|
Personally I like to talk to a new player about what they want to play and then help them make a character that best fits that idea. I think that a new player will be more likely to enjoy the game if they get to play a character they're really interested in rather than just one that's easy for beginners to handle. The GM and other players can always help out, and we can play a little loose with the rules and be flexible on rebuilds for newbies if they regret their initial decisions.
I never suggest that someone play a human just because they're easier. If the player doesn't care about race they're a decent default, and I might suggest them if a player wants a character that really benefits from a first level bonus feat (probably non-fighter archers). But the other core races are not that hard to handle, and a player who wants to be an elf (or halfling or dwarf) wants to be an elf (etc).
I do discourage certain classes or archetypes that have particularly confusing mechanics, like the magus or wizard spellslinger. I discourage particularly bad race-class combinations like a dwarven sorcerer. And if a player is undecided between a prepared and spontaneous caster I tend to recommend the latter for ease of play. But a beginner can play most core race-single classed characters as long as they have a helpful GM and group, and that initial conversation about "what kind of character do you want to play?" narrows down the field so you can make well-informed, personalized suggestions rather than handing them what's essentially a pre-gen or else just throwing the rulebook at them and telling them to pick something.
I'm also not that sure that monks are particularly easy to handle for beginners - I've heard a lot of people on these forums say that it takes an experienced player and a careful build to make them effective. But I've only seen one low-level monk PC, so I can't speak to that personally.
|
I agree with Weirdo. Especially about the monk. They just do not fit in a "Western Medieval" campaign, as they are written. Most campaigns seem to follow that model. (Strictly my opinion - nothing more, nothing less) Besides - every party can handle another fighter.
A players first character is kinda like the first time they fall in lust. Really kewl, shiny looking stuff glows all around the head of that first character, especially if it survives. It is only after one plays a bit that one realizes the stats they chose are all wrong for the class, and will not allow them to be the Left Handed Over Under Min/Max combat devil that the experienced players say you have to have.......(I think you get the idea).
If the beginner has been reading the latest Fantasy craze and they have to have a Ninja, let them play it. Eventually, they will try other things that light their imagination on fire. None of the classes are so difficult to play they are unmanageable. (OK, a couple may be)
|
|
I generally sit down and say the following:
Who kind of person do you want to play?
Charming Swachbuckler (wesley from Princess Bride) (bard)
Sneaky scoundral with a good heart (Philepe from Lady Hawk or something similar)
Master of the Magic (Gandalf, or Merlin) (Sorcerer)
Master of steal or bow (Gimli, Authur ect) (fighter, or Ranger)
Holy priest (never found a good example) (Oracle)
Brutal Savage (Conan) (barbarian)
Then I build a basic but well built version for the type. Asking questions as I go about what they want to focus of and race, ect.
Talk to the player. My first D20 game I played an elf brass dragonblooded sorcerer in Pathfinder quite effectively, doing a mix of blasting and area control. My prior tabletop experience had been all excursively Shadowrun and Classic Battletech. My experience with anything DnD related was Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights series and Icewind Dale on the PC years before hand. For whatever reason now people look at me in a lot of the groups I play in like some arbiter of balance and fairness especially for homebrew stuff. Granted it helps that I have near photographic memory for things I've read.
|
|
I also like Seriphim84's style of using media examples and archetypal fantasy characters to illustrate classes.
For me it then goes a little bit farther. "Okay, so you want to play a charming swashbuckler? Do you want to use magic with your blade (bard)? If not, is it important for you to have a lot of out-of-combat skill and sly tricks (rogue) or do you mostly want to be a master duelist (fighter)?"
I certainly grant the point that the best character for a new player to play is one they want to play. However, sometimes they really don't know, and it is nice to have a few options available that let them pay attention to the story and character-world interaction without getting lost in mechanics and 4-point font details on character sheets.
If they really have no idea what they want to play it might make sense to hand them the "human two-handed fighter with Power Attack." But my group hasn't run into that situation yet, and we find that if a new player has a good grasp on the type of character they want to play (the brutal savage, the sly thief) the mechanics really don't get in the way. The player just says "I want my character to pick this guy's pocket. How do I do that?" and the GM says "Make a Sleight of Hand check. Bob, can you help him find his skill modifier?" Or the player says "I kick the door in" and the GM asks for a strength check.
Our three most recent new players have played a half-elf rogue, a half-orc barbarian, and a half-orc inquisitor. No problems.
Also, in Society play I have several times witnessed new players who really wanted to try a caster (because casters are cool, no?) just get deluged by unwanted "help" from other players about positioning, spell selection, blast radii, etc. Of course this is more a game table-culture issue than a new-player issue, but I think it may be easier to steer new players without a strong opinion towards certain classes that allow them to a little time to adjust to Pathfinder than to cure gamers of excessive helpfulness.
Yeah, overly helpful players are a table-culture thing. If your table can keep it to a minimum it's not a problem. Spell selection help is a bit easier for spontaneous casters since they just need someone (preferably one specific person) to give them a hand with it when they level. That once-per-level limitation on the number of times you fiddle with your spell selection is the reason I think spontaneous casters are a touch easier.