What Pathfinder class should my fiancée play?

[hasteroth]

My fiancee has been thinking about giving Pathfinder a shot at a Society session, she may play a pre-gen instead of her own character but either way this question needs answering (so let's assume her own character).

She's not great with arithmetic, and the fewer things she needs to keep track of the better. Her eyesight is poor but she can read, so classes that are less likely to have too much clutter on the sheet are better.

But flavor wise, she seems to desire several particular things. Most of all is an animal companion (ideally a Wolf) and some level of nature affinity (even if only flavor and not mechanical). The Druid comes to mind, but I still felt like getting some opinions on classes with animal stuff (through archetypes or whatever) that people think might be easy enough and fun for a brand new player like her.

[Eliandra Giltessan]

The hunter, Adowyn, has a wolf.

[Mark Seifter]

Strongly consider the hunter pre-gen. It comes with a nice picture of her with her wolf buddy and has player-friendly descriptions of each ability.

EDIT: Ninjaed by Eliandra!

[Dwarftr]

Well, with those criteria....

I would suggest a fighter. While i cant think of it right now, there is a feat or feat stack you can get the gives you an animal companion/familiar.
Others would know better than me, but this would be the simplest options while still being fun to play

[hasteroth]

Considering how perfect Adowyn is she's certain to play her (and then probably make something similar for herself later) I just showed her a picture of Andowyn and it got her fairly excited.

Come to think of it, the Hunter really is perfect. Has more emphasis on the Animal Companion than a Ranger, and even has the added benefit of being a spontaneous caster instead of prepared (compared to Druid or Ranger) and has all the right animal/nature affinity flavor (and mechanics).

I forgot to mention at first anyways that a Fighter is a no-go as she sees them as "boring" and it isn't worth the effort to convince her otherwise (even with archetypes)

[Create Mr. Pitt]

If her math is not good why not a sorcerer. There's not much math if you choose most battlefield control spells. You just need to work with her to pick the spells, but there aren't so many she'll have so it's not going to be a long process. With a martial character you have to deal with bonuses, buffs, maybe power attack. Sorcerers are really simple to have fun with, and she'll have good charisma which will encourage roleplay when she feels it.

[SmiloDan]

Rangers are probably the best introductory class. They have lots of skills (newbies always like to try lots of things that skills represent: Climbing, Jumping, Hiding, Searching, Knowing stuff, Tracking, etc.), are easy to run, slowly introduce lots of sub-rule sets (bonus feats, spells, pets, etc.).

But the hunter sounds ideal for what your fiancée wants.

[Davor]

Hunter is one of the best classes for introducing lots of different mechanics.

Good skills? Check.
Companion rules? Check.
Spellcasting? Check. Bonus* It's a small, spontaneous list. Perfect for newbies.
Combat Proficiencies? Check.

[The Shaman]

I am a fan of the ranger over the hunter for new players - fewer spells, a somewhat simpler warrior-caster, variety of skills and bonus feats. However, if the player wants an animal companion at level 1, hunter is definitely a good option.

[Olaf the Holy]

Hunter isn't particularly 'arithmetic-light'

But then again, only the sorcerer can be, really, at least without having to know an entire library's worth of spells.

In the end, having a character you care about is more important, and will help learn the stuff better than any 'new-player friendly' class can.

[Veilgn]

So many of you play hunter and fighter. While wizars or mage sulking.

In the end wizard is god.

[Olaf the Holy]

Was that a haiku? I feel like that might've been a haiku.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Fighters are the easiest class to play in 1 session of play, but the hardest to navigate effectively to high level. Clerics are the easiest to navigate to high level, followed by Wizards.

[SmiloDan]

Olaf the Holy wrote:

Was that a haiku? I feel like that might've been a haiku.

