So it is pretty much accepted that pathfinder starts to become a lot more complicated as you hit higher levels and this can be a barrier for some people
I would guess a combination of :
- a laundry list of stacking and non stacking modiifiers
- lots of class abilities
- increased enemy abilities such as magic etc
These can make things tough on newer players who find the rules complex
Now say we remove “play a different system” from the table ...
What classes best suit the increase in complexity and difficult as the game moves up in levels?
Most people suggest fighters for new players but I can see at least three issues:
- overwhelmed with feat options and just freezing in confusion
- starting to become markedly less effect without very specific spells once enemies start improving resistances and movement with magic
- relying on the laundry list of bonuses that I mentioned before - some of which stack and some do not
So are there any that avoid some of these issues above or is it kind of unavoidable
This is basically a “recommend a class for a new player” thread but with a bit more specifics ...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say a Paladin with a two handed weapon and the Power Attack feat. Most of their major benefits are passives or auras like Divine Grace or immunity to disease and fear.
Just have them figure out the modifiers for Smite Evil and Power Attack and that's pretty much it. If they are new, you can remind them they have lay on hands to heal themselves before swinging from time to time.
They wear heavy armor, have strong saves, snicker at DR, don't care about resistances and basically don't need any feats outside power attack. They have a touch of spell casting, but it's very limited and not even necessary to be effective.
Obviously there are ways to optimize playing a paladin, but the floor is quite high since "I smite and attack" is rarely the worst plan.
|
Bard? They bring a lot of knowledge skills (only require a d20 roll and result is automatic, plus its very hard for all knowledge skills to be covered by other party members) and supporting magic/abilities for the party (haste, good hope, mirror image, displacement, dimension door, dispel magic, inspire courage is probably all you need. Maybe some spells that end inspire courage for an effect). The other party members can figure out the battle plan/tactics.
Slayer. Slayer is a beautifully well-designed class that gets overlooked way too often and is perfect for things like this.
Sorcerer. Something simple like Sage Bloodline.
Combat is hard. Combat is deadly. It requires forethought and positioning. I find that players take a million years to really grasp those.
Magic Missile, on the other hand? They catch up with it in no time.
Furthermore, a player playing a melee class always gets surprised by how magic works and they don't really know what stops it or what enhances it.
This is because while combat is relatively intuitive, magic is made-up malarkey.
Going with a Sorcerer to start off will allow the player to get more involved into these systems too.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this about picking a character to play from level 1 that will still be good if they make it to high level (by which time they should have got the hang of the basic game mechanics if they've been paying attention)? Or about letting a new player make a high-level character from scratch?
Sorcerer is a good class for a new player to start with from level 1, if you give them some help picking their spells.
It's not such a good class if you're starting at high level, since you have to learn to pick between about twenty different spells.
I actually think melee characters are some of the hardest for new players. Even if they understand their own abilities, which can be quite a bit, keeping track of all the other situations effects can be a challenge.
Blasters are usually pretty simple, but except for a few builds, they are generally less effective than one would expect, which of course isn't fun.
Spontaneous casters are the next easiest. Sure, at higher level they have a lot of options, but those are defined options and can be learned and don't change all the time.
I think though that if you start at level one, and are willing to help with some guidance, particularly in things like feat and spell selection, just about anyone can handle just about any character if they are interested in learning. My issues with needing simple characters for players isn't really about 'inexperience' but lack of interest in the system, with the game being more about social interaction and, perhaps, the acting aspect for them.
So the Paladin idea is a good one since you can make a Paladin who runs largely on autopilot who just will not die. But "navigating the Paladin's code" might be a sticky wicket for a new player.
I might suggest the Inquisitor since it's just such a strong chassis, it's a good way to learn about actions (you have a lot of good swift actions), and having all the different judgements and being able to swap teamwork feats gives a player the ability to try a bunch of different things and see what works best.
|
|
So the Paladin idea is a good one since you can make a Paladin who runs largely on autopilot who just will not die. But "navigating the Paladin's code" might be a sticky wicket for a new player.
I might suggest the Inquisitor since it's just such a strong chassis, it's a good way to learn about actions (you have a lot of good swift actions), and having all the different judgements and being able to swap teamwork feats gives a player the ability to try a bunch of different things and see what works best.
