I would argue that MONK is actually best for beginners.They also require a ridiculous amount of system mastery and min maxing to their stats to make good. If you want to argue exploring lots of features, I'd actually suggest wizard personally. Wizards are SAD, work well even if that SAD is a little low. They get to explore a variety of options through spells, and if you screw up spell selection you just get a new one the next day. Another 3rd party option is psionics for its power point system, but we probably shouldn't touch it.
I'd disagree with this. Sorcerers are, in my opinion better than Wizards for new players. Spontaneous casting seems better just in general, for newer players, and the primary benefit of prepared casting, the ability to swap spell loadouts, and prepare new spells if they leave slots open, require a deal of system mastery that you don't want to push on new players.
Though personally, the Class that I think is best for new players is Barbarian. Barbarians aren't fragile, and while not as durable as heavy armor users, they can take knocks pretty well. Also, the 4+Int Skills provides a decent amount of skill points, if nothing special. But most importantly, I think, is that Rage requires less game knowledge than feats to learn. Feats require you to choose from a large list on what to take, and while people who already know the system will know that Power attack is one of the best first feats to take, a new player won't have that base knowledge. With rage, you just have to know what benefits and penalties rage provides, and how many rage-rounds per day you have.
I would argue that MONK is actually best for beginners. They have linear damage progression, don't have to min-max their gear (In the sense of armor and weapons and such), most of their options are specifically given to them rather than being things that they have to pick. It also allows the player to learn to do things like using special actions and maneuvers, but isn't entirely dependent on them so the player can ease into them at a comfortable pace. If a game starts at level 1, then by level 8 the player just might have learned the whole combat system.
and then the newbie complains that all of their attacks are missing and that they cannot land an effective maneuver.
monk deters newbies from playing due to the high level of system mastery required to play a monk.
monk is a trap. a trap that sucks, and some unconventional DMs, ask me to design crutch classes that serve to prevent excessive cheesing by increasing the cheese just enough to discourage excessive optimization.
when a bard variant can give up a few underused performances for + bard level to damage rolls without restriction. many munchkins will fall for the trap, neglecting the pouncing Ubercharger that would have wrecked encounter composition.
when an dancer base class has Full BAB and full sneak attack in exchange for a lack of armor proficiency, a reduction of hit points, and weapon restrictions, the munchkins will fall for that too.
hell, i play my munchkin trap crutches to trap munchkins into trying them
most munchkins in my area can be baited by a class that bears a minimum of any 9 of the following criteria [/list]
with all those criteria, i know how to bait each munchkin within a given group in my local area. out of 5 of them.
If you aren't helping a newbie learn which feats are good and the basics of combat, and instead expect them to figure out how to play a ranger/scout type character on their own then we have nothing to discuss.
Regardless of whether or not it's on the list of class skills, if they don't know how important perception is, they won't put ranks into it.
I would never bring a new player in and expect them to make a character from the ground up.
Good for you, some of us weren't so lucky. While I got help building the character at first level, the only advice I got for leveling up my very first PRG character (a Star Wars d20 Soldier, which is basically a Fighter) was, "Take whatever feat you like."
Any character, other than, perhaps, a prepared caster is good choice for a newbie if someone who knows what they are doing is willing to help them build it and explain how it should play. So there's nothing that puts fighters ahead in that regard.
I'm sorry all I can see right now is a Heavy/Medic combo where the Heavy can quickly jump ahead when he wants to.
And it terrifies me.
when a bard variant can give up a few underused performances for + bard level to damage rolls without restriction. many munchkins will fall for the trap, neglecting the pouncing Ubercharger that would have wrecked encounter composition.I can see why that would be munchkin bait, but unless you have a warped perception of which performances are underused that's because it's ridiculously overpowered. Base bards make worthwhile archers. Add on level to damage and they'd wreck encounters worse than any non-homebrew ubercharger.
the performances to be traded for said ability were
Lore master
Distraction
Countersong
Fascinate
Suggestion
Mass Suggestion
and
Inspire Competence.
at least in draft 0.
|
What the other 700+ post thread on fighters wasn't enough?
Fighters are singled out because they are the prototypical mundane dude in armor. They get very little as class abilities besides feats. People see that and immediately assume "wow, fighters suck".
But feats are, outside of spells, probably the single most flexibility enhancing part of the game. Feats will allow a character to do many, many things, both in combat and out. And fighters get more feats to work with than anyone.
So if you want to be a wand-wielding UMD specialist casting heal spells in combat, you can do that as a fighter. If you want to be a sneaky dude looking for and disabling traps, you can do that too.
The one thing you can't do is cast innate spells.
