Which role is easiest to play if you're 1.) a new player or 2.) a seasoned veteran?
1) Striker
2) Striker
Especially the ranged variety. You don't really help other people much -- being pretty much a loner -- and if you make a mistake, it's never really catastrophic. Defender and Leader other roles are defined by how they help others (who do they defend? who do they lead?) and the controller is just a tad trickier, but is the next easiest to play.
Strikers can play as a one-trick pony and be effective. The other roles require a little more work.
1) Striker -- Probably a Bow Ranger... take a big [18+] DEX and the Dual Weapon style (for free toughness). Take as big a bow as you can use (Longbow or better yet a greatbow) and spam Twin Strike every round.
Easy to understand and ruthlessly efficient "point and click" action!
2) Leader -- Probably a STR Cleric... you can heal (which veteran's will understand is vital) and your STR based attacks allow you mix it up in melee. You also have a number of effective skills (Diplomacy, Religion etc.) to use when out of combat or to when identifying monsters. A well built STR CLeric usually has something for every eventuality... healing, skills, skill assists or just a solid thump with a morningstar!
However, Juggling all these variables requires finesse and experience, as-well-as a sound understanding of how best to distribute stat points and which feats and magical items to get in order to bolster the rest of the group, or to overcome your limitations.
Hope that helps...
PGC
For a vetrean Id say bard. Only class that can use implements, ranged weapon, or melee weapons. They have almost every skill in the book to pick from and with jack of all trades can even get a +3 modifier to untrained skills.
It's really just an academic discussion. I feel that the Striker is easiest. I'm a little surprised by Leader listed as easiest for a veteran. After I posted, I thought about it some, and it seems like the roles should be the same amount of easy for any player.
controller can be a bit tricky though, and so can defender. With defender you have to figure out which target to mark and how your going to protect people. Controllers have to make sure allies are not in burst/blast radius powers and make sure they take some single target powers for that reason.
Leader is an interesting role. To be a passable leader, all you've really got to do is keep the group healthy, and you're given all the tools you need to do that. So long as you're not napping and you're actually using your healing abilities, the group will survive. However, a great leader can make a huge difference in a fight, and it requires a lot of working with your comrades to give them the combat bonuses they need when they need them, and removing debilitating effects at the moment it's most important.
Controller can be a tricky role, but so long as you're hampering at least one enemy, and maybe mowing down some minions, you're doing your job. Again, the trick is knowing who to push, or stun, or whatever, and when to do it. A poorly played controller is just a low-damage striker. It'll slow down combat, but a good defender and leader will be able to keep the party alive while you pretend you're a ranger.
Striker is the easiest role to play, but even they have some hurdles to get over. Rogues are fragile, but normally they have to mix it up in melee to get combat advantage and do their job. Warlocks have to run around cursing everyone to gain maximum benefit when anything dies, and Avengers have to pay attention to their Censure ability. Rangers and Barbarians... Not so much. Run in (or hang back) and spam attacks.
Just my take on it.
Certain strikers (like warlocks) might be more complex than say, a Pole-arm Warlord.
Generally, I think the following would be good builds in good roles for newer players. Leave the Defenders to someone with a bit more of a handle on the game, or to someone who you know will be able to pick up some of the tactical intricacies.
Striker: Bow Ranger, Sorcerer, TWF Ranger, Barbarian
Leader: Str Cleric, Cha Warlord
Controller: Wizard
People who say that archery Rangers (and Strikers in general) are simple don't understand the Striker role. Discretion in targetting is by far the most important part of the Striker role. A Ranger who sits back gunning down whatever is closest isn't a good Striker.
It's tactical sense that makes the most difference. If you have a poor grasp of tactics, many classes become far less effective.
Knowledge of the system may improve your build, but the most optimized Rogue won't be effective in the hands of someone who never gets CA, compared to someone who's less optimized but gets CA 90% of the time.
I think it's irrelevant. (The new player vs seasoned veteran.)
It's tactical sense that makes the most difference. If you have a poor grasp of tactics, many classes become far less effective.
Knowledge of the system may improve your build, but the most optimized Rogue won't be effective in the hands of someone who never gets CA, compared to someone who's less optimized but gets CA 90% of the time.
I agree to a point. The issue is that something like a defender has the exact same concern about target priority (their priority may be different, but it is still there) and they have many many other things to worry about as well. A bow ranger or sorcerer really only has to worry about target priority and keeping positioned so monsters aren't in their face. Less things to worry about means a less complex playing experience.
A poorly played bow ranger/sorcerer might make a fight a bit tougher, but a poorly played primary defender or leader will probably result in deaths or a TPK.
I first played a dwarf balanced cleric to 6, then a gnome illusionist/divine oracle to 12 in a campaign that is still going, then a halfling fey warlock to 3 in a paused campaign, and a few weeks ago a genasai tactical warlord/longarm marshal for a level 12 one shot campaign.
