PDA

View Full Version : (3.5) Easy-to-play character?



bokodasu
2011-01-28, 07:03 PM
I'm looking for some ideas for a character that is a) effective and b) easy to play - both starting from level 1. All sources are allowed, including homebrew (I'm the DM.) The player is new - I won't be able to help her much during the game, so I want something I can go over with her in advance and won't be too confusing.

Best case scenario - something melee, with a couple of tricks but nothing really complicated, that can hold its own in combat and has some out-of-combat utility.

Thanks!

dsmiles
2011-01-28, 07:04 PM
My first answer: Rogue
Second: Ranger

LansXero
2011-01-28, 07:05 PM
halfling paladin going for cavalier at some point, with a riding dog that eventually becomes its pally-mount?

Runestar
2011-01-28, 07:09 PM
Pure barb. Hard to screw up, since your class features are pretty much chosen for you (compared to say, a fighter). Just rage and wade into combat.

If he is willing to spend a little extra time going through the stats, goliath barb.

Extra rage at 1st lv, the rest is pretty much gravy. Maybe give some rage-oriented items from MIC?

Ozreth
2011-01-28, 07:12 PM
I second ranger.

Vance_Nevada
2011-01-28, 07:12 PM
Core Barbarian.

Greataxe, Power Attack, Cleave. If you do the math for her when setting up the sheet, there's very little to worry about. Add Survival and Track if you want some more out-of-combat utility.

A core Ranger is also pretty good for this sort of thing. Give her skill points in the all the physical skills (Climb, Swim, etc) and make a man-of-the-woods basic character with a bow.

DementedFellow
2011-01-28, 07:14 PM
Sorcerer. Especially at first level. Choose Sleep. Then various other spells.

Drothmal
2011-01-28, 07:19 PM
My first answer: Rogue
Second: Ranger

+1, both have decent fighting abilities (I would make it a ranged character so it is not tempted by "I run up to the dragon and punch it in the nose") and enough skills/abilities to make them useful out of combat

Dreadn4ught
2011-01-28, 07:19 PM
Sorcerer may not be a good idea, with all the spells and stuff, at least not for a new player.

Rogue sounds good, or perhaps barbarian. Can't really go wrong with either one.

Ernir
2011-01-28, 07:21 PM
Warblade, I say. Crusader if divine flavor is desired. Printing out the Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) is essential, though.

Yes, they are more complicated to play than a Barbarian. But they are infinitely easier to build. If the choice is between teaching the newbie how a recovery mechanic works + reading a maneuver card in addition to everything else he has to learn and risking her being saddened when she realizes that killing things in D&D doesn't happen automatically when you have a high BAB - I think I'll trust in her ability to learn. It's not like it's more complicated than a Sorcerer or anything. =/

lokoone
2011-01-28, 07:26 PM
warlock!

veeery easy to use, and its useful, in combat and outside

LansXero
2011-01-28, 07:28 PM
Warblade, I say. Crusader if divine flavor is desired. Printing out the Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) is essential, though.

Yes, they are more complicated to play than a Barbarian. But they are infinitely easier to build. If the choice is between teaching the newbie how a recovery mechanic works + reading a maneuver card in addition to everything else he has to learn and risking her being saddened when she realizes that killing things in D&D doesn't happen automatically when you have a high BAB - I think I'll trust in her ability to learn. It's not like it's more complicated than a Sorcerer or anything. =/

Thats actually a good idea, more so if they have some TCG experience like Magic or YuGiOh

Xyk
2011-01-28, 07:28 PM
Definitely barbarian or fighter. Those are super easy and every newb that played one of those in my presence did very much enjoy the smashing of evildoers.

MammonAzrael
2011-01-28, 07:29 PM
I support the Barbarian for pure simplicity while still being relevant. Also plays into most beginner's desire to hit things. :smalltongue:

Psyren
2011-01-28, 10:02 PM
warlock!

veeery easy to use, and its useful, in combat and outside

Definitely this

Sorcerer is great at mid-levels, not so much at 1

MeeposFire
2011-01-28, 10:11 PM
Warlock or dragonfire adept are easy to use spellwise (though the player will not be trained much for attack rolls with a DFA).

Barbs are probably the best for a new player in melee as it fulfills several key objectives

1) Thematic-players can imagine Conan fairly easily when you say barbarian or use real world knowledge (warblade is easy to flavor but it is not as evocative to a new player).

