NationStates Jolt Archive

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)

*crickets*

I am, I don't like 4th too much. I like 2 and 3 best.

*crickets*

*eats crickets*

*crickets*

A bit early to say that since it's only been about 30 seconds since the thread was made. :P

A bit early to say that since it's only been about 30 seconds since the thread was made. :P

Don't worry, I ate the crickets and they were tasty.

I´m like you were, what with having played many a games based on d&d.
And would love an opportunity to try it out IRL.

A question regarding that if I may?
(going ahead with it anyway) Would you describe it like a book experience vs a film experience, with imagination giving you more, but with less?
If that made any sense.

I´m like you were, what with having played many a games based on d&d.
And would love an opportunity to try it out IRL.

A question regarding that if I may?
(going ahead with it anyway) Would you describe it like a book experience vs a film experience, with imagination giving you more, but with less?
If that made any sense.

Its like a book as opposed to a movie.

I'm interested in it, but I don't know where I can get them.

Ahh young one. There are more then a few here. You even have some ancient ones. Some can tell you about playing the game before DnD called Chainmail.

DnD directly and indirectly affected all of this genra. Many of the programmers are old DnD players.....

A bit early to say that since it's only been about 30 seconds since the thread was made. :P

That's why I had to get it in quickly! It makes sense if you think about it hard enough.

Been through the box set all the way through a game of 4.0 played at the end of summer before returning to professorial life. So yeah, there are D&Ders here.

I favor the cuisinart ranger type of character. Multiple attacks, dual-wielding. Constantly out-damaging the tanks without their strength or AC ratings is a tiny source of pride for me.

I've played since 1E, and while I haven't had a chance to obtain 4E material, I have to say from excerpts and commentaries online I'm a bit ambiguous on the direction it's taken with an unabashed emphasis on having D&D emulate MMORPGs.

I've played since 1E, and while I haven't had a chance to obtain 4E material, I have to say from excerpts and commentaries online I'm a bit ambiguous on the direction it's taken with an unabashed emphasis on having D&D emulate MMORPGs.

So you're ambiguous on a dying franchise looking to retain it's shrinking core while wanting to appeal to a new audience? Why? Adapting to trends is how businesses and franchises survive. And while it's fun, D&D is also a business (as you can tell by the number of books they're selling you, and the prices they're charging for them).

Occasionally played a bit of AD&D in college, out of boredom.
Quickly got bored of it. BTW DND4 sucks, so does DND3, only the 2 is decent. Well, or at least all RPers I know say so.

Played with other systems, including GURPS. Even developed one of my own (primarily for MT tabletop RPG, focused on minimizing the paperwork while maximizing the realism), know at least 3 people primarily using it now.

Then found other things to do and forgot about it all.

character. Multiple attacks, dual-wielding. Constantly out-damaging the tanks without their strength or AC ratings is a tiny source of pride for me.

I tend to play Fighters who use unusual styles, Paladins who use loopholes in the rules against the bad guys, and Sorcerers/Wizards (really there isn't any actual difference) who are slightly off the wall.

I tend to play Fighters who use unusual styles, Paladins who use loopholes in the rules against the bad guys, and Sorcerers/Wizards (really there isn't any actual difference) who are slightly off the wall.

Ooh! Love those. I'll tell you one if you explain yours.

I once used a frost-brand sword to condense a vampire who'd turned to gaseous form just as we were going to finish him off. The DM thought it might have been meta-gaming, but let me make an intelligence check to see if my character could link beads of condensation on a cold mug of ale to the vaporous vampire and my icy blade. He later told me that the natural 20 I rolled was the only way in hell he was gonna let it happen, but that my pointing the sword tip into a vial and effectively corking a bottle of bloodsucker was the cleverest thing he'd ever ruled on.

Now what's yours?

I thought all the Dungeons and Dragons fans play World of Warcraft now.

I thought all the Dungeons and Dragons fans play World of Warcraft now.

Bite. Your. Tongue. (Fingers?)

I thought all the Dungeons and Dragons fans play World of Warcraft now.

Hell no. Wow is not nearly as fun.

I thought all the Dungeons and Dragons fans play World of Warcraft now.

I hate WoW. But, that doesn't mean that I hate RPGs. In fact, Ive played them, and liked em.

Hell no. Wow is not nearly as fun.

Or as flexible, or as social, or as personal...etc.

Ooh! Love those. I'll tell you one if you explain yours.

I once used a frost-brand sword to condense a vampire who'd turned to gaseous form just as we were going to finish him off. The DM thought it might have been meta-gaming, but let me make an intelligence check to see if my character could link beads of condensation on a cold mug of ale to the vaporous vampire and my icy blade. He later told me that the natural 20 I rolled was the only way in hell he was gonna let it happen, but that my pointing the sword tip into a vial and effectively corking a bottle of bloodsucker was the cleverest thing he'd ever ruled on.

Now what's yours?

No I mean, I play Paladins that actually bend the laws of the land by using loopholes in the set doctrine of things to defeat the bad guys. They often do things that people try to call illegal but aren't. Most of my Paladins will bend the rules as long as it is not immoral to do so to get the upper hand in situations that require it.

Though on a similar note to yours, I have a Wizard that thinks very much along the lines of what your character was doing. I even gave him knowledge skills in Physics and other scientific fields in case the DM argues that a character from a fantasy world would not understand those concepts. However he has a 6 wisdom so he rather lacks in common sense what he makes up for in sheer logic... he tried to put a fire elemental into a pig iron stove to help him heat the forge at his home for instance, he never thought of the fact that a fire elemental could melt pig iron relatively easily.

Wizards and Clerics are win.

Wizards and Clerics are win.

Magic literally makes everything better.

I haven't even read any of the 4.0 books yet. I just ran a 3.5 campaign last year

No I mean, I play Paladins that actually bend the laws of the land by using loopholes in the set doctrine of things to defeat the bad guys. They often do things that people try to call illegal but aren't. Most of my Paladins will bend the rules as long as it is not immoral to do so to get the upper hand in situations that require it.

Though on a similar note to yours, I have a Wizard that thinks very much along the lines of what your character was doing. I even gave him knowledge skills in Physics and other scientific fields in case the DM argues that a character from a fantasy world would not understand those concepts. However he has a 6 wisdom so he rather lacks in common sense what he makes up for in sheer logic... he tried to put a fire elemental into a pig iron stove to help him heat the forge at his home for instance, he never thought of the fact that a fire elemental could melt pig iron relatively easily.

A potentially unpleasant oversight, to be sure.

I think I'd like to be in a party with a Paladin what thinks like that.

Magic literally makes everything better.

Especially black magic. Evil Clerics and Necromancy ftw.

As far as tabletop gaming goes, I play Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition and Mage: The Ascension (and other White Wolf Storyteller System derivatives).

I play because it gives me a chance to use my power in the furtherance of my idealism, which is the funnest kind of escapism for me.

SaintB: LOL. I definitely like your Wizard. That's super funny.

I play a psion (kineticist) that worships Heironeous. Basically, she's a Crusader of Righteousness type, but at the same time, her take on LG is more individualist than that of most player's experience--that being the stereotypical prudish stuck up type.

A potentially unpleasant oversight, to be sure.

I think I'd like to be in a party with a Paladin what thinks like that.
Agreed. I like to be in a party with a Paladin who plays good stronger than law.

A potentially unpleasant oversight, to be sure.

Half a city block later he reconsidered what kind of idea it was.

I think I'd like to be in a party with a Paladin what thinks like that.
Agreed. I like to be in a party with a Paladin who plays good stronger than law.

One of the trademarks of my kind of Paladin is they never lie, but they don't always tell the whole truth, especially if it somehow benefits the greater good or misleads an enemy.

SaintB: LOL. I definitely like your Wizard. That's super funny.

That's nothing compared to some of his exploits. He once went to a town that was besieged by 'dragons' only to discover they were dinosaurs. He killed a pack of velocirapters with his party and spent the next several days studying their anatomy in an attempt to find out of they were particularly weak against certain types of magic. His only significant discovery was 101 ways to cook a dinosaur, and that they resembled flightless birds more than they did dragons. Things nobody else thought were at all important until the DM allowed me to design a spell that had a particularly harsh effect on them.

Its not as funny as the elemental, but I could tell stories about his exploits all day.

One of the trademarks of my kind of Paladin is they never lie, but they don't always tell the whole truth, especially if it somehow benefits the greater good or misleads an enemy.

Very Wrath of Khan. "By the book, Mister Saavik."

That's nothing compared to some of his exploits. He once went to a town that was besieged by 'dragons' only to discover they were dinosaurs. He killed a pack of velocirapters with his party and spent the next several days studying their anatomy in an attempt to find out of they were particularly weak against certain types of magic. His only significant discovery was 101 ways to cook a dinosaur, and that they resembled flightless birds more than they did dragons. Things nobody else thought were at all important until the DM allowed me to design a spell that had a particularly harsh effect on them.

