body without placing themselves at risk tends to damage immersion.
It’s in that line of thought that I’ve put together the following list of other things that D&D 3.0 did better than its revision.
Obviously, this won’t be true for everyone. Several of the points here are about differences in play-style, for instance, while others prioritize aspects of the game that you might not care about. Still, these are issues for which I think that a credible argument can be made that the revisions instituted were worse for certain swaths of gamers.
#5: No penalty for “inappropriately-sized” weapons
Suppose that your 3.5 dwarf rogue has a choice between two weapons: one is a dagger sized for a Medium character, and the other is a short sword sized for a Small character. In most ways they’re functionally identical: you’re proficient with both, they both deal 1d4 points of damage, and have a critical threat range of 19-20 with a x2 multiplier. While a few differences exist – the dagger can deal slashing or piercing damage, can be thrown without penalty, and is cheaper – they’re basically the same weapon.
Except, of course, that if you use the short sword, you’ll take a -2 penalty for it being an “inappropriately-sized” weapon.
That wasn’t the case in D&D 3.0. Weapons had a size, and if you were of a different size category then it changed your handedness (i.e. a one-handed weapon that was of Medium size was a two-handed weapon for a Small character) and that was it. You didn’t take a penalty just because it wasn’t sized “appropriately.”
To be honest, it’s never been clear what “inappropriately-sized” means from an in-game standpoint. It’s not as though weapons are like clothes which are tailored for someone else. I suppose you could say there’s an issue of balance, but that seems like a pretty big stretch; a female dwarf is a Medium creature, and can be as short as 3’9” according to the height and weight tables, whereas a male gnome is a Small creature that can be as tall as 3’8”. Would that really change how the gnome handled a Medium-sized short sword?
3.5’s artificial penalty for using weapons of a different size category creates an in-character disconnect, where the penalty doesn’t seem to represent anything.
#4: Thematic spell-like abilities for monsters
The issue of page-flipping when running monsters is one of those play-style things mentioned before. There are a lot of GMs who prefer that everything a monster can do be articulated in its stat block. (As an extension of this, some also prefer that monster – and character – stat blocks be truncated enough to fit on an index card.)
The d20 System, however, has never trended in that direction. Being one of the more complex tabletop RPGs, there’s a great deal of information in most monster stat blocks which is fully defined elsewhere. Whether it’s feats, “universal” special abilities (such as energy drain, poison, swallow whole), or spells and spell-like abilities, many (if not most) monsters have things they can do beyond what’s explicitly spelled out in their stat block.
Even so, 3.5 nevertheless saw a number of monsters (particularly high-level ones) whose spell-like abilities were trimmed down from their 3.0 incarnation. In those cases, the editing was done along the lines of removing SLAs with a non-combat focus, so that the GM wouldn’t make “bad” decisions about what the creature could do when facing the PCs in a fight. “After all,” the line of thought goes, “if the creature is only ‘on screen’ for five rounds or so before it’s killed, why would it ever use these powers anyway?”
But that misses out on a lot of powers which enable them to enact the schemes which create the groundwork to send the PCs out adventuring in the first place.
For reference, take a look at what a pit fiend can do in 3.0:
At will—animate dead, blasphemy, charm person, create undead, desecrate, detect good, detect magic, dispel magic, fireball, hold person, improved invisibility, magic circle against good, major image, produce flame, polymorph self, pyrotechnics, suggestion, teleport without error (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), unholy aura, unhallow, and wall of fire; 1/day—meteor swarm (any) and symbol (any); 1/year—wish.
Now compare that to the 3.5 pit fiend:
At will—blasphemy, create undead, fireball, greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster, persistent image, power word stun, unholy aura; 1/day—meteor swarm; 1/year—wish.
A few of the differences are helpful improvements, such as changing out the comparatively modest dispel magic for the superior greater dispel magic, and the weak hold person for the much stronger mass hold monster. There’s even one or two reductions in power, such as making improved invisibility into just invisibility. But the bulk of the differences are straight-up deletions, and most of those are of powers that aren’t of immediate use in combat.