2) Trains new player to handle a limited use resource in rages

3) Lack of choices keeps it simple for the new player (warblades make new choices from a decent sized list).

4) Keeps them in melee without using any strange rules.

5) For the first few levels you can just keep them in one book and it works well (PHB). Makes it easier for them to find stuff and he can just borrow just that one book for reading.

I am not saying warblade is the worst but barbarian is probably the best single class to start a player if they want to be in melee.

Warlawk
2011-01-28, 10:17 PM
Warblade, I say. Crusader if divine flavor is desired. Printing out the Maneuver Cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a) is essential, though.

Yes, they are more complicated to play than a Barbarian. But they are infinitely easier to build. If the choice is between teaching the newbie how a recovery mechanic works + reading a maneuver card in addition to everything else he has to learn and risking her being saddened when she realizes that killing things in D&D doesn't happen automatically when you have a high BAB - I think I'll trust in her ability to learn. It's not like it's more complicated than a Sorcerer or anything. =/

This is exactly what I was going to post. I completely agree with this 110%. Warblade is easy to build, easy to play, and very solid for a melee character. Just help out the player with maneuver/feat choices and. Explain that maneuvers can be used 1 time per fight, unless they are reset by making a full attack. Very simple very straightforward and very playable at any level.

Runestar
2011-01-28, 10:25 PM
Also, for barbs, you may want to work with a player towards acquiring one of the several weapon combat style feats. I feel that 3-mountains (complete warrior) is a solid choice, but you will need to start planning from 1st lv if you want to take it (since it has 4 prereq feats, meaning a non-human barb can only get it at 12th lv earliest).

Shpadoinkle
2011-01-28, 11:02 PM
Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, or Dragon Shaman. They all have lots of neat abilities you can use pretty much at will.

Zergrusheddie
2011-01-29, 02:02 AM
I say more pluses to the Dragonfire Adept and Warlock. Dragonfire Adept can literally be played effectively with just some d6's and a d20 (which you will rarely use). Warlocks are the same way but have more focus on invocations than DFA's. Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts are generally seen as mid-tier characters; they are difficult to make extremely powerful but almost impossible to screw up with slight common sense.

I would stay away from classes that have extensive spells, especially a Sorcerer or Wizard. The number of sheer possibilities that a Wizard can do can be overwhelming and if you do not know what exactly to pick as a Sorcerer, you can really end up handicapping yourself. If they want to try out a caster, I will have to say go with "Eddie's Personal Favorite", the Beguiler. Fixed spells means that there is nothing to really get wrong, a huge number of spells means that they can use them without having to worry, a skill monkey can really teach them the concept of skills and checks, and they get some awesome defensive magic.

Barbarians are probably the easiest to play and are the type of characters that everyone has started with when they first play. It is probably the easiest class to play but like the DFA, it may not teach them too much about the game. Also, since Barbarians are generally not that durable, it means that the new player might really end up dying easily if they make a mistake.

Mostly, I would say:
1. Stay away from prepared casters and Sorcerers.
2. Suggest that they play something that suites their interests and is easy enough to play without much instruction but complex enough that they can understand the system.

Best of luck.
-Eddie

MeeposFire
2011-01-29, 02:04 AM
Oh I forgot the warmage is a good first character if they want to blast things and you want simple. It is not a big powerhouse but it is better than a sorc. It is still harder than a DFA or warlock though.

bokodasu
2011-01-29, 12:51 PM
So it's looking like Barbarian is the way to go. I'll see how she feels about Warblade - I've been encouraging people to go ToB but wasn't sure about an entirely new (and young) player. I didn't know about the print-out cards, though, so that will be helpful. Thanks!

Sarakos
2011-01-29, 02:10 PM
My first impression was to say Warlock, but for melee I would say barbarian

Starbuck_II
2011-01-29, 02:33 PM
I say more pluses to the Dragonfire Adept and Warlock. Dragonfire Adept can literally be played effectively with just some d6's and a d20 (which you will rarely use). Warlocks are the same way but have more focus on invocations than DFA's. Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts are generally seen as mid-tier characters; they are difficult to make extremely powerful but almost impossible to screw up with slight common sense.

Barbarians are probably the easiest to play and are the type of characters that everyone has started with when they first play. It is probably the easiest class to play but like the DFA, it may not teach them too much about the game. Also, since Barbarians are generally not that durable, it means that the new player might really end up dying easily if they make a mistake.

