(Yes, I will be defending the proverbial punching bag. One I myself sometimes hit.)
- You need to walk before you can run.
Let's slow down a second and assume I'm a new player. You want to teach me swift actions? I don't even know what an action is! Roleplaying a lawful good? What's lawful? What's good? What's detecting evil mean? Why can't I just bust that guy up over there?
Wait, what are all these features you are showing me? Spells? Uuuh, that's really daunting. Divine Bond? I don't understand what half these words are. Oh, and I still need feats? Um, what ones are good? I don't think I have enough feats to do what I wanted to do.
Introducing someone via the Paladin is a recipe for bogging down your games. Yes, all the tools to play the game will be at their fingertips, but they also have to think about all the different tools and tricks in the game at once and try to wrap their heads around it when they probably don't even know swift actions exist yet! Their turn will just be a mess of confusion as they try to work out what to do.
This doesn't just apply in combat. In RP you are basically being given a badge and told to clean up the town before you even know who the people in the town are. The paladin is often the face of the party to the good and weary, not the role for someone just learning how to play.
I have one player in my games were he would make a horrible lawful character. We all know that lawful just is not ever going to be his style because he's a natural born rager. If you are learning the game and don't know what alignment is you don't have to think about it with Fighter. You don't have to think about spells with Fighter. You don't have to think about swift actions with Fighter. You are worried about learning how to walk up to someone and hit them and maybe you discover bull rushing. The Fighter is nothing but fundamentals.
You don't even need to worry about skills! You're gonna be...
Why are you starting a fresh player at level 5? You make no sense.
In other words it teaches nothing about playing the game beyond being a fighter.
I started out playing a Fighter (pre-made), jumping in on an Adventure Path when we were already level 7.
Playing a Fighter taught me the rules of Pathfinder. Paying attention to what the other players were doing taught me how other classes worked. (That, and actually reading the rules.)
I recently invited a new player to join the game I was GMing. He said he wanted to play a Fighter. I warned him that Fighters were pretty bad in Pathfinder (lack of skill points, etc.) and talked him into playing a Barbarian instead. Unfortunately he turned out to be one of those players who can only see characters in terms of a default class flavor, and a Barbarian wasn't what he wanted to be. He left the game soon after. (Possibly for an unrelated reason, he didn't say.)
Find out what sort of character the player wants to play. This is far more important than how many rules they have to learn.
Why are you starting a fresh player at level 5? You make no sense.
I actually just said the exact opposite of that. I pointed out Fighters don't truly suck till past a certain point.
If you are confused why I am referencing Divine Bond, it's because it's a class feature that looks daunting. You aren't starting out with it, but you are going to hit it before the Fighter is outdated. You need to look at a class from a holistic perspective. A new player isn't going to recognize that's not relevant yet. And I pointed out several class features before that point that also provide confusion.
Your hyperbole does more to insult new players than anything else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your hyperbole does more to insult new players than anything else.
Please stay on topic and post rational arguments instead of insults.
As for the feats argument, firstly that falls flat because many players will help a new player out. Or the GM. And secondly it allows a lot of choices so they can learn me about what they like in feats for other characters they make. They get a lot of choices so they get a lot of experience.I really don't think it falls flat it all, precisely because it clearly needs help from the DM and/or other players to make it work out.
Suddenly, new player isn't really making decisions about their character any more -- everyone else is. Sure, it's ultimately up to the new player what they write down on their character sheet, but let's be honest: they're going to go with whatever the experienced players tells them is best, because they don't know and they know it.
I think it's really important -- especially for a new player -- to feel like it's truly their character, rather than someone else's character that they happen to be rolling for.
Going to second this firmly. I've seen more than one newbie player who seemed to lose interest pretty quickly when they didn't feel involved in designing or playing their characters. While there's nothing wrong with the more experienced players helping the newbie out, you don't want things to hit the point where the new player feels totally divorced from their character's mechanics.
Basically, it's a lot better for Bob the New Guy to see the Power Attack feat and and decide to use it himself than it is for Bob to just blindly pick it because that's what he's been told to do. New players need to learn to think about the mechanics and make their own informed choices, not just blindly follow suggestions.
|
Nice topic.
