MAD props to pointing out that campaigning with a "different" group composition isn't just a matter of "The DM should play it different", but includes a "Players need to recognize they aren't a party of iconics"
Thanks, A lot times everything is put on the DM as if he is some kind of performing monkey put there for the players entertainment. The DM is just part of the game along with the players. - Nerdarchist Dave
Without knowing the composition of the party, my opinion falls into this one statement: There is no bad PARTY composition. There is only bad PLAYER composition. So long as the players are cooperative, fun-focused, and play a smarter game, there is NO bad PARTY composition. The best "character" composition will fall if the players don't mesh well. Conversely to that, even strange character composition will do well so long as the players get along well.
Mike Gould Couldn't agree with you more. If the DM is tailoring adventures to his/her players than the party composition rarely ever matters. -Nerdarchist Dave
Mike Gould I agree, except with pre made adventures run by a DM that doesn't make adjustments at all. I had a party of 4 playing Lost Mines of Phandelver, 1 paladin, 1 barbarian, 1 sorcerer, and 1 bard. We almost got wiped on every single fight. Had we had a cleric we would be much better off. I'm not saying it's required, but I AM saying that on a pre made adventure it is very difficult without the proper party if th DM only runs it as written.
vasilie crisan Pre-mades cannot account for party composition. And to be fair, it sounds like that DM was running with an "old school" tradition whereby the players are not the centre of the world. The DM can adjust for many things, but expecting that entire world ecologies will change because the players are three wizards is a bit much. Even Harry Potter and friends knew when to run away. Now, your party composition looked solid. There's no reason why those four could not handle any situation. You have two melee, two arcane casters, and two potential off-healers. The focus then becomes character build and player tactics. If that's not the problem, THEN it's a DM issue. Phandelver is a lot of goblins, some wolves, a few zombies, and a Banshee. Your group should have been able to deal with that lot outside of poor dice luck. So without more objective evidence, I cannot tell you why you wiped so much. You shouldn't have, if class choice is any indicator.
Mike Gould it was mines of phanwhatever. He could've adjusted it still. Pre-made adventures are not written in stone, so I think you're a bit harsh when you say premades can't be adjusted. He could've used 1 less goblin or removed the surprise round, taken off the bonus to damage on every hit, etc. We had 3 encounters where the enemies surprised us. Against a party of 4 with low hp and goblins having 1d6+2 damage with 2 full attacks (with party members having 8-12 HP) before we could even "run away" as you suggested seems like an unfair fight for new players and characters. As a fairly new player I don't think it was handled properly to nearly kill the entire party by having a free round and overpowering us (6 vs 4). Spending over an hour and a half making new characters only to lose them all on the first game you ever played kind of sucks. Especially after coming up with a cool back story and even drawing out the character. It almost made me not want to play anymore after having to remake all new characters. So yes, in that case I believe the DM (who was not a new player like the rest of us) could have gone a bit easier on our group. On our second go at it is when we almost got wiped 3 times. The first go was a disaster (we had a wizard, a warlock, a barbarian and a rogue) and we got killed in the first encounter.
Once, my brother wanted to run basically a Mage School/College Town game in PF. Your character had to have some Arcane potential (students). Bards as artsy kids. Magi as jocks. Sorcerer prom queens and honor roll wizards. I thought it sounded fun (like Harry Potter and the Revenge of the Nerds!) but Sir Unimaginative couldn't wrap his brain around not having a tank or a heal monkey and Mr. Optimal-Build thought that having everyone be similar classes would cause undue competition. Sadly, we never did it.
I was with a group that had a very classic party composition. We still avoided several fights through politics, trickery, or simply going a different way. We were able to obtain a quest item from an evil monk monastery by posing as the the local army and forged letters of confiscation from the local lord. We convinced the monks that it would be better to simply give us the object rather than upset relations with the local army. Several ways to play a savvy group.
One other thing a DM can take into consideration, is that specialized characters like Sorcerer, Wizard and Druid also have blanket AoE spells like Entangle and Sleep to give them advantage in most low level encounters. At higher level those spells aren't as effective but then you get into Fire-Ball and those types of spells. The Monk on the other hand is quite the beast at higher levels depending on his tradition can be knocking opponents down left and right giving the rogue an advantageous sneak attack or using his Ki as a bonus action to gain a Dodge action as a bonus attack each round making them much harder to hit. As the guys said tailoring the fights to the party composition is a good way to go. Also, your session zero has allot to do with it as it should give you as the DM a chance to read up on the parties abilities and really know what they are capable of doing. Great Answers guys!
Art Wood We do what we can.Yea the classes have their strengths and weakness it just a matter of using them in the best ways possible. -Nerdarchist Dave
Art Wood Every class and race in 5e brings something to the table. I feel like with an odd party composition it allows/forces each player reach a little deeper into their tool box. Glad you enjoyed our vid. -Nerdarchist Dave
Art Wood Along with session 0, the DM will need to focus on learning how the players plan on running their PCs. Especially when you're dealing with classes like Monks, Druids, etc. There's a lot of options within certain classes that can make each iteration of the class a different experience... Holy Cow! I want to play single class sessions/campaigns now... Ah crap... I need free time...
Low level D&D is fun but also not balanced too well. Granted I have not played 5th but as I recall, a basic monster with a Greataxe can 1 shot nearly any starting character. I think a good solution if the GM is concerned about party composition would be to start the party off on 2nd or 3rd level or to just tone damage down by introducing things such as younger wolves or older goblins, etc. Another possibility is to have lower level combat consist of opponents that won't aim to kill the party after winning. Examples would be monsters that value survival and aren't attacking the party but just defending their homes, young, etc. Or you could offer up a street fight with other people. Lastly, you could start the group with a tanky npc that helps them early in the game and then gear the magical items the group acquires towards survivability.
p0ck3tp3ar I start noob players at level 1 and let them earn those stripes... but veteran players start at 3 when they get to pick their sub-class. nothing more frustrating for a veteran RPGer than dying as a 1st level character because they had 9HP and couldn't swing a sword to hit a one-legged goblin... only to get critted..
p0ck3tp3ar I like the "Odd group compositions could start higher level to avoid the low level vulnerability to the Dice gods" problem. Another spin on it would be to allow the initial couple levels to be primarily roleplay-centric, with some controlled combat. Maybe start your PCs at a training camp, or model the first area they adventure in like a low level MMO zone. Odd group compositions definitely need the players and DM to be open to odd campaign flow, especially in the first couple levels.
XainMexi That can work ::) Another similar idea is to pit the PC's against opponents that won't kill them after they win. The group can now lose a fight or two any not be slain.
You could reintroduce the old school concept of morale. There's no logical reason why the group of goblins needs to fight fanatically to the death down to the last goblin. If the DM feels like he made a mistake and threw too many goblins at the party, you could always have them break ranks and run if the players kill a few.
Or the goblins start getting egos about the battle, and either start making mistakes when they try to show off, or, whenever one goblin does something cool, the other goblins get jealous and start sabotaging their own, letting the PCs either escape or quietly turn the tide
like the vid. I agree. I have a smaller 3 player group consisting of a moon druid, wild mage sorcerer and a aarakocra monk. as a DM, I don't get to use my usual set of tricks... i have to re-package and invent new stuff for such a party composition that allows them to naturally make decisions and adventure based on their characters. i given a choice to go and directly confront an orc camp or to deal with it some other way, they will figure something else out... combat encounters get smaller and fewer, but roleplay and adventuring go up. they had to roleplay their groups initially meeting each other... which was a lot of fun... and being able to focus more on the adventure and roleplay while travelling and dealing with random encounters was more fun. in the end... makes you grow as a DM...
Roger Farley Sounds like the opening of a joke. A druid, a wild mage, and a birdman walk into a bar :) In all seriousness I love parties like that. They are far more interesting and offer up opportunities to do things differently. -Nerdarchist Dave
The only time i've ever had a problem with party composition was when for one secession it was only me and one other guy. Due to the staggered (confusion over date) start to the campaign there wasn't a secession 0 and so we were both turned up as rouges with incredibly similar skills and ability scores as we were both 1st level. The DM also made things really difficult for us, he put us in a prison with 8 guards and cuz we could pick locks he gave us doors bolted shut on the opposite side... so with str 8/10 we couldn't batter them down without alerting the guards :P
I feel like every party should have at least one tank, one healer, one rogue, and one offensive spell caster. otherwise tailoring quests becomes difficult.
clericofchaos1 or required. :) But I've never liked the you must have X in the party as the DM or a player. Hey we've got a saying in the neighborhood I came from "Work it out". So when it comes to party composition I just believe between the GM and players they just need to work out, but in a way that has the players playing a character they want to play. I hate when one or more players select what they want to play and then start telling other players what they should play based off of party roles. Personally I feel if an individual wants a role filled so badly they should do it themselves. All that being said thanks for weighing in. I love hearing other gamers opinions of the topics we discuss. -Nerdarchist Dave
+Nerdarchy The campaign I'm playing in right now (first time D&D player!) has a party that has a ranger, a rogue, a hexblade, a warlord, and a knight (me). I was the first to roll, and 2 came in later: we could have demanded a healer and ranged magic dealer. Instead of forcing someone to play something they didn't want, I willingly became the early level "healer" with combat medic and training in as much healing stuff as I can get, at least until the party can hold their own better. So long as I have the supplies on hand, Brenmoore is ready to patch up his allies at a moment's notice. It's nowhere near as effective as a cleric may have been, but it's certainly better than nothing when a trap goes off in the rogue's face. I'm still the tanky knight I wanted to play, but everyone is also a little safer because of the early feats I took. We found a balance in playing our own characters and working as a party, even with an atypical setup. In my eyes, the players have a responsibility to each other as a party: play whatever you want, but remember that the fun depends on working together. Plan according to what your group can do, and look for solutions to your gaps (i.e. combat medic on the fighter, getting a meat-shield NPC for squishies, etc.). A DM should be tailoring the campaign to the character roles and interests, but players should be looking to "work it out" however they want as well.
My only concern is what happens if one of them falls or is otherwise incapacitated. Then the entire group is completely screwed. I think players finding alternate ways to "solve the puzzle" so to speak it, is vital to making it out of bad situations.
The successful campaigns that I've used this technique "PCGen without/free from player collaboration" have almost always been campaigns that utilize the Leadership feat later on. As the players get higher level, weaknesses become more and more obvious, and most players have an unconscious allergy to group-level weaknesses. Allowing those that want to gain the Leadership feat allows them to create hirelings that fill those gaps in ways that compliment the current PC group. Leadership feat can be a daunting idea, but, when you have groups with heightened strengths and weaknesses, it can help the players and the PCs focus on the campaign plot more than group weaknesses, in my experience
At higher levels that is one route to go. The trick is to balance npcs in the party vs player characters in the party. I personally don't care for npc's in the party on a regular basis. - Nerdarchist Dave
The risk of letting NPCs overshadow PCs can be high, especially if you're an NPC-centric DM (Guilty as charged) Though, another use I've come across for NPCs traveling with the party (and only being involved in combat for plot or needed aide) is if the players want to "earn" their new skills/feats instead of just "*ding* Your fighter now knows ___" Letting them roleplay a bit during quiet traveling and/or night watches with specifically skilled NPCs can add a lot of immersion as well as keep the DM aware of how the player wants to run their PC outside of combat/dice.
Our party consisting of a Druid, a Paladin, a Bard, and a Monk didn't need a Cleric for healing. They also didn't compete with each other for the loot and magic items. In another campaign we had a War Cleric, a crossbow-specialist Ranger, a Shadow Monk, a Summoning Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an Eldritch Knight. It helped that my War Cleric had the Urchin background so could use Thieves' tools.
No such thing as bad party composition. My table went Bear Barbarian, Paladin of Ancients, dual-wielding Champion Fighter. Not a whole lot of healing and spellcasting. Lots of sword swinging. Our DM gave us healing potions, and catered encounters to our strengths. And, occasionally, to our weaknesses as a way to test us. No such thing as bad party composition if you've got a good DM.
John AppletonThat group SCREAMS tabletop rock band. I would be hard-pressed to not introduce the "The PCs find a cleric/healer or two that become groupies" side plot/quest rewards. I wouldn't make the clerics/healers combat NPCs, but I would let the PCs roleplay a friendship/relationship with them to the point that they made sure the players started each day with a clean bill of health and HP
I recently played a game where we were all magic researchers. Primarily wizards, no rogues, clerics or fighting classes. I was a warlock pretending to be a divination wizard and I was good with stealth. The transmutation wizard was kinda built like a mystic warrior. We had a necromancer who always had 2 crossbow-wielding skeletons with him. It was pretty fun. The party had plenty of Indiana-Jones-style adventure. As long as the characters fit in the story and the party members work together well, I don't see why you need a specific configuration.
What changes in response to party composition is "What Kind Of Game Are We Running?". If your party doesn't have a lot of frontline fighters, de-emphasize direct combat encounters. If the characters trend towards having high Charisma, maybe focus more on social challenges. If the entire party is squishy, maybe steer the game towards investigation and research. The World of Darkness was a lot better geared towards this kind of thing, since roleplay was a stronger element over the dungeon crawl. A Vampire coterie made up of Ventrue, Toreador, and Malkavians is more likely to try to charm or mind control their way through problems. A Mage cabal with no Akashics or two-fisted Etherites is probably going to make fights more about using their magical advantage to control the field, or even circumvent a fight altogether. D&D is by no means incapable of doing the same thing. And DMs would probably benefit from looking at how other RPGs handle games where the players aren't necessarily geared towards brawling.
