Making a Class List for New Players in 3.P

[Zecrin]

Soon, I will be participating in a 3.5 / Pathfinder campaign with several new players. It was requested by the DM that I help draw up a list of classes that would be appropriate for the new players to use. Generally speaking, this means avoiding full and and vancian casters, but the campaign will include material from Book of 9 Swords, Path of War, Spheres of Might, and Spheres of Power. At least one of the more experienced players will be using a somewhat optimized character (I’m not sure of what class).

I would appreciate any feedback on additional classes that I should add to the list (excluding Alchemist and Full Casters) and on the way I rank the already included classes. I have not actually played the vast majority of them, so my assessment for several is likely a little off. Alternatively, if you have any criticisms of the system I use to lay out the list, please share them. Finally, I have almost no experience with Path of War, so, for now, I’ve excluded those classes.




Key:

●Descriptors: Tags that describe what roles a class can fill

⚬Red = In Combat
⚬Yellow = Out of Combat
⚬Blue = Draws Upon A Source of Supernatural Power to Create Effects Useful Both In and Out of Combat


■Low = Will make occasional use of their magical abilities, but has access to a plethora of other, sometimes more powerful features.
■Medium = Magic substantially improves effectiveness; using a magical ability is often the best way to solve a problem.
■High = Requires magic to function effectively. A magical solution will virtually always be the best solution.
■AOE = Area of Effect; Specializes in magical effects that cover a large area
■Illusion = Specializes in effects that deceive the 5 senses
■Mind Control = Specializes in effects that control enemy actions
■Necromancy = Specializes in debuffing and effects that pertain to undeath.
●Bookeeping: How much content you will have to read / keep track of when playing a class is played above the power floor.
●Power Ceiling: How powerful the class is when played optimally
●Power Floor: How powerful the class is when played least optimally
●Versatility: The chances the class has an easily accessible solution to any given problem
Note: Star values cannot go above 7 or below 0


Sample: Psionic Artificer

Descriptors: Direct Damage, Control, Magic (Medium), Melee, Ranged, Skill, Support, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★★★★
Power Floor:
Versatility: ★★★★★★



Armiger

Descriptors: Ranged, Melee, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★★★★



Armorist

Descriptors: Magic (Low), Melee
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★



Blacksmith

Descriptors: Melee, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★



Commander

Descriptors: Melee, Ranged, Support, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★★



Conscript

Descriptors: Control, Melee, Ranged, Tank, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★★



Crusader

Descriptors: Melee, Support, Tank
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★



Duskblade

Descriptors: Direct Damage, Magic (Medium), Melee
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★



Dragonfire Adept

Descriptors: Control, Magic (AOE, High), Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★


Elementalist

Descriptors: Direct Damage, Magic (AOE, High)
Bookkeeping: ★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★


Eleciter

Descriptors: Magic (High, Mind Control)
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★



Factotum

Descriptors: Magic (Low), Skill, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★
Versatility: ★★★



Fey Adept

Descriptors: Magic (High, Illusion, Mind Control)
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★



Fighter

Descriptors: Direct Damage, Melee, Ranged
Bookkeeping: ★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★
Versatility: ★



Hedgewitch

Descriptors: Magic (High)
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★



Incanter

Descriptors: Magic (High)
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★★



Mageknight

Descriptors: Magic (Low), Melee, Ranged
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★



Paladin

Descriptors: Magic (Low), Melee, Support
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★



Psychic Warrior

Descriptors: Magic (Medium), Melee, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★
Versatility: ★★★



Scholar

Descriptors: Melee, Ranged, Skill, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★
Versatility: ★★★



Shifter

Descriptors: Magic (High), Melee, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★



Sentinel

Descriptors: Melee, Tank
Bookkeeping: ★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★



Swordsage

Descriptors: Melee, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★



Soul Weaver

Descriptors: Magic (High, Necromancy)
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★



Striker

Descriptors: Control, Direct Damage, Melee
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★



Symbiat

Descriptors: Control, Magic (Medium, Mind Control), Melee
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★★
Versatility: ★★



