Introducing New Players to 3.5/PF

[ArcanistSupreme]

So I want to introduce some new people to the wonderful game that is D&D 3.5/PF, and I'm wondering what the best classes are the best for doing this. I'm looking for things that are simple and easy to understand, but still offer some options and are fun. I'm asking both for general advice and concepts that I should consider including/avoiding with new players as well as specific builds.

This game would take place at low/mid levels, so keep that in mind.

For these characters, I would probably do all of the grunt work in building the characters, so don't worry about poor feat/spell selection.

[Sucrose]

If you're going to prevent the issues of poor spell or feat selection, then Sorceror works well as a general introduction to the arcane, since it's less day-to-day planning, and lacks the INT for too many skills.

For skill use, I think that a mildly twinked rogue can work fairly well. I'd even advise them over the beguiler, since it could take some work for them to realize that status effects>>damage, and a beguiler casting Whelm is just sad.

For divine magic, I'd again go with something that restricts spells to those that are still fairly useful again, and go with the Favored Soul. Perhaps get them wands of some of the more common recovery spells, such as Restoration and CLW, so that they don't need to spend precious spells known slots on the effects.

For the warrior, I'd go with a Warblade. Enough maneuvers to keep things interesting, but at low levels, not too much to keep track of. If you think it could get to be a bit much at the level you'll start at, then maybe multiclass with Barbarian to artificially lower initiator level, while still giving a reasonable return on level investment.

Other reasonable options include the Bard, Warlock or Dragon Shaman, and Psion, among others.

[ArcanistSupreme]

If you're going to prevent the issues of poor spell or feat selection, then Sorceror works well as a general introduction to the arcane, since it's less day-to-day planning, and lacks the INT for too many skills.

For skill use, I think that a mildly twinked rogue can work fairly well. I'd even advise them over the beguiler, since it could take some work for them to realize that status effects>>damage, and a beguiler casting Whelm is just sad.

For divine magic, I'd again go with something that restricts spells to those that are still fairly useful again, and go with the Favored Soul. Perhaps get them wands of some of the more common recovery spells, such as Restoration and CLW, so that they don't need to spend precious spells known slots on the effects.

For the warrior, I'd go with a Warblade. Enough maneuvers to keep things interesting, but at low levels, not too much to keep track of. If you think it could get to be a bit much at the level you'll start at, then maybe multiclass with Barbarian to artificially lower initiator level, while still giving a reasonable return on level investment.

Other reasonable options include the Bard, Warlock or Dragon Shaman, and Psion, among others.

This is all perfect. Upper tier four is probably a good place to shoot for. What spells do you think would be good for Sorcerer/Favored Soul that would be fun and useful but not make the other classes obsolete? And how do you suggest tweaking the Rogue?

[Larpus]

The truly ideal thing is to limit the amount of sourcebooks, speaking from personal experience, for a newbie the amount of information, classes, feats, etc in core alone are quite overwhelming.

Also, keep the mechanics as raw as possible, I'd stay away from Psyonics, Warlocks or even Druids for example since they have extra mechanics added to them that a beginner is very likely to misunderstand or misuse.

The first thing one needs to learn to do is to know how to read his sheet, exactly how the different calculations work, when they should roll a die, etc.

As for classes, keep it simple:

As Sucrose said, Sorcerer is overall ok for the arcane guy as long as you help him with spell selection or you have some house-rule so he can swap them (otherwise generalist Wizard is better since you're less penalized for bad picks) and Rogue for the skill monkey/party face (if there is no Bard).

For the melee guy I advise Barbarian, it keeps everything in core, is simple to use, rewarding RP-wise and performs pretty well in the low levels.

For divine...well, I guess that Cleric is pretty much your only option (unless it's PF, then there's the Oracle, with similar considerations to the Sorcerer), either way, since turn/rebuke rules and overall usage may be confusing, so I'd either use them constantly to teach the Cleric or swap it for the Channel Ennergy of PF Cleric.

And another thing that might be worthy is to introduce many NPCs for areas where the party might be lacking (just be careful not to steal the spotlight), this is especially good for healing, just do the standard rule "as long as you rest at a friendly temple, the Clerics there aid your wounds so you recover full HP".

