PDA

View Full Version : I need Simple Potent Builds (3.5)



Cisturn
2011-01-23, 08:23 PM
Hey playgrounders, I need some help. I convinced two of my friends to join my dnd game, but they're both noobs and I dont know how to properly build the type of characters they want to play. The first guy wants to play a Paladin (he's used to WoW) and the other wants to play some kind of buffer, leaning towards bard.

They're both at level 9 with a 32 point buy, and 36000 gold. Does any have any ideas for a fairly simple build, that's fairly strong and most importantly fun to play?

Thurbane
2011-01-23, 08:28 PM
Druid 9
Wizard 9
Cleric 9

LOLOLOL - now that that's out of the way, let's continue...:smallbiggrin:

Waker
2011-01-23, 08:30 PM
Are these two going to represent the whole team or just additions to it? Because if it's a two-man team that will impact what builds will be survivable.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-23, 08:32 PM
Druid 9
Wizard 9
Cleric 9

LOLOLOL - now that that's out of the way, let's continue...:smallbiggrin:

Bad Thurbane, everyone knows you prestige out of Cleric and Wizard ASAP:smallannoyed:


:smalltongue:

To help more, what sources do you have access to, expected level to reach, houserules that we might need to know?

Reynard
2011-01-23, 08:33 PM
For Paladin guy, try pointing him at the Tome of Battle, the Crusader in particular. He should find the maneuvers and stances fairly easy to understand.

Straight Crusader 9 is a decent build, though a dip in Bard could be handy for Dragonfire Inspiration (Taking Song of the White Raven) if he wants to be a source of pain for his foes and joy for his friends.

The other guy would probably find the any of the full casters best suited to being a buffer-type, with Druid and Cleric coming out ahead. (Druid also brings a Animal Companion to the table, which might be problematic.) Of the two, Druid focuses more on buffs for animals while the Cleric is good for actual party mates.

The-Mage-King
2011-01-23, 08:35 PM
For the Paladin guy, give him a Crusader. Look through the handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181655), and let him pick what maneuvers seem cool to him.


For the bard guy... Use the Bard handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=8284.0).


EDIT: Swordsage'd! At least, for the first thing.

Saint GoH
2011-01-23, 08:43 PM
Having been a long time WoW player myself, I second third the Crusader for the character wanting to be a paladin-ish type. They are almost a direct transfer, from self-healing to excellent solo capabilities. Granted Crusaders don't get Templars Verdict or Divine Storm (although it'd be lovely if they did :smallbiggrin:)

As for the other one... Druid can be fairly complicated, buts loads of fun if you have someone there to hold your hand. Just point him to the MM and say "You get to play as that for a little while, have fun". I would also suggest War-Weaver from the miniatures handbook if you have the buffer go a Wizard route. Being able to buff all your allies at once will be very handy, and allow him to do something after he casts the buffs.

Cisturn
2011-01-23, 08:45 PM
Yes, They're joining a team of a Cleric 10, an Archivist 9 and a Duskblade 9. The Cleric (me) uses persist-ed buffs to be in the front line, and the Archivist is blasty. I'm not sure about the Duskblade, he used to be our sorcerer but he died last session and just rerolled this guy.

To my knowledge all books are open.

Innis Cabal
2011-01-23, 08:48 PM
Druid 9
Wizard 9
Cleric 9

LOLOLOL - now that that's out of the way, let's continue...:smallbiggrin:

Hey, are those some of those Tear Won classes I keep hearing about? Someone should make a list of them so everyone can reference it and get a widely skewed idea of how the game is actually played as opposed to how it could be played.

Waker
2011-01-23, 08:51 PM
Ok, now that we know what the rest of the team is that will impact the selection.
I strongly suggest the buffer player go as a Wizard, probably specialize in Transmutation and then prestige into War Weaver from Heroes of Battle. It will definitely overcome the tedium of being a buffer by letting you throw everything out all at once.
Crusader would work for the WoW angle of self-healing and whatnot. You could also go with a paladin and use some of the divine feats and battlecaster to turn you into a fairly decent melee character while still having spells.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 09:05 PM
+1 for Crusader on the "Paladin". Simple, powerful, only requires one book.


