|
Another reason I wouldn't pick Kineticist is that there mechanics are probably the most unique compared to every other character. It does depend on what you mean by easiest...and I think its important for a new player to do at least one effective thing during the course of a playing session. And I do think playing a martial effectively requires a bit of system knowledge.
The other thing, is that there is also all the time outside of combat, which is where the fighter is going to be absolutely terrible. I've seen players get disappointed and frustrated when they've wanted approach an NPC, only to be told that their pregen has 9 CHA and no ranks in diplomacy.
That's why I would actually propose a partial spontaneous caster, like a bard or inquisitor. They have a variety of options for every situation, and even if they burn through all their resources right away, they still have their skills and decent fighting abilities to fall back on.
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,...
In practice, I find you start the day by topping off your elemental overflow bonuses by investing burn in your elemental defense and then you don't spend burn the rest of the day unless it's an emergency. Even if that emergency comes up, your bonuses still aren't changing once you've already maxed out the buff.
Like there's nothing keeping you from playing the vanilla kineticist in a way where you don't take burn from blasting so you don't even need an archetype for it. The class builds pretty gradually in terms of "what you'd even care to take burn for" (the hypothetical 4th level one above probably never would) and gives you lots of tools to keep from getting it.
Sifting through this thread I get:
Fighter: 8
Barbarian: 7
Sorcerer: 6
Ranger: 5
Monk: 3
Rogue: 2
Bard: 2
Slayer: 2
Kineticist: 2
A few honorable mentions (Cavalier, Witch, Oracle, Druid, Cleric, Inquisitor)
Looks like one of the martial basic characters would be our first choice. Well, they all are solid within their area of expertise, have some useful archetypes for variation, and different races to round them out. All of them require basic knowledge of combat rules, but then everyone needs to learn them sooner than later. They have also the advantage that you can work with only the Core Rulebook if that is an issue.
I have never seen some of those classes in play here, so i wonder how they are doing: Witch, Slayer and Kineticist. We had last session the problem I dread with the witch, in that the wizard's familiar got nuked. A witch would lose all spells she acquired during play from that. We had rogues, but the verdict here is that they are too weak...maybe the slayer would resolve that. Kineticist looks on paper a lot like the warlock (from 3.5), who was found lacking back then, so I am not sure about him.
|
Very first character I played was an apg summoner and thought it was simple. I literally didn't know this was supposed to be "complex" so I just kinda went with it.
(And had a blast, still love summoners).
So I might not be the right person to ask.
I literally think you should let people pick a class/character concept let them and learn it, maybe point out some traps and go from there.
Easiest, whatever gets the player impassioned about the game. Then they'll teach themselves.
|
|
I literally think you should let people pick a class/character concept let them and learn it, maybe point out some traps and go from there.
Easiest, whatever gets the player impassioned about the game. Then they'll teach themselves.
I think this is a good answer. As long as they have fun, they eventually learn the rules. I might recommend NOT playing certain classes to a new player until they have a firm grasp on the mechanics. Rogues are the main one. I don't think rogues are terrible if you have a good grasp on the rules and understand their weaknesses, but I would describe playing a rogue as kind of like playing Pathfinder on the HARD setting.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
For a martial, I'd suggest (along with several others, I see) uBarb. It's pretty easy to have a satisfying experience playing a character who hits things for big damage, and there's not a lot of tough build choices to make. Unchained Rage also doesn't have that "you suddenly die!" problem that core Rage has.
If the player has an experienced friend who is willing to do the build work for them, Fighter is a solid choice as well.
If they want a caster, I agree that Sorcerer is a solid decision. Again once it's built there aren't a lot of complex choices to make during play.
My oddball recommendation would be witch. Sure, it's a prepared caster, but at low levels you can be pretty darn effective just spamming hexes. It's entirely possible to build around hexes and consider spell selection gravy.
I think this is a good answer. As long as they have fun, they eventually learn the rules. I might recommend NOT playing certain classes to a new player until they have a firm grasp on the mechanics. Rogues are the main one. I don't think rogues are terrible if you have a good grasp on the rules and understand their weaknesses, but I would describe playing a rogue as kind of like playing Pathfinder on the HARD setting.
