I run at my college, and take on new players just about every semester. Until now I've laid out the full spread of classes for newbies and *recommended* certain options in favor of others, but never really put my foot down on it.
Thus far, though, I've almost unanimously had new players play their class as Fighter or Sorcerer regardless of what they were playing. I feel like a lot of the nuance of the different playstyles of the classes get lost on new players that are just starting to understand how combat, magic, etc. all works, and they make choices based on how things sound and not how they run.
What do you think about restricting classes based on player experience level? Personally, I feel that Fighter and Sorcerer are the two most straight-forward classes there are, and seem to be what most new players, who's only RPG experience comes from video games up to this point, are expecting it to be like. In the future, I think I'm going to restrict new players to choosing one of those two.
|
I think I'm going to restrict new players to choosing one of those two.
You could always have new players start out as warriors, commoners, or experts instead.
Then, when they're ready for one of the real classes, let them convert the character over (and re-allocate attribute points, if they'd like) into a PC class.
Actually, this could make for a great campaign that includes one or more players that are new to Pathfinder or RPGs in general: Start everyone out as commoners. At a certain point, after a session or two, land them in a larger town, where they can convert into one of the other four NPC classes. Finally, once they've got a handle on how the game works and latched onto the main plot, convert them again into PC classes.
Now you've got the foundation of a long-lasting campaign where the characters have literally grown up together.
I highly recommend it. I try very hard to dissuade new players from being spellcasters at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think about restricting classes based on player experience level? Personally, I feel that Fighter and Sorcerer are the two most straight-forward classes there are, and seem to be what most new players, who's only RPG experience comes from video games up to this point, are expecting it to be like. In the future, I think I'm going to restrict new players to choosing one of those two.
Fighter and Sorceror should be restricted to experienced players only.
The fighter needs a very high level of system mastery to get to a level where their contributions are meaningful. The Sorceror needs a strong understanding of the entire spell list to really understand what choices they are making when they are putting their limited spell list together.For first time players I recommend the Barbarian. The Barbarian is out-of-the-box more effective than a fighter and pretty straight forward with raging to kill hard to kill things.
And the Cleric. The Cleric can change what spells he memorizes with every day, the Cleric is durable, able to hold his own in melee or range if your deity allows it. The Cleric is able to cure himself of ailments that would leave a fighter dead. Playing as a cleric also familiarizes the player with the broad range of powers in D&D and gives you an understanding of what kind of abilities are expected to meet the challenges of the level they're at.
*If you want to help a player ease into cleric, give them index cards with suggested spells to memorize for that day, from combat buffing to problem solving.
|
I agree with the basic idea, but, as others have mentioned, Fighter seems a bad Class to do it with. Sorcerer is much more workable, though, especially if the GM can advise on spells.
Some actual good Classes:
Barbarian - As others have said, very simple at heart. At least at 1st level. This is likely the worst of these options.
Paladin - Extremely simple, wonderfully thematic, easy to play mechanically, and thematically no harder for newbies than experienced players, maybe even easier.
Ranger - Very solid. Recommend Archery and they're dead simple to play, too. Probably the single best starter class actually.
Oracle - I think, as much as Cleric is forgiving of creation mistakes, it tends to paralyze new players with option overload. The Oracle is an effective and relatively simple alternative. Especially with GM advice on spells.
Sorcerer - As stated above, I agree with this one. Much like Oracle, with GM advice on spells, I think this is a lot easier for new people to deal with than Wizard or Witch would be.
That's my recommended starter classes.
I agree with the basic idea, but, as others have mentioned, Fighter seems a bad Class to do it with. Sorcerer is much more workable, though, especially if the GM can advise on spells.
Some actual good Classes:
Barbarian - As others have said, very simple at heart. At least at 1st level. This is likely the worst of these options.
Paladin - Extremely simple, wonderfully thematic, easy to play mechanically, and thematically no harder for newbies than experienced players, maybe even easier.
Ranger - Very solid. Recommend Archery and they're dead simple to play, too. Probably the single best starter class actually.