As for the Buffer.... Bards depend on a lot of non-Core material scattered through dozens of book to reach full potential. Wizard or Sorcerer is not a bad idea, with proper spell choice. Cleric or Druid are also possible.

Callista
2011-01-23, 10:20 PM
Actually, cleric/druid/wizard wouldn't be that good an idea. These are powerful only if you know how to make them powerful--they are not that good for newbies.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 10:44 PM
Actually, cleric/druid/wizard wouldn't be that good an idea. These are powerful only if you know how to make them powerful--they are not that good for newbies.
Cleric's dead easy, there are few ways to make an ineffective Cleric, especially since you can trade out spells every day if you want. Druid, I'd recommend against for a newb based mostly on the bookkeeping and the complexity of Wildshape. Wizards can be tough though, you have to be strategic in spell choices, and that requires decent system knowledge. But if his goal is "buffer", he's going to be Transmutation-focused and that's a huge step in the right direction already.

JupiterPaladin
2011-01-23, 10:52 PM
People are always quick to offer ToB classes in place of the classic ones, and sure they may be mechanically superior, but does that ALWAYS have to be the advice? When a player is new to D&D in general I always have better luck giving them a core build that doesn't have too much crazy stuff. After they learn the game, give them an option to re-roll or retrain classes/feats/whatever.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 10:58 PM
People are always quick to offer ToB classes in place of the classic ones, and sure they may be mechanically superior, but does that ALWAYS have to be the advice? When a player is new to D&D in general I always have better luck giving them a core build that doesn't have too much crazy stuff. After they learn the game, give them an option to re-roll or retrain classes/feats/whatever.
Why Core though?

I mean... I could toss a newb the PHB, or I could toss him ToB. Either is going to be brand new to the guy, he's going to have to learn the classes either way. I don't really see why Core should be priviledged that way, when ToB is much easier to build a decent character (there's really no serious way of screwing up too badly), and when it's generally more fun to play too (everyone loves having options beyond "I attack it again").

JupiterPaladin
2011-01-23, 11:03 PM
Why Core though?

Depends on the player really, but in my own experience a lot of noobs get overwhelmed by too many options and slow down the actual game. Playing 2 or 3 sessions with a basic character isn't horrible. I have always been very generous with re-rolls and conversions after they start knowing what's going on.

As far as not having options aka "I attack it again", I have never seen this in a real game. A lack of hundreds of options laid out on the character sheet does not mean you have no options. Even a basic Fighter can choose to do stuff other than just swing a sword.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 11:06 PM
Depends on the player really, but in my own experience a lot of noobs get overwhelmed by too many options and slow down the actual game. Playing 2 or 3 sessions with a basic character isn't horrible. I have always been very generous with re-rolls and conversions after they start knowing what's going on.
Core has what, eleven classes? ToB has three. Presenting those three and giving them the choice between them reduces those sorts of overwhelming decisions.

And I'd never suggest playing with a "basic character" is a terrible thing. But I also don't see why people get so up in arms about recommending the use of ToB in situations where - hey, guess what - it really is a sweet option.

JupiterPaladin
2011-01-23, 11:13 PM
Well sonofzeal, you may have been luckier than I have been with new players. The ones I've had were all totally new to the concept of tabletop gaming, and most were very slow to learn the basics.

Fishy
2011-01-23, 11:19 PM
-1 Druid, +1 Spirit Shaman.

Forget Wild Shape, forget Animal Companions, forget trying how many Entangles and how many Faerie Fires you're going to need during the day. Try out interesting spells and swap them out later if it turns out they suck. It's the best casting mechanic ever.

On top of that, Guide Magic means you actually want to take 10 levels of the same base class, which never happens.

sonofzeal
2011-01-23, 11:21 PM
Well sonofzeal, you may have been luckier than I have been with new players. The ones I've had were all totally new to the concept of tabletop gaming, and most were very slow to learn the basics.
Oh, same with many of the ones I've known. But most people will understand a Maneuver card if you hand one to them. That simplifies the build choices, and gets everything spelled out.