I would say combat-based campaign, a Fighter for beginners should be good enough.
A more prepared campaign + combat, Ranger is fun, lots of skills and different ways to solve problems.
Paladins are, well, paladins, you dont decide to choose a paladin for this campaign, you feel the calling. Anyway, paladin could also be used for guiding beginners.
What really bothers me for the issue of Fighters and beginners, is that the Fighter has little to offer in problem solving skills, utility, etc. So, after the beginner understands the most important mechanics and can focus on the narrative and problem solving in the game, he will see why it is better to be other class for almos everything, since he has almost nothing to help him not related to combat.
This usually happens around the second or third session, where the new players tries to acompany the explorer of the party, and fails, sees he has no spells, not enough skill points to be the face, and has to choose practically between Knowledge (Engeneering) and Intimidate, and that would be it.
Of course, IMO.
Nice topic.
I would say combat-based campaign, a Fighter for beginners should be good enough.
A more prepared campaign + combat, Ranger is fun, lots of skills and different ways to solve problems.
Paladins are, well, paladins, you dont decide to choose a paladin for this campaign, you feel the calling. Anyway, paladin could also be used for guiding beginners.
What really bothers me for the issue of Fighters and beginners, is that the Fighter has little to offer in problem solving skills, utility, etc. So, after the beginner understands the most important mechanics and can focus on the narrative and problem solving in the game, he will see why it is better to be other class for almos everything, since he has almost nothing to help him not related to combat.
This usually happens around the second or third session, where the new players tries to acompany the explorer of the party, and fails, sees he has no spells, not enough skill points to be the face, and has to choose practically between Knowledge (Engeneering) and Intimidate, and that would be it.
Of course, IMO.
Totaly agree with that, in my first campaign there was a new player who choose fighter and the campaign wasn't very combat-oriented. So most of the time he felt useless and was bored.
Overall it wasn't a nice experience for him.Anyway, I will never understand why some player find it hard to learn the rules. I know that pathfinder have a lot of rules compared to some other RPG but I think it only take 1-2 session to master the basic of combat rules (action economy, rolls, stats, saves, AC, ect ...). Of course if you want to master your class and all it's possibilities or try to optimize your character it's a lot longer.
Anyway, I will never understand why some player find it hard to learn the rules. I know that pathfinder have a lot of rules compared to some other RPG but I think it only take 1-2 session to master the basic of combat rules (action economy, rolls, stats, saves, AC, ect ...). Of course if you want to master your class and all it's possibilities or try to optimize your character it's a lot longer.
Some folks just seem to naturally "get it" faster than others. It probably helps if they have any relevant gaming experience: I probably did a lot better with D&D thanks to playing Baldur's Gate before I ever actually played a game of tabletop. For all that some folks like to malign video game RPGs, they can give new player familiarity with RPG concepts.
I think the other part of it is getting mixed in with the rules, which is part of why I had that whole spiel about how you don't want to do all the work for new players. Players are going to have a much harder time learning the rules if they never have to figure things out for themselves.
Last off, there's the issue of engagement. Some folks, for whatever reason, just aren't getting into the game. Maybe they expected Tabletop RPGs to be different, maybe it's a group issue, or maybe they were never all that interested to begin with and just got dragged into the campaign by another player. I had a player like that in one of my games: I couldn't go a session without wondering if she actually wanted to be there, playing the game. Needless to say, people aren't going to learn the rules as quickly if they're not enthusiastic about learning the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- You need to walk before you can run.
Let's slow down a second and assume I'm a new player. You want to teach me swift actions? I don't even know what an action is! Roleplaying a lawful good? What's lawful? What's good? What's detecting evil mean? Why can't I just bust that guy up over there?
Wait, what are all these features you are showing me? Spells? Uuuh, that's really daunting. Divine Bond? I don't understand what half these words are. Oh, and I still need feats? Um, what ones are good? I don't think I have enough feats to do what I wanted to do.
The first questions take a minute or two to explain the rest don't even come up until several weeks down the line when you reach level 4-5.
We expect college students to do more in less time when they pay for the privilege.
The roleplay challenge of lawful good is actually, well, fairly non-existent and only made harder by other people's prejudices.
