Which is easier for newbies to learn -- generic classes, or core D&D? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Which is easier for newbies to learn -- generic classes, or core D&D? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JulesCARV
02-21-07, 01:39 AM I'm just curious: which do you think is easier for newbies to learn: the three generic classes or the core D&D system and its 11 classes?

On one hand, the core D&D system has more "grab 'n' go" classes that can be played without too much worry or customization. If you're a rogue, you get sneak attack progression every other level. You don't have to worry about taking sneak attack as a "pseudo-feat" as you would if you played a generic expert. Your good save is reflex: you don't have to worry about whether reflex, fortitude, or will is the most useful. Similarly, barbarians get a lot of features without worrying about customization.

On the other hand, the core D&D system has 11 classes, whereas the generic system has three. Furthermore, the most complex, unintuitive classes -- prepared spellcasters like clerics, druids, and wizards -- are abolished, leaving the easier-to-use, if less powerful, generic spellcaster.

What are your thoughts? Which system is easier from a newbie's point of view?
Chimaera2000
02-21-07, 06:23 AM Core D & D, almost certainly. With the generic classes, you have to select a number of things like class skills, feats, and special abilities, none of which you have a clue what they do! With the core classes, a new player not only has much of the selection done for them, they can also have their imagination fueled by seeing the character portraits and reading the flavor of the various classes.
SKid4
02-21-07, 10:15 AM You could always use the generic classes as a base and suggest class skills and bonus feats according to the 11 standard classes. For example:

EXPERTS
Bard (take Negotiator, Persuasive, or Bardic Music*)
Monk (take Improved Unarmed Strike)
Rogue (take Sneak Attack)

SPELLCASTERS
Cleric (take Turn Undead, learn cleric spells only)
Druid (take Wild Empathy, learn druid spells only)
Sorcerer (take Familiar, learn sorcerer/wizard spells only)
Wizard (take Scribe Scroll, learn sorcerer/wizard spells)

WARRIORS
Barbarian (take Uncanny Dodge or Rage*)
Fighter (take fighter bonus feat)
Paladin (take Smite Evil)
Ranger (take Favored Enemy)

*You may want to make other standard class features into bonus feats, such as Rage and Bardic Music.
furious kender
02-21-07, 10:50 AM Not sure why you would want them to learn the generic system, which not a lot of people understand when the core classes are relatively easy to get anyway. In my experience however, new players should stay away from wizards and, to a lesser extent, clerics and bards. There is just too much to keep track of for new people. Sorecerors and the rest of the classes should be fine however.
trapspringer
02-21-07, 03:10 PM Standard classes with a set of "either or" options.

your a fighter. you can either use a bow or a sword.

Ok, sword.

Ok, you can either have power attack and cleave or combat expertise and improved trip.

trip.

Ok, here's your fighter. Name him, describe him, and let's go.

Setting up either-or choices with generic classes is tougher because there are more options.
Krusk
02-21-07, 03:30 PM generally options are a bad idea for newer players.

I usually ask them to do barbarian, or bard.

barbarian if they want to fight. still get stratigy, when to rage ect.
bard if they insist on being some sort of spellcaster, and i know they can handle the options.

even fighter with its bonus feats is usually hard for newer players.

The generic classes are just giant options and once they start playing as those, they will hate switching over to base classes that are so confined. I dont want to have natures lore, id rather get sneak attack. And now you have to explain balance and why they cant do something.
JustinA
02-21-07, 06:02 PM Not sure why you would want them to learn the generic system, which not a lot of people understand when the core classes are relatively easy to get anyway. In my experience however, new players should stay away from wizards and, to a lesser extent, clerics and bards. There is just too much to keep track of for new people. Sorecerors and the rest of the classes should be fine however.

One way to make wizards and clerics easier is to prep spell lists for them to choose between. Rather than having to choose every individual spell (and being overwhelmed by the hundreds of pages of available spells), the DM can prep a few simple options: Attack, defense, utility.

All they need to do is, at the beginning of each day, pick which spell list they want for the day and then cast spells off of it.

You can easily do this for 3-5 different spell lists for the first 5 levels or so. After that, they've probably been playing long enough that they're ready to start making more complex choices.

