Never giving a new player a fighter: an argument for the newbie paladin / ranger.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Just continuing a line of discussion from another thread I think is worth discussing but not in that thread.

Jockston wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

So I've given it a fair go and it looks really compelling if you simply go with the stamina rules on top of everything else you get something that looks pretty nice. I'll share one of the results when its done.

also, I'd never suggest a new player try a fighter.

Paladin or Ranger definitely.

This i don't understand...

A core fighter is effective at combat with no book keeping. No pet stat blocks, no lay on hands or spell lists .

In other words it teaches nothing about playing the game beyond being a fighter.

Consider the difference between a human fighter and a human paladin or ranger at 1st level.

The human fighter has to select not one, not two, but three feats.

Now an experienced player would probably grab power attack, weapon focus, and some other feat that goes towards a build down the line.

A new player might grab combat expertise, exotic weapon proficiency gnome hooked hammer, and toughness because more hp, defense, and double weapons is good right?

Immediately you run into this issue where you have to teach the new player how to pick feats. Some feats are good, many are not, and since there are so many feats to pick from the issue itself is daunting.

Regardless of what feats they select they will be stuck into that option until they can get a chance to change one of them later.

Overall, however the first part of the class doesn't teach them any mechanics. they don't learn about utilizing actions since the fighter at this level has no means to make their economy more efficient or a way to use swift/immediate actions. It doesn't teach them roleplaying since it provides no flavor or roleplay restrictions upon which the player can use as a guide for how they act in character to represent their class. Since the fighter has few skill points to work they don't get a chance to play around wiht skills as often either.

More over since the class is so generic and is basically all about picking the right options it's extremely easy to find one self in a corner when it comes to character building.

Lastly as the class goes on it introduces no new concepts for the player to draw on past the first level. They gain some static bonuses but their overall number of things they can do remains roughly the same.

So the idea of the fighter being new player friendly is bunk. It's far better in the hands of older players who understand how to work around those limitations without getting caught in a number of traps.

So what would I propose?

the Argument for the Paladin

The paladin is usually either loved or hated by experienced players due to the excesses of its code of conduct.

However this code of conduct has its uses when teaching new players in that it gives a guideline on how a paladin acts. It gives them clear inspiration, and just as importantly clear mechanical effects should they fail to meet that criteria.

this last part is important as it teaches players to consider that even though dice are not being rolled their actions have clear consequences that can manifest mechanically. If they treat a commoner cruelly they may be forced into combat with the guards. If they disregard the portents of a crazed old woman they might be unprepared for the ambush down the road. Having it clearly spelled out helps build an understanding that roleplay is not merely a function of paly acting but has real consequences upon the actual crunch of the game.

Next are the two mechanical abilities that the paladin possesses; detect evil and smite evil.

Smite evil is a clearly written ability whose benefits are immediately recognizable. It tells the player "Activate me and you will be better equipped to vanquish this one monster."
It gives bonuses to offense and defense with some further additions against certain enemy types giving the player a clue as to what enemies this will typically work on. However because it's limitation is normally invisible that leads us to our second ability.

Detect evil works in synergy with smite evil in that it allows the paladin to identify those targets his smite evil ability will work on most readily. This teaches the player that some abilities work well together within the same class. This also gives the paladin player a clear indication about what the paladin is about; seeking evil and then vanquishing it.

Both abilities also offer something the fighter at that level cannot. It teaches the player about activated abilities and resource management. A player will see the once per day limitation upon the smite evil ability and intuitively understand that this ability is best saved for moments when it's very much needed. Detect evil has no use limitation adn can be activated as often as needed in order to help the player assess roleplay and combat options and to determine whether or not their smite evil will be wasted on an opponent that is not obviously evil.

As the class progresses it goes on to teach them about party support, immunities, divine spellcasting, and the player's choice of weapon enhancement or animal companions. It does this slowly, opver the course of many levels with each ability up until around 5th offering new concepts for the player to explore and understand. at that point it gives the player

Just as important as all of this is that the class makes it very difficult for itself to do poorly. A paladin will remain effective regardless if the player wants to go heavily armored, two handed, polearm, archery, whatever. If a player picks their mercy's poorly they have not made nor broken the character. If they choose the mount without mounted combat feats they still receive an overall bonus to their abilities. Any poorly picked spells can be remedied the very next in-game day.

Overall the class would be my first choice to give to a new player who is completely new to the concept of roleplaying.

The Argument for the Ranger

But, let's say the player has played other roleplaying games before. Maybe they've run around in videogames or they've played party rpg's like paranoia, fiasco or what not.

So that means that a roleplaying guideline from the paladin might not be appreciated. They already know how they want or should act.

So that brings us to Rangers.

Design wise rangers and paladins are very similar. The exceptions being that where the paladin emphasizes support and a theme. The slayer emphasizes utility and awareness.

What does awareness mean? Well it means paying attention to the state of the game. Is this guy a favored enemy? Am I in favored terrain?

In terms of utility that means the large number of skills and the number of bonuses to skills they can get from other class abilities. The class draws players towards actively participating in parts of the game that the class is good at, tracking, outdoor survival, and scouting. It allows the player to get used to the skill system by having more opportunities to roll well on them.

Like the paladin it introduces the players to divine spellcasting at a level where they've likely grasped the basics of their class.

Unlike the paladin it gives a clear indication of what combat styles the class favors and gives a short list of feats for each one.

This lets the player explore their options within a style without enamoring them in a large number of extraneous options or hefty planning. They want archery? Archery feats are there for them to use. They want two weapon fighting? All set up. No prerequisites need to be met letting the player determine in the future whether the feat is worthy of the investment in the future.