Can you act the stereotypical fantasy hero? Can you not be a dick?
Congratulations, you can act the paladin. If you pull silly shenanigans on a new player due to your own prejudices against a class then chances are you weren't a suitable teacher regardless of what they played. If a new player decides to burn down an orphanage for some obscure and insane reason? Well, then they've learned their actions have consequences.
Feats aren't that scary.
They're really not. Every new player regardless of class needs to learn them. They are a linchpin of what makes 3.X great! (Alongside skills.) And once you get down to it, at first level you end up focusing mostly on combat feats and there aren't really that many combat feats in the entire game you qualify for. Yes, there are a lot of traps, but you can retrain those traps with Fighter. Realistically, it's going to take less time to explain which ones are horrible than it will to explain Divine Bond.
Divine bond doesn't come until 5th level. At 1st level you can just explain 'You cna get a horse or an awesome angel bound to your sword, but we'll talk about that when you get there."
I hope you're not still explaining what feats are horrible when they're 6 feats 5 levels and several sessions in.
And remember the player only gets a chance to change those feats once every 4 levels. Unless you are being merciful.
Playing is learning.
He's there, he's in the game world. He's learning what alignment he is. Maybe you end up changing it because he realizes he did not mean what he thought it meant. He sees that the Paladin activated some cool ability. He sees that the monster is more dangerous when it makes use of action economy, he's learning.
That's not an argument for or against the fighter. That's just default. He can in fact do that while playing no class.
You will never make an optimal Fighter out of a new player, but that's okay.
You don't have to. You just have to have someone that can be present in combat and okay at whatever they attempt to do or whatever weapon they pick up. Full BaB, d10, Heavy Armor, and the flexibility to take horrible combat feats and learn from it and fix it later. Even if you mess up you'll never be horrible. You'll still be able to contribute, just not as well. Fighter is very forgiving, and that's more important to a new player than being good. For now understanding a Move action and Attack is all that's really important. They'll mostly fall behind past level six or seven, but even past then they can play the big dump guy until they learn what they want to do in this world
A lot of that is fine for the first couple of levels where most everyone is doing the same anyway.
Beyond that point it's better to encourage engagement and involvement with what the player has.
And for a paladin that can apply out of combat as well. You want to raise up players who enjoy things other than combat? Encourage them to get involved out of it while they still have room to grow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- You need to walk before you can run.
Let's slow down a second and assume I'm a new player. You want to teach me swift actions? I don't even know what an action is! Roleplaying a lawful good? What's lawful? What's good? What's detecting evil mean? Why can't I just bust that guy up over there?
Wait, what are all these features you are showing me? Spells? Uuuh, that's really daunting. Divine Bond? I don't understand what half these words are. Oh, and I still need feats? Um, what ones are good? I don't think I have enough feats to do what I wanted to do.
The first questions take a minute or two to explain the rest don't even come up until several weeks down the line when you reach level 4-5.
We expect college students to do more in less time when they pay for the privilege.
The roleplay challenge of lawful good is actually, well, fairly non-existent and only made harder by other people's prejudices.
Can you act the stereotypical fantasy hero? Can you not be a dick?
Congratulations, you can act the paladin. If you pull silly shenanigans on a new player due to your own prejudices against a class then chances are you weren't a suitable teacher regardless of what they played. If a new player decides to burn down an orphanage for some obscure and insane reason? Well, then they've learned their actions have consequences.
Yeah, I think suggesting a new player run a paladin comes with a very strongly implied "Don't be a dick to the new guy about the paladin code." That should go without saying, but...
I play with new players who picked two fighters, a ranger and a paladin. It all worked out well, nobody is overwhelmed with choice paralysis or complicated mechanics. And they learn new mechanics all the time.
Additionally, I gave an introduction into barbarian and swashbuckler (both level 6) to two potential players. Surprisingly, I was done after an hour - the basics of martials and their class feats are appearantly just that simple. Mastering them is a different story, of course...
Full casters are the opposite. I saw new players being overwhelmed by playing a cleric respective a sorcerer, because dealing with so many spells with so many details means a lot of learning. To be fair, another sorcerer player managed to dig her way through all the spells and use them well - mainly because she is very smart and familiar with other RPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first questions take a minute or two to explain the rest don't even come up until several weeks down the line when you reach level 4-5.