In some ways, this actually makes it easier to play a wizard or a cleric than to play a sorcerer.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 02-21-07, 01:39 AM	I'm just curious: which do you think is easier for newbies to learn: the three generic classes or the core D&D system and its 11 classes? On one hand, the core D&D system has more "grab 'n' go" classes that can be played without too much worry or customization. If you're a rogue, you get sneak attack progression every other level. You don't have to worry about taking sneak attack as a "pseudo-feat" as you would if you played a generic expert. Your good save is reflex: you don't have to worry about whether reflex, fortitude, or will is the most useful. Similarly, barbarians get a lot of features without worrying about customization. On the other hand, the core D&D system has 11 classes, whereas the generic system has three. Furthermore, the most complex, unintuitive classes -- prepared spellcasters like clerics, druids, and wizards -- are abolished, leaving the easier-to-use, if less powerful, generic spellcaster. What are your thoughts? Which system is easier from a newbie's point of view?
Chimaera2000 02-21-07, 06:23 AM	Core D & D, almost certainly. With the generic classes, you have to select a number of things like class skills, feats, and special abilities, none of which you have a clue what they do! With the core classes, a new player not only has much of the selection done for them, they can also have their imagination fueled by seeing the character portraits and reading the flavor of the various classes.
SKid4 02-21-07, 10:15 AM	You could always use the generic classes as a base and suggest class skills and bonus feats according to the 11 standard classes. For example: EXPERTS Bard (take Negotiator, Persuasive, or Bardic Music) Monk (take Improved Unarmed Strike) Rogue (take Sneak Attack) SPELLCASTERS Cleric (take Turn Undead, learn cleric spells only) Druid (take Wild Empathy, learn druid spells only) Sorcerer (take Familiar, learn sorcerer/wizard spells only) Wizard (take Scribe Scroll, learn sorcerer/wizard spells) WARRIORS Barbarian (take Uncanny Dodge or Rage) Fighter (take fighter bonus feat) Paladin (take Smite Evil) Ranger (take Favored Enemy) *You may want to make other standard class features into bonus feats, such as Rage and Bardic Music.
furious kender 02-21-07, 10:50 AM	Not sure why you would want them to learn the generic system, which not a lot of people understand when the core classes are relatively easy to get anyway. In my experience however, new players should stay away from wizards and, to a lesser extent, clerics and bards. There is just too much to keep track of for new people. Sorecerors and the rest of the classes should be fine however.
trapspringer 02-21-07, 03:10 PM	Standard classes with a set of "either or" options. your a fighter. you can either use a bow or a sword. Ok, sword. Ok, you can either have power attack and cleave or combat expertise and improved trip. trip. Ok, here's your fighter. Name him, describe him, and let's go. Setting up either-or choices with generic classes is tougher because there are more options.
Krusk 02-21-07, 03:30 PM	generally options are a bad idea for newer players. I usually ask them to do barbarian, or bard. barbarian if they want to fight. still get stratigy, when to rage ect. bard if they insist on being some sort of spellcaster, and i know they can handle the options. even fighter with its bonus feats is usually hard for newer players. The generic classes are just giant options and once they start playing as those, they will hate switching over to base classes that are so confined. I dont want to have natures lore, id rather get sneak attack. And now you have to explain balance and why they cant do something.
JustinA 02-21-07, 06:02 PM	Not sure why you would want them to learn the generic system, which not a lot of people understand when the core classes are relatively easy to get anyway. In my experience however, new players should stay away from wizards and, to a lesser extent, clerics and bards. There is just too much to keep track of for new people. Sorecerors and the rest of the classes should be fine however. One way to make wizards and clerics easier is to prep spell lists for them to choose between. Rather than having to choose every individual spell (and being overwhelmed by the hundreds of pages of available spells), the DM can prep a few simple options: Attack, defense, utility. All they need to do is, at the beginning of each day, pick which spell list they want for the day and then cast spells off of it. You can easily do this for 3-5 different spell lists for the first 5 levels or so. After that, they've probably been playing long enough that they're ready to start making more complex choices. In some ways, this actually makes it easier to play a wizard or a cleric than to play a sorcerer.