And yet most of those powers are thematically appropriate for a pit fiend. As the most powerful in the hierarchy of (common) devils, they should be able to detect good so they know who to corrupt. They should absolutely be able to detect magic in order to know who’s got enchanted weapons, magic wands, active spells, etc. when clandestinely surveying an enemy, something they can do with polymorph. As entities of infernal corruption, they should absolutely be able to use desecrate and unhallow. They can supplement their schemes with illusions, beguile people’s minds, and even lay down potent symbols for the unwary.
The 3.0 pit fiend is practically an adventure hook unto itself, while the 3.5 pit fiend is little more than a monster to be fought and killed. If we want monsters to be more than just a collection of stats, then it makes no sense to deny them powers which can most impact the game’s narrative.
#3: Damage reduction that required specific enhancement bonuses to overcome
Enhancement bonuses on magic weapons, i.e. the “+2” in a longsword +2, have long suffered from having a murky in-character representation.
While the numerical aspects of an enhancement bonus are obvious, their nature from a character’s standpoint is a little harder to articulate. It’s not impossible, to be sure: a higher enhancement bonus not only represents more magic in the weapon, but that presumably makes it lighter and easier to swing (i.e. the attack roll bonus), sharper/pointier/more forceful when it makes contact (i.e. the damage roll bonus), and makes the weapon tougher and more resilient (i.e. the bonus to its hardness and hit points).
But there was another advantage to enhancement bonuses in 3.0 which was very obvious from a character’s perspective: the more magic in a weapon, the more monsters it could potentially hurt, since many creatures couldn’t be easily harmed by weapons with weak enchantments.
That’s a fairly evocative image, as a magic sword that’s powerful enough to damage, say, weaker devils (such an osyluth or a barbazu) suddenly being useless when its time to fight their more powerful counterparts, such as a cornugon or a pit fiend. Rather than the DR X/magic values of 3.5, suddenly all enhancement bonuses are no longer the same when it comes to damaging creatures. That helps to maintain their value for reasons other than an extra few points on attack and damage dice.
Ironically, Pathfinder 1E actually made a move back in this direction. By assigning enhancement bonuses of +3 and above the ability to overcome DR of various other types, it reintroduces this bit of functionality that 3.5 abandoned.
#2:No footnote 3 on the Magic Item Gold Piece Values table
This one’s rather specific, but if you were a spellcaster focused on crafting your own magic items, it was a notable change.
While the various types of magic items all have their own cost-to-create formulae, there’s a table which not only aggregates all of them, but provides some additional guidelines on determining how much those magic items should cost (since the gold piece value is used as its own measure of a character’s power vis-à-vis the PC and NPC Wealth-by-Level tables).
But if you look at the 3.0 version and 3.5 versions of that table (which is called “Calculating Magic Item Gold Piece Values” in 3.0 and “Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values” in 3.5, interestingly enough), you’ll notice that there’s a difference in the number of footnotes. Specifically, that the 3.0 table only has two, while the 3.5 table has six.
The two listings in the 3.0 table are recreated in 3.5; the first one is split between 3.5’s footnotes 4 and 5, while the second is 3.5’s footnote 6. Similarly, 3.5’s footnote 1 was its own line on the table in 3.0, and 3.5’s footnote 2 denotes that the line it’s attached to is an aggregate of several different armor bonus types which had their own listings in the 3.0 table.
And then we come to footnote 3…
Footnote 3, unlike the rest of its counterparts, didn’t exist in any way, shape, or form in D&D 3.0, and for good reason.
You see, footnote 3 – which represents a price adjustment for use-activated or continuous items based on the duration of the spell used, saying “If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half” – exists for only one reason:
To screw over crafting PCs.
That’s because none of the magic items in the 3.5 Dungeon Master’s Guide take this rule into account. All of the magic items in that book were ported over from its 3.0 counterpart without adjusting their prices for that footnote.
