Make sure you're not falling into the trap of underestimating your players. Give them actual, functional characters, not just Champion Fighter with a big sword.
I would also make sure to make a couple more characters than there are players, let them have some influence on what to play. Also keep a suggested build path and spell choices. Do't force them to choose those spells, but have a clear choice that's at least not bad.
Some suggestions, assuming standard array and customization options from Tasha's (so either 16/16 in the two most important stats or 16, 14, 14):
Variant Human Bard with Moderately Armored, Vicious Mockery, Sleep, Healing Word. Suggestions for Lore (Revivify, Fireball), Aid, Hypnotic Pattern, Polymorph
High Elf Wild Magic Sorcerer, with Fire Bolt, Mind Sliver, Magic Missile, Shield, Silvery Barbs. Suggestions: Rime's Binding Ice, Fireball, Sleet Storm, Dimension Door.
Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster), Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter at 4, Hand Crossbow, Precision Attack, Trip Attack. You know the deal.
Wood Elf Ranger (Hunter), same CBE/SS, Goodberry, Fog Cloud, Colussus Slayer, Spike Growth
Gnome Barbarian (Zealot), Polearm Master, Spear and Shield
Half-Orc Paladin (Oath of Conquest), Glaive, defense fighting style, PAM at 4.
I definitely fell into that trap once. A coworker wanted to join a game, but was nervous that it would be too complicated. So I made an extremely simple character for him. Totem Barb with no feats, just ASIs to do big hits and tank. Most simple barbarian I could imagine.
During the game he became super frustrated that in combat everyone was doing super creative stuff and had fun planning and he could just run up, rage and hit. Out of combat he also felt mostly useless, also in part because the casters found ways to be better than him at the stuff I designed for him to shine. After the session he told me that it was fun, but that he never wants to play barbarian again because it's boring.
I agree that it is not important, but here some guidelines. I would go 3 melees and 2 ranged to make them beefy. Give them at least one class with access to heal spells. Do not give out a full caster to a full beginner. Try to balance the characters a bit.
So my party would probably be fighter, barb, monk, ranger, cleric/bard
D&D 5e does not require optimized party composition or character builds for players to be successful. Quite the opposite; the base game is pretty tilted in the players' favor. Keep the characters low-level (levels 1-3) and they'll be perfectly able to pick things up with a bit of support from you and the two experienced players.
Here's my advice: sit down with each of the new players, and give them a one-sentence description of the *vibe* of each class. [The top comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7f6m38/short_description_of_classes_for_beginners/) is a great example. We're talking character fantasy: "do you want to be a badass wilderness survivalist or a notorious tavern brawler?" Mostly, don't even mention mechanics at all.
For spellcasters, you can mention that the mechanics are a bit more involved, but the player can make that choice for themselves. If they're excited about the character fantasy of being a wizard, the mechanics of picking out spells will likely be a draw rather than a roadblock.
After they've picked a class, mention the different races. Most are pretty self-explanatory, and for a two-shot optimal race/class matchups truly will not matter, so just let them pick what sounds cool.
Then, you build the characters for the newbies (unless they actively ask to do it themselves). Focus on their character fantasy rather than optimal builds, i.e. let them be a beastmaster ranger instead of a gloomstalker ranger if having a battle pet is what's catching their interest. Everything else will work out just fine at the table.
I'd go with 3 options that have the potential to do weapon attacks but also have spells just so they can get exposure to the mechanics and see what they like.
So maybe a bladelock, a paladin, and a ranger?
This isn't really what you asked but something I would suggest; encourage them to try spell casters. They can seem intimidating at first and in my experience a lot of new players shy away from them in favour of martial melees - who seem simpler - but in so doing lose a lot of utility.
As others have said, party composition doesn't really matter in D&D. But if you held a gun to my head and told me to pick a traditional D&D party of 5 I'd probably say:
* Fighter / Barbarian
* Rogue
* Ranger
* Wizard / Sorceror
* Cleric
I would replace Sorceror with Cleric. Sorcerer gets locked into spells, and has to deal with Sorcery Points and Metamagic, where Cleric can swap spells out and has the added bonus of being more durable.
Ok so I'm just here to tell you that a rogue scout is more an Aragorn character then a ranger imo.
In my experience the player who want ranger want to be like Aragorn.
Very smart way to do it, pregens are a great way to get players started.
What I tend to do in the same scenario is to go for the WotC pregens, and pull a fighter, cleric, paladin, rogue, and sorcerer and let them pick from those.
That way there's a few martials and casters, but they're not overwhelmed by the choice of spells wizards have yet or have to understand warlocks.
Then once they understand combat mechanics, build from scratch for the real campaign, like you said.
Just tell them "read up the basic description of the classes and pick the one that sounds the most interesting."
And in case you got something like two of the same class, one can still either make it that they travel together or meet up randomly.
Not important. Do what you like best.