Its not as funny as the elemental, but I could tell stories about his exploits all day.

Made of win.

Made of win.

The party always turns to him when they encounter an unusual creature in the wilderness to find out if its edible.

He actually created a magical item book that works sort of like a tome. When you read it you gain a +2 bonus to your survival skill, profession: chef at rank 2, and a +1 bonus to fortitude saves against ingested poisons.

The party always turns to him when they encounter an unusual creature in the wilderness to find out if its edible.

Any ever ask if the creature is sexually compatible?

Sorry, just remembering Carlin's warning about the blue eyed Viking races coming to pillage out of the north. "If they can't eat it, they'll steal it. If they can't steal it, they'll burn it. If they can't burn it, they'll fuck it!"

One of the trademarks of my kind of Paladin is they never lie, but they don't always tell the whole truth, especially if it somehow benefits the greater good or misleads an enemy.

Nice! It reminds me of that one episode of West Wing... "Don't give more information than they ask for. Here. Let's practice. Do you know what time it is?" "It's 11:34." "NO! I said do you know what time it is???" "Yes."



That's nothing compared to some of his exploits. He once went to a town that was besieged by 'dragons' only to discover they were dinosaurs. He killed a pack of velocirapters with his party and spent the next several days studying their anatomy in an attempt to find out of they were particularly weak against certain types of magic. His only significant discovery was 101 ways to cook a dinosaur, and that they resembled flightless birds more than they did dragons. Things nobody else thought were at all important until the DM allowed me to design a spell that had a particularly harsh effect on them.

Its not as funny as the elemental, but I could tell stories about his exploits all day.
You had dinosaurs in your campaign? Lawl...

I thought about doing DnD from time to time, but I dunno how much time I could devout to it. I'm still trying to find a job, and right now I'm trying to become more active in the local Pagan community...

How much time does a game of DnD usually take?

Any ever ask if the creature is sexually compatible?

Sorry, just remembering Carlin's warning about the blue eyed Viking races coming to pillage out of the north. "If they can't eat it, they'll steal it. If they can't steal it, they'll burn it. If they can't burn it, they'll fuck it!"

Sex is not something Pattersmith is personally acquainted with and certainly not the person to ask. He'd make theories, write up an experiment, describe to anyone who will listen to him in graphic detail using a lot of big words what his experiment would entail, and then spend another several hours arguing with his familiar (Mr. Jinglesworth the Monkey) over the moral and legal consequences it might have.

Nice! It reminds me of that one episode of West Wing... "Don't give more information than they ask for. Here. Let's practice. Do you know what time it is?" "It's 11:34." "NO! I said do you know what time it is???" "Yes."

Things like this:

Paladin to the CN Rogue: They say there is a dragon's treasure in that cave.
Rogue: What about the dragon.
Paladin: I never saw one in there.

Its the truth, but he's withholding information, specifically the information that he has never personally been to said dragon's cave to see if either assumption is correct, and unless asked directly he won't say so.



You had dinosaurs in your campaign? Lawl...

We had just got done watching Jurassic Park.

I'm a D&D player and game master, but I play the 2nd edition... I find the 3rd edition too much "computer-like" and "magic-like", too much into minimaxing... and I *love* Planescape, which wasn't reedited in 3rd edition.

Dunno about the 4th edition, never tried it.

How much time does a game of DnD usually take?

From 2 hours if you recklessly throw your 1-level characters into the heart of the local evil overlord domain, from 20 years if you do a full campaign and don't play very often ;)

I thought about doing DnD from time to time, but I dunno how much time I could devout to it. I'm still trying to find a job, and right now I'm trying to become more active in the local Pagan community...

How much time does a game of DnD usually take?

Minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years... as much time as you want.

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd.

I rplay since the late '80s.
As for dnd, I'm still playing ADnd 2e (well, there has been a 4-year suspension, but who cares, I remember every detail) and I also played ADnD-Player's Option. Dnd 3e and 4e - read the manuals, never considered playing them.
Still, the best fantasy system ever is Rolemaster (RulesMonster! ;) ). Campaign going on since 2002 (starting on 1st level, now the party is about 18th-20th, which is roughly equivalent to an ADnd 10th-11th). After playing a half-elven ranger, a human rogue and an elven fightermage, right I'm playing a human magehunter - but it's likely he'll become a full-fledged arcanist.
As for other RPGs, I've played FASA Shadowrun, WE Star Wars, Palladium Robotech, WW (Vampire, Changeling, Werewolf, Mage), Vampire and Changeling LARP.

Other games I have played are Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, Mage, Hunter, Vampire, Werewolf, Swords and Sorcery (its DnD with a different name), The Wheel of Time (great fun for about 3 days, and then when we all realized that it consisted of killing trollocs all day we kind of dropped it), Star Wars, and I am sure there are others...

I don't think there are too many pen and paper systems I havn't tried. Glad to hear GURPS mentioned. Kinda liked Palladium and Rifts myself for a while. Yep some of us realy dusty old first editioners are still not dead...and we can almost use a computer. Almost.
The crickets were seriously funny IMO.

Glad to hear GURPS mentioned. Kinda liked Palladium and Rifts myself for a while.

I've downloaded the old GURPS and Rifts manuals, but I never got to play them. Could you tell me what you think about them?

GURPS is exactly what it says...generic but I had alot of fun with it. Rifts is sorta the same anything goes. I ran a Third Reich vs everyone campaign. Go dogboys.

Nice! It reminds me of that one episode of West Wing... "Don't give more information than they ask for. Here. Let's practice. Do you know what time it is?" "It's 11:34." "NO! I said do you know what time it is???" "Yes."



You had dinosaurs in your campaign? Lawl...

What?

I've been playing 3.5 edition for about five years now. I was planning on starting a new campaign today with a couple friends, but we didn't get around to it.
Sometimes it's hard to find devoted players.
I've been DM a lot lately, but when I play I usually prefer the Barbarian class.
The extra speed is nice, and I love dealing fatty damage with a great axe.
I don't generally like all the new books, and additional feats and rules and classes.
It gets messy when it's too complex.
And everyone has to be a jerk, and argue over the rules.

And everyone has to be a jerk, and argue over the rules.

You are the DM, its your rules.

I DM a lot too, so much that when someone else is DMing they ask me about decisions, I always tell them it is their rules and I will follow their decisions. For instance in my games someone who is polymorphed against his will can not talk unless they are in a form that would allow them to do so, if they do it willingly they can talk as long as they have a mouth. When someone else DMs you can never talk while polymorphed, in yet another person's rules you can always talk while polymorphed.

Make your players understand who is in control of the world, and hence the rules.

I never moved on from 1st edition AD&D. Hell, I still consider Unearthed Arcana to be 'new' enough to be treated with suspicion, and I only started allowing 'comeliness' as a characteristic about a decade ago.

Even now, once a year, I cross the Atlantic on business and take a day to continue a 1st edition campaign with some college friends of mine.

I never moved on from 1st edition AD&D. Hell, I still consider Unearthed Arcana to be 'new' enough to be treated with suspicion, and I only started allowing 'comeliness' as a characteristic about a decade ago.

Even now, once a year, I cross the Atlantic on business and take a day to continue a 1st edition campaign with some college friends of mine.

You are the gamer version of a Neo-Conservative

AD&D, Cyberpunk, Paranoia, MERP and others... I used to play them all.

But then I grew up and discovered MMORPG's (which instantly put me into a vegetative state with a computer as my only friend.)

"The computer is your friend."

You are the gamer version of a Neo-Conservative

To be a Neo-Conservative, I would have had to have stopped being a gaming conservative, and started up a re-born infatuation with 1st edition after a brief flirtation with modern, fancy left-wing notions like 'computers'.

I think you'll find that I'm actually the gamer version of a 21st century conservative French monarchist.

To be a Neo-Conservative, I would have had to have stopped being a gaming conservative, and started up a re-born infatuation with 1st edition after a brief flirtation with modern, fancy left-wing notions like 'computers'.

I think you'll find that I'm actually the gamer version of a 21st century conservative French monarchist.

What? :confused:

What? :confused:

While there are those who feel a certain nostalgic sentiment for my cause, it's clear to most people - except for a few particularly stubborn individuals stuck in a past we can never recapture - that my time has long since come and gone.

What? :confused:

He means that everything after the white book is baby-eating, more or less.
:D

I'm a modernist. I think that any Dnd with the number 3 or 4 is baby-eating.

While there are those who feel a certain nostalgic sentiment for my cause, it's clear to most people - except for a few particularly stubborn individuals stuck in a past we can never recapture - that my time has long since come and gone.

He means that everything after the white book is baby-eating, more or less.
:D

I'm a modernist. I think that any Dnd with the number 3 or 4 is baby-eating.

I think I got it... Maybe.

