I am compiling some Ideas for a book I am thinking of writing, and I wanted to make a survey of people who are D&D experts.
Heres the question
What is the best starting class in the 3.5 players manual for a low level character?(1-5ecl)
Define parameters of "starting" and "low level". By starting do you refer to a beggining of a predetermine "build" of multiclassing and prestige classes (not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you!) or simply what you start as at that moment. Low level can be anything from 0 (I've seen 0 level characters) to 5th or even 7th by some people's definitions.
Also, define if this is relative to traditional (3-5 players) play, mass (6-10), or small (1-2).
I'll assume you mean traditional play (3-5), no preset build in mind, level 1. My top two picks are fighter and cleric. I favor melee characters, and these both get heavy armor, sheilds, and what the cleric lacks in statistical power (base attack, hp) he makes up for with two good saves, ability to heal, and ability to buff. And turn undead.
If you're referring to solo play with only one or two PCs, I'd vote druid or bard. Sheer versatility wins the day here. Granted, its hard for bards to operate well at higher levels alone, and less people on your side devalues bardic music, but fascinate and suggestion can be simply overwhelming with a good perform check.
Keep in mind, these are just the opinions I've formed over my years of playing with the groups I've played with. I guarantee you others will disagree, so YMMV.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What is the best starting class in the 3.5 players manual for a low level character?(1-5ecl)
Starting CLASS? There's no way to accurately make a decision without further information there. I would say that there are a few classes which, by themselves, are extremely weak at low levels and thus would not recommend them in a game where there is only going to be one player (wizard and sorcerer, specifically), but I can't say that there is one class that outshines the others early on.
If I had to make a call, I would say barbarians make very strong starting characters. They get the bulk of their abilities early on and have a lot of survivability thanks to the d12 hit die. Also, they have more skills than fighters which allow them to have a little more usefulness outside of combat.
What's the theme/feel of the book? What are the characters supposed to be doing? You should gear your characters' abilities towards what you want them to be facing.
Anyway, the classes are supposed to be designed so that one is not "better" than another. Though the fighting classes would be best at holding their own in an adventure, if there is more than one in a group then I think you should cover all your bases. If its just one or two, multiclass fighter(or similar)/arcane caster is good, and any divine caster (clerics and druids would get about the same fighting ability as the multiclasser).
Edit: There are arcane/warrior classes already, and there are non-figher divine classes. So I would count, say, a Warmage as as good as the multiclass, and a Shugenja as not being a good class on its own w/o the fighter levels.
|
Barbarian or Sorcerer, and leaning toward Barbarian. (With the understanding that if the player takes Sorcerer, you'll probably need to allow the him to tweak his initial spell choices when the he understands the system better.) The nice thing about Barbarian is that it's both mechanically and conceptually fairly easy while still being useful in a variety of different situations. The player of a Barbarian is unlikely to feel useless, which is really important when new.
The others:
Ranger: A pretty good choice. I'd recommend an archer build rather than a two-weapon build, because it doesn't require the knowledge of quite as many rules.
Rogue: A reasonable choice. Almost any skill choice will work and the character is broadly useful. The problem is that a Rogue probably needs to have a reasonable grasp of the details of combat to survive, and this is not common among new players.
Cleric, Druid, and Wizard: All require too many difficult decisions each virtual day and are a bit tricky (or passive) to play.
Fighter: OK with good feat selections, but those are difficult for a newbie to make. (If you're willing to allow a later feat tweak, Fighter can work fairly well.)
Bard: Too passive in combat and too active in diplomatic encounters for most new players.
Paladin: Take a look at all the threads here and elsewhere that revolve around the difficulties caused by different understandings about how a Paladin's code of honor works. Plus, they're a bit weak, mechanically.
Monk: Tricky to play and perhaps a bit weak in many situations.
i would say fighter, but that is my opinion of what i think is the easyest
Just as say a first timer at the game what would you recommend as a first PC.
For pure ease, I would say a fighter or barbarian. Barbarian may be more powerful right out of the box, but the fighter is versatile and simple. If one wanted to get a more fleshed out sense of the rules system, however, a cleric would be the ideal choice. Spells, combat, a few skills. That's enough to get a sense of how everything works.
