I just became a member of a Dungeons and Dragons (3.5) playing group on my campus. I've never played a RPing table-top game in my life, so I'm the new guy in the group. Call me a nerd, then give me good character suggestions and why they are good.
What's a good D&D character?
- Thread starter TheDrunkNinja
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've never actually played D&D before (I would love to but no one in my area plays except for my sister's friend.) So I tend to substitute it with Neverwinter Nights 2 which copies the 3.5 version of D&D.
Personally I prefer to use Drow for my characters. Not because of any sort of bonuses but simply because they're so damn evil.
EDIT:// Hmm, can't say I have any suggestions though, what class are you planning to choose? The traits of various races can often assist you in a certain class.
Personally I prefer to use Drow for my characters. Not because of any sort of bonuses but simply because they're so damn evil.
EDIT:// Hmm, can't say I have any suggestions though, what class are you planning to choose? The traits of various races can often assist you in a certain class.
First, let me welcome you to the wonderful world of tabletop gaming. I believe you'll find it even more fun than videogames!
Next, I always recommend the fighter class to first timers myself. Check with your playing group and see if there's any real lack of something. Perhaps another healer would be good, but that's the thing about DnD really, it doesn't matter what you play provided you've a competant DM. Playing the fighter class first will give you a good feel for game mechanics though and I'd shy away from casters until you have a little play time under your belt.
Next, I always recommend the fighter class to first timers myself. Check with your playing group and see if there's any real lack of something. Perhaps another healer would be good, but that's the thing about DnD really, it doesn't matter what you play provided you've a competant DM. Playing the fighter class first will give you a good feel for game mechanics though and I'd shy away from casters until you have a little play time under your belt.
Anything not from the Monster Manual. It annoys me to no end when I see a Half Dragon/Half Archon/Half Vampire (yes, three halves) Paladin/Samurai/Sorcerer multiclass.
A good character? Pick something that's simple, but cool. Has strengths, but is flawed. I ran around as a Halfling Rogue most of the time, but I had a Half-Elf Sorcerer as well.
And don't be afraid to pick Human. Some may call it cliché but there's nothing wrong with Humans and assuming you have a competent DM they can add really interesting RP opportunities which play off your supposed normality.
There's a line between Interesting and Stupid, and you have to know where it's drawn.
Also pay attention to your alignment. Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good.
As for recommendations on your starting character: I loves me a rogue. Take a ranged skill or two and then just put everything else into persuasion, stealth and lockpicking.
Or a Paladin. I've never been a huge fan of Clerics but I loves me some Paladin.
A good character? Pick something that's simple, but cool. Has strengths, but is flawed. I ran around as a Halfling Rogue most of the time, but I had a Half-Elf Sorcerer as well.
And don't be afraid to pick Human. Some may call it cliché but there's nothing wrong with Humans and assuming you have a competent DM they can add really interesting RP opportunities which play off your supposed normality.
There's a line between Interesting and Stupid, and you have to know where it's drawn.
Also pay attention to your alignment. Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid or Stupid Good.
As for recommendations on your starting character: I loves me a rogue. Take a ranged skill or two and then just put everything else into persuasion, stealth and lockpicking.
Or a Paladin. I've never been a huge fan of Clerics but I loves me some Paladin.
Rangers are pretty decent ranged/close combat characters with a decent spell list and a role-playability potential as malleable as soft clay. I generally play Human or Half-Elf Rangers. Pick up the right skills and you'll start out-hitting even the brawniest fighters. Multiclassing options for rangers are pretty fun, too.
Really, you shouldn't be asking, you should be reading through the books.
As for your question, I would primarily suggest using a class from the original Player's Handbook. Monk is generally a good bet as they can do pretty much anything. They have enough depth to get you thinking about choices but have enough rediculous powers to cover any bad choices you make.
If you're looking for something a little more powerful (yeah, really, more powerful than a monk?) you should pick up Tomb of Battle- Book of Nine Swords. Warblades are a very fun variation on the boring old "tank and spank" of the fighter, while a swordsage can give you some interesting damage dealing combinations through the use of their "maneuvers" mechanic.
As for your question, I would primarily suggest using a class from the original Player's Handbook. Monk is generally a good bet as they can do pretty much anything. They have enough depth to get you thinking about choices but have enough rediculous powers to cover any bad choices you make.
If you're looking for something a little more powerful (yeah, really, more powerful than a monk?) you should pick up Tomb of Battle- Book of Nine Swords. Warblades are a very fun variation on the boring old "tank and spank" of the fighter, while a swordsage can give you some interesting damage dealing combinations through the use of their "maneuvers" mechanic.
