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

One of the great things about 5e as it has utterly ditched the classic 'roles' and the silly use of skirmisher, tank, etc.

You can basically play what you want and the party will still have a good chance of success.
For example I have run frostmaiden twice and neither group had a cleric.

This is the way, and long may it reign

I find that it works best to start with relatively fresh corpses. After all, it's no fun when someone's nose falls off into the punch bowl. On the other hand if someone loses an eye, it's like "free eye!"



Oh, wait. You're talking about adventuring party composition. Oops.

Lanefan said:

Yep.

Rule one for party construction in any edition is this: When in doubt, add more front-liners. You can never have enough.

Rule two is this: You can never have too many characters in a party. If you even think you might need more, go and get more, right now.

Click to expand...

Heh heh... while I think this correct from the most generalized perspective (especially when playing in more sandboxed campaigns where encounters are built for location and party composition doesn't factor into it), I will say that it many ways in a game that I am personally DMing... more characters oftentimes AREN'T the best option. Because the more characters on the table, the more healing and synergy between classes there will be, and thus I'll have to create wilder and wilder encounters just to challenge them. And that's when all of a sudden I've accidentally created overpowered ones and hand the player's asses to them. "Can the group handle 3 Adult Dragons? Uh... yeah, I think it'll be fine..." and then unexpectedly the group wanders into that cave without having taken any rests at the end of their adventuring day because they just thought "one more" would be fine.

In my personal experience, balancing encounters around three PCs is much, much easier than balancing around eight.

I've always told people to run what they want and we'll make it work. More viable in 5E than in most previous editions. But in general you need a front line tank (fighter, barbarian, paladin) along with someone who's proficient at healing. Then add in just about anything else you want. Having someone good at locks is useful but there's always a bigger hammer. A caster along the lines of wizard or sorcerer is also useful, but the game won't break if you don't have one.

The last group that tried to do a themed game with all wizards (and one cleric of magic) failed miserably when even my kid's glove approach failed and they ended in a TPK. That was an older edition but not sure it would work even now, people underestimate the role of having a front line damage sponge that can at least slow down attackers.

I typically see three schools of thought:

1. Role fulfillment (who does what, lets cover the bases, etc.)
2. Just play what you want.
3. PCs with a purpose or theme, such as all the same class or race.

1. Of course this is the team dynamic concept. People pick the role they want to play and develop a character to meet the party's needs.
2. Here everyone has a concept they want to play, roles be damned. The group might work and might just be a hodgepodge of talent. You do the best you have with what you've got.
3. Then there is the "everyone plays the same type" such as all-rogues or all-casters or all-warriors. With 5E and the numerous subclasses, this can work pretty well IME.

Blue Orange said:

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.

Click to expand...

Here's how I evaluate party make up for combat

Combat

• Frontline (Tank/Damage)
• Ranged (Damage)
• Control
• Healing (including temp hp generation and party damage reduction
• Party Save Boosting (Bless/Paladin Aura/Artificer Flash Of Genius)
• Counterspell + Dispel Magic

My goal is have as much overlap in these areas as possible. So if there is a party of 4. Ideally 3 characters can perform each of those roles but i'd settle for 1-2.

Non-Combat

It's really about having as many of the skills as possible covered with some utility magic like fly/teleport/invisibility/pass without trace/etc.

Example
Party has a Paladin, Cleric and Druid. What would be good characters to bring along

Paladin and Cleric can both function as front line. Druid can add summons to assist. Front line feels covered
Only Cleric and Druid have any range and their range is small. Ranged is lacking
Control. Druids are strong at control (entangle, plant growth, etc). Paladin depending on subclass might have a bit (thinking conquest paladin). Cleric has a dab of control capabilities.
Healing. The whole party can heal.
Save Boosting. The Paladin and Cleric can both grant saves. (Bless and Paladin Aura).
Counterspell + Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic is covered with the Cleric and Druid but there is no counterspelling.

I would find a character that can counterspell and does solid ranged damage. I would probably lean toward an int character since str, wis and cha stats are covered. IMO, best party member for this group would be a damage focused wizard with counterspell.

If I wasn't going to bring a wizard i'd next look into sorcerer/warlock. For a distant third I'd look into a dex archer character (Fighter/Rogue/Ranger).

I don't think there is any need to have a general theory, and party construction shouldn't have anything to do with how the DM presents challenges. It changes how the party approaches those challenges.

Two Fighters (or fighter types like Barbarian or Paladin), a wizard, a cleric, and a rogue. Done.

A fun Five-Guy Band is:

Paladin (Big Guy)
Fighter (Jock Guy)
Warlock (Rebel Guy)
Bard (Heart Guy)
Wizard (Smart Guy)

EzekielRaiden said:

Meh. I know that in earlier editions, retainers and hirelings were hugely important, but it's an awful lot of hassle in every WotC version, with the possible exception of 4e. Both 3e and 5e have "NPC class" options that are supposed to be more streamlined, but they really aren't much different from a complete character with crappy class features. They're really not much faster to run than literally just adding additional characters, giving a ton of overhead for ever-more-marginal gain.

And I dunno about you, but the thought of running a combat in 3e or 5e with 7 or more PCs sounds nightmarish.

Click to expand...

From the DM side it probably is. (hint: good reason not to run 3e or 5e)

But from the player side the characters would after a while quite likely, and quite reasonably, come to realize that there is strength in numbers; and would look to bolster their group size with this in mind. And as DM, if it's what they'd do I can't in good faith stop them.