A ranger isn't too terrible of a tank. A human ranger with medium armor master with at least a 16 in dex (which if you take the scale mail will take out the disadvantage on stealth checks and make it so that at level one before fighting style and shield you have a 17 AC) with the defense fighting style you can have a 20 ac at level 1 with a one handed weapon and a shield (or maybe two-weapon fighting two short swords or scimitar and short sword and decide on taking dual wielder feat at 4--at which point maybe you'll change out one of those weapons for a rapier, since you're most likely going to be using dex as your main stat--though that'll lower your AC by quite a bit). Make the stats Dex, Con, and Wisdom your most important in that order, so you have AC, a decent hp pool with that d10 hit die, and at level 2 access to healing spells, (and let's assume if you're going by the point system you have a 13 in wisdom since the 15 and 14 will go to dex and con, and so will the points from the variant human, though I suppose you could put the second +1 into wisdom and have both con and wisdom at +2). At level 5, there's not much difference between a fighter and ranger of that same build, though the fighter has more attacks with Action Surge (unless you take Horder Breaker, though that one is more situational than Colossus Slayer), but the ranger has more survivability with two heals instead of just one Second Wind. Then add in Colossus Slayer--because you're going hunter, no doubt--you get free damage if it's not at full HP, which makes it almost to your advantage if you don't get the highest initiative, so in the roll for initiative round it's win/win either way.
Nerdarchy Yeah. I have my own circle of the moon druid that has sentinel, which is great for tanking while transformed, but the AC of (let's say under level 6) a dire wolf is 14, 16 with barkskin, which can get knocked off. Moon Druids have great, huge HP pools, but they're going to get hit a hell of a lot more, especially at low levels when there's not many enemies with huge bonuses to hit.
I wondered if this comment would show up when they said "Ranger =/= Tank" Very well said, and very detailed. My only caveat would be to make sure the group composition and/or other players don't force the Ranger player/PC to become the tank if they want to run it another way. When I first started gaming, my group would occasionally run sessions/campaigns where we "forced" each other to play PCs we weren't use to. The enjoyment for those sessions/campaigns was the challenge. If your players are looking for that, more power to them. If not, get ready to up-shift your DM brain to help them enjoy the challenge in a way they want to.
XainMexi Of course I wouldn't force the ranger to go tank...but at the same time being nearly impossible to hit is kind of fun. I have a dex fighter with Medium armor master that I got to 20 ac at level one (the only thing I slightly kind of min-maxed because of his backstory), and my DM was frustrated half the time because he could never hit me....and being my roommate, he wanted to hit me.
Yeah... When we found solid metal dice, the table aggravations changed... XD As long as it was "You could play your ranger ___" and not "You should/will play your ranger ___" it's all good. And, as you point out, letting roommates DM is a dangerous choice ;)
You can form a party that does not have the capabilities needed to deal with the issues. No meat shields = spellcasters as primary targets. A spellcaster in direct mele who gets hit has to make a con or dex check to even try to cast a spell. Dex if material/somatic... con if verbal only Dex/Con fail: "The impact on your arm made you drop the spell components you were preparing or threw your hands out of the proper pattern or made you scream in the middle of the verbal. Any of these would prevent casting." Failing casting might lose the spell... might not. That is something else to be judged after the spell is prevented from going off. This is not stressed in 5e as effectively as it was in 2nd Edition... because 2nd Edition had you START the spell on your initiative then it went off X segments casting time later. I find the ignoring of casting time to be improper. (segments of the action time within a turn, or points of initiative in time)
A rogue can actually tank if they pick up moderately armored perk. He gets medium armor and a shield (no longer gives disadvantage at stealth) and then use his cunning action to dodge every turn.
My players are extremely nice, so usually they say "I want to play X, but if you want to I can totally play Y." Do you think, if party comp really isn't necessary (Just needs a little work on my part), that I should ask them all separately to make characters without discussion between them to make sure nobody is forced to pick their second choice because of niceness?
Sean Moniz-McmahonI would go at it by suggesting this idea as a new campaign. From what your saying, your players are all about the "We'll do what's best for the group" when it comes to PCgen. Offering them a campaign that removes that aspect could be a great new experience, or it could make them feel awkward or unsure. Talk to your players and see what option they gravitate to. If they do decide on a "We'll make the PCs without inter-group collaboration", you're gonna have to recognize how the new PCGenning style should affect the DMing, and adjust accordingly. Your players sound a lot like my gaming group back in High School. We usually had 3+ PCs half worked out in our heads and/or on paper, so, if our first choice would conflict with another PC, or leave the group handicapped, we would be more than able to shift to our second or third option for that campaign.
This assumes that there will be a lot of combat in a campaign. You can run a very successful campaign with 0 combat. Just because combat is a huge part of the game mechanic doesnt mean it must be used. A purely rogue and wizard oriented campaign could be highly political, social or even exploratory and require a vaste array of skills unsuited to a fighter.
You are correct sir. We've absolutely played in sessions with zero combat. Our 1st game of Fate Accelerated we found peaceful solutions to the GMs combat encounters. - Nerdarchist Dave
I had one session that was supposed to be full of combats and strategy, and the player/PC managed to dodge every one of them... hehe... It was a great session, and, at the same time, one of the most stressful DMing sessions I've had in a long time That being said, barring a group of players wanting a 0 combat campaign or even session, I would still put some combat in somewhere. A bar fight, political assassination attempt, etc
I once had a bad party composition because the healer we had didn't want to heal anymore after his character died. So our dm found us an Npc to heal us and he had me actually run the combat of that character while he played to story part
No, there are only DMs who have no clue how to deal with it. After session zero it's the DM's job to ensure the party is viable regardless of what classes combinations the party selects. I've had all rogue, all wizard, all fighter, groups and it all works out fine. The DM just needs to do his part. When players start asking who's going to be the "Tank", I ask them if they would rather play WoW.
I agree, but rather find less harsh ways to put it. People experience as well as experiences with the game are different. At the end of the day you don't know what you don't know. - Nerdarchist Dave
I am predominantly a "5th party member" player. I love having the open leeway of fitting myself into whatever roll needs to be shored up. Even when I can't be the 5th member I will always wait until all the other characters are chosen. I routinely have 5-6 character sheets written up for as many possible rolls as possible so I can literally wait until the day I'm sitting at the table before I chose what I play.
+vasilie crisan We always use standard array/point buy instead of rolling dice for attributes, unless we are doing a one-shot/short campaign. That makes it super easy to create several different character concepts each one with a different purpose. Then when everyone else has chosen their character, I just choose the one that best fits the overall group. I have mostly been a DM my whole life so character building is tremendously fun for me as is being as helpful to the group as possible.
+vasilie crisan I still use the "old school" term "roll up" because I started playing 2nd/3.x edition. It just means I great several different characters is all.
There were only 2 people when our campaign started, I was land druid and my companion was a bard.The DM gave me a staff of the woodlands that it can turn into an awakened tree so that we can have a tank. Two other people joined later on, but decided to go for assassin and a sorcerer. Hahah
Just starting up my first campaign ever with a bunch of friends who are also newbies. The party is supposed to be; Half-Orc Warrior _____ Rogue Human Ranger and i had chosen bard. When i heard our party i ended up swapping my 2 1st level spells for Cure Wounds and Healing Word and taking Magic Initiate (Warlock) for Eldritch Blast, Frostbite and Armour of Agathys. I figure i might have to be the some kind of off tank while also the healer who is also the only spell caster. Should be an interesting first game :D Glad to have found this video, it fills me with determination...
