Immunity to Negative Levels

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

This is not about simple energy drain. That is simply the most common way of acquiring negative levels and one 2nd level characters are immune to via the necropolitan template.


Tired of those silly alignment-picky items? Want to be evil and use those good-only items without losing that 9th level spellcasting on your gish? Well now you can thanks to the Ring of Negative Protection [MiC126]!


So what would you do if you had true immunity to any and all negative levels?

[Maat Mons]

Want to be evil and use those good-only items without losing that 9th level spellcasting on your gish?

Items like that typically say something like “This negative level … cannot be overcome in any way (including restoration spells) …”  If “overcoming” the negative level only refers to removing it, not preventing it, the sacrificial smiting weapon special ability becomes awesome. 

[SorO_Lost]

The ring is 36k for immunity to negative levels and you ignore 1d6 negative energy damage provided it is from a planar trait.

Soulfire^BoED is a +4 enhancement that grants immunity to negative levels, all negative energy, and death effects. With the MiC's generics you can apply this effect to any bracer for 25k (value of a +5 bonus).

[zugschef]

The ring is 36k for immunity to negative levels and you ignore 1d6 negative energy damage provided it is from a planar trait.

Soulfire^BoED is a +4 enhancement that grants immunity to negative levels, all negative energy, and death effects. With the MiC's generics you can apply this effect to any bracer for 25k (value of a +5 bonus).

you can enchant bracers with armor enchantments?

[SorO_Lost]

The ring is 36k for immunity to negative levels and you ignore 1d6 negative energy damage provided it is from a planar trait.

Soulfire^BoED is a +4 enhancement that grants immunity to negative levels, all negative energy, and death effects. With the MiC's generics you can apply this effect to any bracer for 25k (value of a +5 bonus).

you can enchant bracers with armor enchantments?

See table 6-11, page 234. Prior to MiC, see Bracers of Armor and subbing a number bonus for a named bonus.

MiC just allows the you to add the common effects to any (magical) item without paying the +50% cost of merging. You can buy all your must have bonuses without any idea of what specific items you'll be buying later. Like if you're a Sorcerer and you picked up +1 Fearsome for Intimidation lock-down but decide you don't want to mitigate ASF, you could very well apply it to your freebie Traveler's Clothes and forgo even picking up armor.

[zugschef]

The ring is 36k for immunity to negative levels and you ignore 1d6 negative energy damage provided it is from a planar trait.

Soulfire^BoED is a +4 enhancement that grants immunity to negative levels, all negative energy, and death effects. With the MiC's generics you can apply this effect to any bracer for 25k (value of a +5 bonus).

you can enchant bracers with armor enchantments?

See table 6-11, page 234. Prior to MiC, see Bracers of Armor and subbing a number bonus for a named bonus.

MiC just allows the you to add the common effects to any (magical) item without paying the +50% cost of merging. You can buy all your must have bonuses without any idea of what specific items you'll be buying later. Like if you're a Sorcerer and you picked up +1 Fearsome for Intimidation lock-down but decide you don't want to mitigate ASF, you could very well apply it to your freebie Traveler's Clothes and forgo even picking up armor.

actually i don't think that works since your clothes would need at least a +1 enhancement bonus to ac in order to add armor enchantments...

[Maat Mons]

You can put armor special abilities on bracers of armor, but only because page 130 of Arms and Equipment Guide explicitly allows it.  The rules in Magic Item Compendium only cover adding an armor bonus.  What you're suggesting is a minor and completely reasonable extension of existing rules, but still a house-rule. 

RAW, you can still put armor special abilities on thistledown padded armor (Races of the Wild).  It's slightly more expensive (405 gp, masterwork included), but it has 0% arcane spell failure chance, no armor check penalty, and +10 maximum dexterity bonus. 

