Dos and Don'ts of new players

[Boggartbae]

The third and fourth members of my adventuring party always tend to be new players, and while a lot of them have fun, you can tell that at times they get frustrated and confused. Whether it's when their eyes gloss over during character creation, or when they forget the difference between attack and damage for the third time, it can all add up to make for a night that they didn't enjoy.

So in the interest of expanding my game-group's roster, I'm looking for helpful advice in the form of things that do work for new player fun, and things that don't work for new player fun, so I can apply it to my group and get people to comeback for more!

[SangoProduction]

Do: Be open to learning.

Don't: Be a knobhead.

[Celestia]

Do: Become invested in your character and act out your dialogue.

Don't: Become so invested in your character that you forget who you are and spend the next month talking to a psychiatrist about ogres.

[tiercel]

Do: Have challenges that can be beaten, or at least made much easier, by non-mechanics in-character thinking.

(Corollary: if a player idea actually sounds plausible—at least for the way you’re running the game—except for RAW mechanics, either bend the rules, assign a significant circumstance bonus, and/or bend the suggested action so it has a reasonable chance of success under the rules as-is, especially for newer players.)

Reasoning: It’s really frustrating for a new player to be flatly told “you can’t do it like that” due to insufficient system mastery—that is, it’s frustrating in itself, but also breaks any immersion new players may be feeling when party members or opponents are doing impressive things but they don’t know how to. Conversely, it is rewarding to feel you’ve made a contribution as a new player, especially if it’s a bit “out of the box” of standard rules and so more experienced players perhaps might not have suggested it.

Don’t: Play too much against characters’ weaknesses, particularly when the players are still new.

If Bob wants to play a fireballin’ mage, make significantly fire-resistant (or immune) foes special and memorable, and preferably with some kind of warning, but not common (i.e. perhaps less common than a normal cross section of the Monster Manuals et al. would suggest), at least at first.

Reasoning: More experienced players will know to try to cover serious character weaknesses or at least know in which situations they will have to rely upon/support their partymates more. Less experienced players may not realize how serious a weakness may be, or even that it can be one, and while no one likes their character to feel useless/purely secondary, feeling helpless because it happens unexpectedly is worse.

[Celestia]

Do: Have challenges that can be beaten, or at least made much easier, by non-mechanics in-character thinking.

(Corollary: if a player idea actually sounds plausible—at least for the way you’re running the game—except for RAW mechanics, either bend the rules, assign a significant circumstance bonus, and/or bend the suggested action so it has a reasonable chance of success under the rules as-is, especially for newer players.)

Reasoning: It’s really frustrating for a new player to be flatly told “you can’t do it like that” due to insufficient system mastery—that is, it’s frustrating in itself, but also breaks any immersion new players may be feeling when party members or opponents are doing impressive things but they don’t know how to. Conversely, it is rewarding to feel you’ve made a contribution as a new player, especially if it’s a bit “out of the box” of standard rules and so more experienced players perhaps might not have suggested it.

Don’t: Play too much against characters’ weaknesses, particularly when the players are still new.

If Bob wants to play a fireballin’ mage, make significantly fire-resistant (or immune) foes special and memorable, and preferably with some kind of warning, but not common (i.e. perhaps less common than a normal cross section of the Monster Manuals et al. would suggest), at least at first.

Reasoning: More experienced players will know to try to cover serious character weaknesses or at least know in which situations they will have to rely upon/support their partymates more. Less experienced players may not realize how serious a weakness may be, or even that it can be one, and while no one likes their character to feel useless/purely secondary, feeling helpless because it happens unexpectedly is worse.
I agree with everything you've said here, but I must also note that a surprise mini-boss monster that exploits party weaknesses can be an incredibly memorable encounter and can be even more rewarding when the party finally struggles out a victory. The DM need not always project every possible challenge in advance.

[AnimeTheCat]

DO: ensure the new player understands the core building blocks of the game (like the modifier vs ability score), how to calculate things based on these core building blocks (like attack rolls are BAB+Str Mod+miscellaneous modifiers), and they understand the basic terminology of the game ([skill/ability] check, [type] save, [type] roll).

Synchronized with this is ensuring opposition is simple and easy to understand until the new player is fully grasping the basics.

This hinges on:
DON'T: Let experienced players ruin the experience. If you have a split experience table, do your best to make sure that new players are allowed to discover. If this means having more experienced characters playing less versatile or optimized characters, make it so. One approach is to have prepared characters that the party plays, following the generic classic party. Its simple and decently well rounded and allows the DM complete control over the early stagest of game knowledge development. After 2-3 sessions, new players should be comfortable enough with the basics to want to make their own character. Its important that experienced players use the right terminology and use the system as designed, such as making the appropriate knowledge (religion) check before blurting out that skeletons are weak to bludgeoning damage. Let new players struggle a little, it "builds character"

[KillingAScarab]

The third and fourth members of my adventuring party always tend to be new players, and while a lot of them have fun, you can tell that at times they get frustrated and confused. Whether it's when their eyes gloss over during character creation, or when they forget the difference between attack and damage for the third time, it can all add up to make for a night that they didn't enjoy.Are these players which are new to Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 / Pathfinder, or are these players which are new to tabletop roleplaying games? I think the answers are different for each group. If I were asked by people who were new to RPGs, "Where should I start?" I don't think I would suggest they try D&D 3.5. I'm not even sure I would suggest Pathfinder. Pathfinder does look to have a pretty good beginners set, but you're dealing with an established group which has already been playing. Are there any other games which your group plays which might be a better option for people new to tabletop games?

Now, if they aren't new to RPGs, then:
DO find out what the new players' interests are, both for the game and the other things they do. This will help with character building, creating a story they might be invested in and player interaction.

For the DM, DON'T spend the whole time talking to/about the new players; the inverse is also a DON'T. Everyone at the table has set aside time for a tabletop game. The new players will need help, and that should definitely be given (especially if you can give it during character creation), but experienced players also want to play. You also don't want to put a spotlight on mistakes, especially if new players aren't well acquainted with the group.
Edit: If you can get your other players involved in helping out the new players, that may make the group feel welcoming.

[denthor]

My rule would be play fighter type , monk thief.

2nd character can be cleric

After that wide open base class.