How about this:

Many of you play
Hunters, rangers, and fighters
Wizards are sulking

[The Skeptical Gnome]

Well, everyone's already covered the pre-gen classes pretty well, so I'll just suggest some classes should you decide against a pre-gen. Generally speaking, I'd shy away from a spellcaster class, if it's her first time. It's feasible if she prepares extensively in advance, but there's a lot of paperwork to keep track of, so spellcasters are generally reserved for more experienced players. My personal suggestion would be a melee or dual class. Melee generally being classes like fighter, barbarian, etc. They aren't to difficult to play, and serve an important role in any party, so they're a solid choice. A dual class sounds intimidating, but really it's just a class that has a small spell list to choose from while still maintaining some mundane combat capability. An example is a ranger, who have a relatively small spell list, or a paladin. They're a bit harder to play then a melee class, but the spell list is easy to keep track of, and more importantly they can help a player who wishes to play a full caster in the future acclimate to having spells somewhat.

[My Self]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Fighters are the easiest class to play in 1 session of play, but the hardest to navigate effectively to high level. Clerics are the easiest to navigate to high level, followed by Wizards.

But high-level prepared full caster mastery is one of the more challenging (and rewarding) playstyles out there. A 20th level Fighter is like a 1st level Fighter, except better in almost every way. A 20th level Cleric and a 1st level Cleric are so different in terms of power that it's almost insane to play them like the same class.

I'd recommend a Ranger as a starter class. Very straightforward math, good enough at smashing, shooting, skills, and spellcasting, and has all the stuff you requested. Feat choices are simple and make sense- you just need to fill in the character level-granted feats, and your first one is probably just Power Attack. It's easy to fix bad spell choices. Favored Enemy is a really, really straightforward boost. There are simple class feature choices, unlike the dizzying array of Oracle Mysteries, Cleric Domains, Fighter combat feats, Witch Hexes, Rogue Talents, etc. that would probably paralyze most players. Archetypes are unnecessary (looking at you, Monk) and there's a fairly high power level floor. Not too many exhaustible resources, either.

Hunter is good, but there are more moving parts- more exhaustible spells, Animal Focus, and the animal companion. Teamwork feats are a much broader group to choose from than Ranger Combat Style feats. But if you're going in that direction, Sacred Huntsmaster Inquisitor isn't that bad. Compared to the Hunter, you get the Inquisitor spell list, strong Fort save, Domain, and other goodies in exchange for delaying Animal Focus and dropping the more situational nature-y abilities. Still, even more moving parts.

[The Skeptical Gnome]

If I were to suggest a singular class, it's likely be a ranger. They have a small spell list, an animal companion, and the option to fight at range or in melee. They generally also serve well in wilderness settings, so she would be able to contribute to the party outside of combat that way.

[Scott Wilhelm]

My Self wrote:

But high-level prepared full caster mastery is one of the more challenging (and rewarding) playstyles out there. A 20th level Fighter is like a 1st level Fighter, except better in almost every way. A 20th level Cleric and a 1st level Cleric are so different in terms of power that it's almost insane to play them like the same class.

I disagree profoundly.

The basis of a Cleric's power is a huge list of spells that he can cherrypick from every day. As the character continues to gain in level, the main thing that happens is that list of spells grows. If the player screws up and picks lousy spells, the next day she gets whole new spells.

Wizards are slightly less flexible. They don't automatically know all the spells on their lists they way Clerics do, and I've never met a GM who didn't cheat to keep my PC wizards' spell books growing just as slowly as possible. "No, you don't find the spellbook, sorry! I guess he didn't have it with him, or maybe it was destroyed in the fire, what fire? you know, the fire..." or, I'm sorry, but it seems that the only spells in the spellbook were just the ones the lich had memorized, sorry!" But still, there is no theoretical limit to how many spells a Wizard can learn. Wizards have no decision to make about whether or not he wants a newly discovered spell--he wants it, and they too can choose which spells are their favorites, completely changing their minds every day.

