Soo many choices

[zerose]

I do and have always suffered from paralysis from analysis. I have played 5e for about 7 months or so. I have still not found a character class I like. We are playing the current season of AL and my party consist of a blasty diviner, life cleric, wild shape druid, devotion pally, avenger pally, lore bard, and a rogue. I have been playing a wolf barb and kinda like it, but it isn't really doing it for me. We have a 4th level not change rule, and prior to that I would usually show up with a different class weekly. I have played a ranger, lore bard, grapple bard, archer battlemaster, and a sorcerer who used violence as a last resort.

I want a character that will benefit myself and my group. Naturally the rogue and pally love the barb when I rage and we have good synergy. However I am not having fun and that is no Bueno.

I have read treatmonk's god wizard ideas and like them, I have also read a lot about the sorcerer and like them. I also like the ranger.

Too many choices!

What should I really consider when deciding on my forever (season at least) character.

[Randomthom]

Hard to recommend something when you don't say what you do/don't enjoy about the ones you have played?

I imagine that by writing down that list of like & dislike, you'll probably make your mind up without too much help from us.

To me, the mechanics of the class I choose don't matter as much as the character I play. Generally I don't like the standard melee classes but I had enormous fun playing a gnome fighter who was fostered by Dwarves and never gave up trying to match her foster-kin's martial prowess even though she frequently fell short. She identified as a Dwarf, alcohol, bar fights & all!

[MightyDog16]

Don't worry about the class at first. Think of a character that is interesting to you as if it were a character in a book. Once you figure out WHO that character is, it's easy enough to plug in the mechanics from a race/class/background. I find myself much more in tune with my character with this method than just going for optimization. If you do go for optimization, then yea, you'll find there are lots of viable builds that are hard to choose among. There will probably only be one or two obvious choices when you start with the "who" over the "what."

That being said, bards rule!

[MightyDog16]

Hard to recommend something when you don't say what you do/don't enjoy about the ones you have played?

I imagine that by writing down that list of like & dislike, you'll probably make your mind up without too much help from us.

To me, the mechanics of the class I choose don't matter as much as the character I play. Generally I don't like the standard melee classes but I had enormous fun playing a gnome fighter who was fostered by Dwarves and never gave up trying to match her foster-kin's martial prowess even though she frequently fell short. She identified as a Dwarf, alcohol, bar fights & all!

This is what I'm talking about! Way more fun to play an interesting character than an optimized build! (8 <

[Zman]

How about playing a character and not just a class? Envision someone you'd like to be in the setting, pick a class and options that fit that and immerse yourself. You are too hung up on every mechanical option and efficiency and are missing the bigger picture. Change your frame of mind and immerse yourself, you are stuck on shallow toes in the water never diving in and attaching to a character. If you don't jump in you'll never be satisfied because of how many mechanical options are available.

[MightyDog16]

One time I wanted to play as a spy but it was more of an infiltrator/manipulator. So I made a bard and somehow "Boris the Bard" came to mind. I totally did the Russian accent with the dry/smug personality. I never had so much fun as playing this Zhentarim lawful evil spy / party leader of zhent thugs. My thugs would always get us in binds and I'd have to talk us out of it. Or I'd have to pretend to be others to get info before my boys came in guns blazing. So much fun in that group.

Another time we really went off the rails and made an all bard group that traveled from town to town introducing the people to metal. The troupe was called Vicious Mockery. If someone rolled 11 on a performance check then a random audience member's face would melt lol.

[Tanarii]

In a group that large, it's often hard to focus on character instead of mechanical elements.

Personally for large AL groups, I just decide the type of mechanical play I want. First combat, or balanced with non-combat. (Heavy non-combat is usually a mistake in AL adventures.) Second, varied mechanical action choice, or straight-forward.

