Something I think would be handy is to have a breakdown on how difficult all of the classes are to play - I.E. how much knowledge and mastery of the system it takes in order to be able to keep track of your character and utilize his or her abilities.
I've compiled my own version of the list and would love to hear your feedback! The primary rubric I used to grade these is "how much of the game system do you need to know to use the class effectively". Spellcasting is a significant factor in this. Note this isn't a measure of class power by any means.
Classes - from simplest to play to most complex to play
Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian
Cavalier
Ranger
Paladin
Monk
Sorcerer
Cleric
Oracle
Inquisitor
Wizard
Witch
Bard
Alchemist
Druid
Summoner
And here's justification for why!
Fighter: All the abilities and bonuses you get are rather static. Your primary class feature is feats, which usually either plug right into your statblock or apply to every thing you do, and you generally only get them one at a time. The most complex thing you will typically have to do is figure out the bonuses from feats like Power Attack and remember circumstantial benefits like Blind Fight.
Rogue: Rogue is generally a lot like the fighter, but a lot more skill oriented - they get Rogue Talents, which are more or less identical to feats, and a few more class features that are circumstantial (such as uncanny dodge, evasion, and sneak attack) but can generally be figured out ahead of time.
Barbarian: Here we start to delve into circumstantial bonuses - to keep things running smooth, you will have to figure out the abilities of your character when in rage and when out of rage. Rage powers apply only when raging, and the stat bonuses have cascading effects. Luckily, the switch to and from rage is entirely self-regulated.
Cavalier: A cavalier has circumstantial bonuses that are self-dictated (Challenge), but they are static bonuses that are relatively easy to figure out (they don't cascade through the rest of the statblock like a Barbarian's stat bonuses do). Cavaliers are more complex than barbarians because they get companion creatures (mounts) and lots of little class features that, while not crucial, are useful if used at the right time.
Ranger: Here we have a character whose bonuses are determined primarily by outside factors - favored enemies and favored terrains. Luckily it is only a few static bonuses, and are pretty easy to prepare on the fly. They're more complex, however, because they get both a companion character (an animal companion) and prepared spells. If both of these were switched out for alternate options (hunter's bond with allies, ranger tricks), I'd put them on par with the Cavalier for complexity.
Paladin: Paladins are all the complexity of a Cavalier and a Ranger rolled into one big divine package. They get both a full creature companion progression (Divine bond mount, which might also be a scaling magic weapon, requiring knowledge of the magic weapon rules), a circumstantial but self-dictated bonus (Smite Evil, which has extra effects based on creature types), and a lot of "Auras" that affect allies constantly (unlike the Cavalier, whose buffs are relatively selective).
Monk: The monk ranks above them all mostly because of the sheer volume of class features they receive, as well as requiring knowledge of two-weapon fighting and the way Base Attack Bonus scales differently for different classes. Monks also make a lot of exceptions to rules regarding unarmed strikes and damage bonuses from strength, and have a ton of limited use abilities. A monk's varied abilities reward perceptive and clever play.
Sorcerer: The sorcerer has access to a lot of different spells, but doesn't have to worry about all of them - only the ones he or she knows. While the sorcerer/wizard spell list is the largest and most complex, a sorcerer doesn't have to worry so much about arcane schools or learning all the spells available, nor does he or she need to worry about picking spells ahead of time.
Cleric: The cleric is a prepared spellcaster, but one who doesn't have to worry about spells known - a cleric knows all the spells on his or her spell list, so there's no spellbook to keep track of. Though a cleric is a full progression prepared spellcaster, you don't have to worry so much about preparing the wrong spells - a useless spell prepared can become an always-useful cure spell, and a cleric doesn't have many other class features.
Oracle: The oracle is much like the cleric, but ranks above in complexity because of the sheer number of different abilities they have; they can select from many mysteries and each mystery has many different abilities to choose from (unlike sorcerer bloodlines, which have a set progression). Because of this, the oracle is an extremely versatile class, and a beginner might find themselves overwhelmed by options.
Inquisitor: The inquisitor is a class that can do a lot of different things - and they have a lot of bonuses to keep track of from judgment alone, not to mention bard-level spellcasting and a wealth of skills and secondary class features. An inquisitor who doesn't know his or her own abilities very well will flounder, but one who uses the myriad abilities' synergy will dominate.