As the class continues it gives progressive upgrades to the class's abilities that are not complex and allow the player to feel as if they're getting stronger in a fairly clear way.

Ultimately my conclusion is that just because something is simple doesn't make it a good teaching tool. Which, is ultimately what giving a new player a class choice is about. Fighters can teach you how to play fighters, but paladins can teach you how to play clerics, bards, and other classes that can expand on the themes and mechanics the paladin introduces. Likewise the ranger helps you get into druids, slayers, alchemists, and other skill heavy classes.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I don't think paladins are that good for a completely new player. It's one of the most complicated of the core classes. And you must maintain the hardest to keep alignment. Let's face it, many people just can't play a lawful good character. Not to mention the paladin code of conduct can be a bit vague in places. Not to mention the hidden drawbacks to many of a paladin's abilities.

Take detect evil for example. Unlike what the new player might think, detect evil wont always tell you if that being is evil, even if they are. Divines who worship an evil god(dess) detect as evil. Supernatural entities can detect as evil. But most badguys wont detect as evil if they're below level 4 or so.

Think about it, a goblin shaman is typically stated as Adept 2. This is not a divine caster, and they aren't level 4. Detect evil wont tell you if that goblin shaman is evil. You can guess they are, but you may easily be wrong. Granted, goblins are generally evil. But you could be guessing wrong.

And that's without factoring in how much easier it is to mess up a paladin build then it is with a fighter build.

Honestly, for ease of use and teaching mechanics to newbies... I'd probably suggest a sorcerer is the easiest core class to use.


Bravo, Tark.

Dark Archive

Personally my first character was a fighter. Didn't see a problem really. Asked my table what feats I should start with and went on from there. Still, a nice read.


Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Personally, I don't think paladins are that good for a completely new player. It's one of the most complicated of the core classes. And you must maintain the hardest to keep alignment. Let's face it, many people just can't play a lawful good character. Not to mention the paladin code of conduct can be a bit vague in places. Not to mention the hidden drawbacks to many of a paladin's abilities.

Take detect evil for example. Unlike what the new player might think, detect evil wont always tell you if that being is evil, even if they are. Divines who worship an evil god(dess) detect as evil. Supernatural entities can detect as evil. But most badguys wont detect as evil if they're below level 4 or so.

Think about it, a goblin shaman is typically stated as Adept 2. This is not a divine caster, and they aren't level 4. Detect evil wont tell you if that goblin shaman is evil. You can guess they are, but you may easily be wrong. Granted, goblins are generally evil. But you could be guessing wrong.

Which if you think is an issue (being the teacher) you can use a ranger or if you think they're competent enough a bloodrager.

Quote:


And that's without factoring in how much easier it is to mess up a paladin build then it is with a fighter build.

I have to disagree here. The class itself gives pretty clear signs of the things it needs and you can build a paladin a variety of ways and still be pretty effective at least.


TarkXT wrote:
Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Personally, I don't think paladins are that good for a completely new player. It's one of the most complicated of the core classes. And you must maintain the hardest to keep alignment. Let's face it, many people just can't play a lawful good character. Not to mention the paladin code of conduct can be a bit vague in places. Not to mention the hidden drawbacks to many of a paladin's abilities.

Take detect evil for example. Unlike what the new player might think, detect evil wont always tell you if that being is evil, even if they are. Divines who worship an evil god(dess) detect as evil. Supernatural entities can detect as evil. But most badguys wont detect as evil if they're below level 4 or so.

Think about it, a goblin shaman is typically stated as Adept 2. This is not a divine caster, and they aren't level 4. Detect evil wont tell you if that goblin shaman is evil. You can guess they are, but you may easily be wrong. Granted, goblins are generally evil. But you could be guessing wrong.

Which if you think is an issue (being the teacher) you can use a ranger or if you think they're competent enough a bloodrager.

Quote:


And that's without factoring in how much easier it is to mess up a paladin build then it is with a fighter build.
I have to disagree here. The class itself gives pretty clear signs of the things it needs and you can build a paladin a variety of ways and still be pretty effective at least.

Not to mention the Paladin is a lot more resilient than a Fighter given it has stellar saves right off the bat. It's a good sturdy teaching tool that won't discourage a new player by failing every reflex save and will save it has to make.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters teach the basics of the game in respects of hp saves ac skill while not complicating them with extra rules. They do more than teach what a fighter does they teach the system.

As for the feats argument, firstly that falls flat because many players will help a new player out. Or the GM. And secondly it allows a lot of choices so they can learn me about what they like in feats for other characters they make. They get a lot of choices so they get a lot of experience.

Amazing first class. Superior to the ranger and paladin for teaching. Also with new options they have more skills now to be more than just a fighter.


Personally I'd definitely pick suggesting Ranger for a new player over either of the others.

Fighter I agree that many feats right away is far too intimidating for a new player. Even some of my players of 3+ years hate picking feats for exactly those reasons you mentioned. For rangers, by the time they get to level 2 they've probably seen how some other feats work for other players or at least have an idea like "I want to do more damage" or "can I hit things with my shield?" so it's a nice time for a bonus feat. Ranger lets them play around with rogue-type roles, and have plenty of skill points to try out things like knowledge or sense motive, and later on serve as a slow introduction to spellcasting, but don't come with as many of the "you must play this way" hang-ups that paladins come with (the point being that they might be game-adjacent enough to have an idea how some people think paladins "should" be played and that's a constricting box to be shoved into as your introduction to the game). I feel that preconception of paladin acts more to stifle creativity than guide role-playing, and the creative juices of new players are worth encouraging, not crushing. It's where most of the fun comes from, after all.


Rashagar wrote:
I feel that preconception of paladin acts more to stifle creativity than guide role-playing, and the creative juices of new players are worth encouraging, not crushing. It's where most of the fun comes from, after all.

