Background:
This is a term some of my class mates toss around when talking about MMOs such as Warcraft. To them, it means a class that is relatively straight forward to understand, easy to execute, but gives only gives decent play throughput even at mediocre investment on the player's part.
The classic example is a Warcraft DK. They have fewer abilities than most classes. The abilities obviously synergize. And the classes is fairly intuitive to play. To bring an example from a little closer to home, consider that many 4E classes could be considered first order. They had mechanics that were obvious to use. And, be design, it was inteded that you could not mess the game play up no matter what power you chose*.
Discussion:
So, is this something Pathfinder could benefit from? A class or two that can easily be shown to a newer player and that he or she can grasp at a quick glance. Or, is this an unwritten design rule that Pathfinder classes are intended to be more advanced as a baseline because of the underlying d20 engine and years of general community familiarity with the system?
* WoTC later stated that the hybrid classes broke this first order rule in that it was possible to create a character that could perform no role what so ever.
Death Knight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DK is Death Knight.
Pathfinder already has this concept. Some classes are just simpler than others.
The sorcerer is like the training wheels class to introduce new players to the magic system. (limited spell list, modular casting)
Likewise, the paladin has a very simple approach to combat (less variables and feats to keep track of, on-demand healing)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- relatively straightforward to understand
- easy to execute
- but gives only gives decent play throughout
- even at mediocre investment on the player's part.
Let me see...
...hmmm...yep, aside from this part:
"but gives only gives decent play throughput"
Sounds like a classic Fighter to me, and that part's an easy fix. It doesn't take much to make a "decent" fighter, especially with mediocre investment.
As long as I can remember, Fighter has been the go-to class for anyone who just wants to play a character whose motivation and means are simple and easy to grasp. This has been the case since Basic D&D, and many a first-time-player has been handed a Fighter upon which to cut their teeth.
Basically, I don't think these "First Order Classes" are necessary in Pathfinder because, if you want to play something like that, the rules already allow for you to build a character who is only decent. You can build a simple rogue, wizard or cleric just as easily, but the call to mediocrity is a proud and noble tradition among fighters who are more than happy to just smack the hell out of some bad guys with nothing but a suit of full plate, a boring, old longsword and a sack full of meat points.
Honestly, you can make a very simple Barbarian, Ranger, Fighter, Sorceror, Oracle, Alchemist, Paladin, or Cavalier. Even Clerics and Druids can be made into easy characters with the right design parameters. Sorceror and Oracle are the easiest to screw up, but they're definitely the easiest casters to play.
What you tell your player during creation:
-Pick Human as your race.
-Come up with a concept to determine your class.
-We'll talk through Feats and Traits (hint: PASSIVES WITHOUT CONDITIONS).
-"Here are a couple tips for when we're playing..."
DONE.
A character on training wheels. Yes, that is a good description. Thanks Doomed Hero.
How much more do you want to dumb down pathfinder it written for 4th grade reading level?
My 10 year old little girl made here fist PC at the Age of 6 how much easier do you want to make it?(Note she made it not me)
If you do not want to take 20 or 30 minutes it take make pc why play?
Witch is short that time my little girl takes make avatar for Rock Band for the Wi…
I am sorry but the video game mentality will kill this gaming field.
I have been gaming since I was 8 and now I am 39. Take time to read it not realy not that hard.
If you want training wheels just play Core. After you master that then add new book...think of the new book like geting the latest expansions. for WoW. That hurt me to say. :(
Sorcer/wizard question... Well any idot and make Wizard but playing take real smarts... While any idot can play sorcer but make one that works take real smarts. Two side of the same coin.
How much more do you want to dumb down pathfinder it written for 4th grade reading level?
For the record, I'm not talking about dumbing down pathfinder. I'm talking about the band of potential (basically combat potential) as a function of the options a class has to offer.
Let me try another example, the 3.5 warlock. It was desigend to be a very straight forward classes. It had little or no resources to measure, beacause they were unlimited. And, it put out decent, but not great DPR. By my classmates definition, the warlock is also a first order class.
I have not used the Beginner Box. But I've heard raves about it. And I think that would be the logical place to start if you wanted to try 'Pathfinder on training wheels'.
I have not tried the Begiiner Box either. But, I just might have to see what was done to the classes. Could be interesting. Thanks
uh, human fighter ? ;)
A very simple character can be made, it takes the help of someone with system mastery.
Thank you. I appreciate this response.
It seems the going census is that the is not a responsibility of the sytem to provide. But, rather a responsibility of the GM/group.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I think it would have been nice if the old iconics were made that way. I.e. simple effective builds with minimal finnickt stuff. With noobies, I stat their characters out that way.
I usually do: Life Oracles, Primal or Draconic Sorcerers, 2H Fighters, and Paladins. All are very simple before level 6 or so. After that, you can start to figure stuff out.
A very simple character can be made, it takes the help of someone with system mastery.Thank you. I appreciate this response.
It seems the going census is that the is not a responsibility of the sytem to provide. But, rather a responsibility of the GM/group.
It's a bit of both -- but you can't really be fully expected to sit down with the full core rulebook and build a character on your own from scratch without any help your very first time playing.