Wizard: The wizard has access to the biggest and most versatile library of spells in the game, and has the potential to learn them all. Specializing narrows this down somewhat, but also emphasizes the importance of spell schools. Plus, you know, there's the familiar to deal with. A wizard will have to rely on careful planning and item creation in order to cover all his or her bases - if you prepare the wrong spell, there's no spontaneous casting to fall back on. A well-prepared wizard, however, is unstoppable; the class's power seems to scale directly with game system mastery.
Witch: The witch gets more or less everything the wizard does, with the added feature of hexes as at-will powers. The complexity gap between the witch and wizard is extremely close, as the witch doesn't have to deal with school specialization or as large of a spell list, but I think the selection of hexes puts the witch on top.
Bard: The bard is an extremely versatile class that can go many different directions. Equal parts skill, sword, and spell, the bard can fill any party role as needed - and also has to keep track of different scaling bonuses from performance, which also increases the complexity of the game for the other party members. On top of this, they get a ton of class features, much like the monk does. A good deal of system knowledge is needed for the versatile bard to find its niche - those who have no idea where to take their bards end up being not very good at anything, leading to the "bards suck" cliche.
Alchemist: The alchemist is like the bard with a dash of prepared "spellcasting" and even more versatile abilities. If there are many different things the bard can do, this goes double for the alchemist, who can focus on many different abilities (bombs, mutagens, extracts, alchemical item creation, etc.). Even "experts" often look at the alchemist and wonder what to do.
Druid: The druid is like a big complexity salad. Full spellcasting, a versatile circumstantial buff (wild shape), a full progression animal companion, spontaneous summon spells, AND a host of different class features that give minor bonuses - when it comes to required system mastery, the druid is king of the jungle. Except for one, of course...
Summoner: The summoner is like the druid, but with ultimate customization and complexity in the form of the eidolon. The eidolon comes with a lot of options but also a lot of rules and restrictions which bear remembering, as well as knowledge of of hit dice, natural attacks, and other monster-specific rules that were once the domain of game masters alone. The summoner himself is a bard-level caster with access to a lot of summoning spells (which follow different rules from those granted by other spellcasters). If you can run a summoner, you have the system know-how to run a game.
So.. thoughts?
Fighters are one of the HARDEST to play as if you lack the system mastery to make one well, you can make on that is pretty useless.
+1 to this.
Build a fighter, barring MAYBE archers, is not trivial, nor is adjudicate the right weapon or combinaion of equipments on the battlefiels.
In 3.0, I could have considered Barbarian more straightforward, but even in that case, it depends from what rage powers you select - some of the "maneuver" ones must be combined with feats to be effective, and again, that could not be trivial.
I wrote this more from the perspective of "how much of the system would I need to know to play one of these" - basically, which classes would be simple for beginners who don't want to keep track of a lot of stuff at once.
I wrote this more from the perspective of "how much of the system would I need to know to play one of these" - basically, which classes would be simple for beginners who don't want to keep track of a lot of stuff at once.
I see - one could just pick up the feats with numbers and call it a day.
I have introduced a lot of new players to the game, and Fighters range from pretty straight-forward to very problematic, depending on how many feats you're allowing in the game. If you're playing straight Pathfinder (Core, or core + APG) it isn't so bad, but the more feats you present to your players, the more they'll have to read and understand in order to make decisions nearly every level. This often involves getting them to understand a lot of mechanics right away, such as TWF, CMB/CMD, AoOs, etc.
I often use the Ranger to start people out, as it isn't as complicated as you might think. There are a lot of little abilities, but they're pretty straight-forward (you can make friends with animals, you are good at tracking, pick one of these 5 feats, etc). They get a gentle introduction to spells, but not in the first game session.
Fighters are one of the HARDEST to play as if you lack the system mastery to make one well, you can make on that is pretty useless.
Really? While I have seen some pretty useless fighters, most of them have been built by someone with a basic understanding of optimization. (or rather someone who thinks they have a basic understanding.) Most of the new players seem to gravitate towards: Pick up honkin' weapon; Power Attack. Which is a solid build that's hard to screw up in my experience.
I think what people are hitting on is that there are 2 elements here. 1 is how hard is it for a new person to play. The other is how hard is it for a new person to make.
Fighters are relatively easy from a playing perspective. You need to know the basic attacking rules, and that you can do manuvers that move people, trip them, disarm them, ect, and that those are all sumarized in 1 place. Building a fighter on the other hand can be restrictive, since they require an understanding of many feats, which ones to avoid, which ones are important, and what stats you need to meet them. Sorcs have a similar issue, where building them is much more complicated because the choices make a huge impact on class power, but in play they can spam only a few options and work well.
