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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7193547" data-attributes="member: 996">In the classic sense of the 4 iconic classes, sure!   Cleric-less party?  A Bard, Druid, or even Paladin can step in and supply the traditional band-aids.  No fighter?  No problem, a barbarian, paladin, ranger, or warlock (among others) can take care of DPS for you.  A barbarian, paladin or moon druid could tank for you, too (or you could summon things).  No Rogue?  Anyone can be a criminal, a Bard can have expertise.  No Wizard?  The other casters cover many of the same spells, someone could take ritual caster... (OK, wiz is probably the hardest, it's the single class with the most unique spells, that is, those found on no other list, but it's not exactly the highest priority, either).That's not terribly new, though.  In 4e classes with the same role could fairly neatly fill in for eachother, in 3e barbarians, self-buffing clerics, Druids (and/or their animal companions), paladins or rangers among others could fill in for the fighter, Clerics & Druids (and maybe favored soul, and Bard at the outside) could fill in for eachother - really, anyone with CLW on their list (or enough UMD) & a wand could supply the band-aids - and Wizards and Sorcerers shared virtually the exact same spell-list, before that, a lot of classes started as 'sub-classes' that could fill in for the main class, more or less...Thing is, if you have Sorcerer filling in for you wizard, or a Druid for your life Cleric, or a criminal bard for your Rogue, you might not be dealing with everything quite as well, but a barbarian or paladin might raise the bar when filling in for the fighter - or not, YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification