Good charicter to bring to a unknown group? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Good charicter to bring to a unknown group? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Myrf
07-06-06, 11:55 PM I recently got into D & D, and I found a local group. However, I neglected to ask them what they play. So I guess what I want to know is, what's a good general charicter to bring to a group. I was thinking a cleric, as healing is always good, but like I said, I'm new, so I'd like the opinions of others.

Thanks,
Myrf
Comus
07-07-06, 12:27 AM A cleric is a good idea, probably the best. No one will mind having another healer on the team, and a few "cure X wounds" spells can make friends easily. Plus, you can fill in for a fighter if they need one.

If you don't want to play a cleric (or a druid), there's always the Bard option. Good extra member if they've already got their bases covered.
KurenaiYami
07-07-06, 12:56 AM You could always make a few characters and fill whatever niche the party requires to be filled. That may only be a good idea for one such as myself that loves character creation so much.

20 character sheets, my 45 books, and a bag of dice is always a fun time in my book.
Archangel_James
07-07-06, 01:13 AM I would suggest a bard. Chances are that no-one will be already playing a bard, so you don't have to worry about invading someone else's domain of expertise. Further, a group that is already working well with all bases covered will often benefit from a bard more than anything else because they can help with anything.
__DnD4Life__
07-07-06, 01:18 AM You could always make a few characters and fill whatever niche the party requires to be filled. That may only be a good idea for one such as myself that loves character creation so much.
wow...that is an awesome idea. Even if you do only use one, making characters is fun (fills the gaps of boredness in english class) and heck, if you die, you have another ready to go!
LuckyLeprechaun
07-07-06, 02:11 AM Either make multiple players or make a bard. The bard is one of the most underplayed classes in the game, so it's unlikely someone's playing it. The bard fits very well into the seams of any party, any party that is, except ones that don't like music. :P
Fruity_w00tness
07-07-06, 02:44 AM go to the char op board and turn up with something really broken.
Sikyanakotik
07-07-06, 03:06 AM Personally, I second the cleric idea. If they don't have one, they'll need your character, and if they already do, they'll still like having him around. Besides, what better way is there to integrate yourself into a group beyond providing a vital and much-welcomed service?

I wouldn't be too keen on playing a bard. Some groups are under the impression that bards are very weak, more a liability to the party than anything else. While that's not really true, it's still not worth risking your first impression on.
thenotoriousJIM
07-07-06, 03:31 AM I would say FIGHTER. yeah cleric will fit better with the party and bards are underplayed.

But they have drawbacks.

If you show up with a bard and he either dies or does very little to add, everyone is going to stare at you and ask why you chose a bard. The other knock against bard is the fact that it is the face man of most groups. That means you are going to show up and take over a large part of the roleplaying. Stepping on feet is the last thing you want to do on day 1, and from what i can gather you are newer to d&d and may not want to take this role anyways.

The cleric, while helpful, still is going to step on toes. My bet would be the guy playing a cleric either really wants to play one or had to since no one wanted to be a healer. My group is the has the latter and she would welcome another cleric, however the group i played in while in HS had a player who always played a cleric, and he would be irked if you took over his turf. A cleric that is not optimized often can be reduced to healer, and that is turf no one wants to loose.

most fighters want some one else to be up front blocking. The classic min/maxers exsist in spell casting classes more than in the front line.

Fighters also lend them selves fairly well into intro class. Most new players can figure them out.
Zillah
07-07-06, 04:43 AM no one plays bards for a reason. singing songs is not heoric. it don't scream manly. its like a gay fairy. i know they are good, but i have never seen anyone play one. and i just don't enjoy the class as much as others i guess.

it all depends on what you like. if you like to kill stuff on the front lines, be a barb or fighter. fighter is plainly better though. feats=damage.
if you like to be in the background healing and boosting friends, be a cleric and prep boost stuff. or be a sorcerer booster.
whatever class you want to play, there are like 100000 different ways to play each one. figure out what you want.
Myrf
07-07-06, 11:29 AM Thanks for all your help. I think I'll make a Cleric and a Bard and just take the one that fits best.
kelvinaw273
07-07-06, 03:14 PM A bit late, but my advice is ... play what you feel most comfortable with playing. In my experience that can be make for the best games.
bekeleven
07-07-06, 04:12 PM Get the party running from a C.o.D.ZILLA.
malignor
07-07-06, 04:45 PM no one plays bards for a reason. singing songs is not heoric. it don't scream manly. its like a gay fairy. i know they are good, but i have never seen anyone play one. and i just don't enjoy the class as much as others i guess.Shoulda seen my bard idea with the Lute of Sounding (like a pipes of sounding, but a lute). Why the 'of sounding'? Distortion! Backup drums! Chanting crowds of screaming fans!

