Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 6641773" data-attributes="member: 20998">To your first question, no of course not. This isn't a binary system; there's plenty of room to avoid homogeneity unless we're visiting strawman town.As far as minimums... let's look at what we have...Barbarian - Pretty slim pickings, but... Totem warrior path is chock full of exploration pillary goodness - rituals, wolf totem, eagle totem. Bard - I think we're good here, but for completeness... Expertise, jack of all trades, countercharm (since charm will more likely be in a social encounter), spellsCleric - Heartily covered through spells, but also the Knowledge domain, and to a lesser extent nature and trickery domainsDruid - Again spells covers this, but we can add wild shape here tooMonk - Pretty sparse here too... All languages is nice, but at 13th level. Way of Shadow gets a little bit and of Elements to a lesser extentPaladin - SpellsRanger - Favored enemy, natural explorer, spellsRogue - Expertise, reliable talent, light sprinkling in thief and assassin, or go whole hog with spells from arcane tricksterSorcerer - SpellsWarlock - Spells, invocationsWizard - SpellsFighter ....Remarkable athlete (a half bonus to athletics) OR student of war (proficiency in one artisan tool) OR go eldritch knight for spellsI actually had trouble writing that last line without adding sad commentary. It's kind of embarrassing actually, how completely gypped they are unless they play wizard wanna-be. Monk is probably biting at the fighter's heels for last, and some barbarians, but the fighter wins this contest that no one want's to win.As you can see it runs the gamut. I'd personally say barbarian is about as low as it should go, but YMMV. At least the barbarian feels like the 3 pillars were taken into account when building the class.</blockquote>

Verification