You are making the false assumptions that just because you are playing a rogue you would *have to* do those things and that it would be "stressful". That is a completely subjective statement from your side.
The assumption is "if you have skills, you're expected to use them". What this means depends what skills you have.
You are making the false assumptions that just because you are playing a rogue you would *have to* do those things and that it would be "stressful". That is a completely subjective statement from your side.
The assumption is "if you have skills, you're expected to use them". What this means depends what skills you have.
Whereas it should really be "if you have skills, you are welcome to use them". So unless the other players or DM actually force another player to do stuff they don't want to (in which case I would leave that group) there is nothing that says that you must use a particular skill.
Whereas it should really be "if you have skills, you are welcome to use them". So unless the other players or DM actually force another player to do stuff they don't want to (in which case I would leave that group) there is nothing that says that you must use a particular skill.
So let's say that you have chosen to play a rogue, you come upon a chest in the dungeon, as a newbie, would you feel natural to say "I don't feel like opening the chest" and let the others do it when they do not have the skill ? Remember, you choose to play the rogue so, in a collaborative game like D&D, it is assumed by the group that you will play your role... It's not a question of forcing any one, but no-one forced you to play a rogue either, you could have made another choice that would have been better for the overall group if you did not want to assume that particular role...
Well, you were the one making the assumption that a player wouldn't want to use their skills so the question is, why do you as a player feel that it's to force another to do something theyäre not comfortable with? That's just bullying.
Also you somehow seem to think that there is only one way to play your class? You do realize that just because you play a rogue doesn't mean you have to play a stereotypical thief wearing black leather skulking in the shadows? I mean, if that's how you have played the last three decades and that's all you ever want to play, by all means. I'm just saying that roleplaying has developed quite a bit since then and not everyone wants to play that same old cliché.
Edit: Oh and the fighter has to learn when to and when not to rush the enemy. That is something a DM is less likely to help advise regarding.
Yeah, but the fighter is very likely to survive if their noob player makes that mistake. The class is very forgiving of mistakes made out of ignorance.
Actually, I think I'll make a summary in the three areas of the game to summarise the position:
Combat:
A bit easier/simpler for the fighter, both need melee tactics but the fighter does not have to deal with squishiness, making sure that the sneak attack goes off, and the necessary (due to the two previous points) mobility.
Exploration
Much easier for the fighter who does not have to participate except as any member of the group, much harder for the rogue who has a tendency to be alone to deal with stealth complexity as well as all the exploration skill checks and "genre" situations of alarms, traps, locks, etc.
Social
Equal. If there was still a strong call for a social rogue / face of the party, I would actually say that it can be a bit harder for a newbie to deal with those and the corresponding checks, but not only has that role almost disappeard in favor of the bard, but if someone wanted to play it, he would probably be comfortable and not a newbie anyway so I'll leave it at that.
I'm not certain why you are making the assumption that both would be melee characters when both make fine archers. A ranged rogue does have an easier time getting sneak attack since the target simply needs one of its enemies within 5 ft to trigger. The suggestion to simply "attack the same creature that the fighter (or other melee character) does" is sound for a beginner. Each class has nuance and I'll agree that the nuance can be greater for the rogue, especially if the fighter is a champion.
If the DM/party have the new player's best interests in mind and are wanting to help the new player learn, they'll water down some of the challenge, model different aspects of play through their own play, and otherwise help the player keep track of things, particularly during the early stages of tier 1. Keep the adventure shorter so that the players that want more nuance can focus on helping the new player with the curve and then move onto the next adventure with a few more rules in place. That's part of the reason why Lost Mine of Phandelver is such a popular starter module.
If the entire party is new, (especially if the DM is also new) then everything will be watered down regardless because of a lack of knowledge of the rules.
Still, fighter, then barbarian, then a tie between rogue and monk with the rogue getting the tie breaker nod due to fewer resources to track and better ranged options would be how I would rate these overall in terms of simplicity. But I don't think the overall mechanics any of these classes are significantly more challenging than the others. Certain subclasses will be more forgiving, such as champion, swashbuckler, zealot or bear totem. I can't think of which monk subclass would be simpler off hand, which probably suggests that it's a little harder to deal with (and I'm simply not as knowledgeable about the class in general).