I made up a metalhead bard who was a one-man rock concert. Slap on some tattoos and spiked leather armor and grow a beard with shrunken heads tied at the ends and you have someone who just doesn't look like a fairy at all.

I think I could have also added a vest with the effects of a horn of fog, and maybe some pyrotechnics. Get a light show and fog machine action going on. You just got me thinking...
cvazi
07-07-06, 05:02 PM I vote for the bard.

The cleric is a good choice if you know the world, and how the group expects clerics are supposed to act. The bard also has the excuse of using bardic knowledge to learn things taht are common knowledge to the rest of the group.
Sikyanakotik
07-07-06, 05:11 PM Thanks for all your help. I think I'll make a Cleric and a Bard and just take the one that fits best.
Sounds like a plan to me. Good luck! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/Sikyanakotik/koboldgrin.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/Sikyanakotik/mooglegrin.png
Rolof
07-07-06, 05:29 PM Most groups are likely to already have a cleric, personally I don't like to
"steal someone's thunder" by competing in their niche. Having more
than one fighter is ok though, since they can differ so much with their
feat choices. Also, it depends on how many members are in the group
already. What others said about a bard being versatile is true, but they
are kinda weak as a 4th person, while being a fine 5th. I'm surprised
nobody suggested ranger yet. They get full BAB, and if you've got the
gold for it, you can use a wand of cure light as a secondary healer, plus
serve as a secondary scout if the party already has a thief. It could be
said they are also a bit weak unless they're a 5th member though, as
they make a poor primary fighter due to armor restriction.
anarco_rata
07-07-06, 05:47 PM no one plays bards for a reason. singing songs is not heoric. it don't scream manly. its like a gay fairy. i know they are good, but i have never seen anyone play one. and i just don't enjoy the class as much as others i guess.

That's stupid. Just because you don't like the bard doesn't mean it's "gay" or not heroic.
I play a lot of bards, it's my favorite class when I'm playing in a balanced party, and I love to roleplay one. Sometimes, I'm even a half-elf.
:eek:

I vote for the cleric. If they already have one, then you can focus on secondary healing (when out of combat), and maybe boosting or helping in the front rows. If they don't have one already, trust me, you're going to be very welcome.
Besides it gives you a chance to play a complete character (that fights and cast, and it's good at both). Bards are a little more complex if you want to be an important part of the group, and they also depend on the style of play. A heavy roleplaying campaign is heaven for a bard, but a dungeon crawl would probably be a little annoying for one.
Besides, you could end up playing with players that think the bard is "gay", and as a new player, you need to make a good first impression.
The man they call Boxhead
07-07-06, 05:48 PM I've never seen a group turn down a second cleric. The extra healing, buffs, etc just make the 2 clerics much more versatile. If the other cleric likes to be the stand back and buff/heal others type, then play the self-buffing cleric tank. If he's a front-liner, play the scholarly cleric. The class is just so easy to play with, it's a great choice to have 2.
ShadowDragon8685
07-07-06, 06:01 PM Play a Dwarven Cleric of Moradin. The kind of Cleric who takes "smiting the heathens" into his own hands. The kind of Cleric who can drink an orcish, half-ogre barbarian under the table, smash a tankard on his forehead, and bellow for more. The kind of Cleric who wields a huge hammer and beats the Fighter into melee.
__DnD4Life__
07-07-06, 09:02 PM I made up a metalhead bard who was a one-man rock concert. Slap on some tattoos and spiked leather armor and grow a beard with shrunken heads tied at the ends and you have someone who just doesn't look like a fairy at all.
That is awesome! I totally know what my next character concept will be. Here's a cookie! :cookie:
Archmage_Vall
07-07-06, 09:57 PM Maybe I missed it, but is there some reason why you can't contact the DM or one of the other players, and ask what the current characters in the party are?
TheMeanOne
07-07-06, 11:06 PM I've played in a bunch of games where out of 4 or 5 players we've had a bard. Last year two players had to dice off about who got to be the bard in our Sandstorm campaign. Bards are great, I love having them in the party, but having two bards seems sort of . . . pointless. I wouldn't want to run the risk of showing up with a bard in a campaign that already had one.