Speaking from experiance, no they really don't.
I'm afraid that's all the useful critism I can offer. Truly, if you don't believe someone can be overwhelmed that easily that's like, your opinion man. Nothing I can do other than state I have playing I'm still explaining actions to after several games. That's my personal experiance.
If your personal experiance was the opposite, well, great for you. I have an encyclopedic memory. For me it's no big deal and I find Fighters boring and learned the basics of Pathfinder via video games.
But I also have an awareness I am not everyone. I have an awareness that I have had to sit down and explain alignment between sessions. Does that mean my players are stupid? Of course not. It's a complex game. I mess up, everyone does a little.
It sounds to me more like you are describing a player with a lot of exposure or someone who picks up RPGs a lot rather than a truly new player. I know a lot of my current group still find Paladin intimidating and played Fighters while learning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters teach the basics of the game in respects of hp saves ac skill while not complicating them with extra rules. They do more than teach what a fighter does they teach the system.
No, it doesn't teach the system anymore than any other class teaches the system. The only thing that Fighters teach players is how to roll a d20.
Paladins and Rangers get people's feet wet with that, plus things like spell-like and supernatural abilities, spells, animal companions, a more diverse skillset (in the case of the Ranger), and do so while being easier on newbies because both classes have better saving throws than the fighter and are harder to screw up.
As for the feats argument, firstly that falls flat because many players will help a new player out. Or the GM. And secondly it allows a lot of choices so they can learn me about what they like in feats for other characters they make. They get a lot of choices so they get a lot of experience.
Except feats don't exist in a vacuum. You might select a menagerie of different feats but each having no synergy with each other, none of them seem particularly good, which can lead to false evaluations. Likewise, if you take mostly crap feats and an average feat, your average feat may end up on the "must have" list for future characters because it's the only one that contributed to your success at all.
And once you've made your choice, you're essentially stuck with it. The idea that Fighters can easily retrain their feat selects is a myth. At the very least you're stuck until you can retrain (if retraining is even on the table).
Meanwhile, Paladins and Rangers give players practice making choices every day from 4th level and beyond, getting to choose between a variety of different abilities (spells) each day, further allowing them to learn the system. Likewise with these classes, they can learn how magic items like wands and scrolls work, and they can create their own magic items which allows the player to learn how item creation works.
All of the above is also neatly packaged into "learning blocks" where the player begins the game as a badass martial on better footing than the Fighter, then at 4th level gets to branch out and begin learning more about the system after they've done nothing but make d20 checks for 3 levels. The Fighter has the joy of making nothing but d20 checks for another 17 levels. Meanwhile, Paladins and Rangers will explore the basics of every major system, including swift and immediate actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Fighters do serve a good teaching role in Pathfinder.
Teaching people that low saving throws and utter lack of options is bad and will leave you twiddling your thumbs in the area of an entangle spell more often than not; crushed by energy damage; destroyed by invisible foes; learning to roleplay someone's thrall; and how to be a character that is entirely reliant upon equipment to do anything (which is super necessary the next time you want to play a commoner).
Regardless of how often I don't agree with Ashiel, his full write up on why to use a ranger as the intro martial is one of the best things he has posted.
Due to the many deficencies of the fighter (and, ugh, playing the iconic?!?), I concur on ranger. Paladin might be okay if they do not mind being 'true blue', but I would still leave it for a second character.
===Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of how often I don't agree with Ashiel, his full write up on why to use a ranger as the intro martial is one of the best things he has posted.
Due to the many deficencies of the fighter (and, ugh, playing the iconic?!?), I concur on ranger. Paladin might be okay if they do not mind being 'true blue', but I would still leave it for a second character.