Technician

Descriptors: Ranged, Melee, Skill, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★★



Thaumaturge

Descriptors: Magic (High), Melee, Ranged
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★
Versatility: ★★



Warlock

Descriptors: Magic (High), Melee, Ranged, Utility
Bookkeeping: ★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★★
Power Floor: ★
Versatility: ★★★



Warblade

Descriptors: Melee, Control
Bookkeeping: ★★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★★


Warmage

Descriptors: Direct Damage, Magic (AOE, Maximum)
Bookkeeping: ★★★
Power Ceiling: ★★★
Power Floor: ★★
Versatility: ★



Edit: Added Dragonfire Adept and Warmage, Clarified Star Rankings, Changed Bookkeeping to Bookkeeping, Revised Magic Subdescriptors.

[Prime32]

Pathminder (https://pathminder.github.io/) has an interesting list which incorporates DSP material, and includes archetyped versions as separate classes with the changes already baked into the description. E.g. Fighter doesn't have a page, but "Fighter (Drill Sergeant, Myrmidon)" and "Fighter (Drill Sergeant, Mutation Warrior, Myrmidon)" each do.

[QuadraticGish]

I haven't gone through everything in detail yet, but Iwould recommend going through the first three PoW classes (Stalker, Warder, and Warlord) and using them over the ToB initiators. For the most part, the PoW classes are overall more refined versions of the ToB classes. Only real exception I would as would be Warblade since it doesn't exactly match up as well to Warlord as Swordsage does to Stalker and Crusader to Warder. If you really want to use the ToB initiators, I recommend you update their disciplines and maneuver progression to PoW standards. Swordsage can fit it nicely with Stalker (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/stalker) straight up. Warblade should probably get the Warder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder)'s maneuver progression with access to the Warlord (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/Warlord/#TOC-Force-of-Personality-Ex-)'s disciplines. Crusader should probably get the Warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder)'s disciplines with the Mystic (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/mystic)'s maneuver progression.

[Zecrin]

Pathminder (https://pathminder.github.io/) has an interesting list which incorporates DSP material, and includes archetyped versions as separate classes with the changes already baked into the description. E.g. Fighter doesn't have a page, but "Fighter (Drill Sergeant, Myrmidon)" and "Fighter (Drill Sergeant, Mutation Warrior, Myrmidon)" each do.

I never knew that this existed; it seems quite helpful for maintaining game balance. I don’t think the tier 1s and 2s will be removed for the campaign, but adding some of the classes suggested by this website to the list might narrow power gaps substantially while simultaneously increasing the scope of choices available to players. After reading, I’m considering adding:

Bard
Harbinger*
Inquisitor
Mystic*
Rogue
Stalker*
Warder*
Warlord*


My knowledge of the classes marked with an asterix is very limited, but that’s what the pfsrd is for.


I haven't gone through everything in detail yet, but Iwould recommend going through the first three PoW classes (Stalker, Warder, and Warlord) and using them over the ToB initiators. For the most part, the PoW classes are overall more refined versions of the ToB classes. Only real exception I would as would be Warblade since it doesn't exactly match up as well to Warlord as Swordsage does to Stalker and Crusader to Warder. If you really want to use the ToB initiators, I recommend you update their disciplines and maneuver progression to PoW standards. Swordsage can fit it nicely with Stalker (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/stalker) straight up. Warblade should probably get the Warder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder)'s maneuver progression with access to the Warlord (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/Warlord/#TOC-Force-of-Personality-Ex-)'s disciplines. Crusader should probably get the Warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder)'s disciplines with the Mystic (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/mystic)'s maneuver progression.

I can certainly add those classes to the list and give them higher star ratings to increase their likelihood of being selected, but I don't think I can persuade the DM to change or remove the To9S classes.

[Kurald Galain]

For new players, you should definitely avoid BO9S and Path of War. For that matter, you should avoid 3.P and stick to either but not both at once. A straightforward blaster caster is much easier to play than easily half the items on your list, and let's face it, novice players are just not going to wreck the game with a fullcaster anyway. And novice players will probably want a class that they've heard of and/or played in numerous video games, not a name plucked straight from the thesaurus.

