The classes you'd like to see for a "better core book"?

[Roadie]

So I've been mucking with the idea of a "replacement core book" PDF for newbies, with a pre-recombobulated set of classes to have less traps for people who don't know the game well yet, while still being mechanically equivalent to and compatible with preexisting things in the game.

What I'm thinking at the moment:

Arcane casters:
- Investigator (with Questioner incorporated)
- ???... I can't find a good Wis-based arcane option that's tier 3-4. There's sorcerer with Empyreal bloodline, but that has 9-casting. Are there any good archetypes that change 9-casting down to 6-casting in a more interesting way than just "you're a 6-caster now lol"?
- Bloodrager

Divine casters:
- Occultist (with Reliquarian incorporated)
- Inquisitor
- Paladin (with Sacred Servant incorporated)

PoW:
- Warder
- Mystic (with Aurora Soul incorporated, so there's a punchmans in the list)
- Warlord

Akashic:
- Vizier
- Radiant
- Nexus

Boring classes with no subsystem:
- Fighter (with Impossible Warrior and original variety Lore Warden incorporated, and weapon training text changed to emphasize AWT by default)
- Ranger (with Trapper and Wild Hunter incorporated and whatever else I can toss in) - I'd appreciate any thoughts for other Wis-influenced non-spellcasting options to use here
- Vigilante (with Exposed Vigilante incorporated, and lots of talents from Legendary Vigilantes) - Maybe also Focused Hunter and/or Fortune Thief? The latter means no full BAB/pseudo-sneak attack, but gives access to witch hexes and self-buffs.

Some of these I'm less than sure about, since in part I just wanted to keep an even spread of Int/Wis/Cha-based classes in each group (thus the weird choices like Reliquarian Occultist, to get an Int-based divine caster). Generally the idea is for the entire list to fit into T3-T4 territory, though, while being able to cover a broad range of themes.

Note that I'm specifically leaving out most of SoM and SoP for the moment because of how much those rewrite and complicate other material (SoP's MSB/MSD/caster level weirdness, SoM's "counts as/take instead of" mechanics), but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

[Roadie]

One thing I'm considering is pulling Bloodrager from the list and replacing it with Magician Bard (as gently rewritten to make the performance stuff centered around Perform [oratory] and actually doing music being relegated to a sidebar option), and then to prevent spell list overlap, replacing Questioner Investigator with Magus. This gives a default "wizard-styled" option in a way that's missing on the original list.

[Ellrin]

I get what you're trying to do by keeping everything in the same rough tier range, but I think you're shooting yourself in the foot in a couple major ways.

First, I get this is for newbies, but by specifying not only a limited class list, but even mandated archetypes, you're taking away most of your players' options and making it harder for them to craft characters they'll care about. And it really doesn't help that literally two thirds of your available options are gishes, meaning all your players are going to be stepping on each others' toes in game instead of expanding to fill out different roles. This actually makes it almost inevitable that one is going to rise above the others as the most consistently effective player, which I think is what you're trying to avoid in the first place.

Second, some of your class selections are going to be harder for new players to play effectively than T5s in a mostly T2 game. Seriously, occultist is just obtuse for someone who isn't already savvy with the system, and Path of War classes are way more complex than first-party martials.

If you want a balanced game with newbies, the best thing, it seems to me, is just to help them with their builds so nobody's getting left too far behind (or leaving the rest too far behind). Ask what your players want to do with their characters before letting them look at the classes, and you can probably guide them to effective choices that won't overshadow the other players.

[Roadie]

First, I get this is for newbies, but by specifying not only a limited class list, but even mandated archetypes, you're taking away most of your players' options and making it harder for them to craft characters they'll care about.
Having a PDF that's not 1200 pages long means having limited options. I'm looking to make a curated set of material with options evenly spread out over basic traits like ability scores, not a compendium of all roughly balanced material in Pathfinder.



And it really doesn't help that literally two thirds of your available options are gishes, meaning all your players are going to be stepping on each others' toes in game instead of expanding to fill out different roles. This actually makes it almost inevitable that one is going to rise above the others as the most consistently effective player, which I think is what you're trying to avoid in the first place.

