If you had to DM a handful of balanced classes, what would they be?

[johnbragg]

I was reading somewhere, possibly in someone's guide to noobs creating characters, that the PHB base classes were the most unbalanced and that, through trial and error and experimentation, the classes created towards the end of the 3.x cycle were much more balanced.

Which is great, but I think it's better to give new players a smaller list of options to choose from. Players are going to come in with vague ideas of what they want to play--a Conan, an Aragorn, a Gandalf, a Gimli, a Bilbo, an Inigo Montoya, a Twilight Sparkle, etc.

So I was thinking, what would be a good short-list of balanced classes? If you don't want to start new players with the 10 PHB classes, what 4-8 classes would you have them pick from? I'd assume you still want one or two warrior-types, rogue-types, caster-types and jack-of-all-trades type, but I have no idea which ones would be preferred.

[Schism]

Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Beguiler, Warmage, Factotum, and, er... Favored Soul, I guess? You could throw in Binder too I suppose, but that's hardly newbie friendly.

[OldTrees1]

Easy to use Tier 3s:
Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior

Add in Tier 4 Barbarian for the Conan but maybe tweak it so it is more versatile

a Conan, an Aragorn, a Gandalf, a Gimli, a Bilbo, an Inigo Montoya, a Twilight Sparkle
A Barbarian, Swordsage, Duskblade, Crusader, Beguiler, Warblade, Bard

[Doc_Maynot]

In the case you were listing a real example, not just the figurative one, the Twilight should totally be a Factotum. Would suit the character quite well seeing as wizards are quite unbalanced.

[Gavinfoxx]

Just pick the Tier 3's:

Factotum, Beguiler, Bard, Dread Necromancer, Warblade, Swordsage, Crusader, Ardent, Psychic Warrior, Duskblade, Binder, Shugenja, Psychic Rogue, Wildshape Ranger, Incarnate, Wilder.

[OldTrees1]

In the case you were listing a real example, not just the figurative one, the Twilight should totally be a Factotum. Would suit the character quite well seeing as wizards are quite unbalanced.

Factotum does not have enough magic to mimic Twilight Sparkle. Hence I went with a spellcaster with a Lore ability and lots of skills.
However the flavor of a Factotum fits TS very well.

[Gavinfoxx]

If you want to play ponies, You should be playing 4e. No, really! (friendshipisdragons.thecomicseries.com/comics/first/)

[The Corinthian]

If I couldn't make any changes at all it'd be tricky, but I hope these are minor enough to pass muster.

Warblade (with Survival, Spot and Listen as added class skills, proficiency with all simple and martial weapons, not just melee, and rewrites to Iron Heart Surge and White Raven Tactics), Rogue, Sorcerer (with a small list of banned and nerfed spells), Favored Soul (ditto) -that should pretty much do the trick.

[ArcturusV]

Presuming I want the typical four roles (Brute, Tricks, Spellslinging, Priest) out of the game, and wanted to limit half-step classes (Paladins, Rangers, Gishes, Theurges, etc)...

Hmm... I'd probably go with:

Brute: Barbarian, Samurai (OA), Fighter (With variants available). They're simple classes, easy to handle. The Samurai's self enchanting and more generous skill points makes it a more viable character than the base fighter's 2 per level. Fighter really needs some ACFs to stand out. Without a Rogue as the go to Tricks guy a stacked Thug/Sneak Attack ACF fighter looks a lot more interesting and holds a niche as the ambusher.

Tricks: Bard. Pretty simple. If player's get hung up on the "It's silly to sing in battle" aspect of it, I might lower down to Rogue or Ranger (Favoring Ranger for newbies). Both could fit the niche, but I wouldn't use both of them. Ranger being an exception to the "Gish" rule of half classes because it's also a pretty capable skills chassis without some of the more ricockulous things that might go on with Factotums or using full spellcasters for that role.

Spellslinger: Warmage, incidentally enough. If you're playing with new players, when they think Wizard they usually think "Chucking fire/lightning" more than the better optimized player. This is probably the class they imagine a "Wizard" being when they first belly up to the table, and they're easy to run and a little more forgiving. I might also suggest the Wu Jen, while relatively powerful compared to other classes, due to having a more limited list, it's still pretty capped compared to Sorcerer/Wizard. And it's "elemental" sort of theme makes for a handy handle for players to grip. Unless they haunt optimization boards they're probably never going to think up of the various broken combos of the Wu Jen on their own (At least in my experience).

Priest Types: Oddly, I like Shugenja for that. The Shugenja being less of an "tanky" type than the PHB cleric means that you have a niche for it other than being a frontline bruiser, taking away from the Brutes. It's geared down in power quite a bit, but still has a lot of utility. The spells known and elemental focus makes it easy to know what your Shugenja is going to do at any given point in time, and again, a much shorter list of spells than the standard Cleric/Druids.

