I had troubles making a character at first, but I got D&D insider and downloaded the Character builder and I must say it helped a ton.
I love the Role Playing concept of D&D more than anything. The fact that you can be a character (me personally always wished i could) and act as him is cool.
The reason why I seem to be so enthralled by D&D is because I've been playing all types of games sense I could hold a controller, and It is getting very boring. To me (I'll use my famous line) this seems "New and Exciting!!"
Honestly I've been making multiple characters because I want to see how they all play out, plus I'll be playing my first D&D session in about 2 weeks and it has to fit my friends world. I can;t wait to start playing, hopefully if I like it enough I can start a weekly/monthly D&D session.
First off I'm completely lost on how the whole combat system works, and how a rogue plays, can anyone give me some good pointers I'll need?
yes I do like penguins
During a round each person has a set amount of actions that they can uses. Doing different things during combat require different types of actions.
Rogues usually are the ones that are based more off of skills, especially stealth and thievery. Also the rogue should always be trying to get into a flanking position and should attack monsters that they have combat advantage against.
So what if the game I'm joining already has a ranger, can I join with another ranger or would that just be pointless?
now, this is a little stupid of me to ask because I'm pretty sure I know the answer but my friends campaign is a lot more RP based do I have to have an accent for my character or is it up to the DM to decide that?
Also if it is going to be role play heavy then the DM will likely use accents for different NPCs, which should in turn make it easier for the players, including yourself, to feel comfortable using accents yourselves. Remember, just because the DM may use accents it does not mean that you need to.
You've been a great and I thank you again.
edit: oops I mean later today.
Edit: never mind I found a question. If I make a cleric and use him does matter what build I go with or should I not become a battle cleric? I like the concept of a battle cleric, but it seems to me a battle cleric is an off brand paladin
Corollary to Rule of Thumb: Do *NOT* make a character that explicitly reacts dangerously to the rest of the party. IE, if you're playing 3.5, and everyone else is playing Paladins and other LG characters, don't make a CE character just because you want to - the fun of the group is what's important.
Edit: never mind I found a question. If I make a cleric and use him does matter what build I go with or should I not become a battle cleric? I like the concept of a battle cleric, but it seems to me a battle cleric is an off brand paladin
A battle cleric, in 4E, is much closer to a warlord than a paladin. If you decide to be a cleric you should go with what ever build you desire. A battle cleric can do fine in melee combat. Also being in the thick of things the Cleric is closer to everyone just encase they have to get next to somebody to heal them. The down side of a battle cleric is that they get in the thick of things and will take more damage than a cleric that hangs back and blasts monsters.
Just remember that if you are going to play a battle cleric make sure you have a high strength. If you are going to play a laser cleric (a ranged cleric) then strength is a dump stat.
The initiative increases as you get higher in level, but so does everybody else's. The other way is increasing your dexterity as you level up.
My 4E Dragonborn Swordmage had an initiative of -1 at first level.
Also keep in mind that those builds are suggested for new players (like yourself) but they aren't the only way to play the class. You are free to pick any powers you want based on your level.
And to comment about using accents, each group is different. It can be a heck of a lot of fun if you give your character his own unique voice though. It also helps differentiate when you are speaking in character versus out of character. I know it can be scary (well it is to me anyway) but it makes the characters seem that much more alive. Plus if you and the DM both do it it is likely the rest of the party will as well eventually. So you'll be a room full of people making fools of themselves rather than one alone.
Can't wait to play my first session of D&D, I'm sure I'll have a great experience.
hm...Having troubles between playing a wizard rogue or fighter. I would much like to stick to one because I was talking to my friend and he said once he starts a campaign he has go until the characters are pretty epic. The past campaigns he ran, I can personally vouch, each of the main characters could be a novel themselves. Thats just how time he put into them.
Well back on topic, I invested a day into each of my characters, I've made multiple characters but those three seem to intrigue me most. So I was wondering if I can get your guys feedback on the classes. Me personally I'm kinda in a bigger dispute between my wizard and fighter, I invested a little more time into them then the other.
That's not really what I want to ask, but it's hard to into words what I want to ask.
A fighter stands in the front line and acts like a big target. The fighter should be the hardest to hit and so shouldn't worry about taking too much damage. The fighter is to keep monsters from moving around him/her. If a monster wants to avoid the fighter then they have to use ranged attacks or they have to move around the fighter but out of their threat range. The fighter can dish out a bit of damage but it tends to be all focused on one creature.
Example: lets say you are in a group of 5 and the four other players have made melee type characters. Now lets say that you chose to play a dual wield ranger. A typical dungeon has a hallway that is 10 ft wide or 2 squares. This means that if a combat breaks out, or if the group is pushed into a hallway then only two people can attack at a time. This leaves the other three out of combat.
