Need help creating a character

[rasputinradio]

yeah, I could do that, nightfall. Then I have to spend some time fleshing out my background.

 

[rasputinradio]

gnome druid? Please explain

 

[Angcuru]

gnomes are cool, and druids are challenges to play. besides, when was the last time ANYONE played a gnome druid?

 

[rasputinradio]

gnome druid

Good point about the gnome druid, but in the interest of what my party will need I think the cleric makes more sense. I will stow the gnome druid debate away for a later campaign.

 

[krunchyfrogg]

1/2 Orc Barbarian (one or two levels only)/ Cleric

 

[Nightfall]

ras,

Think just go straight cleric. You're better off that way in the long run, trust me. As for the druid thing, *shrugs* your call.

 

[Maraxle]

Don't get forced into the Cleric role just for the sake of "party balance." Which class do you think you'd have the most fun playing? If that's why you're leaning toward Cleric, then great.

 

[Trickstergod]

Personally, seeing the current party of a fighter, wizard, druid, and a ranger, it already has a decent balance going for it, and if the DM is saying while there will be moderate amounts of combat, but that it won't be a a hack and slash fest, then my own recommendation is to just go with what you want to play. Now, if you have a number of choices you're looking at, the one that will best fill a niche in the party is usually your best choice; as such, a Cleric nearly always has a place, and while you didn't mention desiring to play a Rogue, I do notice the party lacks one, so perhaps, near approximation that it is, a Bard might be good to go with, as well - plus one can still contribute a little healing to the party.

Ultimately, you should play what you're going to enjoy over filling a niche. If you can do both, great. Not that anyone needs to be told that. However, I felt the juxtaposition was necessary in light of the "Play a cleric! Play a cleric! Take Strength and War! Take Strength and War!". Depending on just what your DM allows for multi-classing and prestige classes, even the weakest of characters starting off can beat more ass than the next guy once they've gotten a few levels under their belts. Play a Barbarian/Bard; be a skald. Or an earthy Cleric/Ranger. Appeal should be the primary concern, and usefulness, secondary - so long as the game isn't going to be just hack and slash (though if you really think it's going to be, despite what the DM said, well, best to just go with the Cleric).

Anyway, time to trot off on my high horse.

 

[Ampolitor]

......Survey Says...........

Id go with the Cleric, Ive found them real fun to play in the long run with a lot of possibilities later on in the long run. You have the best of both worlds, fighting and magic, and youe like a combat medic for the team.

 

[Zhure]

Sorcerer. Always.
I find they have a great synergy with a wizzy in the party.

I agree you should play what you like as long as it fits within the DM's world. Don't be forced into a clerical role if you don't want to play a cleric.

If you do feel the need to supplement the healing of the group, Paladin, another Ranger (take Craft Wand at the earliest available opportunity and make CLW wands for dirt cheap), or a Druid can all act as supplemental healers and still do well in combat and roleplaying. My personal choice would be Paladin. It's different enough from the other PCs to avoid stepping on toes and doesn't make you as locked into the healing machine stereotype.

If the DM is allowing Psions, a Savant (human or dwarf) with Empathic Transfer can also act as a backup healer.

Greg