I do agree with you that the Ranger is probably the less complicated class in some regards. Although I don't feel the Paladin's code of conduct stifles creativity. I believe it actually challenges a player to find new ways to solve problems that they wouldn't otherwise think of. Solving a problem when actions do matter in a way that can affect your character directly and immediately is a little more engaging. The challenge comes from having to make a decision while trying to adhere to a set of ideals that you as a real life person might not share. That is encouraging roleplay. Not discouraging it.


BackHandOfFate wrote:
Rashagar wrote:
I feel that preconception of paladin acts more to stifle creativity than guide role-playing, and the creative juices of new players are worth encouraging, not crushing. It's where most of the fun comes from, after all.
I do agree with you that the Ranger is probably the less complicated class in some regards. Although I don't feel the Paladin's code of conduct stifles creativity. I believe it actually challenges a player to find new ways to solve problems that they wouldn't otherwise think of. Solving a problem when actions do matter in a way that can affect your character directly and immediately is a little more engaging. The challenge comes from having to make a decision while trying to adhere to a set of ideals that you as a real life person might not share. That is encouraging roleplay. Not discouraging it.

Maybe should have clarified, stifle the creativity of new players specifically. If a new player asks the question "can I do this?" it's been my experience that for rangers the answer is more often "yes you can definitely try!" than it is for paladins.

Favoured Enemy is a nicer, more open mechanical method of teaching role-play in my experience. You as GM suggest a few types of creature that will be good for them to pick, and then let them know that it doesn't have to mean they HATE that species and want it exterminated, it could mean that they're particularly familiar with it's anatomy, or know it's behaviour patterns and it's social cues, or have had the most dealings with it in the past, OR a band of them slaughtered their family if they want. It gets them thinking about where their character has come from and how their past experiences have shaped them without letting them feel forced into a trope like the paladin suggestion can feel.

Plus, as I say, skills are fun, especially at 1st level. And no new player should have to deal with 2+int on a non-int based class. :-D


A new player joined our Iron Gods campaign recently, someone who never played tabletop roleplaying games before but had seen parts of other people's games. I as the GM was willing to let him play any class. The other players persuaded him to play fighter.

My players believe in designing by character concept, so they asked the new player to think of a historical soldier gave him a basis for a fighter. He thought of a Swiss mercenary, which in the Numerian setting became a Kellid tribesman trained as a mercenary and hired as a caravan guard. They recited the best stats and feats for a fighter and let him chose between them. I was the local expert in traits, so I helped him sort through them by character concept. It was design by committee rather than letting the newbie figure it out.

Paladin does not correspond to a historical profession, and the new player was not a fantasy reader, so he would not know any example for a character concept. Ranger is based on Aragorn of Lord of the Rings, but some historical explorers and fur trappers fit the mold, so a ranger could be built this way.

The biggest problem the new player has right now is that his character started at 2nd level and does not have the competence that he imagined his character would have.

As for learning new rules, the new player is already overwhelmed by move actions, standard actions, reach weapons, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls versus damage rolls, etc. He still has not figure out when to Power Attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Fighters teach the basics of the game in respects of hp saves ac skill while not complicating them with extra rules. They do more than teach what a fighter does they teach the system.

Any class can teach the basic system.

However if you want to give a decent lesson that touches on as many aspects as possible over a decent amount of progress the fighter is not the class you want.

Think of the paladin's levels not as courses in school.

1st level: Introduction to resource management and swift/immediate actions.
2nd level: Introduction to healing and the application of alternate ability scores to your defenses.
3rd level: Immunities and auras.
4th level: introduction to spellcasting.
5th level: Introduction to animal companions OR introduction to weapon enhancements.

Each level leads progressively into another ability, another lesson. By the time you've reached paladin level 5 (which may take weeks for a moderately moving group) you can give a number of classes a try since you've gotten at the very least a basic lesson.

If you take the same approach with the fighter it comes out to something more like.

1st level: Feats! That you would get anyway with another class.
2nd level: More feats!
3rd level: You can now move better in armor.
4th level: MOAR FEATS
5th level: weapon groups and encouragement to use combat maneuvers.

None of that really prepares you to try other classes, or understand other aspects of the system.


Rashagar wrote:

Maybe should have clarified, stifle the creativity of new players specifically. If a new player asks the question "can I do this?" it's been my experience that for rangers the answer is more often "yes you can definitely try!" than it is for paladins.

Favoured Enemy is a nicer, more open mechanical method of teaching role-play in my experience. You as GM suggest a few types of creature that will be good for them to pick, and then let them know that it doesn't have to mean they HATE that species and want it exterminated, it could mean that they're particularly familiar with it's anatomy, or know it's behaviour patterns and it's social cues, or have had the most dealings with it in the past, OR a band of them slaughtered their family if they want. It gets them thinking about where their character has come from and how their past experiences have shaped them without letting them feel forced into a trope like the paladin suggestion can feel.

I can understand what you're trying to get across. You're saying that having a code of conduct discourages a new player from exploring the results of certain trains of thought. I can see that. There are definitely a lot of directions you can take another character while the code will limit you in some ways. When a player asks me if they can do 'x' in regards to morally questionable decisions that could have consequences, I generally talk it out with them a little bit and maybe have them roll a knowledge check or two. I don't flat out say no. But I do remind them that no matter what alignment they are, they should be mindful of their actions.

I see the code as a sort of built in reminder that is helpful to new players. Keeps their character's behavior consistent and gives them incentive to find ways of solving problems that they might not have thought of before. Using diplomacy in order to avoid needless bloodshed, for example.


