How hard are these non-core classes to lear for new players?

[Calintares]

I'm wondering about introducing Warmage, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade from the get-go for a group of players new to D&D.

How hard are they to learn compared to the core classes?

[Tvtyrant]

Warmage is the easiest on the list, but the others are all easier then a Druid. If the DM understands them he/she can explain it pretty easily.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Favored Soul is about as hard as a sorcerer to learn, being the divine equivalent. Assuming "Wilding Shaman," is "Spirit Shaman," it's about as hard as a cleric to learn. Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade, however, are all super easy to learn and hard to screw up, giving them easy out-of-the-box play.

[Keld Denar]

Me and one other guy taught ToB to a bunch of near total newbies in about one game session. We had a Warblade, a Crusader, and a Swordsage in the group, and it was fairly simply to go through how the maneuvers work and how they are used and recovered. We were using maneuver cards and PCs that the DM had already made, though, which REALLY helped a lot. Once the players understood the system, they were able to level their characters up.

Warmage and Favored Soul are silly easy to learn. Warmage just picks crap off his list and makes it happen. Very little thought required beyond learning what everything on your list does. Kinda like playing a Sorcerer with a bigger pool of very specialized spells known. Favored Soul is what happens when a Cleric and a Sorcerer love each other very much, and 9 months later a spontaneous cleric is born. Simply simple.

Probably the hardest system to teach is Incarnum, and even that's not hard to teach how to USE, but is a bit more complicated to learn how to build.

[Aemoh87]

If they have read the PHB and are willing to read the new classes... Easy. Especially if the DM reads them too/is aware of them already.

[Calintares]

If they have read the PHB and are willing to read the new classes... Easy. Especially if the DM reads them too/is aware of them already.

I'm the DM and I know all those classes, however I don't think even half of the players have even seen the PHB, let alone read it. I imagine we're going to spend at least a few hours of the first sesion to make characters.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Warmage Shaman and Favoured Soul are basically casters, so if they know how to play a core one, they already know how to play the other one.

And for the ToB classes, they are a bit more complicated, as the maneuvers and the different recovery methods vary a little.

This are some general issues

Each ToB class has a set number of maneuvers known and readied, if you want to compare them to spell known and spells per day (respectevly) it is easy. The primary difference between spells and maneuvers is that you can use the maneuvers almost at will and that you can change which maneuvers you ready with 5 minutes of down-time.

Maneuvers are separated in three tipes: Boosts, Counters and Strikes

Boosts: Take a swift action and generally give you a little boost or allow some kind of movement.
Counters: They take an immediate action and are usually defensive in nature, letting you react to other characters or enemy actions.

Strikes: Usually standard action, but they can be even a full round action, they are attacks which carry a secondary effect that may vary from extra damage to forcing saves etc.

Then there are the stances, which are special abilities that are active all the time, they generally give you combat benefits (such as giving you 2d6 sneak attack die for example) but there are some stances that five you misc. benefits such as scent.

The Tome of Battle for Dummies (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=357.0) might help yo better than my quick ramblings; but I assure you the Tome of Battle Classes are worth it...yes even that.

[Telonius]

I'm the DM and I know all those classes, however I don't think even half of the players have even seen the PHB, let alone read it. I imagine we're going to spend at least a few hours of the first sesion to make characters.

That's not really uncommon. In fact, I personally recommend it for a group of people totally new to the game. When you fill out a whole character sheet from scratch, there's less of a chance for the game to get bogged down while somebody tries to remember where that Will save was written, or what sort of a bonus that feat gives, or what an Initiative modifier is.

[Urpriest]

Spirit Shaman and Crusader both have kind of weird spell/maneuver access. While it would be straightforward to teach the Crusader if you print maneuver cards, the Spirit Shaman might be tricky to understand for a while.

As a spontaneous caster with a huge list, the Favored Soul is pretty tricky to teach, in particular because without a restriction like core-only the player will feel like they have to canvass pretty much every book out there for spells known, and will have a lot of difficulty telling the good ones from the bad ones.