One of the things I see on these boards all the time is "I can't generate the most optimal possible result with this class for this option, so this class is obviously useless for this option." That's nonsense, but that's what I see all the time. If you want to be socially active in the game all you need is to put a few skill points into a social skill. You don't have to be overflowing with ranks. There are many ways to boost your likelihood of success, ranging from having other party members "aid another", to skill boosting spells that can be put in a wand.
I know this will get me jumped all over, but the main reason people complain about this class or that class being useless for this role or that role is not because the class is boned, it's because they lack the experience or the imagination to figure out how to make it work.
Hear, hear.
Forget the naysayers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not, the class is perfect for beginners.
Can this be read as the class isn't suited for non beginners?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not, the class is perfect for beginners.
Fighter probably wouldn't be my highest recommendation for a player who is not good with the rules. Learning a system involves trial and error and the fighter is very unforgiving to a trial and error approach. If you choose poorly, you can't wake up next morning and prepare new feats and a new weapon training selection. Skills are so limited that you will want to know what to pick to make them count.
I'd probably recommend ranger for a starting martial class and cleric for a starting caster class. Cleric is pretty hard to mess up permanently; as a divine prepared class with access to its whole list you can trial and error a ton with spells, and if you try a spell and find out it's lame, it's as simple as preparing something else next morning.
With a ranger the only decision you can really mess up badly is your favored enemy, and a GM ought to be providing some guidance on what might be good choices for a new campaign, even to an experienced player. Combat feats are partly provided for you in convenient bundles, you have enough skill points to mess around with the system, and ranger spells are just dipping a toe in the water (and again, prepared access to the full class list, so you can try something, and then try something different tomorrow if you didn't like it).
Fighter probably wouldn't be my highest recommendation for a player who is not good with the rules. Learning a system involves trial and error and the fighter is very unforgiving to a trial and error approach.
Fighters are the only class that allow you to swap out the feats that you already have. System mastery? Fighters have very few actions, and thus they don't really have to worry about mastering the action economy. New fighters simply learn the basics of roll d20, add modifier, see if I hit, roll damage. The combat they care about is simple, the simplest of all the classes in the book. Part of that is from the fact that fighters have no tracked resources aside from maybe arrows.
If you choose poorly, you can't wake up next morning and prepare new feats and a new weapon training selection. Skills are so limited that you will want to know what to pick to make them count.
Limited skills for new players I see as a good thing, since most of the time they don't have enough of a grasp on how to use them or which ones are important. So giving them a job in the team that requires his divided attention on learning the basics of combat and also forcing him to learn the skill system and expecting him to be a contributing member just doesn't seem fair to me.
I'd probably recommend ranger for a starting martial class and cleric for a starting caster class. Cleric is pretty hard to mess up permanently; as a divine prepared class with access to its whole list you can trial and error a ton with spells, and if you try a spell and find out it's lame, it's as simple as preparing something else next morning.
Agree on cleric, to a point. Again the resource tracking thing. Brand new players in my experience have a hard time grasping the difference between a spell available to them in their religion/spellbook and a spell that they picked out already for the day.
With a ranger the only decision you can really mess up badly is your favored enemy, and a GM ought to be providing some guidance on what might be good choices for a new campaign, even to an experienced player. Combat feats are partly provided for you in convenient bundles, you have enough skill points to mess around with the system, and ranger spells are just dipping a toe in the water (and again, prepared access to the full class list, so you can try something, and then try something different tomorrow if you didn't like it).
This statement here is complete BS. Don't get me wrong, the ranger is a great class for beginners to get a feel for the way all kinds of things in the game works, and still great for players that are new to a certain group; but I would never recommend a ranger for someone's first character. You have so many resources to track, bonuses to remember, and you now have to know which skills are important and will be expected to perform them, and perform them well. Rangers are a great second character for newbies who have combat down and are ready to learn the more role-playing stuff like skills, after they've been exposed to the game enough to see what to do.
I played a game with a brand new player playing a ranger with no help with his build and it was a mess. He had no ranks in perception, or survival. All his character did was hit things. He was playing it like a fighter. So know that when I give my opinion here, it is directly from experience.
Fighter probably wouldn't be my highest recommendation for a player who is not good with the rules. Learning a system involves trial and error and the fighter is very unforgiving to a trial and error approach.Fighters are the only class that allow you to swap out the feats that you already have. System mastery? Fighters have very few actions, and thus they don't really have to worry about mastering the action economy.
Prepared casters can change their selection of abilities every morning. Spontaneous can swap out spells every few levels too, and the fighter only gets to swap his once every 4 levels. It doesn't necessarily mean the player knows his mistakes and gets a chance to fix them if he made any. Its also very hard to mess up a martial character because of the numerous ways they can be built and sometimes they're dependent on those feats, though sometimes its just more +1's. Meanwhile, spells are always powerful.
