Party Composition for 5e

[TriciaOso]

I'm going to be playing in a 5e game with some old friends who are now scattered around the country. We are all pretty new to the system and some of us are pretty new to TTRPG altogether, so I suspect we are going to be a very low-op party.

I have probably the most experience of anyone (some 3.5 and a few non-D&D RPG experiences) and I'm worrying about party comp a bit. Right now everyone is just taking whatever tickles their fancy and the plan is:

A ranger (me)
A front-line fighter
A not-especially-martial cleric
A social-roguery-magic focused bard
A sorceror
A wizard

We're starting at level 5.

My original idea for the ranger was stealth/scout/sniper, but now I'm wondering if I need to re-balance my approach to get on the frontline. I'm worried anything that gets past the fighter is going to rip through the rest of these guys like wet paper.

Any thoughts? Are we as lacking in tank-ness as I fear or is this workable?

[hymer]

Any thoughts? Are we as lacking in tank-ness as I fear or is this workable?
You'll be fine. In 3.5, it may have made sense for a ranger to specialize entirely in ranged or melee fighting. In 5e, you're going to be doing acceptably well in either, even if you focus more on one of them.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's important to note that the Ranger might be able to prefer ranged combat, but there's very little "specialization" that you can invest in, as:


You have a 1d10 Hit Die.
You have medium armor.
Finesse Weapons work just fine for an archer as they do a melee specialist.
Two Weapon Fighting naturally works well with Finesse weapons.


Unlike a Rogue, you have a naturally high AC and HP, so recognize that just because you invest your feats and abilities into ranged damage that you're still a very capable melee combatant.

You could break the group up into "lines":


Fighter
Ranger (You), Cleric
Bard
Sorcerer, Wizard



That is, if anyone from the backline (Sorcerer, Wizard, Bard) is going to be in melee combat, you should be prepared to intercept on their behalf. A Sniper Ranger is competent, even in melee combat. A Sorcerer is rarely competent when an enemy is adjacent to them. Personally, I'd say that you probably shouldn't specialize, as you'll probably only be able to be a Sniper when you can afford to be. In this team, I don't think you can afford to be fairly often, so it might be better to go with a more generalist build (like with Horizon Walker).

Lastly, don't forget about the Fighter. The biggest bonus to having a melee line is that people survive longer while needing to focus healing/buffs on fewer targets. With a single melee combatant, he's going to be taking a LOT of punishment. Unless the Cleric is designed to be the Fighter's healing battery pack, the FIghter might be going down a lot...unless someone splits some of the damage off of him. This is a 6-man team, and it's unrealistic to say that a single character can take 6 people's worth of damage with only about 30% more HP.

[TriciaOso]

You'll be fine. In 3.5, it may have made sense for a ranger to specialize entirely in ranged or melee fighting. In 5e, you're going to be doing acceptably well in either, even if you focus more on one of them.

So hang back and then if something breaks through get between it and the truly squishy types?

That makes sense, I'll try and figure out if I can pump my AC or Con to take the hits.

[Willie the Duck]

The thing to note (and to emphasize to your fellow party members) is that the game works perfectly well without a front line, provided that people plan. The not-especially-martial cleric can still have half-plate and a shield (and, given that he may not even need weapon-in-hand, ought to have a shield) for a max AC of 19. The social-roguery-magic focused bard can pick up moderately armored feat at level 4 and have the same AC. The sorcerer and wizard can have mage armor, or take a 1-level dip into fighter/cleric for moderate or heavy armor (+1 AC if dipping fighter or forge cleric), or be a mountain dwarf, or be a hobgoblin and take moderately armored.

Basically, a front line does not need to exist, but if one does not, all those (potentially) nice squishy characters should not expect you and the fighter to be able to manage the defensive game all by yourselves. 5e is more resilient than other editions to this issue in that it gives you plenty of practical options, but those options still have to be used.

[Keravath]

Also, clerics in this version can be very effective in the front line. They typically have medium or heavy armor and a shield for a decent AC and spells like Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon give them some added ability that works well in melee range or just outside of it.

