All Magic Party

[Naanomi]

Some recent discussions have brought up the idea that magic gives such versatility to a party as to make characters that lack spell-casting options at a disadvantage at the least, if not completely outclassed and obsolete by their primary caster compatriots. Therefore I propose a discussion where we attempt to develop a party using only primary spellcasters, see how they would develop as a party and what challenges they would face, and see if indeed we could expect them to outperform a more diverse party.

Here are the rules I propose, though these would be open to discussion:
1) Four member party, any race/background open
2) Only casters with level 9 spell access need apply.
~I totally understand the value of the half-casters, but in looking at Spells VS Other Class Abilities, it seems cleaner this way. That leaves: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard; all subclasses open.
~I'd also prefer to avoid dipping into 'forbidden' classes; as Fighter2/Warlock 18 (or whatever) proves the superiority of Spellcasting much less obviously than Warlock 20 or even Warlock 2/Sorcerer 18
3) Assume 'normal magic level' for items as per DMG guidelines.
~This is most important for access Wizards might have to extra scrolls for their Spellbook beyond what they get from leveling up.
4) As much as possible, a focus on Spellcasting as much as possible.
~A moon-druid who casts one spell then spends his whole day as a mammoth is showing the strength of Wildshape, not necessarily Spellcasting; same with a Dwarven Blade-Lock and the like. I'm not forbidding these options categorically, but again I feel that it goes against the spirit of really looking at the powers of Spellcasting compared to other choices.
-----------
I hope to define the party at four levels, including 'normal day' prepared spells:
Level 1 - When characters are at their most vulnerable, and where casters are at their most limited in their resources
Level 5 - As established adventurers
Level 10 - A mid point
Level 20 - The end game
-----------
The three areas, at least to me, that 'mundane' characters are expected to support a party that at least at very first glance they do better at than the casters (at least conceptually).

First is general skill-use. In 5e this isn't as much as an issue: Bards compete with rogues in this area completely well, especially Lore Bards.

Second is damage sponge. Defenses and planning are great, but sometimes a pile of HP to take the AoE, draw the dragon's breath, or get past the trap you just can't disarm. Casters have temporary HP, Summons, or combat healing to fill this role; but even then not as readily and effortlessly as most fighters, paladins, and barbarians. Moon druids are the clear exception here, but as mentioned above I am reluctant to go this route since this shows the strength of one class feature, not necessarily the concept of the druid spell-list.

Third is consistent 'free' damage. Big damage spells are great, but sometimes you just need something to throw out for free endlessly. Need a rope cut to bypass a trap? Need to slog through an onslaught of tiny but mostly nonthreatening kobolds? Is a boss a giant pile of HP that needs ground down one way or another? Evocation Wizards are not terrible at this, but at first glance only Warlocks really compete with basic melee at this, and even they struggle to compare to a damage-focused character at their best (some fighters, ranger archers, vengeance pallies, or basically any rogue)
-----------------------
Just off the top of my head, this is the route I am thinking:
~~Half-Elf Lore Bard, with a background that gives thief tools: For all our skill needs: perception/investigation, stealth, and some face skills spring to mind as things that just can't always be done any other way; particularly not at lower levels.
~~A ritual caster, probably a wizard (though book-warlock isn't off the table). I'm inclined to going with Wizard on the basis of half the 'answers to any problem' (flight, teleport, tiny hut, etc) appear on their list most prominently.
~~A healer, being a cleric or a druid. Casters can be fragile, and surviving the stray shots that pierce their defenses can be very important.
~~Someone else

Bard (Lore), Wizard (Abjurer OR Necromancer OR Diviner), Cleric (???), Druid (Land): gives us all the 'main' spell lists (Warlock unique points are not outstanding, sorcerer gives us nothing wizard can't do)?
----------------------
Thoughts?

[Jlooney]

Not to nit pick but a warlock doesn't get 9th level spells he gets a few he can cast 1/day but he actually doesn't get 6-9 slots.

[Naanomi]

Not to nit pick but a warlock doesn't get 9th level spells he gets a few he can cast 1/day but he actually doesn't get 6-9 slots.
Fair enough, but I think for our purposes the distinction isn't important. He gets 9th level *spell*, even if he casts it different than other people; and largely relies on resources from his spell-list (albeit fairly differently than other 'casters' do)

[SharkForce]

interesting. are you going to compare this to a party of non-casters that are not permitted to multiclass at all and don't get to use their major class features that might show their usefulness in various situations too?

i mean, i don't want to be told that dipping two levels of warlock for consistent high damage is disallowed, only to find that the assassin rogue in the party we're comparing to dipped two levels of fighter for a terrifying first-round burst, or that the ranger dipped two levels of rogue for the ability to dash as a bonus action, or that the paladin is dipping 3 levels of rogue for assassin crit-smites of doom.

i'd also be quite annoyed to find out that moon druid wild shape tanking is disallowed when, say, barbarian rage with bear totem was used to tank for the party we're comparing against, considering that's not a feature of martials so much as it is specific to barbarians of a single path only.

[Naanomi]

interesting. are you going to compare this to a party of non-casters that are not permitted to multiclass at all and don't get to use their major class features that might show their usefulness in various situations too?

i mean, i don't want to be told that dipping two levels of warlock for consistent high damage is disallowed, only to find that the assassin rogue in the party we're comparing to dipped two levels of fighter for a terrifying first-round burst, or that the ranger dipped two levels of rogue for the ability to dash as a bonus action, or that the paladin is dipping 3 levels of rogue for assassin crit-smites of doom.

i'd also be quite annoyed to find out that moon druid wild shape tanking is disallowed when, say, barbarian rage with bear totem was used to tank for the party we're comparing against, considering that's not a feature of martials so much as it is specific to barbarians of a single path only.
First, a party of non-casters would be rough in many ways, but also interesting... Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue/Monk if we want party diversity. However, really I'm more interested in how a pure caster party compares to an 'average' party with some martials and some spellcasters; just to see if indeed we can see marked increase in performance from the caster group (as opposed a different but not fundamentally superior way of going about it).

Beyond that, I'm not trying to set this up to be biased, per se, but just to showcase the most potential from spellcasting we can by not relying on other things to heavily. I was inclined, when I started, to just focus on single-class characters and ignore the entire multi-classing aspect; but I really want to hear people's opinions. If the answer is 'a party of casters can exceed a regular party, but only with a few dips into the martial classes' well... that gives a different answer than 'all casters, all the time, no exceptions'.

Regarding the moon druid, I think we are all clear they are admirable tanks comparable or superior (though with slightly different methodology) to other tanky options; so I wanted to open the door to other options without that being the 'obvious' choice. Again, if the answer is that only the moon druid can really tank like a martial class can then that gives us a good picture of the strengths of casters VS martials.

[pwykersotz]

interesting. are you going to compare this to a party of non-casters that are not permitted to multiclass at all and don't get to use their major class features that might show their usefulness in various situations too?

i mean, i don't want to be told that dipping two levels of warlock for consistent high damage is disallowed, only to find that the assassin rogue in the party we're comparing to dipped two levels of fighter for a terrifying first-round burst, or that the ranger dipped two levels of rogue for the ability to dash as a bonus action, or that the paladin is dipping 3 levels of rogue for assassin crit-smites of doom.

i'd also be quite annoyed to find out that moon druid wild shape tanking is disallowed when, say, barbarian rage with bear totem was used to tank for the party we're comparing against, considering that's not a feature of martials so much as it is specific to barbarians of a single path only.

What? :smallconfused:

If we're going to do a comparison and casters can multiclass freely with each other, and then we do a comparison of no spell users, why would the assassin rogue not be able to dip two levels of fighter? The idea is to split them on spell use.

[SharkForce]

What? :smallconfused:

If we're going to do a comparison and casters can multiclass freely with each other, and then we do a comparison of no spell users, why would the assassin rogue not be able to dip two levels of fighter? The idea is to split them on spell use.

he seemed to be frowning on a 2-level warlock dip for superior cantrip damage. if that's frowned upon, i expect it to be equally frowned upon to compare to someone who takes a 2-level dip into fighter or rogue.

if he's not suggesting the 2-level warlock dip is distasteful, then i'm totally ok with the various multiclasses above. just so long as there isn't a double standard.

but in any event, if this is more a matter of "come up with a variety of builds that can perform specific roles" within a party, i'd rather see it phrased as such rather than looking for a party that specifically excludes moon druids from being the tank because it's not focused enough on spellcasting.

if you're looking for caster options that can "tank" in some form or another at various levels, just say so. don't do it in a manner that suggests that somehow the moon druid is less of a caster because they have class abilities other than casting spells.

which brings up the question: what roles do you feel need to be filled to show that a party of full casters is viable?