For the OP's intial list, I would put Ranger up earlier than rogue. Its bonuses are mostly on-off and it requires much less tactical thinking. The animal companion will just die from the first hit, so it is pretty irrelevant, and it gets so few and so terrible spells that they really don't matter. Its definetely easier than Cavalier, whose teamwork feats make it significantly more complicated. I think Paladin should go before Cavalier as well, but that depends somewhat on how well the person understands what a code of conduct is. The Paladin's auras are small, fiddly bonuses and many of his abilities, like mercies, will never come, while the Cavalier's ally buffing are class defining features.
Definitely would put Bard much lower on the list. All of his stuff is themed, making it much easier for the player to grasp what he can do. Also, the ally buffing means he doesn't need to track it as much as they do, so its just a tick every round. It can fall into not having its own thing to do, so it does need to be built right. I generally think of bard to be a good class for newer players looking to get a feel for magic.
Witch is easier than the wizard. The hexes give them the ability to spam something without worrying about resource management. Its 1 extra option, but it makes the class easier to play. You don't have to manage it, you just have to know what it does and how it works. The wizard on the other hand needs to be constantly thinking about when the right time to cast any give spell is, and often resorts to something irrelevant and the player feels bad. The witch can always resort to evil eye, or some other hex, and not feel bad about a wasted turn or wasted spell.
I would move the inquisitor up. The number of fiddly bits he has is really more than half the classes higher than him. He is definetely harder than the bard, and about the complexity of the alchemist. Mid combat he gets many little buffs up that get complicated to track. Out of combat he has lots of options as well.
My list (Core Classes only)
Not based on how hard or difficult to play it is, but how complex, as the topic says, it is still 100% subjective.
Complexity is based on= Time used to write all your info and calculate your stats, number of Excel sheets used; ammount of feats, abilities and spell descriptions you need to remember when playing the game, number of sheets you need to carry, ammount of options for a given character, etc..
(Less complex)
Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Cleric
Bard
Druid
Wizard
(more complex)
Main points:
*Barbarian: Unless you go fancy many abilities give passive bonuses, you have so few feats that you can't get too many "modes" (Maneuvers, Power attack, Expertise, etc..), Rage isn't complex.
*Fighter: Many feats and abilities that give passive bonuses, nothing more. Get an excel to calculate when it's best to use Power Attack/You favorite feat. It takes some time to make a competitive build.
*Monk: Many abilities, but most of them passive, you don't have too many choices. Search for Treatmonk's guide to Monks, write the data in your character sheet, roll initiative, use Flurry of Blows when possible.
*Paladin: Few feat choices, few options at all to be honest. However you have many special abilities and spells.
*Ranger: Many feats, skills, options and abilities, plus spells. You may need another sheet for your companion's stats.
*Rogue: Lot of skills, in combat you need a tactic to get the most from Sneak Attack. It takes some time to make a competitive build.
*Sorcerer: 9 levels of arcane spells and some abilities. It takes some time to make your choices. Spontaneous casting makes things simpler.
*Cleric: 9 levels of divine spells, some special abilities and a few fighting features. It takes some time to make your choices, prepared spellcasting is always a nuisance but at least you know all the cleric spells.
*Bard: 6 levels of spells, many complex special abilities and a few fighting features. It takes some time to make your choices. Spontaneous casting makes things simpler.
*Druid: 9 levels of divine spells, some special abilities, a few fighting features, Elemental Shape and a Companion. It takes some time to make your choices, prepared spellcasting is always a nuisance but at least you know all the druid spells.
*Wizard: 9 levels of arcane spells and some abilities. It takes some time to make your choices, prepared spellcasting is always a nuisance.
Difficulty in play does not necessarily mean required system mastery. You can play a fighter and have to think cleverly, but you can think cleverly from the perspective of a warrior with a sword and a few ideas, rather than a statblock with a smattering of feats.
I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between how difficult a character is to build and how difficult it is to play. For example, I think a PF fighter is much more difficult to build than it is to play. Lots of options to choose from in the build, but once they are chosen, not that difficult to figure out a way to be effective, if not optimal.
