Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Trickstergod" data-source="post: 904538" data-attributes="member: 10825">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.</blockquote>

Verification