D&D 5E Is there a general theory of party construction?

[Blue Orange]

This is a perennial question, but I was wondering if anyone ever tried to concisely say what bases needed to be covered in a D&D party. 4th edition had the system of striker, controller, leader (support really), and defender, but since then it seems somewhat unclear. We have the sense a party of 3 sorcerers and 2 wizards would be unbalanced, but apart from that...? Seems like it would make it easier for, say, a player joining an existing group of 4 to know what the party needed, for instance.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is a perennial question, but I was wondering if anyone ever tried to concisely say what bases needed to be covered in a D&D party. 4th edition had the system of striker, controller, leader (support really), and defender, but since then it seems somewhat unclear. We have the sense a party of 3 sorcerers and 2 wizards would be unbalanced, but apart from that...? Seems like it would make it easier for, say, a player joining an existing group of 4 to know what the party needed, for instance.

A party of 3 sorcerers and 2 wizards actually could be a lot of fun in 5e.

Backgrounds and races in 5e can make up for a lot of "gaps" in skills and abilities. With some diversity in those regards, party class "deficiencies" can be overcome.

The only somewhat general requirement for a party, IMO, is for at least on character to have some ability to cast healing magic. Even without that, though, a party can achieve success if they play tactically enough.

Of course, at the end of the day, the goal of 5e play is for everyone to have fun and create an exciting, memorable story so... anything goes for party composition as long as the group is on the same page.

 

[Iry]

There have been a lot of articles written about party creation styles. Things like "The group that tries to fill roles" vs "The group that makes characters they like" vs "Mixed groups of the prior two". Also things that give a rundown of player types like "The tactician" vs "The actor" vs "The spectator". They all use different names from one author to the other of course.

For example, one player might strongly care about what a group needs and make a character to fill that role. They tend to integrate well regardless of what the other players in the group prefer. But a player that wants to play a character they like might integrate well with a group who also play what they like, but not integrate with a group that expects the new person to fill a role. Etc, etc.

 

[jgsugden]

There are too many factors that change between games for there to be a general theory that really matters, but in my experience, the rules most groups tend to follow include:

1.) Don't step on toes. If someone is playing an arcane spellcaster, most groups won't add a second if there is another option. However, what constitutes stepping on toes is subjective. A wizaard and a sorcerer may be seen as stepping on each other's toes, while an archer Gloomstalker Ranger and a Two Handed Melee Gloomstalker Ranger may not.
2.) Have a healer. This isn't really necessary anymore, but most groups want it.
3.) Have a front line. Most groups of 3 or more PCs look to have at least 2 PCs with durability.
4.) Have a sneaky PC. Again, not really necessary in 5E, but I've heard a lot of people ask if there is a rogue before selecting their class.
5.) Have a face. In the 5E era, I hear more people ask about who is oing to be the leader/face/negotiator in the party.

One PC may fill multiple of these roles. A dex based paladin can be 2 through 5 all by themself, for example.

These rules have different weight in different games. If you're hacking and slashing through a Megadungeon, PCs may have less need of a face. If you have a bunch of arcane spellcasters, stealth PCs may not be necessary for opening locks or hiding.

While most groups do not consider the following, they're things I consider when parties are being formed and I may lean into filling these gaps if not already filled:

1.) Do we have someone that can use magic to gather information (augury, arcane eye, divination, etc...)?
2.) Do we have a ritual spellcaster that can detect magic, identify, and tiny hut?
3.) Do we have a controller that can stop enemies (sleep, banishment, hold monster, etc...)?
4.) Do we have a storyline interwoven backstory to help the DM align the group to the adventure?
5.) Do we have comic relief / chaos?
[Edit] 6.) Do we have a sage with high intelligence skills or other access to lore and information?

 

[Yaarel]

Judging by storytelling tropes, an effective group, or at least a group with an interesting dynamic is:

• Smart Guy
• Heart Guy
• Big Guy (one-person army)
• Rebel Guy
• Jock Guy (who is really more of a "well rounded", athletic-social-smart mix, for D&D maybe a Charisma gish)
• Outsider Guy (often a double-agent or defector from the main enemy)

And a "guy" of course can male, female, or other.