For an example of that, take another look at the 3.5 table linked to above. Notice how it lists the lantern of revealing as an example of a use-activated or continuous item? Click on the link for that magic item, and notice how it’s market price is 30,000 gp, exactly like it was in 3.0. Which is rather odd, since the component spell listed is invisibility purge, a 3rd-level cleric spell. If you multiply the spell level times the minimum caster level (i.e. 5), times the 2,000 gp cost for a use-activated item, you get the listed price of 30,000 gp.
And yet, according to footnote 3, since invisibility purge is a spell with a duration of 1 minute per caster level, its cost should be doubled. So it’s fairly clear that 3.5 wasn’t practicing what it preached here (and neither was Pathfinder 1E, which copied all of these problems verbatim).
Now, if you’re crafting a use-activated item based on a spell with a duration of 24 hours or more (such as create food and water or endure elements) then footnote 3 gives you a price break. And it technically has nothing to say about items based on spells with a duration measured in hours (such as charm person or mage armor). So it’s not all bad for crafting PCs.
But most of the time, footnote 3 is to a crafter’s detriment, and nowhere does the rest of the game follow the rule it lays down. As such, it might be worth asking your GM if you can ignore that rule and adhere to the 3.0 standard, the same way that 3.5/PF1 items do.
#1: Monsters could take up asymmetrical spaces on the battlemat
This earns the #1 spot because it was a change implemented purely to try and push a greater use of the D&D miniatures line, all of which were made with symmetrical bases.
That, quite simply, was a bridge too far.
D&D has always included necessary compromises between verisimilitude and playability. When those happen, we look for ways to tie the flavor text back to the mechanics, which in this case means saying that “the area you take up on the battlemat represents the area you control in a fight” rather than the literal total of the space you occupy. And so we all made peace with a single human taking up a 5’ x 5’ area.
But having a horse take up a 5’ x 10’ area in 3.0 – which fit with our basic understanding of a horse being longer than it was wide – to having it take up a 10’ x 10’ area in 3.5, all to help sell miniatures? No, just no.
This affected so many monsters; a great blue wyrm, for instance, went from taking up a 20’ x 40’ space in 3.0 to a 20’ x 20’ space in 3.5. Manticores and wyverns shrunk down from being 10’ x 20’ Huge creatures to 10’ x 10’ Large ones. And even with the explanation that long and thin enemies coiled themselves up, it got a bit tiresome to always have monsters such as frost worms take up a 15’ x 15’ space in 3.5, rather than the 5’ x 40’ space they took up in 3.0.
This affected everything from targeting considerations for AoE spells to moving into flanking position without drawing AoOs to how often the rules for squeezing through tight confines came up. And while there were some minor game-play benefits, such as no longer needing to figure out how much of an action it was for an asymmetrical creature to change its facing, those were largely coincidental to the effort to cross-promote compatible figures, which was the primary instigator for the change.
It’s no coincidence that the D&D Miniatures Handbook came out in October of 2003, two months after 3.5 debuted.
So there you have it, the top five ways in which 3.0 was better than 3.5, at least to me. What do you miss about the original incarnation of the d20 System? Sound off in the comments below!
Insofar as the d20 System goes, magic rings are perhaps one of the most obtrusive aspects of the game’s restrictions on how many magic items a PC can use.
That’s because it’s an area where the “body slot” system stops being intuitive. We don’t question the idea that a character can only wear one pair of boots, for example, nor that they can only have on one hat at a time. But rings? Most PCs have ten fingers, not to mention ten toes, two ears, a nose, etc. So why just two rings, beyond the idea of one for each hand (or less than that, if you’re playing a four-armed race)?
Part of it is a legacy restriction. In both 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D, PCs could only use two magic rings, and they had to not only be worn on the hands, but on opposite hands. Another part is that the restriction dovetails with the formalized limits that the body slot system imposes in exchange for the game rules making magic items easier for PCs to buy or make for themselves. And of course, being limited to only two rings makes it easier to record them on your character sheet.