One girl I played with had a Crusader for a bit, and then a trip-focused Fighter, and she found the Crusader far more easy to play. Once she got the recovery mechanic down, it was just a matter of chosing the maneuver she wanted. The trip Fighter though, had to deal with Attacks of Opportunity, reach weapons, and a trip mechanic that's partially defined one place and then modified heavily by the feat in a different place, and kept getting confused about when exactly her turn was anyway because she did more rolling when it wasn't her turn.

So no, I don't think you have to master the Core classes before you're"ready to play ToB.

JupiterPaladin
2011-01-23, 11:34 PM
So no, I don't think you have to master the Core classes before you're"ready to play ToB.

To be fair I never said they had to master the core classes. Besides that when I say core I should be more clear anyway. I consider a lot of books to be our core, like PHB2, DMG2, Incarnum, all of the Completes, and the Forgotten Realms and Eberron campaign settings come to mind. Our last noobs were a Duskblade and a Sorcerer/Archmage :smallwink:

Kylarra
2011-01-23, 11:38 PM
To be fair I never said they had to master the core classes. Besides that when I say core I should be more clear anyway. I consider a lot of books to be our core, like PHB2, DMG2, Incarnum, all of the Completes, and the Forgotten Realms and Eberron campaign settings come to mind. Our last noobs were a Duskblade and a Sorcerer/Archmage :smallwink:Your "core" appears to be "most of the alternate classes sans explicitly ToB", admittedly I don't see ToM in there, but most people pretend 2/3s of it doesn't exist anyway.

on topic, if they really must be a paladin, and crusader is bad for some reason, might I suggest the PF paladin?

Thurbane
2011-01-23, 11:44 PM
Speaking for myself and my group, I always recommend that n00bs to D&D stick with a core only (PHB) build for their first character (or least their first few levels of that character). The basics you need to master (combat, skill system etc.) are all there in the PHB, so if you’re playing a PHB class, all the info you need is right there in one book (or in the SRD).

I’ve found that most, after their first character (or maybe two), are then keen to start exploring non-core options.

YMMV.

sonofzeal
2011-01-24, 12:00 AM
To be fair I never said they had to master the core classes. Besides that when I say core I should be more clear anyway. I consider a lot of books to be our core, like PHB2, DMG2, Incarnum, all of the Completes, and the Forgotten Realms and Eberron campaign settings come to mind. Our last noobs were a Duskblade and a Sorcerer/Archmage :smallwink:
Wait.... Magic of Incarnum? Really? Even I struggle with that! Incarnum and Binding are hands-down the most complex and counterintuitive subsystems in the game. More than that, Incarnum is relatively rare in most gaming circles, more rare than ToB in my experience.

As Kylarra said, I have to seriously question your concept of "Core".

dextercorvia
2011-01-24, 12:03 AM
So long as the others can help with the spell list, may I recommend a nice Sorcerer for the buffer. After playing it for a level, he will probably want to PrC into something with class features.

Hawk7915
2011-01-24, 02:47 AM
Player 1: Depending on how he's specced, he'll probably feel more at home with either a Crusader 9 or a Cleric 6/Prestige Paladin 3 to get the "WoW Paladin" feel; straight Paladin 9 won't probably do it for him. Either build will be tough but not impossibly so on a newbie.

Player 2: In the same vein, I'd try a Bardblade or a Bard-barian (depending on level of complexity). Bardblade is better but slightly harder to player. I'd either go Bard 2/Warblade 7 or Bard 4/Warblade 5, depending on whether he wants to focus on spellcasting or having powerful attacks. "Song of the White Raven" means as long as he just stays in White Raven stances, he can Inspire Courage as a swift action and his ToB and Bard class levels stack for purposes of his bonus. Make him human and add Power Attack, Song of the Heart, Improved Initiative, Practiced Spellcaster, and Lingering Song. Nice, simple, and plenty effective.

An alternative is an arcane caster, transmutation focused and banning Enchantment and Illusion (I find they're hardest on newbies). Avoid traditional uber transmutation effects (like Polymorph) in favor of being able to spam Haste, Bull's Strength, etc to help the party out.

