Does Party Composition Really Matter...? (D&D 5e/5.5e)

[@jacobhughes-gartin1057]

An all-Monk party feels like it could actually be very viable with one of each subclass: Open Hand for frontline combat, Shadow for roguish infiltration, Mercy for Healing, and Elements as the “blaster caster.”

[@BineyTubbles]

As primarily a GM, I encourage my groups to think and plan and act together but always eschew "needed roles" in the group. If one incoming player asks what they should play based on what is already in the group, I always suggest that they first play what they want and if they would like inspiration to consult the other party members. No healer? No problem! No rogue/skill-monkey? No problem! Just like he says in the video, awkward holes in the capabilities of the group tend to be where the RP treasure is hidden. Great video! Thanks

[@beckerscantbechoosers6768]

"Surely you need a healer!" Was the funniest part for me.

[@christianaldrete902]

7:54 That explains why the three Sidekick classes in Tasha's are the Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert.

[@jasong8085]

I like the party being full of variety but I like it when we have no healer or no heavy armor people and it changes the dynamic of the campaign

[@2ndlevelfighter]

The tension and creative problem solving that comes out of that situation is pretty awesome.

[@williamgordon5443]

There are a couple of points that could help with party diversity that are DM dependant. What magic items do they have access to? The right magic items would do wonders. Can the party use tool proficiencies in skill checks? Mason's and carpenter's tools could be used to investigate most structures the party comes across. Smith's leather working and Weaver's can help with most armor and clothing you come across. Most tools can be useful in some way for skill checks

[@AdorkableDaughterofNyx]

in 4e, you wanted in a 5 person party, a leader, a defender, a controller, and 2 strikers. and it was more optimal to add a 3rd or 4th striker in a 6 or 7 person party before adding a second leader then a second controller. with the second defender being the 10th.

[@ChristnThms]

In general, agree 100%. But.. You go through this "qualifying statement" a couple times about groups or games that are "rules light" or "narrative based." These groups don't need to be qualified, as the conditions that make them different is that they're simply ignoring part of all of the rules. ANY case where the rules are ignored is already outside of consideration, where making decisions within the rules is the entire consideration. They're not playing an alternative ruleset or special situation. They're simply stepping outside of the rules, in many cases for very good reasons. But that's also the reason that they don't need to be qualified as a separate consideration.

[@TisAHandle]

Well you worded that very obtusely but most games ignore some of the rules whether its intentionally or by accident so talking about common ways they are ignored seems worthy to consider especially whenever the video isnt trying to reach an objective conclusion about optimisation but rather throwing out pros and cons for several scenarios.

[@moriyasanae8130]

Full team of the same class does require some clarification, so technically speaking, a Raging MoonDruid, Berserker, raging fighter and a Zealot Paladin are considered as a team of the same class in some extend, while everyone of them are unique in its way, probably also covered every aspect that is needed. (Well, they are flavorful multiclassed.) On the other hand, a team of 4 Zerkers could be a very bad idea since it covers nothing but raw power😅

[@notyours807]

An optimal party is 4 multiclassed wizards

[@Year2047]

All were one shots but I have run an all paladin party, an all barbarian party (both of those at lvl 20 and a lvl 1 one shot with the A-Men combo (all cleric)

[@2ndlevelfighter]

Love the A-men!

[@georgeseed4009]

Not a single party composition, but I have once played as a paladin in a party where 3 other players all played rogues. Backstory was that while my PC was doing some goody-goody thingies, he's found them all in a prison and they all pledged to serve his holy goodness in exchange for freedom.

[@ericrbacher9371]

4 players of the same class can create some wildly unbalanced encounters. the game is designed with the idea that there is a limit on certain resources within a party. being able to quadruple down on something can change the whole feel of the game. WIZARDS WIN. every time the party levels up they all get 2 spells and they just swap books to copy the new ones. the only reason you don't use fireball in every encounter, is because you only have so many, but with 4 wizards that isn't a problem. give them all alert and a familiar. you'll roll 8 initiative dice and always use the best 4. then pepper the battlefield with fireball or massive single target damage. Clerics

[@ericrbacher9371]

4 clerics with spirit guardians 4 assassins getting the first strike 4 raging barbarians will overwhelmed a front line 4 spellcasters summon the same creature Basically, the game was designed with the assumption that your party will be varied. specializing overwhelms an encounters ability to handle a problem unless it just happens to have the perfect defense for your 1 trick (which is super unlikely).

