An Initiate.

[HappyBlanket]

So I've always been a fan of rpgs. I've enjoyed the freedom of play styles and the integration of story and game. Incidentally, until recently I've been an avid roleplayer, using sites like roleplaygateway and proboards over the last few years. I also flirted with mmorpgs, but that was a terrible experience I swore I would never repeat. So for a few weeks now, I've considered taking my interest a bit further.

Cutting to the chase: I want to start playing d&d. Get it? Cause you roll for initiative in d&d, and I'm an initiate, so I made the titl- No? Maybe I should have gone for the "rolling stats" title. Wait, does d&d still roll for stats?). I figured this would be a good place to start for advice. Mainly, I'd like to know what I should do to learn more about the game, where I should play (irl with other newbies or on the forums), what I should look for in a first game, etc. Anything to help me make the transition. Stories about your initiation into the game would also be great.

Some other details:
-My impression was that v3.5 would be preferable, but I'd be willing to look into v4.
-I enjoy support classes the most. That had me look to bards as a first choice, which in turn led me to look to every other class instead.
-The bulk of my knowledge concerning d&d comes from reading oots, reading the Arena Tournament threads in the Play-by-Post forum, and scouring dandwiki for some rules.
-I figured that an ideal first game should contain examples of every type of play style. Basically something to let me examine a melee class, a casting class, a rogue, and a support. Possibly a psion as well.

[Force]

Some other details:
-My impression was that v3.5 would be preferable, but I'd be willing to look into v4. [/QUOTE]

Without getting into the edition wars, personally, I think 3.5 provides more a feeling of raw power and sheer adaptability, while 4E provides a great deal more balance and ease of play. Both have strengths.



-I enjoy support classes the most. That had me look to bards as a first choice, which in turn led me to look to every other class instead.

Bards are good-- especially with the Words of Creation and Dragonfire Inspiration. However, Dragon Shaman, Marshal, and any full-caster can supply decent support via buffing spells from the casters and auras from the Shamans and Marshals.



-The bulk of my knowledge concerning d&d comes from reading oots, reading the Arena Tournament threads in the Play-by-Post forum, and scouring dandwiki for some rules.

Don't use DandDwiki-- there's a lot of homebrew, a lot of it is dreck, and there isn't a good barrier between official rules and the homebrew. Use the d20SRD if you want the core rules for 3.5.



-I figured that an ideal first game should contain examples of every type of play style. Basically something to let me examine a melee class, a casting class, a rogue, and a support. Possibly a psion as well.

Are you looking for example characters, an actual game, class/race ideas, wat?

[Amnestic]

-I enjoy support classes the most. That had me look to bards as a first choice, which in turn led me to look to every other class instead.

This line confuses me. Bards are awesome.


Stories about your initiation into the game would also be great.

Cool Story Bro:
Thousands of years ago, when the stars were still young and the Star Wars prequels had yet to ruin my childhood, I was a young lad of [Redacted] and I was introduced to a wonderful little game called Baldur's Gate. I sucked at it, but it was great. I was endlessly vexed on how to kill Basilisks without getting my entire party turned to stone.

Then Baldur's Gate 2 came out. And it was even more awesome.

I picked up the core books for 3.5 during my teen years and played a few games with some school friends, but nothing ever came of it. None of us ever seemed to really want to DM and sessions were few and far between. I never did get my books back.

And that brings us pretty much to modern day, where I'm vaguely looking for some IRL groups and engaging in a few PbP games. My uni's "gaming" club is...unsuitable.

[HappyBlanket]

Okay, so I'm still undecided about edition, but 4e sounds like something preferable for a beginner. 3.5's adaptability (should I interpret this as play flexibility? More options?) is a pretty strong draw though. Then again, if I'm really determined to pursue this, I think it'd be better to pick an edition and stick with it, rather than spend the time to get accustomed to the mechanics of both.

I figured some of the stuff in dandwiki was homebrew (I can only assume this means custom? Brewed at home?). Too many things screamed Sue. Okay, I'll be using d20SRD instead.

So bards aren't bad then. Is it still true that they excel more at the roleplaying aspect, in terms of dealing with NPCs, than the combat aspect? Does that apply to all Charisma based classes/characters?

d20srd didn't give me anything about the feats, save for Dragonfire Inspiration, which seems to substitute the morale bonus from Inspire Courage with 1d6 (per caster level) fire damage. Or whatever energy type your dragonic heritage gives you. I see that WoC gives a bonus to bardic music, but I didn't see any specifics. So that leads me to this: Where should I be getting books? What should I start with? Should I plan to get every book, or just the few that interest me?


I was looking for an actual game. An example. Anything to give me a sense of what a typical session is like. I especially want to see different types of characters being played.

[BRC]

Alright, here's my personal take on the two systems.
3.5 is far more open. Between countless sourcebooks and a more flexible character building system you can do a lot more with it. However, that size means it's daunting. If you're unfamiliar with the system the sheer amount of choices you're presented with in core alone can make it inaccessible. I wouldn't say it's that hard to learn, but it's much harder to become familiar with. In addition, the massive scope of options means that good choices tend to be hidden in a sea of worthless ones, and there are considerable balance issues. Once you know your way around the system it you can do lots with it. For somebody like me, who loves to bend the rules and make stuff up (I'm the DM, it's allowed) 3.5 is like a playground, or a giant box of legos.

I've only minimal experience with 4.0, but nothing I've seen has told me it's a bad game by any stretch of the imagination. It's much more streamlined and straightforwards. If you want to, for example, build a fighter, you look at a list of fighter abilities, rather than opening to a section marked "Feats" and trying to work out which ones you could give to your character, which ones have merit versus ones which are useless (I'm looking at you Dodge), and which ones would actually help your character.
However, with this accessibility comes less freedom.


My personal opinion, take it if you want, is this. If you can find somebody already familiar with 3.5 who can hold your hand as you find your way around the system, do that. If you're looking for something you and your friends can pick up by cracking open the books go with 4.0.

[Clepto]

You might also look into Pathfinder, by Paizo. It's basically D&D 3.75. The options are more limited than in 3.5 by virtue of there not being nearly as many books out for it, but I've found it quite fun. And as a player, you really only need two books: the Core Rulebook, and the Advanced Player's Guide.

It's technically compatible with 3.5, but they changed a lot of stuff in Pathfinder. Namely, some unbalanced things got more balanced (not necessarily in every case), and the overall power level got raised quite a bit in my opinion.

Also, while I haven't played most of them, I've read through many of the Adventure Paths for Pathfinder, and they're pretty solid. I'd definitely recommend having a look.

[Kylarra]

If you're starting from scratch, then Pathfinder is probably a better option than 3.X, simply because a) the majority of the material is free, and b) it's contained in less books.

[Callista]

Yeah, Pathfinder's getting more and more players as time goes on... There are just too many D&D players who find that 4th doesn't fit their style. Personally, I think D&D is going to lose its status as the tabletop role-playing game, because there are just too many other interesting games, and 4th doesn't have nearly the universal appeal that earlier editions did. 4th isn't selling too badly, all things considered, but with the way Pathfinder is selling, it looks like there are probably going to be several major games in the future, rather than D&D dominating everything.

4th edition has kind of a war-game style to it--it's all geared toward battle strategy. Somebody on here summed it up as "Play WoW when the servers are down," which I think is a pretty apt description... yes, you can RP on WoW, of course, but the big focus has always been on strategy, which is why balance is so important for 4th ed. It's also apparently pretty easy to DM, at least as far as mechanics goes (creating monsters, creating dungeons, etc.).

For 3.5, there's a lot more flavor and flexibility, with all the different classes available and with each class having very different mechanics (in 4th edition the classes are quite similar compared to 3.5); but the system's easier to break. It's not like you're going to break it just by looking at it funny; but once you know the system pretty well, you're probably going to be able to create an overpowered character if you want to do it. Thing is, you don't have to do it (and your DM probably won't let you); and for most people playing 3.5, the big draw is the flexibility and the way the classes and abilities suggest role-play ideas. To allow that big range of flexibility, you naturally sacrifice the ability to ensure that all the possible characters you can create will fall within a very narrow power range. In the average 3.5 game--and I've been playing it since 2002--the balance problems are either nonexistent or easily solved. I've never encountered an unsolvable balance problem except in the form of blatant munchkins who went as far as cheating and would have done so whatever game we played.

What I can say about 3.5 I can also say about Pathfinder, except that Pathfinder is becoming more popular than 3.5 and is somewhat more balanced (but, again, has the same flexibility which necessarily means a wider range of possible character power levels). It doesn't have as many books available yet, though it's technically compatible with 3.5. Characters in Pathfinder are also somewhat more powerful than 3.5 characters, which may be annoying if you like low-powered games (I do find it a little annoying, personally, but low-level characters are still low-powered enough that it isn't actually a big issue). And yes, they do still have magic-users with much more flexibility than non-magic-using warriors, just like 3.5 does; but nowadays, most people are aware of that and, just like with 3.5, will add magic into the mix to give their warriors more options.

