What is your party usually lacking?

[ruy343]

I'm just curious, what type of character is generally missing from your parties, or is interpreted as "not fun to play"?

I ask because I may be joining up with another party soon, but I don't know it's composition (It's adventurer's league, and I haven't met the players yet). What are you guys generally missing in party composition in your adventures?

[Ralanr]

Usually teamwork...some days are better than others.

[Joe the Rat]

Usually teamwork...some days are better than others.

That, in spades.

From what little AL play I've had, we tend to be a little short on Intelligence. As in the stat. Haven't had an actual Wizard (though we've done okay for arcane casters), and it's turned into everyone's favorite dump stat.

[JNAProductions]

Players. I routinely play with 2 or 3 people, usually just 2.

[mephnick]

I'm the only one who ever seems to take knowledge skills, so when I DM (which is usually) my players get punished for their ignorance.

[pibby]

For our store it's the wizards and clerics, at least that's how I feel. We have plenty of pure martials, half casters, warlocks, and moon druids but not enough dedicated full casters. They're not as attractive to take for early levels compared to fighters and bear druids in terms of pure damage and silliness.

[mephnick]

But pibby, haven't you heard? No one plays martials or half-casters because they suck so bad. How are those players still having fun with the choices they've made?

[ruy343]

@mephnick Oh gosh, with all of the people on these forums saying that, this news surprised me too :P

I love wizards. I'll have to make one.

[pibby]

But pibby, haven't you heard? No one plays martials or half-casters because they suck so bad. How are those players still having fun with the choices they've made?

Lol ikr? but real talk that's why I play full casters. Plus they're more fun anyways :p

[Yorrin]

My home group just started its third 5e campaign and I think we've hit every class so far. Though our Monk died off pretty quick. That being said we've always had a Rogue, and it seems to be a favorite at our table.

[PracticalM]

My group has 6 active players and 6 more that might show up now and again. Right now no clerics, but a Paladin, a Ranger, and a Moon Druid for healing.

Truthfully the party really lacks subtleness.

[ekestrel]

Common Sense.

[Shining Wrath]

Clerics. In 5 campaigns we're had a Favored Soul (3.5) and a Paladin / Crusader (3.5), but never an actual Cleric.

I think WotC has done an excellent job with the 5e clerics, BTW. A lot of different feels on a solid base chassis.

[Flashy]

I think WotC has done an excellent job with the 5e clerics, BTW. A lot of different feels on a solid base chassis.

I couldn't agree more. I had never played a full caster before, but I am loving knowledge cleric. It really is astonishing how different the various kinds of cleric feel.

[JellyPooga]

That being said we've always had a Rogue

I reckon there's a reason for that. Personal pet theory; Rogues are inherently useful to a party, without making anyone else look or feel bad about it. Wizards? Sure they can solve every problem with a click of their fingers, but everyone else is secretly jealous. That and narked at having to stop to rest every 5 minutes. Clerics? Super-badass combat monsters, occasionally good talkers, but do you really want them preaching at you all the time? Fighters? All they want to do is, fight, drink and...the other thing.

Rogues, on the other hand, are generally likable sorts, tend to keep themselves to themselves, except when it's time to show the others how it's done and when that time comes, everyone else says "glad the rogue's here, can't do without him!". He's like the Swiss army knife of classes; handy to have around, even if it's a little awkward sometimes.

I don't think I've ever played in a party without a Rogue (usually because I'm that Rogue...). In the group I play with now;

- I've never seen a Monk (doesn't fit our idea of fantasy).
- I've played a Barbarian once, but no-one else has.
- Sorcerers/Warlocks usually come second place to Wizards.
- Druids are usually passed over for Clerics.
- Rangers and Paladins have seen play, but not often.
- I'm the only one to have played a Bard.

Heck, it's probably quicker to say; I play a panoply of different classes (defaulting to Rogue or at least a Roguish theme most of the time), but the other guys I game with play Fighters, Wizards and Clerics (but mostly Fighters); they're old-school D&Ders and it's hard to get them to see beyond the "classic" classes.

[Zevox]

Well, my RL group has only done one party so far - just wrapped up Lost Mines of Phandelver, our first campaign - but as it stands, what we feel like we're lacking is a traditional tank. Mostly because the players who were playing the more physical characters - a Battlemaster Fighter and a Ranger - just haven't been showing up much. (The Fighter player for understandable reasons, the Ranger player more from flakiness.) We get by with the Moon Druid shape-shifting (and summoning pets since he hit level 5) and the Rogue being decently durable, but if the Druid runs out of Wild Shape we can definitely feel a little squishy. (Our remaining member is myself, playing a Tome-pact/Fey patron Warlock.)

We'd also be lacking someone with particularly good knowledge scores regardless - my Warlock and the Druid have okay Arcana, but everything else nobody even took proficiency in, and obviously since none of us are Wizards, Eldritch Knights, or Arcane Tricksters, nobody made intelligence one of their higher stats.

Whether any of that will remain true in the future, we'll see. We'll still be using these characters for our next campaign, not switching to new ones until after that. I can see myself playing a great number of things - just about anything that isn't a Barbarian, albeit with an emphasis on anything with magic - but I don't know what the other players will do, since they're all totally new to D&D.

[Chadamantium]

Teamwork. Our last session they fought hobgoblins with a captain. no one wanted to help the fighter so he went down, druid used entangle and managed to trap the party(hobs passed the save), Rogue and bard bolted after escaping then taking their first hit, and ranger shot anything that got close to her.

Of course that changed completely when the party was retreating and the Captain started taunting them as they ran. Then it's all "We'll show you!" Then some elaborate plan ensues A-team style with an easy victory at the end. Why couldn't they have started with that?

Teamwork, or being less fearful. It's not like I'm out to kill them... Often.

[Ralanr]

What works? Teamwork!
So keep using the thing that works people!

[DragonLordIT]

I play in 2 groups, 1 as DM and 1 as player.
In the first they lack melee/tank characters (1 bard, 1 sorcerer, 1 wizard and 1 battlemaster), now the player with the bard will change to ranger; they found that against some kind of monsters (devils or magic resistent ones) they are going to have a very bad time; and than they see that when the battlemaster goes down (lack of luck :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: or other situations) the other 3 are going to be grinded like puppets.

In the second group we lack .. .nothing, 1 battlemaster (me, and I really like my character even if he can't cast a damned cantrip :smallamused::smallamused::smallamused:), 1 berserk barbarian, 1 wizard, 1 druid and a rogue.

In general in both groups warlocks are seen as terrible options, I woul like to try the shadow monk but it will be for the future.

The thing that is really absent is real role playing, every action that would mean roleplaying is always seen as "but it is not the best option!!!"; metagaming then is a terrible player itself :smallfurious:

[Giant2005]

Full casters of all varieties tend to be pretty rare, with the exception of Bards and Warlocks.

[Millface]

In the last year and 3 sets of characters between two different gaming groups I have yet to see a single Barbarian.

It's interesting seeing the differences, most tables seem to have a problem with INT being a dump stat, whereas I would LOVE to see the Big Stupid Fighter make an appearance at some point.

We've had two bards, two warlocks, two wizards, two sorcerers, two clerics, two druids, one fighter, two rogues, two rangers, two paladins and zero Barbarians.

[GiantOctopodes]

1. Restraint.

2. Teamwork.

3. Stable long term plans.

Also, characters good at tactical positioning (grapplers, open hand monks, battlemaster fighters, repelling blast warlocks, etc). We very often fight on the enemy's terms instead of our own as a result.

