Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Veren 12-28-05, 12:38 AM	I'm joining a campaign as a player for the first time. It's pretty exciting, but i don't want to mess it up from the get go. Our DM gave us a day to collaborate and decide together on our classes. My question is; are there any classes absolutely essential to the adventuring party? I know we need the warrior, the arcane caster, the divine caster, etc. But i'm talking about specific classes. Are rogues absolutely necassary (for traps, locks, etc?) And will we be broken if we don't use a cleric for our healer? I really want to be a ranger, and my friend likes the monk class, but they don't seem to fit any concrete niches in the party. We're only 4 characters, so we need help deciding which classes are essential.
Scererar 12-28-05, 01:04 AM	it really all depends on what types of classes the other characters are and what level your DM is starting you at. I personally like the rogue, it is easily able to multi-task and be ready for any situation. You stated that you like the ranger, a rogue set up like a scout, could satisfy this for you. At higher levels, multi class with mage or cleric.
Always-Late 12-28-05, 01:12 AM	Truth; you don't need a niche. You can have anything you want in the party. That said; a rogue is useful but not necessary, as you can always roll a log down the corridor in front of you when you're dungeon delving (low tech solutions) A tank is useful but not necessary; in any case a monk and divine caster can do the job, but if you really don't have a front-line fighter expect a whole lot more ranged encounters. A divine caster isn't necessary either, but expect to do a whole lot more ranged encounters again and stock up on potions. And an arcane caster isn't necessary, but it helps. A lot.
ressurrector 12-28-05, 01:12 AM	Here's the standard composition: Fighter type (ranger/fighter/barbarian/paladin) Sneaky type (ranger/rogue/bard) Damage Caster (wizard/sorcerer) Support caster (ranger/bard/cleric/druid) It's usually good to have at least one full caster, and then some partial casters like bard/paladin/ranger. A ranger/bard can double as a healer, if you have a wand of Cure Light Wounds.
Veren 12-28-05, 01:19 AM	We are starting at level 1 and i'm pretty sure i want to be a ranger, and my friend wants to be a monk. How can we make that work? What classes should the other 2 pick and how should we play our characters in battle?
SodaGuy 12-28-05, 01:33 AM	In my opinion, you could use a rogue and a cleric. The healing is necessary. You wouldn't need the cleric so much if you could afford a wand of CLW but you probably can't at first level. And a rogue fills the role of skill monkey and can use his sneakiness to get to where he needs to be. Starting off a fight with a sneak attack killing one of their guys is always good. The monk is good for helping the other characters. He can sneak if the rogue needs backup or he can backup you and the cleric if you get overwhelmed. I think you should focus on your defense 'cause you'll most likely be taking lots of hits unless the cleric is really combatitive.
belthazzar1113 12-28-05, 01:43 AM	ahh my friend your asking the wrong question. Its not about what classes do you need, its about what needs must be met. You need a party mouth. Someone with decent social skills, or decent RP ability and charisma to talk to NPCs. You need someone to take damage. Be this a tank with heavy armor, a monk with dodge bonuses, a hexblade, a barbarian, a ranger, whoever can stand up near the danger and take what it can dish out. You need someone to fix damage. Clerics are obviously good, but psions, druids, bards, warlocks, even a rogue with a decent use magic device can do this job. And you need someone to do damage. be this a wizard, a rouge, a monk, ranger, warmage, fighter, sorcerer... Thats about it. there are specific things to take care of, traps, ability damage, undead, movement, ect... but those are all things you can take care of with items and tactics. All you really need to do is make sure you have those bases covered and your good.... and chances are you can find someone to do more than one... hell a paladin can do all of them! Not as well as some others, but it can be enough. My best suggestion? everyone come to this day of planning with two characters. Two that they would enjoy playing. And then just see if everyone's first choice would mesh well as a group. Make sure you ahve healing, damage dealing, tanking, and talking... if you have that covered, then your groovy. If not, then just see what you have too much of and see if any of the secondary characters could fill in the gaps. It will be pretty obvious. Don't worry too much about what everyone is playing. You can make just about any group work. We all have stories about crazy group makeups that shouldn't have worked but somehow did.... I was a wildmage in a group of 7 mages.... we all specilized and shared one big giant communal spell book. That was an interesting party....
