Play what you want, or fill in a needed role?

[jaappleton]

Awhile back, before the forum server crashed (Side Note: Sincerely, a MASSIVE 'thank you' to Rich and the entire mod staff for all their hard work in getting things back up!), I asked what should I play to round out my upcoming Avernus group.

And during the time the forum was unavailable, I thought a lot about the suggestions provided thus far.

Yet I got to thinking, ultimately, it comes down to one of two things. Not for myself, but for anyone in this scenario:

1. Do you play something that can round out the group?

OR

2. Do you play what you want to play, consequences be damned?

In the case of my Avernus group, here's the party comp:

VHuman Dragon Sorc (blaster), Eladrin Scout Rogue (ranged), Kobold Melee Fighter, Undecided (likely NOT a caster), and whatever I play.

So with no healer, no utility caster, no tank... Not even anyone Strength-based! I could try to play something that'd fill in those roles. Maybe an Arcana Cleric or Paladin. And those subclasses are great! But... I'd likely be burning through my resources very quickly, as I try to cover so many bases.

Or do I instead play what I want to play, how I want to play it, and let THEM fill in better party roles as they die?

Not to say I'd play this in any sort of adversarial way. If someone is KO'd and I have the ability to heal, I'll do my best to pop them up.

But they're all playing what they want, what sounds fun to them. So why should I feel pigeonholed into what I want to play?

[LibraryOgre]

I always go for the "Fill a role" option. There's lots of options, and approaching a role from a different direction can be weird and fun.

[False God]

I have generally found that 5E is not very demanding of the holy trinity, and high damage per round will tend to beat out the need for strong defenses or much healing, and 5E healing doesn't go very far anyway.

So, play what you want.

[nickl_2000]

I don't get to play enough PCs to play all the ideas running through my head. So, in general I fill out a roll that fits one of the ideas.

However, for the campaign that I am starting soon I'm doing a "play what you want" because I really wanted to play an Arcane Trickster. I have had a thing for rogues since I started play D&D and RPGs, so the fact that I haven't played one yet in 5e was bugging me.

[stoutstien]

Both usually. What I want to play and what will support the party coincided most of the time.

[prabe]

My own tendency is to fill a role, which in one group leads to the practical effect that I play a lot of spellcasters (and am frankly at least a little tired of it). If I were joining a party, I'd look at what the party had and at least not build to compete for any existing character's niche (5E isn't great at niche-protection, but I think it's worth consideration).

Having said that, I have to say that players who always want to fill a need, and players who always want to play a specific character (especially the subset who always want to play the same character) ... grate on my nerves, at least a little bit. I want the former to pick first, occasionally, and I want the latter (especially the most annoying subset) to expand their comfort zones. So, as a GM, I'm looking at things I can do to reduce both behaviors. Rolling stats in order (ish) seems like one option; randomizing selection order (and not allowing players to defer) seems like another; randomly selecting, say, two classes letting the player choose between them (possibly with a caveat that there be o classes duplicated) is another.

As to the OP (sorry for the rather extensive digression): I think it depends on how badly you think a missing role needs filling, and how tired you are of filling that particular role. Which isn't really a helpful answer, I suppose.

[jaappleton]

My own tendency is to fill a role, which in one group leads to the practical effect that I play a lot of spellcasters (and am frankly at least a little tired of it). If I were joining a party, I'd look at what the party had and at least not build to compete for any existing character's niche (5E isn't great at niche-protection, but I think it's worth consideration).

Having said that, I have to say that players who always want to fill a need, and players who always want to play a specific character (especially the subset who always want to play the same character) ... grate on my nerves, at least a little bit. I want the former to pick first, occasionally, and I want the latter (especially the most annoying subset) to expand their comfort zones. So, as a GM, I'm looking at things I can do to reduce both behaviors. Rolling stats in order (ish) seems like one option; randomizing selection order (and not allowing players to defer) seems like another; randomly selecting, say, two classes letting the player choose between them (possibly with a caveat that there be o classes duplicated) is another.

As to the OP (sorry for the rather extensive digression): I think it depends on how badly you think a missing role needs filling, and how tired you are of filling that particular role. Which isn't really a helpful answer, I suppose.

Emphasis mine.

I really, really agree with this part. Like, in my original post, I mention someone picked Eladrin Scout Rogue. So I'm going to avoid rolling a Rogue, and probably also avoid Ranger. The Rogue Scout is pretty much designed to be an alternative to the Ranger, so let them do their thing.

Now, despite someone going Dragon Sorc, I would be willing to do something like Divine Soul Sorc. Not for this particular party composition, but in other cases, yes, I'd be willing to go Sorc. Because while we'd both have Metamagic, we could have entirely different spell lists and handle very different roles, covering two different bases, as it were.

We're currently finishing up Curse of Strahd, where we have two Clerics, and there's been no complaints or anything. But I do agree with your point here; If someone designs their character to do X, its poor form to design your own PC to do X better than they do.

[OldTrees1]

Both.

I find groups that make characters together during a session 0 have a good chance of everyone playing what they want and also having the group as a whole cover whatever roles the group felt needed to be covered.

And that usually means new characters can be what they want.