Fighters on the other hand, their powers are based on a small number of special abilities that they gain 1 of every other level, and once they choose, they can't change their minds about. Putting together powerful combinations of Feats and other special abilities requires planning out your character many levels in advance, demanding a really nuanced understanding of the rules and how all those various and sundry benefits interact, hopefully to create a synergy and something amazing.

A Cleric or Wizard who chooses bad Feats is very playable. It's not like you aren't still the party healer, or that Fireball isn't still pretty devastating even if you took Empower Spell when you should have taken Maximize Spell. But a fighter's PC who gets told, "I'm sorry, you only get the damage bonus for those Feats if you apply them to Unarmed Strikes." or who suddenly realizes that he really should have done more to improve his Armor Class has probably just seen his character concept wrecked beyond repair.

I suspect the people who keep saying that fighters are the easiest classes to play are also the players who complain that fighters are the weakest class of all. The problem is not that they are the weakest class. The problem is that they are the hardest to play!

[SmiloDan]

I always suggest the ranger for first time players. Full BAB (less likely to miss), great skill list (newbie players are always trying to do neat and interesting things ("Can I climb and hide in that tree, then jump down on his head?" "Can I sneak behind that door and eavesdrop on what they're saying?" "Can I bully the prisoner and make him talk?" "Can I search for clues? Can I follow her footprints?")), relatively good saves (and a ranger's poor Will save is often bolstered by a relatively good Wisdom score because of Wisdom-based spells and skills), easy combat choices (Ranger Combat Styles), introductory spells, introductory pet or introductory party buffing, an easy to apply combat buff (Favored Enemy), and the option for easy, relatively static, feat choices (Iron Will, that feat that boosts Animal Companion level, Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Toughness, etc.) that don't make a boring character because the "fun" feats can be selected with the Ranger Combat Style--without worrying about pre-requisites). Traits are pretty easy to choose, too: Reactionary and Magical Knack (ranger).

Slayers (no spells, but lots of talents to choose from, and sneak attack can help with teaching combat and positioning rules), and Hunters (more spells, better companion, but worse BAB) are good too since they both have good skills and are pretty straightforward in a fight.

[Scott Wilhelm]

hasteroth wrote:

My fiancee has been thinking about giving Pathfinder a shot at a Society session, she may play a pre-gen instead of her own character but either way this question needs answering (so let's assume her own character).

She's not great with arithmetic, and the fewer things she needs to keep track of the better. Her eyesight is poor but she can read, so classes that are less likely to have too much clutter on the sheet are better.

But flavor wise, she seems to desire several particular things. Most of all is an animal companion (ideally a Wolf) and some level of nature affinity (even if only flavor and not mechanical). The Druid comes to mind, but I still felt like getting some opinions on classes with animal stuff (through archetypes or whatever) that people think might be easy enough and fun for a brand new player like her.

Of course, if she's going to just use the pregens to start with, it hardly matters. Let her pick and choose. Let the group decide based on what the party needs most at the time. When the time comes for her to design her own character, let her decide for herself what she wants to put together. If she wants to put together a character that she wants to navigate to high level, I iterate my recommendation that Cleric is the easiest class to do that with. Maybe a Wizard or Cleric with VMC on the other. But, if she thinks she sees some kind of awesome combination of Feats and Special Abilities that she really wants to take on the battlefield, she should vet the idea with more experienced players then refine her ideas into some kind of melee build.

[Grey Lensman]

SmiloDan wrote:

I always suggest the ranger for first time players. Full BAB (less likely to miss), great skill list (newbie players are always trying to do neat and interesting things ("Can I climb and hide in that tree, then jump down on his head?" "Can I sneak behind that door and eavesdrop on what they're saying?" "Can I bully the prisoner and make him talk?" "Can I search for clues? Can I follow her footprints?")), relatively good saves (and a ranger's poor Will save is often bolstered by a relatively good Wisdom score because of Wisdom-based spells and skills), easy combat choices (Ranger Combat Styles), introductory spells, introductory pet or introductory party buffing, an easy to apply combat buff (Favored Enemy), and the option for easy, relatively static, feat choices (Iron Will, that feat that boosts Animal Companion level, Weapon Focus, Improved Initiative, Toughness, etc.) that don't make a boring character because the "fun" feats can be selected with the Ranger Combat Style--without worrying about pre-requisites). Traits are pretty easy to choose, too: Reactionary and Magical Knack (ranger).

