Why don't I just play "Redgar"?

[2D8HP]

So, this thread is a bit of a spinoff from the

Exactly what levels is there "Caster Supremacy"? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545191-Exactly-what-levels-is-there-quot-Caster-Supremacy-quot)

thread.

I finally bought the 3.5 PHB last month.

I previously bought the 1978 PHB (in '79), the 3e PHB in 2000 (but I never got around to using the rules), and I bought the 5e PHB in 2014 (and have played a tiny bit of 5e since), and somewhere in a box I have the Pathfinder "core rules".

I played and enjoyed a lot of D&D '79 to the mid or late1980's, and some other (less fun) games till '92, and then nothing until starting recently with 5e.

If I play 3.5 and/or Pathfinder I can more than double the games I can play in, which sounds good, but I'm a bit scared to.

One problem is that I don't learn rules quickly anymore, the other are that I have little interest in "builds" or indeed, learning the intricacies of character creation of a new rules system right now.

I pretty much just want to play "guy with a sword and a bow", and I just happened to look at my 3e PHB in my locker at work (my 3.5 PHB is by my bed at home, and the Pathfinder "Core rules" are in the garage... ..probably), and I noticed that there's a sample character of "Redgar" in the back of the book.

Redgar has a Greatsword, and a Shortbow, skills, other equipment, and those annoying "Feats" already picked out. I'd need to go through and make sure that the same character could fit 3.5 or Pathfinder character creation rules, but I get "options fatigue" easily, and I can just re-name him "Ragnar", slap a back-story on and go!

This looks like a good way for me to save myself some headache, and get to the part where the DM asks "What do you do?"

Why not?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't see any reason not to play him.

I only have a few questions:

1. Is he in the power level of your party?

2. Is his stats are by the rules of your DM for stats?

3. Do you sure you want -1 will save from the 8 Wis?

4. Are you sure you want to play a Fighter?
You can be a good Sword and Bow guy with Barbarian, Ranger and Scout and they don't make you choose a feat every even level like Fighter(I think you don't want to choose feats).

Edit:
I think I have found the 3.0 stats for him in an old GITP Thread.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-33863.html

[Nifft]

Do it.

But don't do it to ~prove~ something.

Do it with an open mind, looking carefully at how well it does what you want it to do.

If you're unsatisfied with the performance of the Fighter, then come back and talk to us about how you can build a character that will perform as you want it to perform.

If you're satisfied, then just continue to enjoy your game. :smallcool:

[Grod_The_Giant]

There would be three reasons not to use a pre-gen like that:

Your DM is using different character creation rules (though the lack of stats means you're probably fine)
It doesn't fit the power level of your party
It doesn't look fun to you

[Venger]

So, this thread is a bit of a spinoff from the

Exactly what levels is there "Caster Supremacy"? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545191-Exactly-what-levels-is-there-quot-Caster-Supremacy-quot)

thread.

I finally bought the 3.5 PHB last month.

I previously bought the 1978 PHB (in '79), the 3e PHB in 2000 (but I never got around to using the rules), and I bought the 5e PHB in 2014 (and have played a tiny bit of 5e since), and somewhere in a box I have the Pathfinder "core rules".

I played and enjoyed a lot of D&D '79 to the mid or late1980's, and some other (less fun) games till '92, and then nothing until starting recently with 5e.

If I play 3.5 and/or Pathfinder I can more than double the games I can play in, which sounds good, but I'm a bit scared to.

One problem is that I don't learn rules quickly anymore, the other are that I have little interest in "builds" or indeed, learning the intricacies of character creation of a new rules system right now.

I pretty much just want to play "guy with a sword and a bow", and I just happened to look at my 3e PHB in my locker at work (my 3.5 PHB is by my bed at home, and the Pathfinder "Core rules" are in the garage... ..probably), and I noticed that there's a sample character of "Redgar" in the back of the book.