I don't like starting players as fighters because they assume that's the easiest and never learn any of the other rules, and so continue to play fighters for the rest of their lives. I do not exaggerate, I have a player like this (Dwarf fighter, and while this sounds like a good combination for RP, the guy just liked breaking stuff. I tried to get him to play a barbarian once, but he didn't {want to} understand rage.).
Cleric sounds like a good idea, but the ideology can be hard to RP. Just go with whatever the player feels comfortable with. Ask him/her what he/she wants to do or what ideas they have before talking about class.
I don't like starting players as fighters because they assume that's the easiest and never learn any of the other rules, and so continue to play fighters for the rest of their lives. I do not exaggerate, I have a player like this (Dwarf fighter, and while this sounds like a good combination for RP, the guy just liked breaking stuff. I tried to get him to play a barbarian once, but he didn't {want to} understand rage.).
Cleric sounds like a good idea, but the ideology can be hard to RP. Just go with whatever the player feels comfortable with. Ask him/her what he/she wants to do or what ideas they have before talking about class.
It sounds like your blaming the idea of having a player play a fighter for the fact that the player does not want to expand his horizons. I seriously doubt that A follows from B. Players can choose to be lazy for all sorts of reasons.
However it seems pretty far fetched to draw a logical deduction along the lines of: Player A is lazy and does not want to learn new things -> He played an easy to learn class first -> ergo playing an easy to learn class makes players lazy.
Not to sound snarky, Will, but what does 'the best starting character' have to do with writing a book? Are you writing a novel or a kind of 'idiot's guide to d&d' or what?
|
|
I don't like starting players as fighters because they assume that's the easiest and never learn any of the other rules, and so continue to play fighters for the rest of their lives. I do not exaggerate, I have a player like this (Dwarf fighter, and while this sounds like a good combination for RP, the guy just liked breaking stuff. I tried to get him to play a barbarian once, but he didn't {want to} understand rage.).
Cleric sounds like a good idea, but the ideology can be hard to RP. Just go with whatever the player feels comfortable with. Ask him/her what he/she wants to do or what ideas they have before talking about class.
It's true. I've been playing fighters for 27 years.
Well, sometimes I'd be a paladin.I uz a cleric once.
I don't like starting players as fighters because they assume that's the easiest and never learn any of the other rules, and so continue to play fighters for the rest of their lives. I do not exaggerate, I have a player like this (Dwarf fighter, and while this sounds like a good combination for RP, the guy just liked breaking stuff. I tried to get him to play a barbarian once, but he didn't {want to} understand rage.).
Cleric sounds like a good idea, but the ideology can be hard to RP. Just go with whatever the player feels comfortable with. Ask him/her what he/she wants to do or what ideas they have before talking about class.It's true. I've been playing fighters for 27 years.
Well, sometimes I'd be a paladin.
I uz a cleric once.
I was a cleric once too, but it didn't work out, i am either a rogue or a magic person
Not to sound snarky, Will, but what does 'the best starting character' have to do with writing a book? Are you writing a novel or a kind of 'idiot's guide to d&d' or what?
Something along the line of the latter, just seeing if it might work.Also didn't want to sound single minded in it so I thought to get a second third fourth fifth... opinion.
Thanks guys for the contribution. P.S. I don't really like fighters I prefer the more complicated the better to understand the game faster.
For starting classes, you want somehting that is easy to play (especially in combat), but also easy to build. Therefore I would suggest either Barbarian or Cleric.
If you go a Barbarian, the only choice you have is what feat(s) to take, and you can;t go wrong with Power Attack (and Cleave) to start with. With the skills as well, it also gives them something to contribute outside of Combat.
Cleric may see like a strange choice, but with Heavy Armor, and d8 hit dice, they are very durable (probabaly the most durable of all the classes). Also, they are a good introduction to Spell Casters, as no spell memorised is ever really "wasted" as it is easily converted into a Cure spell. Just make sure they don't get stuck playing a walking Band-aid.