Character Concept Freedom

[Gudrae]

You may correct me if my initial estimate is wrong. It would even be appreciated. However, I will get to my premise, then questions.

It seems to me that 5th edition has done a great deal of work to try and make it so that no class or play style is required for a game. In particular the most notable one I would expect is the healer. The reason is that it has picked up a game philosophy that holds that long fights are considered bad play/unexciting. For similar reason there is a push to make armoring up heavily at the expense of damage less of a thing as well. I would further note that it would seem that (at least in my experience) the use of traps has been toned down considerably, both in effectiveness and in frequency. Lastly casters have been reeled in with the inclusion of concentration based spells among other things.

Understand that I am rather new to playing in premade content, and I grasp that any game can be shaped to fit any set of characters. However, I find myself wrestling with the notion that play will function just as strongly without party balance (as I have traditionally been the person to fill in gaps), and to this I ask you all the following.

Would any of you more experienced in modules suspect that they could be completed without major changes required on the part of a DM, or without overwhelming tactical preparation beyond the norm on the part of the players while leaving out a role of play? (healer, front line, face, skirmishers, experts, casters, sneak, etc.)

Or on the extreme, while having a (typical?) 4 character party united fully under a singular role of play make it through many/most modules?

TL:DR; Can I play something stupid without the fear that my party will be unable to clear content successfully?

[Contrast]

The reason is that it has picked up a game philosophy that holds that long fights are considered bad play/unexciting.

Not to speak for the minds of the developers but I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment exactly. I do think that most 5E combats will typically last 2-5 rounds and that fights that last longer usually wear out their welcome but I don't think thats the driving philosophy behind the changes you're talking about.

I would say the idea behind it is to not make it so that someone has to play something they don't want to. You're going to be stuck with this character (hopefully anyway) for 100s of hours potentially - it's a good idea to make sure players have the option to play something they're excited to play rather than make someone pull the short straw and play the role missing in the party.

That said, there are a couple of key points that I think it helps a party substantially to hit:


Someone (ideally more than one) person willing/able to stand in melee with enemies without dying and still act effectively
Someone with a bonus action heal/ranged heal


Everything else is negotiable in my opinion. But honestly just randomly choosing a cross section of characters will probably hit these criteria almost all the time so *shrugs*


TL:DR; Can I play something stupid without the fear that my party will be unable to clear content successfully?

Define stupid. There will be a noticable power difference between you and the rest of the party if you turn up with a character who has multiclassed 1 level in every class. Whether that power difference means you struggle to clear content depends on the rest of the party and the DM though.

If you just mean 'turn up with a class at random' yeah it'll probably be fine.

[Mastikator]

From anecdotes it's possible to have a party of all same classes. Be it 4 wizards or 4 fighters or 4 rogues.

However I don't know what you mean by "stupid". Do you mean intentionally weaker? Because the DM can easily tone down the encounters and you'll be fine. Do you mean disruptive? Don't do that. Do you mean dumping int? Totally.

From what it seems to me is that a party who consists of unique roles will be more versatile and be able to take short cuts the DM creates more easily. But that's it, if the DM creates a campaign that relies on there being a cleric and everyone is a barbarian then that's on the DM.

[Gudrae]

Contrast

Not to speak for the minds of the developers but I'm not sure I agree with this sentiment exactly. I do think that most 5E combats will typically last 2-5 rounds and that fights that last longer usually wear out their welcome but I don't think thats the driving philosophy behind the changes you're talking about.

I would say the idea behind it is to not make it so that someone has to play something they don't want to. You're going to be stuck with this character (hopefully anyway) for 100s of hours potentially - it's a good idea to make sure players have the option to play something they're excited to play rather than make someone pull the short straw and play the role missing in the party.


That's fair.



Contrast

Define stupid. There will be a noticable power difference between you and the rest of the party if you turn up with a character who has multiclassed 1 level in every class. Whether that power difference means you struggle to clear content depends on the rest of the party and the DM though.

If you just mean 'turn up with a class at random' yeah it'll probably be fine.


Probably as you say, just another class at random without consulting the other players. While I would like to some day play a few all one class campaigns I don't intend to do it in a premade module.




Mastikator

From anecdotes it's possible to have a party of all same classes. Be it 4 wizards or 4 fighters or 4 rogues.


Cool!