The Paladin's code can be thorny sometimes, but "be good to people" isn't necessarily that hard normally. if you're gm'ing for a new player, you shouldn't throw a bunch of moral quandary's at him as a paladin.
Anyway, I love the inquisitor for its options and versatility. I've played two of them. But I feel like if the thing you are afraid of is complexity, inquisitor is not the way to go, especially at high levels.
Generally, inquisitors have to choose between more than half a dozen judgments every combat and have their attack and damage bonus change almost every round.
For example: Say your base to hit is +12 and you do 1d8+8 damage at level nine. You can cast divine favor and activate justice/destruction judgments, Now it's +17 to hit for 1d8+14 damage. Next round you throw on Bane, now it's +19 for 1d8+2d6+16. Maybe there's a haste thrown up for +20 to hit. Toss a bard in the party now it might be +22 for 1d8+2d6+18.
If that wall of numbers seems confusing, imagine a new player trying to all those tweaks on the fly. That's assuming they play the class properly. I've sat at plenty of PFS tables with new players running inquisitors who completely forget to throw on a judgment or bane and just run in and swing for the 1d8+6 damage or whatever.
I'm not even getting into the challenges a new player might have choosing a decent domain, learning their god, choosing a spell list, selecting a combat style (archery, two-handed, sword/board) and learning/memorizing all the teamwork feats.
TL,DR: Inquistors have awesome versatility and a ton of choices to make in char creation and in combat. This is great for experienced players, but a real drawback for a first timer at high levels.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this about picking a character to play from level 1 that will still be good if they make it to high level (by which time they should have got the hang of the basic game mechanics if they've been paying attention)? Or about letting a new player make a high-level character from scratch?
Sorcerer is a good class for a new player to start with from level 1, if you give them some help picking their spells.
It's not such a good class if you're starting at high level, since you have to learn to pick between about twenty different spells.
For the sake of argument we are talking about a “new” player playing a character level 9 or above
In actuality we are talking about a player who has struggled with certain aspects of the rules since starting and only ever played fighters because everyone has suggested it as the way to go for new players. But the mental maths quickly stacks up when there is flanking, buff spells , power attack etc
So I was wondering if there was an alternate suggestion where less on the spot addition is involved
For the starting from one as a new player I agree on paladin and sorcerer as paladin is a strong chassis and as long as the gm isn’t a piece of work the code isn’t a problem. Sorcerer eases you into spellcasting slowly on a limited basis
But coming in at a higher level (say due to character change or death) seems like it could be tricky
|
|
I think at high levels, almost every class is going to have to do some addition/subtraction to get their damage numbers right.
If you don't have some kind of modifier as a martial, be it rage/smite/judgment/power attack or whatever, you are probably going to suck.
So maybe your player might be better suited to something that doesn't require much addition or subtraction because it doesn't do any damage. Have him make a character that focuses on buffing or disabling enemies.
A sorcerer/wizard that focuses on transmutation and enchantment spells might be good. Stuff like haste, slow, suggestion, hold person, bulls strength doesn't require him to do the math and is still quite useful to the party.
This might be a bit off the wall, but maybe give him a mesmerist who focuses on single target save or suck spells might be solid for him. Have him take the thing that gives him a 50-50 chance to affect even mindless creatures with his stare and he can go to town trying to hit stuff with terrible remorse, hold monster etc. He can also do all the pre-buff stuff with the mesmerist tricks.
I hope some of these suggestions are a little helpful. I do think spellcasting with certain schools is actually the easiest thing to do in pathfinder. Just cast a spell and hope the bad guy's dice suck.
|
|
I think at high levels, almost every class is going to have to do some addition/subtraction to get their damage numbers right.
If you don't have some kind of modifier as a martial, be it rage/smite/judgment/power attack or whatever, you are probably going to suck.So maybe your player might be better suited to something that doesn't require much addition or subtraction because it doesn't do any damage. Have him make a character that focuses on buffing or disabling enemies.
A sorcerer/wizard that focuses on transmutation and enchantment spells might be good. Stuff like haste, slow, suggestion, hold person, bulls strength doesn't require him to do the math and is still quite useful to the party.
