Until you get to know the other races and what motivates them its better to stick to what you know, being human.
Way too many people just play the other races like a human. If your in a party and can not remember what the other players races are after three sessions then they are not role playing very much.
To me a barbarian is pretty much just a fighter who can rage. And that is how most play them.
They should be uneducated country boys with few language skills, extra outdoor skills and an real aversion to urban life. Somewhat xenophobic also. Slow to trust outsiders, especially other races.
But most people just play them like they are angry for no reason human fighters.
I don't like the belief that a barbarian must always be a big dumb galoot... It's as tiring as demanding that all rogues must be dark and brooding loners, or all paladins must be lawful good adult hall monitors. There's nothing wrong with embracing the classics, but there's no rule that you have to play any class in a specific way.
All races are pretty simple, I’d advise against playing a race with an attack feature (they usually aren’t very good). Also avoid stuff like kenku or kobolds with weaknesses (speech for kenku & sunlight for kobolds).
Class suggestions I’d make would be anything melee (feel free to avoid magic subclasses if you want to minimize your decision making). Charisma casters are also a great option. They don’t have to prepare spells everyday like other casters.
I never said a barbarian was big dumb or a galoot.
I only said uneducated. That does not mean dumb.
I am trying to express the idea that a little role playing creativity with a simple character is better than having a thousand options slapped on top of a character and calling that creative.
The original poster wanted something simple fast and fun.
A lot of people came up with some pretty complex characters for a beginner. A simple fighter played with little panache is pretty easy. And fun.
Thanks for all you replies everyone. I have went with a Goliath Barbarian because I really liked the idea of that.
I will post the link to his character sheet a bit later.
Strangely though, when I was filling in his ideals, bonds and flaws, etc,. he turned out to be lawful good. Seems weird that a barbarian would be lawful good but that is what he has turned out to be.
It will be interesting to see how he plays that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Charisma casters are also a great option. They don’t have to prepare spells everyday like other casters.
Well, paladins do...
As for OP. I'm not sure that "simplest character" necessarily equates to the character that best fits into a new grup. Why not talk to the players of the new group and see what character would actually mesh best with what they already have?
They should be uneducated country boys with few language skills, extra outdoor skills and an real aversion to urban life. Somewhat xenophobic also. Slow to trust outsiders, especially other races.
They should be uneducated country boys with few language skills, extra outdoor skills and an real aversion to urban life. Somewhat xenophobic also. Slow to trust outsiders, especially other races.
Why?
The classic Barbarian is from the country, and will have high strength, con, dex and decent wos, leaving little room for int and charisma. I have no idea where the xenophobic came from.
A Barbarian could however also come from the city, a gladiator background would fit in very well with this. (Possibly dumping wis for cha)
Consider a barb like a real life boxer, they might be more likely to come from a poor background and not have opportunities for education but exceptions do exist. In D&D however unless you roll really well for abilities an intelligent Barbarian is likely to be sub optimal.
Something that I've always stuck to, especially for modern D&D, is that Classes are Functions, not Archetypes. I think it's fine to lean into it, but if someone wants to play as a well-educated noble who becomes extremely focused to enter their "rage", then there's no reason not to. If someone wants to reflavor their Warlock as being someone who owns a magic gun that they can recharge by turning a crank for an hour as the explanation for why they recover spell slots on a short rest... well, that's weird, but if they're having fun, I see no harm in it.
I think it's generally not worth the effort if all you're doing as a player is just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian... that might be fun for a little bit, but I see it becoming exhausting after a while. I do agree that it's much easier to just kind of lean into the stereotypes of the classes, and in many ways it's more impressive to be able to just create a classic character but play them in a way that's more entertaining and fun for yourself and everyone at your table than just being different for the sake of being different. But any time someone says that you Must or Should be playing classes in a specific way or else they're somehow doing it "wrong" always rubs me the wrong way. I think Barbarian especially gets this treatment... I think that people have gotten to a point where we don't expect every Wizard to be an old man with a beard and a big hat, but it's still generally assumed that Barbarians need to be uh... barbaric.
Depending on the person, it can be fun to try out a sub-optimal build and see how you can overcome your character's issues. It's not for everyone, of course, but I wouldn't dismiss a character that needs work to play.
They should be uneducated country boys with few language skills, extra outdoor skills and an real aversion to urban life. Somewhat xenophobic also. Slow to trust outsiders, especially other races.
Why?
The classic Barbarian is from the country, and will have high strength, con, dex and decent wos, leaving little room for int and charisma. I have no idea where the xenophobic came from.
A Barbarian could, however, also come from the city, a gladiator background would fit in very well with this. (Possibly dumping wis for cha)
Consider a barb like a real life boxer, they might be more likely to come from a poor background and not have opportunities for education but exceptions do exist. In D&D however unless you roll really well for abilities an intelligent Barbarian is likely to be sub optimal.