ressurrector 12-28-05, 01:43 AM	it highly depends on how you plan to play your ranger. I'd suggest going 2 weapon fighting, andd playing the role of the party tank. Then you also have a Monk, secondaary melee character. If you get a cleric, he can easily be a third fighter type/healer. I'd suggest having the 4th person be some sort of Arcane caster, it's usefull to have at least one, unless your rogue specializes in UMD. As far as locks and traps, clerics have a detect traps spell IIRC, and a maul will bash most doors, or get a portable battering ram.
Edymnion 12-28-05, 01:57 AM	The Ranger can fill the role of healer at later levels, since they get the Cure spells. They just don't get any until lvl 4. The monk is a bit weak at low levels, but gets better at higher levels. Honestly, the best idea for the other two characters depends on what direction you're taking the Ranger, archery or TWF. If you go TWF, I'd say you need an Arcane caster (go with Wizard and have him make scrolls of utility spells, then prepare attack spells) for firepower and all around utility, and then a support unit, like a Bard. If you go archery, an arcane caster (you really need that wizard), and a front line tank. In general though, you've got 4 bases you need to cover. Defense, Offense, Blasting, and Support. Some of these can be covered at the same time. A Paladin would do well as Defense/Offense/Limited Support. Heavy armor, shield, and a longsword or bastard sword in one hand, with Lay on Hands as emergency healing. Combined with the ranger's curing spells later on, that should be enough to get you by. Ranger has those cure spells on his spell list, meaning a Wand would do you VERY well. My first bet would be to declare that all of the party's loot goes first and foremost into buying a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. Everybody chips in, the party as a whole buys one, and then the ranger uses it when its needed. Or a Cleric with the War Domain, heavy armor, and a big-ass weapon that serves as both the tank and the healer (although this is putting your eggs in one basket, which is not good). A Bard also gets cure spells, makes for great backup by buffing the party with bardic music, and makes a decent back row archer. A Druid also gets healing spells, good attack spells, an animal companion, and Summon Nature's Ally. This is a very good option as he can cover a LOT of bases, and is quite powerful. Basically, you need a Fighter, a Rogue, a Wizard, and a Cleric, or at least somebody that can cover those essential jobs. With the monk and the ranger, I'd probably go for having a Druid and a Paladin in the party. Everybody is at least competant in combat, all but the monk can do at least limited healing, and everybody fills multiple roles. But really, everybody should just play what they want to. One of the challenges of being a good DM is to make the game fun and challenging for *ANY* combination of characters, without screwing them over just because they don't have a base covered. Not that it won't come up, just that you wouldn't be expected to plumb the depths of "Bob the Trapmaker's Showroom Floor" if you don't have anybody with a good Search and Disable Device score. Or if everybody had a Con of 3, that you wouldn't be in constant melee combat. So, play whatever you want, and don't worry *TOO* much about it. But it would be good to try and cover any gaps you see within the character concept you want to play. Like if you wanted to be a Rogue and you knew no one was playing a spellcaster, you might want to max out Use Magic Device so you could use scrolls and wands, for example. But other than that, just play whatever you want, and let the DM worry about the rest. :)