Even so, it’s worth reviewing what the d20 System game rules actually say in this regard, to make sure that we’re assuming is in fact the case. So let’s perform a quick overview.
That parenthetical note is already more permissive than what the AD&D rules allowed for! Likewise, the section on Magic Rings specifically calls out what happens if you try to put on more than this:
A character can only effectively wear two magic rings. A third magic ring doesn’t work if the wearer is already wearing two magic rings.
Interestingly, while the Pathfinder 1E SRD maintains the word-for-word restriction about a third ring not working, its section on Magic Items on the Body is much more permissive than in 3.5:
Ring (up to two): rings.
This seems to indicate that you don’t need to wear magic rings on your fingers in Pathfinder 1E. However, contrast this with the first sentence under the Using Items section of the PF1 SRD:
To use a magic item, it must be activated, although sometimes activation simply means putting a ring on your finger.
Given that this seems like an example (“although sometimes”), you could argue that it’s not making a declarative statement that magic rings need to be worn on your fingers in Pathfinder. Clearly, that particular caveat being lifted from 3.5 and earlier versions of the game will need a GM ruling at each table, but it’s interesting to consider that Pathfinder is less restrictive in that regard.
Still, it keeps the single largest limitation, which has been there since the beginning: that a character use no more than two magic rings at a time.
Of course, as is typical of the d20 System, there are ways around even the most ironclad of restrictions.
For 3.5, the Extra Rings feat in the Eberron Campaign Setting allowed you to wear up to four magic rings at a time (specifying two on each hand). The hand of glory essentially lets you use your neck slot to wear another ring, along with using two minor spells once per day each, and a ten-ring sword is much the same. The meridian belt lets you wear four rings at once, but still only lets you benefit from two at a time, switching between which two are active as a swift action each round (notice that this Pathfinder item also includes the presumption that rings can normally only be worn on your hands). If you’re an epic-level 3.5 character, the Additional Magic Item Space feat will let you wear another ring, and can be taken multiple times.
Of course, there are other ways to gain the effect of multiple rings at once. For instance, you can take advantage of the rules for Adding New Abilities to an existing item to imbue a single ring with the power of multiple rings (the SRD even uses two magic rings as examples). Since rings normally take up a body slot, this means that all of the powers such a ring has (except the single most expensive) have a x1.5 multiplier to their base cost, so this can get expensive in a hurry (though the Magic Item Compendium has a list of “common item effects” which don’t have their costs increased when added to a body slot-using item in this way; Pathfinder technically doesn’t use this rule, though it’s worth considering as a house rule).
But if you’d prefer to actually wear multiple rings, instead of creating a single ring with multiple abilities, there’s one other alternative:
Double the ring’s price to remove its body slot limitation.
In both 3.5 and Pathfinder, the table for Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values notes that an item which normally takes up a body slot costs double the GP value if that limitation is removed. Presuming that you can treat this as an improvement that can be made after the item has been created (which seems entirely reasonable), this means that you can upgrade any magic ring to remove its body slot dependency…and so can wear as many as you want (and, for that matter, such a ring can be worn anywhere on your body).
This opens up a lot of possibilities, especially for magic rings whose base price is relatively cheap. An “unslotted” ring of feather falling, for instance, costs only 4,400 gp. In some cases, this is price is comparable to simply imbuing a “slotted” ring with another ring’s powers.
For example, the wizard Morios currently has three magic rings in his possession: a ring of invisibility (20,000 gp), a ring of mind shielding (8,000 gp), and a ring of feather falling (2,200 gp). He can’t use three rings at once, so he decides to sell the ring of feather falling, netting 1,100 gp for it as per the rule that magic items sell for one-half their market price. Not wanting to lose the effect even though the ring is gone, he then decides to add the functionality of a ring of feather falling to his ring of mind shielding.