 

[overgeeked]

This is a perennial question, but I was wondering if anyone ever tried to concisely say what bases needed to be covered in a D&D party. 4th edition had the system of striker, controller, leader (support really), and defender, but since then it seems somewhat unclear. We have the sense a party of 3 sorcerers and 2 wizards would be unbalanced, but apart from that...? Seems like it would make it easier for, say, a player joining an existing group of 4 to know what the party needed, for instance.

We mostly go for filling roles. Make sure you have these things covered: dedicated healer, battlefield control / AoE, skills, sneak, melee dps, ranged dps, tank, utility caster, and face.

The classic four person party of cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief covers these nicely. Cleric is the dedicated healer with some control, AoE, and utility. Fighter is the tank and melee dps. Magic-User is the battlefield control, AoE, and utility caster. Thief is the skills and sneak. Face is generally either the cleric, magic-user, or thief.

With subclasses, spell selection, multiclassing, and feats you can generally cover all these easily. But as mentioned, a big no-no generally is stepping on other characters' toes. Two of the same class is iffy unless they're wildly different subclasses and concepts. Two of the same class and subclass is generally seen as a jerk move.

 

[D1Tremere]

It really depends on the type of D&D game you are going for.
If it is being run more like a turn based combat game then tactical decisions should guide how players make their characters, with a healer, tank, DPS, etc.
If it is being run more as a story driven or character interaction driven game then most combat scenarios will be driven by circumstances instead of tactical design.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This is a perennial question, but I was wondering if anyone ever tried to concisely say what bases needed to be covered in a D&D party. 4th edition had the system of striker, controller, leader (support really), and defender, but since then it seems somewhat unclear. We have the sense a party of 3 sorcerers and 2 wizards would be unbalanced, but apart from that...? Seems like it would make it easier for, say, a player joining an existing group of 4 to know what the party needed, for instance.

I like the 4e roles, but I agree there are ideas in the middle.

at least you need more then 1 melee characters (caster or weapon) a healer and at least 1 ranged (Caster or weapon) and you do best if you have more casters.... casters just have more options.

 

[teitan]

There wasn’t, then there was, now there isn’t. Originally you just rolled up a random character and played what you got. Balance was handled by the DM and was a guideline in reference to not letting any one player outdo another player or steal the spotlight. There wasn’t a iconic party construction but there was a general understanding that a thief or ranger was necessary to deal with traps and a Wizard was good for lots of things but a party of fighters was still not going to necessarily get ground into hamburger like a party of wizards. Dual classing for humans and multiclassing for demihumans was there but it wasn’t like a party needed a tank, a skill monkey, a blaster and a support character to be viable and it wasn’t baked into the math. Especially in 0e where there wasn’t a thief class originally and the Paladin was basically a footnote buried in notes on Fighters, both found in Greyhawk and the rest scattered through Strategic Review and Dragon Magazine’s early issues. Even in Basic D&D sure humans had the four basic classes but there wasn’t the expectation of these four classes or similar were needed built into the math. 2e pushed that boundary further.

it was probably 3.x where the dungeon crawl made a revival and the “archetypal” party kind of became baked into the numbers. Having the have a healer, a blaster, an expert and a tank was a part of the math in monster design and the Xmas tree or golf bag of special weapons etc. 4e it was completely baked in as the classes were called out for their specific roles in encounters and tips were given for building your characters based on the party role you wanted to fill. Even monsters were structured in the same manner.

5e broke out of that expectation with expanded and accelerated healing, finally moving the cleric out of the healing monkey and into a more direct contributor for the party and the party make up not being based on an archetypal make up but what players wanted to play.

 

[Yaarel]

When tagging spells according to their "purpose", one can see the basic mechanics that a team needs to be able to cover.

Damage versus Health (heal, resurrect, high hit points)
Accuracy (attack) versus Defense (AC/save)
Detection (Perception/Knowledge/Divination) versus Stealth
Mobility (speed, fly, teleport, pick locks) versus Barrier (battlefield control)

Generally, it helps to have a team of characters who cover all of these well.