Looking for those interested in a 3.5 D&D adventure

[Ixidor92]

kk: Do you need the list of domains and what spells they offer? The book is "Unearthed Arcana"

 

[JayTee]

No, there are a few online resources that should have them, thank goodness for the OGL.

 

[Ixidor92]

Good, let me know which arcane domain you pick and we can get this show on the road.

 

[JayTee]

Probably a Transmuter Wizard for that Haste spell. I want to watch my party members go to town on them baddies~

 

[Ixidor92]

Interesting choice, I like it. Sounds like you're going more for a support-type wizard than the glory-hog wizard. I still need confirmation from two people on what level they would like to play at. If they don't reply within the next 24 hours or so, I'll probably just start with the two of you who have and myself

 

[JayTee]

I'm a power gamer who likes his big numbers and cool powers, but I also prioritize the fun of the group above all else. As I'm fully aware of how ungodly powerful wizards can get at higher levels, so I reconcile these two things by going for support/mitigation style builds, with an eye towards "mitigate them to death", like a fire ball to clear up grunts so the big guys/gals can focus on the main bad guy.

 

[Ixidor92]

I like that. Also will be nice with you going for item creation feats, at least that's what you made it sound like

 

[JayTee]

Absolutely, plus it makes it easier on GMs, by way of providing plot hooks for special materials and removing some of the pressure to include magic items in random loot.

 

[Ixidor92]

I appreciate that. A lot.

 

[welian]

I missed bonding, apparently. xD And I feel so simple now, I just want to go smashy smashy.

 

[Ixidor92]

There's nothing wrong with simple at all. By all means go smashy-smashy. I do wish to ask both of you: which races and alignments are you looking at playing?

 

[JayTee]

Ain't nothing wrong with smashy smashy, us Wizards are weak and pidly without our big tough barbarian ladies to hide behind!


I was planning on a Neutral Good Human Wizard. I enjoy playing a character who likes to do the right and honorable thing, but is willing to get his hands dirty if it's necessary.


On a side note, what's attribute pool going to be for stat distribution? Did I mention I like nice big numbers? (32 point buy! Hint hint!)

 

[Ixidor92]

Um . . . I go for a more balanced game, at least to start with. Usually my campaigns use a 20 point buy system


 
I could up it to a 25 point buy maybe, but I wouldn't feel comfortable going any higher than that

 

[JayTee]

Could we edge that up to 25 at all? The character generating program I use isn't the most flexible thing in the world, and it would make it a little easier.


EDIT: Oh, perfect! Thanks!

 

[Ixidor92]

My problem with 32 is that every character is basically guaranteed an 18 in one stat, and then still has 15 points to play around with for their five other stats. In other words, its very easy to get a character that is competent at everything, and exceptionally good at a couple things. I prefer a character who is competent at everything, OR exceptional at a couple things.

 

[JayTee]

I always felt that higher point buys increased diversity. A Fighter for example, is really mono-focused, so having a higher point buy would let them put points in to something like Charisma to give them some out of combat utility.

 

[Ixidor92]

Here's the thing, if you're a fighter, having an 18 in a stat isn't nearly as important if you're a spell caster say. So you could only have a 15 or so in whatever physical stat is most important to you, and still have enough to play around with some other stats. The biggest problem I find with higher point buys (in my experience) is that everyone just makes there character good at everything. And that's no fun. If everyone is good at doing something, then it's more up to luck of the dice as to who gets something done, rather than who specialized in what. If the sorcerer has a 14 in strength, then he and the fighter both make climb checks to go up a vertical face, then it's up to who has more ranks in climb . . . and lets face it, most people don't put ranks in climb. Whereas in a lower point buy, it's much more likely the sorcerr has a strength of 8 or 10

 

[JayTee]

A dedicated caster with a strength higher than 10 is a caster who doesn't know how to use their spells properly ( )


I can't speak for the others, but I know that I, personally, would be putting those extra points in to shoring up my Dex and Con, as well as getting rid of those unsightly negative modifiers. With 32, you can have 18 in one stat, 14 in another and 12 in a third with the rest at 10. Enough to be good at your class, with a bit of extra for removing any glaring holes in your build, IMO.

 

[Ixidor92]

The thing is, I prefer it when people actually have penalties in some of their stats. That shows clear weakness. For example: That caster could have a strength of 8 instead.

 

[JayTee]

Hm, fair enough. I like me my big numbers, bit if you say no higher than 25, I wont push too hard ( )

 

[welian]

[link]


I'm going to bed now, but that is the PDF version of my barbarian's character sheet (lvl 9) at the end of the last campaign I used her in. It's a bit sloppy because it was my first campaign as well, and we had a relaxed DM, but yeah... I forgot where I was going with this, lol. I guess I just wanted to show you an old version of the character I plan to use.


I have class in 8 hours now, so, goodnight!

 

[Deadkool]

Is this still open

 

[Ixidor92]

@Deadkool


Since I only have two confirmed players, yes.

 

[Deadkool]

Whoo, would a bear bard be okay?

 

[Ixidor92]

A . . . what now?