Why fighter class they get to roll the different types of dice. They get to know what dice for which thinges

Why cleric easy caster. You choose your spells no lock out due to not knowing. Learn tracking of spells picked vs used.

In my opinion mage is the hardest to run you only get so many spells you must choose between spells you know before combat [ memorize]. All new ones seem to want to run these with no way to understand the paperwork process.

[Crichton]

DO: think about setting aside a few hours (either before your first session or a few days in advance) to air down with the new players (and any existing players that want to help) and play through a short beginner's adventure with them, using basic pre-made characters, so you can explain each individual part of the character sheet and what it means, then use them in the adventure. Maybe then help them work through building their first character, which will take time and patience. They way when they sit down with the main group, they aren't completely unversed.

[Telonius]

Do: play a character that you enjoy.

Don't: get bogged down in the mechanics.



For the DM...

Do: steer the player to less mechanically-complicated options. It's not impossible for a newbie to play a Druid or an Artificer, but maybe see if what they really want is a cool pet or a robot pal (not hunting through eight pages of Excel sheets to figure out which summons to use, or solving a quadratic equation to figure out whether or not you can make that item).

Don't: step on their character concept (within reason). Refluffing and Alternate Class Features are your friends.


Do: Have a Session Zero for filling out character sheets. The act of writing their AC down on the sheet gives a small chance they'll remember where to find it when you ask them for it.

Don't: Spring too many obscure houserules or fixes on them to start. They're having enough trouble remembering what modifiers to add to their attack rolls; don't make them worry about whether or not a Dragon Disciple's features nullify its prerequisites. (However, Do let them know everything important, and give the full sheet to the experienced players).


Do: recruit the experienced players to help them out.

Don't: let the experienced players totally run the combat for them.

[Kurald Galain]

DO make a character that has a motivation to go adventuring, and a motivation to get along with the party.

DO try actions that aren't printed on your character sheet or that you think would go against the plot, as long as you feel they're in character, and as long as you don't mind that they might not work.

DO make a cheat sheet of your character's most common rolls, for instance that your attack is +5 / 2d6+3 without power attack and +4 / 2d6+6 with, so you don't have to calculate this again every single turn. Several standard character sheets do a pretty bad job at this!

DON'T worry about what long-time players say about class balance or which classes are "unplayable" for whatever reason.

DON'T include your party members in nasty area effect spells; even if they say they're cool with it, it's usually a detrimental idea.

DON'T play a character that enjoys torture, rape, or other "adult" content unless you are certain that everybody in the group is ok with that.

[AnimeTheCat]

Do: play a character that you enjoy.

Don't: get bogged down in the mechanics.

As for mechanics, do you mean like complex things? or how to calculate saves, AC, Attack Rolls, etc? Just wondering so as to better understand your view.

[Telonius]

As for mechanics, do you mean like complex things? or how to calculate saves, AC, Attack Rolls, etc? Just wondering so as to better understand your view.

Basically, don't sweat it if you're not designing the forums-approved Most Powerful Build Ever. The DM and the other players should help out if you're about to step on a Truenamer-shaped land mine (and you should listen to them when they tell you about it); but enjoying the character you're playing is a big part of making the game fun.

Absolutely, do try to learn the basics of how to calculate things. Nobody expects newbies to remember all of the fiddly little bonuses that could crop up; so don't worry if you don't remember whether or not you lose Dex to AC in a given situation.

[AnimeTheCat]

Basically, don't sweat it if you're not designing the forums-approved Most Powerful Build Ever. The DM and the other players should help out if you're about to step on a Truenamer-shaped land mine (and you should listen to them when they tell you about it); but enjoying the character you're playing is a big part of making the game fun.

Absolutely, do try to learn the basics of how to calculate things. Nobody expects newbies to remember all of the fiddly little bonuses that could crop up; so don't worry if you don't remember whether or not you lose Dex to AC in a given situation.

Got it. That's what I thought you meant, i just used different termiology in my head when I read your post is all so I was confused. In my head it sounded like you were saying just to have new players ignore the game basics. If that works for a DM/New Player combo, then all grand because what's important is making sure the new player is happy and engaged.

[Mato]

Do: Enjoy your character.
Don't: Don't identify as your character.

Do: Enjoy assembling options together to create something you'll like playing.
Don't: Become attached to options and think you need to "fix" them in order to create something you'll like playing.

Do: Take things in moderation.
Don't: Think moderation is for halfmen gnomes and weakling elves before drawing every card in a deck of wonders.

[Velaryon]

DO: Try to think of your character as a person, who has reasons to be the type of character you built them to be. Why are they here? What would they do in this situation?

DON'T: Just stab random townsfolk or quest givers for the lulz. This is not Grand Theft Auto.


DO: Try to wrap your head around the basic mechanics such as how to calculate the results of a die roll, and where to find the most important things on your character sheet.

DON'T: Try to learn everything all at once.


DO: Ask questions when you're not sure what you or your character can do.

DON'T: Give up when you mess up a rule or fail in the action your character tries to take.

[Boggartbae]

Thank you all so much for the advice! This is all really good stuff!

[Malroth]

I would personally reccomend new characters to play a Warmage, Beguiler or Dread necromancer. High optimization floor, no spell choices to mess up and can function even with wildly unoptimized feat choices.

[Vaern]

I would recommend against new players playing prepared casters in general. If they don't know what they're doing and fill up all their slots with spells that they end up unable to use, they're going to feel useless and bored. They'll have a better time as a sorcerer than a wizard.

[Velaryon]

If it's not a very high-op game, I think a ranger is a solid choice for a first character as well. That gives the player a chance to learn the combat, skill, and magic systems all at once, while (hopefully) not being the only person in any of those roles. It also comes with a free animal companion (even if it's less powerful than the druid version for some stupid reason).

[tiercel]

I agree with everything you've said here, but I must also note that a surprise mini-boss monster that exploits party weaknesses can be an incredibly memorable encounter and can be even more rewarding when the party finally struggles out a victory. The DM need not always project every possible challenge in advance.

Point: you don’t need to telegraph every single resistant/immune foe in advance, but it should indeed be played for drama and particularly should not exploit “newb” weaknesses while the experienced players’ characters are the ones who take care of the problem.

