3.5e Character design PHB & DMG ONLY

[Swampy]

So we switched DMs in my group for some fresh stuff but the new DM has us starting at level one and we're not allowed to use any books other than PHB and DMG for character creation. Other than going like pure single class or whatever does anybody have any suggestions on a complete char build 1-20? Is there a tier list for PBB classes? i know wiz is top tier but practically useless at low levels. we didnt have much time to make chars so for the fun of it i made a half orc barb that is probably going to die a terrible death pretty quickly but i want to make a backup char.

[Venger]

Ew, core only. Well if that's what you're working with, the horizon tripper (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?80415-The-Horizon-Tripper-(Core-Melee-Build)) is a popular and versatile build inside of those parameters that you should probably be able to reliably do fun and cool things with.

[Maat Mons]

These are the core-only multiclass builds I recommend.

Cleric / Thaumaturgist / Hierophant
Wizard / Loremaster / Archmage

[KoDT69]

A Cleric with domains of Luck, Travel, Magic, and/or Trickery (pick 2) can be a simple yet effective core only character.

Paladin 2/ Sorcerer X is a nice choice as well.

[Zombulian]

Druid is never a bad choice. The PHB has Natural Spell and Augment Summoning and riding dogs are in the MM.

[Doctor Awkward]

Wizard is never useless at any level, but it also benefits the most to being tailored specifically to your campaign.
For example, in a game that is mostly political intrigue involving generally humanoid opponents a specialist enchanter can be absolutely campaign-breaking. The advice regarding prestiging out to Loremaster and then Archmage stands regardless though since there is zero benefit to staying in Wizard past level 5. Take Improved Familiar for an Imp for even more shenanigans.

[sreservoir]

Druid is, of course, only a viable choice if you also have access to the Monster Manual. But there are hardly any core-only druid builds worth even considering over druid 20?


These are the core-only multiclass builds I recommend.

Cleric / Thaumaturgist / Hierophant


Note that Hierophant doesn't actually advance casting (it only adds CL), so it's generally actively bad for you unless you want some specific special ability from it.

[NigelWalmsley]

Horizon Tripper is definitely the best core-only martial build.


i know wiz is top tier but practically useless at low levels.

Wizard is far from useless at low levels. Spells like Sleep, Silent Image, Grease, and Color Spray all end encounters. Any of the core full casters is a fine pick, to be honest. Druid and Cleric are the best at low levels, and Druid suffers the least from being restrained to Core because it mostly doesn't take PrCs and Natural Spell is in the PHB. But at mid and high levels, the PHB has Planar Binding in it for Sorcerers and Wizards to abuse to their heart's content.

[Unavenger]

Cleric/Loremaster is pretty neat, especially since there is only one good feat for clerics in core that isn't already one of your prerequisites or something the class gives you (I'll give you a hint: it starts with "Improved" and ends with "Initiative"). If you have a +2 intelligence modifier (no word on whether temporary boosts count, so you might con the wizard into lending you his headband of int when you level up) your 10 levels can give you +2 to fortitude and will, +1 to AC, an extra second-level spell and whatever's clever between a feat and a first-level spell, as well as bad bardic knowlege (meh), two languages (maybe useful), at-will (ex) identify (that's quite good) and 1/day (ex) legend lore which only takes a standard action because that's how (ex) abilities work (that's so good I'm convinced it's a mistake). In exchange you need to... spend some skill ranks on knowledges (you were probably going to do that anyway), take some item creation and/or metamagic feats (you were going to do that anyway), burn a feat on skill focus (knowledge) (okay that sucks but you're getting quite a lot in return) and... uh, have divination spells on your spell list (you can't not do that), and you also lose a total of 20 hit points by level 17, which stings but isn't the end of the world.

You might consider a level - a whole one - of Heirophant just to get divine reach near the end of your build, since you'll have 9ths anyway by the time you're done with loremaster, but it's not mandatory. If your build relies on caster level you might want to take more than one level of it so you can take Spell Power, for caster level 22 at 20th level, but it comes at the cost of your ninth-level spells/day and I don't advise it.

Build is roughly speaking a human clr7/lor10/hei1/clr2 taking skill focus k (r), extend spell, empower spell, quicken spell, improved initiative... let's say spell focus (con), augment summoning, and spell penetration, then using the class abilities to pick up secrets of inner strength, secret knowledge of avoidance, dodge trick, newfound arcana and more newfound arcana, and then divine reach on the heirophant level. As far as domains go, pick whatever you fancy most.