So with no healer, no utility caster, no tank... Not even anyone Strength-based!
You have a Fighter, they get enough hp to hold the line for a while.
You don't really need a Strength based character. Although maybe buy a block and tackle if it concerns you. Those pulleys can give you a strength multiplier.
Healing is one of those areas that different parties value and need in different amounts. You might get away with just having a Inspiring Leader or Healer feat in the party. Easily calibrated at your / their next ASI.
What utility magic do you see as lacking? Your Rogue might cover some of that with skills instead. Or it might be an interesting limitation for the party. Being without Locate Object makes you rely on social & investigation more. Being without detect magic / identify makes you treat magic differently (and use some of the Sorc's latent arcana lore).

So you are less pigeonholed than you might think and I expect you could have your cake and eat it too. What did you want to play?

[prabe]

If someone designs their character to do X, its poor form to design your own PC to do X better than they do.

I think it's probably worth not trying to do X even as well as they do, unless the party is big enough where there's a legitimate need for, say, two melee tanks. Maybe build a character who can tank if needed, but not as a primary role. It reduces the odds of intra-party tension, because you're not trying to be a tank, too (and someone's going to be better at it, which is going to leave someone ... bothered), and because you're not competing for tank-type magic items (which might depend on the campaign).

[jaappleton]

Both.

I find groups that make characters together during a session 0 have a good chance of everyone playing what they want and also having the group as a whole cover whatever roles the group felt needed to be covered.


You have a Fighter, they get enough hp to hold the line for a while.
You don't really need a Strength based character.
Healing is one of those areas that different parties value and need in different amounts. You might get away with just having a Inspiring Leader or Healer feat in the party. Easily calibrated at your / their next ASI.
What utility magic do you see as lacking? Your Rogue might cover some of that with skills instead. Or it might be an interesting limitation for the party. Being without Locate Object makes you rely on social & investigation more. Being without detect magic / identify makes you treat magic differently (and use some of the Sorc's latent arcana lore).

So you are less pigeonholed than you might think and I expect you could have your cake and eat it too. What did you want to play?

I'm really digging that new Way of Mercy Monk, to be frank. But I don't want to spend all my Ki on healing allies. And despite being very nimble, it also makes me one of two PCs, or perhaps the only one (I don't know if the Kobold is going Melee or Ranged fighter) that's going to fight in melee.

False God said something intriguing, which I actually tend to agree with: High offense is likely the way to go here. Dead enemies don't inflict damage or status effects on the party. So that said, being an Avernus game, Paladin is an incredibly strong option since Smite deals +1d8 VS Fiends.

[DeTess]

I play what I want, with my only care being to try to avoid overlapping with another player's character in a way that would make them less useful. I feel this actually leads to better games when you don't always have the same tool set at your disposal. For example, in a game I'm currently playing in there is a sorcerer, two wizards and a warlock. This campaign by design both has really big magical component and really deadly enemies, which makes combat with this incredibly fragile group a hoot. Sure, we'll all die if the enemy looks at us angrily, but that just means combat is a mad panicked scramble involving lots of 'run away!' and 'kill it! kill it with fire!'.

[ZorroGames]

Well it depends on AL or not.

In AL, party composition, which is at best I think highly overrated, means I bring Two different builds that I like and choose if I think One may be more useful. Especially high tier1, tier 2, and low tier 3. Tier 4... waiting but not excitedly.

My recent non-AL campaign seems to have more members in/out and changing characters between sessions than my AL experiences! That seems.., odd. I have had 3 different characters (none died) in DMM starting at levels 5, 7, 8 and if I keep saying no to Willow asI am currently maybe a fourth. And that seems the norm. Weird?

Play responsibly what things you like. Between stats, skills, spells, etc., most aspects can be dealt with with good play styles and tactics.

For myself it is Fighters/Rangers, Wizards, and Clerics mostly. Paladin, Rogues to a lesser degree. And of course my old AL setting allowed Feats and Multi-classing fully, no DM “options” denial, so I have a set of Tier 1/2 MC PCs that I could drop in if things looked pear shaped at the start. Not that stopped the “Player saw it coming at the start but character could not use knowledge he did not have” TPK. Three virtual stitches in my Player tongue that night.

[Temperjoke]

Personally, I tend to enjoy filling a needed role. I like helping with party cohesion and synergy, plus it means that I'll have plenty of opportunities to contribute to the group. That being said, if you want to do something different than what you believe the group needs, I would search for a way you can do both. Like if the group is lacking in healing abilities, but you would prefer to be a blaster, then maybe a cleric or druid, where you have options for both? Just an example.

[Biotroll]

I usually end up filling a role (as I play with newbies and the other group I got invited to after everyone already had their character already prepared), but since I have so many ideas for characters flying in my head it's not an issue for me as I can just pluck one of them to fill the role as necessary.

I agree about not stepping on another player's niche, for me this is my first and big consideration when creating a character to already existing party. But after that, you should go wild. If you have more ideas for your characters, filter out those that would make a niche collision and then pick one from the rest.

I also agree that paladin seems like a good choice - solid HPs, melee presence in case kobold goes ranged and you can do some healing as well. I don't think missing an arcane caster will be too much of issue, you have sorcerer for some AoE blasting and utility can be gained from picking up a ritual caster later if needed. If pally calls to you, go with it. Or if you had some other idea for character, you can just present it here and we can do some brainstorming.

[jaappleton]

I usually end up filling a role (as I play with newbies and the other group I got invited to after everyone already had their character already prepared), but since I have so many ideas for characters flying in my head it's not an issue for me as I can just pluck one of them to fill the role as necessary.