Honestly what best class to start out on highly depends on the person in question. Some are best with a class like the paladin where features options slowly trickle down to you, others are better with bards or fighters which have a lot stuff right out of the box.

For me I picked up on the rules pretty quickly with the Alchemist class for things like ranged attacks, resource management, etc. but the most important lesson I learned playing that class is that I don't have to use every class feature I have because not every one of them is that useful (looking at you, Poison Use.)


HyperMissingno wrote:

Honestly what best class to start out on highly depends on the person in question. Some are best with a class like the paladin where features options slowly trickle down to you, others are better with bards or fighters which have a lot stuff right out of the box.

For me I picked up on the rules pretty quickly with the Alchemist class for things like ranged attacks, resource management, etc. but the most important lesson I learned playing that class is that I don't have to use every class feature I have because not every one of them is that useful (looking at you, Poison Use.)

The only trouble with that idea is that you never know until you get into the game how quickly someone grasps the concepts.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Advocating the devil: playing a fighter teaches players the d20 system itself, which can be daunting to new players who don't have the basci grasp of "roll d20, add modifier, then roll something else" as the main mechanics of the game.

Sometimes it's frustrating when someone wants to attack something using Spellstrike or Smite or some other ability and they don't even know that they need to make an attack roll first, because they are focusing on learning their classes abilities rather than the basics of the game's engine.

A weakness that not many PFRPG players have since 3.5 came out well over a decade ago. For some veteran players, they cannot even grasp the concept of not knowing the difference between a d10 and a d12, and they scoff at new players who don't know just by looking at them.

A simple, low level fighter build teaches them the basics of how to play, not how to build a character, not how to be optimal in combat, not about what is most fun about the game, but the absolute bare bones of table top RPGing.

If someone doesn't need that basic lesson, like someone transferring over from a different d20 game, then obviously it's different, but there is nothing wrong with keeping it simple, and saying that learning the basics of the d20 system (how to make attack rolls, what skill checks are, what saving throws are, how to track HP, etc) is teaching them nothing, then clearly there is some disconnect.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Advocating the devil: playing a fighter teaches players the d20 system itself, which can be daunting to new players who don't have the basci grasp of "roll d20, add modifier, then roll something else" as the main mechanics of the game.

Sometimes it's frustrating when someone wants to attack something using Spellstrike or Smite or some other ability and they don't even know that they need to make an attack roll first, because they are focusing on learning their classes abilities rather than the basics of the game's engine.

A weakness that not many PFRPG players have since 3.5 came out well over a decade ago. For some veteran players, they cannot even grasp the concept of not knowing the difference between a d10 and a d12, and they scoff at new players who don't know just by looking at them.

A simple, low level fighter build teaches them the basics of how to play, not how to build a character, not how to be optimal in combat, not about what is most fun about the game, but the absolute bare bones of table top RPGing.

If someone doesn't need that basic lesson, like someone transferring over from a different d20 game, then obviously it's different, but there is nothing wrong with keeping it simple, and saying that learning the basics of the d20 system (how to make attack rolls, what skill checks are, what saving throws are, how to track HP, etc) is teaching them nothing, then clearly there is some disconnect.

I can see the fighter class being a useful tool for say... one shot sessions where people learn how to add modifiers and do the mathing required of the system. Although I wouldn't stick them with a fighter for their first campaign. But I can definitely see what you mean. It is important to learn the basics.


I think that now the Slayer is the best for new players. It has all the advantages of a Ranger/Paladin except for spells and animal companions. In exchange for that the Favored Target ability is useful against everything in combat and also has many out of combat uses.

I disagree with Paladin, not because of the class features, but because of the 2+int skill points per level. That many skill points is garbage for a new player who's going to ask questions like

"Why can't I jump 5 feat?"
"What do you mean I can't climb that rope?"
"What do you mean I didn't see that ambush coming?"
ect.


Mathmuse wrote:

A new player joined our Iron Gods campaign recently, someone who never played tabletop roleplaying games before but had seen parts of other people's games. I as the GM was willing to let him play any class. The other players persuaded him to play fighter.

My players believe in designing by character concept, so they asked the new player to think of a historical soldier gave him a basis for a fighter. He thought of a Swiss mercenary, which in the Numerian setting became a Kellid tribesman trained as a mercenary and hired as a caravan guard. They recited the best stats and feats for a fighter and let him chose between them. I was the local expert in traits, so I helped him sort through them by character concept. It was design by committee rather than letting the newbie figure it out.

Paladin does not correspond to a historical profession, and the new player was not a fantasy reader, so he would not know any example for a character concept. Ranger is based on Aragorn of Lord of the Rings, but some historical explorers and fur trappers fit the mold, so a ranger could be built this way.

The biggest problem the new player has right now is that his character started at 2nd level and does not have the competence that he imagined his character would have.

As for learning new rules, the new player is already overwhelmed by move actions, standard actions, reach weapons, attacks of opportunity, attack rolls versus damage rolls, etc. He still has not figure out when to Power Attack.

Yeah, with this character concept I would have absolutely shown the player the Slayer. It's a great "generic soldier" class that is pretty competent at most things as a base line.

Also, if the player is using a 2-handed weapon... the answer as to when to power attack is "always". Just have them bake in Power Attack numbers on their character sheet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:


there is nothing wrong with keeping it simple, and saying that learning the basics of the d20 system (how to make attack rolls, what skill checks are, what saving throws are, how to track HP, etc) is teaching them nothing, then clearly there is some disconnect.

No disconnect. Merely understanding.

Making attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws are inherent parts of every thing in d20.

It's like saying a steering wheel, brakes, and an accelerator are an inherent part of driving.

