Paladin or Monk - DnD 3.5

[mikewashere]

First of all I would like to ask of you to excuse my newbiness as this is my first play of DnD.

Ok so we're basically playing classic DnD and I only have a few classes left to choose from (Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Cleric and Sorcerer) because every other one is already taken, I really like the Paladin and Monk but I heard that Monk is very hard to play. I would like advice on which is more fun and on how to play them in general, thanks in advance for your help!

[Kesnit]

A lot of people will tell you not to play either - play Crusader or Swordsage (from Tome of Battle) instead. I'm not going to say that.

I'm going to start by asking what level of optimization your group has. That will affect a lot. If your Wizard is a blaster or a buffer, then you should be fine. If the Wizard uses a lot of summons and self-buff spells, you may be better off looking at Cleric.

Monk is not hard to play. It's a melee class, which means "run up and hit things." It's one of my favorite classes, actually.

[eggynack]

Well, between the two I'd advise playing a paladin. Pick up a two handed weapon and stab stuff in the face for some success. Out of the whole list though, I'd advise that if you like paladins then you might want to try the cleric. It's basically the paladin except significantly better in most ways. The flavor is really similar, so you could just play a paladin without using the class itself. Additionally, it's not so much that monks are hard to play than that they just don't do anything well at most points of optimization. You basically just run around failing to hit stuff a lot.

[mikewashere]

We're all pretty new at this so I really have no idea what the other people are doing, but I am leaning more towards Monk. And I have made a mistake, cleric is taken. =\

[Flickerdart]

Paladin is a lot easier to play - you have a good BAB, good HP, and proficiency with armour and weapons. Your abilities also make you pretty hard to kill.

Monk has average BAB, can't use armour or weapons effectively, and has a whole hodge-podge of abilities that aren't very good.

I would not advise using either class for a beginner, though. Out of your list, Barbarian is the best for a beginner (tons of HP, and basically only one activated ability, Rage, which is quite good).

[Sith_Happens]

Monk is not hard to play. It's a melee class, which means "run up and hit things." It's one of my favorite classes, actually.

Just know that it's quite likely your success rate on the "hit things" part will be spotty at best.

(Is it "ninja'd" if I scrolled down from the entry box and saw the new post, but hit "Submit Reply" anyways?)

[Snowbluff]

A lot of people will tell you not to play either - play Crusader or Swordsage (from Tome of Battle) instead. I'm not going to say that.
Yes, this would be my first suggestion. Heck, Warblade is free. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2)

Paladin is a lot easier to play - you have a good BAB, good HP, and proficiency with armour and weapons. Your abilities also make you pretty hard to kill.

Monk has average BAB, can't use armour or weapons effectively, and has a whole hodge-podge of abilities that aren't very good.

I would not advise using either class for a beginner, though. Out of your list, Barbarian is the best for a beginner (tons of HP, and basically only one activated ability, Rage, which is quite good).
When is comes down to it, I would say take Paladin over Monk. The classes operate in the same tier, but the Paladin is just a lot more compentant. Even in the eclectic extra abilities it has, pretty much all of them will see some use.

Barbarian is nice, but I sometimes have new players who have issues managing rage, power attack, and the altered numbers. A class that doesn't rely on self-buffs would be better in the short term, and in the long term the player is better of learning ToB.

[mikewashere]

To be completely honest I like difficult characters which is why I wanted to take Wiz at the beginning, but my friend stole it from under my nose. Anyways, Barbarian doesn't seem like my style, its just running and bashing, seems boring.

[eggynack]

I'm seconding the barbarian, come to think of it. They're one of the easier classes in the game, and rarely feel useless even at low levels of optimization. Also, is there any particular reason that two people can't play the same class? Multiple clerics can easily be in the same party and fill different roles. Also, before you pick out a monk, you should note that a cleric can probably beat them at combat at first level without spells. Punching people a lot while not wearing armor is just that bad. At later levels, they don't need to beat them at combat without spells, because they have so many spells. Monks don't really do much of anything, to the point where you'd probably do better in combat playing a warrior or something. Barbarian or paladin are better options than that though.

[Flickerdart]

Anyways, Barbarian doesn't seem like my style, its just running and bashing, seems boring.
You will find that the majority of non-spellcasters in 3.5 operate precisely on this principle, except that they don't even run (because full attacks require that you do not move). If you're not casting spells, every single turn is likely going to be "I full attack".