I disagree with you on this point, because the only class in the list actually meant for a "gish" playstyle—rather than "does a thing, and can also cast spells on the side if they feel like it"—is bloodrager (or magus, if I do the swap I mentioned). The rest aren't gishes: they're just classes that have both spellcasting and actual class features.

This speaks to a broader PF problem, in that it's really hard to make a class with some amount of power floor in Pathfinder without slapping on 4-casting or 6-casting. I can't solve that flaw in the system, but I'm open to working around it.

One thing I had thought about is pulling in Avowed and Malefex (both warlock-alikes in different particulars, with different casting states) to replace one of the caster groups, and combining the two caster groups into one that's just "Vancian casters" in general (probably with magician bard, inquisitor, and... eh, maybe mindblade magus or psychic detective investigator). That still leaves me trying to find a third class to fit the general "pick from a list of magic things you can use at will" theme, though.



Second, some of your class selections are going to be harder for new players to play effectively than T5s in a mostly T2 game. Seriously, occultist is just obtuse for someone who isn't already savvy with the system

I feel that most of the complexity in Occultist comes from a terrible write-up that poorly describes the passive buff/active power arrangement and tries to describe algorithms in text instead of just giving tables for things.



and Path of War classes are way more complex than first-party martials.

This doesn't mean that Path of War classes are too complex; it just means that first-party materials have all the complexity of a dry brick.

Look at a 1st-level or 2nd-level warder and there's no brain-breaking complexity there: pick some maneuvers and use them 1/encounter, use a debuff 4/day or so on enemies you hit, have a minor aura (of the sort any party with a bard would need to track anyway), and use your Defensive Focus to get free attacks if lots of enemies show up. Defensive Focus is the only thing that makes this more complicated than a 2nd-level sorcerer with one of the weirder bloodlines.


If you want a balanced game with newbies, the best thing, it seems to me, is just to help them with their builds so nobody's getting left too far behind (or leaving the rest too far behind). Ask what your players want to do with their characters before letting them look at the classes, and you can probably guide them to effective choices that won't overshadow the other players.
This is great advice for people who are looking to run a game right now, but those people don't include me.

[Kurald Galain]

Your initial draft looks more like a set of balanced options for advanced high-mastery players, not a set of learn-the-game options for beginners.

Doing a compilation for newbies primarily means including classes that are easy to play, and classes that match common fictional characters. Regardless of how balanced they are, classes like investigator, occultist, and basically anything POW have way too many fiddly bits to be suitable for beginners. This also means that you should have the fighter (with some suitable archetypes) at the top, not at the bottom with a label like "BORING! DO NOT USE! LOL!".

Covering a broad range of themes is best done by including a couple of archetypes for each class. Novice players love archetypes, and more importantly, they intuitively understand them. This is absolutely not the case for feats (which are primarily fiddly bits and there are way too many choices that don't matter all that much). Removing trap options is good, but that's mainly about culling the archetype and feat list.

[EldritchWeaver]

This speaks to a broader PF problem, in that it's really hard to make a class with some amount of power floor in Pathfinder without slapping on 4-casting or 6-casting. I can't solve that flaw in the system, but I'm open to working around it.

One thing I had thought about is pulling in Avowed and Malefex (both warlock-alikes in different particulars, with different casting states) to replace one of the caster groups, and combining the two caster groups into one that's just "Vancian casters" in general (probably with magician bard, inquisitor, and... eh, maybe mindblade magus or psychic detective investigator). That still leaves me trying to find a third class to fit the general "pick from a list of magic things you can use at will" theme, though.

If you want some easy to understand casters, use Spheres of Power. Most stuff is at-will, the rest is paid for with spell points.


I feel that most of the complexity in Occultist comes from a terrible write-up that poorly describes the passive buff/active power arrangement and tries to describe algorithms in text instead of just giving tables for things.

Anything that has complexity - regardless of source - is a problem. If you think, that the rules are just badly written, you could provide a cleaner rewrite.


This doesn't mean that Path of War classes are too complex; it just means that first-party materials have all the complexity of a dry brick.