I've already got one thing controlling my life on the computer.

Why would I want two, again?

Not only D&D, I also play MANY other games.

Usually, as a Wizard-type.

*crickets*

I waste em with my crossbow!!!

:D

I waste em with my crossbow!!!

:D

You miss because crickets have like 40 fucking AC. Also, you are attacked by an angry cricket swarm, roll for initiative.

You miss because crickets have like 40 fucking AC. Also, you are attacked by an angry cricket swarm, roll for initiative.

What about 10 house cats against a 1st level ADnD warrior?

Let's assume a superpowerful 1st level: so specialisation with sword (+1/+2 hit/dmg), 18/100 Str (+3/+6 hit/dmg iirc), 18 Dex (-4 AC), 10 hp. So he has THAC0 16, AC 6, attacks/rnd 3/2, dmg 1d8+8.

The cat is small-sized, so it gets +3 to hit and a -3 AC. I cannot remember if it has other benefits, anyway I'll assume THAC0 17 and AC 7. The problem is the attacks of the cat: 1d1 dmg claw, 1d1 dmg claw, and (if one of the two attacks hits), 1d2 dmg rake with hind legs.

Super1st level is a goner.

My +5 Holy Avenger is stashed in the closet somewhere. This old adventurer has settled down. Might have to pass it on to the next generation of kobold-killers.

You miss because crickets have like 40 fucking AC. Also, you are attacked by an angry cricket swarm, roll for initiative.

No, first make a Dex check to see if you stay on your feet.

Don't look at me, I'd probably wind up with a custom race who gets better AC from wearing little or nothing...

...and, if I'm in a bad mood during character creation, would use Charisma as the dump stat...

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)

I've slung dice in the past (last Saturday can be considered the past, although I was playing a friend's home brew system). I've also looked extensively at D&D 3.5, played D&D 3.0, and played Rifts. I haven't played D&D 4.0 yet, and really haven't gotten a good look at it.

Yes, I play ever week on Monday. Love AD&D best one. I think version 3 but I'm not sure also hate version 4. Combat does not, to me, make sence I prefer the AC vs d20 roll to hit idea. And saving throws in 4th are incredibly strange.

What about 10 house cats against a 1st level ADnD warrior?

Let's assume a superpowerful 1st level: so specialisation with sword (+1/+2 hit/dmg), 18/100 Str (+3/+6 hit/dmg iirc), 18 Dex (-4 AC), 10 hp. So he has THAC0 16, AC 6, attacks/rnd 3/2, dmg 1d8+8.

The cat is small-sized, so it gets +3 to hit and a -3 AC. I cannot remember if it has other benefits, anyway I'll assume THAC0 17 and AC 7. The problem is the attacks of the cat: 1d1 dmg claw, 1d1 dmg claw, and (if one of the two attacks hits), 1d2 dmg rake with hind legs.

Super1st level is a goner.
He should have AC 2 if he chooses banded mail, and 0 if he chooses plate.

You miss because crickets have like 40 fucking AC. Also, you are attacked by an angry cricket swarm, roll for initiative.

I swing at them with my Hackmaster +12. :D


Bob and Dave are great, aren't they?

I've been running a campaign for six years now. Started in 3.0, went to 3.5. I won't be running 4.0. No reason to buy a whole set of new books after I've shelled out $$$ on dozens of 3.0/3.5 books.

My campaign is probably about half way through the arc I've planned. I hope it doesn't take another six years to resolve :D

Let's see. I don't usually play myself, though I am a level 10 vice president. And according to my boyfriend (since October), I'm a level 18 girlfriend. No idea how I attained that.

I thought about doing DnD from time to time, but I dunno how much time I could devout to it. I'm still trying to find a job, and right now I'm trying to become more active in the local Pagan community...

How much time does a game of DnD usually take?

We started at around 4 in the afternoon, took a hour long dinner break and stopped at around 11 at night. So maybe 6 hours? We got through 3 encounters and did some quests and decided to stop there.

I've slung dice in the past (last Saturday can be considered the past, although I was playing a friend's home brew system). I've also looked extensively at D&D 3.5, played D&D 3.0, and played Rifts. I haven't played D&D 4.0 yet, and really haven't gotten a good look at it.

I would go out and buy the rulebook set except it's about $67 at the moment. I'll wait till it gets cheaper. :(

I would go out and buy the rulebook set except it's about $67 at the moment. I'll wait till it gets cheaper. :(
Wouldn't hold my breath.

Occasionally, but it was too expensive to really play tabletop. Most of my DnD experience came from the Baldur's Gate series, which basically gives me a great working knowledge of the mechanics.

I play DND. I use the core books + eberon. I use eberon because I know more about it then most people and I end up surprising them with evil metallic dragons and good chromatic ones.
Once i know a group and I have ended most of the rules laweryness in them I allow the compleates.
I will never allow the book of 9 swords, PHB 2, book of vile darkness (or its companion for good whose name eludes me). those books totally break DND. Also none of the extra spell books.

for 4.0 I am waiting to see what they do with it. right now each class really only has 1 or 2 builds that work. Yeah they have balanced it but they have taken away its varaiety. So maybe if the next few additonal books add some new classes and and additonal ways to build the other classes I will be sold.

I used to play DnD in my younger days. And Gurps. I also RP'd a FT game similar to Star Trek, all before I ever joined NS.

Then I played this game for about two and a half years before I went inactive. Now I'm back, heh.

Occasionally, but it was too expensive to really play tabletop. Most of my DnD experience came from the Baldur's Gate series, which basically gives me a great working knowledge of the mechanics.

I loved Baldur's Gate II! The plot was so deep and well developed. Unfortunately at the time I was about 10 or 11 and everytime I tried to make a party I would always wipe out by the time I got to the second act, even with a strategy guide. :P

I loved Baldur's Gate II! The plot was so deep and well developed. Unfortunately at the time I was about 10 or 11 and everytime I tried to make a party I would always wipe out by the time I got to the second act, even with a strategy guide. :P

the trick i have found is to dtich the NPCs and make a party purely of PC's

The NPC's in baulders gate two lack speiclization.

leave one spot open so you can bring in a NPC to sompleate a quest but otherwise entire party of PC's can smash through the lot.


with an NPC party you have to do every side quest to get the best of the best gear in game and top levels.

You miss because crickets have like 40 fucking AC. Also, you are attacked by an angry cricket swarm, roll for initiative.

Crickets are tiny in size. That affords only +8, unless the crossbow-wasting attempt is from a creature larger than Medium size.

A few buddies and I play, but haven't in a while. You could describe out version of the game as DnD 2.5, as its a mix between second and third edition.

Crickets are tiny in size. That affords only +8, unless the crossbow-wasting attempt is from a creature larger than Medium size.

They are level 20.

They are level 20.

Level 20? Are they ginormous crickets from Gehenna, or something?

A level 20 cricket would only have 20 hit points and an AC of probably 18, no higher than 22, and probably a CR of 2 tops.

A level 20 cricket would only have 20 hit points and an AC of probably 18, no higher than 22, and probably a CR of 2 tops.

unless they had levels in wizard/sorc nothing like a level 9 spell to add to challenge rating.

unless they had levels in wizard/sorc nothing like a level 9 spell to add to challenge rating.

They'd have to have an equivalent inteligence or charisma. They aren't sentiant so couldn't have an int higher than 2 let alone a 19 :p.

They'd have to have an equivalent inteligence or charisma. They aren't sentiant so couldn't have an int higher than 2 let alone a 19 :p.

check your monster manuel you can add sentiants for any creature.

check your monster manuel you can add sentiants for any creature.

I know that, but nobody said anything about them being sentient crickets until now so my logic stands.

However, a sentient cricket that can cast a quickened/hightened/maximized magic missile spell (dealing a garanteed 37 damage) would be a fun thing to throw at a group.

Don't worry guys its just a cricket.

Ack it hurts it stings!

I know that, but nobody said anything about them being sentient crickets until now so my logic stands.

However, a sentient cricket that can cast a quickened/hightened/maximized magic missile spell (dealing a garanteed 37 damage) would be a fun thing to throw at a group.

Don't worry guys its just a cricket.

Ack it hurts it stings!

spot check just to figure out where the cricket is. or have an evil cricket wizard keeps summoning deamons and the party cant figure out where they are coming from.

Sentient cricket. (http://posuto.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/06/jiminycricket.1182251989.jpg)

I think I won the thread.

Sentient cricket. (http://posuto.blog.lemonde.fr/files/2007/06/jiminycricket.1182251989.jpg)

I think I won the thread.

A new adendum to the Summon Monster I list of creatures:

(LG) Celestial Cricket

A new adendum to the Summon Monster I list of creatures:

(LG) Celestial Cricket

...

No. YOU won the thread.

DAMN! :p

...

No. YOU won the thread.

