I'm going to start running informal demos at a local game store to attract new players for organized play (OP) - and not just new OP players, but people entirely new to the game.
The demos will be advertised on a Pathfinder meetup group, which means that most attendees will know how to play the Pathfinder RPG (which I've never played, BTW), but will have never played the card game.
After each demo, I'd like to hand out a one-page summary that provides links, suggestions, etc., for someone wanting to start OP. (I think there are community use PACG images that I can appropriate for this purpose?)
Anyway, one section of the handout will contain a list of class/character decks that provide good "starter" characters. I've not looked through every class deck, but I've seen many of them. So this is my draft list of "beginner" decks:
Rogue
Wizard
Sorcerer
Bard
Fighter
Paladin
Barbarian
Monk
Cleric
Gunslinger
Ranger
Do you think anything should be added/removed? Or does my question not make sense, and anyone familiar with the RPG should be able to competently and confidently play any class deck?
Regardless, these are just suggestions - and anyone can use whatever character they like in OP.
I know there's also the issue that some decks are considered to be underpowered, but that's where the Ultimate add-on decks can come to the rescue.
Finally, if a one-page recruitment/information handout already exists, it would be great if someone could post the link. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest issue is that the boons in the original 7 classes (Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard) had to support 4 characters. That resulted in some of those characters just not being well supported for the boons they had to have in order to function well. Some of the characters in those decks work fine, but you might have long stretches where there just isn't anything better to grab.
The Ultimate decks fix that problem by allowing you to tailor your deck selection by adding a whole second deck that focuses around the type of boons you need. However, then you are juggling two decks and for beginners I'd avoid it.
I'd stick with the middle of the run class decks (Paladin, Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Oracle, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, Gunslinger and Warpriest). These are all really solid and track pretty well as alternatives to the base classes.
After that you get a little more into the weird and potentially more complex. That being said, I really think with the design of ACG, most any of the class decks are pretty easy to pick up and play. You might not get all the tricks but you grow into your character slow enough that most people who play RPGs are going to pick it up as they go.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all; my simplest, fastest answer is the same as Rhynn Davrie's above. I would not recommend the original 7 class decks, and the next series of Class Decks (perhaps excluding Witch, due to the added Cohort complexity) are relatively low in complexity but more interesting and balanced in execution.
However, I feel there's a bit more to consider, depending on what your goals are specifically. So some additional considerations to make;
Why not the Original 7 Class Decks?
- Firstly, the class deck boons are consistently insufficient to solely support the playstyle of certain characters in these class decks. There are Clerics capable of Arcane magics (Zarlova), in a deck with no Arcane only spells. There are those suited to 2-handed weapons, with virtually none in the box. There are wizards suited to dexterity weapons, with precious few to choose from.
- In my personal opinion, the boons just aren't very interesting, usually. The character designs themselves are fine (if occasionally underwhelming compared to later characters), but they have relatively bare boned cards to pick from, and with Ultimate Add On decks some classes will make precious little use of their core Class Deck at all.
- Encouraging people to play a class that requires approximately double the monetary investment (assuming the original Class Deck and the Ultimate Add-On are the same price) may put people off.
- The original 7 class decks make somewhat more use of phrasing or mechanics that were phased out or replaced later. The best example is that it isn't until about the Oracle Class deck (not sure when, precisely) that "Invokes" was introduced, which is a useful rules word for players to be familiar with, depending on the season being played.
Complexity Considerations
- It really depends on the audience how much complexity it's safe to add.
- To keep the PACG complexity as low as possible, I'd avoid Class Decks that include Cohorts, as well as Class Decks that feature characters that require pretty precise understanding of rules that are normally unique to an Adventure Path (like Corrupted cards) or specific corner-cases (like OA2 Mavaro and 'Affecting the Check' and timing).
Characters under 'Grey Areas' and Rules Debates
- Here's another consideration; should we be encouraging brand new players to purchase class decks with characters that are still awaiting rules clarifications?
- If so, what do we define as "a clarification"? A FAQ has been released is a pretty clear one, but what about an official hinting about RAI? What about an official outright stating "The intent is X"? What about an official saying "this is under discussion, but we're planning on X"? In any of these cases, is it fair that our only source for explaining a character power is to tell new players to go visit very specific forum threads, some of which go for many pages?
- Personally, I feel we should avoid any class decks that include non-trivial debates about the workings of one or more of their characters that have not been officially FAQed. Due to the "Skill replacement and Varril" debate, which has not been resolved formally, this cuts out Inquisitor, Occult Adventures 1, Hell's Vengeance 2 and Alchemist.
- In addition, if there are known mechanical exploits, which have not been FAQed, which are trivial to generate in nature from a single class deck, this should also probably exclude a recommendation from that class deck. Hell's Vengeance 2 falls prey to this (The "Animate Dead" + "Robe of Bones" issue), and if being played in non-OP Mummy's Mask, Skizza from the Gunslinger deck can fall into this category due to his exploit with Alchemists' Kit.
