Originally Posted by dwig
Originally Posted by kanisatha
When it comes to D&D I have long (going back to 2e) been someone who very strongly favors melee martial characters over spellcasters, and tolerate spellcasters in my party only because they are necessary for certain things (including healing). The straight-up fighter is actually one of my favorites. Ranger and paladin are also good. Don't care for barbarian too much because I don't like raging. And not monk either because I like using weapons.

For the party, right now I don't have anyone because I want a strictly good party. Minsc and Jaheira are a 'no' because I don't see them as reasonable level 1 characters. The newly announced characters I'll have to wait and see because I don't trust Larian to do justice to good characters.

In 5e monk can hold a weapon, and then decide on a attack to attack basis whether to use the weapon or unarmed attack. The weapon attack can use the unarmed damage die if it is better than the weapon, but the damage type remains the same as the weapon. At least, that's how it is by the book, no idea how Larian will implement.

I also prefer main to be melee, especially in Vancian system. Mine will probably be bladelock or monk, depending on how they are implemented.
Good to know about monks! I've not cared to even look at them since 3.5e. This is actually a good change in 5e, much like the change that paladins don't have to be LG, something I very much disliked in earlier editions.

Since I very highly doubt I'd ever want to replay BG3, I'd want to have my one play-through be a solid and comprehensive one. So a paladin is what's most likely. Halsin's probably a yes for my party. But that's it, because I can't stand any of the first five "origins." I may take SH along for no other reason than so I can mock and vilify her for being an effing Sharran. The to-be-revealed companion is critical because if that companion is also a bust I won't have a party. frown

Last edited by kanisatha; 05/07/23 09:15 PM.