Of course Paizo thought so too which is why they made the beginner box set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems the going census is that the is not a responsibility of the sytem to provide. But, rather a responsibility of the GM/group.
I think the more accurate statement is that Pathfinder is the result of decades of game growth of it's original source material and therefore has a great breadth of choice built into it. That breadth can be formidable to those first starting.
Pathfinder may not be the ideal RPG for someone looking for a more streamlined and simple class. The basic box might be ideal to get someone started till they are comfortable with the full blown system.
It is a co shared responsibility. The group should play what they want but should seek a game that suits all of the plauyers skill levels. There are a ton of games out there one can use to learn on.
the beginner box was made fore this very reason
Also the Advanced players guide isn't 'players' handbook 2.0' -- it's for advanced players. The options presented in it generally shouldn't be approached until you have a firm grasp of the core rules first.
So in a way we have:
Beginner box
Core Rulebook
APG + (stuff after that too)
This isn't to say, "you aren't good enough for the APG!" but that someone that is newer to the system might be better off waiting a bit before trying to wrap their head around it in addition to everything in core.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I start fledgling players on ranger.
At level one they are a solid combatant, have a hated enemy for easy RP, can track and love animals. Easy.
At level 2 they get to think about different styles of combat.
At level 3 they play with situational bonuses
By level 4 most people have had enough play to cast a spell once a day. Getting an animal companion gets them thinking more tactically and understanding frail characters.
Level 5 and up is just a gradual development of those skills, with more spells to play with and more enemies/terrains. Eventually they get some cool stealth options to play with.
It's a nice gradual inclusion, and in the first session or two they should be able to survive and win some fights.
actually I think the easiest character to play is the witch.
Cackle, evil eye will be the combat routine, it demands nothing from the player except knowing a bit of movement rules and saying "I choose saves".
Other hexes as misfortune and sleep are also very easy to grasp.
This alone is useful enough in combat.
For the rest you can just have cure whatever in every single spellslot. And the player can add spells if he has the time to read up on them.
If you fear for their squishyness, take that orc archetype that goes on con, have full con gear, toughness and all those deathless feats or whatever that keep you going.
For the sorcerer, it was my first arcane caster, an second character (after awesome druid) back in 3.5, and I can't say I noticed any training wheels. It was more "if I had only taken that spell and not this".
For the sorcerer, it was my first arcane caster, an second character (after awesome druid) back in 3.5, and I can't say I noticed any training wheels. It was more "if I had only taken that spell and not this".
Aye. Sorcerers are pretty unforgiving if you choose the wrong spells.
Please do not use the basic box teach core rules set. Why waste your money on Basic set use it for 3 to 6 motnhs and the have spend money on the core rule set. This is what many in the game industery said help kill TSR in the 80. Bye splitting it fan base or market share. My folk where piss I bought one box set used it for month then said I was ( the Purple one :0) ready to get 1 ed Ad&D.
Please do not use the basic box teach core rules set. Why waste your money on Basic set use it for 3 to 6 motnhs and the have spend money on the core rule set. This is what many in the game industery said help kill TSR in the 80. Bye splitting it fan base or market share. My folk where piss I bought one box set used it for month then said I was ( the Purple one :0) ready to get 1 ed Ad&D.
Unless you want, y'know, dice, a flip mat, a bunch of tokens and a nice box. And a simpler ruleset (that many consider an improvement). Y'know, those things. :)
-Proud Beginner Box Owner (and full-version GM)
|
Please do not use the basic box teach core rules set. Why waste your money on Basic set use it for 3 to 6 motnhs and the have spend money on the core rule set. This is what many in the game industery said help kill TSR in the 80. Bye splitting it fan base or market share. My folk where piss I bought one box set used it for month then said I was ( the Purple one :0) ready to get 1 ed Ad&D.
Please do not listen to this poster. The Beginner Box is a wonderful product that not only teaches the game to new players, but to beginning DMs. There are people using this to teach new players, taking it as a one-shot machine for boy scout trips, bringing gaming to kids, etc.
To give it a rep as something you outgrow so why bother? is a disservice.
No one said it was something you outgrow or that it isn't worth it -- just that it is slanted for beginners first.
It's still a great product, and there is no shame in it being designed for beginners (hell it says so in its very name).
It seems the going census is that the is not a responsibility of the sytem to provide. But, rather a responsibility of the GM/group.I think the more accurate statement is that Pathfinder is the result of decades of game growth of it's original source material and therefore has a great breadth of choice built into it. That breadth can be formidable to those first starting.
Pathfinder may not be the ideal RPG for someone looking for a more streamlined and simple class. The basic box might be ideal to get someone started till they are comfortable with the full blown system.
It is a co shared responsibility. The group should play what they want but should seek a game that suits all of the plauyers skill levels. There are a ton of games out there one can use to learn on.
I like this response as well.
So expanding on the concept that players at the table may or may not have the same skill level. And, coupling this with the general consensus that the beginner's box fulfill's the need of a simplified class. Is it reasonable to mix the two. Can Alice play with CR + APG + UM at the same table Bob is playing BB and Charlie the purist plays CR only. Would the table break down break down mechanically*? Does Bob become a liability?