Upcoming Rules Changes
- One final consideration. Is now the best time to be going out of the way to introduce new players to PACG... when a lot of rules are on the eve of being changed? In 2019, we'll see the PACG Core Set and the start of the next AP being dropped, but with them will come rules changes that have not yet been finalised; just seen in playtests. Some of these rules significantly alter the workings of existing characters in Class Decks.
- The best example of this comes from the Druid Class Deck, since Lini's "Menhir Savant" role may be rendered almost entirely inoperable, based on new rules about closed locations. However, a lesser example may also be seen in Oloch from the Warpriest class deck, since he may be weakened somewhat due to another rules change in the playtest that also allows other players to 'stand in' for combat checks. Oloch will likely remain better at it, but the overall power level will undoubtedly decrease when the capability is no longer entirely unique to him.
- It's a matter of argument how much we want to consider possible, unconfirmed, rules changes and whether that should impact our recommendations. Or whether we should give recommendations in the face of them. However, one could make the argument that, at least, Druid potentially shouldn't be recommended as at least one Role card may be effectively wiped from it in less than a year from now.
All in all, if we take the most conservative approach possible from the points I've made above, we should take the list that Rhynn made with some class decks removed due to complexity, ongoing rules debates or potentially significant upcoming rules changes:
Paladin, Monk, Druid, Barbarian, Oracle, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, Gunslinger and Warpriest.
Not necessarily recommending such an approach, but there's an argument to be made for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Despite my respect for the impressive efforts on this thread, I think the above approaches are *too* conservative.
I played OP since season 0, playing that season with 3 tables of folks, and we had a blast with the original 7 class decks.
Some of the criticisms above don't cause substantial grief (Zarlova is just fine without Arcane spells, for example; in fact, she's fine with the scant Attack-spell offerings in the Cleric deck; although yes, she improves if you add Ultimate Magic.)
I think what matters most is avoiding characters with tricky/complex powers. Newbies could play Inquisitors, but should avoid Varril, for example.
I certainly think my approach was too conservative, but worth mentioning. Even so, it seems inelegant to have a page saying "We recommend the following class decks (but don't play X character from them, because reasons)". And my single biggest problem with the original 7 class decks is that they're so boring to build with compared to later decks... but to be fair, that's because I'm familiar with boons from the various APs, which new players presumably wouldn't be.
And the undefined nature of Mother Myrtle and combat magic, as well as Varril and weapons, is pretty significant to me. We've had a half-ruling given in the forums, but no FAQ to point to players to say "This is why they can/cannot". We certainly can't lean on the intended rule (only 1 card/power may define the skill you use), because then a full 5 characters, at minimum, are effected, with at least 3 being non-intentional (Zelhara, Valeros, Rivani).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh I'll definitely agree, the first wave of decks definitely work. I played the cleric deck sword Kyra through season 0 and Wrath Enora with the Wizard deck for season 1. Both got through the season with little effort. The decks were fine, that being said, I still remember feeling the lack of swords for Kyra.
The decks that came out after the first wave just felt better tuned and after playing with my oracle deck (Ramexes!!) for season 2 I decided the first 7 just didn't have enough support for me, they always felt lacking. Not much, but just not as good.
So for me, if I was introducing someone to the game, I'd stick with my original list. We'd make a call on any weird ruling on powers/timing and move on. And while I agree that the cohorts add some complexity, I feel weird not having an arcane spell caster to recommend and the witch cohorts aren't too strange.
Definitely not saying those are the only decks I'd go with, but I think they are a great starting set that definitely learned from the original wave and then only got better with each release.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will once again be on the elcoderdude side.
For beginners the point isn't to have "optimized" characters, but rather easy to learn ones and easy to learn rules.
If you think old decks are limited... you've just been spoiled by the latest tricks.
I mean it's like the RPG : a barbarian or a rogue for example are EASY to play. And that's the best way to start.
If you think you need to play Mavaro to have fun, you may have an issue IMHO. I mean it's OK for you, but not for the beginner you were once.
IMHO.
Thanks for all the feedback. Lots of great points raised - including rules/FAQ issues with certain characters, etc.
Sounds like people are generally in agreement that the original 7 class decks are still playable and fun - particularly for beginners. That's good to hear, as I wasn't entirely sure.
On the handout, it actually might be easier to list the few boxes that are "advanced" (as a warning) rather than list the many boxes that are good for beginners. The advanced set: HV1, HV2, OA1, OA2, Tales, and maybe a few others.
The issue was also raised as to whether it might be better to recruit new players after the new sets are released. I'd say that we should always be supportive of recruiting new players, as it's healthy for the community, and - for OP - the class decks will still be valid with the new sets. And on a more selfish note, it allows me to play more PACG and teach, both of which I enjoy. :)
Also, anyone that I recruit now into OP I'll be able to guide through the rules changes in the new sets - whenever the OP campaigns are released for those sets. So the rules burden will be on me, really, as opposed to the newcomers. Which, as the "rules" guy in my playing groups, is pretty much always the case.
