Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tellerian Hawke" data-source="post: 6531165" data-attributes="member: 6790669">A Little History on My Particular Situation: I'm a long-time D&D player. Started with Basic D&D in 5th grade (circa 1979), then went to AD&D, then 2nd Ed, then 2e S&P, then 3rd Ed. (3.0) I have a ton of gaming experience and knowledge of game mechanics. [...] I played 3.0 from 1999 (as a playtester) until 2005. At that point, the party (which consisted mainly of my two cousins, and two of their friends) was EPIC, and using the ELH. We had (along the way) purchased all of the 3.5 core rulebooks and a few supplements as well, but we never really took the time to sit down and start using them. And in 2005, when I got married, I pretty much quit playing D&D, until last year, at a 4th of July whole-family-get-together, my cousins expressed a desire to pick that campaign up again. I still had all the stuff, so I agreed, and began putting all of the custom content (character sheets, house rules, unique spells & items, etc.) on a Google Sites page, so that I could run the game anywhere, anytime. (We mainly do play-by-post these days, although we plan on having a sit-down session this coming July 4th [2015.])So here's the deal: after a period of "refreshing my memory," I find that I am as sharp as I ever was with 3.0 rules. But I have also been looking at my 3.5 books, and wondering whether or not I should convert. There are a few nerfs that I don't like (Time Stop and Haste, for example) but overall, 3.5 looks to be a nice refinement of the 3.0 system.My question is: Should I bother to switch to 3.5? If so, how will I handle the overwhelming task of taking an epic party whose average level was 42nd, and re-making them in 3.5 format?!? Or, are there any well-known hybrids out there? (i.e., Keep the core 3.0 rules, and just adopt these 12 feats, these 9 spells, and these 18 items, etc. from the 3.5 system as add-ons)The reason I am considering switch at all is because of the seemingly broken 3.0 ed epic combat system. Most of the fighter-types (everyone is multi-classed, no one is "straight fighter") end up with a total, adjusted attack bonus of around +50 or so when it's all said and done (feats, magic items, et.al.) Many of the monsters they fight have AC 65+, which means that their first attack with each hand (if they dual wield) hits about 25% of the time, and then all of their subsequent attacks pretty much miss unless they roll a 20. And there seems to be no way to bridge this gulf. So the fighter types call max power attack, and pray for lucky die rolls.It seems to me, that epic-level fighters at some point need about 10 more points of Base Attack Bonus in order to be able to compete with the insane monster Armor Classes they keep encountering.Does 3.5 have the same problem? I have heard that some people can concoct builds that hit AC 90 no sweat, which is MIND BOGGLING to me. AC 65 seems insurmountable, much less a 90! But my thought was, perhaps 3.5 has found a way to bridge that gap between AC and Attack Bonus? Or are the players making such claims playing with house rules and/or mis-interpreting the rules as written?As it stands now, if the epic party is fighting a monster with that kind of AC, he probably also has a high (50+) SR. So the fights go like this: the fighter types surround the baddie, and hack like mad, keeping him busy, while the mages try spell after spell, hoping that something makes it through. Fights drag ON and ON and ON... and most of the time, they win by WHITTLING DOWN the monster, little by little.Has anyone ever discussed / addressed this problem before?P.S. I am not going to adopt 4th or 5th edition. The money I laid out back in the day for 3.0/3.5 materials was IMMENSE, and I have no desire to repeat that process. My three options are to either stick with 3.0 ed D&D, or to go with either a 3.0/3.5 hybrid, or switch completely to 3.5. This old dog is through with "new and improved editions."Thanks in advance for any insights / help / advice you can give me.Hawke</blockquote>

Verification