Oracle - I think, as much as Cleric is forgiving of creation mistakes, it tends to paralyze new players with option overload. The Oracle is an effective and relatively simple alternative. Especially with GM advice on spells.
Sorcerer - As stated above, I agree with this one. Much like Oracle, with GM advice on spells, I think this is a lot easier for new people to deal with than Wizard or Witch would be.
That's my recommended starter classes.
I can see taking the latter two off the list because they do have quite a few options, and if the player makes the wrong ones early on, it's hard to fix. The Paladin also has a certain code that could be frustrating fro new players. I might through the Bard on that list. Though they may required a more guided hand from other players, they always have some way to contribute to the given situation.
All I know is that there are 3 classes to not let new players play: Wizard, Fighter, Monk.
I agree with the basic idea, but, as others have mentioned, Fighter seems a bad Class to do it with. Sorcerer is much more workable, though, especially if the GM can advise on spells.
Some actual good Classes:
Barbarian - As others have said, very simple at heart. At least at 1st level. This is likely the worst of these options.
Paladin - Extremely simple, wonderfully thematic, easy to play mechanically, and thematically no harder for newbies than experienced players, maybe even easier.
Ranger - Very solid. Recommend Archery and they're dead simple to play, too. Probably the single best starter class actually.
Oracle - I think, as much as Cleric is forgiving of creation mistakes, it tends to paralyze new players with option overload. The Oracle is an effective and relatively simple alternative. Especially with GM advice on spells.
Sorcerer - As stated above, I agree with this one. Much like Oracle, with GM advice on spells, I think this is a lot easier for new people to deal with than Wizard or Witch would be.
That's my recommended starter classes.
I can see taking the latter two off the list because they do have quite a few options, and if the player makes the wrong ones early on, it's hard to fix. The Paladin also has a certain code that could be frustrating fro new players.
I might through the Bard on that list. Though they may required a more guided hand from other players, they always have some way to contribute to the given situation.
I'd keep them on the list, but allow the player to retrain the spells if they don't like what they initially choose.
|
|
I'd keep them on the list, but allow the player to retrain the spells if they don't like what they initially choose.
This. I mean, who doesn't let new players adjust things they want to change?
Also, I admit they aren't perfect choices, but having one each full Arcane and Divine caster seems necessary to providing all the basic character options, and they're the best classes available of those choices.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do one on one character creation with the newbs. Sit down take away the book for a few min and ask them to envision a character. Ask them how they would like this character to carry them self and solve problems etc. Based on their answers pick a class and walk them through how to do the things they talked about before even looking at the book.
|
|
Do one on one character creation with the newbs. Sit down take away the book for a few min and ask them to envision a character. Ask them how they would like this character to carry them self and solve problems etc. Based on their answers pick a class and walk them through how to do the things they talked about before even looking at the book.
This is also excellent advice.
"Here is my copy of the core rulebook play with it, if you want an archetype explain how you will use it and what rules I will need to read." If new player can't figure it out on their own I help them with it but generally restrict them to core rulebook classes+archetype.
I highly recommend it. I try very hard to dissuade new players from being spellcasters at all.
I might never have started playing at all if I'd been banned from spellcasters. I did, however, watch at least a couple of sessions before asking to join.
|
learn to swim......
As someone who has significant system mastery I and has been playing RPGs for quiet sometime I honestly can't remember what it was like when I first started
I know I can pick up just about anything and have it firing on all cylinders after about an hour or so (even if it sputters a bit at first)....but for someone who have never played a table top RPG.....this is actually a tough question.
Even if their total experience is in videogames, I would be careful to assume that the difference are so major that they will struggle to grasp what it is they want to do or how to do it. Especially if they like to read.
I ran a game for three years through high school for my friends and the one I expected to have the most system mastery and also had the most experience with RPGs often made the least functional characters. My best friend in the group who was a videogame junkie and we practically had to beg to join ended up being just as proficient with the rules as I was....becoming a power house that was difficult to challenge
|
Nope, nope and nope.
