| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter. There is still plenty to do, but with fewer complex systems like spells, fighter is the easiest.
They're all about the same, but choosing one that is like something you've played before would make it pretty easy
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained Barbarian maybe? Fighter has to choose a ton of feats, and "lists of feats" are pretty daunting to go through.
what is the easiest class to play?
Are we making a distinction between in game and pre game complexity?
Or are we looking at the whole process in totality from building the character, running it at the table and updating the character throughout a campaign?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost want to say Paladin, but I think Unchained Monk may be the easiest to play for a brand new player.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
If you mean easy to learn aka build an understanding of fhe game as a new player, go with unchained barbarian, they are fun and easy to learn.
|
Personally, I'd say spell-less Paladin or Ranger. Or possibly Unchained Monk or Unchained Barbarian.
Spells and lots of Feats both give too many different options to sort through to be really easy, but all those can be pretty straightforward.
other then weapon focus is there any other feats that will help a pc hit in combat?
Not any I can think of (except Greater Weapon Focus, which is Fighter only and requires 8th level).
There are a lot of Class Features that add as does your attack stat, but Feats? Not many.
Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
choosing one's bloodline and spells efficiently can be difficult.
since they are not as feat dependent as fighters, I'd say monks. the ki pool is not as complex as the rage powers either.
I'll throw my lot in with Unchained monk. Aside from getting a good point buy, just choose a good style chain (Jabbing), grab weapon focus (Unarmed Strike) at level 1, and be sure to get Barkskin, and everything else is pretty straight forward/good. Really, the only tough choice for options is dependent on race. Human? You get a free feat. Dwarf? You may want Steel Soul at some point.
Unchained Barbarian maybe? Fighter has to choose a ton of feats, and "lists of feats" are pretty daunting to go through.
just keep it in the core for their first game. power attack and weapon focus aren't that hard to figure out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
Are you serious you have to constantly look through the book for what your spells do, check your character sheet, figure out where and how to use the spell, know what spells to choose which if you played before might not be apparent calculate DC's and if you run out of spells then your like welp now what do I do but sit in the back and hide (doesn't make for a good time. ) and you still have to learn all the basic stuff like hp ac saves atk rolls skill etc.
Got to agree with Vidmaster7. A caster still needs to know all the combat mechanics, whilst a martial doesn't need to know the much about the magic mechanics. I would say that fighter would be easiest if they are willing to read the feats before hand as not a lot changes during play. following that, the Unchained Barbarian is the next easiest just beating a standard Barb out as the raging maths are easier to suss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Commoner. That's why there are so many of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you serious you have to constantly look through the book for what your spells do, check your character sheet, figure out where and how to use the spell, know what spells to choose which if you played before might not be apparent calculate DC's and if you run out of spells then your like welp now what do I do but sit in the back and hide (doesn't make for a good time. ) and you still have to learn all the basic stuff like hp ac saves atk rolls skill etc.Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
It still is a million times easier for newbies to grasp than battlefield positioning. I blame MMORPGs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I would favor a Ranger with a non-spellcaster archetype as easiest to play. Fighters have loads of feats and thus a lot to keep track of even if they pick the simpler feats. At least for a Ranger, all the choices follow well defined themes that are relatively easy to keep track of.
It still is a million times easier for newbies to grasp than battlefield positioning. I blame MMORPGs.Are you serious you have to constantly look through the book for what your spells do, check your character sheet, figure out where and how to use the spell, know what spells to choose which if you played before might not be apparent calculate DC's and if you run out of spells then your like welp now what do I do but sit in the back and hide (doesn't make for a good time. ) and you still have to learn all the basic stuff like hp ac saves atk rolls skill etc.Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
People really have difficulty with such basic concepts as "flanking" and "keeping one's guard up?" I'd think anyone who grew up watching violent cartoons, or playing violent video games, or reading violent books, or studying wars in school, would understand that easily.