This might be a bit off the wall, but maybe give him a mesmerist who focuses on single target save or suck spells might be solid for him. Have him take the thing that gives him a 50-50 chance to affect even mindless creatures with his stare and he can go to town trying to hit stuff with terrible remorse, hold monster etc. He can also do all the pre-buff stuff with the mesmerist tricks.
I hope some of these suggestions are a little helpful. I do think spellcasting with certain schools is actually the easiest thing to do in pathfinder. Just cast a spell and hope the bad guy's dice suck.
Spellcasting can be overwhelming for somebody new to the game entirely.
How new are they to PF or tabletop altogether?
Personally, if they wanted to go real simple like ranged. A good place to start like a ranger with bow focus. An animal companion is a huge plus, too. :)
In actuality we are talking about a player who has struggled with certain aspects of the rules since starting and only ever played fighters because everyone has suggested it as the way to go for new players.
I think part of the issue is that Fighter is not a good class for beginners. It's very hard to make a well-rounded character, meaning the player will not participate in parts of the game and thus not learn those parts, and unless using advanced materials (like AWT). The sheer lack of interesting class features makes them miss out on even beginner stuff like daily recource management (like Ki Pool) or selectable class features (like Rage Powers). Hell, vanilla Fighter doesn't even have a single active class feature, it's a commoner with more feats and higher numbers!
But the mental maths quickly stacks up when there is flanking, buff spells , power attack etc
Make the player a cheat sheet. Something like this, especially the second sheet, the one for a wildshape Druid.
I made the first one for my Summoner (8th level at that point - all variables get automatically updated from the actual character sheet). I soon after started others for my fellow players. You won't believe how much that sped up game play! I didn't even print my character sheets for the last couple levels, that single A4 piece of paper was enough. For the pregen characters for my current campaign, I actually made pseudo-full sheets with all the feat and ability descriptions in it as well (see the third sheet in the link above, 7th level Zen Archer). There's more to the character than what's shown, of course, but for actual play, you don't need to concern yourself with some passive effect (e.g. trait bonus to a save), nor do you (usually) need the actual calculation for your AC, saves, etc.The next step is what I did for that Zen Archer's player - a spread sheet with checkboxes for stuff like Deadly Aim, Point-Blank Shot, etc., where the player just has to tick the boxes valid for the current attack, and the spreadsheets provides the attack roll(s) and damage roll for that attack of full attack.
For the sake of argument we are talking about a “new” player playing a character level 9 or above
You realize the by far easiest solution is to keep the campaigns below high level until the players are more experienced, right?
Monk or Warlock.
There are a couple of things that you want to avoid with a new player.
The first and most important is any character where the player has to look up things that are not on his character sheet. If all the characters ability are listed in one place it makes it a lot easier than having to look try and figure out where to find out what your abilities are. When the player only needs to learn what his character can do instead of the whole system they will have a much easier time
Second is to avoid decision chains especially those that rely on previous decisions. If a player asks if he can do something it should only take a quick yes or no answer. For example if a player asks if he can cast a magic missile you should not have to ask if he memorized it. Reliance on situational combat modifiers should also be avoided for this reason. This not only makes it easier on the new player it keeps the game from getting bogged down.
Third don’t build a support character for a new player. Let the new player get in the middle of things and actively participate instead of just boosting the other players. While a support character can be fun to play they generally require greater system mastery to do so effectively. Let the new player make his own choices instead of being told what to do. If the new player is actively involved in the game they are going to enjoy it more and likely want to continue playing.
Fourth make sure the new player is effective. This might mean building the character for the player, or at the least assisting them to create their character. Listen to the player to see what they want to play but offer suggestion on what would work well for what they want. Pathfinder is a complex game and expecting a new player to be able to create a decent character is a stretch.
Last but not least don’t let the player play a rogue, especially a chained rogue.
|
|
Last but not least don’t let the player play a rogue, especially a chained rogue.
I don't necessarily agree with the entire post, (my first D20 RPG character was a bard cause I loved boosting other players), but this is absolutely crucial advice.
Every time a new player comes to a PFS table and grabs the pregen rogue, I die a little inside.
