What does your proper party look like?

[Sorlock Master]

I am curious what you think the proper party size is and what roles should be filled.

Combat

Tank: People hit you, but you don't die, ever.

Bruiser: When people hit you you hit them back, only much harder.

Anti-Mage: Either prevents spells, makes sure they can't concentrate on spells for long, or deletes spell casters.

Healer: You heal things, usually party members, sometimes you don't though.

Buffer/Debuffer: you make sure your best fighter is at his best, or thier best fighter is at his worst.

Nuker: You are why healer exist.

Non-Combat

The Mule: They lift things, and push things, and smash things, and carry things.

The Face: He talks, a lot, even when he shouldn't.

The Know-it-all: They know everything, or can find out.

The Scout: usually stealthy, good at finding traps, and can usually setup ambushes.

Skill Monkey: He's good at everything, because it's always nice to have a backup.

The Acrobat: some one has to climb the cliff, and tie a rope at the top, or you can fly and be a show off.

[Dankus Memakus]

I honestly believe that in 5e roles are not as important as other editions. Honestly I have seen parties of four fighters be very effective. I believe the best party size is 4-6 however because if you get under 4 some DMs can have issues with CR that end in a TPK. That's just my experience though.

[DnDegenerates]

I agree. There isn't as much math in 5e and few ways to have significantly higher than average scores in skills or attributes without Homebrew.

A standard party is pretty excellent in most cases.

A meleer. A magic user. Someone with a bit of healing.

Healing doesn't even seem that pertinent in most games. It helps, and can certainly save a party given the circumstances or DM's style. But I've ran a couple of hundred hours the last year alone with various parties. Most of which without a Divine healer.

My these player home game has a fighter, wizard, and paladin. They have tackled everything and overcome it in a hard cover adventure. The players have other characters in Adventurer's league games and are good at utilizing their class abilities / skills and inventories. So maybe that it's the key factor.

Any amount of diversity prepares you for most encounters and social engagements. Yet it's not entirely necessary.

[G mayes]

The only 2 things you really need are someone that can hit hard up close and personal, and some magic. And thats past level one. At level one it doesnt matter theres a good chamce of death from ANYTHING that attacks you if you have a dm willing to use cr encounters.

After those two are covered play style and dm dictate what skills or niches may need covering.

[ad_hoc]

I honestly believe that in 5e roles are not as important as other editions. Honestly I have seen parties of four fighters be very effective. I believe the best party size is 4-6 however because if you get under 4 some DMs can have issues with CR that end in a TPK. That's just my experience though.

I think 6 is too much as well.

The game will probably be very easy. If it is challenging then there is very little between having enough of a threat to be able to overwhelm the party and creating a death spiral.

I think 4 is ideal. I can see 5 for the eventuality that someone doesn't show up.

[Hooligan]

My experience has overwhelmingly shown me that the composition is not at all important as long as you have either some muscle and some magic OR a group proficient in & committed to stealth, and even if you didn't I'm still not too convinced it wouldn't work.

I find it very frustrating how much importance many other players I roll with (all online, roll20) place on "balanced comps" going so far as to disallow different players playing the same class or stating "we will only accept applicants who will play class X, y, or Z (usually X is a cleric)". I blame mmorpgs.

As for # of players, just my preference: 3 or 5 is fine, 4 is a sweet spot, 6 is too much; too many people talking over each other and combats take forever.

[G mayes]

Personally having been dm for a group of 4, and then just 2, 3 is the sweet spot. Combat moves but they have enough time to think between turns that they're ready, but not waiting too long. also they're less tempted to split up than if you have 4 or more.

[Beelzebubba]

I find it very frustrating how much importance many other players I roll with (all online, roll20) place on "balanced comps" going so far as to disallow different players playing the same class or stating "we will only accept applicants who will play class X, y, or Z (usually X is a cleric)". I blame mmorpgs.

To be fair, AD&D 1 & 2 was such a 'rock paper scissors' affair that the roles were as strictly defined, if not more.

