core only party - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

core only party

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
gsman
Jun 07, 2009 16:09:03 what could be done with this party? without multiclassing, i have an idea for a campaign that would maybe limit it like this, but want to know if the characters would be viable(all human for this example)

20 paladin

20 sorcerer

20 cleric

20 fighter

could this work, i know it could with multiclassing but what about without?

Side note: Ya know, with all the ideas floating around my head, its a good thing my players are open minded.
#2
hand_of_vecna
Jun 07, 2009 16:31:56 If you mean core only as in phb, dmg, mm then no the fighter and paladin will not be viable they just won't.

If you mean playing just those classes and getting feats elsewhere then they can be uber chargers, the fighter could be a chain tripper or any number of other things.
#3
gsman
Jun 07, 2009 16:56:44 that's the answer I was looking for, I'll just have to allow feats from the complete arcane/mage/divine/adventurer/warrior then. Thanks
#4
jameswilliamogle
Jun 07, 2009 17:00:07 I give you this link

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1153750
#5
ninjarabbit
Jun 07, 2009 17:09:55 cleric20
cleric20
druid20
wizard20
#6
jameswilliamogle
Jun 07, 2009 17:19:11 Fighters are like the beaten up step children of core-only games (and its worse on these boards). The exceptional ones are rare. It requires more skill to build an effective one in core than any other class. Ironically, it also requires the least skill to do one badly.
#7
jameswilliamogle
Jun 07, 2009 18:07:14 Try a core melee Rogue 16 / Fighter (or Fighter) 4 with UMD and Flame Blade wands. Gets silly.

d8+10d6 x 7 :D
#8
gsman
Jun 08, 2009 21:30:08 Would it be better to ask which core base classes are viable without multiclassing(your link helped but has lots of multiclassing...)
#9
jameswilliamogle
Jun 08, 2009 21:46:40 that's actually already been answered for you. ninjarabbit above.
#10
gsman
Jun 08, 2009 21:51:07 :O 2 clerics, a wizard and a druid... that'd be a boring party, but thanks anyway. I may have to trash this campaign idea... If the melee classes are "just not" viable.
#11
jameswilliamogle
Jun 08, 2009 22:04:55 well what do you mean viable? garbage in, garbage out.
#12
Endarire
Jun 08, 2009 22:26:13 Rogue20
Cleric20
Wizard20
Druid20

Rogues sneak, do extra sneak attack damage, and use spells via UMD. Full casters are full casters.
#13
hand_of_vecna
Jun 08, 2009 23:15:07 The Druid and one or both clerics can be viable in melee depending on build and spell selection hell so could the wizard at higher levels.
#14
ninjarabbit
Jun 09, 2009 7:47:40 You don't need the rogue. He spends too much time pretending to be useful.

Summon Monster I gets you a celestial monkey which can spring a trap and later on you can take the Summon Elemental reserve feat (since you said we could feats from Complete Mage) can do the same thing but on a permanent basis.

Sneak attack is too situational to be reliable and you're too squishy to be in serious combat with a d6 hit dice, only light armor, and no real magical protection. Divine power/righteous might or wildshape along with the various buffs they have are much better combat options.

In a party full of casters UMD becomes a much less useful skill. Heck a cleric with the magic domain can use both wizard and cleric trigger items.
#15
minstrelinthegallery
Jun 09, 2009 8:18:23 If it's okay to be UN-optimized there are options. Rogues (especially ones with a four level fighter dip) are very viable in combat, just have the wizardclericdruid summon up a flanking buddy. With a core only rogue you should choose between spring attack and TWF though as you won't be able to take advantage of both at any given time. It a choice between survivability a damage.

And no one has mentioned the barbarian so far- he certianly viable, not as powerful as a cleric but viable as a damage dealer. Oh, and the ranger isn't bad either.

See it's not that melee classes from the phb aren't usable or viable, it's just that they're all worse than the casters. This isn't the end of the world, in a low level game (most are) you won't really notice. And most of the players I've been around never optimize like people on the boards do.