Yet, no one tries to take a driving test in a Power Wheel or go-cart. They're good enough to teach you how to use a steering wheel and use your foot in control, but rather poor at teaching everything else.

That to me is where the fighter sits. I can learn all those things on a paladin or a ranger. But I can also learn very easily other aspects without getting bogged down in further options on a chassis tough enough to let me survive long enough to do it.


master_marshmallow wrote:

Advocating the devil: playing a fighter teaches players the d20 system itself, which can be daunting to new players who don't have the basic grasp of "roll d20, add modifier, then roll something else" as the main mechanics of the game.

Sometimes it's frustrating when someone wants to attack something using Spellstrike or Smite or some other ability and they don't even know that they need to make an attack roll first, because they are focusing on learning their class's abilities rather than the basics of the game's engine.

This is a weakness that not many PFRPG players have since 3.5 came out well over a decade ago. For some veteran players, they cannot even grasp the concept of not knowing the difference between a d10 and a d12, and they scoff at new players who don't know just by looking at them.

A simple, low level fighter build teaches them the basics of how to play, not how to build a character, not how to be optimal in combat, not about what is most fun about the game, but the absolute bare bones of table top RPGing.

If someone doesn't need that basic lesson, like someone transferring over from a different d20 game, then obviously it's different, but there is nothing wrong with keeping it simple, and saying that learning the basics of the d20 system (how to make attack rolls, what skill checks are, what saving throws are, how to track HP, etc) is teaching them nothing, then clearly there is some disconnect.

I grammar bad.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with this assessment on the grounds that the kind of newbies I started playing with a few years ago are far removed from the newbie you're describing. The newbie you're describing seems like they're coming from another role playing game and just picking up on the differences. Not learning to role play for the first time.

For someone who's new to role playing games in general, the 25 page combat section is intimidating enough without the 18 pages of how to cast spells and the numerous pages describing your spells.

It is also, in my opinion, easier to say "take power attack"

than it is to say "you want to cast divine favor?...yeah, so what's your divine focus again? Yeah, so draw that, and you need a free hand for the somatic part of the spell too, so let go of your sword with one hand to free that up... yeah, and then you're threatened, so do you want to take the hit or roll a concentration check?... well you'll have to roll a concentration check anyway if you get hit... okay, and what's your bonus on concentration checks? ...um, the formula's your caster level plus your casting stat bonus...no, your caster level is different than your level because you're a paladin, so it's your level minus 3... yeah, plus your charisma modifier... oh, yeah, you failed, sorry."

When someone doesn't know the mechanics it's easier to learn them with a character with as few conditional modifiers and game-time decisions (e.g. to smite, or not to smite?) as possible. That lets you get further without getting bogged down in the mechanics. And in my experience, that's absolutely the fighter.


TarkXT wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:


there is nothing wrong with keeping it simple, and saying that learning the basics of the d20 system (how to make attack rolls, what skill checks are, what saving throws are, how to track HP, etc) is teaching them nothing, then clearly there is some disconnect.

No disconnect. Merely understanding.

Making attack rolls, skill checks, and saving throws are inherent parts of every thing in d20.

It's like saying a steering wheel, brakes, and an accelerator are an inherent part of driving.

Yet, no one tries to take a driving test in a Power Wheel or go-cart. They're good enough to teach you how to use a steering wheel and use your foot in control, but rather poor at teaching everything else.

That to me is where the fighter sits. I can learn all those things on a paladin or a ranger. But I can also learn very easily other aspects without getting bogged down in further options on a chassis tough enough to let me survive long enough to do it.

You also don't take a driver's test without having any experience on how to drive the car first. Most states/countries require a set number of hours of experience and training courses first. One doesn't learn how to use cruise control before they learn how to start the car and put it in gear.

Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.


DocShock wrote:

I disagree with this assessment on the grounds that the kind of newbies I started playing with a few years ago are far removed from the newbie you're describing. The newbie you're describing seems like they're coming from another role playing game and just picking up on the differences. Not learning to role play for the first time.

For someone who's new to role playing games in general, the 25 page combat section is intimidating enough without the 18 pages of how to cast spells and the numerous pages describing your spells.

It is also, in my opinion, easier to say "take power attack"

than it is to say "you want to cast divine favor?...yeah, so what's your divine focus again? Yeah, so draw that, and you need a free hand for the somatic part of the spell too, so let go of your sword with one hand to free that up... yeah, and then you're threatened, so do you want to take the hit or roll a concentration check?... well you'll have to roll a concentration check anyway if you get hit... okay, and what's your bonus on concentration checks? ...um, the formula's your caster level plus your casting stat bonus...no, your caster level is different than your level because you're a paladin, so it's your level minus 3... yeah, plus your charisma modifier... oh, yeah, you failed, sorry."

When someone doesn't know the mechanics it's easier to learn them with a character with as few conditional modifiers and game-time decisions (e.g. to smite, or not to smite?) as possible. That lets you get further without getting bogged down in the mechanics. And in my experience, that's absolutely the fighter.

Remember that the classes in question don't even start casting until level 4.

If you're starting from level 1 that's a number of sessions in which to grasp the basics.

Granted I know people who've played for years who can't do an attack roll.

Sometimes you can't help the helpless.


Wait, people start the campaign before they know the basics of combat, skill checks, and magic? My GM ran me through a few scenarios with premade characters before I made my first character to make sure I knew how to play.


master_marshmallow wrote:

You also don't take a driver's test without having any experience on how to drive the car first. Most states/countries require a set number of hours of experience and training courses first. One doesn't learn how to use cruise control before they learn how to start the car and put it in gear.

Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

Nope, you just made it clear.

You can't learn to drive in a go-cart even though it works under the exact same principles.