Honestly, if I was creating a character for a game I knew nothing about I'd probably make a rogue or a ranger, you can play them different ways so it's easy to fit in, and no one's going to turn down another secondary fighter with some unique/useful skills.
__DnD4Life__
07-08-06, 03:05 AM I've played in a bunch of games where out of 4 or 5 players we've had a bard. Last year two players had to dice off about who got to be the bard in our Sandstorm campaign.
Wow...just wow. I have played with one bard, and (it may have been the player...he wasnt too good) the character sucked. It seems like a good class, except it has no real offensive/defensive capabilities in combat. Sure, it can buff others, and sometimes itself, but if it gets charged by a barbarian, that player is rolling numerous d6s soon.
Zillah
07-08-06, 03:08 AM That's stupid. Just because you don't like the bard doesn't mean it's "gay" or not heroic.
I play a lot of bards, it's my favorite class when I'm playing in a balanced party, and I love to roleplay one. Sometimes, I'm even a half-elf.
:eek:

i know i know. its my opinion though.
to the OP, isntead of asking what you should play, figure it out yourself. cause in the end, what this forum says won't make a difference

and my opinions on fictional classes should be taken in humor. like i said, to me its just not a fun class
MerlintheTuna
07-08-06, 05:02 AM Yes, a bard will get wrecked by a raging, charging barbarian. So will a wizard, sorcerer, rogue, cleric, druid, ranger, or monk much of the time. What exactly is your point here?

I know it's a bit late, but I too am going to throw my hat in for a bard. Aside from being a great way to fill in party gaps and provide a little bit extra of whatever they need, I think the class serves as a great way to introduce people to D&D. At 3/4 BAB and with some interesting proficiencies (longswords, rapiers, whips, saps, bows), you're afforded a lot of different ways to handle things. Rapiers make for weapon finesse if you like, saps teach you the wonders of nonlethal damage, and whips allow for disarming/tripping when you don't want to get in close. Bardic spellcasting is easy to keep track of; there's very little book keeping with spontaneous casters. Also, you can cast in light armor, so you're not as much of a squishy target as the group's wiz/sorc. You can heal, buff, and do the occasional attack spell (Sound Burst, etc.) And finally there's bardic music, which is a simple enough way to get introduced to the importance of party interaction and teamwork, and you don't have to deal with wonky mechanics since it's fairly straightforward.

