Simplest Class to Play


Advice

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Atarlost wrote:
Barring that I'm going to say Rogue even though I don't like the class. They suck, but not as much as Aristocrat, which someone suggested with apparent seriousness. They get loads of skills and class skills as roleplay enablers. They can be built either as a charismatic con man, a surly safecracker, a genuinely bright former street urchin, or dashing swashbuckler and at least sort of work. It's not a caster. If it dies horribly at higher levels the player will hopefully be experienced enough to make his own character choice.

I was the one who suggested a Fighter/Aristocrat-or-Expert multi-class for a sort of general experience class; the only reason I haven't suggested a rogue is because talents are yet another level of complexity on top of basic combat options. (Don't get me wrong, I like rogues.)


TOZ wrote:
KDNash wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Commoner.

Actually commoner with its lack of skills and competance (even the lack of a maximized first hit die) really makes them one of the most difficult, if not THE most difficult class in the game to make a PC out of.

I do not recomend Peasent :p

Actually, it's quite easy.

Round 1: Run away.
Round 2: If you cannot run away, die horribly.

quoted for lulz


TOZ wrote:
Commoner.

We agree with this. There should be more commoners. For they art crunchy and taste good with catsup.


Milkius Draconis Terribilus wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Commoner.
We agree with this. There should be more commoners. For they art crunchy and taste good with catsup.

commoners taste much better with Gaucemole.

Shadow Lodge

I prefer Ao-1 Steak Sauce.


Tierce wrote:
Barbarian, scream at stuff and smack them around

quoted for agreement.

The first character i ever played was a Barb and in combat its very simple, yell, bash, yell over slain opponent. Outside of combat it can be alot of fun to think of things in a more simplistic fashion. Barbarians arent necessarily dumb, and alot of times more 'intelligent' PC's can over think things. The way I played him was 'If situation = culturally ok, no smash'. 'If situation = culturally not ok, smash'. It was a lot of fun and I ended up smashing the story the GM had created for me into a million pieces by thinking so simplistically.

One such situation was when i was presented money by small group of similar barbarians to purchase something for them (in an attempt to ingratiate me into their Clan), my Barb looked at all the money, realized he had none of his own and walked into the door of the building and kept walking to the back entrance. They ended up tracking me and i made a miracle of a bluff check to pull off an insane lie.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Barbarian used to be the new guy 'max Str and use a greataxe' class, but now thanks to rage powers, it's not quite so simple anymore.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Barbarian used to be the new guy 'max Str and use a greataxe' class, but now thanks to rage powers, it's not quite so simple anymore.

No but it still seems to be the simplest imo. Also as a Gm i would allow a new player the ability to swap out things like feats and rage powers for the first 10 levels or so. Somethings look great on paper and then once you hit the game you realize how circumstantial some of them are.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Milkius Draconis Terribilus wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Commoner.
We agree with this. There should be more commoners. For they art crunchy and taste good with catsup.
commoners taste much better with Gaucemole.

Thou art a philistine. It is well known in gourmand circles that one does not eat commoners with guacamole. One reserves guacamole for adepts, who have a more piquant flavor due to their inherent magical aptitude.


TOZ wrote:
I prefer Ao-1 Steak Sauce.

Thou art another philistine. A-1 Steak Sauce should be reserved for sides of beef, and commoners are skinny pathetic things, like french fries.

Warriors should be served with A-1 Steak Sauce.


I vote for archer or switch hitter ranger. Two handed fighter is a close second because you can retrain feats if you don't like a previous choice and combat is simple. If they don't want to spend much time with the bookkeeping, map out their feats for them.

Personally, I would probably try to sell up the switch hitting ranger. "You want to be Jon Snow from Game of Thrones? Cool. Here is your sword, here is your bow, and here is your wolf. Have a blast."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Milkius Draconis Terribilus wrote:


Thou art another philistine. A-1 Steak Sauce

Not A-1.

Ao-1 Steak Sauce.


yeah but then you have to worry with FE, FT, leveling the companion, spells, etc.

For my money having one set of stats, one set of 'this is the number i use' stuff is the simplest way. That way i can mentally say 'i roll the dice to attack and add this to it' and call it a day


Milkius Draconis Terribilus wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
Milkius Draconis Terribilus wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Commoner.
We agree with this. There should be more commoners. For they art crunchy and taste good with catsup.
commoners taste much better with Gaucemole.
Thou art a philistine. It is well known in gourmand circles that one does not eat commoners with guacamole. One reserves guacamole for adepts, who have a more piquant flavor due to their inherent magical aptitude.

well, catsup is just too simple and not refined enough for my gourmand tastes.


Lots of neat ideas here guys, thanks. Interesting to see the different opinions.

This player is a long time D&D player, just has zero interest in rules. Typically enjoys skill-monkeys, because it means more RP opportunities. In combat, the person's eyes glaze over if you mention 5 foot step or AoO. Played a rogue for years, and never understood how to set up Sneak Attack. Not a critique of their playing style or dedication to the game, because everyone is still having fun, and lots of it.

The question comes up because we have started a new campaign, which they are joining one level late (so this player starting at 2nd level). The party already has a bard and rogue, so maybe after something different. I'm leaning towards sorcerer, because having some illusions or charm spells would probably give lots of creative options without a lot of calculating numbers, beyond DC (once and done) and keeping track of how many spells cast today.

I do actually like the idea of an expert or aristocrat, too. Skills are easily understood, and aristocrat provides good proficiencies, and practically hands you backstory with RP opportunities. Tack on a template, like half-something, and it *might* very roughly balance out with a PC class and provide more hooks. Obviously, this could explode in everyone's face, too. Is it worth the risk?


Check out the last page of Epic Meepo's Archetype thread - he has archetypes for the NPC classes that bring them up to the power level of PC characters. The Destined Commoner seems like a great idea for someone overwhelmed by the game's mechanics - all you have to do in a fight is get into a flanking position and stare at your party members in amazement.


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Check out the last page of Epic Meepo's Archetype thread - he has archetypes for the NPC classes that bring them up to the power level of PC characters. The Destined Commoner seems like a great idea for someone overwhelmed by the game's mechanics - all you have to do in a fight is get into a flanking position and stare at your party members in amazement.

Can you link?


I consider build complexity to be ---dramatically--- less important than play complexity in terms of what to give to a new or mechanics-shy player. The reason is that I can sit down with a new player beforehand or between sessions, talk about what he or she wants the character to be like and be able to do, make suggestions, and so on, and then the character is ready to go. It's much more annoying to, in the middle of combat, try to help out a player who's confused about what their options are or what will happen if they do certain things.

I also think that it's easy to worry too much about how hard it is to play a class perfectly, rather than how hard it is to get the basic gist of what effects your different actions will have. My experience is that what's hard for newcomers is not having a jillion different things on their sheet or having too many build options (since that's easier to get help with), but being unclear on what will happen when they do something.


Ganryu wrote:
Can you link?

No problem: Epic Meepo Presents Archetypes NPC Archetypes are on the 5th page.

Liberty's Edge

From description, if LG isn't a problem, I'd advise Paladin. Go Human, start with Power Attack and Furious Focus and just calculate the Power Attack damage in. The only math is adding his Smite Evil, and the other PCs can help him with that.

For future Feats you can grab other easy Feats like Extra Lay on Hands or similarly non math intensive Feats.

He can max out Diplomacy and Sense Motive, along with a few ranks in other things and be solid in social interactions (perhaps the most common out-of-combat interaction).

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Simplest Class to Play All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice