Newbie Overload

[Nyrre]

I just started looking into D&D stuff about a month ago, and I had a few questions.

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment; yet neither seems to fit into the class description enough to warrant it. I can understand why a Monk would require being Lawful (for the self-discipline required), but why should a Druid absolutely have to be Neutral? Isn't nature beyond such concepts? And how the heck is it supposed to make sense that changing to a "forbidden" alignment causes them to loose all abilities? Does that mean they just suddenly lost the last who-knows-how-many years of their lives!?:smalleek:

2. Are there any level limits for characters? I haven't found anything on this, but it would seem to me that the only thing that tends to stop characters from reaching into the hundreds of levels would be dying of old age.

3. With literally dozens of source books to choose from, what would be a good choice for beginning to learn the basics of the game? (I'm following Eberron, if that helps.)

4. How the am I supposed to choose a mere handful of classes to give a single character when there a literally [I]hundreds to choose from!?

(Please note that I've never played any tabletop RPG in my life and haven't a clue what I'm doing. What started out as a "spite story" railing against Keith Baker's announcement that the Mark of Death would never be fully explained has ultimately led me to try to understand the mechanics behind the world said story is set in.)

[CTrees]

1.) I'll let others field this one, as I have little productive to say.

2.) "it would seem to me that the only thing that tends to stop characters from reaching into the hundreds of levels would be dying of old age" or being eaten by dragons, perhaps? The real "cap" is level twenty. Beyond that is considered "Epic," and lets you progress indefinitely, but the game was designed around level twenty being the highest a player character can reach. Very few sources expand upon things past that.

3.) Everyone will have different opinions, but the Player's Handbook and the core rules for Eberron (I don't play it, so I don't remember the name) is actually a really good start. From there, the Dungeon Master's Guide is worth reading, skimming through the Monstrous Manual, Psionics books, and the Complete series (Complete Warrior, Complete Divine, etc.) would be my personal picks, in that order.

4.) Pick what you want the character to do, then look at how to mechanically accomplish that. Worst case, come here with the concept. I've always found that to be a good way to get introduced, and from there you can move into greater depth.

[Talya]

You're best to ignore the splatbooks and campaign setting books initially, focusing on the stuff in here: www.d20srd.org (or even more precisely, the Player's Handbook alone, whereas that site is actually the rules from the PHB, DMG, MM1 and a couple other books.)

This is not to say I'm advocating playing in a "core only" game, it's just good for getting a feel on how the game works.

In general, multiclassing was not going to be something everyone did. They didn't expect you to play a handful of classes, they expected you to play ONE. A select few might multiclass a couple base classes, and fewer still would select a prestige class. But years later and several dozen books worth of material, and now very few people ever stick to one class. (and most of those that do are druids or bards.)

The options only look daunting because you're attempting to make sense of everything at once. Years later, I still won't touch psionics...the game didn't need yet another magic system. :smallwink:

[Jude_H]

1. You're right. those are stupid. In most class-based RPGs, the classes are used to model specific archetypes. The specificity of the model shifts from system to system (in Apocalypse World, a class is basically a character outline, including a member's appearance, name and manners; in Wilderness of Mirrors, a class is just a single skill where a character excels). 3e is incredibly inconsistent in the specificity of its classes: the Fighter is supposed to represent basically any warrior, while the Binder is actually very specific.

2. There aren't any level restrictions, but it's pretty rare for a character to exceed level 10. Once you hit the high teens, the system starts to buckle, so there's sort of a soft cap there.

3. If you're looking for WotC D&D, the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide and Monster Manual are typically the place to start for game basics and rules. They've all been released for free by WotC; the most accessible version is the srd here (http://www.d20srd.org/).

After those, the Expanded Psionics Handbook and Tome of Battle introduce some popular subsystems to model psychic powers and a more involved close combat system, respectively. The EPH is also available in the srd I linked. The other books that typically see a lot of use are the ones that introduce stuff - feats, spells, magic items, monsters, etc. within the existing rules. The Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, Monster Manual 3 and Fiend Folio stand out as useful stuff-dumps.

That said, I'd recommend Pathfinder if you're starting without the baggage of WotC 3e. It's a bit more compact, has a more thorough srd (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) with broader archetypal support and has continued updates and releases.

4. Good question. I usually just use one of the core classes (player's handbook or PF core rulebook), modifying its rules as needed to match whatever concept I have at the time.

[Telonius]

I just started looking into D&D stuff about a month ago, and I had a few questions.