Failing that, you should make a classification system that's less complicated than this.

[Powerdork]

Opposing opinion: Path of War and Tome of Battle are pick-up-and-play versions of martials that have simple, fairly effective attacks if you just pick what looks cool. The fact that there's pages upon pages of options to go through doesn't actually matter because so little of it is wasted space or used to define monster abilities (like so many spells are).

[Zecrin]

For new players, you should definitely avoid BO9S and Path of War. For that matter, you should avoid 3.P and stick to either but not both at once. A straightforward blaster caster is much easier to play than easily half the items on your list, and let's face it, novice players are just not going to wreck the game with a fullcaster anyway. And novice players will probably want a class that they've heard of and/or played in numerous video games, not a name plucked straight from the thesaurus.

Failing that, you should make a classification system that's less complicated than this.

Big decisions like edition and available material are not mine to make; I'm just helping to compile the class list. If they want to play a blaster caster, I'll encourage them to pick up Elementalist, which, in my mind, is substantially easier to play than any sort of full caster. Furthermore, especially at low levels, vancian blaster casters tend to be lackluster at best when played by the unprepared.

I would also like to note that while these players are relatively new to Pathfinder / Dungeons and Dragons, they are not new to RPGs, and I mostly trust their judgment enough to look at the list and decide for themselves how difficult a class they want to play.

You do observe that:
A. A straightforward blaster caster is much easier to play than easily half the items on your list
B. You should make a classification system that's less complicated than this

In response to A, I'm wondering if there are any specific classes whose difficulty score you think I should increase. And in response to B, what do you recommend I do to improve the accessibility of my list?

[Prime32]

Dragonfire Adept with the Entangling Exhalation feat is pretty easy to play while still having decent options.

For blaster casters, Warmage is often described as "an archer with a SFX budget", and its fixed spell list reduces complexity.

For making ToB accessible, the standard advice is "play Crusader, but only if you print out a deck of maneuver cards which you can shuffle and draw from".

[Zecrin]

Dragonfire Adept with the Entangling Exhalation feat is pretty easy to play while still having decent options.

For blaster casters, Warmage is often described as "an archer with a SFX budget", and its fixed spell list reduces complexity.

For making ToB accessible, the standard advice is "play Crusader, but only if you print out a deck of maneuver cards which you can shuffle and draw from".

Per your advice, I have added Dragonfire Adept and Warmage to the list. Maneuver cards would likely be a great way to facilitate play for any crusaders.

[Endarire]

To my understanding, Sorcerer was meant to be the newbie-friendly version of Wizard. Playing a Pathfinder Aasimar Sorcerer with Scion of Humanity lets them get the extra FCB spells known as if they were Human. Oracle is the divine Sorcerer.

Druid is somewhat complex, but it's a forgiving class: D8 hp, 2 good saves, 4 + INT mod skill points, a pet (or a domain in Pathfinder), armored casting, and a variety of effects. You don't need to play it optimally, but you can think, "I want to fly. How can I do that?" You can also think, "Can I turn into a bear or a wolf and attack things like my pet?" The more exotic forms can come later.

Ultimately, I advise talking with the newbies and determining what they most want to be able to do. They need time to learn whatever they're doing, and figure that if they like their first class, they'll want to stick with it for years. (That's how I was with Wizards.)

Whatever they choose, class handbooks and guides are very useful! It's how I learned various game mechanics!

[QuadraticGish]

For each class, I'd add a small list of highly recommended feats. Like Swordsage taking Adaptive Style to fix their maneuver recovery as an example. In addition, I think you should add in a category for how bookwork intensive a class is- so a player might know up front how much they might need to keep track of when selecting a class. I also think that you should note the minimum and maximum number of each category, so players can distinguish what a 3 could mean compared to a 6. I'm assuming it's out of 10 at a glance.