[Anthrowhale]

Particularly with core-only, it's beneficial to have a diverse party as there are fewer tricks allowing one class to fulfill more/all roles. So, what are the other characters and what do you know about the campaign?

One concept that's helpful is up-tier mundane classes. Examples:

Rogue -> Rogue 3/Wizard 6/Arcane Trickster 10 or Rogue 1/Wizard 6/Assassin 1/Arcane Trickster 10. These give you trapfinding, skills, and sneak attack, but also lots of spells. An invisible 12-headed hydra adding 7d6 sneak attack to each hit can mowthrough quite a few mooks.

Paladin -> Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 10 A paladin with much better spells.

Fighter or Monk -> Cleric. Martial weapons are overrated while spells are more important than feats or class abilities.

Barbarian -> Druid. Wildshape is amazing compared to Rage and you get spells and an animal companion.

Ranger -> Ranger 1/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10. You get the Ranger's skills and most of it's BAB while having radically better spells.

Often, your casting stat is not as good as a single-class caster, but that's ok---just use your spells for things that don't require saving throws.

[Maat Mons]

Sorry I gave a recommendation for Hierophant. I thought I remembered it being "just like Archmage, except divine." I didn't remember it doesn't advance casting, and I didn't research my recommendations as thoroughly as I aught to have.

[Quertus]

Well, this sounds… terrible. The game's been out for 2 decades, and the GM wants to limit you to the known worst offenders for imbalance, the core books?

So, my first question would be "why?". Depending on their answer, it would quickly be followed with questions about whose responsibility "balance" is. If *they* are going to take responsibility for balance… I wouldn't get my hopes up, but I'd probably run a Noble or something. Give them the fuel that they need to buff my character, up to being the eldest Prince if necessary.

Relevant to the questions in the OP, I would ask what custom prestige classes they have created for their world. Then I would plan my build accordingly.

Other likely questions of interest include how much downtime we can expect to get, what the plot / hooks for the adventure will be, the reliability of "magic item Wal-Mart", how they feel about caster/martial disparity, if Savage Species isn't part of core whether I can roll my own progressions, whether they've heard of the Playground or the concept of "balance to the table", and whether they're pulling my leg with this whole "core only" thing.

Unless the GM was simply exceptionally ignorant (living under a rock for the past 2 decades; never played an RPG before, and just inherited these books from their dead brother: etc), I wouldn't anticipate getting answers to my questions that would fill me with hope.

In short, good luck!

[Thunder999]

I'd go wizard 15/archmage 5, conjuration or transmutation naturally, there's strong spells at every level even in core, and it's really hard to go wrong with summoning (because it's such a huge action economy win even outside of the versatility) or polymorphing once you hit mid levels.

[Venger]

Sorry I gave a recommendation for Hierophant. I thought I remembered it being "just like Archmage, except divine." I didn't remember it doesn't advance casting, and I didn't research my recommendations as thoroughly as I aught to have.

Understandable mistake. It used to advance casting in 3.0, but they nerfed it in 3.5


Well, this sounds… terrible. The game's been out for 2 decades, and the GM wants to limit you to the known worst offenders for imbalance, the core books?

So, my first question would be "why?". Depending on their answer, it would quickly be followed with questions about whose responsibility "balance" is. If *they* are going to take responsibility for balance… I wouldn't get my hopes up, but I'd probably run a Noble or something. Give them the fuel that they need to buff my character, up to being the eldest Prince if necessary.

Relevant to the questions in the OP, I would ask what custom prestige classes they have created for their world. Then I would plan my build accordingly.

Other likely questions of interest include how much downtime we can expect to get, what the plot / hooks for the adventure will be, the reliability of "magic item Wal-Mart", how they feel about caster/martial disparity, if Savage Species isn't part of core whether I can roll my own progressions, whether they've heard of the Playground or the concept of "balance to the table", and whether they're pulling my leg with this whole "core only" thing.

Unless the GM was simply exceptionally ignorant (living under a rock for the past 2 decades; never played an RPG before, and just inherited these books from their dead brother: etc), I wouldn't anticipate getting answers to my questions that would fill me with hope.

In short, good luck!

Yeah, this. Core only games are bad and don't make sense.