[Aemoh87]

I'm the DM and I know all those classes, however I don't think even half of the players have even seen the PHB, let alone read it. I imagine we're going to spend at least a few hours of the first sesion to make characters.

I would encourage them to read it, maybe not immediately but the sooner the better. I am amazing how many players have never read it. It blows my mind to walk into a group who has never heard of 5 ft. step or withdraw. Or they don't know what certain skills can do and are blown away by them.


As a spontaneous caster with a huge list, the Favored Soul is pretty tricky to teach, in particular because without a restriction like core-only the player will feel like they have to canvass pretty much every book out there for spells known, and will have a lot of difficulty telling the good ones from the bad ones.

I agree, start small. Another way to do this is choose loot that would be good for them so they can see why certain mechanics are good in game.

[Keld Denar]

That's not really uncommon. In fact, I personally recommend it for a group of people totally new to the game. When you fill out a whole character sheet from scratch, there's less of a chance for the game to get bogged down while somebody tries to remember where that Will save was written, or what sort of a bonus that feat gives, or what an Initiative modifier is.

See, I've found the opposite. I've found that the easiest way to teach someone is to give them a relatively simple premade character, give them a little overview of what their special abilities are, and letting the rest fall out in play. To each, their own, but I could see a player getting bogged down in the minutae of CharGen getting frustrated and/or discouraged. There's just so much there, that you'll either spend all night making characters, or they'll miss a bunch of things anyway and have to learn them in actual play.

[Aemoh87]

See, I've found the opposite. I've found that the easiest way to teach someone is to give them a relatively simple premade character, give them a little overview of what their special abilities are, and letting the rest fall out in play. To each, their own, but I could see a player getting bogged down in the minutae of CharGen getting frustrated and/or discouraged. There's just so much there, that you'll either spend all night making characters, or they'll miss a bunch of things anyway and have to learn them in actual play.

This is a tough one, but I prefer to let them build their own and fill it out just so they know where everything on the sheet is. I explain it to them as they do it as well. BUUUUUT... often when your doing this they truly have no idea what your talking about since they have never played the game. So immediately after building I run them (just me and them, no one else) through a short list of encounters where they use skills, attack and defend, and use spells/whatever their main class abilities are (Example: Bardic Music, Sneak Attack, Preparing and Casting Spells).

That way they have some idea of what is going on and then can tweak there characters slightly if they feel they need to (usually they don't). I have found that sometimes players do have epiphany though and dodge playing a character class they miss interpreted for something else.

[Calintares]

As a spontaneous caster with a huge list, the Favored Soul is pretty tricky to teach, in particular because without a restriction like core-only the player will feel like they have to canvass pretty much every book out there for spells known, and will have a lot of difficulty telling the good ones from the bad ones.

I'm planing on restricting the spells to core-only

[Aemoh87]

I have also found if your playing with a large amount of new players, do not tell them what is good. Let them figure it out on their own.

[Calintares]

Thanks a lot to everyone, I've been a bit worried.

[Veyr]

I consider Crusader to be by-far the easiest class to learn to build and play. No terribly important feats, easy maneuver selection both to know and to use in combat, etc.

[Aemoh87]

I consider Crusader to be by-far the easiest class to learn to build and play. No terribly important feats, easy maneuver selection both to know and to use in combat, etc.

And it is a rewarding class. Aka holds up its own very well even with a simple build.

[McSmack]

See, I've found the opposite. I've found that the easiest way to teach someone is to give them a relatively simple premade character, give them a little overview of what their special abilities are, and letting the rest fall out in play. To each, their own, but I could see a player getting bogged down in the minutae of CharGen getting frustrated and/or discouraged. There's just so much there, that you'll either spend all night making characters, or they'll miss a bunch of things anyway and have to learn them in actual play.

Yeah that's what I've found too. I had a half a dozen new friends interested in learning so I whipped up some premades, made a quick prisonbreak/amnesia adventure and BAM they were hooked.

For players completely new to tabletop roleplaying games I think it helps to see the big picture of how the game works before wading into the thousands of character options.

[Veyr]

And it is a rewarding class. Aka holds up its own very well even with a simple build.
Yes, agreed; goes without saying, really.