[Quertus]

For new players, you should definitely avoid BO9S and Path of War. For that matter, you should avoid 3.P and stick to either but not both at once. A straightforward blaster caster is much easier to play than easily half the items on your list, and let's face it, novice players are just not going to wreck the game with a fullcaster anyway. And novice players will probably want a class that they've heard of and/or played in numerous video games, not a name plucked straight from the thesaurus.

Failing that, you should make a classification system that's less complicated than this.

Wow, quite the unexpected response.

Hmmm… I have had new players enjoy TOB classes. I have had both new and experienced players watch squishy d4 arcane casters die under me as GM.

So, apparently, my first priority for new players is, "how easy is this build to keep alive?".

My second priority is "how much will the player enjoy what the character can do", mixed with "how much will they chafe at what they cannot do". One of the PCs I built for a 1st-time player was Druid into Arcane Archer. After playing the character for a while, she decided that her favorite part was the archery, followed by the animal companion. This informed her next character. But this character had plenty of options such that, so long as she liked *some* of them, she had a viable character, who could contribute to the adventure.

I guess I don't value "ease of play", so much as… "variety of modes of play", so that the character maximizes the chance to be enjoyed by the player.

So, OP, what do *you* value for characters for new players?

[Zecrin]

For each class, I'd add a small list of highly recommended feats. Like Swordsage taking Adaptive Style to fix their maneuver recovery as an example. In addition, I think you should add in a category for how bookwork intensive a class is- so a player might know up front how much they might need to keep track of when selecting a class. I also think that you should note the minimum and maximum number of each category, so players can distinguish what a 3 could mean compared to a 6. I'm assuming it's out of 10 at a glance.

I think I will eventually make a list of recommended feats, but not until they've decided what they want to play. This way, I save myself a lot of work.

The rating system is out of 7. I'll edit the key to reflect this.

On your note about a bookkeeping score, I try to cover this with the difficulty rating.

[Zecrin]

I guess I don't value "ease of play", so much as… "variety of modes of play", so that the character maximizes the chance to be enjoyed by the player.

So, OP, what do *you* value for characters for new players?

Well, that's a tough question. I suppose I would give you the following as an ideal scenario:

The new player...


understands how their character works and doesn't forget between sessions.
is eventually capable of leveling their character up without assistance.
gradually approaches system mastery.
is able to contribute meaningfully in and out of combat.
can take their turn within a period of 5 minutes.
develops enough of an attachment to their character that they do not want their character to die and will avoid silly risks.
is excited to take their turn.

[Kris Moonhand]

I haven't gone through everything in detail yet, but Iwould recommend going through the first three PoW classes (Stalker, Warder, and Warlord) and using them over the ToB initiators. For the most part, the PoW classes are overall more refined versions of the ToB classes. Only real exception I would as would be Warblade since it doesn't exactly match up as well to Warlord as Swordsage does to Stalker and Crusader to Warder. If you really want to use the ToB initiators, I recommend you update their disciplines and maneuver progression to PoW standards. Swordsage can fit it nicely with Stalker (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/stalker) straight up. Warblade should probably get the Warder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder)'s maneuver progression with access to the Warlord (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/Warlord/#TOC-Force-of-Personality-Ex-)'s disciplines. Crusader should probably get the Warder (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder)'s disciplines with the Mystic (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/mystic)'s maneuver progression.If you're interested, I made a homebrew port of the Crusader for PF (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VLDMoDmz1CwTv0YoL8wGoqEs5Tqyi2FbOCVIT90wn 4c). I beefed it up a bit to match the other PoW classes. It really needed some love since the Crusader only has, like, 2 actual class features.

[Kurald Galain]

In response to A, I'm wondering if there are any specific classes whose difficulty score you think I should increase. And in response to B, what do you recommend I do to improve the accessibility of my list?