The reverse in a dungeon can be true for a bow build ranger. If everyone is designed to be a ranged combatant then everyone spends their combat moving away from enemies and into bad positions in order to avoid provoking opportunity attacks.
A ranged ranger my do good in dungeons that have large rooms, and hallways that are long and strait. They also do good in wide open areas such as most wilderness environment.
A melee ranger does good in both cramped and open areas. The ranger bing a striker should have more space so that they can move in and out of combat when need be. The melee ranger build can hold its own in a cramped confined area but is likely to get hit and hurt much more than a fighter, whom is better at stander their ground.
If you decide to play a ranger make sure that you have the weapons for the other build. If everyone goes melee, including your self, and the group gets stuck in a hallway then you can pull out your bow and attack from a distance. Of course this helps out most if you have both a hight strength and a high dexterity.
Personally I always like the concept of being able to shoot from afar as a primary and melee if need be when I'm cornered or in a tight space.
Edit: Forgot to mention It's just going to be his two brother and me obviously him as the DM, And one of his brothers is going to be playing a war wizard and the other a ranger. Not sure on what build because even the DM doesn't know. That's the main reason why i'm torn between a wizard, rogue, fighter and now a Ranger
Being a human ranger that is ranged based then I would suggest taking the Careful Attack, Nimble Strike, and Twin Strike powers. Two of these powers can be used with both ranged and melee weapons and the other would use the ranged weapons, which your character is built for.
I'll list the way my ability scores are atm from STR or CHA
14,10,20,10,11,8
Would this be good for starting group consisted of a Wizard ranger and ranger? or should i go with a fighter?
Edit:I just don't want to make the wrong choice and have us all die because were probably all going to be back either casting or shooting arrows at the enemy. So maybe I should just use the fighter and take the hits deal pretty good single damage and let them do all the burst damage to everything. But to me it just wouldn't feel right, at least that's what my mind is perceiving.
If the DM is doing his job then the DM is suppose to design encounters around the strengths and weaknesses of the group. The DM is suppose to make sure everyone has fun so the combat encounters are suppose to be challenging but not lethal. So if your DM is doing his job then you will not see a bunch of brutes and soldiers fighting your group of ranged combatants. I must warn you that some DMs believe that it is the players job to adjust to the situation and even some that believe that they are playing against the characters and thus try and kill the PCs. I don't know your DM so I can't gauge what DMing style he might have. If it is the first case I would say go with what you want, if it is the second case then you can still play what you want but you will have to be creative with tactics, and if it is the last case then I would say go for party balance.
If there are two rangers in the group then I would say you should think about being trained in different skills. This helps add to group balance.
Another thing to remember about is the possibility of multiclassing. Because of your high dex the rogue would likely be the best choice, but you would have to use weapons like daggers for the rogue powers rather than your bow (one of the down sides to multiclassing).
Why? Different party structures are good at different things.
For example a group with 5 Wizards would probably not do too well against a solo creature (before they get most of their status effects) and would absolutely DESTROY any encounter with a lot of minions.
My group (that I currently play with) has:
Halfling Rogue
Human Wizard
Human Warlock
Dwarven Fighter
Dwarven Cleric
As you can see, my group has each of the 4 roles filled (Leader, Defender, Controller, Striker), but there are some things that they are good against, and some things that kick their ass. So no matter what class you pick, you will have pros and cons.
As other people have stated, you should play the character YOU want to play, that's what D&D is all about. There's no wrong character you can pick (this statement may be untrue depending on the level of jackassery for your gaming table).
Do you like being someone who can put it battlefield changing spells and effects? Play a wizard.
Do you like being someone who guards his buddies on the front lines? Play a fighter.
Do you like being someone who can dodge around the battlefield and deliver deadly attacks? Play a rogue.
Think about what you want to play, then pick the role that fills that definition the best, then pick the class.
Looking at you current starting group, I would advise you to play either a Cleric, Warlord, Paladin or Fighter, since your group is lacking defenders or leaders, and groups that have every roll covered tend to not get hammered as horribly by encounters they're not especially designed to deal with.
Because I'm worried about the party balance, I'll play a fighter with great weapon build. I have no problem playing him essentially because I want to play them all.
Is it natural for a ranger to have a higher AC then a fighter?
and when toughness says, "Gain 5 hit points each tier" does that mean each level or at 11th level?
The 5 hp per tier means that you gain 5 hit points at heroic tier, you gain an additional 5 at paragon, and an addition 5 at epic.
My stats are and again from STR to CHA.
20,14,11,10,10,8
and I picked up the toughness for extra HP.
Is that good enough or is should I pick a different feat?