Psyren
2011-01-24, 02:55 AM
admittedly I don't see ToM in there, but most people pretend 2/3s of it doesn't exist anyway.

I like Shadowcasters :smallfrown:

(It's such a pity they never got around to that last 3rd of the book. All the pages are blank except for some fluff.)

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 03:21 AM
I like offering TOB classes since they are harder to screw up than older classes. One caveat though is that I always offer to go through the book to choose their maneuvers. I usually ask for a concept and then help create that concept.

I will admit though that I do have a soft spot for all the non-spellcasters in the game so I would absolutely allow other stuff too.

Tytalus
2011-01-24, 11:05 AM
People are always quick to offer ToB classes in place of the classic ones, and sure they may be mechanically superior, but does that ALWAYS have to be the advice? When a player is new to D&D in general I always have better luck giving them a core build that doesn't have too much crazy stuff. After they learn the game, give them an option to re-roll or retrain classes/feats/whatever.

In this case, it makes a lot of sense. One player wants a character with a WoW Paladin feel to it (i.e., special attacks that recharge over time). He'll find nothing in core that gives him combat options even like that, while the crusader's maneuvers are quite similar, if with a somewhat different flavor.

My experience is that new players tend to get lost in core, where there are bad options a-plenty. A fighter with poor feats, or - worse - a wizard/sorcerer with poorly picked spells is no fun to play. On the other hand, it's very hard to screw up a ToB build.

Amphetryon
2011-01-24, 11:17 AM
Given the rest of your party's composition, you might see how the Bard wannabe feels about War Weaver. Yet another handbook (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5881.0).

Coidzor
2011-01-24, 11:22 AM
People are always quick to offer ToB classes in place of the classic ones, and sure they may be mechanically superior, but does that ALWAYS have to be the advice? When a player is new to D&D in general I always have better luck giving them a core build that doesn't have too much crazy stuff. After they learn the game, give them an option to re-roll or retrain classes/feats/whatever.

They're also simpler as less system mastery is necessary to make a good one. Far, far less complex than the thorny tangle of finding good feats that also are worth the investment and aren't banned by the DM. Core build =/= simple and good for new players.

If I were going to dictate to someone what class they had to take, I'd at least have it be a fun one rather than the stereotypical stick the new guy with a fighter and have him learn the hard way how much of a quagmire feats are.


Hey playgrounders, I need some help. I convinced two of my friends to join my dnd game, but they're both noobs and I dont know how to properly build the type of characters they want to play. The first guy wants to play a Paladin (he's used to WoW) and the other wants to play some kind of buffer, leaning towards bard.

Ok, so what kind of Paladin is he used to from WoW? AFAIK, there's like, 3 ways to play them in WoW.

As a general bit, you might consider Cleric 6/PRC Paladin 3 for him. Along with some general spells to emulate his favorite abilities.

Cisturn
2011-01-24, 12:37 PM
Thanks a lot guys, the paladin has decided to go druid. I showed him that amazing handbook and he seems to be taking to it, though he's still open for any advice there is is to give. The bard is still working. Though I'm trying to lean her towards sorcerer.

Greenish
2011-01-24, 12:41 PM
Thanks a lot guys, the paladin has decided to go druid.Ouch, that's hardly simple.

The bard is still working. Though I'm trying to lean her towards sorcerer.Why? A bard isn't really more complicated, and she expressed interest for it.

gomipile
2011-01-24, 12:54 PM
Actually, I'd recommended Dragonfire Adept or a White Raven ToB class for the bard gal. My preference leaning toward the DFA. Reason being that the DFA gets nice buffing ability that is not limited in any way by uses per day. White Raven maneuvers make a character that is similar in that way, but more technical and complicated to use. Also, having versatile on-the spot AoE that doesn't have to be prepared ahead of time is worth a lot in combat encounters, and it looks like you could use a party face unless I am mistaken(which might be a reason you were leaning toward sorcerer.)