I have went with low INT and low CHA.
That does not mean, however, that I would be playing him as stupid and dumb.
He can talk normally, though plainly, as he lacks the vocabulary of, say, a Wizard or Bard. But he can speak and is fluent in multiple languages, although his speech patterns are direct and to the point. Neither does it mean that he is incapable of understanding society and modern life.
He is not an idiot or mentally incapable; he's just an average Joe in terms of intelligence.
His lack of intelligence (being only 8) represents his lack of formal education. However, he is no less intelligent than any commoner.
His low charisma (being only 8) represents his lack of experience in social situations. That does not mean that he cannot be charismatic, as he is no less charismatic than any commoner you might meet; however, living on the road and taking odd jobs here and there has afforded him little opportunity to build his social chops.
Combine that with his lower intelligence, and he might sometimes come off as gruff, but I'm betting that we all know people like that in real life.
He can make friends, he can learn, but he is a product of his life experiences thus far.
He is not a big clumsy oaf who swings his axe at everyone he sees.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I agree with most of that. Lack of education means they are unlikely to know languages not used around them. They would be unlikely to know undercommon unless they have a lot of contact with those that do. If common is the language of interracial communication an uneducated character is likely to only know common and their mother tongue (the reason why the majority of English speakers have little knowledge of other languages), if an elf and a human are equally likely to speak to each other in elvish or common then even though uneducated a character is likely to know more languages of the races of the people he has contact with.
There is not really only 6 abilities in a character if a character is unable to discern when not to say something foe example saying to a noble lady "that dress makes your bum look big" is often thought of as being stupid and therefore a sign of low int but I think it is more either low wisdom (insight would know how it would be taken) or low charisma (poor social skills).
Another complexity is randomness has a bigger effect in D&d than real life, a contested strength check between a character of strength 8 and a character of strength 18 will result in the weakling winning 30% of the time and 4% a draw. If a person of well below average strength arm wrestles the strongest man in the city IRL he is not going to win 1 time in 3. This means it is not clear if someone with charisma 6 is extremely socially awkward as almost no-one has charisma that low or does it mean they are only a little less effective in social skills than someone regarded as being very charismatic.
Charisma casters are also a great option. They don’t have to prepare spells everyday like other casters.
Well, paladins do...
As for OP. I'm not sure that "simplest character" necessarily equates to the character that best fits into a new grup. Why not talk to the players of the new group and see what character would actually mesh best with what they already have?
Paladins are not charisma casters though, they’re half casters. If they’re looking for simplicity it might be easier to focus on playing a character for either melee or spellcasting, not a melee character with arcane abilities to augment their combat.
Charisma casters are also a great option. They don’t have to prepare spells everyday like other casters.
Well, paladins do...
As for OP. I'm not sure that "simplest character" necessarily equates to the character that best fits into a new grup. Why not talk to the players of the new group and see what character would actually mesh best with what they already have?
Paladins are not charisma casters though,
Of course they are, they use Charisma as their spell casting ability. It's right there in the book.
They should be uneducated country boys with few language skills, extra outdoor skills and an real aversion to urban life. Somewhat xenophobic also. Slow to trust outsiders, especially other races.
Why?
Consider a barb like a real life boxer, they might be more likely to come from a poor background and not have opportunities for education but exceptions do exist. In D&D however unless you roll really well for abilities an intelligent Barbarian is likely to be sub optimal.
That is not only incredibly prejudiced, it's also factually wrong. Boxing is a pastime enjoyed by all levels of society and has been for centuries. I mean, there's a reason why the most famous rules of boxing are named after an English nobleman. :D
If your interacting with your specific group tribe clan or race you add a temporary +2 to your charisma.
Subsequently if your interacting with a group outside your norm you add a -2.
Lets say everyone in your party has a charisma of 10 and you all walk into a barbarian village/camp. Your barbarian will be the best accepted member at first.
For us charisma was the knowledge of how to act in specific situations. When first meeting someone do you handshake, fist bump, bow, hug, or yell loud and challenge someone? Do you treat the women the same as you do the men?
And what is this 'gladiator' people speak of? The only thing in the players handbook referencing gladiator is as an entertainer/actor a bard, not a fighter class.
And what is this 'gladiator' people speak of? The only thing in the players handbook referencing gladiator is as an entertainer/actor a bard, not a fighter class.
Backgrounds aren't limited to class. Gladiator, as it's referenced in the PHB, is an optional variant to the Entertainer Background. There is no rule that a character with the Entertainer Background is required to be a bard. Think of a Gladiator like being a Pro Wrestler... you're somebody who has dedicated their lives to entertaining others, but you're still a trained fighter. You could be an Entertainer who specializes in sleight of hand tricks, like a stage magician, as the background for why you're playing as a Rogue.
I think my favorite thing about Backgrounds is how it allows a nice way to influence a character's build to tell a unique story beyond just what their specific class features allow.
Since commoner stats are all 8, if you have an ability score above 8, then youre above average in that ability. If you have an ability score of 8, youre average. So a barbarian wih an INT of 8 and a CHA of 8, has an intelligence and charisma that can be accepted as the norm. They are not above average but they are not below average eiher.
Since it is very rare these days for any character to have anything under 8 in an ability score (unless you are rolling for stats and get terrible results), I honestly dont understand why people think that a barb with an 8 INT has to be some brutish oaf who cant speak in full sentences and eats his own ear wax.
All an 8 means is that your character is average.
They will get on perfectly fine in the world with an 8 INT.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A simple human fighter.
Until you get to know the other races and what motivates them its better to stick to what you know, being human.
Way too many people just play the other races like a human. If your in a party and can not remember what the other players races are after three sessions then they are not role playing very much.
To me a barbarian is pretty much just a fighter who can rage. And that is how most play them.
They should be uneducated country boys with few language skills, extra outdoor skills and an real aversion to urban life. Somewhat xenophobic also. Slow to trust outsiders, especially other races.
But most people just play them like they are angry for no reason human fighters.
Make up a back story and play to it.
I don't like the belief that a barbarian must always be a big dumb galoot... It's as tiring as demanding that all rogues must be dark and brooding loners, or all paladins must be lawful good adult hall monitors. There's nothing wrong with embracing the classics, but there's no rule that you have to play any class in a specific way.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
All races are pretty simple, I’d advise against playing a race with an attack feature (they usually aren’t very good). Also avoid stuff like kenku or kobolds with weaknesses (speech for kenku & sunlight for kobolds).
Class suggestions I’d make would be anything melee (feel free to avoid magic subclasses if you want to minimize your decision making). Charisma casters are also a great option. They don’t have to prepare spells everyday like other casters.
I never said a barbarian was big dumb or a galoot.
I only said uneducated. That does not mean dumb.
I am trying to express the idea that a little role playing creativity with a simple character is better than having a thousand options slapped on top of a character and calling that creative.
The original poster wanted something simple fast and fun.
A lot of people came up with some pretty complex characters for a beginner. A simple fighter played with little panache is pretty easy. And fun.
Playing this game in many ways is acting.
Thanks for all you replies everyone. I have went with a Goliath Barbarian because I really liked the idea of that.
I will post the link to his character sheet a bit later.
Strangely though, when I was filling in his ideals, bonds and flaws, etc,. he turned out to be lawful good. Seems weird that a barbarian would be lawful good but that is what he has turned out to be.
It will be interesting to see how he plays that.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
Well, paladins do...
As for OP. I'm not sure that "simplest character" necessarily equates to the character that best fits into a new grup. Why not talk to the players of the new group and see what character would actually mesh best with what they already have?
Why?
The classic Barbarian is from the country, and will have high strength, con, dex and decent wos, leaving little room for int and charisma. I have no idea where the xenophobic came from.
A Barbarian could however also come from the city, a gladiator background would fit in very well with this. (Possibly dumping wis for cha)
Consider a barb like a real life boxer, they might be more likely to come from a poor background and not have opportunities for education but exceptions do exist. In D&D however unless you roll really well for abilities an intelligent Barbarian is likely to be sub optimal.
Something that I've always stuck to, especially for modern D&D, is that Classes are Functions, not Archetypes. I think it's fine to lean into it, but if someone wants to play as a well-educated noble who becomes extremely focused to enter their "rage", then there's no reason not to. If someone wants to reflavor their Warlock as being someone who owns a magic gun that they can recharge by turning a crank for an hour as the explanation for why they recover spell slots on a short rest... well, that's weird, but if they're having fun, I see no harm in it.
I think it's generally not worth the effort if all you're doing as a player is just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian... that might be fun for a little bit, but I see it becoming exhausting after a while. I do agree that it's much easier to just kind of lean into the stereotypes of the classes, and in many ways it's more impressive to be able to just create a classic character but play them in a way that's more entertaining and fun for yourself and everyone at your table than just being different for the sake of being different. But any time someone says that you Must or Should be playing classes in a specific way or else they're somehow doing it "wrong" always rubs me the wrong way. I think Barbarian especially gets this treatment... I think that people have gotten to a point where we don't expect every Wizard to be an old man with a beard and a big hat, but it's still generally assumed that Barbarians need to be uh... barbaric.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Depending on the person, it can be fun to try out a sub-optimal build and see how you can overcome your character's issues. It's not for everyone, of course, but I wouldn't dismiss a character that needs work to play.
Twist the world and ride the wind.
