Best and worst classes for beginners ?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


This comes up a lot in other threads throughout the ages and I figured it was worth a dedicated thread for once.

My thoughts...
Best: Cleric and Druid. The only permanent choice you make is ability scores, domain and skills. Ability scores actually have good advice in the book, domains aren't essential and only a handful are outright bad (alignment, elemental) and skills are pretty easy to figure out. Plus these things require only basic, one time, advice from other players ("Good domain is terrible" or "Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Knowledge Religion and Knowledge Planes are good picks for Cleric skills") without them doing the build for them. Sorcerers and Oracles are really tough to build, but trivial to play while giving good variety, so they're great if you're doing a pregen sheet.

Paladin is better than you'd expect. A Paladin can actually use TWF thanks to his bonus damage being per hit, and LoH healing the Paladin as a swift prevents two of the biggest traps in core from hitting a player. You can also use this to force roleplaying.

Worst: Fighter. Not only is he tricky to build, he's tricky to play too, and both are even worse in core only. His brothers, Swashbuckler, Cavalier which makes him a problem regardless of if he works or not), and Gunslinger, aren't far behind. In fact, Cavalier may be ahead as the one thing he does well and is a natural pick for a new player is a problem when it works (so the boss is now hamburger on his lance) and when it doesn't (useless in urban, indoor, flying, aquatic, thick forest, steep mountain, night ambush...).


I would have advocated rogue and sorcerer to be actually quite easy. Rogue in particular, is not too hard to built, especially unchained. While it is possible to optimize via feats, it is viable without them, and while it might seem tricky to place a good sneak, if party members aren't forgetting too often he's there it's not too hard. On top of that, he can be a nice face and trap spotter/maker, so even if the player doesn't like or understand too much one of the aspects of the class, he can still rely on another.

(Special word for D&D4's warlock. That's the easiest class to play ever and the first I tried. Well, I'm saying that, but then my co-players tell me fey pact's teleportation builds are tricky, and that's what mine looks like.)

Barbarian might be worse than fighter. One needs to know when it's time to enter rage or quit it, and there's all the fatigue stuff and ability temporary bonuses to manage. And cleric with leadership/animal and rage domain manages to be even more complicated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Worst for beginners would be brawler. You have all qualifiable combat feats at your fingertips on the fly whenever needed from lvl 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any class that requires deep knowledge of the system and options, or a class that has complex class abilities.
Fighters, Brawlers 9th level spell non-divine casters are good examples of how there are too many options to build. Though any 9th level caster is a bit too much, as spells require a lot of understanding of the general system.
All the occult classes are good examples of classes who has too complex class abilities.

I feel like the Ranger is a good class to introduce new players to. It starts as a straight martial class, 2nd level they get a limited option of feats and they eventually get some spell-casting, and animal companions don't require much at all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

9th level spell casters are the worst for beginners, because there are too many spells and options to be able to understand what to select and when to use them.

Two-handed melee characters are the easiest to build, because it's basically max your strength and take power attack and you're good to go.

Fighters are a fine class to give new players, but they wont necessarily have the system mastery to get the most out of it. However, if they build a two-handed fighter they also don't need to try to get the most out of it to stay relevant to "hits things with sword".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Claxon.

Fighters are great to hand a new player. Sure they may not master it their first go, but they also have enough feats to make something they will have fun playing, and should stay relevant because their job can be fundamentally simple... You shouldn't be giving a new player a complex role to fill, anyways.

The classes with fewer feats can be good for beginners, as well. What do you want to be? A Paladin? Ok. What do you want to use? A bow? Ok. Let me introduce you to the Divine Hunter, you will still need Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Clustered Shots... Have fun.

Classes with a lot of things to keep track of can be overwhelming for new players. Also, nobody wants to have had the answer the whole time but forgot they had it and either wasn't useful or died because they simply didn't remember everything they had available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Easiest: Ranger. You start out as a martial, learn some skills, can try out combat styles with some feat suggestions (combat style feats), then learn spells.

Worst: Brawler and prepared casters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Slayer is even easier. They're like the ranger, but without spells and the animal companion.

Worst is Medium. You need to learn 6 different classes and you need to be careful or you become an NPC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Druids are horrible for beginners - they do so many things it is too easy to try and do all of them and fail miserably.

Fighter, Ranger and Rogue are best to hit the ground running with minimal guidance. They won't be the most powerful, but they are great to start learning - as you learn you can then branch out.