OTOH, specifically targeting the experienced players’ characters’ weaknesses so that the more inexperienced players’ characters can be Big Damn Heroes.... (I mean, you don’t want to overuse this, obviously.). If you can find a weak point for the whole party, experienced and inexperienced alike, and they have to cobble together their own victory outside of normal system mastery or My Favorite Trick, then awesome if they can pull it off :)

[Vaern]

If it's not a very high-op game, I think a ranger is a solid choice for a first character as well. That gives the player a chance to learn the combat, skill, and magic systems all at once, while (hopefully) not being the only person in any of those roles. It also comes with a free animal companion (even if it's less powerful than the druid version for some stupid reason).
I'd also recommend bards for the same reasons. Access to basically everything, but not necessarily designed to specialize in anything. Also has access to spells from the start, unlike rangers who take a few levels to access the feature, and bardic music gives them an option to assist in combat without having to directly participate in the event that they don't know what else they should be doing.

[KillingAScarab]

I'd also recommend bards for the same reasons. Access to basically everything, but not necessarily designed to specialize in anything. Also has access to spells from the start, unlike rangers who take a few levels to access the feature, and bardic music gives them an option to assist in combat without having to directly participate in the event that they don't know what else they should be doing.With a bard, you are also building your character to function now. If someone were completely new to ranger you must explain to them if they stick with it they will eventually be able to cast spells, but only if they rolled high enough for wisdom/improve it later. This makes me think prestige ranger isn't a bad idea, but the promises and failings of modular class design ideally should not be brought up in the first session. We're trying to make the game less confusing.

[Boggartbae]

Yeah this is why I play Pathfinder; going single classed is generally the best thing to do.. Optimising with 5 different classes in 3.5 is just too much.

[KillingAScarab]

Yeah this is why I play Pathfinder; going single classed is generally the best thing to do.. Optimising with 5 different classes in 3.5 is just too much.So these will be players which are new to Pathfinder then? Here's a question. I'm not very familiar with Pathfiner Unchained. I know that if, for example, the unchained version of the monk is being used then everyone must use it, no take-backsies. Does Unchained simplify things? Did Paizo feel a need to incorporate the Unchained updates into their starter set, or were those classes absent from it anyway?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not very familiar with Pathfiner Unchained. I know that if, for example, the unchained version of the monk is being used then everyone must use it, no take-backsies.
That's not how it works. Every player can decide for himself what to play, you just can't have the "chained" and "unchained" version of the same class on a single character.

However, it is common for GMs to ban the regular Summoner because of power concerns, and require the unchained summoner instead. Note that the summoner was changed because it was too strong whereas the rogue, barbarian, and monk were changed because they were too weak.


Does Unchained simplify things?
It's about equally complex as the chained version, but unchained characters will be more effective. For example, rogues get to add debuffs on their sneak attacks, and barbarians no longer die when knocked out during rage.


Did Paizo feel a need to incorporate the Unchained updates into their starter set, or were those classes absent from it anyway?
The summoner was never in the starter set. The other three are, and they did not errata the core rulebook.

[Eldariel]

I would recommend against new players playing prepared casters in general. If they don't know what they're doing and fill up all their slots with spells that they end up unable to use, they're going to feel useless and bored. They'll have a better time as a sorcerer than a wizard.

I'd actually recommend the opposite. Pick bad spells on a Sorc, you're stuck with them for life. Pick bad spells on a Wizard, you're stuck with them for a day. Spontaneous casters that have trouble switching their spells known are the worst option possible for players trying to learn the game unless you pick their spells for them. Something like a Wizard or a Cleric/Druid (even more optimal since they know all their spells so no acquisition costs unlike Wizard) enables the new player to pick a spell that sounds cool, prepare it, cast it a few times, see how they like it, and prepare a different one the next day. They're like the textbook slow start gradual expansion classes.

Sure, they won't have the ultimate cosmic power a tier 1 class would normally have when played by a newbie but that's just as well, and the more experienced players can point them towards at least some of the efficient combat spells for each level to ensure they have a contribution (though Druid being spontaneously able to cast a very relevant spell for every level is really nice; but the bookkeeping is of course somewhat bothersome and it's probably optimal to start with just one good all-rounder per level with premade sheets). The mechanism of being able to learn any number of spells and preparing different ones each day is great learning wheels for getting into the game and trying stuff out though. That's how our group originally stumbled on the fact that casters are ridiculously broken by comparison in good old 3.0 (though to be fair, that was around level 13-14); but if there are experienced players in the mix, such realisations need not come unannounced and the players can play with full awareness of the potential and the actualisation there-of of each class..


However, it is common for GMs to ban the regular Summoner because of power concerns, and require the unchained summoner instead. Note that the summoner was changed because it was too strong whereas the rogue, barbarian, and monk were changed because they were too weak.

Well, Chained Barb is stronger than Unchained but it was changed to remove the unintuitive requirement of Rage Cycling, where 90% of Chained Barb's power was. Thus Unchained Barb is better straight out of the box until Fatigue Immunity but a Chained Barb has a higher ceiling.

[KillingAScarab]

That's not how it works. Every player can decide for himself what to play, you just can't have the "chained" and "unchained" version of the same class on a single character.
Ah, thanks for that. My mistake (as was "Pathfiner").


I'd actually recommend the opposite. Pick bad spells on a Sorc, you're stuck with them for life.It's not quite as bad as that, though the changes to spells known are limited. A bard has to wait until 5th level (then every 3 levels), a sorcerer until 4th (then every 2 levels), and then they can learn a different spell in place of one they know. Player's Handbook II additionally allows for exchanging two spells at once (or psionic powers). According to the retraining costs sidebar on page 194, the guideline cost is 5 gp per level of the spell and it takes 1 day of time.

[ExLibrisMortis]

DO make a character that has a motivation to go adventuring, and a motivation to get along with the party.

DO try actions that aren't printed on your character sheet or that you think would go against the plot, as long as you feel they're in character, and as long as you don't mind that they might not work.

DO make a cheat sheet of your character's most common rolls, for instance that your attack is +5 / 2d6+3 without power attack and +4 / 2d6+6 with, so you don't have to calculate this again every single turn. Several standard character sheets do a pretty bad job at this!

DON'T worry about what long-time players say about class balance or which classes are "unplayable" for whatever reason.

DON'T include your party members in nasty area effect spells; even if they say they're cool with it, it's usually a detrimental idea.

DON'T play a character that enjoys torture, rape, or other "adult" content unless you are certain that everybody in the group is ok with that.
This, definitely.

