Introducing New Player to Epic Campaign

[nogray]

I am DMing a long-running campaign that has made it into the epic tier. After making it to 25th level, the group took a break from playing that campaign, including recently playing a bit of Dungeon World. During those Dungeon World sessions, we introduced a new player to the group (and roleplaying games, in general). Now that the group will be rotating back to my epic campaign, I started thinking of how to introduce this new player to the complexities of playing 4e at epic level as well as the ongoing storyline, and I had a bit of an idea as to how to proceed.

My idea was to replay certain key moments in the campaign at various levels, reimagined as delves of three or so encounters with a skill challenge and roleplaying component, of course. Pretty much a session or so at each key level. The other players seemed enthusiastic about the idea, as it will give them a chance to re-acclimate themselves with the characters and rules and revisit some of their favorite campaign-defining moments.

My question to the forum is, then, at what levels do you feel we should play? I thought a couple levels per tier would be sufficient to allow for learning the increasing complexity of the character, plus allow for the player to make tweaks to the mechanics so that the concept is reflected appropriately and the character plays to satisfaction. My first instinct is maybe a total of five distinct levels.

A quick rundown of my initial idea: 3rd (a couple encounter powers to play with, but still pretty simple), 6th (a couple encounters and dailies are available, with magic items starting to fill out), 11th (new paragon path and action point antics), 16th (late paragon buffs and abilities coming online), and 21st (epic destiny choice and initial buff and pretty much all the complexity that you get).

I was already planning on assisting the new player with character creation and making some "cheat sheets" for playing the character, and I am considering the possible benefits (and drawbacks) of an essentials-style character as an option if it is possible to fit the new player's concept to one of those classes.

Thank you for your time and any forthcoming input.

Highest regards,
nogray

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's often seemed to me that the most significant levels are those ending in 1 & 6 (not that any levels are 'dead'). 1st, obviously, hello, welcome to your character. By 6th you're rounded-out with two each of encounter, daily & utility. 11th & 16th pick up PP features. 21st, obviously, starts your epic destiny.

I've had players drop into paragon and even epic games, though, it is doable, even without being eased into it in any way - beyond having a pregen ready for them, that is.

 

[S'mon]

I've had players drop into paragon and even epic games, though, it is doable, even without being eased into it in any way - beyond having a pregen ready for them, that is.

Yeah, I had a player do well entering play with a ca 22nd level Warlock! Depends on the player.

 

[Raith5]

Replaying earlier scenes is a nice idea if you have the time. I think early paragon is where things really step up in the number of choices/powers.

But I think a lot depends on class/role you get the newbie to play. Some classes are so much easier than others, and this becomes a big issue in epic. But 4E upset the old idea that fighters are simple classes. The fighter in my epic campaign is probably the most complex in the party and has so many choices and a character sheet that requires a microscope to read. My guess is that strikers, especially martial types of strikers, may be the best to get starters to play. I think defenders require a lot of knowledge of positioning and keeping track of enemy movement, etc. Leaders maybe a possibility but tend to become a party resource ("heal me now!") which may be annoying to a new player or an advantage to a new player.

 

[MwaO]

If I were going to start a player off in Epic, I'd go with one of the less complex Strikers - Ranger, Sorcerer, possibly hybrided to a class that fixed some of the basic issues without costing too many feats and allowing options if they feel up to it. Dex/Cha Sorcerer|Cavalier as an example is a fun build. The aura doesn't do a lot, but it gets the player used to the idea that targets can't shift near him. Or Ranger|Cleric with Battle Cleric's Lore. Again, nothing too complicated, but lets the player think about the usefulness of healing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But I think a lot depends on class/role you get the newbie to play. Some classes are so much easier than others, and this becomes a big issue in epic.

Not hugely so, I don't think, at least, not by as much as in the past...

But 4E upset the old idea that fighters are simple classes.

3.x did that. Especially if you consider building the character, I considered the Barbarian the 3e 'starter class.' For 4e, it was the archer-ranger (PH) and later the Slayer (E) then, briefly towards the end, the Elemental Sorcerer (HotEC) became a plausible simple option.

My guess is that strikers, especially martial types of strikers, may be the best to get starters to play. I think defenders require a lot of knowledge of positioning and keeping track of enemy movement, etc. Leaders maybe a possibility but tend to become a party resource ("heal me now!") which may be annoying to a new player or an advantage to a new player.

The complexity ladder of roles prettymuch goes Striker < Defender < Leader < Controller. Defenders can provide fairly deep play, bordering on that of a controller depending on build, but they can also be effective enough as straightforward tanks that just take on the meanest thing in the fight and don't look back. Leaders have to pay attention not just to what they can do, but what everyone else might optimally be able to do and what condition they're in. Controllers typically just plain have more options than everyone else, and they have to watch out for allies getting in their way and screwing up their control (you immobilize bunch of melee mobs and the darn fighter just runs up to them! argh!), every bit as much as anticipating and dealing with enemies.

 

[Garthanos]

Leaders maybe a possibility but tend to become a party resource ("heal me now!") which may be annoying to a new player or an advantage to a new player.

Looks at the Warlord class with all its action economy manipulations and chess board like positioning tricks... well maybe not all Leaders

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Looks at the Warlord class with all its action economy manipulations and chess board like positioning tricks... well maybe not all Leaders

heh, Warlords are child's play compared to a Shaman. I hardly dare to even mutter 'Runepriest'.

 

[Garthanos]

heh, Warlords are child's play compared to a Shaman. I hardly dare to even mutter 'Runepriest'.

My daughters shaman is still late heroic tier ....

 

[MwaO]

heh, Warlords are child's play compared to a Shaman. I hardly dare to even mutter 'Runepriest'.

Runepriests are why we have 5e…