If a player wants to play a class then they can play that class. I'll spend time with them teaching them the rules and if that makes play a little bit slower so be it.
I'm not going to assume any of my friends aren't smart enough to learn how to play a game.
I started a campaign two weeks ago with three of my friends who have never played a pen and paper RPG. They chose: druid, master summoner and bard. All complex classes and they spent time before the game reading the rules and abilities and they had great fun. and while combat was sluggish this was more core basic rules than the actual class abilities.
Squirrel_Dude mentioned Bards. I feel like this is a pretty good introduction to full-casting, being 3/4 casters and having a limited selection of spells to keep new players from overloading.....
That said, a lot of new players will have a hard time starting combat with performing an action that just makes everybody else better. It's easy mechanically, but doesn't give new players that satisfying sense of drama and accomplishment.
To go with a stereotype, Bards played by new players tend to be played by females who want to contribute meaningfully without a lot of character-build decision-making that they don't think they have enough experience to make. I've seen this, and it doesn't seem negative or misogynistic to relay the information, despite being clearly sexist, so there you go.
Also, +1 to Caedwyr's re-recommendation (via Ashiel) of Rangers for inexperienced players. They really do give a slow dose of "how-to" as you level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For new players, I strongly recommend restricting their choices to the Core Rulebook. You can make a perfectly functional and fun PC from the Core Rulebook alone.
I usually recommend new players shy away from spellcasters at start, as the options can get overwhelming, but I certainly let them if that's the concept they want to play.
Often, I'll ask the players for the general concept of the character he or she wants to play, and I'll help design a simple but competent build. This is not the time to pull out the system mastery stops.
|
|
Squirrel_Dude mentioned Bards. I feel like this is a pretty good introduction to full-casting, being 3/4 casters and having a limited selection of spells to keep new players from overloading.....
The Bard having a little of everything is a good introduction to the game in general.
That said, a lot of new players will have a hard time starting combat with performing an action that just makes everybody else better. It's easy mechanically, but doesn't give new players that satisfying sense of drama and accomplishment.
On the contrary, new players can get a good sense of team work. Not only that but if the new player buffs someone else and that player takes out an enemy their character had a hand in that. Unlike a fighter the Bard will have tons of out of combat choices that will really stave off lack of drama and accomplishment in that pillar of the game.
To go with a stereotype, Bards played by new players tend to be played by females who want to contribute meaningfully without a lot of character-build decision-making that they don't think they have enough experience to make. I've seen this, and it doesn't seem negative or misogynistic to relay the information, despite being clearly sexist, so there you go.
This is crap and you should feel bad for posting it.
I can't stand it when a new player plays this game in way that is not how I know it is supposed to be played.
I'd be fine with "restrictions" but not Restrictions ;)
If it means when explaining the game to a brand new player they're given a restricted choice of classes you're willing to teach them, that's fine.
On the other hand, if they have a different class they've already read about and want to try out without as much hand-holding, that's fine too.
Personally, I'd advise a new player to go with a CRB class on the basis that when they start buying books, they'll probably want to start with a CRB and it'd be kinda nice if they had their class in there. Experienced players do tend to overestimate the sheer intimidation factor of a shelf of books "just to play a game". Again though, that'd be my advice to the new player, along with a disclaimer that if they pick something I haven't played myself I can't help them as much. End of the day though, their call.
If I organized a specific "learn to play" event, I'd likely create a bunch of prerolled characters anyway, using the Beginner Box classes, and avoid covering character creation altogether.
Do one on one character creation with the newbs. Sit down take away the book for a few min and ask them to envision a character. Ask them how they would like this character to carry them self and solve problems etc. Based on their answers pick a class and walk them through how to do the things they talked about before even looking at the book.
This is largely how I do it. I usually give them a couple-three different ways to achieve the same vision and give them the pros and cons of each method. Let them choose from that. They still get choice in the matter and I've limited the noise of too many choices.
