showing 3.5 to 4e players

[galan]

hello playground, i read here a lot but almost never post because english is hard and stuff.

so, my 4e group seems less and less afraid of trying 3.5, and i believe i will be able to DM for them in few weeks. they all know pretty well d&d 4 (i mean, the normal "pretty well". not the hard-core GITP "pretty well"), but none of them ever played a real, no heavy house rule 3.5.

now, i want to start at low level, because it's much simpler for them that way. but i'm afriad that at level 1 they'll get bored. any idea what level is optimal? i thought about level 3, as it allow 2 feats at least and quite a few class features, but that's more of a guess then anything. also, i don't know about classes. i don't want any one trick ponys, because after the second fight they are boring. but i also don't care about the tier system and stuff, because i will build all the characters and can control optimization or lack of it completely. what i do know is i don't want any full casters as they are difficult for new players and my group are all lazy people. any ideas about that?

thank you advance, all kind of help is deeply appreciated

[DeltaEmil]

Easy to understand and play, not boring.

I'd say have them play as warlocks, rogues, barbarian, perhaps dragonfire adepts and dragon shamans, warblade and crusader at around level 6-9. This allows combat-focused classes to make full attacks if desired, let them take some beatings, and does unlock some of the more interesting abilities the spellcaster classes have. It also shows them some of the differences between 3.5 and 4th edition, like the different action economy rules with its immediate or swift actions, its full-round actions, the miscellaneous actions that might be combined with a standard action and a move action or two move actions and so.

The spellcasters can be replaced by other more classical options like cleric, druid, wizard and sorcerer.

Level 3 is rather meh, since you can still die or be disabled by a lucky shot from an enemy or failing a saving throw despite having started with full health.

[CRtwenty]

Level 4 is a good starting point, since you have access to 2nd level magic, and most of your classes have gotten a few of their iconic abilities. They'll also get access to more feats and 3rd level spells within 1-2 sessions so they'll advance to some of the cooler stuff quickly.

As for classes your best bet would be to look for classes that encourage strategic thinking and also have lots of out of combat usage. Stuff like the Scout or Ninja (Complete Adventurer), the Tome of Battle classes, Warlock (Complete Arcane). Basically things that get something similar to the per encounter abilities of 4th ed.

[HalfQuart]

I think one of the most annoying things about 3.x from a 4e perspective is how volatile combat is... at low levels, like you said, it's pretty easy for characters to get one-shotted. At higher levels you encounter more save-or-die and save-or-suck stuff... I suppose you can just avoid that in your monster selection, but I find nothing more annoying than making one poor saving throw roll and being out of commission for a full combat. (That most recently happened to me against a Mohrg after almost the entire party, in what really should have been a TPK, was paralyzed for 1d4 MINUTES. And I only needed to roll a 3 on my save...) In 4e effects usually either last 1 round or they get a new save roll (usually 55% chance of success) every round.

So yeah, I'd vote for starting in the level 3-5 range and being very careful about monster selection.

Oh, and I guess the other thing that will be annoying to them is no easy access to healing out of combat, what with no healing surges. So maybe give them a couple Healing Belts and some potions, in addition to having a Cleric.

[Arc_knight25]

I would say let them feel the hardships of being a level 1 character. By having them start at level 1, you'll be teaching them how hard the game can really be. Get them used to the idea that resources aren't as plentiful early game as they are in 4e.

So my vote is start them at level 1 after 2 sessions, or half way through the 2nd level them up to 2. After another 2 session get them to level 3. I find this is when players will have a better idea of the direction they want to take their character.

Also show them the mechanics 3.5 has to offer. 4e is quite rigid I found when it came to certain mechanics, 3.5 has more flexibility, more flavour, really is a much better edition in general. Not to say that I haven't had fun with 4e campaigns, just from a player point of view i find 3.5 to be much more accomadating.

[JusticeZero]

My game gives max HP at first level plus four. Fixed numbers then on to make audits easy. Don't use enemies that can generate large damage spikes to start. Give them a couple of small healing items and remember death's door.

