|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GatFromKi is right... because building a competent Fighter means understanding the system...Ok, fine. Problem is, I said the Fighter is the easiest char to PLAY both mechanically and from a fluff pov and the I get answers that say NO, the Fighter is hard to build...
If you play with a newbie, do you let him build his char alone, ever?
I know that I don't, I ask him questions and build his char for him, so building never enters into the "is it easy for a newbie".
A fighter is easy to build for a newbie, but not easy to build well.
Example: Most newbies wont realize that a fighter with 16 str, 14 dex and a bag o javelins as his main weapon isn't going to be very good.
Likewise, they're likely to believe that TWF and Cleave and Vital Strike are good options, and they may build their fighter unfocused, which will make him rather crappy as well.
Unless you know the player is going to put alot of thought into it, I wouldn't suggest letting them build it on their own, as you mentioned.
But if youre helping him, and you designed the fighter to just focus on a weapon and powerattack, then yeah. its easy to play.
If you build him a fighter thats focused on tripping, or you give him a more complex fighter build then "I stand still and full attack" then its less simple.
Ok, fine. Problem is, I said the Fighter is the easiest char to PLAY both mechanically and from a fluff pov and the I get answers that say NO, the Fighter is hard to build...If you play with a newbie, do you let him build his char alone, ever?
I know that I don't, I ask him questions and build his char for him, so building never enters into the "is it easy for a newbie".
I disagree with the notion that a Fighter is fluff-wise easy to build, since Fighters are VERY varied. The only one as varied as a Fighter in terms of background is the Rogue (who could be anything from a common thug to a spy working for some noble family), and the other classes are stuck into certain molds that kinda make the class what it is (Paladin, anyone?). Also, a good DM should keep an eye on both newbies and experienced players when they create characters, to a certain limit.
Also, what kind of first-hand expectations should we have of this sample "newbie" anyway?
|
stuff about a newbie building an unfocused fighter
Perhaps that's true, but the goal is for the new player to have fun. And for some people, playing their own concept is more fun, even if that character isn't as optimal as another concept could potentially be.
In other words, let the newbie have fun their way, otherwise instead of graduating from the Beginner Box to the Core Rules, they might graduate into an ex-gamer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huge problem -- ability damage doesn't actual mean the loss of prerequisites for feats, spell casting or anything else:True. I was thinking about the 3.x version where damage means damage, and not penalty that isn't a penalty. :PYour mistake even enforce one of my point: peoples are making interpretation because they don't know what the RAW are. It applies to martial as well as to magic.
Unless, as Bob_Loblaw said, "peoples know all the RAW and they don't make interpretation or mistake like the one you did because it would be an houserule".
I love it when people intentionally misrepresent what others say. It really moves a conversation. Usually away from where it should go. Excellent job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The goal is for the new player to have fun. And for some people, playing their own concept is more fun, even if that character isn't as optimal as another concept could potentially be.
Unless the DM cheats (or uses weaker monsters), that Fighter will not have fun if he builds a sub-optimal character. And I do NOT support tricking newbies with "easy-mode" encounters just because he happened to pick feats that sounded cool but really didn't work in making a viable Fighter. I want him to have fun REGARDLESS OF HOW UN-D&D-LIKE HIS CHARACTER'S SKILL SET IS.
Hush you all, or we have Treantmonk all over us stating "unoptimized characters will (in the long run) never be fun."
That might even be true, but it doesn't help us here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the DM cheats (or uses weaker monsters), that Fighter will not have fun if he builds a sub-optimal character. And I do NOT support tricking newbies with "easy-mode" encounters just because he happened to pick feats that sounded cool but really didn't work in making a viable Fighter. I want him to have fun REGARDLESS OF HOW UN-D&D-LIKE HIS CHARACTER'S SKILL SET IS.
The goal is for the new player to have fun. And for some people, playing their own concept is more fun, even if that character isn't as optimal as another concept could potentially be.
Why?
First, sub-optimal is actually hard to do with any class. You really have to go out of your way. The fighter, without any magic items, can be effective (offensively) against any CR-appropriate opponent in the Bestiary. Of course the better choices he makes, the more effective he can be. Remember that the character doesn't have to single-handedly take on encounters. He doesn't even have to deal 50% or more damage in a single attack or round. He just needs to be fun to play and most people want him to be able to contribute. "Contribute" is hard to define because we all want different things.