And then there are the older editions--and yes, they are still going, and people still playing them. The chief drawback is that you will find it difficult to find a group who play one of those editions; but there's an advantage to that too--if you can find a group, they will often be experienced role-players who know what they are doing, rather than casual gamers who won't spend the effort necessary to make it a fun time for everybody. (Yes, you do have to do homework to play D&D. Character backstories, for example, and researching possible choices for level-ups, and some people keep character journals.) If you can find a group playing one of the older editions, don't automatically reject the idea. You may have to buy used books or share books, but that's not the end of the world--just because it isn't new doesn't mean it's not fun.

[RndmNumGen]

Both 3.5 and 4e are good games, but I've found 4e feels too much like a video game for my tastes; If I want to play a video game, I'll play a video game. Your mileage may vary, of course.

If you can, I would definitely recommend playing with a group of people in real if you can find somebody. Ask your friends, see if they know anything about it. Otherwise, I would suggest playing with something like Skype or Maptools online, rather than play-by-post. PBP is good, but extremely slow and most games lose steam pretty quickly.

[Greenish]

So bards aren't bad then. Is it still true that they excel more at the roleplaying aspect, in terms of dealing with NPCs, than the combat aspect?Depends what you do with them. You're not going to have poor interaction skills with a bard without trying, but putting some effort (and splatbook diving, since bard material is very spread out) into it makes it possible (though not recommendable) to make your fighter look like a chump in hand-to-hand combat, and of course lil' tweaking of bardic music turns all your allies into killing machines.

And then you have magic. :smallwink:


(Speaking of 3.5.)

[Zuljita]

I play 3.5 and 4th on a regular basis. 3.5 has so much more material, and is without question a much more varied power level, the practical difference between an upper and lower tier class in 3.5 is MUCH greater than the same in 4th.

I can give a character sheet to someone whos never played an RPG before, give them 10 min or so of instruction and they can be a competent player in 4th.

in 3.5/PF there are lots of "traps" that lure new players in but lead them down the path of suckage :(. There are SO many options, its easier to achieve a particular feel by smacking several classes together...

I suggest actually obtaining a copy of the PHB and DMG for rules as opposed to just working off the SRD. SRD makes for a great reference document but doesnt walk you through how to play very well.

[Callista]

Yeah, bards do take some finesse; but their chief power has always been in making others more powerful. (Wizards and clerics are also more powerful when they are helping their party members; but they are often played in ways that don't take advantage of this fact, and are powerful on their own.) Bards are the masters of teamwork.

Think of it like this: Say you have a set of options that will let you give yourself a +4 to hit; or you can give your whole four-person party members a +2 to hit. The first gives you a +20% chance of hitting. The second gives four people a +10% chance of hitting. That second option--with four people all buffed up and dogpiling the enemy--is more powerful. It gives your whole group a +40% chance, total; and unless you're fighting something that you're just barely able to hit, is the better option. It's not as flashy, but in the long run, it makes your party more powerful than if you were focusing on yourself.

That's what bards are best at. With a bard in the party, the party as a whole becomes more epic; and the bard just sits there and smiles smugly to himself because he knows 10% (or even 50%) of the barbarian's damage is entirely due to his work. Bards are, of course, also great at social skills and make a good party face; so people who like role-playing may want to consider bard as a top choice. They make great diplomats and con artists; if you're a smooth talker, you'll play a great bard. Not that you can't RP with other characters, of course, but with a bard you have the skills to be silver-tongued and talk anybody into anything. (But make sure your DM has house-ruled Diplomacy to some extent so that it's still a challenge. Most DMs who are aware of the Diplomacy issue will have done so; I've simply ruled it's an opposed check rather than a flat DC, and that works fine.)

[randomhero00]

If you like support classes go 4e hands down. Their support classes are infinitely more fun to play than 3.X. Another plus with 4e is you don't really need to worry about balance or messing up your character. Whereas finding appropriate powerlevels between party members and the campaign is quite difficult in 3.X. Someone is always ahead and someone is always at the bottom in my experience.

edit: oh and this is coming from someone who prefers 3.X. So that should tell you how much more fun support is in 4e.

[Hyudra]

Just speaking for myself, personally, 3.5 exemplifies the reason I play pen & paper games. Options, freedom and an open world that makes sense. Any idea I have, I can probably put into effect one way or another.

4th edition, by contrast, feels very much like a video game. There's more strict and arbitrary limitations on stuff and there's a general sense of invisible walls... like in a video game where you can't hop over that fence and go into the field in the background because the designers didn't account for that & didn't draw the field as more than background. In 4th, the players are players and the monsters are monsters, and you can't really bend or alter the game's core assumptions without risking breaking the system. It's balanced, but at the cost of having everything kept strictly in line (Every class progresses in the same way, with the same pattern and way of using their abilities, just differing in style and what they actually do). Sure, it's more dynamic, easier to play and (arguably) faster paced, but honestly, if I wanted arbitrary restrictions on what I could do or on what the enemy could do, why wouldn't I just play a video game?

You can't mention editions without mentioning Pathfinder (3.P), either. It's a contentious subject that pretty much divides people into two camps. One camp will argue that 3.P is a great piece of work, which fixes many of the flaws inherent to 3.5. The other camp argues that 3.P didn't do it nearly well enough, or even made things worse in many respects. I tend to fall into the latter camp, and feel that 3.P amounts to a collection of wide ranging houserules - some good and some bad... and why wouldn't I just pick and choose from a better collection of houserules?

Though I'd advocate 3.5, personally, a new player may well find that 4e and 3.P have something to offer in terms of having a bigger or more recent playerbase, should you go to your local gaming store looking for a group. Those who play 3.5 may well have settled into a regular gaming group & would be hard to insert yourself into.

[HappyBlanket]

I asked around at my highschool (I'm 17), and one of my friends plays with his own little circle. We got distracted about five seconds into the conversation, but he seemed to approve of my interest. He was awfully quick to recommend 3.5, and said he might be able to get me a copy of the core rulebook. Like I said, we didn't talk much about d&d, but he did mention that his own group is really slow (they're waiting on somebody), that he didn't DM, and that he'd join me if I had a game going. So I'm still looking. There is a gaming store in the area called GameTable, but I've never been to it.

So the general impression I'm getting is this:
4e is balanced, but lacks freedom.
3.5e is expansive, but complicated.
3.P is... Here I'm not too sure. I'm feeling it's 3.5 with preset homebrew.

From this... I'm thinking either 3.5e or 3.P.
I don't particularly care much for balance. I'm not looking to plan an optimized build, I'm not trying to make the invincible character, I'm not trying to be a war hero. It's the roleplaying aspect that's really drawing me into this, and if my roleplaying happens to drive me into some absurd handicap, I'd be fine with it... The rest of my party might think differently though. A divine experience leading my bard to take a level of cleric might make sense to me, but I'm guessing some players might consider that a significant handicap for their own characters.
Actually, let me ask this: How tolerant are you of your party's choices? If the choice impairs an ally's usefulness (by merit of not being as useful as other choices), do you take it as a threat to your own character's survivability? Considering, of course, that your ally is content with the impairment (having chosen it despite concerns), but has not consulted you about it.

I'm not too worried about making bad choices. I've played videogames without guides, I can do the same with d&d.

@Callista
That's actually one of the reasons I like support so much. I figure it's better to have three or four characters buffed as opposed to just one, even if that one is myself. And if anyone gets complacent, I'd like to seem them fight without those +2s.
Though I will admit that I just find self buffs cool as hell.

[Kylarra]

It's worth reiterating that getting all of those options in 3.X is significantly more expensive than PF, both due to out of print and sheer volume, so if you're just getting into the game, PF will provide you with more bang for your buck. 3.5 core is very limiting.

[Callista]

True, but if you're going into an established group, chances are that the group's book collection will probably include most of the 3.5 material. So it's not like you're automatically limited only to the books you can afford; you're actually limited to the books your entire group has, which is often quite a few.

Actually, let me ask this: How tolerant are you of your party's choices? If the choice impairs an ally's usefulness (by merit of not being as useful as other choices), do you take it as a threat to your own character's survivability? Considering, of course, that your ally is content with the impairment (having chosen it despite concerns), but has not consulted you about it.My automatic reaction to that would be to ask them: Okay, what do you want your character to do, and why? and then find a way to let that character do it without it being a hindrance to him or the party. There are enough options to make that possible in 3.5 at the very least and probably Pathfinder as well. The nice thing about flexibility is that there are many ways to do the same thing, and just about anything is possible. So if you wanted your bard with a touch of divine ability, there are lots of ways to do that, not just taking a cleric level--even if you didn't plan for it, there are ways to rebuild your character mid-game (many DMs will allow minor rebuilds without any fuss, though major ones might have to be worked in as plot points, and there are rules for retraining somewhere--Unearthed Arcana, I think?). At any rate, remember: You can't role-play a dead character; so you have to choose options that will allow your character to survive. But you don't have to sacrifice RP options to do that.

[Greenish]

It's worth reiterating that getting all of those options in 3.X is significantly more expensive than PF, both due to out of print and sheer volume, so if you're just getting into the game, PF will provide you with more bang for your buck. 3.5 core is very limiting.Hmm, true, but no matter how you approach D&D, you'll have to cough up quite a bit of money (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrackIsCheaper).