Look at a 1st-level or 2nd-level warder and there's no brain-breaking complexity there: pick some maneuvers and use them 1/encounter, use a debuff 4/day or so on enemies you hit, have a minor aura (of the sort any party with a bard would need to track anyway), and use your Defensive Focus to get free attacks if lots of enemies show up. Defensive Focus is the only thing that makes this more complicated than a 2nd-level sorcerer with one of the weirder bloodlines.

Let's have look at the warder: Warders can select from the full 9th level list. Even if you consider that the warder has only five disciplines to choose from, that is a lot. Actually, a warder needs to select his 5th discipline from two choices at 1st level. So you need to know which discipline you care for. Then selecting maneuvers has its own set of restrictions. Afterwards you need to choose again a subset to ready them per encounter. Stances are also separate. This is complex enough, that personally I don't care learning about. In fact, that's way I switched to Spheres of Might. I would recommend this system at as an option.


Doing a compilation for newbies primarily means including classes that are easy to play, and classes that match common fictional characters. Regardless of how balanced they are, classes like investigator, occultist, and basically anything POW have way too many fiddly bits to be suitable for beginners. This also means that you should have the fighter (with some suitable archetypes) at the top, not at the bottom with a label like "BORING! DO NOT USE! LOL!".

That I agree with.


Covering a broad range of themes is best done by including a couple of archetypes for each class. Novice players love archetypes, and more importantly, they intuitively understand them. This is absolutely not the case for feats (which are primarily fiddly bits and there are way too many choices that don't matter all that much). Removing trap options is good, but that's mainly about culling the archetype and feat list.

SoP and SoM simplify things enough, despite providing enough power, that I can ask newbies: "Do you want to play someone doing combat with weapons? Or with magic? Or with both?" And depending on the answer I can provide them with a few classes/archetypes to choose from.

[Calthropstu]

Barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard.

In other words, zero class changes. Pathfinder did a fairly decent job with the crb, the only change I would make is adding unchained as core.

[khadgar567]

well the things i change in players handbook for easier starting experience. ı just dump wizard and put either kineticts or vigilante in its place with most of wizard abilities turned in to sorcerer archtype. besides then i change nothing in the book.

[Jormengand]

I'd be tempted to add psionics rather than the other systems, honestly. Everyone knows how mana points... I mean, power points, work. You don't need to force a faux-T3 balance point, you need everyone to know what in the nine exalted blazes is going on.

[Calthropstu]

I'd be tempted to add psionics rather than the other systems, honestly. Everyone knows how mana points... I mean, power points, work. You don't need to force a faux-T3 balance point, you need everyone to know what in the nine exalted blazes is going on.

If we're talking psionics and rewrites, I'd make the whole thing mana/psionic point based, discarding spell levels per day thing and dismiss scale by level.
Then all you have to track is one resource.
Wizards can memorize spells and get fewer points than a sorcerer.

[khadgar567]

what in the nine exalted blazes is going on.
ask truenamer to find interesting shock phrase. nice one jorm nice one I knew all that truenaming skills be useful.

[Tuvarkz]

Imo, Path of War's advantage is that the maneuvers have very little to no trap options, and those that are, are at a minimal disadvantage from the average, so a new player can just pick and choose what they feel looks/sounds coolest/most interesting/etc.

[Gnaeus]

well the things i change in players handbook for easier starting experience. ı just dump wizard and put either kineticts or vigilante in its place with most of wizard abilities turned in to sorcerer archtype. besides then i change nothing in the book.

Hahaha! Dump wizard for kineticist for easier starting experience! Swap (pick a handful of spells and a familiar) for (this ability costs 3 burn -1 for class level +2 because it’s tuesday - the square root of letters in your last name, wait, where do I find that rule? Ok now pick an element but don’t mess up because some are unplayable and now use your cool power oops that was 2 burn and now you are unconscious). On a pound for pound complexity level there is no class that is harder to make functional at low op than Kenny.

[khadgar567]

Hahaha! Dump wizard for kineticist for easier starting experience! Swap (pick a handful of spells and a familiar) for (this ability costs 3 burn -1 for class level +2 because it’s tuesday - the square root of letters in your last name, wait, where do I find that rule? Ok now pick an element but don’t mess up because some are unplayable and now use your cool power oops that was 2 burn and now you are unconscious).
you know calculating burn is much easier than whole wizard spell casting and all wizard does can be archetype in to sorcerer since from the beginning of 3.5 th edition they share the bab and main class feature thus i can remove wizard from players hand book with out problem. and for putting kineticts in its place i think we can all agree the good old warlock can with small changes do both roles in the book.