This may seem like terrible advice, but consider the kinetisist. It kind of a complicated class in how it works, but once you understand how burns works it's really not bad. It has a really high optimization floor. The number of options are fairly limited though so there is less material to look through. It's also a class that has decent damage and some built in utility. Also burn providers a buffer from really dying which is great.
I remember seeing a thread on this board a while back that advocated giving a Ranger to a player learning the game, since rangers can show a new team player a lot of different parts of the game, including combat, skills, and spellcasting.
I agree with kineticist. Most of the hard work comes from leveling up the character and setting the costs for everything. Actual play consists of choosing from your three cost levels of blasts and a few utility things. Kinetic knight would probably be ideal.
The only problem is that the kineticist doesn't interact with the normal rules quite as much as other classes and your player won't learn anything.
For the sake of argument we are talking about a “new” player playing a character level 9 or above
In actuality we are talking about a player who has struggled with certain aspects of the rules since starting and only ever played fighters because everyone has suggested it as the way to go for new players. But the mental maths quickly stacks up when there is flanking, buff spells , power attack etc
New players can often pick up the rules pretty quickly.
If we're dealing with a mathematically illiterate player, I'd maybe suggest a Zen Archer. Pretty much every round you just can stand there and fire arrows and be effective. With the right build you can ignore cover penalties, you don't need power attack, and you don't need flanking, so the numbers don't change much.
Clerics and Wizards are easy to build (because no matter what you choose, you can still do lots of useful stuff) but I'm not convinced that any class where you have to learn what dozens of spells do is an easy class to play.
Given the number of people who hate the decision-making required for prepared casting, I wouldn't agree with "easiest" either. I'd say, "among the most difficult".
A frontline cleric has to balance their build for combat and casting, they have choose and track spell slots, they have to make the same "avoid AoO"-type decisions as Fighters, they have to keep track of combat buff effects, decide when to cast spells and use channels, and if they Summon they have to know the capabilities of their minions and track their hit points and status effects too...
Then again, I think like an optimizer, so if I fail to prepare the perfect spell, don't remember exactly how it works, or target a creature's strongest save, I feel like I'm doing a bad job of being a caster. But a full caster who is run to nowhere near its full potential can still make a useful contribution to the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK I’ll be that person since no one has yet: have you asked the player what they’re interested in playing? What the player wants to play should trump anything anyone else thinks they should play, right?
If we're dealing with a mathematically illiterate player, I'd maybe suggest a Zen Archer. Pretty much every round you just can stand there and fire arrows and be effective. With the right build you can ignore cover penalties, you don't need power attack, and you don't need flanking, so the numbers don't change much.
I think it's funny that you use Zen Archer as an example when I made a spreadsheet with checkboxes and automatic calculation when I realized that the Zen Archer in my current party has six hundred and seventy two (yes, 672!) different attack roll calculations*, and the party is only 7th level!
It doesn't matter how good you are at math (the player in question is almost done with his Sc.D in physics!), figuring out which bonuses apply to a given attack and calculating the bonuses in your head will take time.For those with low affinity to math, I'd probably suggest a full caster - let the other guys roll!
To be honest though, with the right helping tools, few if any classes in Pathfinder are overly complicated.
Wiht cheat sheets, practically everyone can play a martial even with a bunch of different bonuses, and be quick at that. Spell cards like these can help spellcasters prepare/select and use their spells, and you could make similar cards for other abilies like hexes. Summon Monster and similar abilities with a in-combat-selection should have their own printout to reference (my Summoner hat a sheet with some different monster for every SM level, and a sheet with different options for the Lesser Evolution Surge spell.
*) That's single attack or Flurry, each with or without Deadly Aim, Haste, Bardic Performance, and True Shot, at 21 different range increments (10 each with and without the ki pool reach increase, plus point blank range).
Classes that don't really give options but have a set progression are likely best.
Classes that don't really give options but have a set progression are likely worst. Because these are the weakest classes when it comes to power and versatility, and usually have glaring weaknesses, so you need system mastery to make them good, which you obviously don't have as a newbie.
