Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Skycrawler wrote:Thanks for the tips guys (and girls?). I spent most of my day (after school of course) working on back story for my character, its not particularly good but I need the practice.

The easiest way to make a backstory is to first equip your character. Then give story reasons why he/she uses those weapons, that armor, those spells, ect ect. For example a wizard who regularly fought undead wouldn't use any negative energy spells.

Also

Ahtman you do this in every thread someone disagrees with 4th edition. Give it a rest.

juraigamer wrote:Ahtman you do this in every thread someone disagrees with 4th edition. Give it a rest.

Good lord, do you people not read the threads in order? I never start these things. Never. It never fails that someone wants to chime in, going off topic, and just to be a little pissy child because they don't like a certain edition. If you read it also isn't as simple as just disagreeing about 4e. It is both in how they disagree and the fact that they bring it up in places where it is not appropriate. There is an old saying, "Don't start nothing, won't be nothing". I'm always calling for people to talk about what they like, not what they hate and don't even want to play.

First, no need to get a rulebook. Use the srd http://www.d20srd.org/ . D20, or 3.5, is an open system and all online.

Second, listen to what others have to say, but in terms of tactics dont let them bully you, do what you think is best
. It is all to easy to start trying to force people to follow your plan. People will probably be trying to get there own way, e.g. Heal me, no come and grant me combat advantage, no come and get this mob off me... Etc.

Finaly, 3rd ed good, 4th ed bad? And you wonder why people get so defensive? I started with ad&d too. There was a reason 3.5 came out so fast. And the reason people get so upset by people slateing 4th. Eveyone who gives it a chance likes it (not going in saying im going to hate this). And why should someone not deffend 4th ed? What is pointless is the people who jump in saying "4th is rubbish blah blah blah" when noone asked.

Final answer:

I've played 1st Ed, 2nd Ed, 3.0, 3.5, 3.X/3.9 (two different names Pathfinder went by, at least by the punters, prior to final release), Pathfinder, 4E, Essentials, WFRP, Shadowrun, Vampire:TM, GURPS, L5R, and plenty of others.

None of these systems are as important as the players you play with. I consider some of the systems better than others, but when it comes to choosing between 4E and Pathfinder, I see little to choose between them. I've had RP-heavy and RP-lite under both systems and enjoyed all of it. If someone doesn't like 4E, or someone loves it, it is not cause for argument, but rather it is time to celebrate diversity in a gaming segment that at one stage looked like dying altogether.

Paul wrote:Finaly, 3rd ed good, 4th ed bad? And you wonder why people get so defensive?

Yes, I still wonder. I find the concept of getting defensive about someone not sharing your interests a bit childish.

Paul wrote:Eveyone who gives it a chance likes it (not going in saying im going to hate this).

I think people are confusing what I said with what they've heard other people say. I said that "...When 4e came out, I found it rather distasteful...I do tend to avoid participating things that I find lacking in quality in one form or another". Not once did I say that I walked into it hating it. I tried it, found it distasteful, and avoided playing it after that because I found it lacking in quality.

Paul wrote:What is pointless is the people who jump in saying "4th is rubbish blah blah blah" when noone asked.

I made a statement that, considering the OP has stated that the game was in 3.5, was in lines with what the discussion was about. Someone then said that I was wrong, because 4th edition blah blah blah. I responded by saying that, truthfully, some of us wish 4e never happened, and I even decided to leave a smile face to dissuade people from thinking that I was attacking anything. Even still, I became targeted as someone who got "stuck in the past". I even got a link that stated that what I was doing was bad, and change is good. Oh wait, no, that's supposed to be a joke, but apparently because I can't take a joke I didn't find it that funny.

I'll just restate my stance on things in a simpler way because people just don't seem to get it. I played AD&D, I played 3e, which I liked better. I played 4th, and I didn't like. Many people I know didn't like it, so we decided to not play it. This whole thread derailment occurred because of a self appointed defender of 4e isn't happy that someone doesn't like their system. What I find humorous is that I know people who refuse to leave AD&D, and I've never found a reason to attack them for that. I've heard of people who in warhammer like to stick to the old rogue trader rules, but I do not attack them for that. If anything, I usually see the 4e community attacking the other because we are "living in the past, so out with the old and in with the new". Thus, my statement regarding that just because something is new does not make it better. People need to just get away from the computer, grab a drink, chill out, and understand that there are people in the world who do not share their views.

My apologies for derailing the thread even more OP, but the nerdrage here over unshared opinions is just childish. I do hope you have a good time playing d&d in whatever form you choose, I know I did.

Wow umm, this has gotten kind of ridiculous.

Anyway, as it stands now I have decided to work on a second character in addition to my fighter, just in case my fighter isn't up to snuff.

One thing that I find a little overwhelming is the character sheets and I'm a little shaky on how the modifiers for stats work.

Skycrawler wrote:Wow umm, this has gotten kind of ridiculous.

Anyway, as it stands now I have decided to work on a second character in addition to my fighter, just in case my fighter isn't up to snuff.

One thing that I find a little overwhelming is the character sheets and I'm a little shaky on how the modifiers for stats work.