I agree with some of the earlier posts that ultimately the best class for a new player is one they really want to play. If someone is dead set on playing a particular class and is willing to learn how that class works, why stifle them? Of course not everyone may come to their first D&D session with a character concept and class already planned and may be more open to being suggested a good starter class. Some people prefer having many options and flexibility so they can experiment and learn while they play and some people prefer simple rules and simple mechanics to get their feet wet before trying to tackle more complex options. That being said, good suggestions for a starting class.....
Fighter seems to be a good choice for a pure martial class whether ranged or melee, especially with sub-classes like Champion.
I think a Cleric can be a good first choice for a full caster. Its a very board class but with some conversation on what the new player is looking for in a spell caster I feel that it can be tailored to a new player's interests while leaving things a bit open to experimentation as far as spell options go, should a player get the hang of the basic mechanics and want to expand a bit at later levels. Want to play a healer? Life cleric. Want to play elemental caster? Go Tempest. Want a taste of the spells known to the wizard but are a bit intimidated by the mechanics of the wizard class? Arcana cleric might be a good idea. In truth this class might still take a bit to get the hang of but I feel that the versatility can work to a new person's advantage. Just my two cents.
I feel that a Paladin could make a good first choice for someone who wishes to try out some magic but still have the back up option to whack enemies with a weapon. A dragonborn paladin was my first character in 5e and it was a lot of fun, it especially gave me a chance to get use to the change in how magic worked between 4e and 5e while not feeling useless in combat.
A bit easier/simpler for the fighter, both need melee tactics but the fighter does not have to deal with squishiness, making sure that the sneak attack goes off, and the necessary (due to the two previous points) mobility.
The statement that both need melee tactics was suggesting to me that melee would be involved. While a fighter can be far sturdier than the rogue in melee, that gap closes for ranged characters. You'll still have the d10 vs the d8 giving an extra amount of HP equal to level +1 for the fighter accompanied by the larger hit die for healing and second wind. The fighter will also have the option to go with better AC or a better hit rate (which should be the better hit rate at first level). Some of those advantages will disappear when cunning action comes online with its increased mobility, ability to disengage, or hide as a bonus action. The complexity is higher as a result (and somewhat offset by Action Surge on a limited basis). Thus, the fighter has to take an OA plus whatever attacks to regain the distance necessary for ranged attack effectiveness or lose an action disengaging (which is melee tactics, but won't always be necessary), while the rogue can attack or dash while also disengaging. I'll certainly agree that the rogue is more complex overall, but many of the complexities are going to be build and campaign dependent in how much they factor into game play.
I do like the idea of having a prefab character that the player can use to get their feet wet without having to worry about all of the choices that are made to create a character. Perhaps have a series of prefab characters to give the player some choice in playstyle with certain choices like archetype being chosen beforehand and then give the player the directive to focus on what is happening instead of what should I choose. This can be adapted to spell selections including a basic load out of spells for preparation casters to "flatten the curve".
I chose fighter, but my first real campaign i played a 5e gnome bear/eagle/eagle totem barbarian. Instead of just rage and reckless, I'd taunt or chat up my enemies while fighting. Trade barbs, insults, or even flirt.
Well, you were the one making the assumption that a player wouldn't want to use their skills so the question is, why do you as a player feel that it's to force another to do something theyäre not comfortable with? That's just bullying.
Can you please stop with the constant name-calling and strawmanning ? Thanks.
All I've done is pointing out the consequences of what you yourself has said. That is neither name-calling nor strawmanning.
And for me, either you are using those skills, and it's not that easy and requires experience that a newbie doesn't have (as everyone is telling you here) or you are not using them and it is therefore pointless to have them, and it makes no sense to claim that having them and not using them makes the class easy to play.
Now THIS, is an actual strawman. Never once have I said that you shouldn't use your class abilities (not sure how familiar you are with the current edition but "looking for traps" and "picking locks" is no longer something taht only Rogues can do) but only that being good at many things makes it easier to succeed at those things. Surely you agree with that, right?
