Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Laurefindel" data-source="post: 8023014" data-attributes="member: 67296">I don't think all roles need to be 100% covered. IMO, that's when things becomes interesting. Even with the archetypal fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric 4-player party, players need to coordinate their builds a lot to cover them all. Also, a tempest or nature cleric, or a moon druid, or a ranger multiclass could fill a silmilar role as the outlander paladin, so players usually have a bit of leeway.But hey, I'm just explaining why I like it, not why you or anyone else should like it too <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm right there with you on that. That is especially true with characters having to mix both arcane utility and boom magic and divine healing and buff magic. But in a context of pre-made characters, I trust that the one who made the characters in the first place has done their homework right, and will be able to guide their players on level-up.With that in mind, I still think that sorcerers are more straightforward (mostly because their spells selection is more focused, not simpler) than that of bards. For what it's worth, I think warlocks are not easy to play either because it require a judicious use of your two (or three) spell slots. Eldritch blast is always good, but warlocks are best when there's already another caster in the group IMO.</blockquote>

Verification