Well that's a fair response. In my opinion:
The colors used for "Descriptors" look like they are a rating (e.g. blue = good, red = bad) but they're not. It would be clearer not to use color.
You're using descriptor to rate magic (low/med/high) but this strikes me as overlapping with the "versatility" stars, maybe merge the two.
Instead of "floor **, ceiling ****" it would be clearer to have one line stating "power ** to ****".
Finally, I don't think the "difficulty" scale really helps. For one, this is the only scale where "high is bad" (for everything else, high is good), and almost everything is rated at two or three stars. I'd suggest removing this, and for the rare class with four stars here, reduce the "power ceiling" to whatever is possible with two or three.
$.2 and HTH.

[Prime32]

Yeah, might be better to split "Descriptors" into "Combat" and "Non-Combat".

[upho]

⚬Blue = In and Out of Combat[/INDENT]


■Low = Access to few magical abilities and / or magical abilities have weak effects.
■Medium = Access to a fair amount of magical abilities and / or magical abilities are reasonably powerful.
■High = Access to a large number of magical abilities and / or magical abilities are powerful.
■Maximum = Access to a tremendous number of magical abilities and / or the power of magical abilities increases exponentially in relation to level.
■AOE = Area of Effect; Specializes in magical effects that cover a large area
■Illusion = Specializes in effects that deceive the 5 senses
■Mind Control = Specializes in effects that control enemy actions
■Necromancy = Specializes in debuffing and effects that pertain to undeath.I find this a bit confusing:

What does "magic abilities" actually refer to; is it only spells and powers, or basically anything which doesn't work in an AMF (spells, powers, SLAs, (Su) abilities etc)?
Why is a) the degree of access to "magic abilities", and b) some properties of certain roles/functions and their typical associated styles/flavors when taken on by a caster, descriptors of "In and Out of Combat"?
Is the amount of access to these "magic abilities" and their power so significant in comparison to non-"magic" abilities it requires a separate rating?
Do these "magic" specializations have such unique noteworthy properties they can't be covered by the descriptors used for non-"magic" (combat and non-combat) roles/functions/specializations accompanied by style/flavor descriptors (such as "caster", "melee", "initiator" etc)?
Why are there no similar descriptors for non-"magic" roles/functions/specializations?

To make the above and everything else related to general roles/functions (and styles/flavors thereof) more clear, I suggest that you list and describe general combat and non-combat roles/functions on their own, separate from any descriptors for the styles, flavors and specific tools or subsystems used for these roles/functions/specializations. For example, different classes/archetypes may be well suited for a "Single-target ranged control/debuff" general combat role through very different kinds of tools or subsystems having different associated styles and flavors, adding descriptors such as "initiator", "warrior", "caster", "arcane" or "divine".

Speaking of general roles/functions, it appears your "tank" descriptor refers to a classic melee meat shield à la your typical 3.5 vanilla pally, i.e. someone with high durability mainly through passive defenses and personal damage mitigation (lots of hp, high AC and saves, self-healing, DR etc). I'd call that "less than half a tank", while I think an actually meaningful definition of a "tank" is closer the "defender" combat role in 4e. Which is a function able to put the mostly passive meat shield and/or other durability qualities to great use by combining them with active control and debuff tools, vastly improving not just personal durability but also that of the entire party. (These tools are primarily things which can direct enemy aggression (such as the warder's armiger's mark, the zealot's martyrdom and certain spells and ToB/PoW counters), nerf enemy actions in general (like several spells and powers, the PoW zealot's zeal and many combat maneuvers, ToB/PoW counters and strike debuff riders) and/or serious action denial (like powerful ToB/PoW strike riders, several spells and powers and optimized dirty tricking, grappling and demoralization)).


After reading, I’m considering adding:

Bard
Harbinger*
Inquisitor
Mystic*
Rogue
Stalker*
Warder*
Warlord*


My knowledge of the classes marked with an asterix is very limited, but that’s what the pfsrd is for.This sounds like a good idea, although IME many of these classes have a tendency to give a misleading first impression of how challenging they are for new players, and especially in which particular manner they're challenging. Here are my related thoughts and general descriptions of some of the classes you mentioned (with approximate build and play difficulty ratings of 0-7, the higher the more difficult, assuming a rather low-op game):