Second, the fighter can change his "sub-optimal" feats as he levels so long as those feats were bonus feats. So he can make corrections. This doesn't cost him any money or time. The only other characters that can do that are prepared divine casters that know all the spells on their list (clerics and druids for example). And they can do it daily. Even the wizard has a cost associated with changing his sub-optimal spell selection: gold and time.
Third, why do you think you need to run things on "easy-mode?" If you are running a game for newbies and you aren't giving them a chance to learn, maybe the problem isn't the class they've chosen. Maybe the problem is that the GM isn't designing appropriate encounters. You can run things on "normal mode" without compromising the learning process. You may have to make different design decisions as GM though. Not all creatures of the same CR are equal, contrary to what we want to believe.
"The fighter, without any magic items, can be effective (offensively) against any CR-appropriate opponent in the Bestiary. Remember that the character doesn't have to single-handedly take on encounters. He doesn't even have to deal 50% or more damage in a single attack or round. He just needs to be fun to play and most people want him to be able to contribute. "Contribute" is hard to define because we all want different things."
CAN be, but usually isn't. I will use the Golem example, again.
A golem will single-handedly rip nearly any Fighter (or any other class) a new one, and that fact applies to many other monsters as well.
Someone also mentioned swarms being an insta-kill too.
Second, I find it hard to suspend disbelief (or have a good roleplay experience) if my Fighter suddenly swaps feats like nothing happened.
Then again, I don't get what you're getting at here because I've never head of any DM saying "you can change feats after taking them".
And I have never shown mercy to players. I was simply giving an example of what I would NOT want to do.
Also, please don't talk to me as if I didn't know about the CRs being screwy. The best examples of that are dragons.
Just to throw in my 2 cents here...
All I play are fighters. My most potent one is a Fighter who has dedicated 2 of his skill points each level to mastering a couple Rogue skills here and there because he grew up in a bad part of town where it was common to run with hoodlums.
The guy is a beast and with his feats and his traits he is both an incredibly potent combatant, a charming lades man, a brave adventurer, and can pick lock, pockets, and be stealthy when he needs to. When all that fails, he falls back on an insane Intimidation score.
The guy is strong and charismatic along with being wise, nimble and healthy. He has taken on an army, and won. He's bested barbarian in wrestling matches, rogues in duels, and proven that wizards can throw all the ju-ju they want, but they better get it done before that bull rush is finished because they're at the end of it.
But here's the thing, we play to have fun. We don't ask for 'easy mode' but our GM takes into consideration the kinds of characters we've made and designs the game around them. He doesn't design the game around him and treat the characters as guests. It's our story, the PCs are what the game is about and if our GM wasn't mature to understand that, he'd not be our GM for very long. Our PCs take on challenge and sometimes we fail at them, sometimes we even die, but it's never because our GM saw the need to go ahead and slaughter us because the Fighter decided he didn't need/want a particular feat the GM thought was more 'fighter-like'.
Fighter are not realistic, because this is not a 'real' game. As far as fantastic, a Fighter is as 'fantastic' as you make them be. When I describe there actions of my PC and describe how he uses and the effects his Feats have on his enemies the table is looking at me as if I'm the story teller, if only for a moment. Don't just roll and tell the damage, describe how you take down the Ogre with the killing blow, describe how agile and deft your warrior appears as his whirlwind attack decimates everyon around him/her. Describe your cleave, sunder, bull rush, two-weapon fighting skills... describe your action and make them fantastic, or you're just another bum swinging a sword.
GatFromKi is right... because building a competent Fighter means understanding the system...Ok, fine. Problem is, I said the Fighter is the easiest char to PLAY both mechanically and from a fluff pov and the I get answers that say NO, the Fighter is hard to build...
If you play with a newbie, do you let him build his char alone, ever?
I know that I don't, I ask him questions and build his char for him, so building never enters into the "is it easy for a newbie".
Generally I walk players through building their first character. However, later on I find many people desire to build their own characters, and they should (because I won't be there to build their character for them forever, or won't have time to).
"Newbie" extends for a good while after their first character, generally speaking. Someone could play a Barbarian from 1-20 and have no idea how to build a competent Fighter. Someone could play a Bard but be lost with a Wizard. It takes a bit of time to get all these little things down, though learning from others helps a lot.
