Some previous discussions on the topic:
Discussion on what makes a well balanced party
Personally, I would recommend the following roles be addressed (in most cases, there are multiple classes that can fill a given role):
1) Ranged damage (blasting, ranged weapons, etc.)
2) Melee damage (weapons, unarmed, or natural attacks; possibly augmented via spells or class abilities)
3) Buffing (making yourself and/or the rest of the party better)
4) Battlefield control/de-buffing (restricting the enemy's ability to act and/or making the enemy worse)
5) Healing/status removal (covers both cure for damage and other methods for conditions, curses, diseases, poison, etc.)
6) Skill checks ("face," information gathering, locks and traps, knowledge checks, etc.)
In many cases, a single character can focus on one role while also at least partially addressing one or more other roles.
I am sure this is not what Azothath had in mind when starting this thread. I will present a party which is both very effective and absolutely ridiculous.
This is an party of Kasatha siblings.
The characters are-
1 Owl, Kasatha female Speaker for the Past Shaman
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 16 Cha 8
Feat level 1 Multi-weapon combat
2 Identical, Kasatha Male Monster Tactician Inquisitor
Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 8
Feat level 1 Multi-weapon combat
3 Replica- identical to Identical
4 Bolo, Kasatha female Skald
Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 4
Feat level 1 Multi-weapon combat
5 Olob, Kasatha female Blood Rager
Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 10 Wis 10 Cha 4
Feat level 1 Multi-weapon combat
Or Doppleganger- identical to Identical
6 Raptor Male Kasatha Nature Fang Druid
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 16 Cha 8
Feat level 1 Multi-weapon combat
Or Doppleganger- identical to Identical
Now to how the group functions. Identical and Replica start combat, unsurprisingly, by using their SLA to summon a group of monsters. Once they gain some levels they will summon d4+1. The identical twins will take the same teamwork feats, so they and their monsters all benefit from these.
All of these Kasatha characters will work towards taking blade boot, which will give each of them 6 attacks per round, 5 if using a shield. They wade into combat alongside their summoned allies.
Bolo will use raging song to give all her allies who choose to accept it rage. Then she will start killing things.
Bolo is an anagram of Lobo and she talks and acts in a similar fashion save being aggressive rather than evil.
She is also the party face and will attempt diplomacy although she is quick to abandon it if it is not working out.
Owl is the group’s leader, the oldest and most thoughtful. Owl mostly uses her spells and hexes in combat, but can employ weapons effectively.
In the expanded group it is most balanced to add Olob, a full BaB character with some arcane spells, and Raptor, a second full divine caster.
Olob is of course also an anagram of Lobo and she has a similar party role and personality to Bolo.
If it is desired to prioritise humour over balance the remaining identical quads can certainly be employed. That means 4 monster tacticians, each summoning multiple monsters which all benefit from shared teamwork feats and are probably raging as well. That is a lot of buffed attacks (even in the worst case where the monsters only have one attack) 14 from monsters and 20 from the quads.
I am sure this is not what Azothath had in mind when starting this thread. I will present a party which is both very effective and absolutely ridiculous.
How about one that doesn't need an insane number of GM approvals.... one that Newbies can handle.
LoL, well if you have time to criticize (not that you're wrong) maybe you could show us how it's done by posting your group according to the initial post. Easy with a PC build tool. Building is always harder and takes more skill than tearing down.I am sure...How about one that doesn't need an insane number of GM approvals.... one that Newbies can handle.
As already mentioned, just make sure the traditional bases are covered - the traditional Fighter, Magic User, Cleric, Rogue - or anything that can replace them is a good starter party....
And since the OP was discussing NEW PLAYERS - nothing that would require GM Approval...