Few actions isn't necessarily a good thing. It could mean the player gets bored easily and thinks the game is stupid, on the other hand a player might like that. Very limited doesn't mean beginner friendly imo. YMMV.
While the fighter is simple in the way it works, I'm not a big fan of it nor do I think its beginner friendly. I'm absolutely certain it wasn't in 3.5, though not sure about that in pathfinder.
Fighter probably wouldn't be my highest recommendation for a player who is not good with the rules. Learning a system involves trial and error and the fighter is very unforgiving to a trial and error approach.Fighters are the only class that allow you to swap out the feats that you already have. System mastery? Fighters have very few actions, and thus they don't really have to worry about mastering the action economy.Prepared casters can change their selection of abilities every morning. Spontaneous can swap out spells every few levels too, and the fighter only gets to swap his once every 4 levels. It doesn't necessarily mean the player knows his mistakes and gets a chance to fix them if he made any. Its also very hard to mess up a martial character because of the numerous ways they can be built and sometimes they're dependent on those feats, though sometimes its just more +1's. Meanwhile, spells are always powerful.
Few actions isn't necessarily a good thing. It could mean the player gets bored easily and thinks the game is stupid, on the other hand a player might like that. Very limited doesn't mean beginner friendly imo. YMMV.
While the fighter is simple in the way it works, I'm not a big fan of it nor do I think its beginner friendly. I'm absolutely certain it wasn't in 3.5, though not sure about that in pathfinder.
My experience is that new players have a hard time keeping the spells in their book separate from the ones they have prepared. They all seem to think they are Schrodinger's caster with everything they could ever need prepared.
That's a player problem, not a problem with the class. I've seen fighters and barbarians get their static modifiers wrong, doesn't mean the class is the problem. You've completely over looked the point about swapping on the day to day vs swapping a single feat once every 4 levels.
That's a player problem, not a problem with the class. I've seen fighters and barbarians get their static modifiers wrong, doesn't mean the class is the problem. You've completely over looked the point about swapping on the day to day vs swapping a single feat once every 4 levels.Of course taht is a player problem, was taht not the point in that argument? that new players have problem with how the system works and need begginer friendly classes?
Vancian problems. Anyways, In the same way the fighter could easily miscount their static modifiers. Fighters must be bad for beginners? The point was about how the fighter could swap feats and was easy to learn, but it also has a lot of bad options that look good(hello vital strike!). I'd rather show them the ranger, which has a smaller selection and a little bit of everything, and plenty of skill points to throw around. At worst you can dump wisdom when your newer, I think anyway.
Anyways, I'm not sure if beginner friendly but lacks is a good place(or defense) for a class. Something can be good but simple. That also defend it having poor skill points, or being crap outside of combat do to a lack of class features. I want players to be engaged and think and have lots of options, but the fighter falls flat on his face pretty often in my experience.
Fighter probably wouldn't be my highest recommendation for a player who is not good with the rules. Learning a system involves trial and error and the fighter is very unforgiving to a trial and error approach.Fighters are the only class that allow you to swap out the feats that you already have. System mastery? Fighters have very few actions, and thus they don't really have to worry about mastering the action economy. New fighters simply learn the basics of roll d20, add modifier, see if I hit, roll damage. The combat they care about is simple, the simplest of all the classes in the book. Part of that is from the fact that fighters have no tracked resources aside from maybe arrows.
I will agree, if your goal is simply a class that requires very little once you're playing and teaches very little at the same time, the fighter is fine, for all the reasons you mention. Few important decisions to make in combat, no class resources to manage, and for a sufficiently simple fighter build you can do the exact same thing every round of most fights, especially at low level.
Basically the fighter offers a dizzying array of choices during the build stage (the only thing that competes with feats in the sheer multitude of possible choices is probably arcane spells, and the fighter depends more than any class on solid feat choices), and then provides little to no variation during play. I find this subpar for teaching a beginner on both ends because I would prefer a less complicated start, and a greater degree of scope for exploration of the game during actual play.
Limited skills for new players I see as a good thing,
To a point. What I actually want in a beginning character is to not be dependent on a complicated mastery of skills in order to be effective, like a rogue probably would be. I don't think that is the same thing as simply not being allowed to use the skill system to any significant degree, like a typical fighter can't. The fighter class is of nearly no use in teaching a new player about skills.