…Unless you're an evil, spineless and morally corrupt pirate. Yarr.

[Edit]:
(many DMs will allow minor rebuilds without any fuss, though major ones might have to be worked in as plot points, and there are rules for retraining somewhere--Unearthed Arcana, I think?). At any rate, remember: You can't role-play a dead character; so you have to choose options that will allow your character to survive. But you don't have to sacrifice RP options to do that.Retraining rules are in PHBII, and you can RP a dead character if you want. Hooray for the undead! :smalltongue:

[Callista]

Or your group shares books.

[Lateral]

Meh, I survived in 3.5 for a long time with online materials only (although that may have to do with the fact that my favorite classes are all completely playable with free internet sources anyway, so YMMV.) I'd definitely suggest it over 4e for roleplaying. 4e's strengths lie in streamlinedness, balance and ease of use, and it seems like those would be less important to you than the roleplaying aspect.

I'd say that if you want to play a support character, play a Bard or a Cleric. Clerics excel at long-term, specific buffs, whereas Bard's buffs tend to be shorter and more general (numeric or variable bonuses, mostly.) Just, if you pick Cleric, don't focus on healing. Long-term buffs are more effective than healing; it's just the way the system works.

[HunterOfJello]

The best way to learn D&D (in my opinion) is:

1. Build a level 1 character on your own using only the PHB or SRD and no advice from other people. This will take a while, but you'll learn a lot from the experience. Character sheets can be found online. Use Google to find those.

2. Raise the character to level 2 then level 3 and adjust the character accordingly. This part is easier and will help you understand the leveling and scaling process a bit better.

3. Read the PHB or as much of it as you can stand and take notes of interesting things. Whenever it starts to get boring, take a break and come back to it later.

4. Play the game. You'll learn more about playing D&D from the game itself than any books.

[Mando Knight]

4e is balanced, but lacks freedom.

I'm gonna have to play Devil's Advocate here, it seems.

4th Edition does not lack freedom, unless you restrict yourself to using only one or two books. You can play a wide variety of characters and come up with interesting and cool combinations. Some requires creative interpretation of the flavor text, yes, but you can still play the various "standard" characters (Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard/Bard, etc.) and any of several thousand other ideas. Dragon-blooded divine warrior, The Great Kamina, Alphonse Elric, a dog that shoots bees from its mouth when it barks, magic swordsman, mind-controlling telepath...

[Lateral]

But it's got less mechanic freedom. I don't know much about Essentials, so this may have changed, but almost all of the 4e classes are basically big piles of at-will, encounter, and daily powers with a few class features tacked on at the beginning. Every class just has the same sort of set-up. That's pretty much my only major reason for preferring 3.5 to 4e, but YMMV.

That said, 4e is a perfectly good game. It's just a different type of game than 3.5, geared towards a different sort of gamer.

@V: Well, that's exactly it. The mechanics of each individual subsystem is far more different in 3.5 than 4e. That's not necessarily a good thing, and it's not necessarily bad, it just depends on your stylistic preferences.

[Mando Knight]

But it's got less mechanic freedom. I don't know much about Essentials, so this may have changed, but almost all of the 4e classes are basically big piles of at-will, encounter, and daily powers with a few class features tacked on at the beginning. Every class just has the same sort of set-up.

Meta-wise? Rather true. Psionics (PHB3) and Essentials do fiddle with the powers paradigm, but they're still mostly variations on a theme. However, in my opinion, Wizards has done a fairly good job at differentiating the classes through their powers and class features. It's one of the reasons why I don't like an idea that some people have occasionally forwarded around here: allowing characters to dip into every class's powers without taking the prerequisites to do so from within the normal rules.

Personally, I feel it cuts down on aggregating too many subsystems that try to accomplish similar things (Wizards and Psions and Maneuvers and Invocations and on and on...) while providing a standard framework, around which classes can tinker with different focuses. On the other hand, some people like different avenues of power (psionics vs arcana, etc.) to have a different mechanical feel, even if it mostly just confuses new players and distracted DMs while effectively doing the same thing as the other subsystems.

[Callista]

4th does provide "flavor text" for each ability, usually a short sentence or phrase a lot like what you find on Magic cards. But I haven't really found that to be particularly helpful, RP-wise; you just start ignoring it after the first couple of times you use the ability. On the other hand, mechanical differences between abilities--really significant differences--force you to think about what your character is doing instead of just tallying up the numbers he's modifying. An attempt to trip an enemy with bolas is very different from casting a Web spell at them, and it should be mechanically different. Of course that adds some complexity; but complexity isn't a bad thing unless you expect to learn to play in twenty minutes and learn to DM in an hour. And if you expect that, then you probably shouldn't be playing tabletop RPGs.

[Mando Knight]

unless you expect to learn to play in twenty minutes and learn to DM in an hour. And if you expect that, then you probably shouldn't be playing tabletop RPGs.

I don't particularly like that approach. People compare 4e to video games (partly because that's apparently what D&D has doomed itself to every time a new edition is released (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0619.html)), yes, but there's something about video games that's important for the tabletop industry.

I want to play a new video game? I just get the program and play it. If I read the manual and play the tutorial (if there is one), it takes me maybe 10 more minutes (unless it's a long tutorial...) than just jumping into the game, if that. A tabletop game should be easily accessible from just a few minutes of "tutorial," since that's not only what people expect from other games, it's also that all-important first impression.

I could ramble on and on about different reasons why I like unified rule sets, but that lends itself too easily to flaming and The Dreaded Edition Wars.

All-in-all, I'd pick whatever game system that other people around you are playing. If you're trying to start a "thing" with a few buddies who likewise have little-to-no tabletop experience, though, I'd pick up 4e... likely its Red Box. It's easier to start with, and most of the rules are fairly straightforward and consistent (not completely consistent, but it's written by a relatively small team of gamers looking for a certain kind of gaming experience that can be expanded upon outwards, not some kind of galactic simulation machine with a perfect copy of the universe's physics installed and from which everything can be derived... so what can you expect?) and you can likely figure out the main rules within ten, twenty minutes. Unless you get the PHB and DMG, 3.5's SRD isn't sufficient for figuring out all the rules, since they're organized like an index rather than a book for teaching people how to play, and all 3.5 material is out of print. (On top of that, they sinisterly left out some important-though-small bits in the SRD... like methods of stat generation or how often you should level up, or the kind of loot you ought to have at each level. Especially that last one. Don't want to encourage new Monty Hauls...)

[Callista]

Well, it's not like quick-start is a bad thing; but you have to ask yourself--at what cost?

If you don't mind a system that's very homogeneous, then maybe that doesn't matter to you; but a system that can be learned in a very short time is also necessarily quite a simple one in which everything you can do falls within a rather narrow range of possibility--much like a video game (the "invisible walls" effect).

To have a system that doesn't give you those invisible walls, you either have to have very few rules (along the lines of ground rules for free-form RP) or else you have to have rules that are diverse enough to cover most or all possibilities. And with 4th being somewhere in the middle, it falls into neither category.

It all depends on what your priorities are. Are you worried about the initial learning curve; or would you rather learn a more complex system that allows you to do more?

[Psyborg]

So the general impression I'm getting is this:
4e is balanced, but lacks freedom.
3.5e is expansive, but complicated.
3.P is... Here I'm not too sure. I'm feeling it's 3.5 with preset homebrew.
This is generally correct. Although 3.5e's complicatedness is due primarily to the sheer size of the body of material available. It's perfectly possible to build and play a strong (even overpowered) full-caster, a useful bard, a deadly sneak-attacking rogue, and a trip/lockdown fighter using just the three core books.

From this... I'm thinking either 3.5e or 3.P.
I don't particularly care much for balance. I'm not looking to plan an optimized build, I'm not trying to make the invincible character, I'm not trying to be a war hero. It's the roleplaying aspect that's really drawing me into this, and if my roleplaying happens to drive me into some absurd handicap, I'd be fine with it... The rest of my party might think differently though.
This is, generally, a good approach to take. There are usually plenty of ways to optimize that don't affect flavor; if you're holding your party back (unlikely as a bard, but whatever) you can always add a few of those and take your RP-based "handicap" anyway.

A divine experience leading my bard to take a level of cleric might make sense to me, but I'm guessing some players might consider that a significant handicap for their own characters.
Actually, a 1-level dip of Cleric is considered so useful for so many builds that there's even a handbook on the subject. :smalltongue: But I digress.

Actually, let me ask this: How tolerant are you of your party's choices? If the choice impairs an ally's usefulness (by merit of not being as useful as other choices), do you take it as a threat to your own character's survivability? Considering, of course, that your ally is content with the impairment (having chosen it despite concerns), but has not consulted you about it.
I play my character; they play theirs. Intraparty balance is certainly a reason to make certain choices for greater or lesser power, but there are so many ways to do that without affecting flavor that it's generally far easier (and lower-drama) to adapt your own character's power level to fit the group than to convince the other guy to give up his "awesome character concept" that's going to end up gimping his effectiveness beyond words.

