Beginner's advice on classes

[Kurald Galain]

I would like to put together some simple advice on class choice for beginners. The idea is to give each class a few ratings so that new players can pick a class based on that, and not get the wrong idea. I'm sure this has been done several times before, so it should be fairly straightforward, but I'd like some feedback anyway.

I'm assuming low level = 1 through 6, moderate level = 7 through 12, high level = 13 through 20. The categories I thought of are combat (a measure of attacking or otherwise disabling enemies), toughness (a measure of survivability and resistance to enemy attacks), social (a measure of social skills or abilities) and misc (a measure of basically anything else that has some practical value in-game, like divinations and skills). Perhaps this needs a fifth category.

So we'd get something like this:
Fighter:
Combat: good at low levels, fair at moderate levels, poor at high levels
Toughness: good at low levels, fair at moderate/high levels
Social: poor
Misc: poor

Wizard:
Combat: good
Toughness: poor at low levels, fair at moderate/high levels
Social: fair
Misc: excellent

Rogue:
Combat: good
Toughness: fair
Social: fair
Misc: good

Bard:
Combat: fair, poor at high levels
Toughness: fair
Social: good
Misc: good

Monk:
Combat: fair, poor at high levels
Toughness: good
Social: poor
Misc: poor

Cleric:
Combat: fair, good at high levels
Toughness: good
Social: poor
Misc: good

Et cetera. Do you think this would be helpful to players? Am I missing something important?

[TSGames]

I think I would put cleric at "fair" social skills. The cleric is fairly able to boost its social skills, and is likely to have a not bad CHA due to turning. Also, I would put the monk down for "good" at misc. because all that it really does well is misc. things.

I like the list. It's tricky to do because you need to assume that players are not using the most horribly broken builds, and that they are not using the most underpowered builds, so finding a middle ground that is acceptable to everyone will be impossible. I recommend to any new players reading this that they should play whatever style of character they can have fun with and worry about power later.

[Spiryt]

Well, that's not bad, but there will be much controversies...

Even for beginners (and beginers are different, when I was starting in 3.5 I was trying to multiclass right away ) much depends on build. Fighter will have good toughness, but not against will things (usually), so it's little imprecise. Maybe slighty more detailed will be better.

Anyway, keep them coming.


P.S. Precise what grades are. Are there : poor, fair, good and excelent, or something more?

[Solo]

I think I would put cleric at "fair" social skills. The cleric is fairly able to boost its social skills, and is likely to have a not bad CHA due to turning. Also, I would put the monk down for "good" at misc. because all that it really does well is misc. things.

Don't forget, Clerics have a GOD backing them up. In settings where the cleric's church is powerful, that can mean a lot.

[Dausuul]

The idea is good, but I think it would be better to give a short description rather than a one-word rating. I'd also add a "Mechanics" category, for how easy the class is to handle mechanically; and change "Misc" to "Utility," which seems like a more accurate description.

So, for example:

FIGHTER
Combat: At low levels, fighters are sturdy combatants who can inflict heavy damage on foes. Later on, they become less and less effective, mostly because they lack the mobility to keep up with high-level monsters and spellcasters.
Toughness: Fighters can stand up to a good deal of physical punishment. Their heavy armor makes them relatively tough to hit, and they have hit points in plenty. Their main defensive weakness is their low Will save; fighters are easy targets for mind-control spells and the like.
Social: Fighters have a hard time contributing in a social situation. They have very few skill points, no reason to invest in Charisma, and no social skills are class skills for them (except Intimidate).
Utility: A fighter has little to offer outside of combat. Because of their lack of skills and magical powers, their utility abilities are mostly limited to kicking down doors and absorbing damage from traps the rogue fails to disarm.
Mechanics: Fighter mechanics are possibly the easiest in the game. They have only a few simple tricks (the primary one being "run up and whack it in the head"), and the mechanics for those tricks are quite easy to learn.

[Spiryt]

Don't forget, Clerics have a GOD backing them up. In settings where the cleric's church is powerful, that can mean a lot.

But if they'r cleric of some weird and unpopular god, they don't mean much. Too much depends on fluff/game not from actual class design.

[Solo]

Even so, it wouldn't be a good idea to offend the servant of a being more powerful than can possibly be imagined....

[TSGames]

The idea is good, but I think it would be better to give a short description rather than a one-word rating. I'd also add a "Mechanics" category, for how easy the class is to handle mechanically; and change "Misc" to "Utility," which seems like a more accurate description.