Honestly, my suggestion regarding class selection for a new player would actually be "no tier 5 classes" (that's the weakest martials - Fighter (without AWT), cMonk, Rogue (including unRogue), Ninja, Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Brawler, Swashbuckler, Vigilate; some archetype can change this though). If a player desperately wants to play such a class, and experienced player/GM should definitely help him produce a well-rounded character that's a contributing member of the party.
Monks, for example. You level up, you get X.
And then you end up with a crappy character with very little impact on the game, thus frustrating both the player (as he's constantly overshadowed by everyone else), and the other players (since they're basically a character short). Neigh-useless both in and out of combat. Always in danger of dying (d8 HD, and low AC because you didn't know about Mage Armor and the neck slot is occupied by an AoMF). Missing most attacks, because you thought unarmed sounded fun, while being unable to use the main class features most of the time because enemies are not adjacent.
Yeah, that'll bring the player back for the next session!
Seriously, if you can't handle selecting stuff like Rage Powers, you are literally unfit to play this game. That's just how it is. Remember, e aren't talking about a short tutorial style game where you give a player with little affinity to RPGs an uncomplicated character to learn the basic rules, but about a long lasting campaign.
So the Paladin idea is a good one since you can make a Paladin who runs largely on autopilot who just will not die. But "navigating the Paladin's code" might be a sticky wicket for a new player.
I might suggest the Inquisitor since it's just such a strong chassis, it's a good way to learn about actions (you have a lot of good swift actions), and having all the different judgements and being able to swap teamwork feats gives a player the ability to try a bunch of different things and see what works best.
Oof, I love the Inquisitor to death but I would not give it to a new player. The main issue I see new players struggle with is option paralysis and the Inquisitor is loaded with finicky +1's that you may or may not want to be using right now.
I think I'd lean towards classes that just have one variable to work with and remember. If not a Paladin because of its fluff baggage the Slayer is quite solid for this purpose, you really just need to remember Studied Target because everything else is permanent and should be marked on your sheet.
OK I’ll be that person since no one has yet: have you asked the player what they’re interested in playing? What the player wants to play should trump anything anyone else thinks they should play, right?
I'm gonna be honest here, when I played my first Pathfinder campaign if somebody had told me why I shouldn't play a Monk I would have had a much better time of it.
OK I’ll be that person since no one has yet: have you asked the player what they’re interested in playing? What the player wants to play should trump anything anyone else thinks they should play, right?I'm gonna be honest here, when I played my first Pathfinder campaign if somebody had told me why I shouldn't play a Monk I would have had a much better time of it.We’ve introduced tons of brand new players to the game in our group and it usually goes more or less like this: their first character is “free”. The new player basically has something shoved at him that someone else built because the rest of the group thinks this will be most suitable. For this first character, the DM plays a fair bit of softball so this new player can get the hang of the things without dying 72 times. Meanwhile, the new player sees the game and other characters in action. They also do a whole lot of reading and research and, with what they’ve learned while playing their “free” test character that was foist upon them, they create a character that appeals to them; something they’ve built using the things that piqued their interest. Eventually, the “free” character is killed or retired and then the new player brings in the character that they made for themself. At this point, the player has joined the big leagues with the rest of the group and DM softball for them ends.
If this were the player’s first “free” character, I’d agree with you. I got the sense, however, that this is just a player who isn’t enthusiastic about the game or learning the rules in general; a player who is playing charater(s) someone else has suggested for them and they are just not catching on. I could be completely mistaken on that front but, if I’m not, it doesn’t seem like shoving more characters someone else has suggested is actually solving the problem at hand. The solution seems to be getting the player better engaged in the game and the best way to do that IMXP is to get them using a character they are invested in rather than playing someone else’s carefully crafted statblock.
If your kid is too small to reach the pedals on the bike with training wheels, it doesn’t do your kid any good if you plop them on another bike with training wheels that is the same size but a different colour. Much like kids usually enjoy themselves far more thoroughly with an appropriately sized bike than without, I’ve seen the most reluctant, reticent and confused players blossom into excellent gamers and party members once they started playing a character that they themselves developed.
What do they actually want to do?
Help them do that.
Dreklord the thread is about teaching the system as you level, not teaching tiers and power levels. (...) I cant even imagine sitting down to a table trying this game for the first time and having someone drone on about tier levels.
