3.5 or 5e for a group of new players?

[2D8HP]

I would look at the static feats....

Thanks for the suggestions!

[Kish]

3.5 warlock is robust enough that you don't have to know"the system" to be fine at most tables. In a lot of ways it's far simpler than even the 5e version.

3.5 Fighter is pretty simple and a DM can hand out the magic items to make it work regardless of build. As in, if a 3.5 warrior can work, then so can a fighter. This requires active DM involvement.

Yes, this. Just make a character based on Roy; "Will this feat make me better at using a greatsword?" is a very simple "y/n" question.

Or, slightly different, a fighter who uses a longsword and a shield; again which feats will help you should be very straightforward.

[Rhedyn]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Warlock is simpler though.

You get Eldritch blast automatically. You then fire the infinite use ability over and over. You can forget every other ability you get and be fine.

It gets a tad harder in epic levels.

[Kelb_Panthera]

3.5 Fighter is pretty simple and a DM can hand out the magic items to make it work regardless of build. As in, if a 3.5 warrior can work, then so can a fighter. This requires active DM involvement.

Please don't spread misinformation. 3.5 fighter is deceptively complex unless you're stuck in a core only game. Barbarian is the straight-forward warrior, "equipment is all you worry about" class in 3.5.

[Rhedyn]

Please don't spread misinformation. 3.5 fighter is deceptively complex unless you're stuck in a core only game. Barbarian is the straight-forward warrior, "equipment is all you worry about" class in 3.5.

It's not complex, making an "optimal" fighter in 3.5 is straight up impossible. Adequate is doable. And I think you are underestimating 2d8HP's aversion to complex class features like rage.

[2D8HP]

....I think you are underestimating 2d8HP's aversion to complex class features like rage.

'tis true, I played a 5e Barbarian for a bit, and never used Rage, just a Greatsword (some) and arrows (a lot).

[Mordaedil]

As just a fighter, the only advice I have to give you is "set your rogue up" and accept the buffs from your wizard and cleric and you'll be fine. By setting up the rogue, I mean position yourself in a manner that the rogue can put himself so he is flanking the enemy you are fighting without endangering himself. This will allow him to full-attack and hit with sneak attacks every time.

Grab Combat Reflexes and Stand still and stop the enemies from running away.

[goto124]

Since this is a group of new players, the fighter is not the only new player. The rogue, wizard, and cleric will also be new players. They would also need pre-prepared sheets with feats and items listed, plus guidance on what to grab as they level up.

But we are quickly moving into a 3.5e specific discussion, which would go in the 3.5e subforum.

[Rhedyn]

But we are quickly moving into a 3.5e specific discussion, which would go in the 3.5e subforum.

Well if that is a concern, then I recommend Savage Worlds and disregarding D&D entirely.

Here is a free test drive: https://www.peginc.com/store/savage-...rive-lankhmar/

Obviously test yourself and the group on one shots first to see if you even like the system. With Savage Worlds, you know what you are getting into after a one shot. 5e and 3.5 take campaigns to figure out if you actually like them or if they are working with your group.

[NecroDancer]

A general tip for playing in a new system. Ask the DM to allow you to have a chance to rebuild your character once you have better system mastery.

We did this when we started 5e and although we only slightly tweaked our characters it was a nice thing to be allowed to do.

[GungHo]

For brand new people that don't even understand the concept, I'd recommend a board game/starter kit game or starter kit styled game to break them into the concepts. There's a difference between learning 3.5/5 and learning what a RPG is, and sometimes the addition of learning the rule set right out of the starting gate can be drinking from the fire hose. You also may want to give them premade characters (or at least premade sheets... they can come up with the concept after that) to reduce the analysis paralysis.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's not complex, making an "optimal" fighter in 3.5 is straight up impossible. Adequate is doable. And I think you are underestimating 2d8HP's aversion to complex class features like rage.