Perhaps this should compliment it. It seemed to me, that the OP was attempting to create an easy to use quick glance rating system similar to a table. Perhaps the more in-depth descriptions you provided would make an excellent supplement?

[DraPrime]

What about druids, paladins and sorcerers?

[Dausuul]

Perhaps this should compliment it. It seemed to me, that the OP was attempting to create an easy to use quick glance rating system similar to a table. Perhaps the more in-depth descriptions you provided would make an excellent supplement?

But this was also supposed to be for beginners; and I think simple one-word descriptions can be misleading. For instance, one might see that a wizard is rated as "Good" in combat, and assume that means direct damage, when in fact direct damage is generally the weakest of the wizard's attack modes.

At the very least, there should be a key to indicate what each category means.

[Spiryt]

Even so, it wouldn't be a good idea to offend the servant of a being more powerful than can possibly be imagined....

Well, it's also not a good idea to offend Frienzied Berserker . He doesn't have god on his side, but can power attack you for + 421 to dam. And cleric can be quiet, reserved guy, not able to intimidate anybody even as servant of some grat Bozo.

It's all possible desigh of character, not their actual mechanical strenght/weakness.

[OneWinged4ngel]

Am I missing something important?

Yes, an accurate analysis and useful advice to new players.

All this is is categorizing things that have a *great* degree of customizability into fairly arbitrary labels for how "good" they are at rather undefined categories. Doesn't seem the least bit useful for helping newbies get a strong grasp of the game concepts. Saying things like "Clerics: Social: Poor" is pretty stupid when clerics have spells to give them great social powers, as well as Diplomacy as a class skill. Same goes for Wizard toughness. I know that when I play games with experienced players, Wizards can be a lot tougher to crack than many things you listed as having good toughness. Same goes for much of the rest of the stuff you've put down. And it all really varies by build.

At best, it's misleading to new players.

[Dr. Weasel]

Yes, an accurate analysis and useful advice to new players.

A bit harsh perhaps?

Saying things like "Clerics: Social: Poor" is pretty stupid when clerics have spells to give them great social powers, as well as Diplomacy as a class skill. Same goes for Wizard toughness.

This is definitely a valid point. Perhaps it is possible to label the monk and Barbarian accurately because they usually only have one style of build (usually being the key word), but the others, spellcasters especially have massive versatility. Just choosing between ranged and melee fighting drastically alters the classes abilities; having skillpoints to rearrange does just as much.

At best, it's misleading to new players.

Again, this is quite harsh. The problem with your guide is that it doesn't explain. Just writing down basic class descriptions that you'd normally give a new player and only pointing out the incredibly weak ones' power rankings (so a newbie doesn't find themselves trapped as a soulknife or samuri) would probably be more productive.

"Bards are a support class whose primary role is to provide party buffs. They have the second best skill list and the second most skill ranks in core. They gain a limited spell list focused on trickery and minor ability boosts though they have nowhere near the spellcasting capabilities of Wizards or Sorcerers" will probably be more productive for a player than vague rankings

[Kurald Galain]

Okay, how about this:

Barbarian:
Strong points: good melee combatant, decent skills, good survivability
Weak points: not very customizable, mostly ineffectual outside combat

Bard
Strong points: excels at social situations, versatile, good at assisting other party members
Weak points: better at supporting others more than at doing things on his own; poor combatant, inferior spellcasting

Cleric
Strong points: excellent spellcaster and healer, good combatant especially at higher levels
Weak points: no real weaknesses, but relatively hard to learn for beginners

Druid
Strong points: excellent spellcaster, summoner, and combatant
Weak points: no real weaknesses, but relatively hard to learn for beginners

Fighter
Strong points: decent melee or ranged combatant, good survivability, easy to learn for beginners
Weak points: ineffectual outside combat; outside low levels, outdone in combat by most other classes

Monk
Strong points: good survivability
Weak points: generally ineffective both inside and outside combat; considered by many to be an inferior class; not very customizable

Ranger
Strong points: good melee or ranged combatant, decent stealth and versatility
Weak points: relatively ineffective in social situations

Rogue
Strong points: good melee combatant, highly versatile at non-combat situations, good stealth and social skills; highly customizable
Weak points: relatively vulnerable; weak when alone, and when fighting undead

Paladin
Strong points: good melee combatant, good survivability
Weak points: must adhere to code of honor; relatively difficult to learn for beginning players; not very customizable

Sorcerer
Strong points: excellent powerful and versatile spellcaster, capable of dealing with any situation inside and outside combat; highly customizable
Weak points: vulnerable, especially at lower levels; relatively hard to learn for beginners

Wizard
As sorcerer, only moreso: both more versatile and harder to learn.