Also:
As more experienced player, DO point out that feats (classes, spells, abilites) are not equal to their name or associated tropes. Just because it's called "samurai" doesn't mean you have to call yourself 'samurai', speak in faux Japanese aphorisms, or that it'll be good at fighting with a katana.

Conversely, DON'T get hung up on the fact that people choose options based on what they know, which may not be the metagame. You've got to start somewhere, after all.


(My sister was initially upset about my build critique (I was subtle, I swear), but she liked her post-optimization character better than the initial version, and now she's book-diving for fun, so there.)

[Vaern]

I'd actually recommend the opposite. Pick bad spells on a Sorc, you're stuck with them for life. Pick bad spells on a Wizard, you're stuck with them for a day.
But the fact that they still basically need to know what they're going to need to cast and exactly how many times they'll need each spell before they even know what they're going to encounter is still not an appealing prospect to put on a newbie. If you're starting out at level 1, they basically get to pick which two of their 6 or 7 first level spells might be useful later on that day.
And if the newbie is playing work the mindset that arcane casters should be blasters, they'll be perfectly happy playing a sorcerer as long they have at least one damaging spell available.

Clerics aren't quite so bad. If they realize they aren't going to use a spell for the day, they can just burn the slot for a bit of healing or damage. That ability takes a bit of the sting out of not knowing what you're doing with spell preparation.

[Boggartbae]

(My sister was initially upset about my build critique (I was subtle, I swear), but she liked her post-optimization character better than the initial version, and now she's book-diving for fun, so there.)

UGH if I could get people into book diving (or pfsrd diving in our case) that would be my DREAM :smallsigh:

About the prepared vs spontaneous caster thing: In PATHFINDER, wizards have literally zero class features, whereas sorcerers have about 1 gajillion different bloodline options.

Do y'all think, that if the rest of the group helps to guide spell selection, a wizard would be easier to play, since you only have to choose from 1 laundry list of options instead of 2? Just spells, vs spells AND bloodlines?

[Psyren]

I'd like to highlight the importance of positive metagaming - i.e. if something would be completely obvious to the character but their player forgot to ask about it (due to inexperience, getting sidetracked by table chatter, or whatever), then call for a check, drop a hint, or outright tell them. This is especially applicable if nothing particularly stressful or distracting is happening in-game. For example, if a character has scent and there is an odor of rotting flesh in the area they just walked into, they would probably notice right away - at the very least you should have that character roll Perception even if the player didn't ask. Or even if the PC itself lacks that ability, but a companion they're linked to like a familiar does - have some kind of change in emotions or thoughts spill over their bond to let them know something is up.


In PATHFINDER, wizards have literally zero class features, whereas sorcerers have about 1 gajillion different bloodline options.

Wait what? Arcane schools, Arcane bond, Arcane discoveries, and that's before we get to archetypes...

[Kurald Galain]

About the prepared vs spontaneous caster thing: In PATHFINDER, wizards have literally zero class features
Except school specialization (from the eight classic ones and both western and eastern elements); bonded item or familiar; archetypes for your familiar; and Arcane Discoveries which are basically wizard-only feats. So yeah, quite a lot of class features.

I do agree that the sorc is much easier to play, given a bit of help when character building (then again, pretty much ALL novice players need some help with character building anyway). They'll get some thematic spells from their bloodline already, which helps. It's fine if a sorc doesn't get all the top-tier spells, of course; nobody expectes a TO character for someone's first campaign. Just ask them what kind of magic they want, point to some examples, and advice against spells that are overly weak. In the worst case scenario, PF has retraining rules by default, and has affordable magical items that add to your spells-known list.

[Boggartbae]

Alright I know that wizards have class features, but other than arcane discoveries and archetypes(which I wouldn't be showing to a new player anyway) they're extremely simple and they don't really matter if the player forgets about them. Sorcerer Bloodlines have a million different bells and whistles attached to them, and contribute significantly more to the character's power.

I could set up a new player with a wizard and say "you cast spells and have a pet chicken" and they wouldn't be missing out on a whole lot, whereas with a sorcerer I would need to remind them to add +1 damage per die, or that they can turn invisible for x minutes per day without using a spell, and it could all become too much.

I guess this leads into another more specific question: Currently I limit the number of laundry lists of abilities new players have to choose from, because there are a lot of different options in Pathfinder and staring at them all is daunting. Where would you draw the line of letting players choose for themselves, vs. guiding, vs. telling them what to take?

Also, how much handwaving do y'all perform in the players favour?

[Psyren]

If you want to keep the bloodlines simple, just stick with Arcane Bloodline - it can fit just about any concept.

Concerning your question - I don't draw lines per se, rather I sit with the player and ask what they want their character to do and come up with an easy-to-pilot build that can achieve that concept or something close to it. Much like I do on these forums when somebody asks "how could I build X?" (Indeed, I use those threads to practice much of the time.)

[Kurald Galain]

Alright I know that wizards have class features, but other than arcane discoveries and archetypes(which I wouldn't be showing to a new player anyway) they're extremely simple and they don't really matter if the player forgets about them. Sorcerer Bloodlines have a million different bells and whistles attached to them, and contribute significantly more to the character's power.
Not particularly, no. Bloodlines are comparable in complexity to school specialization.

For example, anyone who still thinks that wizards run out of spells and need to use a crossbow, of all things, clearly hasn't read the powers granted by Paizo's school specialization.


I guess this leads into another more specific question: Currently I limit the number of laundry lists of abilities new players have to choose from, because there are a lot of different options in Pathfinder and staring at them all is daunting. Where would you draw the line of letting players choose for themselves, vs. guiding, vs. telling them what to take?
I don't think the number of lists is a problem. Rather, I think the number of items on each list is a problem. The biggest offender is, of course, feats (here are a thousand items with little or no flavor, please pick one now). Bloodlines are at least flavorful and very few of them actually suck, so you can just present the player with the flavor and let him make a pick on that.

That approach works for spells too. Ask him what abilities he wants his character to have (based on e.g. movies he's seen, or superheroes/manga if he's into that, or whatever) and select spells for him based on that.

[Boggartbae]

If you want to keep the bloodlines simple, just stick with Arcane Bloodline - it can fit just about any concept.