Redgar has a Greatsword, and a Shortbow, skills, other equipment, and those annoying "Feats" already picked out. I'd need to go through and make sure that the same character could fit 3.5 or Pathfinder character creation rules, but I get "options fatigue" easily, and I can just re-name him "Ragnar", slap a back-story on and go!

This looks like a good way for me to save myself some headache, and get to the part where the DM asks "What do you do?"

Why not?
Regdar is unplayably awful. Do not use him as your character.

If you "aren't interested in creating a character" and think feats are "annoying," then 3.x is really not a very good fit for you. if your goal is finding more circles by playing more editions, you might look into 4 or 5e, since their learning curve isn't nearly as steep. they're a lot easier to learn, and it'll help you get into more games.

[2D8HP]

I don't see any reason not to play him.

I only have a few questions:

1. Is he in the power level of your party?

2. Is his stats are by the rules of your DM for stats?


No idea yet, there so many open 3.x games that I'm sure "power level" is all over the place, as are "stat rules".


3. Do you sure you want -1 will save from the 8 Wis?


Good point.


4. Are you sure you want to play a Fighter?
You can be a good Sword and Bow guy with Barbarian,


The Barbarian "Rage" Feature is conditional, I'd prefer simple "always on" Features.


Ranger


Ranger looks pretty good at first, but is a spell-caster later on, which I don't want to deal with right away, I'm looking for a "training wheel" class, either the 0e Fighter and Magic-User fit (at first level) and the 5e "Champion" Fighter fits as well.


..and Scout and they don't make you choose a feat every even level like Fighter(I think you don't want to choose feats)..
I have "Compleat Adventurer" somewhere, and I remember the "Scout" as being sort of a cross between a Ranger and a Rogue, would it make a good "training wheel" class?


Do it.

But don't do it to ~prove~ something..
Not looking to prove anything, looking for "training wheels"


..Do it with an open mind, looking carefully at how well it does what you want it to do.

If you're unsatisfied with the performance of the Fighter, then come back and talk to us about how you can build a character that will perform as you want it to perform.

If you're satisfied, then just continue to enjoy your game. :smallcool:.
That looks like good advice for most any game!

:smile:


There would be three reasons not to use a pre-gen like that:

Your DM is using different character creation rules (though the lack of stats means you're probably fine)
It doesn't fit the power level of your party
It doesn't look fun to you
.
Looked like fun to me, as for the rest, time will tell.


Regdar is unplayably awful. Do not use him as your character..
Why?


..If you "aren't interested in creating a character" and think feats are "annoying," then 3.x is really not a very good fit for you. if your goal is finding more circles by playing more editions, you might look into 4 or 5e, since their learning curve isn't nearly as steep. they're a lot easier to learn, and it'll help you get into more games..
4e suffers the same lack of players as TSR D&D. I have played and enjoyed 5e, starting with the "Champion Fighter" as a simple class to start with, and then moving on to Rogue, which is now my favorite class to play in that edition, but I'm looking for a simpler class to play while introducing myself to the 3.x rules, which has the most open games.

[Florian]

If I play 3.5 and/or Pathfinder I can more than double the games I can play in, which sounds good, but I'm a bit scared to.

Why not?

Ok, how to explain that? Well, see 3,5 and PF have taken different paths based on 3E, which in turn tried to be AD&D 3rd and failed at a lot of it. The differences are very subtle but felt during actual play, especially when playing a pure martial class.

Both iconics, "Redgar" and "Valerios" are simple and intentionally flawed characters, that should help new players understand the rules basics, as well as traps and strengths of builds, so the are prepared to create their wholly own character with the knowledge gained.

You've some experience with 5E, so I don't think you need that crutch when talking about potential character builds, especially when you make it clear that you want to stick to the complexity level of one of the iconics.

[Venger]

.
Why?

.
4e suffers the same lack of players as TSR D&D. I have played and enjoyed 5e, starting with the "Champion Fighter" as a simple class to start with, and then moving on to Rogue, which is now my favorite class to play in that edition, but I'm looking for a simpler class to play while introducing myself to the 3.x rules, which has the most open games.

