Starting to play D&D, any advice?

[Cpu46]

To specify: this upcoming Wednesday there is a D&D Encounters session going on at a nearby hobby store and I am planning on going and trying this out. This is mostly for fun but also I am in desperate need of something to get me out of my dorm room.

So I was wondering If the Escapist had any general advice on D&D.

For extra Discussion: In your opinion what is the best version of D&D, What classes / races do you enjoy playing as, and do you normally refer to your character as I or he/she/it

 

[Altorin]

Actual Dungeons and Dragons, I'm most familiar with 3.5, but I think I'd prefer 4e if I could get a proper group together to play it.

I like playing as humans generally, and I like roguish characters.. and it's always I, although I don't stay "in character" usually for discussions, but it's "I'm going to try and pick the lock".

 

[Amnestic]

Please, for the love of all that is un/holy, don't create a crazy hybrid. No Half-Dragon, Half-Weretiger, Paladin/Samurai/Monk/Battlemage multiclass bullshit. I played with a guy who used to do that and it was so goddamn tedious.

Basic does not mean bad. There's nothing wrong with the basic humans, elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarves, whatever. Feel free to branch out but don't neglect the basics.

Also, bad stats, while obviously not good for GO DICEROLLS! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLIn-48pXKg] can and likely will offer a more enjoyable experience. Flawed characters are good I generally find.

I hear 4th is easiest to learn, but I started with AD&D 2nd and 3.5th.

I've played as pretty much everything. I'm not a huge fan of Paladins because of the restrictive alignment requirements, but everything else (Fights, Clerics, Mages, Bards, Thieves/Rogues...) I'm more than happy to employ. I'm not a fan of dual/multi-classing though. I prefer single classing my guys.

As for 1st/3rd person I switch depending on...I dunno, I just end up switching back and forth.

 

[scnj]

Don't go chaotic evil. You won't be able to pull it off.

 

[Altorin]

Please, for the love of all that is un/holy, don't create a crazy hybrid. No Half-Dragon, Half-Weretiger, Paladin/Samurai/Monk/Battlemage multiclass bullshit. I played with a guy who used to do that and it was so goddamn tedious.

Basic does not mean bad. There's nothing wrong with the basic humans, elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarves, whatever. Feel free to branch out but don't neglect the basics.

hehe, as always amn, you show why you're my best buddy around here. Let me tell you about my first D&D game with a new group when I moved to a new school.

"Hey man, wanna play some D&D?"
"Cool, what level?"
"Oh, they're level 1"
"Awesome, I think I'll play a half-elf sorcerer"
*meticulously crafts a half-elf sorcerer*
*arrives at game*
"This is Misha, she's playing a Vampire, Level 1 Rogue."
>.>
"This is Chris, he's playing a Magma Paragenasi, level 1 fighter, but he's not playing with the actual Magma Paragenasi rules, we're sort of making them up as we go along. By the end he'll be an elemental!"
>.>
"This is Will, he's playing a Yuanti Half Blood, level 1 Ranger."
>.>

yeah, basic is good. Keeps everyone on the same page.

although I don't have a problem with multiclassing, and as long as it requires extra levels through maybe a prestige class, exotic templates are interesting.. like the Dragon Disciple ends up becoming a half-dragon at the end of it, and that's sort of cool.. But not something to start with.


You want basic advice though... My basic advice to you, is to ignore everything everyone says here (except this) and just go and have fun. There will be people there that will fill you in on everything you need to know, and believe it or not, RPG players typically like new players, means they have more players to pull from when they want to put something together.

 

[procyonlotor]

Don't go chaotic evil. You won't be able to pull it off.

I've always wondered how you'd fit your chaotic evil character in a party.

Unless the entire party was evil.

 

[Something Amyss]

Play Cleric or Druid.

Win the game.

>.>

Watching others play is one of the best ways to learn.

 

[adamtm]

I just finished running a 4th edition campaign.

Pro Tip: If you find a oozy liquid on the ground, dont lick it, it might make gravity reverse and let you fly of into space :<

(don't worry, i shot an arrow with a rope at the fighter and lodged it safely in his shoulder so i could hold on to it)

 

[Altorin]

Don't go chaotic evil. You won't be able to pull it off.

I've always wondered how you'd fit your chaotic evil character in a party.

Unless the entire party was evil.

well, they don't need to be evil, they just have to be ok chaperoning a cruel and callous ************. The difficulty is whether or not your character's alignment is just their attitude, or if they have some planar calling to that alignment. Having an actual demon in the party (a chaotic evil outsider) would be difficult, because they can't NOT do the chaotic evil option. A material planes character that just happens to be chaotic evil though can do neutral things or even good things occasionally, as long as they're a cruel and callous ************ most of the time. The latter would be easier to fit into a party because they don't have a compulsion to commit wanton acts of chaos and evil.

Oh, and paladins are basically impulsed into stopping an evil character, even if it's in their group, so a chaotic evil character would never work with a paladin in the group. Suffer not a villain to live.