Harbinger "Mobile Debuffer" melee control/debuff skirmish and general skill utility; Build 2, Play 4
Unlikely to need much build help beyond "focus on SoL-type maneuvers and boosting your attack bonus and save DC", and it's relatively easy to play once the mechanics for claiming targets and recovering maneuvers feels intuitive for the player. Int dependence also gives lots of skill points to help ensure a harbinger can provide something of use in most situations.
Fitting disciplines: Cursed Razor and Riven Hourglass

Mystic "Support Gish" versatile damage and support plus crafting utility; Build 2, Play 6
Has a build power floor high enough there's relatively little risk of making one which ends up too weak for the game (like other PoW full initiators), but it's a quite complex and versatile in play with lots of choices, teamwork abilities and unique moving parts to consider, making it more challenging to realize a build's potential in practice. (It's also arguably T2 in PF, if it matters.)
Fitting disciplines: Elemental Flux and Riven Hourglass

Rogue; Build 5, Play 2
Has tons of build options in PF, including plenty of weak and/or poorly synergizing ones if not properly combined. So like most other 1PP PF martials it's likely to require more active build assistance to ensure it stays relevant in a party with full initiators, but it's typically easy to play with few moving parts requiring little resource management and bookkeeping. Unless you're only recommending builds including the Hidden Blade PoW archetype, I'd suggest you recommend PF's Unchained Rogue (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained/) before the original PF rogue, since the U-Rogue has a notably higher power floor (and is simply better designed).

Stalker "Assassin" single-target melee or ranged damage skirmish plus rogue-ish scouting/spying skill utility; Build 2, Play 3
is basically a full initiator version of the rogue mixed with a bit of monk, having the associated higher build power floor thanks to a more robust chassis and maneuvers. More moving parts and bookkeeping makes it a bit more challenging to play than the rogue, but it's still a fairly straight-forward "sneaky killer". Lots of skill points and quite a few native abilities help ensure usefulness in a wide variety of game challenges.
Fitting disciplines: Veiled Moon and either Broken Blade (melee) or Solar Wind (ranged)

Warder "Heavy Tank" melee or ranged frontline AoO tank and general skill utility; Build 2, Play 3
is the ultimate classic AoO-type tank, granting very fitting heavy duty durability and control features with fairly straight-forward mechanics, making it difficult to screw up build-wise and fairly easy to play for sufficient results in most games (although it does require the player to have a good grasp of the basic AoO rules). The Int initiator modifier also means the warder typically has lots of skill points to help ensure usefulness in most situations. I think you should give the ranged Hawkguard archetype (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder/warder-archetypes/hawkguard/) a special shout-out in your list, as a new player will probably find it easier to build and play than the vanilla version. (As touched upon by Kris, it's worth noting the crusader is considerably weaker. And despite being largely designed to fill a similar tank role, the crusader doesn't have nearly as strong and synergizing role supporting features as the warder, most notably lacking any specialized control abilities which are crucial for a tank. So I suggest you don't recommend both the warder and the crusader, even if both are available in the game.)
Fitting disciplines: Eternal Guardian and Iron Tortoise (or Radiant Dawn (https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Radiant_Dawn) and Tempest Gale for the Hawkguard)

Warlord "Frontline Leader" primarily single-target melee or ranged damage and frontline support, social skills; Build 2, Play 4
combines fighter-esque primarily damage oriented features with some tactical support abilities; the former being easy and straight-forward to build and use in play, the latter more challenging to gain the most out of in play. Still, I definitely believe the warlord is considerably easier in play than the other three support oriented PoW full initiators (mystic, rajah (https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Rajah) and zealot).
Fitting disciplines: Radiant Dawn and either Primal Fury (melee) or Solar Wind (ranged)

HTH!


Opposing opinion: Path of War and Tome of Battle are pick-up-and-play versions of martials that have simple, fairly effective attacks if you just pick what looks cool.Yes, but while the PoW classes are generally relatively easy to build for sufficient potential, in comparison to 1PP martials they have more numerous moving parts, more complex combat roles and typically tons of additional options in combat. Which of course means at least the more complex ones are distinctly less suitable for players who don't like preparing things like "default action combos" between sessions and/or who are prone to choice paralysis. I assume this is what Kurald was primarily referring to.