[TriciaOso]

Lastly, don't forget about the Fighter. The biggest bonus to having a melee line is that people survive longer. With a single melee combatant, he's going to be taking a LOT of punishment. Unless the Cleric is designed to be the Fighter's healing battery pack, the FIghter might be going down a lot...unless someone splits some of the damage off of him. This is a 6-man team, and it's unrealistic to say that a single character can take 6 people's worth of damage with only about 30% more HP.

Right, that's exactly what I'm worried about. Hmm.

I do think that's sort of the Cleric's raison d'etre, but still.... thanks for the thoughts, I'll chew on it. Based on what you've said, maybe I'll just aim at being a generalist and work out my place in combat as we go.

[Rukelnikov]

Right, that's exactly what I'm worried about. Hmm.

I do think that's sort of the Cleric's raison d'etre, but still.... thanks for the thoughts, I'll chew on it. Based on what you've said, maybe I'll just aim at being a generalist and work out my place in combat as we go.

I wouldn't sweat it that much, parties usually find their way within the first few encounters, so it's likely than after the first 2 sessions you'll have figured out your weaknesses and how to cover them.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Also, remind all of these squishy casters that they have good crowd control abilities, and in this case in particular they need to use them.

[LudicSavant]

I'm going to be playing in a 5e game with some old friends who are now scattered around the country. We are all pretty new to the system and some of us are pretty new to TTRPG altogether, so I suspect we are going to be a very low-op party.

I have probably the most experience of anyone (some 3.5 and a few non-D&D RPG experiences) and I'm worrying about party comp a bit. Right now everyone is just taking whatever tickles their fancy and the plan is:

A ranger (me)
A front-line fighter
A not-especially-martial cleric
A social-roguery-magic focused bard
A sorceror
A wizard

We're starting at level 5.

My original idea for the ranger was stealth/scout/sniper, but now I'm wondering if I need to re-balance my approach to get on the frontline. I'm worried anything that gets past the fighter is going to rip through the rest of these guys like wet paper.

Any thoughts? Are we as lacking in tank-ness as I fear or is this workable?

It's tough to say much with you only mentioning the names of classes and little else. There are a lot of ways to build those classes, and different builds will fill different roles. The "squishy caster" is more of a stereotype than something that should just be assumed.

Ranger/Fighter/Cleric/Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard can be a great party or a terrible one depending on the builds and tactics of the players involved.

[Kyutaru]

You don't need more than the fighter for "tankness" because he only serves as a speed bump for monsters to not instantly rush your backlines without provoking AoOs. Having a second melee is good for covering hallways and more AoOs but it's not necessary. If your party, four of which are magic supporters, buffs the fighter then he can be quite the juggernaut all on his own.

[Wildarm]

A ranger (me)
A front-line fighter
A not-especially-martial cleric
A social-roguery-magic focused bard
A sorceror
A wizard

We're starting at level 5.

My original idea for the ranger was stealth/scout/sniper, but now I'm wondering if I need to re-balance my approach to get on the frontline. I'm worried anything that gets past the fighter is going to rip through the rest of these guys like wet paper.

Any thoughts? Are we as lacking in tank-ness as I fear or is this workable?

You'll be fine with that group. Mix of melee, ranged and magic attacks. Cleric and a Bard for support. Ritual support from Wizard. Unless the fighter has the Sentinel feat, it's difficult to prevent mobs from rushing past to easier targets behind him. You want control which the Cleric(Spirit Guardians), Bard(Hypnotic Pattern) and Wizard(Fireball) can all provide quite effectively.

Making sure everyone has somewhat reasonable defenses is also a good idea. No point in a wizard not casting mage armor on himself to save a single spell slot, just to soak up twice as much damage and twice as much healing from your cleric/bard. Encourage your squishies to break line of sight and maintain distance and the end of every turn. Intelligent, defensive play can go a long way to funneling monster aggression towards those who can take the hits.

Specific for you? Take Goodberry(give some to wizards familiar to use) and Healing Spirit with your Ranger and that will free up a lot of slots for the cleric and bard to be more aggressive with their spell use. You'll deal plenty of damage without much more than hunters mark.