Dwarf cleric was by far the easiest, with the others being about the same level of difficulty. The warlock was hard because this was before the accursed coordination feat and there was another warlock in the party and we had to split curse targets. The illusionist takes the most thought, just because each day you have to pick out what spells to prepare and because at level 12 I have so many options. I have retrained something for him almost every level.
A seasoned veteran can play any 4e race/class combo without any difficulty. That's the magic of 4e--accessibility.
As far as what comes purely with the role, defender is probably hardest and striker is probably easiest, but within those divisions, some classes have miscellaneous froufrou that can make them substantially more difficult. (Rogues have to worry about positioning and their own vulnerability much more than archer rangers; vestigelocks have an unusually complex combat system compared to... um... archer rangers, again.)
The question could perhaps be divided into two questions - "which role is the hardest to screw up with in a way that really messes over the party?" is a slightly different question than "which role is easiest for a new player to perform well at?" (In particular, leaders fall on opposite sides of the split - it's pretty easy to be a decent leader - keeping people healthy and handing out nice buffs while bopping monsters - but it's hard to be a great leader, which requires not only well-developed tactical senses, but often considerable understanding of just what everybody else's characters are capable of.)
Bow ranger? Easy to play.
Brutal Rogue? Easy to play.
Warlord? Easy to play.
Warden? Easy to play.
Fighters, Wizards, Warlocks, Swordmages? Difficult to play.
In fact, target selection is easier for ranged strikers, since there are typically fewer variables to consider, compared to a melee striker.
Unless you want your bonus damage. I trust that you are not under the impression that a Striker who doesn't apply their bonus damage is being played remotely well.
Quarry and Curse can only be applied to the nearest enemy you can see. Unless your DM allows you to peek out through your fingers, getting close enough to apply your bonus damage without getting pinned down and clobbered by the important guy's buddies makes your job a lot harder than you and other people in this thread seem to think. Only Rogues have it harder.
An archer Ranger is, in reality, the second-hardest Striker to play effectively, since they receive fewer tools to enable effective play than the Warlock and give up damage to use those that they receive.
So many terrible, misinformed opinions in this thread.
...The question could perhaps be divided into two questions - "which role is the hardest to screw up with in a way that really messes over the party?" is a slightly different question than "which role is easiest for a new player to perform well at?" (In particular, leaders fall on opposite sides of the split - it's pretty easy to be a decent leader - keeping people healthy and handing out nice buffs while bopping monsters - but it's hard to be a great leader, which requires not only well-developed tactical senses, but often considerable understanding of just what everybody else's characters are capable of.)
The "Hardest" Role to play is modified by class, strongly.
On the whole strikers are simpler, such as a Ranger, yet a rogue has extra levels of complication from get CA and so do Warlock for movement and Sorecerer for trying not to hit allies.
I would say the Controller and Defender are about equal - Defenders regularly having to worry about 1 to 2 Allies and 1 to 2 enemies, each. Controllers, worry about, 2 to X number of enemies.
To me, IMHO, Leader can be the hardest role now. But the Cleric is the easiest, easier then some of the controller, defender, and striker classes. Then the Bard, Warlord and the Shaman probably being the hardest.
Basically, tactics are "hard"- either effecting/moving enemies around or effecting/moving allies around are what stack up the difficulty. The Number of PC you effect tactically or are given a degree of control over is the heavy half, over the Number of enemies you effect tactically or are given a degree of control over.
PCs have more buttons to push and situational feats/bonuses/powers to consider. A warlord is difficult because you need mostly Melee PCs/gamers that will go-along/work-with your Strengths => PCs are wildcards. They may not listen, may not understand, may have their own ideas, or may not care.
Shaman are similiar, but the difficulty is that you are split into 2 units: Master/Blaster and you effect allies through both. One Again, it is difficult because you need PCs/gamers that will go-along/work-with your Strengths => PCs are wildcards. They may not listen, may not understand, may have their own ideas, or may not care.
Also, if you don't understand tactics or your group doesn't - these (Warlord and Shaman) classes' abilities are a waste, and can cause your group to essentially be played as if you were a party member short(Seen it). So, some people maybe better off/happier playing a Ranger or something else less tactical.
McSmashin
An archer Ranger is, in reality, the second-hardest Striker to play effectively, since they receive fewer tools to enable effective play than the Warlock and give up damage to use those that they receive.
I agree that an archer ranger is difficult to play well, but it's not difficult to play.
Quarry the closest target and shoot it till it's dead. Easy, and effective.
Quarry the "best" target and shoot it till it's dead. Hard, and more effective.
Basically just a straight forward damage dealer. But they can also be a lot of fun when using tactics.
Besides, when I started playing last year my first character was a ranger who ended up being basically a crazy drunk womanizing sociopath.
What can I say, I killed a monster with a ranged twin strike attack by throwing two dead dire rats. Natural 20 for the win.....
Love the ranger.