Lets add another addendum to this- the simplest class that is actually worth playing.
The warrior NPC class is very freakin' simple, no?
So with that in mind- how about slayer? Sure, some optons with talents and skill points... but a lot of those are exceedingly straight forward. 3 of your 5 talents for level 1-10 will likely be style feats (which is practically a cheat sheet on how to make a style). Add in trap finding, and you only have 1 real choice at level 8.
The skills choice is also made simple by the mechanic that makes them simple in the moment to moment- studied target. You just have a single, simple, straght forward 'be good at your thing' mechanic. You get bonuses to attack/damage, and bonuses to plenty of rogue-y skills. The skill bonuses practically mean you have to invest most of your skill points in those skills.
You can use the mechanic both in battle, and out of battle. You have little reason not to use studied target on every single NPC you talk to to get sense motive bonuses. Which is rather thematic- you look at everyone in the same way you look at the guy you want to stab in the kidneys....
Overall- a fairly easy class to just pick up an play. Yet, it is highly effective in and out of combat due to studied target.
We ran a campaign with 3 PCs and each player also ran an NPC warrior. The warrior I ran used a heavy crossbow, so he just shot one round, re-loaded the next round; rinse and repeat. Very simple, and pretty effective, even though he was not optimized. 14, 12, 13, 10, 12, 8 for stats, I think.
I imagine a fighter built with all static feats (Improved Initiative, Toughness, Weapon Focus, Iron Will, etc.) would be real simple to play, but the complexity would come when building and leveling it up. With 21+ feats over 20 levels, eventually you'll run out of static feats or get sick of taking Skill Focus....
I think a fighter or ranger built to be a "1 Big Shot" crossbow wielder could be pretty simple to play, but a bit more complex to build. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim, Vital Strike, Improved Critical, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, etc.
Of the non-NPC classes, I think Sorcerers and Archer Paladins are probably the easiest. They still require enough system mastery not to pick trap options, but they have the fewest moving parts and options to choose from while still having very high (and non-contingent) effectiveness.
Difficult to say, as many are easy to play but difficult to build and viceversa.
I usually pick kinda complex classes as I love having a lot of options.
Among the classes I played as PCs I found the cleric to be surprisingly easy, as it works well even with suboptimal choices and you don't have to choose the spells you know as you can completely change your spells from one day to another to fit what you need. Choosing your spells for the day and when to spend them is the complex part, but as I'm used to play prepared spellcasters so it wasn't a big issue.
I'm not saying the cleric is simole, but I was surprised to realize it is not complicated either.
Most of the less complex classes I have only played them as NPCs. When I add a recurring NPC I try to use simple classes so its easoer to me to level them up and use them in combat. Among the spellcasting classes I.find sorcerers to be rather simple. Not having tried enough some of the most simple martials, I think the most simple one I've tried is the Swashbuckler.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is generally among my go-to classes for a simple class for novices to play. It's a straightforward full-BAB chassis with relatively few choices (favored enemy at first level, combat style at second, favored terrain at third, and hunter's bond at fourth), and the choices themselves are fairly straightforward.
There's also not a lot of forward thinking in the build. Unlike fighters, who are taking Improved Sushimaking at first level so they can take Greater Sushimaking at fifth and Sushi Specialization (California roll) at ninth, ranger combat styles don't depend on prerequisites.
Even when you get into spell-casting, a ranger is a prepared divine caster, so one has access to the entire but rather small spell list and can change spells daily -- and by the time spellcasting is even an issue, you've typically had a few levels of play experience.
Basically, a vanilla ranger is as simple as a sorcerer or an archer paladin, except without the need to avoid trap options, because there really aren't any. [Yeah, sure, you might be playing in the Desert Kingdoms of Sand,.... but in that case, picking "swamp" as your favored terrain isn't a trap option, just a silly one, and everyone should recognize it.]
I'm giving another vote for Slayer. It's straightforward to build, straightforward to play, and doesn't even have crazy archetypes. Not only is it one of the simplest classes, it's also effective, versatile and fun.
I've never played an Slayer but I have one in my RoW group and I have to aggree.