I've always found monks to be fun followed by rogues. Races don't make too big of a difference unless you want something really off the wall or that creates an extra bonus for abilities (ie: Orcs/half orcs for strength or halflings for dexterity)
For goodness sake start simple!
Until you get into the swing of things the three class Feral half ogre might not be the best idea.
Personally I've found simpler characters much more fun role play wise and much more deadly game wise.
Having said that, my current Rogue/Swashbucker can out damage the parties Sorc =)
Until you get into the swing of things the three class Feral half ogre might not be the best idea.
Personally I've found simpler characters much more fun role play wise and much more deadly game wise.
Having said that, my current Rogue/Swashbucker can out damage the parties Sorc =)
For Role-playing :Start simple; for your character "personality" use some obvious, cliche gimmick like the ones you see in the movies/game/novel. Then appliy you own ideas/twist on it. That way you already have non-verbal quirks you can use, and some guidelines as to "how would GROK the Barbarian react to that strange situation?"
Just playing "myself, but with a sword" is kind of boring. But, frankly, nothing wrong with it.
Dont forget; you play the game to have fun. To have fun with your friends too. Its not a competition of the GM versus the player, its the opposite. If you like something about the game, say it. Want to try something? ask for it. When i DMed, i was quite happy when my players gave me feedback on what they liked and what they didnt.
For Character build:
In 3.5 i like the cleric and rogue.
Cleric keeps your friends alive and fight very well, and you dont have to walk around in robes or whatever, you can run around in plate armor if you feel like it. The spellcasting is reasonably simple (dont pick healing spells, the cleric can transform any spell he has into a healign version at no cost).
Rogues are my favorites; pure distilled flexibility. Not that much HP, they need to keep the flanks and use their sneak attacks often in combat. SO many skills they are invaluable in pretty much all scenarios from dungeons diving, infiltration, robbery, con artist.. you name it, the rogue can do it.
The mage and sorceror are vey fragile early on, and they dont get much in the way of skills. Long term they are nice. Early on.. choose you spells wisely. Try to figure out a plan with your teamates.
Fighter and barbarians.. just are themselves. Very simple. Fighter can have more armor, barbarian is a damage dealer with tons of HP.
RAnger is kinda like a fighter but with more skills. Never used so i dont know.
Monk, never used. But is basically a self-sufficient, loner fighter.. good damage dealer too.
Paladins are good fighter, with good support abilities and spells (lay on hands is a lifesaver!). THe only problem is how badly misunderstood their "code of conduct" is in general.
Druid: can be a good choice; like the cleric you fight well, but instead of healing you can summon plenty of critters to help in combat (more targets and flanking bonuses)
Just playing "myself, but with a sword" is kind of boring. But, frankly, nothing wrong with it.
Dont forget; you play the game to have fun. To have fun with your friends too. Its not a competition of the GM versus the player, its the opposite. If you like something about the game, say it. Want to try something? ask for it. When i DMed, i was quite happy when my players gave me feedback on what they liked and what they didnt.
For Character build:
In 3.5 i like the cleric and rogue.
Cleric keeps your friends alive and fight very well, and you dont have to walk around in robes or whatever, you can run around in plate armor if you feel like it. The spellcasting is reasonably simple (dont pick healing spells, the cleric can transform any spell he has into a healign version at no cost).
Rogues are my favorites; pure distilled flexibility. Not that much HP, they need to keep the flanks and use their sneak attacks often in combat. SO many skills they are invaluable in pretty much all scenarios from dungeons diving, infiltration, robbery, con artist.. you name it, the rogue can do it.
The mage and sorceror are vey fragile early on, and they dont get much in the way of skills. Long term they are nice. Early on.. choose you spells wisely. Try to figure out a plan with your teamates.
Fighter and barbarians.. just are themselves. Very simple. Fighter can have more armor, barbarian is a damage dealer with tons of HP.
RAnger is kinda like a fighter but with more skills. Never used so i dont know.
Monk, never used. But is basically a self-sufficient, loner fighter.. good damage dealer too.
Paladins are good fighter, with good support abilities and spells (lay on hands is a lifesaver!). THe only problem is how badly misunderstood their "code of conduct" is in general.
Druid: can be a good choice; like the cleric you fight well, but instead of healing you can summon plenty of critters to help in combat (more targets and flanking bonuses)