[Millface]

1. Restraint.

2. Teamwork.

3. Stable long term plans.

Also, characters good at tactical positioning (grapplers, open hand monks, battlemaster fighters, repelling blast warlocks, etc). We very often fight on the enemy's terms instead of our own as a result.

Do you DM or play? In my experience this can be fixed by a clever DM.

[Tenmujiin]

Arcane casters tend to be absent in my group.

That and common sense

[GiantOctopodes]

Do you DM or play? In my experience this can be fixed by a clever DM.

I both DM and play, and I certainly agree. It's more that the majority of the group likes the chaos and putting themselves at a disadvantaged position routinely, and doesn't have any fun when we tactically prep and as a result absolutely roll over the opposition. That and the DMs have enough experience to where they know exactly the right kind of shiny objects to dangle in front of the party to distract them from their current quest.

[Millface]

I both DM and play, and I certainly agree. It's more that the majority of the group likes the chaos and putting themselves at a disadvantaged position routinely, and doesn't have any fun when we tactically prep and as a result absolutely roll over the opposition. That and the DMs have enough experience to where they know exactly the right kind of shiny objects to dangle in front of the party to distract them from their current quest.

Ah, ok! That's certainly a different story altogether then. As far as long term goals, that's something I routinely take a moment with each of my players to talk about. When they don't have them they get bored much faster, no matter what I throw at them. Knowing what they all want also allows me to craft certain elements of the overall campaign around the characters. If they have a goal it's as much my job as theirs to make sure they have the opportunity to work on completing it.

As far as rolling over the opposition... maybe make it harder? A well executed plan to defeat an enemy that otherwise would have rolled over you feels really good. A well executed plan that was entirely unnecessary because the encounter was easy anyway is not as gratifying, certainly.

To those that are missing full casting classes... do you find that your tables are typically newer players? I have trouble getting anyone but newbies to play martial classes, even if I really need one. My Vets are always casters. Would be interested to hear that there are actually veteran fighters out there!

[AmbientRaven]

The game I dm my players seem to lack stealth and tactics that aren't "rush the gates" (Though they do thoroughly plan their rush the gates tactics)

In the Games I have played
-Clerics
-Int Characters
-Someone who is more than 2 levels of fighter
-Someone who is more than 2 levels of warlock
and it seems 3/5 of most parties i play are charisma based

[Yagyujubei]

im gonna go with full commitment. MOST of us are top notch RPers and know our characters back to front, but there's always one spot we need to fill, and it's always filled with a scrub.

oh ill just be a ranger...i fire my bow, i fire my bow, bow attack, im shooting

"uhh...do you wanna use some spells? or hunters mark or something"

"whats hunters mark?"

/WRIST

[Dimcair]

brainz....

/edit: and rules knowledge across the board. It helps the DM a lot if you know at least your ****.

[-Jynx-]

Mostly my group of players lacks diverse ideas. It's always a run and gun, shoot first ask questions later, we don't negotiate with terrorists kind of mentality. They may try diplomacy for a moment, or attempt a level of tactful social interactions which immediately leads to aggressive intimidation/torturing/murder.

Sure I could punish them at every turn, sick the police on them, have an angry mob chase them or send another group of adventurers after them. However they will treat the resistance like any encounter and fight to their last breathe with an overzealous misplaced valor. If they die they die. They reroll and move on.

A brute force mentality if you will.

[The Shadowdove]

Mostly my group of players lacks diverse ideas. It's always a run and gun, shoot first ask questions later, we don't negotiate with terrorists kind of mentality. They may try diplomacy for a moment, or attempt a level of tactful social interactions which immediately leads to aggressive intimidation/torturing/murder.

Sure I could punish them at every turn, sick the police on them, have an angry mob chase them or send another group of adventurers after them. However they will treat the resistance like any encounter and fight to their last breathe with an overzealous misplaced valor. If they die they die. They reroll and move on.

A brute force mentality if you will.

this... My party has all died twice over except for myself.

They all make pure damage or 2d characters and try to look cool. Our rogue is a typical assassin's creed wannabe..

Meanwhile, my monk has established a weaponsmithing/gunpowder empire and used their lack of strategy/tendency to facecheck things as an excuse to continue hiring their characters as my employees with no health insurance/liabilities.

I just take a larger portion and invest it whenever someone dies.. then hire their new characters with lower pay since they're normally 'inexperienced' or 'in need of work'.

Our DM is pretty by the book... and as a result monsters have a good chance of offing / tpking parties if they don't put much thought into their approach.

The one who has survived the longest alongside my guy actually died the first session, but was reincarnated and learned his lesson.

[Millface]

Mostly my group of players lacks diverse ideas. It's always a run and gun, shoot first ask questions later, we don't negotiate with terrorists kind of mentality. They may try diplomacy for a moment, or attempt a level of tactful social interactions which immediately leads to aggressive intimidation/torturing/murder.

Sure I could punish them at every turn, sick the police on them, have an angry mob chase them or send another group of adventurers after them. However they will treat the resistance like any encounter and fight to their last breathe with an overzealous misplaced valor. If they die they die. They reroll and move on.

A brute force mentality if you will.

Some tables only have fun like that. I made a post a while back about Character Players and Class Players. At my table who your character is is more important than what they can do, at yours obviously the Class is more important, what they can do and how cool they are doing it.

Neither was is wrong, and the DM should be adjusting to the desires of his players. If the DM wants Character play and the players don't though that's going to be an issue. You have to sync up or someone isn't going to have fun. Unfortunately it happens, and sometimes you just have to call it.

[BranMan]

In the 5e AL games I've been in, I have observed a significant lack in Barbarians, but that likely varies depending on the store. When I started AL, we had 3 monks, and now we have zero, so it definitely varies a lot by who shows up. Because of this, if you don't have a strong character concept in mind, try to play a versatile character. Clerics are always a good idea, as everyone likes having another healer in the party, and they can tank or shoot from the back if necessarily. While it's true that many parties lack intelligence, playing a wizard with few defenses can be a death sentence if there's no tank in the party. Barbarians, bards, and clerics would be my suggestion, with druids and paladins also working fairly well.

[Millface]

In the 5e AL games I've been in, I have observed a significant lack in Barbarians, but that likely varies depending on the store. When I started AL, we had 3 monks, and now we have zero, so it definitely varies a lot by who shows up. Because of this, if you don't have a strong character concept in mind, try to play a versatile character. Clerics are always a good idea, as everyone likes having another healer in the party, and they can tank or shoot from the back if necessarily. While it's true that many parties lack intelligence, playing a wizard with few defenses can be a death sentence if there's no tank in the party. Barbarians, bards, and clerics would be my suggestion, with druids and paladins also working fairly well.

This is why I don't so much like the concept of AL. I love that it gives people a chance to play who otherwise wouldn't, but you just can't beat sitting around the gaming table with your best friends. You can actually talk together at creation and make an interesting and diverse party that's fun for everyone.

[ruy343]

@ millface : My groups have recently fallen apart, and can't seem to get back together. That's really the only reason I'm even considering AL...

Anyways, your suggestions have seemed to fit a common theme: Barbarians, Clerics, and Wizards. Those are, honestly, my favorite classes. I'll just make one of each and show up, just so that I can fit in with whatever it is that they need.

Thanks, all!