The only trick with Barbarians is it requires juggling a rather limited resource at low levels, with serious penalties if you run out. This isn't a problem if you play with a group that is fond of 15 minute days, but in a more realistic group it can be tricky.
After a few levels, Barbarian takes it for sure though.
For me, the criteria is a default action that can be relied on in most circumstances, not an over-reliance on either feats or spells, and fairly simple class features that allows it to be easy to figure out what your default action is. Ranger would take it but animal companions mean juggling two character sheets. I'm strongly leaning Paladin actually, Lay on Hands and Smite Evil are both incredibly simple options that do what they are supposed to perfectly, the only thing that holds them back is the low amount of skill points leading to tricky out-of-combat play sometimes.
Of all the spellcasters, I'd say Witch is actually the easiest, due to the Hexes. Maybe not suitable for a full beginner, but as long as the player is made aware that the Witch is a support caster and not a DPS, it's pretty easy to figure out which Hexes are useful. After which the Witch becomes one of the most brainless things to play around (in a good way).
Ranger would take it but animal companions mean juggling two character sheets.
Rangers have a choice between animal companions and buffs on the rest of the party. If they take the buff option, they don't have to have a 2nd character sheet
I think the thing about managing rounds of Rage is that the low level Barbarian who has run out of rage for the day is still big and strong and hits hard with a big weapon and thus is a lot more effective than the caster who is now out of spells.
The biggest hang-up I've found with newbies playing casters is that at first level they have 2 first level spells. If a day consists of, say, 5 fights then either "is this a situation in which I should use magic." A 1st level sorcerer with 18 Charisma has 4 first level spells, and "which 4 rounds merit a magic missile" is a hard calculus for some people.
Probably easier than Sorcerer for Newbies is the Oracle, which has the combination of being a spontaneous caster as well as the potential to be a respectable melee or ranged fighter for when spells are unavailable/don't apply. The Mysteries/Curses can more or less be chosen thematically and you'll be okay.
Ranger would take it but animal companions mean juggling two character sheets.Rangers have a choice between animal companions and buffs on the rest of the party. If they take the buff option, they don't have to have a 2nd character sheet
I would second doing that.
As for Ranger archetypes, the Ilsurian Archer (called "Divine Marksman" at the d20pfsrd site) seems to be the simplest of the non-spellcaster archetypes. The Skirmisher and the Trapper both provide access to ever growing lists of talents instead of spells. The archetype features of the Ilsurian Archer are simple bonuses that do not require choices or resource management.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you serious you have to constantly look through the book for what your spells do, check your character sheet, figure out where and how to use the spell, know what spells to choose which if you played before might not be apparent calculate DC's and if you run out of spells then your like welp now what do I do but sit in the back and hide (doesn't make for a good time. ) and you still have to learn all the basic stuff like hp ac saves atk rolls skill etc.Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
But with a sorcerer, you have five or six spells to learn, and once you learn them, that's it. You can play a dumb fighter, and do nothing but move and attack. But to be a good martial you have to learn a lot more.
Barbarian, ranger or sorcerer.
Ranger would take it but animal companions mean juggling two character sheets.Rangers have a choice between animal companions and buffs on the rest of the party. If they take the buff option, they don't have to have a 2nd character sheet
That party buff is so minor compared to Animal Companion, I forgot it was an option. But yeah, if you actually manage to convince the new player to not take the Animal Companion, Ranger is definitely a top learning class. It's a martial class with essentially recommended feat lists built in, above average skill use, strong flavor, and just enough spell use to play around with the spell system without being forced to use them.
I'd say one of the Ranger archetypes that swaps out spells as well (My favorite is Skirmisher.)
The combat style feats are really good for outlining some key feats, which can be difficult for newer players, and it's still interesting and fun to play. One of my earliest characters was a Skirmisher, and it was very straightforward.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druid.
Sure it's complicated, but you don't need to actually understand/use 75% of your abilities to be effective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about Slayer? It has some choices to pick through with the Slayer Talents, but not too many, it's a solid martial class, you can play it any of a few ways with little to no tweaking, Sneak Attack isn't too complex, and you have some toys to play with (with the main one, Studied Target, being simple yet effective).
Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
I disagree. It's hard to build a great martial, but they are easy to play, especially if you stick to fighter.
I will grant you that sorcerers are the easiest caster to play, but again, they are a little harder to build than other casters.
Rogues are also easy, but disappointing by 4th to 6th level. (And I love playing rogues.)
Druid.
Sure it's complicated, but you don't need to actually understand/use 75% of your abilities to be effective.
But if you don't want the flexibility, why are you playing a freaking druid!? D:
|
It's hard to say without establishing a baseline and a hypothetical new player.
Ideally, a new Pathfinder player will be introduced to the game by friends who have at least a basic understanding of mechanics, class roles, and party expectations. In this situation, the new player can simply describe the kind of character they want to make (often inspired by some other media) and the veterans can point them towards some possible classes and offer assistance in building it.
No matter how you slice it, Pathfinder is a complicated system for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps it's central abstractions such as converting your ability scores into the abstraction that is ability modifiers. Maybe it's a corpulent combat codex who's grapple rules alone are abbreviated with a two page flow chart. Heck, one issue I see the most is the crash course in Action Economy 101 that inevitably awaits every starry eyed recruit. Seriously, nothing is sadder than seeing Grimgnar the Unbroken struggle for multiple rounds at the harrowing trials of "closed door with a monster on the other side" because he decided to go sword-and-shield style without reading a guide or two.
When it comes to classes, they're all pretty easy once you've got the mental momentum gathered up from Woodland Striding you way through the logistical lanyard of interwoven combat rules. The most notable exceptions are the Kineticist, which feels like it should have had an entire Player Companion to fit its girthy ruleset, and the Summoner, a class that a decent number of people will accidentally over or undertune due to how the Evolution system subverts what player characters (and the game rules) are expected to be capable of at any given level.
If you have a new player partied up with new players, all taken in by a new GM? Well, on the bright side they'll all have some funny stories to look back on and laugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most notable exceptions are the Kineticist, which feels like it should have had an entire Player Companion to fit its girthy ruleset
I was actually thinking of suggesting the Kineticist as the easiest class to play, since once you figure out how the class works, it's actually extremely simple to play one.
Like say you're have a fourth level telekineticist, your feats are point blank and precise shot, your utility talents are Telekinetic Finesse and Telekinetic Haul, and your infusions are Kinetic Blade and Extended Range. With the exception of "using telekinesis creatively in non-combat situations" (which requires no particular skill, just imagination) what this character does in every situation is perfectly clear. With the exception of "putting a point in your elemental defense to top off your elemental overflow" you don't even need to interact with the burn mechanic.
The problem the Kineticist has is that if you try to understand the entire class all at once from the top down there's a lot there and it's daunting. If you instead look at it from the ground up, it's fairly simple and builds very gradually in terms of complexity. But in terms of choices you have to make level by level they're very manageable. If a player shows up with a desire to do something like "shoot lightning from their fingers" the hardest choice a kineticist faces (which element?) is already made for them.
I need new socks and shoes, but I may have to wait on that
If you have someone wanting to play a melee, I'd lean towards fighter or barbarian. Both have 'basic' builds that work pretty well, and a GM can choose to be forgiving on retraining. 'OK, so Dodge really isn't working out for you there. That's fine. Something else in mind?'
The main deal here I'd say is the low floor of effectiveness, as well as having someone patient and understanding to do some handholding. 'OK, you like a sword and shield. You know, even in real life, fighters wouldn't just block with a shield. They'd use Improved Shield Bash to smack their foe. Of course, this takes some coordination ... '. Et voila, while sword-and-board TWF isn't really a starter option, at least you can steer them.