If you're interested, I made a homebrew port of the Crusader for PF (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VLDMoDmz1CwTv0YoL8wGoqEs5Tqyi2FbOCVIT90wn 4c). I beefed it up a bit to match the other PoW classes. It really needed some love since the Crusader only has, like, 2 actual class features.Nice! Have you made a thread for this in the homebrew forum where I may comment?

[Zecrin]

In my opinion:
The colors used for "Descriptors" look like they are a rating (e.g. blue = good, red = bad) but they're not. It would be clearer not to use color.
You're using descriptor to rate magic (low/med/high) but this strikes me as overlapping with the "versatility" stars, maybe merge the two.
Instead of "floor **, ceiling ****" it would be clearer to have one line stating "power ** to ****".
Finally, I don't think the "difficulty" scale really helps. For one, this is the only scale where "high is bad" (for everything else, high is good), and almost everything is rated at two or three stars. I'd suggest removing this, and for the rare class with four stars here, reduce the "power ceiling" to whatever is possible with two or three.


I wonder about the colors. Maybe they won't experience this kind of confusion since they haven't read any guides, but then again... I might just ask them if they'd like color-coded descriptors or not and then change my formatting accordingly.

I agree that the magic ratings are confusing, so I've revised their meaning. Let me know what you think.

Difficulty might have been too negative a word to convey the meaning of that particular score, so I've changed it to bookkeeping and revised several of the star ratings as appropriate.


I find this a bit confusing:

What does "magic abilities" actually refer to; is it only spells and powers, or basically anything which doesn't work in an AMF (spells, powers, SLAs, (Su) abilities etc)?
Why is a) the degree of access to "magic abilities", and b) some properties of certain roles/functions and their typical associated styles/flavors when taken on by a caster, descriptors of "In and Out of Combat"?
Is the amount of access to these "magic abilities" and their power so significant in comparison to non-"magic" abilities it requires a separate rating?
Do these "magic" specializations have such unique noteworthy properties they can't be covered by the descriptors used for non-"magic" (combat and non-combat) roles/functions/specializations accompanied by style/flavor descriptors (such as "caster", "melee", "initiator" etc)?
Why are there no similar descriptors for non-"magic" roles/functions/specializations?


Speaking of general roles/functions, it appears your "tank" descriptor refers to a classic melee meat shield à la your typical 3.5 vanilla pally, i.e. someone with high durability mainly through passive defenses and personal damage mitigation (lots of hp, high AC and saves, self-healing, DR etc). I'd call that "less than half a tank", while I think an actually meaningful definition of a "tank" is closer the "defender" combat role in 4e. Which is a function able to put the mostly passive meat shield and/or other durability qualities to great use by combining them with active control and debuff tools, vastly improving not just personal durability but also that of the entire party. (These tools are primarily things which can direct enemy aggression (such as the warder's armiger's mark, the zealot's martyrdom and certain spells and ToB/PoW counters), nerf enemy actions in general (like several spells and powers, the PoW zealot's zeal and many combat maneuvers, ToB/PoW counters and strike debuff riders) and/or serious action denial (like powerful ToB/PoW strike riders, several spells and powers and optimized dirty tricking, grappling and demoralization)).

Per your suggestion, I have added narrowed down which classes receive the "Tank" descriptor.
Also, let me know if you find the new magic descriptors more clarifying. I'm not currently inclined to break magic down into a series of further descriptors, though, just because I'd end up typing "utility, support, control, direct damage" over and over on almost every casting class.