[Scarab112]

Oddly enough, nobody in my group likes playing full casters. The most magical character in the group is a ranger.

[Slipperychicken]

We get very few arcane casters. The ones we have are almost always played by yours truly. Our group perceives them as weak because we always play level 1-4, and I tend to play utility/control types because everyone else tends to have damage covered. As much as our group frowns on the idea of murderhobo-ing, we play hack-and-slash games where direct violence is pretty much always the most effective way of solving our problems (looters aren't going to suddenly drop their weapons and repent because you said "please").

We also have very little understanding of the rules. I swear to god every one of them (aside from myself and the DM) needs to hear the save DC and attack roll formulas three times per turn. Even when they're staring right at the same unchanged numbers every week, they can never quite wrap their heads around "strength plus proficiency bonus".

[Ralanr]

My group is surprisingly balanced class wise.
Two front line, one utility, two casters.

We usually don't have a healer though.

[1Forge]

Common sense and morals ;p.

But no assume they have a tank and a spellcaster. Fill I as healer, or skill monkey. For this I recommend bard (they can fill any role) or if you know you have a healer and don't want to play bard be a rogue.

Clerics and bards can usually integrate well into any group, though rangers are often welcome in a larger group that might already have the primary roles fulfilled.

[WampDiesel]

Definitely focus on the task at hand. Druid is talking to plants and sheep. Sneaky person sneaking off. Paladin giving rambling mediocre speeches about righteousness. Barbarian getting into trouble in town. Or just everywhere. Wizard hiding dangerous magic from people. Sorcerer trying to kidnap a child... (druid intervened) Standard dysfunctional murder-hobo nonsense. Goodfun.

Compromise. Everyone has their own ideas on how to approach a situation and nobody can decide what is the best. Then we argue about charging headlong because we always solve everything with violence and eventually we just give up and barge in through the front door anyway.

[Ralanr]

In short, the quality of the party (I.e teamwork) is often considered more important and useful than the quantity (class make up) of the party.

Yeah I stretched that a bit, but I think it gets the point across.

[Millface]

I definitely noticed a surge of progress one day when my four "Core" players were the only ones present. I call them that because they're my best, and because they're the ones who always show up, every week. I have two or three who come and go, and they're good too, but I was amazed at how much smoother it was with just the four of them.

Says alot about teamwork over numbers. Monk/Warlock/Wizard/Bard, so no full healer, no full tank. It's like a party full of Red Mages. They really work well together though.

[b4ndito]

Our group is about 2 years old, and started with no experience whatsoever. Because of bad rookie DM'ing (at the outset), the group will literally never split up. The rogue won't sneak ahead for info because he's always been blighted by unnecessary and outrageous traps. For being one of the most interesting classes out there, it has turned into a really ****ty archer at our table. (This is all 3.5 btw).

I'm taking over at DM and introducing 5e and really want to present the opportunity to make that class special again.

[Millface]

Our group is about 2 years old, and started with no experience whatsoever. Because of bad rookie DM'ing (at the outset), the group will literally never split up. The rogue won't sneak ahead for info because he's always been blighted by unnecessary and outrageous traps. For being one of the most interesting classes out there, it has turned into a really ****ty archer at our table. (This is all 3.5 btw).

I'm taking over at DM and introducing 5e and really want to present the opportunity to make that class special again.

Biggest mistake I always see DMs making is that they place more importance on their scenarios or stories than they do on making sure the players are having fun. You have to box them in without them ever feeling like they're being boxed. That means knowing their characters and shaping your campaign around them as they grow. That means sometimes throwing out a plot hook and replacing it. It means letting them ruin a story because you anticipated that they might and you have a contingency. Above all it means giving them a world that you poured your heart into while not being afraid to let them change it and leave their mark.

You have to make each character feel important, make sure they all know their strengths and give them opportunities to use them. Above all, you have to realize that the game is about them, not you. Their stories, not yours.

[coredump]

Oddly enough..... my local group (30ish players AL) has almost no rogues.... Its weird, we can never open a chest or locked door...

[Slipperychicken]

I definitely noticed a surge of progress one day when my four "Core" players were the only ones present. I call them that because they're my best, and because they're the ones who always show up, every week. I have two or three who come and go, and they're good too, but I was amazed at how much smoother it was with just the four of them.

I saw a similar effect. Group size, paying attention, and knowing rules have a big impact on the speed sessions move at. I maintain that the ideal number of players is around 2-4.

When it was just 2 players and DM, and all three of us were attentive and had the rules more or less down, it was crazy how efficient we were. We could get like twice as much done as we normally could. It got to the point where the DM would run out of material and we'd end early.

[Millface]

I saw a similar effect. Group size, paying attention, and knowing rules have a big impact on the speed sessions move at. I maintain that the ideal number of players is around 2-4.

When it was just 2 players and DM, and all three of us were attentive and had the rules more or less down, it was crazy how efficient we were. We could get like twice as much done as we normally could. It got to the point where the DM would run out of material and we'd end early.


Two players and DM is interesting, and I think it's cool that you made it work. I don't think I'd be able to have fun with that though. I need at least 4 because it opens up so much in the way of character interaction when you have more people. Friendships, bonds, rivalries, even hatred at times all become infinitely more likely and possible with more players. It can also cause the group to be somewhat fractured at times, I'll admit, but typically there's one solid nuetral to good character to kind of bring it all on point when that happens.

As long as they stay in character I actually don't mind when most of my session is spent in discussion rather than action, as long as they're having fun with it.

[Ramshack]

For our store it's the wizards and clerics, at least that's how I feel. We have plenty of pure martials, half casters, warlocks, and moon druids but not enough dedicated full casters. They're not as attractive to take for early levels compared to fighters and bear druids in terms of pure damage and silliness.

That's how it is at my table. GWF Barbarians seem to rule the low the level field and everyone is always making rogues, barbs, pallys and fighters in my campaign. Current Campaign I'm DMing has a Bar, pally, Fighter and Wizard/Fighter Multiclass.

And in a campaign I'm playing with we have a a barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Bard, Paladin and I'm playing a sorcerer.

[Vortling]

Tactics.

We have 8 players so there's rarely any uncovered role and if something ends up uncovered I'm usually filling it. We've been playing the same campaign for the past six months though so we haven't seen some classes yet. No barbarians, bards, or clerics have been seen in our group yet.

[Sigreid]

Biggest mistake I always see DMs making is that they place more importance on their scenarios or stories than they do on making sure the players are having fun. You have to box them in without them ever feeling like they're being boxed. That means knowing their characters and shaping your campaign around them as they grow. That means sometimes throwing out a plot hook and replacing it. It means letting them ruin a story because you anticipated that they might and you have a contingency. Above all it means giving them a world that you poured your heart into while not being afraid to let them change it and leave their mark.

You have to make each character feel important, make sure they all know their strengths and give them opportunities to use them. Above all, you have to realize that the game is about them, not you. Their stories, not yours.

I don't understand why you have to box them in. I ask them what their characters might be interested in, toss them a few hooks and see where this takes us.

On topic I would say what we're usually lacking is time. I've got a great group that's been together a long time. We're just all grown ups that have to put RL ahead of the game.

[Millface]

I don't understand why you have to box them in. I ask them what their characters might be interested in, toss them a few hooks and see where this takes us.

On topic I would say what we're usually lacking is time. I've got a great group that's been together a long time. We're just all grown ups that have to put RL ahead of the game.