[Vladislav]

Have a few premade characters ready. Go with distinct and memorable archetypes:

- The foaming-at-the-mouth Barbarian
- The gruff dwarven Cleric of Moradin
- The tall, dark and handsome Sorcerer
- The crafty Halfling Rogue
- The Elven Woodsman (archery Ranger)
- The Noble Knight in Shining Armor (if 3.5 Paladin is too weak, just rip off PF Paladin)

Starting level should be low, but not so low as to die from a random arrow. Level 3 is probably your sweet spot.

[Larpus]

Starting level should be low, but not so low as to die from a random arrow. Level 3 is probably your sweet spot.
Indeed, I totally second this, at level 1 nearly everyone can be one-shot by a lucky enemy with a good weapon (good as in a simple mundane greatsword/greataxe, not as is +17 dagger of winning awesome).

[Trasilor]

Have a few premade characters ready. Go with distinct and memorable archetypes:

Dang, Vlad totally stole my idea. Except of course he forgot he Scottish accent for the gruff Dwarf :smalltongue:

Now, I generally agree with Vlad's choice of characters...however...

You may want to consider the individual personalities of the players. I wouldn't just rule out any particular class, including the Wizard or Druid just because they are new. I have played with many experienced gamers who though the years have primarily stuck with the martial/skill based classes and have no idea how to play a Wizard or a Druid.

Also, have any of these people played in a table top game before? They may have experience with other complex games; therefore playing a Wizard/Druid would not be too difficult.

Regarding the OP:

I'm looking for things [classes] that are simple and easy to understand, but still offer some options and are fun.

Keep in mind, even though D&D 3.5 is simpler than its predecessors, it is still complex. And, simple does not necessarily equal more fun.

You may want to build it into your campaign a way for the players to swap to another character after a few levels. That way they can discover what class is the most fun for them.

[Trasilor]

Indeed, I totally second this, at level 1 nearly everyone can be one-shot by a lucky enemy with a good weapon (good as in a simple mundane greatsword/greataxe, not as is +17 dagger of winning awesome).

What's the plus on winning awesome...I want to price it out in my epic campaign :smalltongue:

[Lord.Sorasen]

If you're using pathfinder, might I suggest the elemental bloodline for a sorcerer? Most new players will want to blast, no matter what you tell them. This way they can avoid the energy resistance more reliably, and can try out some really crazy spells with their other things.

To this point, I really suggest using pathfinder rules with new players. I'll list my reasons:
Pathfinder ultra-simplified the skillsystem. New players will go insane with 3.5's class skills, especially if they multiclass (and knowing new players, at least one of them will want to, specially if they picked a sorcerer and want more health). Furthermore, wanting to be stealthy and needing to max out hide, move silently, and disguise leads to new players dividing not enough skill points into all three. Pathfinder's "stealth" and "acrobatics" will do wonders to avoid this problem. The whole game is online, and that includes character creation and such, which may help new player's who want to learn more. That little bit more they give than 3.5 is really nice. It also means you can do "SRD only" and still give the party tons of options. Character creation is simpler and at times more fun. The barbarian, for instance, may not be much stronger... But a player gets to give him a new power every even level! It can be a lot of fun looking at a big list of good things and getting to actually choose. New players tend to feel this animal magnetism towards the monk and paladin. PF monk and paladin are both miles better than their 3.5 counterparts. Oracle and Magus are both nice, and seem to do well at being interesting caster types for new players.


After writing this, I suddenly remember one more thing. You'll feel a strong urge to help them make their characters a ton. You'll see them pick monk and choose weapon focus and take two weapon fighting with fighters... But keep in mind that for many players, the greatest draw for D&D isn't the tactical combat but the freedom. If they don't feel like they own their characters, they won't feel as happy with the experience. So while I suggest helping them out a ton with the crunch, I'd suggest doing it entirely through suggestion.

[Krazzman]

Things to approve:

Sorceror, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger (with advice).

Bard might be an option for them too. For beginners everything that either just hits things, uses some easy tricks to hit, shoots at things and then hit them, or blasts them is solid for a newbie.

In my Gestalt game, the 2 newbies will be Ranger/Rogue and Fighter/Monk

It should be easy for them.

Have a nice Day,
Krazzman

[ArcanistSupreme]

My responses are pretty long, so I've spoilered them for convenience.