Played a game with 5 wizards once, noencounter in dnd was ever balance around 5 wizards/sorcerer misty stepping into a murder formation and launching fireballs/snowstorms/daggerclouds.
Ran an entire campaign without any fighters , was not planned, just everybody decided to play a Rogue . So I set up a city campaign and they all belong to the same guild , they had a ball. Trying to avoid law enforcement , other guilds, and of course the victims. It was very Oliver Twist like Charles Dickens oriented. Eventually some went multi class to acquire spell casters, but no fighters types.
yeah the players make the party bad for instance. I encountered the unfortunate player whom tried to swim across a bridge when we were level 2, getting robbed and surrounded. basically they just wanted 10 gold pieces (which he had) and they'd let us be on our way. our whole party paid up but in doing so that made the robbers hostile and made us TPK.
Yes there is. 4 fighters? You know you can still have an amazing composition if the 4 fighters have different feats, skills and weapon proficiencies. However 4 fighters with identical abilities, skills, feats and weapon proficiencies, all of the same race and gender with the same background. The reason why my example is so extreme is because you really do have to go out of your way to have a bad party composition.
The problem with your train of thought is that, if that is what your players want to play and will get the most enjoyment out of it, then as the DM it's your job to either tailor campaigns to those players or find new players that play the game you want to run. A party can only have a bad composition if the DM is a bad storyteller.
James Fenton That is a fair point. I think the issue is limelight. I don't care much for "party balance", however I do like the idea of something that differentiates one character from another. There are so many roles that can be filled. Not three, try thousands. If all four players are the same, then one player will hog all the limelight whilst the others find that they are redundant. If all four players have different proficiencies (this can be achieved with four fighters through different feats, different equipment, different skills and ability scores), then there is a better chance for all four players to shine.
That example of 4 Fighters with all the same skill set and background sounds like literally playing the city guard looking out for monsters and murder hobos, or trained infantry members in a direct warring conflict. It'd be pretty outrageous as an adventuring party, that is true.
If the party is not balanced that is on them. The adventure doesn't change to pander to an unbalanced party. The adventure is designed for a tank, expert, divine caster and arcane caster (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User) It's the players job to cover these roles
I don't really like when the dm cheats to make things easier, especially if it is just to make combat easier by having decided A, B, and C is in the area, and then later saying that's too hard so I'll change that. I think that takes a lot of the threat and agency out of the game.
GameNub Quin This is different, for the record, than designing realistic and correctly tailored adventure situations for the party to go on and still progress and not die or continually have to flee. Like if your adventure turns out to be too hard, having side adventures that either improve the party or give a new angle at the situation makes perfect sense.
I'm old school in thought on this. Not every encounter is one that can be successful. Assuming the party members are able to escape and evade they can learn from it. That should make them better the next time.
Current party - Wizard - wild Sorcerer - druid - Warlock - Cleric - Barbarian - Ranger Turns out druids and warlocks don't get to shine much in a composition like this
Nicholas Hengstler I knew we did it. It just seemed more like a generic topic to us than a GM 9 1 1. So it wasn't labeled as such. Not that it isn't an important matter for your table. Also we had done a recent party composition as player tip. So that is one of the reasons your vid got delayed. if you click the icon in the video you'll find the other party composition video. -Nerdarchist Dave
ok still new gm and not entirely understanding the feats part. with the exception of the human variant getting a feat at lvl 1 and the fighter, the player wouldnt get them automatically at lvls 4,8,12,16, and 19 but they can choose between a feat or an ability change. is that correct or is it a choice of a feat and an ability increase? this has always confused me
+nerdarchy I actually disagree with the no such thing as a bad composition. Id say it depends on if your dm even cares to have a session zero or if he just throws whatever your chars are into his created world and prey you live.
you are forgetting items. do not have a rogue in the party, get a chime of opening and a wand of detect secret doors. don't have a tank? have the druid wild shape, or the wizard/sorceror summon something which can tank, or a cleric with magic vestment, shield of faith. there are plenty of ways to work around not having the perfect party setup (#3 bard, cleric and fighter #4 bard, cleric, fighter, rogue) the players handbook II from d&d 3.5 has a nice passage on it from page ~155 magic and items can word around in such a way that the DM shouldnt have to change the story. fighting is not part of the story it is a mean to an end, fighting is a tool to help the story.
Yes, there are. We have played a party of four NPC-classed characters in D&D 3.5E. It was epic. Basically hobbits, carrying the Ring, avoiding trouble as much as they could. So yeah, there are bad compositions if we define a good composition being universal in their capabilities, but that doesn't mean that the sessions can't be amazing, if campaign is tailored for the given party. Another take on bad party compositions is power level difference between the most powerful build and the least powerful build in the party. Less so in 5E, but in 3.5E that was a real issue. Mnk 20 in a party of four Drd 20s feels… sad. This is the only thing everyone should care about. If one guy steals all the spotlight all the time, it's really boring for others to play. Notice, that he/she might not even be an asshole, it's just that theirs build is SO MUCH BETTER. Last remark - there are systems, like Shadowrun, where any party composition is bad because it dies to certain things with probability of almost one hundred percent.
I see a party composition to a point needs to be minded, it isn't rules it's a guideline of what is efficient and effective. because not all DMs tailor to their players and not all players work together. I do think that people should try to build their character with the other players in mind
practice darwinian evolution... and see if they can hang, if they cant then they can always reroll new characters... basically a game without the chance of someone dying isn't fun either
IF YOU'RE NOT CHEATING, YOU'RE NOT TRYING! Goes for all, especially the GM (yes, dumb characters dying is acceptable if they do it to themselves) even Jesus told his disciple of His to put away his sword.
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
MAD props to pointing out that campaigning with a "different" group composition isn't just a matter of "The DM should play it different", but includes a "Players need to recognize they aren't a party of iconics"
Thanks,
A lot times everything is put on the DM as if he is some kind of performing monkey put there for the players entertainment. The DM is just part of the game along with the players.
- Nerdarchist Dave
Without knowing the composition of the party, my opinion falls into this one statement:
There is no bad PARTY composition. There is only bad PLAYER composition.
So long as the players are cooperative, fun-focused, and play a smarter game, there is NO bad PARTY composition. The best "character" composition will fall if the players don't mesh well. Conversely to that, even strange character composition will do well so long as the players get along well.
Mike Gould Couldn't agree with you more. If the DM is tailoring adventures to his/her players than the party composition rarely ever matters.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Mike GouldI see the like option, but I wish there was a "Preach on!" button! Heck to the YEAH!
Mike Gould I agree, except with pre made adventures run by a DM that doesn't make adjustments at all. I had a party of 4 playing Lost Mines of Phandelver, 1 paladin, 1 barbarian, 1 sorcerer, and 1 bard. We almost got wiped on every single fight. Had we had a cleric we would be much better off. I'm not saying it's required, but I AM saying that on a pre made adventure it is very difficult without the proper party if th DM only runs it as written.
vasilie crisan Pre-mades cannot account for party composition. And to be fair, it sounds like that DM was running with an "old school" tradition whereby the players are not the centre of the world.