But hell, you're a bard. Get an alfhorn and you can hit three hundred and fifty million commoners with Inspire Courage. (10-mile radius = 314.159265 sq. miles = 350,330,306 5'-squares) With a little work, you can add two flavors of Dragonfire Inspiration and War Leader's Charge (see: Tome of Battle, White Raven) and steamroll an Elder Evil. Making teammates awesome in spite of their build choices is what you do. If you decide someone is going to kick some dragon hiney, they're going to, by Crom!

(There's a feat- Dedicated Performance, Focused Performance, something like that- that lets you focus a bardic music effect to benefit one specific ally [not yourself] rather than all, and double the strength of the effect. If you've only got one physical attacker in the party, or if it fits for RP, or to boost the guy with the weak build up to the level of the rest of the party, it might be worth checking out.)


I'm not too worried about making bad choices. I've played videogames without guides, I can do the same with d&d.

@Callista
That's actually one of the reasons I like support so much. I figure it's better to have three or four characters buffed as opposed to just one, even if that one is myself. And if anyone gets complacent, I'd like to seem them fight without those +2s.
Though I will admit that I just find self buffs cool as hell.
Although not _quite_ as good as CoDzilla*, bards can make scary-awesome melee gishes (and casters, and non-sniper archers, and pornomancers, and leader/support characters...and halfway-decent controllers, too [see: Whirling Blade spell + Improved Trip]). From the rest of what you've said, though, I think support is more your style. Rest assured, you'll still have self-buffs aplenty when you need them.

More general comment:
--3.5 is fun because of the sheer breadth of options. The body of official work is absolutely massive; Dreamscarred Press offers truly excellent third-party support for psionics; and the amount and quality of homebrew available for the game boggles the imagination. I defy you to come up with a character concept that can't be built mechanically in 3.5.
--3.P is, essentially, 3.5 with preset house rules and a general increase in the power level from WotC's expectations for baseline DnD. Basic Pathfinder isn't nearly as high-powered as what's achievable in 3.5 with even minimal optimization, though, so that's not a big deal to most people.
--Between 3.5 and 3.P? Find a good group and play whichever they prefer. It won't make a whole heck of a lot of difference one way or the other. People > system on the priority scale.

Some comments on the "subsystems" in 3.5 (each spoilered for length):
--Psionics:Psionics has only two books dedicated to it (Expanded Psionics Handbook, which was extremely well-done, and Complete Psionic, which added the excellent Ardent and was otherwise mostly horrible).

As a system, it's substantially less broken than either arcane or divine spellcasting; you can essentially ban Metamorphosis (polymorph effects will never not be broken, I swear, though this tends to be less terrifying than Wild Shape anyway) and ask players not to apply metapsionics to Hustle (this is the sole reason that psionics > anything else for making the action economy its b****), and you're good to go. It is still, however, a full-casting system for all intents and purposes. It will be inherently stronger than non-caster/manifesters. Its virtue is in being less likely (not impossible, just less likely) to break the game into little tiny pieces.

As far as the actual psionic classes, Soulknife, Divine Mind, and Lurk are a bit too weak to be usable (WAY too weak to be usable in the Soulknife's case- along with Soulborn, Ninja, Monk, and Samurai, it's a strong contender for worst class in 3.5), but the rest are essentially fine. The Erudite variant psion available on the WotC website is also pretty cool assuming a bit of common sense is resolving some contradictions between its table and text, but the Spell-to-Power Erudite is rightly condemned as on of the most ridiculously overpowered things ever, since it takes the generally-balanced psionics system and...adds all spells ever to its list.

Malhavoc Press and Dreamscarred Press have some really excellent stuff out for psionics as well. If you like support classes, check out DSP's Society Mind (link the party into a telepathically connected network, plus manifest buffing powers on everybody via the network without worrying about pesky stuff like line-of-sight as long as you're within network range), Worldthought Medic (as above, minus some of the buffing powers, plus surprisingly balanced and effective healing; the WTM is the only class I've ever seen that makes in-combat healing workable 1-20), and Thoughtsinger (a telepathic bard variant, relying on Thoughtsong rather than audible music/chant/epic poetry/whatever). The Halo Knight is more combat-focused, can self-buff by channeling avatars of various warrior archetypes, and can flare those avatars to give his allies the benefit of them as well. Good prestige classes include Life Leech for Worldthought Medic (steal your enemies' health to give to your allies) and Anima Bearer and Idealized Protector for Halo Knight (boost your avatar-flaring ability, and make your allies weapons badass when you flare, respectively). All of the stuff I mentioned except Life Leech is available from the DSP SRD (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/home); for that, you'll need to pick up the Complete Society Mind pdf for a couple bucks.

Oh, and if you decide you like the soulknife- because the fluff is pretty awesome- homebrew fixes/remakes abound; the best I've seen is actually an Incarnum-based one called the Soulblade, I believe by Fax Celestis, which can be found in the Homebrew Design forums on this very site. Or you can play a psychic warrior with the soulbound weapon ACF from the WotC website, or a fighter/psychic warrior/anything else with the mind blade feats from the DSP SRD.
--Tome of BattleWotC released Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords late in 3.5. On the most basic, cynical level, it attempted to boost melee classes up to the level of spellcasters by giving them spells, and then called the spells maneuvers to keep the two distinct, and then added excessive flavor influences from anime.

Less flippantly, Tome of Battle stands out as one of the crowning achievements of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Edition. While it doesn't bring melee classes up to the level of casters, it does give them useful things to do from level 1 to 20, and those things include a lot more versatility than "I move and attack", "I charge", or "I 5'-step and full-attack." Now, versatility is good; it's the hallmark of 3.5 in any case, and it's nice to let melee have some of it without gishing or diptastic multiclassing. The real reason ToB is so highly regarded is because, while it's virtually impossible to build a weak Crusader/Swordsage/Warblade, it's also virtually impossible to build a broken one. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Tier System for Classes- look it up, if not- but it's generally true that no ToB character will ever be weaker than low-Tier-3 or stronger than high-Tier-3.

It does, however, make the Player's Handbook melee classes- Fighter, Monk, TWF Ranger, usually Barbarian, and (for most non-trapfinding purposes) Rogue- completely, utterly, uselessly obsolete.

This is held by some to be a criminal offense, and by others to be the best thing that happened since the first nerd painted numbers on each side of an icosahedron and called it a d20. Countless flamewars have raged over the issue.

The anime flavor is definitely there, and definitely does not fit all games. Solution? Ban Swordsage, or at least the Desert Wind and Shadow Hand disciplines, since those are the only supernatural ones. Warblade, Crusader, and the disciplines they get access to are virtually anime-free. I'm not an anime fan myself, but I don't hate it enough to throw the whole book out based on those few things.

On the support-characters end of things, Crusaders are _excellent_ support characters, offering ally-support via White Raven, healing via Devoted Spirit (without having to take time out from attacking to do it) and perhaps the first tank class in 3.5's history that can actually tank rather than simply being ignored by its opponents while they walk past it to kill the party squishies. (I'm ignoring the awkward and easily-avoided Knight's Challenge and the spiked-chain-abusing trip fighter.)

Official and third-party support for Tome of Battle does not exist. There is an enormous amount of homebrew available for it. Most of it is fairly balanced, and a lot of it is really excellent. I would recommend not allowing one character to have more than one discipline with the same key skill if it's avoidable; the combination of Riven Hourglass, Jade Throne (two generally good homebrew disciplines; I'm a big Jade Throne fan myself) and Diamond Mind (an official one), all of which are Concentration-based, is something I personally have found open to having its maneuvers combined in brutally powerful ways. As in four-full-attacks-plus-a-standard-action-martial-strike-and-a-damage-boost-for-all-of-them-in-one-round powerful.

On the whole, though, Tome of Battle is a good thing. Just use with a bit of care (or not at all, honestly) if you're playing baseline 3.5 and the other characters are a blaster wizard, a healbot cleric, and a sword-and-board fighter.
--IncarnumMagic of Incarnum is one of the few books in 3.5 to do something completely new, something that couldn't be traced to something in 2nd Ed or older versions of DnD or other wargames. Basically, it revolves around channeling the essence of unborn and long-dead souls and borrowing their knowledge.

The system is certainly playable, but unfortunately the terminology chosen was highly confusing, and the book was not written in the clearest fashion possible. It's confusing as heck at first glance. And second glance. It takes quite a bit of reading for it to "click".

Balance-wise, it's pretty good. Totemist is considered a balanced class; Incarnate is a little bit weaker, but totally playable regardless. As for Soulborn...well...it's best we pretend it doesn't exist. It's pathetically useless.

There are a couple more soulmelds in Dragon Magic, and on the WotC website, but that's about it for support for Incarnum. Homebrew-wise, there are a few new soulmelds people have written up, but not many. The system does see surprisingly frequent use in homebrew classes, and justifiably so, but apparently the general feeling is that the original list of soulmelds doesn't need much by way of additions. The Esper Knight (forget the author...once again, see the Homebrew Design forums here) is notable here for using the incarnum flavor and a lot of the basic essentia mechanics without shaping soulmelds at all; as such, it's a good deal simpler, and might be worth checking out as a good class for a first-time Incarnum player.
--Truenaming: This one doesn't even get a spoiler. It's broken to the point of absolute utter nonfunctionality. As written, the system doesn't work. Don't use it. Period. (There are a few homebrew fixes available. A couple of them look pretty good. I don't have any personal experience with any of them, though.)
--Shadow Magic: Once again, no spoiler. Ugh. It's...playable I guess...but mostly it's pathetically weak. Good if you want to play a "full-caster" in a party with a monk and a sword-and-board fighter, maybe, but that's probably about it.
--Pact Magic (Binding):Like the previous two, this is from Tome of Magic. Pact magic involves binding a vestige- a faint echo of a being that no longer exists anywhere in the cosmos- to your soul. As the only way these vestiges can experience existence, life, interaction, or anything, really, they tend to appreciate being bound, though that won't stop them from trying to influence you a little bit according to their own views.