Interesting side note, having a cleric and a melee class has something to balance things out: healing. If the cleric spends half his spells healing, it keeps the fighters alive and tones the cleric down a notch. This is NOT a bad thing. Teamwork is good, and while an optimized party shouldn't have to do combat healing, the world won't end if they do.
#16
ninjarabbit
Jun 09, 2009 8:37:08 There's a difference between teamwork and one person being deadweight and a experience point sink. Heck a properly buffed druid's animal companion can easily fill the tank role and not take up a party member slot, a share of treasure, and experience.
#17
minstrelinthegallery
Jun 09, 2009 8:48:49 True a rogue wouldn't be able to hold his weight compared to the other classes, but he would contribute and like I said, most groups won't notice the dip. Unless the cleric/druid player is really experienced the rogue might not realize he's 3 tiers below the others. If the rest of the party doesn't want to waste resources on the rogue he can use UMD to cast his own buffs.

Another reason I like rogues is that having a magic solution for everything isn't always the best idea. For one in can drive DM's nuts (especially mine) to just say "I cast xxxx, problem solved!" And more practically, you can't dispel skill checks.

I'm not rying to say that there is a core party as strong as a wizard-druid-cleric combo. There isn't. Even mixing in a sorcerer is a net loss in power. All I'm saying is that using the other classes isn't impossible (save for monks, fighters, and paladins. single classing those badboys is asking for trouble).
#18
gsman
Jun 10, 2009 15:15:10 So, you guys are saying that they are not "viable" by CO board standards, but would be viable if no one was really optimising anyway? I don't know if my players would optimise something like this or not... but maybe ranger/barbarian/cleric/sorcerer(or wizard) could work just as well...

What I'm thinking is a golden sun styled campaign, but still using plain d&d rules.
#19
jameswilliamogle
Jun 10, 2009 15:22:50 yes, you have it exactly.
#20
gsman
Jun 10, 2009 20:46:14 AWESOME! This idea should work, then, I'll get right on making the first adventure... :D