The DM can adjust for many things, but expecting that entire world ecologies will change because the players are three wizards is a bit much. Even Harry Potter and friends knew when to run away.
Now, your party composition looked solid. There's no reason why those four could not handle any situation. You have two melee, two arcane casters, and two potential off-healers. The focus then becomes character build and player tactics. If that's not the problem, THEN it's a DM issue.
Phandelver is a lot of goblins, some wolves, a few zombies, and a Banshee. Your group should have been able to deal with that lot outside of poor dice luck.
So without more objective evidence, I cannot tell you why you wiped so much. You shouldn't have, if class choice is any indicator.
Mike Gould it was mines of phanwhatever. He could've adjusted it still. Pre-made adventures are not written in stone, so I think you're a bit harsh when you say premades can't be adjusted. He could've used 1 less goblin or removed the surprise round, taken off the bonus to damage on every hit, etc. We had 3 encounters where the enemies surprised us. Against a party of 4 with low hp and goblins having 1d6+2 damage with 2 full attacks (with party members having 8-12 HP) before we could even "run away" as you suggested seems like an unfair fight for new players and characters. As a fairly new player I don't think it was handled properly to nearly kill the entire party by having a free round and overpowering us (6 vs 4). Spending over an hour and a half making new characters only to lose them all on the first game you ever played kind of sucks. Especially after coming up with a cool back story and even drawing out the character. It almost made me not want to play anymore after having to remake all new characters. So yes, in that case I believe the DM (who was not a new player like the rest of us) could have gone a bit easier on our group. On our second go at it is when we almost got wiped 3 times. The first go was a disaster (we had a wizard, a warlock, a barbarian and a rogue) and we got killed in the first encounter.
Once, my brother wanted to run basically a Mage School/College Town game in PF. Your character had to have some Arcane potential (students). Bards as artsy kids. Magi as jocks. Sorcerer prom queens and honor roll wizards. I thought it sounded fun (like Harry Potter and the Revenge of the Nerds!) but Sir Unimaginative couldn't wrap his brain around not having a tank or a heal monkey and Mr. Optimal-Build thought that having everyone be similar classes would cause undue competition. Sadly, we never did it.
I was with a group that had a very classic party composition. We still avoided several fights through politics, trickery, or simply going a different way. We were able to obtain a quest item from an evil monk monastery by posing as the the local army and forged letters of confiscation from the local lord. We convinced the monks that it would be better to simply give us the object rather than upset relations with the local army. Several ways to play a savvy group.
One other thing a DM can take into consideration, is that specialized characters like Sorcerer, Wizard and Druid also have blanket AoE spells like Entangle and Sleep to give them advantage in most low level encounters. At higher level those spells aren't as effective but then you get into Fire-Ball and those types of spells. The Monk on the other hand is quite the beast at higher levels depending on his tradition can be knocking opponents down left and right giving the rogue an advantageous sneak attack or using his Ki as a bonus action to gain a Dodge action as a bonus attack each round making them much harder to hit. As the guys said tailoring the fights to the party composition is a good way to go. Also, your session zero has allot to do with it as it should give you as the DM a chance to read up on the parties abilities and really know what they are capable of doing. Great Answers guys!
Art Wood We do what we can.Yea the classes have their strengths and weakness it just a matter of using them in the best ways possible.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Art Wood Every class and race in 5e brings something to the table. I feel like with an odd party composition it allows/forces each player reach a little deeper into their tool box. Glad you enjoyed our vid.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Art Wood Along with session 0, the DM will need to focus on learning how the players plan on running their PCs. Especially when you're dealing with classes like Monks, Druids, etc. There's a lot of options within certain classes that can make each iteration of the class a different experience...
Holy Cow! I want to play single class sessions/campaigns now... Ah crap... I need free time...
Low level D&D is fun but also not balanced too well. Granted I have not played 5th but as I recall, a basic monster with a Greataxe can 1 shot nearly any starting character.
I think a good solution if the GM is concerned about party composition would be to start the party off on 2nd or 3rd level or to just tone damage down by introducing things such as younger wolves or older goblins, etc.
Another possibility is to have lower level combat consist of opponents that won't aim to kill the party after winning. Examples would be monsters that value survival and aren't attacking the party but just defending their homes, young, etc. Or you could offer up a street fight with other people.
Lastly, you could start the group with a tanky npc that helps them early in the game and then gear the magical items the group acquires towards survivability.
p0ck3tp3ar Great suggestions.
-Nerdarchist Dave
p0ck3tp3ar I start noob players at level 1 and let them earn those stripes... but veteran players start at 3 when they get to pick their sub-class. nothing more frustrating for a veteran RPGer than dying as a 1st level character because they had 9HP and couldn't swing a sword to hit a one-legged goblin... only to get critted..
Roger Farley damn those one legged goblins. They're tough as an owlbears teet.
- Nerdarchist Dave
p0ck3tp3ar I like the "Odd group compositions could start higher level to avoid the low level vulnerability to the Dice gods" problem. Another spin on it would be to allow the initial couple levels to be primarily roleplay-centric, with some controlled combat. Maybe start your PCs at a training camp, or model the first area they adventure in like a low level MMO zone. Odd group compositions definitely need the players and DM to be open to odd campaign flow, especially in the first couple levels.
XainMexi That can work ::) Another similar idea is to pit the PC's against opponents that won't kill them after they win. The group can now lose a fight or two any not be slain.
You could reintroduce the old school concept of morale. There's no logical reason why the group of goblins needs to fight fanatically to the death down to the last goblin. If the DM feels like he made a mistake and threw too many goblins at the party, you could always have them break ranks and run if the players kill a few.
DM'S should pretty much do that in my opinion anyway.
- Nerdarchist Dave
Or the goblins start getting egos about the battle, and either start making mistakes when they try to show off, or, whenever one goblin does something cool, the other goblins get jealous and start sabotaging their own, letting the PCs either escape or quietly turn the tide
like the vid. I agree. I have a smaller 3 player group consisting of a moon druid, wild mage sorcerer and a aarakocra monk. as a DM, I don't get to use my usual set of tricks... i have to re-package and invent new stuff for such a party composition that allows them to naturally make decisions and adventure based on their characters. i given a choice to go and directly confront an orc camp or to deal with it some other way, they will figure something else out... combat encounters get smaller and fewer, but roleplay and adventuring go up. they had to roleplay their groups initially meeting each other... which was a lot of fun... and being able to focus more on the adventure and roleplay while travelling and dealing with random encounters was more fun. in the end... makes you grow as a DM...
