D&D character

JavaSparrow

I'm trying to make a D&D character. I'm leaning toward rogue class, but a bard sounds cool too. For race, I'm thinking either catfolk or a vishkanya. I don't really know much about vishkanya's personalities though, other than that they're morally neutral. I have no idea why one would be traveling with a bunch of misfits or what her/his back story would be. There's also apparently specialized rogue/bard classes and racial archetypes that i'm not sure if I should go with.
I've played very little D&D so whatever I pick is sure to be a shaky start as I get back into it. Which is better? Bard or Rogue? Catfolk or vishkanya? specialized or general? And, this isn't as important, but should I make my character a female? Just as a token since everyone else is a guy and it'd make us more rounded or something?
^w^ Any suggestions/experiences you have would be much appreciated.

BaristaX

make what ever you have fun playing as, if you are playing D&D, I think it's about how well you like playing the role of the character, not really as a "what class is the best class"

I only played D&D twice, but I really had fun playing my second character that was a Half-Orc Bard with greataxe specialization, the DM just had to give me a gift from the gods that was a greataxe made with strings, even though I couldn't do much, it was generally fun being known as that half-orc bard with a greataxe for the musical instrument

soldier4242

Whenever you ask a question about what is better or which class is best you have to by necessity define your goals.

Are you wanting to be the character that always has the related skill for any given situation?

Are you wanting to be the character that does the most damage in a single hit?

Do you want to be the rugged and durable tank that can handle anything?

Do you want to be the one that can feed the entire party in the wilderness?

These four things that I have listed are far from everything. You are going to want to pick what role you would enjoy playing as. Once you have defined what you want to be then you can start to think about things like class and race. The most important thing about your character is the back story. You have to have some sort of understanding about what your character's motivations are.

It is fine to be a pickpocket from the streets or juggler that travels with a bunch of other performers but the real substance of a character comes from understanding why you character is doing what he/she is doing.

Why does your character hate nobility?

Why does your character drink so much?

Why is your character always willing to stand in harms way?

Understand the reason for your character's motivations is what distinguishes your character from just being a sheet of paper.

robdel302

Knowing what edition of D&D you're playing would also help. The thief in AD&D 2.0 differs greatly from the Rogue in 3.0 and 4.0. Personally, I'm partial to rogues in 3.0 as they are a necessity to any group. They're survivability tends to be high if they stick with range attacks or flanking. And flanking allows them to roll sneak attacks almost every round; assuming the mob is prone to sneak attacks. A rule of thumb is if it isn't susectible to crits, you can't sneak attack.

For any specialization or prestige class, read up on a few and see what direction you would like to go with. If you aren't sure, make base class and play with it. Once you are comfortable with the class, you can figure out where you want to go with it. Your DM may allow you to make subtle changes to the class if you want to become a specific archetype.

As for alignment, neutral almost always makes the most sense for any rogue; we tend to be very selfish and care only for ourselves. It's easy to justifty grouping with anyone since all we need is to benefit from it.

Couldn't really give you much info on a bard, never tried one as they seemed to be to general in every direction. They can do things from almost all classes but a base class would always do it better. If I rembmer correctly, one of the wierdest things about them was the ability to wear plate and also cast arcane spells. This is a poor match unles you pick up a metamagic feet that allows an arcane caster to wear plate armor unhindered. And I don't think a bard would qualify until after level 10 since it requires a high "caster level" not class level.

I had to look up the races, I'd stay away from the catfolk. The +1 LA will hurt in the longrun, especially if you have factor things in like caster level. Level adjustments can be made up for but takes a lot of planning an experience, you're generally weaker than the rest of the group. I've always preferred a generic elf for rogues. Plus to dex and immune to sleep spells. This helps since rogues have low will saves, one type of spell that won't affect us.

BattleTaxi

I have played bards, gnoll tanky types, half orcs, etc... lol I'm either tank or support :S

NoWeighJose74

God I miss D&D. Haven't played in since high school 20yrs ago. Back then I was always a cleric.

robdel302

Warlocks are fun but a bit overpowered IMO. As the classes in the Psionics handbook and Book of Nine Swords. Hell just look at this crazy ability. This is a mid range ability. Some of the higher end ones pretty much come out of the matrix.

Wolf Climbs the Mountain (Tomb of Battle)

Tiger Claw (Strike)
Level: Swordsage 6 (Two Tiger Claw maneuvers), Warblade 6 (Two Tiger Claw maneuvers),
Components:
Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature

You slip between a larger foe’s legs and strike its exposed side. You then find cover in the shadow of your enemy’s bulk.