Veren 12-28-05, 02:49 AM	update: our third character wants to be a sorcerer. That puts us with; Ranger, Monk, Sorcerer, and ??? I think with all your helpful tips :) i've got a good idea of how to play the party. However, I have a few more questions if no one minds. First, how does a sorcerer stack up against a wizard for arcane damage dealing? Second, we're using a non-standard 29 point buy method, what should my Ranger's stats be like if i'm going for melee/tank? Note: i want to be able to use TWF, which means at least 15 dex. I'm also considering Weapon Finesse for my off-hand short sword, so high dex would be good all-around. *for non-standard point buy method, check DMG 3.5, pg. 169
Sosthenes 12-28-05, 04:02 AM	Nope, the Ranger's Combat Style doesn't have a dexterity requirement. Enjoy. Although it's probably still a good idea, as you're only lightly armored and need all the AC bonuses you can get. Weapon Finesse for one weapon in a TWF combo doesn't make sense at all. Especially with many attacks per round, damage bonuses accumulate. Finesse fighters without additional damage generation methods (specialization, magic, class features) have a somewhat reduced damage output, apart from wasting a feat... Sorcerers generally have more spells, so when you calculate it with e.g. "Fireballs per day", then he should reign supreme. That changes when he doesn't have an appropriate damage spell due to his limited spell selection (i.e. Fireballs don't cut it in the City of Brass). The Wizard is also more likely to have scrolls and wands to support himself. But with a good selecton of spells and (metamagic) feats, the sorcerer should blast just fine... If the last character of the party isn't a cleric or a druid, it would be best if he's a paladin or bard (at least considering core classes). Without a primary divine caster, expect to spend quite a lot for healing potions and wands. I think that either your Monk or your Sorcerer could take the role of the party "face", so you don't neccesarily need a character who fills that role. But you're lacking a trap monkey. If dungeons play a role in the campaign, you need someone to avoid that, or healing will be even more required. A Rogue/Cleric or Druid would fit in nicely. Apart from the Sorcerer, the party's mobility would be excellent and with the right spells, even the Sorc could come along... If there's a Druid in the party, he could spring traps with summoned monsters, if the DM doesn't think of that as a violation of nature.
KmartKommando 12-28-05, 05:17 AM	Everyone play Rogue/Clerics :D Tumble Tumble Stab Tumble Stab Heal Tumble Stab Evade Stab Stab Tumble Heal Tumble... Try Celerity and Magic Domains, and maybe a few Skullclan Hunters, Gravestrike and/or Golem Strike. Good luck trying to TPK you. :P
SodaGuy 12-28-05, 06:50 AM	Slight de-rail: What would be the most balanced 3 person party starting at level 1? I'm thinking an offensive cleric with the full compliment of healing, a rogue/fighter for skill monkying and secondary fighting, and a wizard for ranged fire and utility spells.
ressurrector 12-28-05, 07:33 AM	Slight de-rail: What would be the most balanced 3 person party starting at level 1? I'm thinking an offensive cleric with the full compliment of healing, a rogue/fighter for skill monkying and secondary fighting, and a wizard for ranged fire and utility spells. Well, if you're playing Ebberron, one Warforged Artificier with adamantine body feat. (high AC, decent hp/bab, good self-buffs, heals self+constructs, creates/uses any magic items) One primary arcane dmg dealer (wizard/sorc) One trapmonkey/secondary fighter (rogue) an artificier warforged can double as primary melee fighter quite nicely, for quite a few levels. Then he creates homunculi/golems/other constructs to fight for him.
SodaGuy 12-28-05, 07:50 AM	Well, if you're playing Ebberron, one Warforged Artificier with adamantine body feat. (high AC, decent hp/bab, good self-buffs, heals self+constructs, creates/uses any magic items) an artificier warforged can double as primary melee fighter quite nicely, for quite a few levels. Then he creates homunculi/golems/other constructs to fight for him. Yeah, that'd be pretty sweet. But non-ebberron, the closest thing is cleric, right?