- DPR?
- skills? (and if so, which skills in particular: stealth, social, trap disabling?)
- tanking?

to me, if we can show that you can fill the roles you'd expect a martial to fill, while still leaving any resources available for additional stuff, the challenge has been met. it doesn't necessarily need to be some idealized party that covers every area... but we do need to know what exactly we need to meet to demonstrate the point.

[pwykersotz]

he seemed to be frowning on a 2-level warlock dip for superior cantrip damage. if that's frowned upon, i expect it to be equally frowned upon to compare to someone who takes a 2-level dip into fighter or rogue.

if he's not suggesting the 2-level warlock dip is distasteful, then i'm totally ok with the various multiclasses above. just so long as there isn't a double standard.

Ah, I read that differently. I read that Warlock 2/Sorcerer 18 is fine as it showcases spellcasting.

[Naanomi]

Obviously 'what is required' would vary from campaign to campaign, but I'd like to think that we can come up with some good sense of what is expected of an average party... lets see...

*The ability to fight a variety of CR appropriate opponents, both individual monsters and in groups; potentially including foes with 'class levels'. This probably includes:
**Ability to survive regular combat without expending too many resources
**Ability to occasionally survive big damage deal with very deadly opponents, at least in the short term
**Ability to deal with hordes of weaker monsters
**Ability to deal with single powerful monsters, potentially with resistances
**Ability to have consistent that does not drain resources (for days with many encounters, or utility damage vs environmental targets)

*Be able to explore a variety of common natural and dungeon environments: maneuverability across difficult terrain and the like
*Able to overcome common dungeon features, such as traps and locks
*Have at least one character able able to solve information problems (probably via knowledge skills)
*Have at least one character able to solve social problems (probably via social skills)

Probably some discussion of common adventuring situations wouldn't hurt either. Can they handle an ambush? How about tracking down a hiding foe? What if the situation demands stealth? Can they effectively protect a non-combatant against attackers?

No list is going to be exhaustive but if we can see a 'weak point' for a party we should probably do what we can to either address it or acknowledge it as an area of struggle. For example, a party of casters probably wants to have some plan for anti-magic fields or spell-resistant/immune foes.
----------------
And for clarification, multi-classing between caster classes is totally kosher with me. Warlock/Sorcerer to your hearts content.

[asorel]

For an all-caster party, I would suggest:

A Half-Elf Sorcerer, Fire Dragon origin. Don't underestimate the value of metamagic. For straight-up damage, a Draconic Sorcerer is one of the best caster options available. Being proficient in CON saves is also useful for concentration spells. Could be supplemented with a 3 level dip in Warlock for Agonizing Blast and a pact boon. This is especially useful when one considers that cantrip boosts (i.e. AB) scale with total level, not caster level.
A Gnome Wizard, for utility and versatility. With the sheer number of spells known, Wizards are essentially walking toolboxes.
A Mountain Dwarf Cleric for keeping everyone on their feet. Having a character that's half-decent in melee doesn't hurt either, though that may go against the spirit of what you're looking for.
A Bard, for buffing/healing the party. It's also nice to have a skill monkey around. If you go Half-Elf, you have even more proficiencies.


I haven't looked particularly close at Clerics, and my knowledge of Bards isn't exactly the best either, so take this list with a grain of salt. If you wanted someone to be the "face of the party," the Bard is probably the best option. If too many are annoyed by him singing all the time, the Sorcerer is a nice backup. Charisma should be the highest stat anyways, and, if you go Half-Elf, the number of proficiencies you have means you can afford to drop points in a social skill.

[Giant2005]

Bard to take the roles of skillmonkey and healer.
2 Warlock/ X Sorc to take the role of single target and aoe damage.
Enchanter Wizard to take the role of control and aoe damage
The last position is a bit tricky... But you really need to take something that is capable be tanking and I'd probably go with a Cleric for that route as they are the only spellcasting class capable of getting a decent AC.

[Naanomi]

For the wizard... Abjurer to shut down other casters/tank with temp HP? Diviner for portent? Necromancer to use minions to tank and for the consistent Damage we are lacking with no mundanes?

[asorel]

For the wizard... Abjurer to shut down other casters/tank with temp HP? Diviner for portent? Necromancer to use minions to tank and for the consistent Damage we are lacking with no mundanes?

If there's one wizard in the party, I'd say Necromancy is a decent choice, as having minions is quite useful. Abjurer isn't bad, but I feel is less useful with a Cleric/Bard in the party. Either way, there's nothing stopping the wizard from being a damage-dealer as well. With the number of Spells Known you have, there's no reason not to take a few good Evocation spells.

[Giant2005]

The greatest loss for an all caster party like this is the lack of Paladin. There isn't any team combination that couldn't be made better by having a Paladin around. I'd much rather bring along a Pally than a stupid Cleric.

[SharkForce]

cleric does some useful stuff, but is kinda boring. the buffing is covered by bard (i'd like to see a 2 warlock splash on the bard too, although making it a valour bard would go a long ways to providing consistent damage as well), and stick with druid for tank effectiveness. cleric works. druid works well and spends fewer resources, leaving more for useful stuff elsewhere.

if the thread is intended to explore different ways of filling roles, discussing cleric as a tank works fine. if the thread is just about showing effectiveness of an all-caster party, i feel like druid as the tank (and helping with heals, buffs, CC, summons as needed, etc) is just the strongest choice.

bard is an excellent addition to basically any party, in this case probably valor. a warlock or sorcerer splash would add nicely (2 warlock adds consistent DPR if you don't go valor, 3 sorcerer adds some damaging cantrips, slightly better armour, some extra level 1 spells, 2 metamagic options - twinned haste is a possibility here).

i feel like a wizard of some sort would add a lot. type is relatively unimportant imo... all of them add their own flavour of awesome. necromancer does add a lot of consistent damage with undead, but i feel like others add their own benefits (such not being the target of angry mobs due to raising an army of the undead - even if we presume the party is ok with an army of skeletons, i see no reason to expect everyone else in the world to just welcome your army of murderous undead held in check only so long as you don't need your spell slots for something else).

fourth party slot could go almost anywhere. even a duplicate of one of the above wouldn't be bad. honestly, i feel like all the key roles are basically covered with 3 characters, and it's not so much a matter of "what do we need" as it is "what would we like more of". my inclination is to go with either a sorclock, or a dex-based bladelock. an argument could also be made for a cleric of some type (knowledge would cover any skills that the rest of the group don't pick up, for example), particularly to add in someone with heavy armour as a secondary tank... i personally don't feel it's strictly necessary though.

(and while a paladin is a welcome addition to almost any party, if properly built, i don't think the all-caster party suffers particularly more than any other party from a lack of paladin).

[Giant2005]

if the thread is intended to explore different ways of filling roles, discussing cleric as a tank works fine. if the thread is just about showing effectiveness of an all-caster party, i feel like druid as the tank (and helping with heals, buffs, CC, summons as needed, etc) is just the strongest choice.

Druids can only really fill the Tank role when they get Elemental Wildshape. Until then, they are extremely sub-par at best. They might get a bunch of extra HP twice per rest but with their incredibly low AC, those HP are going to be gone in a single round against a group of low level mobs - that gives them the ability to satisfactorily tank one encounter, perhaps two if they are lucky. A Cleric with good AC and the Heroism buff chucked on him can do the same for as many encounters as the Bard is willing to spare spell slots. An extra 5hp per round with high enough AC that you only get hit once every couple of rounds is always going to be better than an extra 60 HP with an AC low enough that almost every attack hits you.


(and while a paladin is a welcome addition to almost any party, if properly built, i don't think the all-caster party suffers particularly more than any other party from a lack of paladin).

Nope it doesn't - as I said any party is made better by having a Paladin around regardless of whether it is all martial, all caster or a properly balanced team. That save bonus aura is one of the only ways to increase one's saves and having high saves is important for any team.