You can use this maneuver only against an opponent of a size category larger than yours. As part of this maneuver, you enter your target’s square without provoking an attack of opportunity. You can then attack your target as part of this maneuver. Your attack deals an extra 5d6 points of damage. You remain within your opponent’s space after you complete this maneuver. You gain cover against all attacks as long as you remain in his space, including those made by the target. If the target moves, it leaves you behind but provokes an attack of opportunity from you for leaving your space.

pseudomuffin

I confess to making a lot of female grey dwarf fighters because I find them useful and easy to play (seems like everyone in my D&D wants to be something special and cool and SQUISHY lol) and its fun to roleplay a tough dwarf chick and hide quirky things in my inventory like perfume for picking up dudes at bars

soldier4242

As for alignment, neutral almost always makes the most sense for any rogue; we tend to be very selfish and care only for ourselves. It's easy to justifty grouping with anyone since all we need is to benefit from it.

I have been an avid player of the rogue class since D&D 2.0 and I think it would be a mistake to narrow the potential of such a robust class by looking at in this way.

I have had the most fun with the rogue class when I completely disregarded this old fashioned way of thinking about them.

Now I almost exclusively play rogues as Chaotic Good. My rogues are good people with a strong motivation to stand up for what they see as right. They consider their impression of morality which is based upon their observations of the world to be reliable and true. Their priority is on doing what they consider to be good regardless of what the law has to say about it.

This means that if elves in this region are the properties of their slave owners that is just too bad. My rogue sees that as wrong and he will break the law to help secure the elve's freedom.

If stealing from evil men helps to ensure the safety of the good and the innocent then so be it.

The laws of the land are made by men and if the law is good and just then the people can be protected but there can be no justice with an evil law. An evil law can only destroy and corrupt. An evil law will protect the man who subverts the freedoms of another.

The rogue has more freedom to stand up for good than a paladin because the rogue is not restrained by any oaths or laws. All that matters is what is right regardless of who is currently writing the laws. The rogue can be so much more than a self interested parasite leeching wealth off of the rest of society because a misplaced sense of entitlement. They can be warrior poets. They can be heroes. They can be great and most importantly, they can be good.

robdel302

As for alignment, neutral almost always makes the most sense for any rogue; we tend to be very selfish and care only for ourselves. It's easy to justifty grouping with anyone since all we need is to benefit from it.

I have been an avid player of the rogue class since D&D 2.0 and I think it would be a mistake to narrow the potential of such a robust class by looking at in this way.

I have had the most fun with the rogue class when I completely disregarded this old fashioned way of thinking about them.

Now I almost exclusively play rogues as Chaotic Good. My rogues are good people with a strong motivation to stand up for what they see as right. They consider their impression of morality which is based upon their observations of the world to be reliable and true. Their priority is on doing what they consider to be good regardless of what the law has to say about it.

This means that if elves in this region are the properties of their slave owners that is just too bad. My rogue sees that as wrong and he will break the law to help secure the elve's freedom.

If stealing from evil men helps to ensure the safety of the good and the innocent then so be it.

The laws of the land are made by men and if the law is good and just then the people can be protected but there can be no justice with an evil law. An evil law can only destroy and corrupt. An evil law will protect the man who subverts the freedoms of another.

The rogue has more freedom to stand up for good than a paladin because the rogue is not restrained by any oaths or laws. All that matters is what is right regardless of who is currently writing the laws. The rogue can be so much more than a self interested parasite leeching wealth off of the rest of society because a misplaced sense of entitlement. They can be warrior poets. They can be heroes. They can be great and most importantly, they can be good.

Anyone can play any class as they see fit although to say that neutrality would be limiting is merely a matter of opinion. Most would argue that being any good or any evil would be far more limiting than being neutral. Someone who is true neutral can do just about whatever they want. It's only the chaotic neutral that are often seen as being completely self-serving. My parties spent a lot of time in the Underdark, especially Skullport. Good characters wouldn't last long there if they were even brave (stupid) enough to set foot in the city. As for my rogues, I relied on intelligence, diplomacy, and dungeon delving to fill my pockets. A thief is a thief, I prefer the term "treasure hunter". :glasses:

Conversely this is ironic because I never did like Locke.

soldier4242

Anyone can play any class as they see fit although to say that neutrality would be limiting is merely a matter of opinion. Most would argue that being any good or any evil would be far more limiting than being neutral. Someone who is true neutral can do just about whatever they want. It's only the chaotic neutral that are often seen as being completely self-serving. My parties spent a lot of time in the Underdark, especially Skullport. Good characters wouldn't last long there if they were even brave (stupid) enough to set foot in the city. As for my rogues, I relied on intelligence, diplomacy, and dungeon delving to fill my pockets. A thief is a thief, I prefer the term "treasure hunter". :glasses:

Conversely this is ironic because I never did like Locke.