That's natural, you've never used them. After a few games you start to get a feel for it. I'm DMing a campaign of all new players and it hasn't taken them long to figure out the correlations between actions and the attributes that define those actions

Well, for modifiers, look at the bonuses you get with your characteristics. Starting at 10, you get +1 for every increment of 2. For example 15 str means you've got +2 (it would be +3 if you hit 16). Now the opposite is also true. For every drop in 2 point you get a penalty. Having 8-9 strength is a -1, 6-7 is -2, and so on and so forth. Having zero anything usually means your character has a SERIOUS problem. Anyways once you fin out the modifier, look at your skills. You should notice a stat abbreviation. Look at your jump skill, it will be (str). This means that strength is most important when trying to jump. Have a high strength? You can jump further and higher. So once you have your skill points set up, add the modifier of the appropriate stat. In the case of having 16 strength you add 3. So let's say you have to jump across a pit of acid. You add the skill points, plus stat modifier (3), plus the roll of a d20.

Hope that helped!

Thanks, its a big help.

Just to confuse the poor lad more, unless 4th changed ability score rules, it's impossible to have an ability score be zero and still function. An ability modifier of zero, however, indicates an average score in the corresponding ability, meaning you don't get any bonuses in that area but also take no penalties.

Obrek wrote:Just to confuse the poor lad more, unless 4th changed ability score rules, it's impossible to have an ability score be zero and still function. An ability modifier of zero, however, indicates an average score in the corresponding ability, meaning you don't get any bonuses in that area but also take no penalties.

See this I can understand but some of the sites I've been reading try to make things more complicated than they need to be.
On a side note, I ended up rolling 13 for all my abilities except for one 16 and a 10.

So you are slightly above average in most areas, extremely above average in one area, and exactly average in the last area. This is pretty much what you should see using 4d6 and subtracting the lowest result, which I'm guessing is the method you used.

Yes I used the 4d6 drop the lowest method.

Something that I can't find though is the starting wealth, keep in mind I don't have the PHB and I probably won't be able to get one for a while.

Starting wealth should be in the PHB on page 140.

See above post. At any rate it will not be a problem the first session is going to be more for getting everyones character sheets in order than anything else.

4th really assumes the point-buy or 'standard array' method... I'm not sure how you are compared to that, though. I think most 4th characters start with an 18, a 16, and a bunch of lesser scores.

Normaly 16/14/13/12/11/10, but all of the races get a +2 to one stat to 18

juraigamer wrote:The easiest way to make a backstory is to first equip your character. Then give story reasons why he/she uses those weapons, that armor, those spells, ect ect. For example a wizard who regularly fought undead wouldn't use any negative energy spells.

Always better to make your back story before you do any other character creation. That gives you total freedom to cover your ideas. What might originally start as a fighter type in your mind might eventually morph into a wizard or rogue after you play with the idea for a while. Make the character first and you have to start over again if your backstory changes your ideas for the concept.

It also doesn't have to be rocket science either. Enough details to understand why and how your character does what they do at the beginning is good and you can flesh it out as you go along with help from the GM.

Skriker

If it's 4.0 do whatever, every thing more/less works out of the box to an acceptable degree.

If it's 3.5/3.0/Pathfinder, play anything with full spell casting access. Clerics are *really* fun, just don't waste your spells on healing if you really have to (that's what wands are for).

If the game runs very much past 5th level or so, the most effective use of a Fighter is generally to scoop the Druid's Animal companions poop, and to act as a human paperweight ensuring the wizard's spell book doesn't fly away.

Chongara wrote:If the game runs very much past 5th level or so, the most effective use of a Fighter is generally to scoop the Druid's Animal companions poop, and to act as a human paperweight ensuring the wizard's spell book doesn't fly away.

This comment only has weight if the animal poop is between the ears of the DM.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

Chongara wrote:If the game runs very much past 5th level or so, the most effective use of a Fighter is generally to scoop the Druid's Animal companions poop, and to act as a human paperweight ensuring the wizard's spell book doesn't fly away.

This comment only has weight if the animal poop is between the ears of the DM.

Fighters have one, and exactly one mechanic. Attack Roll vs AC for hit point damage. This is an *extremely* narrow avenue of play. With splats, or if your DM relies heavily on medium/small warrior enemies you can.. maybe, get into tripping shenanigans. The game mechanics do not allow them any other capabilities. They have no special abilities, and no skill utility to speak of
Paladins & Rangers are slightly better in the second department, but not by much. Barbarians can contribute meaningfully by being *very* good at that one mechanic with splats and charger builds.

Casters on the other hand have lots mechanics and ways to approach challenges. Spells address combat situations, can help out in stealth and social adventures. Heck even everyday living, travel and having fun about town are enhanced by spells. Magic is just that, magic, it can do anything. Even Attack Roll VS AC for damage, if you feel so inclined.

At the end of the day, the guy waving a sword is a guy waving a sword around.

Meanwhile his friend is a spell-casting bear, that has a pet bear and summons other bears.

His other buddy is killing people with fear itself, stopping the mightiest of men with a cloud, turning into huge monsters, and jumping through reality.