Since the ring of feather falling is the less-expensive item, adding its power to his ring of mind shielding entails a x1.5 cost multiplier to the former’s price; since Morios doesn’t have the Forge Ring feat, he has to get someone else to do it, and so needs to pay 3,300 gp. Since he earned 1,100 gp from selling the ring of feather falling, adding that power to his ring of mind shielding has a net out-of-pocket cost of 2,200 gp…exactly what he would have paid if he’d wanted to make his ring of feather falling slotless by doubling its base price.
Presuming you have the money to spend, there’s no reason you can’t pay to “unslot” enough magic rings to the point where you can wear ten at once!
An interesting tangent from this is that magic items whose standard presentation presumes that they have no body slot – notwithstanding those that are held (e.g. magic weapons and shields, rod, staves, and wands) or are consumable (e.g. potions and scrolls) – can presumably have slotted versions created; these would have half the market price of the original (just don’t try this with magic armor; no GM would let you wear two suits of full plate!). Note that such an item needs to be made this way during its creation; the rules for improving magic items don’t let you introduce flaws or limitations that lower the cost of a completed item.
For instance, consider the following:
AJNAS
An ajna is an ioun stone which magically adheres to the user’s forehead rather than orbiting them. While worn, an ajna takes up a slot as per a headband. Attaching or removing an ajna is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Removing an ajna from an unwilling character is the same as stealing an item in combat (they’re considered to be “fastened” to a character due to the adhering magic). Ajnas are otherwise the same as ioun stones, having AC 24, 10 hit points, and hardness 5, with a market price equal to one-half an ioun stone of the same type. An ajna may be cracked or flawed, but cannot be used in conjunction with a wayfinder.
An example ajna is presented below, formatted for Pathfinder:
At the time of this post, there’s currently a great deal of uncertainty around what’s going to happen with the Open Game License v1.0a, which is the version used for most of the d20 System’s life. While I won’t get into the specifics of the current upheaval – there are a lot of other places covering the drama – it did remind me that I wanted to dust off the following article, which is a piece of Open Game Content that I wrote for a now-defunct Modern d20 e-zine. Correcting a few errors that slipped into the original piece, I’m now presenting it here for all those who might have some use for it.
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content or are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)
Open Game Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), everything in this Intelligence Check article beginning with the “Armors of the Future” header and ending at the Open Game License Version 1.0a listing below, is Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.
Armors of the Future
Each new age of the future is defined by the new technologies it masters. And each new technology is most widely applied to the art of warfare. Advancements in fusion, gravity, and energy weapons create a need for greater defense. In response to this, new materials and techniques are created to create stronger and more protective armor…for vehicles.
Each era of the future introduces new forms of mechs and starships, each with a bewildering new array of armors and gadgets that can be used to increase their ability to protect their operators. But what about the people who operate without a vehicle? If powerful substances such as neutronite or neovulcanium can be developed to protect a mecha or a starship, why can’t it be made into a suit of armor for an individual as well?
Now it can. This article takes the mecha and starship armors presented in the Future d20 rules and adapts them for personal use. Each of these is a suit of armor meant for a single person to wear, and follows all of the armor rules laid out in the Modern d20 and Future d20 rules. Give yourself the same defensive options a starship has using these future armors.
Archaic Items and Pricing
All of the new armors listed here are either tactical or concealable. However, for characters from planets or times with more advanced technology, they’re relics. For characters of a given Progress Level, any item 2 or more Progress Levels lower than their native PL should be considered archaic.
The Future d20 rules suggest that, for items from a lower Progress Level than the current Progress level, a cumulative -2 should be given to the item’s Purchase DC. However, that doesn’t reflect the rarity of these older items. When new technologies are developed, obsolete ones are quickly abandoned, and such items become harder to find. If you wish to emphasize that finding items from a lower PL is difficult, instead you should add +2 to the Purchase DC of an item for each PL lower it is than the current PL.
PL 5
Duraplastic Breastplate
This single piece of hardened polymers represents the cutting edge of lightweight body armor for the Information Age. Lighter than similar armors, it also gives less flexibility.
