General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
But I haven't tried 4e with anyone complete new to DND. If I did I think I'd actually just run 4e using just the at will attacks, using sheets similar to those from DND xp.
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!"
Similarly, with respect to the power choices, you can "hand" someone a premade rogue as easily as you could hand them a rogue in earlier editions. New players should probably not make their own first character, I don't think this is any different than past editions.
As a general rule, I do not think that players should make their character until they have played the game. Understanding the significance of the various condition effects or how well they play together goes a long way when you're selecting your powers. First timers will pick something not realizing what it really does.
That has been one of the barriers preventing me from getting terribly interested in the current rules. 4th edition would really benefit from an intro class, but I don't see that happening due to the way the powers are structured.
__________________ SHADOWSLAYERS: A full fantasy novel, now available on Kindle for only 1 dollar! REALITY CHECK: Everything you know is wrong.
I really do think Ranger is the correct answer here. Give the new player a pre-gen Ranger (maybe an Elf, because Elven Accuracy is a pretty easy racial power to grok and they make decent Rangers).
IMO, the melee Ranger is easier to run for a newbie than the bow Ranger, because Quarry choices are easier for melee Rangers.
Give the character Twin Strike, Hit & Run, Dire Wolverine Strike and Jaws of the Wolf (the simplest Ranger powers, IMO) and you've got a character that is effective but doesn't require a lot of deep tactical thinking. It's essentially the sawed-off shotgun of the 4e world, just point it at the thing you want dead and pull the trigger.
The most difficult decision the player will have to make with this character is which encounter to use his Daily power in.
I really do think Ranger is the correct answer here. Give the new player a pre-gen Ranger (maybe an Elf, because Elven Accuracy is a pretty easy racial power to grok and they make decent Rangers).
IMO, the melee Ranger is easier to run for a newbie than the bow Ranger, because Quarry choices are easier for melee Rangers.
Give the character Twin Strike, Hit & Run, Dire Wolverine Strike and Jaws of the Wolf (the simplest Ranger powers, IMO) and you've got a character that is effective but doesn't require a lot of deep tactical thinking. It's essentially the sawed-off shotgun of the 4e world, just point it at the thing you want dead and pull the trigger.
The most difficult decision the player will have to make with this character is which encounter to use his Daily power in.
Well, I'll add the player needs to understand the "striker" concept as well... this is not a class that should stand toe to toe with alot of monsters and expect not to have the glass canon effect. Though the funny thing is that, IMO, it is often the stand toe to toe character that most who want less complexity really desire. Instead the Ranger not only forces you to do round by round evaluation of the damage being inflicted upon ones character, but also to make judgements and evaluations on movement and terrain, as he must be careful not to get locked down by either terrain or an enemy or more importantly enemies.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
It goes a little deeper than just class. 4E is a complex tactical game, and for the most part the strategies "run up and hit things" or "stand back and shoot" are fairly ineffective in their purest forms. Movement, teamwork, and strategy are important, and closing your eyes and mashing the attack button isn't something the game rewards.
Well, I'll add the player needs to understand the "striker" concept as well... this is not a class that should stand toe to toe with alot of monsters and expect not to have the glass canon effect. Though the funny thing is that, IMO, it is often the stand toe to toe character that most who want less complexity really desire. Instead the Ranger not only forces you to do round by round evaluation of the damage being inflicted upon ones character, but also to make judgements and evaluations on movement and terrain, as he must be careful not to get locked down by either terrain or an enemy or more importantly enemies.
I agree that even the Ranger requires some inclination to think outside the "run to the nearest foe and attack until dead, rinse, repeat" box. However, the considerations you bring up (i.e. - run away when you're low on HPs, don't allow yourself to get flanked or surrounded by enemies, don't get backed into a corner, etc.) are things that don't depend on a lot of system-specific knowledge to understand and implement. They are more or less real-world, common-sense considerations. To me, they are materially different from some of the more esoteric aspects of tactical play that other 4e classes require (like the Fighter, for example, whose marking ability is really one of the less intuitive aspects of 4e's tactical play, IMO).