*I fully grant ahead of time that a role playing story can be made and executed at any player or skill level, regardless of ruleset.
|
It seems the going census is that the is not a responsibility of the sytem to provide. But, rather a responsibility of the GM/group.I think the more accurate statement is that Pathfinder is the result of decades of game growth of it's original source material and therefore has a great breadth of choice built into it. That breadth can be formidable to those first starting.
Pathfinder may not be the ideal RPG for someone looking for a more streamlined and simple class. The basic box might be ideal to get someone started till they are comfortable with the full blown system.
It is a co shared responsibility. The group should play what they want but should seek a game that suits all of the plauyers skill levels. There are a ton of games out there one can use to learn on.
I like this response as well.
So expanding on the concept that players at the table may or may not have the same skill level. And, coupling this with the general consensus that the beginner's box fulfill's the need of a simplified class. Is it reasonable to mix the two. Can Alice play with CR + APG + UM at the same table Bob is playing BB and Charlie the purist plays CR only. Would the table break down break down mechanically*? Does Bob become a liability?
*I fully grant ahead of time that a role playing story can be made and executed at any player or skill level, regardless of ruleset.
No Bob would not be a liability, his character might not be as effective as the others especially Alice if she min maxs but not a liability IMHO.
There are some classes that are much easier to build.
I think that the Ranger is one. The combat styles basically tell you which feats are good. Its a divine caster, so you can try different spells if you choose wrong. ACs also have a limited feat list so you can't choose useless things.
Favoured enemies are hard, but with a good DM, even if you choose Aberrations, Oozes and Plants, you should encounter plenty of them in a custom campaign. AP are harder, but that's something that's not really a system mastery thing.
Paladins are another good option. A paladin with no feats will still kick the ass of most evil creatures he goes up against.
The Summoner is a good choice. There is a limited list of evolutions, and if you have an idea of what you want the eidolon to do it basically builds itself.
I think the cleric and druid are also good entry classes. They are forgiving in that you can change your spells every day if you find some are not useful. If you are starting at level 1, I feel they teach how to play them well enough. Also, the cleric and druid can wear armor and beat on things, so if you screw up your spell choices you are still ok. However, to play a cleric or druid, you have to be willing to spend effort to learn the system, since at higher levels they are not as forgiving. Still, neither of them is really dependent on feats.
What I think is more important than the beginning players' classes is the ability of the GM to write and run appropriate adventures for new players. I can't tell you how many people I've met that were turned off to various games because the GM didn't run adventures based on the players' experience and abilities. I've had it happen to me and I've seen it happen to others. It is possible that I've done it in the past.
There are some classes that are easier than others to build and play but I think that a player that has a character that fits what they want to play and a GM that does their job right is better than just picking an easy class.
Oh, and the Beginner's Box is an excellent product that does its job well. As a very long time GM, I love products like it. It allows me to quickly introduce new players. I loved it with the Basic Rules for DnD. I love quick play guides like the ones for Alernity and Dark*Matter. Anything that gets the players into the action quickly instead of studying mechanics generally works better for helping them learn and enjoy the game.
|
uh, human fighter ? ;)STR 14
DEX 18
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 10
CHA 10Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Two Weapon Fighting
Result: Constantly gets his butt kicked.
------------------
Feats: Improved Initiative, Quick Draw, Point Blank Shot
Result: Does almost no damage and gets his butt kicked.
The above character is probably rocking near a 20 AC at level 1, scaling pretty well as he levels, and is likely dealing 1d8(+2) damage, which is plenty at low levels, not to mention having an excellent ranged option, and being pretty accurate in melee as well. Hardly a "gets his butt kicked" scenario, especially against appropriate CR enemies.
You can build a fighter with 12s in every stat that will work, and probably be fine throughout the game, even including mediocre feat choices. Ideal? No. But he'll be able to hold his own in a group in level appropriate encounters no problem.
Um the person I quoted did just that.No one said it was something you outgrow or that it isn't worth it -- just that it is slanted for beginners first.
It's still a great product, and there is no shame in it being designed for beginners (hell it says so in its very name).
I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to the same poster you did, just 11 minutes later.
So expanding on the concept that players at the table may or may not have the same skill level. And, coupling this with the general consensus that the beginner's box fulfill's the need of a simplified class. Is it reasonable to mix the two. Can Alice play with CR + APG + UM at the same table Bob is playing BB and Charlie the purist plays CR only. Would the table break down break down mechanically*? Does Bob become a liability?
*I fully grant ahead of time that a role playing story can be made and executed at any player or skill level, regardless of ruleset.
I have to say someone using core only does not become a liability(I don't own the Beginer's box so I really can't say in that regards.) But recently my game got two new players who are much younger than the rest of us. One is my friends girlfriend's nephew who is up for a month visit and wanted to try the game and the other is the same friend adoptive brother. Using the KISS( keep it simple stupid) philosphy I kept them limited to Core only options. And after two sessions they have grasped their characters rather well. And one (a dwarf fighter) is proably one of the more solid characters in the group.