Nom 12-28-05, 08:58 AM	update: our third character wants to be a sorcerer. That puts us with; Ranger, Monk, Sorcerer, and ???You've got two light-fighters and a magician. At this point, the big question is party strategy. Do you plan to operate on stealth or direct combat? If stealth, it would be useful to have a rogue, or something that can fudge it (like a bard). But the important thing is that all four characters can move silently, strike swiftly, and fade rapidly into the shadows. Avoid direct combat like the plague. For this strategy, you do not want a large, noisy lump of armour in tow. If direct combat, then you need a tank. Rangers and monks make good skirmishers, but neither can stand and fight against a determined foe. Fighter or paladin are the obvious choices, but a barbarian or battle-cleric can work as well. Without a rogue, you'll need to consider how to deal with traps and locks. The ranger has good Search so you should be able to find them. If you must go through the trap, either rely on good Ref saves and AC to evade their damage or send someone with lots of hp through to absorb the trap and then heal them up after. In either party, locked doors are dealt with by sheer brute force, at least until magic comes along. First, how does a sorcerer stack up against a wizard for arcane damage dealing?Slightly better, due to the greater number of spells per day. However, arcane damage dealing is usually a big mistake, especially at low levels. Most of the time, a single bowshot or sword swing (which can be used many times) will do more damage than a one-shot spell. Instead, concentrate on buffing allies, disabling or inconveniencing opponents, and battlefield control, and leave actually removing hp to the physical combatants. Second, we're using a non-standard 29 point buy method, what should my Ranger's stats be like if i'm going for melee/tank? Note: i want to be able to use TWF, which means at least 15 dex. I'm also considering Weapon Finesse for my off-hand short sword, so high dex would be good all-around.As mentioned before, you don't need Dex for ranger TWF. Tanking as a low-level ranger is rarely a good idea. You have only d8 HD, are limited to light armour and (typically) no shield, and don't have easy access to buffing magic. A ranger is a scout who is decent in a fight, not a dedicated warrior. Unless you plan to focus on bonus damage (rogue sneak attack), TWF always presents a tension between Str and Dex. Dex helps AC, and with WF can provide nice attack bonuses, but then you're missing out on the Str bonus to damage, which at +2 to +3 can be comparable to the weapon's average damage die. Personally, I think that most rangers are better off taking archery, even if they plan to be primarily melee. Then either use a 2-h weapon (Str) or rapier and buckler with WF (Dex) in melee. If using a 2-h weapon, seriously consider the guisarme and Improved Trip (requires Int 13, Combat Expertise). At 29 as a ranger, I'd start with Str 14 (6) Dex 14 (6) Con 12 (4) Wis 12 (4) Int 12 (4) and Cha (8). That's 24 points, leaving 5. If you're willing to sacrifice damage, finish with Str 13 and Dex 16. I prefer balanced characters, so I'd probably go Con 14, Int 14, Wis 13 with my remaining points.
Veren 12-28-05, 10:20 AM	Sosthenes, you said Weapon Finesse would be a bad idea with a light off-hand. Why is this? If i only get 1/2 str on off-hand damage anyway, and my str gives only a +2 or something, i'm only sacrificing 1dmg for much better accuracy (like if my dex is +4). So is it really so bad of a choice? Edit: I just checked the Weapone Finesse feat description (PHB p.102) and it doesn't say anything about giving str bonuses to damage. So now i'm confused.