Simple doesn't necessarily mean no fun.
If we separate "complexity during the course of play" and "complexity in pre-session preparation" and focus exclusively on the former, I have to honestly say the Kineticist.
All you have to do is top off your elemental overflow at the beginning of the day by investing in your elemental defense, then your modifiers etc. don't change during the course of play, and prepare a series of flash cards (or similar) for all the blasts you can manage for 0 burn, 1 burn, etc. Once you've done that, the class is incredibly simple to actually play. You have a limited number of powerful (and occasionally very versatile) tools that you can use with impunity, and very few things that consume a limited resource.
The complexity inherent in managing limited resources is why I don't find the sorcerer, for example, all that simple to play.
A fighter build with no moving parts.
Accurate, hit hard, all you needed to know was the attack profile and how to roll the dice.
A fighter build with no moving parts.
I thought we agreed on "class that is actually worth playing."! :-p
A fighter build with no moving parts.I thought we agreed on "class that is actually worth playing."! :-p
I don't know about you, but I can build an effective fighter will minimal moving parts.
All the system mastery falls on the back end. The person playing does not need to understand how all the gears interlock to read off the attack values, saving throws, or AC. No resources to track, the same values are used regardless of encounter type, etc. The character simply kills anything that comes into B2B while maintaining high AC and saves.
A fighter build with no moving parts.
Accurate, hit hard, all you needed to know was the attack profile and how to roll the dice.
I agree, with the caveat that that's not actually simple, you've just hidden the design complexity behind a sweet user interface, rather like an iPhone in that regard.
This also means that the player may end up deeply confused when he gets out of his comfort zone. The GM gives him a nice new weapon, like a scythe, and all of a sudden he has little to no idea what his numbers are with them, or why they would vary. And all of a sudden the complexity hoves back into view.
That brings me back to my recommendation for ranger, which is both simple to play and to design.
Kineticist. They're actually super simple once you understand 2-3 details about them (mostly how their blast damage is calculated, when you can mitigate/accept burn, and what that burn does). If you have a character sheet with any decent automation, it becomes cake.
There's a big difference in complex to build and complex to play. And it's not unusual for someone to build someone else's character for them. Picking the best spells or feats for a fighter or sorcerer can take a lot of system mastery, but if someone else makes those decisions for you, then yeah, those classes are pretty easy to play.
If you want the least complex to both build and play though, I'd probably go with the unchained barbarian.
I third (?) Slayer. The advantage it has over Ranger is that it has less choices to make, and less situational boosts. Studied Target is very simple: spend an action, get a bonus. Favored Enemy/Terrain is both confusing (is this an evil outsider? Does a cellar count as "urban" or "underground"?) and very situational. Moreover, prepared casting at level 4 and a combat pet to keep track of leads to a lot of bookkeeping. Meanwhile, a Slayer gets a talent at every even level (less if he's archetyped, but those introduce complexity again), but there are only a handful of options, and 3 of them are already basically set. The Combat
Styles are maybe complicated, but Rangers have those as well, and you don't have to worry about prerequisites.
To sum up:
Ranger: "Which favored enemy/terrain will be good in this campaign? Is this enemy one of my favored targets? Better ask my GM. Is this also a favored terrain? Then I get different bonuses. Also, spells? Which ones do I choose? There's like a hundred of them at level 1 alone." (83, but yeah)
Slayer: "Did I use my study on him yet? If yes, I get better. Also, which of these 10 options will I choose for my talents, 2 of which lead to a comprehensive list of 20 other choices?"
Fighter: "I can choose from a list of a million feats every other level?"
A fighter build with no moving parts.I thought we agreed on "class that is actually worth playing."! :-p
While moment to moment is easy, fighters are rather complex when you are trying to make a 'good' one. You need an understnading of various skills, system mastery, and goals you want to build towards.
In comparison, slayers basically come with their own instruction book- style feats narrow done a style, and even your skills are 'suggested' by studied target.