If players really didn't want to play a certain class, though, we thought nothing of adding in an NPC to do it, or having a player run the second character.

Hirelings and followers were common back then, so we were used to having 'others' around under our direction that were only sketchily defined until something funny happened, and only then they got a 'name' or personality out of it.

[Derpldorf]

My current party is basically a strike team.

We have three Eldritch Knights of various specialties and a Bladesinger acting as a mobile artillary battery. Everyone has the Stealth skill, everyone has Disguise Self.

We sneak in, tacticaly desimate a small area\assassinate an important personage and then run like heck.

[Galactkaktus]

The one thing i hate are skill monkeys. You have a party consisting of several players whom all have skill proficencies so why are you trying to cover all the skills?

[ZorroGames]

The one thing i hate are skill monkeys. You have a party consisting of several players whom all have skill proficencies so why are you trying to cover all the skills?

Skill monkeys have their place.

Depends on the game. My only AL TPK was when my first level Fighter joined a “Standard Team” of three 3rd level types who all had Intimidation but no deception or persuasion. Ditto the other three players (I have never played with less than 5, almost always 6-7, had an 8th player shoe-horned by ev net organizer.).

We were unable to the NPC prisoner or her information out of the prison. Having to do things the long, hard way we died to massive amounts of Kobolds and animal guards.

In a non-pickup team session zero for players should include confirming the party has a wide range of skills. In a murder hobo AL mob I guarantee the lack of skill coverage will kill you. Sometimes literally.

[Afrodactyl]

A tank, a bruiser, a healer, a blaster, a controller, a scout and a face are the only things I consider "mandatory", and oftentimes a single character is at least two.

Quite often a barb is the tank/bruiser, a bard is the face/scout/controller, druid blaster/controller/healer/scout, paladin bruiser/tank/healer, etc.

[Galactkaktus]

Another thing you don't need is dedicated healers.

[Laserlight]

If I had players who were guaranteed to show up every week, my preference would be three PCs. Fewer people means faster combat and more spotlight time per person.

I allow my players to coordinate classes if they wish. I've had DMs tell me "you don't know what the rest of the party will be" but I think that's silly; I don't want to be the party's third Face, for example.

I would prefer, but not require, that they have (combat) melee, range, and AOE capability and (noncombat) face, skill monkey, acrobat/athlete, and healing/resto/rez. That said, my first 5e campaign had a monk, rogue, fighter and barbarian, and that worked fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My preferred size is either 3 or 4, with 2 or 5 possible (2 usually means they'll want henchmen, 5 makes things a bit slower). 6 is my hard cap. As for party composition--it doesn't really matter. A source of magical healing (does not need to be a dedicated healer) makes things easier, but is not needed. If you're doing hardcovers, they're tuned to be doable by a basic rules party--champion fighter, life cleric, thief rogue, evocation wizard, no feats or multiclassing, standard array. Only races are elf (no drow), dwarf, human (no variant), and halfling.

I've had the following as parties:

* Wizard/barbarian/druid
* monk/druid/rogue/warlock
* fighter/rogue + 2 henchmen
* wizard/druid + animal henchman

plus several others. It's either the DM's job to tune the campaign to the characters ("standard campaign") or the party's job to figure out what's safe for them to do ("sandbox campaign").

[KorvinStarmast]

Another thing you don't need is dedicated healers. based on all of the games of 5e that I have played, rather than theory crafting, this is incorrect.

[RedMage125]

I would say ideally a group is 5. People have said 4-6 and I agree, but 6 is my max limit, and I prefer to not play with less than 4. One CAN go with 3, but people are usually picking classes that can pull "double duty" (like a paladin for both meat shield and healer).

I'd say at least one melee combatant to bottleneck opponents is a good idea.

One arcane caster of some kind.

Someone who can pick locks and disable traps.

And someone who can provide healing.

Fifth member can be pretty much anything. More melee can be good, ranged striker, and so on. doesn't really matter.

[Hooligan]

based on all of the games of 5e that I have played, rather than theory crafting, this is incorrect.