Just like you can't learn the whole game playing fighter. But you can learn it progressively on something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:

You also don't take a driver's test without having any experience on how to drive the car first. Most states/countries require a set number of hours of experience and training courses first. One doesn't learn how to use cruise control before they learn how to start the car and put it in gear.

Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

Nope, you just made it clear.

You can't learn to drive in a go-cart even though it works under the exact same principles.

Just like you can't learn the whole game playing fighter. But you can learn it progressively on something else.

Nope, it's more like automatic vs stick. You can take the drivers test just fine with the easier automatic car instead of using a more difficult stick car. Both get you your license but one requires less experience to pull off.

To be clear, fighter is automatic, ranger/paladin is stick...


If fighter is automatic then bard is a car that drives itself. You can just make it take a fast route if you know what you're doing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For an absolute newbie (never played a roleplaying game ever), I would think ROLE playing first and mechanics second.

As has already been said, some people pick up on the mechanics quickly, so different classes will work better for different people. But on average I would think a more simplistic class would be best. The less the player has to think about their character the better. I am sure this has been brought up many times but I think it bears repeating.


Next question: Why aren't we talking about

BackHandOfFate wrote:
I can see the fighter class being a useful tool for say... one shot sessions where people learn how to add modifiers and do the mathing required of the system. Although I wouldn't stick them with a fighter for their first campaign. But I can definitely see what you mean. It is important to learn the basics.

this exact scenario?

How else do you teach new players the game? Do you really force them to commit to a full Adventure Path or full campaign?

A lot of statements can be made for different classes to teach players different aspects of the game, and as far as core goes, fighters and sorcerers are the most straight forward to give someone the basics.

If they already have the basics and are ready to build their first character on their own without help, then why bother writing this thread in the first place?


You don't even need to do dedicated sessions for that sort of thing, just drag the guy into a testing room in virtual table top site when the two of you have a few free hours.


HyperMissingno wrote:
If fighter is automatic then bard is a car that drives itself. You can just make it take a fast route if you know what you're doing.

For the new player? Spells, performances, masterpieces, Versatile Performances... Sounds a bit more difficult than figuring out if you want to use power attack...

I'm talking about ease of use and it doesn't get much easier than fighter. Bard is a 6 speed with all the bells and whistles in comparison.


Learning to play DnD on a Fighter sucked.

No skill points
No direction
No abilities

Slayer, Ranger, Unchained Rogue, and Bloodrager are far better choices and incrementally increase in complexity.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For the first game; keep it simple.

Fighter,
Rogue,
Sorcerer
Orcale...

and that's it.

Simple skills, simple fixed spell-lists, simple attacks.

Use a highlighter to show saves, AC, and key skills.

So many first time games bog down as everyone tries to learn all the rules at once.

Go slow, give them print outs of all their spells and abilities (so they don't have to use the one CRB all the time).

And let them get into the game without too much bother.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As far as analogies go, if the fighter is an automatic, then a slayer is an automatic that has rearview cameras and automatic parking.

The slayer gives you everything you need for ease of use at the earlier levels, and has no daily resources to track. Studied Target even teaches you how to use the Action Economy to do things other than move and attack, plus you get a boat load of skills to test out on.

But that's neither here nor there. The fighter is on trial here.


I agree completely with this assessment, especially on Rangers, who allow a new player to explore the game from multiple angles.

However, I would steer new players away from TWF, especially for the Ranger. Not only is it a suboptimal way to fight, but it also forces a certain feat path and makes players use different bonuses for different types of attacks, which can be overwhelming for a new player in an already numbers-heavy game.

I remember the first time we introduced one of my friends into the game, and she excitedly rolled up a Ranger, only to be discouraged because she kept forgetting what bonuses she needed to add and when. She had trouble with when she could make two attacks, when she could make one, when she needed to apply the TWF penalties, which weapon she declared as her main hand and her off-hand. I remember seeing her change from enthusiasm to discouragement and lack of engagement because she felt her turns were overly complicated when they had no reason to be.

Later on in the campaign she lost her two weapons and picked up a greatsword, and decided never to TWF again.

After we stopped playing that campaign she still refuses to go back to playing Rangers because of the needless penalties and complications of TWF.


Insain Dragoon wrote:


Slayer, Ranger, and Bloodrager are far better choices and incrementally increase in complexity.

And there is where the crux of the argument lies.

Teaching someone the basics is possible with every class.

But are you really going to spend weeks, possibly months between levels 1-10 trying to teach them how to power attack?

Classes like those mentioned introduce the full grasp of the rules over time and never in so much as to overwhelm.

I wouldn't give them a bard, an alchemist or a sorcerer as those classes slap you wiht a lot of rules all at once.

Fighters are fine at 1st level but don't introduce anything new beyond that point. You start in kindergarten and you never go beyond that.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Wait, people start the campaign before they know the basics of combat, skill checks, and magic? My GM ran me through a few scenarios with premade characters before I made my first character to make sure I knew how to play.

Differences in situation, differences in how people learn, the people involved and real-world timetabling constraints? Most of GMing is just winging it =)

For the people I've introduced to the game, at the time I introduced them, I'm doubtful if the method you're describing would have worked.

BackHandOfFate wrote:


I can understand what you're trying to get across. You're saying that having a code of conduct discourages a new player from exploring the results of certain trains of thought. I can see that. There are definitely a lot of directions you can take another character while the code will limit you in some ways. When a player asks me if they can do 'x' in regards to morally questionable decisions that could have consequences, I generally talk it out with them a little bit and maybe have them roll a knowledge check or two. I don't flat out say no. But I do remind them that no matter what alignment they are, they should be mindful of their actions.

