First session of a low magic 3.5 game tomorrow, trying to decide between fighter and berserker...

And there's the 3.pf Defense Association, who sperg out every time their favorite system is mentioned (or even perceived to be mentioned) in any kind of negative connotation.

Maybe user is talking about the Educate Train Believe Achieve nonprofit. People using sports as leadership training and a positive outlet for disadvantaged youth are well known for being easily triggered.

You'd have to be retarded to think "low magic 3.5" is a good idea. I'm fine if understanding that makes me "triggered".

>People are pointing out that 3.5 doesn't do low magic well
>I better call them a retarded acronym I just made up

3.5 is a perfectly usable system for a specific kind of game, but "low magic" is so infinitely distant from the kind of thing 3.5 could ever be considered viable for that even making the attempt with a group of living people is a war crime.

Are you sure you weren't talking about the East Toronto Baseball Association? I feel like they fit better in this context.

But, it was designed to support that. In fact, the DM is actively designing it to suit his needs as we speak.
And Tome of Battle classes are stronger, not necessarily better. The DM might just have an idea for the campaign different from what you enjoy.
You really need to stop exaggerating how bad it is just because someone mentioning it triggers you, and you hope for a day when people will simply stop talking about it.

They both kind of suck at doing anything other than hitting shit with a greatsword and making strength tests, but the barbarian and its prestige classes are better at it
three is still who I'd pick out of the interview lineup. She has confidence the others lack, and she looks like she knows how to use a sword
Who the fuck really cares at this point? If his GM makes a shitty game he'll figure it out one way or another. If he didn't already realize how bad low magic is for 3.5 (by the way, never fucking trust anyone who calls something "low magic". It's almost always bullshit) he'll figure it out soon enough.

>But, it was designed to support that.
No. No it was not.
>And Tome of Battle classes are stronger, not necessarily better
Tome of Battle classes FUNCTION. Fighter does not function. Fighter navigates a tangled maze of feat trees to not trip over its own sword and die. Fighters cannot fight enemies at their own CR--not that CR works to begin with--unless they are EXTREMELY well equipped with magic items--which does not fly in a low magic setting.

Oh wow, the ETBA are all riled up. Triggered by the idea that people are going to run a type of campaign that people have been running for well over a decade.

>But, it was designed to support that
It was also designed to allow fighters to be playable.

Stop being such a whiny bitch that people are pointing out that 3.5 isn't the best for low magic. The only person "triggered" is you.

You should probably run your Energy Trace and Barrier Analysis again. I think your equipment might be faulty.

Oh, so this is a bait thread, OP. Good to know.

Yeah, barbarian. My bad. Frenzied berserker is an option for prestige. The base class selection is kinda limited, but PrCs are wide open.

For well over a decade those campaigns have been shown to not work out so well and be pretty unfun.

Why are you so triggered by people disliking and idea that sort of thing?

You keep bringing up the Egyptian Turkish Businessman Association. Man, we know they're pretty much perpetually angry, but we're trying to stay on topic here.

No, it's a thread where the OP wanted advice on two classes, but the ETBA crew needed to give their expert opinion on how a campaign that people run all the time is problematic to them.

>For well over a decade those campaigns have been shown to not work out so well and be pretty unfun.

And they've also been shown to work out so well and be pretty fun.

Why are you so triggered by people being more capable than you, and having fun in ways you disagree with?

>M-muh fun!
>+2 criticism deflection!

You can have fun rolling around in the mud and fellating your dog, but you don't get to make up acronyms and screech TRIGGERED when people understandably disagree with that sort of thing.

To be fair, the East Texas Builders Association generally knows their stuff.

Ethylenglycol-Mono-tert-butyl ether acetate can have that effect on people, user. It's got nothing to do with capability.

Please, if people get so triggered at the idea that people are going to play a game that no one had a problem with a few years ago, that you want to compare to rolling in mud and fellatting a dog, there's really nothing to do but call them bitch anons, who apparently have decided to be triggered eternally because people are never going to stop talking about the system, regardless of how much you bitch.

Well if your DM lets you take the Lion Totem ACF, you can get pretty wild by taking charge feats like Shock Trooper and Leap Attack. (Adding in a Valorous Lance would be going from good fun to munchkinry, though you'd not find a Valorous weapon in a low magic world to begin with.)