Again, since you don't want to learn the system, I don't want to get into too much detail, but what it boils down to is fighter is the worst class in the game because it doesn't have any class features aside from "annoying" feats, of which you can only pick a very small subset.

Regdar also has his stats spread very badly and makes horrendous choices as to what his feats should be.

New players think since mundanes don't require learning spells, they are easier to play. There is less homework to do, but actually playing the character is much more difficult. Due to how many holes the class itself has, you need to know more about the system to catch up, not less. fighters need a huge amount of magic to be capable of basic function, so playing one doesn't mean you won't need to know about basic spells or items like stuff that lets you fly, it just means you won't be capable of supplying these things on your own.

Fighter, not having any class features, technically has the fewest class features to learn, but picking up the slack is a lot of work, which doesn't sound like what you're looking for. The closest thing to a training wheels character would be an initiator, but if feats are too much work, I somehow don't think you'll be interested in learning martial maneuvers.

[Nifft]

The Barbarian "Rage" Feature is conditional, I'd prefer simple "always on" Features.

Ranger looks pretty good at first, but is a spell-caster later on, which I don't want to deal with right away, I'm looking for a "training wheel" class, either the 0e Fighter and Magic-User fit (at first level) and the 5e "Champion" Fighter fits as well.

I have "Compleat Adventurer" somewhere, and I remember the "Scout" as being sort of a cross between a Ranger and a Rogue, would it make a good "training wheel" class?

Yes. Scout is a great idea.

You get rewarded for good tactics, your powers are always-on, you get some decent passives, and you get a LOT of skill points (so you can make mistakes and not feel too bad, because you have enough to cover the essentials).

Your main ability works with melee and ranged attacks, so you're tactically flexible. You're a good balance between combat toughness and skills -- you're not a front-line tank, but you're quite comfortable running up and then running away.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I have "Compleat Adventurer" somewhere, and I remember the "Scout" as being sort of a cross between a Ranger and a Rogue, would it make a good "training wheel" class?
Scout is pretty excellent, yeah. In a lot of ways, it's a simpler, hardier Rogue-- you get more hit points and (probably) more AC, and all you need to do to get your bonus damage is to move.

If you want a quick dead-simple, two-book break-down,

Assign your stats like so: Dex > Str, Con > Int, Wis > Cha
Invest in Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Spot, Listen, Search, and 2+Int more skills off their class list. (Disable Device and Survival would be classic)
For a primary archer, pick feats in this order: Point-Blank Shot (1st), Weapon Finesse (3rd), Precise Shot (4th lv bonus feat), Rapid Shot (6th), Quick Reconnoiter (8th lv bonus feat; note that the language lets you retry failed checks every round thereafter), Manyshot (9th), and Greater Manyshot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicFeats.htm#greaterManyshot) (12th). If you go human, shift Precise Shot down to 1st level, and grab Track with your 4th level slot. At low levels, run around the edges of the fight and shoot your one Skirmish-boosted arrow per turn. If forced into melee, draw a shortsword and shank away, using Tumble to roll around your enemy to keep Skirmish going. Around 8th/9th, standing in one place and full attacking becomes practical, but you should never bother with Manyshot. That's only useful for Greater Manyshot at 12th, which will let you shoot multiple arrows in a standard action and get bonus damage on each one.
For a primary melee fighter, grab maybe Dodge at 1st, Weapon Finesse at 3rd, Mobility with your 4th level bonus feat, Spring Attack at 6th, Point-Blank Shot with your 8th level bonus feat, TWF at 9th (or 1st, if you play a human), and Shot on the Run at 12th. Duck in, stab, and duck out; only use your second weapon if you're pinned down, since the extra damage is probably worth less than your Skirmish.


Both builds can get a lot better if you use more books, or if you multiclass a bit, but that's the bare bones of a Scout.