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 03:07 PM
Buffing? I usually think of DFAs as battlefield controllers and good but not great blasters. They also have great out of combat options but buffing I had not heard. What kind of buffing are we talking about?

EDIT: Just to be clear I love DFA.

Greenish
2011-01-24, 03:09 PM
What kind of buffing are we talking about?Endure Elements? :smallcool:

true_shinken
2011-01-24, 03:11 PM
Hey, are those some of those Tear Won classes I keep hearing about? Someone should make a list of them so everyone can reference it and get a widely skewed idea of how the game is actually played as opposed to how it could be played.

This is a joke, right?

Coidzor
2011-01-24, 03:23 PM
Why? A bard isn't really more complicated, and she expressed interest for it.

Compromise? Sorcerer 6/PRC Bard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigeBard) 1-2/Virtuoso 10/X 1-2? Maybe Beguiler/PrC Bard/Viruoso instead for the benefits of having a fixed list freeing up that bit of potential stress that is building one's own spell list from scratch from a new player.

You'd have to think about what bard spells to add to the beguiler list depending upon your sources, though I doubt it would be catastrophic or too overwhelming to give most of 'em, considering a fair bit of overlap you could probably give all of the PHB bard spells to a beguiler and not have much change...

Granted, it doesn't really do that Bard thing until later...

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 03:26 PM
Compromise? Sorcerer 6/PRC Bard (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigeBard) 1-2/Virtuoso 10/X 1-2? Maybe Beguiler/PrC Bard/Viruoso instead. You'd have to think about what bard spells to add to the beguiler list depending upon your sources, though I doubt it would be catastrophic or too overwhelming to give most of 'em...

Granted, it doesn't really do that Bard thing until later...

I think bard sounds like a simpler build than what you have. Plus starting as a bard allows for going into many different areas later as they get used to the game like sublime chord or warchanter. Lots of possibilities.

Coidzor
2011-01-24, 03:36 PM
I think bard sounds like a simpler build than what you have. Plus starting as a bard allows for going into many different areas later as they get used to the game like sublime chord or warchanter. Lots of possibilities.

Hence why I said it was a compromise, and since the things being compromised between were sorcerer and bard, I figured something with superior spellcasting and getting some bard abilities was about the only route to such a compromise. Other than the skill ranks pre-requisite, the two build stubs I just posted could instead go into Sublime Chord as easily as a bard. And there's not much difference in complexity between those and a bard build that goes into sublime chord anyway.

Functionally there's not much added complexity on the player's end unless they want to get into inspire courage optimization. Especially if going with a beguiler with its fixed list.

sonofzeal
2011-01-24, 07:16 PM
Thanks a lot guys, the paladin has decided to go druid. I showed him that amazing handbook and he seems to be taking to it, though he's still open for any advice there is is to give. The bard is still working. Though I'm trying to lean her towards sorcerer.
Druid is... possibly the LEAST simple class in the entire game. No joke. You know that, right?

Saint GoH
2011-01-24, 07:58 PM
Well, I'm not sure how a paladin goes from a paladin to a druid, but hey, if he likes it he likes it.

I think thats what we need to focus on here. OP asked for simple builds, but if his players want to play something more complicated then why not? Let them challenge themselves.

Thurbane
2011-01-24, 08:19 PM
This is a joke, right?
I say with some confidence that yes, that was intended as a joke.

Psyren
2011-01-24, 10:31 PM
Druid is... possibly the LEAST simple class in the entire game. No joke. You know that, right?

Artificer still beats it, at least for me...

sonofzeal
2011-01-24, 10:37 PM
Artificer still beats it, at least for me...
Artificer can give it a run for its money, certainly. Depends on the Artificer though, some are pretty straightforward while some are nightmares, all depends what you're crafting for yourself and how the DM tracks xp and loot. But I'll grant the point.

Either way, Druids are still right at the top end in terms of complexity.

Psyren
2011-01-24, 10:47 PM
Either way, Druids are still right at the top end in terms of complexity.

While I do agree with you, Druids have one potent plus in their favor -the CRPGs, which can introduce any new player to the basics of their list and Wild Shape.