[bean illus]

I always say 'Give the DM the benefit if a doubt'.

Maybe he feels nervous, and wants to warm up on stuff he's more confident on. Who knows why?

My rock band always sounds best when I'm as supportive as possible, instead of wasting my concentration on dwelling on how much they suck tonight.

Make a straight fighter archer.

Human PA

F 1 PS, WF longbow
F 2 PBS
F 3 RS

F 4 WSp
F 5
F 6 MS, IRS

F 7
F 8 GWF
F 9 GWSp, Imp init

F 10 Imp crit
F 11
F 12 IPS

Lol

Or make a halfling wolfrider ranger with improved mounted archery, and handle animal. Full attack from anywhere in your mounts move, and always have 2 flanking buddies, and scout with the rogue. Fun.

Or go bard, and sing every time they speak to you.

But don't go into it with a bad attitude, you'll ruin it for every body.

[Thurbane]

I don't know why people get such attitude with core only games. Well over half the games I've played in since 3.5 have been core only, and I've enjoyed them. For me, it's more about the DM and adventures/campaign setting, in terms of how much I enjoy myself.

Each to their own I guess.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by bean illus
I always say 'Give the DM the benefit if a doubt'.

…But don't go into it with a bad attitude, you'll ruin it for every body.


Originally Posted by Thurbane
I don't know why people get such attitude with core only games. Well over half the games I've played in since 3.5 have been core only, and I've enjoyed them. For me, it's more about the DM and adventures/campaign setting, in terms of how much I enjoy myself.

Absolutely this. My first 3.5 game was core-only and we had a blast. The DM was great, the group was diverse and mildly wacky, and the game had a great vibe. Every one of us played a single-classed character from the PHB and we each had fun with it.


Originally Posted by Swampy
Other than going like pure single class or whatever does anybody have any suggestions on a complete char build 1-20?

In another game I played a druid/bard, so you might consider druid/bard/mystic theurge as an option. Flying while invisible makes you a potent infiltrator.

[Particle_Man]

I guess part of this is how are the other players going to react. If everyone plays so as to allow people not to be overshadowed, then a rogue and wizard can be in the same party. If the wizard starts taking spells that make the rogue superfluous, not so much.

Also, is this a "good guy only" party or an "evil allowed" party? There are two "evil only" prestige classes.

Also, what is the DM's policy on new characters if old ones die? Same level, same xp? Same level, minimum xp for that level? One level down? Level 1? If the first option, then you can keep replacing your half-orc barbarian with more of the same, and just add II, III, IV, etc. to the name on the character sheet. :smallsmile:

Also one core prestige class (the Red Wizard one?) is campaign specific, isn't it? Is that one allowed?

Personally for rp (if not high tier) purposes it might be fun to play a LG Paladin of the LN Goddess Wee Jas that falls and becomes a LE Blackguard, yet never once wavers in their devotion to Wee Jas. But of course that is up to what the DM allows and if the core gods (or some LN equivalent at least) are part of this core only deal.

[Quertus]

I don't know why people get such attitude with core only games. Well over half the games I've played in since 3.5 have been core only, and I've enjoyed them. For me, it's more about the DM and adventures/campaign setting, in terms of how much I enjoy myself.

Each to their own I guess.

Well, let me field some answers, then.

"Core only, for balance". This foolishness has been beat to (un)death around here - need I say more on this point?

"Core only, because I don't know anything else". The GM is under the mistaken belief that they need to know the material that the Players are using. They clearly aren't a software developer versed in information hiding, and, if they cannot follow my explanation, it's a bad sign for them serving as the interface between me, my character, and the world.

"Core only, for simplicity". Well, OK, I'll grant you that fewer options are simpler. But some players enjoy complexity. Unilaterally dictating things against their preferences without asking, and for no reason is the sign of ignorance at best, a petty tyrant at worst - the latter of which is someone who should not be allowed to be a GM.

Basically, "Core only" very easily translates to "I have no clue what I'm doing" and/or "all I care about is me". Now, you were able to have fun in a game that was "more about the DM and adventures/campaign setting". And Exploration is my greatest source of fun - I would love to Explore the GM's campaign setting. But someone who cannot handle anything outside of core seems unlikely to have the imagination and dedication necessary to produce something worth my time to Explore.