[banjo1985]

I think that's a better way to do it, but that it needs some more detail added as time goes on. Maybe a choice of appropriate 1st Lvl Feats for each class would be good to include, as well as some skills that they should look at picking up?

I don't see the point others are making about it all depending on customization. This is supposed to be for beginners, right? So they will most probably start out wanting to know what each class is made to do, rather than what they can be steered towards, that would probabaly come later.

[Dausuul]

I really don't think you can boil it down to such short lists and still convey useful information. For one thing, you apply "relatively difficult to learn for beginners" to both paladin and cleric. But paladins are a lot easier to learn than any sort of full caster IMO, especially clerics with their Vancian casting and huge array of spells known. Rogues and barbarians are both "good melee combatants" by this guide, but barbarians far outperform rogues at raw damage-dealing, even with sneak attack taken into account. And the "good survivability" of a fighter makes no mention of the fighter's glaring defensive weakness--the Will save.

A guide has to explain clearly (if concisely) the reason for each of these traits, and perhaps give a few pointers on effective builds. I understand that you want this to be a short "quick-start" guide, but if you really want this to be something that can guide newbies to picking the class that's right for them, it has to give them a clear picture of what each class does and how it works.

[daggaz]

I had a solid melee cleric who only had a six in charisma (he was a dwarf), but due to the fact that he had worked his way up on his battle prowess and high intelligence (14) into a ranking position as captain of the guards and the leader of the king's secret police, he had maxed out diplomacy and was beyond a doubt the best party face. The rogue was nowhere close.

[Kurald Galain]

Hm, it strikes me that I can't be the first person to attempt such. I've been trying to find a FAQ at the wizards forum, but apparently there isn't one... does anyone know if such a FAQ exists? Or perhaps I should direct people to one of those "what character class are you" internet tests?

[AKA_Bait]

Something missed here that I think is important to any beginners guide is a typical learning curve to be effective. Assuming a brand new player, there is a LOT to learn and some classes require a lot more than others.

My thoughts:

Fighter:
Learning Curve: Flat.
Basic combat followed by more complicated but less used rules like Bull Rush and Trip. A beginner can play one effectivley at low levels with minimal reading.

Wizard:
Learning Curve: Steep.
Wizards must prepare spells ahead of time and will have access to many spells. Some adjustment time as limited spells known to prepare and aquired over time. Familar to manage.

Rogue:
Learning Curve: Slight incline.
Sneak attack and some skill rules (search, disable device) must be learned at the outset. Otherwise not much past fighters.

Bard:
Learning Curve: Slight incline.
A handful of spells and bardic music abilities that are learned as levels progress.

Monk:
Learning Curve: Mostly Flat
Other than basic combat only a few abilities to learn that are learned as levels progress.

Cleric:
Learning Curve: Steep
Must prepare spells and has access to every cleric spell of a level they can cast as soon as they can cast it. Turn/Rebuke rules and spontaneous casting rules make this even more difficult.

Druid:
Learning Curve: Steep
Same broad spell access as a cleric. Broad range of monsters to learn for potential wildshape and summoning options. Animal companion to manage in combat.

Sorcerer:
Learning Curve: Semi-steep
Limited spells known per level without requirement to prepare ahead of time. Familiar to manage.

Barbarian:
Learning Curve: Mostly Flat.
Same as fighter except more complicated mathematical adjustments for rage to learn.

[Chronos]

Barbarian:
Strong points: good melee combatant, decent skills, good survivability
Weak points: not very customizable, mostly ineffectual outside combat

The lack of customizability is also one of the barbarian's major advantages. Remember, this is geared towards beginners. A beginner playing a fighter might choose a set of feats which look good at first glance, but which don't actually work very well, and thereby weaken his character considerably. With a barbarian, though, there aren't really that many opportunities to make mistakes.

Also, the fluff for a barbarian tends to help guide people to better choices. In general, any sort of warrior class will do best in combat with a two-handed weapon and Power Attack, a combination which seems much more obvious for a barbarian than for a fighter. A shield or two-weapon fighting is likely to look more appealing for a fighter.