I see the code as a sort of built in reminder that is helpful to new players. Keeps their character's behavior consistent and gives them incentive to find ways of solving problems that they might not have thought of before. Using diplomacy in order to avoid needless bloodshed, for example.

Yeah I can see where you're coming from with that too. Keeping character behaviour consistent is something that's definitely good to teach, but I'd put way further down the line in things I'd like a new player to learn. It sounds like we just have different experiences leading us to different conclusions. I'm glad I came across relatively coherently at least haha! It's not even just the code limiting their actions though, even wearing heavy armour is too much of a limitation on a new player's possibilities in my mind.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Do you really force them to commit to a full Adventure Path or full campaign?

well, I certainly wouldn't say "you must complete this many once off sessions with characters of increasing complexity before you can join the rest of us playing in the campaign with a character you actually like." :-P

Nor would I say "you're stuck for 6 months to a year with whatever you make right now, I said now! Hop to it!"

The most problems I've had with new people trying to learn the game isn't really in what to roll and when ("that dice, and add that number to it" solves this, usually with some iteration and assurance that they're fine and not annoying anyone by asking) and even if it was, any class could teach this, it's when they ask "what can I actually do?" that the problem comes up, because they're not used to thinking of their actions in a non-linear non-restricted-by-computer-programming fashion. And for the first few levels, that question is mostly answered in the form of skill checks, and 2+int, with possibly heavy armour penalties, means that outside of swinging a sword they're left with the answer "not much".


Lyra Amary wrote:

I agree completely with this assessment, especially on Rangers, who allow a new player to explore the game from multiple angles.

However, I would steer new players away from TWF, especially for the Ranger. Not only is it a suboptimal way to fight, but it also forces a certain feat path and makes players use different bonuses for different types of attacks, which can be overwhelming for a new player in an already numbers-heavy game.

I remember the first time we introduced one of my friends into the game, and she excitedly rolled up a Ranger, only to be discouraged because she kept forgetting what bonuses she needed to add and when. She had trouble with when she could make two attacks, when she could make one, when she needed to apply the TWF penalties, which weapon she declared as her main hand and her off-hand. I remember seeing her change from enthusiasm to discouragement and lack of engagement because she felt her turns were overly complicated when they had no reason to be.

Later on in the campaign she lost her two weapons and picked up a greatsword, and decided never to TWF again.

After we stopped playing that campaign she still refuses to go back to playing Rangers because of the needless penalties and complications of TWF.

Actually, this is a very good point that I had completely forgotten about. Thanks. :-)


TarkXT wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Fighters teach the basics of the game in respects of hp saves ac skill while not complicating them with extra rules. They do more than teach what a fighter does they teach the system.

Any class can teach the basic system.

However if you want to give a decent lesson that touches on as many aspects as possible over a decent amount of progress the fighter is not the class you want.

Think of the paladin's levels not as courses in school.

1st level: Introduction to resource management and swift/immediate actions.
2nd level: Introduction to healing and the application of alternate ability scores to your defenses.
3rd level: Immunities and auras.
4th level: introduction to spellcasting.
5th level: Introduction to animal companions OR introduction to weapon enhancements.

Each level leads progressively into another ability, another lesson. By the time you've reached paladin level 5 (which may take weeks for a moderately moving group) you can give a number of classes a try since you've gotten at the very least a basic lesson.

If you take the same approach with the fighter it comes out to something more like.

1st level: Feats! That you would get anyway with another class.
2nd level: More feats!
3rd level: You can now move better in armor.
4th level: MOAR FEATS
5th level: weapon groups and encouragement to use combat maneuvers.

None of that really prepares you to try other classes, or understand other aspects of the system.

I want to think of how this affects the ranger.

1-5 learn what many skills do.
1st level: INtro to conditional modifiers with favored enemy and track high skill points
2. bonus feat in a combat style
3. favored terrian more skill bonus and a chance to pay attention
4. Spells and animal companions to learn how magic works.

I think if you are giving the new characters a pregen. If you have low system mastery I think using a spontanoues caster can mess up if you choose bad spells at first level.


For someone who's new to roleplaying games, the Beginner Box remains the best avenue of introduction.

For folks new to PFS, I've launched a lot of people with the standard PFS Pre-Gen.

1. notable exception: At Dremation (or Dexcon, not sure which) I started one old chinese couple, the grandparents of another attendee with two of the goblin pregens for the 2nd Free RPG day. They'd never played before. And with a little encouragement, they absolutely rocked that module.

Which goes to show it's as much the teacher as the material.


I think the ranger is the best class for a first character. The ranger is a well rounded class that has a bit of everything: bonus feats, good skills, some spells, solid combat ability, animal companion, extraordinary abilities, plus it is a core class and will likely fit in to any existing campaign.

I have found that new players typically don't want to have dump stats and the ranger class does quite well with an even spread of attribute scores, unlike say a fighter.

What I think is more important though is for the newbie to get some assistance with building their character, especially if they join an existing game and don't start at level one.


What about the Barbarian?
It has skills like Ranger, fights like a Fighter, has decent buyable armor at low levels, Rage is measured in rounds so he can easy manage that, etc.


Starbuck_II wrote:

What about the Barbarian?

It has skills like Ranger, fights like a Fighter, has decent buyable armor at low levels, Rage is measured in rounds so he can easy manage that, etc.

The most difficult part about barbarian for me was when it came to trying to explain how the hit point increase and subsequent decrease worked. And fatigue's effects afterwards. All the effects being measured as pluses or minuses to attributes rather than straight pluses or minuses to attack/damage rolls was just that slight added layer of complexity.


Any core class is suitable for a first time player. Yes there are more choices in some classes than others but that's what the sample builds are for.