[Pseudo_Nym]

Anything from the tier 3s would be fine. Just 4-8 of them, I'd suggest Beguiler, Crusader, Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, Factotum, and Warblade, myself. Nice mix of fighting and skill options, variety of choices for a would-be wizard, and everybody's pretty well-rounded, but in different ways. No healing, really, but that's not so terrible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Hmm. I'd probably go with


Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and a Pathfinder summoner (no synthesis!) for arcane casters.
A Cleric-casting-spontaneously-from-his-domains for a divine caster.
Crusader and Warblade for melee, along with a Pathfinder barbarian-with-infinite-rage for those who just want to hit things.
Swordsage and a Factotum-with-sneak-attack-in-place-of-spells for skillmonkies.
Ranger//Scout-gestalt-without-spells and spontaneous-casting-shapeshift-variant Druid for nature.

[OldTrees1]

Hmm. I'd probably go with


A Cleric-casting-spontaneously-from-his-domains for a divine caster.


Huh. Do you think they would need more than their 2-3 default domains if that is all the spells they get to know?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Huh. Do you think they would need more than their 2-3 default domains if that is all the spells they get to know?
God yes. I'd recommend 5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12348960&postcount=2), which is what most gods offer (at least in the PHB).

[OldTrees1]

@Grod_The_Giant
I like that idea I will try to convince my DM to let me use it next time I play a cleric.

[JaronK]

Heh, I just wrote this out for another thread. Here's my replacement core list:

1: Factotum (replaces Wizard and Rogue)
2: Warblade (replaces Fighter and Barbarian)
3: Swordsage (Including Unarmed Variant, replaces Barbarian and Monk)
4: Crusader (Replaces Cleric and Paladin)
5: Warmage (Replaces Sorcerer and Wizard)
6: Dread Necromancer (Replaces Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard)
7: Beguiler (Replaces Rogue and Sorcerer)
8: Bard (Bardic Knack and Divine Bard available, can replace Cleric a little)
9: Warlock (Replaces Sorcerer)
10: Ranger (Wild Shape Variant available, replaces Druid)
11: Binder (Replaces Cleric, Sorcerer, Rogue, Wizard)

JaronK

[Sarison]

Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric. They work for our group.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Shugenja for the divine (maybe a healer if I toss a domain+its power), duskblade/bard/marshall for the tactical melee (or support) warmage/dread necromancer/beguiler on the magic end. There are many more options beyond this, but I felt that shugenja had been unjustly ignored.

[Urpriest]

Hmm...

Let's focus on the idea of this being for new players. That means no Binder, and probably no Incarnum. We want things that are fairly easy to understand and don't require a lot of books.

So Core has Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard

I'd go with:
Bard (build in some of the better ACFs and provide a shortlist of good feats)
Barbarian (IMO the best class for a new player who wants to melee, whoever suggests Fighter to new players should be run through)
Divine Bard (it's hard to replace the Cleric, but Divine Bard at least has options to do so. Again, definitely comes with a Bard guide)
Wildshape Ranger (with a shortlist of wildshapes)
Warblade
Swordsage
Crusader
Swift Hunter (not the homebrew class, but rather just a Scout/Ranger with a strong build outline)
Factotum (point "I want to stab people" folks to Swordsage, and use this for the people who have the misconception that Rogue is the skills class)
Beguiler (most generic "Wizard" like of the fixed-list folks)
Warmage (Tier 4 is fine, just remember what you are)
Dread Necro (only if someone really wanted to play evil, this guy is complicated)

If we're limiting it to 4-8, I guess the list would become

Beguiler
Divine Bard (or maybe Shugenja, actually)
Swordsage
Barbarian

For 4, and add in Warmage, Swift Hunter, Warblade, Crusader for the next four.

[gorfnab]

If you want to play ponies, You should be playing 4e. No, really! (friendshipisdragons.thecomicseries.com/comics/first/)
Pathfinder has ponies (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/115547/Ponyfinder---Race-Book)

[JaronK]

Actually I find Binder to be surprisingly good for newbies. You get your abilities in chunks, and each day you have only three abilities to pick between. It's actually more confusing for veterans because it's different.

Jaronk

[Urpriest]

Actually I find Binder to be surprisingly good for newbies. You get your abilities in chunks, and each day you have only three abilities to pick between. It's actually more confusing for veterans because it's different.

Jaronk

Huh. Y'know, if the Binder's vestiges were organized by level, I could definitely see that working. But it's easy enough to make a cheat-sheet like that if someone wants to play one.

[Maginomicon]

For even semi-experienced players, I'd go with JaronK's list shown below. It's well-rounded and gets the job done.
1: Factotum (replaces Wizard and Rogue)
2: Warblade (replaces Fighter and Barbarian)
3: Swordsage (Including Unarmed Variant, replaces Barbarian and Monk)
4: Crusader (Replaces Cleric and Paladin)
5: Warmage (Replaces Sorcerer and Wizard)
6: Dread Necromancer (Replaces Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard)
7: Beguiler (Replaces Rogue and Sorcerer)
8: Bard (Bardic Knack and Divine Bard available, can replace Cleric a little)
9: Warlock (Replaces Sorcerer)
10: Ranger (Wild Shape Variant available, replaces Druid)
11: Binder (Replaces Cleric, Sorcerer, Rogue, Wizard)

All (without exception) of the utterly new players that I personally have seen come in with no experience with tabletop RPGs are an entirely different story.