For AL I tend toward really combat and really straight-forward. It's where I play Barbarians and Champions. If I wanted balanced & straight-forward I'd play a Rogue or Ranger. If I wanted combat & varied, Sorcerer or Warlock. Balanced & varied, Bard, Cleric, Druid or Wizard.

[Vogonjeltz]

I do and have always suffered from paralysis from analysis. I have played 5e for about 7 months or so. I have still not found a character class I like. We are playing the current season of AL and my party consist of a blasty diviner, life cleric, wild shape druid, devotion pally, avenger pally, lore bard, and a rogue. I have been playing a wolf barb and kinda like it, but it isn't really doing it for me. We have a 4th level not change rule, and prior to that I would usually show up with a different class weekly. I have played a ranger, lore bard, grapple bard, archer battlemaster, and a sorcerer who used violence as a last resort.

I want a character that will benefit myself and my group. Naturally the rogue and pally love the barb when I rage and we have good synergy. However I am not having fun and that is no Bueno.

I have read treatmonk's god wizard ideas and like them, I have also read a lot about the sorcerer and like them. I also like the ranger.

Too many choices!

What should I really consider when deciding on my forever (season at least) character.

Ask yourself these questions:

1) What kind of things do I want to be doing in a combat situation?
a) Melee or Ranged?
b) Improvised activities or Canned activities? (i.e. Make something up on the fly, or look up a spell / ability?)

2) What kind of things do I want to be doing in exploration?

3) What kind of things do I want to be doing in social interaction?

Then figure out what background and class combo best fits your answers.

Example:

I want to fight at range, I would prefer canned abilities, I want to be saavy at exploring the wilderness, I would like to be insightful in social interactions.

Play a Hunter (Ranger) using a bow, be sure to take perception/insight as proficient skills.

[zerose]

Don't worry about the class at first. Think of a character that is interesting to you as if it were a character in a book. Once you figure out WHO that character is, it's easy enough to plug in the mechanics from a race/class/background. I find myself much more in tune with my character with this method than just going for optimization. If you do go for optimization, then yea, you'll find there are lots of viable builds that are hard to choose among. There will probably only be one or two obvious choices when you start with the "who" over the "what."

That being said, bards rule!

Bards are indeed a ton of fun. I do not want to upstage the kid in the group that is playing the bard.

I think I want to play a sneaky Halfling ranger who specializes in trapping his prey with a net or a trap. I envision him sneaking behind an enemy and throwing a net on it or laying a trap and having the Good pally in the group shield bash him backwards into a trap. I envision him growing up in the woods where he learned the art of trapping from his family. They fled civilization and went "off the grid". They made their living trading furs and monster bits to a local village and wizard for components.

That being said, how good is a net? Seems awfully easy to escape from. Anyone ever play with one?

[Sitri]

Your first post mentioned a toss up between wizard, sorcerer and ranger.

From what I have read, rangers are to 5e as rogues were to 3.x, they suck don't do it.

While I know first hand that wizards can be a lot of fun in this edition, I also know that standardized play runs different than home games. In Phoenix I played with hundreds of people in pathfinder society; I saw sorcerers everywhere and only one wizard that I can remember. In standardized play, assuming AL runs like PFS, the wizard loses a lot of his versatility because he doesn't really know what he is going to do at the start of the day like he does in a home game.

If you are always just going to select the same go to spells anyway, sorcerer already is built for that play style. Add to that the fact that you already have analysis paralysis, and I think it more reason not to have a huge spellbook you have to constantly stress over.

[MightyDog16]

Bards are indeed a ton of fun. I do not want to upstage the kid in the group that is playing the bard.

I think I want to play a sneaky Halfling ranger who specializes in trapping his prey with a net or a trap. I envision him sneaking behind an enemy and throwing a net on it or laying a trap and having the Good pally in the group shield bash him backwards into a trap. I envision him growing up in the woods where he learned the art of trapping from his family. They fled civilization and went "off the grid". They made their living trading furs and monster bits to a local village and wizard for components.