Any full caster requires a lot more guidance and a lot more system knowledge. I actually would include many of the 6 level casters as well, just because many of them have internal subsystems and it isn't always obvious how all the moving parts gel (investigator and inquisitor for example)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarians are also pretty good to start out with. Even if you don't select rage powers wisely it's still pretty easy to be effective. The only trouble you run into with barbarians is being knocked unconscious and dying. Which is remedied with an easy house rule of treating core barbarian bonus hp as temp hp like the unchained barbarian does. That was being knocked unconscious doesn't result in auto-death.


Gunslingers are surprisingly bad for beginners. Action economy is key to the class and is overwhelming for beginners.


In my experience it roughly divides into two methods. Caster and fightman.

Playing a caster is easy. Get some spells, know what your favorites do, and just cast them. Building them can be hard when you lack the context of spell selection.

Fightman is easy. Pick a general fighting style and the experienced person introducing you to the game can tell you to pick up Power Attack. The difficulties come from micro math. Adding in Bless, plus Bardic Performance, minus Power Attack penalty, plus flank, etc etc, and your actual bonus can be as elusive as a greased up bigfoot. Nevermind the unwritten expectation to golfbag.

The actual 'hardest class' depends on the context. Are they new to RPGs in general? Is a veteran helping them? Limited books? Anything 1p?


Dilvias wrote:

Slayer is even easier. They're like the ranger, but without spells and the animal companion.

Worst is Medium. You need to learn 6 different classes and you need to be careful or you become an NPC.

I agree on slayer. They have a 'be better at all your core functions' mechanic- it boosts attack damage, and it boosts most social and sneaky skills and can be used infinitely.

I disagree about medium. You are right that mediums are hard to play 'as intended'- the thing with that much versatility. But in reality... I only view champion as 'good', with a side of hierophant when you need to fix ability damage/negative levels. If you try to branch out from there, you will often lack the feats/stats needed to be good at any of them.

I might just be overlooking the possible builds that can happen with other spirits... but since you have to invest feats into any build, it is hard to really switch around like that. Champion to hierophant can work well, since the hierophant can buff itself to still retain its attacks. But past that... I don't think it is usually worth it to go to other spirits unless you use that archetype that lets you do it on the fly. (sidenote- I avoid discussing archmage... but it hard arcane spell failure that interferes with your normal equipment, and you are just a pale imitation of a wizard).

Onto my own discussion- alchemists might not be easy, but I view them as a good choice to charm beginners.

They have quite a few moving parts... but it is not hard to make an alchemist the can always do SOMETHING in a situation. They can do melee, ranged nova, crowd control/debuff, buffs, and some skill monkeying with their 4+int skills (on an int class).

While you still have to specialize... the class can still do at least a bit in the other roles. A melee alchemist can at least throw bombs. A ranged alchemist could do a str mutagen after running out of bombs. etc.

Since you can easily make a build that can always contribute, that allows the player to remain engaged.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:

Best: Cleric and Druid

....
Worst: Fighter.

Emphatic disagreement. --If you're really a "beginner", that means you know almost nothing of the game mechanics.

Full-bore spellcasters (and especially ones with weaker-than-normal armor choices as well as animal-companion management necessities, i.e., stuff that isn't even in the CRB) are the absolute worst first choices because they require a great deal of system mastery in terms of not only dealing with stuff-that-WE-take-for-granted basics like defensive tactical positioning and AoO-avoidance, but the far more arcane process of selecting spells. Without prepped spell-cards, they're a nightmare to run if you don't have the spells and effects memorized. In contrast, all the numbers a fighter will need are on his character sheet, and they typically won't change much, if any, during combat. The player has just one piece of paper to keep track of and familiarize themselves with. They won't need to be constantly flipping through a book all the time.

Fighter? Make a dwarf with highest stat in con, get scale or splint starting armor, and a shield and a waraxe. Plop a skill point in swim so he doesn't drown right away. Feats are Shield Focus and Steel Soul. --That's a build that plays itself, makes its saves on auto-pilot, and is basically an imperious fireplug to most damage. The GM can slowly suggest feat choices along the way, and a multiclass level in Travel-domain cleric to shore up movement and social weaknesses, and put an underutilized wisdom score to much better use. The "beginning" player thus learns about tactical movement, the importance of saves and skills, and is made hip to the concept of multiclassing by very gently dipping a toe into a casting class -- all while in a very forgiving package. Dwarf is also a classic fantasy race that everyone is familiar with from Lord of the Rings, etc.

