PDA

View Full Version : Class for a New Player



Rasman
2010-02-12, 05:01 PM
I have a friend that wants to get into playing D&D, techincally a friend of a friend but I offered to actually make the character, but they don't really know much about the game. All they really care about is learning about how the game works and maybe doing a few cool things. Out of the base classes, what would be the simplest for a new player to learn?

I was thinking a martial class, but I'm not really sure how much they'd enjoy just hitting things really hard, but Wizards can be fairly complicated and require a lot of bookkeeping, so I wanted to shy away from that.

craverguy
2010-02-12, 05:06 PM
If you're concerned about bookkeeping on the spells, go with either the bard (if you want them to maybe get their feet wet in the full range of the various class skills before they dive right in) or sorcerer (if you think they'd like to play a straight-out spellcaster).

There's very little to remember with those classes: just which spells you have (easy enough at low levels; there aren't that many) and how many you can cast per day.

Defiant
2010-02-12, 05:09 PM
Simple Core Classes:

Barbarian - A good choice for someone who wants to beat things into a pulp. Gives good opportunities for roleplaying flavour as well.

Fighter - A decent choice only in a low-tier party comprised of non-optimizers. Otherwise, it takes a lot of work, thinking, and D&D knowledge to make it useful in comparison to the rest of the party.

Rogue - Not as simple, but still do-able: some will definitely want to play a scoundrel character, so this is the class for them. Likewise gives plenty of opportunities for roleplaying flavour.

Sorcerer - A good choice for someone who likes to use magic to blast things. Sorcerers are pretty simple to play, and as long as you give them a little help when choosing what spells to know, they should be good to go.

Dragero
2010-02-12, 05:12 PM
I`d say

Barbarian if you want to fight, Sorcerer if you wanna do magic.

Melamoto
2010-02-12, 05:18 PM
I'll put another vote for sorcerer. Don't pick him up all the blasty spells, treat him as the "Batman Sorcerer". Pick up useful utility spells that can be used multiple times to great effect, such as haste, slow, web, glitterdust, etc. It'll take up most of your spells, but you'll almost always have a useful spell. Wizards always have the right spell for the situation; Sorcerers always have a spell that works.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-02-12, 05:19 PM
I would avoid normal casters for a new player. Same goes for Fighter, due to difficulty in making it work.

For melee, I would go either rogue or barbarian in a core game.

For casting, I'd go Warlock, as they're pretty hard to screw up.

lsfreak
2010-02-12, 05:23 PM
Core-only, Barbarian or Sorcerer. Sorcerer's main downfall is that a poor spell choice early on screws you over later; I'd possibly let him trade out spells more often, or allow the PHB2 retraining rules once he gets the grasp of the character.

Outside of core (you said 'base,' I'm unsure if that meant Core-only), I'd say Warblade. You have to try to make them poorly, and it gets him used to a bit of bookkeeping. Unlike barbarian, warblades can pull off all the major forms of melee combat with a little direction (2-hand, TWF, shield, swashbuckler, defender, facesmasher, whatever).

Rasman
2010-02-12, 05:36 PM
Core-only, Barbarian or Sorcerer. Sorcerer's main downfall is that a poor spell choice early on screws you over later; I'd possibly let him trade out spells more often, or allow the PHB2 retraining rules once he gets the grasp of the character.

Outside of core (you said 'base,' I'm unsure if that meant Core-only), I'd say Warblade. You have to try to make them poorly, and it gets him used to a bit of bookkeeping. Unlike barbarian, warblades can pull off all the major forms of melee combat with a little direction (2-hand, TWF, shield, swashbuckler, defender, facesmasher, whatever).

I'm actually kind of considering Warblade for this since i have more knowledge about them than some other classes, and it is ANY base class, not just core.

Tavar
2010-02-12, 05:46 PM
Warblade or Crusader, then. If he goes crusader, make sure that you use note cards for the maneuvers. Other than that, both are hard to mess up. Warblade is a bit more offensive, the crusader defensive.

