So, since I started looking through these forums, the concept of a class tier list has come up several times, what class is the best and most versatile in the hands of an experienced player trying to make the most of it. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2prp0?Lets-build-a-Pathfinder-class-tier-list# 1 for example)
I am curious about just the opposite. What classes are the hardest to screw up and are going to be good regardless of what choices the player makes when building them or what gear is available to them, and what classes can get so unfocused or have missable key features that they can leave the player feeling like they do not get to do anything well? Running a game with new players, players who are new parents, players who can just barley fit in game around erratic work schedules, what classes will work best for people who don't have time for "homework" of researching their classes and just fill in their level ups quickly and off the top of their head during the pre/post game pizza breaks?
Thanks so far.
I am also interested in what classes to steer people away from, and in terms of a whole group where character building is not top priority, so what works for a healer or arcane caster so the team isn't all martial.
In my opinion any spontaneous casting class can be very easy to wreck to the point of unplayable. There are so many crappy spells out there and with the limited respec potential picking bad ones can seriously damage the character.
On the flip side I think cleric and druid are hard to mess up. They're pretty much universally quite good.
- Torger
So, since I started looking through these forums, the concept of a class tier list has come up several times, what class is the best and most versatile in the hands of an experienced player trying to make the most of it. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2prp0?Lets-build-a-Pathfinder-class-tier-list# 1 for example)
I am curious about just the opposite. What classes are the hardest to screw up and are going to be good regardless of what choices the player makes when building them or what gear is available to them, and what classes can get so unfocused or have missable key features that they can leave the player feeling like they do not get to do anything well? Running a game with new players, players who are new parents, players who can just barley fit in game around erratic work schedules, what classes will work best for people who don't have time for "homework" of researching their classes and just fill in their level ups quickly and off the top of their head during the pre/post game pizza breaks?
Cleric or Druid. Neither picks spells so even if you mess up with the spells on day 1 you can rebuild your loadout on day 2. Both have enough HP/AC/saves with just their normal proficiencies and such are fairly forgiving. Both have spontaneous casting in some form which means if you biff up you can do something different.
For martials I'd say Ranger. It's really hard to screw these guys into unplayability without intentionally doing so. They can get by with only moderate wisdom, their feat chains don't need ability prerequisites and are geared towards giving you good choices for feats to begin with, they have enough skill points so that if you randomly throw skills around haphazardly you'll probably still be competent at something, they get either a party buff or a pet at 4th level, and have a shifting spell list that is decent. Their Hp/AC/saves are good and they're a martial at low levels. Their favored class options are usually so broad that anything except picking off the wall humanoids or oozes is going to result in a lot of hits throughout your average campaign.
The bottom of this chart would be classes that require system mastery to avoid screwing up irreconcilably. This would likely be Fighter. Since his feat swapping thing doesn't really work and he doesn't ignore prerequisites and doesn't have good saving throws and has very few skill points a fighter build can be dead in the water before you even get done with ability scores. Then a mischosen feat or feats can ruin you for many levels.
Second for bottom would probably be the sorcerer. Suffers heavily from the fighter's problem except their replacement ability actually works as intended and they have more spells than fighters have feats. Still if you're really, really horrible at picking spells you can mess these guys up.
I'd even say barbarians fall into the bottom here. While it's very easy to make a barbarian that is amazing, it's theoretically just as easy to make one that is really horrible (there are some rather poor rage powers and you could probably fill up on these and suffer for it forever).
Wizard might qualify fairly low but I'm a bit swingy on this one. It suffers from "bad spells make a bad caster" like the sorcerer, but you can throw a little bit of money at them to fix them. While it's easy to screw them up in the short term the class is very forgiving about making mistakes and experimenting to find new options that do work (the cost to scribe scrolls from another spell book are pretty reasonable and by RAW you can find casters in towns relatively easily for most levels).
Wow. We have opinions on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. And so soon!
Heh, I would put fighter into the middle of the list, not especially easy to ruin him but still more easy than some classes. However, I find that my players build adequate fighter easily enough but then they get bogged down in the math of computing their attack bonuses and damage each round. Power attack, cleave, TWF, haste, bless, enlarge person, iterative attacks, flanking, and charging, just to name some of the common modifiers that appear in many, maybe most, of our battles - computing the numbers on the fly seems to befuddle new players, and even experience players who aren't engineers...
How new are we talking here? All spellcasters are hard on new players because you get a couple hundred pages of "class options" to sort through and pick, way more than non-spellcasters have to deal with. Understanding the implications of all these spells is impossible for a new guy. Take, for example, Grease. One of the best 1st level arcane spells. I have never seen a new guy choose Grease right off the bat without someone telling him to - it just doesn't read, on paper, like an interesting spell until you have enough system mastery to understand it better.