Also you somehow seem to think that there is only one way to play your class? You do realize that just because you play a rogue doesn't mean you have to play a stereotypical thief wearing black leather skulking in the shadows? I mean, if that's how you have played the last three decades and that's all you ever want to play, by all means. I'm just saying that roleplaying has developed quite a bit since then and not everyone wants to play that same old cliché.
I've probably played more rogues than you have ever dreamt of playing, but here we are speaking about a newbie, and about choosing his first character's class. Of course it's going to be stereotypical. If the newbie knew about the subtleties of the class and all the way to play it, he would not be a newbie, would he ?
Wow, nice bullying there. Implying that everyone who hasn't played for as long as you have don't know what you are talking about. As for your newbie strawman, that is not what I was talking about. But again, if you only want to play to stereotypes and clichés, that is OK. But you must realize that it's also totally fine for everyone else to *not* play to these clichés and stereotypes.
D&D is first about stereotypes, and it's actually the main criticism levelled at it by people who consider themselves true roleplayers because they play games that are not that stereotyped.
And, speaking about clichés, let's just have a look at the presentation of the rogue class in the PH, shall we ?
Signaling for her companions to wait, a halfling creeps forward through the dungeon hall. She presses an ear to the door, then pulls out a set of tools and picks the lock in the blink of an eye. Then she disappears into the shadows as her fighter friend moves forward to kick the door open.
A human lurks in the shadows of an alley while his accomplice prepares for her part in the ambush. When their target — a notorious slaver — passes the alleyway, the accomplice cries out, the slaver comes to investigate, and the assassin’s blade cuts his throat before he can make a sound.
Suppressing a giggle, a gnome waggles her fingers and magically lifts the key ring from the guard’s belt. In a moment, the keys are in her hand, the cell door is open, and she and her companions are free to make their escape.
Can you be more cliché than this ? There is not even one hint of (for example) the social rogue which has always been a favourite of mine, in particular because the bard has become the gold standard to play these nowdays (which is why I've been playing so many bards lately, I suppose).
Again, no-one, especially not a beginner. is forced to play to those stereotypes. I honestly don't understand why you are so hung up on enforcing fixed ways of playing certain characters. Most people don't even play in the same setting and in the current edition of D&D where diversity is highly promoted, there is nothing that says that a Rogue *must* be a sneaky skulker with a cloak and dagger. If people want to play Rogues differently, that's totally fine, don't you agree?
I've snipped everything that has nothing to do with the actual subject of the thread in a last ditch attempt to keep this on-topic and did what needed to be done with the rest.
So you conviently t´don't have to respond to the accusations you throw around? Sure.
Again, no-one, especially not a beginner. is forced to play to those stereotypes. I honestly don't understand why you are so hung up on enforcing fixed ways of playing certain characters. Most people don't even play in the same setting and in the current edition of D&D where diversity is highly promoted, there is nothing that says that a Rogue *must* be a sneaky skulker with a cloak and dagger. If people want to play Rogues differently, that's totally fine, don't you agree?
First, where did I ever write that I was "enforcing" anyone to play these stereotypes ?
You have on numerous occassionspushed the agenda of stereotypes and clichés, telling people that the Rogue player should be the one scouting ahead, searching for traps and so on. Did you conviently forget that?
The only thing that I've said is that, because in this thread we are speaking of a newbie player that we are trying to help by suggesting a class that would be simpler and easier to play, nothing more,
That's not really true, ow is it?
if we are trying to make as flat a learning curve as possible, I personally will not explain in all intricate details all the possibilities of the classes. I will focus on the main features and yes, on the descriptions of the classes which happen to be fairly straightforward stereotypes. Even more stereotypical, I will often use example characters from movies or books as they are the easiest way for people to grasp how they behave.
And again, if you want to do that, that's OK. If other people want to play it differently you can't tell them they can't play that way.
I've been introducing new people to the game for something like 42 years, from 3 years old to 60+ and numbers are probably in the hundreds if not more, and it has worked really well that way. Some people feel confident enough to try and customise their characters but most just feel fine picking up the stereotype for their first experience as they know that it will already be one of the most complicated games that they have ever tried and don't want to over complicate things.
That's nice, good for you.
In the last four months and despite the Covid, I have introduced 6 new people to the game, in two different groups, and most of them took very simple archetypes. If you want the detail:
Not really, I'm more intersting in you staying on topic and at least answering the questions I've asked.