The Unchained Rogue is a straight upgrade to the Core Rogue that makes it actually useful rather than a burden in combat, and the Slayer is also pretty much an upgrade from Core Rogue in a slightly different direction by being less complicated to play well, being more well-rounded, and having better stats and proficiencies, even though you have fewer Sneak Attack dice. Both remove the "Pathfinder Hard Mode" factor while still essentially being "the rogue," though I'd steer a new player toward Slayer before UnRogue.
|
The simplest class to play is a fighter that worships Abadar and takes the measured response feat. You just need to roll to hit, you don't need to worry about temporary buffs like rage or favored enemy or studied target, and then you do your set average damage per hit. Go lore warden if you want more skill points.
I had a new player trying sorcerer, and he had a hard time with remembering the details of the spells. So fighter is clearly easier in my book. Especially if you stick with Core rules - then there are only so many combat to choose from at a given level.
And the game is not only about combat: A sorcerer is supposed to be charismatic, that's not trivial to roleplay for a new player. It's easier to play a believable fighter, for example in a down-to-earth way like 'I like weapons, beer and well-shaped women*!'.
*Replace by 'men', if applicable.
The 3.5 warlock was a great magic-user class! It had magic, it almost always hit (targeted touch AC!), it had a great mix of social and exploration skills, and it didn't have a lot of resource management to keep track of.
It might not have been super powerful, but it was fun and easy to play, and had great flavor.
Any one of the pregenerated characters from Beginner Box is the best form of training wheels for this game.
I have long felt the best class for new players is a simple human fighter. With a touch of maturity a dwarf or elf instead
Improved Init, Weapon Focus and either Exotic weapon,twf or Power attack
Another reason I wouldn't pick Kineticist is that there mechanics are probably the most unique compared to every other character. It does depend on what you mean by easiest...and I think its important for a new player to do at least one effective thing during the course of a playing session. And I do think playing a martial effectively requires a bit of system knowledge.
The other thing, is that there is also all the time outside of combat, which is where the fighter is going to be absolutely terrible. I've seen players get disappointed and frustrated when they've wanted approach an NPC, only to be told that their pregen has 9 CHA and no ranks in diplomacy.
That's why I would actually propose a partial spontaneous caster, like a bard or inquisitor. They have a variety of options for every situation, and even if they burn through all their resources right away, they still have their skills and decent fighting abilities to fall back on.
My issue with kineticist is that anyone who has not played it.... doesn't really understand them yet . I wouldn't recommend a class for a new player thatthe dm and other players can't help them navigate the curves in the middle of the game.
My issue with kineticist is that anyone who has not played it.... doesn't really understand them yet . I wouldn't recommend a class for a new player thatthe dm and other players can't help them navigate the curves in the middle of the game.
Yeah, that's a class where the difficulty to play it if no one at the table has played one is an entirely different animal than if someone at the table has played one. If I'm running the game, I would encourage newbies to play kineticists since I like to think I know the class pretty well.
|
|
My issue with kineticist is that anyone who has not played it.... doesn't really understand them yet . I wouldn't recommend a class for a new player thatthe dm and other players can't help them navigate the curves in the middle of the game.Yeah, that's a class where the difficulty to play it if no one at the table has played one is an entirely different animal than if someone at the table has played one. If I'm running the game, I would encourage newbies to play kineticists since I like to think I know the class pretty well.
Indeed. It's not really all that hard of a class (though it does have a good bit of stacking), but it's arguably the class which is least like any other.
what is the easiest class to play?
I say a strong contender is Rogue. You don't need to worry about a "Build" going wrong, everything that you need as a functional character is already built into the class. A minor learning curve to new players of making sure they are flanking (Explained as: "Make sure there is someone on the other side to do more damage") and you are golden.
Yes Trap-Abilities and Evasion might be confusing but when these come up the DM will usually be able to remind the player.
Rogue Talent much like Feats is a huge list of stuff, but unlike the fighter you can't mess them up. Even if you pick only the bad or useless ones, the core rogue is still a damage dealing machine.
2nd Fighter, 3rd Ranger but I want to talk about I believe is the 4th easiest class. The Sorcerer.