-- Dwarf fighter is the perfect PC for "Robert's girlfriend who's never played an RPG before", especially if she's an exuberant extrovert.

Worst classes? Lowered-AC "gimmick" type martials (such as Swashbuckler, Ranger, Barbarian, and Magus) built with a melee emphasis. In order to function, these require a large degree of combat system mastery that the beginner lacks by definition. The classes that I saw die most frequently at low level in PFS were greatsword barbarians and non-halfling TWF light-infantry. (Clerics failing reflex saves down the otyugh sewer-grate were a distant third.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with Slim. Fighters are straight-forward. "Take this sword and hit the enemy." Easy to understand and even if they don't pick the best feats, the basics of how the game works is presented in an easy to understand package.

The worst thing to give a beginner is a prepared caster. The third character I ever made was a druid. She was a mess. I still haven't fixed her up yet. There were simply too many choices that I didn't understand then and still have a little trouble with sometimes.

I quit making my wizard before I was even a third of the way through. My brain just burnt out.


Heather 540 wrote:
I agree with Slim. Fighters are straight-forward. "Take this sword and hit the enemy."

I'm tellin' yah: it's almost unnerving how much girls squeal in delight when they get to kill things with advanced cutlery.


Gonna +1 the slayer.

No magic, animal companion, or favored enemy to worry about unlike the ranger. Gets (prerequisite-ignoring) feats from a limited selection of combat styles, as well as a comparatively small list of slayer talents to choose from. Good amount of skill points, and the ability to get that little extra boost.


Slim Jim wrote:
Heather 540 wrote:
I agree with Slim. Fighters are straight-forward. "Take this sword and hit the enemy."
I'm tellin' yah: it's almost unnerving how much girls squeal in delight when they get to kill things with advanced cutlery.

I do laugh when my hunter or boar gets a crit and they get to attack again. My GM only allows one crit per turn though. And by that I mean if the hunter gets a crit and then crits again on her AoO, it doesn't start off another round of AoOs. Which I can understand, and 9 times out of 10 the opponent is dead anyway. Plus the Boar can still crit on his turn and start a round of AoOs of his own. XD


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

+1 for the Fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I haven't played much of the beginner classes, I personally think it's better for a beginner to go for prepared spell-casters, especially divine ones, than spontaneous ones. Sure preparing can be a bit of a hassle, but spontaneous casters are a lot easier to screw up with sub-optimal spell choices, while a prepared one, especially a divine one, can just swap them for a different set each day. Of course if someone is coming from 5e, then the Arcanist is a good alternative. Since druid has a lot to manage, I think the best caster to start with is Cleric.

Now for easy martials, Fighters are an obvious choice, but Paladins are also a good way to start, as the features can help with role playing

Now for the worst beginner class, I would say the Hunter is the worst class you could give a new player, because of the combination of:


  • two having to figure out your feats (which is standard)
  • figuring out your (full scaling) pet's feats, stats, and armor, since you will need it to fight with you.
  • having to search through two classes, ranger and druid, spell lists and taking the lower level if applicable
  • the fact you learn said nature spells as a spontaneous caster, and a lot of those spells are situational
  • the whole animal focus thing you have to keep track of
  • pet tricks, which include skirmisher tricks too, which don't always integrate well for the pet
  • and worst of all, teamwork feats, which are not only a niche thing that most wouldn't know about, it heavily favors melee (which can mess with people that play WoW), and many Team Work feats require in-depth knowledge of exploiting Attacks of Opportunity to control and wrack up damage between you and your pet.

To be honest, my first Pathfinder character was a ranged Kobold Hunter, and it took me quite a bit to learn everything, and even then, I still felt ineffective outside of my raptor animal companion. My next character, a Ratfolk Alchemist, felt rather easy in comparison, and I felt like I contributed a lot more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh good lord, you are right. hunters are horrible for beginners. It took me ages to even begin to realize the advantages brought by teamwork feats- outflank, improved outflank, and paired opportunist to get a ton of extra hits from crits (still not sure how an archer build 'works'; it practically seems like a core rogue without sneak attack)

Even if you dump a wizard on a new player, they can at least figure out how to spam fireballs. But if you don't use teamwork, hunters are just off brank, weaker rangers with a few more spells.