So, ranger. A bit more straightforward to build, because the class basically offers you packaged guidance with choosing your feats. It offers more scope for actually learning things about the rules, without requiring mastery of such rules to function (because you can just fall back on attacking like a fighter when you get confused, and you'll do fine in that role). Very skill friendly, because, frankly, you can't really screw up by picking the wrong skills. A party typically isn't expected to have to subsist in the wild like they are expected to overcome traps or handle social situations, so if there is a ranger without Survival, even... big deal.
I played a game with a brand new player playing a ranger with no help with his build and it was a mess. He had no ranks in perception, or survival. All his character did was hit things. He was playing it like a fighter.
So... in the worst possible ranger newbie case... he still gets everything that the fighter had to offer, is that what you're saying? :P
More seriously... so if a couple levels go by and someone finds out that he wants perception, he can put two or three ranks into it his next level... that's why a ranger is good for this. A lot of skill points and few critical requirements means there is room for experimentation yet it's easy to go back and fill in something you didn't initially know that you would want.
So know that when I give my opinion here, it is directly from experience.
Me too. My first PC (back in 3.0, converted to 3.5) was a ranger :p In hindsight it was a great intro. The core competency of the class basically took care of itself through BAB advancement and the combat path feats, with little guidance required from me, while I could play with a lot of skill points in a low key way. And when after a while I had started wishing I could cast some spells like the wizard and cleric... that was waiting at 4th level, with an utterly simple one prepared spell a day intro to the system.
That's a big reason why I've used that class to start other people out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the ranger is a really great intro class. Very useful class abilities, for both the ranger and her allies. Easy to use bonus feats, lots of fun and useful skills. Intro to spellcasting, intro to pets, intro to party buffing through Hunter's Bond.
Yeah, that's not nearly enough. Not one thing in that list I'd balk at archetyping away, though I'd miss lore master. Distraction and countersong are difficult to use, the fascinate line require a noncombat situation that calls for significant resource expenditure, and inspire competence is rarely worth it when measured in rounds. Take all of those away and bards are still the kings of skills and buffing and, well, let's just look at level 20 and pretend for ease of comparison that the progressions are all smooth. Actual relative value will vary because of rounding and fighter feat prerequisites. A fighter ends up with 20 BAB, no bonus to hit including greater weapon focus and deadly aim, and +18 damage with specialization and greater. The modified bard ends up with 15 BAB, +4 to hit after inspire courage sans deadly aim, and +29 damage with that and arcane strike. The bard can't dump charisma, but needs about 4 less wisdom to keep saves adequate so's probably only out a couple points off strength and he's using a composite shortbow instead of a composite longbow unless he's an elf so he's "only" up 10 points of damage per arrow for -1 accuracy and 0 or 1 fewer arrows except between levels...when a bard variant can give up a few underused performances for + bard level to damage rolls without restriction. many munchkins will fall for the trap, neglecting the pouncing Ubercharger that would have wrecked encounter composition.I can see why that would be munchkin bait, but unless you have a warped perception of which performances are underused that's because it's ridiculously overpowered. Base bards make worthwhile archers. Add on level to damage and they'd wreck encounters worse than any non-homebrew ubercharger.the performances to be traded for said ability were
Lore master
Distraction
Countersong
Fascinate
Suggestion
Mass Suggestion
and
Inspire Competence.at least in draft 0.
a trade of 10 points of damage for an extra 3 points of At will to hit is reasonable.
the fighter has an extra point of to hit from bab, 2 extra from greater specialization, 4 from weapon training, and 2 from gloves of dueling -6 for deadly aim.
bard has to blow performance rounds to be 3 points of to hit behind.
to hit applies to DPR a lot more than damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've dealt with a LOT of "new players" in my time as a gamer, and none of them have been anywhere near the level of ineptitude or sheer idiocy that many people are assuming in this thread.
None of them.
Personally, I've dealt with a LOT of "new players" in my time as a gamer, and none of them have been anywhere near the level of ineptitude or sheer idiocy that many people are assuming in this thread.
None of them.
I can't speak for you, but from what I've experienced, it's best to go with baby steps with new players.
Yes, the fighter teaches very little to new players. That's the point. Once the new guy gets a basic grasp on how things look in game, and they see what kind of skills are important from seeing the example of his teammates, he can start to branch out on his own and come up with his own character.
I also don't like having to deal with someone having a job in game that they simply do not know how to do. If there is only 3-4 of us at the table and he wants to play the skill/utility guy but doesn't know how, it detracts from the experience because we aren't going to be prepared for what should be easy most of the time. A ranger that can't track, a rogue that can't pick locks, a bard that didn't bother to read what versatile performance does; all of these things create a hole in the team and when the other players have to compensate for a newbie's shortcomings they feel alienated and can be driven away from the game. Give him a sword and tell him to hit things, and he'll feel like the MVP of the group, because it really is the first and most important thing to learn in this game, that is, the basics of combat. All the other stuff can wait.