Draz74
2010-02-12, 05:53 PM
Another vote for Warlock as the easiest class for a beginner to do OK with.

Rasman
2010-02-12, 05:59 PM
Warblade or Crusader, then. If he goes crusader, make sure that you use note cards for the maneuvers. Other than that, both are hard to mess up. Warblade is a bit more offensive, the crusader defensive.

I actually print the cards from the WotC website for all my ToB stuff, it's "very nice" and keeps you from having to write down/remember all that stuff, plus you can have it all out and in front of you to look over, instead of trying to rememeber what something does or be able to choose between two different options.

lsfreak
2010-02-12, 06:03 PM
Actually, I believe he was referring to the randomness of a crusader's maneuvers. Put all the maneuvers on notecards or playing cards, shuffle them before every combat, and draw them as he is granted maneuvers.

Rasman
2010-02-12, 06:07 PM
Actually, I believe he was referring to the randomness of a crusader's maneuvers. Put all the maneuvers on notecards or playing cards, shuffle them before every combat, and draw them as he is granted maneuvers.

ah...that too...never actually played a crusader, so i didn't make the connection...that's the only aspect I don't like about Crusaders, you don't ALWAYS get what you need right out of the gate

Zarmina
2010-02-12, 07:30 PM
Melee classes are, in my experience, the easiest to pick up. I'd go with the barbarian, fighter, or monk. If the player wants to do arcane magic instead, warlock or dragonfire adept.

My personal vote, of course, goes to the dragonfire adept. They're easy to play and full of flavorful goodness.

The Dark Fiddler
2010-02-12, 07:43 PM
I'd third or fourth or whatever the Warblade. Not enough maneuvers to make it be that high bookkeeping, and pretty good class overall.

I'd say don't do Fighter though, all those feats can be a bit daunting...

Xenogears
2010-02-12, 07:44 PM
My personal vote, of course, goes to the dragonfire adept. They're easy to play and full of flavorful goodness.

I second this one. No one can say no to the question "How bout you play a guy who breathes fire?"

Kylarra
2010-02-12, 07:45 PM
I'll ++ DFA/Warlock suggestions, insofar as "casters" go.

Rasman
2010-02-12, 07:45 PM
I'd third or fourth or whatever the Warblade. Not enough maneuvers to make it be that high bookkeeping, and pretty good class overall.

I'd say don't do Fighter though, all those feats can be a bit daunting...

yeah...I won't make them suffer though a fighter....thinking isn't their strong suit...apparently...

Monk is easy and fairly fun, but I don't want them to get frusterated by the fact that they can't really use their main class abilities because everything has HUGE fort saves.

DFA is pretty simple too...I just won't tell them how to Cheese it...except for Entangling Breath...

Xenogears
2010-02-12, 07:49 PM
DFA is pretty simple too...I just won't tell them how to Cheese it...except for Entangling Breath...

Another great thing for the DFA is that the huge con makes dumb decisions not so deadly for newbs...

deuxhero
2010-02-12, 08:36 PM
Horizon Tripper.

Zergrusheddie
2010-02-12, 09:16 PM
Beguiler could be good. Gives lots of spells like a Sorcerer but would mean he wouldn't have to wrestle with what spells to get, which is a hard decision even for a veteran. It would also give him a clear role in the party so he would never feel like he is a fifth wheel.

Pluto
2010-02-12, 09:18 PM
Bard and Ranger are my favorite introductory classes.

They have the introductions to the D&D combat, skills and spells systems built in to their structures.

Neither has a clearly defined list of "stuff to do" like ToB (except their very limited spells/day). They have skills, but most of those are relatively nebulous as far as their problem-solving applicability.

(I know this is a matter of anecdote and personal taste, but I find that players are lazy. If they have a list of powerful abilities like ToB's maneuvers, they'll use those inevitably. But when they have fewer built-in abilities on their character sheets, the game takes a more improvisational AD&D-like approach. I much prefer the latter.)