Mastikator

However I don't know what you mean by "stupid". Do you mean intentionally weaker? Because the DM can easily tone down the encounters and you'll be fine. Do you mean disruptive? Don't do that. Do you mean dumping int? Totally.


If is made weaker It wouldn't be without purpose. I'm not going to go and make a caster with its casting stat its dump.

I don't believe that I will ever make a character with the intent to be disruptive player. Though I have seen an anti combat from all parties (including the players) build in a shadow run game. A bit fun and silly in concept. Rather frustrating at a table. Wouldn't mind seeing someone try to build an anti RP character in D&D though. Probably something about how many times you can cast silence without being noticed and teleporting McGuffins away on sight. Though an interesting challenge, I find most passivist builds to be kinda anti combat and somewhat oddly placed in a game or with adventurers whose staple is going into dungeons and killing monsters. Seems to be pushing too far into the direction of Lawful Stupid/Stupid Good to me.

I've dumped int before. Its fun.



Mastikator

From what it seems to me is that a party who consists of unique roles will be more versatile and be able to take short cuts the DM creates more easily. But that's it, if the DM creates a campaign that relies on there being a cleric and everyone is a barbarian then that's on the DM.


I'm not really denying this. In fact I agree. However it has been expressed to me that I should play what I want to play without (intense) regard to what the rest of the party is choosing to play so it will be more fun (playing an evil necromancer in a group of boy scout paladins, or vice versa, will at least need some thought put in). Because I have traditionally filled the party gaps, it would be nice to play something that I don't feel pushed to play (not literally). Its more of a question directed toward content produced by persons who didn't know whatever my group composition was going to be and then sold it to a mass population. Am I likely to be giving my DM a massive headache or frustrate my party more than they are expecting by not filling gaps in the parties composition?

[stoutstien]

Random generated parties that are played halfway decent can make it through every bit of published material from WoLC that's I've seen so far.

Expanding on that, just about any character can fill any role. At the least they can grab a feat and maybe 1 or 2 features for insurance.

I have very little experience with AL but from what I've seen it's proof that parties that are almost comically anti-synergetic can function.

[MrStabby]

I'm not really denying this. In fact I agree. However it has been expressed to me that I should play what I want to play without (intense) regard to what the rest of the party is choosing to play so it will be more fun (playing an evil necromancer in a group of boy scout paladins, or vice versa, will at least need some thought put in). Because I have traditionally filled the party gaps, it would be nice to play something that I don't feel pushed to play (not literally). Its more of a question directed toward content produced by persons who didn't know whatever my group composition was going to be and then sold it to a mass population. Am I likely to be giving my DM a massive headache or frustrate my party more than they are expecting by not filling gaps in the parties composition?

I think the paladin/necromancer example is a bit of a bad one.

I think everyone should, in an ideal world, be able to play what they want. Some character options that promise party conflict are effectively saying "if you play waht you want to, I will cause trouble". I mean there is no fair way to chose who gets to play which chaacter, but if you have no objections to it it can be nice to swich.

[Valmark]

Random generated parties that are played halfway decent can make it through every bit of published material from WoLC that's I've seen so far.


I wonder. I still remember the almost TPK I caused at the very start of HofDQ because apparently 8 kobolds are much more dangerous then they look- and there are a lot of fights there before you can realistically afford to rest.

On the same vein, any party without much in the way of scouting that faces the first dungeon in DiA seems on their way to a TPK with the necromancer armed with Fireball alone (and that's one encounter out of the ten or so present in there).

Haven't tried other adventures.

[Gudrae]

MrStabby

I think the paladin/necromancer example is a bit of a bad one.

I think everyone should, in an ideal world, be able to play what they want. Some character options that promise party conflict are effectively saying "if you play waht you want to, I will cause trouble". I mean there is no fair way to chose who gets to play which chaacter, but if you have no objections to it it can be nice to swich.


That was my point. At least some idea that there isn't going to be active party conflict is necessary. That so long as the characters get along, does build matter? And evil necromancers and good paladins are at odds. Which would mean if it were to be attempted a greater amount of thought would be required. But that is a roleplay thing, not a "is this mechanically reliable" thing.

[stoutstien]

I wonder. I still remember the almost TPK I caused at the very start of HofDQ because apparently 8 kobolds are much more dangerous then they look- and there are a lot of fights there before you can realistically afford to rest.

