D&D 5E Choosing my first ever character... Help, please.

[DarkMoon250]

In about 2 weeks, I'll be meeting up with a kind group of folks to play my first ever game of DnD. I've been coming up with various character concepts and running them by the DM, and they've shown the most support for these 2 (which is good, cuz these are the 2 I was most pleased with). I took some inspiration from the 4e book 'Heroes of Shadow' to come up with them, and now I'm having a tough time trying to settle on which one I actually want to play:

1. A tiefling or half-elf (shadar-kai homebrew variant) Shadow Magic Sorcerer who believes himself to be "evil incarnate" and is destined to be a scourge on the world, but is actually just a friendly dude suffering from a rough and estranged upbringing as a result of his umbral heritage. He sometimes refers to the other party members as his minions, but is quick to back down if they so much as give him an ugly look. Despite this, he's incredibly protective of them and becomes agitated if anyone else treats them poorly. His tainted lineage left him with either the horns of a nightwalker or the fangs of a vampire.
2. A shadar-kai, half-elf (again, shadar-kai homebrew variant), or human Grave Domain or Twilight Domain Cleric who takes a more mystical and esoteric approach to the divine than a dogmatic and orthodox one. His faith is in a Great Spirit above all, but he approaches this absolute being through service and reverence to Shadowfell spirits of darkness and death, with a guiding philosophy that "All that has a beginning must have an end. Mortals die, fey die, fiends die, deities may die, and even the multiverse will die; all will return to the shadows, but that which is good in the eyes of the Spirit will have a taste of eternity."

Part of me thinks the Cleric would be better as a first timer since I can change my whole spell list, and the themes and features are enjoyable to me as a person of faith, but part of me worries I'll play the character too stereotypically (or, at least, too much like Caduceus Clay). On the other hand, the Sorcerer seems fun and versatile right away in terms of RP, and my DM has already said he'll allow UA variant rules and a homebrewed set of bonus spells to make the class have a better quality-of-life, but the limited metamagics and sorcery points does seem a little off-putting.

What do you suggest?

 

[jgsugden]

For a first time player, I'd go with option 2. Option 1 runs a lot of risk of being frustrating for other players. In fact, I'd consider something a little more uplifting for your first PC. There is nothing wrong with a darker PC if you know how to balance your story with that of other players, but going dark for a first PC can be a bit tricky. You don't want to step on the toes of other players.

 

[jayoungr]

I vote for option 2 as well, and I wouldn't worry about the roleplay. Once you get into the actual adventure, you'll probably find the character goes his own way, even if he's inspired by something else.

 

[J-H]

Sorcerer is a lot easier to mess up or have problems with for a first time player.

 

[aco175]

I comment you with the amount of effort you are putting into making your first PC and getting into the game. Research, Homebrew, Message Boards. My first character was someone telling me to play a fighter or thief since they are easy to learn.

 

[DarkMoon250]

I comment you with the amount of effort you are putting into making your first PC and getting into the game. Research, Homebrew, Message Boards. My first character was someone telling me to play a fighter or thief since they are easy to learn.

Thanks for the kind words; much appreciated. tbh I've been gathering old sourcebooks (because for some reason 5e only has 2 pages of info on average for each plane) and looking through RPG forums for a few years now and have been saving the stuff I liked in folders. It's only just now that I can actually put that stuff to use

Also in my case, someone said that a Monk would be easiest to learn. Apparently they thought weapon types and armor ranks were still too advanced for me...

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Sorcerers tend to be the slowest class to come online, in addition to the problem of semi-permenant spell decisions that folk have mentioned, so I really don't recommend them unless you know your campaign is going to spend substantial time past the opening levels. Groups so often fall apart that I would avoid slow-to-come-online characters with any group whom I hadn't been playing with a while already; you want to enjoy the sessions you have rather than dream about how cool your character might be someday. Somewhere around levels 4-7 Sorcerers can get pretty cool, but they are about the most underwhelming class there is for the first few sessions.

There is a school of thought that Monk is the easiest for new players. It seems to be based on assuming the players have never encountered any game that uses equipment, which is a level of new that I've rarely encountered.

 

[Eltab]

Go with the Cleric. Check with the rest of the party if they have healing capability also. Saving everybody's bacon in a pinch is rewarding, but so is taking down the monster causing all the problems.

Different character concept: Cleric of Trickery can get around / past enemy guards &c instead of having to fight through them. You can fluff how you wish so you still can wrap the group in shadows when you need to sneak around.

 

[fba827]

my opinion echos others ....

Go with option 2


option 1 has the potential to just cause party problems given that personality as described here. Of course maybe that’s how your group will go but in a vacuum of other information on your group’s history, this just seems like it will get you kicked out of the party or the source of frustration when the characters would kick you out by the players keep trying to justify why the characters keep you in the group. Frankly this might make a great solo character with npc companions if your dm ever did a solo game for you.

 

[Bawylie]

Option 2. But I think you need to add “right and proper” to it.
Everything that has a beginning has a right and proper end.
You don’t want to play an adventurer who is indifferent to misfortune or untimely ends because that character lacks the empathy and motivation to adventure, to defend, to risk.
That would be a defective character. Sometimes that happens - a player will ask “why does my character even care about this?” And there’s an out-of-game answer - you came to play. And an in-game answer “my character is invested in what happens.” But when you have a character that ISNT invested, then they need to go back home and stop pretending to be an adventurer.

Since it’s your first character, just some food for thought. It’s more fun to play a character that cares than it is to play one that’s too edgy to go out on adventures.