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment; yet neither seems to fit into the class description enough to warrant it. I can understand why a Monk would require being Lawful (for the self-discipline required), but why should a Druid absolutely have to be Neutral? Isn't nature beyond such concepts? And how the heck is it supposed to make sense that changing to a "forbidden" alignment causes them to loose all abilities? Does that mean they just suddenly lost the last who-knows-how-many years of their lives!?:smalleek:


Most of the "lose all abilities" stuff only happens in classes that are either god-sponsored (like Cleric) or tied to a character's devotion to a concept (like Paladin or Druid). This does tend to make sense. If your power comes from your god, and you manage to get on your god's bad side, the power goes away.

There is also nearly always a method of getting those abilities back; the Atonement spell. The only times I know of where the abilities are gone forever happens in the Book of Exalted Deeds, which is supposed to be the pinnacle for goody-two-shoes characters.



2. Are there any level limits for characters? I haven't found anything on this, but it would seem to me that the only thing that tends to stop characters from reaching into the hundreds of levels would be dying of old age.


Both the characters and the players would be subject to this limit. It usually takes a long, long time to run a level 1-20 campaign. People have lives, and games normally fall apart before it reaches epic. Also, within-game, characters normally only advance in level by fighting things that are as tough as they are. At some point, you start running into the Highlander problem - after you've killed all your rivals, who are you going to fight?


3. With literally dozens of source books to choose from, what would be a good choice for beginning to learn the basics of the game? (I'm following Eberron, if that helps.)

Other than the Core Three (PHB, DMG, Monster Manual), and your campaign setting (Eberron Campaign Setting), I'd recommend these:

- Races of Eberron and Magic of Eberron, for campaign setting background
- Completes series, especially Complete Adventurer, Warrior, and Scoundrel
- PHB2

The game is perfectly playable without any of that, but they do add a lot more options. I'd recommend against Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic or any of the Psionic stuff until you've mastered the basics. Once you're ready, dive in.


4. How the am I supposed to choose a mere handful of classes to give a single character when there a literally [I]hundreds to choose from!?

Most of the builds you see on the boards here are created by people with years of system mastery. They know exactly what classes and PrC combinations will result in the most powerful characters. D&D 3.5 is, by its nature, customizable. There are probably millions of possible class and PrC combinations to choose from. But most people stick to a single class, maybe with one multiclass, maybe one prestige class, for an entire adventuring career.

There are several main party roles in a traditional D&D adventuring party: Fighter (aka "Meatshield" or "Beatstick"), the guy who carries a sword and takes hits for the others. Skillmonkey, who can find traps and do all the sneaky stuff. Healer, who fixes you when you get hurt. Arcanist, who casts spells to solve problems or blast foes. Many gamers add "Face" to that list, and I agree with them - that's the party member who's the best talker when you're in the audience with the king.

Most of the regular classes either try to fill one of those roles completely (Wizard or Sorcerer for Arcanist, Cleric for Healer, Rogue for Skillmonkey). Or, they try to have a mixture of two or more roles, not really excelling at either but competent at both. (Duskblade for Fighter/Arcanist, Bard for Arcanist/Skillmonkey/Face, Paladin for Fighter/Face, Artificer for Skillmonkey/Arcanist).

So, for at least your first few times, I'd suggest figuring out what general role you want to play in the party, and choosing a class to reflect that. As you get more competent in the system, and find out what the different classes are capable of doing, you'll be better able to pick and choose which ones you want. Word of warning: there are a few classes that really are traps, in that an average gamer won't be able to get them to do what they're supposed to. (Monk, Samurai, and Truenamer are the biggest offenders). There are also classes that can destroy game balance by accident (Druid with Natural Spell). I'd avoid those for starters. Wizard and Cleric can also break the game, but you have to know what you're doing. You really don't need to worry about that from a beginning player.


(Please note that I've never played any tabletop RPG in my life and haven't a clue what I'm doing. What started out as a "spite story" railing against Keith Baker's announcement that the Mark of Death would never be fully explained has ultimately led me to try to understand the mechanics behind the world said story is set in.)

Glad to have you aboard!

[Trixie]

There are several main party roles in a traditional D&D adventuring party: Fighter (aka "Meatshield" or "Beatstick"), the guy who carries a sword and takes hits for the others. Skillmonkey, who can find traps and do all the sneaky stuff. Healer, who fixes you when you get hurt. Arcanist, who casts spells to solve problems or blast foes. Many gamers add "Face" to that list, and I agree with them - that's the party member who's the best talker when you're in the audience with the king.