Would you care to further explain &/or provide examples? Just curious because many people I play with say the same thing - sometimes dogmatically - though I've seen no need for it in any of the games I've been involved with.

This isn't to say that healing isn't useful; of course it's great, just that I've not found it (or any other particular role) to be a necessity even in games with brutal combats and gritty variant rest rules.

[Reynaert]

Would you care to further explain &/or provide examples? Just curious because many people I play with say the same thing - sometimes dogmatically - though I've seen no need for it in any of the games I've been involved with.

This isn't to say that healing isn't useful; of course it's great, just that I've not found it (or any other particular role) to be a necessity even in games with brutal combats and gritty variant rest rules.

Most people I have heard claim that "you need a healer, based on all the games thay played" have played with a healer in all those games.
You can only claim evidence for needing a healer if you have played without one, and it went badly. Preferrably multiple times (to account for outliers).



I've had DMs tell me "you don't know what the rest of the party will be"

Simple answer: You *do* know what the rest of the party will be. At the moment your character meets that party. At which time the character is free to join or not, but as a player you are bound by the social contract of the game to join the party. Therefore, as part of that social contract, the player should know the rest of the party before making the character.

[nickl_2000]

The Golden Girls.


No really, https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/915337841261002752?lang=en

[KorvinStarmast]

Most people I have heard claim that "you need a healer, based on all the games thay played" have played with a healer
1. Monsters hit with considerable frequency.
2. Short rests are not guaranteed; when they do come, It's nice to spend some hit dice to heal up, and after level 2 it is really nice to have that bard (when one is in your party) for the improved HP restoration with Song of Rest. If There Is A Bard In Your Party.
On extended adventures, where you only recover half of your HD per long rest, the insidious effect of the 4-6 encounter day is non trivial. You Are Not Guaranteed Short Rests. (Though a good DM/party relationship fits them in...) Our Tier 3 campaign would not work without the high level cleric. Our healing during the adventure day is split between the cleric's abilities, the HD recovery, and the healer's kit. Without the dedicated healer, this party simply would not function. (I play a champion, and our "healer" is a tempest cleric whose spells can also kick serious butt). High level monsters hit with sufficient frequency that it matters. We've not been to a town in over three game weeks of play. (Now that our wizard no longer plays with us, we have to completely change our mode of play due to a significant lack of crowd control).
3. When running multiple encounters per day, the ability to keep fighters and others up and on their feet matters.
4. Not all games allows a feat at first level. The first three games I played in were featless until level four. Anyone can take the healer feat(and it's a great feat). It's a great feat, particularly at low level, though we have found it very nice at higher levels as well. In a game with numerous encounters per day, and if there are short rests, it's a great feat to have.
Caveat:
Not all games have unrestricted access ot towns/buying potions, etc. I've played in numerous campaigns, only one of which included being easily able to buy healing pots with our gold at early levels. Where you can do that, healing becomes mostly a matter of bookkeeping. If not, you have to rely on skills, HD and spells to do it.

In short, the "you don't need a healer" only applies to a narrow range of campaigns; as a global and general statement, it's a crock of crap.

FWIW: The most useful healing spell I've seen in the game is Healing Word; it's used to keep people in the fight. (I recall a particular fight where Healing Word is all that kept my monk in a serious hairballs where we were dealing with large numbers of enemies and our wizard was out of crowd control spells for the day). The second most useful healing spell I have seen is Lesser Restoration. (In terms of what it does and how often we have found that it needs to be used).
The paladin healing ability is wonderful in its flexibility and utility.

The monsters do in fact hit, and they roll a lot of to hit.
So guess who gets hit with the most crits, particularly at low level? In the game's I've played, it's the PCs.

The nice thing is that clerics and druids are a hell of a lot more than healbots in this edition of the game; they offer much, much more than keeping people in the fight.
From PhoenixPhyre's post below:

Being a life cleric, for example, just means you have to use less resources on it. Point very well made, and agreed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say there's a difference between "don't need someone with healing capabilities" and "don't need a dedicated healer".