Fighter are not realistic, because this is not a 'real' game. As far as fantastic, a Fighter is as 'fantastic' as you make them be. When I describe there actions of my PC and describe how he uses and the effects his Feats have on his enemies the table is looking at me as if I'm the story teller, if only for a moment. Don't just roll and tell the damage, describe how you take down the Ogre with the killing blow, describe how agile and deft your warrior appears as his whirlwind attack decimates everyon around him/her. Describe your cleave, sunder, bull rush, two-weapon fighting skills... describe your action and make them fantastic, or you're just another bum swinging a sword.
Being something of a narrator when it comes to describing actions in the game, I wholly believe a good description can greatly enhance the game. However, it is verisimilitude breaking when your character doesn't actually reflect the descriptions. You mentioned whirlwind attack as being described with the words "Decimating your foes", but Whirlwind attack doesn't really do that unless you could have described "sneezing on them and killing them" just as easily.
This was one of the reasons I liked Tome of Battle. You could have mechanical representations for thoughts, ideas, and descriptions would would probably already make. See, if I want to pin a dude's blade, there's a trick for that. If I want to grab my foe and throw him, there's a trick for that too. You can describe anything as anything. I could describe magic missile as my jumping towards an enemy at light-speed and punching him 1-5 times rapidly in the face with my fists before leaping back to where I was. There comes a point where you might like the mechanics to at least assist your interpretation.
Just to throw in my 2 cents here...
All I play are fighters. My most potent one is a Fighter who has dedicated 2 of his skill points each level to mastering a couple Rogue skills here and there because he grew up in a bad part of town where it was common to run with hoodlums.
The guy is a beast and with his feats and his traits he is both an incredibly potent combatant, a charming lades man, a brave adventurer, and can pick lock, pockets, and be stealthy when he needs to. When all that fails, he falls back on an insane Intimidation score.
The guy is strong and charismatic along with being wise, nimble and healthy. He has taken on an army, and won. He's bested barbarian in wrestling matches, rogues in duels, and proven that wizards can throw all the ju-ju they want, but they better get it done before that bull rush is finished because they're at the end of it.
I would love to see this guy's stats, if you would be so kind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The fighter, without any magic items, can be effective (offensively) against any CR-appropriate opponent in the Bestiary. Remember that the character doesn't have to single-handedly take on encounters. He doesn't even have to deal 50% or more damage in a single attack or round. He just needs to be fun to play and most people want him to be able to contribute. "Contribute" is hard to define because we all want different things."
CAN be, but usually isn't. I will use the Golem example, again.
A golem will single-handedly rip nearly any Fighter (or any other class) a new one, and that fact applies to many other monsters as well.
Someone also mentioned swarms being an insta-kill too.
Golems aren't all that tough for fighters. Swarms are a hassle, but can be dealt with once magic weapons are available. Even then, if the character has any area of effect weapons (alchemists fire comes to mind), even a low level character can survive.
Second, I find it hard to suspend disbelief (or have a good roleplay experience) if my Fighter suddenly swaps feats like nothing happened.
Then again, I don't get what you're getting at here because I've never head of any DM saying "you can change feats after taking them".
The fighter can swap out his bonus feats as he levels. It's part of being a fighter. It's the only class that allows this.
From the PRD:
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.
And I have never shown mercy to players. I was simply giving an example of what I would NOT want to do.
Also, please don't talk to me as if I didn't know about the CRs being screwy. The best examples of that are dragons.
I would never recommend that anyone learn how to play any role playing game from a GM that never shows mercy to players. Beginners should never be treated like they come with experience. I have seen way too many people (myself included) be turned off to a new system because the GM didn't show any mercy during the learning process. Keep in mind that this is in response to your comment about newbies and "tricking" them.
Another good way to make fighters western, while giving them the power they should have, is to make them like the fighters in a Monty Oum video. Here's an example:http://blip.tv/red-vs-blue/red-vs-blue-revelation-chapter-10-380465 2
Don't mind the Reds or Blues, they are supposed to be normals, though one would be hard-pressed to consider people that tough, or that strange normal. Probably NSFW, there's a lot of cursing.
"Newbie" extends for a good while after their first character, generally speaking. Someone could play a Barbarian from 1-20 and have no idea how to build a competent Fighter. Someone could play a Bard but be lost with a Wizard. It takes a bit of time to get all these little things down, though learning from others helps a lot.