>that no one had a problem with a few years ago
When the fuck did nobody have a problem with caster edition? I remember the complaints starting shortly before launch and never stopping.
Oh, wait, you've invented your own narrative because you think anyone who disagrees with you is "triggered". I am done with you, and will not reply further.

...

>low magic 3.5
It's time for another episode of Expectations vs Reality

>Expectations
Sword n' sorcery-style tales of manly men doing manly things, killing wizards and weird shit by blade and brain.

>Reality
"Whoops, looks like the Demon's DR absorbed all the damage." :^)

"The Wizards cast 5 Fireballs in overlapping areas which cover the party's position, make five Reflex saves. What? Don't look at me like that, you'll only take 25d6 damage if you pass all five saves." :^)

Gentlemen, may I drect your attention to number 5 and why she's clearly the best candidate?

>Most professionally dressed. 1's skirt is too long, 2's shirt isn't properly fitted and 4 isn't even wearing a dress shirt at all. Let's not even get started on 3.
>Has her hands folded on her lap in a neutral position that doesn't express hostility (unlike clenched fists)
>Is clearly uncomfortable, but manages to maintain eyecontact rather than glaring at the source of her unease. She probably works fine under pressure and is able to hide her true feelings, making her ideal for working with picky clients

By that logic, nobody's going to stop talking about how bad it is, no matter how much you call them your little pet term, and the autists will never stop crying when the mean strangers on the internet say they don't like 3.5.

You're just as triggered as anybody. You've become the bitch-user. He who fights monsters and all that.

>episode of exaggerations and hyperbole

What a dumb show.

5 is a good candidate or sales or even management, but she's not gonna be much help killing the goblins in the basement.

4 is best gril
>Clearly annoyed by this bullshit
>Too tired for this
>Just came here to get a damn job
>best looking jacket

5 is shit.
She's the kind of person who will pretend everything is all right and live in denial.

>not necessarily better
They're stronger AND better, they can do more stuff that hit harder, they have more ranks to spend in skills and better skills.

Fighter is a retard who swings a stick more or less ok, warblade is a fine tuned fighter who is also smart and educated.

I don't know, I'm kind of enjoying myself looking up all the different meanings of ETBA that aren't made up by someone trying to shore up a weak argument with fake jargon.

Actually, the logic is that as long as they're eternally triggered bitch anons, they'll be eternally triggered bitches. All they really need to do is realize that they're just complaining about stuff no one who actually plays the game really cares about, and that they're better off complaining about games that are actually bad, not just flawed and popular. Once they stop being eternally triggered just because a game they don't like is popular, they might be able to move on.

It's actually sort of good that they've chosen 3.PF, because they're typically the kind of people who will complain about any system that's more popular than the one they like. It sort of serves as a bumper, because 3.PF really won't drop dramatically in popularity for quite some time, leaving it as their target for years to come, sparing everyone else and allowing people to discuss other popular games without worry.

If by berserker you meant Barbarian and not the PrC Berserker, go Barb every day. Fighter has less skill ranks (2) shitty skill selection and shitty features.

Barb is better, not much, but better. Better combatant, better features, more skills, better skill selection.

Good luck and I hope there aren't any 9th level caster in the group or else you're going to get bored pretty easily.

Pretty much this, to be honest. There aren't exactly a lot of qualia when it comes to determining which is better between two analogous classes. The warblade has better numbers and more options, and that's pretty much the end of it.

> DnD 5e has more games than 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e put together

Objective fact: Game system is shit
Subjective fact: It can be fun

So the only thing that matters is if your group can accomplish Fun>Mechanics

>People who criticize something must be triggered but it's popularity
I actually like 3.5
It has flaws.
People are just pointing that out.
Shut up you colossal retard.

Some people prefer less options though, or specific options. Kind of why the Champion in 5e is actually a fairly popular class, despite being the simplest class with the least options. It actually having decent numbers certainly helps, but it ultimately just comes down to a matter of preference, with some people preferring simpler classes.

There's also style and types of mechanics that come into play, which is why there always needs to be room left in the discussion for personal preference.

Popularity has never been a sign of quality.

Objective fact: You don't know what "objective" means.
Obejctive fact 2: Objectivity specifically does not mean "My personal opinion," as in the way you use it.

But it is definitely something that makes people triggered.

And any criticism of the popular thing, for whatever reason, makes the fanbase equally, if not more, triggered. Stop acting high and mighty.

DnD 3.5 is a flawed as fuck system, it's ,objectively speaking, a shitty system and even some of the developers apologized over how shitty and backwards thinking was. Sorry if you're so butthurt you can't accept it. But, ultimately, it doesn't matter, if your group has fun with it, keep playing it.