@Larpus
The truly ideal thing is to limit the amount of sourcebooks, speaking from personal experience, for a newbie the amount of information, classes, feats, etc in core alone are quite overwhelming.

Also, keep the mechanics as raw as possible, I'd stay away from Psyonics, Warlocks or even Druids for example since they have extra mechanics added to them that a beginner is very likely to misunderstand or misuse.

While this is good advice, I intend to allow all sources, but just act as the gatekeeper for information. So they'll ask me for a spell or feat that does X and I'll give them a few options. That way they can still have their choices, but I'll filter out the junk.

As for Psionics and Warlocks, both are super simple systems that are even easier to understand/use than vancian casting so I don't think it will be a problem to allow them. I'm worried about Druid just because it's so powerful.


...For the melee guy I advise Barbarian, it keeps everything in core, is simple to use, rewarding RP-wise and performs pretty well in the low levels.

For divine...well, I guess that Cleric is pretty much your only option (unless it's PF, then there's the Oracle, with similar considerations to the Sorcerer), either way, since turn/rebuke rules and overall usage may be confusing, so I'd either use them constantly to teach the Cleric or swap it for the Channel Ennergy of PF Cleric.

The problem with a vanilla Barbarian is that I worry about it being too boring. He has two options: hit things or rage and then hit things. I can see that being fun for the first couple of sessions, but personally I would get tired of it pretty fast. I like the idea of mixing it with Warblade, however, to spice things up.

With the Cleric, I worry about running into the problem of too many options again or about a player falling into the trap of being a healbot. I think I'll stick with Favored Soul.
@Vladislav
Have a few premade characters ready. Go with distinct and memorable archetypes:

- The foaming-at-the-mouth Barbarian
- The gruff dwarven Cleric of Moradin
- The tall, dark and handsome Sorcerer
- The crafty Halfling Rogue
- The Elven Woodsman (archery Ranger)
- The Noble Knight in Shining Armor (if 3.5 Paladin is too weak, just rip off PF Paladin)

Starting level should be low, but not so low as to die from a random arrow. Level 3 is probably your sweet spot.

I was thinking of doing just that. I might not use those classes specifically, but I have no problem building a dwarf Favored Soul and calling it a Cleric or building a Warblade and calling it a Fighter or Barbarian.

My biggest concern with a Rogue is that the class encourages melee combat with sneak attack, but it doesn't offer much survivability. Any build suggestions to avoid this?

@Lord.Sorasen
[PF Stuff]

Yeah, that's all pretty much my logic in including it. CMB alone removes a ton of headaches from combat. Monk still has a lot of problems, though, so I'm going to be very careful about including one/making it an option.

[Bloodgruve]

In the group I run with we have 2 players that are fairly new to 3.5. We made up spell and ability cards(because most of us play MtG also). Basically a quick reference to what they can do without them having to look it up all of the time. I also helped build the characters and I basically asked them what they would like to do in the game and gave them the class that best suit them.

GL
Blood~

[Vladislav]

My biggest concern with a Rogue is that the class encourages melee combat with sneak attack, but it doesn't offer much survivability. Any build suggestions to avoid this?
Eh, make a Whisper Gnome then; +2 to both Dex and Con, and the defensive benefits of Small size offer enough survivability.
Alternatively, a Small Mongrelfolk for +4 Con, and the benefits of Small size.

To the player, each of those options can be sold as a "small sneaky guy that's a bit like Bilbo or Frodo".

[Vangor]

Clerics, Warlocks/Dragonfire Adepts, Factotums, Psychic Warrior, Warblade, Swordsage, and Psion are all great base classes to use, in my opinion. You have enough features to be interesting while being viable in combat, social, and exploration without having excess or complicated rules. Perhaps most important, those classes are difficult to make ineffective regardless of choices.

In my opinion, using simplistic classes and doing work for the group means none of them learn. Sure, the first level powers or maneuvers or domains and such seem overwhelming, but no matter what is selected those characters will be useful and fun.

[ArcanistSupreme]

In the group I run with we have 2 players that are fairly new to 3.5. We made up spell and ability cards(because most of us play MtG also). Basically a quick reference to what they can do without them having to look it up all of the time. I also helped build the characters and I basically asked them what they would like to do in the game and gave them the class that best suit them.

GL
Blood~

A good idea. I will most likely be doing something very similar/identical.


