NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6239425" data-attributes="member: 58197">Okay, so this is a bit off topic, but "white mage" is a perfectly good combat archetype. Instead of dealing damage directly, you buff and heal everyone else. If you're in a party of four, and you boost everyone else's combat capability by one-third, you're pulling your weight in battle, even if you yourself never lay a finger on a monster.But in the main, you are right that 5E out of the box is not likely to support hyperspecialization. You can, to a certain extent, trade off combat capability for noncombat utility or vice versa; but you can only take it so far. You can't be more combat-specialized than the fighter, and you can't be more utility-specialized than the rogue. (And rogues do trade off combat utility. Sneak attack allows them to be useful in combat, but the fighter still deals more damage, and on defense there's no comparison.)I don't really see this as a problem. Core D&D has never had much support for noncombatant PCs. Pre-3E thieves were about as close as it got, and they still had backstab. The general assumption of D&D is that most adventures will devote a fair bit of time to combat, and very few players will want to spend 50% or more of the average session twiddling their thumbs. "Very few" is not "none," but D&D can't be everything to everybody.Yeah, it was kind of silly. Good thing they got rid of that in 5E. The 5E fighter can dish it out as well as take it.</blockquote>

Verification