Explaining Classes to New People

[blackjack50]

I was trying to explain the type of classes to someone. Some of them are self explanatory. Barbarian? A human tank dealing damage and lots of hit. Monk...ninja, martial artist, and so on. Cleric...the combat medic. How do you explain some of the other classes?

[Millstone85]

What do you think of the table on page 45 of the PHB?

[gkathellar]

Are you looking for more archetypal descriptions, or functional ones? Because, if you asked for the former, I'd say the fighter was, "a tough and capable weapons master," whereas if you asked for the latter, I'd tell you the fighter was, "a durable multi-attacker with high base stats who can specialize in using a particular equipment loadout."

[PhoenixPhyre]

I actually created some cards with info about the archetypes to pass around, since I almost only play with new people.

Each card had a picture, a short blurb, and a list of "strengths" and "weaknesses" (mainly mechanical, but phrased in non-technical terms).

The blurbs are:
Barbarian: A strong, durable melee combatant. Channels primal rage to accomplish supernatural feats.
Bard: Supportive musical spell-caster. Jack of all trades, excels at social situations.
Cleric: A servant of the gods. Capable of both smiting foes and blessing and healing allies. Wears medium or heavy armor.
Druid: Protector of nature. Can take on the form of animals. Wears light armor.
Fighter: A trained combatant, skilled in weapons. Can be built in many varieties--defensive, brute damage, archer, etc. Can learn a small amount of magic.
Monk: Unarmored skirmisher wielding internal power. Kung-fu fighter. Can achieve supernatural effects through meditation and punching.
Paladin: A holy warrior, fueled by her conviction and her Oath. Capable of smiting enemies and protecting allies.
Ranger: Explorer or hunter. Ranged or two-weapon fighter, wielding natural magic. Some rangers fight beside an animal companion.
Rogue: Skilled, stealthy, deadly. Expert at all forms of skills, locks, and traps. Capable of devastating sneak attacks; some wield minor illusion magic.
Sorcerer:Wielder of innate magic, gained from one of a variety of sources. Capable of modifying spells as they cast them.
Warlock: Maker of pacts with eldritch things beyond this world. Wielder of strange powers.
Wizard: Intellectual spell-caster. Widest range of spells, but limited without their spells.

[Puh Laden]

Lately I've been asking new players series of questions like "Do you want to play as a character that uses weapons or magic or a mix of both?" Then narrow it down further from there. Like, if they want to play a character that's physically strong I ask "do you want to be a barbarian, a skilled weapons master/knight, a holy knight, or a wilderness survivalist?" If they picked "holy knight" I'd ask "Do you mind getting a little bit of magic?" If not, they get Paladin otherwise they get Fighter with the acolyte background. Things like that. Then to save time I build their character for them according to their input. One downside I suspect of building it for them is that they may be less invested in the game. So I'm planning to adapt my approach a little to see what changes.

[blackjack50]

Are you looking for more archetypal descriptions, or functional ones? Because, if you asked for the former, I'd say the fighter was, "a tough and capable weapons master," whereas if you asked for the latter, I'd tell you the fighter was, "a durable multi-attacker with high base stats who can specialize in using a particular equipment loadout."

Yes. Archetypal. :)

[Laserlight]

Archetype is all well and good, but you need to explain something of its tactics. Last campaign, my party had three skirmishers who thought they were tanks, a sorcerer who avoided combat, and me. It was a TPK waiting to happen (and did happen).

I generally ask 1) what do you want to do out of combat? Face, knowledge skills, sneaky stuff, strongman?
2) in combat, do you want to use magic or weapons? Melee or ranged? And so forth.

[Anderlith]

Barbarian>Conan type, fights good, gets mad, takes hits, gives hits
Bard>Jack of All Trades, casts magic, fights a bit, plays music to buff party
Cleric>Holy man, heals people, casts magic
Druid>Hippie Wizard, casts magic, turns into animals, hates metal
Fighter>Classic warrior, fights good, versatile
Monk>Knows Kungfu, mobile fighter
Paladin>Holy Knight, fights good, smites evil
Ranger>Innawoods, fights good, mechanically problematic
Rogue>Stabbyboi, stealthy
Sorcerer>Sexy Wizard, casts magic, thematic magic
Wizard>Classic Mage, casts magic, studies books
Warlock>Naughty Wizard, casts magic, traded soul for power

[KyleG]

I think archetypes can really change the class so im not sure class alone explains the concept well. If you're game enough I'd go right down to archetype level. Then again stats can change the flavor of a build too potentially turning a melee build into a ranged build.

[Anymage]

I think archetypes can really change the class so im not sure class alone explains the concept well. If you're game enough I'd go right down to archetype level. Then again stats can change the flavor of a build too potentially turning a melee build into a ranged build.

While technically true, new players are probably more likely to accept picking a general archetype from the book than to see them as mechanical building blocks. Class and then subclass can do most of the heavy lifting, and it might even be worthwhile for the DM to roll backgrounds in with those.

[Callak_Remier]

Wizard - basically Doctor Strange aka the Sorcerer supreme

Sorceror- Gandalf the White aka The White Wizard

Lolollolololool

[Kane0]

I recommend the various (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mie4FH4ZcDQ&list=PLQMqiULo_05Oj5W9yFZC8BDwSNZCWng7p) youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxDq4WZr6k&list=PLkSWFFpI_Ynjwj7ALCSm9FBr1ifGsep9_) 'guides' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00EvO-X6Wu4&list=PLDnRMnDDjAzK5uZLidDUtHtD1iN06Qe0G), which are usually entertaining and a little informative.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Visual aids are sometimes useful:

Basic Flowchart (https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/flowcharts/which-dungeons-and-dragons-class-should-you-play)

Advanced Flowchart (https://i.redd.it/il7lilqhqma21.jpg)

[Greywander]

I recommend the various (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mie4FH4ZcDQ&list=PLQMqiULo_05Oj5W9yFZC8BDwSNZCWng7p) youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErxDq4WZr6k&list=PLkSWFFpI_Ynjwj7ALCSm9FBr1ifGsep9_) 'guides' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00EvO-X6Wu4&list=PLDnRMnDDjAzK5uZLidDUtHtD1iN06Qe0G), which are usually entertaining and a little informative.
What, no XP to Level 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LALHl4FJUx0)? Their class guides are both informative and hilarious.

[Kane0]

I think more the opposite, I personally don't find them as entertaining.

Still totally valid though, not knocking them or anything.

[Darc_Vader]

Visual aids are sometimes useful:

Basic Flowchart (https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/flowcharts/which-dungeons-and-dragons-class-should-you-play)

Advanced Flowchart (https://i.redd.it/il7lilqhqma21.jpg)

Wow that second chart is expansive. First time I’ve seen something like that which goes into subclasses.