Help me with picking a few classes

[nokla]

Hi guys, long time no see!

I'm starting a campaign as a DM, and my friends asked me to keep it simple and move it slow.

They even asked me to predetermine their classes for them.

There are three of them, and they explicitly stated that they don't want to be great heroes at the very start, so I was wondering if you could handpick a few classes that are kinda obscure, but not very complicated to use and master?

I was thinking to make one of them a Fighter, one guy a ranged specialist (class needed) and one of them someone who has unique powers - but cannot be considered a mage - they ****ing hate mages.

Thanks in advance! :smallsmile:

[Urpriest]

Fighter is a pretty complicated class for a new player, I would suggest Barbarian instead. Rather than having to learn feats and combat maneuvers and build up complicated feat chains, the character can focus on charging with simple to keep track of n/day abilities.

What do they consider a mage? There are lots and lots of classes with unique powers, and some of them are appropriate for new players...but unique powers generally make people think of mages. For example, with this sort of group the Beguiler is a great option for a caster...but it probably seems too "mage" ish for these guys.

For the ranged character, a Scout going into a Swift Hunter build (if you also control that aspect) would probably be the most basic option, though if they didn't hate mages so much I would be tempted to suggest Warlock or another more magical class with an at-will ranged attack.

[Arc_knight25]

I would say fighter type, rogue type and caster type. If the caster doesn't have heals just make it so they have enough Healing potions or have the caster have a Wand of cure light.

Just keep it simple for classes and stick to PHB1. You can have alot of fun with a simple campaign.

Might I recommend Kobalds as their first foe. Kobalds are nasty, Using there traps and ambush/swarm tactics.

[Keltaris]

I agree with Urpriest.

The unique powers one could be a Dragonfire Adept.

[nokla]

This one guy played the Fighter a number of times before, he goes for brute force and isn't particularly interested in going into feat chains, maybe that's the reason he quits the first most of the times. :smallbiggrin:
But he'll manage it and give him a few hints and suggestions before he does anything stupid.

Thanks for the ranged character, I'll be sure to take that one!

They consider a mage anyone who can do most of the damage with next to no effort. And you're right, they would dismiss Beguiler and Warlock right away.
Unique abilities involving some sort of magic or powers, but not actually casting any spells?

[Greenish]

They consider a mage anyone who can do most of the damage with next to no effort. And you're right, they would dismiss Beguiler and Warlock right away.
Unique abilities involving some sort of magic or powers, but not actually casting any spells?Well, beguilers don't really do damage.

Hmm, unique abilities without casting spells while being simple… I'm not sure what to say. Most of the stuff that has unique magical abilities without casting spells use one subsystem or another, like binding or meldshaping, which tend to be rather complicated. Warlock and Dragonfire Adept are simple, and don't cast spells, but they both deal damage (not the most damage, but pretty effortlessly).

So, uh, Dragon Shaman? *shudders*

[nokla]

Well they don't have to be braindead simple, just something straightforward? Like a melee type warrior with a cool skillset that differs from the fighter/barbarian concept.

[Urpriest]

This one guy played the Fighter a number of times before, he goes for brute force and isn't particularly interested in going into feat chains, maybe that's the reason he quits the first most of the times. :smallbiggrin:
But he'll manage it and give him a few hints and suggestions before he does anything stupid.

Thanks for the ranged character, I'll be sure to take that one!

They consider a mage anyone who can do most of the damage with next to no effort. And you're right, they would dismiss Beguiler and Warlock right away.
Unique abilities involving some sort of magic or powers, but not actually casting any spells?

These two are contradictory. Fighter and Rogue are classes that do lots of damage with next to no effort. Casters are basically never. The whole thing with casters is that they're harder to use. So I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

If you're ok with the guy sticking with brute force, Barbarian would really be a much better choice for him than Fighter.

The classes from Tome of Battle involve unique abilities, but they don't really fill a caster role in the party. They're basically just a more interesting take on Fighter and Rogue and the like.


Well, beguilers don't really do damage.

Hmm, unique abilities without casting spells while being simple… I'm not sure what to say. Most of the stuff that has unique magical abilities without casting spells use one subsystem or another, like binding or meldshaping, which tend to be rather complicated. Warlock and Dragonfire Adept are simple, and don't cast spells, but they both deal damage (not the most damage, but pretty effortlessly).

So, uh, Dragon Shaman? *shudders*

Dragon Shaman and Dragonfire Adept both spend most of their time breathing fire. If your players don't like the concept of someone who can breathe fire all day, then they won't like either.


Well they don't have to be braindead simple, just something straightforward? Like a melee type warrior with a cool skillset that differs from the fighter/barbarian concept.

That would generally mean Tome of Battle. But if you've already got a Fighter-type and a ranged weapon user in the party, then that's not really what you want, rather, you want someone who can fill the caster role. Which is going to be tricky with your party's aversion to casters.

