Would D&D be easier if...

[Wombat]

For a simpler, more easy-to-teach game, I would look to Green Ronin's True 20.

Streamlined mechanics, only one type of die used ever, three classes -- I have showed this to several non-gaming friends and they found it far more accesable than the PHB.

 

[The Grackle]

Would D&D be easier to play (and learn for noobs) if there were more classes and fewer feats?

I think it would be about the same learning curve either way.

Otherwise it's just a matter of taste. Me, I'd like it if they had more feat trees and fewer goofy prestige classes.

 

[Zappo]

If I had to make a beginner book, I'd make it so that characters created with it were compatible with the full game, and yet more simple. A way to do this would be:
- Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric. Only. You can multiclass, though.
- Fighter doesn't get to choose extra feats. They are pre-chosen for him.
- Little-used spells get cut from the wizard list.
- Wizard doesn't get to choose new spells. They are pre-chosen for him.
- Cleric list is drastically reduced.
- Skills that see little use are removed, as are crafting skills.
- Combat options are reduced.
- If at all possible, make a single book that has all of the above, a bunch of monsters, a DM advice chapter, a (vastly reduced) magic item list, and a short adventure.

 

[Maggan]

D&DForDummies or Basic?

I think D&D would be easier to learn if Wizards made a book that was actually designbed for beginners......

I taket it D&D For Dummies wasn't that then? Nor the D&D Basic set? A shame really, but at least they are trying at WotC.

/m

 

[S'mon]

This is something I like about C&C - loads of classes, no PrCs or multiclassing.

 

[Zander]

PrCs put new players off. They see these classes but they can't take them until they've got several levels in another class, one they're not interested in.

In many cases, it doesn't make sense that a core version doesn't exist. Why, for example, can't a PC be an assassin from the beginning?

I wish that 3.x had not attempted to emulate WFRP's career progression. It works OK in WFRP but not in D&D.

 

[Aeric]

I taket it D&D For Dummies wasn't that then? Nor the D&D Basic set? A shame really, but at least they are trying at WotC.

/m

D&D for Dummies was basically a guide for min/maxing your character. It was a real disappointment.

 

[amethal]

Zander, was that a serious post?

PrCs put new players off. They see these classes but they can't take them until they've got several levels in another class, one they're not interested in.

Possibly new players shouldn't be reading the DMG? They might find it easier if they concentrated on the PH, at least to start with.

Also, if none of the core classes interest them then perhaps they should consider playing a different RPG.

In many cases, it doesn't make sense that a core version doesn't exist. Why, for example, can't a PC be an assassin from the beginning?

A PC CAN be an assassin from the beginning. A PC could also be an archer, a healer, a lion tamer, a burglar or almost anything else. The D&D system of classes / skills / feats is very flexible.

If what you put in the box marked "class" on the character sheet is so important, I'm sure a tolerant DM will let you write "assassin" instead of "rogue" if it makes you happy.

I wish that 3.x had not attempted to emulate WFRP's career progression. It works OK in WFRP but not in D&D.

I've often wanted to start a thread about how d20 is derived from WHFRP. Possibly I'll do a review of D&D and use that as an opportunity to showcase my opinions.

 

[JoeGKushner]

According to the Dummies book and the starer boxed set, it's all about limiting options. Take away non-core classes leaving only the cleric, fighter, rogue and sorcerer and not providing every feat and spell and you've got choices narrowed down.

The core book spends about a 3rd of it on spells and probably another 3rd on various info that's not game related. The actual amount of time spent on the mechanics is relatively narrow.

 

[danzig138]

No, I don't think it would be easier. Then, I don't think it's that hard to learn in the first place. None of my group had any difficulty picking it up, and some of them aren't the brightest bulbs in the box.
I like feats, I like prestige classes. It's much less hassle explaining to my players why a certain prestige class isn't available that explaining why a core class isn't available. Adding a bunch of base/core classes reminds me to much of 1E/2E, especially Dragon, when there were new classes available all the time. Man, I don't miss telling people that the Uber-Samurai/Ninja/Jester/God-whatever isn't available to them.