[mikewashere]

The classes we're playing with are these : Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer and Wizard. Our DM prefers that everyone play something else but I spoke with him and he said that because they invited me pretty late he wont mind if I take a class someone else is playing, so now I need new suggestions, again please no barbarian. xD

[eggynack]

Indeed so. The only true difference between the decision making of a monk versus a barbarian, is that the barbarian at least gets to make the linear "Shall I rage?" decision. Why don't you try doubling up on one of the classes, or playing a sorcerer. The latter especially if you wanted to play a wizard. Seriously though, what's stopping you from playing the same class as someone else? It's really not going to make the game worse to do so.

Edit: Ah. Then, y'know, pick one of the classes we already advised you to take over the paladin or monk. I'd probably go with the cleric, because they're like more interesting and powerful paladins, or the wizard, because you apparently came into this wanting to play a wizard and got sidetracked.

[Rubik]

I WOULD suggest druid, but that class would likely be rather overwhelming for a new player.

Ranger or rogue (or ranger/rogue) would be my suggestion for a newbie. You've got plenty of skills and skill points, and you have the option of fighting up close or at range, or using your skills and/or animal companion and/or spells for it instead. Perhaps invest in some alchemical items (like tanglefoot bags) in early levels, and add in wands (with Use Magic Device) for later on. Easier than a spellcaster, but more versatility than barbarian, paladin, or monk.

[Kazyan]

You lack a skillful character, and want a spellcaster. Bard sounds right up your alley. Don't worry about the "Bards are weak" misconception--they're actually quite competent, and have some complexity without being overwhelming.

[mikewashere]

Speaking of casters, how is the sorcerer? (Sorry for the so many questions, this game is kind of overwhelming) =]

[eggynack]

Speaking of casters, how is the sorcerer? (Sorry for the so many questions, this game is kind of overwhelming) =]
It is a bit like that occasionally. Anyway, they're generally considered worse than the wizard, due to lacking the wizard's versatility. There's an argument that exists that they're better for new players, because new players are more likely to pick a few good spells anyway. There's some credence to this view, but I disagree with it because any choice you make with a sorcerer is effectively permanent, whereas a new wizard can pick a few bad spells, realize they're bad, and move on to something else. Wizards require more play optimization, but less build optimization. Still, sorcerers are pretty great. They have access to casting, and casting is likely the most powerful thing in the game. You might want to stick with the wizard though, because if the problem with wizards is that you're stepping on your ally's toes, sorcerers don't do so much less.

[Flickerdart]

You lack a skillful character, and want a spellcaster. Bard sounds right up your alley. Don't worry about the "Bards are weak" misconception--they're actually quite competent, and have some complexity without being overwhelming.
They're playing in Core, it seems, where bards are kind of lame.


Speaking of casters, how is the sorcerer? (Sorry for the so many questions, this game is kind of overwhelming) =]
Sorcerer is a pretty decent caster for a first time player - you get a handful of spells and have many castings of them. Keep your familiar close by if you choose to summon one, because they die fast!
The only problem with sorcerers is that if you pick a bad spell, it will be a while before you get to trade it out. As general advice, try to get spells that are widely applicable and get used often (such as summon monster which can be used to grab any of a whole bunch of monsters) instead of narrow spells (like identify which will rarely get used). Infrequently used spells are what you get on scrolls (if you will need them in the field) or have the wizard learn (if you will need them during downtime). Get spells that do different things - you don't need 10 spells that all do damage. Try to get a selection of spells that targets one of each save (Fortitude, Reflex, Will), as well as at least one spell that doesn't offer a saving throw at all.

[mikewashere]

Decided to go with sorcerer, seems the most fun thing next to Wizard and I don't wanna play a wiz anymore to be frank. But got any suggestions on level one Ability scores/Attributes and w/e is left? And a suggestion on a race?

[Snowbluff]

Cha>Con>Dex

Take advantage of your familiar.

[Sith_Happens]

Get spells that do different things - you don't need 10 spells that all do damage. Try to get a selection of spells that targets one of each save (Fortitude, Reflex, Will), as well as at least one spell that doesn't offer a saving throw at all.