KDowns86 12-28-05, 10:53 AM	id think itd be real fun to go with an all stealthy party with awesome movement, thatsd mean sorcerer taking invisibilty and spider climb or whatever, and then your last char being a rogue or bard, bard makes a lot of sense healing and all that jazz, you have a lot of classes that stand alone kinda why not add another, i guess a carefully played barbarian could work here too and act as a meat shield The other option is polar opposite, cleric or paladin, i like the paladin tank idea but if your gonna play a pally right he wont fit in with the party hell head on encounters and that doesnt suit you perfectly. A battle laiden cleric makes sense if you want to be a more typical upfront head on, but not stupid head on party
Sosthenes 12-28-05, 10:57 AM	Sosthenes, you said Weapon Finesse would be a bad idea with a light off-hand. Why is this? If i only get 1/2 str on off-hand damage anyway, and my str gives only a +2 or something, i'm only sacrificing 1dmg for much better accuracy (like if my dex is +4). So is it really so bad of a choice? Edit: I just checked the Weapone Finesse feat description (PHB p.102) and it doesn't say anything about giving str bonuses to damage. So now i'm confused. The basic rule is that you add your strength bonus to it (or half that in the off-hand). If the feat doesn't explicitly say otherwise, it hasn't changed. Let's say your strength gives you a bonus of +2 and dex +4, then you'd basically get a +2 to hit with your off-hand weapon only. A weapon focus would give you +1. For rapier/short sword the Finesse looks better, for Long sword/short sword you'd apply your feat only to one attack and for short sword/short sword the focus is suddenly rather good. You've already got a pretty good attack bonus as a Ranger and precious little feats to spare. There are better choices available. Mobility, defense, damage. A ranger has d8 hit die, light armor and is out there in the middle of his enemies. With TWF, Power Attack is no easy way to convert a to hit bonus into damage. And keep in mind that with point buy Str 14 Dex 18 is more expensive than Str 16 Dex 16.
Abulafia 12-28-05, 11:05 AM	Just play what you want to play. The easiest way to turn somebody off of D&D is to force them to play (for example) a cleric "because the party needs one." Your DM should be able to make party-relevant adventures for any configuration. I DM'd for years for a group that never built characters with an eye towards party functionality. I ran a game with four bards, I ran a game with no arcane caster, I ran a game with no traditional front-line melee'er (bard, rogue, sorcerer, druid). Sometimes they ran into a helpful NPC or hired a henchman, sometimes the skills they were lacking weren't needed, and sometimes they just took their lumps. But everyone was happy and had fun, and they managed to get past everything that came their way.
Sae Cael Oanar 12-28-05, 11:31 AM	i agree with the poster above me. be what you want to be, no matter what other people say. you dont need a caster, a rogue, or a fighter. you can all play monks, it will still be fun. healing potions are easy enough to come by, so you hardly need a cleric for that, and if the group wants to be non-combatant, that can be fun too. a group of bards could just get into local mischeif, sneak themselves out of jail, and play at a local tavern. just have fun!
DM Denubis 12-28-05, 02:12 PM	Actually, the most powerful party setup is really four clerics, or maybe three clerics and a rogue. Why? Because a well built cleric can deal more damage than any arcane spellcaster, tank better than any fighter, outdamage said fighter, and still have fun with Shapechange when the day is young. Divine Metamagic is the key. But, back to reality, play what you want to play. If your DM wipes you, you can always roll new characters. The game is supposed to be fun. Nobody has fun being forced to play a cleric (Read: Walking band-aid.). Last time somebody forced me to be a cleric, I played a war cleric and beat the crap out of everything I faced. Then the party complained I was overpowered. Then they let me play my rogue. ^^
Sosthenes 12-28-05, 02:19 PM	Of course the first choice should be role-playing. You can all have great fun with four Commoners. But when you're playing D&D, having a mixed party has some advantages both for the group and the DM. When preparing an adventure, especially a bought module, it's much either when your players don't deviate too much from the standard assumption. That way CRs are pretty easy to judge and you don't have to accomodate the special weaknesses and strengths of the party. It all depends on how much time the DM has and how quickly and easily he adapts to such situations. And one of the primary reasons for different classes is the main benefit of a class system: All players have certain niches to fulfill, each has an area where he can shine. No fighting 'bout the limelight, no lone wolves who really have no good reason to travel with the group at all. Good role-playing trumps both issues, of course. But there's the high road and the low road...