Most of the regular classes either try to fill one of those roles completely (Wizard or Sorcerer for Arcanist, Cleric for Healer, Rogue for Skillmonkey). Or, they try to have a mixture of two or more roles, not really excelling at either but competent at both. (Duskblade for Fighter/Arcanist, Bard for Arcanist/Skillmonkey/Face, Paladin for Fighter/Face, Artificer for Skillmonkey/Arcanist).

Actually, that's what the WotC wanted to create.

I'll let you on a little secret - Tier 1s completely don't care about such things as 'party roles'. Tier 2s easily do 2-3 roles at a time. But, for your own game enjoyment, try to ignore their existence for now, makes game much better for the new players :smallwink:

Artificer not excelling... heh :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

Actually, that's what the WotC wanted to create.

I'll let you on a little secret - Tier 1s completely don't care about such things as 'party roles'. Tier 2s easily do 2-3 roles at a time. But, for your own game enjoyment, try to ignore their existence for now, makes game much better for the new players :smallwink:

Artificer not excelling... heh :smallbiggrin:

Shhh, don't make the newbie's brain explode yet, he's not supposed to know that until we teach him the secret handshake! :smallbiggrin:

[Trixie]

Shhh, don't make the newbie's brain explode yet, he's not supposed to know that until we teach him the secret handshake! :smallbiggrin:

Well, I think it's fairer to say the concept exist, and he should ignore it for now, than have him randomly run into it and think we lied to him :smalltongue:

[Delwugor]

Start small and as you gain more experience and confidence then expand outward.
Start with characters only from the PHB and don't get too exotic. You might not have all of the coolest stuff in the splat books but you're main objective of learning to play will be achieved.

After years playing 3.x I keep almost exclusively to PHB I & II for my characters, though sometimes go to splats for feats.

[big teej]

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment; yet neither seems to fit into the class description enough to warrant it. I can understand why a Monk would require being Lawful (for the self-discipline required), but why should a Druid absolutely have to be Neutral? Isn't nature beyond such concepts? And how the heck is it supposed to make sense that changing to a "forbidden" alignment causes them to loose all abilities? Does that mean they just suddenly lost the last who-knows-how-many years of their lives!?:smalleek:


I can only speak to the classes I'm actually familiar with, and how I run my game, but I'll give it a try.

the Druid worships nature. nature is not good nor evil. it is both chaotic and lawful
ergo, it is neutral. and one must be with 1 step of the alignment of your diety/godthing/object of worship.

the fact you acknowledge "nature is beyond such concepts" is in and of itself indicative of a Neutral Alignment.

personally, I go one step further in my games and rule that druids must be TRUE Neutral. but I digress.

as for changing alignments.

lets use the dreaded Paladin as an example.
the Paladin is a righeous warrior dedicated to the principals of order and goodness. this is represented by a Lawful Good Alignment requirement.

if you become non-Lawful or non-Good you have wavered in your dedication and your cause, and you can no longer sustain the power of belief required by your oaths/gods/whatevers to maintain your powers.

to use the druid. if Nature is Truley Neutral... it would abhor extremes. so if a druid became an extreme alignment (Lawful Good for example)
this means the druid has lost it's touch with what nature is truly like.




2. Are there any level limits for characters? I haven't found anything on this, but it would seem to me that the only thing that tends to stop characters from reaching into the hundreds of levels would be dying of old age.


mechanically no.
pragmatically. yes

this could be at any point in the 1 - 20 or 1 to infinity process
1) the character is slain.
2) the character is slain in a manner that forever prevents their return.
3) the player grows bored of the character
4) the DM says "screw this" because the game has gotten so hideously beyond a train wreck that you can no longer call it a game (probably at about level 20-30)
5) numerous other reasons.

but techncially, no, there is no reason you couldn't roll up a 50th level whatever.

the usefulness of such an excersize however is..... highly questionable.




3. With literally dozens of source books to choose from, what would be a good choice for beginning to learn the basics of the game? (I'm following Eberron, if that helps.)


start slow. pick up The Dungeon Master's Guide, The Player's Handbook, and The Monster Manual.

pick a "simple" class, such as the fighter or barbarian. once you have a grasp on the core mechanics of the game, begin expanding your library according to your interest.

wanna play a psyker? pick up the psionics books.
wanna play a better cleric? complete divine
wanna play a dwarfy dwarf of dwarfyness named dwarfy mcbeardy beerstein?
Races of Stone + Unearthed Arcana



4. How the am I supposed to choose a mere handful of classes to give a single character when there a literally [I]hundreds to choose from!?


come to the table/books with a character concept.

the amount of sourcebooks/classes/whatevers relevant to you lower drastically if you come to the table with something like...