I consider the realm of things and actions I've planned for "the box". You want them inside that as much as possible, but you don't want to force it, so what a good DM does is pay attention to the characters at his table and expand the box.

They can do anything they want, but because I know them well and many of my hooks were designed to encourage deeper character thought I can almost always predict how they'll respond to the hooks I give them. They'll finish up and say "Wow, what a random chain of events!", but it's not random at all. They just don't know that it was all designed that way. Box. Not "You have to do what I want you to do and nothing else."

If they leave it I adjust, but the longer they stay in it the more material they'll have that is fleshed out and rich, instead of made up and rushed. Not that they don't contribute just as much to the telling of the story as I do, they certainly do.

[Coidzor]

So far? Minions.

They keep killing off any ogres we encounter instead of letting me capture them and make them into pets.

And our only goblin minion is the one who panicked and ran away, leading us to the hostage we were looking for who we then charmed and enslaved after the charm wore off. Amusingly, being our thrall was a better deal than he had been getting.

[Brendanicus]

I maintain that the ideal number of players is around 2-4.4 I cn buy, but 2 or 3 just seems like it's lacking. If you have 4 or more players, it opens up the door for more elaborate strategies and player interactions.

4 is probably the best size, but all of my games end up being 6 people because I have too many friends who I could play D&D with, and only 3 DM's in my greater acquaintance circle. I like having 6, because that means I can play with a lot of people who enjoy playing with, but combat gets slowed down tremendously. I'm not even sure how the large group is going to handle my upcoming, plot-heavy game; I've only run hack-n-slash fests up until now.

On topic: My group tends to be well-balanced. People tend to avoid any full arcane casters except for Warlocks. They don't like being useless without spell slots. Given that they will be facing large crowds of enemies, they will regret not having the AOE that a blaster mage provides.

[Ramshack]

4 I cn buy, but 2 or 3 just seems like it's lacking. If you have 4 or more players, it opens up the door for more elaborate strategies and player interactions.

4 is probably the best size, but all of my games end up being 6 people because I have too many friends who I could play D&D with, and only 3 DM's in my greater acquaintance circle. I like having 6, because that means I can play with a lot of people who enjoy playing with, but combat gets slowed down tremendously. I'm not even sure how the large group is going to handle my upcoming, plot-heavy game; I've only run hack-n-slash fests up until now.

On topic: My group tends to be well-balanced. People tend to avoid any full arcane casters except for Warlocks. They don't like being useless without spell slots. Given that they will be facing large crowds of enemies, they will regret not having the AOE that a blaster mage provides.

I prefer 3-4. I normally play NPCs at time for various story telling purposes so when I have to control a character it doesnt feel too crowded. Plus combat moves very quickly. Though more people tends to more interaction and outside the box thinking.

[ZeltArruin]

In my Pathfinder games that don't use battlegrids, just the theater of [the dm's] mind: strategy, tactics, coordination, teamwork. All things that could be solved by having a grid so I could use my reach to actually matter =I. Also healers.

In my 5th ed games...uh...we're pretty good. But this is my core of rpg players, we've all been playing since we were single digit aged (and we're all well into our 20s now).

[dropbear8mybaby]

Brains. Honestly, I don't know what some people expect when they play. If you go off in the middle of a fight down a corridor and around a corner, then the chances of finding more enemies or traps that will result in a TPK from overwhelming odds is pretty significant.

Same with NPC interactions. I'm constantly left to throw my hands up and say things like, "Well... what'd you expect the reaction would be to you saying you'd like to fondle his wife?"

[Tenmujiin]

Brains. Honestly, I don't know what some people expect when they play. If you go off in the middle of a fight down a corridor and around a corner, then the chances of finding more enemies or traps that will result in a TPK from overwhelming odds is pretty significant.

Same with NPC interactions. I'm constantly left to throw my hands up and say things like, "Well... what'd you expect the reaction would be to you saying you'd like to fondle his wife?"

Yea, my group can be like that: "I'm going to hire a prostitute and then take her back to my room and eat her." "*Sigh* Do you pick an elf or human?" If he had have chosen human the local, rather racist, authorities wouldn't have particularly cared about the disappearance so of course he picks an elf...

And yes, that guy has problems.

[wasgreg]

Definitely focus on the task at hand. Druid is talking to plants and sheep. Sneaky person sneaking off. Paladin giving rambling mediocre speeches about righteousness. Barbarian getting into trouble in town. Or just everywhere. Wizard hiding dangerous magic from people. Sorcerer trying to kidnap a child... (druid intervened) Standard dysfunctional murder-hobo nonsense. Goodfun.

Compromise. Everyone has their own ideas on how to approach a situation and nobody can decide what is the best. Then we argue about charging headlong because we always solve everything with violence and eventually we just give up and barge in through the front door anyway.
This sounds like an awesome game.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Compromise. Everyone has their own ideas on how to approach a situation and nobody can decide what is the best. Then we argue about charging headlong because we always solve everything with violence and eventually we just give up and barge in through the front door anyway.
This sums up pretty much 99% of party's every where.

As a player I tend towards chaotic good types solely because I always end up being frustrated by people who take half an hour discussing how to open a door and then kill everyone when they finally do open it. So I just say, "I open the door," if everyone has taken longer than a minute to get their crap together. And instead of killing everyone, I make sure there's at least one person left alive to interrogate.

[Malifice]

To those that haven't seen a Barbarian in full flight, prepare yourselves.

One of those classes that looks a bit 'meh' on paper, but in practice it is highly effective.

Have a Half Orc GWF barb in the party at present. 3rd level, bear totem. House rule is everyone gets a bonus feat at 1st (hence the GWM). Packing a greataxe. Str and Con 16.

1d12+15 damage per round (with advantage, so average roll to hit a 15 and a with solid 15 percent chance of a crit per swing for 3d12+15 is pretty devastating). 35 HP at 3rd level, so impossible to drop with resistance to damage from rage/ totem and danger sense. Effectively 70 HP at 3rd level. He drops a mook (or scores a critical hit) and he gains an extra swing dealing the same damage. Advantage on strength checks and saves means he is never held/ grappled/ restrained.

They are fantastic tanks. In built mechanism to encourage getting targeted over other PC's via reckless attack and hitting harder than anyone else so being a no-brainer target for most monsters.

He's pushing through to 5th level in Barbarian and may dip 3 levels into Fighter after (probably Champion - he's a 'point at enemy and smash' kind of player).

The swashbuckler nearly matches him for damage most turns but is a ton squishier (lower Con, smaller HD, no defensive abilities). He makes up for that with mobility via cunning action and the Swashbuckler mobility feature (move + attack + bonus action to TWF + move away with no AoO thanks to swashbuckler is a nice offensive and defensive ability). Has a high charisma and tons of skills to work as the party face and fulfills the skill monkey role excellently (when not rolling poor - his dice hate him).

The Moon druid tanks nearly as hard as the Barbarian while in Bear form, but comes with a ton more utility via wild shape (has already spider form scouted, used its silk to good effect and a few other uses), and occasional spell casting. Uses his knowledge skills OOC (and high perception score) to good use too. Makes use of the healer feat to good effect and keep the party going.

We have room for a Wizard or Sorcerer in the party. Possibly a Bard. Anyone in Perth, Western Australia that wants a game, PM me :)

[Kane0]

1) Focus
2) Caution
3) A moral compass pointing north
Not necessarily in that order

[zinycor]

This sums up pretty much 99% of party's every where.