Having someone with magical healing is a major plus, especially in a combat-heavy game. Not having it means that the DM will likely have to adjust the pacing.

Having someone specialized in healing is only necessary in extreme circumstances. A bard with healing word is enough, most of the time. Being a life cleric, for example, just means you have to use less resources on it.

And the real "must have a divine caster" need from 3e (condition removal) is mostly gone, since most things grant multiple saves or can be done with a healing kit.

[Galactkaktus]

I'd say there's a difference between "don't need someone with healing capabilities" and "don't need a dedicated healer".

Having someone with magical healing is a major plus, especially in a combat-heavy game. Not having it means that the DM will likely have to adjust the pacing.

Having someone specialized in healing is only necessary in extreme circumstances. A bard with healing word is enough, most of the time. Being a life cleric, for example, just means you have to use less resources on it.

And the real "must have a divine caster" need from 3e (condition removal) is mostly gone, since most things grant multiple saves or can be done with a healing kit.

And behold someone actually noticed that i said dedicated healer.

[MrStabby]

There are no real classes that I think you need but I would say you are better if you have good coverage of the "active" stats being high - Str, Dex, Int, Wis, Cha; even dex isn't really needed.

With this and some ranged capability from somewhere and you are probably OK. A lot of classes from early levels can do double duty - a wizard can use scorching ray for damage or use web as a "tank" to keep enemies away from hitting the rest of the party.

Healing magic per se isn't really needed but I find stabilisation is useful - something to keep the PCs from bleeding out after they have gone down.

[rbstr]

I think parties of 3-4 are best. Less is maybe a bit too intimate...more is chaos. We've got 5 now...it'd be rough except we tend to have someone that doesn't really do anything in rp situations.

As far as roles, in a fairly balanced 4 person party I'd look to cover these things. The first three are mostly combat-related the others are more out-of-combat:
frontline/melee control - they body-block, take hits make it so the path to squishier characters is not so open. Gotta be able to trade hits in melee many classes can be build for this.
Single-target damage - Might overlap with frontline and be a "bruiser" or be more of a skirmisher that's a bit squishier or even a caster with single-target spells.
AOE/Group control - take big chunks out of enemy groups or otherwise make them more manageable. Mostly a caster thing.
Scouting - someone needs to be a bit sneaky
Diverse Skills - arcana, history, religion, survival ect. should have fairly wide ranging proficiency over the party.

Any of the three "combat" roles there can be filled by a mix of characters. One frontliner could be Bladelock and somewhat cover the AOE role or a Samurai with GWM and cover the Single-target role. A back-line Wizard might have AOE and single-target damage pretty covered while a Moon Druid frontlines with a bunch of summoned animal buddies.

[MaxWilson]

based on all of the games of 5e that I have played, rather than theory crafting, this is incorrect.

My experience is the opposite. I've seen whole campaigns go by without a healing spell being cast, that I can remember.

I tend to run Combat As War though, so the game is often more about finding the right tactic or sneaking in the back door than about attrition. Death comes more often from making crucial mistakes, like charging an enemy who's too strong for you and losing all your HP at once, than running out of HD over the course of a day.

Uber healing is fun on paper but isn't really necessary IMG unless the party is making lots of mistakes but somehow still surviving them.

[Aembrosia]

5 regular players, room for a friend to run a plot ally.
A roleplayer. Its what they came to do and they do it well. The group has a strong forward face to represent them, for better or worse.
A tactician. Someone who organizes the groups assets and asks the right questions to facilitate a genuinely good plan.
A secretary. Thank you for taking good notes. I will kill you last.
A creative. If i can form a ball of ice and throw it could i not simply cool the surface of a rock? Control water against a water elemental = hold monster? I distract him with an over the top illusory theatre depicting his previous victory over us.
A voice of reason. An adult to remind us that eventually a monster has to die and we need to take its treasure.

[Waterdeep Merch]

My ideal team has five members, all with strong synergy. I don't care about any individual as much as how we function together.