Concerning your question - I don't draw lines per se, rather I sit with the player and ask what they want their character to do and come up with an easy-to-pilot build that can achieve that concept or something close to it. Much like I do on these forums when somebody asks "how could I build X?" (Indeed, I use those threads to practice much of the time.)

This sounds like a good idea. It should prevent the "I want to make my own first character, oh wait, this is way overly complicated and I don't want to play anymore" situation.


I don't think the number of lists is a problem. Rather, I think the number of items on each list is a problem. The biggest offender is, of course, feats (here are a thousand items with little or no flavor, please pick one now). Bloodlines are at least flavorful and very few of them actually suck, so you can just present the player with the flavor and let him make a pick on that.

That approach works for spells too. Ask him what abilities he wants his character to have (based on e.g. movies he's seen, or superheroes/manga if he's into that, or whatever) and select spells for him based on that.

That's a good point. Feats are way too much, especially since so many of them don't do anything flavourful or powerful.

One last Q before I go to bed, related to Kurald's last point: I once had a player who wanted to play an assassin, but was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one. What would you do in this situation?

P.S: thank you so much to everyone else who commented in the thread. I've read all the tips and they all sound really good. Sorry I didn't have a lot of time to respond earlier in the week <3

[jmax]

I'd actually recommend the opposite. Pick bad spells on a Sorc, you're stuck with them for life. Pick bad spells on a Wizard, you're stuck with them for a day. Spontaneous casters that have trouble switching their spells known are the worst option possible for players trying to learn the game unless you pick their spells for them. Something like a Wizard or a Cleric/Druid (even more optimal since they know all their spells so no acquisition costs unlike Wizard) enables the new player to pick a spell that sounds cool, prepare it, cast it a few times, see how they like it, and prepare a different one the next day. They're like the textbook slow start gradual expansion classes.


But the fact that they still basically need to know what they're going to need to cast and exactly how many times they'll need each spell before they even know what they're going to encounter is still not an appealing prospect to put on a newbie. If you're starting out at level 1, they basically get to pick which two of their 6 or 7 first level spells might be useful later on that day.
And if the newbie is playing work the mindset that arcane casters should be blasters, they'll be perfectly happy playing a sorcerer as long they have at least one damaging spell available.

A bit late to the party here, but on this note:

DO: Ask your DM to let you tweak your character build if the options that you (inherently blindly) picked turn out to be terrible. Spells Known on a bard or sorcerer are a great example of this. So are feats, skills, and even ability scores.

DON'T: Ask your DM to let you tweak your character build every session specifically to prepare for what you think is coming next.


From the DM's side, DO be reasonable with the first but DON'T be a push-over with the second.


On the imbalanced-player-experience side of things, we've had very good success in one of the games I play in now with the newbies (all of the players but me) providing the general concept of what they want to play and the experienced players (me) putting together builds that make that concept work - at least to the greatest extent possible within the limits of what they want to do. Everyone at the table works full-time and has other grown-up responsibilities (ugh!), so the game probably would never have gotten off the ground if they'd had to research everything to build characters from scratch.

[Elkad]

I become more and more convinced the best starting character is a Warblade. Make sure you print their maneuver cards.

I keep one in my file (appropriately leveled for the group) to hand out to noobs/visitors. It's a basic fighter, plus some cool maneuvers to pick through with a dead-simple recovery method. Didn't play a card this round? You get all the played ones back. (Not completely accurate, but close enough.) Load them up with static bonus gear as appropriate, keep the charged items to a minimum.

A spontaneous caster (with spells you picked for them) works, but they may not understand resource conservation at first. So you give them a couple blasting wands as well - which is also handy when they invariably get caught in melee range.

Either way, be generous letting them retrain.

[Hyperversum]

DO:
1) Ask to the other players some suggestion about how to start using your character. Probably, a novice that starts with Wizard would love to do something more than 1d4+1 damage in a combat with a feat you can't yet do anything with (any metamagic that is cool but doesn't work at low levels)
2) Keep it simple. I suggest to avoid generalist (for wizard) or peculiar combat style for mundane (in most campaigns, you can't just charge with your horse 24/24).
3) Play something that plays with what the rest of the party is gonna do. So no creepy looking necromancers in party with a paladin of Pelor or orcs that really like to smash kids for fun in the party of a Neutral Good Elf Wizard.
3.2) Seriously, ask with the rest fo the team what the **** they are gonna play. At least create characters that would... speak to each other, it doesn't to be true friendship or childhood lovers. My NG Archivist and the NE Necromancer are completely cool with each other, we are both tiefling who uses "Black Magic" for our reasons, it's not that relevant that I'm a Malconvoker while the other character is simply a woman who like to abuse evil spells, even if she is positive (or most of the time, only selfish, without hurting others) in her doings.
4) Sometimes, metagame could be positive. Follow the hints the DM leaves around or shout at you, at least sometimes. You are helping everyone playing and not spending time in arguing with the rest of the table. It's not that good to be said, but sometimes this is IMO needed.

DON'T:
1) Avoid playing like it is GTA, both for stabbing random people and putting your character in random danger, in particular in social situations.
You are a ****ing person, even the most able and great adventurer IN GENERAL cares about his life, you won't survive only because you are a character
2) Think like your character would do if he/she has your knowledge of the game.
Seriously, most people know how magic works at the table, but this doesn't mean that your character is immediatly aware that something is magical because of reasons.

[AnimeTheCat]

Well, on the note of class features, bonuses, bells and whistles I have another "Do"

Do: create physical reminders of class features or effects like fear, bardic inspiration, arcane/divine spell cards, maneuver cards, etc. These create physical go to ques to remind new (and experienced) players of current effects, abilities, and options.

DON'T: Leave new players out to dry without any assistance for class features, effects, and abilities.

[Kurald Galain]

I once had a player who wanted to play an assassin, but was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one. What would you do in this situation?

I would definitely find a way to let him jump out and deal extra damage (e.g. sneak attack dice) at level one. I would also inform the player that you are not uber-powerful at level one yet but you get to grow into that. It's more satisfying that way.

[Hyperversum]

I once had a player who wanted to play an assassin, but was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one. What would you do in this situation?

Missed this, but I for sure have something to say about this.
Before starting a campaign in D&D 3.5/whatever similar ruleset of D&D (and PF) players NEED to understand what their characters are. I always spend a good chunck of the "Explaining **** moment" to make it clear. Generally it's something like this.

