Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Acanthus117]

Heh, If i can play, I'll be TRUE NEUTRAL.

[RAM]

*spends 20 minutes talking to themselves about the merits of 3.5 and 4e*
*finishes with a satisfying bout of maniacal laughter*

[Akigagak]

*excludes RAM for being stupid*

Anyway, it's an even split between 4e, 3.5, and 'don't mind which' so far. Oh, and PF got one. If the balance doesn't shift over the next day or so, I'll roll for it.

Incidentally, we'll be using this dice roller.

[Emperor_Jonathan]

If I can, can I get in on this?

Oh and if this changes anyones mind about using either 3.5 or 4E. 3.5 is a hell of a lot easer to organise games over the itnernet with people who don't have the books because of this resource:

http://www.d20srd.org/

All the core rules for 3.5, including homebrew stuff (variant rules), psionics, divine rules and epic rules. As well as links to d20 Dice Bag, d20 Encounter Calculator, d20 Monster Filter, d20 Spell Filter. I'm not sure 4E has nothing to this extent (correct me if I'm wrong?)

[Akigagak]

It doesn't, because of the amount of homebrew systems that sprung up after the SRD was released for 3.5.
PF has one, though.

I should point out however, that if you just use the SRD you miss out on many of the things that were added to 3.5 in a vain attempt to balance it out, such as Tome of Battle.

[Acanthus117]

Aren't there those homebrew fix-em-up thingies that make 3.5e more balanced, especially for melee dudes? If so, I'd switch my vote to 3.5 in a flash.

[Akigagak]

Aren't there those homebrew fix-em-up thingies that make 3.5e more balanced, especially for melee dudes? If so, I'd switch my vote to 3.5 in a flash.

Not homebrew, you'll need the book.
Guess how they tried to balance Melee with Casters?

They gave them spells and called them maneuvers. It's essentially proto-4e, only more limiting in what it can do.

They still don't come close to the power/expolitability of magic, though.

[Acanthus117]

What


But if we can balance them, I'd love to play 3.5. Also, I know this really cool site where making 3.5 characters will be easy peasy. Simply plug in numbers, and ka-boom! there's your char.

[RAM]

I am sure that a mature, intelligent group of people can police themselves. Clerics, turn attempts are supposed to be useless. Fighters, once you start tripling your damage something is probably wrong. Sorcerers and Wizards, choose your spells at random, it'll be more exciting that way. Druids, if you are drooling then you should stop looking at it...

[Acanthus117]

So, if we go for 3.5, what character are you thinking of playing as? I'm thinking of either a rogue/fighter, a paladin focused on buffing the group or a warlock.

[Akigagak]

So, if we go for 3.5, what character are you thinking of playing as? I'm thinking of either a rogue/fighter,

IIRC, there are alternate class features for the fighter that lets them gain rouge-like features. At the cost of, IIRC, the bonus feats. Not sure, though.

a paladin focused on buffing the group

Paladins don't buff people, they smite evil. Clerics buff people.

or a warlock.

Eh. Warlocks are pretty under powered.

[cganya]

I'm not overly interested in playing but I tend to play a neutral/lawful good monk. Monk's are my favorite but I find that 4e messed em up.

I believe I succeed at playing a non annoying lawful good who does what they can to help people, be they players or npcs. unfortunately I tend to always get stuck with chaotic stupid characters who's first reaction to my character is to break every law and screw every npc over in any way possible.

[Akigagak]

I'm not overly interested in playing but I tend to play a neutral/lawful good monk. Monk's are my favorite but I find that 4e messed em up.

Now, lolwut.
4e monks are great fun, and are actually playable and capable of holding their own.
3.5 monks, not so much. Some of their class features don't work together (bonus speed is nice, flurry is okay, being unable to use both sucks) they rely on way to many abilities (Str/Dex/Wis/Con/Int), and don't have full BAB (which is demented for a melee class).

If we go 3.5, and you want to play a monk-type character, I'll introduce you to the Unarmed Swordsage variant.

[Grakelin]

What.

3.5E Monks were completely imba. They didn't have to buy gear, they could take feats like "improved grab" which meant they got a grapple check on every attack, at high levels they could exceed the speed of light. They're more than capable of holding their own.

I think you are mistaken, good sir.

[Akigagak]

What.

3.5E Monks were completely imba. They didn't have to buy gear, they could take feats like "improved grab" which meant they got a grapple check on every attack, at high levels they could exceed the speed of light. They're more than capable of holding their own.

I think you are mistaken, good sir.

Before this becomes a 3.5 monk argument. No. Vs a Fighter of the same level, and same level of optimization, and WBL, the fighter will kill the monk dead. The fighter has better to-hit rolls, better ac, better damage, more feats, likely higher dex, and more hp. The monk has more attacks (that are more likely to miss), and an increased move speed. Not that he can make use of both of those things at the same time. Imp Grab? There's nothing stopping a fighter taking that feat, along with every other feat that the monk could get for free.