There are a lot of options to be had with the bard, but they're not terribly complicated. This makes for a good introduction to the martial, magical, and support techniques that will be used later in other D&D playing. It's a great intro class and can be a ton of fun to play.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Myrf 07-06-06, 11:55 PM	I recently got into D & D, and I found a local group. However, I neglected to ask them what they play. So I guess what I want to know is, what's a good general charicter to bring to a group. I was thinking a cleric, as healing is always good, but like I said, I'm new, so I'd like the opinions of others. Thanks, Myrf
Comus 07-07-06, 12:27 AM	A cleric is a good idea, probably the best. No one will mind having another healer on the team, and a few "cure X wounds" spells can make friends easily. Plus, you can fill in for a fighter if they need one. If you don't want to play a cleric (or a druid), there's always the Bard option. Good extra member if they've already got their bases covered.
KurenaiYami 07-07-06, 12:56 AM	You could always make a few characters and fill whatever niche the party requires to be filled. That may only be a good idea for one such as myself that loves character creation so much. 20 character sheets, my 45 books, and a bag of dice is always a fun time in my book.
Archangel_James 07-07-06, 01:13 AM	I would suggest a bard. Chances are that no-one will be already playing a bard, so you don't have to worry about invading someone else's domain of expertise. Further, a group that is already working well with all bases covered will often benefit from a bard more than anything else because they can help with anything.
__DnD4Life__ 07-07-06, 01:18 AM	You could always make a few characters and fill whatever niche the party requires to be filled. That may only be a good idea for one such as myself that loves character creation so much. wow...that is an awesome idea. Even if you do only use one, making characters is fun (fills the gaps of boredness in english class) and heck, if you die, you have another ready to go!
LuckyLeprechaun 07-07-06, 02:11 AM	Either make multiple players or make a bard. The bard is one of the most underplayed classes in the game, so it's unlikely someone's playing it. The bard fits very well into the seams of any party, any party that is, except ones that don't like music. :P
Fruity_w00tness 07-07-06, 02:44 AM	go to the char op board and turn up with something really broken.
Sikyanakotik 07-07-06, 03:06 AM	Personally, I second the cleric idea. If they don't have one, they'll need your character, and if they already do, they'll still like having him around. Besides, what better way is there to integrate yourself into a group beyond providing a vital and much-welcomed service? I wouldn't be too keen on playing a bard. Some groups are under the impression that bards are very weak, more a liability to the party than anything else. While that's not really true, it's still not worth risking your first impression on.
thenotoriousJIM 07-07-06, 03:31 AM	I would say FIGHTER. yeah cleric will fit better with the party and bards are underplayed. But they have drawbacks. If you show up with a bard and he either dies or does very little to add, everyone is going to stare at you and ask why you chose a bard. The other knock against bard is the fact that it is the face man of most groups. That means you are going to show up and take over a large part of the roleplaying. Stepping on feet is the last thing you want to do on day 1, and from what i can gather you are newer to d&d and may not want to take this role anyways. The cleric, while helpful, still is going to step on toes. My bet would be the guy playing a cleric either really wants to play one or had to since no one wanted to be a healer. My group is the has the latter and she would welcome another cleric, however the group i played in while in HS had a player who always played a cleric, and he would be irked if you took over his turf. A cleric that is not optimized often can be reduced to healer, and that is turf no one wants to loose. most fighters want some one else to be up front blocking. The classic min/maxers exsist in spell casting classes more than in the front line. Fighters also lend them selves fairly well into intro class. Most new players can figure them out.
Zillah 07-07-06, 04:43 AM	no one plays bards for a reason. singing songs is not heoric. it don't scream manly. its like a gay fairy. i know they are good, but i have never seen anyone play one. and i just don't enjoy the class as much as others i guess. it all depends on what you like. if you like to kill stuff on the front lines, be a barb or fighter. fighter is plainly better though. feats=damage. if you like to be in the background healing and boosting friends, be a cleric and prep boost stuff. or be a sorcerer booster. whatever class you want to play, there are like 100000 different ways to play each one. figure out what you want.
Myrf 07-07-06, 11:29 AM	Thanks for all your help. I think I'll make a Cleric and a Bard and just take the one that fits best.
kelvinaw273 07-07-06, 03:14 PM	A bit late, but my advice is ... play what you feel most comfortable with playing. In my experience that can be make for the best games.
bekeleven 07-07-06, 04:12 PM	Get the party running from a C.o.D.ZILLA.
malignor 07-07-06, 04:45 PM	no one plays bards for a reason. singing songs is not heoric. it don't scream manly. its like a gay fairy. i know they are good, but i have never seen anyone play one. and i just don't enjoy the class as much as others i guess.Shoulda seen my bard idea with the Lute of Sounding (like a pipes of sounding, but a lute). Why the 'of sounding'? Distortion! Backup drums! Chanting crowds of screaming fans! I made up a metalhead bard who was a one-man rock concert. Slap on some tattoos and spiked leather armor and grow a beard with shrunken heads tied at the ends and you have someone who just doesn't look like a fairy at all. I think I could have also added a vest with the effects of a horn of fog, and maybe some pyrotechnics. Get a light show and fog machine action going on. You just got me thinking...
cvazi 07-07-06, 05:02 PM	I vote for the bard. The cleric is a good choice if you know the world, and how the group expects clerics are supposed to act. The bard also has the excuse of using bardic knowledge to learn things taht are common knowledge to the rest of the group.
Sikyanakotik 07-07-06, 05:11 PM	Thanks for all your help. I think I'll make a Cleric and a Bard and just take the one that fits best. Sounds like a plan to me. Good luck! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/Sikyanakotik/koboldgrin.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/Sikyanakotik/mooglegrin.png