[galan]

Also show them the mechanics 3.5 has to offer. 4e is quite rigid I found when it came to certain mechanics, 3.5 has more flexibility, more flavour, really is a much better edition in general. Not to say that I haven't had fun with 4e campaigns, just from a player point of view i find 3.5 to be much more accomadating.
this. i agree with every word in this paragraph, and this is the reason i agree to be a DM after few years i think i've been only a player.

anyway, thank you all for the posts. i don't think i'll let them start at level 1, because everyone basically can do only one thing, and i'm afraid they won't agree to play another sesson after the first one. yea they are annoying sometimes. also leveling up is pretty difficult, because i will handle character sheets and stats and stuff (teaching them how to create\level up a character will take a long long time), and i don't think it will serve it's purpose very well.

so, i'm thinking about level 4 and maximum HP to let them live long enough to actually play the game. the classes.. scout seems great, but i'm afraid it will act pretty much the same every turn. i mean, move&shoot the bow is pretty much it. unless i'm missing something.
warlock and dragonfire adept look great. i never played with the later before, so i'm not sure yet i will use it. warblade looks good too, shows how diffrent and cool "encounter powers" can actually be. for the heal-bot.. i'm afraid i'll have to use cleric\favored soul for that. or maybe i'll give the warlock a wand of cure light wounds and UMD ranks. any other ideas?

anyway, thank you very much. all of you. i am in a much better position right now then few hours ago.

edit: just saw 'JusticeZero' post. i think i'll do exactly what you said.

[CRtwenty]

scout seems great, but i'm afraid it will act pretty much the same every turn. i mean, move&shoot the bow is pretty much it. unless i'm missing something

Scout is a great class for teaching how tactical movement works in 3.X. To make the most out of Scout the player will need to take advantage of height modifiers, set up flanking positions, and avoid attacks of opportunity. It makes combat a lot more interesting when you have guys constantly moving instead of walking up to each other and unleashing full attacks.

It also forces them to learn how AoOs work, which is one of the more confusing aspects for newbies to learn in my experience.

EDIT: If that doesn't strike your fancy, Ninja from Complete Adventurer is a good choice that has a similar feel.

[JusticeZero]

Median HP is plenty, past 1st. If you are taking enough damage to need more than that at level 4 you should be retreating anyway. Nobody NEEDS a "healer". You can UMD your downtime healing or give the healing items to the one who could potentially cast it but doesn't, and your combat healing, other than potions and such, looks like "Is dead now, no more damage!" No more required than, say, a bard. Not that it isn't nice to have a bard on hand.

[eggynack]

You should probably be less resistant to the tier system, because it's basically the perfect way to build the game you want to play. You say that you're playing with beginners, you don't want them to be one trick ponies, but you don't want them to be heavy duty casters either. Just toss every person in the group some kind of tier three character and call it a day. They tend to have pretty high floors of optimization, a number of options without being overwhelming, and they cover most archetypes. Give them something like a warblade, a beguiler, a factotum, and a bard. You can change the specifics, if you want. Those classes all have a number of options, are relatively easy to play, and are far less overwhelming than a wizard. They also build pretty easy, so that's a better time from your end too. The tier system isn't just about optimization. It's also about giving you the tools to give your players the kinds of characters they want.

[Master_Rahl22]

I prefer 4E but I also like 3.5, so this is 100% my opinion as a player.

What I like about 3.5 is the sheer number of options, from skill points being granular to more feats, races, and last but not least, classes. The ability to take a few levels of this, a few of that to mix and match and get what you want is something 4E definitely doesn't have and something I like about 3.5.

Your players will be right at home with ToB and Warlock/Dragon Shaman and their "Encounter" and "At-Will" powers. However, any players who love playing Defenders will be sorely disappointed by any 3.5 tank that's not a spiked chain tripper or Crusader with Thicket of Blades stance since those are the only 3.5 builds that can effectively force something to concentrate on them and not go for the squishies.

I heartily second the idea of giving them all Tier 3 classes (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder, Wildshape Variant Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior) and having them go to town.

[galan]

ok, thank you people. i'll talk with the group tomorrow