Good Place to Start

[alchemyprime]

So I have a friend who is going to be playing D&D (actually Pathfinder) for the first time, and I'm trying to find a good class for her to start with. Should I just default to fighter, or are there other classes that make people more excited to play?

I mean, my first character was a Wizard, so maybe I'm overthinking this...

[Delcor]

I started out playing a barbarian, they are simple, but a little more fun than the fighter with rage and all that.

[OracleofSilence]

don't give them a fighter. even if PF fighters suck less then 3.X fighters, don't put them through that. give em something like a rogue. maybe cleric. more over, fighters really don't do anything as well as another class that does the same stuff. maybe a ranger? fighters are no where near usable enough for a first timer, and to really make them work, people need to use vast numbers of obscure feats.

[subject42]

I've found that sorcerers are a good place to start for players in Pathfinder games. The class gives them a limited number of useful abilities that tend to function using a consistent suite of rules. Just make sure that you help them out with spell selection.

[Big Fau]

I started out playing a barbarian, they are simple, but a little more fun than the fighter with rage and all that.

In Pathfinder?



Bard or Rogue would be my first choice here. Both introduce the player to multiple aspects of the system (a Wizard wouldn't have the combat experience unless the player was told to use Polymorph, and a Fighter wouldn't get the chance to try out spellcasting).

[OracleofSilence]

I've found that sorcerers are a good place to start for players in Pathfinder games. The class gives them a limited number of useful abilities that tend to function using a consistent suite of rules. Just make sure that you help them out with spell selection.

good idea. particularly of you have a cleric or a generalist wizard, this would work great to introduce a new character.

[MeeposFire]

In 3.5 barbarian was a very good choice for a starter character. Pathfinder mucks it up a little by adding more choice which adds complexity. Barbarian is probably the best choice though you may wish to trim down the rage power options to help choosing.

[Salanmander]

It depends on your friend's personality regarding lots of rules, really. I'll phrase this in terms of Dominion. Let's say your friend is introduced to Dominion (just the base set) for the first time one day, and talk about how she responds the /second/ time she plays (assuming it's within a week or so).

If she glances at the cards on the table and jokes "Man, if we had King's Court out this would be a /killer/ combo set," (note: King's Court is not in the base set) then don't worry at all about what class she plays. She should play whatever sounds cool to her, actually possibly leaning towards a prepared caster.

If she glances at the cards on the table, thinks for a bit, and then buys her first card, you still don't need to worry about things being too complicated for her, but you also probably don't need to be worried about her being bored with a class with too /few/ rules to learn.

If she reads several of the cards that she played with the last time, but seems generally familiar with them, then I'd probably recommend she think carefully before using a prepared caster. If she wants to ease in gently then a simpler class like a barbarian would be great, but if she likes lots of options and doesn't care about starting slow, then something more complicated like a rogue or sorcerer is good too.

If she reads all the cards, including Village, which she used extensively last time, then I would recommend she not play a caster, except maybe a sorcerer, bard, or favored soul if you're starting at lowish levels (few spells known, so she doesn't need to remember what lots of spells do).

In general the simplest class is /not/ the fighter. Feat selection for fighters is almost as intense as spell selection for sorcerers. Instead, for the smashy, go with a Barbarian. Ranger is also a good choice, with a smattering of different abilities, but not a huge number of decisions, or relying on complicated decisions.

Of course, if she really wants to play a caster, that's the best place to start no matter what. You might need to provide support and scaffolding, though.

[Divide by Zero]

Not sure if Pathfinder changed them too much, but how about a psion? Even fewer powers known than a sorcerer's spells, and power points are easier to keep track of. Augmenting might even be more intuitive than spells' automatic scaling, for a first-time player.

[alchemyprime]

Well, I listed off some archetypes, and she says she likes the idea of a healer. So cleric then, if it's first level. That seem reasonable? How does one build a good starter 1st level cleric?

[OracleofSilence]

play a human, and tank, go for a front line healer. wear heavy armor, lord it over the itty-bitty primary casters. get power attack. act like a paladin.

[subject42]

Well, I listed off some archetypes, and she says she likes the idea of a healer. So cleric then, if it's first level. That seem reasonable? How does one build a good starter 1st level cleric?

I would politely suggest an Oracle. They're the divine equivalent of a sorcerer, but they get a curse (fun roleplaying opportunities + situational benefits), as well as a "mystery", which grants bonus spells and class features.

Additionally, they automatically learn cure or inflict spells as they level.

play a human, and tank, go for a front line healer. wear heavy armor, lord it over the itty-bitty primary casters. get power attack. act like a paladin.

Clerics aren't automatically granted heavy armor proficiency in Pathfinder. It was a small attempt at pushing them out of the facesmasher niche.

[OracleofSilence]

just as well, most first level characters can't afford it anyway. Breastplate maybe? essentially, act like a tank until you get the real caster buff cheese.

[MeeposFire]

Cleric is fine. Ask if the player wants to be more warrior like or sage like. Clerics start well and just get better. The only thing I would do is help slim down the spell list so it is not so dauntingly huge. Have the player pick out some spell themes so you can help the player pick spells.