[Gnaeus]

you know calculating burn is much easier than whole wizard spell casting and all wizard does can be archetype in to sorcerer since from the beginning of 3.5 th edition they share the bab and main class feature thus i can remove wizard from players hand book with out problem. and for putting kineticts in its place i think we can all agree the good old warlock can with small changes do both roles in the book.

That is not true at all. Calculating burn is complex. The class is full of trap options. You can literally cast yourself unconscious. It takes a solid level of optimization to make a playable kineticist. Ive read all the guides and built a couple and it is the worst written class I’ve ever read. A first level wizard is vastly easier than a first level kineticist. A 10th level wizard has more options, but easier to learn and way less likely to suck by accident. After building multiple kennys, playing one and reading the guide I’m still not sure how much burn I want to be carrying. I don’t think any beginner class should require reading a guide and Kenny for sure does, but if it did all the wizard player needs from the guide is a list of the top spells to pick.

I wouldn’t suggest kineticist to a new player unless I was trying to discourage them from playing RPGs. I would make a list of the classes that would be better in the PHB but that list is ALL THE CLASSES other than kineticist.

You want an easy all day caster? Op has DSP. Vizier is a better blaster than Kenny in every possible way, with no traps, easy to build, a delight to play. Level 1. Take riven darts. Put your essence in it. 2d4 force damage touch attacks all day, scaling very well with level. Swap other powers until you find some you like.

[DMVerdandi]

I would say:

-Do spell points without any of the augment shenanigans. Spells cost [level x 2]-1.
-Allow VMC for the base classes, but only have path of war available as melee.
-Don't worry about curbing 9th level powers, because by the time they are available the game will be at least level 17. Allow all 9th level casting classes.

-Increase spell point and knowledge of all partial spell casting classes to wizard progression. So, now if you are playing say...Bloodrager, at 20 they have the same amount of spell points and have learned all of their spells at the levels that wizard does. They might bottom out early, but they can still cast more and earlier.


All of that won't necessarily teach them the "raw" way, but they may enjoy the more balanced and flexible house-rules. IMO the inflexibility is what kind of...causes bad habits and play.

The "bare" classes are NOT simpler, and anyone past the age of 8, but require MORE system mastery, because you have to succeed with less.


DSP Psionics are a great option as well.

[exelsisxax]

That is not true at all. Calculating burn is complex. The class is full of trap options. You can literally cast yourself unconscious. It takes a solid level of optimization to make a playable kineticist. Ive read all the guides and built a couple and it is the worst written class I’ve ever read. A first level wizard is vastly easier than a first level kineticist. A 10th level wizard has more options, but easier to learn and way less likely to suck by accident. After building multiple kennys, playing one and reading the guide I’m still not sure how much burn I want to be carrying. I don’t think any beginner class should require reading a guide and Kenny for sure does, but if it did all the wizard player needs from the guide is a list of the top spells to pick.

I wouldn’t suggest kineticist to a new player unless I was trying to discourage them from playing RPGs. I would make a list of the classes that would be better in the PHB but that list is ALL THE CLASSES other than kineticist.

*and medium, where your class may change on a daily basis depending on your location.

But yeah, kinny probably still takes the cake. It doesn't have trap options, it's a trap class. It's like two different people independent thought "how about we make a warlock, but weaker and extremely overcomplicated?", wrote it up, and then combined both texts with a blind automated merge.

Not only should it not be in noobcore, it should be unconditionally banned.

[Kurald Galain]

Hahaha! Dump wizard for kineticist for easier starting experience! Swap (pick a handful of spells and a familiar) for (this ability costs 3 burn -1 for class level +2 because it’s tuesday - the square root of letters in your last name, wait, where do I find that rule? Ok now pick an element but don’t mess up because some are unplayable and now use your cool power oops that was 2 burn and now you are unconscious). On a pound for pound complexity level there is no class that is harder to make functional at low op than Kenny.