As a player I tend towards chaotic good types solely because I always end up being frustrated by people who take half an hour discussing how to open a door and then kill everyone when they finally do open it. So I just say, "I open the door," if everyone has taken longer than a minute to get their crap together. And instead of killing everyone, I make sure there's at least one person left alive to interrogate.

But... making stupidly elaborate plans that have no way of working is half the fun...

[Mrmox42]

My group has lacked Clerics since 1989 when we started playing. The reason for this is the simple fact that my players, bloody minded individualists each and every one of them, absolutely hate the idea of prostrating themselves before anything or anyone, god or not.

I usually supply them with NPC Clerics, who tend to die a lot.

[KorvinStarmast]

My group has lacked Clerics since 1989 when we started playing. The reason for this is the simple fact that my players, bloody minded individualists each and every one of them, absolutely hate the idea of prostrating themselves before anything or anyone, god or not.

I usually supply them with NPC Clerics, who tend to die a lot. In some religious sects, being a martyr is a high calling. :smallbiggrin:

[Ardantis]

Our current party is lacking healing.

We have a warlock (damage) a pally/fighter (damage) a bard (debuffing) and a rogue/barbarian (grappling).

Actually, we're a little short on AOE damage at the moment, but I think that's mainly because we're level 4 and the fiend pact warlock hasn't picked up fireball yet.

[Shining Wrath]

My group has lacked Clerics since 1989 when we started playing. The reason for this is the simple fact that my players, bloody minded individualists each and every one of them, absolutely hate the idea of prostrating themselves before anything or anyone, god or not.

I usually supply them with NPC Clerics, who tend to die a lot.

It's amusing to me that my party all think of themselves as chaotic idealists and yet everyone always sits in the same chair, every game.

[dropbear8mybaby]

It's amusing to me that my party all think of themselves as chaotic idealists and yet everyone always sits in the same chair, every game.

As a player I try to choose a seat randomly solely to upset this balance. As a DM though, whenever I suggest changing up seating positions I get my head bitten off. People are weird.

[Ralanr]

As a player I try to choose a seat randomly solely to upset this balance. As a DM though, whenever I suggest changing up seating positions I get my head bitten off. People are weird.

Dislike of change...it burns us!!!

[Ogre Mage]

People seem to avoid the ranger (admittedly not a very popular choice at large in 5E), the druid (which is actually considered one of the better classes) and the monk. The unfortunate side effect of this has been a lack of wilderness powers and skills. The cleric, paladin, wizard, rogue and bard tend to be the most popular classes. The bard being popular is a big change from earlier editions.

Race-wise I have yet to see a Dragonborn, Half-Orc or Tiefling at any 5E table. The usual suspects -- Dwarf, Elf and (variant) Human -- are popular. The Half-Elf is much more popular than in the past and now ranks with the most popular races.

[Mrmox42]

It's amusing to me that my party all think of themselves as chaotic idealists and yet everyone always sits in the same chair, every game.

Precisely. They (me included) think up interesting and new twists to their characters and end up playing the same type every time, only with different armor and/or spells.


As a player I try to choose a seat randomly solely to upset this balance. As a DM though, whenever I suggest changing up seating positions I get my head bitten off. People are weird.

This is very bold, indeed. It would never work at my gaming table. The very thought! (shudders) :smallwink:

[hymer]

In my country we have a saying: We don't have reserved seats, we just sit where we usually do.

In my group, few people want to play prepared full casters apart from me, and most prefer to play non-casters alltogether. Reading through so many spells, all the book keeping, and staying on top of so many options is just not on.
This goes for 5e as well, so we usually end up with a lack of Intelligence and to a lesser degree healing/restoration magic.

[kilatok669]

I don't think I've ever played in a party with a bard. I think it's because I usually play with new players that don't roleplay much; I figure it's either that instrumental magic doesn't sound that exciting to a new player or it seems like it would be difficult to roleplay. The latter is why I haven't tried one yet.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think I've ever played in a party with a bard. I think it's because I usually play with new players that don't roleplay much; I figure it's either that instrumental magic doesn't sound that exciting to a new player or it seems like it would be difficult to roleplay. The latter is why I haven't tried one yet.
Back in 1e when it was really hard to become a bard, I finally put one together. You had to already have scored some thief and fighter levels, then change class.
You had to have 15 in strength, wisdom, dexterity and charisma. Also needed a 12 Int and a 10 constitution. (We had to find a book to get my Wisdom up to 15). With a Con of 12, I wasn't that great of a fighter/tank, but we had a pretty good party mix.)

Bards ... remain exclusively fighters until they have achieved at least the 5th level of experience ... prior to attaining the 8th level ... they must change their class to that of thieves. Sometime between 5th and 9th level of {thief} ability, bards must leave off thieving and begin clerical studies as druids; but at this time they are actually bards and under druidical tutelage.
So off to college I went!

After all of that work, I got up to third level bard and our gaming group broke up. Some ... the DM and his wife being the hub of our gaming wheel, their departure was the clincher.

I am so glad it's easier to be a bard these days ...

[zinycor]

Back in 1e when it was really hard to become a bard, I finally put one together. You had to already have scored some thief and fighter levels, then change class.
You had to have 15 in strength, wisdom, dexterity and charisma. Also needed a 12 Int and a 10 constitution. (We had to find a book to get my Wisdom up to 15). With a Con of 12, I wasn't that great of a fighter/tank, but we had a pretty good party mix.)

So off to college I went!

After all of that work, I got up to third level bard and our gaming group broke up. Some ... the DM and his wife being the hub of our gaming wheel, their departure was the clincher.

I am so glad it's easier to be a bard these days ...

These days it's easy to play a paladin :D on ADnD you required godlike stats in order to play one.

[N810]

Hmmm...

Restraint,
common sense,
sound tactics.

you know the usual. :smalleek:

[Ardantis]

These days it's easy to play a paladin :D on ADnD you required godlike stats in order to play one.

I started in 3, when Pallys and Bards were easy to play, but widely considered underpowered.

I'm so glad that in 5e, Bards are full casters and Pallys have awesome unbounded smites!

[Talderas]

To quote Helmuth von Moltke...

"No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy."

My group usually creates and agrees on an elaborate plan on paper at which point we immediately discard it on engagement rather than any action of the enemy. Fortunately two of our five PCs have strong tactical options (Bard that focuses on debuffing the enemy, eldritch knight which focuses on area denial), a paladin, and two bow users (ranger, rogue). So the lack of following a coherent plan generally pans out for us.

Our group also generally lacks PC barbarians, clerics, druids, monks, and to a lesser extent sorcerers.

[Khaelo]

At my AL table, we are not lacking barbarians. At all. A few sessions ago, we had three barbarians in a party of six. :smalleek: Clerics come and go, as do paladins and monks. I'm the druid. We usually have a warlock, and a fighter. The only class I haven't seen yet is bard.

[bardo]

We switched the campaign from 3.5 to 5th not too long ago. Most of us also play in a Pathfinder campaign, so we are just constantly confused about the rules. Movement, multiple attacks, attacks of opportunity, flanking, spells that have the same name in all 3 systems but work differently in each one.

We're missing a Rule Player. Sad, but true.

Bardo

[Shining Wrath]

People seem to avoid the ranger (admittedly not a very popular choice at large in 5E), the druid (which is actually considered one of the better classes) and the monk. The unfortunate side effect of this has been a lack of wilderness powers and skills. The cleric, paladin, wizard, rogue and bard tend to be the most popular classes. The bard being popular is a big change from earlier editions.