Heh, if I had the time, I'd join PFS just to play a fighter...I play a fighter. Here are his stat's,
Tanix LVL 1 Human Fighter,
Str, 18
Dex, 19
Con, 15
Int, 14
Wis, 14
cha, 11
Skill's, Acrobatics 5. Climb, 8. Disable Device, 5. Stealth, 5. Swim, 8Hp 12
Fort 4
Ref 4
Will 4Initiative 4
Melee att 5
Ranged att 5
Feat's, WF Longsword, Power Attack, Point blank shot.
Weapons Longsword, Shortbow.
Armor, Studded Leather, Heavy steal shield, Total AC 19.I'm going to focus on archery, Duel Weilding Longsword's and a few skill's. All in all i feel like ive created my character to be just like me and i'm very happy with my result's.
As someone noted, that's insanely high point buy. Like, +3 to every stat.
Also, where are you getting a +4 Will save? I see the +2 Wisdom, but there's no Iron Will in there.
And it's a 'steel shield'. Spell check doesn't catch using the wrong word!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've dealt with a LOT of "new players" in my time as a gamer, and none of them have been anywhere near the level of ineptitude or sheer idiocy that many people are assuming in this thread.
None of them.
I can't speak for you, but from what I've experienced, it's best to go with baby steps with new players.
Yes, the fighter teaches very little to new players. That's the point. Once the new guy gets a basic grasp on how things look in game, and they see what kind of skills are important from seeing the example of his teammates, he can start to branch out on his own and come up with his own character.
I also don't like having to deal with someone having a job in game that they simply do not know how to do. If there is only 3-4 of us at the table and he wants to play the skill/utility guy but doesn't know how, it detracts from the experience because we aren't going to be prepared for what should be easy most of the time. A ranger that can't track, a rogue that can't pick locks, a bard that didn't bother to read what versatile performance does; all of these things create a hole in the team and when the other players have to compensate for a newbie's shortcomings they feel alienated and can be driven away from the game. Give him a sword and tell him to hit things, and he'll feel like the MVP of the group, because it really is the first and most important thing to learn in this game, that is, the basics of combat. All the other stuff can wait.
Combat is hardly all a Fighter has to worry about (you're describing a Warrior - npc class).
There are umpteen-hundred feats, spread throughout every single source book, and most of them aren't even good. That can be super-overwhelming to a newbie. Hell, even for experienced players, trying to find a new feat build can be exhausting just from the sheer amount of feats you need to pour through (hence why cookie-cutter builds tend to be so popular).And you suggest skills are harder to get a grasp of? There's WAY less skills to learn than there are feats to shop through. ;)
Ranger is my "go-to" newb class, and here's why:
•Stealthy Fighters that get full BAB: Roguish stealthy characters are incredibly popular as a theme. The Rogue class, however, is chock-full of disappointments, especially when a new person tries to be viable in combat. Rangers allow you to play the Rogue's theme while benefiting from the Fighter's attack mechanics.
•You aren't screwed on skill points: More skill points is better for new characters than less skill points, simply because they won't immediately know how important each skill is or isn't. It gives them room to make "mistakes" without penalizing them for a lack of system mastery.
•Smoothest introduction to spells: The class teaches you how spell mechanics work without the overwhelming spell lists of the Druid or Cleric, and without the harder-to-master mechanics of the Wizard or Sorcerer. You aren't saddled with a spell book, and your list of choices are small and easy to work with. Also, most Ranger spells aren't offensive, so you don't have to concern yourself with an exceptionally high caster stat for save DCs like the more traditional casters do.
•Leveling abilities are constant and fun: Contrary to popular belief, it's not overwhelming to get new stuff every level - it's fun! You really really feel your character growing, and most of the stuff that the Ranger class provides is very easy to remember and very easy to note on a character sheet.
Personally, I've dealt with a LOT of "new players" in my time as a gamer, and none of them have been anywhere near the level of ineptitude or sheer idiocy that many people are assuming in this thread.
None of them.
I can't speak for you, but from what I've experienced, it's best to go with baby steps with new players.
Yes, the fighter teaches very little to new players. That's the point. Once the new guy gets a basic grasp on how things look in game, and they see what kind of skills are important from seeing the example of his teammates, he can start to branch out on his own and come up with his own character.
I also don't like having to deal with someone having a job in game that they simply do not know how to do. If there is only 3-4 of us at the table and he wants to play the skill/utility guy but doesn't know how, it detracts from the experience because we aren't going to be prepared for what should be easy most of the time. A ranger that can't track, a rogue that can't pick locks, a bard that didn't bother to read what versatile performance does; all of these things create a hole in the team and when the other players have to compensate for a newbie's shortcomings they feel alienated and can be driven away from the game. Give him a sword and tell him to hit things, and he'll feel like the MVP of the group, because it really is the first and most important thing to learn in this game, that is, the basics of combat. All the other stuff can wait.