I agree about not stepping on another player's niche, for me this is my first and big consideration when creating a character to already existing party. But after that, you should go wild. If you have more ideas for your characters, filter out those that would make a niche collision and then pick one from the rest.

I also agree that paladin seems like a good choice - solid HPs, melee presence in case kobold goes ranged and you can do some healing as well. I don't think missing an arcane caster will be too much of issue, you have sorcerer for some AoE blasting and utility can be gained from picking up a ritual caster later if needed. If pally calls to you, go with it. Or if you had some other idea for character, you can just present it here and we can do some brainstorming.

My fear is if I'm the only melee, its rather obvious I'm the only one up on the front. And that means I'm going to get ganged up on, enemy-wise.

So.... Would it actually be better for EVERYONE to go Ranged? So when combat starts, we all sort of scatter?

[Biotroll]

My fear is if I'm the only melee, its rather obvious I'm the only one up on the front. And that means I'm going to get ganged up on, enemy-wise.

So.... Would it actually be better for EVERYONE to go Ranged? So when combat starts, we all sort of scatter?

I understand the fear, but you can try to contact other players to see if the undecided one already picked up a class and if the kobold is going to be ranged or not. Or you could just go with paladin and try to find a way to deal with being ganged upon.

I never looked into Avernus adventure but it's fairly obvious that even simple Protection from Evil and Good will do you good - disadvantage on attacks for most enemies you might encounter is nothing to sneeze at and if you can stack AC up you might avoid many hits you would take otherwise. Warding Bond would also be nice to distribute damage to others while you hold the line (kobold player would be my prime target if he is going ranged) (note: Apparently it's not on paladin's list? :smallconfused: I thought it was, never mind then.), and there are other ways to deal with the situation depending on Oath you are planning to take. Hell, if you are getting ganged up on and you see you are going to fall soon, let your sorc target you with big AoE.

[BoxANT]

party doesn't have a healer? No tank?

no worries

it only becomes an issue if players die

and if that happens, then the new character will (hopefully) fill that role

and if they still don't learn? Well, that in itself can be a valuable experience..

[OldTrees1]

I'm really digging that new Way of Mercy Monk, to be frank. But I don't want to spend all my Ki on healing allies. And despite being very nimble, it also makes me one of two PCs, or perhaps the only one (I don't know if the Kobold is going Melee or Ranged fighter) that's going to fight in melee.

So you want to be a Way of Mercy Monk but without feeling like you should spend all your Ki on healing allies.

Have you considered taking the Healer feat? At the cost of 1 feat you get a lot of healing per short rest and the ability to wake up the dying with 1hp. That would make it easy for you to avoid spending any Ki on healing allies.

--------

However you also asked about what if everyone was ranged. That can work. I suggest being able to notice encounters while still at a distance and then having enough mobility to keep at range.

[Dork_Forge]

Play what you want, if there is a hole in the party role wise then the party as a whole can rise to fill it (feats and dips) or the DM can help (no healer? more potions available to buy). It's a game and as long as it doesn't come at the detriment of anyone else, fun should come first.

[Tawmis]

I think it's very important to play what you want - because if you do what is needed - then you might end up with a character class you don't enjoy (or hey, might not even be all that familiar with). The lack of enjoyment of investing time (played) into a character you have no interest in, is going to reflect in the game; and not being familiar with it, may slow down the game. Now that said, who knows, if you did a what is needed and were not familiar and/or didn't want to originally play; you may come to love the character after all.

For example, I am not one for playing a Cleric/Priest type. The healing aspect of trying to keep others alive is not my general gaming style. In such a case, I'd rather opt for a Paladin or Druid. Someone who can heal but that's not their primary role. Similar, not a fan of playing Wizards because of the massive amount of spells to know and have at the ready to be able to use later.

[Luccan]

I personally try to round out the group, but I try to encourage other players (or my players when I DM) to run what they like. I find the concept of groups learning to cover for their deficiencies interesting, but I'm not comfortable forcing that on my group by just running whatever I like without talking to them.

Edit: Should say I like playing most rolls, if not most classes, to some degree. I'm not really put out by it like some might be.

[Yakmala]

Do you like to play Druids?

If, so, you can be the tank, DPS, healer, controller, spy or general utility, depending on the circumstances. No other class adjusts to the party needs on a case by case basis like the Druid.

[SociopathFriend]

1. Do you play something that can round out the group?

OR

2. Do you play what you want to play, consequences be damned?


I typically go for 1 as I'm just that sort of player.
That said, the reason I go for 1 is that my party typically dies as my current group works... not all that well together and many of them have exceedingly poor impulse control against a DM that will kill your character if the dice go that way and it's clear that you deserve it. So I try to round out the group in fashions that can help make up for poor plays.
Which then somewhat rapidly leaves 1 a wasted choice as the party I end up with is not the one I initially made the character for as I inevitably fail and they die for good.

Of my current group, there are no characters of the initial party my Necromancer Wizard joined still alive with him. This is an issue as with the exception of the Fighter- every single player is mainly a spellcaster.
Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock, Bard, Fighter, Wizard <- Our current group. The Sorcerer is level 11, I'm 9 Wiz/1 Cleric, the Fighter is either 8 or 9, and I believe everyone else is 7. We use point-buy and either rolling for HP/level or taking average.