Race-wise I have yet to see a Dragonborn, Half-Orc or Tiefling at any 5E table. The usual suspects -- Dwarf, Elf and (variant) Human -- are popular. The Half-Elf is much more popular than in the past and now ranks with the most popular races.

My current campaign features (going clockwise around the table): Bard, Monk, Wizard, Druid, Fighter, and Ranger.


These days it's easy to play a paladin :D on ADnD you required godlike stats in order to play one.

That 17 charisma with 15 wisdom pretty much meant the DM had to let you roll multiple sets of 6 ability scores until you got a good one.

[KorvinStarmast]

That 17 charisma with 15 wisdom pretty much meant the DM had to let you roll multiple sets of 6 ability scores until you got a good one. Yep. When you look at how dice and odds work out, you had to get a bit of divine intervention to roll up a Paladin, which sets the stage rather nicely! :smallbiggrin: Only ever played with two paladins in the 1e era, and one in the pre 1e era ... it was too hard for one to occur.

I played a Ranger only once, but thanks to lucky die rolls (4d6drop1) had an 18 str that got a 98 percentile roll along with the other stats I needed to qualify.

Very, very lucky that day.

[Thisguy_]

We don't happen to have common sense very often, although I am lately privvy to playing a higher WIS character than usual and roleplay him as such. We have dickloads of healing with a life cleric and a druid, but something I think we are missing is control. We have plenty of heals, some of us can take a good, solid hit, and we've got melee and spell-blasting covered. My main group's party makeup this time is actually really solid.

I'm participating in a side venture that was set up to get someone comfortable enough with playing to try DMing. That party only has a Paladin for heals, and since we're doing HotDQ (which I hear is brutal) we were feeling like we lack real heals. Just got a character in with solid healing, but the party is a touch on the... large side, so he's got his hands more than full.

Our main group's normal DM is on break as a character, and he tends to play as a healer - feeling like the party druid (myself) will have to pick up slack when he's put on a bus and our DM for this particular segment of the campaign drops his character into the mix, as we'll be out of heals then, too.

So, long story short, heals seem to be what I personally lack in the groups I play in, and lack most often.

[Vogonjeltz]

Wisdom. Everyone in our party dumped that stat thinking someone else would surely take it. We play our characters as correspondingly unwise with a very "jump first look later" style, but so far it hasn't proven to be a problem. Action before Thought, that's our motto, or something like it.

Oh and serious AoE, only the Bard really has that.

[Ralanr]

Clerics and similar support classes are rare at my table. Combined with squishy casters, tanky front liners, and in between dps, I'm surprised we haven't had a TPK.

Or any deaths of a PC that wasn't story focused. Granted we've only played for 3 years.

Edit: Oh wait this is 5e. No one has mained a fighter.

[Atalas]

Typically we lack:

1. Morals. I'm usually the nicest guy in the party, and two sessions ago I used Heat Metal on a dwarf in plate. didn't let up even when he ran. Sadly, the armor was ruined by the heat and unsalvageable.
2. Subtlety (we can BE subtle, but the ones who think about it don't play subtle classes. Ever seen a goliath paladin in full plate try a Stealth check? it's only funny until he rolls better than the Rogue with Expertise in it, then it's hilarious)
3. And we're 50/50 on making smart choices. On the plus side, the ones who make dumb choices learn pretty well. They don't repeat mistakes, just make new ones.
4. A dedicated healer/support if I'm not playing one. The only other guy who can reliably play a healer/support prefers playing heavy damage melee.

When I started up my campaign, I wanted to try and get everyone out of their comfort zone. So, I took the Reincarnation table, expanded it to include all base and UA races at that point in time (everything but the minotaur), and made them roll for class. To make matters more fun, I told the guy who had already played an Assassin twice that he couldn't pick an assassin (dragonborn assassin would have been interesting RP-wise though). He was a good sport about it and took the chance to give a caster, Eldritch Knight, a try.

Besides that, we usually have a fairly solid group. When we start a new campaign, we listen to what everyone would like to play, and then adjust as needed. We try not to over-specialize because we all realize that diversity keeps us from being pinned down, and allows the DM to come up with a wide variety of challenges. And to focus on the one who would be our savior if a certain skillset is about to be needed, he can make them irrelevant somehow so the rest of the party has to fudge it themselves. Whole party but our Rogue once got captured by some local authorities with the help of some mercs. Rogue's player wasn't there and the set-up had allowed for the Rogue to just be elsewhere. He comes in, slaughters the entire town guard in style, and frees us. I was bound and gagged (Lore Bard) so I couldn't talk us out. Or use Mage Hand to snag keys.

The hallmark of a good DM though is to take what player's and class option you've been given and work them out within your narrative. If said options lead to the end of the campaign kickstarting the apocalypse, oh well, that's what you had to work with.

[djreynolds]

Cleric is the winner. We need healing desperately. Our ranger stole a potion of healing to hide because the wizard kept using them. My fighter said these are for the tanks, you're not helping swinging around that quaterstaff. Go in the back and throw rocks if you're out if spells. Then the monk caught on about the healing potions and that one was missing and where did it go. And the wizard can fight on the front lines if she wants to. Now everyone is talking about multiclassing into cleric. But after the first long rest and everyone is healed its business as usual.

[Inevitability]

Healing has been a bit low in the party I DM. They used to have a Paladin, a Rogue, a Wizard, and a Monk, which meant people were getting knocked out left and right. As of late, however, the rogue has taken a level in bard and the monk has been replaced by a ranger so I hope things will improve.

[Naanomi]

I've played in three 'multi-year mega campaigns' in my time. All conspicuously lacked something

One (2e) had a big party but no one knew anything Lore wise. We were bumbling idiots. Monsters, what is it... Attack! I was the wizard but really would be a sorcerer or warlock in 3e+.

The second (changed systems a few times, 2.5e, palladium, hackmaster, even earthdawn) no one had any strong characters. Lots of fun blowing through combat only to struggle moving the heavy door afterwords... A pulley? Telekenisis? No replacement for raw strength sometimes.

The last (3.5) no one could pick a lock or disarm a trap. We could see the traps, then puzzle how to avoid them or set them off from a distance since no one could do anything about it. Lots of doors taken off hinges to bypass the lock.

[DemonSlayer6]

Direction, usually. And intelligence. "Bad cleric. Bad. No fighting the friendly three-headed magical beast." was something I never thought I would have to say.

Otherwise, it depends on who is missing. Our Cleric is critical when we face enemies, especially in prolonged adventures. Likewise, it's our Fighter who leads the group into combat when required. Both within and outside of combat, they protect the team.

Our Sorceress is awesome at combat because her solution to any problem is always the highly-effective "fireball", but is also the social mediator of the group.

Our Druid and Monk are variable. Neither are social, but they have their uses. The monk has so far infiltrated this evil cult multiple times successfully without any form of disguise; not even on high rolls, but just his monk-ness making him unassuming and non-imposing. And the druid was our saving grace when we needed someone to talk to the giants and convince them to help us overthrow the cult. Though they are also effective in combat...not as heavy as the Fighter, Cleric, or Sorceress but still pretty solid.

The last character of our group is my Bard. Who tries to fill in the missing roles. The cleric is running late? Without Opal, the team would have faced a TPK instead of an almost-TPK. The fighter isn't coming? Slice slice, the giant lost both its heads and the flesh golem is hacked to bits. The sorceress is sick? Seduce or shatter, both are sure to succeed.