Anyway, thanks again. When I put together the one-page handout (sooner rather than later, hopefully), I'll post a link in case other people find it useful. Just be aware that my graphic design capabilities are... um... not good.
And if anyone else has comments, feel free to add to the discussion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would probably just stick to any of the pre-gens, or the original 7 class deck pre-gens. That's what they were made for. You could always caution them that other characters outside of the pre-gens may be more complex and leave it up to them to decide.
I agree that starting out you don't need an optimized or min/maxed character to succeed. Just because new content has been pushed out doesn't invalidate the original class decks. I played through practically all of season of runelords with the cleric deck. It wasn't until the end of AD5 that Ultimate combat was released and I added it so Kyra could get some extra swords. I think I would've been fine sticking with just the cleric deck though. Likewise I've played season 3 with people using the rogue, wizard, cleric, fighter class decks and the tables have been fine. Sure, we lose sometimes, but it can happen to anyone. My point is that the old class decks can stand up. If you're wanting to min/max, then maybe newer decks and/or the ultimate decks will aid you in that. But for someone starting out that's not needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger was a popular choice for brand-new players at the beginning of this season, particularly Harsk. Easy to see why; very strong combat, diverse array of skills, lots of blessings and a built-in combat assist so you're always engaged, even on other players' turns.
The Clerics have been total rock stars from the very beginning. All champs in a fight, and the whole table's best friend with all the built-in healing. The Cleric deck on its own might not be "optimized," but it's pretty decent and can support any of the four characters through a campaign. With Kyra's "add-on" powers to her combat checks with swords, I was fine keeping the humble basic Longswords in her deck through pretty much the entirety of Season 0.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played Fighter and Wizard and never had a problem with having to take cards that just didn't feel like they worked. I think it was Ranger (Arabundi?) that I had to take weapons that used the "wrong" skill early on. I think 2 Rangers have Melee and 2 have Ranged, and there aren't 5 basics of each type.
There are still some "odd" choices in later class decks. Summoner has Staff of Cackling Wrath, which, because it has the attack trait and counts as playing a spell, counts as playing a spell with the attack trait has to be buried (or banished for Zetha) and so is a one shot card.
There are still some "odd" choices in later class decks. Summoner has Staff of Cackling Wrath, which, because it has the attack trait and counts as playing a spell, counts as playing a spell with the attack trait has to be buried (or banished for Zetha) and so is a one shot card.
True, and there are some in other decks as well. Pathfinder Tales has at least one armor that is particularly weak, but can be recharged to add a bonus to recharging a spell... but none of the Pathfinder Tales characters actually need to roll to recharge spells. But the oddities are reasonably few and far between, I would argue, compared to character powers and role cards in the original Class Decks that don't really mesh well if you're playing them in OP (without Add-On decks).
At least in the Summoner class deck, you can justify almost any boon because the summoner Alase is built around the fact that she can hand off cards to other players on the fly, including when they're starting an encounter. In the Staff's case, it lets her arm a caster who has no attack spells at the ready. But on the flipside, you can justify the Pathfinder Tales spellweaver leather armor (or a name to that effect) because it can be played with base set Wizards and Sorcerers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that for introduction the game to totally new persons, original 7 and using the pregen characters is best option! People come to play for 30 min. They learn basic rules and see how the game works. They most propably don`t even play the one whole scenario... So pregen for original 7 is the beta choise for the simlicity of them. You can demo some new adwanced decks after They have tryed those pregen to show that if you Are interested, there Are some really cool characters out there to players who wand to get some serious obcure skills and powers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
After each demo, I'd like to hand out a one-page summary that provides links, suggestions, etc., for someone wanting to start OP. (I think there are community use PACG images that I can appropriate for this purpose?)
...
Finally, if a one-page recruitment/information handout already exists, it would be great if someone could post the link. :)
I would love to know if there is such a thing as well. I am participating in my first PFSACG game online as well as looking into organizing some games at a local store so such a handout would be very useful.
I have put together a few links mainly for online use but I also shared and collected a few that I think would be handy.
Other links
Some of the links on Paizo I directed a few to include the rule book, the PFSACG guide, deck lists and character sheets. Errata for different sets could be useful as well (including the different sets of errata for the 2 different printings of RotRL). Also, if any players get hooked enough to buy their own sets to play the Adventure Path for that sets, folks at Boardgame Geeks have an adventure guide that helps weave a more verbose and compelling story in order to tie the scenarios together.
I would love to know if there is such a thing as [a one-page quickstart guide for OP] as well.
If you PM me I can send you the one-page summary that I came up with. Feel free to throw out any/all of it and make it your own. :)
You know at GenCon they had a nifty 2sided info sheet for the character decks that were categorized that helped new players pick a deck. I'm not sure where they got it but it was at every table. It was really helpful.