Generally speaking if you can get your to-be-Sorcerer player to look at the spell list he can pick whatever he wants, just heavily suggest some low level attack spells (Scorching Ray) and some med level ones (Fireball). After that just print out or have your player write out the rest of his spells on a notepad.
These spells never change- I know you CAN change them, but that's for more advance play. The player will just add new ones as he goes along. Playing Sorcerer with this method is surprisingly effective even allowing some of the younger-younger players to stay effective.
Sorcerer is the go to class for teaching new players about spells, and learning about spells is learning about larger portion of the game.
Besides the look on newer player's faces when they get to roll THAT many dice in a fireball, and no one else seems to be rolling as many dice. It makes they feel special every time, thus willing to learn more about the game.
other then weapon focus is there any other feats that will help a pc hit in combat?
this is why i WOULDN'T recommend fighter, to a new player, the number of feats is crippling.
Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, unchained Rogue and Unchained Monks are therefore easier to make and run since instead of bonus combat feats they get their own list that's easy to find and read through and to then put together.
I just started a new group of new players and they're playing a Ranger, a Slayer, and an oracle.
the hardest thing anyone's had remembering so far is the slayer''s studied target.(though i'm running with herolab and so can instantly access anyone's spells to get their specifics)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is the best intro class.
It is a pretty standard warrior. Good BAB, light and martial weapons, light and medium armor, shields, 1d10 HD.
It has lots of skills and 2 good saves. And a lot of its skills are fun to use, like Climb and Stealth and Survival and Swim. Perception is always being used. It has a few Knowledge skills too.
Wild Empathy is a "crunchy" method of non-combat conflict resolution that can be used as a tool to teach players they don't have to kill EVERYTHING.
It introduces bonus feats via Combat Styles, so their lists of choices are small and manageable and focused.
It also introduces the rules for pets, aiding allies, and spells.
It also teaches players to pay attention to some of the minutia of Pathfinder, like monster types and terrain types.
When I play an MMO, I usually start with a Paladin. Good melee character that can throw on armor and weapons and charge the enemies... with decent abilities that will keep them alive if they screw up... and just a touch of spell casting to get them the flavor of the rules, without being dependent on them.
In PnP I'm not sure I'd recommend them first since they are heavy RP intensive, but my plusses are still there. The main thing to encourage them... is to have fun. That usually means being active. And for most fantasy trope games... it means grabbing a sword and diving into the thick of things.
Personally I would find standing in the back and pointing color sprays or magic missles as pretty boring for a first night. There is somethin to be said for a class TOO easy to play ;)
Indeed. It's not really all that hard of a class (though it does have a good bit of stacking), but it's arguably the class which is least like any other.
I think part of what helps is that the metaphor that the Kineticist uses (you can use magic whenever you want, but if you want to do more impressive things you have to push yourself , and if you push yourself too much you pass out) is going to be a lot more familiar and easy to understand for people with no background in D&D.
Since, let's be fair, the last Dying Earth book came out 32 years ago. If your first exposure to Vancean magic wasn't D&D, it's pretty unlikely that you've even encountered it before.
I've honestly had a lot of newbies really confused that, by the time they can cast 4th level spells, they can't just spam Magic Missile all day because "that's an easy spell, but I've learned to cast hard ones, so why can't I use the easy ones as much as I want." That most magic classes can't just cast as often as they want is a weird hurdle for people without prior exposure to D&D to get over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger is the best intro class.
It is a pretty standard warrior. Good BAB, light and martial weapons, light and medium armor, shields, 1d10 HD.
It has lots of skills and 2 good saves. And a lot of its skills are fun to use, like Climb and Stealth and Survival and Swim. Perception is always being used. It has a few Knowledge skills too.
Wild Empathy is a "crunchy" method of non-combat conflict resolution that can be used as a tool to teach players they don't have to kill EVERYTHING.
It introduces bonus feats via Combat Styles, so their lists of choices are small and manageable and focused.
It also introduces the rules for pets, aiding allies, and spells.
It also teaches players to pay attention to some of the minutia of Pathfinder, like monster types and terrain types.