I was talking about the perception of the rogue as a class and not the actions of the individual rogue. The traditional wisdom when it comes to the rogue is as you stated "...we tend to be very selfish and care only for ourselves." I have done what I can in my gaming groups to dispel this perspective because I see it as limiting. Obviously it is not limiting on the micro level. Selfish characters can behave however they like and nobody is disputing that.

It is the macro level that concerns me. This overall view of how rogues should be is so prevalent that I have run in to it in pretty much every gaming group I have joined. In fact my view of the rogue is such a minority that I sometimes wonder why good is even an authorized alignment in the players hand book.

I had a DM tell me that if I ever used a sneak attack on someone I would not longer be able to be a good alignment since stabbing someone in the back is an evil act.

I think if I were to play one of my rogues in your campaign I would be fine. Unless he has NPC's in Skullport constantly trying to detect my alignment I could make myself indistinguishable from others around me. I could maintain a low profile and do my tasks in a clandestine manner.

I actually have no problem with being a "treasure hunter" at least that is a step closer to being outside the box.

robdel302

Anyone can play any class as they see fit although to say that neutrality would be limiting is merely a matter of opinion. Most would argue that being any good or any evil would be far more limiting than being neutral. Someone who is true neutral can do just about whatever they want. It's only the chaotic neutral that are often seen as being completely self-serving. My parties spent a lot of time in the Underdark, especially Skullport. Good characters wouldn't last long there if they were even brave (stupid) enough to set foot in the city. As for my rogues, I relied on intelligence, diplomacy, and dungeon delving to fill my pockets. A thief is a thief, I prefer the term "treasure hunter". :glasses:

Conversely this is ironic because I never did like Locke.

I was talking about the perception of the rogue as a class and not the actions of the individual rogue. The traditional wisdom when it comes to the rogue is as you stated "...we tend to be very selfish and care only for ourselves." I have done what I can in my gaming groups to dispel this perspective because I see it as limiting. Obviously it is not limiting on the micro level. Selfish characters can behave however they like and nobody is disputing that.

It is the macro level that concerns me. This overall view of how rogues should be is so prevalent that I have run in to it in pretty much every gaming group I have joined. In fact my view of the rogue is such a minority that I sometimes wonder why good is even an authorized alignment in the players hand book.

I had a DM tell me that if I ever used a sneak attack on someone I would not longer be able to be a good alignment since stabbing someone in the back is an evil act.

I think if I were to play one of my rogues in your campaign I would be fine. Unless he has NPC's in Skullport constantly trying to detect my alignment I could make myself indistinguishable from others around me. I could maintain a low profile and do my tasks in a clandestine manner.

I actually have no problem with being a "treasure hunter" at least that is a step closer to being outside the box.

Likely because the rogue who steals and is all in for himself is the stereotypical archetype that most new gamers are aware of. Once players are more accustomed to playing the game they "should" deviate into what they want. I typically play my rogues very smart unless someone else has one then I'll play a different class. But it astounds me how many long term pen and paper players have never played a rogue and usually set off traps they should have been looking for.

The strange thing is you DM saying you can't call sneak attacks. It's not a backstab, the rule book states you're striking vital parts of the body like organs or arteries. In 3.0, you can sneak attack even if the creature is right infront of you so long as you and a team mate are flanking. Sounds like your group had an agenda against good alignments. This isn't too surprising though since everyone seems to enjoy playing evil characters more and the good aligned tend to be an annoyance by hindering them from doing whatever they want.

Unfortunately it sounds like the OP is playing pathfinder from one of the unique classes he mentions. This is a bit different from 2.0 & 3.0/3.5.

Moral of the story OP, you're limited by only two things, your imagination and the DM.

LadyMustard

I know its a bit off since I play Pathfinder, but I love trying out new characters.

Some of the characters that are still alive right now:
~Male Archer Bard (+2 compound shortbow = happy damage ^o^)
~Female Archer Cleric... BUFF AND COVER!!!!
~Female Dwarven Barbarian, for the days you get tired of being just a buffer or a face.