In my own personal experience, new players have a lot of fun with the melee Ranger, even those who are not tactically inclined. They may not be as effective as a Ranger played by someone who loves the tactical aspects of the game, but they hold their own enough to provide an enjoyable play experience without demanding an intimidating level of system mastery.
I would also say that a warlock is pretty easy. I mean, especially an Infernal lock. Just shoot shoot shoot shoot shoot. Sure, you throw your curse around, but all you're doing is pouring buckets of damage on the target. The infernal warlock powers are pretty straight forward.
It's true that all (PHB1) classes are similar in complexity whereas in 3E some were clearly more complex than others. But all in all, I think 4E characters are still easier to create than (most of) the least complex 3E characters.
Using the Character Builder it's even easier: Select a race and class combination from the recommendations, choose a build, pick the default stat distribution and you're ready to go.
I especially disbelieve that the fighter was a good intro-class in 3E. In my experience it was one of the more challenging classes if you wanted to create an effective character. My vote for the best intro-class goes to the barbarian.
My 3E group is just in the process of preparing for a series of 4E trial sessions. From what I've seen so far, the players that experience the most difficulty in creating characters are the power gamers that used to plan out optimized 20 level builds before starting play.
I recommended to look no further than level 3 powers to avoid the overwhelming 'wall of powers' effect I had when first reading the PHB. Since it's just a test run, they can just create new characters if they believe they'd made mistakes that cannot be corrected by retraining - assuming we decide we want to continue playing 4E...
I'm also particularly pleased that the two players that are the typical 'fighter'-players in the 3E group have chosen a wizard and a cleric as their 3E characters, respectively. The barrier that kept them from playing spellcasters in 3E is definitely gone and that's a very good thing.
We'll see how difficult actual play will be. Judging from some of the reports I've seen on this board, I expect combat to be a bit slow and maybe even challening in the beginning. But I also expect it to get better quickly, since most of them are quick to master new systems.
But I also expect it to get better quickly, since most of them are quick to master new systems.
I'm sure that that's how you'll find it. Personally, I know two people who went from "never played an RPG" to "frequent DM" in less than 6 months of playing 4E. And frankly, one of the two is "the girlfriend" (not mine lol) who got dragged into a game partially against her will. :P
For a "stand up to the monster and fight" PC, the Paladin is pretty easy. Just challenge a guy and start hitting. They even have lay on hands to heal themselves as a minor when they get into trouble. It's probably the easiest of the defender class to use.
On the topic of intro games, I'm about to run a 3rd level test-run for some guys; most are 3.5 vets, one has barely ever played D&D before. So I'm deciding what classes to do as pregens.
Spoiler:
So far I'm considering Barbarian and Avenger for strikers, Artificer and perhaps Cleric or Bard for leaders, a Druid and something else for controllers... I was tempted to use Psion, but I think it's a bit more complex than I'd like to introduce at first.
On the topic of intro games, I'm about to run a 3rd level test-run for some guys; most are 3.5 vets, one has barely ever played D&D before. So I'm deciding what classes to do as pregens.
Spoiler:
So far I'm considering Barbarian and Avenger for strikers, Artificer and perhaps Cleric or Bard for leaders, a Druid and something else for controllers... I was tempted to use Psion, but I think it's a bit more complex than I'd like to introduce at first.
Spoiler:
I'm not sure about the artificer. It's nice and all, but the way it handles healing surges is atypical. Might do better off with a more traditional leader. Avenger is kind of the same - a bit fiddly. That said, as long as you go slow and help out and maybe even allow do-overs now and then, I'm sure it will go fine.
One of my players is exactly the sort that needs a class like this. He likes playing to hang out with us, have a drink, and kill some monsters/pretend to be a pirate/talk in funny accents; but he doesn't have a tactical bone in his body.
In our first 4e campaign last summer he wanted to be a retired pirate captain, so I handed him a Warlord. It didn't go over too well, as he'd never played an RPG (TT or CRPG) and couldn't grok the fidgety bits about shifting and flanking that make up most of a Warlord's powers.