Best of luck.
-Eddie
Yeah, DFA are good. May be little damage at start, but no missing.

Agreed. Barbs are good because you just point out some 2 handed feats (power attack, cleave) and send him out to attack.

Fighters require good rules knowledge to avoid "good sounding but bad in practice" feats.

molten_dragon
2011-01-29, 02:37 PM
+1 for warblade. They don't get that many maneuvers, and their recovery mechanic is simple. They're quite functional though, and it's nearly impossible to build a bad one.

-1 for sorcerer. Sorcerers are deceptively complicated. There are hundreds of spells to choose from, and picking good ones is vitally important for a sorcerer to be effective.

The Rabbler
2011-01-29, 02:46 PM
I'd like to suggest crusader. Sure, the recovery mechanic is complicated and unreliable, but with Adaptive Style, your player should be able to walk around whacking things all day and only rarely have to worry about getting killed.

HunterOfJello
2011-01-29, 02:59 PM
+1 for Warblade. Set the character up with some Light Armor and a Two-Handed weapon. Pick out 3 maneuvers that they would like to use often in combat and a cool stance. The player can print out maneuver cards and use them while playing.

As long as the DM understands how ToB classes work, then the Warblade is a perfect and highly effective starting character.

Fox Box Socks
2011-01-29, 03:04 PM
Fighter, if only because the most effective way to build one is to make one that does the same thing every round.

Can't get much simpler than that.

Greenish
2011-01-29, 03:06 PM
So it's looking like Barbarian is the way to go. I'll see how she feels about Warblade - I've been encouraging people to go ToB but wasn't sure about an entirely new (and young) player. I didn't know about the print-out cards, though, so that will be helpful. Thanks!Barbarian and warblade aren't mutually exclusive, and combine nicely. Starting with barbarian, going to warblade when the basics of hitting things and being hit are learned.

TheGeckoKing
2011-01-29, 03:10 PM
I would say Barbarian if the player wants to do their own thing most of the time, or Warblade if the player is willing to use the maneuver cards and maybe have the DM pick out maneuvers for them sometimes.

OR

Fighter. That class is pretty simple. But boring as dung. But it's easy-to-play :smallamused:

Ernir
2011-01-29, 03:18 PM
Barbarian and warblade aren't mutually exclusive, and combine nicely. Starting with barbarian, going to warblade when the basics of hitting things and being hit are learned.

Ooo, that's a great idea.

Barbie 2/Warblade++ is a perfectly good build, too.

Psyborg
2011-01-29, 03:26 PM
Depends on what archetype the player is looking for.

Easiest magic-user is Warlock or DFA.

Easiest melee is Barbarian.

Easiest ranged is...well...ranged is hard in 3.5. Fighter, Ranger, or (heh) Warlock.

As a side note, for players new to DnD who've played computer/console RPGs, psions are often an easier "caster" to learn than any of the Vancian classes. "PP = mana, don't spend more at once than your level" and they pretty much get it.

Warlawk
2011-01-29, 03:36 PM
One thing I would like to point out about this.

There seems to be a lot of suggestions of barbarian here. As a barbarian levels up, it pretty much keeps doing exactly the same thing that it has been doing since level 1. You might get slightly better bonuses, and maybe along the way you'll get leap attack, shock trooper or whatever but bottom line is you will spend the entire play career of the character saying "I charge and full attack" for the vast bulk of your actions.

Could be a bit of a stale experience for a new player. Warblade would give a lot more options and growth. At the same time, most of those options tend to be straightforward. They're interesting and offer more variety without being as complicated as a full spell list.

Just wanted to bring that point up, barbarian has never appealed to me much for exactly that reason.

Fox Box Socks
2011-01-29, 04:48 PM
Ooo, that's a great idea.

Barbie 2/Warblade++ is a perfectly good build, too.
Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Psychic Warrior 2/ Warblade lots

I've yet to find a more effective Melee build.

Greenish
2011-01-29, 04:52 PM
Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Psychic Warrior 2/ Warblade lotsNot sure about that fighter there, seems like you'd had a plenty of feats even without.

And, though it's but a personal preference, I like to enter martial adepts early, so as to benefit from them when they're at their strongest, and to get access to more and higher level maneuvers earlier.

grimbold
2011-01-29, 04:55 PM
core barb is an easy class
fighter is good if theyre ok with the rule books

Fox Box Socks
2011-01-29, 04:56 PM
You can never have too many feats*. Nevar!