"I want to play a barbarian, but not just a normal barbarian, I want to play the most angry, hulk like barbarian there is. furthermore, he will be a human so I can relate to him more. and he shall wield the tried and true greataxe of his ancestors. he will be good at surviving on his own in the wild but will lack the understanding of the cultural mores of "civilization"

you've just eliminated a good chunk of sourcebooks/classes as being relevant.
for instance, anything NOT melee oriented -chuck it out-



(Please note that I've never played any tabletop RPG in my life and haven't a clue what I'm doing. What started out as a "spite story" railing against Keith Baker's announcement that the Mark of Death would never be fully explained has ultimately led me to try to understand the mechanics behind the world said story is set in.)

we all had to start somewhere.
welcome to the hobby.

I hope this response was helpful

[Redshirt Army]

In my opinion, the order of complexity of classes:

-Classes with no inherent sub-system. (Fighter)
-Classes with a simple inherent subsystem (Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock)
-Classes with set-list spellcasting/manifesting (Sorcerer, Bard, Psion)
-Classes with full-list spellcasting/manifesting (Druid, Cleric)
-Classes with an average inherent subsystem (Binder, Totemist, Warblade)
-Classes with prepared list spellcasting/manifesting (Wizard, Erudite)
-Classes with a complicated inherent subsystem (Artificer)

I'd recommend staying within the first three levels while you're getting a grip on things, with some exceptions - Fighters are hard to customize to their full potential without experience, so a Barbarian would probably fill that archetype better for you. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with not multiclassing - in fact, when inexperienced, multiclassing often leads into the pitfall of a character who can't do any one thing particularly well, and ends up not contributing.

EDIT: Rearranged some classes.

[Girshtop]

I agree with the consensus in the thread. I think Big teej summed it up very nicely. What he wrote on alignments rang especially true for me.



4. How the am I supposed to choose a mere handful of classes to give a single character when there a literally [I]hundreds to choose from!?

Everyone's saying to keep it simple (which is 100% true), yet nobody mentioned that the base classes (anything from the Players Handbook) will in most cases cover every character concept you want to play. It's all about flavouring your character, meaning everything that isn't written on your character sheet. This could be your characters backstory, the way he thinks, how he dresses, or the way you role play him out.

For example, lets say you wanted to play a thief. The rogue class is perfect for this character concept. In another example, you wanted to play a ninja. Again, the same rogue character class is good for this (maybe adding some monk levels later on), it all depends on how you role play him.

Once you start to get to know the basics of the game, you can look at other books for more specific character classes. Someone with more experience with D&D that wants to play a ninja can open up the Complete Adventurer and find the Ninja class.

TL;DNR - Stick to the core 3 books. Leave the hundreds of other books for the people that have been playing the game for years. Once your comfortable with core, branch out.

I've been playing this game for 4 years now and there are tons of books I'm afraid to touch, because I know I'll be overwhelmed.

[marcielle]

1. Wizards of the Coast, DnD's most recent owner, is not always all there. Some stuff will NEVER make sense.
2 and 3 have been answered pretty well.
4. Think of the coolest fantasy character you can/ something you've always wanted to be able to do. Look at the classes you know and see if you can make him/ acheive it. If not ask a veteran for help(still stay away from classes that require whole new mechanics like Incarnum)

Random Advice corner:

It's not all battle. Fighting is a big fun but try to enjoy little touches like world, backstory and the whole 'do literally whatever you want so long as your stats and rolls back it up'.

Assuming you are some kind of nerd(we all are here:smallbiggrin:), remember when you were playing a video game and thought of something awesome but couldn't do it, like say just steal your opponents weapons or run off with what your quest giver sent you out for? YOU CAN DO IT NOW!

If you wanna cast spells go Sorceror. Wizards take a lot of bookeeping and foresight that might overwhelm newbies.

Be nice. Guide to good DnD conduct:http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/pctips.html

[nyjastul69]

You've received some excellent advice here. Don't worry too much about the 'why' of prestige class requirements. Some of them are simply feat taxes. That is to say, take this sub-optimal requirement now and get very cool stuff a bit later. Some PrC requirements are well thought out and well designed. There are others that are poorly thought out and poorly designed.

I believe it comes down to a simple statement; some designers are more gifted than others.

I would suggest playing with the system a bit and figuring out what you and your group prefer. I think you'll be well rewarded by working at it a bit.

As an aside, the splat books are balanced to the core rules, not to each other (that's my understanding at least). Stick with the core books, or maybe even the SRD at first, then branch out to outlying elements of the game.

I hope you and yours have fun exploring the wonders RPG's have to offer.