[Prime32]

Warmage is easier to learn than a normal spellcaster, since you don't have to worry about learning/preparing spells or (partly) Arcane Spell Failure. You can't have someone screw up and learn only things like jump and comprehend languages.

ToB classes are much easier to learn if you print out the cards and turn them sideways when expended.

[Darth Stabber]

ToB classes are almost ideal for n00bish players. It is very hard to not end up with an effective character, unlike say fighter or rogue. Especially fighter since you need at least calc2 and a solid knowledge of feats from several books to build a good one.

Spirit shaman is probably the trickiest of the classes you mentioned, but it's easier than druid. Favored soul is actually a breeze to play, and slightly easier than cleric.

The focused arcane casters (dread necro, warmage, and beguiler), are a lot more newb friendly than wizard, maybe even more than sorc, since you don't have to worry about them messing spells known. I have seen some new players have issues with how to use the DN spell list (the complaint is usually too much redundancy), and they never realize that they are meleers at low levels. The other two are great though, and since you did not ask about DN, I guess that point is moot.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm wondering about introducing Warmage, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade from the get-go for a group of players new to D&D.

How hard are they to learn compared to the core classes?

Warmage, Favored Soul, and Spirit Shaman are fairly easy to play with. They're certainly easier to role up than their respective alternatives.

The ToB classes, however, are more complicated. The new players will need to read and familiarize themselves with the rules for initiating maneuvers. Having said that, it's almost impossible to make a 'bad' ToB character.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Warlocks. They're ridiculously easy to build and play. Pick a least invocation. Done.

[MeeposFire]

I find that ToB can be harder to teach to people who already played 3.5 than people that have never played since new players do not have preconceptions.

I too have found that teaching people to play is much easier with a pregenerated character. Then as they play you teach them everything on the character sheet by having them use it in action. For instance the DM should make a situation that requires a climb check. In doing so you create a teachable moment to show the new player where the climb skill is and how it works in action, rather than trying to explain it in a vacuum before the game (which makes it harder to remember since it has no context). This is a variation of a standard teaching technique called learning by doing. In this sort of thing it can be very effective.

[Keld Denar]

This is a variation of a standard teaching technique called learning by doing. In this sort of thing it can be very effective.

Estimated 50% retention rate from learning by doing, BTW, vs the ~20% retention rate from learning by hearing, according to the last figures I've seen.

[MeeposFire]

Estimated 50% retention rate from learning by doing, BTW, vs the ~20% retention rate from learning by hearing, according to the last figures I've seen.

It works well for things like this that lends itself to that kind of teaching. There are things it will not work well with but D&D would be something that it works well with (I know it worked well when I use it for D&D with my new players). Of course it is also how well it is done. If you don't do it well you can leave players behind or leave big blind spots so it would be prudent as the DM to make sure you bring up situations that can make the teaching succeed (which is why I suggest creating situations to teach the mechanics in game). Interesting statistics though, especially since i was trained as a music teacher (which is one area that has always been a big user of teaching by doing also a big user of informal assessment though that is a bit off topic).

[Endarire]

Keep maneuver and stance cards handy for would-be initiators. Encourage players to take them instead of their PHB counterparts.

[Greenish]

I'm surprised you didn't mention Warlocks. They're ridiculously easy to build and play. Pick a least invocation. Done.Dragonfire Adept is in the same boat.

[MeeposFire]

True those are the best for magic oriented characters. Warlocks make for great teachers since they teach the difference between AC and touch AC. Eventually it teaches you about daily use abilities (via regeneration) so resource use. Dragon fire adepts are easy (and I LOVE them) but since they do not make attack rolls and lack daily abilities (I don't remember any) they don't teach as well as the warlock though they are very easy to play.

Warlocks best first use magic class

Barbarian is the best first warrior class. It helps you learn about daily resources and is very solid for a while. It is also a strong thematic concept so it is easy for new players to get comfortable in the role.