So what if they make some odd choices early on, what is the worst that can happen. Coach them through it, don't tell them what to do and they will be fine. The worst thing that can happen in my book is that other players tell them they're doing it wrong and the quit after a couple of sessions not because the game is complicated but because the people around them won't live and let live.


In general, i will encourage whatever class a 1-2 sentence summary of appeals to the newbie. I (and my players) don't mind going slower for several sessions as they learn their basics. I will suggest avoiding some of the more complicated classes however as a first time choice.

The Exchange

Ranger or barbarians. You've got a whole list of things you're not allowed to do in RL and you're adding them in game?(If you play a paladin). Give those newbies a break, please. They have to know what they're signing up for.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Cavall wrote:
As for the feats argument, firstly that falls flat because many players will help a new player out. Or the GM. And secondly it allows a lot of choices so they can learn me about what they like in feats for other characters they make. They get a lot of choices so they get a lot of experience.

I really don't think it falls flat it all, precisely because it clearly needs help from the DM and/or other players to make it work out.

Suddenly, new player isn't really making decisions about their character any more -- everyone else is. Sure, it's ultimately up to the new player what they write down on their character sheet, but let's be honest: they're going to go with whatever the experienced players tells them is best, because they don't know and they know it.

I think it's really important -- especially for a new player -- to feel like it's truly their character, rather than someone else's character that they happen to be rolling for.


The really clever part about Ranger Combat Styles for a new player is that not only is it a very clear choice but it also shows the player other feats they might wish to take that follows the theme.

Design-wise Combat Styles are brilliant.


In Defense of the Fighter:
(Yes, I will be defending the proverbial punching bag. One I myself sometimes hit.)

  • You need to walk before you can run.

Let's slow down a second and assume I'm a new player. You want to teach me swift actions? I don't even know what an action is! Roleplaying a lawful good? What's lawful? What's good? What's detecting evil mean? Why can't I just bust that guy up over there?

Wait, what are all these features you are showing me? Spells? Uuuh, that's really daunting. Divine Bond? I don't understand what half these words are. Oh, and I still need feats? Um, what ones are good? I don't think I have enough feats to do what I wanted to do.

Introducing someone via the Paladin is a recipe for bogging down your games. Yes, all the tools to play the game will be at their fingertips, but they also have to think about all the different tools and tricks in the game at once and try to wrap their heads around it when they probably don't even know swift actions exist yet! Their turn will just be a mess of confusion as they try to work out what to do.

This doesn't just apply in combat. In RP you are basically being given a badge and told to clean up the town before you even know who the people in the town are. The paladin is often the face of the party to the good and weary, not the role for someone just learning how to play.

I have one player in my games were he would make a horrible lawful character. We all know that lawful just is not ever going to be his style because he's a natural born rager. If you are learning the game and don't know what alignment is you don't have to think about it with Fighter. You don't have to think about spells with Fighter. You don't have to think about swift actions with Fighter. You are worried about learning how to walk up to someone and hit them and maybe you discover bull rushing. The Fighter is nothing but fundamentals.

You don't even need to worry about skills! You're gonna be terribly no matter what you do! ^_^ If I could change one thing about Core Fighters it would be EXACTLY that. That is one fundamental they should teach.

  • Feats aren't that scary.

They're really not. Every new player regardless of class needs to learn them. They are a linchpin of what makes 3.X great! (Alongside skills.) And once you get down to it, at first level you end up focusing mostly on combat feats and there aren't really that many combat feats in the entire game you qualify for. Yes, there are a lot of traps, but you can retrain those traps with Fighter. Realistically, it's going to take less time to explain which ones are horrible than it will to explain Divine Bond.

  • Playing is learning.

He's there, he's in the game world. He's learning what alignment he is. Maybe you end up changing it because he realizes he did not mean what he thought it meant. He sees that the Paladin activated some cool ability. He sees that the monster is more dangerous when it makes use of action economy, he's learning.

Yes, it's not on his character sheet so he can't use it. But he is having them used by his allies and by his foes. Maybe he even goes, "Hey, using that thingy of your's now sure would be nice!"

  • You will never make an optimal Fighter out of a new player, but that's okay.

You don't have to. You just have to have someone that can be present in combat and okay at whatever they attempt to do or whatever weapon they pick up. Full BaB, d10, Heavy Armor, and the flexibility to take horrible combat feats and learn from it and fix it later. Even if you mess up you'll never be horrible. You'll still be able to contribute, just not as well. Fighter is very forgiving, and that's more important to a new player than being good. For now understanding a Move action and Attack is all that's really important. They'll mostly fall behind past level six or seven, but even past then they can play the big dump guy until they learn what they want to do in this world.

  • But, despite all these arguments the core Fighter is outdated.

The traits that make a Fighter good for new players still exist, and it's hard to find a good alternative as other classes do tend to layer more into the game. But, they are outdated and with no Unchained on the horizon. If I were to direct a player to a different class without a doubt it would be a hybrid class based on Fighter. Swashbucklers and Brawlers are relatively simple, and with all the elements that make Fighters good at just hitting something. But, they do layer more on top of that hitting something. My hope would be not enough to truly confuse a new player, but something like Martial Flexibility can be a little daunting. What I like about it though is it is also ultra forgiving as the next day you no longer remember that bout with Combat Expertise you had.

If I were to direct someone to Paladin. First I would see if they are the first personality for playing a Lawful Good character. Then I would direct them towards the the Paladin's Fighter based archetype the Tempered Champion. Taking out spells is one less thing to worry about. One of your Divine Bond choices is made for you. And you don't have to think about what weapon you pick because Sacred Weapon is really, really forgiving.

1 to 50 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Never giving a new player a fighter: an argument for the newbie paladin / ranger. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.