[Menzath]

If I had to pick classes with "always on" or "usable at will" abilities it's a fairly short list

Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Rogue

Ninja
Scout
Marshal
Dragon shaman
Knight
Warlock
Dragon fire adept
Soul knife

Then binders and incarnum, but those have alot more rules to them.

Of those I think rogue, scout, and warlock are the top picks for using pre-gen and still being useful and fun. Barbarian, monk, and ninja all have a single usable resource, that you can go through in an adventuring day, but not often.

Being a fighter type scout may work more in favor of being a stealth type, cause let's face it being the figurative scout and trap disarmer often is super dangerous.
Rogues(and a few other classes) best ability is the skill UMD(use magic device) and does require a little read, but can be one of the most useful skills you will ever get.

Even though it's not a sword and bow type one of my top picks would be warlock. Abilities that either last all day, or useable every round, or both. A nice skill selection, some class features that can be handy.

The worst part imo going from 5e to 3x is the sudden over abundance of skills, especially if you add splat books. Not even including skill tricks or obscure skill usage.

But I do agree with what has been said, you wanna play a fighter, play one. See how combat/skills play out. Comeback with feedback and see what you want to do differently.

[Fizban]

Stop for a moment to appreciate the irony of the simplest beginner's guide needing two spoilers. This is basically two posts worth, and I'm now adding a third, because here's what I think the real reason is: not wanting to learn the mechanics before the game.

DnD 3.5 has a lot of rules in its main combat system, but it's easy to tell people they can just pick it up while they play as long as you hand them a simple character sheet. And if that works, then it works, but no amount of simplicity in the character will tone down the basic combat mechanics, the bones of which I still had to spoiler. Having a simple character will make it easier to learn these, but they're still there. Playing a spellcaster means you learn spells first instead of weapon juggling and tactical positioning, but the fighter has to study up too.

So my point is that you can't be intimidated by big blocks of rules or posts like this one explaining them, because if you want to play 3.5 it's gonna happen. I've provided a simple character and the easiest rules explanations I can- this post should be enough to fill out a starting character sheet and run the character without anything else (aside from rations and rope and stuff).

If you just want a statblock to throw into a game and learn the rules on the fly, we can't fully make one until we know the game, and really it'd be better to just ask your DM to do it for you in that case.



The main reason you wouldn't want to use an example character is that while you can find plenty of pre-made example characters, they're probably not going to match the exact level of a game you're joining, they usually don't supply all the math so adjusting them is a pain, and they do in fact use modal feats like Power Attack where you have to pick a value. I feel that creating a fighter is as easy, or even easier, than figuring out one that's already written when it comes time to level up.

The most complicated part of starting with a fighter is learning basic combat mechanics, which aren't avoidable for anyone except by staying in the back row and casting spells. You can ignore some of them, but the more you ignore the less useful you'll be. The bare minimum is:

-You get one move action and one standard action per round, or you can take a full-round action. You can trade the standard action for another move action, which is known as a double move.

-Drawing a weapon is a move action.
-Putting on a shield is a move action.
-You can draw a weapon or put on a shield as part of a move action used to move your speed as long as you have BAB+1, so 1st level for fighters and 2nd for everyone else.
-Dropping a weapon is a free action.
-Stowing a weapon is a move action.
-Taking off a shield is a move action.

-Making a single attack is a standard action.
-If you have extra attacks from BAB, feats, Haste spells, or whatever, you need to make a full attack, which is a full-round action (you're allowed a 5' step at any point during your full attack, but only if you're on stable ground- bad terrain takes it away).

-If you have a straight line with no bad terrain between you and your opponent, you can Charge, which lets you move up to double your speed in a straight line and still attack, with +2 attack and -2 AC until your next turn.\
-Certain monsters and characters have special things that make their charges more deadly.

-Moving out of a square an enemy threatens gives them a free single attack, called an Attack of Opportunity, or AoO.
-This includes if you try to move past someone unless you stay out of their reach the whole time, because entering their reach at any point means you'll have to move out of it.
-You do not get an AoO for entering a threatened square.
-Most people and monsters are limited to one AoO per round.