I will say that a bard that act like jack Sparrow and a investigator like Sherlock Holmes will be great for people who want to give the humor in the game, a brawler like Jacky chan also great so he doesn't have to be legal alignment to give some pounch and brawler give the opportunity to check combat feat before taking them, as for the arcane caster I will suggest arcanist since you can prepare spell but have the versatile of the sorcerer's, is practically playing a computer rpg like wow or lol
Personally, I think a better approach than having a fixed "party of four" for newbies is to create 12 to 16 (or even up to 20, if you have the time and inspiration) generally balanced characters that can cover at least one "role" well and a second (or even third) "role" decently.
This allows you to have examples for different ways to cover the "roles" for the newbies, so they don't get into the habit of stereotyped thinking (dumb brute barbarian, "heal-bot" cleric, etc.). It also allows you to ask the newbies about the general type of character they might want to play: instead of "melee," do they want to fight weapon/shield, with two weapons, with a two-handed weapon (or even natural attacks); do they want to attempt maneuvers such as tripping (or work on setting up flanking for sneak attacks) as well as just hitting things; etc. They newbies are probably more likely to have more fun if the character they play isn't designed for something different than what they wanted.
With Newbies, I’d focus on characters that are easier to play, but without caring about how hard they are to build. You could always help someone with the building. Plan out those hard choices for them like feat paths and spells known.
My picks:
*Fighter taking advantage of advanced weapon and armor training.
*Sorcerer draconic blaster with some utility picks
*Oracle healer
*Unchained rogue
LoL, well if you have time to criticize (not that you're wrong)
How about one that doesn't need an insane number of GM approvals.... one that Newbies can handle.Actually he is wrong about the need for GM approvals.
The only possible issue is the number of attacks at only -2 a four armed character can get via multi weapon fighting and an eventual blade boot. This is arguably over powered but is entirely allowed by the RAW. Zero is not exactly an insane number of GM approvals.
Personally, I would recommend the following roles be addressed (in most cases, there are multiple classes that can fill a given role):
To address each of these with the 4 member party-
1) Ranged damage-
Lots of spells and hexes, no specialised ranged attacker.
2) Melee damage (weapons, unarmed, or natural attacks; possibly augmented via spells or class abilities)
An insane number of melee attacks.
3) Buffing (making yourself and/or the rest of the party better)
Great synergistic buffing
4) Battlefield control/de-buffing (restricting the enemy's ability to act and/or making the enemy worse)
Average, but if you include getting all enemies into melee early, exceptional.
5) Healing/status removal (covers both cure for damage and other methods for conditions, curses, diseases, poison, etc.)
Average
6) Skill checks ("face," information gathering, locks and traps, knowledge checks, etc.
Has a party face but nobody with lots of skills
Another two merits of this highly idiosyncratic party deserve mention. With a full caster and three half casters spells running out will never be an issue. And finally the party will never be surprised.
With Newbies, I’d focus on characters that are easier to play, but without caring about how hard they are to build. You could always help someone with the building. Plan out those hard choices for them like feat paths and spells known.
My picks:
*Fighter taking advantage of advanced weapon and armor training.
*Sorcerer draconic blaster with some utility picks
*Oracle healer
*Unchained rogue
That is an excellent balanced party.
But for beginners I would recommend another class that is designed to enter melee, e.g. a paladin, rather than an unchained rogue.
Unchained rogues have a lot of rather complex game mechanics. Second, you need to be able to go into melee while only wearing light armour and try to set up sneak attacks. This makes you very dangerous and vulnerable, which can easily make you dead.
Actually he is wrong about the need for GM approvals.
Kasatha x4 - Not a Core race = GM Approval
Multi Weapon Fighting x4 - Monster feat = GM Approval
So at least 8 GM approvals needed for the party as written, and that's before I take a close look at the classes.
But for beginners I would recommend another class that is designed to enter melee, e.g. a paladin, rather than an unchained rogue.
Unchained rogues have a lot of rather complex game mechanics. Second, you need to be able to go into melee while only wearing light armor and try to set up sneak attacks. This makes you very dangerous and vulnerable, which can easily make you dead.
Disagree - Rogues are one of the best characters for newbies to play. More complicated than a fighter type who just attacks every turn, but not overwhelmingly complicated like an inquisitor or a spellcaster.
