Class suggestions

[BlackRabbit]

I'm going to be joining a group and I'm trying to settle on a class/race.

So far we have a Druid Centaur, High Elf Warlock, Human Fighter, and a Kenku Rogue. The GM has said he'll generally let us play what we want (without a lot of multiclassing just because that can get confusing, which I agree). Someone's also going to eventually play a paladin. Would a ranger be superfluous with the druid around? Bard(to which I'm leaning)? Would a sorcerer be useful? Barb? Something I'm missing?

[Nifft]

Bards are great. Remember that vicious mockery is more of a debuff with damage on the side (and is great in that role). I personally love Lore Bard but you can't go wrong with Valor either.

Wizards are great. Abjuration is fantastic defensively, even before any racial at-will casting cheese.

Clerics are great. If you want to be a totally-not-Druid, just pick the Nature domain. It's very strong and has a lot of Druid feel without stepping on the hooves of the other Druid.

Ranger (Hunter) is good -- if you're using UA, then people say the UA Beast Ranger is also good. If you're not using UA, then stick to the Hunter Ranger. Very different from Druid -- different spell list, different mechanics.

Sorcerer can be great -- though personally I dislike the Wild subclass, but the Draconic is great, and there are a bunch of other great options in UA and SCAG. IMHO the best metamagics are Subtle and Quicken.

Paladins are great, and the 3 core Oaths are distinct enough that you can have a lot of fun with two of them in the party.

I don't have much personal experience with Barbarians but they look great, especially the Totem subclass.

[BlackRabbit]

Interesting! My only concern with Wizards is that I know I'd have a hard time choosing spells, being naturally indecisive (obviously). I believe we're allowed to use UA. Does Hunter Ranger still have the pet, or is that pet-less?

[lunaticfringe]

Hunters do not get pets, that is Beast Master.

And all the official Barbarians work just fine. The Exhaustion from Frenzy is manageable, Barbarians aren't known for being Skill Monkeys. When the game reaches a point where you probably need to Frenzy more than once a day someone should have Greater Restoration. A thing people miss about Battlerager is that you Bonus Attack while holding a Shield, they make great Sword & Board Barbs.

Not Familiar with UA Barb's but revised Ancestral Protecter Guy & Sea Storm Barb's look fun.

Bards are lovely your team is kinda lacking full Arcane.

[Nifft]

Interesting! My only concern with Wizards is that I know I'd have a hard time choosing spells, being naturally indecisive (obviously). I believe we're allowed to use UA. Does Hunter Ranger still have the pet, or is that pet-less?

Hunter Ranger is pet-less.

For Wizards (and Clerics and Druids), you choose your current set of spells each day, and then you cast from that current-spell list like a 3e Sorcerer until your next long rest. That plus at-will Cantrips means you're going to have a lot less preparation to worry about than you would in 3e -- just make sure you have at least one attack Cantrip, and you should be fine.

But Bards are just as good as Wizards, so if you like Bard better for any reason at all, then be a Bard.

[EvilAnagram]

Would a ranger be superfluous with the druid around?
Nah. Druids are more similar to Clerics than Rangers. As a Ranger, you'd basically have solid single-target damage with some okay AoE and control.


Bard(to which I'm leaning)?
If you like flexible casting, then yes. You get a lot of spell variety, some armor and weapon proficiencies, and awesome skills. It's a good all-rounder, and there are some solid buffs and control.


Would a sorcerer be useful?
Yes. Wild Magic Sorcerers are amazing disablers thanks to a combination of Metamagic and Bend Luck, and their attack spells are pretty reliable because of Tides of Chaos. Also, random unicorns.

Draconic Sorcerers are awesome blasters, and their defenses are damn nice for a full caster.


Barb?
They're great, but between the Fighter and Paladin the heavy melee role is covered by your party.

[BlackRabbit]

One thing I'm a little confused about in regards to Bards: do I need to carry a musical instrument? Some things I've read have said no, so...?

[EvilAnagram]

One thing I'm a little confused about in regards to Bards: do I need to carry a musical instrument? Some things I've read have said no, so...?

I mean, you don't have to. You could use a component pouch. But, come on. Lutes and flutes.

[Nidgit]

Concurring with everyone here saying your party could probably use another dedicated spellcaster. Wizard is probably the most versatile but Sorceror or Cleric would fit nicely too. I might hold off a little on Bard since the rogue and warlock already have the social/skill monkey angled covered, but if it's appealing to you then you should go for it.

Species isn't a big deal but you should think if there are any role-playing aspects you'd like to do, like going against typecasting, being edgy or frivolous, and so on.

[EvilAnagram]

Concurring with everyone here saying your party could probably use another dedicated spellcaster. Wizard is probably the most versatile but Sorceror or Cleric would fit nicely too. I might hold off a little on Bard since the rogue and warlock already have the social/skill monkey angled covered, but if it's appealing to you then you should go for it.

Species isn't a big deal but you should think if there are any role-playing aspects you'd like to do, like going against typecasting, being edgy or frivolous, and so on.

Maybe it's me, but I usually don't rely on anyone else being a competent face. If they are, great, but that's a role that takes actual skill, and hoping someone will cover it has landed me as party face with -2 Charisma before.

[Easy_Lee]

If none of them are party face yet, bard would probably be best for that party. If there's a face, then I suspect Wizard would add the most, doing everything that they don't already do. Or, you could do something tricky, like life cleric 1 / lore bard and pick up aura of vitality.

Plenty will work with that party, as they appear to be well-balanced as-is. Unless they're all melee-focused or pure ranged or something.

[BlackRabbit]

Concurring with everyone here saying your party could probably use another dedicated spellcaster. Wizard is probably the most versatile but Sorceror or Cleric would fit nicely too. I might hold off a little on Bard since the rogue and warlock already have the social/skill monkey angled covered, but if it's appealing to you then you should go for it.

Species isn't a big deal but you should think if there are any role-playing aspects you'd like to do, like going against typecasting, being edgy or frivolous, and so on.

As far as instruments, I'd like to bring along a harmonica and do some Jethro Tull if I go Bard :smallsmile:. I'd honestly forgotten Clerics get domain stuff and that makes 'em look more attractive.

As far as race-I've always liked dwarves (elves get too much love!) and half-orcs, but again I'm open to suggestions.

[EvilAnagram]

As far as instruments, I'd like to bring along a harmonica and do some Jethro Tull if I go Bard :smallsmile:. I'd honestly forgotten Clerics get domain stuff and that makes 'em look more attractive.

As far as race-I've always liked dwarves (elves get too much love!) and half-orcs, but again I'm open to suggestions.

I've had nothing but fun with a dwarf cleric. They all have awesome buffs and support spells, and the different domains can play in radically different ways. Tempest covers melee and blasting; Light goes all in on blasting; Knowledge, Nature, and Life all have different approaches to support and utility; and War goes all-in on improving melee parties. I think you would have a lot of fun with that.

[Findulidas]

I like wizards.

That said it seems you want a cleric? Knowledge cleric is underrated I think. Good for both dungeoneering and social campaigns.