[cheesecake]

Any class's social ability is only as good as the person playing.

[Starbuck_II]

The idea is good, but I think it would be better to give a short description rather than a one-word rating. I'd also add a "Mechanics" category, for how easy the class is to handle mechanically; and change "Misc" to "Utility," which seems like a more accurate description.

So, for example:

FIGHTER
Combat: At low levels, fighters are sturdy combatants who can inflict heavy damage on foes. Later on, they become less and less effective, mostly because they lack the mobility to keep up with high-level monsters and spellcasters.
Toughness: Fighters can stand up to a good deal of physical punishment. Their heavy armor makes them relatively tough to hit, and they have hit points in plenty. Their main defensive weakness is their low Will save; fighters are easy targets for mind-control spells and the like.
Social: Fighters have a hard time contributing in a social situation. They have very few skill points, no reason to invest in Charisma, and no social skills are class skills for them (except Intimidate).
Utility: A fighter has little to offer outside of combat. Because of their lack of skills and magical powers, their utility abilities are mostly limited to kicking down doors and absorbing damage from traps the rogue fails to disarm.

I agree.

Mechanics: Fighter mechanics are possibly the easiest in the game. They have only a few simple tricks (the primary one being "run up and whack it in the head"), and the mechanics for those tricks are quite easy to learn.

Disagree.
They are the hardest. You have to choose feats carefully for them because that is all you get. You only have your feats to fall back on.

Compare to the other classes.

Cleric: can fall back o' healing if choose bad spells/feats
Barbarian: Fall back on rage if choose bad feats
Druid: You can eat people lol
Etc.

[Dausuul]

Any class's social ability is only as good as the person playing.

That depends on how much weight the DM puts on the results of social skill checks. In my experience, DMs typically require the player to come up with some reasonable-sounding argument or ploy, then call for a Bluff or Diplomacy check to see if it actually works.

In that environment, playing a bard won't make you better at social stuff if you the player can't come up with plausible lies and convincing arguments, but playing a fighter with a Charisma 6 will prevent you from being good at social stuff even if you the player could talk penguins into buying refrigerators.

Disagree.
They are the hardest. You have to choose feats carefully for them because that is all you get. You only have your feats to fall back on.

Compare to the other classes.

Cleric: can fall back o' healing if choose bad spells/feats
Barbarian: Fall back on rage if choose bad feats
Druid: You can eat people lol
Etc.

Hmm, good point. Perhaps the guide should distinguish between "easy to build a character" and "easy to play the character." Something like this:

Mechanics: Designing an effective fighter can be a difficult task. Your class abilities depend heavily on your feat choices, and poor feat choice can result in a very weak combatant. Since combat is pretty much all fighters do, you want to be as good at it as possible. On the other hand, once the character is built, a fighter is usually quite simple to play.

[AKA_Bait]

That depends on how much weight the DM puts on the results of social skill checks. In my experience, DMs typically require the player to come up with some reasonable-sounding argument or ploy, then call for a Bluff or Diplomacy check to see if it actually works.

In that environment, playing a bard won't make you better at social stuff if you the player can't come up with plausible lies and convincing arguments, but playing a fighter with a Charisma 6 will prevent you from being good at social stuff even if you the player could talk penguins into buying refrigerators.

I think this is half true. Even if the plausable stuff is not something the player can come up with a high enough bluff check can overcome a silly excuse. On the other hand, the most plausable lie in the world probably won't work from "Grog the charismaless fighter"

[JackMage666]

Also, another common labelled "Magic" would be useful, as I wouldn't exactly call a Wizard Good at Combat. They get good Magic, yeah, but rushing in to kill things with a Sword, no. Combat seems like, y'know, physically fighting, not using spells.

[goat]

That depends on how much weight the DM puts on the results of social skill checks. In my experience, DMs typically require the player to come up with some reasonable-sounding argument or ploy, then call for a Bluff or Diplomacy check to see if it actually works.

In that environment, playing a bard won't make you better at social stuff if you the player can't come up with plausible lies and convincing arguments, but playing a fighter with a Charisma 6 will prevent you from being good at social stuff even if you the player could talk penguins into buying refrigerators.

This is a problem with roleplay requirements on diplomacy and bluff rolls, and similarly with puzzles "inside" the game that are solved by the players outside it. A player who can't come up with a viable excuse off the cuff or plan a decent argument is unable to run a charismatic character; a player who's bad at puzzles is unable to run an intelligent one.

