Pretty soon, I'm going to be bringing a new group of players into Pathfinder (beginning with Kingmaker: Stolen Land). I did this a few months ago (albeit with a homebrew campaign) and the biggest brick wall I hit was character creation and understanding classes. I had one who wanted to be a druid, in particular, who got pretty lost in it (compounding building her character, her animal companion, and figuring out exactly how her abilities and spells worked took a long time).
With this in mind, I'm trying to compile a list of classes by complexity for this new campaign, so I can inform the players what they're getting into if they choose one of the more confusing classes.
The problem I find is that, simply, I don't know the classes as well as I'd like. I'm primarily a GM, who usually uses monsters as opponents. The classes I've got the most experience with are those my regular players use: generally the barbarian, wizard, rogue and druid (and the magus, which I'm playing in another campaign).
So, I come to the internet. How do you folks rank classes by complexity alone? Keep in mind that, by complexity, I mean from a creation/gameplay perspective in the eyes of a new player.
Note that I'm barring APG classes, as the book is called "Advanced" for a reason. If you still want to rank them, then by all means do so.
Well, if anything is to make something complex then it´s having a choice. Spells and free Feats qualify for that while stuff like rogue talents are rather simple (you will not be able to PG without knowing what is effective in battle and what´s not but we´re not talking about PG)
So basically, classes with a low amount of spells and free feats should be easy, so I´d say barbarian is easiest, then rogue and monk (also PG monks are not that easy to build but if you just play without that "optimize me"-sprite on your shoulders, it´s a great class) then paladin and ranger (they got spells but on a quite simple list, the rangers feats are more complex), then bards (who can be quite complex), then fighter and cleric, then druid, then wizard, then sorcerer (sorcerer last since his spell selection is a severe thing - allow more retraining for beginner gamers and wizard is hardest. wizards need a great deal of foresight when preparing their spells but thats less specific knowledge of d20-spells and more actual perception)
(err and I want to mention that I´m not that expert on optimizing characters and stuff, it just my two cents and will work out somehow for your game ^^)
I think there are two measures of complexity: Build Complexity and Play Complexity. In many cases these are almost inversely related. Furthermore both contribute to analysis paralysis.
In terms of build complexity I think the Full Casters (other than Druid and possibly Witch) are relatively easy to build. Even if you take relatively suboptimal feat selections you aren't going to be sacrificing too terribly much.
On the other end of the spectrum I think Fighter is one of the harder classes to actually build because after a level 20 progression there is simply so much differentiation between a "good" build and a "bad" build.
In terms of play complexity, I think the full casters are the most problematic for novice players because there is the problem of choosing spells and how and when to cast them effectively.
In contrast the Fighter is generally a lot more simple to play as he's typically great in a very limited number of actions. He's either optimized for full attacks, or for combat maneuvers, etc. Fighters generally have enough feat to handle 2 possibly three combat styles but even then it's pretty clear what you should do with most actions.
The Druid and the Hybrid characters (Bards and some of the APG classes) often combine a mix of complex builds and complex play. Druids in particular have a ton of options but no longer have the sheer flexibility of being good at everything they do.
Some of the APG classes in particular the summoner are very complex as they combine a bunch of build options with a bunch of non standard play options. The summoner as a partial caster + pet class + all the eidolon complexity is definitely not one that I'd encourage novices to play. Even experienced players routinely post bad builds on this board.
I think there are two measures of complexity: Build Complexity and Play Complexity. In many cases these are almost inversely related. Furthermore both contribute to analysis paralysis.
+1. This is exactly the point I would have made, and it's also something to keep in mind in terms of offering new players help. E.g., if they're playing a fighter, you want to be sure to give them some guidance in choosing feats, but you may not need to give them as much guidance during play.
Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for.
I think there are two measures of complexity: Build Complexity and Play Complexity. . .
I agree.
For players who have never played any tabletop RPG, I suggest building some 3rd level characters for them and running a single game session with those characters, and I suggest doing it right away. Having seen some well-built characters in action, and actually using the game mechanics for a few hours, will give them a lot of insight into character building.
For players who have never played any tabletop RPG, I suggest building some 3rd level characters for them and running a single game session with those characters, and I suggest doing it right away. Having seen some well-built characters in action, and actually using the game mechanics for a few hours, will give them a lot of insight into character building.
+1
A caster is hard to play effectively, but a martial can be ruined by poor decisions in terms of feats and class abilities, as too many are severely underpowered/circumstantial.
|
Complexity is a weird topic. A fairly simple seeming class might be easy to learn and easy to play but difficult to make into an effective character. Rogues are a perfect example of this, it's easy to make a rogue and play him but it's difficult to make a rogue that is fun to play and decent in combat. Even fighters, rangers and barbarians can be challenging to get 'right' the first time around.
If you are going to allow your players to build their own characters I would suggest rather than looking at class complexity you steer them to classes that are easier to build into fun, effective characters.
For this reason I suggest you allow the Alchemist in before the either the rogue or the monk, while it's a more complex class it is also fairly easy to build and much more forgiving of build mistakes.
There is also a third leg to complexity and that is how difficult it is to play. Rogue and monk both have trouble here too. All too frequently I see rogue players who go into melee and don't bother with flanking, monks who don't use their mobility or their stunning blows, or bards who shoot crossbows instead of casting spells...
With this in mind here is my list of classes as I would recommend them to new players.
Most Recommended
Recommended
Not recommended
The list is more or less in the order of how easy the classes are for new/ casual players. Three APG classes are included because I think they can be fun/ solid options for new players.
Most Recommended
Fighter
Ranger
Barbarian Recommended
Alchemist
Paladin
Cleric
Sorcerer
Oracle
Wizard
Bard
Summoner Not recommended
Druid
Monk
Rogue
My list would be similar, but not exactly the same.
Most RecommendedRecommended
Not recommended
I don't like having new players play vancian (memorized) casters. It's a resource management game they're not prepared for. Spontaneous casters are easier and more fun for beginners, and easier for the GM to help with.
I actually find the rogue to be a very good intro class. The parameters for sneak attack end up being a great intro to the general tactical game, and the preponderance of skills usually means the answer to the question "Can I try this?" is "Yes."
|
|
I actually find the rogue to be a very good intro class. The parameters for sneak attack end up being a great intro to the general tactical game, and the preponderance of skills usually means the answer to the question "Can I try this?" is "Yes."
I've just seen one too many rogues that just don't pull there own weight even in the hands of even players who have been playing for a while. A rogue who doesn't flank is a commoner with armor and a sharp stick.
I've just seen one too many rogues that just don't pull there own weight even in the hands of even players who have been playing for a while. A rogue who doesn't flank is a commoner with armor and a sharp stick.
Very much depends on the GM's execution of certain rules.
And that's implying a combat heavy game. The rogue really shines in skills, which means even a wizard considers them an asset in skill-heavy games.
I guess what I am saying (now anyway) is that you can't really leave style of play out of consideration for what makes a good intro class.
I actually find the rogue to be a very good intro class.
I agree! I made a rather lengthy post about rogues and monks, but apparently it got eaten. Here's the short version:
Rogues make great characters for beginners provided their not the only beginner in an experienced group.
Monks are deceptively attractive to beginners.