Kosjsjach
2010-02-12, 09:25 PM
I'll chip in another +1 for the Warlock, although reading through the thread I think I'll support Beguiler, too. Warlock is easier, but not by too much, and having a Beguiler's role in a party would really immerse them.

Vaynor
2010-02-12, 09:35 PM
Either the Barbarian or the Warlock. Both do fairly decent damage, and are pretty useful; barbarian as a meat shield and warlock as utility/blaster.

Also, both are extremely easy to play. Barbarians are difficult to kill and deal a bunch of damage, warlocks have only a few invocations to choose from and an unlimited supply of blasting, as well as no spells/day to worry about. Both require next to no bookkeeping.

Since you said base classes only, however, Sorcerer would be your next best bet for a caster.

Nohwl
2010-02-12, 09:39 PM
go with cleric and let them pick spells, just explain its not a healbot. if they pick a wrong spell, they can convert it to cure x wounds, and they can change their spell list by waiting a day. if all else fails, he can take a greatsword or whatever and go attack things.

Cyrion
2010-02-12, 09:53 PM
Are you starting at 1st level? If so, then you might also want to consider a duskblade. They're reasonably durable, have a little bit of magic without getting overwhelming, and carry a good bit of "traditional" D&D flavor.

I've always thought that a sorcerer is a poor choice for a beginning player simply because of the ramifications of poor spell choice at any level. Yes, they're easy because of their limited options, but unless you're going to do the level up for your friend for a long time, it's asking for trouble down the road.

Dr.Epic
2010-02-12, 10:20 PM
Barbarian or fighter. Both simplest classes. If they want to play a more roleplaying character with more diversity go fighter. If they just want to kill and smash stuff go barbarian.

Nerocite
2010-02-12, 11:51 PM
It's hard to mess up a Binder. Good versatility, pretty easy to learn.

DragoonWraith
2010-02-13, 12:00 AM
The problem with Binder is the fact that they change every day - that gets complicated, can be headache-inducing for a new player.

I'm going to completely disagree with everyone who said Fighter. Fighters are not simple. Feat selection is extremely difficult, important, and punishing of mistakes.

Definitely agree that the top choices are Initiators or Invokers.

Vaynor
2010-02-13, 01:28 AM
I'm going to completely disagree with everyone who said Fighter. Fighters are not simple. Feat selection is extremely difficult, important, and punishing of mistakes.

This. Fighters are extremely easy to play if you're ok with a terrible character. It's possible to make a goodish fighter with enough splat books and a lot of time, but a new player playing a fighter will only end badly. Barbarian is definitely a better choice for melee characters in core.

ShellBullet
2010-02-13, 04:38 AM
I would go for the rogue.

Your friend will be nice asset outside of combat with rogues mountain of skill points, not to mention any adventure party needs one who disarms the traps, have good spot/listen skills and decent social skills. In the low levels Rogue isnīt too shabby in the combat and with bit of practice and guidance, your friend can use rogue reasonable well, well enough to be a useful later.

And the best thing? Rogue is only a bit more complicated than Barbarian or blaster sorcerer and with guidance of more experience player. your friend will play like a hardened 1 ed D&D player.

Superglucose
2010-02-13, 05:00 AM
Barbarian or fighter. Both simplest classes. If they want to play a more roleplaying character with more diversity go fighter. If they just want to kill and smash stuff go barbarian.
... what? Fighters get fewer skillpoints than Barbs so from a mechanical standpoint Barbs get better roleplaying options (yes, yes, I know). And barbarians and fighters are simple, sure, but they're also boring. Walk up, hit with stick. Trip-chain fighters are a pita to learn on because they involve digesting the entire AOO rules, grapple-monkeys are the same, so really your go-to build will either be SaB (yawn... I walk up and hit it) or charger.

Shy them away from the fighter if you can, and I'd say that if they're even remotely quick learners, shy them away from non-spellcasters.

Seriously, DRUID. The spell list contains very few traps and it's complicated enough to teach them about action economy. Plus they get to act twice in a round so they learn combat twice as fast, and get to learn about special attacks when they get ready. And at the end of the day, they can hit things with their stick!