 

[Asturiel]

Don't go chaotic evil. You won't be able to pull it off.

Says you, the only requirement is somebody good at abandoning risky situations and willing to hide their true selves. Plus being higher level than most of the authority figures is a major aid.

Please, for the love of all that is un/holy, don't create a crazy hybrid. No Half-Dragon, Half-Weretiger, Paladin/Samurai/Monk/Battlemage multiclass bullshit. I played with a guy who used to do that and it was so goddamn tedious.

Basic does not mean bad. There's nothing wrong with the basic humans, elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarves, whatever. Feel free to branch out but don't neglect the basics.

I disagree, using templates is an interesting way of play. Certainly not when you start out but it certainly does have it's merits.

OT: Just play Chaotic Neutral if your playing 3.5, it's the easiest of all the alignments to do. Just do what you feel like, it's justified (so long as you don't start leaning one way or another, in that case the DM may tell you that your alignments changed.

 

[Altorin]

Don't go chaotic evil. You won't be able to pull it off.

Says you, the only requirement is somebody good at abandoning risky situations and willing to hide their true selves. Plus being higher level than most of the authority figures is a major aid.

Please, for the love of all that is un/holy, don't create a crazy hybrid. No Half-Dragon, Half-Weretiger, Paladin/Samurai/Monk/Battlemage multiclass bullshit. I played with a guy who used to do that and it was so goddamn tedious.

Basic does not mean bad. There's nothing wrong with the basic humans, elves, gnomes, halflings, dwarves, whatever. Feel free to branch out but don't neglect the basics.

I disagree, using templates is an interesting way of play. Certainly not when you start out but it certainly does have it's merits.

OT: Just play Chaotic Neutral if your playing 3.5, it's the easiest of all the alignments to do. Just do what you feel like, it's justified (so long as you don't start leaning one way or another, in that case the DM may tell you that your alignments changed.

again, discussing alignment is a tricky thing in D&D because it means several different things. For most mortals, yes, chaotic neutral (or chaotic good if you want to be heroic) is the "easiest" to play, but that's because native material plain have free will. A chaotic neutral outsider would be a lot more difficult to wrap your mind around.. because in planes other then the material plane Alignment has actual weight. It's not just a label attached to a person, it's the entirety of what that person is. A being that tears down all structure, but at the same time strives for the ultimate balance between good and evil.. That might actually be pretty difficult to wrap your mind around

That's why Paladins and Monks can be so difficult to play, because you have to think about their alignment in different ways then normal classes. With a Paladin, you have to basically act like a Celestial.. an Lawful Good Outsider.. an Angel. Law and Good aren't just a label on you, but are at the very core of your entire being. A monk needs to be lawful. If they become unlawful, then they lose their abilities.. So they too need to see the world like an outsider, where chaos must be anathema. These are native material plane beings, which are corruptible, battling forces that seek only to corrupt.

Amnestic, do yourself a favor and play a paladin, but don't look at every evil act as just some evil that must be vanquished, but rather as just another step in staving off your inevitably corruption. Be afraid of every evil thing, but not cowardly, but rather "This could be the thing that ruins my entire life's work". In otherwords, take the cavalier aspect of the paladin and flip it on its head, where the paladin is afraid to fail.. It's another stereotype perhaps, but it can be a lot more interesting and three dimensional then the traditional paladin stereotype. Because I can gather that the reason you dislike the paladin class is because it's harder to put your own mark on something that HAS to act a certain way.

 

[dorkette1990]

4e is my favorite version, and easiest to start things. My advice is to see the movie The Gamers - some college kids did it and it makes good points and what to do and what not to do in dnd. My advice is to remember that your party is first and foremost - don't be a party-splitter by being a jerk. Other than that, I say play rogues They're neat.

 

[Amnestic]

Amnestic, do yourself a favor and play a paladin, but don't look at every evil act as just some evil that must be vanquished, but rather as just another step in staving off your inevitably corruption. Be afraid of every evil thing, but not cowardly, but rather "This could be the thing that ruins my entire life's work". In otherwords, take the cavalier aspect of the paladin and flip it on its head, where the paladin is afraid to fail.. It's another stereotype perhaps, but it can be a lot more interesting and three dimensional then the traditional paladin stereotype. Because I can gather that the reason you dislike the paladin class is because it's harder to put your own mark on something that HAS to act a certain way.

Suppose it's not out of the question, though I do often find that groups I have don't mesh well with Paladins. A Neutral Good Rogue could simply excuse himself from performing an evil act and, while feeling guilty, wouldn't really be subject to much else. A Paladin on the other hand by virtue of his alignment might be forced to step in and fight the group to stop them, which could end the campaign right there and then which doesn't tend to sit well with most people. Like you said, they have to approach it as a necessity, rather than a description.

I could give it a try though.

