|
After seeing so any complaints about game balance and how other classes are so much better than fighters or rogues, I wonder if the real point of these classes is just to provide an entry point for new players.
I understand plenty of people enjoy all the homework of analyzing all the feats, archetypes, equipment, etc. There is plenty for people who want to, to.dig in and research, compare and. contrast. On the other hand, are they not the simplest or in the top three simplest classes for a.new player to pick up?
Sure, they are great to fill the role of warrior(with many varieties) or scoundrel, but I still cannot wonder if they are designed to be easy entry points meant for new players.
I do not feel every class needs to be perfectly balanced. I would dread how similar and non exciting things would be if everything was balanced.
Anyone recall seeing the designers/developers ever say this or something similar?
*pulls up a chair and reaches for the popcorn*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is the most noob friendly class in my opinion, but the other classes can work too with some guidance. The one core class I might steer new people away from are druids. They are already casters, and then the animal companion is a second character that you have to build and control. Now some players do catch on a lot faster than others, and I have had some intelligent and motivated new people, but if I had someone who was not willing to put in work away from the table I would push them toward a fighter most likely. Even without taking the best feat choices decent damage can be done.
Actually, for my wife, The primary "melee" classes are more difficult for her to understand than a caster class...I tried the whole just hit things approach...didn't understand...showed her the sorceror and kaboom, she's out dpr'ing everything with good spell casting battlefield control. So my wife is a special case I guess, needs the more complex characters.
While fighter has some good features that would help a new player, actually accomplishing anything other than raw DPR can be hard. Both classes require a firm grasp on mechanics and teamwork. I mean, sure, you can pump up your AC with armors and maybe shields, or grab the biggest weapon you can and hit everything, but will that help the party much when the wizard gets surrounded by wolves early on?
While melee classes are good for survival early on, later the game requires more from them, and they need to find a niche. Fighters can be good for that, since they have so many feats and archetypes, but that can be hard for new players to figure out.
the best newbie classes are
the bard and the ranger
bard prepares you for getting your feet wet into spellcasting, skills, and weapon damage
ranger prepares you for those plus cohorts
Actually, fighter and rogue can be the hardest to just pick up and play. They have a large number of options, and many of those options are traps. They don't have a small selection of "This would be cool..." to pull from. The rogue talents are mostly awful, and some of them look good but are still awful(I know plenty of people love Charlatan archetype even though its terrible), and in the case of fighters you have every combat feat from the book to pull from. Worse, they don't do a lot to prepare you for all the other cool things in the game like casting or pets!
I agree with the OP, unlike even other martial classes, Fighter and Rogue pretty much have static numbers.
They don't have conditional bonuses that need to be added or subtracted, limited usage/day mechanics to track, etc.
When you pick a Feat, you can usually just use it without limit, so if it affects your stats, you modify that stat and that's it.
They are straight forward to get a functional build that covers the basics and fills a solid role.
Hzardus does have a point though, that Casters can also be more simple to play,
largely because you don't have to pay as much attention to threat area, AoOs, and action economy.
Spell effects are either simple: X many dice you roll, or the target is rolling the dice, or otherwise adjudicated by GM.
Of course, Fighters and Rogues can also be put to good use by players with system mastery, but the basic core is simple to apply.
|
Rogues are not always best for new players because of all the complications between rogue talents and sneak attack rules. Depending on the person I'd recommend Fighters or Clerics for starters because the Fighter class is simple and can be built quickly and effectively for low levels and you can make it complex and difficult to fight PCs and you can make the best multi-classers with levels in fighter because of feats and proficiencies. Clerics are the simplest spellcasters because you mainly have to focus on your healing abilities and later can figure out good domain combos because if you do it right,you can channel smite for silly high damage.
Why would you push a new player into a multiclass build?
Why would you push a new player into a multiclass build?
i wouldn't neccessarily do it, fighter is usually a 2-4 level dip to get either 2 extra feats, weapon training, or weapon specialization so you could qualify for either a PRC, or for some obscure power option that somehow requires weapon training. the fighter chassis offers next to nothing useful past level 4 that you couldn't get with another class or a magic item.
the big problem with the fighter, is that it's features can be bought.
Rogues are not always best for new players because of all the complications between rogue talents and sneak attack rules. Depending on the person I'd recommend Fighters or Clerics for starters because the Fighter class is simple and can be built quickly and effectively for low levels and you can make it complex and difficult to fight PCs and you can make the best multi-classers with levels in fighter because of feats and proficiencies. Clerics are the simplest spellcasters because you mainly have to focus on your healing abilities and later can figure out good domain combos because if you do it right,you can channel smite for silly high damage.
yeah, you can focus on static numbers, but then you aren't learning much. the game rewards resource management far more than it does really high static bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you aren't learning much by actually playing the game, seeing how everybody else does things in actual combat, understanding attacks/ AoOs/movement/saves/skills, and how that fits into an 'immersive' RPG experience? OK.
i think the difference here is that the char-op or character building is the major part of the game for you, that you don't find the game satisfying without, and that avoiding getting into right away is missing the point of the game, which is fine for you. but spending lots of energy on that part of the game just isn't needed to start getting into the rest of the game, and when dealing with true beginners who are not already into the char-op mindset, is just an additional distraction.
the fact is that this game is built on the D&D heritage, and previous to 3rd edition there was just not 10% of the level of mechanical customization available outside of skill ranks, yet it was still a fairly complicated game that people enjoyed playing and still had a remarkable resemblance to the game as it exists today. avoiding dealing head-on with the complications brought on by 3.x's expanded mechanical options feels reasonable when a new player who has never, or barely ever, played D&D or similar RPGs is just starting the game.