Er, yeah, I wasn't suggesting that. I was using the term to adress the people in this thread, it wasn't intended to be written down and repeated verbatim to new players.
You seem to be a bit... triggered by the word "tier", seeing how much you focus on it rather than what I was actually talking about.
You can literally remove that word from my post without changing the meaning the slightest. That's because the tier list is merely an observation to make talking about the inherent, indisputable differences between classes in Pathfinder easier. It's like car size classes, a quantification so you don't need to make some lengthy comparison to others. Nothing more.
A class that has set options has less versatility? Yeah. No s*+@. It's literally why I suggested it. That way the basics get learned and they can level up without so many options turning them off. They would still get to choose ki powers or feats, so they still learn and can still make something that they want.
Wait, are we talking about cMonk or unMonk here? The latter doesn't have "a set progression", while the latter only has ki powers with an archetype that basically removes the "set progression".
If someone running the game is punishing new players for not being optimized? I would say that's an issue for the person who thinks that's how you run a game for new players more than the new players just trying something new and having fun.
Again you completely missed the point. It's perfectly possible to have players feel overshadowed by others, even other new players, without the GM "punishing new players for not being optimized". Indeed, the realization and acknowledgement that there are a bunch of classes that are very easy to be unintentionally overshadowed and can struggle to contribute to a party unless the GM throws them a huge bone is basically what the tier list is about.
What the player wants to play should trump anything anyone else thinks they should play, right?
The problem with that is that the newbies cannot possible know what class they really want to play - it's not like they can talk from experience, or have tried out any classes. Newbies tend to get over-fixated on some class (mostly Fighter or Rogue) because in their lack of knowledge and experience, they have the misconception that they need to play that specific class to best fulfill their character concept, but most of the time, a different class would be way more fitting.
The kinda cliche but probably actually rather common example is the guy who wants to play a lone wolf backstabbing-type character and gets fixated on Rogue. In practice, Rogue is extremely reliant on teamwork, and far from being any kind of master of careful, precice attacks. A Slayer with Studied Target or Investigator with Studied Combat/Strike might be a way better fit.
|
|
I get that you don't want to immediately tell players some classes/builds are worst than others, but it's kind of rough watching a new player discover how bad a class is.
Like, there's a newish player in my pfs group who has a Two-weapon fighting slayer that just hit level 7. Basically the all dex, dump strength build, except it has no really way to close the gap to start a full attack, no dex-to-damage feats/abilities, not enough strength for power attack and low will saves. So unless he's in the perfect situation with a flank buddy, he basically does no damage and is just a bag of hp.
He's a good sport about it and laughs at how it's going, but I don't think a new players first character should be something that's useless 80% of the time.
This is one reason I suggested the kineticist. The amount of material is limited, the optimisation floor is high and it can be built to do melee, or ranged and has some fun utility. You get to be "magic" without having to worry about a lot of the usual magic problems and resource management is minimum. Also dying is rare.
Is it the player’s first character though? That is not the impression that I get when Lanathar states this is a player who struggles with the rules and has only ever played fighters. Maybe it’s not lack of engagement as I assume but it sure seems like there is something else going on here.
Edited to add: it’s very possible the player has said to Lanathar “The math is hard, I need a simpler character.” Just in case they haven’t, I felt it worthwhile to mention that what interests the player is an important part of the equation, especially in the case of someone struggling to learn the rules. It’s so much easier to teach a person who is enthusiastic about the topic at hand. Cheers.
The newbs in our game using the PF2 Playtest rules are largely playing Fighters and Rangers. The saving grace for high level Feat complications tends to be that few of the Feats are worth remembering. Ranger appears to be simpler for them to play as they get a few more skills and never worry about Hunt Target, etc.
You can make a character that focuses on taking mostly easy-to-administer Feats. For instance, we see many of our players take Feats that give their characters more trained skills.
Frankly speaking, many folks at our table are happily playing at all levels by just picking a decent weapon, some armor, a couple of interesting magic items, and then mostly just Move-Attack-Attack. They're content not knowing most of the rules.
Personally, I'm hoping that the final PF2 fixes things, else I'll likely devolve into Move-Attack-Attack Fighter too.