Anyway, as you can see from the above, absolute newbies all choose simple characters and fairly stereotypical ones, mostly fighting characters and in the end mostly fighter-types (I was the ones to suggest the rangers because some of them wanted to play "ranged", I did not want to have only fighters in the groups, and rangers are simple enough at very low level which is all we were aiming for with these introductory campaigns). This was well before this discussion and comes from discussing with them what type of movie/book character they would like to play, and also the fact that anyone using magic would be more complicated.
So just because the only six newbies you've played with (and who you also coaxed into your particular playstyle) chose to play a certain way, everyone else has to play the same way? Why?
I love rogues, and obviously my daughters do as well, it's just that we (rightly, I think seeing the poll and the opinions on this thread) believe that there is a clear learning curve for playing a rogue, and actually steeper if it's not stereotypical, and that people who just want to experience what is already a complex game that resembles nothing like what they have experienced before actually are very happy not to add additional complexity right at the start.
Again, your opinion and your way of playing the game. No-one is trying to take that away from you. The question is why you want to take away the same freedom for other people.
Stereotypes have their place, particularly in helping new players learn. However, not everyone learns the same way nor focuses on the same content to learn. One player may bristle at having to play a stereotyped character even while learning to play while the next one will gladly lean into that stereotype while mastering the mechanics. Neither method is wrong and I believe that both methods have been covered within the thread. There are also shades between each pole of that spectrum. If a player doesn't want complexity so that they can focus on the mechanics, then fighter is a great starter class particularly champion as it has fewer moving parts. However, it's plenty simplistic and may not engage some players enough. That's when some of the other suggestions that have been made come into play. That's why I think the best advice for a new player isn't what is the easiest class to play, but what kind of character would you like to play.
Edit: Oh and the fighter has to learn when to and when not to rush the enemy. That is something a DM is less likely to help advise regarding.
Yeah, but the fighter is very likely to survive if their noob player makes that mistake. The class is very forgiving of mistakes made out of ignorance.
^^
This is truth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think the OP was wise to put up a poll to get a simple answer, and hopefully it was helpful to them.
Perhaps the secondary (albeit unspoken) question many of us were itching to answer was, "How do we help a beginner have a good first experience playing D&D?" Or maybe "How do we help them have a good experience with a character type they are interested in?"
I think it's sort of the "question behind the question."
I remember when I first started playing D&D in the way-back-when....
My friend who was the DM told me and my more experienced friend to each make one character. My friend started to say something and the DM shot him a look. I noticed it, but had no idea what it meant. My friend must have, because he clammed up right away. The DM asked my friend to help me make my first character. I wanted to make a Greatsword wielding behemoth like Conan. The DM and my friend both convinced me to make a different character. So after about an hour we were ready to play, I had a character designed to be a longbow user.
We started playing, and within ten minutes my character had found a coin purse in a pile of junk in a desk. My character started to investigate the purse. Upon opening it, the DM told me I could see a platinum coin in the bottom of it (back then that was a fortune for a 1st level PC). I stated that my character was going to get the coin out. My friend who was the other player started to say something and the DM quickly shot him another look and informed him that his character didn’t see this happening. My friend again clammed up. The DM asked specifically if my character had put their hand into the purse. I looked at my buddy who was near about to explode keeping his mouth shut. I said, “No, I turn it upside down to shake the coin out.” The DM informed me that nothing fell out. I said that my PC looked into the bag again. The DM informed me that I could still see the coin in there. I said “Okay, I put my hand into the purse.
The purse turned out to be a Bag of Devouring (they worked differently back then) and it bit my character’s right hand off. My PC lost his right hand and almost died (he only had 6HP, that was normal back then). I was very upset (we were all kids). The DM told me that D&D was not a game where we could run around like idiots doing foolish things without consequences. Characters died. I needed to know that.
At that point our fourth finally arrived. The DM instructed each of us to make three PCs for the real adventure that was about to start.
I realized that my DM has been doing me a favor. I learned that PCs died, and that I shouldn’t get too attached to them so quickly. By having me make that first PC as something other than what I really wanted, I was spared the hurt of that experience happening to a character I was really attached to. I learned a lot about D&D, education, and friendship that day.