-You can avoid AoOs from moving in two ways: if you declare a double move then you don't get AoO'd for leaving the square you started in, but you will for any other squares (this is called Withdrawing)
-Or you can take a 5' step that doesn't provoke AoOs as long as you forfeit your move action (this is the same 5' step as from full attacking).
The results of all those things:

You can prevent a foe from getting multiple attacks by waiting for them to come to you, and then hit them with your full attack/while moving up to your foe means they get to use their extra attacks and you don't. You don't extra attacks for a while, but lots of monsters have multiple attacks even at 1st level.
If you leave a clear line a foe can charge people from twice their move speed, so armored characters can hit 40' away while wolves and horses can go 100', but if you stand between them and a squishy they'll have to attack you first, pass close by you and give you a free AoO, or give you a lot of space.
Similarly, you can charge people from more than one move speed away, but running past enemies gives them free attacks.
Bad terrain turns off charging and 5' stepping, in addition to cutting move speed in half, so it helps you block people.
Some enemies have special charge attacks, so you might want to charge forward and attack them first if you can, but either way your most important job is not letting them charge the back row.
Ranged attacks have a bunch of penalties related to melee, so only use them when the enemy is at range.




Compared to all of that, building the character is way simpler:

Picking stats is easy if you use the elite array: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, in whatever order you want. A lot of groups give out more points, but even if they force you to roll it's extremely unlikely you'll need to undo any of your other choices. If the DM is beeing agreeable they should be just fine with the elite array.

Picking skills is easy if you just do it like the starting packages in the PHB and only pick a couple skills to max out, but example statblocks won't tell you how many skill ranks so you just have to take it on faith.

-A human fighter with 8 int will have 2 skills from the fighter list, both at 4 ranks. The fighter list has no skills that use your int bonus, so you you can basically ignore it from this point. Pick two skills from the fighter list, those skills have a bonus of 3 your level+ your ability score for the skill. Take Climb and Jump if you imagine your fighter Climbing and Jumping, or Handle Animal and Ride if you want some animal stuff you can learn about later. You do have to add in the armor check penalty, but you don't have to worry about that until you pick armor.

Picking feats is easy if you just go by level, but example statblocks won't tell you what order they came in or what prerequisites they have. I supplied a list of always-on feats in the other thread, or I could just make an example 10th level build now.

This build uses a greatsword, bow, and buckler, all starting from 1st level. You never have to switch shields, just weapons (dropping a weapon on the ground is a free action, putting one away is a move action). Using a buckler with a two-handed melee weapon gives -1 on attacks, but that never changes so you just write it in at 1st level.

Race: Human

Starting stats: 15 str, 14 dex, 13 con, 8 int, 12 wis, 10 cha.

Skills: Climb and Jump at full ranks of 3+level. Both take your armor check penalty, and jump takes an extra -6 if you speed is reduced to 20' by armor.

Equipment: greatsword, longbow, buckler, and the best armor you can afford. Depending on 1st level starting gold, you might have to cheap out on something, but anything after that and you're fine.

Human bonus feat: Quick Draw
1st level free feat: Weapon Focus (Greatsword)- Greatsword total +1 attack
Fighter 1 feat: Improved Buckler Defense (keep buckler AC bonus when using two-handed weapon, your shield AC never goes away so just write it on your sheet)

Fighter 2 feat: Point Blank Shot (+1 attack and damage with ranged weapons at 30 feet or less)

3rd level free feat: Rapid Shot (you get an extra attack with bows, but take -2 on all attacks when you use it- write your rapid shot full attack on its own line)

Fighter 4 feat: Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)- Greatsword total +1 attack, +2 damage

6th level free feat: Weapon Focus (Longbow)- Longbow total +1 attack
Fighter 6 feat: Weapon Specialization (Longbow)- Lonbow total +1 attack, +2 damage