[tiercel]

"Core only, because I don't know anything else". The GM is under the mistaken belief that they need to know the material that the Players are using. They clearly aren't a software developer versed in information hiding, and, if they cannot follow my explanation, it's a bad sign for them serving as the interface between me, my character, and the world.

In my experience, a DM not knowing the material players are using is generally a Bad Idea.

1) Part of a DM’s job is to be an adjudicator, especially if it’s not obvious how rules interact with a specific situation/attempted action in the story. It’s hard to adjudicate rules you don’t know or really understand.

2) One way to GET blanket bans (whether it’s “Core only” or, e.g., bans of subsystems like “no psi” or “no ToB”) is for a DM to allow material they don’t know and then have a bad experience, whether it’s because the player doesn’t really know the material either and unwittingly misrepresents or misapplies it, whether there is a miscommunication or knee-jerk response to unfamiliar material, or whether a player is attempting shenanigans that a DM can’t prepare for if they don’t know the material.

3) If the DM wants to run a “challenges in my campaign are tailored to be at least sometimes somewhat appropriate to the level and desired optimization of the PCs” sort of game, it’s really hard to do so without understanding the PCs’ capabilities. (Sure, this matters less if the campaign leans more toward sandbox, but in my experience most DMs run or design adventures that are *somewhat*, if not tailored, at least adjusted, for their group — if nothing else so there are reasonable in-game warnings that can be heeded in a sandbox if 1st level PCs are entering the known likely territory of a CR 18 potential foe.)

That’s not to say that DMs shouldn’t be reasonably open to *learning* new material that players want to use, but there’s a difference between “I want to use this one feat from Magic of Incarnum and if you’re open to it I’ll make sure you understand it before I take it and use it in game” and “I want to run an Incarnate character in your campaign even though you don’t know/understand the meldshaping subsystem” — or for that matter, “my wizard really wants this one spell from Spell Compendium, can I try to explain it to you and get you to approve it” versus “I want my druid to be able to pick freely on a daily basis from Spell Compendium, even though you don’t own that book, know it, or have time to do an Associate’s Degree in Spell Compendium Druid Spells.”

In my experience, most DMs have some limitations on allowed material, even if it’s light as “you can’t just automatically use any third-party material from any source ever” or even “no Dragon-Magazine-specific material, at least without approval.” I’ll grant that “Core-only” is a particularly severe limitation, but it seems to me a matter of degree, and not that any limitation at all is categorically badwrongfun.

[Quertus]

In my experience, a DM not knowing the material players are using is generally a Bad Idea.

1) Part of a DM’s job is to be an adjudicator, especially if it’s not obvious how rules interact with a specific situation/attempted action in the story. It’s hard to adjudicate rules you don’t know or really understand.

2) One way to GET blanket bans (whether it’s “Core only” or, e.g., bans of subsystems like “no psi” or “no ToB”) is for a DM to allow material they don’t know and then have a bad experience, whether it’s because the player doesn’t really know the material either and unwittingly misrepresents or misapplies it, whether there is a miscommunication or knee-jerk response to unfamiliar material, or whether a player is attempting shenanigans that a DM can’t prepare for if they don’t know the material.

3) If the DM wants to run a “challenges in my campaign are tailored to be at least sometimes somewhat appropriate to the level and desired optimization of the PCs” sort of game, it’s really hard to do so without understanding the PCs’ capabilities. (Sure, this matters less if the campaign leans more toward sandbox, but in my experience most DMs run or design adventures that are *somewhat*, if not tailored, at least adjusted, for their group — if nothing else so there are reasonable in-game warnings that can be heeded in a sandbox if 1st level PCs are entering the known likely territory of a CR 18 potential foe.)

That’s not to say that DMs shouldn’t be reasonably open to *learning* new material that players want to use, but there’s a difference between “I want to use this one feat from Magic of Incarnum and if you’re open to it I’ll make sure you understand it before I take it and use it in game” and “I want to run an Incarnate character in your campaign even though you don’t know/understand the meldshaping subsystem” — or for that matter, “my wizard really wants this one spell from Spell Compendium, can I try to explain it to you and get you to approve it” versus “I want my druid to be able to pick freely on a daily basis from Spell Compendium, even though you don’t own that book, know it, or have time to do an Associate’s Degree in Spell Compendium Druid Spells.”

