The last thing I want is for new players to think that they can accomplish something without earning it.
The notion that players should have to "earn" their enjoyment is nonsense
I'm with Dannager on this one.
D&D is an entertainment - a game - and it should be able to provide enjoyment in play to new players who take the effort to learn the rules. That's not to say that there can't be better or worse play (although probably not to the same degree of contrast between inexperienced and expert as exists in chess, say). But it has to be fun to play out of the box.
In this respect, I don't think D&D is ever going to be quite like learning a musical instrument or how to play golf, where you start out sucking but through dedicated application you become able to do something at least a little bit worthwhile. Because with these things, even at the start there is a pleasure - a pleasure in your own creativity, on the musical side, and various types of physical pleasure (as well as the company of friends, etc) on the sporting side.
D&D needs to provide pleasure at the start. If that is the pleasure of creativity, then 1st level PCs need to be viable vehicles for creativity. If this is the pleasure of overcoming challenges, then 1st level PCs need to be viable vehicles for taking on challenges, even for those who have just learned the rules.
The sense of accomplishment you get when playing rpgs comes from overcoming challenges.
This is contentious. I mean, there is a well-known RPG site (The Forge) the whole premise of which is that there are at least
three identifiable and distinct ways to gain a sense of accomplishment from playing an RPG, of which overcoming challenges is only one. (The Forge calls it
gamism. The other two species of accomplishent that The Forge identifies are the accomplishment of "being there" in the fiction - they call that
simulationism - and the accomplishment of creating a literarily worthwhile story via play - they call that
narrativism.)
This is true in any game, really. I don't think that beginning tennis players should be firing aces, or beginning poker players should be capable of winning money against experienced ones. Likewise, I don't believe that beginning D&D characters should be capable of shooting infinite magic bolts or defeating competent opponents in combat.
You seem here to be running together players and PCs.
Beginning tennis players don't play very well, but they can still enjoy playing, because they still get to do (in a novice way) the sort of stuff that social tennis is about - hitting the ball, enjoying physicality, hanging out with their friends, etc.
Beginning D&D players won't play very well, either. In a tactically-oriented game they'll have trouble coordinating with one another and will miss opportunities and make bad action choices. (If the PC build rules are complex enough, they'll also make bad choices at build relative to their goals for their PCs.) In a story-oriented game they'll be timid and shy and hesitant in seeing the opportunity for theme and following it, and new GMs will tend to be railroady and shut down their players and generally be afraid of letting ingame events develop their own dynamics.
But none of this is possible if their playing pieces - their PCs - are mechanically incapable. New musicians don't start with instruments that don't work. New sports players don't start with broken golf clubs or racquets without strings. New D&D players need PCs that work too, and that are
capable of being played well - whatever exactly
playing well means for a particular group.