[Eslin]

Some recent discussions have brought up the idea that magic gives such versatility to a party as to make characters that lack spell-casting options at a disadvantage at the least, if not completely outclassed and obsolete by their primary caster compatriots. Therefore I propose a discussion where we attempt to develop a party using only primary spellcasters, see how they would develop as a party and what challenges they would face, and see if indeed we could expect them to outperform a more diverse party.

Here are the rules I propose, though these would be open to discussion:
1) Four member party, any race/background open
2) Only casters with level 9 spell access need apply.
~I totally understand the value of the half-casters, but in looking at Spells VS Other Class Abilities, it seems cleaner this way. That leaves: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard; all subclasses open.
~I'd also prefer to avoid dipping into 'forbidden' classes; as Fighter2/Warlock 18 (or whatever) proves the superiority of Spellcasting much less obviously than Warlock 20 or even Warlock 2/Sorcerer 18
3) Assume 'normal magic level' for items as per DMG guidelines.
~This is most important for access Wizards might have to extra scrolls for their Spellbook beyond what they get from leveling up.
4) As much as possible, a focus on Spellcasting as much as possible.
Not sure the thing regarding dips makes sense. The reason fighter 2 is a great dip is the extra action, which for a caster means an extra spell cast every short rest. The extra action is only as strong as the action being used, and in this case it's very strong because the spells are good. It's the same reason dipping diviner 2 for portent doesn't mean casters are strong, just that particular class feature.

[Naanomi]

Not sure the thing regarding dips makes sense. The reason fighter 2 is a great dip is the extra action, which for a caster means an extra spell cast every short rest. The extra action is only as strong as the action being used, and in this case it's very strong because the spells are good. It's the same reason dipping diviner 2 for portent doesn't mean casters are strong, just that particular class feature.
Mostly to make the results more clear-cut... so easy to provoke people into saying 'well of *course* you are doing good, you are in heavy armor and have martial weapons and con save... and you survived the first two levels on the higher hit dice!'. While in practice I totally agree that you can have two fighter levels and still be a 'caster'; it just makes the discussion easier to draw a clean line between the two.

[unwise]

For interests sake, I would like to see how this party would work out in practice:

1 Valour Bard - An armor feat and a weapon feat. Spells that don't need high Cha.
2 Lore Bard - Healer, Inspiring Leader, Medicine. AE Heal style extra spells.
3 Lore (Valour?) Bard - Thieves tool and stealth expertise, Archery feats
4 Lore Bard - Face/lore skills. More traditional bard, fireball style extra spells.

I think it is quiet possible to make bards different enough from each other that they could be a workable party. They all lend themselves to multiclassing, as 3/4 of then are trying to play a role bards are not explicitly made for.

[Eslin]

Mostly to make the results more clear-cut... so easy to provoke people into saying 'well of *course* you are doing good, you are in heavy armor and have martial weapons and con save... and you survived the first two levels on the higher hit dice!'. While in practice I totally agree that you can have two fighter levels and still be a 'caster'; it just makes the discussion easier to draw a clean line between the two.

Yeah, ok. That makes sense, there are a lot of factors in such a comparison, cutting down on them where possible seems a good idea.


Druids can only really fill the Tank role when they get Elemental Wildshape. Until then, they are extremely sub-par at best. They might get a bunch of extra HP twice per rest but with their incredibly low AC, those HP are going to be gone in a single round against a group of low level mobs - that gives them the ability to satisfactorily tank one encounter, perhaps two if they are lucky. A Cleric with good AC and the Heroism buff chucked on him can do the same for as many encounters as the Bard is willing to spare spell slots. An extra 5hp per round with high enough AC that you only get hit once every couple of rounds is always going to be better than an extra 60 HP with an AC low enough that almost every attack hits you.

Nope it doesn't - as I said any party is made better by having a Paladin around regardless of whether it is all martial, all caster or a properly balanced team. That save bonus aura is one of the only ways to increase one's saves and having high saves is important for any team.
Disagree completely with the first part - for one, once the druid has magic armour (items don't reshape for wildshapes, but magic armour specifically reshapes for its wearer) the AC difference is negligible and for a second, bounded accuracy being a thing means the clerics going to take a bunch of hits anyway. The free hit points from wildshaping stay useful for a very long time, and past a certain point you want to be using summons to absorb hits anyway considering how much control of the battlefiend they give you.

Paladin wise, you're absolutely correct. They're partial casters already, and pretty good ones thanks to a reasonably unique spell list and reasons to boost their charisma, their aura on top of that and various other features makes them a valuable addition to even a full caster party. I just wish the same was true for rangers. From what I've seen, in general full caster>partial caster>non caster in terms of utility, but that's a general guideline. Despite being a partial caster, the ranger's horrible spells known and general crappiness basically drops it a rank lower and the monk's various unique abilities boost it a rank higher (or would if they hadn't been completely ignored in terms of magic items).

[SharkForce]

if we're talking about spending spells to keep the tankiness flowing, mage armour does a lot to help the druid's AC problem in beast form early on (and lasts a lot longer than heroism). it won't ever really get amazing (well, unless you splash monk and assume a high dex form - not that it would be a bad idea, mind you, but we're trying for a pure 100% caster party here), but with mage armour you can start off with a giant spider and have AC 16 at level 2... not great AC, but not terribad either.

plus, blindsight and darkvision, and the ability to web enemies. in the right situation (ie darkness, magical preferred), you can tank extremely well with spider form.

if giant spider form isn't your thing, dire wolf can manage one less AC and has lots of HP.

level 6, giant elk will only have 15 AC but does kinda scary damage. level 9, scorpion form is gained: AC is again not amazing, but not completely awful either (and damage is decent). plus, at that point, conjure animals has been available for 4 levels, conjure woodland beings, conjure minor elementals, and giant insect for 2 levels, and conjure elemental just became available (but is probably not worth using).

meanwhile, if your party *is* using the wall of animated dead, that's been around for plenty of time, too. if not, well, other people have spell slots and can summon minions too.

[Naanomi]

I think it is quiet possible to make bards different enough from each other that they could be a workable party.
Or all Warlock 2-3/Bard 17-18

Mix and match pacts/boons/colleges to fill roles. A bit homogenous for my likes but probably very functional as a party on all fronts.

[Naanomi]

One thing to keep in mind is various levels. Clerics can tank from level 1, but Druids need to wait to get beefier wildshapes to do the job well and wizards can undead the role but not until animate dead comes online. A party with all three though has safe options at all levels... Combined with a Bard 3/Warlock 3/Bard +14? Sounds like a good place to begin for a party.

[Eslin]

One thing to keep in mind is various levels. Clerics can tank from level 1, but Druids need to wait to get beefier wildshapes to do the job well and wizards can undead the role but not until animate dead comes online. A party with all three though has safe options at all levels... Combined with a Bard 3/Warlock 3/Bard +14? Sounds like a good place to begin for a party.

Not really, a druid starts being an excellent tank at level 2. Wild shape actually gets less effective as you go on, but can fortunately be supplemented by the druid having all 3 mass conjuration spells to use to take the damage later on.

[odigity]

Don't have time right now to speculate on optimal hypothetical parties, but wanted to mention that I started a new game tonight with two other players, and we all ended up being full spellcasters (no coordination, just ended up like that). Here's how we're starting:

Tiefling Sorceror 2 (Draconic) / Warlock 2 (Archfey)
Gnome Wizard 3 (Conj)
Human Fighter 1 / Wizard 2 (Abj) (me!)

Fun so far (only one major encounter in).

[Gwendol]

Not sure the thing regarding dips makes sense. The reason fighter 2 is a great dip is the extra action, which for a caster means an extra spell cast every short rest. The extra action is only as strong as the action being used, and in this case it's very strong because the spells are good. It's the same reason dipping diviner 2 for portent doesn't mean casters are strong, just that particular class feature.

The party is no longer an all caster party at level 1 if you start off as fighter.

[Eslin]

The party is no longer an all caster party at level 1 if you start off as fighter.

We've established that we're not dipping anyway to reduce the number of factors.

[Gwendol]

We've established that we're not dipping anyway to reduce the number of factors.

Agreed. Also it will make it harder to single out classes if you start to borrow abilities from others (even if those abilities are better suited for a different build).

What will the comparison be drawn against? A "standard" party (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, as outlined in the Basic Rules) or a non-full caster party?

[Naanomi]

What will the comparison be drawn against? A "standard" party (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, as outlined in the Basic Rules) or a non-full caster party?
A standard party, I think.