I don't have any personal experience with pact magic. The consensus seems to be that it's balanced, extremely flexible, and a lot of fun. (A binder is actually quite likely to be the next character I play, so maybe we'll see in a few months.)

Worth noting is the practice of Warlocks dipping Binder 1 to bind the vestige Naberius; his fast healing of ability damage allows them to use the Con-damaging Hellfire Blast ability of Hellfire Warlock with impunity. There's no denying that the combination has fantastic flavor potential; opinions on its mechanical balance range from "the only reasonable choice for hellfire warlocks" to "outright abusive"; the consensus seems to be that it's cheesy, but not outrageously so.

Additional support for pact magic is minimal- a couple of vestiges on the WotC website. Homebrew is there, though not as much as psionics, incarnum, or Tome of Battle. A standout is the brilliant and flavorful Seiðkona of the Iron Bands prestige class, by Djinn In Tonic.
--Invokers (Warlock and Dragonfire Adept):Need to run shortly, so this will be a bit shorter. Warlock's from Complete Arcane; Dragonfire Adept's from Dragon Magic. Generally speaking, these are high-Tier-4 classes. At the weak end of playable for mildly-optimized games (almost nobody really plays Tier 1 characters to their full potential in games, barring forum challenges and arenas), and at the strong end of playable for unoptimized games. The knee-jerk, "Spell caster with at-will abilities? OMFGOVERPOWERED! BAN NOW!" is...utterly unjustified.

Complete Mage added a few Warlock prestige classes, and Hellfire Warlock can be found on the WotC website. There's a fair number of homebrew prestige classes aimed at Warlocks, and the invocation-using mechanic has been used by a number of other homebrews. No love for DFAs, though, as far as I've seen.

This was probably excessive. :smallsigh: Hope it was helpful anyway.

[Lateral]

Wow, that was thorough. :smalleek:

I have to say, I mostly agree with Psyborg. I'd like to point out that Lurks can be replaced by Psychic Rogues (who are much better), and that while Soulknives are pretty weak, they can be replaced by Psychic Warriors with an alternate class feature and can be improved a lot by the Soulbow prestige class. I don't know anything about Divine Mind, but I've heard it's pretty terrible. Also, Wilders are pretty weak too due to their insanely low numbers of powers known and the fact that Wild Surge is completely screwed up. Finally, the general consensus is that Dragonfire Adepts are slightly stronger than Warlocks (lack of supplementary material notwithstanding). They're usually rated at low-to-mid tier 3, while Warlocks are high tier 4.

...You have no idea what we're talking about with tiers, do you. Has anyone linked to the system yet?

Here it is. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293)

[HappyBlanket]

...Okay. I should probably get to responding now. I've let these posts pile up.

First off! Looks like 3.5e is my game, and as much as I'd like to get some emotion in this thread, I'm not looking for much more as far as editions go. No edition wars, though it doesn't seem as if a reminder is even necessary for us.
I can at least get the PHB for 3.5 by this Thursday, maybe Friday. I'm off from school for a week after that, which gives me plenty of time to scour through it on my own. Might manage to join a game, if I can (my friend has been pretty comatose lately. Getting hard to tell if I can rely on him for a game).


Oh, I know what a tier is :D I learned from some other rpgs (I learned of it first from Pokemon), and if I understand correctly, tiers divide classes by utility. I still glanced over the link though. Of six or seven tiers, Bards are third tier, Truenamers are so lowly rated they're in a tier of their own, and Clerics are first tier.
Mostly unrelated ramblings:
Speaking of Pokemon, actually, let me give some insight into my balance between style and practicality for those of you familiar with the metagame. My Pokemon team consists of Umbreon, Espeon, Jolteon, Vaporeon, Glaceon, and Smeargle (guess what move they all have in common). Stylish enough to justify using Jolteon (and other eeveelutions) instead of the harder, better, faster, and stronger Zapdos who can do everything Jolteon can but better, but practical enough to use the baton passing god Smeargle in place of Leafeon, who does not synergize with the team, or Flareon, who tends to impair it's own team more so than the team of it's enemy.

Psyborg, it's excessively helpful :smallbiggrin:
I actually wasn't too sure about my class when I decided to play: I considered Bard, sure, but Cleric was a strong contender.
So when you say one level of Cleric, do you mean that for Granted Power from Domains? Are they that useful? Or is it something else that helps?
Some concern over the support value of Bards. Do they just cast and simply cast another buff next turn, or do they have to keep a song going for several turns to maintain the buff?
I'm having concerns about how much information I can get from the PHB. It's starting to sound like a single session might need a dozen books or so. I know that's what I signed up for by going with 3.5, and I know that other people will have those books as well, but can I get an estimate as to how many books a single group might need? In the very least, what book am I looking for to build this bard?
Thanks a bunch for the summaries :D Very informative, and I need all the information I can get to start playing d&d.

[Mando Knight]

Stylish enough to justify using Jolteon (and other eeveelutions) instead of the harder, better, faster, and stronger Zapdos who can do everything Jolteon can but better

Zapdos is slower than Jolteon. Mostly because around 99% of the entire series is slower than Jolteon. (Ones that beat it without speed boosts: Ninjask, Electrode, the three offensive forms of Deoxys, and the new Accelgor/Agirudaa. Ones that tie: Mewtwo, Aerodactyl, Crobat. It's in the top 8 out of 649 different species of Pokémon.)

[HappyBlanket]

Zapdos is slower than Jolteon. Mostly because around 99% of the entire series is slower than Jolteon. (Ones that beat it without speed boosts: Ninjask, Electrode, the three offensive forms of Deoxys, and the new Accelgor/Agirudaa. Ones that tie: Mewtwo, Aerodactyl, Crobat. It's in the top 8 out of 694 different species of Pokémon.)

Oh. Oh oh oh oh. My bad, definitely not faster, by a full 30 points. Zapdos is still a better choice for my team though. Let me clarify: I'm using Jolteon to pass Agility boosts and to sweep (naturally after being passed CalmMind boosts from Espeon or a Substitute from Vaporeon), but Zapdos can pass Agility boosts just as well, while inflicting more damage with a better SpAttack stat, and while surviving longer with a better Substitute and an immunity to those pesky Earthquakes.


Oh yeah, forgot a question: I noticed that some spells have some material components. Some of them are pretty negligible - I recall one requiring a medium of some string and wood, which most people can just find in their equipment. Other spells ask for precious jewels, which are also relatively easy to attain (I'm guessing they can be bought, or found in chests, or from monsters).
But...
...Where the hell do I find Bat -ahem-... Guano?
Who sells a sample of bat guano?

[Lateral]

Most DMs ignore spell components that aren't expensive or rare. Otherwise, you pretty much just buy 'generic spell components', as listed in the DMG (or PHB? Can't remember.)

[BRC]

But...
...Where the hell do I find Bat -ahem-... Guano?
Who sells a sample of bat guano?
Professional wizarding suppliers.

Generally it's assumed you carry all the negligible (Read, without listed cost) components you need in your spell component pouch. If you want to cast fireball, you have the components handy. If you don't, then you don't, until suddenly you do.
If you lose the pouch in a cave, I guess you could find some sulfur and bat guano and use that to throw a fireball.

[HappyBlanket]

A note: Fascinating how removing the topic of edition lowers post rates so drastically.

Alright, so material components are assumed to be in possession unless the wizard lacks his or her supplies for whatever reason. With the exception of significant materials like those in Soul Bind, Teleportation Circle, or True Resurrection.

As for the distinction between Cleric buffing style and Bardic buffing style. Am I right in assuming that: Clerics have spells like Disrupting Weapon, Break Enchantment, and Freedom of Movement, while Bards and other arcane casters have spells like Cat's Grace, Eagle's Splendor, and Fox's Cunning?

[HappyBlanket]

Also, what are your opinions on the Summon Monster spells? A one round per level duration (assuming level means character level. Wait, what's the difference between caster level and character level?) doesn't seem that fantastic to me, but I figure someone actually experienced with the game would know more about it. As a Bard, I can at least see that Summon Monster would allow me to fight even while isolated (assuming I can buff a summon), and I can also see that summoning is frankly awesome.