As long as a slayer grabs power attack (assuming melee; ranged feats means 'just pick everything on the archery style list'), they are actively hard to mess up. Even if you abandon style feats and just grab a bunch of random talents... they are still decent as long as you 2 hand something nice and meaty. Not the height of what you could do, but really decent, especially since you still have skills to fall back on.
That is the difference- slayers are built for decent damage and skill monkey- even wasted opportunities still means you are plenty useful. A fighter that only has decent damage is seen more as a tragedy, since all they do is fight. So if you can't bring something special to the fight, then you are 'blah'.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee Fighters are not a class for beginners. Playing a fighter that can keep up with casters of any kind is like a Pathfinder PHD thesis project. There's so many trap options that can spoil a build and you have to know the combat system inside and out to make sure you're milking everything you can out of the action economy while positioning yourself properly to both protect your allies and not be in the way of spells or ranged attacks. It's a lot to keep track of. In my opinion an effective fighter is one of the most complicated classes to play.
An ineffective fighter is easy though.
An ineffective anything is easy. You just have to throw your points at random, pick random feats and start playing.
I aggree that the fighter is not easy. Once all the build is done, there are some quite straightforward ways to play a Fighter, but it takes some work to get them to work. Also, with so much feats, it's not uncommon that a fighter has some circumstancial choices that allow him a wider variety of options.
Also, that the class is not brilliant out of combat makes that the Fighter needs to be outstanding in combat.
Melee Fighters are not a class for beginners. Playing a fighter that can keep up with casters of any kind is like a Pathfinder PHD thesis project. There's so many trap options that can spoil a build and you have to know the combat system inside and out to make sure you're milking everything you can out of the action economy while positioning yourself properly to both protect your allies and not be in the way of spells or ranged attacks. It's a lot to keep track of. In my opinion an effective fighter is one of the most complicated classes to play.
An ineffective fighter is easy though.
My thesis was 'a double teaming eldritch guardian that hits casters in the stomach until they are too busy throwing up to cast spells'.
I also once had a thesis of 'hitting things hard enough in the head so they are knocked to stupid to save vs our wizard's spells', but then the FAQ that allowed for arcane strike was dummied out.
Effective fighter is extremely easy. I'm running one as a GMPC for a campaign because otherwise the party is three super squishies, and do you know how long it takes me to level him up? Less than a minute. But being easy and being simple are not the same things, because of the sheer wealth of feats out there building a good fighter without knowledge of the system is a pain in the ass. I'd actually suggest ranger and bard to a new player. For a ranger, any player with any degree of intelligence going in is going to ask what to pick for favored enemy, favored terrain is generally self-evident by the time you get it, and combat style is very straightforward, with a limited selection of options, most of which are generally very good. In terms of playing, you are, essentially, a heavy hitter with skills. Easy.
Bards, on the other hand, have only one class specific decision point in creation, which is spells. And spells can be tricky, but for bards, they're actually easy: Control, or Buff. I helped my friend build a bard for his first campaign, and he grasped very quickly that, with only two casts per day, Hideous Laughter was for bad situations and enemies who needed to be shut down quickly. He also picked Hideous Laughter himself. And then in combat, your options are attack, perform, or cast, all three of which it's generally easy to determine what to do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer. Load up on armor and a little constitution for survival, and use your other feats to do whatever interesting thing you want to keep it from being too boring, including grabbing skills for out of combat stuff. Your bonus feats have to be combat only, but your regular feats can be all skill focus if you want. It's so easy to be effective as a fighter that even the worst feats aren't really traps.
Well, I feel that a Fighter with just Power Attack, heavy armor and high CON is a bit lacking compared to other melee classes.
Without further planning on the build it's probably not being so effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer.
Useless when the enemy is not reachable via firm ground. Useless if the enemy has something nasty targetting Will. Weak if the enemy has a defense like DR, incorporeality, concealment, invisiblity, or swarminess (holy s~&&, that's actually a word!). At later levels, weak if the enemy isn't already in melee range.
I think your definition of effective and mine differ significantly.
|
|
Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer.Useless when the enemy is not reachable via firm ground. Useless if the enemy has something nasty targetting Will. Weak if the enemy has a defense like DR, incorporeality, concealment, invisiblity, or swarminess (holy s~&+, that's actually a word!). At later levels, weak if the enemy isn't already in melee range.