I have went with low INT and low CHA.
That does not mean, however, that I would be playing him as stupid and dumb.
He can talk normally, though plainly, as he lacks the vocabulary of, say, a Wizard or Bard. But he can speak and is fluent in multiple languages, although his speech patterns are direct and to the point. Neither does it mean that he is incapable of understanding society and modern life.
He is not an idiot or mentally incapable; he's just an average Joe in terms of intelligence.
His lack of intelligence (being only 8) represents his lack of formal education. However, he is no less intelligent than any commoner.
His low charisma (being only 8) represents his lack of experience in social situations. That does not mean that he cannot be charismatic, as he is no less charismatic than any commoner you might meet; however, living on the road and taking odd jobs here and there has afforded him little opportunity to build his social chops.
Combine that with his lower intelligence, and he might sometimes come off as gruff, but I'm betting that we all know people like that in real life.
He can make friends, he can learn, but he is a product of his life experiences thus far.
He is not a big clumsy oaf who swings his axe at everyone he sees.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
I agree with most of that. Lack of education means they are unlikely to know languages not used around them. They would be unlikely to know undercommon unless they have a lot of contact with those that do. If common is the language of interracial communication an uneducated character is likely to only know common and their mother tongue (the reason why the majority of English speakers have little knowledge of other languages), if an elf and a human are equally likely to speak to each other in elvish or common then even though uneducated a character is likely to know more languages of the races of the people he has contact with.
There is not really only 6 abilities in a character if a character is unable to discern when not to say something foe example saying to a noble lady "that dress makes your bum look big" is often thought of as being stupid and therefore a sign of low int but I think it is more either low wisdom (insight would know how it would be taken) or low charisma (poor social skills).
Another complexity is randomness has a bigger effect in D&d than real life, a contested strength check between a character of strength 8 and a character of strength 18 will result in the weakling winning 30% of the time and 4% a draw. If a person of well below average strength arm wrestles the strongest man in the city IRL he is not going to win 1 time in 3. This means it is not clear if someone with charisma 6 is extremely socially awkward as almost no-one has charisma that low or does it mean they are only a little less effective in social skills than someone regarded as being very charismatic.
Paladins are not charisma casters though, they’re half casters. If they’re looking for simplicity it might be easier to focus on playing a character for either melee or spellcasting, not a melee character with arcane abilities to augment their combat.
As promised guys, I have created the character and posted about him on the story and lore board.
You can see the post that k made about the character here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/story-lore/143606-lugnir-lugi-ironfist-do-you-think-this-character
Thanks for your help and excellent suggestions, and I would love to hear what you think of the character that I have come up with.
XD
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
its a solid character indeed!
Of course they are, they use Charisma as their spell casting ability. It's right there in the book.
They still cast spells and they can prepare them.
That is not only incredibly prejudiced, it's also factually wrong. Boxing is a pastime enjoyed by all levels of society and has been for centuries. I mean, there's a reason why the most famous rules of boxing are named after an English nobleman. :D
We used to have a table rule about charisma.
If your interacting with your specific group tribe clan or race you add a temporary +2 to your charisma.
Subsequently if your interacting with a group outside your norm you add a -2.
Lets say everyone in your party has a charisma of 10 and you all walk into a barbarian village/camp. Your barbarian will be the best accepted member at first.
For us charisma was the knowledge of how to act in specific situations. When first meeting someone do you handshake, fist bump, bow, hug, or yell loud and challenge someone? Do you treat the women the same as you do the men?
And what is this 'gladiator' people speak of? The only thing in the players handbook referencing gladiator is as an entertainer/actor a bard, not a fighter class.
Backgrounds aren't limited to class. Gladiator, as it's referenced in the PHB, is an optional variant to the Entertainer Background. There is no rule that a character with the Entertainer Background is required to be a bard. Think of a Gladiator like being a Pro Wrestler... you're somebody who has dedicated their lives to entertaining others, but you're still a trained fighter. You could be an Entertainer who specializes in sleight of hand tricks, like a stage magician, as the background for why you're playing as a Rogue.
I think my favorite thing about Backgrounds is how it allows a nice way to influence a character's build to tell a unique story beyond just what their specific class features allow.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Since commoner stats are all 8, if you have an ability score above 8, then youre above average in that ability. If you have an ability score of 8, youre average. So a barbarian wih an INT of 8 and a CHA of 8, has an intelligence and charisma that can be accepted as the norm. They are not above average but they are not below average eiher.
Since it is very rare these days for any character to have anything under 8 in an ability score (unless you are rolling for stats and get terrible results), I honestly dont understand why people think that a barb with an 8 INT has to be some brutish oaf who cant speak in full sentences and eats his own ear wax.
All an 8 means is that your character is average.
They will get on perfectly fine in the world with an 8 INT.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.