Yeah, kinny has to be the single worst class for beginners. Lots of trap options, overcomplicated mechanics, and woefully underpowered.

Warlock would be a good choice though. Straight-up copying the 3E warlock into PF makes for an elegant and effective choice.

[ICN]

If you're looking to make a simple PDF for newbies, I'd strip out vancian casting entirely in favor of spheres casting, as it's simpler, more intuitive, and gates most campaign changing options behind advanced talents and GM discretion. There's no worrying about spell levels. There are far, far fewer spheres talents than pathfinder spells. You can build around a theme for every level and without having to search far and wide for an appropriate spell. Talent chains are analogous to feat chains. Spell pools are generally simpler to track than spells per day, and pool mechanics are something that transfer over to martial classes as well (e.g. barbarian rage rounds). There's a lot of room for flex and customization built into the system with drawbacks and boons. The hedgewitch is an option that shouldn't be included for new players as it's got all the options, but an experienced GM can use it to just about custom tailor a class if a player is having some trouble finding something exactly right.

I also like spheres of might, but that one's a bit more complicated, though I'd say that's because more options, feat prerequisite rules, and far more combat maneuvers. I think it is a good option to include as well though. Martial traditions give characters a jump to getting started instead of needing 3 levels or so to really get rolling. Full attacks are still good, but not the be all and end all that they are in base PF. Combat maneuvers will likely see some use, which I consider a good thing except maybe for grappling. Spheres of might also works mostly within the existing framework of the game, rather than adding completely new subsystems and extensive overhauls like path of war.

[vasilidor]

actually, I have thought that the investigator, bard and alchemist classes are great introduction classes for new players, especially for those who want to play spell casters. start off with a few simple spells, can do a few combat buffs, more as time goes on and plenty of opportunity to try the skill system. especially if you are wanting to use the vancian casting style.

[EldritchWeaver]

I would say:

-Do spell points without any of the augment shenanigans. Spells cost [level x 2]-1.

So you make prepared casters spontaneous. This kills the sorcerer and oracle.


-Allow VMC for the base classes, but only have path of war available as melee.

Not sure what you mean. Could you provide examples?


-Don't worry about curbing 9th level powers, because by the time they are available the game will be at least level 17. Allow all 9th level casting classes.

9th-level casters: Wizards are still complicated to play, because you need to balance your spell usage. In the end, you end up using the crossbow of shame. Clerics are better in melee, even when just used as healbots, but compared to pure melees lack power in the hands of a beginner. Druids have with an animal companion a second character. They are overwhelming at first.


-Increase spell point and knowledge of all partial spell casting classes to wizard progression. So, now if you are playing say...Bloodrager, at 20 they have the same amount of spell points and have learned all of their spells at the levels that wizard does. They might bottom out early, but they can still cast more and earlier.

So you tack the spellcasting of wizard onto the bloodrager chassis, but keep the spell list? That is an enormous power boost.


All of that won't necessarily teach them the "raw" way, but they may enjoy the more balanced and flexible house-rules. IMO the inflexibility is what kind of...causes bad habits and play.

So your overall plan is to boost the power of classes, because newbies squander it? I'm in favor of helping out, but this won't work once you add someone with more system mastery. You end up taking away power and people don't like losing stuff.

[Kurald Galain]

9th-level casters: Wizards are still complicated to play, because you need to balance your spell usage. In the end, you end up using the crossbow of shame.
I hope you're aware that this never actually happens in PF? This is what school powers and infinite-use cantrips are for.

[Eldariel]

Your list seems solid. Though frankly prepared casters aren't that bad either; they can switch what they do daily so trap options are only traps for one adventure day and they provide great training wheels for figuring out what you actually want. Of course, they do feature some "advanced" concepts like slot conservation and reactive preparation, but by and large the basic level functions can be brought to bear just fine.

But yeah, PoW is nice in that much like ToB, it's very plug'n'play. You pick an ability and use it, with the option of combining it with another ability or defending with an ability. Anyone who's played computer games can probably grog it really fast and it's got a much more natural leveling curve and style than the base melee classes that are kinda just "as is". So yeah, go with it.