My main concerns are:
1) Does the summon last long enough to pose a threat to opponents (assuming the opponents are strong enough to kill a Bard in combat, and have levels scaled appropriately).
2) Are the summons strong enough to fight without combat assistance? That is, can they fight effectively without another ally engaged in combat, not including anyone buffing but not attacking?
3) Does a caster's alignment affect it's summoning options? Can an Evil aligned character summon Good aligned monsters?
4) Is a Chaotic summon less obliged to assist it's summoner?
5) ...Are any summons obliged to assist the summoner?
6) If summoning is useful, which is the most so? During a nondescript combat situation, of course. I can see plenty of summons that can be useful for niche situations, like the aquatic and flying animals and the elementals.
7) Are illusion spells better than summons for getting out of tight spots (such as getting isolated)? I mean, I know I said that I looked to summons to help me in dangerous situations, but it's mostly just so I can play melee for awhile.
8) How are summons controlled?

[Mando Knight]

(assuming level means character level. Wait, what's the difference between caster level and character level?)
Caster Level is the measure of a character's spellcasting prowess as compared to a single-classed full-spellcaster class (Wizard, Cleric, Bard, etc.). (Supposedly)

For Paladins, multiclass characters, and such, their Caster Level is lower than that of a full-caster of the same character level unless they try hard at making it catch back up.

With regards to Summoning:

The creature considers you an ally and your opponents to be enemies, and will act accordingly. For those with language, you can probably reason with them as normal for other things. It's also ridiculously useful in combat, since after a few rounds the battle's pretty much won anyway.

When you summon creatures with a non-neutral alignment, the spell gains the appropriate keyword (and thus automatically becomes an act so aligned). If you draw your power from a deity, you can't use spells opposed to the deity's alignment. (Which lead to the Cult of Pelor the Burning Hate, as the example cleric (of Pelor, a Good-aligned solar deity) is shown in the 3.5 PHB casting a spell that gained the Evil descriptor in the half-edition jump)

[Greenish]

So when you say one level of Cleric, do you mean that for Granted Power from Domains? Are they that useful? Or is it something else that helps?The aforementioned handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2773.0) lists most of the options.

Some concern over the support value of Bards. Do they just cast and simply cast another buff next turn, or do they have to keep a song going for several turns to maintain the buff?Some of the uses for bardic music require concentration (ie. standard action each round), but most do not. You'll need the feat Melodic Casting to cast spells (or use magic items) while singing, though, but the buffs such as Inspire Courage will stick around for 5 rounds after you stop singing (10 rounds with the right feat or magic item).


I'm having concerns about how much information I can get from the PHB. It's starting to sound like a single session might need a dozen books or so. I know that's what I signed up for by going with 3.5, and I know that other people will have those books as well, but can I get an estimate as to how many books a single group might need? In the very least, what book am I looking for to build this bard?Well, some people play with just the core (PHB, DMG & MMI), but others (such as me) prefer a larger spread. Which books you'd want depends on what you're most interested in, though in case of bard, there's no one source for their support. Bard stuff is spread wide on all the splatbooks.

d the new Accelgor/Agirudaa. Ones that tie: Mewtwo, Aerodactyl, Crobat. It's in the top 8 out of 694 different species of Pokémon.)694? What happened to 150? :smallconfused:

As for the distinction between Cleric buffing style and Bardic buffing style. Am I right in assuming that: Clerics have spells like Disrupting Weapon, Break Enchantment, and Freedom of Movement, while Bards and other arcane casters have spells like Cat's Grace, Eagle's Splendor, and Fox's Cunning?I'm not sure what you're asking, but given the length and breadth of the spell lists for core casters I doubt you can generalize on either focusing on certain style of buffs.

1) Does the summon last long enough to pose a threat to opponents (assuming the opponents are strong enough to kill a Bard in combat, and have levels scaled appropriately).
2) Are the summons strong enough to fight without combat assistance? That is, can they fight effectively without another ally engaged in combat, not including anyone buffing but not attacking?
3) Does a caster's alignment affect it's summoning options? Can an Evil aligned character summon Good aligned monsters?
4) Is a Chaotic summon less obliged to assist it's summoner?
5) ...Are any summons obliged to assist the summoner?
6) If summoning is useful, which is the most so? During a nondescript combat situation, of course. I can see plenty of summons that can be useful for niche situations, like the aquatic and flying animals and the elementals.
7) Are illusion spells better than summons for getting out of tight spots (such as getting isolated)? I mean, I know I said that I looked to summons to help me in dangerous situations, but it's mostly just so I can play melee for awhile.
8) How are summons controlled?1&2) Bards have slower spell progression than full casters, so the summons usually aren't strong enough to be a significant threat to enemies. They should last long enough for combat from around 3rd to 5th level, depending on how fast your combats are.
3) Good aligned arcane casters (and divine casters in Eberron) can summon Evil creatures, but doing so is an Evil act.
4) No. In general, the official books are very vague about what it even means to be "Lawful" or "Chaotic".
5) Summoned creatures attack your enemies to the best of their ability.
6) Depends on the spell. There are many summoning spells, most of which have a version for each spell level.
7) Depends on the spells in question. Illusion has some excellent self-buffs to protect you in combat, though.
8) If the summoned creature understands a language you can speak, they'll do as you order them. Speaking is a free action.

[HappyBlanket]

Caster Level is the measure of a character's spellcasting prowess as compared to a single-classed full-spellcaster class (Wizard, Cleric, Bard, etc.). (Supposedly)

For Paladins, multiclass characters, and such, their Caster Level is lower than that of a full-caster of the same character level unless they try hard at making it catch back up.

So, if I were a Bard5/Rogue1 (Entirely random combination), my caster level would be five? If I were a Bard5/Wizard3, would I have a CL of 5 for Bard and a CL of 3 for Wizard spells?


Well, some people play with just the core (PHB, DMG & MMI), but others (such as me) prefer a larger spread. Which books you'd want depends on what you're most interested in, though in case of bard, there's no one source for their support. Bard stuff is spread wide on all the splatbooks.

Urgh. Typical, really. Maybe I'd be better off as a Wizard or a Sorcerer for my first game. Conjuration and Transmutation gives me all of the spells I was looking to use as a Bard, actually... Okay, I'll think about this a little more. A Wizard with a Transmutation specialty is sounding sufficient. But again, I yield to whoever has more experience than I do - my impression is that a Wizard/Sorcerer can use a wider selection of buffs, like Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance (neither of which can be cast by a Bard) while also using the buffs a Bard has access to, like Cat's Grace, Fox's Cunning, etc.

So if I'm looking to play a buffing character with summoning capabilities, am I better off playing a Wizard/Sorcerer, or am I better off with a Bard? If I'm better of with W/S, which of the two?


1&2) Bards have slower spell progression than full casters, so the summons usually aren't strong enough to be a significant threat to enemies. They should last long enough for combat from around 3rd to 5th level, depending on how fast your combats are.
3) Good aligned arcane casters (and divine casters in Eberron) can summon Evil creatures, but doing so is an Evil act.
4) No. In general, the official books are very vague about what it even means to be "Lawful" or "Chaotic".
5) Summoned creatures attack your enemies to the best of their ability.
6) Depends on the spell. There are many summoning spells, most of which have a version for each spell level.
7) Depends on the spells in question. Illusion has some excellent self-buffs to protect you in combat, though.
8) If the summoned creature understands a language you can speak, they'll do as you order them. Speaking is a free action.
1&2) And I assume the aforementioned Wizard/Sorcerer is a full caster? It looks like a Bard can't summon til 3rd level, while a W/S can summon starting at 1st (plus they eventually get higher ranks of Summon Monster). Am I right? And more importantly, are a full caster's summons sufficient?
8) Let's talk meta. Does a player control his summons as he would his character, or does he require his character to speak aloud to a summon that can understand human speech?

[Greenish]

So, if I were a Bard5/Rogue1 (Entirely random combination), my caster level would be five? If I were a Bard5/Wizard3, would I have a CL of 5 for Bard and a CL of 3 for Wizard spells?Precisely. You could tweak the numbers with the feat Practised Spellcaster, though. It gives you +4 CL, up to CL = HD. Decent for multiclassing casters, though it still doesn't give you back the spells you lose.

Urgh. Typical, really. Maybe I'd be better off as a Wizard or a Sorcerer for my first game. Conjuration and Transmutation gives me all of the spells I was looking to use as a Bard, actually... Okay, I'll think about this a little more. A Wizard with a Transmutation specialty is sounding sufficient. But again, I yield to whoever has more experience than I do - my impression is that a Wizard/Sorcerer can use a wider selection of buffs, like Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance (neither of which can be cast by a Bard) while also using the buffs a Bard has access to, like Cat's Grace, Fox's Cunning, etc.You can safely assume that in most cases, what you want to do can be best done by a wizard. That's what tier 1 is about.

Bards are still awesome, though.


So if I'm looking to play a buffing character with summoning capabilities, am I better off playing a Wizard/Sorcerer, or am I better off with a Bard? If I'm better of with W/S, which of the two?Wizard. Augment Summoning and standard action summons at first level (UA ACFs), as many spells/day as a sorcerer (with focused specialist), prepared casting (faster metamagics and more freedom to take situational spells or the ones you'd only want to use 1/day), int-based spellcasting for more skillpoints, higher level spells earlier, etc…

1&2) And I assume the aforementioned Wizard/Sorcerer is a full caster? It looks like a Bard can't summon til 3rd level, while a W/S can summon starting at 1st (plus they eventually get higher ranks of Summon Monster). Am I right? And more importantly, are a full caster's summons sufficient?Bards do get Summon Monster I at second level, but in general full casters are better at casting. At higher levels, Summon Monster isn't that great for straight forward combat, but comes with all kinds of nifty abilities and SLAs.