"game" for most people involves thing like monopoly or clue, mixing "game" with acting/role-playing is understandable and likeable enough, but most are not ready to jump directly into juggling many interlocking subsystems just to start out. fighter and rogue per the core rule book are simple enough classes that still let you engage with the basic rules of the game.
i think players coming from previous RPG game experience are the only ones with "rogues = DEX build" preconception.
people with no specific background, approaching RPG as a clean slate don't have that preconception as much.
fighter / rogue are just 2 different variants of this 'class' thing with differing approaches,
rogue with less direct bonus, but potentially more pay-off, and skill focus vs. heavy armor and feats.
i usually explain it that the rogue is more dependent on surprise, flanking, to work well.
a player really into the combat aspect may very well go heavy STR, if they are more into acrobatics and stealth, DEX.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone recall seeing the designers/developers ever say this or something similar?
Jason Buhlman has commented specifically that there is intentional lack of balance between classes. To paraphrase, he considers this imbalance to function exactly as a way to cater to different playstyles and is a strength of the system. I agree with him.
How does that cater to different play styles? As opposed to if they were balanced?
I guess martials are stronger at lower levels, while casters dominate from midlevels on,
but that means the playstyles that prefer magic to dominate low levels and martials at high levels aren't being addressed.
Martials might dominate if forced to fight endless battles all day long (if they have enough healing), and Magic might dominate if only with limited battles, but the playstyles that prefer magic to dominate all-day long while martial might dominate short fights isn't being catered to.
Why not have them switch places in dominance/sweet spot multiple times thru out the 20 levels?
I don't really think it was Paizo's design decision. They just made a 3.5 follow on.
After wizards, fighters are probably the most challenging class to fully optimize in play. A fighter is never going to match the encounter-beating power of a wizard or their utility powers; their job is to control battles through dealing and absorbing damage, but especially by using feats to change the game. Wizard is aircraft carrier, fighter is versatile attack plane.
The simplest newbie classes are probably barbarian and cleric. Cleric gets more complicated starting at 7th level or so, but players have plenty of time to skill up between 1st and higher level.
Rogues are challenging and middling in power; they are primarily for players who want to maximize the "skilled martial character" archetype, not for people looking for power in absolute terms.
My newbie choices for Core:
Barbarian: simple, effective, lot of health, resource management on small scale (rage rounds)
Ranger: Fights like Barbarian, less health, better skills, later spells, animal friend
Druid: animal friend, cast spells, decent weapons
Sorcerer: spontaneous casting is easy if you help them choose right spells
Bard: Skills, weapons (even armor), spells, can inspire others (can be serious or silly with this)
If a new player plays a rogue they may find themselves in common rogue situations such as:
"You are fighting a ghost and your normal abilites are worthless."
"The only way you can usefully contribute to this battle is by running into a flanking position, but if you do there is a high chance you'll get killed."
A new player is not going to be good at handling these situations.
You could equally argue that the purpose of these classes is to provide a challenge to experienced players who prefer to solve problems like 'how do I get across this chasm' without them being trivialised by being able to air walk, teleport or turn into a bird.
After seeing so any complaints about game balance and how other classes are so much better than fighters or rogues, I wonder if the real point of these classes is just to provide an entry point for new players.
I understand plenty of people enjoy all the homework of analyzing all the feats, archetypes, equipment, etc. There is plenty for people who want to, to.dig in and research, compare and. contrast. On the other hand, are they not the simplest or in the top three simplest classes for a.new player to pick up?
Sure, they are great to fill the role of warrior(with many varieties) or scoundrel, but I still cannot wonder if they are designed to be easy entry points meant for new players.
I do not feel every class needs to be perfectly balanced. I would dread how similar and non exciting things would be if everything was balanced.
Anyone recall seeing the designers/developers ever say this or something similar?
No, definitely don't recall the designers and developers saying any such thing.
I would call the fighter and rogue a simple class in terms of tracking abilities, but difficult to master. What is "easy" about them is that you don't have to write down a lot of abilities at level 1, and that's about it. But playing them well requires people who can plan ahead, and think effectively in terms of teamwork and tactics and general, and be good at figuring out how to stack bonuses from circumstances and class abilities.
I have seen both classes played with great effectiveness, but generally by players who are good tacticians (whether old or new).