I currently have a player who would like to play a prepared caster, but is intimidated by the sheer number of spells out there across all the different books. I told her that over 90% of the best spells are all located in the CRB, and many times you can take a batch of spells as sort of a default setting - certain things are never bad choices (dispel magic, mirror image, shield, divine favor, divine power, prayer, bless, etc, etc, etc). I also told her that I rarely pick spells outside of the CRB unless I'm looking for something specific to fit a theme (the lesser orb and orb spells from 3.5 Spell Compendium, for example). Again, same principle of talking it through and filtering out the noise for the inexperienced.
New players will branch out on their own when they're ready for it.
On the Video Game Experience Comment
What I meant by this is, in my experience new players that play something more nuanced, like any hybrid class, tend to default into "attack every round" or "throw spells at it" without a whole lot of considering for their class abilities or whether or not the spells will be effective, and sometimes the players get frustrated because they don't realize they've built their character one way and are playing it another.
On Fighter
I sort of disagree with the system mastery comments. There are a lot of feats to pick, sure, but building a fighter for them will basically be "You want to fight with a greatsword? Here, take these. Make sure you grab a bow as well" and all the abilities they pick all make them better at that one thing (attacking), as opposed to giving abilities in all sorts of different areas that can be a lot to think about on to of just remembering what to roll when.
Regardless, a fighter with poor system mastery will always contribute more than a wizard with poor system mastery.
On Bard
Bard isn't a bad class for beginners, but I think the "bit of everything" might hinder as much as it helps in this case.
Different people will enter the game at different levels. I have had people play the game for the first time and do just fine with wildshaping druids. I've had people entering the game and struggle with a basic 2 weapon fighter. It depends on the person more then their experience. I wouldnt for instance recommend a summoner for a new player, as its among the more difficult classes to manage, but if it was really what someone wanted to play (conceptually) I wouldnt stop them. In general I ask new players what kind of character they want to play, and then direct them towards classes that would best fit those concepts.
|
|
On the Video Game Experience Comment
What I meant by this is, in my experience new players that play something more nuanced, like any hybrid class, tend to default into "attack every round" or "throw spells at it" without a whole lot of considering for their class abilities or whether or not the spells will be effective, and sometimes the players get frustrated because they don't realize they've built their character one way and are playing it another.
Can you give some more specific examples of this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To go with a stereotype, Bards played by new players tend to be played by females who want to contribute meaningfully without a lot of character-build decision-making that they don't think they have enough experience to make. I've seen this, and it doesn't seem negative or misogynistic to relay the information, despite being clearly sexist, so there you go.This is crap and you should feel bad for posting it.
It's just been my experience. New male gamers seem to like making things go "bang;" new female gamers seem to like being helpful and seeing how things work. Again, as I said, in my experience.
Also, it should be noted that I'm not trying to enforce the stereotype (though on a re-read, I could see if that was the interpretation), just pointing it out.
Can you give some more specific examples of this?On the Video Game Experience Comment
What I meant by this is, in my experience new players that play something more nuanced, like any hybrid class, tend to default into "attack every round" or "throw spells at it" without a whole lot of considering for their class abilities or whether or not the spells will be effective, and sometimes the players get frustrated because they don't realize they've built their character one way and are playing it another.
The two current examples:
1. I have a player that rolled a Tiefling Oracle of Dark Tapestry for her first character (she wanted to be the creepiest thing possible) and spent the first two sessions mostly attacking with her javelins and got frustrated at it not working well (only a +4 attack bonus, masterwork quality included), when really, the spells she chose make her better suited as a "summon + support" spellcaster.
2. Another new player is an elf Witch, but didn't fully understand the difference between spontaneous and prepared casting when I explained it, and started our first session playing it like a sorcerer until I realized what she was doing and explained again that she had to prepare spells in advance. She's over it now, but she was disappointed when she first realized it.
Bear in mind these are people COMPLETELY new to the hobby, as in not other system or game at all. I've had friend try Pathfinder as a prepared caster that were at least familiar with tabletop games, and it's worked just fine.