Thanks for pointing me to this part of the forum, Magrus.
Ok, I'm part of a D & D game that has been running for a couple of months. I'm enjoying it very much, but my fellow players are all a lot more experienced at it than me, and they also have a lot more time online to practice. I'm the oldest player at the grand old age of 24 and although they are always willing to help me, I am sure they are now getting very sick of my constant pleas for help when it comes to it being time to level my character.
My character is a 100 year old Elf Ranger, just coming up to level 5. I'm getting the hang of everything else, but levelling is driving me nuts. It's just not sinking in how to do it, so I wondered if you knew of any good sites that might talk me through what I need to do step by step, or if there may be some kind person on here that could just guide me through it and let me ask them questions along the way?
I don't know whether you're using 3rd Edition or the ridiculous 3.5, but the process is generally the same.
I like to start with the stuff on the class progression table in the Classes chapter. Consult the appropriate line on the chart for your level, and write in each score in the appropriate space on your character sheet. Bear in mind that each score (Base Attack Bonus, Base Save Bonus, etc.) replaces the previous score. It is not added on top of it.
Then I mark down any special abilities I gain (also on the class progession table). In 3rd Edition, that just means a second favoured enemy for rangers. In 3.5, there's probably some wonky rip-off ability there too, or something. Stupid 3.5... Anyway, I would suggest reading the ability descriptions in the Ranger section for any new abilities you gain, just so you know how to use them.
You would also have spells at this point. Again, the numbers in the "spells per day" chart replace the previous numbers (a zero means you only get bonus spells, provided your Wisdom score is high enough- you should have this figured out already, but if not, this information would be in the Abilities chapter near the beginning of the Player's Handbook). As a Ranger, you don't need to pick what spells you know, as you can pick new spells to cast each day off of your class spell list.
After this, I would assign my new skill points. At the end of the sub-heading for Class Skills, there should be a line that reads "Skill Points at Each Additional Level: X + Int modifier", where "X" is whatever number. In 3rd Edition, it's 4. Any skill on your Class Skils list costs 1 skill point for one rank. Anything you might want that isn't on that list costs 2 points for one rank. The maximum number of ranks you can have in a class skill is your level + 3 (so in this case, 8), and the maximum for cross-class skills (skills not on your class list) is half that (4).
Unless 3.5 tells you otherwise, a Ranger wouldn't get a feat at 5th level, so you don't need to worry about that yet.
After all that is the easy issue of hit points. Grab your appropriate hit die (in 3e, it's a d10... 3.5 is a d8, because 3.5 is stupid), roll it, add your Constitution modifier, and tack that adjusted number onto your total hit point score.
Finally, I would check over all your scores and modifiers and stuff and make sure they all add up properly from all the changes being made, and there you go. And that should about cover it.
Well Aramant beat me to answering the question, but your welcome Candle1. Welcome here too.
Aramant, it's ok man, let the update go.
The system isn't all that hard, it's just a ton of information and can get confusing because of it. Aramant broke it down pretty well I think. The best way to do it in my view is to section things off and ignore everything else but that one section so you don't get distracted. If you only focus on the H.P. at first, that's simple to do. Then, you can see whether you need to adjust attributes based on your level, that's another small step. Then skills, then feats, then spells and what-not.
Looking at it all at once just requires too much rummaging through books and information in my opinion, so I disect it instead.
"You can do whatever you want to me." "Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?" "So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
First off, I -reccommend- 3.5 to any noobs to DND because it is a little easier to use than third edition. In third edition, you have some unneccecary skills (though I will admit that scry was rather pimp) and the loss of some of the superfluous feats such as ambidexterity which made it all the more confusing to use two weapon fighting if you -don't- take the other feat.
Secondly, another reason 3rd Edition is more confusing is the format. It is complicated to read the equipment list, wheras 3.5 is a little more organized. The whole small, medium, large to light, one handed, two handed, again I have to admit, should have been left untouched, mainly because of the feats that allow you to use bigger weapons like the monkey grip. However, the 3.5 editions now have the tan lines to make it easier on the eyes. They have added a bunch of things that might have not been needed, but wanted.
Thirdly, is the combat system. It made little sense with the pictures shown in the 3.0 compared to 3.5. It didn't give enough information on air combat, but 3.5 explained it better. It came with templates for a fireball or a cone of cold that made it easier to visualize the spell effect.