Eh, make a Whisper Gnome then; +2 to both Dex and Con, and the defensive benefits of Small size offer enough survivability.
Alternatively, a Small Mongrelfolk for +4 Con, and the benefits of Small size.

To the player, each of those options can be sold as a "small sneaky guy that's a bit like Bilbo or Frodo".

Yet another great idea. The few extra hitpoints won't completely solve everything, but it certainly doesn't hurt anything.


Clerics, Warlocks/Dragonfire Adepts, Factotums, Psychic Warrior, Warblade, Swordsage, and Psion are all great base classes to use, in my opinion. You have enough features to be interesting while being viable in combat, social, and exploration without having excess or complicated rules. Perhaps most important, those classes are difficult to make ineffective regardless of choices.

In my opinion, using simplistic classes and doing work for the group means none of them learn. Sure, the first level powers or maneuvers or domains and such seem overwhelming, but no matter what is selected those characters will be useful and fun.

While I was initially going to go with most of those classes, this game will be for people with little to no experience with RPGs. I may still include them, but I want things to be as simple as possible for their first few experiences. Of course they need to learn, but I don't think that the possibility of them screwing up their character with poor invocation/feat/spell selection is the way to do it with this group.

Think of it as the tutorial at the beginning of a video game; you really don't learn a lot if you are a veteran gamer, but they are included because there are a lot of people that aren't. I want to ease them into things as much as possible, and there will be plenty of opportunities to learn once they've gotten their feet wet.

[Bloodgruve]

I started up the group that I am currently running with as the DM. 4/5 of the players were new to the d20 system and PnP games. I did a lot of work and had a ton of background information for the PC's to discover, too much in fact. The PC's were lost in info and we ended up switching DM's to one of the players. He has in turn taken us on a 'Dragon Warrior'esqe run which has turned out very nicely. Save the girl> kill the troll> escape the prison> profit. It has really helped get the group get into the game.

Basically, keep the path forward well marked and easy to follow. When the PC's are ready to veer off course they will ;)

Also, we took an idea from 4E and gave the less experienced players a single At-Will power, something for the player to fall back on easily and still be somewhat effective. The wizard for instance has a 'wand' attack that she can use, not as effective as spells but better than a 1d4 dagger.

GL
Blood

[Larpus]

While this is good advice, I intend to allow all sources, but just act as the gatekeeper for information. So they'll ask me for a spell or feat that does X and I'll give them a few options. That way they can still have their choices, but I'll filter out the junk.

As for Psionics and Warlocks, both are super simple systems that are even easier to understand/use than vancian casting so I don't think it will be a problem to allow them. I'm worried about Druid just because it's so powerful.
Oh, ok then, I thought you were going the standard way of "here are the books you can use, go nuts".

As for Psionics and Warlocks, while I know that their extra mechanics are fairly easy, sometimes for a newbie the sheer amount of terms and things to remember can be so overwhelming that they simply can't wrap their heads around anything else. I know because when I started playing I couldn't even look at anything that had spell progression without getting a headache, but now I play Wizards and am a half-caster enthusiast in the free time.


The problem with a vanilla Barbarian is that I worry about it being too boring. He has two options: hit things or rage and then hit things. I can see that being fun for the first couple of sessions, but personally I would get tired of it pretty fast. I like the idea of mixing it with Warblade, however, to spice things up.

With the Cleric, I worry about running into the problem of too many options again or about a player falling into the trap of being a healbot. I think I'll stick with Favored Soul.
My bad, I should have mentioned that I'd also advise using the PF Barbarian (just house-rule in that the Rage HP is temp), since it's more powerful overall, can Rage more times/day and has deeper choices while being nowhere as crazy and overwhelming as the Fighter.

As for Cleric, I can totally see that, which is why I prefer the PF Cleric, with Channel even new players are discouraged to prepare too many Cure spells and, if they do want to play a healbot, Channel is overall better for it.

Anyway, all of my suggestions were expanding on the original part of limiting the sourcebooks, and there's nothing more limiting and simpler overall than "just core".

And my concern with spontaneous people is that while they're much easier to play, they're much harder to set up, since if they choose a bad spell or spell list, they're more screwed than the Wizard who can just wait or can be house-ruled in that he can re-prepare any non-cast spell as long as he has his book.