DAMN! :p

Cool :)

Just as I suspected its impossible to argue that Jimminy is anything but a Lawful Good Celestial Cricket lol.

I've been playing 3.5 for about 3 years now.

Looked over the 4th ed books, but haven't played it and I'm not that keen on the new edition.

Don't understand why they filled up the Monster book with Cthulhu's poker buddies.

We play some older versions, spending money on things like DnD takes a back burner when you have kids that want food and clothing and such. I've been looking forward to getting 4.

It's really one of those games where who you play with matters. It's fun with random people, but our core group is just so much better.

We play some older versions, spending money on things like DnD takes a back burner when you have kids that want food and clothing and such. I've been looking forward to getting 4.

It's really one of those games where who you play with matters. It's fun with random people, but our core group is just so much better.

There are free ways to get those sourcebooks.

And 4th edition is worth it. I was very apprehensive when it first came out but have since warmed to it. Especially as a Rogue.

There are free ways to get those sourcebooks.

And 4th edition is worth it. I was very apprehensive when it first came out but have since warmed to it. Especially as a Rogue.

i play a monk. since in 4.0 the class doesnt exist i am not amused.
i also like dex fighters. again impossible to make dex fighters.

i play a monk. since in 4.0 the class doesnt exist i am not amused.
i also like dex fighters. again impossible to make dex fighters.

Monks will eventually be released in 4.0, Wizards has said as much.

And it is possible, just not a straight-Dex fighter. You'll never see Swashbuckler-like Fighters, but there are a few builds that emphasizes Str and Dex as opposed to the usual Str Con build.

Monks will eventually be released in 4.0, Wizards has said as much.

And it is possible, just not a straight-Dex fighter. You'll never see Swashbuckler-like Fighters, but there are a few builds that emphasizes Str and Dex as opposed to the usual Str Con build.

a str dex fighter is not a dex fighter.


and i want to see how they make the monk until i render judgement.

a str dex fighter is not a dex fighter.


and i want to see how they make the monk until i render judgement.

Meh, at that point why not just be a Rogue?

And I'm not minding the lack of Monks in 4.0. Easily the most stupidly broken class in 3.0 and 3.5.

Meh, at that point why not just be a Rogue?

And I'm not minding the lack of Monks in 4.0. Easily the most stupidly broken class in 3.0 and 3.5.
I dont make a rouge because i dont want to play a rouge. i want high damage with light armour and a high crit rate. not back stabs and looting and disarming traps.
Ahem... have you not played druid. that class breaks DnD.
while a monk is nice the damage it can produce is not very high. the only thing monks are good at killing is rouges, wizards and bards

I dont make a rouge because i dont want to play a rouge. i want high damage with light armour and a high crit rate. not back stabs and looting and disarming traps.
Ahem... have you not played druid. that class breaks DnD.
while a monk is nice the damage it can produce is not very high. the only thing monks are good at killing is rouges, wizards and bards

If you wanted high damage, you sure as hell weren't going for a fighter. Above level, like, 5, Rogue outclasses dex fighter in damage EASILY, especially if they go the weapon finesse + improved crit + rapier route. Backstabs are common enough as well, if you know how to flank.

If you wanted high damage, you sure as hell weren't going for a fighter. Above level, like, 5, Rogue outclasses dex fighter in damage EASILY, especially if they go the weapon finesse + improved crit + rapier route. Backstabs are common enough as well, if you know how to flank.

weapon finesse + weapons mastery + weapons focus + improved weapons focus + improved weapon mastery. duel weild. espcially with eleven thin blades. a fight is able to get all those feats sooner(the damage increaseing feats are not available to non fighters). the only time a rouge out damages a proper dex fighter is if the DM makes all the mobs mindless to be flanked.

weapon finesse + weapons mastery + weapons focus + improved weapons focus + improved weapon mastery. duel weild. espcially with eleven thin blades. a fight is able to get all those feats sooner(the damage increaseing feats are not available to non fighters). the only time a rouge out damages a proper dex fighter is if the DM makes all the mobs mindless to be flanked.

Not really. Dual wielding, even with two-weapon fighting (since Ambidexterity is no longer a feat in 3.5) you'd be looking at a -2 to-hit penalty that cuts. Not to mention that improved weapon mastery doesn't seem to be an available feat in PHBI and PHPBII. A fighter also wouldn't be able to get Greater Weapon Focus until level 8. Assuming that you meant "Weapon Specialization" instead of "Weapon Mastery" that nets a cumulative +4 to damage in addition to strength, by leve 12. Fighters at this level would get 3 attacks for (assuming a rapier in the main hand and a dagger in the offhand to avoid the -4, -4 penalty to having two medium weapons) would be 3d6 +1d4 + strength Mod. If you were using the to-hit feats to mitigate the penalties from dual wielding, say, rapiers, that would be 4d6 + strength modifer + 4.

By level 12, a rogue has a sneak attack of 6d6, and has 5 feats, which is enough to grab Weapon Finesse, Improved Crit, Weapon Focus, and Two-Weapon (if he so chose). Wielding a rapier, that's a 15-20 crit range, or 25% of the time. Rogues at this level would get 2 attacks. Assuming a rapier and a dagger, damage would be 2d6 + 1d4 + strength Mod. Were the rogue to choose to use two rapiers instead, that would be 3d6 + Strength Modifier.

So in three rounds the fighter would do (assuming the case with the easier math) a maximum of (barring crits) 12d6 + 12 + 3x Strength Modifier damge, to the 9d6 + 3x Strength Modifier damage of the rogue.
If the rogue were to get even 1 sneak attack in 3 rounds, he's already beat out the fighter for straight damage. And unless the DM has thrown you up against ninjas armed with crossbows, you're going to get that one sneak attack in three rounds. More often, most likely, if you've got a competent party backing you up and have (as is likely with a high dex) the initative.

Not really. Dual wielding, even with two-weapon fighting (since Ambidexterity is no longer a feat in 3.5) you'd be looking at a -2 to-hit penalty that cuts. Not to mention that improved weapon mastery doesn't seem to be an available feat in PHBI and PHPBII. A fighter also wouldn't be able to get Greater Weapon Focus until level 8. Assuming that you meant "Weapon Specialization" instead of "Weapon Mastery" that nets a cumulative +4 to damage in addition to strength, by leve 12. Fighters at this level would get 3 attacks for (assuming a rapier in the main hand and a dagger in the offhand to avoid the -4, -4 penalty to having two medium weapons) would be 3d6 +1d4 + strength Mod. If you were using the to-hit feats to mitigate the penalties from dual wielding, say, rapiers, that would be 4d6 + strength modifer + 4.

By level 12, a rogue has a sneak attack of 6d6, and has 5 feats, which is enough to grab Weapon Finesse, Improved Crit, Weapon Focus, and Two-Weapon (if he so chose). Wielding a rapier, that's a 15-20 crit range, or 25% of the time. Rogues at this level would get 2 attacks. Assuming a rapier and a dagger, damage would be 2d6 + 1d4 + strength Mod. Were the rogue to choose to use two rapiers instead, that would be 3d6 + Strength Modifier.

So in three rounds the fighter would do (assuming the case with the easier math) a maximum of (barring crits) 12d6 + 12 + 3x Strength Modifier damge, to the 9d6 + 3x Strength Modifier damage of the rogue.
If the rogue were to get even 1 sneak attack in 3 rounds, he's already beat out the fighter for straight damage. And unless the DM has thrown you up against ninjas armed with crossbows, you're going to get that one sneak attack in three rounds. More often, most likely, if you've got a competent party backing you up and have (as is likely with a high dex) the initative.

good catch what i meant. i am away from the books until the 3rd so forgive.
you know a fighter can get a feat in compleate warrior that allows him to use to normal weapons and an additonal feat that removes penalty.


not to mention the fighters imrpoved hit rate makes him more likely to hit. remeber a hit is not a crit threat unless it would hit normally (except natural 20).
also he DM should not be stupid as well. if the creater is intelligent they should try to flank in order to block being flanked. rouges hate when I DM its rare they ever find anything after level 5 dumb enough ot be flanked more then once per an encounter.

once a npc party has a resoanble idea who the rouge is getting flanked by said rouge should be a rare event.

good catch what i meant. i am away from the books until the 3rd so forgive.
you know a fighter can get a feat in compleate warrior that allows him to use to normal weapons and an additonal feat that removes penalty.


not to mention the fighters imrpoved hit rate makes him more likely to hit. remeber a hit is not a crit threat unless it would hit normally (except natural 20).
also he DM should not be stupid as well. if the creater is intelligent they should try to flank in order to block being flanked. rouges hate when I DM its rare they ever find anything after level 5 dumb enough ot be flanked more then once per an encounter.

once a npc party has a resoanble idea who the rouge is getting flanked by said rouge should be a rare event.