Combat is hardly all a Fighter has to worry about (you're describing a Warrior - npc class).
There are umpteen-hundred feats, spread throughout every single source book, and most of them aren't even good. That can be super-overwhelming to a newbie. Hell, even for experienced players, trying to find a new feat build can be exhausting just from the sheer amount of feats you need to pour through (hence why cookie-cutter builds tend to be so popular).
And you suggest skills are harder to get a...
first of all, running a game with all the books is a bad idea for newbies, overwhelming options and trap options are not fighter exclusive. I personally used the CRB and fighters to introduce several players to the game.
I've seen new players rock monks with no real problems (at first). Threats start small and weak, so they are fine. They also have a great chance to pass any save they will face at low level, but not dominate on damage. This is in response to the beginner players playing monks posts above.
And agree with lazarx on learning.
I would argue that MONK is actually best for beginners.They also require a ridiculous amount of system mastery and min maxing to their stats to make good. If you want to argue exploring lots of features, I'd actually suggest wizard personally. Wizards are SAD, work well even if that SAD is a little low. They get to explore a variety of options through spells, and if you screw up spell selection you just get a new one the next day. Another 3rd party option is psionics for its power point system, but we probably shouldn't touch it.
I'd argue Cleric they can prepare anything ad turn it into a cure in emergencies.
They used to wear any armor, now Med and lower not heavy. They use all simple including best simples like longspear, crossbow, Morningstar, etc.They cast magic makes them awesome.
And if nice DM you can be a concept DM and ignore needing to be a religion of a god.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm down with the Ranger being the best class for actually teaching someone the game.
1) They begin as Fighters.
1.a) They have a d10 HD and 100% BAB, full weapon proficiencies, proficiencies with shields, and proficiency with medium armor.
1.b) Rangers and Fighters both begin the game with 175 gp. The best gear you can get at this level is chainmail. So Rangers can easily match the AC of Fighters at 1st-2nd level.
1.c) Pre-4th level, there is nothing that makes a Fighter's to hit or to-damage stand out. At this level it's pretty much just BAB and ability scores, and a Ranger can swing a greatsword or longspear just as easily as a Fighter.
2) They have a lot of skill points in a variety of things.
2.a) Lots of skill points encourages dabbling in stuff to try.
2.b) It means putting a few points into something odd won't hurt you.
2.c) It means if your Int is low, it still won't hurt you.
2.d) It's easiest to learn as you go, so when the player asks if he can use X skill, you tell them yes and explain, like this:
Player: "Can I sneak up on the goblins?"
GM: "Yes. You roll your Stealth skill. The farther you are from them the easier it will be. You can also choose not to roll and take 10 since you aren't fighting right now."
Player: "Okay cool, so I roll this and add this and try to sneak up? Got it."
2.e) If they mostly ignore their skills while getting the combat basics down, they will still have their skills after they've learned to roll a d20 and add a number versus armor class.
3) They are hard to screw up as they get good feats tailored to them.
3.a) At 2nd level they get a combat style. They don't have to deal with prerequisites for these feats and just pick what they like. The feats that you get through combat style tend to be the better feats in a given style. Since the APG, there are also styles for 2handers and sword & board rangers.
4) After you've had 3 levels to get used to using attacks, skills, and feats, you get a small pool of prepared divine spells.
4.a) You get a tiny number of GOOD spells. Most of the ranger spells are great but you get few enough to not overwhelm.
4.b) You use prepared casting which teaches you how magic works for 5/7ths of the core casters.
4.c) Their higher level spells include some AoE and summoning as well.
5) They get a decent pet, but just one and only after they've had time to get used to fighting and skills. Now they can practice running their character while having a minion (which prepares you for druids, leadership, summoners, necromancers, etc).
5.a) The pet is relatively expendable. If it dies you get another 24 hours later.
By the time you get done with 20 levels of Ranger you'll have a working knowledge of how the entire game works, and you get to do this while being a badass martial character your entire career.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I just poked in here to see why any topic needed over 1300 posts...
Having read the previous page, I gather the conversation has strayed from problems with fighters?
Anyways, I think Ashiel makes some great points about the Ranger being a great class for beginners. The main advantage of the Ranger class as a teaching tool for new players is that it is
a) Rangers have a little of everything. You can learn a lot!
b) Rangers get different abilities very gradually. It's not overwhelming!