Roger Farley Sounds like the opening of a joke. A druid, a wild mage, and a birdman walk into a bar :)
In all seriousness I love parties like that. They are far more interesting and offer up opportunities to do things differently.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Roger Farley That's one of the main "You might be an epic DM if...." for me. Nice view on a non-typical group
The only time i've ever had a problem with party composition was when for one secession it was only me and one other guy. Due to the staggered (confusion over date) start to the campaign there wasn't a secession 0 and so we were both turned up as rouges with incredibly similar skills and ability scores as we were both 1st level. The DM also made things really difficult for us, he put us in a prison with 8 guards and cuz we could pick locks he gave us doors bolted shut on the opposite side... so with str 8/10 we couldn't batter them down without alerting the guards :P
I feel like every party should have at least one tank, one healer, one rogue, and one offensive spell caster. otherwise tailoring quests becomes difficult.
clericofchaos1 or required. :)
But I've never liked the you must have X in the party as the DM or a player. Hey we've got a saying in the neighborhood I came from "Work it out". So when it comes to party composition I just believe between the GM and players they just need to work out, but in a way that has the players playing a character they want to play.
I hate when one or more players select what they want to play and then start telling other players what they should play based off of party roles. Personally I feel if an individual wants a role filled so badly they should do it themselves. All that being said thanks for weighing in. I love hearing other gamers opinions of the topics we discuss.
-Nerdarchist Dave
+Nerdarchy The campaign I'm playing in right now (first time D&D player!) has a party that has a ranger, a rogue, a hexblade, a warlord, and a knight (me). I was the first to roll, and 2 came in later: we could have demanded a healer and ranged magic dealer.
Instead of forcing someone to play something they didn't want, I willingly became the early level "healer" with combat medic and training in as much healing stuff as I can get, at least until the party can hold their own better. So long as I have the supplies on hand, Brenmoore is ready to patch up his allies at a moment's notice. It's nowhere near as effective as a cleric may have been, but it's certainly better than nothing when a trap goes off in the rogue's face.
I'm still the tanky knight I wanted to play, but everyone is also a little safer because of the early feats I took. We found a balance in playing our own characters and working as a party, even with an atypical setup. In my eyes, the players have a responsibility to each other as a party: play whatever you want, but remember that the fun depends on working together. Plan according to what your group can do, and look for solutions to your gaps (i.e. combat medic on the fighter, getting a meat-shield NPC for squishies, etc.). A DM should be tailoring the campaign to the character roles and interests, but players should be looking to "work it out" however they want as well.
My only concern is what happens if one of them falls or is otherwise incapacitated. Then the entire group is completely screwed. I think players finding alternate ways to "solve the puzzle" so to speak it, is vital to making it out of bad situations.
The successful campaigns that I've used this technique "PCGen without/free from player collaboration" have almost always been campaigns that utilize the Leadership feat later on. As the players get higher level, weaknesses become more and more obvious, and most players have an unconscious allergy to group-level weaknesses. Allowing those that want to gain the Leadership feat allows them to create hirelings that fill those gaps in ways that compliment the current PC group. Leadership feat can be a daunting idea, but, when you have groups with heightened strengths and weaknesses, it can help the players and the PCs focus on the campaign plot more than group weaknesses, in my experience
At higher levels that is one route to go. The trick is to balance npcs in the party vs player characters in the party. I personally don't care for npc's in the party on a regular basis.
- Nerdarchist Dave
The risk of letting NPCs overshadow PCs can be high, especially if you're an NPC-centric DM (Guilty as charged)
Though, another use I've come across for NPCs traveling with the party (and only being involved in combat for plot or needed aide) is if the players want to "earn" their new skills/feats instead of just "*ding* Your fighter now knows ___" Letting them roleplay a bit during quiet traveling and/or night watches with specifically skilled NPCs can add a lot of immersion as well as keep the DM aware of how the player wants to run their PC outside of combat/dice.
Our party consisting of a Druid, a Paladin, a Bard, and a Monk didn't need a Cleric for healing. They also didn't compete with each other for the loot and magic items. In another campaign we had a War Cleric, a crossbow-specialist Ranger, a Shadow Monk, a Summoning Sorcerer, a Warlock, and an Eldritch Knight. It helped that my War Cleric had the Urchin background so could use Thieves' tools.
No such thing as bad party composition.
My table went Bear Barbarian, Paladin of Ancients, dual-wielding Champion Fighter.
Not a whole lot of healing and spellcasting. Lots of sword swinging.
Our DM gave us healing potions, and catered encounters to our strengths. And, occasionally, to our weaknesses as a way to test us.
No such thing as bad party composition if you've got a good DM.
How about we say experienced DM. But I agree I don't care what shows up to the table. I'll work something out.
- Nerdarchist Dave
John AppletonThat group SCREAMS tabletop rock band. I would be hard-pressed to not introduce the "The PCs find a cleric/healer or two that become groupies" side plot/quest rewards. I wouldn't make the clerics/healers combat NPCs, but I would let the PCs roleplay a friendship/relationship with them to the point that they made sure the players started each day with a clean bill of health and HP
I recently played a game where we were all magic researchers. Primarily wizards, no rogues, clerics or fighting classes. I was a warlock pretending to be a divination wizard and I was good with stealth. The transmutation wizard was kinda built like a mystic warrior. We had a necromancer who always had 2 crossbow-wielding skeletons with him. It was pretty fun. The party had plenty of Indiana-Jones-style adventure.
As long as the characters fit in the story and the party members work together well, I don't see why you need a specific configuration.
I liked your discussion. the dm must tailor the game to the players, whether combat or other activities.
What changes in response to party composition is "What Kind Of Game Are We Running?". If your party doesn't have a lot of frontline fighters, de-emphasize direct combat encounters. If the characters trend towards having high Charisma, maybe focus more on social challenges. If the entire party is squishy, maybe steer the game towards investigation and research.
The World of Darkness was a lot better geared towards this kind of thing, since roleplay was a stronger element over the dungeon crawl. A Vampire coterie made up of Ventrue, Toreador, and Malkavians is more likely to try to charm or mind control their way through problems. A Mage cabal with no Akashics or two-fisted Etherites is probably going to make fights more about using their magical advantage to control the field, or even circumvent a fight altogether.
D&D is by no means incapable of doing the same thing. And DMs would probably benefit from looking at how other RPGs handle games where the players aren't necessarily geared towards brawling.
A ranger isn't too terrible of a tank. A human ranger with medium armor master with at least a 16 in dex (which if you take the scale mail will take out the disadvantage on stealth checks and make it so that at level one before fighting style and shield you have a 17 AC) with the defense fighting style you can have a 20 ac at level 1 with a one handed weapon and a shield (or maybe two-weapon fighting two short swords or scimitar and short sword and decide on taking dual wielder feat at 4--at which point maybe you'll change out one of those weapons for a rapier, since you're most likely going to be using dex as your main stat--though that'll lower your AC by quite a bit). Make the stats Dex, Con, and Wisdom your most important in that order, so you have AC, a decent hp pool with that d10 hit die, and at level 2 access to healing spells, (and let's assume if you're going by the point system you have a 13 in wisdom since the 15 and 14 will go to dex and con, and so will the points from the variant human, though I suppose you could put the second +1 into wisdom and have both con and wisdom at +2). At level 5, there's not much difference between a fighter and ranger of that same build, though the fighter has more attacks with Action Surge (unless you take Horder Breaker, though that one is more situational than Colossus Slayer), but the ranger has more survivability with two heals instead of just one Second Wind. Then add in Colossus Slayer--because you're going hunter, no doubt--you get free damage if it's not at full HP, which makes it almost to your advantage if you don't get the highest initiative, so in the roll for initiative round it's win/win either way.