8) Let's talk meta. Does a player control his summons as he would his character, or does he require his character to speak aloud to a summon that can understand human speech?If the summoned monster understands the language you're speaking, it will do as you order it to do. Monsters with 3+ intellect generally understand at least one language.

[HappyBlanket]

Okay... Nice. Feeling pretty great right now. I have til the Monday after next before school starts up again, and my friend seems to have gotten over his moodiness. I learned that he uses some manner of mage. We're hoping to get a group going with the two of us, possibly with some other students. Plus, I am now the proud owner of the PHB, DMG, and the MM.

So this what I'm planning so far. I still want as much help as I can get, so I'll still post. I figure what I'll do is read through the PHB while pointing out anything I don't understand in this thread. So it's kinda like a Let's Read, or something. Hm.

Anyway! What I'm planning to build is a Human Wizard. Most likely Good aligned. Maybe Neutral Good, whatever fits the personality best (I figure a good approach is to decided alignment after deciding personality). Specialty school will be either Transmutation or Conjuration. Barred schools will likely be Necromancy and Enchantment. Possibly Illusion. Feats will include Augment Summon (+4 Str and Con for summons), Rapid Summoning ACF (casting time for summons becomes 1 standard action as opposed to a full round action, but wizard loses familiar), Spell Focus (Conjuration) (Prerequisite), Quicken Spell (I think I can summon as a free action between this and Rapid Summoning), and whatever else seems worth it.

I'll post my first batch of pages from PHB, with questions and such. Feel free to help with my loosely defined build.


Edit: Oh yeah. So I'm guessing summons can't be controlled mentally? My character has to speak to give any orders beyond "search and destroy?"

[HappyBlanket]

Just got to Skill Checks / Ability Checks... Reading it, I can't see any distinct differences between the two. It kinda looks like Ability Checks are just Skill Checks without the bonus, but...
I haven't read very far, so I don't know how Skill Checks work, but from what I can discern a Skill Check is (1d20) + (Skill Level) + (Associated Stat) versus the DC. If I'm right, then is an Ability Check simply that without the Skill Level bonus? It just looks kinda redundant...
Does D&D use the term "ability" instead of "stat?"
Looks like it.

Somewhat unrelated: I came across something called Focused Specialist (not in the book). It's supposed to help Summoning Conjurers somehow, but I don't know much about it. I might come across it later in the book, but I'd prefer to just ask while I'm asking my other questions. So what is Focused Specialist? What does it do? Is it a feat? Some type of Conjurer variant? Alternate Class Feature? Are Conjurer Variants a type of Alternate Class Feature?

If I'm using a wizard who uses summons and buffs, how valuable is INT to me? I'll probably still use it as my core ability, if only for the Bonus Spell modifier, but beyond that, am I likely to have much use for it? My summons and buffs don't seem to be affected by it; they don't have ability penalties, they don't become easier to dispel, etc.

I recall hearing (somewhere) that summoners aren't that useful at higher levels. Is this true? If it is, why so?

And... Something I've been thinking about for awhile, but neglected to mention. Casters have a limited amount of spells per day. So what happens when they run out? A party isn't always at liberty to sit down and rest, and if a caster runs out of spells, he's not exactly the most well defended (and for that matter, useful) member of the party.
tl;dr: I need a way to be useful, or at least self sufficient, after I run out of spells. I considered a ranged weapon like a crossbow or something (though a more stylish option might take precedent over efficiency, especially since a weapon is only for rare situations anyway), or perhaps a small collection of backup scrolls or wands. Any suggestions? Feel especially free to recommend something I've yet to consider.
Related question: Will the probability of me running out of spells be negligible by the time I have the money to amass enough / the appropriate scrolls?

Currently on page 66.

[Scarlet Tropix]

It's less that ability checks are skill checks with out a skill in as much as an ability check is a check with no save or skill modifier. It usually comes up for things which has no real associated skill, such as in Bull Rushes or Grapples.

Focused Specialization is exactly what it sounds like. You give up one more school of magic in exchange for more spells of your chosen school, which puts your spell per day on par with a Sorcerer, albeit with most of your spells being restricted to your school of choice.

When it comes to Wizards, Int is practically everything. It controls your Spell DCs, your Bonus Spells, the level of spell you can cast, and so on. Given that spell slots run out, it's important that your spells work when you want them to and that you have more of them, eh? Although, I hasten to add that Dexterity and Constitution should be at least secondary for you, since they help you not get hit and not die respectively.

Now, as for your worries about summons. They're not always the most effective thing you can do as a Wizard, true, but it likely won't be a problem for you. If it is, well, there are other spells, and a Wizard can learn as many as he likes. Just prepare a few less summons. I'd recommend fiddling around with your list anyway while you're learning the ropes, to get a feel for what you like.

As for your spell slot worries... It likely won't come to the point where you have no meaningful contribution but a crossbow. After all, your party is supposed to be there so you don't have to churn out a spell every turn. Ideally you'll be holding reserves as needed. That said, scrolls and wands are great. Not only for you, but for the rest of the party as well. They can take a huge load off of Wizards and Clerics by saving spell slots otherwise wasted on those precious buffs. Furthermore, there are items such as the Rings of Wizardry which double the amount of spells per day you get of a specific level, if you really wanted to have a ridiculous number of spells.

As for an actual weapon, it's never a bad idea to carry a melee and ranged weapon around, but... With a wizard's BAB and general squishiness, you're probably not going to accomplish much. You might be better served by looking into Reserve Feats, which allow you to permanently use a low level spell effect (Such as flight or a fire blast) as long as you still hold a certain spell of a certain level in reserve. This can help you save your ammo for when you really need it.

...Of course Reserve Feats aren't in the core books, which may be a problem for you, but it sounded like something I should bring up. Hope this helps.

Edit: Also, just a note. I don't know if you've mentioned what level you're starting at, and I'm sorry if I've missed it, but if you're low level Quicken Spell may not be a good idea. Using it makes the spell you cast count as a spell slot of four levels higher than the base spell, meaning that a, say, Quickened Magic Missile would become a fifth level spell.

[HappyBlanket]

You know, it's just occurred to me that I haven't really thanked anyone for helping me out here. :smalltongue: You've all been lifesavers, and this is really helping me out. It feels great having people to consult with, and I don't think I'd be able to understand 3.5 nearly as much as I think I do now if it weren't for everybody's help.

Ahem. ANYWAY.

So ability checks are used for things other than untrained skill checks. Gotcha.

Something that came up while I was typing: I think I really need to get a better idea of what my character's function is going to be. I've changed it over the course of this thread, and it's starting to become a problem. I've recently veered from my idea, but I want to go back to my concept of being a buffer first, and a summoner second. Bolded more for my benefit than anyone else's.

Summoning isn't really the focus of my set, even if it is a key factor. I've been treating it as if it was because it's the most flashy aspect of my build. I should really know better as a support player though. In any case, my focus is buffing through Transmutation. My proto idea was to summon only in emergencies, but now I'd like to have summoning as my character's primary method of offense. My character will likely spend most of his time casting buffs on allies, and will summon only if buffs alone won't suffice (if the party needs more attacks dealt).



On Focused Specialization: Losing another school hurts, but I was already pretty dedicated to the whole Buff/Summon idea anyways, so it's not like I expected to have that much versatility as far as spells go. In any case, can I get some numeric values to Focused Specialization?


While we're on the topic of losing schools: Now that I've presented the little character build manifesto up there, what does everyone recommend as my barred schools? I was considering Necromancy for one, since my character doesn't seem to fit under the evil alignment (to put it laconically, my character's personality is that of a fawning doormat. Think elementary student with a crush, but on everyone), but I wasn't sure about the others. I'm thinking on of these three: Enchantment, Evocation, and/or Illusion.


Okay, so Int is required no matter what kind of Wizard I am.


About summoning not being that effective: this is actually what reminded me of my original idea to be a buffer instead of a summoner. I'll keep in mind that I'm still learning the ropes when finding a style that suits me.

Okay, so a crossbow is probably unnecessary. Or at least so situational that I shouldn't fret over it. Scrolls and Wands are better as backup spells, or to save spell slots. A Ring of Wizardry sounds like a great idea - 2nd level gives me all of my +4 single target buffs, and with that doubled I effectively end my worries over running out of spells... But I'm thinking 40k gp isn't too easy to come by.

On weapons: So, I take it if I'm ever reduced to melee, I should be turning my thoughts to escape instead? I figured as much - kinda comes with the territory for a full caster. I'll keep an eye out for anything I may come across about Reserve feats.

I'm probably starting at level one, but that bit about increased spell slot levels helped plenty. I hadn't considered how that would affect a low level character, so Quickened spells are out until further on in the story.

[Kylarra]

A lot of the reserve feats are in Complete Mage. The ones that I've found useful followed by their minimum spell req:
Storm Bolt/Fiery Burst [2nd] - Miniature versions of the staples on all day.
Summon Elemental [4th] - For all your trapfinding and various mundane needs.