There's always an optimal solution. You've misunderstood the term if you think otherwise.

The 3.5 fighter can be made into a -huge- number of fighting-man archetypes. That some are more niche than others doesn't make them badwrongfun^tm. Unlike a barbarian, where you pick 7 feats over 20 levels, a fighter must select 18 feats before epic. Making the most out of that for your chosen archetype requires planning ahead and selecting suitable gear. It's just -not- as simple as it often gets down-played as being because "lol, fiterz suck. Play <insert basically any class but monk here> instead."

You want simple and straight-foward beatstick, you want barbarian. Rage is definitely a nice boost but you can get by without using it. You won't be the face-smasher supreme but, if you're going single-class to 20, that probably wasn't at the top of your priorities list anyway.

[Rhedyn]

There's always an optimal solution. You've misunderstood the term if you think otherwise.

The 3.5 fighter can be made into a -huge- number of fighting-man archetypes. That some are more niche than others doesn't make them badwrongfun^tm. Unlike a barbarian, where you pick 7 feats over 20 levels, a fighter must select 18 feats before epic. Making the most out of that for your chosen archetype requires planning ahead and selecting suitable gear. It's just -not- as simple as it often gets down-played as being because "lol, fiterz suck. Play <insert basically any class but monk here> instead."

You want simple and straight-foward beatstick, you want barbarian. Rage is definitely a nice boost but you can get by without using it. You won't be the face-smasher supreme but, if you're going single-class to 20, that probably wasn't at the top of your priorities list anyway.

Or you get the weapon Focus chain and save bumping feats and you can play a warrior+

Optimizing a fighter, pouring though feats and variant class features, is a waste of time if being "optimal" is an issue. It doesn't matter if an optimal barbarian is easier to make than an optimal fighter, 2D8HD is most certainty not going to be trying to "get the most" out of a particular class and if we are caring about relative strength at all, you recommend going druid, summoning, and having the DM pick and run your summons for you. You don't recommend martial anything.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Or you get the weapon Focus chain and save bumping feats and you can play a warrior+

That's only 10. You're halfway done. Which weapon? With the weapon so central to your build, what steps do you take to protect it? Barb loses his axe, he picks up the next weapon he can reach. Fighter loses his sword, he damn well better find another of the same type of sword.

To be clear and stay on-point, my argument was that fighter is more complex than barbarian not that it is better.

Optimizing a fighter, pouring though feats and variant class features, is a waste of time if being "optimal" is an issue. It doesn't matter if an optimal barbarian is easier to make than an optimal fighter.

You're still not using that word right. If playing the most optimal character is the goal, that puzzle was solved ages ago with pun pun. If it's to play the most optimal martial non-caster character, you're probably looking at an amalgam of warblade, fighter, barbarian, and maybe one or two other classes. If the goal is to play the most optimal -fighter- then there -is- a solution to that as well.

2D8HD is most certainty not going to be trying to "get the most" out of a particular class and if we are caring about relative strength at all, you recommend going druid, summoning, and having the DM pick and run your summons for you. You don't recommend martial anything.

All the more reason to choose barbarian over fighter. You pick your feats, you pick your items, and you go. Even if you gave almost no thought to it, you're still pretty close to baseline competence. A fighter picking his feats and gear at random will be substantially worse off than a barbarian doing the same. The only thing to worry about is the rage feature and it's no more complex than being subject to a buff or two from one of the party casters.

[NorthernPhoenix]

5e is generally considered much easier to run for both players and DMs. This forum remains a 3.5 leaning one, so be aware of that when comparing responses here to broader sentiment.

[Malifice]

5e has many serious balance issues as well

Such as?

[Assume a context of a median of 6 or so encounters per adventuring day/ between long rests, also including 2 short rests in that time at a rate of roughly 1 short rest per 2 encounters]

[Ignimortis]

Considering the amount of Dread Necromancers in this thread, I'd say that 3.5 has the popular vote.