I hope something from the story of that experience is helpful in some way.
This is a great story too. +1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I think fighters can be incredibly simple to play. unless you're an eldritch knight, you have no spells, and it's just the weapon attacks you can focus on. monks, on the other hand, still don't really get spells, but have many complicated features if you're new to D&D
The best class for any player is the one they want to play.
Lay out the basic four. Give them a rough outline of what they do.
Start playing. They will pick it up because its who they want to be.
If they want to whack things, let them.
If they want to cast spells, let them.
If you hand a Fighter to a Harry Potter fan, they will get disenchanted quick. Especially when a different player gets to be a wizard.
This, from back on page 1, is sound advice but doesn’t fully answer the question asked. Of the 4 choices starting with a L1 character fighter would be my choice of simplest to pick up the game mechanics with. At L1 no class is very complex and there aren’t many “moving parts” to get confused by. The problems start to show up about L3 as you start picking subclasses. By then the newbie ( hopefully) has the basics of combat, initiative, saves and checks more or less sorted out and is ready to take on new challenges. There is nothing really wrong with having the player retire their initial character at this point and create a new L3 character that is more n tune with their interests if they are getting bored banging their sword on foes. Realistically getting to level 3 probably won’t take more than 5 sessions ( unless they are very short), which should be all most folks need to get the basics of combat and party coordination down. I’ve been watching a newbie develop in my group and it has worked well. She actually started as a monk and had a few problems keeping track of resources and when to do what. She played that character to L5 under our other DM then I took over and she has been playing a fairy hexblade to learn more about spellcasting and has reached L4 and is quite happy. She still needs some help at leveling with choices but the rest of us are long time players and good at both listening to what she wants and advising her on how to get it. With good guidance and help from old hands almost any class can be a good start for a newbie.
I lean Barbarian but Fighter is also a valid option.
Both are good for the potential high ACs so you can bubble wrap the newbie without holding their hand too much arguably and both do good amounts of damage so the newbie feels like they're doing something and thusly want to keep playing more.
Learning the class mechanics for each is pretty easy also. The only difference is how much you can take a one time. If you want to learn a lot and want the most options out of the gate I'd say go Fighter as their subclasses have more to offer arguably but if you want the most easy teaching class ever only - Barbarian because even their subclass features are easy to follow.
So yeah Barbarians for the win on this topic but Fighter is an alternative to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The assumption is "if you have skills, you're expected to use them". What this means depends what skills you have.
Whereas it should really be "if you have skills, you are welcome to use them". So unless the other players or DM actually force another player to do stuff they don't want to (in which case I would leave that group) there is nothing that says that you must use a particular skill.
Well, you were the one making the assumption that a player wouldn't want to use their skills so the question is, why do you as a player feel that it's to force another to do something theyäre not comfortable with? That's just bullying.
Also you somehow seem to think that there is only one way to play your class? You do realize that just because you play a rogue doesn't mean you have to play a stereotypical thief wearing black leather skulking in the shadows? I mean, if that's how you have played the last three decades and that's all you ever want to play, by all means. I'm just saying that roleplaying has developed quite a bit since then and not everyone wants to play that same old cliché.
Yeah, but the fighter is very likely to survive if their noob player makes that mistake. The class is very forgiving of mistakes made out of ignorance.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm not certain why you are making the assumption that both would be melee characters when both make fine archers. A ranged rogue does have an easier time getting sneak attack since the target simply needs one of its enemies within 5 ft to trigger. The suggestion to simply "attack the same creature that the fighter (or other melee character) does" is sound for a beginner. Each class has nuance and I'll agree that the nuance can be greater for the rogue, especially if the fighter is a champion.
If the DM/party have the new player's best interests in mind and are wanting to help the new player learn, they'll water down some of the challenge, model different aspects of play through their own play, and otherwise help the player keep track of things, particularly during the early stages of tier 1. Keep the adventure shorter so that the players that want more nuance can focus on helping the new player with the curve and then move onto the next adventure with a few more rules in place. That's part of the reason why Lost Mine of Phandelver is such a popular starter module.
If the entire party is new, (especially if the DM is also new) then everything will be watered down regardless because of a lack of knowledge of the rules.