That being said, how good is a net? Seems awfully easy to escape from. Anyone ever play with one?

Just do it and find out, sometimes it's fun to play quirky character that screws up sometimes. Always succeeding is boring, having something interesting happen from a screw up can be fun, if something doesn't work out the do it differently next time. Trust me you'll have more fun explaining your failed net to your party than blowing up your prey with a fireball.

[Sitri]

Just do it and find out, sometimes it's fun to play quirky character that screws up sometimes. Always succeeding is boring, having something interesting happen from a screw up can be fun, if something doesn't work out the do it differently next time. Trust me you'll have more fun explaining your failed net to your party than blowing up your prey with a fireball.

In a home game where everything is tailored to the party, I would agree. However, in an organized play game no one likes the the stranger that sits down with quirky, worthless character who is a liability on the party. Being new and not really understanding optimization is generally excused, just choosing to be a screw up is not.

[Vogonjeltz]

That being said, how good is a net? Seems awfully easy to escape from. Anyone ever play with one?

It's a question of action economy. Even if they succeed, it cost their action to get out, so provided you can hit, you're ahead of the game. That being said, a net is best used in situations where you have multiple allies who can follow up with attacks or anything that targets a Dexterity save before the target can even try to escape.

The key point being, you need to have a good dexterity and be proficient in martial weapons.

A Valor Bard would get proficiency in martial weapons and thus be ok with a net, a Lore Bard would not.

[BurgerBeast]

I am very much the same sort of thinker as you. I have severe analysis paralysis, and after making a decision, I constantly go back and re-analyze, wondering if I could have done something better...


...If you are always just going to select the same go to spells anyway, sorcerer already is built for that play style. Add to that the fact that you already have analysis paralysis, and I think it more reason not to have a huge spellbook you have to constantly stress over...

This is spot on. And "huge spellbook" can be generalized to "huge assortment of options." In my most recent campaign, I intentionally picked a character that is very low on the complexity scale. I intentionally avoided casters, and decided on Battlemaster fighter. I almost went all the way and played a Champion, but I couldn't go quite that far. The results? Most fun I've had in ages. I still have infinite options (because it's a role-playing game, so I can do whatever I want) but I don't have the specific list of mechanically comparable options that makes me go bananas. I just put myself in the situation and do what makes sense. It's liberating.

The other thing I've had to consider (which may or may not be the case for you) is how much my approach effects the fun of other players. For me, personally, my analysis paralysis and constant changes were affecting the ability of the others to have fun (even though they never complained). A new character every session is a little much, even if it is allowed.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I do and have always suffered from paralysis from analysis. I have played 5e for about 7 months or so. I have still not found a character class I like. We are playing the current season of AL and my party consist of a blasty diviner, life cleric, wild shape druid, devotion pally, avenger pally, lore bard, and a rogue. I have been playing a wolf barb and kinda like it, but it isn't really doing it for me. We have a 4th level not change rule, and prior to that I would usually show up with a different class weekly. I have played a ranger, lore bard, grapple bard, archer battlemaster, and a sorcerer who used violence as a last resort.

I want a character that will benefit myself and my group. Naturally the rogue and pally love the barb when I rage and we have good synergy. However I am not having fun and that is no Bueno.

I have read treatmonk's god wizard ideas and like them, I have also read a lot about the sorcerer and like them. I also like the ranger.

Too many choices!

What should I really consider when deciding on my forever (season at least) character.

You could also be playing the wrong edition. I know people who have this problem in 5e but not in 3e/PF/4e.

It isn't always choice paralysis, sometimes its the system/game.

That being said, a Urchin Knowledge Cleric would be diverse enough for you to most anything on any given day. And you won't really fall behind the game as AL isn't really made for optimizers in mind (my group of mild optimizers blow through the game when we try/work together, its kinda sad just how easy AL can be).