A full non-caster party (fighter/barbarian/rogue/monk) would be interesting but is itself so specialized that it wouldn't be a good point of comparison I think. Maybe for another thread.

[Gwendol]

Shouldn't paladins and ranger qualify on the grounds of being half-casters? Or not being full casters (depending on your outlook, I guess)?

[Naanomi]

Maybe, but let's not get off topic...

Wizard seems to be a definite choice, and one that benefits the most from staying single class the whole ride I think.

Race: Rock Gnome or Variant Human?
Background: Sage if human, Pirate if Gnome
Subclass: Necromancer

There are potentially 3+ feats that we might like as we progress, so Varient Human is nice. Human also gives us a skill for Perception, so we can focus on Sage background to really cover our 'know it all' role. The loss of Athletics/Acrobatics is a shame, but in a sea of skeletons grapples are less an issue then on the real front lines.

Still, I am leaning a gnome pirate necromancer (what an image!); skills would be Athletics, Perception, Investigation, Arcana, and (some of via gnomeness) History

Specialization had three strong options to me. Portent is just so good that it put Diviner on the table inherently. Abjurantion helped defensively agains melee and Magic.

However, the undead horde (even with the problems it brings socially) is just too notch consistst damage and tanking; two areas a caster party really needs to watch. My vote goes necromancer.

[Giant2005]

Why does no-one seem to rate the Enchanter? They are OP as hell.

[Gwendol]

A hill dwarf Life domain Cleric perhaps? Should be able to handle the close up battles fairly well.

[Naanomi]

Variant Human
Wizard (Necromancer) 20
Background: Sage
Skills: Perception, Investigation, Religion, History, Arcana
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 14
Constitution: 16
Wisdom: 12
Intelligence: 16 (+2 at 4 and 8)
Charisma: 8

Feats:
1: Resilient (Constitution)
12: Alert
16: Lucky
19: Warcaster

Spellbook: <<Will fill out levels beyond first later>>
Lvl 1: Firebolt, Magehand, Minor Illusion;
Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Shield, Detect Magic, Sleep, Find Familiar

[Gnomes2169]

Just popping in to post a reminder about druids/ other shapeshifting strats...

Natural armor does not stack with magic armor, and it does not stack with spells like mage armor that set your AC to a certain value. Remember, armor values set AC to a certain number, they typically do not modify said number (shield and shield of faith are exceptions, not the rule). As such, if you were a wild shaping druid, you would use the better of your wildshape's natural AC or your magic armor's AC, you would not get both.

So in the AC race, the cleric pretty handily wins. The ability to get half plate+a shield for any cleric (and full plate+shield for tempest/ war clerics) and the ability to get magic versions of both these protective magic items makes them the better AC tank. Add in a shield of faith, and the higher-level cleric can use his four less-useful level 1 spell slots to increase the entire party's AC by just that extra little smidgen for one encounter, or to keep his own AC near untouchable all day long.

[Naanomi]

Half-Elf
Bard (Lore) 3/Warlock (Archfey/Book) 3/Bard (Lore) +14
Background: Urchin
Skills: Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Perception, Deception, Persuasion, {Thief Tools}, {3X Instruments}
*At Lore 3, add: Intimidation, Insight, Acrobatics
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 14
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 12
Wisdom: 12
Charisma: 16 (+2 at 4, 8)

Feats:
12: Alert
16: Lucky

Spellbook:
*Vicious Mockery, Message
1) Thunderwave, Tasha's UHL, Healing Word, Charm Person

[SharkForce]

Why does no-one seem to rate the Enchanter? They are OP as hell.

enchanter is awesome at higher levels, but animate dead covers a lot of the ground that would usually be covered by martial characters and is available much earlier than the best enchanter abilities really come online... and is the time where casters (comparatively speaking) struggle (i mean, at level 15, *all* wizards are amazing).

and the necromancer's animate dead spell is just *so* much better than anyone else's animate dead spell it's not even funny.


Just popping in to post a reminder about druids/ other shapeshifting strats...

Natural armor does not stack with magic armor, and it does not stack with spells like mage armor that set your AC to a certain value. Remember, armor values set AC to a certain number, they typically do not modify said number (shield and shield of faith are exceptions, not the rule). As such, if you were a wild shaping druid, you would use the better of your wildshape's natural AC or your magic armor's AC, you would not get both.

So in the AC race, the cleric pretty handily wins. The ability to get half plate+a shield for any cleric (and full plate+shield for tempest/ war clerics) and the ability to get magic versions of both these protective magic items makes them the better AC tank. Add in a shield of faith, and the higher-level cleric can use his four less-useful level 1 spell slots to increase the entire party's AC by just that extra little smidgen for one encounter, or to keep his own AC near untouchable all day long.

i listed the forms with properly enhanced AC, not stacking. a giant spider has 16 dex, and therefore with mage armour has 16 AC. which is frankly probably not that far behind the cleric until at least a few levels later, unless we're presuming it rains enchanted half-plate and shields from the sky or something.

and by the time those few levels later come, the druid gets conjure animals, the cleric gets animate dead, the wizard gets animate dead, and the importance of personal tanking ability plummets like a rock anyways. (plus, while i haven't heard of anything on it yet, i'd be pretty surprised if various non-metal armours *aren't* introduced that would allow a druid similar capabilities, though obviously they'd need to spend a feat for heavy armour if they wanted it). dragon scale armour is pretty iconic, and they're far from the only monsters that have included explicit mentions of their hide being used to make excellent quality armour.

but really, the big thing is that the druid basically becomes an amazing summoner, and doesn't have to alienate large numbers of people to pull it off (in contrast to using animate dead)

[asorel]

enchanter is awesome at higher levels, but animate dead covers a lot of the ground that would usually be covered by martial characters and is available much earlier than the best enchanter abilities really come online... and is the time where casters (comparatively speaking) struggle (i mean, at level 15, *all* wizards are amazing).

and the necromancer's animate dead spell is just *so* much better than anyone else's animate dead spell it's not even funny.



i listed the forms with properly enhanced AC, not stacking. a giant spider has 16 dex, and therefore with mage armour has 16 AC. which is frankly probably not that far behind the cleric until at least a few levels later, unless we're presuming it rains enchanted half-plate and shields from the sky or something.

and by the time those few levels later come, the druid gets conjure animals, the cleric gets animate dead, the wizard gets animate dead, and the importance of personal tanking ability plummets like a rock anyways. (plus, while i haven't heard of anything on it yet, i'd be pretty surprised if various non-metal armours *aren't* introduced that would allow a druid similar capabilities, though obviously they'd need to spend a feat for heavy armour if they wanted it). dragon scale armour is pretty iconic, and they're far from the only monsters that have included explicit mentions of their hide being used to make excellent quality armour.

but really, the big thing is that the druid basically becomes an amazing summoner, and doesn't have to alienate large numbers of people to pull it off (in contrast to using animate dead)

I don't own the DMG, but I can confirm that dragonscale armor is in fact a thing.

[LuthielValkire]

Well, we need a tank, some ranged dpr, a full caster, and support.

For tank i'd go human cleric of death with dex 16 Con 16 and wisdom 14 (resilience Con) -- use false life and aid to buff hp. Fight with scale and shield for 18 AC at level 1 (shield of faith boosts to 20).

Ranged dpr I'd go for valor bard with crossbow expertise and later swift quiver or warlock with eldritch basting. Bard preferred -- you probably need him for a decent skill monkey without the rogue.

Full caster -- because we are squashier than the martials, I'd go with the abjuration wizard on this one.

Support -- dwarf life cleric who's also able to fight beside the tankish death cleric (in this case, both tanks also double for support with the bard also as good support).

It lacks a lot without what the martials can bring, but it's probably survivable.

[Gwendol]

You need the bard not so much for ranged DPR (not the optimal choice), but for the skills. Why not a ranged Warlock? As reliable as a Ranger, and with some other benefits. I haven't looked at sorcerers yet, but they seem a little too narrowly focused for this excersise. Good for damage-dealing though.

[asorel]

You need the bard not so much for ranged DPR (not the optimal choice), but for the skills. Why not a ranged Warlock? As reliable as a Ranger, and with some other benefits. I haven't looked at sorcerers yet, but they seem a little too narrowly focused for this excersise. Good for damage-dealing though.