In my experience, most DMs have some limitations on allowed material, even if it’s light as “you can’t just automatically use any third-party material from any source ever” or even “no Dragon-Magazine-specific material, at least without approval.” I’ll grant that “Core-only” is a particularly severe limitation, but it seems to me a matter of degree, and not that any limitation at all is categorically badwrongfun.

Balance to the table. The GM need never understand anything beyond whether (everyone feels that) the characters are within the group's balance range. That handles #2, #3, and pretty much everything after it (including the need to impose any limits on allowed material (at least, for balance reasons)).

#1 can mostly be covered by the other players knowing the material. There are times when understanding, say (pretending it wasn't core), how Scent or Tremorsense works would be nice, so that the GM knows to alert the PC with that sense to, say, an Invisible monster. But most of that type of problem is covered under properly explaining the character's interface.

This only leaves the slight hole in #2 of what you mean by the words "prepare for".

[tiercel]

Balance to the table. The GM need never understand anything beyond whether (everyone feels that) the characters are within the group's balance range.

I... don’t understand what you’re trying to say. How can a DM provide “balance to the table” (at least in the sense of “providing generally balanced and challenging encounters and adventures for this particular gaming group,” to the extent that is desirable in a given game), if they literally don’t know what the PCs can do?

It is of course all well and good for players to feel comfortable that their characters are either balanced against each other, or that any (perceived or actual) imbalance between them doesn’t affect their enjoyment of the game.

But — to pick an example — a DM who has no idea how Abrupt Jaunt ACF works but allows it anyway is likely to be in for a rude awakening, at least in the sense that encounters they thought might pose some challenge or danger to the wizard pose little or none until they (1) learn the details of how the ability works and (2) as necessary, provide at least the occasional counter in the hands of an opponent who could reasonably be expected to have the knowledge and/or resources to do so.

[Quertus]

I... don’t understand what you’re trying to say. How can a DM provide “balance to the table” (at least in the sense of “providing generally balanced and challenging encounters and adventures for this particular gaming group,” to the extent that is desirable in a given game), if they literally don’t know what the PCs can do?

It is of course all well and good for players to feel comfortable that their characters are either balanced against each other, or that any (perceived or actual) imbalance between them doesn’t affect their enjoyment of the game.

But — to pick an example — a DM who has no idea how Abrupt Jaunt ACF works but allows it anyway is likely to be in for a rude awakening, at least in the sense that encounters they thought might pose some challenge or danger to the wizard pose little or none until they (1) learn the details of how the ability works and (2) as necessary, provide at least the occasional counter in the hands of an opponent who could reasonably be expected to have the knowledge and/or resources to do so.

Lol. Hold on. Let me calm down.

OK. So... "balance to the table" is a directive to the players, not to the GM. Really, it's "Balance to the table... and to the module". (feel free to use the word "adventure" wherever I use the word "module", if that makes more sense to you). So, let me break that down. With numbers.

Balance isn't a point, it's a range. Let's say that your group's balance range is 50. So, {100, 125, 150} would be something that this group considers "acceptably balanced", but {500, 600, 700} is not, because the difference between the highest and lowest character is greater than the group's balance range.

The trick here is, that you aren't just measuring the characters, you're also measuring the module. The rating of the module is, in effect, the rating of the average expected character for that module.

So, let's say that the group's balance range is still 50, and the module is a 300. Then {(300), 300, 300, 300} is obviously balanced not just for that group, but for any group (that measures these (non-existent) numbers the same way, which isn't a given). But so is {(300), 275, 300, 325}, {(300), 250, 250, 275}, or {(300), 350, 350, 350}. Whereas {300), 100, 125, 150} would not be properly balanced, because, despite the characters being in balance with one another, they are not in balance with the module.

-----

Now that we've covered what "Balance to the table" means, what does "balance failure detection" look like?

Well, since proper Information Hiding says that we don't have access to the characters' internals to actually perform the calculation, we don't actually have the numbers to compare. But what we do have is data of what challenges everyone overcame, where they were able to solo / mvp / participate / not participate - you know, basic spotlight sharing observations. Which are, IM(ns)HO, much more important than our made-up numbers

Yes, it's epimethian. But you know what? In this case, that is, IMO, a good thing. IME, pre-emptive nerfs are often... I don't have the word. Dumb. Wrong-Minded. Mistaken. They nerf the wrong thing - including, say, the weakest character. :smallmad:

No, IM(ns)HO, the best thing to do most of the time is to have actual play experience to point to to say, "you know, character X seems to be hogging too much of the spotlight, as they did Y in scene Z, and...". Or the opposite, of how they seem to not be getting enough of the spotlight. And then having the conversation of what we want to do about that.