Which is why they made the Disguise skill. :p

But yeah, you're right on that account, though once per encounter still isn't that bad, with +6d6 damage. More if you take feats that up sneak attack damage (I think there is one in Complete Adventurer).

I dont make a rouge because i dont want to play a rouge. i want high damage with light armour and a high crit rate. not back stabs and looting and disarming traps.
So you want a Rogue but without any Rogue abilities?
There are two reasons to play a Dex Fighter - (1) You are Ranged (2) You are dumb.
How exactly would you work a Dex Fighter?

So you want a Rogue but without any Rogue abilities?
There are two reasons to play a Dex Fighter - (1) You are Ranged (2) You are dumb.
How exactly would you work a Dex Fighter?

Look up the v3.5 prestige class called Tempest. Tell me that isn't made of cuisinart awesome. I've out-damaged tanks with ranger dex-fighters roll-for-roll. I can't cleave, but if it's something that needs damaging, and fast, I'm your man.

i play a monk. since in 4.0 the class doesnt exist i am not amused.
i also like dex fighters. again impossible to make dex fighters.

They're called Rangers.

Yeah DnD but only play up to the rules enyclopedia version of D&D, versions 4 and 3 and that lot are just another version of AD&D

You can have a cricket with a 40 AC easy. Just give it a 40 DR. Of course such a cricket would be harder than hell to destroy, especially if it had Annihilating Strike and could use it's chirp as a sonic weapon.

I play version 5, from the future. It's hailed as the last version, by everyone, it's that perfect. I used to play 3.5, and own the core rulebooks, but once I discovered the time machine holding Version 5, complete with all subsequent expansions and additions, I burned 3.5 at the stake.

You can have a cricket with a 40 AC easy. Just give it a 40 DR. Of course such a cricket would be harder than hell to destroy, especially if it had Annihilating Strike and could use it's chirp as a sonic weapon.

I play version 5, from the future. It's hailed as the last version, by everyone, it's that perfect. I used to play 3.5, and own the core rulebooks, but once I discovered the time machine holding Version 5, complete with all subsequent expansions and additions, I burned 3.5 at the stake.

In today's news, Eternal Swarm was arrested for drug use and later was diagnosed with insanity.

In today's news, Eternal Swarm was arrested for drug use and later was diagnosed with insanity.

No worries, I'll just use my divine cricket.

*melts in the ensuing chirp as the jail explodes.*

They're called Rangers.

rangers are tied with ninja's for least useful class.

So you want a Rogue but without any Rogue abilities?
There are two reasons to play a Dex Fighter - (1) You are Ranged (2) You are dumb.
How exactly would you work a Dex Fighter?

duel weild keen eleven thin blades by level 12 a fighter should be able to do so with out penalty. weapon finease of course. if your elf you can trade in long sword proficiecy for it non eleves need to use an exotic weapons prof.

thats crit threat of 15-20, and your rolling D8's, D12's if you use monkey grip and large eleven thin blades. get + 4 damage from feats. have high intelligence you can feat you damage modifer to intelligence (only one build i ever used for that).

really just avoid being caught flat footed and should have almost as much AC as the armoured fighters. with less emphsis on stregth (need 13 for some of the feats) you can put more points in dex and con.

dex fighters can get to a fight befor their armoured cousins pack as much or more of a wallop and will like have a higher intitive as well. and 2 or 3 crits and the target is dead.

lol whats sort of noob doesnt know how to make a melee dex fighter. Surely you were going for dualist or swash buckler once.

D12's if you use monkey grip and large eleven thin blades.
That's stupid. You won't be hitting shit with all those negatives to hit. With Monkey Grip you have wasted a feat and reduced the attack on each hand by 2, on top of the -4/-4 (Thinblades/Rapiers are one-handed, not light). Though you could combine a Lightblade instead and get it to -2/-2 (before Monkey Grip).

get + 4 damage from feats. have high intelligence you can feat you damage modifer to intelligence (only one build i ever used for that).
No you can't. And then you are just being plain stupid. There is no reason to pump Intelligence just to get it to damage if you are a Fighter. You could raise something useful like Strength. Not only stupid stat wise, but you are claiming you are going to waste a feat to do it. One that doesn't exist. The only way to do it is take 3 levels of Swashbuckler. Then you don't need the feat you are probably thinking of anyway because the ability isn't level based.

with less emphsis on stregth (need 13 for some of the feats) you can put more points in dex and con.
If you ignore the fact you said you should pump Int for damage :rolleyes: You have to do damage. You have to pump Strength. And Constitution isn't that useful anyway. It doesn't keep you from getting your ass kicked at higher levels if you get hit.

dex fighters can get to a fight befor their armoured cousins pack as much or more of a wallop and will like have a higher intitive as well. and 2 or 3 crits and the target is dead.
Oh really?
1) You have to hit
2) You have to threaten a crit
3) You have to confirm a crit

Your chance to hit is much lower which means your chance of confirming a crit is much lower. Even against crittable opponents. You can flail wildly with 5 attacks a turn but that doesn't mean you will be hurting them.

How about a normal Fighter with a Keen Scythe with Strength maxed with + Power Attack + Leap Attack + Leap of the Heavens (not needed but you don't need to run any more for jumping)

If you make a crit, you win. Even if you don't, your damage isn't dismissible 2d4 + 1.5 * Str Mod + (2x -BAB) * 3 (if you can roll an absurdly low result for Jump check even with Full Plate armor check).

Assuming level 10 with 20 Str, take 5 off BAB - 2d4 + 7.5 + 30. Avg damage: 43. Still with a +10 to hit. Use all your BAB and rely on Str mod to hit and it comes out to 73. Make a crit and you win. Or even just use a Keen Elven Courtblade. Higher crit range, same avg damage. Make a crit and you double that. With courtblade crit: Single blow of ~150 damage.

And none of that is including the specialist line of feats. It gets even uglier with a Barbarian.

EDIT: Since that line of reasoning uses a Wild Elf (+2 Str, -2 Int), make that 22 Str and increase damage accordingly.

lol whats sort of noob doesnt know how to make a melee dex fighter. Surely you were going for dualist or swash buckler once.
I don't know, what kind of noob are you?

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)

I am... was... 3.5E was the last DnD System I used.

I want to get a virtual tabletop so I can find people to D&D with online.

I want to get a virtual tabletop so I can find people to D&D with online.

You try using a chat room in IRC?

I don't even know HOW to get on IRC.

rangers are tied with ninja's for least useful class.

Right. That's why my 12th-level Tempest could dual-wield to seven total attacks and deal more damage than any tank on a single target, and also do it from distance.

I get it. You don't like/know how to play Rangers. Hoopy.

I do. To great effect. Sorry.

Right. That's why my 12th-level Tempest could dual-wield to seven total attacks and deal more damage than any tank on a single target,
That may be because tanks are tanks, not damage dealers.

and also do it from distance.
Light/hand crossbows with Rapid Reload?

He should have AC 2 if he chooses banded mail, and 0 if he chooses plate.

Since when a 1st level can afford plate?

Anyway 10 cats, 2 claws per turn. Even at thac0 17 vs ac 0, there is 3/20 chance of hitting. So, on the average, every single cat deals at least 1.3 hits per round (that's discounting the 1d2 dmg rake).

Since I always felt like a huge dork tabletopping, I never got into it.

However, I love to write and roleplay, so the wonderful anonymity of the intetrnet allows me to play ARMAGEDDON! www.armageddon.org is a MUD based off of the Dark Sun DnD campaigns. It's wonderful fun and totally InCharacter. Harsh, unforgiving, and so very fun.

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)
I've played AD&D 2nd Ed. mostly (which is what I preferred) and 3rd Edition.

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)

Booooo 4th edition!

The new skill system? They just took away half of the skills, and created a much more limited way to advance them. That sounds less good.

I started with 3rd edition, play 3.5 now, and have even played some 2nd. When me and my friends ran a 4th edition game, we hated it.

These 'powers', which, by the by, are a terrible replacement for feats and spells, (why does the fighter need to have these! Does he not have enough self-esteem! "I wanna cast spells like a wizard does!", wow, go play a cleric!) did not 'liven up the combat by giving everyone something unique to do every turn', which I understand was their selling point.

In fact, it was terrible. We ran some published adventure, and we spent ten minutes fighting three kobolds in a dungeon, but because they all had ridiculously high hit points (just like the characters, though... what, failing an adventure makes you want to kill yourself, you just can't stand to have only 7 HP? Die in a fire.). Nothing got done, none of the kobolds died, and we all gave up.

This is no longer dungeons and dragons, this is some anime-infused god-simulator. Play Exalted and stay away from my D&D.

These 'powers', which, by the by, are a terrible replacement for feats and spells, (why does the fighter need to have these! Does he not have enough self-esteem! "I wanna cast spells like a wizard does!", wow, go play a cleric!) did not 'liven up the combat by giving everyone something unique to do every turn', which I understand was their selling point.
Because the game is unequal. Spellcaster's ability is directly proportional to level. Melee's ability is inversely proportional to level. As you level up, melee characters become fodder and spellcasters become way too powerful.