Still, fighter, then barbarian, then a tie between rogue and monk with the rogue getting the tie breaker nod due to fewer resources to track and better ranged options would be how I would rate these overall in terms of simplicity. But I don't think the overall mechanics any of these classes are significantly more challenging than the others. Certain subclasses will be more forgiving, such as champion, swashbuckler, zealot or bear totem. I can't think of which monk subclass would be simpler off hand, which probably suggests that it's a little harder to deal with (and I'm simply not as knowledgeable about the class in general).
I agree with some of the earlier posts that ultimately the best class for a new player is one they really want to play. If someone is dead set on playing a particular class and is willing to learn how that class works, why stifle them? Of course not everyone may come to their first D&D session with a character concept and class already planned and may be more open to being suggested a good starter class. Some people prefer having many options and flexibility so they can experiment and learn while they play and some people prefer simple rules and simple mechanics to get their feet wet before trying to tackle more complex options. That being said, good suggestions for a starting class.....
Fighter seems to be a good choice for a pure martial class whether ranged or melee, especially with sub-classes like Champion.
I think a Cleric can be a good first choice for a full caster. Its a very board class but with some conversation on what the new player is looking for in a spell caster I feel that it can be tailored to a new player's interests while leaving things a bit open to experimentation as far as spell options go, should a player get the hang of the basic mechanics and want to expand a bit at later levels. Want to play a healer? Life cleric. Want to play elemental caster? Go Tempest. Want a taste of the spells known to the wizard but are a bit intimidated by the mechanics of the wizard class? Arcana cleric might be a good idea. In truth this class might still take a bit to get the hang of but I feel that the versatility can work to a new person's advantage. Just my two cents.
I feel that a Paladin could make a good first choice for someone who wishes to try out some magic but still have the back up option to whack enemies with a weapon. A dragonborn paladin was my first character in 5e and it was a lot of fun, it especially gave me a chance to get use to the change in how magic worked between 4e and 5e while not feeling useless in combat.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I was simply keying off of your statement:
A bit easier/simpler for the fighter, both need melee tactics but the fighter does not have to deal with squishiness, making sure that the sneak attack goes off, and the necessary (due to the two previous points) mobility.
The statement that both need melee tactics was suggesting to me that melee would be involved. While a fighter can be far sturdier than the rogue in melee, that gap closes for ranged characters. You'll still have the d10 vs the d8 giving an extra amount of HP equal to level +1 for the fighter accompanied by the larger hit die for healing and second wind. The fighter will also have the option to go with better AC or a better hit rate (which should be the better hit rate at first level). Some of those advantages will disappear when cunning action comes online with its increased mobility, ability to disengage, or hide as a bonus action. The complexity is higher as a result (and somewhat offset by Action Surge on a limited basis). Thus, the fighter has to take an OA plus whatever attacks to regain the distance necessary for ranged attack effectiveness or lose an action disengaging (which is melee tactics, but won't always be necessary), while the rogue can attack or dash while also disengaging. I'll certainly agree that the rogue is more complex overall, but many of the complexities are going to be build and campaign dependent in how much they factor into game play.
I do like the idea of having a prefab character that the player can use to get their feet wet without having to worry about all of the choices that are made to create a character. Perhaps have a series of prefab characters to give the player some choice in playstyle with certain choices like archetype being chosen beforehand and then give the player the directive to focus on what is happening instead of what should I choose. This can be adapted to spell selections including a basic load out of spells for preparation casters to "flatten the curve".
I chose fighter, but my first real campaign i played a 5e gnome bear/eagle/eagle totem barbarian. Instead of just rage and reckless, I'd taunt or chat up my enemies while fighting. Trade barbs, insults, or even flirt.
All I've done is pointing out the consequences of what you yourself has said. That is neither name-calling nor strawmanning.
Now THIS, is an actual strawman. Never once have I said that you shouldn't use your class abilities (not sure how familiar you are with the current edition but "looking for traps" and "picking locks" is no longer something taht only Rogues can do) but only that being good at many things makes it easier to succeed at those things. Surely you agree with that, right?