Not to mention if that druid is circle of the moon he'll be able to tank as well.
- Nerdarchist Dave
Nerdarchy
Yeah. I have my own circle of the moon druid that has sentinel, which is great for tanking while transformed, but the AC of (let's say under level 6) a dire wolf is 14, 16 with barkskin, which can get knocked off. Moon Druids have great, huge HP pools, but they're going to get hit a hell of a lot more, especially at low levels when there's not many enemies with huge bonuses to hit.
I wondered if this comment would show up when they said "Ranger =/= Tank"
Very well said, and very detailed. My only caveat would be to make sure the group composition and/or other players don't force the Ranger player/PC to become the tank if they want to run it another way. When I first started gaming, my group would occasionally run sessions/campaigns where we "forced" each other to play PCs we weren't use to. The enjoyment for those sessions/campaigns was the challenge. If your players are looking for that, more power to them. If not, get ready to up-shift your DM brain to help them enjoy the challenge in a way they want to.
XainMexi Of course I wouldn't force the ranger to go tank...but at the same time being nearly impossible to hit is kind of fun. I have a dex fighter with Medium armor master that I got to 20 ac at level one (the only thing I slightly kind of min-maxed because of his backstory), and my DM was frustrated half the time because he could never hit me....and being my roommate, he wanted to hit me.
Yeah... When we found solid metal dice, the table aggravations changed... XD
As long as it was "You could play your ranger ___" and not "You should/will play your ranger ___" it's all good.
And, as you point out, letting roommates DM is a dangerous choice ;)
You can form a party that does not have the capabilities needed to deal with the issues.
No meat shields = spellcasters as primary targets.
A spellcaster in direct mele who gets hit has to make a con or dex check to even try to cast a spell.
Dex if material/somatic... con if verbal only
Dex/Con fail: "The impact on your arm made you drop the spell components you were preparing or threw your hands out of the proper pattern or made you scream in the middle of the verbal. Any of these would prevent casting."
Failing casting might lose the spell... might not. That is something else to be judged after the spell is prevented from going off.
This is not stressed in 5e as effectively as it was in 2nd Edition... because 2nd Edition had you START the spell on your initiative then it went off X segments casting time later.
I find the ignoring of casting time to be improper. (segments of the action time within a turn, or points of initiative in time)
In my opinion a DM must know the party strengths and weaknesses and then tailor encounters accordingly. Thus no such thing as a bad composition.
A rogue can actually tank if they pick up moderately armored perk. He gets medium armor and a shield (no longer gives disadvantage at stealth) and then use his cunning action to dodge every turn.
My players are extremely nice, so usually they say "I want to play X, but if you want to I can totally play Y." Do you think, if party comp really isn't necessary (Just needs a little work on my part), that I should ask them all separately to make characters without discussion between them to make sure nobody is forced to pick their second choice because of niceness?
Sounds like a good a plan. It'll be interesting to see what they all come to the table with.
- Nerdarchist Dave
Sean Moniz-McmahonI would go at it by suggesting this idea as a new campaign. From what your saying, your players are all about the "We'll do what's best for the group" when it comes to PCgen. Offering them a campaign that removes that aspect could be a great new experience, or it could make them feel awkward or unsure. Talk to your players and see what option they gravitate to. If they do decide on a "We'll make the PCs without inter-group collaboration", you're gonna have to recognize how the new PCGenning style should affect the DMing, and adjust accordingly.
Your players sound a lot like my gaming group back in High School. We usually had 3+ PCs half worked out in our heads and/or on paper, so, if our first choice would conflict with another PC, or leave the group handicapped, we would be more than able to shift to our second or third option for that campaign.
This assumes that there will be a lot of combat in a campaign. You can run a very successful campaign with 0 combat. Just because combat is a huge part of the game mechanic doesnt mean it must be used.
A purely rogue and wizard oriented campaign could be highly political, social or even exploratory and require a vaste array of skills unsuited to a fighter.
You are correct sir. We've absolutely played in sessions with zero combat. Our 1st game of Fate Accelerated we found peaceful solutions to the GMs combat encounters.
- Nerdarchist Dave
I had one session that was supposed to be full of combats and strategy, and the player/PC managed to dodge every one of them... hehe... It was a great session, and, at the same time, one of the most stressful DMing sessions I've had in a long time
That being said, barring a group of players wanting a 0 combat campaign or even session, I would still put some combat in somewhere. A bar fight, political assassination attempt, etc
I once had a bad party composition because the healer we had didn't want to heal anymore after his character died.
So our dm found us an Npc to heal us and he had me actually run the combat of that character while he played to story part
No, there are only DMs who have no clue how to deal with it. After session zero it's the DM's job to ensure the party is viable regardless of what classes combinations the party selects. I've had all rogue, all wizard, all fighter, groups and it all works out fine. The DM just needs to do his part.
When players start asking who's going to be the "Tank", I ask them if they would rather play WoW.
I agree, but rather find less harsh ways to put it. People experience as well as experiences with the game are different. At the end of the day you don't know what you don't know.
- Nerdarchist Dave
***** come on you know you wanna try it.
- Nerdarchist Dave
I am predominantly a "5th party member" player. I love having the open leeway of fitting myself into whatever roll needs to be shored up. Even when I can't be the 5th member I will always wait until all the other characters are chosen. I routinely have 5-6 character sheets written up for as many possible rolls as possible so I can literally wait until the day I'm sitting at the table before I chose what I play.
James Fenton do you guys roll up characters at random? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by having 5 different rolls ready... Can you elaborate?
+vasilie crisan We always use standard array/point buy instead of rolling dice for attributes, unless we are doing a one-shot/short campaign. That makes it super easy to create several different character concepts each one with a different purpose. Then when everyone else has chosen their character, I just choose the one that best fits the overall group. I have mostly been a DM my whole life so character building is tremendously fun for me as is being as helpful to the group as possible.
+vasilie crisan I still use the "old school" term "roll up" because I started playing 2nd/3.x edition. It just means I great several different characters is all.
There were only 2 people when our campaign started, I was land druid and my companion was a bard.The DM gave me a staff of the woodlands that it can turn into an awakened tree so that we can have a tank. Two other people joined later on, but decided to go for assassin and a sorcerer. Hahah
Just starting up my first campaign ever with a bunch of friends who are also newbies.
The party is supposed to be;
Half-Orc Warrior
_____ Rogue
Human Ranger
and i had chosen bard.
When i heard our party i ended up swapping my 2 1st level spells for Cure Wounds and Healing Word
and taking Magic Initiate (Warlock) for Eldritch Blast, Frostbite and Armour of Agathys.
I figure i might have to be the some kind of off tank while also the healer who is also the only spell caster.
Should be an interesting first game :D
Glad to have found this video, it fills me with determination...
cool bard build...i assume human variant?