And just as an Artificer's complexity depends on "what you're making," so too does a Druid's complexity depend on "what you're becoming."

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 10:48 PM
a druid can be fairly easy if you decide to not use wild shape which I have seen.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-24, 11:02 PM
I like Shadowcasters :smallfrown:



Yeah me too.

Simplest casters are DFA and Warlock, with the DFA being usually the better choice. For the Paladin thing you could give him some Bard with the firey inspiration ability (Dragonfire inspiration I think it is called) that covers the Auradin aspect to a certain extent.

sonofzeal
2011-01-24, 11:10 PM
And just as an Artificer's complexity depends on "what you're making," so too does a Druid's complexity depend on "what you're becoming."
The problem with Druids is that it's not just "what you're becoming", it's also "what you're summoning" and "what you're allied with" and "what you're casting", and it all becomes a massive ball of confusion unless you have some serious system mastery.

Artificers, really what you need is a good accounting spreadsheet to manage gp and xp profits/expenses, and while complex, that's still something a newb would understand. On the other hand, unpacking what it means when a Wolf Animal Companion gains +6 HD, and what exactly is kept and lost and changed in Wildshape, and what happens when you Augment Summon a Dire Bear and then cast Animal Growth on it....? Yeah, not for newbs.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:11 PM
I like Shadowcasters :smallfrown:

(It's such a pity they never got around to that last 3rd of the book. All the pages are blank except for some fluff.)

Excuse me? Truenamers are awesome, don't diss them.



Druid is... possibly the LEAST simple class in the entire game. No joke. You know that, right?

I'm sorry, Mister Zeal, but Mister Binder and Mister Incarnum are on lines one and two.

sonofzeal
2011-01-24, 11:14 PM
I'm sorry, Mister Zeal, but Mister Binder and Mister Incarnum are on lines one and two.
Subsystem-wise I'd agree, but I've played a Binder and I've played a Druid, and Druid's far worse to play in terms of complexity.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:20 PM
Subsystem-wise I'd agree, but I've played a Binder and I've played a Druid, and Druid's far worse to play in terms of complexity.

Really? I thought they were easy compared to most of my favorite classes. They're really no more difficult that a Factotum, which is the easiest of my favorites. Really, playing a Truenamer was a LOT harder, and much more rewarding. What was so hard?

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 11:24 PM
I have found binders are not that bad since you only start with one vestige.

Druids can be very difficult but they can be toned down by ignoring wild shape or better yet shapeshift version for the easy win (less powerful but nice).

Incarnum classes I do agree about being difficult. Not quite as bad as artificers but harder than the above. Especially incarnates since their role is ill defined.

Artificers have lots of little things that would make it about the last choice in giving to a new character.

dextercorvia
2011-01-24, 11:24 PM
Incarnum isn't bad at all. If you read through the Soulmelds, they kind of jump out at you what you want to do. Just because you can change your entire lineup every day doesn't mean you will want to or should.

I'm sure Binders are similar, but I'm having trouble getting through all of the fluff, to actually see what all of the vestiges can do. I've read some, and understand the gist of the class...I just doubt they would ever find there way into a game I was playing.

MeeposFire
2011-01-24, 11:37 PM
Incarnum isn't bad at all. If you read through the Soulmelds, they kind of jump out at you what you want to do. Just because you can change your entire lineup every day doesn't mean you will want to or should.

I'm sure Binders are similar, but I'm having trouble getting through all of the fluff, to actually see what all of the vestiges can do. I've read some, and understand the gist of the class...I just doubt they would ever find there way into a game I was playing.

Binders are much easier. Pick from a rather limited list and yo get a limited set of abilities. Not too bad.

An incarnate has to choose several different soulmelds, choose which get to apply chakras, every round you want to know how much essentia you put in each meld which requires you to know how much you can put into each meld, and this is just the beginning. Incarnates have a lot to deal with including people thinking they should be wizards (due to low BAB). Now I will say that I love incarnum, it is in my opinion that they are not among the easiest classes in the game.

CycloneJoker
2011-01-24, 11:52 PM
Binders are much easier. Hit level 12 and start doing nothing but dropping minions left and right when not frying people with levelD6 damage. Not too bad.