[Greenish]

Quicken Spell (I think I can summon as a free action between this and Rapid Summoning)A quickened spell is actually a swift action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#swiftActions). Swift and Immediate actions were introduced after the initial publishing of 3.5.

Edit: Oh yeah. So I'm guessing summons can't be controlled mentally? My character has to speak to give any orders beyond "search and destroy?"Unless the summons or you have Telepathy, you'll have to open your mouth.

a Skill Check is (1d20) + (Skill Level) + (Associated Stat) versus the DC.Well, there's quite a few other bonuses to skill checks too, such as synergy from other skills and bonuses from various items.

So what is Focused Specialist? What does it do? Is it a feat? Some type of Conjurer variant? Alternate Class Feature? Are Conjurer Variants a type of Alternate Class Feature?Focused Specialist is an alternative class feature, conjurer variants (from UA) are class variants.

Focused Specialist means you lose one "generic" spell slot per spell level, but gain two slots per level that you have to fill with spells from your specialist school. Also has to ban another school, as mentioned.

If I'm using a wizard who uses summons and buffs, how valuable is INT to me?As pointed out above, wizards live and die by their intelligence. It's the most valuable stat you have.


I recall hearing (somewhere) that summoners aren't that useful at higher levels. Is this true? If it is, why so?They tend to be a bit weak for going toe to toe with the higher level enemies. They're still nifty for their special abilities, and of course sometimes you face a lot of mooks (weak enemies).


And... Something I've been thinking about for awhile, but neglected to mention. Casters have a limited amount of spells per day. So what happens when they run out?They're screwed. At lower levels, ration your spells to have something to toss if things turn pear shaped.

My proto idea was to summon only in emergencies, but now I'd like to have summoning as my character's primary method of offense.

While we're on the topic of losing schools: Now that I've presented the little character build manifesto up there, what does everyone recommend as my barred schools? I was considering Necromancy for one, since my character doesn't seem to fit under the evil alignment (to put it laconically, my character's personality is that of a fawning doormat. Think elementary student with a crush, but on everyone), but I wasn't sure about the others. I'm thinking on of these three: Enchantment, Evocation, and/or Illusion.Consider banning evocation. It has a few other goodies, but is quite focused on direct damage. Enchantment has but one trick, and many enemies are immune, but when it works it's truly outstanding.

Illusion is an excellent school with great open-ended spells, and provides solid defence.

[Scarlet Tropix]

You know, it's just occurred to me that I haven't really thanked anyone for helping me out here...

It's what we do. :smallwink:


Something that came up while I was typing: I think I really need to get a better idea of what my character's function is going to be. I've changed it over the course of this thread, and it's starting to become a problem. I've recently veered from my idea, but I want to go back to my concept of being a buffer first, and a summoner second.

If buffs are going to be your primary focus, I suggest you specialize in Abjuration. Not only does it contain almost all of the defensive spells that Wizards have, but specializing in it will give you leave to throw up more.


...can I get some numeric values to Focused Specialization?

Focused specialization adds +2 to the base +1 spell slots of each level, and as others have mentioned, it is not a feat.


While we're on the topic of losing schools: Now that I've presented the little character build manifesto up there, what does everyone recommend as my barred schools?
Evocation is pretty much only good for throwing gigantic blasts at people and hamming it up like Emperor Palpatine. It does direct damage, but not much else. Unfortunately in D&D direct damage is about the easiest thing to get around. You won't lose much, especially if you keep Illusion, which would allow to create illusionary versions of most of the Evocations anyway through Shadow Evocation and Greater Shadow Evocation.

Necromancy is actually not as evil as the books would have you believe, (in 3.0 all the healing spells were Necromancy, as the field also covers life as well as death, I personally house-rule them back into Necromancy when I DM, by popular demand from my group.) You can find many useful spells that have nothing to do with raising the dead. Most of those non-dead-things type of spells involve weakening an enemy to soften him up.

Enchantment, as mentioned earlier, is really fun when it works. But I can tell you from personal experience that DMs do not want it to work on anything important at all because it screws everything up. :smallyuk: That's why there are a lot of defenses for it. A lot. Including Mind Blank, which essentially turns off Enchantment for 24 hours, once you've cast it. But if Mind Control is your thing then keep it. Power of Flavor, after all.

The value of Illusion is something that is proportional to your creativity and/or the strength of your group's RP sensibilities. Most of the spells allow you to make an illusion of whatever you want within the spell's capabilities. As a heavy Illusionist myself, (Warning: I am heavily biased.) I can tell you that this can be more valuable than any dice rolls. Plus there are a few spells in there that are crippling debuffs or out-right instant death if you cast them. Win. :smallcool:


Scrolls and Wands are better as backup spells, or to save spell slots.
They're also great for those situational spells that are good to have around but you HATE to memorize.


A Ring of Wizardry sounds like a great idea - 2nd level gives me all of my +4 single target buffs, and with that doubled I effectively end my worries over running out of spells... But I'm thinking 40k gp isn't too easy to come by.
If you tell your DM that it's one of the items you'd like to pick up and that it's important to your build, I'm sure he'll find a way to get one to you at a level appropriate time, be it through cash or loot.


On weapons: So, I take it if I'm ever reduced to melee, I should be turning my thoughts to escape instead?
Generally speaking, if you've become the primary melee combatant something has gone horribly wrong. If you do take a weapon though, make sure it's light and one handed. That way you can still cast when you've got your weapon out.

Hope this helps.

[HappyBlanket]

Storm Bolt (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2783-storm-bolt.html), Fiery Burst (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-1123-fiery-burst.html), and Summon Elemental (http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/feat-2833-summon-elemental.html). Gotcha. The two direct attacks are a bit tricky for someone banning Evocation though. I don't know if there even is an electric spell outside Evocation, and the only fire spell I can think of is Fire Arrow. Question: If a summoning spell can be cast as a Fire spell (summon a fire elemental), would it be usable? That would make alot of these reserve feats pretty easy to use.
In any case, I'm browsing through a few reserve feats from savannahsoft while I'm at it.


Quickened spells are Swift Actions, alright. Similar to, but not exactly like, free actions.


On communicating with summons: Do my summons speak or understand Common? I was under the impression that they did (I think I read something about it), but now I can't seem to find anything explicitly mentioning languages (though some higher leveled summons have Tongues or Telepathy).


On specialization: Abjuration... Yeah, I did spend some time looking at it. In the very least I was absolutely certain that I wouldn't ban it. I looked over the spell list once more, a bit more favorably. It's a tough choice between Abjuration and Transmutation... Though it does hurt to let go of the Rapid Summoning ACF for Conjurers, I suppose it wasn't ever really required, since summoning isn't my focus anymore.
Decisions decisions... Abjurations give me Protection from Evil, Resist Energy, and Protection from Energy, among other defensive spells. Transmutation gives me Bull's Strength, Cat's Grace, and Fox's Cunning among other numeric stat boosts...

The buffs of Abjuration are attractive, but I'm really not liking the single target casting (there must be a feat to increase the number of targets...). From what I can see on paper (mind you this is an unexperienced viewpoint), it looks like Abjurations are suited towards preparing against a known threat, requiring a good deal of information. I get the impression that an Abjurer thinks along the lines of "Oh, we're fighting an evil black dragon? Protection from Evil x4! Resist Acid x4! Protection from Acid x4! Okay, we're ready." A Transmuter seems to work more generally, while casting during battle as opposed to beforehand ("Oh, we're fighting? Mass Bear's Endurance! Mass Owl's Wisdom! Mass Cat's Grace!").

I noticed that Abjurations seemed to last far longer than Transmutations though. I might not even need to specialize in Abjurations to get the full benefits of it; most Abjurations can last a character a few encounters with just one usage (10min per level), so having them prepared a bunch of times might not be necessary. Most Transmutations, on the other hand, won't last more than two encounters, if that (1min per level). Thoughts? Is my reasoning accurate?


On banned schools: So Evocation will likely be one school banned. Not my style nor my focus. Illusion is back up to unbanned, but for my other banned school, I'm thinking I'll use Enchantment. It's kinda cool, but I've never been that interested in what it had to offer; though I admit I'm not experienced enough to spot the one trick it has (Charm? Hold? Suggestion? Sleep?). It's Confusion spell struck me as hilarious though.

Debuffing through necromancy... Mhn, I'll have to pass. I never really liked debuffing - it always feels like I've lost an investment when the enemy gets killed off (which, if the debuff is worth anything, is an event soon to come). Buffing, on the other hand, doesn't die out once it's proven useful, and I can apply the bonuses to my allies against any number of enemies. So I'll still be considering Necromancy for my third banned school.

Illusion I'm keeping. I figured a Major Image or something might come in handy over the Conjurer's equivalent of, say, 4d4+4 Celestial Monkeys. ("We need to distract the guards somehow. Can you cast Major Image?" "No, but I can summon 20 celestial monkeys in twelve seconds.")

Anyway, banned schools are Evocation and Enchantment. Necromancy if I decide to take up Focused Specialization, which I likely will.

I figure I'll just pick up some simple weapon. More for style than anything else, since I doubt I'll ever be using it.