Needless to say- we're squishy and there is not much I can do about it. Currently all I can do is personally survive and work to ensure I can stabilize them before they die for good.

[Addaran]

Play what i want! I haven't played much 5ed game and there's some characters i want to try. Though i'll try not to overshadow a character with a specific niche. (Some are always good to have multiple of. Nobody will complain about multiple tanks or multiple casters who can heal)

I might try to round the group but not if it's something i really don't want to play.

At present, i joined a group with only a favored soul as healer and they seem to think we really needed healing. I really didn't feel like playing a "healer" though, so i picked the healer feat on a eldritch knight. Party really had only one melee so i can lots of damage away from them and 1d6+4+lvl HP per short rest is pretty amazing.

[The Aboleth]

For what it's worth, I tell my group that my #1 job as DM is to make sure everyone is having fun...so I typically lean towards "play what you want."

This did lead to a situation where we had 3 Rogues at one point (all different subclasses), which WAS admittedly challenging to balance combat encounters with...but we all made it work, and everyone had a blast (one of the Rogues has since rolled a Sorcerer, and another left the group for personal reasons...but now we have 2 Warlocks! Haha).

Maybe it's just because I'm primarily a DM, but my philosophy has always been to give players freedom to do what they want (within reason, of course) and it's up to ME to figure out a way to make it work. Sometimes it's a pain, but I'm fortunate to be close friends with all my players and they seem to be responding positively to my approach.

TLDR: Play what you want and let the DM figure out how to appropriately balance encounters.

[stoutstien]

For what it's worth, I tell my group that my #1 job as DM is to make sure everyone is having fun...so I typically lean towards "play what you want."

This did lead to a situation where we had 3 Rogues at one point (all different subclasses), which WAS admittedly challenging to balance combat encounters with...but we all made it work, and everyone had a blast (one of the Rogues has since rolled a Sorcerer, and another left the group for personal reasons...but now we have 2 Warlocks! Haha).

Maybe it's just because I'm primarily a DM, but my philosophy has always been to give players freedom to do what they want (within reason, of course) and it's up to ME to figure out a way to make it work. Sometimes it's a pain, but I'm fortunate to be close friends with all my players and they seem to be responding positively to my approach.

TLDR: Play what you want and let the DM figure out how to appropriately balance encounters.

5e is generally very forgiving as far as party make-up. I've had one table who only play all same class at a time and they handle all of the published campaigns without much issues. Sure sometimes challenges arise but nothing 5 barbarians can't fix with adequate force.

[iTreeby]

Absolutely play what you want.

That being said, it sounds like you could have an all range team that doesn't autofail stealth rolls so you might be able to do a different play style all together if you can get someone to cast pass without trace.

[MeimuHakurei]

It's simple - if someone has a problem with a certain role not being filled, they should do it themselves.

[sambojin]

Fill *every* role. Kind of half-heartedly, but if there's someone already doing that, they'll love you for the resource savings, so they might be able to do something else one day (they won't). You could even make them do their thing better, if you wanted to. If there's no-one else to do a thing, then that's your shtick for them for a moment, but why be trapped in your own little box? Do everything, fairly well.

I am, of course, saying, you should always be a high'ish Charisma, high Wisdom, Firbolg Moon Druid in absolutely every campaign if you're entering into it late. Every time. No questions, regardless of other characters in the party. Even if the campaign hasn't started yet. You must do everything well. Or at least fairly well. They will not.

At worst, cast Guidance on them. They still won't keep up with your magical/ knowledgey/ tanky/ lockdowny/ hitty/ stealthed/ smack-talking disguisey awesomeness. Or the damage that you will allow them to do, when they're just doing their thing.

So, I humbly leave, having answered your question.


(just because I'm all about options, you could just be a Firbolg Str Paladin. There's nothing stopping you, it'd just be boring)

[D+1]

If I were joining a party, I'd look at what the party had and at least not build to compete for any existing character's niche (5E isn't great at niche-protection, but I think it's worth consideration).


It's simple - if someone has a problem with a certain role not being filled, they should do it themselves.

These things. If you want to play a particular kind of character do it. If doing so is going to stomp all over someone else's existing character because their PC is covering a certain niche already, consider a bit more carefully how your PC is going to fit in. However, unless the DM says, "Don't play this, or this, or that," or other players say (politely), "Please don't play a PC like this because the party really doesn't need or want another PC covering that niche," then play what you want. If nobody is setting conditions on your participation you don't need to place any special restrictions on yourself. As noted, if someone wants a certain role filled then THEY can f'n well do that, not demand that YOU do that.

Also, you really can't ever go wrong with just creating a PC that stands at the front line and helps deal more damage.

[Yakk]

I roll some dice, look at the party, think if it fits. If not, I roll again.

[HPisBS]

1. Do you play something that can round out the group?

OR

2. Do you play what you want to play, consequences be damned?

In the case of my Avernus group, here's the party comp:

VHuman Dragon Sorc (blaster), Eladrin Scout Rogue (ranged), Kobold Melee Fighter, Undecided (likely NOT a caster), and whatever I play.

So with no healer, no utility caster, no tank... Not even anyone Strength-based! I could try to play something that'd fill in those roles. Maybe an Arcana Cleric or Paladin. And those subclasses are great! But... I'd likely be burning through my resources very quickly, as I try to cover so many bases.

