help with D&D

[Gitsnik]

Whatever you do end up playing, make it something completely against stereotype. Playing an elf? Be a crazed barbarian slavering for blood. If you're a half-orc, play as a quiet wizard type. Or just be totally bananas and deliberately try to kill your party.

What he said.

And if your DM doesn't oppose too much, and especially if he does, you should totally try playing an evil character. And try to backstab your party, or at least roleplay so.

Bwahahahah.

Whilst that is good fun and I thoroughly approve, I find that you won't get invited back to things after a while (anyone remember the 1000 things you're not allowed to do in D&D?).

First time out, I'd say pick something simple and almost cliche - an elvish rogue or dwarven fighter for example. They are fairly solid characters and you should be able to fall into the role play side of things fairly easily if you've read any literature at all (Note: If you so much as think of doing anything from the Lord of the Rings I will personally cross the internet to beat you up for it . Alignment is harder, though I usually play as some sort of chaotic mage - race and creed and lawfulness don't really bother me so much as being completely insane at the best of times. The upshot of this is that you get some hilarious moments in a game (especially when your DM is good enough to keep track of this sort of thing).

Of course sometimes even the DM gets tired of the psychopath in the corner. I remember once being clutched in the deathgrip of a black dragon as we both plumetted over a cliff. It was a rocks fall everybody dies moment. Except it was only me who died. So don't do that just yet - you don't want your first game to end badly or you will be unlikely to come back to it.

Also, you probably won't be fighting dragons just yet. It sucks, but they are rather powerful.

 

[JemJar]

The big magic trick pulled by 4th Edition is they've basically removed all the negatives from everything - in favour of the less obvious negatives of missed positives. It makes it easier to do daft things, like dwarven sorcerers and elven barbarians. You don't have to sacrifice a huge number of skill points for a strong role-playing background - to play my current roleplay properly in 3rd Ed I'd be three skills down on Craft, Profession and Knowledge.

The old D&D dynamic is completely gone. There's no tank, glass cannon, or support characters any more. Instead it's all based around what types of combat maneuvers you want to do, whether you want to be good at handling large groups of weak enemies (wizard) or doing lots of damage to single big enemies (ranger) or moving enemies and yourself around (rogue), or buffing/debuffing (warlord). The races don't make that big of a difference any more and there's a lot lest to choose from in the feat and skill areas. Pick a race that sounds kind of cool and a class that can do the stuff that you want to do in combat.

You've just claimed there's no set party roles and then explained party roles for a number of key character classes...

And second why does intelligence decide how many skills you can take? I'm sure if I could teach a monkey how to read 'The Cat In The Hat' I could teach him how to climb.

<fixed for spelling & grammar>
Monkey gets fat racial bonuses to climb - it doesn't need skill points.

 

[Pumpkin_Eater]

If you're intimidated by the need to come up with a concept and backstory make a human. That part should come pretty naturally and you can stamp on just about any motivation under the sun from guts and glory to the pursuit of knowledge. When thinking about classes just go with the one that sounds the coolest to you. If you want to smite your enemies with the wrath of the gods go cleric; if bashing skulls is more appealing try fighter or paladin.

From there kind of work your way back to make a backstory. If your character is out to protect the innocent, what made him so eager to do so? Maybe someone he loved was killed by bandits or marauders? Just kind of build it up and add to it gradually. Come up with some NPCs that you could have a history with. After running it by the DM it was determined that my last rogue was a former cohort of the campaign's villain and I was able to kill two birds with one stone by taking back the artifact the two of us had been searching for after we bashed his skull in.

 

[Caimekaze]

And second why does intelligence decide how many skills you can take? I'm sure if I could teach a monkey how to read 'The Cat In The Hat' I could teach him how to climb.

<fixed for spelling & grammar>
Monkey gets fat racial bonuses to climb - it doesn't need skill points.

I was going to move on from this thread, as everyone had said everything I would have; I also have no experience of fourth edition.

However, I had to say this. Brilliant. Good show, old chap.

 

[JMeganSnow]

You've just claimed there's no set party roles and then explained party roles for a number of key character classes...

NO, what I SAID is that the OLD party roles are completely gone. People used to the old party roles will be dumbfounded and very confused. Tanks are no longer hit-point sinks devoted to keeping things off the wizard while the wizard kills it. Wizards no longer have one-hit-whammy spells that can take down a big mob on a failed save. Instead, their only real usefulness lies in minion extermination. The new tactical considerations take some getting used to, and since combat in D&D has always been largely tactical, this can kill off your party.

 

[JemJar]

You've just claimed there's no set party roles and then explained party roles for a number of key character classes...

NO, what I SAID is that the OLD party roles are completely gone. People used to the old party roles will be dumbfounded and very confused. Tanks are no longer hit-point sinks devoted to keeping things off the wizard while the wizard kills it. Wizards no longer have one-hit-whammy spells that can take down a big mob on a failed save. Instead, their only real usefulness lies in minion extermination. The new tactical considerations take some getting used to, and since combat in D&D has always been largely tactical, this can kill off your party.

Fair points to some extent.

The party roles have adjusted a bit but really just to make some new spaces.

Wizard as you rightly point out no-longer does the one-hit casting of yesteryear, they've left that sort of damage to warlocks, rangers and rogues. Wizards do still have the old classic of simply wiping out masses of foes though; dumping AoE death across nice big box or triangle shapes. Thanks to the new system of using lots of minion foes who each have 1HP a Wizard becomes a very helpful addition to any group.