Slayers (no spells, but lots of talents to choose from, and sneak attack can help with teaching combat and positioning rules), and Hunters (more spells, better companion, but worse BAB) are good too since they both have good skills and are pretty straightforward in a fight.

I agree with all of this - I always suggested the ranger for anyone wanting to learn the rules, but the addition of the slayer and hunter add two more options.

[Aelryinth]

I would've said play the paladin iconic, and tell her to be the hero of the group.

But as far as introducing multiple mechanics, hunter or ranger are likely the best, and i don't think she wants to play Harsk.

==Aelryinth

[SmiloDan]

The bookkeeping is also really easy for rangers. Only their spells have limited uses per day. Everything else is "always on." Some things are situational, like favored terrain and favored enemy, but when they're there, they're there. You don't have to flank or make a check or spend a swift action to activate them. So they're really easy to apply.

Probably the most complex part of playing a ranger is dealing with the -2/-2 for Two-Weapon Fighting &/or Rapid Shot and differentiating between a Full Round Action/Full Attack and a Standard Action + a possible Move Action single attack.

And keeping track of ammunition.

[Aelryinth]

Meh, just be a switch hitter. Greatsword and longbows. Easy to play and effective.

==Aelryinth

[hasteroth]

Ease of play is important, but far more is her playing what she wants to play. Ranger was out from.the start because she doesn't get a companion at level 1. For her first character that's a deal breaker. Other things that grant animal companions were being considered until the Hunter was pointed out (and I actually took a thorough look at the class). She isn't interested in "just being able to hit things" as she put it as well. The Hunter is perfect for her (and what she decided she wants to play) so thanks for the other suggestions anyways but she's already decided at this point.

[Mark Seifter]

hasteroth wrote:

Ease of play is important, but far more is her playing what she wants to play. Ranger was out from.the start because she doesn't get a companion at level 1. For her first character that's a deal breaker. Other things that grant animal companions were being considered until the Hunter was pointed out (and I actually took a thorough look at the class). She isn't interested in "just being able to hit things" as she put it as well. The Hunter is perfect for her (and what she decided she wants to play) so thanks for the other suggestions anyways but she's already decided at this point.

Let us know how it goes! If she does decide to make an Adowyn-based character for her main character after trying out the pregen and doesn't want to have to wade through all the math and feat/spell options on leveling up, consider using the higher-level versions of Adowyn as a shorter list of some possible good choices to consider.

[Tomos]

The Skeptical Gnome wrote:

If I were to suggest a singular class, it's likely be a ranger. They have a small spell list, an animal companion, and the option to fight at range or in melee. They generally also serve well in wilderness settings, so she would be able to contribute to the party outside of combat that way.

If you're handing a new player a pregen, Harsk is not an excellent choice.

I agree with the others who have suggested Hunter.

[Cavall]

If your fiancee is like my wife, I'd let her play the most armoured and most hit pointed person you can find. Don't let a random die roll make your wife unhappy.

Because happy wife..

[SmiloDan]

Does she plan on having her animal companion go into combat? I've seen people who like pet classes because they like animals, but then didn't want their animal to get hurt, so they spent most combats hiding and protecting their animal companion. This really altered the action economy of the PCs.

[hasteroth]

SmiloDan wrote:

Does she plan on having her animal companion go into combat? I've seen people who like pet classes because they like animals, but then didn't want their animal to get hurt, so they spent most combats hiding and protecting their animal companion. This really altered the action economy of the PCs.

She says she'd send it into combat without a second thought. "The wolf is omega, I am the alpha." Her words.

[SmiloDan]

Cool. Coolcoolcool.