The character has much more interaction in the game due to trapfinding and lockpicking, so the player doesn't just sit and watch during most of the game.
while we do let our new players have input in their character choice - we always try to steer them towards a rogue type.
Paladins are very bad for beginning players due to the Alignment restrictions on play.
If I were going to replace the unchained rogue, I’d choose an unchained barbarian. He can handle traps face first and doesn’t have to worry about the constitution fiddling. You will hurt on skills just a little, but the fighter will eventually have a lot with advanced trainings.
But also it’s going to be rare to have a party of nothing but Newbies. There will usually be at least one player with experience.
@ Azothath- My apologies.
I have only ever played in Pathfinder Society once, and that was ages ago. So I really don't know their rules.
I have had even more time than usual just recently so I have been posting rather a lot.
The party I proposed is incredibly weird and incredibly effective, so I thought it might be amusing.
TxSam88 wants a flame war but I am not going to respond.
To be fair, the request for PFS legal was kind of buried down in the request. And it’s not like these threads can’t be googled up based more on title than content. So giving non-PFS options isn’t unexpected.
I do agree that Kasatha and Multi-attack shouldn’t be a default assumption though. It’s one of those things you have to ask the GM about, like playing a summoner.
Depending on the newbie in question:
1: Melee Faces:
Bloodrager. Tell newbie that he has a beast mode, for about 30 seconds per day or so, in which he hits harder, is easier to hit, is harder to affect with mind stuff and gets maybe some extra powers based on the bloodline.
Any of the claw bloodlines are reasonable, because getting 2 attacks at probably +5s is really neat.
I personally think Bloodragers are great for new players, they add their featurers fairly slowly, if you give a bloodrager to a "theatre kid" archetype player they will have a lot more fun with that then with a fighter, and their feat choices are more open, like, Combat reflexes, Power attack, Iron will and/or steadfast personality are all he needs, can go any other route afterwards.
This one in particular is abyssal, so it can add some vital striking (3d6 with an enlarged greatsword) on top. A lot of players love yelling "VITAL STRIKE!", and the build loses less dpr if it moves, which is something players tend to enjoy. Note, the spellcasting and vital striking comes in after many sessions, to people had time to adjust.
At level 8, pick 2 rage powers via primalist, although that can also be skipped as irc Primalist is sometimes PFS legal and sometimes not, I am not up to date on that.
So: PC 1: Sigvald the Bloodrager (Primalist). CN to CG, Human, Abyssal Bloodline, Gorrum
15+2 (human) 14 13 10 8 14
Trait 1: Extremely fashionable (let the player pick what is the class skill)
Trait 2: Irrepressible
Feat 1 (human): Power attack
Feat 2 (level 1) Combat reflexes
Feat 3: level 3 Steadfast personality (scales better then Iron will)
Feat 4: Level 5 Divine fighting technique Gorrumite Swordsmanship
Feat 5: Level 7 Vital Strike
Alternative racial trait: Dimdweller
Son of the adventurous Ulfen pirate captain Lars *Falls-for-Femme-Fatales* Rorekson and probably an Alu-Demon (rather then a full Succubus), Sigvalds mostly human (other then his pitch black eyes, which see pretty well in the dark) appearance is a source of great pride to his father, because "HAHA MY GLORIOUS GENES PREVAILED OVER THE ABYSS". Alas, after a political marriage of said father (who become a more landbased Ulfen chieftain as a result), Sigvald opted to do some "adventuretiming" lest his new stepmother, Hjoeldis *Demonstomper* Erikdottir, a known Mammoth-rider has her particularly big, stompy and racist-against-anything-demonically-tainted war mammoth not-so-accidently steps on him or something.
Having inherited his demonic mothers innate sense for fashion, Sigvald is suprisingly well suited to blending into more polite society, and fairly capable of talking his way out of things.
To be fair, the request for PFS legal was kind of buried down in the request. And it’s not like these threads can’t be googled up based more on title than content. So giving non-PFS options isn’t unexpected.