[alchemyprime]

Cleric is fine. Ask if the player wants to be more warrior like or sage like. Clerics start well and just get better. The only thing I would do is help slim down the spell list so it is not so dauntingly huge. Have the player pick out some spell themes so you can help the player pick spells.

I have a sphere system I use to accommodate the smaller spell lists thing. But yeah, this may be the way to go.

But Oracle is nice too.

[big teej]

+1 to the barbarian. that was my first.

[Autopsibiofeeder]

I will second the Bard suggestion. This allows for an introduction into the social and skills aspect, a bit of magic (fixed list so he won't be flipping through books all the time) and if he feels like it, he can do some combat. Also, assuming most primary roles are filled, there is not necessarily much responsibility on his shoulders (he can bork things as a starter without causing serious damage).

My first character was a bard (that was 2E, though) and I loved it. I had no idea what to expect from the game and the bard gave me so much liberty (it was a horrible build, but it still worked out in a way). Bard is also a good choice for later characters, in my opinion. Awesome frame for a versatile character that can pull off any stunt with at least some success.

[MeeposFire]

I have a sphere system I use to accommodate the smaller spell lists thing. But yeah, this may be the way to go.

But Oracle is nice too.

Oracle would not be bad but it would add layers of complexity. More choices especially spell choices that are long lasting make things more difficult. Clerics are nice since you can change spells whenever you want (which allows the player to experiment without permanently hurting themselves), they have ways to add spells and abilities thematically via domains, spontaneous also helps the player to have interesting spell choices while also being able to heal like they like, and the channel energy is an offensive/healing ability that I think a new player will like. Cleric is also solid enough that bad choices can be worked around (such as "bad" domain choices).

Oracles would not be as nice but would still be a fair choice (though the lacking of spontaneous healing will probably be missed if the player likes healing). One advantage is that I find that many newer player prefer spontaneous casting during play, it is the out of play character building where it suffers. So the more you help the player and choose good stuff for them based on the players input the better it will be.

[Prime32]

One class I like to suggest to newcomers is dragonfire adept. It teaches you the basics of spellcasting and special attacks without being complicated or too hard to mess up. As long as you pick Entangling Exhalation you'll be contributing good battlefield control.

As for wanting to be a healer, I'm guessing she's the passive type who will go along with what other players want rather than pushing things herself. Since healing isn't typically that great, especially in-combat (a rogue UMDing wands between fights can handle your needs), I'd ask how she feels about supporting people in other ways, like buffing allies and hindering enemies. I'd suggest crusader as a more efficient manner of healing (assuming you print out maneuver cards), but that's far less of a support class. As for RP, try to set up strong plot hooks and connections for her.

[subject42]

Oracles would not be as nice but would still be a fair choice (though the lacking of spontaneous healing will probably be missed if the player likes healing). One advantage is that I find that many newer player prefer spontaneous casting during play, it is the out of play character building where it suffers. So the more you help the player and choose good stuff for them based on the players input the better it will be.

Oracles actually do receive spontaneous healing (or inflicting). They receive Cure X Wounds as bonus spells whenever they gain a new spell level. That, coupled with spontaneous casting, means they can heal all the live long day.

[MeeposFire]

Oracles actually do receive spontaneous healing (or inflicting). They receive Cure X Wounds as bonus spells whenever they gain a new spell level. That, coupled with spontaneous casting, means they can heal all the live long day.

True I missed it in the walls of text.

[Kenneth]

I agree with the previous statement of have her play a rogue. I am playing in a pathfinder campaign myself and we have a female first timer who is playing a rogue. and doing a great job at it. I explained to her ' a rogue is like a ninja, you run around all ninja like jump out behind the bushes and ninja them with your weapon in teh side of the throat, also.. you scout ahead and tell us what is up so we can plan acordingly"

she understood the descritpion i gave her (over what teh DM said wich was your the trap monkey) and really had fun with everything. also being female she loved getting treasure.

[subject42]

True I missed it in the walls of text.

If it makes you feel any better, I've had more than one player in my various games miss it as well. You'd think something as big as that would be stated more clearly.

[MeeposFire]

If it makes you feel any better, I've had more than one player in my various games miss it as well. You'd think something as big as that would be stated more clearly.

It would help if they made it a distinct class ability separate from the spells known section sort of like the cleric and spontaneous casting. Call it healing mastery or something.

[JackRackham]

Cleric is perfect. It's not THAT overwhelming and it's a great way to learn what d&d's about and what's really useful. Clerics are really at their most useful when buffing though, not acting like they're a fighter. If you've got a cleric buffing a barbarian, you'll do some damage. Better still if you've got a wizard nerfing the competition. The sooner a newbie understands, the better.

Also, it's a good way to be exposed to a variety of game mechanics, as he'll be useful as a caster and in melee.

[Lonely Tylenol]

+1 for Sorceress. That's the class my ex and I picked for her when we got her into the game (3.5); she likes it, because the spells don't require a tremendous amount of bookkeeping and offer some versatility (especially if you pick a more diverse range of spells). The thing I think she missed out on was the low-level versatility, though, and she wanted to be more of a sneaky-type character, but the DM limited base classes to core (meaning, no Beguiler). She's really coming into it more, though, now that she knows more what to do.