An incarnate has to choose several different soulmelds, choose which get to apply chakras, every round you want to know how much essentia you put in each meld which requires you to know how much you can put into each meld, and this is just the beginning. Incarnates have a lot to deal with including people thinking they should be wizards (due to low BAB). Now I will say that I love incarnum, it is in my opinion that they are not among the easiest classes in the game.

And all druids have to do is take Natural Spell. Casting 9th level spells as a Horrid Battletitan or something, while having another dinosaur as a pet harassing the enemies and outdamaging an optimized non-charging fighter just sort of comes along easily by itself.

Also, Totemists are so much fun.

nolispe
2011-01-24, 11:58 PM
Phaerimm Unseelie Fey Magic Blooded Sorcerer 7 x 2.
-8 Str
+8 Dex
-2 Con
+6 Cha
Sorcerer casting at 14th level.
Simple.
What?

Runestar
2011-01-25, 08:35 AM
Use the shapeshift variant in PHB2? It removes 2 of the biggest headaches of playing a druid.

Callista
2011-01-25, 08:46 AM
I think what we're looking for here isn't a powerful character so much as one that's newbie-friendly, yes?

You want something with relatively simple mechanics that the players can use without having to constantly be confused. As far as power level goes, I don't think you need powerful classes--you just need classes at a similar power level. Ignore tiers for the time being: The tier system presumes that the players are optimizing. These players will not be optimizing yet.

Recommended simple melee classes: Paladin, barbarian, monk.
Recommended simple spellcasting classes: Bard, favored soul, sorcerer.

That would be what I'd suggest. (But beware the paladin and its role-playing restrictions; if the player in question is new to role-playing in general and/or doesn't like playing Good-aligned characters, suggest another class instead. The paladin class may be easy for D&D newbies, but paladin RP is not for RP newbies.)

2xMachina
2011-01-25, 08:55 AM
Huh, the ones with way too many options (and mostly stupid ones) are probably Core.

Wizard: Oh hey, lots of spells. Which do you want to learn? Prepare? Buy scrolls and put into your book?
Sorcerer: What should I learn?
Cleric: What spells should I prepare today?
Fighter: Wow, so many feats. Wonder if I should choose Lightning reflexes or Toughness?

EDIT: ToB is pretty simple. You play them straight. Limited maneuver choices per lvl. When you focus on disciplines, there's even fewer choices. Very easy to build.

Callista
2011-01-25, 08:57 AM
Yeah.

I think if you built it for them, or helped them build it, you might do OK with a wizard or a druid; but... realistically, you want them to build the character themselves to get practice. So choosing a mechanically simpler class makes much more sense. You aren't going to play with a mix of newbies and non-newbies, so it's not really necessary to worry about optimization and tiers at this point.

Coidzor
2011-01-25, 10:29 AM
Recommended simple melee classes: Paladin, barbarian, monk.

Why are you recommending as gimped a class as a monk for a first time player? That just seems cruel. Especially once it hits them that they can't move and flurry. :smallannoyed:


Recommended simple spellcasting classes: Bard, favored soul, sorcerer.

Why are you forgetting Beguiler? It's far simpler than Sorcerer and Favored Soul.


EDIT: ToB is pretty simple. You play them straight. Limited maneuver choices per lvl. When you focus on disciplines, there's even fewer choices. Very easy to build.

Yup, yup.

Greenish
2011-01-25, 10:29 AM
Well, I'm not sure how a paladin goes from a paladin to a druid, but hey, if he likes it he likes it.They're both hybrids that can tank, heal or dps (with the right talent spec and gear). :smalltongue:

a druid can be fairly easy if you decide to not use wild shape which I have seen.There are a couple of handy things you can swap wildshape to, to limit book keeping.

Endarire
2011-01-25, 06:18 PM
A simple Druid build is Human Druid20. Take Improved Initiative and Natural Spell.

The Druid is simple in essence. You don't need to use the full extent of your spells or Wild Shape or animal companion to be especially potent. You can specialize in one and minor in the others.