There's so many interesting options that I've yet to find a time where these two goals were mutually exclusive lol

Do you want to play a healer, utility caster, and/or tank? If not a character that focuses on any of those things, then how about something that kinda does one (or more?) of those things?

A single Swords Bard can play at all three of those. (Focus on Dex more than Cha, + Defensive Flourish = decent melee damage and pretty respectable AC, especially if you buff yourself first)

(Moon) Druids can do all 3, too.

There's lots of ways to build Wizards beyond just utility mage. Theurgy Wiz to heal, Blade Singer to melee, Conjuration or Necro to tank via minions.

If you use UA, Tranquility or even Mercy Monk gets you decent healing (a little too much healing for Tranquility) and tanking potential (patient defense).

Ranger can do a little healing (particularly if your dm lets you force-feed Goodberries to downed allies) along with your choice of melee or ranged focus. (Though you're probably right about being outshined by the Scout Rogue for the most part if you stick to RAW Ranger lol.)


– Or were you implying that you had just one particular character concept you were excited about before this? If so, then what?
–– Assuming ^, I'd say that so long as you avoid duplicating another PC down to the subclass, you'll probably be fine playing whatever class you like. And so long as someone has the Healer feat, that should cover your most basic healing needs.

[Ravinsild]

I'm in 3 live campaigns and I'm playing 3 Beast Master Rangers (lol). One is a wood elf with a panther, one is a kenku with a ranger (both archers) and one is a half-orc with dual-hand axes and the throwing weapon fighting style with a bear.

Rangers make *excellent* support characters so my healing has been invaluable as well as the flanking my pets provide, plus cool ranger tracking stuff, etc.

I've had a lot of epic moments. People probably don't think "support class" when they think Ranger, but boy howdy I tell you what we can fill those shoes.

[MrStabby]

Always play what you like. How you play it may be something the party might have a say in, but fundamentally who you are in a RPG is your choice.

The flip side is that it is wrong for you to expect others to play what you want them to.

Now, what you enjoy may be influenced by what others are playing. This is also fair. Also your choice and no one elses.

[sithlordnergal]

Honestly, it highly depends on how skilled my party is. I have two groups that I regularly play with. One group have a lot of knowledge on how 5e works, and know how to properly use their abilities. I don't really care about team composition with that group, because I know they're skilled enough to survive even if we have two Wizards, a Bard, and a Fighter as our party. The Bard picks up healing, the Fighter works as the frontline tank, and us wizards act as support and blasters.

Meanwhile in my other group, I am struggling to figure out what to play because, no offence to my party, but none of them are very competent. We have a Monk/Cleric that isn't great at healing, a Rogue/Monk that doesn't really do well with skirmishing, we tend to lose our frontline because they're often not here, and then there's me. No offense to my party, but I feel like I am really the only proficient player in the group. As a result I build characters that can fill out the weaknesses the party has...and we have some major, glaring issues.

To put this into perspective of how the rogue plays. He's an Arcane Trickster...he got knocked out by a enemy during one battle where it ended in a TPK. He rolled a nat 20, he was up and the one enemy that was left did not know he was up. The DM gave him advantage on the next attack due to the enemy not being aware that he was up. He could have attacked and killed the creature there, he could have brought one of us back up to aid him...instead he cast darkness centered on himself and stood up with 1 hit point, and was immediately knocked out again.

[KorvinStarmast]

My preference is to play a character that will fill in a needed role in the party.
I prefer to choose last.
D&D is built around a "special ops team" model.
You don't leave a needed role/capability out of the mix.

[ZorroGames]

. Snip...
D&D is built around a "special ops team" model.
You don't leave a needed role/capability out of the mix.

This is the exact wording that drew me into D&D from Fantasy Miniatures war games.

Flashbacks!

Still, play what you want, 5e can handle it.

[Sigreid]

Typically I play what I want to. However, if something I think I would like to play has the ability to round out or mesh into the group, at least partially, I'll go with that.

For example, the current party had a paladin, rogue and fighter. Classically you'd want a wizard or cleric to round it out. I wanted to play an artificer so I made one of those and am taking minor healing and control abilities to help cover the gaps while still playing what I wanted.

[MoiMagnus]

If "filling the group" doesn't coincide with "what you want", chose "what you want".

Would you, personally, enjoy the game better with a balanced party where you fill the needed role, or with an unbalanced party where you play something else?

You're not supposed to sacrifice yourself for the team. Peoples fill needed roles because they personally enjoy when the party is balanced, or because they don't have strong opinions about what class to chose (like me most of the time) so it eases the choice. But balanced party are only important when the players actually care about it. (Or when the DM is a beginner. Unbalanced parties can be quite a challenge for a beginner DM.).

I mean, you can sacrifice yourself for the team if you really want to, but check before that the team actually care about (and is willing to help you by not making your job absurdly hard). There is nothing worse than reducing your enjoyment for something nobody else care about.

[FabulousFizban]

Play what you want, it is the DMs job to balance the game not yours.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Because everyone always comes to me for help building characters, I have my fingers in every pot already. I build myself and others out of consideration of three points, in this strict order- 1.) What does the player want to do, 2.) What is good for the party, and 3.) What is good for the current campaign, as far as we know it.

I keep myself to the exact same system. While it's a team game and thus you should always take your party into account, there is no point in playing a game as something you don't like. If the party is perfect except for a healer and no one wants to play one, then you play without a healer and make do.