I do agree that Kasatha and Multi-attack shouldn’t be a default assumption though. It’s one of those things you have to ask the GM about, like playing a summoner.
Even outside of PFS, Kasatha and Multi-attack would require GM approval.
As for the original OP question.
I'd really just stick to the classics
Fighter (melee) and or Ranger (Ranged)
Cleric or Oracle - Oracle is probably the simpler to play
Wizard or sorcerer - Sorcerer is probably the easier to play.
Unchained Rogue.
To be fair, the request for PFS legal was kind of buried down in the request. And it’s not like these threads can’t be googled up based more on title than content. So giving non-PFS options isn’t unexpected.
I do agree that Kasatha and Multi-attack shouldn’t be a default assumption though. It’s one of those things you have to ask the GM about, like playing a summoner.
Even outside of PFS, Kasatha and Multi-attack would require GM approval.
As for the original OP question.
I'd really just stick to the classics
Fighter (melee) and or Ranger (Ranged)
Cleric or Oracle - Oracle is probably the simpler to play
Wizard or sorcerer - Sorcerer is probably the easier to play.
Unchained Rogue.
Although the idea of the sorcerer and the oracle is tempting, it's not the best for beginners, since even though they provide good abilities You need to have a good understanding of the spells you choose, and you can only change one spell at level 4 every 4 levels. It's better to go for Arcanist if what you want is It's about casting a continuous spell while simultaneously testing each spell separately shaman is also a good option instead of the cleric, as for the rogue even is it good I prefer the bard, you will get a good support, skill user and a face for the party
Although the idea of the sorcerer and the oracle is tempting, it's not the best for beginners, since even though they provide good abilities You need to have a good understanding of the spells you choose, and you can only change one spell at level 4 every 4 levels. It's better to go for Arcanist if what you want is It's about casting a continuous spell while simultaneously testing each spell separately shaman is also a good option instead of the cleric, as for the rogue even is it good I prefer the bard, you will get a good support, skill user and a face for the party
I was just thinking that a spontaneous caster would be easier than a prepared caster. and with 2 casters already in the party, the bard would be a third, and I'd think that explaining spells to 3 players instead of just 2 would take a little too much time. Combined with the complications of the bards inspiration/performance, would just be more complications than needed for an all newbie party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the noob doesn’t it? If the new player is into the game, they will do the research. I’m old enough to remember a time when we were all kind of self taught.
Please stick to the PFS Legal Choices off AoN. Look for the little icon to the left of the Title Name. That will keep things reasonable.
I'm gonna suggest you just kinda detail Traits, Feats to 5th level.
I think that this is actually wrong headed. Let me ask a couple of questions.
1 - Is Pathfinder 1e still picking up new players? Everything on this site funnels any new gamer to Pathfinder 2e Remaster - specifically the Beginner's Box.
2 - Is the Pathfinder Society still running Pathfinder 1e games? Since that is unlikely, a focus on Society play is odd.
3 - Again, if we are talking newbies, wouldn't a focus on the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for Pathfinder 1e be more logical?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lord Frye - don't take my shooting down your search for a more narrow criteria to heart. As stated above different players will have different focuses and desires and not every posted character will appeal to them but they may forward a link to their group to see what they want to play. That is why I'm suggesting groups, not just individual PCs.
If you want to do a CRB Group, go for it.
I just think this thread may be too cluttered with commentary for people to go through at this point.
I'd like to point to the PF1 PFS iconics but the paizo site is borked at this point. Maybe in 3 months or I'd have to fetch a link on the Wayback Machine.
I agree, the Beginner's Box, while great, is too limited.
Have you looked at the Pathfinder 1e Strategy Guide?
What you have to do first is to describe your players first, this way we can suggest better class that it's compatible with them
Sure - they are humans about 18-35 with some experience from DnD3.5, DnD5, PF2. [/ooc]
I would not classify anyone who's played 3.5 to be a newbie at Pf1....