 

[Altorin]

Amnestic, do yourself a favor and play a paladin, but don't look at every evil act as just some evil that must be vanquished, but rather as just another step in staving off your inevitably corruption. Be afraid of every evil thing, but not cowardly, but rather "This could be the thing that ruins my entire life's work". In otherwords, take the cavalier aspect of the paladin and flip it on its head, where the paladin is afraid to fail.. It's another stereotype perhaps, but it can be a lot more interesting and three dimensional then the traditional paladin stereotype. Because I can gather that the reason you dislike the paladin class is because it's harder to put your own mark on something that HAS to act a certain way.

Suppose it's not out of the question, though I do often find that groups I have don't mesh well with Paladins. A Neutral Good Rogue could simply excuse himself from performing an evil act and, while feeling guilty, wouldn't really be subject to much else. A Paladin on the other hand by virtue of his alignment might be forced to step in and fight the group to stop them, which could end the campaign right there and then which doesn't tend to sit well with most people. Like you said, they have to approach it as a necessity, rather than a description.

I could give it a try though.

Well, the group should know that if there's a paladin in the group, they may have a problem doing wantonly evil acts consistently. And good groups shouldn't be doing those things anyway, so I really don't see a problem there. What evil acts are good parties doing so consistently that they have their own paladins and protectors constantly breathing down their necks? Most parties are comprised of good and neutral characters, and it's more likely the one player that decides to play an Evil character in a non-evil game that's causing problems, then the paladin that refuses to group with him. In my mind (and in my games), a person that wants to play a paladin certainly trumps someone that wants to play an evil character.

A paladin who doesn't step in front of a red dragon that's threatening to destroy a peasant isn't going to lose his powers. He's probably going to feel horrible for the peasant, and want to find a way to bring the red dragon's destruction for the act, but again, he's not completely obligated to do that either. Paladins have free will, like any other mortal.. their code is more similar to that of an angel, and their placement of alignment is more similar to that, but it's only actual evil acts that threaten their powers. Siding with the red dragon for anything but the most altruistic of endeavors might give them trouble, but silently mourning for the peasant that you couldn't possibly have saved shouldn't.

I think you're giving yourself more trouble then you need to. Don't worry though, most people don't play paladins right anyway. They're not charged with being stupid. They're allowed to have a modicum of self preservation. They don't HAVE to pick a fight with an evil NPC just because he's evil (especially if he's clearly much more powerful then they are and doing so would mean instant death) - that's an entirely different thing then being in a party with an evil PC that your character cannot trust. A Paladin doesn't have to uphold tyranny just because it's the law. Lawful Good to them is a single entity.. They don't have to (and in fact shouldn't) stand for Lawful Evil dictators just because they're both lawful.

I like having a paladin in groups that I run, because it's easier to motivate them, and hence motivate the rest of the group.

Everyone does it wrong. Hope I at least gave you food for thought, that's all I can really hope.. if you think about it and still decide to ignore paladins out of hand, that's fine, they're really not for everyone.

 

[KefkaCultist]

I've only played 3.5 but I've looked at 4th and don't think I'd choose it over 3.5

Rangers are boring if not done right and Monks kick ass, especially Catfolk(meow) with the Vow of Poverty feat (if you don't mind trading magic items and gold for a character that doesn't need to eat/drink/breath and has some amazing powers and bonus feats that severely cripple evil creatures)

 

[Akiada]

To specify: this upcoming Wednesday there is a D&D Encounters session going on at a nearby hobby store and I am planning on going and trying this out. This is mostly for fun but also I am in desperate need of something to get me out of my dorm room.

So I was wondering If the Escapist had any general advice on D&D.

Think of D&D as a team sport and the party as your team. Don't dick over your team and things should go well.

For extra Discussion: In your opinion what is the best version of D&D, What classes / races do you enjoy playing as, and do you normally refer to your character as I or he/she/it

I've only played 3.5E and 4E, and enjoyed them both. 4E is very cohesive and well balanced - pretty much any option is a viable one. 3.5E has a lot more material, but it also has a lot of cool concepts that actually play terribly.

Can't speak for 1E and 2E as I've never played them or even read their rules. I only have others' word to go on regarding those editions.

 

[Zombie Shakespeare]

Don't grow too attached to characters. Some will die in a long campaign.

And don't take the game too seriously. Learn to shrug things off. The other day, I was playing a game with friends and murdered one of the other characters, a Drow, because my gnome was racist. So what did he do? He flipped me off, but by the end of the session, we were laughing and talking. That's a good goal, I think.

 

[Cpu46]

4e is my favorite version, and easiest to start things. My advice is to see the movie The Gamers - some college kids did it and it makes good points and what to do and what not to do in dnd. My advice is to remember that your party is first and foremost - don't be a party-splitter by being a jerk. Other than that, I say play rogues They're neat.

Wait, isn't that the one where the rouge steals a mans pants off of him and then shortly later gets a sneak attack with a ballista? Because i think i saw a video on youtube under that name.



Yup that was it. Ahh, just remembering that scene made me chuckle a bit.

 

[migo]

3.5E has a lot more material, but it also has a lot of cool concepts that actually play terribly.

That sums upt the problem of 3.x nicely. Cool concepts that are newb traps.