The Exchange

Yeah. . . I think you need to narrow down what you mean by “best” and “new.”

If you are going for sheer ease of teaching a new player, fighter is the best hands down. For the first couple of levels all they have to worry about is basic stat generation and taking feats (and a couple of skills).

If you are asking “what’s a character that will be effective and fun for a new player in a long campaign?” then there are a variety of choices.


Hm... Well, it depends on the player (some are very open and flexible, others sit down with a very clear idea of what they want to play) but I quite like letting new players try Rangers or (with the right GM) paladins.

Starting with a cleric is to push them straight into the deep end of the pool. The massive cleric spell list can be really overwhelming for a rookie, who frequently feel like they need to know what every single spell does. I'd argue druid is even worse than cleric since you have to stay on top of both the extensive spell list, an animal companion, and eventually wildshape. I'm reluctant to have even experienced players play druids because they can so easily become time hogs at the table.

On the other hand, starting a newbie with a fighter is to never let them out of the kiddie pool. Fighter gameplay is simultaneously quite complicated (you can make competent fighters but it requires a lot of dumpster diving) and essentially static in that you'll mostly do the same thing over and over again, and runs the risk of boring a new player once they got over the combat mechanics of playing a fighter. Zero skill points also heavily limit their ability to successfully interact with the world around them, which can be off-putting.

Enter the happy compromise that is the ranger. You start off as a 'fighter' with good list of pre-selected relevant feats (you dont have to look through ~2000 combat feats to get what you want) and a good selection of skills to explore the skill system. Favored Enemy introduces you to class-based roll modifiers without crippling your character if you forget to apply them.

Next you get a few levels to explore these subsystems and get a better handle of your character.

Then at level 4 you're slowly introduced to spellcasting in the form of a short but potent spell list. Again it's not a big deal if you play a ranger that never uses his spells, but it's a great way for curious players to start experimenting with magic.
Hunter's Bond also comes online at level 4. As a GM you've been able to watch your new player learn and grow over the past three levels so you should have a good idea if he'll be able to handle an animal companion without feeling overwhelmed, or perhaps suggest that he may be better off going with the slightly less exciting but much more user-friendly Party Bond instead.


Dilvias wrote:
Slayer is even easier. They're like the ranger, but without spells and the animal companion.

And without Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain to worry about, either, instead having the simple-yet-versatile Studied Target.

Slayer is also like the Rogue, but with more straight-up combat competence and less reliance on Sneak Attack and positioning.


Bloodrealm wrote:
Dilvias wrote:
Slayer is even easier. They're like the ranger, but without spells and the animal companion.

And without Favoured Enemy and Favoured Terrain to worry about, either, instead having the simple-yet-versatile Studied Target.

Slayer is also like the Rogue, but with more straight-up combat competence and less reliance on Sneak Attack and positioning.

Slayers have sneak attack, but they are not reliant on it. It is enough sneak attack to reward new players that keep attention to positioning, but not so much that they HAVE to position.

Heck, the class practically tells you how to build it- studied target tells you most of the skills you will likely want to grab. As for combat styles... I still always turn to the ranger section when I want to remember "What are the archery feats again?".


I firmly believe that an ideal beginner class is one that educates the player as much as possible--but not so much at once that the player is perpetually confused or paralyzed by a multitude of options. So it should offer things to think about at each level (so that the player learns different systems and has some control over the character's direction), but the player shouldn't feel like they'll be trapped if they choose something "wrong".

Best: Ranger. A manageable number of choices per level, but exposure to most of the game's core systems (melee combat, ranged combat, spellcasting, pet management) without overwhelming the player with options. If a player isn't interested in some aspect (such as animal companions or spells), there are class options or archetypes that trade those away.

Worst: Gunslinger. I've seen little variation (in build or play) from one gunslinger to another, and they offer little in the way of educational value. Maybe use for Player's First One-Shot or if the player really has no interest in game mechanics at all.


Personal experience:

Worst class for a beginner was the Cleric. Some more experienced players showing new players the cleric treat it like a heal-bot, yet there's a lot more to them. Full armor proficiencies, prepared spells, domains and per-day-use abilities, feat decisions that kind of matter... Then by the time they understand it somewhat in the late levels there's not a lot for them.