[Snowbluff]

Your list seems solid. Though frankly prepared casters aren't that bad either; they can switch what they do daily so trap options are only traps for one adventure day and they provide great training wheels for figuring out what you actually want. Of course, they do feature some "advanced" concepts like slot conservation and reactive preparation, but by and large the basic level functions can be brought to bear just fine.

But yeah, PoW is nice in that much like ToB, it's very plug'n'play. You pick an ability and use it, with the option of combining it with another ability or defending with an ability. Anyone who's played computer games can probably grog it really fast and it's got a much more natural leveling curve and style than the base melee classes that are kinda just "as is". So yeah, go with it.

Cleric and Druid are great for this. No need to worry about picking all of your spells up front.

[Kitsuneymg]

Deep six the entirety of pathfinder classes. Use spheres of power without advanced talents. Use spheres of Might without legendary talents. Use champions of the spheres for people who want more fiddly bits in ther classes.

I guess you could use all the sphere archetypes instead, but they're a bit redundant.

There. You've a t3/4 game with none of the super huge problem spells that make casters win at high levels, and a magic/martial system that is easier to grasp (IMO) than vancian casting or path of war. If you're feeling up to it, add back on legendary and advanced talents, just know that creation and conjurationin particular can break games in the hands of people who know how and have the desire to do so.

[Aipaca]

Deep six the entirety of pathfinder classes. Use spheres of power without advanced talents. Use spheres of Might without legendary talents. Use champions of the spheres for people who want more fiddly bits in ther classes.

I guess you could use all the sphere archetypes instead, but they're a bit redundant.

There. You've a t3/4 game with none of the super huge problem spells that make casters win at high levels, and a magic/martial system that is easier to grasp (IMO) than vancian casting or path of war. If you're feeling up to it, add back on legendary and advanced talents, just know that creation and conjurationin particular can break games in the hands of people who know how and have the desire to do so.

Why is there no upvote button on this forum?

Goddamn I love spheres, and getting the chance to have a whole group all playing it without some of them wanting Vancian cheez would be a dream.

[Florian]

Paizo is actually pretty good at handling the T3 classes, based on the Bard chassis, so 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells. Most of those classes are pretty interesting and have unique abilities to fool around with and stay "balanced" between their peers.

So those would be my starting point for a "new and improved CRB" for new players.

[khadgar567]

Why is there no upvote button on this forum?

Goddamn I love spheres, and getting the chance to have a whole group all playing it without some of them wanting Vancian cheez would be a dream.
spheres system really makes dedicated and odd characters possible like teemo from league of legend and archer emiya from fate series. and we realy need fave button for posts.

[Ellrin]

Deep six the entirety of pathfinder classes. Use spheres of power without advanced talents. Use spheres of Might without legendary talents. Use champions of the spheres for people who want more fiddly bits in ther classes.

I guess you could use all the sphere archetypes instead, but they're a bit redundant.

There. You've a t3/4 game with none of the super huge problem spells that make casters win at high levels, and a magic/martial system that is easier to grasp (IMO) than vancian casting or path of war. If you're feeling up to it, add back on legendary and advanced talents, just know that creation and conjurationin particular can break games in the hands of people who know how and have the desire to do so.

My problem with suggestions like this is that they really don't do a good job of introducing people to the game they're playing, since you're completely replacing the majority of what the player is going to be interacting with--character classes. A player who starts with only DSP material or only Spheres material isn't going to be much better prepared for tackling first-party Pathfinder than he was before he started this "newbie intro" game you're proposing.

[Prime32]

Imo, Path of War's advantage is that the maneuvers have very little to no trap options, and those that are, are at a minimal disadvantage from the average, so a new player can just pick and choose what they feel looks/sounds coolest/most interesting/etc.
Crusader-style recovery tends to go over well with new players, at least if you go to the trouble of printing out maneuver cards. Unfortunately, the only PoW class with crusader-style maneuvers is Mystic, which has a bunch of other subsystems on top.

Harbinger is probably the most newbie-friendly of the PoW classes (if you modify Claim to always last until the end of the encounter), followed by Warder (which has the bonus of introducing the difference between tanking and just being hard to kill) and then Warlord.

Alternatively you could just port Crusader, maybe add a few buffs?

EDIT: Also take a look at Pathminder (https://pathminder.github.io/).