In fact, it was terrible. We ran some published adventure, and we spent ten minutes fighting three kobolds in a dungeon, but because they all had ridiculously high hit points (just like the characters, though... what, failing an adventure makes you want to kill yourself, you just can't stand to have only 7 HP? Die in a fire.). Nothing got done, none of the kobolds died, and we all gave up.
You must suck.

Because the game is unequal. Spellcaster's ability is directly proportional to level. Melee's ability is inversely proportional to level. As you level up, melee characters become fodder and spellcasters become way too powerful.

Melee power is inversely proportional to level? Last I looked they get feats and to-hit bonuses the more they leveled up. You must suck at making fighters...

You must suck.

We must suck because the kobolds all have 31 hit points? I'm sorry we weren't going to wait around to finish off three creatures that are supposed to come with no more than half a dozen or so hit points.


EDIT: I will add something, though. It's pretty understood that for 3rd or 3.5, it's the middle levels that are the most fun, and our campaigns usually blow through the first few levels pretty quick, then really get into it in the 5-12 level range, where we enjoy playing most.

Melee power is inversely proportional to level? Last I looked they get feats and to-hit bonuses the more they leveled up. You must suck at making fighters...


You must never play them. +1 to attack rolls at 8 is dismissible. And that is only for Fighters.

You must never play them. +1 to attack rolls at 8 is dismissible. And that is only for Fighters.

What on earth are you talking about... +1 on attack rolls at 8?

I play fighters all the time; I've played all the classes, and enjoyed every one. I'm not a powergamer, though, and I must not speak the language of one... I'll tell you, I've not sat down an analyzed every class and it's benefit's advancement, because I couldn't give two shits.

I have two characters, in two different games right now; a 5th level bard, with strength 18, con and cha 16, and dex 14. He wears no armor, fights with a spiked chain, and uses combat expertise and defensive fighting to remain the party's number-one front-line fighter. He never makes an attack without first feinting, tripping, bull-rushing, disarming, or sundering. He's there to be a walking need to carry the Rules Compendium around. When he gets more feats, I'm taking some Ranged Sunder, Ranged Trip, Ranged Grapple, or Ranged Disarm.

My other character is a 4th level Paladin with wisdom 9 and charisma 11, who cannot cast spells or lay on hands. You know why I did that, because that character is not very wise, and not very charismatic. He's an arrogant, pompous knight. I didn't even consider losing those abilities, because that was not what was important to me.

If you have a DM who forces you to make these insane min-maxed, powergaming characters then you need a new DM. If you do it to make yourself better than everyone else, you need to get a clue. The game is about having fun, storming castles with your friends. If I get +1 to attack rolls at 8 or not is irrelevant to that fun.

What on earth are you talking about... +1 on attack rolls at 8?
I'm sorry, you gave the impression you knew what you were talking about. I obviously made the mistake of trusting that assertion.Ever heard of Greater Weapon Focus? +1 to attack rolls at level 8. Only for Fighters. It's in the PHB.

I have two characters, in two different games right now; a 5th level bard, with strength 18, con and cha 16, and dex 14. He wears no armor, fights with a spiked chain, and uses combat expertise and defensive fighting to remain the party's number-one front-line fighter.
That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. A no armor melee character with shit dex? A Bard as a front-line fighter - with no armor and shit dex? A Bard with Cha only as a second line stat?
There is a difference between not being a power gamer and being stupid.

He never makes an attack without first feinting,
I am surprised you ever succeed.

He's there to be a walking need to carry the Rules Compendium around.
Or you know, a PHB.

When he gets more feats, I'm taking some Ranged Sunder, Ranged Trip, Ranged Grapple, or Ranged Disarm.
You realize you need a ranged weapon for that right? Those are worthless feats if you are a melee fighter. Who is going to die soon as he gets past 5th level.

My other character is a 4th level Paladin with wisdom 9 and charisma 11, who cannot cast spells or lay on hands.
Incompetence.

You know why I did that, because that character is not very wise, and not very charismatic. He's an arrogant, pompous knight. I didn't even consider losing those abilities, because that was not what was important to me.
So what was important? Not contributing to the team?

If you have a DM who forces you to make these insane min-maxed, powergaming characters then you need a new DM.
Again, there is a difference between not powergaming and being stupid.

If I get +1 to attack rolls at 8 or not is irrelevant to that fun.
It is if I don't find dieing fun.

I'm sorry, you gave the impression you knew what you were talking about. I obviously made the mistake of trusting that assertion.Ever heard of Greater Weapon Focus? +1 to attack rolls at level 8. Only for Fighters. It's in the PHB.

... O-kay ... So because last I checked you get a feat at 8th level. Take something else if you hate it so much.

That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard. A no armor melee character with shit dex? A Bard as a front-line fighter - with no armor and shit dex? A Bard with Cha only as a second line stat?
There is a difference between not being a power gamer and being stupid.

Skald. Warrior-poet. I have preform (saga). There is a difference between playing to win, and playing to have fun. I take pride in having an AC of 12, its funny.

I am surprised you ever succeed.

At my bluff check? Why, that's a class skill. Seems like you'd know that.


Or you know, a PHB.

Why do you think they printed the Rules Compendium? It's just more conveneient. I'm sorry I didn't list all the places I could find a particular rule for you, but, again, you seem like the kind of person who would know, so I figured it was okay.

You realize you need a ranged weapon for that right? Those are worthless feats if you are a melee fighter. Who is going to die soon as he gets past 5th level.

Javelin, already have 'em. I fight with a whip too, because it's something people don't usually use, and that's what this guy was born of. We were introducing a new player (because, you know, we have fun), and I decided to make a character out of the class nobody plays, and use everything nobody uses, and do everything nobody does.

Also, I'm not a "build", I'm not a "melee fighter" or anything. I'm a warrior-poet, who happens to progress with the Bard class. Base Attack Bonus works equally well for ranged and melee combat, you know. I'm better at the melee, with my strength, but that's just more reason to use a thrown weapon for my ranged combat.

Incompetence.

Why? Because everyone who believes that good and law should be upheld by martial force are innately the wisest and most charismatic in the land? You're silly.

So what was important? Not contributing to the team?

Ride-by-attack, spirited charge, a lance and a heavy warhorse contribute quite a lot to the team, actually.

Again, there is a difference between not powergaming and being stupid.

That didn't even make sense. Your DM should lay out an interesting story, and your character (not your "build") should participate in it, regardless of whether or not they get +1 to attack at 8.

It is if I don't find dieing fun.

I've never lost a serious character because I had only +1 to my attack role at 8.

Skald. Warrior-poet. I have preform (saga). There is a difference between playing to win, and playing to have fun. I take pride in having an AC of 12, its funny.
I'm sorry, I don't find dieing an entertaining part of the game.

At my bluff check? Why, that's a class skill. Seems like you'd know that.
Your Charisma isn't very beneficial. And I imagine your Int isn't great either.

Javelin, already have 'em.
Waste of three feats, especially for a non-Fighter, if you don't specialize in Ranged. There are better, cooler feats to use for what you are doing.

Also, I'm not a "build", I'm not a "melee fighter" or anything. I'm a warrior-poet, who happens to progress with the Bard class. Base Attack Bonus works equally well for ranged and melee combat, you know. I'm better at the melee, with my strength, but that's just more reason to use a thrown weapon for my ranged combat.
That makes negative sense. Not zero, negative.


Ride-by-attack, spirited charge, a lance and a heavy warhorse contribute quite a lot to the team, actually.
Not alot of dungeon crawls then?


I've never lost a serious character because I had only +1 to my attack role at 8.
Me neither because I didn't pick a useless feat.

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)


I used to play, but I haven't for a good while. But I have been thinking about starting a new character because all my old ones are mostly to powerful to be allowed to play anymore. I'm seriously considering a female Paladin Character.

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)

If i see any of those people with thousands of posts make a comment about D&D players having no lives, i may die of laughter. (No, I don't play it myself.)

rangers are tied with ninja's for least useful class.

3.0 and 3.5 Rangers, yes. 4.0 Rangers? Not so much.

The next time I play D&D, I'm hoping whomever I have for a DM allows me to use a Doppelganger as my race (+2 to all stats when used as a PC, according to the 3.5 edition MM).

ETA: BTW, does anyone here have an interest in starting a game of 3.5 edition, played in an IRC channel?

I have two characters, in two different games right now; a 5th level bard, with strength 18, con and cha 16, and dex 14. He wears no armor, fights with a spiked chain, and uses combat expertise and defensive fighting to remain the party's number-one front-line fighter. He never makes an attack without first feinting, tripping, bull-rushing, disarming, or sundering. He's there to be a walking need to carry the Rules Compendium around. When he gets more feats, I'm taking some Ranged Sunder, Ranged Trip, Ranged Grapple, or Ranged Disarm. Curious... what feats does this person have?