This campaign he's playing a Rogue, and it is going a bit better - all he has to do now is make sure he is flanking and use Sly Flourish, and the other players are helpful in pointing out other situations he can sneak attack in.
It seems though that the the main improvement has been that the character is optimized to hit. He hits on pretty much anything but a one thanks to 20 Dex, Weapon Expertise, Nimble Blade, and Rogue Weapon Talent (Daggers) and he has a few potions of clarity if he ever blows it.
For my newbies, I've found that frustration from missing is as big as a problem as picking powers. After the player has tried to wrap their head around what they're going to do, the effort can be wasted if they blow the die roll.
I actually recommend the Rogue for people who've played 3.5e, because they haven't actually changed much from their previous incarnation. Sure, they've got powers now, but sneak attack is still sneak attack.
Cleric, though it's changed a great deal, is probably the most intuitive leader for those who've played 3.5. While the other leaders require more tactical understanding, the 4e cleric works much the same as a 3e healing cleric--"Looks like Bob is suffering from X. which of my spells can make that go away".
For players comfortable with a great deal of complexity, but who don't have a good grasp of tactics, the chaos sorcerer is great. Lot's of fiddly bits, but they're all random--tactics doesn't do you a lot of good.
__________________ In California? Enjoy gaming? Then you don't want to miss PolyCon.
On the topic of intro games, I'm about to run a 3rd level test-run for some guys; most are 3.5 vets, one has barely ever played D&D before. So I'm deciding what classes to do as pregens.
Spoiler:
So far I'm considering Barbarian and Avenger for strikers, Artificer and perhaps Cleric or Bard for leaders, a Druid and something else for controllers... I was tempted to use Psion, but I think it's a bit more complex than I'd like to introduce at first.
Spoiler:
Sorcerer and Ranger are the most straightforward strikers, though Barbarian and Avenger are #3 and #4. I'd avoid Warlock and Rogue. I'd say Valor Bard is the most intuitive Leader, with Cleric close behind. Druid works for controller, as does the damage focused blaster Wizard(which is actually one of the simplest characters in the game to play). For Defender, I'd go Shielding Swordmage or Warden.
One approach you might consider would be to introduce features of the class over time. Say with a ranger, start them off with one ranged and one melee at-will, maybe one encounter power, and that's it. Save prime shot and the rest until they're getting halfway towards 2nd level or something?
If you put them up against similarly simplified enemies, it should balance out okay (and if they're still learning, the first encounter at least should be made small).
I think this'd be easier than making up a new class, since all the powers you need are well established. I think choosing a very small subset to start with is a way to simplify that makes it easier to add things in later, rather than have to teach them a new class.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but since the question is somewhat related I feel I can ask it here. What are the most difficult classes to play in 4e? The class (or race/class combo) you would absolutely not recommend to new players.
__________________ The river sparkles and dances on the rocks.
At night, it flows deep and strong.
As many others said, I'd go for the basic bow ranger. Thematically, you can explain it to someone in one word which just about anyone will get immediately: "Legolas". Tactically speaking, almost anybody can stand there and Twin Strike every round. They can start to experiment with the more advanced tactics and features of the class later. But to start out, just standing behind the other good guys and shooting the closest bad guy until all the bad guys are dead is pretty darn simple, and can be reasonably effective even if they're not doing any fancy/tricky stuff.
To the question of most complex class, I'd say that you wouldn't want to put a newbie behind the wheel of a shaman. That's a pretty fiddly class. I'd steer clear of warlords, bards, avengers, swordmages, or any of the controllers, too.
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
I would agree with the Shaman being one of the more complicated classes, along with the Psion - purely because their mechanics diverge from the typical, and so they don't give a good scope as to what to expect.
Also I think the Warden shouldn't be handed to a newbie, or even a 4e newbie. Namely because the Warden doesn't rock until you learn how to work a defender; they are pure defense, very little offense, and that can really be unappealing to someone anticipating to be a warrior. If you treat it like a "Run up and hit stuff" class, it's the most disappointing, and thus will give the worst impression.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