I think your definition of effective and mine differ significantly.
This thread is about simple builds, so I kept the post short. But obviously, any PC will need some backup plans against all the usual stuff. That's just due to this being a complex game.
Flying enemies? A free sling and 1 gp worth of bullets should be good enough until you can afford a potion of Fly by level 5.
Will saves? I never said to dump wisdom. My PFS fighter that I created to prove that a non-archetype, non-multi-class fighter is viable has 12 wisdom. And with all the extra feats, you can afford Iron Will and eventually Greater Iron Will. I even took those on a barbarian who was just focused on a two handed weapon and Power Attack, and that was without bonus feats. And there's a reason Cloaks of Resistance are considered one of the "big 6" items everyone should get.
DR? *snicker* Backup weapons in other materials can be helpful, but really, the simple build I described will do enough damage to overcome it the hard way.
Incorporeals? Yup, you'll need a magic weapon by level 3 or 4. Also, this is a team game. Hopefully, someone else in the party can help with that.
Invisibility and concealment? Yup, you'll need a little help from teammates here and there. Blind Fight helps, and again, a simple fighter without a feat intensive combat style can easily afford the spare feat to get it.
Swarms? EVERYONE should carry splash weapons, of course. Every PC I make for PFS spends 10 gp of the starting 150 on an acid flask, regardless of class. Or are you trying to claim that ALL classes that don't have Fireball or bombs are completely ineffective?
Melee range? Fighter armor training will help with speed issues, as will the potions of Fly I mentioned earlier. And things like potions of Haste (or hoping a teammate has that or Blessing of Fervor as a known/prepared spell) and magic boots (Speed or Striding and Springing) will help as you get to higher levels.
At play time, a ranged fighter. Shoot your bow at something. Here's what it looks like if you had to move or it's a surprise round. Here's full-attack.
A simple build plan even makes leveling easy. The feat selections, at least for the first 8-12 levels are all no-brainers. The feat selection for archery is pretty well settled.
Take feats in this order: Point-blank Shot, Precise Shot,... Alternate boosting DEX and STR every four levels (or all DEX or all STR). Work towards this gear: STR Bow, DEX belt,...
EDIT: Oh yeah, buy alchemist's fire now and again. Buy some adamantine arrows.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer.Useless when the enemy is not reachable via firm ground. Useless if the enemy has something nasty targetting Will. Weak if the enemy has a defense like DR, incorporeality, concealment, invisiblity, or swarminess (holy s~&+, that's actually a word!). At later levels, weak if the enemy isn't already in melee range.
I think your definition of effective and mine differ significantly.
This thread is about simple builds, so I kept the post short. But obviously, any PC will need some backup plans against all the usual stuff. That's just due to this being a complex game.
Flying enemies? A free sling and 1 gp worth of bullets should be good enough until you can afford a potion of Fly by level 5.
Will saves? I never said to dump wisdom. My PFS fighter that I created to prove that a non-archetype, non-multi-class fighter is viable has 12 wisdom. And with all the extra feats, you can afford Iron Will and eventually Greater Iron Will. I even took those on a barbarian who was just focused on a two handed weapon and Power Attack, and that was without bonus feats. And there's a reason Cloaks of Resistance are considered one of the "big 6" items everyone should get.
DR? *snicker* Backup weapons in other materials can be helpful, but really, the simple build I described will do enough damage to overcome it the hard way.
Incorporeals? Yup, you'll need a magic weapon by level 3 or 4. Also, this is a team game. Hopefully, someone else in the party can help with that.
Invisibility and concealment? Yup, you'll need a little help from teammates here and there. Blind Fight helps, and again, a simple fighter without a feat intensive combat style can easily afford the spare feat to get it.
Swarms? EVERYONE should carry splash weapons, of course. Every PC I make for...
I think that just proves the main argument- there are answers to the problem, but you need system mastery to find them (I can find plenty of answers to those problems; mutagenic warrior and some advance weapon trainings solve a lot of them).