===Aelryinth
Thanks Ael, I <3 you too. :3
And yeah, the iconic Fighter hurts my feelings. I was going to run a game on the fly for some newbies at a local game shop once and when I printed out the Pathfinder iconics I threw Valeros in the trash. I just couldn't do that to someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People are different. To, per thread title, never give a new player a fighter, and give them paladin/ranger instead, will not always lead to the best possible outcome. My proposal to how to choose a beginner class to a player is, first and foremost, thinking about your new player. The new player in question is probably not a stranger. The new player is probably a friend or relative of the GM, and the GM should be able to make an educated guess on how much time and effort the player will spend on learning the game. Even assuming the player is a total stranger, Pathfinder is a table top RPG. The GM is talking to the new player for a whole session. Either way, the GM should be able to weigh the benefits / drawbacks of recommending a Fighter versus a Paladin / Ranger for this particular new player.
If the GM is seriously trying to convince the new player that it's even a toss-up between Ranger and Fighter, the GM is already deceiving the player. Rangers can fill all the roles Fighters can, typically better, and has more options at higher levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't learn about action economy, because fighters don't really have anything going on in that regard.
You don't learn about magic and magic items, because fighters don't really have anything going on in that regard.
You don't learn about skills, because fighters don't have much going on in THAT regard.
You learn about all those things if you're paying attention to the rest of the game.
Some players will, after a couple of sessions, be giving the casters good advice on what spells to memorize. Other players still won't be remembering to add their attack bonus to a d20 by that time.
or slayer if you want a non-magic option. Up to lv12 you can have 1 less feat than a fighter. But you get some prereq free so that's nice and a lot more skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point I'm trying to argue isn't the power balance between Ranger/Paladin and Fighter. It's the complexity. If the player is frustrated at the lack of power of the Fighter, I would think an understanding GM would let the player rebuild a Ranger or Paladin. But for a new player, I can imagine them being frustrated by the mass of rules than the power balance.People are different. To, per thread title, never give a new player a fighter, and give them paladin/ranger instead, will not always lead to the best possible outcome. My proposal to how to choose a beginner class to a player is, first and foremost, thinking about your new player. The new player in question is probably not a stranger. The new player is probably a friend or relative of the GM, and the GM should be able to make an educated guess on how much time and effort the player will spend on learning the game. Even assuming the player is a total stranger, Pathfinder is a table top RPG. The GM is talking to the new player for a whole session. Either way, the GM should be able to weigh the benefits / drawbacks of recommending a Fighter versus a Paladin / Ranger for this particular new player.If the GM is seriously trying to convince the new player that it's even a toss-up between Ranger and Fighter, the GM is already deceiving the player. Rangers can fill all the roles Fighters can, typically better, and has more options at higher levels.
But that's just the point. There's not a mass of rules.
Ranger begins with the following compared to the Fighter.
+2 Reflex (no complexity)
+4 additional skill points (this actually makes it easier to pick skills because you'll spend less time agonizing over what you want).
+1 Favored Enemy
Track (+1/2 level to Survival)
Wild Empathy
So...2 extra abilities (Track & Wild Empathy), one of which is entirely passive.
And 2nd level
+1 Reflex
+4 skill points
(they get a bonus feat chosen from a pre-organized selection of good feats)
* Fighters get Bravery +1 (a near useless passive save booster)
And 3rd level
+4 skill points
They get Endurance as a bonus feat.
They get a Favored Terrain.
* Fighter gets armor training which doesn't do much of anything unless their ability scores are just right.
At 4th level
+1 Reflex
+4 skill points.
Hunter's Bond
1st level spells
* Fighter gets a bonus feat.
Not exactly the overwhelming pile of options described. The extra benefits they get are mostly passive (saves/skill points), the extra skill points allow them to do more stuff during play and learn about the game more, they get a few decent bonus feats given to them, and at 4th level after they've spent roughly 60 equal-CR encounters worth of adventuring learning how to roll a d20, they can have an animal companion and a teeny-tiny bit of spellcasting.
|
I really do think people forget that the beginner box is for exactly this issue. Namely teaching newbies. You get pregen characters, which presumably explain your class abilities. It's simplified enough to be easier to teach, while still leading into the more advanced mechanics of the full game. And presumably includes a set of adventures which will introduce important concepts. As well as tips and advice for aspiring gamemasters.