And here's the fun part: "Balance to the Table" does not, in any way shape or form, require the GM to ever do anything. That's right: any player could bring this up - especially the player whose character is OP! "Balance to the Table" is a directive that says, "Balance is your responsibility.". The GM could be pulling a "Weekend at Bernie's" and Balance to the Table would scarcely notice.

-----

Now that we've got all that sorted, what is the GM's role under "Balance to the Table"? Do they have one?

Well, yes, the GM does have a role. That role is to make a module with a reasonable balance point/value, and to communicate that (sample characters can work wonders here, especially in established groups).

And they are also the one who fixes things that the other players can't, like giving Captain Fighter a pity artifact lightning hammer for the fight against the BBEG (especially if that Fighter's player wants their character to be stronger, but lacks the skills (or desire) to rebuild them (as a demigod or something)).

-----

There are two big issues with trying to understand "what is balanced?". One, as I have already alluded to, is that not everyone measures balance the same way. One of the most extreme and easiest to see examples is several threads I've read where people boggled at groups whose only measure of contribution was "damage" - where the most OP Tainted Sorcerer BFC Wizard would not only not be considered OP, but would be considered so UP as to be The Load. :smalleek: But that is only the most obvious (and fun to talk about) of the many examples I've seen.

The second is epitomized by the oh-so-many facepalm-worthy moments in threads on this very forum where GMs cluelessly complained that certain (usually very weak) characters / strategies were just so OP, and they couldn't figure out how to handle them. The problem, almost invariably, was that the GM was creating very samey content. So, even characters that normally would be considered balanced (or even weak) by a group's standards can be OP when they happen to strike at the GM's weak spot.

-----

For your specific example,

1) Either the Abrupt Jaunt Wizard is balanced, or they aren't. If they are, no problem; if they aren't, someone (probably that character's player) should fix it.

2) I am extremely rarely a fan of the "provide a counter to" mindset. If the ability / character is balanced, you very explicitly *don't have to* (and, unless you have - and have reason to have - a "the rest of the sheet doesn't exist" mindset, probably shouldn't) provide a counter to it. If it's not, see #1.

2b) I am much more of a "Be a fan of the PCs" / "find a way to give the PCs / their abilities a chance to shine" kind of GM. If someone spent the resources to get Great Cleave or Teleport, then, if you are going to customize the content, do so in a way that validates their choice, dagnabbit! :smallwink:

3) Abrupt Jaunt is an unusual case, as the exact effects of the ability are somewhat in dispute (or so my senile recollection from the "Fighter vs Wizard" thread (or, as I like to call it, the "Schrödinger's Fighter" thread) says). So it is likely that the players might well raise this to the "GM Adjudication" level even if the character is balanced (if, you know, you have players who care about following the rules and/or aren't fond of retcon surprises).

-----

To mangle your quote, "It is of course... good for players to feel comfortable that... any (perceived or actual) imbalance between them doesn’t affect their enjoyment of the game" is pretty much a statement of the mindset of "Balance to the Table". :smallwink:

[Silly Name]

So we switched DMs in my group for some fresh stuff but the new DM has us starting at level one and we're not allowed to use any books other than PHB and DMG for character creation. Other than going like pure single class or whatever does anybody have any suggestions on a complete char build 1-20? Is there a tier list for PBB classes? i know wiz is top tier but practically useless at low levels. we didnt have much time to make chars so for the fun of it i made a half orc barb that is probably going to die a terrible death pretty quickly but i want to make a backup char.

Half-orc barb isn't that bad, it has relatively good survivability, IMHO. You are lacking in skill points, however, which can make the game a bit unpleasant as it may lead you to just sit silently outside of combat.

If you aren't playing a full caster in a core-only game, multiclassing and/or going into a PrC is always a good idea - and even then, as others have mentioned, Wizard/Lore Master/Archmage is an almost automatic build. Plus if you're playing low optimisation, losing one or two spellcasting levels isn't that terrible. E.g, a single level of Hierophant gives you the ability to deliver touch spells on targets up to 30 feet away, which I wouldn't scoff at.