Best class I felt was the Rogue. Rogues get a good amount of variables to play with and experiment, they get good skill points to pepper about, and in combat they have a pretty clear role. Position for sneak attack. It's easy to start, difficult to master, good to learn in my opinion.


While there are certainly classes that are easier to get a handle on than others I don't feel that this corresponds with which classes are 'better' or 'worse' for beginners. It all comes down to the player, I know advanced players who like to keep their characters basic and I know players who at the beginning gleefully threw themselves into the more complex character options.

The best class for a beginner is whatever they want to play that is suitable for the campaign. I've known people ending up playing characters they don't like or put off playing altogether because the GM restricted them to 'beginner' classes. The former was the case with the party sorcerer-tuned-magus.

The beginner player in question pushed towards the sorcerer/ some of the other players. After a number of months playing he told me that while he was enjoying playing the game but not playing a sorcerer. Once he explained to me what he wanted to be able to do I immediately knew that the magus was a better option. The GM declared a time skip during which we could rework our characters however we pleased so the sorcerer is now a bladebound hex crafter magus. I think after playing for some months it can be worth the GM giving the players a free retcon/rework of their characters so they can iron out any problems etc.


It also depends where your beginners are coming from. If they ever touched a video game RPG before or some complicated board games yeah Fighter is probably the best. If they have a few “geeks” experiences, then the basic selection can be larger.

I found Sorcerers/Oracles hein really good for new players. They are thematic, enjoyable, and allow you to learn a lot about the rules of the game without being too complicated. You just have to help them on the spell selection. Figthers (even with a few archetypes) and Barbarians are probably the best martials to start. Monk (core and Unchained) and Paladin are really strong too because they can survive a lot of mistakes you could do as a new player. Slayer is also indeed a really strong choice and people like that Assassin feeling.

Brawlers and Mediums are probably the most difficult because the requires a huge part of system mastery to be strong. Prepared spellcasters are tough too, because unless you know well the threats and spells, sorcerers and oracles will always be better. Druid is probably the most difficult ones (summons, polymorphe and prepared spells). Occult classes can be tough because they have a lot of abilities going on. The classes that profit from the action economy are difficult too, like Gunsligers, Magus and the like. Finally the jack of all trades but master of none can make the players lost in what they can and should do like Bards, Alchemysts, Scalds....


well, much as I like sorcs and oracles, I'm not sure they are so good for beginners, due to their very limited spell choice... the player must know exactly wheat he'll be doing because, if the situation does not go well with his spells, he becomes useless (I better know, I'm currently playing a game where my char is specializing in fire attack spells, and the group decided to attack a bunch of fire cutists who all have fire resistance or immunity grrrr... I'm deeply regretting taking fireball instead of dispel magic)


Klorox wrote:
well, much as I like sorcs and oracles, I'm not sure they are so good for beginners, due to their very limited spell choice... the player must know exactly wheat he'll be doing because, if the situation does not go well with his spells, he becomes useless (I better know, I'm currently playing a game where my char is specializing in fire attack spells, and the group decided to attack a bunch of fire cutists who all have fire resistance or immunity grrrr... I'm deeply regretting taking fireball instead of dispel magic)

Yeah of course you got to help them select spells. But they are probably the easiest caster to learn the game. And for your example, that is tough luck man it could have happened to everyone even a veteran. Sometimes the adventure just don’t go in a good way for your characters and even if system mastery allows you to not be completely useless you still have counters to whatever you do.

Dark Archive

lemeres wrote:

Oh good lord, you are right. hunters are horrible for beginners. It took me ages to even begin to realize the advantages brought by teamwork feats- outflank, improved outflank, and paired opportunist to get a ton of extra hits from crits (still not sure how an archer build 'works'; it practically seems like a core rogue without sneak attack)

Even if you dump a wizard on a new player, they can at least figure out how to spam fireballs. But if you don't use teamwork, hunters are just off brank, weaker rangers with a few more spells.

Archer builds for hunters benefit greatly from their spells. Gravity bow, eagle eye, named bullet, arrow eruption, echolocation, bow spirit, aspect of the falcon, etc. allow ranged hunters to lay waste from afar.

They control the shape of the battlefield at the higher levels with spells like control winds, tar pool, stone spikes, wall of stone, wall of thorns, ice storm, sirocco, etc.

I played one through Mummy's Mask and found it to be immensely fun and effective.