Jherid 12-28-05, 02:32 PM	Actually, the most powerful party setup is really four clerics, or maybe three clerics and a rogue. Naw, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer for the win.
smoker 12-28-05, 02:47 PM	If the DM is willing to fill gaps via NPCs, then play whatever you want. smoker
Loki_God'o'Chaos 12-28-05, 02:47 PM	I dont know about the rest of you, but Ive found when running in a party of four, we always wind up with 1 barbarian, 1 paladin, 1 ranger, and 1 fighter..........every stinkin time.. Anyways, I think the best set up is similar to that, except the paladin should be a wizard or cleric, they are much more usefull
Abulafia 12-28-05, 03:44 PM	There are a number of ways you can look at this question. If you're asking which classes are the strongest, the answer is clerics and druids. If you're asking which classes' skills are the hardest to replicate, the answer is arcane casters and rogues. If you're asking which classes the rest of the party is happiest to have along, the answer is a healing/buffer cleric and a tank fighter or paladin. Pre-printed material assumes a 4-person party of a rogue, fighter-type, cleric, and wizard, so if you're using that material, you (and your DM) need to examine how the roles of those classes are being filled. Generally speaking, there are plenty of ways to skin a barghest. If you don't have a rogue, stay out of dungeons, or hire a merc, or prepare lots of find traps spells. If you don't have a cleric, bring along lots of potions and wands of cure spells, and avoid the undead. If you don't have a meat shield, hire one (or more), or avoid straight-ahead fights, or take turns soaking up the hits. If you don't have an arcane caster, . . . um, don't play above 10th level. ;) It's easier to have a well-balanced party, but you can have plenty of fun without one. Don't worry about it.
Orcmonk89 12-28-05, 03:57 PM	I'd say all are important, but the lowest need is, imho, the Monk. Sorry all monks out there.
DM Denubis 12-28-05, 04:50 PM	Naw, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer for the win. Sorry, the Druid just can't compete with a well-built Cleric. And I figured we were talking core only. Archivist I see as just blatantly overpowered. It's just too much for him to be able to pick and choose any divine spell he likes, so long as he can find scrolls. I mean, Holy Sword at level 7? At the same level, he can get Divine Power. Once he qualifies for Sacred Exorcist, the Divine Metamagic comes, and... Well... It's just not pretty. And the Artificer is extremely powerful as well, don't get me wrong, but I tend to prefer the solidness of a Cleric. It's just my way, I suppose.
wonlee76 12-28-05, 05:00 PM	Generally, it depends on the campaign and availability of magic. In a 3 man party I would suggest: 1 melee fighter type (Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter or a Monk if you have godlike stats). 1 rogue with a good Use Magic Device check or Wizard 1 cleric The rogue with all his skills can cover different things for the group from social, stealth and a little bit of arcane magic. It'll be difficult to be "great" at all of these roles but he can mix things up so he's "decent" at these roles. But I highly recommend UMD because this diminishes the need of an arcane caster. If magical items are not easily accessible, Wizard is the better choice since many things a rogue can do, a wizard can mimic with magic. (Invisibility, Knock, Dispel Magic for magical traps, Suggestion/Charm Person, etc. for social situations, etc.). Cleric is just good since for different situations, their spell list allows them to mimic a role. There are a few spells a cleric has that can help find traps or get answers on a quest. Spells to make the cleric as tough as the fighter in combat, etc. A melee fighter type is just a necessity in almost every party. Whether it is the cleric using magic to try to pretend being a fighter or a straight fighter type. Ultimately, play what you feel comfortable playing as and hope you can cover up whatever the missing roles are in the group through skills, spells or magical items. Also, it helps having a lenient DM who will not exploit missing roles in a group. If you want to play a ranger, find out how easy it is to get wands or potions of healing. If they are readily available for sale, then you don't need a cleric for healing since the ranger can carry around a few CLW wands or several potions.