[Nagog]

I always go for the "Fill a role" option. There's lots of options, and approaching a role from a different direction can be weird and fun.

This is what I go for. For example, a Str-Based Rogue with the Healer feat. Unorthodox in pretty much every way, yet fun. Still no utility caster, but often that can be circumvented by creative uses of skill checks.

[Man_Over_Game]

If you have two Barbarians, they'll have a hard time standing out between one another. How many "Strong Man" checks are going to be needed throughout your adventure? Not enough for 2 Barbarians, I feel.

Having a diverse party means that the party can handle more diverse problems, and it also means each player gets their own chance to shine. Having a Druid, Rogue, and a Fighter leaves little room for the Ranger to stand out.

So I firmly believe that a more diverse party has more fun.

[stoutstien]

If you have two Barbarians, they'll have a hard time standing out between one another. How many "Strong Man" checks are going to be needed throughout your adventure? Not enough for 2 Barbarians, I feel.

Having a diverse party means that the party can handle more diverse problems, and it also means each player gets their own chance to shine. Having a Druid, Rogue, and a Fighter leaves little room for the Ranger to stand out.

So I firmly believe that a more diverse party has more fun.

Welcome back. Barbarians take the cake for me as the most disappointing class. there's so many different ways to flavor them but mechanically there only so many different ways they crunch.

[Theodoxus]

I always* play a life cleric. I've yet to find a situation where playing what I want (a life cleric) gets someone else at the table mad because they wanted to play a cleric. If there is more than 1 cleric, (only happened once) we negotiated over what parts of playing a cleric we liked. They went War and played a holy warrior, near-Paladin. I played the backup tank and heal bot (a role I relish, honestly).

*I love me some rogue, so from time to time, I'll play one instead of a life cleric. But if the group really wants a healer instead of (another) rogue, I'll happily swap out.

[Man_Over_Game]

Welcome back. Barbarians take the cake for me as the most disappointing class. there's so many different ways to flavor them but mechanically there only so many different ways they crunch.

Thanks, stoutstien. Good to be back after the break. And I agree on the Barbarians. I tried one once, and it was easily the least fun I've had playing DnD.

[stoutstien]

Thanks, stoutstien. Good to be back after the break. And I agree on the Barbarians. I tried one once, and it was easily the least fun I've had playing DnD.

I was talking to one of my players about how I thought the barbarian was in a worse position than the ranger and they laughed at me at first.

Ancestral guardian stands out as the exception in my mind.

[Man_Over_Game]

I was talking to one of my players about how I thought the barbarian was in a worse position than the ranger and they laughed at me at first.

Ancestral guardian stands out as the exception in my mind.

+1 to that.

Tack on Mobile. Hit something on the nose, run behind your team, laugh as they fail to do anything.

I've mulled over a lot of different ideas:

Make them cooler in combat
Use Shove/Grapple as a Bonus Action
Intercept incoming attacks for an ally.

But none of them address the fact that Barbarians are pretty much locked into Athletics, and it's hard to justify more Athletics checks without punishing the rest of the team.

[XmonkTad]

Playing what you want is great, but can lead to problems if it doesn't have a minimum amount of synergy with the rest of the party (ie playing an evil character in a LG party). This also applies to mechanical synergy. If your group is sneaky and consists of a thief, shadow monk, and gloomstalker. You can synergize with them (ie a whispers bard) or you could complement them (a trickery cleric) or just fill a needed niche (dex dumping paladin). If you play for synergy, you can sneak along with the rest of the party and sneaky fun is had by all. If you play to complement them, you can't do what they can do (you make their sneaky shenanigans better) and usually they'll love you for it, but sometimes you'll feel left out (ie during a heist). If you play to fill a needed niche, then they'll rely on you when they need you, but otherwise they'll probably play to their strengths and not involve you.

It sounds like your party is more balanced than an all-sneaky party. So adding a bit more balance might be something the group is tacitly expecting?

[opaopajr]

Sometimes 1, more often 2... but usually: 3. I let the dice decide our fate. :smallsmile:

Just roll a die for the number classes (PHB is 12, Basic is 4) then roll stats -- random point buy if point buy is allowed. Later roll a die for archetypes ! :smalltongue: It usually works fine.

[djreynolds]

I'm in 3 live campaigns and I'm playing 3 Beast Master Rangers (lol). One is a wood elf with a panther, one is a kenku with a ranger (both archers) and one is a half-orc with dual-hand axes and the throwing weapon fighting style with a bear.

Rangers make *excellent* support characters so my healing has been invaluable as well as the flanking my pets provide, plus cool ranger tracking stuff, etc.

I've had a lot of epic moments. People probably don't think "support class" when they think Ranger, but boy howdy I tell you what we can fill those shoes.

A sword or valor bard can easily fill in most roles in a party.... aside from a dedicated wizard/sorcerer... or mood druid.... and its so easy to just grab a level of warlock for agonizing blast that DPR is right there as well.

I personally will choose a role that needs to be filled, but as Ravinslid has said.... a ranger really can cover down on multiple rolls all at once.... like a valor or sword bard can.