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 gsman Jun 07, 2009 16:09:03	what could be done with this party? without multiclassing, i have an idea for a campaign that would maybe limit it like this, but want to know if the characters would be viable(all human for this example) 20 paladin 20 sorcerer 20 cleric 20 fighter could this work, i know it could with multiclassing but what about without? Side note: Ya know, with all the ideas floating around my head, its a good thing my players are open minded.
#2 hand_of_vecna Jun 07, 2009 16:31:56	If you mean core only as in phb, dmg, mm then no the fighter and paladin will not be viable they just won't. If you mean playing just those classes and getting feats elsewhere then they can be uber chargers, the fighter could be a chain tripper or any number of other things.
#3 gsman Jun 07, 2009 16:56:44	that's the answer I was looking for, I'll just have to allow feats from the complete arcane/mage/divine/adventurer/warrior then. Thanks
#4 jameswilliamogle Jun 07, 2009 17:00:07	I give you this link http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1153750
#5 ninjarabbit Jun 07, 2009 17:09:55	cleric20 cleric20 druid20 wizard20
#6 jameswilliamogle Jun 07, 2009 17:19:11	Fighters are like the beaten up step children of core-only games (and its worse on these boards). The exceptional ones are rare. It requires more skill to build an effective one in core than any other class. Ironically, it also requires the least skill to do one badly.
#7 jameswilliamogle Jun 07, 2009 18:07:14	Try a core melee Rogue 16 / Fighter (or Fighter) 4 with UMD and Flame Blade wands. Gets silly. d8+10d6 x 7 :D
#8 gsman Jun 08, 2009 21:30:08	Would it be better to ask which core base classes are viable without multiclassing(your link helped but has lots of multiclassing...)
#9 jameswilliamogle Jun 08, 2009 21:46:40	that's actually already been answered for you. ninjarabbit above.
#10 gsman Jun 08, 2009 21:51:07	:O 2 clerics, a wizard and a druid... that'd be a boring party, but thanks anyway. I may have to trash this campaign idea... If the melee classes are "just not" viable.
#11 jameswilliamogle Jun 08, 2009 22:04:55	well what do you mean viable? garbage in, garbage out.
#12 Endarire Jun 08, 2009 22:26:13	Rogue20 Cleric20 Wizard20 Druid20 Rogues sneak, do extra sneak attack damage, and use spells via UMD. Full casters are full casters.
#13 hand_of_vecna Jun 08, 2009 23:15:07	The Druid and one or both clerics can be viable in melee depending on build and spell selection hell so could the wizard at higher levels.
#14 ninjarabbit Jun 09, 2009 7:47:40	You don't need the rogue. He spends too much time pretending to be useful. Summon Monster I gets you a celestial monkey which can spring a trap and later on you can take the Summon Elemental reserve feat (since you said we could feats from Complete Mage) can do the same thing but on a permanent basis. Sneak attack is too situational to be reliable and you're too squishy to be in serious combat with a d6 hit dice, only light armor, and no real magical protection. Divine power/righteous might or wildshape along with the various buffs they have are much better combat options. In a party full of casters UMD becomes a much less useful skill. Heck a cleric with the magic domain can use both wizard and cleric trigger items.
#15 minstrelinthegallery Jun 09, 2009 8:18:23	If it's okay to be UN-optimized there are options. Rogues (especially ones with a four level fighter dip) are very viable in combat, just have the wizardclericdruid summon up a flanking buddy. With a core only rogue you should choose between spring attack and TWF though as you won't be able to take advantage of both at any given time. It a choice between survivability a damage. And no one has mentioned the barbarian so far- he certianly viable, not as powerful as a cleric but viable as a damage dealer. Oh, and the ranger isn't bad either. See it's not that melee classes from the phb aren't usable or viable, it's just that they're all worse than the casters. This isn't the end of the world, in a low level game (most are) you won't really notice. And most of the players I've been around never optimize like people on the boards do. Interesting side note, having a cleric and a melee class has something to balance things out: healing. If the cleric spends half his spells healing, it keeps the fighters alive and tones the cleric down a notch. This is NOT a bad thing. Teamwork is good, and while an optimized party shouldn't have to do combat healing, the world won't end if they do.
#16 ninjarabbit Jun 09, 2009 8:37:08	There's a difference between teamwork and one person being deadweight and a experience point sink. Heck a properly buffed druid's animal companion can easily fill the tank role and not take up a party member slot, a share of treasure, and experience.
#17 minstrelinthegallery Jun 09, 2009 8:48:49	True a rogue wouldn't be able to hold his weight compared to the other classes, but he would contribute and like I said, most groups won't notice the dip. Unless the cleric/druid player is really experienced the rogue might not realize he's 3 tiers below the others. If the rest of the party doesn't want to waste resources on the rogue he can use UMD to cast his own buffs. Another reason I like rogues is that having a magic solution for everything isn't always the best idea. For one in can drive DM's nuts (especially mine) to just say "I cast xxxx, problem solved!" And more practically, you can't dispel skill checks. I'm not rying to say that there is a core party as strong as a wizard-druid-cleric combo. There isn't. Even mixing in a sorcerer is a net loss in power. All I'm saying is that using the other classes isn't impossible (save for monks, fighters, and paladins. single classing those badboys is asking for trouble).
#18 gsman Jun 10, 2009 15:15:10	So, you guys are saying that they are not "viable" by CO board standards, but would be viable if no one was really optimising anyway? I don't know if my players would optimise something like this or not... but maybe ranger/barbarian/cleric/sorcerer(or wizard) could work just as well... What I'm thinking is a golden sun styled campaign, but still using plain d&d rules.
#19 jameswilliamogle Jun 10, 2009 15:22:50	yes, you have it exactly.
#20 gsman Jun 10, 2009 20:46:14	AWESOME! This idea should work, then, I'll get right on making the first adventure... :D