And lastly, it added many new features to the game itself making the possibilities a little more endless than normal. It added a few different magic weapon abilities and armor abilities, as well as a few new other magic items. It added -many- new prestige classes with all the books which make character customization really extensive. The new feats and the new/replaced skills made it easier to understand and obtain. I found it hard for a ranger to be a -good- ranger while taking up two skills for the now Survival. The classes have been tweaked making them better than before. I mean, the ranger was a little underbalanced with everything else and it needed a boost up into -real- rangerhood. The rogue's trapsense is awesome. Now, the monk, which is by far the best feature to 3.5 is WAY more insane than before. I cannot fathom how insane you are with a monk in a party. Though there is a lack of attack bonus compared to a fighter, it makes up for the flurry of blows and wisdom bonus to AC. I once had a monk at only 11th level with an AC of 36 and a total attack bonus (with amulet of might fists, weapon finesse, and weapon focus with the fists) of +12/12/12/7 and combined with a boots of haste (enhanced) that added another +12 attack bonus. It wasn't completly the same with the 3.0 version nor was the damage. Instead of going from like 2d8 to 1d20 or whatever it was, it goes from 2d8 to 2d10 thus increasing the probabilities.
That said, this, I know, had little relavance to the thread, but I am reccomending it to Candle1.
Now, all this said, how can you call 3.5 stupid? A dwarven ranger easily makes up for the lack of hit dice and the fact that they get combat styles as well as several other abilities and the newly -improved- favored enemy. Don't call a version of DND stupid just because you don't like it, I mean, c'mon. We all have our opinions, but rather than calling it stupid, why not try and convince someone to convert back (or foward if second edition) to 3.0? It is rather rude to the people that like the 3.5 edition.
I don't mean to go onto a moderaters turf or anything like that (though those last few sentances may have sounded like it), but geez, don't insult something other's like and anger them for that as you have done a good job with me.
(BTW, if this is innapropriate then I am sorry. I tend to jump in whenever I see something wrong with what someone says.)
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
I'm reluctant to reply here, as this thread has gotten rather off-topic, but I figure I can sneak some things in here before a moderator tells us to focus on the point.
To begin, I exaggerate my near-negligible dislike for 3.5 over 3e purely for the sake of dry, dry humour. I understand that such things can easily be lost in text, and normally I wouldn't feel inclined to explain myself, but as I've apparently offended some people... there you have it.
To explain my dislike for 3.5, however... our divinely Celtic friend Math summed up the most of it: power game. I'm not concerned with making "uber" characters, or how much more powerful or whatnot a character can be in 3.5 compared to previously. I don't feel short-changed by having a separate skill for Intuit Direction, or having to take Ambidexterity as well as Two-Weapon Fighting. I like the roleplaying aspect of the game, so the numbers don't matter to me. 3.5 seems to be all about the numbers, and very little about the character.
Secondly, the idea of a half edition seems inherently ridiculous to me, and it struck me as rather frustrating to have a whole new pile of books being released so soon after 3rd Edition came out. I realize that the 3.5 material is compatible with 3e stuff... but it's not, really. When you have a 3e ranger and the 3.5 stuff assumes your ranger has all the other bells and whistles that your ranger really doesn't, things get a little messy.
Furthermore, I think 3.5 is really just a money grab. Note how ALL of the 3.5 books are hard-cover, when 3e had a lot of soft-cover supplement material? Mmmmhmm. Also, a number of the 3.5 books seem shoddily and hastily thrown together. As an example, the Dragonlance campaign setting book has a number of editorial errors, and I think I recall a reference in that book to a table or some such in the DMG for 3.5 that simply wasn't there. Or something similar. I've long ago given away the Dragonlance book, so I'm unable to check on what it is specifically.
Frankly, I was a bit miffed by the emergence of 3e to begin with. 3e struck me as far more focused on the dice than on the roleplay when compared to 2e... but admittedly, thac0 was more complicated than it needed to be. But when this "3.5" hooplah began so soon afterward, well... I do bite my thumb, sir.
So! I surely did not mean to offend you, or anyone, Mr. Internet Person I Don't Know, but since you seemed so concerned, there you go.
Nah, that's alright. Just stating an opinion. I'm an evangilist of DND you know. But, to each there own.
Listen up maggots, Mr. Popo's 'bout to teach you the pecking order.
It goes you, the dirt, the worms inside of the dirt, Popo's stool, Kami, then Popo.
~Mr. Popo, Dragonball Z Abridged
All stupid questions have been posted here (or elsewhere)at least once
No question will actualy surprise me anymore.
And with the huge amount of DMs spamming the forum, any question is getting answered too. Unfortunately, most DMs have the habit of starting off in a completely different discussion ,
or just start discussing which feat would be best for you at a given level, so that you actualy get more confused.
If something can go wrong, it will go wrong
Always prepare for the worst
Never let experience guide you: every day is different
[QUOTE=Aramant]I'm reluctant to reply here, as this thread has gotten rather off-topic, but I figure I can sneak some things in here before a moderator tells us to focus on the point.
[/QUOTE]
and although they are always willing to help me, I am sure they are now getting very sick of my constant pleas for help when it comes to it being time to level my character.