Dastari 12-28-05, 05:26 PM	I'm joining a campaign as a player for the first time. It's pretty exciting, but i don't want to mess it up from the get go. Our DM gave us a day to collaborate and decide together on our classes. My question is; are there any classes absolutely essential to the adventuring party? I know we need the warrior, the arcane caster, the divine caster, etc. But i'm talking about specific classes. Are rogues absolutely necassary (for traps, locks, etc?) And will we be broken if we don't use a cleric for our healer? I really want to be a ranger, and my friend likes the monk class, but they don't seem to fit any concrete niches in the party. We're only 4 characters, so we need help deciding which classes are essential. See, it all depends on your DM and whether or not he can match the campaign to the party. My party is composed of a: Hexblade, Monk, Bard, Ranger, Swashbuckler, and Aristocrat/Sorcerer. The ranger is taking the variant version that gives up his spells for extra special abilities so only the Bard has any potential for healing spells. Basically this groups motto is "the best defense is a good offense" and they've proved it by tearing through some fairly high level monsters. Now, as a DM I'm giving them a lot of down time between encounters to compensate for the fact that they don't have a true healer in the group. Eventually, though, I'll probably get a bit tougher with them and test their stamina but either way I think it's kind of neat that they chose an unbalanced group, so don't really sweat it. If you want to be a ranger and the other guy wants to be a monk that's cool. Let the other two guys be what they want. Now if the other two guys are undecided and you guys go with Monk and Ranger then I'd suggest that you go with Either: A Paladin and Wizard/Sorcerer (Combat and more healing wrapped up and some offensive spellcasting) Cleric/Druid (or anything out of complete Divine) and Wizard/Sorcerer (you and the monk combine as the offense of the party with a divine healer and arcane caster to back you up) But hey, don't sweat it. If the other guys want to be a barbarian and a fighter then you'll just be a super combat heavy party. See what your DM does with that.
Dastari 12-28-05, 05:43 PM	update: our third character wants to be a sorcerer. That puts us with; Ranger, Monk, Sorcerer, and ??? Sorry, I didn't see this one before I made my other comment. Your party looks pretty good. You have an arcane magic user and you have two characters who can fill the role of heavy combatant and scout. Basically, all that you're lacking is healing. Your ranger isn't going to be enough, so for the fourth guy I suggest Cleric, Druid, Paladin, or Bard. A cleric of course is the natural choice but he's probably going to wear heavy armor thus taking away from the stealth that your party of all light or no armor users might be able to capitalize on. Still, he would more than compensate for the curing deficiency. The druid would work well with the Ranger and would lead to a probably all stealth party. Plus, she gets an animal companion which could help make up for your lack of a rogue or could help as a melee combatant. She would also be able to make up for the healing deficiency. The Paladin would also take away the stealth but now you have a tank and a heavy combat party. His healing abilities combined with the rangers may be enough for the group so you'd be a combat heavy group but still have some access to healing spells. The bard is another one who could be used to heal at lower levels and combined with the ranger may be able to keep the party going at higher levels. He could lend his skills to the party and also be a proper face (without a bard I recommend that the sorcerer be your face). That's only if the fourth person doesn't care. If he wants to be something that I haven't mentioned on the list then let him. It'll be fun to see how the campaign runs.
Veren 12-28-05, 06:24 PM	Thanks guys for all your help. We're about 3 hours away from the game now and 3 of us have made our characters. (1 Ranger, 1 Monk, 1 Cleric) My friend that i mentioned before (the sorcerer) however, can't decide between Sorcerer and Wizard. He doesn't care which one, he just likes the idea of having flashy spells. Which class would be a better compliment to our party? The ranger is stealth focused, the monk is melee focused and the cleric is divine healer/ some melee.
