Easy-Go Classes for Beginners?
- Thread starter Mouseferatu
- Start date
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.
[sblock]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.[/sblock]
[sblock]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.[/sblock]
Last edited:
amysrevenge
First Post
[sblock]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.[/sblock]
jasonbostwick
Explorer
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.
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.
arscott
First Post
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.
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.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
[sblock]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.[/sblock]
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.
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.
Psionicist
Explorer
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.
firesnakearies
Explorer
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.
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.
What's so fiddly about the avenger?
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.
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.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