Ok not sure if this has been answered before if so please point me to it. I am re-entering Pathfinder after a loooong lay off so many things have changed. I am looking at playing a witch character since i usually play a ranger rogue or cleric of some type and am looking outside of my comfort zone. I would appreciate any advice anyone could offer in setting up and playing this character class. Races are open so kind of looking at all possibilities once i figure that out also. My starting stats are as follows have not placed them yet. 17, 18, 15, 15, 17, 13. Method for rolling was 10 plus 1d8. racial bonus has not been added yet. I am open to any help i can get from the Hive mind in building a strong character that can survive undead and demons as well as standard creatures.


Dennis Cieslak 509 wrote:
Ok not sure if this has been answered before if so please point me to it. I am re-entering Pathfinder after a loooong lay off so many things have changed. I am looking at playing a witch character since i usually play a ranger rogue or cleric of some type and am looking outside of my comfort zone. I would appreciate any advice anyone could offer in setting up and playing this character class. Races are open so kind of looking at all possibilities once i figure that out also. My starting stats are as follows have not placed them yet. 17, 18, 15, 15, 17, 13. Method for rolling was 10 plus 1d8. racial bonus has not been added yet. I am open to any help i can get from the Hive mind in building a strong character that can survive undead and demons as well as standard creatures.

disregard this post as i added it to the Advice forum where it belongs if i knew how to delete it i would thank you.


Dennis Cieslak 509 wrote:
Dennis Cieslak 509 wrote:
Ok not sure if this has been answered before if so please point me to it. I am re-entering Pathfinder after a loooong lay off so many things have changed. I am looking at playing a witch character since i usually play a ranger rogue or cleric of some type and am looking outside of my comfort zone. I would appreciate any advice anyone could offer in setting up and playing this character class. Races are open so kind of looking at all possibilities once i figure that out also. My starting stats are as follows have not placed them yet. 17, 18, 15, 15, 17, 13. Method for rolling was 10 plus 1d8. racial bonus has not been added yet. I am open to any help i can get from the Hive mind in building a strong character that can survive undead and demons as well as standard creatures.

disregard this post as i added it to the Advice forum where it belongs if i knew how to delete it i would thank you.

There's a button to delete a post but it disappears after the first hour, same as the edit button.


If I were to stick with Core for a new player, any of the full martials except for Monk, and Wizard. Wizard is surprisingly light on what they get per level, after the first level decisions most of it is spells and an extra feat sporadically. You can help a player with those first level decisions and have them take a full caster for a whirl!


I'd choose spontaneous casting over prepared any day of the week. Wizard? No way. Not for beginners when a sorcerer will do.


At first I felt the same way, but I kept seeing new players becoming disillusioned and eventually wanting to switch to another class when playing sorcerer. I look to what classes to introduce not just by how easy a class is to understand and play but also enjoyment. When I talked to these players universally they switched because they felt like a one-trick pony, and were getting bored with having limited choices for spell casting.

That's primarily why I like Wizards for new players. It may be book-keeping, but it also allows a player to try sub-optimal or intriguing spells because they wont feel as worried about their characters effectiveness in the long run. They also don't have to worry about bloodline powers and feats, which bloodline spells look cool and what 1-2 spells they want to cast all the time. They grab a book, pick what looks cool and if need be can switch or spend some gold to try out a new spell, which sorcerers can't really do. Overall I've found more success for new players personally in that regard, though every table is different.


Beginner 1st-level wizard hard rules:
1) Buy a guard dog for a meat-shield -- they're as cheap as a scroll of Infernal Healing, and have the capacity to ward off a lot more inbound damage than 1st-level healing will cover.
2) Don't cast defensive spells once combat has already begun (even if you go first). Stand behind the dog and go offensive.


Best: what the player wants to play. When I was just starting out, I wanted what amounted to a Magus: physical and magical damage with at least some armour. Going straight for magus would have been both easier and more effective than the hot mess I ended up with that had multiple rewrites as the number of books we had increased. I had no reason to fear the complexity either. I get that not everbody is that into game mechanics, which is why it's best to ask.

With no input on player preference, I lean towards the Ranger or Bard. I'm of the opinion that a good beginner option touches on several aspects of the game so a player can have an easier time choosing what to go into. Ranger has full combat, minor spellcasting, a companion, and an intro to creature types, while bard has a bit more casting and a way to contribute even if you have difficulty getting in position.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Best and worst classes for beginners ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.