Is Hard very much more difficult than challenging? I wish there was a proper Core rules tbh. Yeah, it can be set up, but it looks like no of the defined settings have it, and none of them have "normal" enemies. Didn't notice that Normal has crits off. Will this on challenging be enough to make us tear out our hair?
InEffect: You have two good options.
1. Melee sorc.
2. SF1/Archae12/DD4/Slayer3
The latter needs a pet alchemist for shield infusion. You could just go ovinrbaane and cut alchemist by midgame, but it's w/e, unless you go solo.
PS and doing magus/DD4 is pretty lame. You can easily get away with abyssal bloodline scion on MC and it'd be a lot more damage.
Is SF1 the monk dip that everybody and their mother are using? Would like to avoid that tbh, even if it's probably seen as "unoptimised / un-min/maxed" Tried setting up a few characters in-game, but it's so hard due to all the options. Maybe just go with a plain fighter and call it a day :D Sorcerer is so much more fun to play, because they are versatile and can really impact the battlefield. However, it would be a little silly to maybe do another 200+ campaign with basically the same character again.
One of the reasons I thought about a spell user in combat was that I'd be able to use some of the spells I picked up before but never used, because positioning is a pain and friends are always in the way. Basically all the cones, firesnake etc.