(3.5) Easy-to-play character?

[bokodasu]

I'm looking for some ideas for a character that is a) effective and b) easy to play - both starting from level 1. All sources are allowed, including homebrew (I'm the DM.) The player is new - I won't be able to help her much during the game, so I want something I can go over with her in advance and won't be too confusing.

Best case scenario - something melee, with a couple of tricks but nothing really complicated, that can hold its own in combat and has some out-of-combat utility.

Thanks!

[dsmiles]

My first answer: Rogue
Second: Ranger

[LansXero]

halfling paladin going for cavalier at some point, with a riding dog that eventually becomes its pally-mount?

[Runestar]

Pure barb. Hard to screw up, since your class features are pretty much chosen for you (compared to say, a fighter). Just rage and wade into combat.

If he is willing to spend a little extra time going through the stats, goliath barb.

Extra rage at 1st lv, the rest is pretty much gravy. Maybe give some rage-oriented items from MIC?

[Ozreth]

I second ranger.

[Vance_Nevada]

Core Barbarian.

Greataxe, Power Attack, Cleave. If you do the math for her when setting up the sheet, there's very little to worry about. Add Survival and Track if you want some more out-of-combat utility.

A core Ranger is also pretty good for this sort of thing. Give her skill points in the all the physical skills (Climb, Swim, etc) and make a man-of-the-woods basic character with a bow.

[DementedFellow]

Sorcerer. Especially at first level. Choose Sleep. Then various other spells.

[Drothmal]

My first answer: Rogue
Second: Ranger

+1, both have decent fighting abilities (I would make it a ranged character so it is not tempted by "I run up to the dragon and punch it in the nose") and enough skills/abilities to make them useful out of combat

[Dreadn4ught]

Sorcerer may not be a good idea, with all the spells and stuff, at least not for a new player.

Rogue sounds good, or perhaps barbarian. Can't really go wrong with either one.

[Ernir]

Warblade, I say. Crusader if divine flavor is desired. Printing out the Maneuver Cards is essential, though.

Yes, they are more complicated to play than a Barbarian. But they are infinitely easier to build. If the choice is between teaching the newbie how a recovery mechanic works + reading a maneuver card in addition to everything else he has to learn and risking her being saddened when she realizes that killing things in D&D doesn't happen automatically when you have a high BAB - I think I'll trust in her ability to learn. It's not like it's more complicated than a Sorcerer or anything. =/

[lokoone]

warlock!

veeery easy to use, and its useful, in combat and outside

[LansXero]

Warblade, I say. Crusader if divine flavor is desired. Printing out the Maneuver Cards is essential, though.

Yes, they are more complicated to play than a Barbarian. But they are infinitely easier to build. If the choice is between teaching the newbie how a recovery mechanic works + reading a maneuver card in addition to everything else he has to learn and risking her being saddened when she realizes that killing things in D&D doesn't happen automatically when you have a high BAB - I think I'll trust in her ability to learn. It's not like it's more complicated than a Sorcerer or anything. =/

Thats actually a good idea, more so if they have some TCG experience like Magic or YuGiOh

[Xyk]

Definitely barbarian or fighter. Those are super easy and every newb that played one of those in my presence did very much enjoy the smashing of evildoers.

[MammonAzrael]

I support the Barbarian for pure simplicity while still being relevant. Also plays into most beginner's desire to hit things.

[Psyren]

warlock!

veeery easy to use, and its useful, in combat and outside

Definitely this

Sorcerer is great at mid-levels, not so much at 1

[MeeposFire]

Warlock or dragonfire adept are easy to use spellwise (though the player will not be trained much for attack rolls with a DFA).

Barbs are probably the best for a new player in melee as it fulfills several key objectives

1) Thematic-players can imagine Conan fairly easily when you say barbarian or use real world knowledge (warblade is easy to flavor but it is not as evocative to a new player).

2) Trains new player to handle a limited use resource in rages

3) Lack of choices keeps it simple for the new player (warblades make new choices from a decent sized list).

4) Keeps them in melee without using any strange rules.

5) For the first few levels you can just keep them in one book and it works well (PHB). Makes it easier for them to find stuff and he can just borrow just that one book for reading.

I am not saying warblade is the worst but barbarian is probably the best single class to start a player if they want to be in melee.

[Warlawk]

Warblade, I say. Crusader if divine flavor is desired. Printing out the Maneuver Cards is essential, though.

Yes, they are more complicated to play than a Barbarian. But they are infinitely easier to build. If the choice is between teaching the newbie how a recovery mechanic works + reading a maneuver card in addition to everything else he has to learn and risking her being saddened when she realizes that killing things in D&D doesn't happen automatically when you have a high BAB - I think I'll trust in her ability to learn. It's not like it's more complicated than a Sorcerer or anything. =/

This is exactly what I was going to post. I completely agree with this 110%. Warblade is easy to build, easy to play, and very solid for a melee character. Just help out the player with maneuver/feat choices and. Explain that maneuvers can be used 1 time per fight, unless they are reset by making a full attack. Very simple very straightforward and very playable at any level.