For combat (not just damage-dealing), a Sorcerer is the best class available. They have a good selection of AoE and control spells. The Buffs they get are also nice, especially with metamagic. Twinned Greater Invisibility+Fireball=battlefield domination.

[asorel]

You need the bard not so much for ranged DPR (not the optimal choice), but for the skills. Why not a ranged Warlock? As reliable as a Ranger, and with some other benefits. I haven't looked at sorcerers yet, but they seem a little too narrowly focused for this excersise. Good for damage-dealing though.

For combat (not just damage-dealing), a Sorcerer is the best class available. They have a good selection of AoE and control spells. The Buffs they get are also nice, especially with metamagic. Twinned Greater Invisibility+Fireball=battlefield domination. As long as you have a Wizard with you, narrow focus isn't much of an issue.

[Vogonjeltz]

Shouldn't paladins and ranger qualify on the grounds of being half-casters? Or not being full casters (depending on your outlook, I guess)?

That or certain subclasses of Fighter/Monk would be disqualified on the basis of having actual casting.

I think the real achilles heal of the all caster party is the lack of action economy. Example: Martials universally get an extra attack. Attacks can be used to shove/trip/disarm/grapple/overrun/basicallyanythingelseyoucanimagineincombat an enemy. So they can deal damage and impose conditions on one (or more) enemies during their turn. A Caster, by way of comparison, usually has to choose between dealing damage or imposing a condition.


As such, if you were a wild shaping druid, you would use the better of your wildshape's natural AC or your magic armor's AC, you would not get both.

I can't think of a form that would still be capable of wearing armor, so it would probably always be the natural AC, even if it's worse.


Support -- dwarf life cleric who's also able to fight beside the tankish death cleric (in this case, both tanks also double for support with the bard also as good support).

It lacks a lot without what the martials can bring, but it's probably survivable.

Life and Death clerics are polar opposites, there's no way they would work together in a party.

I'd suggest a Valor Bard (str, not dex focused for synergy with medium armor), a Nature/Tempest/War Cleric (for the heavy armor, and possibly martial weapon, proficiency), Wizard (any), and a Druid, probably Moon, but the case could be made for any Land.

[Xetheral]

Life and Death clerics are polar opposites, there's no way they would work together in a party.

Aren't there deities with both domains? If not, there very plausibly could be. Paired clerics exhibiting opposite faces of the same deity could make for an awesome role-playing hook.

[SharkForce]

I think the real achilles heal of the all caster party is the lack of action economy. Example: Martials universally get an extra attack. Attacks can be used to shove/trip/disarm/grapple/overrun/basicallyanythingelseyoucanimagineincombat an enemy. So they can deal damage and impose conditions on one (or more) enemies during their turn. A Caster, by way of comparison, usually has to choose between dealing damage or imposing a condition.

yes, but a caster can impose a status effect on several targets with a single action starting as early as level 1 (eg sleep, color spray, entangle), and 3 (web, etc) . by level 5, casters start getting ways to deal damage with their summons while they cast CC spells if so desired (and depending on the summoned creature, that creature may also cause some form of CC; wolves and giant spiders, for example, or warhorses).

plus, it also depends on the spell; heat metal allows you to both CC and deal damage to certain targets, for example, as does spike growth. more options come online at later levels as well; hunger of hadar for warlocks at level 5, as another example, or sunburst (damage + blind).

as early as level 3, sorcerers can start throwing quickened CC spells and following up with damage-dealing cantrips (or potentially other actions; eyebite and sunbeam, for example, though those don't come until later on).

some spells also do an excellent job of removing an enemy from a fight as effectively as dealing damage would, like the various wall spells (wall of fire can also deal damage of course) or banishing a target.

so no, i can't say that casters are particularly suffering from action economy woes. their cantrips scale with level as fast or faster than martial extra attacks for damage, and their CC can often hit many enemies, and often inflict worse conditions than any martial could hope to inflict.

[Mellack]

Life and Death clerics are polar opposites, there's no way they would work together in a party.



I disagree. They are both aspects of a mortal life. They could even be aspects of the same deity, such as the three Fates. There is no reason they could not work together.

[Gwendol]

yes, but a caster can impose a status effect on several targets with a single action starting as early as level 1 (eg sleep, color spray, entangle), and 3 (web, etc) . by level 5, casters start getting ways to deal damage with their summons while they cast CC spells if so desired (and depending on the summoned creature, that creature may also cause some form of CC; wolves and giant spiders, for example, or warhorses).

plus, it also depends on the spell; heat metal allows you to both CC and deal damage to certain targets, for example, as does spike growth. more options come online at later levels as well; hunger of hadar for warlocks at level 5, as another example, or sunburst (damage + blind).

as early as level 3, sorcerers can start throwing quickened CC spells and following up with damage-dealing cantrips (or potentially other actions; eyebite and sunbeam, for example, though those don't come until later on).

some spells also do an excellent job of removing an enemy from a fight as effectively as dealing damage would, like the various wall spells (wall of fire can also deal damage of course) or banishing a target.

so no, i can't say that casters are particularly suffering from action economy woes. their cantrips scale with level as fast or faster than martial extra attacks for damage, and their CC can often hit many enemies, and often inflict worse conditions than any martial could hope to inflict.

As has been noted, spiritual weapon is a good force multiplier for the cleric, as are summoned creatures.

Vogonjeltz, the OP has restricted "casters" to full casters only.

[Eslin]

I can't think of a form that would still be capable of wearing armor, so it would probably always be the natural AC, even if it's worse.
Armour doesn't haven to be made for humanoids.


Life and Death clerics are polar opposites, there's no way they would work together in a party.
Untrue. Certain character concepts, like 'life cleric, hater of undeath' and 'death cleric, lover of zombies' don't mesh. Fortunately, no-one is forced to play their character a certain way - a death cleric can be a Kelemvor style envoy of a fair and dispassionate death god, a Diablo 2 style necromancer who brings balance to the world or just a cleric who really likes killing stuff, while a life cleric's healing focus doesn't mean he can't animate 50 skeletons if he feels like it. Life and death are opposite concepts, but they can coexist just as much as a cold based sorcerer and a fire based one can.

[JAL_1138]

Consider Death himself from Discworld. The actual Grim Reaper, a skeleton in robes with a scythe (who talks in all caps for added ominousness)...and the single greatest champion of life against forces of oblivion the Disc has ever had.

"WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?"

[Vogonjeltz]

Aren't there deities with both domains? If not, there very plausibly could be. Paired clerics exhibiting opposite faces of the same deity could make for an awesome role-playing hook.

A good question, I checked in the back of the PHB and none are listed. There is a note specifically about Life and Death domains on page 293. It indicates Life is basically non-evil deities and Death is mostly evil deities. In any case, the description of the Life Domain on page 60 indicates it is based on "driving away the forces of death and undeath". There's simply no wiggle room there, a Life domain cleric would be diametrically opposed to a Death domain cleric.


yes, but a caster can impose a status effect on several targets with a single action starting as early as level 1 (eg sleep, color spray, entangle), and 3 (web, etc) . by level 5, casters start getting ways to deal damage with their summons while they cast CC spells if so desired (and depending on the summoned creature, that creature may also cause some form of CC; wolves and giant spiders, for example, or warhorses).

plus, it also depends on the spell; heat metal allows you to both CC and deal damage to certain targets, for example, as does spike growth. more options come online at later levels as well; hunger of hadar for warlocks at level 5, as another example, or sunburst (damage + blind).

as early as level 3, sorcerers can start throwing quickened CC spells and following up with damage-dealing cantrips (or potentially other actions; eyebite and sunbeam, for example, though those don't come until later on).

some spells also do an excellent job of removing an enemy from a fight as effectively as dealing damage would, like the various wall spells (wall of fire can also deal damage of course) or banishing a target.

so no, i can't say that casters are particularly suffering from action economy woes. their cantrips scale with level as fast or faster than martial extra attacks for damage, and their CC can often hit many enemies, and often inflict worse conditions than any martial could hope to inflict.

Yes, my point was that they can't mix and match those among a variety of targets in a single turn. The caster casts something to summon...and that was their turn. Sure, the summon will continue to act on later rounds, but that doesn't mean the caster wasn't limited to a single thing on their turn. It's like grappling someone and knocking them prone with only 2 attacks available. They continue to suffer the negative impacts of being grappled and prone on later rounds, but that doesn't mean those two attacks weren't expended on those actions.

