Easy-Go Classes for Beginners?

[Wepwawet]

... Due to his wife getting pregnant though, we lost him as a player after one campaign.

Talk about hungry pregnant women...

 

[arscott]

With the right power choices, I think the Wizard is actually the easiest PHB class--It doesn't have any special complicated mechanics like marking or quarry, or channel divinity. Just point your implement and boom!

In PHB2, the sorcerer, for pretty much the same reason.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I haven't really seen this problem thus far. I just started playing in a new game, wherein two of the members had never played 4e and one guy had never played a (TT)RPG before and they were honestly fine. The newb is playing a dwarven fighter and seems thrilled with the character. Of course, they're not 100% efficient with their characters (we've only played one session so far) but they handled them respectably.

If a player feels intimidated by class complexity, one idea would be to let them play a monster NPC for a session or two. You'd need a tweak or two to make it work properly (they'd need PC equivalent healing surges for starters, but those shouldn't be difficult to assign based on role). I don't think there is anything easier to run in 4e than a monster.

 

[lutecius]

the wizard is more complicated than, say, the rogue.

Not by much. I don't think the wizard is particularly complicated compared to other 4e classes and of course, previous edition wizards.

I don't want to say 4E is 'dumbed down' but it is much less complex IMHO than some of the previous iterations of character building

this.

Except that I don't think anyone who has played the game longer than three sessions would enjoy that.

Aside from serious newbies who are intimidated by options, I just cannot conceive of players who want fewer choices.

and this.

Of course newcomers could use some guidance in character creation, but I don't believe the problem is the abundance of options in play. I think the difficulty for beginners lies in all the marks and conditions during combat, and that affects every character.

 

[amysrevenge]

I'd agree with some that once it's actually built, the wizard is pretty simple to play. At least if you play it as a striker-secondary blaster. It can be a bit more complicated to play an honest-to-God controller wizard.

But really, there are any number of classes that are reasonably simple to play (although they all have a lot of choices during character creation, the number of options goes way down once you actually start play).

Paladin. The mark is pretty straightforward, and the powers can be chosen to be simple.

Cleric. All you have are attack powers and a heal.

Rogue. Other than the presence or absence of combat advantage, your powers are all straightforward.

Wizard. The only tricky bit can be keeping your allies out of your blasts/bursts.

Swordmage. Some of the powers are tricky, and the teleporting aegises (sp?) can be a bit much for a newb, but a shielding swordmage can be built for simplicity fairly easily.

Ranger. Archer is easier because you don't have to keep your main and off-hand weapon stats separate.

Sorcerer. Blast away. You can choose a power suite with fewer lingering effects (the one I play specifically aims for the ones that have further effects triggered on subsequent turns) and stay away from chaos, but there is room in the class for a simple blaster.


It would also be good to keep the races simple too. Genasi can be complicated, for instance. Including a consideration for roleplay, the simplest races include:

Human, duh.

Halflings and Elves get simple reroll racial powers - easy enough.

The dragonborn breath attack is simple enough, but many people, even experienced ones, forget the attack bonus while bloodied.

Dwarf - simple.

Half-orc is pretty simple.



The main point I'd like to make, though, is that if the character is already made for the new person (or at least an experienced person helps with the creation), then a simple-enough character can be made from any of several classes, even some classes for which there are other more complicated options that are avoided.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Hmm. Perhaps my experience with newcomers is abnormal, then. It appears, at least judging by these replies, that the need for such a class may not be as widespread as I'd thought.

 

[Reigan]

I started up a group new to role playing to play 4e. It seems patience, plenty of advice and letting them learn from their own mistakes rather than messing with the rules is the best approach. Anyway, you would need a whole bunch of simple classes for a group like this.

And different coloured dice, those d20s & d12s look so alike, even after 3 months. Doh.

 

[Fifth Element]

But there's one thing about the game that does bug me a little, and it's this. In every prior edition, there were always a few deliberately simple options for someone brand new to the game, who hadn't yet gotten their minds around the rules. You could always hand the newcomer the fighter or the thief/rogue and say "Go." Perhaps they wouldn't be using the class to its full potential, but there was a minimum of difficulty in learning how to use it, and--for those intimidated by character creation (something that I have seen more than once), a minimum of choices to make.

There's no "beginner class" in 4E. Oh, certainly the PHB2 classes are a bit more complex than those in the first PHB, and the wizard is more complicated than, say, the rogue. But there's nothing you can just hand someone who's barely learned the combat rules and say "Play this." The two old standbys, the fighter and the rogue, have their own complexities--the combat challenge, maneuvering for sneak attack, etc.--and, of course their vast array of powers.

Well, similar to the above if the rogue's not getting sneak attack very often then they're not using the class to its "full potential" as you say. That doesn't mean they can't play the class.

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.

 

[Fifth Element]

Hmm. Perhaps my experience with newcomers is abnormal, then. It appears, at least judging by these replies, that the need for such a class may not be as widespread as I'd thought.

Dude, this is the internet. Your opinion, once given, cannot be revised or rescinded.

 

[Imaro]

Hmm. Perhaps my experience with newcomers is abnormal, then. It appears, at least judging by these replies, that the need for such a class may not be as widespread as I'd thought.

Well Ari I'll be the dissenting voice and say I think you're right. I lost a player when I decided to try out 4e. Now in 3.5 he always and I mean literally always played a half-orc barbarian or fighter. He was what I would definitely consider a casual player... didn't read the books between games, or plan out builds, but just wanted a simple character to have fun with friends, roll some dice and kill monsters with, all with a minimal expenditure of complication. He did a little roleplaying, always made us laugh and was in general a fun guy to game with.

When we play tested 4e, I gave him a pre-made Dwarf-Fighter and he ended up quitting the group. Seriously after one game session. I mean choosing whether it's the right time to use a daily or an encounter or an at-will... and if it's an at-will what at-will and who should he mark, and what positioning as a "defender" should he take, and how to manipulate terrain in the best way... well let's just say after a hard week of work I don't think he wanted this much complexity in what had originally been a pretty easy character to play.

Now I know many people don't understand why someone would like less options, but for some gamers the investment in learning what all of these options do as well as how and when best to use them not to mention the multi-layered decision making process of choosing them, etc. just isn't worth the reward. I think of it as akin to checkers and chess... in earlier editions one could play either one depending on choice of class and still have a good time with friends. Now however, it feels like chess is the only option, and just like in the real world it's not everyone's cup of tea for fun. Honestly, in the end it's imaginary warriors killing imaginary monsters, and how complex you want that to be is all subjective.

Note: for those who claim... if you aren't willing to put in the work, or don't enjoy the complexity you shouldn't be playing...let's just remember that before (in all previous editions) you had the choice to engage elevated complexity or not... now for the first time there isn't a choice.