My current party consists of a barbarian, bard, cleric, ranger, rogue, and a paladin (me!). It's one over what we usually play and it feels a bit like a circus at times as a result. Still, I was responsible for coordinating our character building (and that means I got to direct the synergy), so our key points are:

* Everyone except the cleric is good at stealth. At level 2 right now, the rest of us are +3, +6, +7, and +8. We rock team stealth checks like no one's business.
* We've got ample heals. A lot of that's in-born with the bard/cleric/paladin triple de-threat, with the rogue planning to go thief and nab Healer later and the bard already using Inspiring Presence. Our staying power's real serious.
* We control the flow of movement in battle. I'm a small-sized paladin with a 50 foot fly speed and mobile. The rogue has disengage. The cleric uses a quarterstaff with PAM, planning to take Sentinel at 4 or 8. The bard and ranger are strictly ranged with a few good battlefield control spells like faerie fire and ensnaring strike. The barbarian is the only rock, and we use him like one.
* Excellent combat buffs. Bard/Cleric/Paladin allows for a lot of fun things, like Bardic Inspiration, Bless, and Heroism. I really don't have room for smiting right now, the buffs are too good.

And our core weaknesses are:

* Basically no arcane magic. We've got the bard, and that's the extent of it. Which means-
* Low access to utility magic. We're going to have a chat about someone grabbing the Ritual Caster feat later to make up for it, but it looks like our DM is going to hand out some freebie arcane spells like that to certain players. Namely myself. So this might be covered.
* We risk frustrating the living HELL out of our DM when it comes to challenging this group in combat. Though we're all kind of screwing around to a dangerous degree right now because we recognize that the houserules the DM's implemented have made us ridiculously strong for our level.

[KorvinStarmast]

Uber healing is fun on paper but isn't really necessary IMG unless the party is making lots of mistakes but somehow still surviving them. I see. Your experience is that parties of players are a zero defects team. Fascinating. I doubt it's universal. Quite frankly, I prefer the style of play that you describe: fight smarter not harder. But I also play with groups where that is not important.

In each of the groups I have played with there is a mix of combat as war, beer and pretzels, casual, and "get into it" gamers. It's interesting to be the one "combat as war" player in a party with RP heavy and Beer and Pretzel players. Optimization in a group like that isn't going to be a norm.

And then there are the beginner groups ... :smallcool:

This is why I cannot abide by these grand generalizations about "you don't need healing/a healer" in 5e. As a general statement, it is a load of bollocks. For some parties, and as I noted above, where one can get the consumable healing potions with some regularity, I am sure that it's closer to the truth.

1. Know your players
2. Know your party
3. Know your DM/table

Those are all variables. This isn't a CRPG.

[Galactkaktus]

I see. Your experience is that parties of players are a zero defects team. Fascinating. I doubt it's universal. Quite frankly, I prefer the style of play that you describe: fight smarter not harder. But I also play with groups where that is not important.

In each of the groups I have played with there is a mix of combat as war, beer and pretzels, casual, and "get into it" gamers. It's interesting to be the one "combat as war" player in a party with RP heavy and Beer and Pretzel players. Optimization in a group like that isn't going to be a norm.

And then there are the beginner groups ... :smallcool:

This is why I cannot abide by these grand generalizations about "you don't need healing/a healer" in 5e. As a general statement, it is a load of bollocks. For some parties, and as I noted above, where one can get the consumable healing potions with some regularity, I am sure that it's closer to the truth.

1. Know your players
2. Know your party
3. Know your DM/table

Those are all variables. This isn't a CRPG.

After 3 sessions of the beer and pretzel players getting wiped out 1-3 turns after my character proposed retreat and then actually did retreat becoming the sole survivor 3 times in similar fashion. The beer and pretzel players actually started listening to ideas like retreating and preparing for engagement.

[KorvinStarmast]

After 3 sessions of the beer and pretzel players getting wiped out 1-3 turns after my character proposed retreat and then actually did retreat becoming the sole survivor 3 times in similar fashion. The beer and pretzel players actually started listening to ideas like retreating and preparing for engagement. Your mentorship is awesome. :smallcool:
I am curious what you think the proper party size is and what roles should be filled. I think 4 or 5 is about right. Often play with six, and unless the DM keeps the pace moving play can begin to bog down unless all six players have pretty solid buy in, or have among their number a player who subtly helps to keep play moving along.

