D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

[Rhenny]

I'll tell you something that really helps to sow diversity and make PCs more interesting, and also help more PCs become more diverse and able to succeed at multiple pillars in different situations....

Roll 4d6 drop lowest for each attribute in turn, keep the results and then decide what PC to make.

If the PC comes out badly, then let the player choose standard array or point buy.

On average, 4d6 drop will yield more powerful PCs, but the randomness makes it really interesting.

In Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign, I'm playing a Human Variant Tempest Cleric that has a higher Dexterity than Wisdom. I rationalized that he was raised by Elves. He took the Defensive duelist feat and fights with shield and rapier. Not optimized, but fun. Actually, we've played 7 sessions, and not once has his Defensive Duelist feat blocked an attack. It's all about the flavor (and hopefully when his proficiency bonus gets to +3, +4, +5, the feat will pay off).

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you missed where I said that in 5e they probably can do it. But, you actually need to think about it, and coordinate a bit between players, or there can be issues. It is very easy for them to be pretty much boilerplate.

There's no real need to treat this with any more caution than four characters of different classes. It'll be fine.

I think that a great many adventures designed for the "classic 4" will give them significant issues.

I don't really see how.

Not impossible, but issues - lack of magic, especially, as many adventure writers will assume certain magics will be available to the party at a given level, and these guys will be bereft of such.

No spell is made to be indispensable to any party. A Medusa might be able turn someone to stone, sure, but the rogue's solution to mostly avoid being turned to stone in the first place, thanks to bypassing the medusa entirely, or waiting until she falls asleep, ambushing her with a bag over her head, and then chiving her until she stops moving. Which rogues are very skilled at.

An adventure designed for a variety of character types with a narrow "you must know this spell to succeed" solution is a poorly designed adventure by any measure of quality. If your adventure relies on the players being able to cast, I dunno, mage armor to actually succeed, you probably want to design your adventure without such a narrow bottleneck.

Switch it up, and make it a party of all wizards, and their ability to not take enemies toe-to-toe on occasion will give them problems, as a certain amount of that will be assumed by designers.

Again, it won't actually be much of a problem in a well-designed adventure. Wizards have plenty of ways to disable or get around enemies. They are not so fragile that they cannot take a hit, and a short rest will heal them just as it will anyone else. They may need to alter their strategy from "kill everything that moves," but 5e is comfortable with a lot of different approaches to adventure resolution without changing the adventure content.

5e doesn't assume much. It doesn't really assume specific spells or abilities. The things it does assume are independent of class. The four rogue or four wizard or four fighter party is hugely viable in 5e -- perhaps more so than any edition before.

 

[Grainger]

Because it's a role playing game?

Indeed. I played D&D/AD&D for many years, and never once kept track of who was doing the most damage. I suppose with an extreme disparity, this might matter, but even then, probably not. For example, no-one complained that the Magic User had their 1d6 per day Magic Missile spell, and that was it. It was the ideas that the players brought to the table that were important. Also, all this "strikers", "defenders" nonsense sounds like team sport(s). Ugh. Characters are characters, not positions on a sports field/battlefield.

 

[Nebulous]

I'll tell you something that really helps to sow diversity and make PCs more interesting, and also help more PCs become more diverse and able to succeed at multiple pillars in different situations....

Roll 4d6 for each attribute, keep the results and then decide what PC to make.

If the PC comes out badly, then let the player choose standard array or point buy.

On average, 4d6 will yield more powerful PCs, but the randomness makes it really interesting.

I did this with one of my first characters i made with the Basic Rules. 4d6, subtract the lowest. I even went down the line and did not swap scores. I think his lowest was a 7 DEX, and I created a backstory where he was lamed from an early age. I DM, but if i'd been a player i still have used him.

 

[Rhenny]

Yup, that's what I meant. 4d6 subtract lowest and keep them in order no arranging. (I edited my original post). Cool.

 

[Umbran]

An adventure designed for a variety of character types with a narrow "you must know this spell to succeed" solution is a poorly designed adventure by any measure of quality. If your adventure relies on the players being able to cast, I dunno, mage armor to actually succeed, you probably want to design your adventure without such a narrow bottleneck.

I'm not talking about the single-spell bottleneck. Even in a decently designed adventure, the designer is often going to figure that the party will have magic to solve *some* problems. And the inability to ever solve a problem in such ways will eventually stack up on you. You'll be burning through other resources to manage the tricks that others could do easily (*time* being a notable resource, by the way).

They are not so fragile that they cannot take a hit, and a short rest will heal them just as it will anyone else.

Take a hit, sure, but not many hits. And their AC isn't apt to be great. 5e spellcasters are not designed to take out a monster in one shot, typically. And maybe you'll keep the thing at bay with magic, and maybe not - if not, you're in for some significant pain. Repeat that a couple times, and the party can be in serious trouble.

