I am joining a 5e campaign next week, it will be my first time since I was very young that I played Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm attempting to read the rule books bow, but the gm said not even to bother and just learn how to create a character.
Is it worth reading all of the manual? Also what class would be good for a starting character.
I'm thinking about ranger.
Read up the character creation stuff first, look over the classes, see what you like.
It's probably easier to go in to the first session not reading it since it sounds like he'll run you through an introduction, but read it after if you have time.
Play a Druid. They are the strongest class.
Or a Warlock and build up Eldritch blast, its a monster early on.
There is no respecting, all sale are final.
If you do a point buy just buy the bare minimum you'll need feats are better almost every time.
Try to ignore the fa/tg/uys bitching about 5e. I play it, it's fun.
More importantly, a ranger can be a good step back into roleplaying. I'm playing with a guy who just started playing again after a long hiatus and he picked a ranger because he wanted to play the quiet type, since he wasn't confident in his roleplaying abilities.
We've been playing for over 6 months and his character is full of personality and he has fun interactions. It took him a few weeks to get back into the swing of things, but the quiet ranger turned out to be a good choice for him. Shooting and stealthing rangers are also mechanically simple in 5e, so it shouldn't be too hard to get used to the system, especially since it's fairly simple right now.
It all comes down to what type of character you want to play and how confident you are in your ability to roleplay as well as the type of group you'll be playing with. You could always go with the young naive fighter/knight who will need to be mentored by the other players. This worked for me when I joined a group of older players and now my character has ''grown up" to be part of the team.
Yeah, 4e was so terrible, with its deep tactical combat, huge array of playable characters archetypes on-par with each-other, fun out of combat challenge system, impeccable encounter building guidelines, including ones for monster, trap and terrain creation...
Whew, so glad we could put behind us all of that shit!
Ignore the bitter grognards. 5e is fine, especially for newbies.
>5e is fine, especially for newbies
This is true primarily because they don't yet have the faculties to assess just how poorly designed it is.
A DM not wanting players to know the rules is the biggest red flag there is. I can't say for sure that he's a power-tripping asshole who doesn't want "rules lawyers" to get in the way of his mean-spirited fun, but it's likely he is.
You're right, poorly designed isn't the best way to put it. The game does what the designers wanted: >>44726191
A better complaint would be to say the degree to which it's been gutted doesn't leave anything engaging beyond surface level. And bounded accuracy is fucking unforgivable.
>And bounded accuracy is fucking unforgivable.
Why? I think it's great, I absolutely can't stand bloat. But again, that's just me. I'm an OSRfag, I love what they did in 5th, but I don't think 4th is bad or wrong, just different.
It's not better, it's just mechanically different, and I still play it when I want to play that kind of game.
There is exactly one case in which the DM should tell players not to read the rules, and that's if they're playing Paranoia.
Of course, the players are then required to read the rules anyway, and not let on.
Not really though?
If something is easy, the dice will matter less. If it's harder, they will matter more.
When stat bloat occurs, either after a certain point nothing is hard anymore, or you have to keep changing the TNs for what is and isn't hard for the party, which honestely is pretty shitty for a tabletop game that relies in internal consistency.
To me the intention sounded more like 'don't worry too much about learning all the rules ahead of time, we'll teach you as we go'. Could just be how the OP phrased it though.