[upho]

It seems to me that the OP and some of the discussion here confuses at least two separate parameters of how "newbie friendly" or "easy" a class is. One parameter is how easy it is to build a PC based on the class that is roughly on par with the intended power level (T3-4 in this case). Most Paizo martial classes range from poor to awful on this parameter, having tons of build options with lots of traps and very fiddly details poorly explained in the rules, which when combined can quickly get extremely complicated and result in wildly different power levels. Spontaneous casters are also not good, having to live with a poor spell choice for at least two levels, while especially prepared divine caster classes are typically the best.

Another parameter is how easy it is to get enough out of the class' mechanical benefits in play to make it roughly on par with the intended power level. Most Paizo martials do great on this parameter, since they typically repeat moves from a small repertoire of soon well-understood mechanical combinations each round, while especially prepared arcane casters and companion classes are pretty terrible.

I also believe the OP's list prioritizes a theoretical average class power balance higher than newbie friendliness, which in turn may result in a high risk of the classes not being nearly as balanced as intended in an actual newbie game. For example, I think it's very likely a warder PC would be significantly more powerful than an occultist PC would be in the hands of the same new player, especially during the first ten levels or so.


First, I get this is for newbies, but by specifying not only a limited class list, but even mandated archetypes, you're taking away most of your players' options and making it harder for them to craft characters they'll care about.While the optimal balance between character variation possibilities and ease of build is tricky and will vary from person to person, I actually think it's mostly a good thing to limit options for a group of new players. Though I wouldn't necessarily do it by enforcing archetypes, but more by trying to make a compilation of feats and spells free from traps and OP options.


Having a PDF that's not 1200 pages long means having limited options. I'm looking to make a curated set of material with options evenly spread out over basic traits like ability scores, not a compendium of all roughly balanced material in Pathfinder.If you're actually looking to make a newbie friendly CRB, I suggest you give the ability score distribution thing a much lower priority than ease of build and ease of play.


And it really doesn't help that literally two thirds of your available options are gishes, meaning all your players are going to be stepping on each others' toes in game instead of expanding to fill out different roles. This actually makes it almost inevitable that one is going to rise above the others as the most consistently effective player, which I think is what you're trying to avoid in the first place.Huh...? When did "gish" become a role? I'd say they're typically almost as able to take on any role as full casters are. So I'd actually say the opposite is more true; the many gish classes decreases the risks of PCs stepping of each others' toes.

I think a setup including many of the Paizo martial classes runs a far greater risk of running into this issue, since they all pretty much share one combat role (damage) with only two truly meaningful sub-categories (melee and ranged). At least unless very heavily optimized for another role.


I disagree with you on this point, because the only class in the list actually meant for a "gish" playstyle—rather than "does a thing, and can also cast spells on the side if they feel like it"—is bloodrager (or magus, if I do the swap I mentioned).Just in case it matters: regardless of a few minor class features trying to make you believe otherwise, the bloodrager is less of a gish than all of the 6/9 casters on your list. It has one maybe somewhat gishy mechanic of any importance, which is greater bloodrage at 11th allowing for a free action buff spell when entering rage. Otherwise, it has far too few spells/day and no action economy boosters to keep up a true gish style, besides having far too low spell DCs for effective offensive casting. All while also having very significant native boosts to melee prowess, which in turn claims nearly all build resources (ability score distribution, feats, items, etc). In short, the bloodrager isn't even on the same gish level as a warpriest, or even a combat cleric with Quickened Spell.

Also, if the definition of a "gish" is a class "actually meant for a "gish" playstyle—rather than "does a thing, and can also cast spells on the side if they feel like it"—", the only true gish in all of Paizo and PoW is the magus. I'd even go as far as to say that the magus is the very mechanical definition of a gish.


The rest aren't gishes: they're just classes that have both spellcasting and actual class features.I agree.


This doesn't mean that Path of War classes are too complex; it just means that first-party materials have all the complexity of a dry brick.Actually, I think the major reason most PoW classes would do fine is because their optimization floor is so high, not because they're easier to build or play optimally (they're not). Regardless, I think at least the warder and the warlord are good picks, but I'd probably swap the mystic for the slayer, which has a bit fewer and less complex moving parts.