Would D&D be easier if...

Buttercup said:
That's all interesting stuff, Greg. But I think it would just intimidate or overwhelm new players. I've taught several people to play 3e, and they all felt overwhelmed by the base classes. :)

See, in my experience,they are intimidated and or frustrated, because many common archetypes are not included as DND focuses on its own archetypes. Therefore, concepts end up being fudged , inadequately in my opinion, with either multiclassing or pidgeonhole a concept into a DND class not meant for the archetype
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Umm.. sorry. I don't want to see WOTC put out a DnD-Lite for new players. I can just imagine the confusion on the boards when a new thread comes in...:
RE: New Post said:
Sorry New_Guy, which rules set are you useing? 3.0, 3.5. True D20, 3.x-Lite?...

The way I handle new players is to talk to them about what they want to play without any books nearby, then figure out how to best suit thier desires with the rules available.

The whole concept of mentoring and training new blood goes beyond the bounds of the workplace!

Works for me :)
 

Greg K said:
See my experience is that they are intimidated and or frustrated, because many common archetypes are not included , because DND focuses on its own archetypes. Therefore, concepts have to try to fudged , inadequately in my opinion, with multiclassing or pidgeonhole a concept into a DND class not meant for the archetype

New players are frustrated because an archtyype isn't included? In my experience new players are overwhelmed by more then a handful of choices. I haven't come across any new players in 25 years thay complained an archtype wasn't included. Most gravitate towards fighters, mages or thieves (yeah rogues) since they are very easy character concepts to grasp. I recall a little difficultyy with a TFT player who had never played D&D back around 82 or so, he wanted to play a two weapon duelist sort, the game didn't easily support that then as it does now.
 

I don't think the problem has anything to do with too many options.
It's not that there are too many feats, PrC's, what have you.
The problem is that there is very little material that tells a newbie what to do with all these bits.

Eliminating classes, or races, or feats is going in the wrong direction. People love diversity and options. That's one of the things WotC has done right with 3.x giving people more options is a good thing.

The key is letting them know that those options exist, and how those options can benefit them.
Look at the field of consumer electronics.
My father is NOT electronicl talented. I had purchased him numerous different VCR's, and he rarely made it past being able to play pre-recorded tapes. In some cases, he would barely do even that, because while the machine was loaded with options and features, he had NO idea how to use those features!
Finally I found a simpler model machine. It had all the same options, but everything was accessible through one button on the remote. The menus were clear and easy to understand.
With the more user-friendly machine my dad can now record programs, watch movies - heck, he even managed to set the clock!

D&D needs a "One-Touch" feature for D&D.
Maybe a companion book, or alternate PHB that comes right out and says "This is what the fighter class does."
You know, kind of a "Here are several styles of fighter - the Tank, the nimble warrior, the exotic weapon master, etc"
Then the book should go further and say things like "If you want to play the Tank, you want STR X, and CON X, etc. Choose X Feats and Y Skills and at each level, here are the viable choices for you."

They kind of did this with the "Starting Packages" in the PHB, but for a real basic/newbie game, they needed to be much more plain, and in-your-face.
I had hoped that the often maligned Hero Builders Guidebook would be such a product, but it just didn't work out like that.
The Power Gamer's guides are similar, but they go too far into the esoterica IMO.
A new player doesn't need to be min-maxed, just have a functional PC that they understand.

A newbie's guide also needs a section telling the player how to play their PC.
"If you are playing the Healing Cleric Archetype you will need to do thus and so. Heal your allies at such and such a time. And heal them in this order, using these spells under these conditions. ie. Heal the fighter first, and if his hp are at 1/2, use a Cure X Wounds.
Solid, basic dungeon adventuing advice that most of us picked up on the fly as we were taught by other players. Things like
The Tank goes in the front of the party.
Never split the party up.
Always save at least one healing potion, etc.

Obviously, there should also be a similar section for DM's telling them similar basic info.
"If your party is composed of W, X, Y, and Z then a reasonable challenge for this level is Q."

It's not that the game is too hard. Young kids are capable of picking up some fairly complex games. I have played enough Civilization 3 and MtG with tweens to know this!
But to do so they need solid advice and examples.
Fill a book with that kind of material, and they will make excellent use of the Core 3 books.
 