On that note, metamagic is your best friend. Instead of learning a higher-level blasting spell, you can just Empower your existing one. Instead of learning a higher-level X-save-or-Y for the higher DC, you can just Heighten your existing one. And so on.

[mikewashere]

Suggestions on a race? :D

[mikewashere]

Sorry for the double post but I had another question about sorcerer. Were all playing from level 1 obviously and I need to choose skills and feats, I have utterly no idea what to take. Help please? =\

[eggynack]

Human tends to be the best race in core. An extra feat and skillpoint is better than just about anything else you can be doing. Additionally, none of the other races have a charisma bonus, so you're not finding great benefits elsewhere.

Edit: For skills, you're probably running at least 2, which you should put fully into spellcraft and concentration, and if you pick human as I would, you get another one you can put into bluff. It's a pretty good skill. Knowledge arcana is good too, but the wizard is probably handling that. You're running about 2 feats first level from human, but there aren't that many feats in core for anyone. There's metamagic, which isn't useful now, but can be great later, craft wondrous item, which you can only take later, and generic casty stuff. That last one includes stuff like spell penetration and spell focus. There's also improved initiative, which is pretty good.

[The Trickster]

Suggestions on a race? :D

Humans are boring, but are good for most classes. That bonus feat really comes in handy. I also recommend on of the short races (gnomes or halfling), since you only lose STR (not really used much for a caster) and you gain an important stat instead (DEX or CON). Gnomes also get some spell like abilities that can help you in the beginning part of the game. Hope this helps!

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

My largest complaint about the monk isn't that it's difficult to play, or even really that it is difficult to play effectively (which it is), but that it's very misleading, especially to new players; despite all those cool-looking abilities a monk gets, monk gameplay amounts to "running and bashing" as much, if not more, than barbarian gameplay does. Now, as you said you don't want to play a barbarian, I don't mean to recommend one, so don't take the following the wrong way; I'm not trying to convince you to play barbarian instead of monk, I'm just trying to explain why, if you aren't interested in playing barbarian, monk might not be a good choice, either, regardless of its cool-sounding list of abilities may indicate.

The abilities a monk will get that a barbarian won't are either different versions of "running and bashing" (stunning fist, quivering palm, fast movement), passive (the various immunities), and a largely ineffectual self-heal. While bashing with a fancy martial arts move or running with a once-per-day dimension door might read on paper as cooler than bashing with a big axe and regular ol' running, they don't end up too different when it comes to actually playing the game. The biggest difference, honestly, is that the monk is going to successfully bash much less often than the barbarian will.

Paladin will have a few more options, at least once it hits level four. You'll still be mainly running and bashing, but you'll be able to cast a few spells, turn undead when it's relevant, and heal about as well as the monk, though you'll lose some skill versatility. The only reason I'd recommend not going with a paladin is that some DMs, especially newer ones, seem to take a paladin player as some sort of dare and do everything within their power to make the paladin fall. I'd check with the DM to be sure the campaign will be relatively "paladin-safe" and if he'll cut you a little slack for being new with the code.

If you were hoping for wizard, though, sorcerer's the next best thing, and maybe even a little simpler for a beginner. It's not considered as "powerful" as a wizard because a sorcerer doesn't get the limitless versatility that a wizard does, on account of knowing less spells, which leads to a lot of people wrongfully writing it off entirely. However, the sorcerer is still incredibly useful in a lot of situations, including some where a wizard wouldn't be. Basically, you should be pretty careful about which spells you pick when you learn new spells, but you'll be quite flexible moment-to-moment and able to help out the party in a variety of situations, even ones for which you weren't exactly prepared. I'd also recommend talking this over with the guy playing a wizard so that the two of you can coordinate spell lists somewhat.

tl;dr: Monk isn't actually going to be as different from barbarian as it might seem, unfortunately; Paladin will still involve a lot of bashing, but has a few more options, but can run into trouble with the strict "paladin's code" under certain DMs; Sorcerer is going to be a lot like wizard, but a little simpler in exchange for being a little less versatile, overall.

EDIT: Humans or small folk are probably your best bet. The extra feat and skill point from human never hurt anybody, but the size bonuses from small and bonus to a relevant stat never hurt anybody, either. Gnomes get some great SLAs and a little bit of extra HP from their constitution bonus, while halflings get a bonus to saves and a little extra AC and ranged attack from their dexterity bonus. Halfling is better if you really want to focus on ranged touch spells like rays, otherwise it's really a matter of fluff, I suppose.

