Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9872054" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Zardnaar:Also Zardnaar:Sixty percent of your second party ARE FULL-CASTERS. And of the other two, one is ALSO a partial spellcaster.Of your first group, one is a full-caster, and one is nearly so, especially if you take certain things to make you more of a caster (like Pact of the Tome). You keep pushing this "full casters SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK" message, but your choices do not match your claims. I find that very telling.Beyond that, if you actually want to be a nightmare for your GM, yes, something like the second party is a much, much better fit for that purpose. I would personally swap out the Sorcerer for a Wizard (especially as that party is otherwise very likely to be hurting for Int skills). Long as you choose the right subclasses of Barbarian and Paladin--my money's on World Tree and Redemption--you have an extremely solid group that can do some pretty tricksy things, and with even just a very small amount of advanced warning, can be almost completely prepared to deploy against many different threats. Divination is likely the best Wizard subclass for this context--after all, being able to force positive/negative results with Portent dice is by definition one of the game's greatest ways to screw with the GM, as it can only be countered by Legendary Resistance, though you can argue that a Bladesinger allows a Wizard to be enough of a gish that even you can't call it weak. For Bard, Lore allows for a max flex potential, and gives you great ways to juice skill checks, again allowing you to oppose the GM's preferences/choices. Cleric doesn't really matter; sure, some subclasses are worse than others, but none of them are truly awful; Light, War, or Knowledge would all be fine, and Life wouldn't be bad even if it would be a tad unnecessary with two other support-leaning characters in the party.So...yeah. World Tree Barbarian (or something replacing it with more power/versatility), Redemption Paladin, Divination or Bladesinging Wizard, Lore Bard, and (say) Light Cleric? Yes, you are absolutely going to be screwing over your GM on the reg, because you actually have abilities that can tell the GM "nope, that didn't happen" and "well guess what, I can't roll less than 30 on this, so you're just hosed." (Redemption Paladin rolling Persuasion with Lore Bard support, Diviner Wizard in the back holding onto an awesome Portent die, and just innately having effectively Reliable Talent? Especially if she's picked up Expertise in Persuasion, not just Proficiency? Yeah. You might literally be able to push that roll up into the 40s, that's how juiced you are.)At least partial spellcasters are, in nearly all cases, simply superior in their general capabilities than pure non-casters. Of the ten characters you listed above, half of them were full casters. Your arguments simply don't hold water by your own analysis!</blockquote>

Verification