One could argue that other classes are easier to understand and manage, or have easier feat/spell decisions, but not many classes have the wide array of abilities that the ranger has, introduced in a gradual way. Rangers seem like a great way to gradually gain a working knowledge of the game as a whole, not just the mechanics of a specific class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I just poked in here to see why any topic needed over 1300 posts...
Having read the previous page, I gather the conversation has strayed from problems with fighters?
Anyways, I think Ashiel makes some great points about the Ranger being a great class for beginners. The main advantage of the Ranger class as a teaching tool for new players is that it is
a) Rangers have a little of everything. You can learn a lot!
b) Rangers get different abilities very gradually. It's not overwhelming!One could argue that other classes are easier to understand and manage, or have easier feat/spell decisions, but not many classes have the wide array of abilities that the ranger has, introduced in a gradual way. Rangers seem like a great way to gradually gain a working knowledge of the game as a whole, not just the mechanics of a specific class.
Exactly! I've found rangers are the best at actually introducing/teaching players the game.
If you just want to get them into RPGs and dice rolling on as little mechanics as you can I suggest playing NPC classes instead. You can have a ton of fun with adept/expert/warrior and they are very rules-lite. Treat their levels as being roughly 1/2 what they are when building encounters and you'll have a gay ol' time.
By the way, my favorite system to introduce new players to the roleplay games was an old first edition (non advance) D&D book that sadly was eaten by termites :(
Sounds like something to blame Cosmo for.
I've used Basic (the blue book) to introduce people to it. It's much less intimidating than seeing a wall of hardbacks.
Then when they like it, we go hardback.
Well, I just poked in here to see why any topic needed over 1300 posts...
Having read the previous page, I gather the conversation has strayed from problems with fighters?
Anyways, I think Ashiel makes some great points about the Ranger being a great class for beginners. The main advantage of the Ranger class as a teaching tool for new players is that it is
a) Rangers have a little of everything. You can learn a lot!
b) Rangers get different abilities very gradually. It's not overwhelming!One could argue that other classes are easier to understand and manage, or have easier feat/spell decisions, but not many classes have the wide array of abilities that the ranger has, introduced in a gradual way. Rangers seem like a great way to gradually gain a working knowledge of the game as a whole, not just the mechanics of a specific class.
Exactly! I've found rangers are the best at actually introducing/teaching players the game.
If you just want to get them into RPGs and dice rolling on as little mechanics as you can I suggest playing NPC classes instead. You can have a ton of fun with adept/expert/warrior and they are very rules-lite. Treat their levels as being roughly 1/2 what they are when building encounters and you'll have a gay ol' time.
And if a dm is nice and shares some info, their favored enemy will correspond to the main enemies of a game. When plants attack!
Well, I just poked in here to see why any topic needed over 1300 posts...
Having read the previous page, I gather the conversation has strayed from problems with fighters?
Anyways, I think Ashiel makes some great points about the Ranger being a great class for beginners. The main advantage of the Ranger class as a teaching tool for new players is that it is
a) Rangers have a little of everything. You can learn a lot!
b) Rangers get different abilities very gradually. It's not overwhelming!One could argue that other classes are easier to understand and manage, or have easier feat/spell decisions, but not many classes have the wide array of abilities that the ranger has, introduced in a gradual way. Rangers seem like a great way to gradually gain a working knowledge of the game as a whole, not just the mechanics of a specific class.
Exactly! I've found rangers are the best at actually introducing/teaching players the game.
If you just want to get them into RPGs and dice rolling on as little mechanics as you can I suggest playing NPC classes instead. You can have a ton of fun with adept/expert/warrior and they are very rules-lite. Treat their levels as being roughly 1/2 what they are when building encounters and you'll have a gay ol' time.
Okay, but remember there are other people at the table who will be relying on that ranger to do a ranger's job. I hate putting high expectations on new players, and being the scout and putting yourself in danger first is a tall order. If you are saying just have him play the game with no expectations placed on him of what characters of particular mechanic affinity are supposed to do for their role in an adventuring group, then sure, have a gay ol' time. But, as a DM, I would loathe this groups existence as I would more than likely not be able to throw any challenges at the players that would require someone of the expected role to handle, which means they really are only learning 3/4 of pathfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a ranger doesn't mean that you have more of a job to do than the fighter (or any other class for that matter) so what is your point?
Actually, being a particular class doesn't even mean you have a job to begin with. Each class has certain things they are innately good at or better at than their peers, but really there is no "job" that a class must do to function. Though if there was, Rangers would have one of the greatest potential to fill multiple jobs due to being solid damage dealers, defenders, skill monkeys, and can even dabble in keeping the party going (their spells and access to wands make them quite good at healing, resisting damage, and buffing).