Alumisteel Suit
Designed for more complete protection than tactical vests, this armor comes with a large vest of alumisteel to protect the torso, along with separate pieces for the wearer’s upper and lower arms and legs.
Alloy Armor
Made from the same material as space shuttles, this is nothing less than a modern version of plate mail. This is usually worn by soldiers who must blaze a trail into extremely hostile terrain.
PL 6
Resilium Defensive Wear
This armor is essentially a suit of light combat armor with resilium alloy replacing the interior armor. It does not, however, include a helmet.
Polymeric Shirt
This shirt is made of carbon-fiber polymers, covering the wearer’s torso and arms. Specially-weakened polymers in the shoulders and elbows allow almost all of the wearer’s upper body to be protected by a single piece of armor, without needing multiple parts.
Vanadium Covering
Interlocking plates of vanadium cover the wearer’s torso, limbs, and head. Lighter polymeric materials are used for the joints, granting the wearer full-body protection.
Duralloy Plate
Much like alloy armor, this is a total-body covering of extremely thick armor, meant to offer extreme protection. It is slightly lighter than alumisteel, allowing greater freedom of movement and flexibility.
PL 7
Cerametallic Armor
A simple torso and helmet combination, cerametal armor offers excellent protection against most attacks, while still being relatively light and cheap.
Deflective Suit
A deflective suit is composed of shiny polymers, formed into a hooded shirt and pants that are worn over clothes. The suit is tight, but stretches, so it always hugs the wearer’s form. Deflective armor is highly resistant to energy, but offers relatively poor protection against physical armor.
Neovulcanium Gear
This suit of powered armor is made of neovulcanium, granting it extreme protection at the cost of a high degree of mobility.
Crystal Carbon Covering
Crystal carbon is a near-diamond hard substance that is as strong as neovulcanium while being lighter to carry. Because a suit of crystal carbon covering must be specially “grown” for the person wearing it, it is extremely expensive and hard to acquire. This armor has the ultralight composition gear.
Neutronite Aegis
The neutronite aegis is the standard in tough armor for the Gravity Age. This powered suit offers considerable protection, at the cost of a moderate loss of speed, all at a reasonable price.
PL 8
Ablative Vest
An ablative vest is amazingly thin; it’s little more than a silvery, stiff shirt, and is easily worn under clothing to conceal itself. It offers an incredible amount of protection, particularly for covering such a small area.
Reactive Armor
Reactive armor consists of a cerametal chest plate and helmet, along with arm and leg guards, that have a tightly-compressed gas injected into small gaps in the material.
Nanofluidic Suit
This full-body armor is composed much the same way reactive armor is; overlapping plates of neutronite have a gel (actually tens of trillions of nanites) inserted between them. The nanites cushion blows and move with the wearer, boosting flexibility.
Megatanium Juggernaut
The megatanium juggernaut is the final line is protection. Two layers of neovulcanium with a ferromagnetized layer of crystal carbon between them allow for a level of defense that leaves the wearer all but invulnerable. Because the lightweight crystal carbon materials are magnetized, then work to offset the weight of the neovulcanium. This armor has the ultralight composition gear.
Strength of the Future
Looking over the new armors listed here, you may realize that, in terms of statistics, armors from one Progress Level are relatively the same as another. A vanadium covering, for example, doesn’t seem that much different than a neutronite aegis. However, given that the latter armor was developed in the future from the former, shouldn’t it clearly offer better protection?
In regards to weaponry from previous eras, it does. When weapons from a lower PL than a suit of armor are used against that armor, the wearer gains DR X/–, where X is the different in their Progress Levels. For example, while wearing a nanofluidic suit (PL 8), you would have DR 2/– against being hit with a laser pistol (a PL 6 weapon). When a weapon from a certain PL is used against armor from a lower PL, the weapon gains a circumstance bonus to the attack roll equal to the different in their Progress Levels. Using a laser pistol against someone wearing a duraplastic breastplate (PL 5), would have a +1 circumstance bonus to their attack roll.