*Unless you are playing Fighter 20

ArcanistSupreme
2011-01-29, 06:02 PM
Best case scenario - something melee, with a couple of tricks but nothing really complicated, that can hold its own in combat and has some out-of-combat utility.

Thanks!

If you want multiple tricks and/or out-of-combat utility, fighter is not the way to go. Barbarian is slightly better, but without a good amount of optimization, the only worthwhile trick is going to be CHAAAARGE!

I vote for any ToB class. Once the player learns the rules, it is really hard to screw any of them up. With either of the above two options, you will have to hold the players hand during every level-up just so she doesn't end up with a totally worthless build by level nine.

Runestar
2011-01-29, 06:35 PM
You can never have too many feats*. Nevar!

*Unless you are playing Fighter 20

The issue I have with fighter is not having too many feats, but not knowing what to do with those feats. A new fighter might feel overwhelmed with having to choose so many feats, and just spend them on whatever seems attractive. End result is that the fighter is a mess with no direction.

It is definitely not a beginner class, IMO, but one which requires intimate knowledge of the feats and how they synergise with one another.

Corlindale
2011-01-29, 06:46 PM
Depends very much on what she wants to play. There are easy classes within pretty much all the archetypes.

I think Sorceror would be a good choice if she likes magic. While you cannot help her much during the game, you can still help her with char creation and when she levels up, offering advice on spell selection and highlighting some of the most useful options, to avoid it becoming too overwhelming. As long as you can do that, Sorceror is easy to play and light on bookkeeping (but you probably need to do it - I still remember when our group had a newbie who'd built a sorc unassisted - his spells known at lvl 1 were Mount and Feather Fall :smallbiggrin: )

bokodasu
2011-01-29, 07:31 PM
Well, I'm not worried about how hard it is to build, since I'll be doing that; it's the in-play complexity I'd want to avoid. We did talk a little about psychic warrior, and I like the idea of starting he off with barbarian and moving to other classes that work well with it. Barb2/warblade2/we'll see from there?
I do know psionics better than ToB personally, but I've been meaning to pick up those rules, so maybe this is a good time to do that.

big teej
2011-01-29, 11:19 PM
depending on the level of optimization

go with fighter

it does not get any more basic than that.

(now, if its a party with any optimization whatsoever, proceed to my next pick)

barbarian
melee - simple
class features - simple,

I summarized the previous two classes to my new players as the following

fighter - "you are a big beefy person, you have a large, sharp metal object, you hit things with it, and they die"

barbarian - "You're big, you're beefy, you've got a big metal object, and a very short temper.... you hit things with that big metal object, and they die... messily if you're angry"


for casters
go cleric
you can't screw that up
you pick new spells each day

failing that
go sorcerer, no preperation



the more thinking that has to go into a class, the less okay it is to lob it at a beginner in my opinion.

/ramble

Runestar
2011-01-29, 11:54 PM
Actually, the reason why you can't screw up clerics is because however crap or inappropriate your spell selection is for the day, you can still spontaneously convert them into healing, so you are never deadweight. :smallsmile:

MeeposFire
2011-01-30, 12:02 AM
depending on the level of optimization

go with fighter

it does not get any more basic than that.

(now, if its a party with any optimization whatsoever, proceed to my next pick)

barbarian
melee - simple
class features - simple,

I summarized the previous two classes to my new players as the following

fighter - "you are a big beefy person, you have a large, sharp metal object, you hit things with it, and they die"

barbarian - "You're big, you're beefy, you've got a big metal object, and a very short temper.... you hit things with that big metal object, and they die... messily if you're angry"


for casters
go cleric
you can't screw that up
you pick new spells each day

failing that
go sorcerer, no preperation



the more thinking that has to go into a class, the less okay it is to lob it at a beginner in my opinion.

/ramble

Fighters are not that great a choice for new players as they have a lot of choices due to bonus feats and it leaves a lot of room to screw up. Further since they have no resources to keep track of they do not learn important skill of resource management. That is why your second choice is a better choice. Barbarian is the best single class for a new player. Can not get much easier, it is harder to screw up, teaches resource management without much of a penalty for using your resource (rages are nice but not that important), and is thematic enough that your average new player actually stands a chance to be able to roleplay (pretend to be conan).