This is something I agree with as well. I have been gaming for a very long time. I just can't find the joy in playing a druid or cleric. If I was going to play one, I would make plenty of newbie mistakes even though I have a lot of experience. I would say this is something we see often with new classes being released. The good news is that most people can grasp their new character more and more quickly since they have less to learn.
I would never recommend that anyone learn how to play any role playing game from a GM that never shows mercy to players. Beginners should never be treated like they come with experience. I have seen way too many people (myself included) be turned off to a new system because the GM didn't show any mercy during the learning process. Keep in mind that this is in response to your comment about newbies and "tricking" them.
I think that beginners shouldn't be coddled either, or else they don't get experience. What I mean is, if you think melee goblins with butterknives is the norm, then what are you going to do when you actually encounter goblins using bows? Put yet another way, the only way someone will learn is through experiencing it.
It's like a child. Sometimes they will have to learn the hard way. You can try to provide a bit of damage control (suggest they wear a helmet and pads, or in D&D terms make some suggestions that are helpful), but then it's up to them to see if they can ride the bike without tearing their knees up.
I actually played with a nurse I met who was taking care of a friend after his car wreck. She wasn't exactly your stereotypical nerd. She was a black mother of three, a registered nurse, around 30 years old, who had never so much as picked up an RPG or knew anything about such things at all. She was a bit curious about the game we were playing, and so she got in on a session. During this session, her character was put into a truly terrible situation as she fell into a pit trap, and then kobolds set the pit trap on fire! Eventually she survived, and managed to whup up on some kobolds. She absolutely loved it, but there was nothing "going easy" on her at all. She got to see how tough it was, and in the end, I think it made her feel more accomplished when she got through it.
Also, I'm not disagreeing with Loblaw, but merely noting that not going easy on someone isn't the same as being out to get them either.
This is something I agree with as well. I have been gaming for a very long time. I just can't find the joy in playing a druid or cleric. If I was going to play one, I would make plenty of newbie mistakes even though I have a lot of experience. I would say this is something we see often with new classes being released. The good news is that most people can grasp their new character more and more quickly since they have less to learn.
Very true. This is another reason why I think GMs should be patient. When you've been playing class X and jump into GMing, you are more often than not going to miss a lot of stuff because you only know a tiny fraction of the game. It's very irritating to watch GMs foolishly call certain things broken, merely because they lack the comprehension or the willingness to actually understand the game they are supposed to be running.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people never grow out of being newbies, they are simply inept.
Some people never grow out of being newbies, they are simply inept.
+1.
I would never recommend that anyone learn how to play any role playing game from a GM that never shows mercy to players. Beginners should never be treated like they come with experience. I have seen way too many people (myself included) be turned off to a new system because the GM didn't show any mercy during the learning process. Keep in mind that this is in response to your comment about newbies and "tricking" them.I think that beginners shouldn't be coddled either, or else they don't get experience. What I mean is, if you think melee goblins with butterknives is the norm, then what are you going to do when you actually encounter goblins using bows? Put yet another way, the only way someone will learn is through experiencing it.
I'm not advocating coddling. I'm saying that a GM that doesn't pull some punches every now and then with new players will find that he has a hard time introducing new players to the game and could actually be turning people off to the game. Take a look at the Beginner's Box. There are a lot of things not included in there so that new players can focus on learning the game instead of creating characters every session because the GM didn't pull a few punches. You can, and should, gradually increase the threat as the players' experience increases. Unfortunately it doesn't sound like that's what Icyshadow is doing.
It's like a child. Sometimes they will have to learn the hard way. You can try to provide a bit of damage control (suggest they wear a helmet and pads, or in D&D terms make some suggestions that are helpful), but then it's up to them to see if they can ride the bike without tearing their knees up.
This is what I'm advocating. When Icyshadow says s/he never shows mercy, it feels like Cobra Kai training. We all know how that turned out. The one who was shown mercy turned out to be the better trained.
I actually played with a nurse I met who was taking care of a friend after his car wreck. She wasn't exactly your stereotypical nerd. She was a black mother of three, a registered nurse, around 30 years old, who had never so much as picked up an RPG or knew anything about such things at all. She was a bit curious about the game we were playing, and so she got in on a session. During this session, her character was put into a truly terrible situation as she fell into a pit trap, and then kobolds set the pit trap on fire! Eventually she survived, and managed to whup up on some kobolds. She absolutely loved it, but there was nothing "going easy" on her at all. She got to see how tough it was, and in the end, I think it made her feel more accomplished when she got through it.
