Playing a character or filling supposed needs?

[ZorroGames]

BLUF Where do you sit on whether to bring “your character” versus “always being the guy/gal who plays the role the party feels is lacking at that time.”

And do you see either extreme as better? And why?

Okay two caveats:

I play AL only right now - cannot guarantee who is at the table any given game - and do not see that changing this year. Edit: I have played one game, one, with less than five players and seem to always have 7 or rarely 6 players when I DM AL games.

Yes, these are overly opposed positions. There obviously is a middle ground.

I have seen several really good players who bring multiple characters and try to fill “roles/holes” in an AL party to provide covering the bases - arcane/divine Magic, Tank/DPS, Stealth, and so on. I also have seen several really good players who always play a certain race or class (no, I do not always 😳 play Mountain Dwarf, I have a Gnome and a VHuman too,) and adjust my play in a party to play to the current mix of characters.

I started out as “what I have” in 0D&D in the start of D&D moved to having a stable of Tier 1 characters when I returned with 5e arrival (and grown children) and am now pretty much a a MD, Gnome, Earth Genasi (1,) VHuman (1,) player though I have finally have class builds for all classes. So on a 1 to 9, this is what I brought being a 1 and What do we need a 9 I guess I am a 3 or 4.

MC is a part of over half my characters so the mono-classes are Fighter and Wizard, and all of those MD are throwbacks to my roots. Actually surprised I have not designed a mono-class Cleric since that was my original “go to class” in 1973 period.

[nickl_2000]

If I were playing AL, I would come up with a character concept and play that since who knows what will show up.


I don't play AL (many reasons, one being I feel it's overly restrictive, the new rules seem silly, and the main one being I have a home game with friends I know). In our group we have a email based "session 0" and everyone usually has a character concept class that they want to play, but some adjustments are made to avoid class overlap. In the campaign we have starting soon, we are switching DMs after one guy has been DMing for over a year in a row. Since he has been DMing, we made sure that he got to choose his character class and concept first. He was between a Bard and Rogue for awhile, so in my mind I build up an AT Rogue if he chose Bard, or Paladin if he chose Rogue.

We don't always fill every role in a campaign, but we are tactical and lucky enough that we do fine. In the current campaign we don't really have a character that is good at crowd blasting, but we find a way around it (Often summoning more creatures to make the crowd even busier :smallbiggrin:).


So ya, I guess the answer to your question is: Yes.

[Zanthy1]

Let me preface by saying that I do not play AL due to there not being a location within a reasonable distance from me. However I have toyed around with characters to sue should one of the local stores gain enough interest and start it up. I would always make a character that I like and want to play. It is impossible to know exactly ho and what characters could show up, so sticking to something that you like is important to ensure you have as much fun as possible.

In a home game, I will still go with fun options, but am more flexible in making changes so as not to overcrowd a particular area.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm a "gap filler" by nature, and if I can do that I will. I'm happy to play whatever as long as I can come up with a personality twist for them.

If I had to play open AL, I'd probably just grab something reasonably well rounded and go with that. I don't like mono-focus characters because I want to be able to contribute in all parts of play.

[ImproperJustice]

I have found that groups generally need to just “flow like water”.

Needs not covered will be filled by the excess of talents brought by party composition.

All Rogues and Fighters?
Now you have a short / no rest SWAT team.

All Wizards?

Time for familiar scouting, and rotating damage volleys.
Wizard 1 webs ‘em, Wizard 2: Roasts ‘em, Wizard 3: disables the rest with Hypnosis, Wizard 4: Om deck to finish what’s left, etc.

Or hey, we just invisibilityed our way through the whole dungeon, now let’s multi fireball the big bad and see how he handles 32d6 fire damage.

All Clerics?
No one dies today, or tomorrow, or next week, ever


You get the idea.....

[Man_Over_Game]

I think it's safe to make a character type that won't come up very often. Most AL players play some kind of martial combatant, so something like a Life Cleric or a Shepherd Druid would work really well.

In fact, any prepared caster with medium armor would do really well in Adventure League, as they can become exactly what the party needs at any table.

[noob]

I have found that groups generally need to just “flow like water”.

Needs not covered will be filled by the excess of talents brought by party composition.

All Rogues and Fighters?
Now you have a short / no rest SWAT team.

All Wizards?

Time for familiar scouting, and rotating damage volleys.
Wizard 1 webs ‘em, Wizard 2: Roasts ‘em, Wizard 3: disables the rest with Hypnosis, Wizard 4: Om deck to finish what’s left, etc.

Or hey, we just invisibilityed our way through the whole dungeon, now let’s multi fireball the big bad and see how he handles 32d6 fire damage.

All Clerics?
No one dies today, or tomorrow, or next week, ever


You get the idea.....

It is a good idea to have a whole team using the same rest mechanic: thanks to that the gm can go all the way either in single gigantic battles or in "and so you fought 12 battles against the evil empire each day for weeks" without having characters that under-perform or over-perform(when you do a mixed team you are supposed to have exactly 3 short rest per long rest or the whole multiverse explode very very hard.)

[KorvinStarmast]

BLUF Where do you sit on whether to bring “your character” versus “always being the guy/gal who plays the role the party feels is lacking at that time.” I default to the latter, and have since I began playing with my kids a few decades ago.

[strangebloke]

I generally only 'fill' if there's a very very clear gap.

IE, a party of barbarians and paladins needs a dedicated ranged guy. A party without any full casters needs a cleric or druid or wizard, full stop.