Heck, you throw the right selection of Cleric spells into the mix and the game literally becomes This.

All that is only up to 4th level spells. Never mind the point where the Wizard decides conventional warfare is inconvenient and so turns their enemies into a Toblerone and eats them.

EDIT: Heh. Confused PaO with Baleful Polymorph for a second there. Squishing Coachroaches is just as good, if not as funny though.

The effect above is also describe as 'linear fighters, quadratic wizards' as the concept that power curves of the two look like, well, a line and a complex curve. The wizard starts off less powerful than a fighter (low hp, low AC, very limited spells/day) but can take over at higher levels as spells allow more enemies to be hit, for more damage, more reliably.

Campaigns with a specific focus may avoid this, but this is hard to avoid if using the rules-as-written for dungeon-crawly style adventures.

The 'power creep' is valid, to a point, for many dedicated spell-casters.

Balance wrote:The effect above is also describe as 'linear fighters, quadratic wizards' as the concept that power curves of the two look like, well, a line and a complex curve. The wizard starts off less powerful than a fighter (low hp, low AC, very limited spells/day) but can take over at higher levels as spells allow more enemies to be hit, for more damage, more reliably.

Campaigns with a specific focus may avoid this, but this is hard to avoid if using the rules-as-written for dungeon-crawly style adventures.

The 'power creep' is valid, to a point, for many dedicated spell-casters.

Spell casters have more utility and arguably more power from level 1, things just don't really get insanely unequal until 3rd+ spells. I'm not sure how "Campaign Focus" can change this. Outside of Dungeon Crawls, spells are far more useful too. A wizard's spell book has far more ways to address all sorts of miscellaneous issues that come up outside of combat than the whole skill list.

There really isn't an argument to be made for something non-casters can do better than casters in any sort of adventure. Short of I suppose "Adventure to Planet of the Anti-Magic Field" or "Journey to the Kingdom where No Scrolls exist ever" or something else similarly heavy-handed.

The issue is that noncasters have a shiny stick. Casters have a swiss army knife, that also has a better shinier stick in it.

If you play a setting where Arcane Magic is a social no-no, like Ravenloft or Darksun, then Wizards are fairly effectively balanced by the fact that they can't get away with the flashy pyrotechnics, and the druid has to be extremely subtle about their shapeshifting or they'll be burned as a witch/hunted down by Templars and murdered.

But yeah, 3.5 has some serious balance issues between classes. Compare Warblade to Fighter.

Da Boss wrote:If you play a setting where Arcane Magic is a social no-no, like Ravenloft or Darksun, then Wizards are fairly effectively balanced by the fact that they can't get away with the flashy pyrotechnics, and the druid has to be extremely subtle about their shapeshifting or they'll be burned as a witch/hunted down by Templars and murdered.

But yeah, 3.5 has some serious balance issues between classes. Compare Warblade to Fighter.

The Warblade actually works. It has more than one mechanic, functions competently in most high level encounters without overpowering them wholly. It's a great class. It's basically "Fighter 2.0" it's a patch fixing what's broke.

EDIT: Social restrictions can work to a point. However even forced to play subtlety the sheer level of mechanical utility offered, is still going to trump in overall power level.

Chongara wrote:

Da Boss wrote:But yeah, 3.5 has some serious balance issues between classes. Compare Warblade to Fighter.

The Warblade actually works. It has more than one mechanic, functions competently in most high level encounters without overpowering them wholly. It's a great class. It's basically "Fighter 2.0" it's a patch fixing what's broke.

I think that was the point.

And yet when they took the Warblade paradigm a step further and gave Fighters Powers in 4th, there was no end of cribbing.

Da Boss wrote:And yet when they took the Warblade paradigm a step further and gave Fighters Powers in 4th, there was no end of cribbing.

People being People.

Chongara wrote:

Balance wrote:The effect above is also describe as 'linear fighters, quadratic wizards' as the concept that power curves of the two look like, well, a line and a complex curve. The wizard starts off less powerful than a fighter (low hp, low AC, very limited spells/day) but can take over at higher levels as spells allow more enemies to be hit, for more damage, more reliably.

Campaigns with a specific focus may avoid this, but this is hard to avoid if using the rules-as-written for dungeon-crawly style adventures.

The 'power creep' is valid, to a point, for many dedicated spell-casters.

Spell casters have more utility and arguably more power from level 1, things just don't really get insanely unequal until 3rd+ spells. I'm not sure how "Campaign Focus" can change this. Outside of Dungeon Crawls, spells are far more useful too. A wizard's spell book has far more ways to address all sorts of miscellaneous issues that come up outside of combat than the whole skill list.

There really isn't an argument to be made for something non-casters can do better than casters in any sort of adventure. Short of I suppose "Adventure to Planet of the Anti-Magic Field" or "Journey to the Kingdom where No Scrolls exist ever" or something else similarly heavy-handed.

I'd agree with Balance here. 4E has less of the linear/quadratic issue that plagues earlier D&D editions. It also has a good formula and incentive for continuing combats without fight/rest/fight/rest/fight/rest. Our party (or at least I) likes to see how many milestones we can rack up before resting.