My other character is a 4th level Paladin with wisdom 9 and charisma 11, who cannot cast spells or lay on hands. You know why I did that, because that character is not very wise, and not very charismatic. He's an arrogant, pompous knight. I didn't even consider losing those abilities, because that was not what was important to me. these two characters, are they 3, 3.5, or 4E?

If you have a DM who forces you to make these insane min-maxed, powergaming characters then you need a new DM. If you do it to make yourself better than everyone else, you need to get a clue. The game is about having fun, storming castles with your friends. If I get +1 to attack rolls at 8 or not is irrelevant to that fun.
each DM runs their own style of games. I've played in some games where the whole session was shopping for equiptment. and others where Hack n Slash was the norm.

I'm sorry, I don't find dieing an entertaining part of the game. well, it depends on HOW. I remember one game where, due to a series of bad decisions early in the scenario and worse rolls along the way, we ended up in a situation where the DM said 'Game over, there's no way you're gonna survive.' we asked to play on just to see how far we'ld get. we died to the last but it was still fun. Even the DM was amazed that we got as far as we did.

TOTAL PARTY DEATH, but it was fun and entertaining.

I wish I could play D&D, but nobody in my area plays it, and I'm too much of a lazy bum to walk any more then a street.

I wish I could play D&D, but nobody in my area plays it, and I'm too much of a lazy bum to walk any more then a street.
GURPS is superior.

GURPS is superior.

Far, far superior.

i also like dex fighters. again impossible to make dex fighters.

Meh, at that point why not just be a Rogue?


Straight Fighter: Power Attack, Cleave, Expertise, Improved Trip, Great Cleave, Weapon Focus: Halberd, Weapon Specialization: Halberd, Toughness, Improved Toughness, Superb Cleave*, and Combat Reflexes.

You can do all that by 10th level if you're playing a human fighter; if you want a massive damage dealer thats one of the best ways to go.

I take a full attack action, I use my halbered to trip an opponent: Trip Successful.
I now use my cleave attack on the person I just tripped; if dead move on to Great Cleave; if not dead, take secondary attack.
If great cleave; success continue and etc.; fail second attack and etc.
Then of course when they stand you get your attack of oppurtunity, as well as attacks of oppurtunity for anyone who enters/leaves your threatened area.

All you need is a decent int, dex, and str score and the willingness to use one of the most underrated weapons in the whole game. A halberd being a 2 handed weapon adds the benefit of adding 1.5 times your strength score to your damage roles and has a good critical, so if you have even a 14 or 15 strength you can deal lots of damage with a hit (1d10+3, add an additional +2for specialization for 1d10+5 and you would be an idiot not to add a magical enhancement bonus (I like speed, keen, and regular enhancement) so you'd be dealing 1d10 + 7 (lets say a +2 weapon) on a weapon with a 17-20 x3 Critical and the ability to deal x3 damage against a charging oponent and you gain an extra attack, don't forget that with a fighters attack bonus you can easily throw power attack in for an addition 1 to 5 damage per hit and still have a reasonable chance of hitting an opponent. Your fighter can deal a potentially unlimted amount of damage to the enemy in a very short time.

*If you don't play with Superb Cleave then substitute Improved Critical: Halberd

My other character is a 4th level Paladin with wisdom 9 and charisma 11, who cannot cast spells or lay on hands. You know why I did that, because that character is not very wise, and not very charismatic. He's an arrogant, pompous knight. I didn't even consider losing those abilities, because that was not what was important to me.


The make him a fighter, thats not a Paladin.

The next time I play D&D, I'm hoping whomever I have for a DM allows me to use a Doppelganger as my race (+2 to all stats when used as a PC, according to the 3.5 edition MM).
And that is like a +8 level adjustment.

Straight Fighter: Power Attack, Cleave, Expertise, Improved Trip, Great Cleave, Weapon Focus: Halberd, Weapon Specialization: Halberd, Toughness, Improved Toughness, Superb Cleave*, and Combat Reflexes.
You obviously missed his post.
Also
1) Great Cleave is useless
2) Toughness is useless
3) Wtf is Superb Cleave?

I now use my cleave attack on the person I just tripped;

I asked the evening news monster and he said this:
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8830/nothowitworkswp2.jpg
Poor wording in the PHB does not mean if you trip some one, you get to Cleave. You have to knock them out/kill them.

All you need is a decent int, dex, and str score and the willingness to use one of the most underrated weapons in the whole game.
Instead of using the most broken weapon in the game - a Spiked Chain.

Your fighter can deal a potentially unlimted amount of damage to the enemy in a very short time.
I prefer my one hit 70 damage with 4 feats build. Critical varies between ~150 or ~300 damage based on the weapon.

*If you don't play with Superb Cleave then substitute Improved Critical: Halberd
Doesn't stack with Keen. Though not that it matters since toughness is useless once you get past level 3.

The make him a fighter, thats not a Paladin.
No, it makes him an average Knight. Fighters get more feats. The only Paladin ability he gets to use is the one that makes him immune to disease.

You obviously missed his post.
Also
1) Great Cleave is useless
2) Toughness is useless
3) Wtf is Superb Cleave?


1. Because the ability to wade through your enemies and kill 5 or 10 at once is complety worthless... yeah sure.
2. Not as a stepping stone to Improved Toughness which gives you extra hit points for every level you have.
3. It allows you to take a 5 foot step while using you cleave attack.


I asked the evening news monster and he said this:
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/8830/nothowitworkswp2.jpg
Poor wording in the PHB does not mean if you trip some one, you get to Cleave. You have to knock them out/kill them.


That depends on your DM now doesn't it?


Instead of using the most broken weapon in the game - a Spiked Chain.


Because that has been done by everyone and gets stupid after the 100th itteration, just like half-(younameits).


No, it makes him an average Knight. Fighters get more feats. The only Paladin ability he gets to use is the one that makes him immune to disease.

No, it makes him a useless character without the ability to contribute more than a good base attack bonus and a moral bonus, and if he acts the way you make it sound he shouldn't even be able to progress as a Paladin in the first place.

1. Because the ability to wade through your enemies and kill 5 or 10 at once is complety worthless... yeah sure.
You arn't going to be Great Cleaving anything but Rats and Kobolds. And maybe not even those.

2. Not as a stepping stone to Improved Toughness which gives you extra hit points for every level you have.
Improved Toughness has no Prereq.

3. It allows you to take a 5 foot step while using you cleave attack.
There are only two classes with that. And it is Supreme Cleave.

That depends on your DM now doesn't it?
Assuming one gets a DM that doesn't reinterpret the rules extremely favorably, this build will never work because it's based on a specific, stretching interpretation of the rules.

Because that has been done by everyone and gets stupid after the 100th itteration, just like half-(younameits).
Half-younameits sucks more than full-blood younameits. Also, everyone does it because the Spiked Chain is broken and thus awesome.

No, it makes him a useless character without the ability to contribute more than a good base attack bonus and a moral bonus, and if he acts the way you make it sound he shouldn't even be able to progress as a Paladin in the first place.
That wasn't me. I was correcting your assertion. The Knight is a PHB 2 class.

You arn't going to be Great Cleaving anything but Rats and Kobolds. And maybe not even those.

If you use even a remotely good weapon you can cleave a lot more than that; just because you don't like something doesn't mean its not good.


Improved Toughness has no Prereq.

Was years since I built the character and I am at work, I don't exactly have my character sheets in front of me.


There are only two classes with that. And it is Supreme Cleave.


Supreme, Superb, same damn thing ;). See my last statement; and it does show up as a feat in one of the 5 billion books, or maybe it was in Dragon Magazine.


Assuming one gets a DM that doesn't reinterpret the rules extremely favorably, this build will never work because it's based on a specific, stretching interpretation of the rules.


Still useful feats regardless of how the DM decides. Improved trip, attack with a +4 bonus, and attack of oppurtunity are still valid.


Half-younameits sucks more than full-blood younameits. Also, everyone does it because the Spiked Chain is broken and thus awesome.


Still over used, I like my characters to be signature. Most of the players in my group stay away from over used weapons (ie swords and spiked chains) in favor of other things.



That wasn't me. I was correcting your assertion. The Knight is a PHB 2 class.

No, I see it wasn't but my whole point still stands, and he specifically stated the character was a Paladin; its about as effective as a castrated stud.

and that is like a +8 level adjustment.

+4, iirc.

+4, iirc.

You are correct, and given the racial bonuses and capacity for disguise, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Especially if you're not playing a campaign centered solely around mowing down large numbers of trash mobs.

If you use even a remotely good weapon you can cleave a lot more than that; just because you don't like something doesn't mean its not good.