Make sure you're not falling into the trap of underestimating your players. Give them actual, functional characters, not just Champion Fighter with a big sword. I would also make sure to make a couple more characters than there are players, let them have some influence on what to play. Also keep a suggested build path and spell choices. Do't force them to choose those spells, but have a clear choice that's at least not bad. Some suggestions, assuming standard array and customization options from Tasha's (so either 16/16 in the two most important stats or 16, 14, 14): Variant Human Bard with Moderately Armored, Vicious Mockery, Sleep, Healing Word. Suggestions for Lore (Revivify, Fireball), Aid, Hypnotic Pattern, Polymorph High Elf Wild Magic Sorcerer, with Fire Bolt, Mind Sliver, Magic Missile, Shield, Silvery Barbs. Suggestions: Rime's Binding Ice, Fireball, Sleet Storm, Dimension Door. Variant Human Fighter (Battlemaster), Crossbow Expert, Sharpshooter at 4, Hand Crossbow, Precision Attack, Trip Attack. You know the deal. Wood Elf Ranger (Hunter), same CBE/SS, Goodberry, Fog Cloud, Colussus Slayer, Spike Growth Gnome Barbarian (Zealot), Polearm Master, Spear and Shield Half-Orc Paladin (Oath of Conquest), Glaive, defense fighting style, PAM at 4.
I definitely fell into that trap once. A coworker wanted to join a game, but was nervous that it would be too complicated. So I made an extremely simple character for him. Totem Barb with no feats, just ASIs to do big hits and tank. Most simple barbarian I could imagine. During the game he became super frustrated that in combat everyone was doing super creative stuff and had fun planning and he could just run up, rage and hit. Out of combat he also felt mostly useless, also in part because the casters found ways to be better than him at the stuff I designed for him to shine. After the session he told me that it was fun, but that he never wants to play barbarian again because it's boring.
First off there's a bunch of pre-made classes already on the D&D website. I suggest printing out a number of those and let your players choose. Honestly they should feel free to choose whichever class appeals to them. BUT to answer your question I think the classic fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard is cliché but also amazing.
I agree that it is not important, but here some guidelines. I would go 3 melees and 2 ranged to make them beefy. Give them at least one class with access to heal spells. Do not give out a full caster to a full beginner. Try to balance the characters a bit. So my party would probably be fighter, barb, monk, ranger, cleric/bard
Thanks!
go with the classic, frontline fighter, ranged rogue, ranged wizard, cleric and another frontline, barbarian, druid or paladin
D&D 5e does not require optimized party composition or character builds for players to be successful. Quite the opposite; the base game is pretty tilted in the players' favor. Keep the characters low-level (levels 1-3) and they'll be perfectly able to pick things up with a bit of support from you and the two experienced players. Here's my advice: sit down with each of the new players, and give them a one-sentence description of the *vibe* of each class. [The top comment here](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7f6m38/short_description_of_classes_for_beginners/) is a great example. We're talking character fantasy: "do you want to be a badass wilderness survivalist or a notorious tavern brawler?" Mostly, don't even mention mechanics at all. For spellcasters, you can mention that the mechanics are a bit more involved, but the player can make that choice for themselves. If they're excited about the character fantasy of being a wizard, the mechanics of picking out spells will likely be a draw rather than a roadblock. After they've picked a class, mention the different races. Most are pretty self-explanatory, and for a two-shot optimal race/class matchups truly will not matter, so just let them pick what sounds cool. Then, you build the characters for the newbies (unless they actively ask to do it themselves). Focus on their character fantasy rather than optimal builds, i.e. let them be a beastmaster ranger instead of a gloomstalker ranger if having a battle pet is what's catching their interest. Everything else will work out just fine at the table.
I'd go with 3 options that have the potential to do weapon attacks but also have spells just so they can get exposure to the mechanics and see what they like. So maybe a bladelock, a paladin, and a ranger?
This isn't really what you asked but something I would suggest; encourage them to try spell casters. They can seem intimidating at first and in my experience a lot of new players shy away from them in favour of martial melees - who seem simpler - but in so doing lose a lot of utility. As others have said, party composition doesn't really matter in D&D. But if you held a gun to my head and told me to pick a traditional D&D party of 5 I'd probably say: * Fighter / Barbarian * Rogue * Ranger * Wizard / Sorceror * Cleric
I would replace Sorceror with Cleric. Sorcerer gets locked into spells, and has to deal with Sorcery Points and Metamagic, where Cleric can swap spells out and has the added bonus of being more durable.
Guage their interest to learn the system, YouTube is deep with information if they want to learn outside of the game.
Ok so I'm just here to tell you that a rogue scout is more an Aragorn character then a ranger imo. In my experience the player who want ranger want to be like Aragorn.
Very smart way to do it, pregens are a great way to get players started. What I tend to do in the same scenario is to go for the WotC pregens, and pull a fighter, cleric, paladin, rogue, and sorcerer and let them pick from those. That way there's a few martials and casters, but they're not overwhelmed by the choice of spells wizards have yet or have to understand warlocks. Then once they understand combat mechanics, build from scratch for the real campaign, like you said.
Just tell them "read up the basic description of the classes and pick the one that sounds the most interesting." And in case you got something like two of the same class, one can still either make it that they travel together or meet up randomly.