I honestly think playing spellcasters is easier for newbs, because apart from making sensible choices for spells known, a lot of what you can do is pretty much mapped out for you on your character sheet. Obviously ALL classes benefit best from good teamwork and tactics, but I think spellcasters, for all that they may look complex on page, are simpler to play in many respects.
If you think getting into flanking position or avoiding damage is hard, don't play a rogue. If you're not good at designing a fighting style over levels, don't play a fighter.
I personally have not had trouble with the former (not that I am any great tactician), nor have rogue players I play with IRL, but according to some opinions on the Internet, these are the hardest things ever. But then, that may simply be the truth of "Your Mileage May Vary." (Also, generally speaking, it's my experience that everything the Wrongbadfun Brigade says is for a) laughs and entertainment and b) ignoring once there's nothing left to laugh at.)
This is why I always advise new players to simply pick the class that looks most fun FOR THEM. I think it is better to trust people's assessments of their own abilities, and moreover their own sense of what they'd enjoy playing, than to steer them toward any one class. Yeah, they might make a mistake here or there, but a) that is true regardless of what class they pick, and b) learning from mistakes is one of the best ways to learn.
I think one of the worst things you can do to a new player is restrict their class options, or worse, make a character for them. They need to decide for themselves what looks user-friendliest to them personally and what is most exciting for them to try.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So an experienced party will run only mages? Actually, I do see this. In my current group we have a Druid, Oracle, Wizard, Alchemist, and then my Fighter (and by Fighter I mean Fighter5/MoMS2/Magus2/Swordlord1).
Edit: I put in a dumb long ranty post.
I think the Sorcerer is just as good an intro class if not better. Spell selection is only considered more difficult that feat selection because they enable you in much greater ways than feats do.
Sorcerers and Oracles are great intro classes in my opinion, because they both have a narrow spell list and don't require the player to predict in advance. Plus, "move here cast spell" is a bit easier to handle than the complexities of combat movement in melee, AOOs, etc etc.
Flagged for grammar.
The plural possessive of "fighter" is fighters', not fighter's.
My newbie choices for Core:
Barbarian: simple, effective, lot of health, resource management on small scale (rage rounds)
Ranger: Fights like Barbarian, less health, better skills, later spells, animal friend
Druid: animal friend, cast spells, decent weapons
Sorcerer: spontaneous casting is easy if you help them choose right spells
Bard: Skills, weapons (even armor), spells, can inspire others (can be serious or silly with this)
Yeah, sorcerer is good, too. Barbarian, cleric, and sorcerer would be the daily specials I would try to sell a new player.
Let's not forget that the fighter goes back to the original version of D&D, and that the rogue (rather, the "thief") came soon after. When D&D 3rd Edition and later Pathfinder RPG came out, they were simply maintaining the tradition of the game. Eliminating the iconic classes kind of "kills" something intangible and important to the game. (Consider how the sidelining of gnomes and monks out of the first D&D 4th Edition Players Handbook was received.)
Also, remember that not everyone does point buy. Monks and other MAD classes are fine choices if someone rolls high in several stats.
Oh, and about the fighter being "easy" to play...
"A minute to learn... a lifetime to mastah!" :D
Any class - and I do mean any - can be as simple or as complicated as you want it to be.
I don't feel I'd have a harder time explaining one over another for a new player.
Think about it in terms of who does what, in a simplified fashion:
Combat characters will need an explanation of Attacks of Opportunity, all the Combat Maneuvers, flanking, cover, etc.
Skill-types will need an explanation of which abilities do which things, which of those auto succeed or fail on a 20 or a 1 respectively, and a score of environmental details.
Casters will need a primer on how to prepare (or choose) what they have, an explanation of save DCs, what the schools (or your class) are known for - and encouragement to be creative.
Every class can be as complicated or as simple as you wish it to be.
A wizard can go straight evocation. Boom boom boom. Simple.
A rogue can focus on disabling through sneak attack, rather than obscene damage, which requires a lot of tactical thought.
A fighter can focus on combat maneuvers, or tricks, and skills that aren't expected of them.
Every one of these people can go into class Archetypes, which can further simplify or complicate things.
It's all preference.
I am in the school of fighters being easy to learn, but life time to master. Probably my favorite class because of it versatility in what I can make one do short of casting spells. Add in the archetypes and it furthers this versatility.
Easiest class
2nd ed and earlier = Fighter and Rogue.
3rd ed and on = Cleric and Sorcerer. Maybe an Archer.
Anyone recall seeing the designers/developers ever say this or something similar?
Do you think the classes are currently well balanced (if it is even a concern to you), or would you like to make some further changes to class balance?
Depends heavily on what you mean by balanced. In terms of combat effectiveness, no, they are not, nor were they designed to be. We understand that each class has a niche to fill and sometimes that means better advantages in one area of play over another. A lot of folks get really hung up over combat effectiveness, and for them, there are certainly some classes that rise above the rest. That is ok. I can live with that so long as we are also providing a bounty of options for players that are more interested in other parts of the game.
I'd like to get into a discussion about skill ceiling and overall effectiveness. But it's late and I'm tired so Ima dot this to do it later.