[Yora]

The options only look daunting because you're attempting to make sense of everything at once. Years later, I still won't touch psionics...the game didn't need yet another magic system. :smallwink:

Spell slots should never have existed. :smalltongue:

[nyjastul69]

Spell slots should never have existed. :smalltongue:

Spell points, or mana (I don't know what the term mana equates to but it's usage seems to be similar to spell points) should have never been allowed. :smalltongue:

[Baka Nikujaga]

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Skill Check-based spells (Truenamers) should not exist.

[Shadowknight12]

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment; yet neither seems to fit into the class description enough to warrant it. I can understand why a Monk would require being Lawful (for the self-discipline required), but why should a Druid absolutely have to be Neutral? Isn't nature beyond such concepts? And how the heck is it supposed to make sense that changing to a "forbidden" alignment causes them to loose all abilities? Does that mean they just suddenly lost the last who-knows-how-many years of their lives!?:smalleek:

Coincidentally, I was just talking about this in another thread. Let me pull up my posts there...


Seriously, hyperbole aside, what I'm saying is that houseruling and small fixes are common. Every single table has some of them. I'd be utterly, utterly shocked if I was told that there's a table that plays strictly by the rules and has never, ever felt something should be changed, or a tiny rule should be added to clarify confusing situations, or exceptions to the rules could be made, etc.

Why is there such a reticence towards doing the same with these specific matters? Why can't we say "well, the easiest fix is to do X and Y" as we say when mechanical problems crop up?

and


I have absolutely nothing against restrictions, weaknesses and requirements. I actually make a point of adding those exact things to my characters even when there's no mechanical reason for me to do so. What I am protesting against is those restrictions being done for me. If the paladin code was SO important to the paladin class, why not say "All paladin characters should have a code, written by the player and approved by the DM." And maybe do the same for other divine classes. If the druid wearing metal armour was an actual balancing factor, use an actual mechanic, like AFC. As written, it seems to be purely for fluff reasons, and fluff actually varies from campaign to campaign.

In short, I officially and irrevocably advocate getting rid of arbitrary restrictions, and instead hand the players the tools they need to create those restrictions themselves. For the paladin, come up with your own code. For the druid, figure out with the DM what the philosophies, oaths and beliefs of the circle your character comes from are, for the cleric, come up with your own "code" of sorts, based on the tenets of the church/god/ideal your character follows, for Prestige Classes, come up with restrictions that make sense for your character, for the monk, bard and barbarian... really, do whatever. Fluff is your friend, and he's more malleable than clay.

Forget about alignment. Seriously, alignment is just a tool to help you enhance your campaign, it's not a gun pointed at you. Everything will be fine if you all act maturely and solve problems like adults.

[Jeff the Green]

I just started looking into D&D stuff about a month ago, and I had a few questions.

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment; yet neither seems to fit into the class description enough to warrant it. I can understand why a Monk would require being Lawful (for the self-discipline required), but why should a Druid absolutely have to be Neutral? Isn't nature beyond such concepts? And how the heck is it supposed to make sense that changing to a "forbidden" alignment causes them to loose all abilities? Does that mean they just suddenly lost the last who-knows-how-many years of their lives!?:smalleek:

The second part has been dealt with, so here's my interpretation of the first.

Prestige classes, despite what the DMG says, are almost always more powerful than base classes. For example, almost all PrCs a wizard might go into grant them full or almost full spellcasting plus some additional benefit, which means all they give up is a feat every 5 levels. To avoid making them overpowered, the character has to "pay" for them in feats that they would otherwise make better use of.

Yeah, I know. Not a very satisfying answer, but the only thing I can come up with.

[NecroRick]

With respect to alignment under some interpretations it can be difficult to tell the difference between law and good, or to figure out where 'selfish' behaviour fits.

Here's another take on it. I was reading some Wizards product, let's pretend it was the SRD and it said this with regards to alignment:

"'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility."

That got me thinking. What if 'chaotic' is simply about personal freedoms? Or if it is defined by what it opposes, e.g. the rule of law? Whereas lawful just means law-abiding? Someone chaotic might (for instance) stick to the speed limit when the cops or cameras are around, but if they think they are on a stretch of unmonitored road they will cut lose and ignore the law. That is they only obey the law when it is actively enforced upon them, or when it suits them to do so.

If we look at Law<->Chaos as a political spectrum, then Republicans and Democrats would both be lawful because they both believe in the governments right to screw over private citizens (the distinction between them being that Democrats will pretend to be distraught when they get caught in the act of diddling the voters). Libertarians and Anarchists would be chaotic (different expressions of chaotic, but alignments are big things that can have multiple expressions).