That is a very good post and excellent reasoning. I think yyou may have changed my mind
I think the Bard is pretty easy for a new person(It was my first class). When in doubt sing your heart out.
I started my wife out with a Ranger. It is easy for her to under stand how it is built and played.
Also I saw someone say the unchained monk, i agree that it can also be an easy first class.
Hard ones for me at least are the barbarian(not unchained) and the rogue(to many people think Assassins Creed when they roll one I think).
Just my two coppers worth.
|
After reconsidering, and talking to a friend on the matter, I believe Kineticist is one of the better classes for a new person. The overwhelming bulk of its massive entry can be skimmed by a veteran while the point out the element-compatible talents to the new player, cutting down on the intimidating size of it all.
Fighter is one I would recommend, but only with some specific archetype like Lore Warden or heavy use of Weapon Mastery guide. Yes, Core Fighter is simple, but it never offers new features to help teach you more about the game. And without decent skills, they often find themselves with nothing to do.
Rogues are a red flag as well. The basic features are simple, and most skills are pretty useful and intuitive, but Sneak Attack requires a level of tactics and positioning that can make it difficult to pull it off. You basically need to spend a round (or two) just to safely get into position. And having to wait that long while the Medium and the Hunter's pet are already tearing things appart can be frustrating.
Yeah, more than once I've seen newbs with rogues go multiple games without making a single sneak attack. Frustrating for them and for us.
|
|
Yeah, more than once I've seen newbs with rogues go multiple games without making a single sneak attack. Frustrating for them and for us.
Were they archers? Rogues seem like they'd make good archers, but in practice it's very hard to do so since it drastically limits when they can get Sneak Attack. (Ninjas can make decent ones though.)
Yeah, more than once I've seen newbs with rogues go multiple games without making a single sneak attack. Frustrating for them and for us.Were they archers? Rogues seem like they'd make good archers, but in practice it's very hard to do so since it drastically limits when they can get Sneak Attack. (Ninjas can make decent ones though.)
One was a knife thrower, I think, but for the most part the others were pretty standard fair.
|
|
My favorite tactic in some of our high level games has been to cast Greater Invisibility on my wife's knife master rogue. I like to call it Summon Sneak Attack. I also enjoy Telekinetic Charge on the party melee, or as I like to call it, Summon Greater Full Attack. (Dimension Door is Summon Full Attack.)
Gunslinger, you dont even have to care about enemy AC over half the time, no freaky crit threat ranges...20 is a 20. Early levels half the time your action is "i reload"
Paladin isn't too complicated mechanically but has a TON of RP baggage/nuance that is the opposite of easy.
But newbies probably lack all that RP baggage, so they can make fun and unique paladins.
But I still think rangers are best. Maybe with the Guide (?) archetype? It introduces all sorts of sub-systems at a relatively slow but steady rate (one or two per level) and has lots of skills players--and especially newbies--like to use. Archery might be feat-intensive, but in play is easy to do. It doesn't rely as much on tactical maneuvering that melee combat does, and most archers get injured less often than folk in melee.
Yeah, I also have to agree that Rogue is a problematic starting class. Besides simply not being able to pull off sneak attacks, to get sneak attacks with a party that doesn't have above average teamwork (that is, a tanky character who is willing and able to get behind enemies to create flanking opportunities) the rogue often has to stand in locations that expose themselves to danger. The smart, experienced player can decide whether the risk is worth the payout, but the new player doesn't yet have the experience to make those judgement calls. And it's a "cool" class, so it draws new players in like crazy.
I had one PFS game where we had a new player playing a rogue, very enthusiastic, decided to sneak into an empty room alone, scout things out, because that's what rogues do. Turns out the floor was made of earth elemental, which proceeded to one-shot-kill him. I don't even think it crit, it just did a lot of damage (he may have been injured?) and we were low level. It was the single most painful thing I've ever seen, and it was because his type of character encouraged him to play recklessly and go in solo as a scout, and he didn't realize he wasn't nearly as stealthy as he thought. (Granted, it was a low blow that didn't really make sense, so at least part of that is the fault of the PFS module. But it wouldn't have been as likely if he was the fighter, or a caster)