"You are a character with a class level. This means that if you are a Figther, you a very good soldier, with skills and endurance way above the standard soldier (+1 Feat, d10 and maximum HP at level 1); if you are a cleric you are a saint man who can stop bleeding with a prayer (Cure Light Wounds), have vision about your future (Omen of Peril) and bless your companion (any buff spell); if you are a rogue, you are good at whatever you invested your ranks in, can be dangerous in the right situation (1d6+1d6, aka a Sneak Attack with a rapier/shortsword is like the attack of a greatsword after all) and so on; as a wizard, you are officially a magic-user, but you are far from the marvels of the Archmage of your school, yet compared to the others you can shut down a band of bandits with a single spell or even that Ogre that would just massacre your party and a village by himself (Obviously this is sleep) and then you can set things of fire (Ray of Flame), or similar things, depending on your spells, and your feats can improve your general knowledge of magic (College Wizard is 10/10 at low levels imo) or can become your main tools in a certain time (metamagic).

Yet, you are a common person. A good slash from a sword can take you down if you aren't member of a class that is made to fight in melee, but even in that case 2/3 blows takes you down, your magic can be done 2/3 times at day and most monsters would just ignore whatever you throw at them. That's why you are an adventurer, anyway. Going out of your home/temple/whatever puts you in danger, but while in our world this would increase your experience, while not changing anything in your body, in D&D this gives you experience points. And you level up, sooner or later. And with the reward or loot from your adventuring you don't just get luxuries or something like this, you can find or buy real magic items, and whatever.

In a certain time you will be able to fend off a dozen of orc marauders by yourself, wiedling your magic hammer, protected by your magic armor and some of those cool trinkets you find while adventuring, and all of this while hitting things harder and better than ever, or you will be able to perform absurd tasks and tricks as an experienced rogue (disarming complicated traps, sneaking behind a monster, taking down an enemy in one hit) while abusing every potion/oil/magic items you could get for yourself; as a cleric, now you are restoring people after heavy and terrible attacks (3d8+5 HP of healing generally doesn't change the course of a campaign when you could just rest for a week, but for sure helps a lot the figther who was taken down by a troll), you can start building up you army of undeads with your bodyguard skeleton (animate Dead) and similar things, and at the same time the wizard is starting to massacre group of enemies with a Fireball, turning his party in a way better death-machine by casting Haste or stopping the monster from getting closer by blocking his view, movement and maybe making him fall, becoming an easier target for your party (Sleet Storm), and both will have something magical to do even when they use all of their spells, with Scrolls and Wands.
Yeah, it's not yet the knight doing a 1vs1 against a Dragon, or the rogue stealing that incredible artifact from the enemy king castle and the cleric isn't making people come back to life or turning himself into a fighting monster with a bunch of prayers, and yeah, the wizard is not yet teleporting everywhere, he yet can't just kill you with a bunch of strange words and a green laser or simply shooting a really stronger fire rays that incinerate an enemy (an Empowered Split Schorching Ray is a satisfying thing to do for that blaster wizard, 24d6 without a Saving Throw are pretty satisfying), but you can become those guys.

It's cool, but there aren't that many people doing so, for a simple reason, it's hard to survive against those horrors of monsters or various people that want to kill you, and you are here at level 1 to start that journey to the high levels. So you don't just walk out of this tavern and go on a happy dragon-hunting mission, you don't do the idiot with that fortress commander, you don't piss off the guy with the pointed hat and more than anything, you don't insult the god of the cleric you asked helped too. Those are 4 good reasons why others guys won't reach those big badass powers".

[Boggartbae]

I’ve never played with spell cards. Seems like a good idea. Does anyone know of a good phone app for keeping track of characters?

Allowing players to retrain if they’re unhappy seems smart.

As for the quest to the high levels, do y’all think that levelling up every session is too much levelling? The last thing I want is to big people down with pencil-pushing, but I also know that growing stronger is fun. Any good apps to help with this?

[Psyren]

One last Q before I go to bed, related to Kurald's last point: I once had a player who wanted to play an assassin, but was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one. What would you do in this situation?

This is a much more complex question than it appears. What build (class, stats, feats, race, gear) are they using? What are they fighting? Are they using the rules that let you "stealth up to" a target? You can absolutely "kill things in one attack at level 1" - maybe not every single time you try (you're level 1 after all) but fairly routinely against a number of CR-appropriate threats.

[Hyperversum]

This is a much more complex question than it appears. What build (class, stats, feats, race, gear) are they using? What are they fighting? Are they using the rules that let you "stealth up to" a target? You can absolutely "kill things in one attack at level 1" - maybe not every single time you try (you're level 1 after all) but fairly routinely against a number of CR-appropriate threats.

Tbh, a sneak attack, even set up as an ambush, at level can easily fail against CR-appropriate threats.
I mean, considering Craven (which I wouldn't so easily give to new players, too many decisions), you can easily make a 2d6+2 (1 from Crave, 1 damage from at least a 12 in Str, if you were lucky with dices) attack on someone, that's statistically a 9, which drops down most CR-appropriate threats, but you can easily roll 1 two times, or 1 and 2.

It becomes a 4/5 damage. My "Average city guard" is a Human with 12 in Con, having therefore 6 or 9 HPs (1 feat used in that feat I won't even dare to say, the other is generally used in or Improved Iniatitive, meaning that guards are trained to be fast to catch criminals or to attack in defense of someone, and also in taking more than a blow, since they are meant to be patrolling and working in teams, they aren't supposed to have a +5/+6 to hit as a NPC-class at level 1...). Statistically you take down the poor guard, but it can happen that you miss that blow.
It doesn't mean that your rogue cut his throat and he survived, simply you attack wasn't "lethal" as you wanted, and he can try to fight back.
It happens, sneaking isn't easy, it has some danger.