So first-tier classes for new players are whatever has limited options: fewer feats, fewer talents/rage powers/etc. (any variable class options that pick from a list of these options), fewer spells. Just a straight-forward list of specific, non-variable abilities gained at each level. Off the top of my head, that leaves almost nothing:
Monk
Cavalier
Maybe paladin and ranger since their spell options don't kick in for a while and remain fairly limited AND re-selectable.
After that come the classes who have retrainable and reselectable options, such as fighters, but only if the player likes math. This includes spellcasters that don't have limited spell choices (cleric, druid, etc.) and classes that have variable options but can retrain them.
After that I'd put most classes that require very little system mastery but have lots of options like barbarians, rogues, and wizards. These classes are pretty easy to figure out what they should be doing, but the options can be overwhelming to new players. Wizards go here because they're very easy to find or purchase new options if their initial choices don't work out very well. Fighters go here for players who are intimidated by math.
After that come the serious system mastery classes, like summoner, alchemist, sorcerer, gunslinger, etc. I would tell all new players to avoid classes like these because without knowing the system and having a full understanding of the class, they're just going to start off badly and end up worse. "KISS: rules and these classes don't.
Another vote for Druid and Cleric here... They are very hard to screw up, with their good saves,divine casting, partial spontaneous casting and somewhat long buffs. Druids are particularly easy to build, as they can spend hours in their chosen combat form and can spontaneously cast summoning spells.
Really, all you need to know to build a Druid is that there is such a feat as "Natural Spell". The rest is gravy.
I think the biggest point in favor of Rangers here is that they not only ignore prerequisites, but their combat styles also force you to get feats that go well with each other. Having a bunch of skills is pretty helpful too.
Fighters and Sorcerers can be easily broken into uselessness, but they're fairly easy to play, and, ion the sorcerer's case... Fairly easy to fix... If you make poor choices, in a level or two, you can be back on your feet as a useful character. Fighters can't remake their builds... At most they get to swap a few feats, but most of their investment is set in stone by then...
I'm not sure about Paladins... They don't have as many feats as Fighters and don't get to ignore prerequisites like Rangers, but their saves, immunities, swift-action self healing, weapon bond and smite evil can get them really far even if the player fails to invest in defensive tools, and most inexperienced players focus on offense anyway.
The biggest problem is the Paladin code, of course, but that has more to do with player role playing and how much of a jerk the GM is than with the Paladin's build itself
Put me down on the side of Barbarian being hard to ruin. As long as you remember to rage, you're going to be OK in combat.
How about Witch? While there are some poor hexes, I think they're mostly pretty obvious. There aren't really any trap options that are tempting but suck. You can make a really ineffective Witch, but I think it's pretty obvious how not to, even for a beginner.
Wow, thanks for all the feedback!
Sounds like druid, cleric, barbarian, and ranger are the tier 1 nominees so far, maybe paladin and cavalier as well.
DM_Blake also had a decent point about less choices = harder to screw up.
Spontaneous casters, wizard and fighter are nominated for bottom tier, but fighter in particular there seems to be some debate about. Wizard also, but for my 2 cp, I agree they are bottom tier, since in both spell selection and preparation it's easy to leave yourself without the tools you need for any given session without doing research(in or out of game), although I agree selection is not nearly as bad a problem in any setting with easy places to buy/copy spells.
As for witch, hmmm...for the most part I agree, but I could see people putting off evil eye or slumber for other things or RP reasons, anyone have any experience on witches gone bad?
Lets see, what are classes that haven't really come up. Alchemist, bard, gunslinger, inquisitor, magus, monk has gotten mixed feedback (few choices to screw up but MAD), rouge, and summoner. Anyone have opinions on them? OR disagreement with this summary, more opinions welcome
Heh, I would put fighter into the middle of the list, not especially easy to ruin him but still more easy than some classes. However, I find that my players build adequate fighter easily enough but then they get bogged down in the math of computing their attack bonuses and damage each round. Power attack, cleave, TWF, haste, bless, enlarge person, iterative attacks, flanking, and charging, just to name some of the common modifiers that appear in many, maybe most, of our battles - computing the numbers on the fly seems to befuddle new players, and even experience players who aren't engineers...
Yeah, it is easy to underestimate how complicated that math can get. I had the group healer swear he would no longer pick on the fighter's math after one combat subbing for her.
As for your question, my group's experience varies widely, but assuming little to none is probably best for the purposes of this. Thanks for the thorough reply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is also a pretty tough class to spell correctly.
It is also a pretty tough class to spell correctly.
Well played :-)