The old AD&D Basic edition for 2nd edition was done for this reason too. Plus had a set of rather well written adventures. In fact, I'm seriously tempted to buy the Pathfinder beginner box for exactly those reasons. Well, that and the pawn minis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Passive, fluctuating bonuses like Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy are complex because they do not always apply. For a slow new player to add / remove the bonuses correctly every time, somebody will have to constantly remind the new player to do so. On the flipside, Weapon Training tends to always apply, and thus is much simpler for the new player.
Weapon Training doesn't even come online until 5th level. A crappy way for people to learn. Passive benefits like favored enemy or terrain are easiest to learn at 1st-3rd level because they're the only real abilities you get like that at the time. So you've got 3 levels to learn about how those abilities work. And if you don't remember them, you're still a Fighter with more skills and better saves.
All activated bonuses such as Smite Evil, Hunter's Bond (buff), and spells are complex because they cause a choice paralysis at every action.
By the time you get hunter's bond, you should have a fair grasp on what you're doing since you've been learning your abilities in 3 level increments and should have mastered most of your core features by then.
Likewise, the entirety of the game revolves around choices for when to use abilities. The entire point is to teach newbies how to make choices without becoming overwhelmed, not prevent them from making choices at all (which teaches nothing). Thus having abilities like Smite Evil or a smidgeon of little Ranger spells starting at 4th level is GOOD for the player, not bad.
For new players who are quick learners, this is no problem, but for slower players, someone will have to back-seat drive them every time their turn comes up.
Except for Rangers, the "backseat driving" would consist of "That guy's undead so your favored enemy works on him" or "That big thing would probably be a good smite target".
Because for all else, you've got the same mechanics as the Fighter (HIT STUFF, MOAR!) except you're just better at adventuring.
And since the "choices" stuff are limited to either 1 choice (Y/N) from 1st-3rd levels, and then "few choices" at 4th level, you've got about 60 encounters worth of experience points to amass before you'll be making any major decisions. And none of those decisions is going to actively cripple your character like making a bad decision with a Fighter will.
On the flipside, for fighters, their complexity only happens at every level-up. Backseat-driving a new player's level-up choices disrupts the flow of the game less, because it happens less often.
I disagree. We're talking about learning how to play the game here. Fighters require a high degree of system mastery to function compared to their peers and allow for little experimentation. Rangers, however, are easier to learn with, can allow a player to dabble in a variety of what the game has to offer in baby steps, and are good forever.
Also, I don't agree with the premise that by level 4, every new player will know what they are doing. And for slow learners, an animal companion is a whole floodgate of new rules, and even prepared spellcasting causes choice paralysis at the day-level.
If by level 4 you don't know how to roll attack rolls, something is horribly wrong. Such an individual couldn't have passed Kindergarten if they haven't learned how to perform the only offensive action available to them over 60 encounters worth of adventuring.
The animal companion rules are actually not very complicated. You pick an animal, apply stats on the chart, pick a feat, and go. It does, however, allow the ranger to also explore the mounted combat rules or running minions which allows them to learn yet more about the game (including preparing them for playing summoning characters); while unlike a druid it doesn't drop 2 characters worth of stuff on them at 1st level (it gives them 3 levels to learn how to do the basic stuff like moving, attacking, and using skills).
Edit: For the record, I don't think Fighters are always a better choice for new players. I think Fighters are a better choice for some players.
For all of these reasons and more, Fighters are among the WORST classes that you can give to newbies to teach them how to play the game.
Better classes would be Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian, Cleric, and Bard.
EDIT: With bard being the most complex and easily ruined of the aforementioned classes. However, literally every one of these classes is simple, starts at low levels strong (allowing them to excel at the basics of moving and beating stuff with sticks) and doesn't require mastery of spellcasting (but Cleric and Bard can introduce you to spellcasting without it needing to be your primary focus).
Passive, fluctuating bonuses like Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy are complex because they do not always apply. For a slow new player to add / remove the bonuses correctly every time, somebody will have to constantly remind the new player to do so. On the flipside, Weapon Training tends to always apply, and thus is much simpler for the new player.
All activated bonuses such as Smite Evil, Hunter's Bond (buff), and spells are complex because they cause a choice paralysis at every action. For new players who are quick learners, this is no problem, but for slower players, someone will have to back-seat drive them every time their turn comes up. On the flipside, for fighters, their complexity only happens at every level-up. Backseat-driving a new player's level-up choices disrupts the flow of the game less, because it happens less often.