>Pathfinder will die before 2020

Why does everyone hate pathfinder?
I've never played, isn't it just 3.5 but more balanced?

You can't balance 3.5, it's broken fundamentally. You can fix something there, you can remove a game-breaking spell there, but fact is, the entire foundation is rotten.
Oh, also Pathfinder brings a lot of anime shit to the table. The most popular PC race from my experience is kitsune.

>more balanced
Shit, I'm going to bite
It's actually less balanced, CMB and CMD makes martials even shittier at their job
Spells literally are the same but now Improved Trip and other feats cost double
Monks suck even worst than 3.5 (because half the feats that worked for them before don't work now) though Unchained was a welcomed fix

The only thing better is the skill system, they reduced the skills and simplified the rank system which was welcomed. But that's it, it's even more caster supremacy

Depends on what you want to do and what you think the game will be. Pick a character persona you want to play before picking a class, that makes it much easier.

Barbarians do more damage than fighters and take a better beating hands down. The only way a fighter will beat one is with improved trip and lucky rolls, even then there is a variant barbarian that gets it at level 2.

The only fighter variant that's worth mentioning is dungeon crasher which does shit loads if damage if you smashfuck someone into a wall.

If you're wanting to use a different style other than 2hw pick a fighter because it will probably be feat intensive.

There's also nothing stopping you from going a few levels of barbarian and then taking 2 levels in fighter. Just don't go first level fighter unless you have a very specific goal you want to reach quickly.

>isn't it just 3.5 but more balanced?
Less.
Casters are more supreme, martials are less supreme, and they nerfed Rogues for some reason.

>More
Pffffffffhahaha

Seriously though, no. For every minor problem it fixed, in kept a major problem and introduced two new problems. The design philosophy of the dev team was pants-on-head retarded and this seeped into the (incredibly large) player base, leading to bullshit like "of course wizards are better than a retard that swings a stick around" being a legitimate argument in certain gaming circles.

>TL;DR it didn't fix anything in the long run and indirectly contributed to the growth of a cancerous attitude towards balance and fantasy in general.

Ah that's a shame. I really hate the skill system of 5e.

>Every skill check, no matter what takes an action
>Meaning it's even less likely cool shit will happen during combat
>Skills are a yes or no thing, and are pretty much set in stone
>Intelligence lost it's major use of granting skill points.

>Clearly annoyed by this bullshit
>Too tired for this

You dont want someone like that with your clients, clients are fucking annoing and stupid.

>>Every skill check, no matter what takes an action
wat

>for whatever reason

Maybe it's because the people who are triggered by its popularity are far too focused and dedicated to criticizing it? It's one thing to dislike a game because it's genuinely terrible, and it's another thing to dislike a game because it's popular and different from what you like.

3.PF is hardly terrible. It's outdated and has balance issues, and with a long list of other flaws, but it's hardly the worst system ever conceived as some people here would like to argue that it is, purely because they feel that just talking about it normally won't cause the dip in popularity they're so desperately hoping will happen.

>>Every skill check, no matter what takes an action
>>Meaning it's even less likely cool shit will happen during combat
Who the fuck used skills in combat even in 3.PF? For every skill (except Knowledge) there was a better spell.
>>Intelligence lost it's major use of granting skill points.
That gave a massive penalty to most martials who got no usage out of Int at all.

I actually liked the old 3.5 rank system more; PF's all-or-nothing approach means you can't squirrel away a few points for background skills. You either can't cook at all or you're a trained chef, for example.

174 phb.
Skill checks are all actions.
I think it says something similar in the dmg

You have more ranks in PF, they literally reduced the skills in half. In 3.5 you couldn't do that either because you literally didn't have enough ranks to spare.

Except using knowledge is gone too.
And there was cool things you could use skills for if you were creative enough.

>That gave a massive penalty to most martials who got no usage out of Int at all.
The only penalty was lack of skills, which is no more of a penalty than for casters who aren't wizards.

What are you talking about? PF has the same skill system as 3.5, except that you don't have to spend twice as many skill points for cross-class, and the numbering is a bit cleaner. Heck, there's a Background Skills variant that gives you extra skill points specifically for stuff like cooking and shit. I think you're thinking of 4E/5E's "trained" system.