But laws are an artifact of civilizations and countries. The opposite of civilization is a kind of state of anarchy where everyone just does what they want and there are no laws. In philosophy this might be called a state of nature.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature

What is the ultimate expression of the state of nature? Believe it or not it isn't anarchy, because there are historical examples that prove that you can have a functioning state and be in anarchy (so long as people act and continue to act out of enlightened self-interest and keep the mechanisms of civilization going). Why, the ultimate expression of a "state of nature" is surely nature itself!

So surely then it would actually make more sense if Druids were Chaotic? Maybe, maybe not. You might ask "Having gone to the trouble of halfway convincing us that treehugger = chaos how then can you claim that Druid's aren't necessarily chaotic?!" Because in D&D as it so happens, Druids tend to band together into what are effectively secret societies and cabals or circles or whatever. So then, if they belong to and uphold these hierarchical groups, then they must be somewhere in between "the rule of law (the state)" and "the rule of nothing (nature)". They are somewhere in between these two extremes and hence neutral.

[Larpus]

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment; yet neither seems to fit into the class description enough to warrant it. I can understand why a Monk would require being Lawful (for the self-discipline required), but why should a Druid absolutely have to be Neutral? Isn't nature beyond such concepts? And how the heck is it supposed to make sense that changing to a "forbidden" alignment causes them to loose all abilities? Does that mean they just suddenly lost the last who-knows-how-many years of their lives!?:smalleek:
Yeah, some of them are totally cuckoo-ka-choo, but never forget that the DM's words > book rules; so if you really want to try a specific PrC but can't meet some of the requirements and they sound bonkers, talk to the DM and see if he allows it to be ignored.


4. How the am I supposed to choose a mere handful of classes to give a single character when there a literally [I]hundreds to choose from!?

(Please note that I've never played any tabletop RPG in my life and haven't a clue what I'm doing. What started out as a "spite story" railing against Keith Baker's announcement that the Mark of Death would never be fully explained has ultimately led me to try to understand the mechanics behind the world said story is set in.)
A lot in RPG has to do with what you want, ranging from what you want to do with your character (as in what he will be) to what you want as a player (can basically be defined as role-play, optimize or a balance between both).

First, ask yourself: do you want to be "the strongest", do you have a specific concept in mind that may not be optimal in the system or you don't care about being optimal but just doesn't want to be sub-par?

Let me remind you that there is nothing wrong with either of these mindsets, just be true to yourself and choose the one that you prefer.

Next comes what you want to do with the character, forget about classes, think about the roles instead. There are many different roles in RPG, the ones I can remember on the fly are: Tanker (soaking damage from enemies), Damage Dealer, Battle Support (help others in the party be better in battle), Controller (disable enemies so your party suffers less), Scout (gather information for the party, usually out of the battle) and Social (interact with NPCs, usually out of the battle).

All these roles can be achieved by many different means and classes, so the easiest way is for you to decide more or less which roles you'd like to excel at (choose 2 or 3) and then from there the members here can suggest classes and even builds that will help you get what you want.

Also important (perhaps the single most important part) is how you want your character to do his roles. This is quite more subjective and changes from person to person, it is deeply tied with what you think as "cool". I'm talking about things that are usually kinda silly sounding like "hit things with a big weapon", "be a ninja", "explode things by staring at them" and so on; this is important since the game is supposed to be fun.

For an example let's say that you want to deal damage, someone can tell you to go with a Sorcerer, who can deal a lot of damage; however you might not have fun 'cus while you are doing what you want and like to do, you're not doing it the way you wanted to do it, 'cus you didn't mention, but you wanted it to be with a ridiculously big weapon, not with magical spells, so a melee class like a Barbarian or Fighter would suit you much better.

[Lady Serpentine]

Next comes what you want to do with the character, forget about classes, think about the roles instead. There are many different roles in RPG, the ones I can remember on the fly are: Tanker (soaking damage from enemies), Damage Dealer, Battle Support (help others in the party be better in battle), Controller (disable enemies so your party suffers less), Scout (gather information for the party, usually out of the battle) and Social (interact with NPCs, usually out of the battle).


You might be including it with "Battle Support" (Though that sounds more like it provides buffs), but don't forget the Healer, whether skill-based, magical or both. It's important to make sure that everyone survives the fight, after all. :smallsmile:

[Larpus]

You might be including it with "Battle Support" (Though that sounds more like it provides buffs), but don't forget the Healer, whether skill-based, magical or both. It's important to make sure that everyone survives the fight, after all. :smallsmile:
Yes, I think of the healer as one way to provide battle support, also as a side-note, I count a character built around combat maneuvers to also be "battle support".