The arch-typical 4 adventurers, or 5-man band, are the archetypes for good reason. Heck, even real-world militaries give their squads varied roles for combat. This, again, is for good reason - it works better, and give the team greater flexibility. This is not to say that same-class groups are utterly non-viable. But they are harder to work with, and far easier to trip up, than a mixed group.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not talking about the single-spell bottleneck. Even in a decently designed adventure, the designer is often going to figure that the party will have magic to solve *some* problems. And the inability to ever solve a problem in such ways will eventually stack up on you. You'll be burning through other resources to manage the tricks that others could do easily (*time* being a notable resource, by the way).

What does using that magic look like? Because to me, it looks like casting particular spells, since that's what "having magic" basically means in D&D. And if particular spells are required to earn victory in an adventure (because otherwise, maybe the party doesn't have enough time to do X, Y, and Z), you've got an adventure that's much to much of a straw house, easily blown down by any party that huffs and puffs at it wrong. More broadly, if spellcasting in general is required to earn victory in an adventure, you've also got a fragile little princess of an adventure. Those are adventures with serious design flaws.

Take a hit, sure, but not many hits.

They don't need to take that many hits. Monsters only last long enough to get in 2 or 3 hits anyway. A bunch of wizards has more than enough ability to tear through those hp's if need be, or to avoid the encounter entirely otherwise.

And their AC isn't apt to be great.

AC doesn't need to be great. Mage Armor gets the job more than done.

5e spellcasters are not designed to take out a monster in one shot, typically.

Ain't much in this game that's gonna survive four sleep spells in a row.

And maybe you'll keep the thing at bay with magic, and maybe not - if not, you're in for some significant pain. Repeat that a couple times, and the party can be in serious trouble.

That's why Uncle Mordy gave us Expeditious Retreat.

You also assume that these encounters are inevitable and inevitably combat-oriented. A four-man-band of wizards has enough charm and illusion at their disposal to keep most monsters chasing their tails for days. "I don't need to be stronger than you, I just need advantage on Charisma checks against that ogre, because he's already stronger than you, and now he's my new best friend."

The arch-typical 4 adventurers, or 5-man band, are the archetypes for good reason. Heck, even real-world militaries give their squads varied roles for combat. This, again, is for good reason - it works better, and give the team greater flexibility. This is not to say that same-class groups are utterly non-viable. But they are harder to work with, and far easier to trip up, than a mixed group.

Yeah, they're archetypal for good reason. But that reason, in 5e, isn't because they're necessary. They were in 1e, arguably. They aren't in 5e.

The Real World comparison doesn't hold up very well. Reality has actual human limitations and expertise to take into account. D&D has no such requirements. Adventures are designed to be winnable, for starters, because it's a fun play experience. Four rogues can raid a goblin cave just fine together. They won't be "missing" anything. Part of the reason they won't be missing anything is because a smart designer isn't going to force them through bottlenecks like "you must cast magic or you will fail," because that's limiting the adventure's playability.

 

[Fralex]

Y'know, a party of three rogues, each one a different archetype, sounds pretty fun. You could plan tactics based around strategies that rely on everyone being good at stealth and subterfuge that a more diverse party couldn't pull off. But everyone could still take on different roles in the plan based on their unique abilities. I kinda want to try this now!

 

[guachi]

It is safe to say that D&D is designed for and around combat which also means the "value" of a PC is measured in combat ability.

I wouldn't say that was true for every edition. A game that gives the vast majority of its XP for treasure is one that encourages NOT being in combat. Or, I would agree it's designed "around" combat in the sense that actively encourages avoiding combat is still a game designed around combat.

That being said, my favorite character was a combat useless 2e Bard. He was fantastic for other things as he was the conduit through which all of our adventures flowed. But if our group hadn't been so strong from a player standpoint - all good friends where roleplaying breakfast was fun - he might have been a fifth wheel. In that context, a PC could have been good at nothing but still contributed if he had good party interaction.

My second favorite was one who stomped face in combat. Same DM, same players as the previous paragraph but it was totally geared towards munchkin dungeon crawling. So, yeah, if your D&D game revolves around combat - be good at combat. I've found my AL character design moving more and more towards combat-centered as that seems to be the focus. Just enough other stuff to get by, and then be good at killing.

For me, my big issue isn't a game that relies on combat too much, it's one that relies on dice rolling too much - whether it's in or out of combat.

 

[guachi]

Y'know, a party of three rogues, each one a different archetype, sounds pretty fun. You could plan tactics based around strategies that rely on everyone being good at stealth and subterfuge that a more diverse party couldn't pull off. But everyone could still take on different roles in the plan based on their unique abilities. I kinda want to try this now!

Heck, you could all be the SAME archetype and each take a different class to multiclass into for a few levels. It'd be interesting to see what a Rogue/Cleric, Rogue/Ranger, and a Rogue/Bard party would end up looking like.