That sounds like fun. I've done similar things with kobolds, was this a module you were running or something you wrote?
Also, I'm not disagreeing with Loblaw, but merely noting that not going easy on someone isn't the same as being out to get them either.
I think we are in agreement that there is a huge difference between the two. I was disagreeing with the idea that a GM should show no mercy ever.
Very true. This is another reason why I think GMs should be patient. When you've been playing class X and jump into GMing, you are more often than not going to miss a lot of stuff because you only know a tiny fraction of the game. It's very irritating to watch GMs foolishly call certain things broken, merely because they lack the comprehension or the willingness to actually understand the game they are supposed to be running.
I found that switching from GM-mode to Player-mode can be a challenge as well. I have been playing since 1979. During that time, I have never played a character from level 1 through Max (whatever that is in any system). In fact I have played probably less than 5% of the time. The last time I played, I made mistakes that eventually cost me my character's life because I wasn't thinking like a player. As GM, if I make a mistake and an NPC dies, it's not a big deal. I've got plenty more. As a player, I only have one character. Fortunately for me I died right before the final battle and my character's death is what allowed the rest of the party to survive.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff about a newbie building an unfocused fighterPerhaps that's true, but the goal is for the new player to have fun. And for some people, playing their own concept is more fun, even if that character isn't as optimal as another concept could potentially be.
In other words, let the newbie have fun their way, otherwise instead of graduating from the Beginner Box to the Core Rules, they might graduate into an ex-gamer.
Maybe.
However, if the player builds a pathetic character "having fun their way" is likely to turn into not having fun at all, of hindering the fun of others.
1. Newbie - to me: "Why is everything so hard?"
(or if you tone it down), Other Players - to me: "Everything is so easy its getting boring."
2. Newbie - to me: "The other players are being jackasses to me, what gives?"
Other Players - to me: "We're getting sick of hauling his dead weight everywhere."
Other Players who left your game: "We weren't having any fun," + "because he kept almost getting us killed" Or +"because you kept coddling us and making things too easy"
Other Players - to me: "We would have been fine in that encounter if our f*****g fighter could fight. He told us he was playing a fighter. If he had said he was playing a non-combat NPC, I would have made a f*****g fighter myself"* & **
* - this actually happened.
** - at the end of the campaign that commentary was expanded by the players to include every combat they almost tpked in the 5 month campaign.
Allowing pathetic builds hurts everyone.
But most importantly of all: Me.
Because I, as GM, dont want the extra headaches of all the unhappy players.
GatFromKi: you speak/type quite well for being non-native (or for being a native, for that matter)! I'd be more surprised that you weren't a native, if it weren't for your name.
To clarify: of course I'd like for you to agree, but that wasn't my point at all. My point was to address an issue that you had brought up (that of not giving specific examples) for your own satisfaction. It didn't provide it and you seem uninterested in discussing it further, so, okay. As you like.
I'd still like to see my fallacies, because without feedback there's no way I can improve. If I make a mistake and don't recognize it (which I can't see right now, aside from "this specific build", which I chose, because it seemed GFKI's suggestion at a "simple spam" build), I'd like to have it pointed out, as well as why it's a mistake. Basic learning: "you're doing it all wrong" isn't nearly as helpful as "this is incorrect, and here's why; also you could correct it (if possible) and/or probably see it clearly by doing the following".
Ash: I normally agree with most things you post, and you're quite well spoken (and seemingly very well thought-out), but my experience disagrees with you this time.
GatFromKi is right... because building a competent Fighter means understanding the system...
Ok, fine. Problem is, I said the Fighter is the easiest char to PLAY both mechanically and from a fluff pov and the I get answers that say NO, the Fighter is hard to build...
If you play with a newbie, do you let him build his char alone, ever?
I know that I don't, I ask him questions and build his char for him, so building never enters into the "is it easy for a newbie".
Um... I disagree and I do so from experience.
Three out of six new players I've (helped) introduced to the game (in 3.5), by their own decision, started with fighters, enjoyed and effectively mastered them, at least more than enough for the various games they were in. The fourth started as a barbarian and it was pretty awful. He's since built a number of very competent and excellent builds, so it's not that he's that lousy at it. Fifth was a sorcerer and hated every moment of it, as there was much to remember. He's happily gained the "feel" of casters (and melee characters) since. Number six was a rogue and did fine, but constantly forgot about flanking and adding his sneak attack damage (of course he wasn't a very good player in general) and was thus frustrated at how "useless" his abilities were. Again, this is 3.5, and maybe that's changed in Pathfinder, but at least at that point all of my experience has been that newbs get it very easy.
