Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 2946802" data-attributes="member: 35788">Uh, I vote the necromancer or the rogue.  Both of them are doing things that typically brings more attention than desired and by people who can usually do something about it.  Nobody likes a thief (or a thief's friends) and not many living beings should really have a ton of respect for someone whose soul (sic) desire is to bring death to all beings.I'd certainly keep the fighter around as long as for the most part he keeps his mouth shut in conversation with others and lets others try the talking route.  And I'd definately keep that cleric around because if its a motivated fighting cleric it might well be a better fighter than the fighter!  Heck yeah I'd keep that cleric around.Yet, somehow I don't think this answer was the one you wanted.  Sorry!As for the comments that are being made, remember that I don't think a single person in the camp of "clerics can be non-healers too" would say their character would never heal.  That is a point that the people in the "clerics must be healers" camp likes to assert.  I've heard many cleric players say that if the party is willing to go "halves/thirds/quarters/fifths/etc" on a wand of healing that they'd be more than happy to use it over and over!  My clerics heal through wands all the time!  My clerics will also heal a fallen comrade in combat if necessary, too.  But my clerics are not a "heal me cause your character sheet says cleric and that is your role forced upon you."  Screw that.As far as people having niches to fill, if that were the case the PHB should have 4 classes in it: fighter, healer, scout (not the CAd base class), arcanist.  But you see, the classes can do things that the other classes can.  A cleric can be a better fighter than an actual fighter given the right conditions.  A wizard can make a decent rogue substitute in the right circumstances and with the proper spell selection.  I've seen fighterless parties do fine, cleric-less parties do fine, rogueless parties do fine (these are my favorites, personally) and arcaneless parties do great (These have to be very careful, though!).  PArt of the fun of the game for me is tossing out the "assumptions" of a class and letting other people play what they want their character to be.  If the arcanist wants to be an illusionist and not toss out fireballs and we need a few fireballs then we'll get a scroll, or a magic item, or whatever.  No big deal!  You want healing?  Get a wand!  They're not that expensive in the greater scheme of things and you don't even need a cleric for that!Anyway, I guess it just grates on my nerves to hear anyone force their assumptions for a class on someone else.  Just because wizards can cast fireball doesn't mean they have to and in some concepts they shouldn't!  Just because a rogue has the ability to open locks doesn't mean in every concept he should!  Just because every fighter can fight with a greatsword and have a high strength doesn't mean that in every concept he should!  And just because some clerics (those who can channel positive energy) can heal spontaneously (or even cast a memorized cure spell) doesn't mean that with every concept they should.  Since when is D&D about forcing other player's characters to live up to my metagaming expectations?</blockquote>

Verification