[herrhauptmann]

I just started looking into D&D stuff about a month ago, and I had a few questions.

1. Why do certain prestige classes have seemingly arbitrary requirements? The Fiend Slayer requires Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) while the Blade Dancer and Agent Retriever both require a Lawful alignment;
Sometimes the prereqs are there for fluff reasons. Like the Sacred Exorcist in Complete Divine. It is a Prestige Class based on ending demonic/fiendish possession.
So characters have to have a few ranks in the skills Know:Religion and Know:Planes. He also has to be able to cast the spell dismissal or dispel evil. Thus allowing both Arcane and Divine exorcists.
Or the exotic weapon master, who needs exotic weapon proficiency and weapon focus in an exotic weapon.

As stated, some prestige classes are just outright more powerful than the regular class.
If any wizard could just enter into Incantatrix or Initiate of the 7fold Veil, then why would they stay as a plain wizard?
The answer is supposed to be "Prerequisites," the wizard is paying at lower levels by being less powerful (skills, feats, used for prereqs), and get to reap the benefits at later levels when they're more powerful.
Also, prereqs were supposed to prevent a character from getting into a prestige class too soon. Examples such as "Arcane Caster level X" "Able to cast divine spells of X level" "X Ranks in a skill"
That was the original design philosophy for prestige class prereqs. Which quite often failed miserably, particularly for casting classes.

The reason it fails for some classes? The prereqs end up being something most characters will take anyway. Like a wizard with max ranks in Know:Arcana, Spellcraft, and Concentration.

[Tvtyrant]

http://i54.tinypic.com/200whs1.jpg
Skill Check-based spells (Truenamers) should not exist.

I actually think skill based casting makes more sense then the others, just that Truenamer...Messed it up.

[Divide by Zero]

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with not multiclassing - in fact, when inexperienced, multiclassing often leads into the pitfall of a character who can't do any one thing particularly well, and ends up not contributing.

Seconding this - my first character ever was a bard/ranger who was basically incapable of doing anything useful. Fortunately, that was just a one-shot, and my next character (straight warlock) was much more effective.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In my opinion, the order of complexity of classes:

-Classes with no inherent sub-system. (Fighter)
-Classes with a simple inherent subsystem (Rogue, Barbarian)
-Classes with set-list spellcasting/manifesting (Sorcerer, Bard, Psion)
-Classes with full-list spellcasting/manifesting (Druid, Cleric)
-Classes with an average inherent subsystem (Binder, Warlock, Warblade)
-Classes with prepared list spellcasting/manifesting (Wizard, Erudite)
-Classes with a complicated inherent subsystem (Totemist, Artificer)

I'd recommend staying within the first three levels while you're getting a grip on things, with some exceptions - Fighters are hard to customize to their full potential without experience, so a Barbarian would probably fill that archetype better for you. Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with not multiclassing - in fact, when inexperienced, multiclassing often leads into the pitfall of a character who can't do any one thing particularly well, and ends up not contributing.

Bolded I strongly disagree with.

Warlocks get 12 SLA's plus their EB. That's FAR simpler to the Sorcerer, who has to choose spells known each level. I would definitely call them simple inherent subsystem. It's one of the reasons I suggest them so frequently to newbies who 'want to blast things'.

Totemists aren't too difficult, either. Pick your meldshapes, pick which ones are bound where. Move on. Most totemists don't change their shapes drastically from day to day, as most tend to one archetype or another, which is backed up with feats that cannot be retrained on a daily basis. It's about on par with Binder.

On the whole, I'd say, by level of complexity:

Easiest: something melee based without spells, or something with a set list of abilities. Examples: Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock.

Still easy: hybrid-classes which have some spellcasting, but it doesn't really define who or what they are. Examples: Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Psychic Warrior

Average: Classes that utilize a fairly simple mechanic, or have multiple things they can choose from. Example: Binder, ToB, Incarnum

Hard: Full spellcasting class. Example: Sorcerer, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Psion

Very hard: Classes that require an extreme amount of min/maxing to be functional in a game. Examples: CW Samurai, Truenamer, Soulknife, Monk


My strong suggestion to you: Choose your character concept before diving into your books. Then look at those resources which help you achieve that. In fact, I had a ten page or so thread on that very idea: 'we can build it, we have the sourcebooks!'.

[Nyrre]

DM: Your head a-splode.

Wow...this is starting to look resemble the number of additional content books printed. A heartfelt thanks to everyone. I think I'll just stick with Sorcerer--Fireball seems like it could solve almost any problem, if not always in the way intended...