And Opal also provides intelligence by her having an auto "plus half proficiency" to all ability checks she isn't proficient in. Including intelligence checks. Which is odd since her Intelligence score is 10, but it is what it is.

[djreynolds]

I've played in three 'multi-year mega campaigns' in my time. All conspicuously lacked something

One (2e) had a big party but no one knew anything Lore wise. We were bumbling idiots. Monsters, what is it... Attack! I was the wizard but really would be a sorcerer or warlock in 3e+.

The second (changed systems a few times, 2.5e, palladium, hackmaster, even earthdawn) no one had any strong characters. Lots of fun blowing through combat only to struggle moving the heavy door afterwords... A pulley? Telekenisis? No replacement for raw strength sometimes.

The last (3.5) no one could pick a lock or disarm a trap. We could see the traps, then puzzle how to avoid them or set them off from a distance since no one could do anything about it. Lots of doors taken off hinges to bypass the lock.

Yes, to all but especially the lock pick. Early on, no had detect magic or lock picking skills and the merchant fleeced us to open a stupid chest that no had the b***s to smash open. But with skills not being tied so much to level and skill points, a dip into rogue for a ranger is actually good for expertise at level 1.

Also a lot of guys, with dexterity now being used for damage as well, forgo strength. Which is actually a smart plan because the acrobatics skill aids in not being tripped up, note to wizards take acrobatics as a skill. Bard offers some much in everything its tough not to consider.

But cleric is the winner, with a rogue being second. I find a mountain dwarf with standard buy actually makes a good rogue. Just use that initial 8 or 10 in strength and the 15 in dexterity and 14 in constitution and he's not bad. He'll get medium armor and some weapon options, can't sneak attack with those weapons though, but he'll get a 20 in dexterity in no time and have a big constitution score to boot.

[Ardantis]

Cleric is the winner. We need healing desperately. Our ranger stole a potion of healing to hide because the wizard kept using them. My fighter said these are for the tanks, you're not helping swinging around that quaterstaff. Go in the back and throw rocks if you're out if spells. Then the monk caught on about the healing potions and that one was missing and where did it go. And the wizard can fight on the front lines if she wants to. Now everyone is talking about multiclassing into cleric. But after the first long rest and everyone is healed its business as usual.

Wait, your wizard likes to melee?

[Ralanr]

Wait, your wizard likes to melee?

In the words of the muscle wizard, "I cast fist!"

[JNAProductions]

In a one-off I'm running (Goultard Fight) as of yet, no one has a character with more than 8 Intelligence. It is just a one-off fight, but still.

[Thisguy_]

In the words of the muscle wizard, "I cast fist!"

I have to inject myself here... I built a wizard around fluff of fists! He's the mighty fist wizard of the Helder line, practicing their long tradition of fist-magic!

There's going to be a gauntlet specially for casting Chromatic Orb, and when he unlocks his chance at casting Bigby's Hand, all bets are off. And DAMN is he fun to play. I get to channel Armstrong. Plus, he's a human... which means a feat at level 1... which means he's got more HP that a couple front-liners now that he's level 2. Melee wizards work: Shocking grasp.

(That, and his quarterstaff is topped with a wooden fist.)

[Vogonjeltz]

Also a lot of guys, with dexterity now being used for damage as well, forgo strength. Which is actually a smart plan because the acrobatics skill aids in not being tripped up, note to wizards take acrobatics as a skill. Bard offers some much in everything its tough not to consider.

The Wizard class only gets a choice in two of arcana, history, insight, investigation, medicine, and religion. So they'd have to get it through race, background, burning an ASI for a feat, or multi-classing to Rogue/Ranger. So a couple of ways, but they all have a cost.

[Ralanr]

I have to inject myself here... I built a wizard around fluff of fists! He's the mighty fist wizard of the Helder line, practicing their long tradition of fist-magic!

There's going to be a gauntlet specially for casting Chromatic Orb, and when he unlocks his chance at casting Bigby's Hand, all bets are off. And DAMN is he fun to play. I get to channel Armstrong. Plus, he's a human... which means a feat at level 1... which means he's got more HP that a couple front-liners now that he's level 2. Melee wizards work: Shocking grasp.

(That, and his quarterstaff is topped with a wooden fist.)

Bigby's hand is just the best spell for the muscle wizard :smallbiggrin:!

[JNAProductions]

In a one-off I'm running (Goultard Fight) as of yet, no one has a character with more than 8 Intelligence. It is just a one-off fight, but still.

Final character is in!...

With an 8 in Intelligence.

[Ralanr]

Final character is in!...

With an 8 in Intelligence.

He'll/She'll be fiiiiine.

[JNAProductions]

To be fair, there enemy only has a 10 in Intelligence, and it's a fight.

But sheesh.

[Ardantis]

As if the scene hasn't been played out in locker rooms across the world already.

[KnightOfV]

Good Aligned characters. My players were all great RPers, but almost always went for personal vendettas, or money, or experience as a goal instead of just any excuse to be a hero. I know we're all a bunch of jaded adults and love some moral ambiguity, but c'mon would it kill someone besides me to play a straight up Good Person that wants to do the Right Thing?

[KorvinStarmast]

Good Aligned characters. My players were all great RPers, but almost always went for personal vendettas, or money, or experience as a goal instead of just any excuse to be a hero. I know we're all a bunch of jaded adults and love some moral ambiguity, but c'mon would it kill someone besides me to play a straight up Good Person that wants to do the Right Thing? Be careful, you may get run out of town on a rail with that attitude! :smallbiggrin:

[Coidzor]

Good Aligned characters. My players were all great RPers, but almost always went for personal vendettas, or money, or experience as a goal instead of just any excuse to be a hero. I know we're all a bunch of jaded adults and love some moral ambiguity, but c'mon would it kill someone besides me to play a straight up Good Person that wants to do the Right Thing?

Heh. We're in the middle of our first game as an entirely Neutral/Chaotic Neutral party. Mostly because the one guy who was playing a CG character decided to say "**** it," and decided to just feed some cultists we'd caught to the dragon whose eggs they'd stolen.

That reminds me, we still have to go back and knock off that Nothic we made a deal with for safe passage underneath that one town for its sweet sweet XP before it eats any children. And so that the basement of our new mansion that we're stealing is free of monsters, of course.


Wait, your wizard likes to melee?

We've got a dwarf wizard who has been knocked out once or twice due to their love of melee, come to think of it.

[Ralanr]

Reminds me of my friend's halfling wizard who ran up and bashed peoples shins with a lead pipe.

Good times.

[Raimun]

Melee. Not enough smash.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when people do something else than ranged characters. For some reason, I'm most often the only one playing a melee dude.

I suspect it goes something like this:

1) Lack of understanding of the hidden benefits of focusing on melee*
2) Fear of their character dying, ie. "don't get close to the monsters"
3) ???
4) So... the solution is to make glass cannons, who rely on range as their only viable form of defense and will pretty much all die at their first opportunity, thus cementing "2)" and further driving them away from "1)".

I don't mind this but it's sometimes a bit hilarious.

*I've found out that the safest place in RPGs is close combat, if you know what you're doing.

[Greyfall]

Melee. Not enough smash.

I'm always pleasantly surprised when people do something else than ranged characters. For some reason, I'm most often the only one playing a melee dude.