Yeah. it was a unique kind of hell, but it was fun
Played a game with 5 wizards once, noencounter in dnd was ever balance around 5 wizards/sorcerer misty stepping into a murder formation and launching fireballs/snowstorms/daggerclouds.
Ran an entire campaign without any fighters , was not planned, just everybody decided to play a Rogue . So I set up a city campaign and they all belong to the same guild , they had a ball. Trying to avoid law enforcement , other guilds, and of course the victims. It was very Oliver Twist like Charles Dickens oriented. Eventually some went multi class to acquire spell casters, but no fighters types.
yeah the players make the party bad for instance. I encountered the unfortunate player whom tried to swim across a bridge when we were level 2, getting robbed and surrounded. basically they just wanted 10 gold pieces (which he had) and they'd let us be on our way. our whole party paid up but in doing so that made the robbers hostile and made us TPK.
Yes there is.
4 fighters? You know you can still have an amazing composition if the 4 fighters have different feats, skills and weapon proficiencies.
However 4 fighters with identical abilities, skills, feats and weapon proficiencies, all of the same race and gender with the same background.
The reason why my example is so extreme is because you really do have to go out of your way to have a bad party composition.
The problem with your train of thought is that, if that is what your players want to play and will get the most enjoyment out of it, then as the DM it's your job to either tailor campaigns to those players or find new players that play the game you want to run. A party can only have a bad composition if the DM is a bad storyteller.
James Fenton
That is a fair point.
I think the issue is limelight.
I don't care much for "party balance", however I do like the idea of something that differentiates one character from another.
There are so many roles that can be filled. Not three, try thousands. If all four players are the same, then one player will hog all the limelight whilst the others find that they are redundant.
If all four players have different proficiencies (this can be achieved with four fighters through different feats, different equipment, different skills and ability scores), then there is a better chance for all four players to shine.
That example of 4 Fighters with all the same skill set and background sounds like literally playing the city guard looking out for monsters and murder hobos, or trained infantry members in a direct warring conflict. It'd be pretty outrageous as an adventuring party, that is true.
If the party is not balanced that is on them. The adventure doesn't change to pander to an unbalanced party.
The adventure is designed for a tank, expert, divine caster and arcane caster (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User) It's the players job to cover these roles
I don't really like when the dm cheats to make things easier, especially if it is just to make combat easier by having decided A, B, and C is in the area, and then later saying that's too hard so I'll change that. I think that takes a lot of the threat and agency out of the game.
GameNub Quin This is different, for the record, than designing realistic and correctly tailored adventure situations for the party to go on and still progress and not die or continually have to flee. Like if your adventure turns out to be too hard, having side adventures that either improve the party or give a new angle at the situation makes perfect sense.
I'm old school in thought on this. Not every encounter is one that can be successful. Assuming the party members are able to escape and evade they can learn from it. That should make them better the next time.
Dave, I love that cthulhu Ghostbusters shirt
Current party - Wizard - wild Sorcerer - druid - Warlock - Cleric - Barbarian - Ranger
Turns out druids and warlocks don't get to shine much in a composition like this
Ok Thanks guys and I'll use these tips for making a great campaign
Nicholas Hengstler I knew we did it. It just seemed more like a generic topic to us than a GM 9 1 1. So it wasn't labeled as such. Not that it isn't an important matter for your table. Also we had done a recent party composition as player tip. So that is one of the reasons your vid got delayed. if you click the icon in the video you'll find the other party composition video.
-Nerdarchist Dave
Ok thanks :) Nerdarchy
Spellcasters also have a better time with lots of smaller foes, because no fighter can hit as many as creatures as Thunderwave.
ok still new gm and not entirely understanding the feats part. with the exception of the human variant getting a feat at lvl 1 and the fighter, the player wouldnt get them automatically at lvls 4,8,12,16, and 19 but they can choose between a feat or an ability change. is that correct or is it a choice of a feat and an ability increase? this has always confused me
As a 1 Level party of a Druid, Ranger and two Sorcerers we nearly got our asses handed to ourselves in the Level 0 premade adventure....
Dave's beard has gotten much less white than your first videos.
I think he has that Benjamin Button disease, he's reverse aging!
Oh no what do I do? Lol just been doing some of my own alchemy experiments.
- Nerdarchist Dave
hehehe, you can tell this comment is 2 years old XD.
He must have found the cure
+nerdarchy I actually disagree with the no such thing as a bad composition. Id say it depends on if your dm even cares to have a session zero or if he just throws whatever your chars are into his created world and prey you live.
you are forgetting items. do not have a rogue in the party, get a chime of opening and a wand of detect secret doors.
don't have a tank? have the druid wild shape, or the wizard/sorceror summon something which can tank, or a cleric with magic vestment, shield of faith.
there are plenty of ways to work around not having the perfect party setup (#3 bard, cleric and fighter #4 bard, cleric, fighter, rogue)
the players handbook II from d&d 3.5 has a nice passage on it from page ~155
magic and items can word around in such a way that the DM shouldnt have to change the story. fighting is not part of the story it is a mean to an end, fighting is a tool to help the story.
Yes, there are.
We have played a party of four NPC-classed characters in D&D 3.5E. It was epic. Basically hobbits, carrying the Ring, avoiding trouble as much as they could.
So yeah, there are bad compositions if we define a good composition being universal in their capabilities, but that doesn't mean that the sessions can't be amazing, if campaign is tailored for the given party.
Another take on bad party compositions is power level difference between the most powerful build and the least powerful build in the party. Less so in 5E, but in 3.5E that was a real issue. Mnk 20 in a party of four Drd 20s feels… sad. This is the only thing everyone should care about. If one guy steals all the spotlight all the time, it's really boring for others to play. Notice, that he/she might not even be an asshole, it's just that theirs build is SO MUCH BETTER.
Last remark - there are systems, like Shadowrun, where any party composition is bad because it dies to certain things with probability of almost one hundred percent.
+AmarrIndustrial a little addendum - notice that I think that campaign should be tailored for that, not the setting.
I see a party composition to a point needs to be minded, it isn't rules it's a guideline of what is efficient and effective. because not all DMs tailor to their players and not all players work together. I do think that people should try to build their character with the other players in mind
For all those who say there's no bad party comp, realise that that would also mean there is no good party comp.
practice darwinian evolution... and see if they can hang, if they cant then they can always reroll new characters... basically a game without the chance of someone dying isn't fun either
Also a good point. It's interesting to see players creativity pushed as they try to survive.
- Nerdarchist Dave
Is "stand and fight' the only option? Don't people talk, negotiate, run away?
recently i played in a party of 3 bards and a sorcerer. it was very... interesting.
+radivmoe was the sorcerer a bassist in this band?
AmarrIndustrial no the sorcerer did pyrotechnics and such.
IF YOU'RE NOT CHEATING, YOU'RE NOT TRYING!
Goes for all, especially the GM (yes, dumb characters dying is acceptable if they do it to themselves) even Jesus told his disciple of His to put away his sword.
I 100% love you guys! But PLEASE look up the proper pronunciation of melee!!!!!
damn at the mouth breathing...