On the same vein, any party without much in the way of scouting that faces the first dungeon in DiA seems on their way to a TPK with the necromancer armed with Fireball alone (and that's one encounter out of the ten or so present in there).

Haven't tried other adventures.

The first encounter in LMoP is another head scratcher. all of them are more deadly than they realize because they pack proper framing but decent players can still overcome them regardless of class.
LMoP ambush- DM should make it apparent that the forest cover/concealment works two ways

HotDQ- the rats are more of an issue than the kobolds early on and random encounters shouldn't be a thing at level one. Lots of NPC followers in this module can make it a breeze. it can be hard for players who are used to being all mighty to realize the power of Numbers.

Decent- ahh the fireball in the bathhouse. The room is question is so small fireball makes no sense. Elfsong fight is the real hurdle in this module.


Pattern forming that level one is either suppose to feel super deadly or they forgot how swingy it is once dice start rolling.

[da newt]

IMO any random group of 4 or 5 functional PCs can form a functional party and do just fine in the published campaigns. Sure a bit of session 0 preplanning of various party rolls will help, and knowing the basics of the adventuring environment (are we fighting devils in hell or kraken in the ocean's depths) will also help, but it's not necessary / worth stressing over.

Play what you want - it will be fine 95% of the time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And beyond published campaigns, it's pretty easy to write campaigns that are flexible enough to take whatever. I had a party of a wizard, a moon druid, and a giant lizard (long story, but note that none of them were anything like optimized). They were fine. Took different methods than a more "traditional" party, but that's normal.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I wonder. I still remember the almost TPK I caused at the very start of HofDQ because apparently 8 kobolds are much more dangerous then they look- and there are a lot of fights there before you can realistically afford to rest.

On the same vein, any party without much in the way of scouting that faces the first dungeon in DiA seems on their way to a TPK with the necromancer armed with Fireball alone (and that's one encounter out of the ten or so present in there).

Haven't tried other adventures.

I've found this in a number of mods. Generally there are low level sections early on (where characters are already squishy) where a lack of caution or a bad roll can lead to death. Then they tend to get easier, sometimes until the very end where the last fight is iffy.
I'm not sure how my group would have gotten through Saltmarsh level 1 without Mage Hand. Perhaps intelligent play and good rolling by a rogue would have sufficed.
As to the OP, I do think there are large sections of many mods that would benefit from someone having decent stealth, and even 1 level into rogue or a feat for expertise for a Dex based character will suffice. Depending on play style someone with a decent charisma might be a need. You can probably get by without a designated healer, particularly if 1 or 2 characters have some on the side (Say Fighter or Paladin). I have a group going through Decent into Avernus without a Wizard, Sorc, Bard, or Warlock and to this point I'm having to buff the bad guys a bit, so I can't say they are missing those classes. I've heard Rangers are decent in Rime of the Frostmaiden, but published 5e content is generally weak on the Exploration pillar, so you can probably live without one.
So there probably are some bad combos... say 4 blaster magic using characters in Avernus, but unless you actually worked to create a bad party you probably have solutions to most problems in most published content.

[Gudrae]

Thanks for all the responses! Its nice to hear from people with more experience that I can relax and not worry about this so much.

[Kane0]

Would any of you more experienced in modules suspect that they could be completed without major changes required on the part of a DM, or without overwhelming tactical preparation beyond the norm on the part of the players while leaving out a role of play? (healer, front line, face, skirmishers, experts, casters, sneak, etc.)

Or on the extreme, while having a (typical?) 4 character party united fully under a singular role of play make it through many/most modules?

TL:DR; Can I play something stupid without the fear that my party will be unable to clear content successfully?

Yeah, you can cut out one or two roles without really noticing much difference at all.
Playing a party of all one role will probably require the DM to make some changes but it won't be very drastic as long as the players proceed with some measure of caution and planning.

For some examples I've DMd parties of:
- Rogue/Rogue/Bard/Fighter through Lost Tomb of Tamoachan
- Sorcerer/Rogue/Barbarian/Monk through Sunless Citadel
- Fighter/Bard/Barbarian through Lost Mines of Phandelver
- Ranger/Paladin/Sorcerer/Cleric through Hoard of the Dragon Queen

So yeah, you can play pretty much whatever you like and it'll be fine. Well, as long as you aren't being abserd.