While you're playing the character, sometimes you're faced with a situation where you can't come up with anything, and you just want to throw down the dice and shout "Bluff +16!" and let your character do what they do, the same way you would to have them climb a wall or forge a longsword.

[AKA_Bait]

This is a problem with roleplay requirements on diplomacy and bluff rolls, and similarly with puzzles "inside" the game that are solved by the players outside it. A player who can't come up with a viable excuse off the cuff or plan a decent argument is unable to run a charismatic character; a player who's bad at puzzles is unable to run an intelligent one.

While you're playing the character, sometimes you're faced with a situation where you can't come up with anything, and you just want to throw down the dice and shout "Bluff +16!" and let your character do what they do, the same way you would to have them climb a wall or forge a longsword.

And you can do that, at least in my view. Same is true of problem solving for smart characters. Just roll and intelegence check and the DM can determine if it was high enough for your character to have pulled it off or alternativley give them a big honking clue.

[Dausuul]

Also, another common labelled "Magic" would be useful, as I wouldn't exactly call a Wizard Good at Combat. They get good Magic, yeah, but rushing in to kill things with a Sword, no. Combat seems like, y'know, physically fighting, not using spells.

I disagree. Perhaps "Combat" should be renamed "Offense" (and "Toughness" correspondingly changed to "Defense"), but "Magic" should not be its own category.

Aside from "Mechanics," the purpose of these categories is to evaluate what tasks a class is good at, with the description indicating how the class is good at them. "Offense" is the task of neutralizing your enemies in battle. "Defense" is the task of not getting neutralized yourself. "Social" is the task of interacting with non-hostile NPCs (or at least NPCs who aren't actively trying to kill you at this moment). "Utility" is a catch-all category for tasks that don't fall into any of the others. But what task does "Magic" represent?

[OneWinged4ngel]

A bit harsh perhaps?

I don't think so. I find both of those elements to be missing. It presents D&D as if the class system is very limited, makes it seem like PrCs don't exist, and doesn't actually really do anything to teach players the benefits and drawbacks of classes, nor how to build or use characters of any class effectively.

It just gives fairly arbitrary labels.

For example, take the bard. A quote from the CharOp boards is "The old fashioned notion that the bard is underpowered has long since fallen out of style here." Indeed, on a recent polling for top 10 most powerful classes *in D&D*, the Bard was often in the 5th or 6th slot after things like the Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Artificer, and that one Spell Erudite...

Bard:
Combat: fair, poor at high levels
Toughness: fair
Social: good
Misc: good

This doesn't tell me that Bards can use Glibness to have every word they speak be believed. It doesn't tell me that I raise up my Diplomacy modifiers faster than any other core class. It doesn't tell me about the great potential of +8 Inspire Courage at level 8 or Fascinate/Suggestion. It doesn't tell me about the utility of UMD (or Magic Savant or anything). And it certainly doesn't tell you that you can make a bard build that does 600 damage with TWF, adds +12d6 energy damage to all his allies' attacks as a swift action that lasts the whole combat, has 9th level maneuvers, and still UMDs and uses wands and scrolls from the bard list without any need for UMD (that would probably make me think "combat: awesome"). It doesn't tell me about the Sublime Chord or the War Weaver or the Lyric Thaumaturge or the feat you care about to make a Bard/Paladin. It doesn't tell me what benefits I'm going to get with multiclassing. In fact, it gives the impression that I can't get seperate builds, but that regardless of what I do it'll be those same parameters.

The only thing this tells me is that the OP thinks Bards aren't very tough, aren't very strong, but are good in social situations and good at some obscure thing called "misc." I have no idea why from reading it. But I might just think "Oh, well I shouldn't use a bard if I don't want to be good in combat" which would make the information actively harmful (you totally can make a combat bard, who sings even as he rips your face off.)

[BCOVertigo]

I'd also like to add that with supplements such as Complete Warrior, the Fighter's tactics can become much more complex. Last night for example the Fighter was using Shock Trooper: Heedless Charge in conjunction with Combat Brute: Momentum Swing and was being aided by a use of White Raven Tactics.(I promised my DM it won't be abused so leave me alone)

While the Fighter's learning curve may not be as steep as a class who has to memorize their entire spell list, you still need to understand your tricks and they aren't nearly as easy as a barbarian if you concoct more elaborate strategies.