[@ericrbacher9371]

if the boss will use it's legendary resistance against a specific spell and 4 players have it, you drain them right away.

[@TisAHandle]

Arguably it makes it easier to create balanced encounters just harder to create a variety of them. Wizards wouldnt be optimal if the dm could balance them correctly. Theres multiple reasons you dont use fireball every time. Positioning, range, hurting your allies or npcs, fire resistance, tight spaces, flammable environments, wizards being flimsy and needing to buff themselves first to survive etc theres plenty of ways to prevent the same strategies from appearing every fight and letting the party demolish some encounters thanks to that composition and struggle in others is fun. You shouldnt be scared 24/7 to let your players use their cool moves and having them work letting that happen occasionaly can feel very rewarding in its own way

[@lordmew5]

For 1, I don't think we should be including feats as the game was not designed with them in mind. 2 copying spells isn't cheap. It costs at least 50 GP, which isn't cheap, especially when you're that low and still have to worry about things like buying rations. 3 wizards are still squishy, and now they lack any good frontline. This means this party composition has the greatest failure rate. It would rarely ever get to the levels where it could start to actually do the things you said.

[@ericrbacher9371]

@@lordmew5 the game was ABSOLUTELY designed with feats in mind. 5th edition is the first time the game was simplified to a point where they could be played with optionally. playing without them was intended as Ultra-beginner mode and without them, the characters are LESS balanced, but less complicated.

[@The482075]

I like themes: These parties aren't all balanced nor are they necessarily optimal. They are thematic. All Gish Party: Arcane Trickster Rogue Blade Singer Wizard Eldritch Knight Fighter Valour Bard All Primal Party: Barbarian (any subclass) Druid (any subclass) Ranger (any subclass) Scout Rogue Four Elements: Draconic Sorcerer (Representing Water) Tempest Cleric (Representing Air) Wildfire Druid (Representing Fire) Wizard (any subclass. Representing Earth). All Martial: Barbarian (any non magical subclass) Fighter (any non magical subclass) Monk (Open Hand or Kensai) Rogue (any non magical subclass) All Divine: Cleric (any subclass) Monk (any subclass) Paladin (any subclass) Sorcerer (Divine Soul) All Skilled: Skill Monkey Party. All 18 skills covered. Bard (any subclass) Rogue (any subclass) Ranger (any subclass) Fourth slot (any class so long as they have skilled feat)

[@Itachi45481]

Party cohesion is good but there is nothing wrong with what you choose just have to think differently and when a party is just one class is due to just having a fun session

[@bartlester591]

I’ve always tried to complement my character to the other characters that are being played. Some people don’t like that for some reason, especially when you decide to take a class. That nobody want it. and then they complain about it when you start making major attacks and and they said that your character shouldn’t be doing that good point here I was playing a halfling monk who both some spell casting ability and healing ability and they didn’t like that because they said I should be nothing more than a straight tank

[@2ndlevelfighter]

Don't worry I'm the same when making characters!

[@lancemagmer9701]

3.5 you could get awzy with straight druid, cleric, wizard or psion. Possibly even sorcerers

[@biffstrong1079]

It used to matter. A long rest in D&D in the old days would restore used spells and 0-2 HP. SO if you were running through a dungeon and you didn't want to leave after every violent encounter to spend a week in town recovering you needed a healer. Generally in 5 E everybody can do everything. Our warrior priest has the picklocks skill and has dumped a lot of skill points into perception. They are great at finding traps and opening locks. Poor old school thief is redundant. It depends on what kind of game you are playing. oh you are saying that. Professor dungeon master does a city adventure , low magic, with a party of rogues. Looks very cool.

[@Dysfunctional_Reprint]

The real question is does class even matter in a game like 5E or 24E?

[@avengingblowfish9653]

Party composition only matters with inflexible DMs who don’t tailor the game to the party.