Using the OP's assumption that we are talking about simplicity for a newbie to play, I generally steer them toward fighters, sorcerers, barbarians, rangers, monks and clerics, and away from rogues, paladins, wizards, bards and druids. I'm just working the APG classes into play now, so my guesses on those classes are just that, but looks to me like they all would be more challenging than the first group, and thus fall in the second group.
My reasons have less to do with the ease of the mechanics in some cases than with the ease of roleplaying. I also tend to help new players a lot more with character creation and with their build as they go on, so that aspect is less daunting for them.
To expand just a bit, I find that rogues, bards and paladins are particularly difficult for newbies to roleplay well. Some newbies fall into the kleptomaniac "I'm a rogue so I can do anything I want" trap. Similarly a paladin's code of conduct can be devilishly difficult for even experienced players to roleplay well, and saddling newbies with it is challenging, at best. And the bard is the king of roleplaying and versatility, something not all players are up for.
All that said, I let people, even newbies, play what they want to play, so long as it fits within the campaign. I just wince a bit when a newbie says he REALLY wants to play a paladin/bard.
I find Wizards are simple to play. You memorize you spells and off you go. There really isn't much else. As you level up you grow into you spells. Now starting with high level Wizard, that more complex but starting a first makes the Wizards simple.
A fighter on the other hand can be much more complex. You need to plan out your feats because what you take early can screw you later. Since you can retrain you can change gears too going one direction early then another at higher level. That all take planning because if you take a feat with intentions to retrain you need to make sure it's bonus combat feat and you need to take into consideration the prerequisites. Fighters can be simple or really messy.
I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between how difficult a character is to build and how difficult it is to play. For example, I think a PF fighter is much more difficult to build than it is to play. Lots of options to choose from in the build, but once they are chosen, not that difficult to figure out a way to be effective, if not optimal.
Using the OP's assumption that we are talking about simplicity for a newbie to play, I generally steer them toward fighters, sorcerers, barbarians, rangers, monks and clerics, and away from rogues, paladins, wizards, bards and druids. I'm just working the APG classes into play now, so my guesses on those classes are just that, but looks to me like they all would be more challenging than the first group, and thus fall in the second group.
My reasons have less to do with the ease of the mechanics in some cases than with the ease of roleplaying. I also tend to help new players a lot more with character creation and with their build as they go on, so that aspect is less daunting for them.
To expand just a bit, I find that rogues, bards and paladins are particularly difficult for newbies to roleplay well. Some newbies fall into the kleptomaniac "I'm a rogue so I can do anything I want" trap. Similarly a paladin's code of conduct can be devilishly difficult for even experienced players to roleplay well, and saddling newbies with it is challenging, at best. And the bard is the king of roleplaying and versatility, something not all players are up for.
All that said, I let people, even newbies, play what they want to play, so long as it fits within the campaign. I just wince a bit when a newbie says he REALLY wants to play a paladin/bard.
I found a wizard actually works great for newbie, better than a Sorcerer. Wizards are forgiving. Sorcerers are much harder to deal with if you picked bad known spells. A wizard doesn't have bad spells, they have spells that more useful to memorize but they aren't stuck with them.
One thing I like to do as DM with new players playing a Wizard is make them their own spell book with the individual spells written out. They can easily see what they have and what it does for quick reference. Makes it all very simple for them and they quickly learn what spells are good.
I found a wizard actually works great for newbie, better than a Sorcerer. Wizards are forgiving. Sorcerers are much harder to deal with if you picked bad known spells. A wizard doesn't have bad spells, they have spells that more useful to memorize but they aren't stuck...I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between how difficult a character is to build and how difficult it is to play. For example, I think a PF fighter is much more difficult to build than it is to play. Lots of options to choose from in the build, but once they are chosen, not that difficult to figure out a way to be effective, if not optimal.
Using the OP's assumption that we are talking about simplicity for a newbie to play, I generally steer them toward fighters, sorcerers, barbarians, rangers, monks and clerics, and away from rogues, paladins, wizards, bards and druids. I'm just working the APG classes into play now, so my guesses on those classes are just that, but looks to me like they all would be more challenging than the first group, and thus fall in the second group.
My reasons have less to do with the ease of the mechanics in some cases than with the ease of roleplaying. I also tend to help new players a lot more with character creation and with their build as they go on, so that aspect is less daunting for them.