[Kurald Galain]

"You are a character with a class level. This means that if you are a Figther, you a very good soldier, with skills and endurance way above the standard soldier (+1 Feat, d10 and maximum HP at level 1); if you are a cleric you are a saint man who can stop bleeding with a prayer (Cure Light Wounds), have vision about your future (Omen of Peril) and bless your companion (any buff spell); if you are a rogue, you are good at whatever you invested your ranks in, can be dangerous in the right situation (1d6+1d6, aka a Sneak Attack with a rapier/shortsword is like the attack of a greatsword after all) and so on; as a wizard, you are officially a magic-user, but you are far from the marvels of the Archmage of your school, yet compared to the others you can shut down a band of bandits with a single spell or even that Ogre that would just massacre your party and a village by himself (Obviously this is sleep)

I think you should be a little bit careful in describing what first-level characters can do. The OP mentioned a player who "was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one". If you describe a level 1 wizard like that, then you meet bandits in-game, and it turns out that you actually can't shut down the band with a single spell, then some players are going to be disappointed...

[Elkad]

I think you should be a little bit careful in describing what first-level characters can do. The OP mentioned a player who "was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one". If you describe a level 1 wizard like that, then you meet bandits in-game, and it turns out that you actually can't shut down the band with a single spell, then some players are going to be disappointed...

He'll shut down 3 of 4 anyway (+0 vs DC15 Will). Which is mighty nice.

[Hyperversum]

I think you should be a little bit careful in describing what first-level characters can do. The OP mentioned a player who "was really upset when she couldn't jump out from stealth and kill things in one attack at level one". If you describe a level 1 wizard like that, then you meet bandits in-game, and it turns out that you actually can't shut down the band with a single spell, then some players are going to be disappointed...

In my experience, Sleep is THAT effective, since most low-CR threats have low will saves. Obviously that's a general description, then they gotta read the description (consider a team of 6 bandits, there is an high chance to really make sleep 4 of them, or even just Color Spray. With a combo of Color Spray and Grease my level 2 wizard turned a pack of 5 wolves into some cute puppies (the third spell and fourth spell for the day were a Enlarge person that I used in the seguent encounter to buff my figther&best friend while i was buffed with a Magic Armor, that with my +4 Dexterity and a cute little houserule [Dexterity is automatically used for Dex based weapons like daggers and rapiers] i was able to help him in melee with a Rapier).

You are not gonna work 100% of times, but that's why you work as a team. As a Figther you can even keep missing for a whole day by rolling only 2 and 3, but statistically you gonna hit something.


He'll shut down 3 of 4 anyway (+0 vs DC15 Will). Which is mighty nice.

And that's what I said, statistically you are gonna do something. Also that's why I prefer buffs to debuffs anyway.

[Boggartbae]

I should have been more clear. The player was a Rogue wielding a short sword for aesthetic. She wanted to be able to kill guards in 1 hit all the time. Also, she was using the stealth rules correctly, in that she made her stealth check behind cover, and then left cover, ran over to the guard, and sneak attacked the guard while it was still flat footed.

between 0 BAB, and random damage rolls, it didn't always work.

[Psyren]

Tbh, a sneak attack, even set up as an ambush, at level can easily fail against CR-appropriate threats.
I mean, considering Craven (which I wouldn't so easily give to new players, too many decisions), you can easily make a 2d6+2 (1 from Crave, 1 damage from at least a 12 in Str, if you were lucky with dices) attack on someone, that's statistically a 9, which drops down most CR-appropriate threats, but you can easily roll 1 two times, or 1 and 2.

It becomes a 4/5 damage. My "Average city guard" is a Human with 12 in Con, having therefore 6 or 9 HPs (1 feat used in that feat I won't even dare to say, the other is generally used in or Improved Iniatitive, meaning that guards are trained to be fast to catch criminals or to attack in defense of someone, and also in taking more than a blow, since they are meant to be patrolling and working in teams, they aren't supposed to have a +5/+6 to hit as a NPC-class at level 1...). Statistically you take down the poor guard, but it can happen that you miss that blow.
It doesn't mean that your rogue cut his throat and he survived, simply you attack wasn't "lethal" as you wanted, and he can try to fight back.
It happens, sneaking isn't easy, it has some danger.

Well sure, but not all your level 1 opponents are going to be "city guard with 12 Con" either. For instance, the standard Goblin and Orc entries are 5HP average, and Kobolds are 4 - a one-shot even with average rolls and no Craven. That guard with 6-9 HP and chain shirt instead of leather is going to be tougher, sure.

[KillingAScarab]

I do agree that the sorc is much easier to play, given a bit of help when character building (then again, pretty much ALL novice players need some help with character building anyway). They'll get some thematic spells from their bloodline already, which helps. It's fine if a sorc doesn't get all the top-tier spells, of course; nobody expectes a TO character for someone's first campaign. Just ask them what kind of magic they want, point to some examples, and advice against spells that are overly weak. In the worst case scenario, PF has retraining rules by default, and has affordable magical items that add to your spells-known list.Do you mean outside of what is built into the spells class feature for spontaneous casters?

*investigates*

I see retraining rules were added to Pathfinder in Ultimate Campaign and that those rules are on the Pathfinder Reference Document (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/retraining.html). As it isn't in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, I wouldn't call that default.


I’ve never played with spell cards. Seems like a good idea. Does anyone know of a good phone app for keeping track of characters?

Allowing players to retrain if they’re unhappy seems smart.

As for the quest to the high levels, do y’all think that levelling up every session is too much levelling? The last thing I want is to big people down with pencil-pushing, but I also know that growing stronger is fun. Any good apps to help with this?Hm. To my mind, having a physical reminder of what your abilities are is half the point of spell cards. Printing out powers was one of the things I did with 4th edition D&D characters. I know there were a number of custom power card creators for 4th edition, but I don't know that there is an app for that for Pathfinder. Perram's Spellbook (http://www.thegm.org/perramsSpellbook.php) came up in a Google search and seems to offer quite a few options for printing Pathfinder spell cards.

As to leveling every session, I haven't been in a game where that has happened. Pathfinder has three different advancement speeds. Has anyone ever played on fast?

[Hyperversum]

Well sure, but not all your level 1 opponents are going to be "city guard with 12 Con" either. For instance, the standard Goblin and Orc entries are 5HP average, and Kobolds are 4 - a one-shot even with average rolls and no Craven. That guard with 6-9 HP and chain shirt instead of leather is going to be tougher, sure.

Indeed, this sums it up. I was picking a pretty hard situation to make an example at how you can perfectly fail at taking an enemy down in one hit. Anyway, I would probably rule 0 out that Toughness is the player simply rolled 6 or 7, for fun and obvious reasons.
At least, the first time and second time. Then obviously, I would return to my standard build for NPCs.