Fighter 8 feat: Melee Weapon Mastery- Greatsword total +3 attack, +4 damage

9th level free feat: Ranged Weapon Mastery- Longbow total +3 attack, +4 damage, +20' range

Fighter 10 feat: Shield Specialization (Buckler), for +1 AC
or
Fighter 10 feat: Improved Critical (Greatsword) -threat range becomes 17-20
You carry your bow. A fight starts, stand between the enemy and the squishies, and you shoot the enemy until they're close. If the terrain is clear and it looks like they want to melee, then when they get to charge range (60', or 40' in heavy armor) decide if you want to wait take one last round of shots or charge them yourself. If the terrain is bad, keep shooting until they're at half that range. When you get into melee, make sure you're always between your foe and the squishies, so that they can't charge. If they 5' step, you can step to match them.

This build doesn't care about shooting into melee or even Point Blank Shot bonuses most of the time, because it doesn't shoot at short range. It doesn't care about switching shields or drawing weapons or context sensitive feats. The most complicated extra thing it needs to do is write an extra full attack entry for Rapid Shot and maybe remember the Point Blank bonuses on special occasions. It is the simplest possible sword and bow build aside from just completely ignoring Rapid and Point Blank Shot, but that seems like a waste if you're going to take Focus/Spec/Mastery for them. The only complexity is from understanding the base combat rules, which are mostly initutive and many of which carry over from other editions.

If you don't even want to deal with Point Blank and Rapid Shot, dump them and fill the 2nd and 3rd level slots with Shield Specialization and Improved Initiative (+4 initiative modifier all the time). The only prerequisites to worry about in that build are Dex 13 for Point Blank Shot, and the level requirements for Weapon Spec, Mastery, and Improved Crit which are already accounted for by where they show up, so they only way you can't use the build is if you have less than 13 Dex.

[Khedrac]

I'm looking for a "training wheel" class, either the 0e Fighter and Magic-User fit (at first level)

The first question has to be "How good are you at mental arithmetic?" Unless the answer is pretty good I don't recommend melee Fighter-type characters for new players, there's a lot of maths involved in working out your current attack bonus etc., especially when you use Power Attack which is pretty much a necessity for a melee fighter (OK not for two-weapon guys, but they are differently complex). (The maths comes from all the situational bonuses: flanking +2, higher ground +1, prone -4, opponent prone +4, bless from an ally +1, bard song from an ally +1 and up [doesn't stack with bless], haste +1, etc.)

If you are going the archer route a ranger is not too bad - don't be put off by the spells at 4th level, it's a very easy introduction to spellcasting, also there is a spell-less variant.

Oddly, of the core classes, the one I think probably the simplest for a new player is the sorceror, espcially if the DM is lenient for a new player and will allow you to swap spells if you get it wrong at first.

The Rogue is not a bad class for new players, but I personally don't think the skill system is something that new players should be dropped into the deep end thereof, so unless someone really wants to play a rogue, scout or bard I don't recommend them (and learning when one can and cannot use sneak attack can take people a while).

[Florian]

One problem is that I don't learn rules quickly anymore, the other are that I have little interest in "builds" or indeed, learning the intricacies of character creation of a new rules system right now.

Learning the rules is something you cannot avoid. Learning to "build" is actually a very stress free way to learn the rules and how all the moving parts interconnect before actual play.

Talk about character ideas and concepts, you'll notice that even when using all available rules material, certain things mostly come bundled in "blocks" and are re-used over and over, no matter what class(es). You'll also note that feats are often more important than class. For example, "archery" is done with the same feat chain (Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot..), independent of class, as would be "mounted lancer" (Mounted Combat, Spirit Charge...), and so on.

That's why it´s so hard to suggest a "training wheels class", because most often, class is less important then the feat blocks you choose to use for it.

As a training exercise, use PF, Point Buy 20, build a Human Fighter with the feat chains beginning with "Improved Shield Bash" and "Two Weapon Fighting" and plan a simple progression from level 1 to 10, then post it here for discussion.

