D&D 5E 4d6 Messed Up Party Composition?
I think it goes both ways. Because I think that's how you're going to have a much more enjoyable game.
If I'm a DM and my table consists of PCs for which nobody can throw AoE... I would acknowledge that and purposefully NOT make many encounters involving lots and lots of little creatures. Once in a while as a change of pace? Sure. But much less often than if I had a party of PCs that had many AoE options. Likewise... for that many-AoE party I'd hold back many encounters involving single large monsters for which all their AoE capabilities are unused.
Same thing goes for light-healing parties, or heavy-healing parties. If they are light on healing, I'd probably make healing potions more readily available. Or if they were heavy-healing, I'd throw wave after wave after wave of monsters at them more often than not, knowing full well they'll be able to heal through them.
That's what I feel is part of my job as the DM-- to lean into my players at the table. Not make it a cakewalk all the time, obviously... but tailor the game to make the challenges more often fun rather than a slog.
I know this runs counter to many "sandbox DMs" who just have encounters out there on the map and always let the chips fall where they may... but I find that sort of "generalized" necessity on the part of the players to be unnecessarily restrictive. Let them make what they want to make, and the same way I'd tailor the story to who their characters are... I'll tailor the fights to who their characters are as well.
Warpiglet
Adventurer
I have played for decades...if it matters. And never once did we say "which role is covered?" We generally asked: "evil, good or neutral?" We were interested in expectations for the party in terms of harmony and tone. The best group we had ended up being evil with one barbarian and two halfling thieves joined shortly later by a half-orc fighter assassin.
No cleric? No problem. The DM made sure we could acquire healing potions sometimes at a high price in bigger settlements.
We also knew to be careful if were low on healing ability.
This is the synergy of players and DMs...but restricting or doubting because someone neglected to take cleric? Nope. All thieves? Guess we better be sneaky. My advice is simple: just play. If you die, you die. But what fun it is to try and survive!
No cleric? No problem. The DM made sure we could acquire healing potions sometimes at a high price in bigger settlements.
We also knew to be careful if were low on healing ability.
This is the synergy of players and DMs...but restricting or doubting because someone neglected to take cleric? Nope. All thieves? Guess we better be sneaky. My advice is simple: just play. If you die, you die. But what fun it is to try and survive!
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
There's no restriction on what the players want to take as characters though, to the limits of what is allowed in the campaign. They just need to adjust their tactics accordingly to take advantage of their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. "The story" is what happened when they engage with the presented challenges. "Tailoring the story" is deciding the outcome as far as I'm concerned, at least by that definition of "story."
My current group of players, aside from their wizard, is awful at ranged. Most are melee brutes. When they run afoul of ranged attackers and spellcasters, they have to really work at overcoming the challenge, especially if their wizard isn't there that session. When they run across other melee types, they grab them, knock them down, and kick them repeatedly until they're dead. So sometimes they'll have a run for their money and sometimes they'll cakewalk, but at no point am I tailoring encounters to specific party composition. There's simply no need to do that in my view.
Oofta
Legend
I'm more of a sandbox DM myself, but I try to give groups enough information and different options on what they want to do and how to approach. If the group doesn't have AOE, maybe they should try sneaking in through old tunnels instead of doing a frontal assault for example. Low on healers? Be sure to buy that keg'o'potions. In a few rare cases I've allowed a pacifist healer hireling for the group.
That does sometimes mean that PCs aren't well suited to the task at hand and they will need to find some other way to overcome the challenge. If I broadcast that you're going to be facing an enemy that has a lot of fire resistance or immunity and you bring a wizard solely focused on fire based spells I don't feel too guilty.
I think the trick is to give people options and alternatives. People will also be creative and will often overcome issues in ways I never would have expected.
I tend to agree - I find it's better as two-way street. Characters adapt their tactics and choices as well as the GM keeping those choices in mind. That helps emphasize the importance of those choices and show them in play - both good and bad.
It could be as simple as the GM making sure the "big gangs" are given the "easy to spot" signs appropriate for large groups so that the PCs without AOE at the "expected tier" can make plans armed with the info.
A summer campaign many many years ago had medium healing and no heavy armor types, so we made sure as players to avoid pinned down slugfests and kept with fast hit and run type tactics. We turned down some missions because they looked more risky due to terrain, adversaries etc and the GM never *forced* us into a heavy stationary stand by GM fiat and rolled with it.
Had he been a more "this is the only dungeon - do it or we don't play" to drive us into dungeon crawls in tight spaces it would not have been as much fun for the summer.
The lack of cleric hit varies a lot by setting.
In a 3.5 game where wands of clw are cheap and craftable by even a hslf-druid half-fighter, a party can be substantially supported healing wise ooc healing easy enough.
In combat not do much but they play to other strengths.
If support items like that are not ubiquitously available, the hit is bigger.
And the challenges you present have nothing to do with the characters, and their backgrounds, their histories? That's what I mean about "tailoring the story" to them-- if their characters find X important and don't find Y important... then I'm not going to throw in encounters, plot hooks, NPCs or other stuff about Y just to force the issue. Because then nobody is happy.
So you don't ever think about how often you throw ranged encounters at them versus melee encounters? Do you just select types of encounters and the monsters in them at random? I mean, if you are a "sandbox DM" like I mentioned above, I can understand where you'd be coming from-- your map has encounter locations with set monsters and set terrain and whatever happens, happens. But if not... then I don't see really why you'd (for instance) throw 2, 3, 5 ranged fights against your party in a row? Without "tailoring" things those numbers would certainly be a possibility. And your group is okay with that?
To each their own, of course... but I just find deliberately thumbing your nose at your own players' desires for the types of stories they want to experience just because you can (or because "the world" is unchangeable) to be cutting it off while you are thumbing it, just to spite your face.
Sort of
"Our pcs are all centered on faith and religion and others with heavy social skills"
"Its a dungeon crawl with lots of traps,mindless brutes and golems... again?"
Tho, to be fair, if there were plenty of other options and the characters chose this... it's on them.