Even if you were to cleave one target, you only get one single attack against an adjacent target. Not a full attack, not an attack + dual wield, one single shot. The upper bound on that is likely to be 2d6-2d8 (using a bastard sword) + 5 from a magic enhancement + 4 from weapon spec and greater weapon spec + hell, 13 if you manage to get a 36 in Strength (which is doable with enough money and wishes).

That's an upper bound of 16 + 4 + 5 + 13 = 38. So anything with more than 38 hp is going to stop your rampage of cleavage.

Supreme, Superb, same damn thing ;). See my last statement; and it does show up as a feat in one of the 5 billion books, or maybe it was in Dragon Magazine.

Isn't that ability only available to Samurai? At least it was as of 3.0's Sword and Fist, dunno if that's changed.

You are correct, and given the racial bonuses and capacity for disguise, it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Especially if you're not playing a campaign centered solely around mowing down large numbers of trash mobs.

My roommate was our DM for our group's last adventure, and of the few times we faced large mobs, one was kobolds and the other were villagers wanting to string up some foreign diplomats accused of assassinating a well respected leader. We fought the kobolds and won easily, as our group was well balanced (it also helped that many of them were armed with bows, so my sneaking in the shadows to melee range helped provoke attacks of opportunity). The angry villagers, I distracted with performing while the rest of my party spirited the foreign diplomats away (then, when I could no longer distract them, they rushed into the jail tower while I high tailed it out of there).

My roommate was our DM for our group's last adventure, and of the few times we faced large mobs, one was kobolds and the other were villagers wanting to string up some foreign diplomats accused of assassinating a well respected leader. We fought the kobolds and won easily, as our group was well balanced (it also helped that many of them were armed with bows, so my sneaking in the shadows to melee range helped provoke attacks of opportunity). The angry villagers, I distracted with performing while the rest of my party spirited the foreign diplomats away (then, when I could no longer distract them, they rushed into the jail tower while I high tailed it out of there).

Our group has started to shy away from combat intensive campaigns and more towards investigation, typically with a few short combat encounters at the end that are either designed to be simple or designed to be unwinnable without use of a gimmick.

Hence why a lot of our recent games have been Lovecraftian.

+4, iirc.
+4 LA +4 HD = +8 ECL

Supreme Cleave 3.5 = Frenzied Berserker and Tactical Soldier class ability.

+4 LA +4 HD = +8 ECL

Supreme Cleave 3.5 = Frenzied Berserker and Tactical Soldier class ability.

Ah, forgot about the monstrous HD.

And thanks, I thought that wasn't a generally available ability, but didn't know who got it in 3.5.

Since starting my animation job here in 2007, I've run one 3rd ed campaign, played a brief Werewolf game, followed by a longer 4th edition game which is taking a short recess this week, and next up is a game of Traveller. I liked AD&D, was glad when 3rd took out the horrors of Thac0 and race/class restriction, and happier when 4th took away most of the powergaming from people who combine crazy online suggestions with every feat in the books.

Since starting my animation job here in 2007, I've run one 3rd ed campaign, played a brief Werewolf game, followed by a longer 4th edition game which is taking a short recess this week, and next up is a game of Traveller. I liked AD&D, was glad when 3rd took out the horrors of Thac0 and race/class restriction, and happier when 4th took away most of the powergaming from people who combine crazy online suggestions with every feat in the books.

4th's biggest strength and weakness is that level of balance. No one can be overly broken, but as a result everyone's roughly the same.

4th's biggest strength and weakness is that level of balance. No one can be overly broken, but as a result everyone's roughly the same.

Yes, but as a group of very creative people, we use our characters to determine what we're good at. Our fighter is a big softie who's afraid of fire. The rogue is overprivileged and opposed to hard work. The warlord is incredibly paranoid. Everyone has their own ways of nerfing and buffing their own character.

Yes, but as a group of very creative people, we use our characters to determine what we're good at. Our fighter is a big softie who's afraid of fire. The rogue is overprivileged and opposed to hard work. The warlord is incredibly paranoid. Everyone has their own ways of nerfing and buffing their own character.

Yup, though things like that are the reason I go with GURPS. The disadvantages and advantages system streamlines that nerfing/buffing process, and a smart DM will set limits on what's available that allow people to not get too, too crazy.

And also, Poli, if you're reading this, you still owe me a character. :mad:

Our group has started to shy away from combat intensive campaigns and more towards investigation, typically with a few short combat encounters at the end that are either designed to be simple or designed to be unwinnable without use of a gimmick.

Hence why a lot of our recent games have been Lovecraftian.

Do you have a minimum body count of one PC per combat encounter? If not, the game ain't Lovecraftian.

If Square/Enix made a CoC/Lovecraft based RPG, there would only be one command in the Fight Menu: GTFO.

Do you have a minimum body count of one PC per combat encounter? If not, the game ain't Lovecraftian.

If Square/Enix made a CoC/Lovecraft based RPG, there would only be one command in the Fight Menu: GTFO.

Heh. We've actually been pretty good with character death so far, mostly because we're fairly careful not to read any books wrapped in human flesh.

My group tends to epic type campaigns that have deep plots, side quests, and lots of character developement. We fight few encounters but the onews we have are almost universally very difficult or just there to get our attention (meaning a bunch of low level NPCs).

Though one of the best recurring villians in our games is a Kobold Blackguard named Taskmaster. The SOB just won't die!

Though one of the best recurring villians in our games is a Kobold Blackguard named Taskmaster. The SOB just won't die!

When I ran a Campaign, I used a recurring villain named Exodus, and he WAS dead. In fact he was killed no less than ten times before he stayed dead, and came back as a lich another three, the last of which featured him with the Eye and Hand of Vecna.

The make him a fighter, thats not a Paladin.
No, it makes him an average Knight. Fighters get more feats. The only Paladin ability he gets to use is the one that makes him immune to disease.
actuallly, it makes him weaker as a knight. after all, as a Paladin, he still has to follow his pathos.

Yes, but as a group of very creative people, we use our characters to determine what we're good at. Our fighter is a big softie who's afraid of fire. The rogue is overprivileged and opposed to hard work. The warlord is incredibly paranoid. Everyone has their own ways of nerfing and buffing their own character.
sounds like your group would love Harn. I know someone who rolled up the perfect fighter. then rolled up Fear of Fighting... he was... well... unhappy.

Do you have a minimum body count of one PC per combat encounter? If not, the game ain't Lovecraftian. I thought it would be a Wis/Int loss heavy game. CoC, if you're Lucky, you die. common status tho is going insane. SAN LOSS!

If Square/Enix made a CoC/Lovecraft based RPG, there would only be one command in the Fight Menu: GTFO.
nah... there would be other choices.

after all, you can fight the cultists. :p

Heh. We've actually been pretty good with character death so far, mostly because we're fairly careful not to read any books wrapped in human flesh.
:D
one CoC game. one PC was studying a mythos book. when an NPC was describing what she saw he picked up his book and flipped to one of the pages and said
"Is this what it looked like?" while showing everyone the pic.
DM: ok, EVERYONE roll SAN.
we never let him live it down
:p

sounds like your group would love Harn. I know someone who rolled up the perfect fighter. then rolled up Fear of Fighting... he was... well... unhappy.


Heh, reminds me of Khalid from Baldure's Gate. He was terrified of everything but the best fighter in the game hands down.

actuallly, it makes him weaker as a knight. after all, as a Paladin, he still has to follow his pathos.
Same as a Knight, except he can actually use Knight abilities and the class is designed to support mounted warfare. And you still have a code.

http://files.meetup.com/233403/Meetup%20Poster.jpg

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/462/neutralgoodjesusqw8.jpg

So, I discovered IRC, and someone mentioned I could prolly play DnD on it, any suggustions?

Today I had my first ever game of table top dnd. For years I've played games such as baldur's gate 2 and neverwinter nights but had no idea what AC and reflex checks, etc were. I always thought the dnd system was fun on the computer but the tabletop board game is absolutely exhilarating.

My friends and I were using edition 4.0, and according to most it is much more fun than 3.5 (which I had never played except on the comp), and I must say the new skill system creates a much more exciting and unpredictable gaming experience. I ran a ranger and a wizard while my friend had a fighter and a warlock.

Any other dnd'ers here? :)

I gave that sort of thing up many years back, but I still remember my DnD table top battles with pleasure.

Same as a Knight, except he can actually use Knight abilities and the class is designed to support mounted warfare. And you still have a code.
except (and unfortunatly, I didn't pick up 4E, so going by 3.5E rules) as a Paladin he still has the immunity to disease. breaking his pathos removes that and any future Paladin abilities he may get. would he loose his knight abilities should he break his knightly codes?

one time, our Paladin lost his abilities (turned into a knight/fighter) and didn't tell us (prideful bastard). So you can imagine our surprise when he finally succumbed to Mummy Rot (another thing he kept from us.)