[SorO_Lost]

You can put armor special abilities on bracers of armor, but only because page 130 of Arms and Equipment Guide explicitly allows it.  The rules in Magic Item Compendium only cover adding an armor bonus.  What you're suggesting is a minor and completely reasonable extension of existing rules, but still a house-rule.

How can it be a house rule if A&E says so? I'm wrong where it says you can sub out number for named and assuming the Arm/Body enhancement can be crafted as a Body item in my last post. And why not? Think about it for a moment.

You take your full set of clothing and use half of it as raw materials to craft a magical version of the clothing called Clothing of Armor +X as the enhancement type can readily be applied to your Body slot as the rules state. Only as a more realistic observation instead of ignoring the amount of clothing material being used here and making a full coverage heavy robe this one barely covers anything. It's proof you really can gain an better armor bonus for wearing less.

[Maat Mons]

It says you can make the substitution on bracers of armor.  It doesn't say you can make the substitution on any item that grants an armor bonus. 

[SorO_Lost]

It says you can make the substitution on bracers of armor.  It doesn't say you can make the substitution on any item that grants an armor bonus.

Probably why I brought things up as Bracers of Armor initially eh?

Now I'm off in chainmail bikini land. Rule 34.

[Psithief]

How can it be a house rule if A&E says so?

_{*cough* 3.0 *cough*}

I use that house rule too. Armour special abilities are fun.

[Mooncrow]

How can it be a house rule if A&E says so?

_{*cough* 3.0 *cough*}

I use that house rule too. Armour special abilities are fun.

Un-updated 3.0 is treated as 3.5 stuff as far as the rules are concerned. 

[Psithief]

How can it be a house rule if A&E says so?

_{*cough* 3.0 *cough*}

I use that house rule too. Armour special abilities are fun.

Un-updated 3.0 is treated as 3.5 stuff as far as the rules are concerned. 

Are we talking in real life, or in the fantastic world of Mix/Max? I was the former, you the latter. DMs I've played with don't use v3.0 in their v3.5 games, as if those books never existed. You shouldn't pretend that isn't the case. References to v3.0 stuff can be very confusing if not labelled!

( Oops, this should be directed at SorO_Lost, not Mooncrow who just randomly jumped in)

Sorry for harping on about this but I have a strong belief in clarity of communication.

[SorO_Lost]

Your DM can ban what ever the hell they want to or make up new stuff.
You can bargain with them to tone down their mistakes but ultimately in your DM's game he is the final rules moderator.

Now the boards use official rules and officially none updated 3.0 stuff gets passed though the conversion update (which is pretty much DR 20/+5 = DR 10/magic) and is fair game. And if DMs had a word on that, ToB and Psionics would never have been printed >.>

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

DMs who ban 3.0 material are just too lazy to learn the update rules. They think that older 'explicit' 3.0 text trumps later 3.0 conversion rules. They are mainly just worried about crit range shenanigans ... whilst allowing all the broken core spells.

[Mooncrow]

How can it be a house rule if A&E says so?

_{*cough* 3.0 *cough*}

I use that house rule too. Armour special abilities are fun.

Un-updated 3.0 is treated as 3.5 stuff as far as the rules are concerned. 

Are we talking in real life, or in the fantastic world of Mix/Max? I was the former, you the latter. DMs I've played with don't use v3.0 in their v3.5 games, as if those books never existed. You shouldn't pretend that isn't the case. References to v3.0 stuff can be very confusing if not labelled!

( Oops, this should be directed at SorO_Lost, not Mooncrow who just randomly jumped in)

Sorry for harping on about this but I have a strong belief in clarity of communication.

I've played very few games where 3.0 material wasn't allowed; most of those were run by DM's so ignorant of the rules that I ended up walking away from the game. 

In any case, we have to assume a game where RAW is in play, unless exceptions are listed out.  The default assumption can't be "Let's guess what house rule are in play".

[Psithief]

And if DMs had a word on that, ToB and Psionics would never have been printed >.>

I do not understand what Tome of Battle has to do with it. Please enlighten me in a non-condescending manner.