Now, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal - which, of course, means that I haven't done a large number of scientifically controlled surveys. Perhaps those fighters would have had a pretty terrible time at high levels, I don't know. However, from my experience with new characters, it was loads easier with fighters than non-fighters. And static bonuses are rather easy to play and understand. And, again from experience (from others), they're still really useful. Now, I grant, that I've not played a fighter much at all. But this is feedback and playing the game with others who do. Also the static-focus fighters never went to levels beyond ten or so. But then again, I've only run one newbie-centric nigh-epic (just at 20th level) campaign, and no one was a fighter, so there's that.
About Mercy
Mercy v. Coddling
There is a pretty big difference between mercy and coddling. Mercy is explaining that they're doing something wrong, perhaps not having the monsters coup-de-gras them. Coddling is making sure they survive when they do stupid things that they knew were stupid in the first place.
Also, if my kid took his helmet off after I'd told him to put it on, he'd soon learn never to do that again (disobey or go without his helmet). That is also mercy.
Essentially, Fighter is a class that isn't really as simple as it is given credit for, unless you focus on just attacking for damage, at which point it is still just as simple as most any other martial class that does the same, but it could have bigger numbers.
This... isn't true at all. While the "bigger numbers" part is true, I've never seen any of the rest apply. The one newb barbarian I've run had a difficult time remembering to mark his rounds-use (again this was 3.X) and keep track of it, as well as the change in attack, damage, and hit points. He had problems with feat selection and, because he didn't have that many a bad choice spelled problems for him later on. Plus multiple attribute dependency, as he saw it (strength for attack and damage and constitution for more rage) meant that he felt frustrated that he was outclassed by the pure fighter in terms of sheer strength, except for a few rounds per day (he totally got along fine with everyone and enjoyed the game - it was just frustrating that he was "outmanlied" by the woman in plate mail).
Conversely, I've had a number of players tell me they enjoy the simplistic, static bonuses that a fighter can provide.
You seem to be telling me that, in theory, fighters, who have to learn their skills, the feat chart, their bravery, their armor, and their weapons, are more complicated than barbarians who have to learn their skills, the feat chart (although they choose less), their armor, their weapons, and their rage, their uncanny dodge, their damage reduction, and their rage powers.
I'm telling that, in practice, I've not seen that happen (of course, I've not seen a newb also have to deal with rage powers or bravery... the latter of which is far more simple).
You seem to be telling me that, in theory, to be effective, a fighter needs many multiple weapons on-hand.
I'm telling you that, in practice, I've never seen that to be true: their primary weapon (melee or ranged), their secondary weapon (melee or ranged - whichever their primary isn't) and they're pretty good to go, in my experience.
Rangers are great samplers, as they provide so much. But animal companions can be quite difficult to run and complicated. I've never had a newb interested.
Rogues are fantastic, but again, knowing when/where/how to apply them can get complicated.
Sorcerers are great, but again, they present an entirely new vista to the game: spells. Each spell comes with its own rules, interpretations, and applications, and you need to constantly keep up with them, remember verbal and somatic components, keep up with your spell component pouch (well, okay, not any more, I grant), and worry about many of the normal combat modes that fighters can use because a number of spells require or utilize those as well. While I've never had personal experience in getting a newb with an oracle, it seems much like a sorcerer, plus they'd have to learn about a number of situational and/or limited-term modifiers and applications (of both their curse and the boons that come with it).
One final thing: I generally provide advice for newbs to simplify and to help be effective (I've had others that take that advice and don't have problems in general). Two of the fighters, the barbarian, and rogue never took it. The sorcerer did, and was relatively simple and effective, but didn't like all that he had to remember. Ergo, of those that didn't take my advice (which was designed for streamlining and effectiveness for whatever adventure they were in), the only ones that excelled were the fighters. Of those that did take my advice, the sorcerer was a bit overwhelmed. My advice was always tempered by other players - so it wasn't that I just suck at giving advice (which would otherwise be a factor).
I just suck at giving adviceWe could have told you that :P
I'd advise you to never change. :)
Oh bother. It's too late. Man, I do.