Greg K said:
See, in my experience,they are intimidated and or frustrated, because many common archetypes are not included as DND focuses on its own archetypes. Therefore, concepts end up being fudged , inadequately in my opinion, with either multiclassing or pidgeonhole a concept into a DND class not meant for the archetype

A good DM fixes all of that. Most archtypes can be done with the proper window dressing.
 

JamesDJarvis said:
New players are frustrated because an archtyype isn't included? .

Yes, I have had new players describe a robin hood, a legolas type character and even a "jungle" barbarian that did not rage. The natural thing to do is turn to the barbarian and ranger, because the wilderness skills make the classes seem appropriate until the remaining class features come into picture. So basically, they would have been better served by the barbarian hunter variant, a wilderness (rather than thug) variant of the fighter, and the the wilderness rogue variant although not necessarily in that order. I have even had a new player describe the battle sorceror variant.


And as a DM, I too would have preferred more variant classes and the base classes that I described avaible from the start. Until UA, I would never run a DND campaign despite having the core books since their initial 3.0 release. The classes and variants I wanted to run the campaign I that I wanted were not available in the core books. Some will argue that the mechanics were there with multiclassing and cross class skills, but as I have said before, I think that is a kludge that penalizes players as is making them wait for certain PrCs.

Note: I always felt comfortable making changes along the lines of the Thug variant of fighter, the wilderness rogue, or making changes to the spell list. It was changing other special class features that I never felt comfortable with. And I know other DMs from other boards that never felt comfortable even making any changes to class features, because the player handbook and DMG did not contain enough examples and guidelines.
 
Last edited:

Tinner said:
D&D needs a "One-Touch" feature for D&D.
Maybe a companion book, or alternate PHB that comes right out and says "This is what the fighter class does."
You know, kind of a "Here are several styles of fighter - the Tank, the nimble warrior, the exotic weapon master, etc"
Then the book should go further and say things like "If you want to play the Tank, you want STR X, and CON X, etc. Choose X Feats and Y Skills and at each level, here are the viable choices for you."

They kind of did this with the "Starting Packages" in the PHB, but for a real basic/newbie game, they needed to be much more plain, and in-your-face.
I had hoped that the often maligned Hero Builders Guidebook would be such a product, but it just didn't work out like that.
The Power Gamer's guides are similar, but they go too far into the esoterica IMO.
A new player doesn't need to be min-maxed, just have a functional PC that they understand.

I agree, but I also wanted to see them exand upon the Thug example under character customization in the PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110) and provide multiple examples for each class. I am thankful for the examples in the UA, but, mo,they belonged in the Hero Builder's Guide and/or the splatbooks.
 

Greg K said:
See, in my experience,they are intimidated and or frustrated, because many common archetypes are not included as DND focuses on its own archetypes. Therefore, concepts end up being fudged , inadequately in my opinion, with either multiclassing or pidgeonhole a concept into a DND class not meant for the archetype

Then our experiences are pretty different. :) I haven't ever had a problem helping a new player create the character they had conceived of, using just the base classes. Heck, I haven't even had to use all of those. (Monk, for instance, seems to me like it doesn't really fit the standard pseudo medieval western European feel of classic fantasy.)
 

Greg K said:
Yes, I have had new players describe a robin hood, a legolas type character and even a "jungle" barbarian that did not rage.

For Robin Hood or Legolas, a high dexterity fighter with all the bow feats, and perhaps I'd also substitute tumble for intimidate as a class skill. Maybe throw in a few levels of ranger too. For a jungle barbarian, hmm. fighter/druid perhaps, or maybe fighter/ranger again.

I agree with Crothian that most of the archetypes can be simulated with window dressing.
 

Buttercup said:
For Robin Hood or Legolas, a high dexterity fighter with all the bow feats, and perhaps I'd also substitute tumble for intimidate as a class skill. Maybe throw in a few levels of ranger too. For a jungle barbarian, hmm. fighter/druid perhaps, or maybe fighter/ranger again.

I agree with Crothian that most of the archetypes can be simulated with window dressing.

the multiclass of fighter/ranger, imo, penalizes the player for his concept unless the Dm uses a variant similar to the Thug fighter variant. It is not as if the player said his character jumped over to fighter and ignored the outdoors aspect of his character, but the rules act as is that is the case buy requiring the player to treat the outdoor skills as cross class.
 

Remove ads

Top