Otherwise, I'd much rather just play a character I have in mind. I generally go for true generalists anyway so if there's a gap of sorts I'll end up sort of filling it regardless.

[Unoriginal]

Play who you want to play. If you like doing something no one else is doing, it's good. If you have an idea of character in mind and like to bring it to the table, it's good.

As long as you enjoy yourself and the other people enjoy themselves, there is no issue.

I'm certainly against feeling imposed playing a character because "the party needs X". A party never *needs* anything, it just makes things easier in some cases.

[Man_Over_Game]

Play who you want to play. If you like doing something no one else is doing, it's good. If you have an idea of character in mind and like to bring it to the table, it's good.

As long as you enjoy yourself and the other people enjoy themselves, there is no issue.

I'm certainly against feeling imposed playing a character because "the party needs X". A party never *needs* anything, it just makes things easier in some cases.

To counter this, I do find that players have more fun when they're less redundant. A Dexterity Fighter and a Ranger might have a hard time standing out compared to a Strength Fighter and a Ranger. The more diverse the party, the more each individual person is guaranteed the spotlight. You're no longer easily replaced or forgettable. You are MVP 20% of the time, rather than another generic melee combatant 100% of the time.

Of course, I believe you should play a playstyle that you'll have fun with, but also do everything you can to diversify yourself from your party. If you really like melee combatants and non-casters, and your party is full of Fighters and Barbarians, maybe pick a Barbarian that supports that (Totem-Wolf). If you like casters, and the majority of your party are casters, maybe pick something that satisfies your desire for being a caster while also having a unique role (Tempest Cleric, Bladesinger Wizard, Valor Bard, Glamour Bard).

[Unoriginal]

To counter this, I do find that players have more fun when they're less redundant. A Dexterity Fighter and a Ranger might have a hard time standing out compared to a Strength Fighter and a Ranger. The more diverse the party, the more each individual person is guaranteed the spotlight. You're no longer easily replaced or forgettable. You are MVP 20% of the time, rather than another generic melee combatant 100% of the time.

As I said:


If you like doing something no one else is doing, it's good.

You're not countering what I said.

[Sigreid]

I dont play AL, but with my table I generally have 2 or 3 character ideas I would enjoy and play one that will jive with the pretty well. So team role is a factor, not a decider and I always play a character I want to.

[DMThac0]

I DM'd Al when it was in it's infancy, I run 3 home games now, and I play in 2.

I tell my players, and I subscribe to this idea, to make the character they want to play. Filling a niche/role/hole that the party may be missing is admirable and I won't begrudge a person for choosing to play that way, but in the end I'd rather players make characters they can really enjoy. I'll adapt the game to soften the rough edges of a group until they finally click.

[Mercurias]

If I were running AL, I'd probably bring along a support-based Druid or Cleric. They can enhance most any party, and they're versatile as heck since their prepared spell list is literally every spell in their list that AL allows.

So I'd probably split the difference and bring one character that I want to play, but make it a good one. Even if the entire party is support casters, that just means you'll have a whole lot of concentration buffs and debuffs out at once to bump the party and shut down enemy encounters.

[Phoenix042]

BLUF Where do you sit on whether to bring “your character” versus “always being the guy/gal who plays the role the party feels is lacking at that time.”

One of my favorite things about 5E is how forgiving it can be for a party that doesn't bother to worry about party roles.

As a general rule, I try to avoid stepping on other characters areas of specialization, but that's not a hard and fast rule. A team of four strikers, four glass cannons, four tanks, four healers, four skrimishers...

All of those teams can work well in this edition. There are certain encounters that a party like that won't be able to handle as well, but a good DM will present such a party with reasonable opportunities to advance through the adventure anyways.



Okay two caveats:

I play AL only right now - cannot guarantee who is at the table any given game - and do not see that changing this year. Edit: I have played one game, one, with less than five players and seem to always have 7 or rarely 6 players when I DM AL games.

In such large and random parties, I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to ignore party composition in favor of playing the characters you find the most inspiring.

[Keravath]

In AL, the DM can pretty much manage ANY party for ANY module. Most of the AL content is designed to be character/class agnostic so that you don't NEED any one specific class to make anything work.

On the other hand, some things are easier with a variety of classes in a party but it isn't necessary.

As a result :), play the character that you will have the most fun playing. If you have more than one character that you would be happy to play then ask around and see if one of them will be a better fit with the other players' choices. However, the bottom line in AL is that you are there to have fun and enjoy yourself with a possibly random group of folks, so choosing the character that you want to play the most is usually the best approach.

[ZorroGames]

Thanks, Guys and Gals!

I really have seen people make most any mix work in AL. Well, except that he the group of friends who TPK’Ed 3 of their first 6 games. They are playing happily at Tier 3 currently so it seemed to be over compensating in the next adventure after a TPK matter early on.

[MrStabby]

I am very much on the side of playing what I want irrespective of anyone else, well other than the DM.

If I want to play a bard then that is because I find the things that bards are good at the most fun. If someone else brings a bard and I chose not to play one then I am left in a game with a constant reminder that i could be having more fun.

On the other hand if the DM has created a world with no bards then I don't have a problem playing something else. Happy to pick up an enchanter or an illusionist.

I find games last years. This is too long to play a character that isn't going to give you the experience you want. If it is a one shot, then sure I will play something else. Probably a horrific multiclass disaster; a one shot helps me get my fix of this.

Equally strongly I would never expect another player to change what they play to accommodate my character.