Also, I don't agree with the premise that by level 4, every new player will know what they are doing. And for slow learners, an animal companion is a whole floodgate of new rules, and even prepared spellcasting causes choice paralysis at the day-level.
Edit: For the record, I don't think Fighters are always a better choice for new players. I think Fighters are a better choice for some players.
What is nice about the ranger class is you can remove the complex parts by using archetypes without compromising the effectiveness of the character. For example you can take the guide archetype and then you don't have to worry about choosing a favoured enemy or an animal companion. If they look like they will struggle with all the spell options take the trapper archetype.
My two cents on alignment.
My experience is that new players have an intuitive understanding of alignment that often surpasses veteran players (because they over think it). Usually all you have to do is say who they are like. Chaotic good? That's like Robin Hood he is a hero who doesn't follow the rules. Lawful good, that's more like Superman. Lawful evil, think Terminator. And so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta be honest, players that don't know the rules at level 4-5 are actively working to not learn the rules. That's the entirety of one adventure path book; and time-wise it is months of playing the game. Heck, a new player slows things down enough to make that even longer than normal.As regards to my posts, I'm not making any assumptions about the new player. They might be an elementary schooler, college student, 80 years old...
I'm also not making any assumptions about how often a session happens. If the group meets once a month, then there's a whole month's worth of time where the new player forgets the rules that they learned.
Even if you meet only once a month, you still have to amass 60 encounters worth of experience points to reach 4th level. So either the sessions are longer with more action in them or you'll never need to worry about reaching 4th level anyway since playing for around 3-6 hours / month means you'll probably die of old age or the campaign will fall apart far sooner than 4th level will come around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The above logic only holds if you're assuming a normal experience progression (as opposed to fast progression), and also assumes that the experience comes through combat. Some campaigns give vast amounts of non-combat experience, and other campaigns don't use an experience-based progression at all.Even if you meet only once a month, you still have to amass 60 encounters worth of experience points to reach 4th level. So either the sessions are longer with more action in them or you'll never need to worry about reaching 4th level anyway since playing for around 3-6 hours / month means you'll probably die of old age or the campaign will fall apart far sooner than 4th level will come around.I gotta be honest, players that don't know the rules at level 4-5 are actively working to not learn the rules. That's the entirety of one adventure path book; and time-wise it is months of playing the game. Heck, a new player slows things down enough to make that even longer than normal.As regards to my posts, I'm not making any assumptions about the new player. They might be an elementary schooler, college student, 80 years old...
I'm also not making any assumptions about how often a session happens. If the group meets once a month, then there's a whole month's worth of time where the new player forgets the rules that they learned.
Fast XP track isn't much different (it's about 15+ encounters worth of XP / level), and I said "worth of experience", indicating that the players have been doing something that is worth amassing experience points (dealing with traps, achieving plot objectives, adventuring in hazardous areas) in which case being anything other than a Fighter is not only more helpful it's infinitely less boring since most any other class will have more that they can contribute to the game when they're not actively in combat.
Which means that the Ranger would have more opportunities to learn about the rest of the game due to their improved skill points, and deal with traps and hazards more easily (better saves), and be more likely to contribute in noncombat situations (such as being able to use things like delay poison, tracking, scouting, etc).
As for campaigns that don't use XP at all (which is not a Pathfinder thing), they tend to award levels at certain milestones that feel like the party should gain a level. If the GM is "awarding" levels too frequently to learn abilities on what is easily the most newb-friendly class, that's the GM's fault and is in no way a point for the Fighter because if they couldn't learn "attack rolls" in 4 levels as a Ranger they didn't learn it as a Fighter either.
Seriously, there is no right situation where the Fighter would be a better choice for a newbie. It's one of the worst classes you could introduce anyone to the game with (possibly THE worst).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about situations where you don't start at level 1? Maybe the new player is filling in a spot where an experienced older player left for real life reasons.
Then thats even worse. The disparity of power would be even more pronounced.
Even then a Slayer is a better choice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class I give new players is whatever class they want to play.
I ask them what kind of character they want to be, then provide them options based on the choice.