I'm surprised you've found tanks to not still be a hitpoint-sink: the new "Fighter's Mark" ability suddenly provides a sound gaming reason for a competent foe to stay attacking the fighter rather than running past and stabbing up the Wizard as they always should have done previously. The fighter can do a reasonable amount of damage if they make character choices around it but I don't see how they no longer protect your squishy caster types. I admit I've not tried to stat one myself, but the fighters in parties I'd played in so far have been quite good "meat shields".

As I mentioned above, the old classics in the world of damage and death are still around, Rogues are still basically the most dangerous class in the game for killing a single enemy up close, Rangers are pretty brutal either close in or half a mile away and Warlock are just... yeah.

Paladin has moved towards Figther, mainly due to becoming alignment non-specific, and Warlord has squeezed into the gap between that and Cleric.

 

[tanithwolf]

You've just claimed there's no set party roles and then explained party roles for a number of key character classes...

NO, what I SAID is that the OLD party roles are completely gone. People used to the old party roles will be dumbfounded and very confused. Tanks are no longer hit-point sinks devoted to keeping things off the wizard while the wizard kills it. Wizards no longer have one-hit-whammy spells that can take down a big mob on a failed save. Instead, their only real usefulness lies in minion extermination. The new tactical considerations take some getting used to, and since combat in D&D has always been largely tactical, this can kill off your party.

Fair points to some extent.

The party roles have adjusted a bit but really just to make some new spaces.

Wizard as you rightly point out no-longer does the one-hit casting of yesteryear, they've left that sort of damage to warlocks, rangers and rogues. Wizards do still have the old classic of simply wiping out masses of foes though; dumping AoE death across nice big box or triangle shapes. Thanks to the new system of using lots of minion foes who each have 1HP a Wizard becomes a very helpful addition to any group.

I'm surprised you've found tanks to not still be a hitpoint-sink: the new "Fighter's Mark" ability suddenly provides a sound gaming reason for a competent foe to stay attacking the fighter rather than running past and stabbing up the Wizard as they always should have done previously. The fighter can do a reasonable amount of damage if they make character choices around it but I don't see how they no longer protect your squishy caster types. I admit I've not tried to stat one myself, but the fighters in parties I'd played in so far have been quite good "meat shields".

As I mentioned above, the old classics in the world of damage and death are still around, Rogues are still basically the most dangerous class in the game for killing a single enemy up close, Rangers are pretty brutal either close in or half a mile away and Warlock are just... yeah.

Paladin has moved towards Figther, mainly due to becoming alignment non-specific, and Warlord has squeezed into the gap between that and Cleric.

Sorry to disagree JemJar but for up close damage nothing beats the two weapon ranger. I played one with two bastard swords and I found my potential for damage was unmatched by either rogue in my party. In my opinion rogue's are no longer about being the assassin type class, but instead they are now better at sneaking and doing things that requires skill checks.

 

[Altorin]

your DM threw you into the Deep End with no reference books?

fuck that DM

 

[HillDragon]

You should play a Deaf Minotaur Cleric. Beefy enough to survive until you know where to stand, fleshed out enough for some decent role playing (regardless of your party members taking 'sign language' or not), and plenty of healing surges to make up for the lack of 'heads up' and 'behind you's.

On second thought, go with a human fighter. Extra feat and skill points, lots of 'heal up after battle's, and a great distraction for the rest of the party to get it done.

Stay away from the Warlord class though. Not very good at any one thing and really needs to be role played as the group leader.

I'm surprised you've found tanks to not still be a hitpoint-sink: the new "Fighter's Mark" ability suddenly provides a sound gaming reason for a competent foe to stay attacking the fighter rather than running past and stabbing up the Wizard as they always should have done previously. The fighter can do a reasonable amount of damage if they make character choices around it but I don't see how they no longer protect your squishy caster types. I admit I've not tried to stat one myself, but the fighters in parties I'd played in so far have been quite good "meat shields".

Fighters are great at holding hate/agro while say, a rogue takes the combat advantage or the cloth wearer stays living (always a good thing for them to do) but they are not hit point sinks, no one is. 4th ed. is set up for a party of 4-5 unique characters that can't 'party' alone and it takes an experienced DM to get around the flaws. If you're short one player for the meet it had better be a night of RP lest you end up short a few living characters.

-In case anyone was thinking of picking up the DM's Guide to see the changes to the system... don't. It turns out all of the rules are in the PHB instead.-

 

[Stikibunn]

I played a bunch of charaacters in my time best one was the female fighter with int as a dump stat and waaayyyy too much cha and pathetic strength(I called her Peach and used her only because we were only allowed 3 rerolls)
I also tried an orc with a high intelligence who I made RP as having an english accent and cambridge education

 

[JMeganSnow]

As I mentioned above, the old classics in the world of damage and death are still around, Rogues are still basically the most dangerous class in the game for killing a single enemy up close . . .

Yes, yes they are. In fact, their abilities along these lines can get a bit absurd--my friends that were playing a high-level 4th ed campaign found themselves in a battle with a pit fiend where it was actually better to attempt to hit the rogue (who was garroting the fiend) and miss, thus AUTOMATICALLY hitting the fiend, than to attempt to hit the fiend itself.

Needless to say, this is ludicrous. Amusing, but ludicrous, and if your a Simulationist type you'll find this jarring and uncomfortable.

 

[Splyth]

I'd recommend a basic human fighter. they're the easiest to play as. If you like a little more variety then ranger isn't a bad class for a first time player to use either. I'd recommend staying away from spell heavy class for your first time playing because spells get very complex very quickly. Especially if you have poor handwriting like me lol