Barbarian multiclasses well with Fighter (bonus feats, ahoy!) and Rogue (evasion, sneak attack, improved uncanny dodge, ahoy!). Fighter should be limited to just enough levels to pick whatever bonus feats you want to get fast access to (usually 2), while Barbarian 4/Rogue 4 is a good starting point from where to decide whether you like Barbarian or Rogue the most.

I always have fun with Bards. They're pretty straightforward to play, you still have a pretty good list of spells to pick from, lots of skills to help the party and will likely make any Knowledge check you'll need to pass. Loremaster builds ok-ish on top of Bard, although I'd reserve it for later levels since you need to pick three Metamagic/Item creation feats: Brew Potion isn't too shabby for a bard, and Heighten Spell and Extend Spell are decent metamagics to pick, but you won't get too much mileage out of them if you pick those as your early-level feats.

Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight are all good for gish builds. I'm particularly a fan of Arcane Archer, although keep in mind that you should probably use Fighter to fulfill the martial requirements rather than Ranger, or at least keep in mind you won't be casting Ranger spells. Going Fighter 3/Wizard 6 is an ok entry into the Arcane Archer: you literally get all the feats needed for entry at 2nd level and have space for more to improve your archery while you progress as a Wizard, can get all 10 levels of the PrC and stick one more Wizard level in there for 4th level spells.

If your group is ok with having an Evil party member (and keep in mind, Evil doesn't mean uncooperative or backstabbing), Rogue into Assassin is almost automatic. Or you could ask the DM to waiver the alignment requirement to "any nongood" at the very least.

EDIT: In general, any Core mundane build will benefit from a couple Fighter levels, because those two bonus feats are juicy and your base class is front-loaded.

[H_H_F_F]

The trick here is, that you aren't just measuring the characters, you're also measuring the module. The rating of the module is, in effect, the rating of the average expected character for that module.


I have played many campaigns with 8 DMs, and a total of around 4 hours of non-homebrew content in my life. Not everyone uses modules. When a new DM is attempting to craft a world and adventures within it, they're going to use the tool set they know. If the players use the same tool set, the DM should have enough system mastery to ensure encounters are as interesting, challenging, and as difficult as they wish. If the players are very responsible and have exact knowledge of the DM's mastery level, they can probably build their characters to fit the assumed challenges - but that's way more difficult than building for a module. It's easier and safer to just use what the DM knows.

The real problem is DMs thinking they know core when they don't.

[Quertus]

I have played many campaigns with 8 DMs, and a total of around 4 hours of non-homebrew content in my life. Not everyone uses modules.


(feel free to use the word "adventure" wherever I use the word "module", if that makes more sense to you).

:smallsigh:


When a new DM is attempting to craft a world and adventures within it, they're going to use the tool set they know. If the players use the same tool set, the DM should have enough system mastery to ensure encounters are as interesting, challenging, and as difficult as they wish. If the players are very responsible and have exact knowledge of the DM's mastery level, they can probably build their characters to fit the assumed challenges - but that's way more difficult than building for a module. It's easier and safer to just use what the DM knows.

The real problem is DMs thinking they know core when they don't.

Certainly, that last sentence is highly relevant.

But I see no reason why "dude, dial it back a notch" / "dude, stop being the load" would be easier to resolve when you're dealing with limited content. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the more options you have, the better equipped you are to resolve balance issues.

But this is probably linked to the Promethean vs epimethian approach, and the hubris of GMs believing that they understand balance sight unseen.

[PrismCat21]

These are the core-only multiclass builds I recommend.

Cleric / Thaumaturgist / Hierophant
Wizard / Loremaster / Archmage


Multiclass refers to base classes (1-20).
Prestige Classes you 'prestige class' into.

[mabriss lethe]

It really depends on the rest of the game's assumed parameters

How high is the expected optimization among the other players?

What level of optimization is the GM prepping for?

What other character expectations are present? (alignment, etc)

Most importantly, What do you want to play?

There's a lot of variation in possible campaigns, even in core. Don't take folks pushing for T1 or bust as gospel. There is a world of difference between the average gaming table and the high op, high procedure expectations that the Forums engender. High op T1 characters in low op games are just as unfun to play as a low op T4 character in a high op high power game.

[Particle_Man]

Oh another idea: Barbarian 4/ranger 1/horizon walker 1 (desert) to get immunity to fatigue, if you don't like that when your rages run out of juice.