[nokla]

These two are contradictory. Fighter and Rogue are classes that do lots of damage with next to no effort. Casters are basically never. The whole thing with casters is that they're harder to use. So I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

If you're ok with the guy sticking with brute force, Barbarian would really be a much better choice for him than Fighter.

The classes from Tome of Battle involve unique abilities, but they don't really fill a caster role in the party. They're basically just a more interesting take on Fighter and Rogue and the like.



Dragon Shaman and Dragonfire Adept both spend most of their time breathing fire. If your players don't like the concept of someone who can breathe fire all day, then they won't like either.



That would generally mean Tome of Battle. But if you've already got a Fighter-type and a ranged weapon user in the party, then that's not really what you want, rather, you want someone who can fill the caster role. Which is going to be tricky with your party's aversion to casters.

They think a sword to the face is a more realistic damage source than a 2nd lvl damage dealing spell. In fact, most of their issues with the casters are that they know a ton of spells without any explanation of how they acquired them.

But what you sad at the end, someone who can fill the caster role. Yeah. Good stuff there. Anything of the sorts in your minds?

[Urpriest]

They think a sword to the face is a more realistic damage source than a 2nd lvl damage dealing spell. In fact, most of their issues with the casters are that they know a ton of spells without any explanation of how they acquired them.

But what you sad at the end, someone who can fill the caster role. Yeah. Good stuff there. Anything of the sorts in your minds?

Wizards have Spellbooks, your players do know that, right? In general, characters who cast spells...learn spells. The explanation is built into the class. They do research, figure out how the world works, and use that knowledge to cast spells. Alternatively, casters learn spells the same way Fighters learn feats: through experience.

That said, if they find the variety of spells and spell learning to be the odd thing out, then Dragonfire Adept should be fine. They gain only a few specific abilities, and it's all from a magical pact-ish-thing so there's an explained source. That should be a good way to fill the caster role for a low-op group. Warlock would also work, but Dragonfire Adept is arguably a bit easier.

[Fyermind]

Dragonfire adept, Crusader, Warlock

They can fight all day. They have ranged combat, healing, battlefield control, sword to the face, all that good stuff.

Adaptation: If they don't like Warlock offer some other ranged combat character. Warlock is easier to use and has limited enough talents (and the explanation of a demon did it) that you might be able to convince them. If they don't like Dragonfire adept, accept that you are going to have to make a very different campaign then normal.

The crusader holds the group together with healing abilities. You could consider using a rogue as the archer for trapfinding if you like.

[nokla]

Wizards have Spellbooks, your players do know that, right? In general, characters who cast spells...learn spells. The explanation is built into the class. They do research, figure out how the world works, and use that knowledge to cast spells. Alternatively, casters learn spells the same way Fighters learn feats: through experience.

That said, if they find the variety of spells and spell learning to be the odd thing out, then Dragonfire Adept should be fine. They gain only a few specific abilities, and it's all from a magical pact-ish-thing so there's an explained source. That should be a good way to fill the caster role for a low-op group. Warlock would also work, but Dragonfire Adept is arguably a bit easier.


Dragonfire adept, Crusader, Warlock

They can fight all day. They have ranged combat, healing, battlefield control, sword to the face, all that good stuff.

Adaptation: If they don't like Warlock offer some other ranged combat character. Warlock is easier to use and has limited enough talents (and the explanation of a demon did it) that you might be able to convince them. If they don't like Dragonfire adept, accept that you are going to have to make a very different campaign then normal.

The crusader holds the group together with healing abilities. You could consider using a rogue as the archer for trapfinding if you like.


Thanks guys, I'll think take a Warlock then, but it won't come out of the blue, a demon will leave a mark on the Warrior or something so he'll be able to gain the Warlock powers or something.

Big thanks to everyone who helped!

[Urpriest]

Thanks guys, I'll think take a Warlock then, but it won't come out of the blue, a demon will leave a mark on the Warrior or something so he'll be able to gain the Warlock powers or something.

Big thanks to everyone who helped!

It probably should happen during the backstory, rather than in-game. After all, it's not like Fighters are trained in-game.

[The Trickster]

Perhaps a bard? I know they cast spells, but they don't really do a large amount of damage, they can heal at early levels, and buffs are always welcome.

I have never used the MoI classes, but they use magic like abilities too. I also am fond of the swordsage from ToB, and they never seemed hard to use.

[nedz]

Thanks guys, I'll think take a Warlock then, but it won't come out of the blue, a demon will leave a mark on the Warrior or something so he'll be able to gain the Warlock powers or something.

Big thanks to everyone who helped!

Well you could go for the Fey angle. The child was stolen whist an infant, and found again a few years later, ...
Pretty basic back story, but it should do.