Sure - they are humans about 18-35 with some experience from DnD3.5, DnD5, PF2. [/ooc]I would not classify anyone who's played 3.5 to be a newbie at Pf1....
Yeah, I'd kind of agree. The ones who have played 3.5 will just be tacking on a handful of extra abilities when playing PF1. They might be more interested in things that didn't really exist there, like Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Magus and Summoner.
I assume a lot of us came from a 3.5 background and remember how easy it was to pick up PF1.
Wanted party composition will depend on the kind of adventures you are running. If it's a pre-existing module, you'll really want someone on condition removal, so something like a cleric or oracle is heavily encouraged. For an adventure you are creating yourself, you just tailor to whatever the group actually has
It sounds like everyone is misunderstanding what you are asking for. Maybe you should try starting over fresh and more concise.
Azothath- I well understand why you are unhappy with so many of our responses being off topic.
But in starting the thread you wanted something very specific. The longest response was mine and it did not go into anything like the detail you wanted.
I suspect the chance that anyone was ever going to respond in the way you wanted is almost zero.
that's a good set of characters, but I would never give any of them to a set of Newbies.
When it comes to Newbies, I would stick to Core Races, No archetypes, no classes whose stats change due to things like rage, no multi-classing, and keep all the casters in the group as either spontaneous, or prepared, but not a mix. I would also have the number of casters in the group maxed at 2.
for Newbies, learning the games basics is key, this means employing the KISS system, Keep Is Simple, Stupid.
so
Human Fighter, longsword, halfplate. 17 Str, 16 Con, weapon focus.
Elven fighter, longbow, chainmail, 19 Dex, 15 Con, weapon focus
Dwarven cleric, warhammer, breastplate, 17 wis, 17 con, weapon focus
elven wizard, int 17, dex 15, Spell focus
halfling Rogue, 17 dex, 15 int, TWF
this is the party I would hand to 5 newbie players. if only 4 players, I would drop one of the fighters, and let them have both a longsword and longbow.
I expect newbies to start at first level and work their way up.
Newbies should absolutely start at level 1.
On your party, I can see a lot of sense in what you are doing.
One thing I would question is 3 of the 6 are wizards, one with a cleric dip. That means adventuring with the worst HPs minimal armor for 2 and the one with the dip is nearly as bad.
I advise players new to the game not to start with such characters, they are simply so vulnerable.
I also advise novices to stay away from rogues and similar classes. I am a veteran player and found them hard to make work when I tried them. You have to survive in combat with modest armor and set up sneak attacks, neither is exactly easy. I nearly always play full casters so am no expert, but it's hardly the way to introduce the game to a novice.
I typically start newbies at level 3.
Because they dont get one shot by a common Orc with a Falchion.
I also advise novices to stay away from rogues and similar classes. I am a veteran player and found them hard to make work when I tried them. You have to survive in combat with modest armor and set up sneak attacks, neither is exactly easy. I nearly always play full casters so am no expert, but it's hardly the way to introduce the game to a novice.
We have found the opposite - Rogues are one of the best characters for newbies to play. they offer more than just "I swing a sword" every round, since they are typically the scout, the lockpick, the trapfinder, etc. so it gets the player more involved in the game, and since they don't do a ton of damage in combat, tend to not be the prime targets of the bad guys.
And they aren't as complex as a spellcaster.(as for making a rogue work I find it super easy)
I typically start newbies at level 3.
Because they don't get one shot by a common Orc with a Falchion.
A valid consideration.
I think the biggest factor is introducing a very complicated game when it is at it'2 simplest- level 1.
@ TxSam88 What you say about the breadth of what rogues can do must be right. And it introduces a lot of mechanics that won't get introduced w/o a rogue around, so you should have a rogue.
On making rogues effective, it can vary from campaign to campaign and player to player. I admit up front I am crap at playing rogues because I nearly always play full casters.
I typically start newbies at level 3.
Because they dont get one shot by a common Orc with a Falchion.
I typically use small monsters with small weapons and/or damage output to avoid that.