>wasting spells on things that can be accomplished with skill checks

Knowledge was a stupid skill that only served to limit your roleplay by randomizing what your character should and should not know. Nevermind if you're a scholar from candlekeep who specializes in devil research, you rolled a 1, you know jack shit about Asmodeus!

>The only penalty was lack of skills, which is no more of a penalty than for casters who aren't wizards.
Casters who weren't wizards had spells to make up for that.

> Nevermind if you're a scholar from candlekeep who specializes in devil research, you rolled a 1, you know jack shit about Asmodeus!
But that's still true. They still have knowledge checks, just not in combat because it takes an action.

>Casters who weren't wizards had spells to make up for that.
But they still do. Now Fighters just can't do any cool shit because they can't have that many skills, instead of having the option to have high int and getting skills.

>Trusting your life to random skill checks instead of perfect infallible spells.
>Not having a wand of Knock or scroll of Waterbreathing on hand to keep spell slots open

Noncaster plebeian detected.

>what are wands and scrolls?

>Uses his limited spells to open a door
>Might not even find a locked door and just waste it by having it take up a slot
>Instead of just taking 20 to open it

There's this part I found which calls ability checks actions, but that's kind of misleading. Particularly when things like passive perception and just remembering shit are mentioned in the next page
The only thing I remember in the DMG is that section that has weird combat maneuvers like using acrobatics or athletics to mount monsters, but there's probably a lot from that book I don't remember off the top of my head

>I Can't Read: The Post

>taking 20 to open a door
You should start reading the PHB for starters

> He doesn't use divination magic to find out which challenges exactly will be waiting him tomorrow and prepare spells accordingly
Do you even 3.5?

Well I guess spending money one limited use items to open doors is slightly more reliable than using your skills to freely open them.

apparently a waste of gold when a fool like you is the one who picks what wands and scrolls the party purchases

>Wizard
>Purchasing
The actual fuck? you fucking have scrible scroll for free as a feat

>limited use items
If you run into more than 50 locked doors in your campaign, I think you may need to talk with your DM and ask him why every door on the goddamn plane seems to be locked at all times.
One wand of Knock is very, very practical.

Yeah because it's not like Wizards get free crafting feats and/or have a lot of discretionary cash that isn't eaten up by the arms race 3.5's devs baked into the game's math.

Sorry, my mind must have skimmed over the part that were you said wasting money to open a door was better than not using money to open it.

I don't have my copy on me, so why don't you just tell me what it says against that? I know in certain cases you can't, but I don't see why not for a door.

Which still costs money.
But are you going to have a wand of intimidate? Or a wand of glibness?

> Wizards get free crafting feats and/or have a lot of discretionary cash that isn't eaten up by the arms race 3.5's devs baked into the game's math
But that arm race doesn't exist in 5e, so that doesn't really matter, seeing as how my entire point was that I would like to see a skill system like 3.5 had in 5e.

Taking 20 on a skill that has a negative outcome if you fail means you trigger that outcome, in case of disable device you can't retry, therefore if you take 20 on opening a lock, it means you fuck up and can't open it again unless breaking the door, chest, whatever or using magic.

So Taking 20 on opening a lock = useless.

>Not trading Scribe Scroll for a free fighter feat for some early-entry prc

>Wasting gold
>When WBL is a thing and casters don't have a pressing need to stay up to date with the most powerful arms and armor, letting them spend their cash on fun toys like metamagic rods and useful things like "I open the locked door x50"

>Which still costs money.
Which as a wizard you have plenty, you don't need armors nor weapons. Srly, being a wizard and not having scrolls and wands is like being a monk and wearing an armor and a greatsword.

open lock doesn't have that quality. Disable device does, and while there's no fucking reason they shouldn't be the same skill that is on side effect of that

But you don't break a lock when you fail, do you?

>But are you going to have a wand of intimidate?
Intimidate is rarely useful, at least without the intensely obscure Imperious Command feat.
>Or a wand of glibness?
Making a Wand of Glibness is an excellent idea. Having +30 to Bluff on a stick? You can lie better than politicians. Glibness is a broken spell.

>opening a lock
>disable device

Nigga you retarded, even for rogues taking 20 on Open Lock is pretty common because the best lock on the market (Amazing) has a DC of 40.

Intimidate is good for getting information, and if you can't do things like that and skills aren't overly used in a campaign, then not having a lot of skills points doesn't all of a sudden burden a player.

Not him, but PF is one of the systems we're discussing here, and in there Openinig lock and Disable device are the same skill.