[E’Tallitnics]

PH, p. 148. Nets are a trap without the Crossbow Expert Feat as they're a ranged weapon with a normal range of 5'. So without that feat you normally attack with Disadvantage!

I highly recommend that you check out a Gnome Illusionist. They're a ton of fun to play!

[Once a Fool]

I do and have always suffered from paralysis from analysis. I have played 5e for about 7 months or so. I have still not found a character class I like. We are playing the current season of AL and my party consist of a blasty diviner, life cleric, wild shape druid, devotion pally, avenger pally, lore bard, and a rogue. I have been playing a wolf barb and kinda like it, but it isn't really doing it for me. We have a 4th level not change rule, and prior to that I would usually show up with a different class weekly. I have played a ranger, lore bard, grapple bard, archer battlemaster, and a sorcerer who used violence as a last resort.

I want a character that will benefit myself and my group. Naturally the rogue and pally love the barb when I rage and we have good synergy. However I am not having fun and that is no Bueno.

I have read treatmonk's god wizard ideas and like them, I have also read a lot about the sorcerer and like them. I also like the ranger.

Too many choices!

What should I really consider when deciding on my forever (season at least) character.

Is it really wise to ask a bunch of people for their opinions on what you should do when you already suffer from analysis paralysis? You're just adding another layer of options to sift through!

That said, when it happens to me, I let fate decide. If using randomly generated stats, I take them in the order I get them and build the character they suggest. This can be done with the standard array, too, if you put each number on an index card and shuffle them up.

Even then, it might be a good idea to avoid certain classes--first and foremost, anything that prepares spells. After that, I'd cut out as much resource-management as I could stand (personal preference plays a large role, here).

Finally, you've got to have the discipline to stick with the character, even when you want to try something new. If it were me, I'd roll a new personality trait (from any chart) and explore a new dimension of the character. Even if your DM doesn't recognize it as valid for purposes of granting inspiration (some might, some might not), it's still something for you to play around with.

Or, you could just let the dice decide any time you are faced with a decision (especially ones that don't matter).

[PoeticDwarf]

Your first post mentioned a toss up between wizard, sorcerer and ranger.

From what I have read, rangers are to 5e as rogues were to 3.x, they suck don't do it.

While I know first hand that wizards can be a lot of fun in this edition, I also know that standardized play runs different than home games. In Phoenix I played with hundreds of people in pathfinder society; I saw sorcerers everywhere and only one wizard that I can remember. In standardized play, assuming AL runs like PFS, the wizard loses a lot of his versatility because he doesn't really know what he is going to do at the start of the day like he does in a home game.

If you are always just going to select the same go to spells anyway, sorcerer already is built for that play style. Add to that the fact that you already have analysis paralysis, and I think it more reason not to have a huge spellbook you have to constantly stress over.

I don't think rangers suck in 5e, fighters are just little better in most things but they don't suck at all.
The only 3.X I know is 3.5, I don't think rogues suck there, there are way worse classes

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't think rangers suck in 5e, fighters are just little better in most things but they don't suck at all.
The only 3.X I know is 3.5, I don't think rogues suck there, there are way worse classes

Rangers... Both suck and don't suck.

The Fighter has a broken ability (cough action surge cough) and is made differently than everyone else (extra attacks) so it is hard to really balance them. One issue I have is that they are kinda unneeded. If you want a strength warrior then the Barbarian is a better core and if you want a dex warrior then the Rogue is a better core. Actually the Rogue makes a better Strength type than the fighter, not in terms of direct damage (though it does well) but being built to fit in with the rest of the game.

Rangers are made "correctly", I love this about them, they fit into the rest of the game rather well (though they could use more spells or no spell options). The hunter follows the majority of ways to make martials/partial martials. Their capstone is laughable but they are built solid and conform to the norm.

However the first two levels are kinda lame, the first level especially.

Beast Master Ranger is suck... Like, you can optimize it sure, but you shouldn't have to optimize to be useful. But that may be my 4e showing.