I am shocked at how many people believe spell casting is daunting.
Step one pick a spell
Step two write it down
Step three cast the spell
Step four put a tick next to it.
Step five resolve the spell as per spell description.
Most new players I know really want to play Druids, and I just let them. Usually I sit them next to a more experienced player who can help answer any rules questions or make recommendations on good spell choices. Though I always recommend choosing spells you want to see go off in the game.
How about situations where you don't start at level 1? Maybe the new player is filling in a spot where an experienced older player left for real life reasons.
"Hey new player, you need to pick ten feats to go with your character. Start...now."
Yeah, still not seeing it. The new player still needs their hand held and basically can't make any decisions on their own because they lack the system mastery required. Feats are kind of horrible that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about situations where you don't start at level 1? Maybe the new player is filling in a spot where an experienced older player left for real life reasons.
As Insain Dragoon remarked, the power disparity between functionality is even worse at those levels. Especially if they want to build their own character.
If you're building them at higher levels, Ranger is a better choice because they're more robust than Fighters and still allow them to experience more of the game and have things to do outside of hitting things in combat. There is literally nothing outside of combat that a Fighter has over Ranger, and Rangers of 3rd+ level can sleep in armor without becoming fatigued.
Returning to the notion of teaching new players about the game, an 8th level Ranger (the highest level range I'd be comfortably teaching people to play the game with) has a couple of 1st and 2nd level spells and doesn't have to worry about learning them (just pick a couple each day) and the spells are good for getting your feet wet in that regard.
The Ranger with an animal companion has a mount that won't die in a stiff breeze, and even if the Ranger largely ignores the animal and just uses it as a glorified packmule to carry loot on instead of using it in combat the Ranger is still roughly as good as a Fighter in melee (remember, by 8th level, Fighters only have a +1 to hit and damage from Weapon Training) and has more to contribute to the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So hold their hand. For a Fighter, all the GM needs to do is hold their hand in character creation. For Rangers and Paladins, this hand-holding will also happen mid-game during instances such as daily spell selection.How about situations where you don't start at level 1? Maybe the new player is filling in a spot where an experienced older player left for real life reasons."Hey new player, you need to pick ten feats to go with your character. Start...now."
Yeah, still not seeing it. The new player still needs their hand held and basically can't make any decisions on their own because they lack the system mastery required. Feats are kind of horrible that way.
Unless you intend to just ignore a player during the game (which would be horrible), you're going to be holding a newbie's hand either way. However it's a lot better to show them a thing and let them do it and then learn a new thing later than just give them one thing to learn.
That's not being nice or easy on them, it's literally shorting them on the experience. And again, there's nothing worthwhile that the Fighter is going to be doing that the Ranger wouldn't.
And if you build the Ranger for them as you would need to build the Fighter for them, the Ranger is going to be better overall and more likely to survive long enough for the player to learn how to play (due to better saves, ability to craft their own gear, a versatile skill set, an expendable tag-team buddy or mount, etc).
That would be like keeping a child in kindergarten rather than progressing to the next tier of lessons because they're a newbie. The only way you stop being a newbie is to actually learn to play the game.
So hold their hand. For a Fighter, all the GM needs to do is hold their hand in character creation. For Rangers and Paladins, this hand-holding will also happen mid-game during instances such as daily spell selection.How about situations where you don't start at level 1? Maybe the new player is filling in a spot where an experienced older player left for real life reasons."Hey new player, you need to pick ten feats to go with your character. Start...now."
Yeah, still not seeing it. The new player still needs their hand held and basically can't make any decisions on their own because they lack the system mastery required. Feats are kind of horrible that way.
Fighters are simpler to play, but they are also boring. I think I would prefer blaster style sorcerer as my recommendation for a newbie if for some reason the ranger wasn't a good idea (like the party already had two rangers).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters are simpler to play, but they are also boring. I think I would prefer blaster style sorcerer as my recommendation for a newbie if for some reason the ranger wasn't a good idea (like the party already had two rangers).
I haven't found the fighter boring myself, and the fighter is a good teaching tool for first timers, once the adventure is done you can move the player to more complex characters
edit: fixed spelling/grammar error