Print

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

[Grakelin]

The fighter would be using a weapon, though, making improved grab useless to him. The monk would grab the fighter, throw him down, and just grapple damage him until he was dead.

Not that fighters are even that great at high level anyway.

EDIT: And regardless, the Monk's features are awesome. Adamantium fists? Will a man to death? Fall any distance?

Hellz yes.

[Criptfeind]

Monk suck. Fighter sucks. No one outside of theoretical internet chat boards care because they can be fixed with special items (Tome of battle is better than that though).

Akigagak: Three things.

One: How much (If 3.5 optimization do you want?)
Two: On the 3.5/4 thing just do whatever you want.
Three: Alignment restrictions?

Edit:

I'll play, but note I intend on being an expert. I have found they are the most enjoyable class for my playstyle.

Wut?

Do you mean this or this?
If the first one I am thinking you are crazy.

[Akigagak]

One: Depends. If We do 3.5:

If you stay single-class:
Tiers 1-2: Don't optimize too much, no game breaking.
Tiers 3-4: Don't optimize to the extreme, but feel free to specialize.
Tiers 5-6: Need all the help they can get. Go nuts.

Special Cases:
Clerics: Stay the hell away from divine metamagic, or I will hurt you.
Arcane Casters/Psions: Ease up on the Save or Dies, don't try to use exploitative spells for infinite wealth. Avoid psicrystal/familiar abuse.

Multi-Classing: No multi-classing penalties. If I smell something fishy about your build, I will hunt it down if to see if it's been done before, and what the results were.

Two: I'd rather do 4e. It's easier to manage and build encounters, and I'm more familiar with the rules. But 3.5 seems more popular, for reasons unfathomable to me.

Three: Yes. Don't be Chaotic or Lawful Stupid. Don't be a Neutral Douche. For those who don't know, these aren't different names for existing alignments, they're play styles, where people are to close-minded to roleplay properly, and just act 'according to alignment'. This tends to involve just attacking everything for no reason, or running off at any hint of plot.

[Grakelin]

It is also annoying when people pick an alignment so they have an excuse not to do things.

I don't even understand why D&D has such a hard on for alignment, but they worked it into the game mechanics, so it's actually very difficult to do away with.

[Huesoo]

I would be lawful evil.

[SIGVARDR]

It's not the alignments that are at fault,it's people that are clueless on how to portray someone of that alignment without turning them into a one-dimension character.That said,the alignments are not perfect,and you should not limit yourself to acting only by alignment.

I'm in a DnD game in another thread at the moment,so i shan't be participating,just thought i would throw my 2 copper in.

[Akigagak]

It's not the alignments that are at fault,it's people that are clueless on how to portray someone of that alignment without turning them into a one-dimension character.That said,the alignments are not perfect,and you should not limit yourself to acting only by alignment.

That was exactly my point.

[SIGVARDR]

Yeah,i know.I was agreeing with you,because that's how i feel about it and also because i wish to monitor the progress of this.(yes i know there is a subscribe thread option,but really,who uses that.)

[GlyphGryph]

I always found it was pretty easy to balance mages in 3.5 - you simply dissalow the feat eschew materials. And make gaining a new spell require someone to learn it from (This one is supposed to have been in the rules for quite a while from what I understand, but everyone ignores it)

[MrRoboto75]

I'll either play as a bard, transmuter specialist, conjurer specialist, or a shadowcaster (from Tome of Magic) if it is 3.5.  If its 4th then I might be a warlord, ranger, or wizard.

[dragnar]

I'll probably be a wizard if we play 3.5 and a warden if we play 4.0.

[RAM]

I might try a barbarian/bear warrior specced for grappling...

Or a wizard in 4e...

[Emperor_Jonathan]

I'm not sure what class I'd like to be.

If 3.5, I'm thinking a paladin.

If 4E I'm thinking Warlord.

I'd also like to suggest two things if we use 3.5:

No psionics. Fuck psionics.

Don't restrict Paladins alignment, I'd like to be an evil paladin. Or a chaotic paladin. I'd like flexibility!

[Grakelin]

I think those are called Blackguards.

There is a Paladin Variant on the GitP forums which lets you be any alignment (except True Neutral, I think), and you get to smite anybody with an opposing alignment.

[Acanthus117]

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.

Oh. XD I meant a more defensive pally.