Harbinger "Mobile Debuffer" melee control/debuff skirmish and general skill utility; Build 2, Play 4
Unlikely to need much build help beyond "focus on SoL-type maneuvers and boosting your attack bonus and save DC", and it's relatively easy to play once the mechanics for claiming targets and recovering maneuvers feels intuitive for the player. Int dependence also gives lots of skill points to help ensure a harbinger can provide something of use in most situations.
Fitting disciplines: Cursed Razor and Riven Hourglass

Mystic "Support Gish" versatile damage and support plus crafting utility; Build 2, Play 6
Has a build power floor high enough there's relatively little risk of making one which ends up too weak for the game (like other PoW full initiators), but it's a quite complex and versatile in play with lots of choices, teamwork abilities and unique moving parts to consider, making it more challenging to realize a build's potential in practice. (It's also arguably T2 in PF, if it matters.)
Fitting disciplines: Elemental Flux and Riven Hourglass

Rogue; Build 5, Play 2
Has tons of build options in PF, including plenty of weak and/or poorly synergizing ones if not properly combined. So like most other 1PP PF martials it's likely to require more active build assistance to ensure it stays relevant in a party with full initiators, but it's typically easy to play with few moving parts requiring little resource management and bookkeeping. Unless you're only recommending builds including the Hidden Blade PoW archetype, I'd suggest you recommend PF's Unchained Rogue (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained/) before the original PF rogue, since the U-Rogue has a notably higher power floor (and is simply better designed).

Stalker "Assassin" single-target melee or ranged damage skirmish plus rogue-ish scouting/spying skill utility; Build 2, Play 3
is basically a full initiator version of the rogue mixed with a bit of monk, having the associated higher build power floor thanks to a more robust chassis and maneuvers. More moving parts and bookkeeping makes it a bit more challenging to play than the rogue, but it's still a fairly straight-forward "sneaky killer". Lots of skill points and quite a few native abilities help ensure usefulness in a wide variety of game challenges.
Fitting disciplines: Veiled Moon and either Broken Blade (melee) or Solar Wind (ranged)

Warder "Heavy Tank" melee or ranged frontline AoO tank and general skill utility; Build 2, Play 3
is the ultimate classic AoO-type tank, granting very fitting heavy duty durability and control features with fairly straight-forward mechanics, making it difficult to screw up build-wise and fairly easy to play for sufficient results in most games (although it does require the player to have a good grasp of the basic AoO rules). The Int initiator modifier also means the warder typically has lots of skill points to help ensure usefulness in most situations. I think you should give the ranged Hawkguard archetype (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/path-of-war/classes/warder/warder-archetypes/hawkguard/) a special shout-out in your list, as a new player will probably find it easier to build and play than the vanilla version. (As touched upon by Kris, it's worth noting the crusader is considerably weaker. And despite being largely designed to fill a similar tank role, the crusader doesn't have nearly as strong and synergizing role supporting features as the warder, most notably lacking any specialized control abilities which are crucial for a tank. So I suggest you don't recommend both the warder and the crusader, even if both are available in the game.)
Fitting disciplines: Eternal Guardian and Iron Tortoise (or Radiant Dawn (https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Radiant_Dawn) and Tempest Gale for the Hawkguard)

Warlord "Frontline Leader" primarily single-target melee or ranged damage and frontline support, social skills; Build 2, Play 4
combines fighter-esque primarily damage oriented features with some tactical support abilities; the former being easy and straight-forward to build and use in play, the latter more challenging to gain the most out of in play. Still, I definitely believe the warlord is considerably easier in play than the other three support oriented PoW full initiators (mystic, rajah (https://libraryofmetzofitz.fandom.com/wiki/Rajah) and zealot).
Fitting disciplines: Radiant Dawn and either Primal Fury (melee) or Solar Wind (ranged)


As I continue to review the PoW classes, these descriptions are proving incredibly helpful. Thank you kindly.


If you're interested, I made a homebrew port of the Crusader for PF (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VLDMoDmz1CwTv0YoL8wGoqEs5Tqyi2FbOCVIT90wn 4c). I beefed it up a bit to match the other PoW classes. It really needed some love since the Crusader only has, like, 2 actual class features.

I agree with upho, this is awesome! If anyone ends up picking crusader, I'll be sure to recommend your Epilektoi variant. How would you say the new features affect the class' old power floor and ceiling?

[el minster]

I recomend Warmage for direct damage and and fixed spell list.