[ZorroGames]

Playing what you want is great, but can lead to problems if it doesn't have a minimum amount of synergy with the rest of the party (ie playing an evil character in a LG party). This also applies to mechanical synergy. If your group is sneaky and consists of a thief, shadow monk, and gloomstalker. You can synergize with them (ie a whispers bard) or you could complement them (a trickery cleric) or just fill a needed niche (dex dumping paladin). If you play for synergy, you can sneak along with the rest of the party and sneaky fun is had by all. If you play to complement them, you can't do what they can do (you make their sneaky shenanigans better) and usually they'll love you for it, but sometimes you'll feel left out (ie during a heist). If you play to fill a needed niche, then they'll rely on you when they need you, but otherwise they'll probably play to their strengths and not involve you.

It sounds like your party is more balanced than an all-sneaky party. So adding a bit more balance might be something the group is tacitly expecting?

Yes, depends on the mix but FWIW until recently I only played AL and will be going back to that because the campaign I am in is as chaotic as any open AL setting about attendance and players switching characters between sessions.

[ScoutTrooper]

Depends on the group. Historically speaking, if I'm coming to a new table where I only know the person who invited me. I play Monk, it's comfortable, not many players have seen it in action. It allows me to feel for the group, if their RP heavy, or Combat heavy. With a Monk PC I can excel in either.

Once I have an established group, it's usually playing what I want. I love exotic backstories, monstrous race PCs or Class/Race combos that don't feed each other. Then coming up with a backstory to fit it.

However we do have an upcoming CoS, and the DM said to show up to session 0 with 3 PC ideas (Race, Class & Background). Due to TPK'ing the last CoS from another DM, we're discussing options to play what we need.

[False God]

Play what you want, it is the DMs job to balance the game not yours.

And quite frankly, if the DM isn't going to adjust the game at all to consider your party, then they should at least be up-front with the group that "To enter this dungeon, you'll need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS."

[Sigreid]

And quite frankly, if the DM isn't going to adjust the game at all to consider your party, then they should at least be up-front with the group that "To enter this dungeon, you'll need a tank, a healer, and 3 DPS."

Or, you know, the gaming group as a whole can just agree that the world is the world and it's up to the party to decide not only what they play but what parts of the world they engage with or try to avoid/flee.

[False God]

Or, you know, the gaming group as a whole can just agree that the world is the world and it's up to the party to decide not only what they play but what parts of the world they engage with or try to avoid/flee.

Assuming that's possible. The DM is not required to run the sort of game the players want to play. If there is a mismatch of expectations and the party wants to play Something Else, they should have one of the party members propose running Something Else themselves. Not attempt to tell the DM "Well, you came prepared to run Game A, but we're not interested, so now you must run Game B."

[blackjack50]

Someone please quote me if they do this too:

I have created about 4 characters in my spare time. I have fleshed out their backstory (a bit). These are characters I would LOVE to play.

Now that a new campaign has come up for me? I can pick any of the 4 and be totally happy. And I can base that pick on the role required for the group. I have a fighter tank Goliath who has a cool Viking esque backstory. A bardic merchant (which I am playing now). A sneaky sniper rogue assassin who is a smartass bent on revenge. And a cleric on a mission to set up health clubs and boxing gyms across the land.

[Nagog]

Yes, depends on the mix but FWIW until recently I only played AL and will be going back to that because the campaign I am in is as chaotic as any open AL setting about attendance and players switching characters between sessions.

Honestly, I cannot play AL myself. Every AL game I've witnessed or heard tell of seemed so bland and constrained by rules, it stifled much of the fun. It became Rules vs. Fun rather than Rules Facilitating Fun, and induced so many DM vs. Rules Lawyer arguments, which led to the mentality and gameplay of DM vs. Players that absolutely kills a campaign.
That said, most non-AL games I've seen are also very very loose overall, with a threadbare storyline and more playing for laughs than playing for RP immersion and enjoyment. There's a healthy medium there between AL and Casual DMing that is far rarer than it should be, and is personally why I think many people don't enjoy D&D.


Assuming that's possible. The DM is not required to run the sort of game the players want to play. If there is a mismatch of expectations and the party wants to play Something Else, they should have one of the party members propose running Something Else themselves. Not attempt to tell the DM "Well, you came prepared to run Game A, but we're not interested, so now you must run Game B."

When it comes to the party's choice on what they'd like to play, it should not come down to the DM to fill the gaps where they need. On the other hand though, if your party of one fire themed wizard and two rogues are out adventuring, throwing a dragon at them that is homebrewed with a 120 ft Blindsight (and HB sneak attack immunity) and immunity to fire and blaming the party for not being well rounded enough is also straight up just a jerk move, speaking from personal experience.
In 5e, for the most part, each primary role can be filled by any class. When a party all starts at level 1 and levels up at the end of Session 1, you're typically able to get a feel for party dynamic and party needs, then figure out your character and how they fit into that dynamic from there. If the party is stupid enough to go all in on one role however, they aren't gonna have a good time, no matter what the role is. I typically build my characters to fit a few different roles, even if those roles are filled already. This allows me to always have a fun and different role to play when I want to switch things up, as well as helps party balance overall.

[ZorroGames]

Honestly, I cannot play AL myself. Every AL game I've witnessed or heard tell of seemed so bland and constrained by rules, it stifled much of the fun. It became Rules vs. Fun rather than Rules Facilitating Fun, and induced so many DM vs. Rules Lawyer arguments, which led to the mentality and gameplay of DM vs. Players that absolutely kills a campaign.
That said, most non-AL games I've seen are also very very loose overall, with a threadbare storyline and more playing for laughs than playing for RP immersion and enjoyment. There's a healthy medium there between AL and Casual DMing that is far rarer than it should be, and is personally why I think many people don't enjoy D&D.