[Darth Stabber]

In general any form of prepared caster is a bad call for a new player. Bard also a bad choice for first character (jack of all trades types require experience in my experience). I would argue for warblade being a better first fightertype than barbarian, rage use is a very delicate thing for low level characters, and most new players will either pop it at the first opportunity, and waste it, or just sit on it, also a waste.

Warlock and dfa are both easy as heck, and warlock also can teach magic item use/nonrenewable resource management. Wands are great for that. At higher levels the ability to make whatever infuses new life into the character.

[MeeposFire]

In general any form of prepared caster is a bad call for a new player. Bard also a bad choice for first character (jack of all trades types require experience in my experience). I would argue for warblade being a better first fightertype than barbarian, rage use is a very delicate thing for low level characters, and most new players will either pop it at the first opportunity, and waste it, or just sit on it, also a waste.

Warlock and dfa are both easy as heck, and warlock also can teach magic item use/nonrenewable resource management. Wands are great for that. At higher levels the ability to make whatever infuses new life into the character.

That is exactly why barbarians make an excellent first class. Players need to learn resource management which is something you don't get as much from the warblade (since it is a swift action away from getting it back). Further in the low levels the barb is strong enough that it does not even need rage to finish fights as full BAB and high str is enough to survive even without using a rage and you can get them more rages with one feat. Warblade will be effective and not too hard but it offers less teaching of game mechanics that other classes use (also why I think the warlock is slightly better than DFA for this even though I prefer the DFA).

[Tyndmyr]

I'm wondering about introducing Warmage, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade from the get-go for a group of players new to D&D.

How hard are they to learn compared to the core classes?

Warmage is ridiculously easy. I've handed it to first time players. It's easier than most of core.

FS and SS are roughly as easy as core casters.

The ToB classes are significantly tougher than core melee, because core melee is dead simple. No tougher than wizard, though. Still, I don't generally recommend prepared classes for first time players, and ToB is no exception.

[TroubleBrewing]

Warmage is ridiculously easy. I've handed it to first time players. It's easier than most of core.


This. If a first timer wants to play a Sorcerer, I usually point them at Warmage first. Pre-made spell list, all blasting all the time. Simple, clean, and easy.

Once they learn the ins and outs of keeping a spell list, I let them move up to Sorcerer, or Favored Soul if they've been good.

[Amphetryon]

That is exactly why barbarians make an excellent first class. Players need to learn resource management which is something you don't get as much from the warblade (since it is a swift action away from getting it back). Further in the low levels the barb is strong enough that it does not even need rage to finish fights as full BAB and high str is enough to survive even without using a rage and you can get them more rages with one feat. Warblade will be effective and not too hard but it offers less teaching of game mechanics that other classes use (also why I think the warlock is slightly better than DFA for this even though I prefer the DFA).

Just as a counterpoint, I've had some newbies get really flummoxed on Barbarian math. Charge + Rage + Power Attack modifier, coupled with tracking rounds for Rage and HP differentials, can appear to be a lot to juggle for the player who just wants to whack something with a big ol' sword.

[TroubleBrewing]

My approach was Fighter first, then Barbarian. Once you learn how to hit things, you can learn to hit them properly.

[MeeposFire]

Just as a counterpoint, I've had some newbies get really flummoxed on Barbarian math. Charge + Rage + Power Attack modifier, coupled with tracking rounds for Rage and HP differentials, can appear to be a lot to juggle for the player who just wants to whack something with a big ol' sword.

They have to learn that stuff from somewhere. All melee needs to deal with charging and power attack is very common. The only thing easier to play for a warrior type is a fighter (which loses points for being much harder to build and for not teaching much of anything in the game). Of course your comment on rage and HP changes brings me to one thing I really dislike in 3e D&D and that is the constant changing of stats and the pervasive changes this causes in game. Ability damage and drain are really annoying to keep track of since one point can change a dozen different things on your sheet. That is not newb friendly though at least having it done early it will at least be well known to the new player and they will not be surprised so much when they get hit by some shadow and they need to change a lot of stuff.

[Veyr]

Barbarian is the best first warrior class. It helps you learn about daily resources and is very solid for a while. It is also a strong thematic concept so it is easy for new players to get comfortable in the role.
I strongly disagree; a Barbarian depends too strongly on his feat choices, which cannot be fixed. Initiators depend on feats much less, and maneuver-choosing is very easy since there are no traps.