If you’re using FX in your game, then consider altering the above rules slightly. Magic (or psionics) transcend the limits of the physical universe, and make it possible for even a primitive weapon to penetrate a powerful armor (or for a weak armor to resist a futuristic weapon). When using FX, armors of a higher PL than an attacking weapon gain DR X/magic. Likewise, weapons of a higher PL than the armor they’re attacking do not gain the circumstance bonus to the attack roll if the armor has an enhancement bonus.
Armor
PL
Size
Type
Equipment Bonus
Nonprof. Bonus
Max Dex Bonus
Armor Penalty
Speed (30 ft.)
Speed (20 ft.)
Weight
Purchase DC
Restriction
Duraplastic Breastplate
5
Light
Tactical
+3
+1
+5
-2
30 ft.
20 ft.
5 lbs.
15
Lic (+1)
Alumisteel Suit
5
Medium
Tactical
+6
+2
+2
-4
20 ft.
15 ft.
25 lbs.
17
Lic (+1)
Alloy Armor
5
Heavy
Tactical
+10
+3
+0
-10
15 ft.
10 ft.
60 lbs.
20
Restricted (+2)
Polymeric Shirt
6
Medium
Tactical
+4
+2
+4
-2
25 ft.
15 ft.
20 lbs.
15
Lic (+1)
Resilium Defensive Wear
6
Medium
Tactical
+5
+2
+3
-3
20 ft.
15 ft.
30 lbs.
16
Lic (+1)
Vanadium Covering
6
Heavy
Tactical
+7
+3
+2
-6
15 ft.
10 ft.
40 lbs.
18
Lic (+1)
Duralloy Plate
6
Heavy
Tactical
+9
+3
+0
-8
15 ft.
10 ft.
50 lbs.
20
Lic (+1)
Deflective Suit
7
Light
Tactical
+2/+6 vs. energy attacks
+1
+4
-2
30 ft.
20 ft.
10 lbs.
19
Restricted (+2)
Cerametallic Armor
7
Light
Tactical
+4
+1
+4
-1
30 ft.
20 ft.
5 lbs.
17
Lic (+1)
Neovulcanium Gear
7
Powered
Tactical
+9
+3
+0
-9
15 ft.
10 ft.
55 lbs.
20
Lic (+1)
Crystal Carbon Covering
7
Heavy
Tactical
+9
+3
+0
-7
20 ft.
15 ft.
45 lbs.
21
Restricted (+2)
Neutronite Aegis
7
Powered
Tactical
+7
+3
+1
-6
20 ft.
15 ft.
55 lbs.
16
Lic (+1)
Ablative Vest
8
Light
Concealable
+5
+1
+5
-1
30 ft.
20 ft.
2 lbs.
18
Lic (+1)
Reactive Armor
8
Medium
Tactical
+6
+2
+2
-4
25 ft.
15 ft.
22 lbs.
17
Lic (+1)
Nanofluidic Suit
8
Heavy
Tactical
+8
+3
+2
-5
20 ft.
15 ft.
30 lbs.
21
Restricted (+2)
Megatanium Juggernaut
8
Powered
Tactical
+12
+4
+0
-12
20 ft.
15 ft.
85 lbs.
24
Military (+3)
OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc (“Wizards”). All Rights Reserved.
1. Definitions: (a)”Contributors” means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)”Derivative Material” means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) “Distribute” means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)”Open Game Content” means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) “Product Identity” means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) “Trademark” means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) “Use”, “Used” or “Using” means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) “You” or “Your” means the licensee in terms of this agreement.
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.
6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder’s name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.
7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.
8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.
11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.
12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
14. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.
15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors: Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams, based on material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors: Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker,Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Wiker.
Morgan & Associates, Booksellers Copyright 2006, Author: Nathanael Christen.
Intelligence Check 