By-far, those kinds of players unknowingly desire to learn how to play during play, and just want to build something where it's easy to understand how to play. They want essentially a "tutorial character". The question of build complexity isn't important at all, while the ease for understanding the nuances (if any, preferably none) of the rules involved with their character's features is extremely important (the last thing they want is to be told they're playing their character wrong because they had wrong assumptions). For these reasons, the list JaronK gave is completely out the window for those kinds of newcomers.

What would work for those kinds of new players is something that may have a lot of choices available, but where choice paralysis can be entirely eliminated through your guiding hand as GM. It's important to instill from the start that for the most part their imagination is the limit. Don't initially go into detail about all of the options unless they explicitly ask. Instead ask them what kind of character they'd like to play in fluff. Then the massive number of choices available works in your favor because only you're aware of the full range of options and thus can help them build something which best matches their desired fluff. Balance concerns are not important for their first character because this is a tutorial character; they're not going to be remotely optimized no matter what choices they (or rather, you) pick. Your goal with them during play is to periodically ask whether they feel they have a firm grasp on the rules. Once they do, your goal is to encourage them to retire their first character (especially if the character's becoming ineffective and you as GM feel it would probably die in the next encounter) in favor of something that's in your typical list of "balanced" classes. (such as the one JaronK gave)

Therein lies the rub. You'd be handing them something that's not balanced, but that's okay because it's highly unlikely that their tutorial character would unbalance the party if you're helping build their first character anyway.

With that in mind, for utterly new players, build them a character that uses one of the four Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) (Generic Warrior, Generic Expert, Generic Arcane Spellcaster, or Generic Divine Spellcaster). The Generic Classes have no rule nuances inherent to the classes themselves, so they're perfect. They have no fluff of their own, so they're perfect. With them you have loads of room in which you can accomplish their desired fluff, so they're perfect. If possible, you shouldn't explain a Generic Class until you have a good grasp of what kind of class would best fit their desired fluff. Once you have that solid grasp, the Generic Class features are so dirt-simple that you can introduce the class like so:

Generic Warrior:
"You're a warrior. You hit things, and you're pretty good at it. That's your job. You have bonus feats and you can pick whatever you want for them. You can instead choose to flavor your warrior by swapping out your bonus feats for any of the items in this extremely limited list of class features."

Generic Expert:
"You're an expert. You're really good at skills. Your job is otherwise basically just to hit things. You have bonus feats and you can pick whatever you want for them. You can instead choose to flavor your expert by swapping out your bonus feats for any of the items in this extremely limited list of class features."

Generic Spellcaster:
"You're a spellcaster. You pick whatever spells you want from all of the four main spell lists in the entire game, but once you pick them you have to stick with them. You can cast them whenever you want so long as you mark off spells you cast of that level off of your daily allotment. You have bonus feats and you can pick whatever you want for them. You can instead choose to flavor your spellcaster by swapping out your bonus feats for any of the items in this extremely limited list of class features. There's two versions of spellcaster (arcane and divine), but the only appreciable difference between the two are what kinds of scrolls you can use."

Again, the four generic classes are not balanced (they're not by a long shot), and they have tons of options, but that's okay since you'd be taking a hands-on approach with them because they're new, and are going to be helping them build their tutorial character.

[Fable Wright]

Factotum does not have enough magic to mimic Twilight Sparkle. Hence I went with a spellcaster with a Lore ability and lots of skills.
However the flavor of a Factotum fits TS very well.
Consider her actual capabilities with magic: A few powerful effect every so often, and a handful of constant magic capabilities. Consider: Dimensional Jaunt (yes, this doesn't quite work with RAW Factotum, but RAI works) + Unseen Servant. Unseen Servant causes basic telekinesis effects, Dimension Jaunt allows for at-will teleportation. That covers pretty much all of the day to day magic used on the show. Then there are the one-off magical effects that happen. Like full-on Telekinesis. Or Reverse Gravity. Spells that could be provided via Arcane Dilettante. Besides, Bard doesn't really have teleportation, telekinesis, or reverse gravity effects, so it doesn't really fit.

If you want to play ponies, You should be playing 4e. No, really! (friendshipisdragons.thecomicseries.com/comics/first/)
Or Legend (http://www.ruleofcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/My-Little-Legend.pdf). Which is close to 4e, but without most of people's issues with the system.
Or Pathfinder, for that open-ended feel 3.5 feel.
Or GURPS to have show-accurate and relatively balanced characters.
Fourth edition does not model ponies well. And you can't homebrew them in easily.

On-topic: JaronK's list of 11 looks good, but if I had to trim it down to 4-8 classes, here's what I would do.
If I was stuck with just 4: Warblade, Factotum, Crusader, Warmage with Eclectic Learning. When adding to that core, in order: Bard, Swordsage, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer. They are very hard to screw up, except for the Bard and Factotum, can be optimized easily enough, and the melee characters have amazingly mutable flavor.

[Yora]

Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric. They work for our group.
I also like to include barbarian and ranger.

Since in 13 years of playing I've only seen characters reach 8th level once, all those high level caster balance issues never came up.