Rolof 07-07-06, 05:29 PM	Most groups are likely to already have a cleric, personally I don't like to "steal someone's thunder" by competing in their niche. Having more than one fighter is ok though, since they can differ so much with their feat choices. Also, it depends on how many members are in the group already. What others said about a bard being versatile is true, but they are kinda weak as a 4th person, while being a fine 5th. I'm surprised nobody suggested ranger yet. They get full BAB, and if you've got the gold for it, you can use a wand of cure light as a secondary healer, plus serve as a secondary scout if the party already has a thief. It could be said they are also a bit weak unless they're a 5th member though, as they make a poor primary fighter due to armor restriction.
anarco_rata 07-07-06, 05:47 PM	no one plays bards for a reason. singing songs is not heoric. it don't scream manly. its like a gay fairy. i know they are good, but i have never seen anyone play one. and i just don't enjoy the class as much as others i guess. That's stupid. Just because you don't like the bard doesn't mean it's "gay" or not heroic. I play a lot of bards, it's my favorite class when I'm playing in a balanced party, and I love to roleplay one. Sometimes, I'm even a half-elf. :eek: I vote for the cleric. If they already have one, then you can focus on secondary healing (when out of combat), and maybe boosting or helping in the front rows. If they don't have one already, trust me, you're going to be very welcome. Besides it gives you a chance to play a complete character (that fights and cast, and it's good at both). Bards are a little more complex if you want to be an important part of the group, and they also depend on the style of play. A heavy roleplaying campaign is heaven for a bard, but a dungeon crawl would probably be a little annoying for one. Besides, you could end up playing with players that think the bard is "gay", and as a new player, you need to make a good first impression.
The man they call Boxhead 07-07-06, 05:48 PM	I've never seen a group turn down a second cleric. The extra healing, buffs, etc just make the 2 clerics much more versatile. If the other cleric likes to be the stand back and buff/heal others type, then play the self-buffing cleric tank. If he's a front-liner, play the scholarly cleric. The class is just so easy to play with, it's a great choice to have 2.
ShadowDragon8685 07-07-06, 06:01 PM	Play a Dwarven Cleric of Moradin. The kind of Cleric who takes "smiting the heathens" into his own hands. The kind of Cleric who can drink an orcish, half-ogre barbarian under the table, smash a tankard on his forehead, and bellow for more. The kind of Cleric who wields a huge hammer and beats the Fighter into melee.
__DnD4Life__ 07-07-06, 09:02 PM	I made up a metalhead bard who was a one-man rock concert. Slap on some tattoos and spiked leather armor and grow a beard with shrunken heads tied at the ends and you have someone who just doesn't look like a fairy at all. That is awesome! I totally know what my next character concept will be. Here's a cookie! :cookie:
Archmage_Vall 07-07-06, 09:57 PM	Maybe I missed it, but is there some reason why you can't contact the DM or one of the other players, and ask what the current characters in the party are?
TheMeanOne 07-07-06, 11:06 PM	I've played in a bunch of games where out of 4 or 5 players we've had a bard. Last year two players had to dice off about who got to be the bard in our Sandstorm campaign. Bards are great, I love having them in the party, but having two bards seems sort of . . . pointless. I wouldn't want to run the risk of showing up with a bard in a campaign that already had one. Honestly, if I was creating a character for a game I knew nothing about I'd probably make a rogue or a ranger, you can play them different ways so it's easy to fit in, and no one's going to turn down another secondary fighter with some unique/useful skills.
__DnD4Life__ 07-08-06, 03:05 AM	I've played in a bunch of games where out of 4 or 5 players we've had a bard. Last year two players had to dice off about who got to be the bard in our Sandstorm campaign. Wow...just wow. I have played with one bard, and (it may have been the player...he wasnt too good) the character sucked. It seems like a good class, except it has no real offensive/defensive capabilities in combat. Sure, it can buff others, and sometimes itself, but if it gets charged by a barbarian, that player is rolling numerous d6s soon.
Zillah 07-08-06, 03:08 AM	That's stupid. Just because you don't like the bard doesn't mean it's "gay" or not heroic. I play a lot of bards, it's my favorite class when I'm playing in a balanced party, and I love to roleplay one. Sometimes, I'm even a half-elf. :eek: i know i know. its my opinion though. to the OP, isntead of asking what you should play, figure it out yourself. cause in the end, what this forum says won't make a difference and my opinions on fictional classes should be taken in humor. like i said, to me its just not a fun class
MerlintheTuna 07-08-06, 05:02 AM	Yes, a bard will get wrecked by a raging, charging barbarian. So will a wizard, sorcerer, rogue, cleric, druid, ranger, or monk much of the time. What exactly is your point here? I know it's a bit late, but I too am going to throw my hat in for a bard. Aside from being a great way to fill in party gaps and provide a little bit extra of whatever they need, I think the class serves as a great way to introduce people to D&D. At 3/4 BAB and with some interesting proficiencies (longswords, rapiers, whips, saps, bows), you're afforded a lot of different ways to handle things. Rapiers make for weapon finesse if you like, saps teach you the wonders of nonlethal damage, and whips allow for disarming/tripping when you don't want to get in close. Bardic spellcasting is easy to keep track of; there's very little book keeping with spontaneous casters. Also, you can cast in light armor, so you're not as much of a squishy target as the group's wiz/sorc. You can heal, buff, and do the occasional attack spell (Sound Burst, etc.) And finally there's bardic music, which is a simple enough way to get introduced to the importance of party interaction and teamwork, and you don't have to deal with wonky mechanics since it's fairly straightforward. There are a lot of options to be had with the bard, but they're not terribly complicated. This makes for a good introduction to the martial, magical, and support techniques that will be used later in other D&D playing. It's a great intro class and can be a ton of fun to play.