RogerWilco 12-28-05, 08:36 PM	Thanks guys for all your help. We're about 3 hours away from the game now and 3 of us have made our characters. (1 Ranger, 1 Monk, 1 Cleric) My friend that i mentioned before (the sorcerer) however, can't decide between Sorcerer and Wizard. He doesn't care which one, he just likes the idea of having flashy spells. Which class would be a better compliment to our party? The ranger is stealth focused, the monk is melee focused and the cleric is divine healer/ some melee. I'd make the ranger combat focussed, and have your friend choose a sorcerer in the group if he likes the flashy spells. (Most of the low level ones become useless at higher levels, so he should try to pick more utility spells in his/her lower levels) A Ranger can be a reasonable archer, and melee type, for example: A level 10 Human Ranger can have: melee: Cleave, Great Cleave, Power Attack ranged: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, Precise Shot For the rest you sound about o.k. You might find you need a rogue sometimes. The need for some rogue/utility would favour your friend choosing a Wizard, as they can have a little more options, if the DM is lenient in the amount of spells they can obtain for their spell book. But a sorcerer with a Knock spell will do. More general I think every party needs a Cleric, or about the same amount of healing power. A Druid and a Ranger, or a Paladin and a Bard would also do. The rest you can survive without, but some encounters will be harder as the CR as written, so make sure your DM knows that a CR4 trap is probably something CR6 for your party because you lack a rogue, and awards you like that for it, if you do survive it.
Nom 12-29-05, 12:26 AM	My friend that i mentioned before (the sorcerer) however, can't decide between Sorcerer and Wizard. He doesn't care which one, he just likes the idea of having flashy spells. Which class would be a better compliment to our party?Probably wizard. I know that sounds counterintuitive. A character using flashy melee spells probably wants to cast a few spells often, and that says "sorcerer". Sorcerers make excellent battle-mages. The problem is that using flashy spells is often a mistake, and is a mistake at low levels. At level 1, spells that deal hit point damage are largely useless. In contrast, the level 0 spell daze is extremely potent. Things improve as you gain in levels, but casters are usually still better to let fighting characters deal hit point damage and focus on buffs, debuffs, and battlefield control. If your friend chooses a wizard, then he has a wide variety of spells to choose from and can swap them in and out between adventures until he finds a combo he is happy with. If he chooses a sorcerer, he is likely to do something foolish like pick magic missile and burning hands and then wonder why he is so useless in combat. But he'll be stuck with his choices. Choosing sorcerer spells is something of a tricky art, since you need to think ahead to avoid redundancy (5 different level 1 damage dealing spells is at least 4 too many).
Ogre Mage 12-29-05, 01:01 AM	Thanks guys for all your help. We're about 3 hours away from the game now and 3 of us have made our characters. (1 Ranger, 1 Monk, 1 Cleric) My friend that i mentioned before (the sorcerer) however, can't decide between Sorcerer and Wizard. He doesn't care which one, he just likes the idea of having flashy spells. Which class would be a better compliment to our party? The ranger is stealth focused, the monk is melee focused and the cleric is divine healer/ some melee. I would probably choose a wizard. In the long run, the class is more versatile. 1st level wizards are extremely weak, however (moreso than a sorcerer) and will need to be protected. The cleric and the rogue are the most important roles in a party. You've got a cleric. There are ways the other PCs can "fill in" for the rogue. The ranger and the monk can handle the hide/move silently, spot/listen scouting aspect. The find/disable traps part will be the most problematic. The Find Traps spell is not really an adequate solution. Luckily, you have a cleric to heal anyone when the trap goes off. The wizard will eventually be able to use spells to fill in the holes for some things (knock, etc.) Your ranger will also fill the important role of wilderness expert and tracker for the party. Be sure to max out knowledge (nature) and survival.
Sosthenes 12-29-05, 04:02 AM	I'd disagree. If he has problems making the choice, I'd assume he's not that experienced with the rules. Sorcerers are rather beginner-friendly, they're to a wizard what a barbarian is to a fighter. You choose your spells only once, you don't have to think whether you're wasting a spell as often as the wizard does. Apart from that, if you're going for coolness, being a draconic scion rank a little higher than being a bookish akademic ;)
Dastari 12-29-05, 11:40 AM	Apart from that, if you're going for coolness, being a draconic scion rank a little higher than being a bookish akademic ;) Except for the fact that the draconic scion thing is only a theory and may not be the "official" explanation for sorcerers in any particular DM's world. It's certainly not in my world.