But at the end of the day ask them what they want to do, then pick a good class. I just promise you that nine times out of ten, Druid will be a great option.

paddyfool
2010-02-13, 05:09 AM
Druid requires a fair bit of book-keeping, though, with spells, however many animal forms via wild shape, two sets of kit (the stuff you can use while wild-shaped and the stuff you can't) and the animal companion. It's hard to screw up, but not exactly simple.

Superglucose
2010-02-13, 05:13 AM
Druid requires a fair bit of book-keeping, though, with spells, however many animal forms via wild shape, two sets of kit (the stuff you can use while wild-shaped and the stuff you can't) and the animal companion. It's hard to screw up, but not exactly simple.
Nah. Play below 5th level and there's no wildshape involved, animal companion can be straight from the book, and keeping track of the spells a druid gets isn't that difficult, especially without the traps of the Sorc/Wizard spell list. Besides, you're only keeping track of the spells prepared, rather than known AND prepared.

This is from experience: I took a newbie into a 5th level Druid who just elected to not use wild shape, and she understood the game just fine. Yeah, even the casting. Sure she wasn't CoDZilla, but she was an effective contributor to combat. Don't underestimate newbies.

Devils_Advocate
2010-02-13, 10:51 AM
When choosing a class for a new player, providing something simple to play and teaching the game are, to a degree, opposed goals.

Spellcasting has its own friggin' subsystem that you don't really need to learn if you're not gonna play a spellcaster. On the other hand, spellcasting is a major part of the game. Like half of the classes are spellcasters. If you want to get the new player to the point where she understands all of her options when selecting a class, she is going to need to learn how spellcasters work.

But you don't have to cover that aspect of the game right away. You can start off with a class that mostly makes attack rolls and skill checks and only has a few special add-ons to the stuff that every character of every class does, and you can leave spellcasting for later. This lets the new player focus on learning the essentials first, but maybe means that it will be a bit longer for her to pick up everything that the game has to offer.

I wouldn't recommend starting with something from Tome of Battle, because Tome of Battle also has its own special little subsystem, and it frankly is not an integral part of the game like spellcasting is. I'd recommend starting with a core class and a core race and generally core options, because those are the central elements that almost every group playing D&D 3.5 uses.

Monk does things its own special way, instead of using a normal attack sequence with normal weapons and wearing normal armor. So that's out because you want to teach the way things generally work, not a weird exception. Paladin has that darned code of conduct and is only for someone who wants to play one fairly specific type of character, which a new player might not. Barbarian is simple enough, but isn't generally good at much beyond hitting things really hard, which is bad if the new player doesn't like that and bad for giving a broad overview of the system. Proper feat selection makes or breaks a Fighter, which makes Fighter feat selection complicated.

The Rogue provides lots of skills to work with and only one special attack that isn't terribly complicated to learn. It might very well be the best choice for a new player. It's a classic archetype central to D&D and an excellent tool for acquainting someone with the skill system. It's a nice way to introduce some combat concepts beyond attack rolls and damage rolls by making things like flatfootedness and concealment and flanking particularly relevant. (Plus, tumbling!)

Wizards, like Monks, are the exception to how things generally work. Not only are they prepared casters with spells known, they can buy their spells known, and they actually keep their spells known in a physical object instead of just knowing them. Sorcerers don't have that weirdness, but they're stuck with their spells known from day to day instead of being able to change them out.

Clerics and Druids give a player a lot of flexibility to experiment with how she wants her character to work, since getting to rebuild a major component of the character every day is a class feature. On the other hand, you need to choose spells every day. Their limited spontaneous casting does mean that they have some fairly good spells to fall back on. But Clerics have Turn Undead, an attack with its own special rules, and Druids get a companion that they control with specific commands through the use of the Handle Animal skill. Each of those is a fairly complicated class feature.

Bard covers spells and skills pretty well, and so might be useful if you want to try to introduce everything at once. An archer Ranger might be a good choice, since it would let a player learn more about combat and skills first before introducing spellcasting and an animal companion at 4th level.