Making a good Wizard takes about as long as it takes to pick spells. The skill curve for the Wizard or Druid is very flat. But there's literally nothing in my experience with 3.5/PF - which is more or less non-stop being a new player, followed by DMing for new players - that suggests that fighters are not dramatically easier for new players to play, play well, and - most importantly - feel comfortable that they are playing well, compared to the alternatives. A lot of that depth also only starts to emerge after the fighter has several levels behind it, after which the new player is no longer a brand new player. I agree that Fighters have a depth that they're not always given credit for, but a huge amount of what fighters get credit for as secret hidden fighter depth is part of every other class in the game, and often a significantly larger part. Fighters work exactly like you'd expect them to work (basically), have few enough moving parts that you can easily wrap your head around them while you're still trying to understand how the basic rules of the game work, and the thing that everybody intuits is the basic thing you do when playing a fighter - walk towards a bad guy and hit it while working with other melee party members to control enemy movement - is pretty close to what's actually the correct thing to do in combat in the majority of situations. That's why I think Fighters are a good class for new players. And I'm not talking, like, "they don't use the specific combination of obscure options in the right way that makes TheoryOp'd Clerics super unstoppable at level two." I'm talking "there's enough going on, enough of which either requires experience to get a feel for (like resource pacing) or that is unintuitive in ways that interfere with comprehension that they just kind of break and make decisions randomly that are nowhere close to playing the character at potential." If you do the same thing with a cleric or a wizard, not only is there the learning curve of understanding how the character's mechanics even work, but the new player will frequently make decisions at all levels of granularity that seriously, seriously end up undershooting the character's potential. not exactly brilliantly, but somewhere in the realm of kind of close to reasonably optimally, in broad strokes. It is my experience that, pretty much uniformly, you can walk a new player through the creation of their new fighter character, and when play starts they will play the character. The skill curve for the Fighter (and the barbarian, ranger, samurai, etc., which are all essentially the same class anyway) is absolutely dramatically flatter than it is for other classes. Maybe positioning is more important for a melee character than for most (although it's certainly reasonable to dispute even that claim), but all characters have magic items to consider using. But those are issues that every character deals with. It's possible to eke out more advantages by considering positioning, what magic items you have, what magic items you shoot to acquire, and so on. I'm not claiming that the skill curve for the fighter class is absolutely flat. That's probably the second greatest factor behind the fact that the overall simplicity of the class makes it relatively easy to keep all of your options in your active memory. I believe the fact that Fighters are very easy to play compared to most other characters stems in part from their relatively limited option space, though. I'm not equating "lack of options" with "easy to play." I'm synthesizing experience playing and DMing 3.5 and then Pathfinder more or less continuously since 3.5 has existed, very frequently with new players.
0 kommentar(er)