I'm aware that Sorcerers can quicken spells for extra action economy (assuming they weren't already going to use their bonus action for something), but they also can only do so for up to 10 spells per day. Not unlimited, and extra punishing when everyone on the team is operated on a limited budget.


I disagree. They are both aspects of a mortal life. They could even be aspects of the same deity, such as the three Fates. There is no reason they could not work together.

There are reasons given in the PHB (mentioned in response to Xetheral).


As has been noted, spiritual weapon is a good force multiplier for the cleric, as are summoned creatures.

Vogonjeltz, the OP has restricted "casters" to full casters only.

Noted, so it's just the Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock if we really credit his mystic arcanum...I mean he only has a total of 7 spells...that's less than a Paladin or Ranger...or Eldritch Knight.


Armour doesn't haven to be made for humanoids.

No, but the Armor doesn't change its form to match that of the Wild Shape. So if it's not made for a humanoid it's not going to fit a non-humanoid.


Untrue. Certain character concepts, like 'life cleric, hater of undeath' and 'death cleric, lover of zombies' don't mesh. Fortunately, no-one is forced to play their character a certain way - a death cleric can be a Kelemvor style envoy of a fair and dispassionate death god, a Diablo 2 style necromancer who brings balance to the world or just a cleric who really likes killing stuff, while a life cleric's healing focus doesn't mean he can't animate 50 skeletons if he feels like it. Life and death are opposite concepts, but they can coexist just as much as a cold based sorcerer and a fire based one can.

No deities have both life and death domains and the life domain specifically opposes death. So my statement was completely true in the context of 5th edition.


Consider Death himself from Discworld. The actual Grim Reaper, a skeleton in robes with a scythe (who talks in all caps for added ominousness)...and the single greatest champion of life against forces of oblivion the Disc has ever had.

"WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?"

Although I do enjoy the Discworld novels, and the character of Death in them, I prefer to stick to the 5th edition primary source materials when discussing 5th edition rules dilemmas. Within the context of the Life Domain and the Death Domain, collaboration between those two is implausible. So any theorycrafting demonstration based inherently on using those particular two domains together in a party is itself inherently flawed. Solution: Pick any other other combination of domains, just not that one.

[Symphony]

A good question, I checked in the back of the PHB and none are listed. There is a note specifically about Life and Death domains on page 293. It indicates Life is basically non-evil deities and Death is mostly evil deities. In any case, the description of the Life Domain on page 60 indicates it is based on "driving away the forces of death and undeath". There's simply no wiggle room there, a Life domain cleric would be diametrically opposed to a Death domain cleric.

Let's see how many you missed:

Forgotten Realms:
Kelemvor is Lawful Neutral

Greyhawk:
Wee Jas is Lawful Neutral

Dragonlance:
All evil

Eberron:
The Blood of Vol, both Life and Death, and Lawful Neutral to boot.

Assuming Forgotten Realms is assumed the default setting for this discussion, there is a LN Deity that is associated with Death. Are you seriously going to argue that a Cleric who worships Kelemvor could not possibly get along with a Cleric of Chauntea, Eldath, Helm, Ilmater, Lathander, Lliira, Selune, or Sune? Helm is even Lawful Neutral!

[Vogonjeltz]

Let's see how many you missed:

Forgotten Realms:
Kelemvor is Lawful Neutral

Greyhawk:
Wee Jas is Lawful Neutral

Dragonlance:
All evil

Eberron:
The Blood of Vol, both Life and Death, and Lawful Neutral to boot.

Assuming Forgotten Realms is assumed the default setting for this discussion, there is a LN Deity that is associated with Death. Are you seriously going to argue that a Cleric who worships Kelemvor could not possibly get along with a Cleric of Chauntea, Eldath, Helm, Ilmater, Lathander, Lliira, Selune, or Sune? Helm is even Lawful Neutral!

So the count is 1. None of the rest of those have both the Life AND Death domains, which was what I was counting. None of which is relevent to the question of "would they get along?". Someone devoted to death won't get along with someone devoted to life, it's a conflict of ethos, not deity. The Blood of Vol simply represents an opportunity for a schism within his worshippers, with the Life followers opposed to the Death followers.

Get along with meaning: work with towards identical goals absolutely not, their goals are opposites.
Get along with meaning: hang out with for a beer at the pub, possibly. But they're probably going to get into a fight at some point.

[Symphony]

So the count is 1. None of the rest of those have both the Life AND Death domains, which was what I was counting. None of which is relevent to the question of "would they get along?". Someone devoted to death won't get along with someone devoted to life, it's a conflict of ethos, not deity. The Blood of Vol simply represents an opportunity for a schism within his worshippers, with the Life followers opposed to the Death followers.

Get along with meaning: work with towards identical goals absolutely not, their goals are opposites.
Get along with meaning: hang out with for a beer at the pub, possibly. But they're probably going to get into a fight at some point.

You can be dedicated to preservation and sanctity of life while still respecting the necessity and importance of death, or vice versa. Not all death domain clerics will be evil, given that there are Lawful Neutral Death deities, so it is perfectly reasonable for a Life cleric and a Death cleric to be able to put aside any theological differences for the duration of the adventure. Maybe not all Life clerics and Death clerics, but certainly some subset of them.

[Vogonjeltz]

You can be dedicated to preservation and sanctity of life while still respecting the necessity and importance of death, or vice versa. Not all death domain clerics will be evil, given that there are Lawful Neutral Death deities, so it is perfectly reasonable for a Life cleric and a Death cleric to be able to put aside any theological differences for the duration of the adventure. Maybe not all Life clerics and Death clerics, but certainly some subset of them.

No, I don't think a Life cleric can be respectful of the undead and Death clerics. Mostly because the description of the Life domain says they are opposed to those two specific things.

[Justin Sane]

No, I don't think a Life cleric can be respectful of the undead and Death clerics. Mostly because the description of the Life domain says they are opposed to those two specific things.A Life Cleric would be opposed to someone who punishes those who cheat Death itself? Why? It seems they have the same goal.

[jkat718]

I kinda think the whole Life Cleric vs. Death Cleric thing is off-topic, and kinda moot anyway. You can play anything you want however you want. Just because the book says that Life Clerics are against undeath, *your* Life Cleric doesn't, necessarily.

[JoeJ]

I kinda think the whole Life Cleric vs. Death Cleric thing is off-topic, and kinda moot anyway. You can play anything you want however you want. Just because the book says that Life Clerics are against undeath, *your* Life Cleric doesn't, necessarily.

Equally, there's no reason that a Death cleric has to support undeath. It's perfectly reasonable that a god of the dead might be utterly opposed to undeath.

[jkat718]

Equally, there's no reason that a Death cleric has to support undeath. It's perfectly reasonable that a god of the dead might be utterly opposed to undeath.

Also a good point. In fact, the book doesn't actually say that Death Domain Clerics are interested in undead, just negative energy and "the forces that cause death." It just uses undead creatures as an example of one use of negative energy.

EDIT: The PHB doesn't actually say that Life Domain Clerics are anti-undead either, just that "the good of life promote…driving away the forces of death and undeath." Nothing about that says that a Life Domain Cleric must be opposed to undeath, just their deity.

[Ashrym]

I wouldn't go with a druid for "tanking" either. Druids do not wildshape at will and are either wildshaped or casting spells at any given time but not both for almost their entire adventuring careers. It would be better to use a human variant cleric that starts with heavy armor proficiency and spends the free feat on heavy armor master. Good AC and damage reduction while being able to cast spells is better.

However, since this is non-magical tanking it probably violates the spirit of the thread. Casters using non-magical options should be dismissed if non-casters using magical options are similarly dismissed. A moon druid for wildshaping is likely the default 2nd but I think a DEX / INT abjurer is a good consideration.

Similarly, a lore bard is the obvious choice for skills but that's also using non-magical abilities as the bulk of the skills. A knowledge cleric using knowledge of the ages and enhance ability covers skills more magically. If this is split with the druid for wildshaping then skills are covered pretty well between the two as long as the checks aren't too frequent, plus wizard rituals and utility spells from the abjurer. 2 characters likely have guidance as well.

The knowledge cleric also covers support while the abjurer also covers crowd control.