Roles: Besides the obvious answer of the four archetypes offered in the Basic rules, here's what I see as needed.
With 5:

One tank and an off tank.
At least one character proficiency with thieves tools. (Example: a bard, rogue, or heck a ranger or dex fighter with the Criminal background)
Healing ability spells; mix and match classes, and abilities. There's no one way to do this, but little things like "removing the poisoned or paralyzed condition with Lesser Restoration" are important to keep the party at full effectiveness.
Somebody who can succeed on knowledge checks: (but this varies a bit by DM)
Someone with proficiency in persuasion. While Intimidation moments can be awesome cool -- we recently, the ranger and my Fighter, scared off some large predatory felines using intimidation checks -- I've seen persuasion when dealing with NPCs open up a wide variety of in-game doors and options.

With 4:
As above, but can probably live without the off tank. That calls for one of the caster capable PC's to have some decent crowd control skills to keep the tank from the problem of being swarmed.

Aside: tried to set up an all rogue/all bard party, which fizzled for a variety of reasons. I guess I'll wait for the next two adventures to come out. An all rogue or all bard party in an urban setting ought to be richly enjoyable.

[rel]

In my experience a party needs the following 'roles' for success:

Control; the ability to drop enough environmental hazards and debuffs to allow the party to safely retreat.

Utility; the ability to gather information on the opposition safely and dictate when engagements take place so the party can fight and recuperate on their own terms.

Everything else is fairly negotiable. You can have a tank but smart enemies often ignore them. You can have healer but rest healing is a valid alternative. Casters and rogues are nice but you can work around their absence.

The essentials of staying alive while adventuring are knowing what you are facing and controlling when and how you face it.

I drop quotes around the word 'role' because you don't need a character to handle a component solo. You have a party and you can (and should) spread necessary abilities among the party members.

[ZenBear]

The Five Man Band (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiveManBand)
Leader: Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian
Lancer: Rogue/Warlock/Bard
Big Guy: Barbarian/Fighter/Monk
Smart Guy: Wizard/Rogue/Bard
Heart: Cleric/Druid/Bard

Alternatively: The Ragtag Bunch of Misfits (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/FireflySerenityCrew)
Captain: Battlemaster Fighter
First Mate: Champion Fighter
Pilot: Rogue w/ Expertise in Vehicle: Firefly
Ambassador: Bard
Public Relations: Barbarian
Mechanic: Artificer
Medic: Rogue w/ Healer feat
Mad Genius: Warlock
Chaplain: Cleric

[Ronnocius]

I am curious what you think the proper party size is and what roles should be filled.

Combat

Tank: People hit you, but you don't die, ever.

Bruiser: When people hit you you hit them back, only much harder.

Anti-Mage: Either prevents spells, makes sure they can't concentrate on spells for long, or deletes spell casters.

Healer: You heal things, usually party members, sometimes you don't though.

Buffer/Debuffer: you make sure your best fighter is at his best, or thier best fighter is at his worst.

Nuker: You are why healer exist.

Non-Combat

The Mule: They lift things, and push things, and smash things, and carry things.

The Face: He talks, a lot, even when he shouldn't.

The Know-it-all: They know everything, or can find out.

The Scout: usually stealthy, good at finding traps, and can usually setup ambushes.

Skill Monkey: He's good at everything, because it's always nice to have a backup.

The Acrobat: some one has to climb the cliff, and tie a rope at the top, or you can fly and be a show off.

I think a party size of 5 or 6 is ideal, because often times in my games people are unable to make it so with 5 or 6 you almost always will have at least 3 players show up.

[Metamorph]

It is not relevant what your party is made of. Just look at the hobbit for example.

My Players are 3 rangers and 1 rogue. If they do not know how to pass something they have to get creative, otherwise (in my opinion) it is your job to make it possible as a dm.