[Crichton]

Just gotta chime in, this thread is becoming a fantastic resource. I'd make every DM with newbie players read it, maybe even twice. For that matter, I'd make every new player read it, thoroughly, with a pen in hand to write down questions it brings to their mind. Going over those questions with them will go a long way to de-newbie-fying them.

[Psyren]

I see retraining rules were added to Pathfinder in Ultimate Campaign and that those rules are on the Pathfinder Reference Document (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/campaignSystems/retraining.html). As it isn't in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, I wouldn't call that default.

So what? They're free and sensible, use them.


Pathfinder has three different advancement speeds. Has anyone ever played on fast?

When we tracked XP at all, we started fast to about level 3-5, then slowed down. Nobody wants to be level 1 for very long.

More often though, we've done story-based leveling - there's no need to track XP in Pathfinder at all.

[NOhara24]

For the DM...

Do: steer the player to less mechanically-complicated options. It's not impossible for a newbie to play a Druid or an Artificer, but maybe see if what they really want is a cool pet or a robot pal (not hunting through eight pages of Excel sheets to figure out which summons to use, or solving a quadratic equation to figure out whether or not you can make that item).

Don't: step on their character concept (within reason). Refluffing and Alternate Class Features are your friends.


Do: Have a Session Zero for filling out character sheets. The act of writing their AC down on the sheet gives a small chance they'll remember where to find it when you ask them for it.

Don't: Spring too many obscure houserules or fixes on them to start. They're having enough trouble remembering what modifiers to add to their attack rolls; don't make them worry about whether or not a Dragon Disciple's features nullify its prerequisites. (However, Do let them know everything important, and give the full sheet to the experienced players).


Do: recruit the experienced players to help them out.

Don't: let the experienced players totally run the combat for them.

You posted my post before I was able to post it. Especially the bit with steering new players away from mechanically complicated classes. Even when they (eventually) stop asking questions (Around session 35 in my experience) you'll look at their Char Sheet and find something wrong that's been wrong for a long time.

[Velaryon]

I'd also recommend bards for the same reasons. Access to basically everything, but not necessarily designed to specialize in anything. Also has access to spells from the start, unlike rangers who take a few levels to access the feature, and bardic music gives them an option to assist in combat without having to directly participate in the event that they don't know what else they should be doing.

I'd agree with that. Bards are better overall and their magic comes online earlier, but they're also more complex due to having more magic and just more options in general. Also, in my experience many people are turned off by the fluff of bards, finding "person who casts magic through playing/singing music" to be silly or undesirable. I'd put both forward as good candidates for someone learning the game, but I often find bards a difficult sell to new players.

[KillingAScarab]

I'd agree with that. Bards are better overall and their magic comes online earlier, but they're also more complex due to having more magic and just more options in general. Also, in my experience many people are turned off by the fluff of bards, finding "person who casts magic through playing/singing music" to be silly or undesirable. I'd put both forward as good candidates for someone learning the game, but I often find bards a difficult sell to new players.I think you can sell bards based upon their flexibility, and that this largely can cover the silly perception. I recently realized that in Pathfinder, not only are there not any minimum ranks of perform required to use bardic performance, there are only two forms of it which specify what categories of performance are allowed: countersong (which must be heard, but excludes oratory) and distraction (which must be seen, but also allows oratory). Both of these are available at first level, but so are fascinate and inspire courage and you can accomplish those with whichever type of performance you desire. You could make a bard which acts more like a herald or a senator than a street performer. How about a bard which is the equivalent of Erol Flynn; an actor who captivates people by re-enacting scenes from one of their productions' sword fights while reciting the memorable lines? Perhaps they get inspiration from adventuring. A bard could also be devout; countersong can be accomplished with chanting. Bards could be an integral part of an army; someone has to beat those war drums and Pathfinder allows bards to be lawful.

[Telonius]

You posted my post before I was able to post it. Especially the bit with steering new players away from mechanically complicated classes. Even when they (eventually) stop asking questions (Around session 35 in my experience) you'll look at their Char Sheet and find something wrong that's been wrong for a long time.

Oh, I hear that. One game where I wasn't the DM, we had a newer player who forgot to give himself Feats and stat bumps after first level. I think we were around level 12 when we finally figured that one out.

[Algeh]

As for the quest to the high levels, do y’all think that levelling up every session is too much levelling? The last thing I want is to big people down with pencil-pushing, but I also know that growing stronger is fun. Any good apps to help with this?

I'd suggest leveling more slowly with new players rather than once per session. New levels often introduce Even More Choices (both choices of what to take when leveling and additional during-game options granted by new stuff you got by leveling), and it would be better to give them a chance to learn how to use all of their existing options and get comfortable with them before giving them a bunch of new stuff to manage.

Of course, part of that depends on how long your sessions are and how often you play.

[noob]

Oh, I hear that. One game where I wasn't the DM, we had a newer player who forgot to give himself Feats and stat bumps after first level. I think we were around level 12 when we finally figured that one out.

Honestly if you are a wizard you can make your own life a lot simpler by forgetting feats and stat bumps and following the table for spells without using the bonus spells(because else you need to know your current int for preparing spells) then you pick some spells that looks cool and prepare them once each and never change your preparation(you will have some levels after getting a new spell level the ability to prepare each known spell of that level exactly once) then you will still somehow have a character that does fine while the whole build part is a lot more simple.

[Mordaedil]

I've had a player who didn't know he was supposed to roll hit points or increase his attack bonus or saving throws on level-ups before.

[KillingAScarab]

I've had a player who didn't know he was supposed to roll hit points or increase his attack bonus or saving throws on level-ups before.

DO assist newer players the first time their characters level up. Offer to check their math. Supervise rolling hit dice; it's one of those less common times in a d20 game where you do something important and you don't roll a 20-sided die. If this occurs during downtime, assist with purchasing new equipment and let them know what is reasonably available for your campaign.

DON'T make all of a newer player's choices during level ups and downtime for them. It is discouraging when others are building your character for you and you never asked them to do so. Some people may not enjoy the bookkeeping aspects of the game, but they still want it to be their own character. If other players at the table are assisting the DM in helping the newer players, it might be a good idea to ask the DM if they're trying to keep options simplified. Cracking open 20 source books will likely overload newer players with information.