Come to think of it, role-players seem to be a class in-and-of themselves. Good thing no one's thought to stat that.:smallbiggrin:

...Erm, I'm sorry if this counts as off-topic, but how does one go about ending a thread once its purpose has been completed? (Or do they just fade away...?)

[herrhauptmann]

Come to think of it, role-players seem to be a class in-and-of themselves. Good thing no one's thought to stat that.:smallbiggrin:

Find the Lightning warrior. A flavorful and balanced class ;)


...Erm, I'm sorry if this counts as off-topic, but how does one go about ending a thread once its purpose has been completed? (Or do they just fade away...?)

Either let it die, or contact a mod and ask for it to get locked. Usually we do the former, and then we can then laugh at someone who rezzes the thread in 6months trying to add nothing to the conversation. :smallyuk:

[Divide by Zero]

I think I'll just stick with Sorcerer--Fireball seems like it could solve almost any problem, if not always in the way intended...

If you do go with a sorcerer, you may find after playing with it that you get more use out of buff/debuff/battlefield control spells. Compare fireball with haste, for example - how many extra attacks from the rest of your party will it take to equal a single fireball's damage? Probably not many.

[Redshirt Army]

Bolded I strongly disagree with.


Fair enough, Warlock is pretty simple, and I don't have enough experience with Magic of Incarnum to make judgement calls.


If you do go with a sorcerer, you may find after playing with it that you get more use out of buff/debuff/battlefield control spells. Compare fireball with haste, for example - how many extra attacks from the rest of your party will it take to equal a single fireball's damage? Probably not many.

Shhhh, don't reveal the secret! :smalltongue:

[Hecuba]

I actually think skill based casting makes more sense then the others, just that Truenamer...Messed it up.

I agree with you: a skill based system would actually be my very strong preference, especially since it can be used to introduce a significant chance of failure and also allow some small chance of success on ambitious use of more powerful effects.

There are, however, severe issues in integrating skill based magic into 3.5 as well. The base power level of magic and the capacity for skill boosting in 3.5 are both too high for for the kind of at-will casting skill casting implies. Fundamentally, making a 3.5 D&D homebrew solution for skill- based casting would probably be marginally more difficult than home-brewing a new d20 core system for D&D with a heavy skill emphasis.

[NikitaDarkstar]

DM: Your head a-splode.

Wow...this is starting to look resemble the number of additional content books printed. A heartfelt thanks to everyone. I think I'll just stick with Sorcerer--Fireball seems like it could solve almost any problem, if not always in the way intended...

Come to think of it, role-players seem to be a class in-and-of themselves. Good thing no one's thought to stat that.:smallbiggrin:

...Erm, I'm sorry if this counts as off-topic, but how does one go about ending a thread once its purpose has been completed? (Or do they just fade away...?)

Do yourself a favor and pick up the Spell Compendium to. go with it. It really expands on your spell selection. And figure out exactly what you want to do, but it sounds like you want to play a blaster type. (Blow things up, it's lots of fun, really. :D) If so, just remember to aim your fireballs carefully, and possibly ask your melee to let you go first, most will be happy to oblige if they know you plan to fireball something. :)

[Jude_H]

Fair enough, Warlock is pretty simple, and I don't have enough experience with Magic of Incarnum to make judgement calls.

It's not a hard system to use once you know it, but Incarnum;s jargon makes it a horrendous system to learn and its poor indexing demands system mastery for player just to determine what the book's 50 or so soulmelds actually do.

For an experienced player with system familiarity, it's definitely easier to play a Totemist than an Archivist or Wizard. For someone learning the system, I'd be surprised if weren't MoI weren't more of a struggle.

[Arbane]

4. Think of the coolest fantasy character you can/ something you've always wanted to be able to do. Look at the classes you know and see if you can make him/ acheive it.

Achieve it in ten levels, _maybe_.

D&D is based on the "Earn Your Fun" paradigm, and first-level characters tend to be somewhat competence-impaired.

[Socratov]

Achieve it in ten levels, _maybe_.

D&D is based on the "Earn Your Fun" paradigm, and first-level characters tend to be somewhat competence-impaired.

ofcourse 1-st level characters are (although temporarily) competence impaired, they are at the very bottom of the (pre epic) 20 level ladder. by level 10 your character will be among the great, and at lvl 20 you are firmly rooted in history for all time.

Pesonally I made a bard for my first character, it wat teh epitome of jack of all trades, he couldnt fight, the spellcasting was not that great, but i did have fun using skills, performing the hell out of everything. My cahracter eventually died in that campaing, and then I made my first character capable of actually doing something, and I had even more fun. Moral of the story is just make what you like, and ask for help from fellow players, the DM or even GitP