Being a ranger doesn't mean that you have more of a job to do than the fighter (or any other class for that matter) so what is your point?
Well, I suppose the ranger could do more jobs than the fighter seeing as how he has more skill points and class features, but I don't see why that would mean he's expected to do more of a "ranger job" nor why it would be a big detriment. He doesn't have to utilize his track class feature, and beyond that he just gets more skill points. He gets bonus feats just like the fighter, but from a smaller selection so its easier to pick and not feel overwhelmed.
The big upside I think(and I'm sure was pointed out) is that he gets class features as he progresses. Which means the player can slowly learn more and more about the game through his own class as he plays. By sixth he has an animal companion, bonus feats, an iterative, spells, and a few other goodies. He also has six skill points per level, giving more than enough leeway to spread it around.
Are we beating a dead horse yet?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dead horse? This thread is a unholy stable full of undead equines commanded by their darkest lord: The Horse-Lich From Hell.
Oh, and they all proudly display their numerous scars. Each and every one of them caused by a severe and painful beating.
Lol, now I imagining an archer fighter being told to do a ranger's job. Everything they can do (across builds and every piece of the class), even the spell usage, the nature lore, the survival.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, now I imagining an archer fighter being told to do a ranger's job. Everything they can do (across builds and every piece of the class), even the spell usage, the nature lore, the survival.
That's an amusing thought. One of the reason hybrid classes are nice. It's good to have options. I'd take a Ranger/Paladin, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard over Fighter, Rogue, Oracle, Sorcerer any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. :P
That's an amusing thought. One of the reason hybrid classes are nice. It's good to have options. I'd take a Ranger/Paladin, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard over Fighter, Rogue, Oracle, Sorcerer any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. :PLol, now I imagining an archer fighter being told to do a ranger's job. Everything they can do (across builds and every piece of the class), even the spell usage, the nature lore, the survival.
While I'd agree somewhat, mostly in the case of Ranger, Paladin and Bard (and Cleric over Oracle, but that's mostly because I don't like that there's no option for not being cursed), I find Spontaneous casting preferable to regular casting, mostly because prepared casting seems like a lot more micromanagement than I'd want to bother with in a character. Once in a while, it's fine, but honestly it grates on me quickly.
While I'd agree somewhat, mostly in the case of Ranger, Paladin and Bard (and Cleric over Oracle, but that's mostly because I don't like that there's no option for not being cursed), I find Spontaneous casting preferable to regular casting, mostly because prepared casting seems like a lot more micromanagement than I'd want to bother with in a character. Once in a while, it's fine, but honestly it grates on me quickly.That's an amusing thought. One of the reason hybrid classes are nice. It's good to have options. I'd take a Ranger/Paladin, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard over Fighter, Rogue, Oracle, Sorcerer any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. :PLol, now I imagining an archer fighter being told to do a ranger's job. Everything they can do (across builds and every piece of the class), even the spell usage, the nature lore, the survival.
I can understand that. Wizards can be irritating to play for a lot of people. I'd be willing to substitute a psion (maybe the Pathfinder Erudite psion) for a wizard since they are pretty versatile while being simple to play.
Oh, speaking of oracle curses I'm the same way. I know oracle curses actually make them more powerful but it's so much forced fluff. It's great if you want to make a cursed character but requiring they be cursed makes them wholly useless for anything except a concept that involves the protagonist being cursed.
Because of this I allow oracles to drop the curse and curse-derived powers and grab domains instead. They add the domain spells to their list of spells known (but do not get the domain spell slots).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it a mess?
"Pick a type of enemy from this list. It adds a +2 to stuff."
How complicated is that?
How is it a mess?
"Pick a type of enemy from this list. It adds a +2 to stuff."
How complicated is that?
When I started playing, I didn't understand types at all. Also, templates. There was also a lot of confusion of what was what, and I never picked a type that we'd encounter often. Its also a rather large list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see why a new player would have trouble picking his Favored Enemies... Luckly, though, there are a few types that most people know are likely to come up sooner or later: Undead and Dragons are pretty easy choices (when I first played a 3.0 Ranger, I remember thinking "Well, this is a fantasy world, so zombies and vampires are a thing right? And the game is named Dungeons & Dragons, that as good a suggestion as any other..."). Aberrations, Evil Outsiders and Monstrous Humanoids sound dangerous enough for a player to pick them as FE.
That said, I agree that FE is something a new player might be conflicted about. The GM should offer advice.
Other than that, Rangers are perfect for new players, IMHO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, any GM ought to give the player a bit of a heads-up on what type of enemies would be good choices for their favored enemies, and that goes double for a new player.