I've played very few games where 3.0 material wasn't allowed; most of those were run by DM's so ignorant of the rules that I ended up walking away from the game. 

Huh. I guess we can just have completely different experiences. All the DMs I played with that let unaltered 3.0 into their games were the ignorant ones and vice versa.

I'm tempted to make a poll in that poll forum, as clearly my experiences are not as universal as I've thought. I've seen a general lack of references to 3.0 around most forums except for niche TO discussions regarding things like Iiajutsu Focus.

Edit: Apologies to PlzBreakMyCampaign for thread derailment.

[littha]

TO discussions regarding things like Iiajutsu Focus.

Iaijutsu Focus is hardly TO. Its a nice skill for high initiative melee characters but nothing else really, even with a quickrazor or using draw and drop the damage output still doesn't hit the same as a proper ubercharger.

As far as unaltered 3.0 material goes; whenever I DM a game I tend to let the players use absolutely anything they can find, including homebrew. Provided that I get to see it beforehand of course. I have yet to have an issue with this even though I have run a lot of play by post games where abusive players are quite common.

[SorO_Lost]

And if DMs had a word on that, ToB and Psionics would never have been printed >.>

I do not understand what Tome of Battle has to do with it. Please enlighten me in a non-condescending manner.

I'm never condescending. It's called censorship, what I typed up before submission is worse.

ToB is banned in more games than 3.0 content according to the threads here asking for help. And Psionics has a terrible (correct) conception of being broken as all get out and so it commonly gets banned too. So if your DM had a word on what was or wasn't allowed on the forums then Psionics and ToB would be nixed far sooner than 3.0 content.

The broken stuff in 3.0 could probably be counted on one hand. Really. Just pick up your copy of BoED and read about the Starmantle Cloak and Amulet of Retribution then skim the pages of Exemplars of Evil for Friendly Fire to learn how to ignore being attacked. Even the three mentioned classes for immunity to damage (bone knight, pale master, crimson scourge) are found in 3.5 books. A good kicker is the broken as hell Incantatrix which was originally printed in the 3.0 rule set is officially a 3.5 based class thanks to it getting a reprint.

***

Iaijutsu Focus is capped at 9d6 damage (barring use of epic rules) and that is assuming you are reliably making a DC 50 skill check every single time you attack. In total that is +31.5 damage. On the other hand a Swordsage can stance up +2d6 SA and pick up both Craven and a CL 18 Wand of Hunter's Eye. For a much lower DC 20 check he has +8d6+20 or +48 and it is not a Sneak Attack based build and woe betide you if you want to bring up charging. Heck, even a Warlock deals more than Factotums with Iaijutsu Focus.

[Tshern]

And if DMs had a word on that, ToB and Psionics would never have been printed >.>

I do not understand what Tome of Battle has to do with it. Please enlighten me in a non-condescending manner.

I'm never condescending. It's called censorship, what I typed up before submission is worse.

ToB is banned in more games than 3.0 content according to the threads here asking for help. And Psionics has a terrible (correct) conception of being broken as all get out and so it commonly gets banned too. So if your DM had a word on what was or wasn't allowed on the forums then Psionics and ToB would be nixed far sooner than 3.0 content.

The broken stuff in 3.0 could probably be counted on one hand. Really. Just pick up your copy of BoED and read about the Starmantle Cloak and Amulet of Retribution then skim the pages of Exemplars of Evil for Friendly Fire to learn how to ignore being attacked. Even the three mentioned classes for immunity to damage (bone knight, pale master, crimson scourge) are found in 3.5 books. A good kicker is the broken as hell Incantatrix which was originally printed in the 3.0 rule set is officially a 3.5 based class thanks to it getting a reprint.

It's been a while since I've read the 3.0 version, but I seem to recall that the newer one is even more powerful.