I suspect it goes something like this:

1) Lack of understanding of the hidden benefits of focusing on melee*
2) Fear of their character dying, ie. "don't get close to the monsters"
3) ???
4) So... the solution is to make glass cannons, who rely on range as their only viable form of defense and will pretty much all die at their first opportunity, thus cementing "2)" and further driving them away from "1)".

I don't mind this but it's sometimes a bit hilarious.

*I've found out that the safest place in RPGs is close combat, if you know what you're doing.

Interesting take, mind expanding on close combat being 'safest'?

[Raimun]

Interesting take, mind expanding on close combat being 'safest'?

Who are usually more durable, ranged or close combat specialists? Ranged people just don't tend to invest so much in defense because they think range is all the defense they need. This is true until the enemy closes in. Also, for some reason melee fighting tends to have more damage potential per turn.

Besides, you're usually safe in close combat from the enemy's ranged attacks. Either they don't want to risk hitting their own or they focus fire on those ranged dudes.

However, the biggest thing is that close combat allows you to be more tactical. Opportunistic turn to turn positioning works wonders. Blocking enemy movement, maneuvers that trip, grapple or push opponents, attacks of opportunity and the good old bottleneck. The point is that doing damage is good but if you can do damage and control the battle during your turn, that's simply excellent.

Ranged maneuvering is just mostly about keeping your distance and line of sight. Melee equivalent of that is: "I walk next to it and hit it with my sword." Point and click.

Oh... and have you ever fought a dragon or a gorgon in 5th edition? I'd rather fight those beasts in close combat because that's way more safe than ranged combat with them... :smalltongue:

[Greyfall]

Who are usually more durable, ranged or close combat specialists? Ranged people just don't tend to invest so much in defense because they think range is all the defense they need. This is true until the enemy closes in. Also, for some reason melee fighting tends to have more damage potential per turn.

Besides, you're usually safe in close combat from the enemy's ranged attacks. Either they don't want to risk hitting their own or they focus fire on those ranged dudes.

However, the biggest thing is that close combat allows you to be more tactical. Opportunistic turn to turn positioning works wonders. Blocking enemy movement, maneuvers that trip, grapple or push opponents, attacks of opportunity and the good old bottleneck. The point is that doing damage is good but if you can do damage and control the battle during your turn, that's simply excellent.

Ranged maneuvering is just mostly about keeping your distance and line of sight. Melee equivalent of that is: "I walk next to it and hit it with my sword." Point and click.

Oh... and have you ever fought a dragon or a gorgon in 5th edition? I'd rather fight those beasts in close combat because that's way more safe than ranged combat with them... :smalltongue:

Gotcha. Thanks. I've also found that melee survivability increases exponentially w more that one melee focused PC.

[Arial Black]

Final character is in!...

With an 8 in Intelligence.

Blame point buy.

[Atalas]

Who are usually more durable, ranged or close combat specialists? Ranged people just don't tend to invest so much in defense because they think range is all the defense they need. This is true until the enemy closes in. Also, for some reason melee fighting tends to have more damage potential per turn.

Besides, you're usually safe in close combat from the enemy's ranged attacks. Either they don't want to risk hitting their own or they focus fire on those ranged dudes.

However, the biggest thing is that close combat allows you to be more tactical. Opportunistic turn to turn positioning works wonders. Blocking enemy movement, maneuvers that trip, grapple or push opponents, attacks of opportunity and the good old bottleneck. The point is that doing damage is good but if you can do damage and control the battle during your turn, that's simply excellent.

Ranged maneuvering is just mostly about keeping your distance and line of sight. Melee equivalent of that is: "I walk next to it and hit it with my sword." Point and click.

Oh... and have you ever fought a dragon or a gorgon in 5th edition? I'd rather fight those beasts in close combat because that's way more safe than ranged combat with them... :smalltongue:

There's lots of things you don't want to fight ranged in 5th edition. but also things you do not want to fight up close. Like a Balor. Or a Marilith.

[kaoskonfety]

To quote some movie dude: "Reason and accountability"

I'd say monk is most underplayed at my tables, mostly cause several of us who DM go for a serious medieval feel and it kinda clashes without the right concept.

[BladeWing81]

a healer that can stay for more than 2 sessions.

[Sabeta]

My current party has gone through some interesting changes.

At first we were all casters, and that party was glorious. (2 Sorcs, Wizard, Cleric, and Druid)
Surprisingly well balanced in action, but the druid quit, the wizard moved, and the other sorcerer went on vacation.

Second party had my sorcerer, the cleric rerolled into a Barbarian, and we had a Paladin and a Rogue join us. Sounded like a dream party, but we managed to TPK due to a really idiotic choice (protip: Don't go to sleep in the enemy's giant evil fortress without killing the enemy first.)

Third party should be fun. Druid, Wizard, Fighter, Barbarian. Barbarian was the only surviving member of the last group and recruited the rest of us to help him rescue our old party (our DM decided we were enslaved instead of killed).

The first party lacked any real tanks, but we typically made due by just alpha-striking.

The second party lacked damage, but that was a consequence of the Rogue constantly using the sharpshooter feet and missing, and the fact the Barbarian doesn't actually use a weapon. (He has a reinforced dwarven ale mug that he bludgeons people with, and the Tavern Brawler + Grappler feats)

The third party hasn't gotten to play yet, but one thing we usually have in spades is Teamwork. I like playing buff/control classes so it's tons of fun. Rogue and Paladin LOVED the Twinned Haste combo. The Barbarian often acts a controller as well, grappling enemies and preventing them from reaching us.

[Raimun]

Yeah, I agree, melee is the way to go.

Either you live like a hero or don't have it what it takes to be one.

[Arial Black]

I'd say monk is most underplayed at my tables, mostly cause several of us who DM go for a serious medieval feel and it kinda clashes without the right concept.

I'm finally putting on paper the elven monk I've been picturing since I got the 5E PHB. I'm deliberately avoiding an eastern feel.

In our current culture, when we hear the term 'martial arts', we think of eastern martial arts, and usually unarmed techniques.

But 'martial arts' is not just unarmed, it's any fighting art armed or not. More relevant, there are plenty of western, medieval martial arts, from jousts, fencing, boxing, wrestling, the whole gamut.

So my concept started as an elven special forces veteran, but evolved into a spy, soon to be a field agent and aiming to gain a License To Kill and become an Assassin.

So, start as a Rogue 1 with the criminal/spy background, with expertise in Stealth and Investigation (I'll get the Observant feat later). Then, 6 levels in Shadow monk, with a shortsword to benefit from Sneak Attack. I picture her martial arts...er, I mean, unarmed combat...to be commando/special forces type stuff, rather than kung fu.

After achieving 6 monk levels, gain two more in rogue Assassin to get my License To Kill. :)

I plan on using her as my PC in PotA. I have a question though: in official organised play, are we starting as 1st level or 3rd level PCs? The PotA book says that the adventure proper starts at 3rd, but includes side treks to let you start at 1st if you want.

I hope we can start at 3rd.

[Garimeth]

To quote some movie dude: "Reason and accountability"

I'd say monk is most underplayed at my tables, mostly cause several of us who DM go for a serious medieval feel and it kinda clashes without the right concept.

In my homebrewed setting, which I hope to set some novels in, monks incorporate weapons into their fighting and are simply monastic in tradition. The most famous monk was a wood elf swordsman with the second being a human that was more traditional Friar Tuck. In either case their weapons just deal their unarmed damage.