[The Trickster]

Sorry for the double post but I had another question about sorcerer. Were all playing from level 1 obviously and I need to choose skills and feats, I have utterly no idea what to take. Help please? =\

You don't have many skills to choose from, but spellcraft and knowledge: arcana always seem useful. Spellcraft lets you try and figure out what spell someone else casts, and knowledge: arcana gives you information about magical...things. (some monsters, for example).

As for feats, it kinda depends on the kind of sorcerer you want to be.

[mikewashere]

What types of sorcerers are there?

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

How do you mean? In terms of character builds, or in terms of whole variant class features and such?

In either case, I'd suggesting giving this guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2180.0) a look-over. It's a fun read and full of solid advice.

[yugi24862]

It basicly means what magic you mostly pick. Sorcerer's dont get enough spells to do everything, but you can pick a few things and do them well. Out of Battlefield control, damage, buffs, enchantments, illusions, and summons as general categories, you can pick 2 or 3 and do them well.

Feat wise, improved Initiative means you are more likely to go first. That is always a good thing.

[The Trickster]

What types of sorcerers are there?


How do you mean? In terms of character builds, or in terms of whole variant class features and such?

In either case, I'd suggesting giving this guide (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2180.0) a look-over. It's a fun read and full of solid advice.

Hehe sorry. I meat what kind of sorcerer you wanna play as. Blow things up, mind controling, illusion making, etc.

[mikewashere]

I'd like to most powerful version or something that can change the look of a battle. : P

[eggynack]

Well, there's not all that much you can change in core. The sorcerer effectively gets no class features, so you get pure benefit from prestige classes, but there's only like three prestige classes for arcane guys in core, and they're mostly for not-sorcerers. Thaumaturgist looks pretty good, in the absence of loremaster. Either way, you're mostly talking about spells known. It informs just about everything about the build. You get 4 0th level and 2 first level spells known at first level. I like silent image, because it's ridiculously versatile, and probably one of the encounter destroying spells as the other one. The list of those is something like grease, color spray, and sleep. I'd stay away from sleep, because it doesn't scale much, but you can just change it out. For 0th level, prestidigitation is great, mage hand and detect magic are super good, and acid splash can be the thing you shoot at people sometimes, if you don't just want to pick up a crossbow. Generally speaking, you don't want spells that are doing only one thing. Alter self is great, for example, because you can do just about everything with that spell. Pure damage spells, conversely, are something you should avoid. You might want to pick up one, and maybe use metamagic to scale it up to most other levels.

[Flickerdart]

I'd like to most powerful version or something that can change the look of a battle. : P
That really doesn't take off until later levels, but start looking into the various fog spells. At early levels all they do is concealment (so your rogue can skulk around stealing people's component pouches and holy symbols) but later they add on effects (stinking cloud nauseates, solid fog traps people inside, cloudkill deals constitution damage). They all have large enough areas of effect to affect an entire battlefield.

[eggynack]

That really doesn't take off until later levels, but start looking into the various fog spells. At early levels all they do is concealment (so your rogue can skulk around stealing people's component pouches and holy symbols) but later they add on effects (stinking cloud nauseates, solid fog traps people inside, cloudkill deals constitution damage). They all have large enough areas of effect to affect an entire battlefield.
This stuff also. Battlefield control is great. As I noted though, if you want to change "the look" of the battlefield, it doesn't get much better than silent image. You can do just about anything with that spell.

[Pickford]

We're all pretty new at this so I really have no idea what the other people are doing, but I am leaning more towards Monk. And I have made a mistake, cleric is taken. =\

If you're going to play monk, take a moment and determine what your options are in combat against various opponent types, this may be dependent in part upon level.

i.e. see what your modifiers will be for ranged attacks/melee and figure out how likely your attacks/abilities are to work.

If your DM will let you borrow a Monster Manual, look up monsters that are your level / 4 and see how you would be able to hurt them, and if you can't, what you would need to do so. (i.e. if it's incorporeal you'll want a ghost touch weapon of some kind, or just know you're relying on a 50/50 chance to hit if you have a magic weapon).