Snip...

TBH not by any means my experience in general.

[Sigreid]

Assuming that's possible. The DM is not required to run the sort of game the players want to play. If there is a mismatch of expectations and the party wants to play Something Else, they should have one of the party members propose running Something Else themselves. Not attempt to tell the DM "Well, you came prepared to run Game A, but we're not interested, so now you must run Game B."

I was actually thinking of how my group knows that when I DM the world is just the world, but they're not typically railroaded into anything. Even when I run published content. Heck, we just started with me Running Descent and I reminded them straight up that they can blow the whole thing off and I'll wing it. When I wing it, the encounters can vary wildly.

But yes, your general statement is true. The way the game runs really needs to be something the entire group, DM included, can dig.

[False God]

I was actually thinking of how my group knows that when I DM the world is just the world, but they're not typically railroaded into anything. Even when I run published content. Heck, we just started with me Running Descent and I reminded them straight up that they can blow the whole thing off and I'll wing it. When I wing it, the encounters can vary wildly.

But yes, your general statement is true. The way the game runs really needs to be something the entire group, DM included, can dig.

I tend to let my players set the pace of how dangerous they want to get. I'll throw appropriate-level challenges at them because they'll usually start adventuring in a location that has lower-level challenges. (because there's a town or something nearby that has been keeping the threats mostly under control) Even if they attempt to bypass these challenges and head for the CR15 dragon lair that has been rumored to exist in the southern mountains, there's stuff between the party and their destination and it's hard to just jump into the deep end of the pool.

So generally I'll leave "switches" around the world that the party can flip and send the game into hardmode, nightmare or "every fight is a TPK". Align the magic gems and awaken the ancient lich. Kill the messenger boy and piss off a foreign empire. Steal the "stone of sleeping" around the dragon's neck and watch them wreak havoc on the countryside. I usually make these things fairly well marked, so that when the party decides to push them and I murder them 10 seconds later, it's clear it's not me being an unreasonable DM.

I still try to leave in-world markers that indicate they're entering a dangerous area. Ya know, there's a sign that says "beware the dragon", maybe the 1st-level party should take note. It's not unpredictable. In fact the difficulty can be very predictable if they're paying attention.


When it comes to the party's choice on what they'd like to play, it should not come down to the DM to fill the gaps where they need.
Where I live, D&D players is sort of a limited commodity so I've often had to play with 2 or 3 players. And sometimes this is a choice because new recruits turn out to be horrible people/players. I'd rather fill in some party gaps as the DM (since it gives me an excuse to play that I often don't get) than either not play due to lack of players or be forced to play with terrible people/players.


In 5e, for the most part, each primary role can be filled by any class. When a party all starts at level 1 and levels up at the end of Session 1, you're typically able to get a feel for party dynamic and party needs, then figure out your character and how they fit into that dynamic from there. If the party is stupid enough to go all in on one role however, they aren't gonna have a good time, no matter what the role is. I typically build my characters to fit a few different roles, even if those roles are filled already. This allows me to always have a fun and different role to play when I want to switch things up, as well as helps party balance overall.
I dunno, my experience is that 4-5 characters of just about any makeup can take on just about anything at their appropriate CR. Monsters have pretty low AC so it's almost impossible to miss, and players tend to have high AC so they rarely get hit. High DPR can tear through just about anything too.

[Sigreid]

Where I live, D&D players is sort of a limited commodity so I've often had to play with 2 or 3 players. And sometimes this is a choice because new recruits turn out to be horrible people/players. I'd rather fill in some party gaps as the DM (since it gives me an excuse to play that I often don't get) than either not play due to lack of players or be forced to play with terrible people/players.




In my experience, horrible players can bet brought along and dealt with as they get better. I have no desire to play with horrible people as that's a lot harder to fix.

[ZorroGames]

Guess it varies from locale to locale, my experience is that volunteer DMs in AL settings have said, “Change the module to “X” and I will DM,” knowing that the alternative is about 7 unhappy players who didn’t get to game or a very unhappy dragooned DM who who had planned to play.

The Tier 1 and 2 tables always seemed filled or have to be split into two table of 4+ players with said “volunteered” DM involved.

[False God]

In my experience, horrible players can bet brought along and dealt with as they get better. I have no desire to play with horrible people as that's a lot harder to fix.

When I talk about horrible players, I just want to be clear I'm not referring to noobs. I'm okay with noobs (though I don't always run noob friendly games, even if 5E is SUPER noob friendly). I'm referring to people who you can play with for months on end and still ask "which die do I use for an attack roll?" People who cheat (which is also a personality problem). People who fight the DM. A lot of problem player issues are problem people issues. But that's more the end of the pool I'm talking about.

[Sigreid]

When I talk about horrible players, I just want to be clear I'm not referring to noobs. I'm okay with noobs (though I don't always run noob friendly games, even if 5E is SUPER noob friendly). I'm referring to people who you can play with for months on end and still ask "which die do I use for an attack roll?" People who cheat (which is also a personality problem). People who fight the DM. A lot of problem player issues are problem people issues. But that's more the end of the pool I'm talking about.

I'm ok with the player that just doesn't get it. Your other examples I file under horrible people.