It is easy to make a fighter a damage dealer. But it is harder to get the 'AND' factor. A slayer is a damage dealer AND a skill monkey. A barbarian is a damage dealer AND a tank. A paladin is a damage dealer AND a sub-healer AND a tank (mostly through self healing). A bard is a sub damage dealer AND skill monkey AND buffer AND enchantment/illusion caster. A wizard.... usually has a handful of AND's.
The 'AND' factor means you have more than one purpose, which allows you to continually feel useful. A tank can survive things, and go on to handle the problems. Skill monkeys take care of various tasks. Buffers/debuffers make the fight easier. ETC. Even if your main thing doesn't pan out, you can still feel useful at various points for your AND thing.
The fighter's 'do it yourself' nature in terms of creating a 'AND' means it can be a high bar for some. Reach is usually the lower bar for getting a martial AND, but that still needs some tactical understanding to appreciate.
Yeah, I'm amazed at people saying that effective fighter is tough. Just give them 18 starting strength, a great sword, and Power Attack by level 4 or 5, and you'll be a very effective damage dealer.Useless when the enemy is not reachable via firm ground. Useless if the enemy has something nasty targetting Will. Weak if the enemy has a defense like DR, incorporeality, concealment, invisiblity, or swarminess (holy s#!$, that's actually a word!). At later levels, weak if the enemy isn't already in melee range.
I think your definition of effective and mine differ significantly.
All of those can be easily addressed with build.
None of the issues require the person actually playing the character to have any system mastery.
When my daughters were younger, I used to help them with this all the time. I would build a character that, while they may have had complex parts, were very simple to run.
Commoner of course.
Assign your stats, and sit along for the ride.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I figure that there's an implied "viable character" here so the commoner is obviously out and the fighter might or might not be depending on context. At low levels a fighter someone build for you is going to be fairly easy to run (most likely) but when you get into the higher levels and things are flying, invisible, incorporeal, etc. it's going to require some level of system mastery to make the fighter keep pace.
Along those lines, the character I might give to someone who is completely new might be a Zen Archer Monk. It's a character that's very easy to pilot (you don't even care where you're standing since you get PBM at level 5 as a bonus feat, and you have decent AC), and pretty much all of the essential archer stuff is built into the class, and archery is a powerful combat style so a viable archer is never going to be obsolete.
Commoner of course.
Assign your stats, and sit along for the ride.
Why bother assigning stats- sit there, and wait to be eaten. Simple stuff. You are doing the important task for the party of drawing aggro and acting as a diplomacy tool to convince monsters to leave after their stomachs are full.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And with all the extra feats, you can afford Iron Will and eventually Greater Iron Will.
So much for "use your other feats to do whatever interesting thing you want" and "your regular feats can be all skill focus if you want".
Also, this is a team game. Hopefully, someone else in the party can help with that.
Invisibility and concealment? Yup, you'll need a little help from teammates here and there.
Stopped reading there. You basically just said that the Fighter is simple because he lets the other party members do the hard stuff.
In my experience, a character is easy to play when he's in his comfort zone. Having to track a recource isn't complicated; I'm sure every one of us has used tally marks before ever playing Pathfinder. Buff durations aren't complicated, you basically ask your GM how much time has passed.
"I've taking a lot of damage, should I fall back?" "I'm hitting him for five rounds and he's still standing, what can I do to kill him?" "I can't reach that enemy, should I use my Potion of Fly or should I save it for later?" "That enemy does mind affecting stuff, should I still go near?" — Those are situations where a character is hard to play, situations where your character doesn't show you the right way and the process becomes complex.
The OP also asked for complexity during character generation, and I presume level up, so you could add "Do I need take a feat completely unrelated to my build to boost save X?" et al.
A simple Fighter is more often in such situations than most classes, and thus not an easy class.
@Snowlilly: You're ignoring the OP.
I think we are having an argument because of the level of effectivity we consider acceptable.
I've met a guy who played Wizards and all he wanted to do is casting Fireballs. He didn't want to use metamagics at all,and he was satisfied with his limited utility and damage input.
