Would D&D be easier if...

[Aust Diamondew]

I'd rather see fewer classes and more feats (well not more feats anymore, I think I have enough now but I just mean expanding off of the PHB). For beginners fewer classes (just fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric) and just the PHB feat list seems good to me.

I dislike PRCs (not the topic of the thread so I won't go there) and I definitley feel that noobs shouldn't have to deal with them.

 

[Catavarie]

To me it doesn't much matter if the gae I'm playing is based on Classes, Skills, Feats, or whatever else, although for class based game I have to say I think that RIFTS does an excellent job in creating well defined classes (let the flame begin), for skills based system GURPS isn't bad, but as for D&D I think having a mix of various forms together is a good thing, although I do find it odd that any class can use any skill so long as they wish to put the points to it, but thats just me.

 

[survivesurvivor]

overwhelmed too!!

I'm a totally new player and agrees that the Player's Handbook is just too overwhelming, just a few pages in and i went like, totally 'huh???'

Luckily, I was recommended the Dummie's Guide which pointed me in the right directions, but it's more of a 'translator'-ish book, and also a somewhat incomplete book in the sense that you had to keep referring to the Player's Handbook and so on.

Perhaps WoTC could come up with a book (even better if it's not a Dummie's book, sheesh ) that you could buy for someone as a christmas/b'day etc present that would teach DnD WITHOUT the need to go hunt for all the different Core Books.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm a totally new player and agrees that the Player's Handbook is just too overwhelming, just a few pages in and i went like, totally 'huh???'

Luckily, I was recommended the Dummie's Guide which pointed me in the right directions, but it's more of a 'translator'-ish book, and also a somewhat incomplete book in the sense that you had to keep referring to the Player's Handbook and so on.

Perhaps WoTC could come up with a book (even better if it's not a Dummie's book, sheesh ) that you could buy for someone as a christmas/b'day etc present that would teach DnD WITHOUT the need to go hunt for all the different Core Books.

Then I guess the D&D Basic Game isn't that much of a successful thing to introduce total newbies who have no way of finding a regular D&D group nearby.

 

[Buttercup]

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.

I'm just not seeing it. A Thug could easily be created from the basic fighter. In fact I've already done that for a new player, maybe two years ago. And I don't see how multiclassing penalizes the player.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[JamesDJarvis]

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

Robninhood & Legolas - Ranger or archery maxed outy fighter. Jungle Barbarian that doesn't rage- Fighter or Ranger. Maybne Rogue for Robninhood or the Jungle Fighter, sneak up to target and fill with arrows from hiding.

 

[Greg K]

Maybne Rogue for Robninhood or the Jungle Fighter, sneak up to target and fill with arrows from hiding.

I would say wilderness rogue variant as the outdoor skills are key to the concept and backgroup.

 

[Greg K]

I'm just not seeing it. A Thug could easily be created from the basic fighter. In fact I've already done that for a new player, maybe two years ago. And I don't see how multiclassing penalizes the player. .

Actually, the thug can now be done better in 3.5 as the class now has Intimidate as a class skill. I would just swap out Handle Animal for Knowledge (local) if the player asked.