Moon druid, abjurer, and knowledge cleric covers a lot of ground. A 4th class would be the direct damage class. Evokers, sorcerers, warlocks, and weapon users like valor bards or war clerics are the choices. Weapon users don't fit the magical motif so much so no blade pact or valor bard, and any cleric is pushing it as either worse damage than we have or a weapon-user.

Evokers and sorcerers are combat powerhouses but take a bit longer to pick up steam compared to warlocks using eldritch blast. Evokers don't get overchannel or empowered evocation until later, and potent cantrip isn't that great. Sorcerers pick things up faster and are a solid choice with some burst but are usually 6th level for damage bonus and enough spell slots / sorcery points to start seeing the effectiveness of a couple of metas.

Warlocks are a good targetted damage option with eldritch blast and hex right from first level, with fast improvement with agonizing blast at 2nd level, and continue to be a good option for consistent focused damage. Normally I would advise tome pact, but extra cantrips and a ritual book with a wizard, cleric, and druid isn't much of an additional benefit to the party in this case. Blade pact is already out so taking advantage of a better familiar is a better option for this group. GOO patron chain pact for added party versatility and the targetted damage.

As a group focused on being a magical party, my opinion is a moon druid, abjurer, knowledge cleric, and chain pact warlock covers the most bases in magical ways. Unless I didn't think of something that might be better. It happens. 😉

Accepting that it's okay to mix magic and non-magic in the same character, and that between spells and magical class abilities starting from first level a paladin is pretty close to "full casters", I would go with a paladin, lore bard, sorcerer, and tome warlock as my magical team.

[SharkForce]

i don't think there's any need to avoid non-spellcasting solutions to problems. half the reason magic users have the advantage over non-magic users is that generally speaking they have access to all the same tools, plus more.

so there's no *need* to use knock to open doors or find traps to locate traps... it's perfectly acceptable to use the powerful non-magical options at our disposal, because half the point is that casters can do what non-casters can do too.

so valour bards and bladelocks are perfectly fine if you feel there is actually a specific need for weapon damage coming from a PC (as opposed to coming from a summoned or animated minion) or if you otherwise feel they do the job as well or better than anyone else.

full plate clerics are likewise a perfectly acceptable tanking solution... i'm just not convinced they're particularly superior to the moon druid's gigantic HP sponge option (and yes, they won't be casting while wild shaped, but while in animal form they frequently deal at least reasonable damage with their attacks, and they don't need to stay in animal form all the time... they can assume the form as a bonus action, after all).

[Giant2005]

Full plate clerics are likewise a perfectly acceptable tanking solution... i'm just not convinced they're particularly superior to the moon druid's gigantic HP sponge option (and yes, they won't be casting while wild shaped, but while in animal form they frequently deal at least reasonable damage with their attacks, and they don't need to stay in animal form all the time... they can assume the form as a bonus action, after all).

I actually math'd that one out in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18538887&postcount=284) obviously it isn't exactly the same considering I was comparing a Druid to a fighter in that one but the Fighter wasn't using the defensive style so things should be relatively the same for a heavy armored Cleric. Basically a Druid could tank as well but in doing so he would have to sacrifice virtually every resource he has whereas the Cleric could do the same job with the same level of competence without blowing all of his spellslots and limited class abilities.

[Ashrym]

i don't think there's any need to avoid non-spellcasting solutions to problems. half the reason magic users have the advantage over non-magic users is that generally speaking they have access to all the same tools, plus more.

so there's no *need* to use knock to open doors or find traps to locate traps... it's perfectly acceptable to use the powerful non-magical options at our disposal, because half the point is that casters can do what non-casters can do too.

so valour bards and bladelocks are perfectly fine if you feel there is actually a specific need for weapon damage coming from a PC (as opposed to coming from a summoned or animated minion) or if you otherwise feel they do the job as well or better than anyone else.

full plate clerics are likewise a perfectly acceptable tanking solution... i'm just not convinced they're particularly superior to the moon druid's gigantic HP sponge option (and yes, they won't be casting while wild shaped, but while in animal form they frequently deal at least reasonable damage with their attacks, and they don't need to stay in animal form all the time... they can assume the form as a bonus action, after all).

Weapons users should dismiss options that are magical because they are not non-magical but magic users using non-magic sounds like a double standard to me, and that's a typical response we see on a regular basis. The ironic thing is they are both accomplishing the same thing in different ways. Different options aren't better just because they are different. It's a fact that magic users of various sorts do not have all the same tools available to other classes as demonstrated by looking directly at the class progression charts. The end results might be the same, but doing the same thing differently or having 2 separate options to accomplish the same thing isn't an advantage. When abilities are similar they can be better in some cases and worse in others, particularly with spells that emulate skills. Spells aren't replacing skills any more than skills are replacing spells, sorcerers don't have naturally athletic, wizards don't have reliable talent, and clerics don't have trap sense.

Locate traps is a poor spell compared to good perception or investigation because all it does is let someone know there are traps in the area but doesn't actually locate or disable them, and knock is so niche it's almost pointless when anyone can break open a lock or door loudly and almost anyone can do it quietly. The only time knock is useful is in the even there isn't someone in the party who can just keep picking the lock until successful on a 20, or break down the door or break the lock, or if it's to bypass magic. Neither of those spells is terribly useful while leveling up because it's easier to use one of so many other options like vials of acid, raging barbarians, or thieves tools that are easily done without using up a spell preparation slot or a spell slot, and by the time there are enough spell slots locks those other options are still better. It's a poor spell choice for a known spell and niche usefulness prepped.

Valor bard and blade warlocks are useful because weapons out-damage cantrips and they do it rapidly. From the earliest levels and throughout the game they outperform cantrips. They outperform evokers, they outperform sorcerers, and they outperform warlocks using eldritch blast because while hex does better with eldritch blast it gets dropped in favor of the need to cast another concentration spell or lost to a failed check often enough. Eldritch blast is the closest thing to weapon damage and it still falls behind. Damage options need to exist throughout the game for the team and not just at 17th level and higher. It's also a double standard to claim magic-users are almost as good as weapon-users and then claim weapon-users need more versatility when they are not far behind and in some cases superior, and magic-users are behind strong combat builds by a lot when it comes to damage. Not all magic-users are warlocks, sorcerers, and evokers; clerics, druids, and bards using cantrips have poor damage in comparison.

Heavy armor clerics with heavy armor mastery are a better solution for damage mitigation than moon druids. Moon druids might be able to change as a bonus action but they can still only do it twice before needing a short rest, still have lower AC, and still cannot cast spells at the same time so it's either / or. Clerics with higher AC and damage reduction will carry those hit points further and still have the ability to cast spells, and some clerics have decent damage ability at low levels too.

The classes I listed for a more magical party is a good mix to cover. The party I listed with more non-magical options is a good mix and better in my opinion because the non-magical options are better than the magical options. A non-magical party with a fighter (melee / archer hybrid champion), monk (open hand), rogue (thief), and barbarian (totem) would do just fine as well.

Keeping on topic, a group focused on being a magical party, in my opinion, is a moon druid, abjurer, knowledge cleric, and chain pact warlock to cover the most bases in magical ways. Besides the focused damage output, defensive abilities that don't require concentrations, and limitations on spell preparation and slots with shared finite resources over the course of an adventuring day, do you see any other areas that might be a concern for such a group?

[SharkForce]

"non-casters" are welcome to use the class features they have. if you want to argue magic items, then once again, that has nothing to do with the class, and everything to do with what the DM gives. they cannot very well make use of magic that they don't have.

so I don't really see why anyone should care in the slightest if knock or find traps are better or worse than skills. casters can have those skills too. then they also have spells to back it up.

as to not everyone having amazing cantrip damage, not everyone needs it. if a party with 2 strong damage dealers and 2 decent damage dealers (in terms of cantrips) is enough, you don't need a fully party that deals as much damage as a pure DPR class each.

particularly when you have options to soften up the targets by having 2-3 people lob a fireball or something like that at the start of the fight and deal as much damage in a single action (while admittedly spending resources) as a fighter would be likely to deal in an entire fight.

[Ashrym]

"non-casters" are welcome to use the class features they have. if you want to argue magic items, then once again, that has nothing to do with the class, and everything to do with what the DM gives. they cannot very well make use of magic that they don't have.