To expand just a bit, I find that rogues, bards and paladins are particularly difficult for newbies to roleplay well. Some newbies fall into the kleptomaniac "I'm a rogue so I can do anything I want" trap. Similarly a paladin's code of conduct can be devilishly difficult for even experienced players to roleplay well, and saddling newbies with it is challenging, at best. And the bard is the king of roleplaying and versatility, something not all players are up for.
All that said, I let people, even newbies, play what they want to play, so long as it fits within the campaign. I just wince a bit when a newbie says he REALLY wants to play a paladin/bard.
I can see your point and I think it goes directly to the distinction I drew at the beginning of my post. I give newbie players a lot of help in character creation and character building, so I can easily steer them toward more useful spells. I give less help during game play, including spell selection for wizards, which is absolutely critical to playing one effectively. Wizards have to make a lot of choices every day out of a much larger repertoire, and I find that can be daunting for new players. They have to read and learn the intricacies of a larger number of spells. The sorcerer knows fewer, so doesn't have as much "homework" to do to learn them. You're right that spell choice when they are created and when they level is more critical for them, but I'm more willing to help with that than with spell selection every single adventuring day.
|
I found a wizard actually works great for newbie, better than a Sorcerer. Wizards are forgiving. Sorcerers are much harder to deal with if you picked bad known spells. A wizard doesn't have bad spells, they have spells that more useful to memorize but they aren't stuck...
Yeah same here. Although clerics and druids are even better. You don't even have to spend time and money to learn new spells.
|
I found a wizard actually works great for newbie, better than a Sorcerer. Wizards are forgiving. Sorcerers are much harder to deal with if you picked bad known spells. A wizard doesn't have bad spells, they have spells that more useful to memorize but they aren't stuck...Yeah same here. Although clerics and druids are even better. You don't even have to spend time and money to learn new spells.
Clerics and Druids have massive spell lists for the player. A level one wizard chooses from a handful of spells, a level one cleric chooses from the whole spell list.
I found summoner is actually pretty straight forward and easy to play. It just requires a little bookkeeping before the game to have a few creature stat blocks ready to go.
Inquisitors are actually VERY straight-forward to play. They're a spontaneous caster with a kicker, their weapon and armor choices are light. The hardest choice to make is picking a God and a Domain...
I think that X class is the hardest, and Y class is the most complex...seriously this is far too opinion based of a topic. The main issue is each player brings their own level of knowledge to the group and their own ideas of what each class does, some players have trouble calculating their feats into their actions, and other players can't remember how much AC the spell "shield" adds and for how long.
Of course, one thing to also bear in mind in this decision of how hard is it to make X versus Y is to look at lvl 1 only. In terms of simplicity, many might auto-spout Fighter, purely because at 1st level, there aren't too many things you need to physically right down. Everything you put on your character sheet as a fighter you will need to do for everyone else and they also have the lowest skill points, making that fairly straight forward as well.
However, the only classes with other things to work out/write down are spellcasters. 1st lvl Ranger, Paladin and Monk are pretty much just basic feats, skills, features and stats, 1st lvl Rogue likewise only more skills, then building up with Barbarian adding Rage points to track, then Cavalier, Alchemist and Inquisitor, Oracle, Cleric/Sor/Wiz (domain powers and bloodline powers pretty similar in terms to working out choice) then Bard, summoner and Druid with the most to work out and write down and keep track of.
Conversely, the more complex at level 1, the then slightly easier to level up it gets, as most of these classes are feature lite... EXCEPT for Bard and Druid yet again, who arguably blip a bit early on as class features pile on before stabalising out and just going through the motions of adding spell slots, performances and wildshapes per day. The 'hybrids' get a bit complex when they get their extra funky class abilities, but spells are spells and easy to work out (especially when you are looking at only 1 or 2 a day). You could argue Ranger is the most complex to level up at lvl 4, purely because you then have to go and potentially add a pet on to the character sheet as well.
However, while a newer player won't achieve optimum build status, that is part of the learning experience anyway and they will have plenty of time to read up on what is coming next for their chosen class while playing them up to the next level.
I don't disagree with the list posted, but I have a few times had to stop and think 'what does X feat do again?' on my fighter when I was trying to get a bit too clever and technical for her bi-weekly job role. That doesn't necessarily make her complex, and you can just write down all the necessary modified to hits etc for power attack, combat expertise et al, but in the heat of the moment it can lead to the occasional face-palm when you overlook something. Ironically, when playing my old Druid, that was hardly ever a problem... guess you just get used to being complicated.