[Malroth]

"Always on" Mundane combatant is the most difficult type of character to play well and requires the most system mastery to peform well and is the least forgiving of build mistakes. If your only concern is "easy to play" then a fixed list caster like the Warmage, Beguiler or Dread Necromancer is your best pick. If you want "Competent Melee combatant i can't mess up" then either A Barbarian with the "Lion spirit totem" variant or a Ranger with the "wildshape" variant can be put together that function regardless of feat choices. Fighter is more of a set of spare class parts than it is an actual functioning class, A Master can make a Fighter that can perform any task to perfection but it's definately in a bunch of disconected pieces out of the box.

My reccomendation:

If in a low optimization group with fellow first timers:
Lion spirt totem Barbarian variant:
Max Str, then Wis then Con Int at 13 or above if you have a 4th good stat for feat prereqs.
Power attack as your first feat:
Rage + Charge + Power attack:
Ask us for help if things get difficult

If in a regular group:
Warmage
Max Int then Con then Cha
Take Combat casting and Improved Initative
Blow things up
Blow more things up
If things get difficult spontaneously try a different means of blowing something up

If in a High op group:
Wildshape Ranger, Prestigue into a Master of many forms
Turn into a Bear
Maul things as a bear
Physical stats above 13 for prereqs otherwise stats don't matter
If something gives you problems turn into it.

[Velaryon]

What you need to keep in mind looking at the 3.5 core options is that the designers didn't have the greatest grasp on what they were doing. Many of the options were playtested poorly if at all, and some designers had some questionable design philosophies. The net result is that there are a lot of options that may look okay on the surface, but are actually quite poor. Unfortunately, many of the example characters, Regdar included, are plagued with these.

On the subject of first characters that would be simple to play with a minimum of moving parts, I think you can do better than a fighter (speaking as someone whose first character was a fighter). It's very possible to end up with a character who doesn't function very well, for one thing. For another, the best way to stay effective at higher levels is with Power Attack, which requires a lot of mental math and gauging how much of an attack penalty to take in order to maximize your damage. Fighter is certainly a viable choice to learn the game with, but I wouldn't recommend pigeonholing yourself into it without careful consideration.

Scout and Rogue are also solid choices for you. Both have a single major combat ability that you need to learn (skirmish for Scouts and sneak attack for Rogues), plus you have a good number of skill points so you can be competent with some out-of-combat stuff too. Someone mentioned that Use Magic Device is an important skill for Rogues and in many cases that's true, but in a game where optimization is not really a thing and someone else is playing a spellcaster, you can often do without it.

I know you were wary of the Ranger becasue of the spellcasting that it gains, but I really think you should keep them in mind too. First of all, they really get very few spells, and can operate well enough without having to use them very much. If you don't want to put too much thought into it, you can just use a couple of cure spells for your daily allotment and leave it at that. Meanwhile, Rangers are still competent melee or ranged fighters (small f), plus they have a good number of skills and an animal companion. They're pretty hard to beat as a way to dip your toes into most of the game's major rules systems a little bit at a time. Playing a Ranger lets you stick to simple options in combat, while not having to sit on your hands when it's skill time (unlike the Fighter). You can cast a spell or two, which lets you slowly familiarize yourself with that, but without having to rely on it as your main focus. And having the animal companion gives you some extra tactical options (flanking and so on), while also teaching you a bit about managing secondary characters which could come in handy down the road if you ever want to play around with summons or necromancy.

[P.F.]

Ranger is a solid upgrade if you want to be able to add a few outdoorsy actions to your noncombat options. Fighters noncombat choice is pretty much "try to break something" or "try not to break anything."

If you go with Ranger just start out with a "role-playing" animal companion like a chipmunk or a sparrow, or a ferret that can maybe steal things and provide comic relief. Otherwise you have to manage what is essentially another (less formatted) character sheet with different stats and abilities and tactics and play both your character and your companion in combat. It's not monstrously difficult to manage, but it's a far cry from, "I'll just play Redgar."