I was referring to class abilities. One of the first things mentioned is those subclasses or features are magic. It's a double standard to dismiss class features as magic but not to dismiss class feats non-magical.


so I don't really see why anyone should care in the slightest if knock or find traps are better or worse than skills. casters can have those skills too. then they also have spells to back it up.

A magical option that never gestured because it sucks becomes irrelevant. The existence of knock or find traps is irrelevant and a false perception of existing options because they don't exist in gameplay. There is no point in having brought them up as examples because they don't exist in gameplay.

Those spells back up nothing as a weak alternative to something else that does get used. That's the point. I watch wizards take the criminal background because they can just use perception, investigation, and those tools instead of wasting slots.

Those spells have no benefit to finding traps or opening locks. If you bring them up again in this or another thread they will continue to be of no benefit over a skills.

Please explain how these back up skills when they do less than skills at higher opportunity cost if you are going to make such claims.


as to not everyone having amazing cantrip damage, not everyone needs it. if a party with 2 strong damage dealers and 2 decent damage dealers (in terms of cantrips) is enough, you don't need a fully party that deals as much damage as a pure DPR class each.

This is another double standard. Not everyone needs amazing versatility. If the party has some strong versatility then they can use better survivability and damage instead of more versatility. You don't need a party that has as much versatility as a purely versatile class each.


particularly when you have options to soften up the targets by having 2-3 people lob a fireball or something like that at the start of the fight and deal as much damage in a single action (while admittedly spending resources) as a fighter would be likely to deal in an entire fight.

Particularly when one character using skills handles non-combat needs as they arise. One character gets the door open and everyone can walk through.

That's my point on being a team-oriented, class based game. Different classes are better at different things and versatility is one of those things classes are different in, and for the same reason they all aren't the same DPR, or single target focused vs aoe options, or healing, or burst vs sustainable damage, or hit dice, or armor, or spell progression, or actual spell lists, or number of skills, or skill bonuses, or combat styles, or feat progression, or anything else that varies in a class based system.

There is no reason to move class versatility around simply because some classes are more versatile than other classes. They are supposed to have varying degrees of versatility because it's a class based system. If someone wants more versatility on a martial character then play or MC with a rogue and it's done.

Most of these discussions look like greener grass syndrome or magic wand envy where players want the best of both worlds. Fighters are survivable and inflict high targeted damage with some flexibility in bonus feats and universal versatility options plus a few class abilities in the subclasses. They are that good at those things because they are a combat class contributor and not a top end versatility.

In the end, spells don't cover everything and run on a limited shared resource where damage is lost versatility and vice-versa. Other classes don't face that restriction.

[Shining Wrath]

If I want to challenge an all caster party I think I'll start with an in-game clock. The cultists sacrifice the high priest's son at midnight, it's 8 AM now, and the ritual will summon the dreaded Winged Tarrasque (fly speed 80'). There are 8 encounters, 4 Easy, 4 Medium. And every door in the place is locked, and the cultists have used lead effectively so you can't scry and prepare exactly the needed spells. There are also a few traps of the Easy variety sprinkled throughout.

In-game clocks are sometimes used, as are locked doors - this isn't a spellcaster killer like an AMF would be. What it does is emphasize the utility of the at-will ability versus the resource-depleting ability.

[charcoalninja]

For this party my vote is a human Warlock 2 / Tempest Cleric X. You start with Tempest Cleric for Heavy Armour Mastery at level 1.

This build is one of the best tanks in the game at least in the early levels. Between Heavy Armour mastery, Fiendish Vigor (false Life at will), Dark One's Blessing (warlock level +cha mod temp HP whenever you kill someone) and cleric healing spells available on a short rest you have an unmatched ability to absorb punishment. Every action you focus on absorbing damage is another 5-8 temp hp + the DR 3. Tempest cleric lets you deal some damage (2d8) as a reaction so even when you spend a round not attacking to refresh False life, you still have the potential to hurt things while having an AC on par with the Fighter (or better if you cast Shield of Faith).

It's a positively scarey build at least through the low levels with all the spellcasting of the entire cleric list. By level 5 it can tank, heal, and lob out a maximized Shatter for 4d8 (32 damage) once a short rest for a potent bit of AOE power. And because warlock you have the life saving healing word on a short rest timer. It can melee with a longsword for 1d8+STR, with the option of focusing on offense via Hex (again adapting on the fly as needed) and if you take Agonizing Blast you can ranged nuke respectibly without worrying about weapon swapping. Especially of you pick up Warcaster at level 6 (cleric 4). So that's my vote for the caster tank. It only gets scarier as you level up adding Warding Bond, Heal and battlefield control to the mix like Blade barrior. Starting each fight with 8 temp adds up really quickly. 8 encounter day means 64 bonus HP for the mobs to deal with which easily outdoes the Fighter's meager second wind.

[bloodshed343]

A caster can easily do as much damage and take as much damage as a fighter using summons alone, while still having the versatility of a caster. That means casters are strictly better than fighters for most of the game.

Bards can use skills just as well as rogues can, while still having the versatility offered by spell slots. That means that bards are better than rogues in every metric except damage for most of the game. However, a lore bard who gets a good summon spell can potentially do more damage than a rogue.

I think the best party would be Cleric (Nature or Tempest), Wizard (Necromancer), Druid (Moon), and Bard (Lore). This covers all skills, covers melee and ranged, and will do plenty of damage. The bard could afford to dip Warlock for some level 1 slots that refresh on a short rest and Eldritch Blast for excellent targeted damage.

In fact, if you replace the cleric with a paladin, it might be the best possible 4-man party period.

[KashaYasha]

For an all-caster party, I would suggest:

A Half-Elf Sorcerer, Fire Dragon origin. Don't underestimate the value of metamagic. For straight-up damage, a Draconic Sorcerer is one of the best caster options available. Being proficient in CON saves is also useful for concentration spells. Could be supplemented with a 3 level dip in Warlock for Agonizing Blast and a pact boon. This is especially useful when one considers that cantrip boosts (i.e. AB) scale with total level, not caster level.
A Gnome Wizard, for utility and versatility. With the sheer number of spells known, Wizards are essentially walking toolboxes.
A Mountain Dwarf Cleric for keeping everyone on their feet. Having a character that's half-decent in melee doesn't hurt either, though that may go against the spirit of what you're looking for.
A Bard, for buffing/healing the party. It's also nice to have a skill monkey around. If you go Half-Elf, you have even more proficiencies.




This is the EXACT makeup of our party and up to level 4 things have gone pretty smoothly. The sorcerer is now using the DMG point buy system mixed up with the sorcerery points and that's super cool. The wizard is a necromancer, and he plans to have himself a little undead army.
Mountain Dwarf war cleric and the bard are the front line fighters, wizard and sorcerer are in the backlines. We haven't run into any situations that we couldn't handle or wished we had a martial class for. With two half-elves and a bard, there is a crapload of skills floating around.

[charcoalninja]

Hell with your group there the Bard and Cleric could both use Spirit Guardians to create a 15' radius death aura to protect the party which more than matches any damage a martial would toss out. Dealing 3d8 damage a round each to everyone within 15' of your frontline fighters is pretty beastly.

Pretty much a mulching death sentence for anyone that dares enter melee with your group. And if they engage at range the wiz and sorc annihilate them. So much potential!

[SharkForce]

i said a spellcasting character has spells to support skill or tool use (such as disarming traps or picking locks). i didn't say they have knock and find traps. just spells in general.

the spells you support skill or tool use with are things like enhance ability and/or guidance. yes, a non-spellcaster can benefit from those too, but a spellcaster can provide the benefit *and* be the beneficiary.

on the flip side, sometimes it's more important that you get through a door on the first try than that you get through it silently (for example, sometimes you're more worried about getting away from something that is going to murder you if you don't get through a locked door). in those situations, having knock available is quite handy (but tbh it's a spell i'd rather have as a scroll than prepared).

[Naanomi]

Just popping in to say I didn't abandon this, had gall bladder issues that put me away for a while. Will come back with a 'party' later today and we can start exploring scenarios

[Eslin]

Just popping in to say I didn't abandon this, had gall bladder issues that put me away for a while. Will come back with a 'party' later today and we can start exploring scenarios

Is your name Zoe?

[shadow_archmagi]

Not 100% relevant, but after playing too much drunk Magicka, my group is going to test an all-wizard party at Madfellow's upcoming oneshot. I'll report how that goes. With seven PCs, we can cover *almost* every archetype.