Wow, nice bullying there. Implying that everyone who hasn't played for as long as you have don't know what you are talking about. As for your newbie strawman, that is not what I was talking about. But again, if you only want to play to stereotypes and clichés, that is OK. But you must realize that it's also totally fine for everyone else to *not* play to these clichés and stereotypes.
Again, no-one, especially not a beginner. is forced to play to those stereotypes. I honestly don't understand why you are so hung up on enforcing fixed ways of playing certain characters. Most people don't even play in the same setting and in the current edition of D&D where diversity is highly promoted, there is nothing that says that a Rogue *must* be a sneaky skulker with a cloak and dagger. If people want to play Rogues differently, that's totally fine, don't you agree?
So you conviently t´don't have to respond to the accusations you throw around? Sure.
You have on numerous occassionspushed the agenda of stereotypes and clichés, telling people that the Rogue player should be the one scouting ahead, searching for traps and so on. Did you conviently forget that?
That's not really true, ow is it?
And again, if you want to do that, that's OK. If other people want to play it differently you can't tell them they can't play that way.
That's nice, good for you.
Not really, I'm more intersting in you staying on topic and at least answering the questions I've asked.
So just because the only six newbies you've played with (and who you also coaxed into your particular playstyle) chose to play a certain way, everyone else has to play the same way? Why?
Again, your opinion and your way of playing the game. No-one is trying to take that away from you. The question is why you want to take away the same freedom for other people.
-MOD REMOVED-
Stereotypes have their place, particularly in helping new players learn. However, not everyone learns the same way nor focuses on the same content to learn. One player may bristle at having to play a stereotyped character even while learning to play while the next one will gladly lean into that stereotype while mastering the mechanics. Neither method is wrong and I believe that both methods have been covered within the thread. There are also shades between each pole of that spectrum. If a player doesn't want complexity so that they can focus on the mechanics, then fighter is a great starter class particularly champion as it has fewer moving parts. However, it's plenty simplistic and may not engage some players enough. That's when some of the other suggestions that have been made come into play. That's why I think the best advice for a new player isn't what is the easiest class to play, but what kind of character would you like to play.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniAfternoon Folks,
D&D Beyond supports constructive debate.
Please remember to be kind to each other, Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Thanks!
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.
^^
This is truth.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
This is a great story too. +1.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I think fighters can be incredibly simple to play. unless you're an eldritch knight, you have no spells, and it's just the weapon attacks you can focus on. monks, on the other hand, still don't really get spells, but have many complicated features if you're new to D&D
barbarian. You rage, then start hitting people with your greataxe.
i am a human being.
This, from back on page 1, is sound advice but doesn’t fully answer the question asked. Of the 4 choices starting with a L1 character fighter would be my choice of simplest to pick up the game mechanics with. At L1 no class is very complex and there aren’t many “moving parts” to get confused by. The problems start to show up about L3 as you start picking subclasses. By then the newbie ( hopefully) has the basics of combat, initiative, saves and checks more or less sorted out and is ready to take on new challenges. There is nothing really wrong with having the player retire their initial character at this point and create a new L3 character that is more n tune with their interests if they are getting bored banging their sword on foes. Realistically getting to level 3 probably won’t take more than 5 sessions ( unless they are very short), which should be all most folks need to get the basics of combat and party coordination down. I’ve been watching a newbie develop in my group and it has worked well. She actually started as a monk and had a few problems keeping track of resources and when to do what. She played that character to L5 under our other DM then I took over and she has been playing a fairy hexblade to learn more about spellcasting and has reached L4 and is quite happy. She still needs some help at leveling with choices but the rest of us are long time players and good at both listening to what she wants and advising her on how to get it. With good guidance and help from old hands almost any class can be a good start for a newbie.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I lean Barbarian but Fighter is also a valid option.
Both are good for the potential high ACs so you can bubble wrap the newbie without holding their hand too much arguably and both do good amounts of damage so the newbie feels like they're doing something and thusly want to keep playing more.
Learning the class mechanics for each is pretty easy also. The only difference is how much you can take a one time. If you want to learn a lot and want the most options out of the gate I'd say go Fighter as their subclasses have more to offer arguably but if you want the most easy teaching class ever only - Barbarian because even their subclass features are easy to follow.
So yeah Barbarians for the win on this topic but Fighter is an alternative to it.