[Runestar]

Also, for barbs, you may want to work with a player towards acquiring one of the several weapon combat style feats. I feel that 3-mountains (complete warrior) is a solid choice, but you will need to start planning from 1st lv if you want to take it (since it has 4 prereq feats, meaning a non-human barb can only get it at 12th lv earliest).

[Shpadoinkle]

Warlock, Dragonfire Adept, or Dragon Shaman. They all have lots of neat abilities you can use pretty much at will.

[Zergrusheddie]

I say more pluses to the Dragonfire Adept and Warlock. Dragonfire Adept can literally be played effectively with just some d6's and a d20 (which you will rarely use). Warlocks are the same way but have more focus on invocations than DFA's. Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts are generally seen as mid-tier characters; they are difficult to make extremely powerful but almost impossible to screw up with slight common sense.

I would stay away from classes that have extensive spells, especially a Sorcerer or Wizard. The number of sheer possibilities that a Wizard can do can be overwhelming and if you do not know what exactly to pick as a Sorcerer, you can really end up handicapping yourself. If they want to try out a caster, I will have to say go with "Eddie's Personal Favorite", the Beguiler. Fixed spells means that there is nothing to really get wrong, a huge number of spells means that they can use them without having to worry, a skill monkey can really teach them the concept of skills and checks, and they get some awesome defensive magic.

Barbarians are probably the easiest to play and are the type of characters that everyone has started with when they first play. It is probably the easiest class to play but like the DFA, it may not teach them too much about the game. Also, since Barbarians are generally not that durable, it means that the new player might really end up dying easily if they make a mistake.

Mostly, I would say:
1. Stay away from prepared casters and Sorcerers.
2. Suggest that they play something that suites their interests and is easy enough to play without much instruction but complex enough that they can understand the system.

Best of luck.
-Eddie

[MeeposFire]

Oh I forgot the warmage is a good first character if they want to blast things and you want simple. It is not a big powerhouse but it is better than a sorc. It is still harder than a DFA or warlock though.

[bokodasu]

So it's looking like Barbarian is the way to go. I'll see how she feels about Warblade - I've been encouraging people to go ToB but wasn't sure about an entirely new (and young) player. I didn't know about the print-out cards, though, so that will be helpful. Thanks!

[Sarakos]

My first impression was to say Warlock, but for melee I would say barbarian

[Starbuck_II]

I say more pluses to the Dragonfire Adept and Warlock. Dragonfire Adept can literally be played effectively with just some d6's and a d20 (which you will rarely use). Warlocks are the same way but have more focus on invocations than DFA's. Warlocks and Dragonfire Adepts are generally seen as mid-tier characters; they are difficult to make extremely powerful but almost impossible to screw up with slight common sense.

Barbarians are probably the easiest to play and are the type of characters that everyone has started with when they first play. It is probably the easiest class to play but like the DFA, it may not teach them too much about the game. Also, since Barbarians are generally not that durable, it means that the new player might really end up dying easily if they make a mistake.

Best of luck.
-Eddie

Yeah, DFA are good. May be little damage at start, but no missing.

Agreed. Barbs are good because you just point out some 2 handed feats (power attack, cleave) and send him out to attack.

Fighters require good rules knowledge to avoid "good sounding but bad in practice" feats.

[molten_dragon]

+1 for warblade. They don't get that many maneuvers, and their recovery mechanic is simple. They're quite functional though, and it's nearly impossible to build a bad one.

-1 for sorcerer. Sorcerers are deceptively complicated. There are hundreds of spells to choose from, and picking good ones is vitally important for a sorcerer to be effective.

[The Rabbler]

I'd like to suggest crusader. Sure, the recovery mechanic is complicated and unreliable, but with Adaptive Style, your player should be able to walk around whacking things all day and only rarely have to worry about getting killed.

[HunterOfJello]

+1 for Warblade. Set the character up with some Light Armor and a Two-Handed weapon. Pick out 3 maneuvers that they would like to use often in combat and a cool stance. The player can print out maneuver cards and use them while playing.

As long as the DM understands how ToB classes work, then the Warblade is a perfect and highly effective starting character.

[Fox Box Socks]

Fighter, if only because the most effective way to build one is to make one that does the same thing every round.

Can't get much simpler than that.

[Greenish]

So it's looking like Barbarian is the way to go. I'll see how she feels about Warblade - I've been encouraging people to go ToB but wasn't sure about an entirely new (and young) player. I didn't know about the print-out cards, though, so that will be helpful. Thanks!

Barbarian and warblade aren't mutually exclusive, and combine nicely. Starting with barbarian, going to warblade when the basics of hitting things and being hit are learned.

[TheGeckoKing]

I would say Barbarian if the player wants to do their own thing most of the time, or Warblade if the player is willing to use the maneuver cards and maybe have the DM pick out maneuvers for them sometimes.

OR

Fighter. That class is pretty simple. But boring as dung. But it's easy-to-play