To that guy, the Wizard is probably a very simple class as he thought it was effective to play at that level.
If you think that playing a Fighter that can hit hard with Power Attack and lacks a lot of resources that the class can provide, then I aggree it's not so complex. But taking a mild effectivity for a Fighter needs more than that, so I still think of Fighters as a complex martial class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are having an argument because of the level of effectivity we consider acceptable.
I agree. (Well, with the minor caveat that I think the word you are looking for is "effectiveness.")
There seem to be three axes that we've found (low scores are good):
a) Complexity of play
2) Complexity of design/chargen
III) Lack of effectiveness in designated role(s) [I.e. an effective character scores low on "lack of effectiveness"]
Obviously, "commoner" comes close to (0,0,∞). I'd say that fighter, because of the huge number of "trap" design options, comes close to (0,∞,0). Master summoner would probably get my vote for (∞,0,0).
Personally, I think the OP is looking for concepts that score well on all three axes, not just two, but only s/he can confirm that.
Good point.
And thanks for the correction. My English sucks and I really need to improve it, so that helps.
Good point.
And thanks for the correction. My English sucks and I really need to improve it, so that helps.
Your English does not suck. If you asked me what the German, French, Chinese, or Japanese for "effectiveness" was, I wouldn't even come close. (um, "die Effëkivnesse?" "das Nichtgesücken?")
There seem to be three axes that we've found (low scores are good):
a) Complexity of play
2) Complexity of design/chargen
III) Lack of effectiveness in designated role(s) [I.e. an effective character scores low on "lack of effectiveness"]
Gold) Looks good doing it.
Alpha) gets all the girl/guys/squid things[I cannot type in an egyptian Ankh into a forum]) Somehow Avoids Martial/Caster or alignment debates
[whatever that symbol for the Artist formerly known as prince is]) Doesn't lead to the GM saying 'rocks fall'.
In Spanish I would say «efectividad» and sometimes I translate in a too literal way.
That's a dangerous thing because being «constipado» in Spanish is not the same as being «constipated» in English, so I might end having a doctor giving me laxatives as a medicine for a flu.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Spanish I would say «efectividad» and sometimes I translate in a too literal way.
That's a dangerous thing because being «constipado» in Spanish is not the same as being «constipated» in English, so I might end having a doctor giving me laxatives as a medicine for a flu.
It can get worse if you try to tell someone in Spanish that you are embarrassed by saying "Estoy embarazado" (Literally, "I am pregnant.").
Sorcerer. Learn your limited spells, select on the fly.
Too many choices, too many trap spells. The Sor/Wiz list is the largest in the game; you'd probably be better off with Oracle for design simplicity.
Too many choices, too many trap spells.Not a problem.
The OP disagrees with you. "Since there are various different ways of things being complex (complexity in chargen, complexity in daily prep, complexity in moment-to-moment play, etc.) which would be easiest, along (ideally) all the various axes of simplicity-complexity?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Least complex character played, in a serious manner - two-handed fighter with the two handed archtype.
I either double moved/ran, single moved and attacked, or full attacked. The rest of the party essentially either healed me, buffed me or restored me. I didn't ask them to, they actually offered to - they were all casters and wanted me to take all the damage, and my character happily would.
My feats were either save-improving, luck improving (the human luck feats), or attack-bonus/damage improving.
My skill points were in perception and Profession (Soldier).
He was LN leaning LG, played like a soldier who lead his squad into battle. He WANTED to be LG, but under the difficulties of war and survival tended to be more practical.
At one time in the game, after I dropped mid-battle, there was a huge tactical effort to get the cleric to my body safely through enemies to cast breath of life on him. It worked, and I stayed prone and killed the enemies around me.
So mechanically, was he simple? Very. Other then for when I needed to re-roll saves, there's no times-per-day abilities, no spells, no temp abilities. Just go up to things and hit them. And it was fun! I've played witches, inquisitors, paladin-monks, sorcerers, wizards, bards...etc...and they were all fun. I knew what I was getting into with my one-trick pony and he was fun to play. Would play again.