Now, it may be harder for the more arcane inclined, but it's still doable. 'OK, so you like vaporising things. Well, keep in mind, there's fireproof things. And don't forget that Barbie the Barbarian's on your team. She's protecting you from the boss, but someone has to protect her from the goblins.' Blaster wizard isn't the most ideal but it's still DOABLE. (And then your other players can spec for other stuff.)
I think the best approach is 'what do you want to be?' and then find the right class to suit that.
My first thought is Fighter or Sorcerer.
Fighters get a lot of feats, but there aren't as many complicated rules and class abilities to deal with.
Sorcerers have limited spells, and don't have to worry about spell knowledge as much. They just need to know the ones they have, and not have to worry about memorizing the wrong ones for the day.
Clerics may be options too since there aren't a lot of abilities coming in from a dozen different directions. Decent in melee, class abilities get better but without getting overwhelming.
But with a sorcerer, you have five or six spells to learn, and once you learn them, that's it. You can play a dumb fighter, and do nothing but move and attack. But to be a good martial you have to learn a lot more.Are you serious you have to constantly look through the book for what your spells do, check your character sheet, figure out where and how to use the spell, know what spells to choose which if you played before might not be apparent calculate DC's and if you run out of spells then your like welp now what do I do but sit in the back and hide (doesn't make for a good time. ) and you still have to learn all the basic stuff like hp ac saves atk rolls skill etc.Whoever thinks that playing martial characters is easy is wrong.
Easiest thing to do is play a Sorcerer.
you make a good argument sir but the question wasn't which class is easiest to play WELL. Also there would be a difference if by first time play you assume you'll be getting no outside assistance or if the DM is going to help you make the character all the way. Easiest character if you want to play a caster however no arguments there definitely sorcerer.
What about Slayer? It has some choices to pick through with the Slayer Talents, but not too many, it's a solid martial class, you can play it any of a few ways with little to no tweaking, Sneak Attack isn't too complex, and you have some toys to play with (with the main one, Studied Target, being simple yet effective).
Seconded. Besides basic choices while leveling, they are fairly straight forward. Start fight? STudy target to get attack/damage bonuses, and then kill it. Maybe aim for sneak attacks when possible. Start a conversation? STudy target to get social skill bonuses, and then maybe kill it if it is lying to you. Maybe intimidate them in order to get the info before you kill it. Start stealth? Study target to get stealth bonuses, and then kill it from behind. Maybe follow one of them around with survival so you know where their base is before you kill it.
Studied target is just a great, general use ability which is also flavorful (since you stare at every NPC in the same way you would when you want to shank a man's kidneys). It is just 'do better at all the things you are built for after spending an action'. No need to consider whether to do it or not since it is unlimited.
But if you don't want the flexibility, why are you playing a freaking druid!? D:Druid.
Sure it's complicated, but you don't need to actually understand/use 75% of your abilities to be effective.
To be BIIIIIIG.
Goliath druids for sweat reach with a 2 handed weapon. Heck, even vanilla druids can pull off something similar with earth elementals (more issues with equipment, but it can be worked with). Just be a big melee reach guy that also shoots lightning and stuff.
I'd say Kineticist. Most of their abilities are chosen from a small pool that fits whatever elemental theme you picked at level 1. Sure there's some finicky bits with managing burn, but lets give even absolute newbies some credit: Most can comprend the workings of abilities that cost an obvious, fixed number of hitpoints each time such abilities are used.
My main leaning toward the Kineticists really comes from the high floor, though. Playing them extremely well is probably really tough, and I've heard they don't optimize well, but just doing decently with them is so easy. They have much of what they need built in. No need for knowledge of equipment, feats, maneuvers, magic, or whatever else. (That stuff will help, but unless your GM is playing hardball, the Kineticist can probably operate without most of it and still contribute to the party just fine).
|
|
The problem with kineticist is that your +to-hit, +damage, DEX, and CON are constantly changing as burn does. Do you really expect the beginning player to be able to cope with the cascade effect of this as it changes all sorts of other secondary effects (initiative, etc)? Maybe one of the archetypes that doesn't let you accept burn would work, though,...