[MeeposFire]

I strongly disagree; a Barbarian depends too strongly on his feat choices, which cannot be fixed. Initiators depend on feats much less, and maneuver-choosing is very easy since there are no traps.

First throwing a new player to the wolves is a terrible idea. You should always, at the very least, help them create a character or better yet at first have a pregenerated character based on their input. Building is not the aim for a new player. Teaching them how to play and to deal with in game issues are the issue at hand. Teaching how to build can come later once they learn how the system works.

Heck even if it is hard to screw up I would never make a brand new player have to choose all the stuff in the ToB book. It is sensory overload. Far better to have it ready made for them so they can concentrate on enjoying the game.

Besides the first couple feats for a barb are fairly easy. Later after they are picking up their third feat or so they will have some mastery under their belt, you can still help them, and they may want to move on to different character types.

Though to be honest I am being off topic as I just realized that the question is not "what are the best teaching classes" it is "what are the best non-core classes for new players". So regardless of how nice barbs are for new players it is not germane to the topic.

[Calintares]

Though to be honest I am being off topic as I just realized that the question is not "what are the best teaching classes" it is "what are the best non-core classes for new players". So regardless of how nice barbs are for new players it is not germane to the topic.

Not at all, I've already gotten several good replies to the original post, and the question of the best teaching classes is interresting, so feel free to use this topic to discuss that.

How hard would it be to play a premade monk compared to a premade swordsage for instance?

[MeeposFire]

Not at all, I've already gotten several good replies to the original post, and the question of the best teaching classes is interresting, so feel free to use this topic to discuss that.

How hard would it be to play a premade monk compared to a premade swordsage for instance?

Do swordsage. Maneuvers may not be as easy as full attack but the sheer problems monks have are not fun in play and can be disappointing. Better to have to teach maneuvers than to make them sad from being so ineffective. Unlike barbs, which are decent and even very good at low levels, monks are almost always bad and it does not get better.

[Veyr]

Seeing as the Monk's combat ability will be "almost nothing" and the Swordsage would be able to do things, I'd say the Swordsage is much easier to play.

[Aemoh87]

Seeing as the Monk's combat ability will be "almost nothing" and the Swordsage would be able to do things, I'd say the Swordsage is much easier to play.

This is a good point since monk is completely unrewarding (unless you like not getting hit, but swordsage is better at that anyways), swordsage can deal damage and relies on maneuvers that are actually simpler than trips and grapples.

I just watch a "noob" build a swordsage around throws, might in specific (didn't even take mountain hammer) and he loves it. He even uses alot of miss chance and movement tactics just like a higher level player, and he did it all immediately with little help... because if some one would have helped him they would have said take mountain hammer.

[Darth Stabber]

Mountain hammer is awesome. And maintains it's usefullness well beyond the level you are supposed to replace it at.

Fighter is for optimizers, it offers a class feature that works in direct purportion to system mastery. Barbarian less so.

I gotta say this, and it may sound really strange, but ranger is actually a good teaching class. Right off the bat they learn combat and skills, and spell casting works it's way in slowly. They also get a pet which new players love, and can be used to teach how easy death can come, without killing their character.

[MeeposFire]

Mountain hammer is awesome. And maintains it's usefullness well beyond the level you are supposed to replace it at.

Fighter is for optimizers, it offers a class feature that works in direct purportion to system mastery. Barbarian less so.

I gotta say this, and it may sound really strange, but ranger is actually a good teaching class. Right off the bat they learn combat and skills, and spell casting works it's way in slowly. They also get a pet which new players love, and can be used to teach how easy death can come, without killing their character.

Ranger is about perfect if you create a two handed style to complement the archery choice. Two weapons are not the best for new players.

[gomipile]

Also, despite its seeming complexity, Binder is good for new players because it is nearly impossible to paint yourself into a corner like you can with a caster's spell selection. If you want to do something different after learning more about the game, bind a different vestige, problem solved.