D&D 5E 3 PC parties -- too small? Just right?

[Dragoslav]

We have a couple of threads about best group size or maximum number of players, but I'm interested specifically in people's experiences with groups of 3, just because it always seemed unfeasible to me to play with so few PCs. Now, it seems like we're going to be doing just that. I think the magic number is 4, but 5 is okay because then you can afford to be down a player, although it easily starts to be just slightly too many players.

Over the weekend, our old group got back together and tried 5e. Our previous games of six (DM+5 players) had ground to a halt due to two players (the DM and his wife) preparing to move away, followed by actually moving away. Those were the dark times, wherein there was no D&D.

We were going to get back together with the four of us who were left and a new guy, but the new guy had to cancel. We couldn't reschedule or else we wouldn't be able to play for something like three more weeks, so we just ran a one-shot with three players. My primary fears were that combat was going to be disappointing because:

1) Our team would have poor versatility and, therefore, synergy
2) We would not be able to fight many enemies at once, so it would be boring

To a lesser extent, I was afraid that having only three players would mean that interaction and roleplay would be dull due to the decreased number of personalities, story hooks, and skills.

In practice, it actually went surprisingly well. In terms of roleplay and exploration, fewer PCs meant that our individual characters and their skills were more important, and you don't need more interesting PCs as long as your DM can come up with interesting NPCs. So in terms of narrative and sharing the spotlight, 3 seems better than 5.

Combat surprised me the most, because--despite my expectations--it was very exciting, intense, and fun. We ran two encounters: one group of 5 human soldiers (and a total of 8 tiny-sized spiders who appeared in groups of 4 through the battle), and one encounter with two groups of 4 or 5 zombie kobolds each, two tall and hostile mushrooms, and one boss mushroom. The second encounter was built on a lethal XP budget, and although nobody actually went down to 0, I think that has more to do with 2/3 of our PCs being very well optimized to work together--but the player with the third PC, the sorceror, had a lot of trouble getting used to his PC's mechanics, so I think it evened out. Since this was a one-shot, the DM didn't pull punches.

Is this pretty representative of 5e combat encounters with smaller groups? I hope so, because I enjoy intense fantasy combat as much as I like the dramatics of engaging roleplay scenes. Does anyone prefer groups of 3, or has your experience shown that they do suffer in terms of survivability or versatility over the long run?

 

[Rhenny]

I enjoy the 3 pc party. During the playtest I even thought that 3 was the magic number. But honestly, 5e seems to play well with 3, 4, 5 and 6 if the players mesh well.

It is so much easier to run a stealth or intrigue campaign with smaller parties. It's really hard for 5 or 6 adventurers to sneak around.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think that 5th edition works really well with most group sizes. I am currently running a two person campaign just for me and my wife, we're sorta co-DMing it though I usually run the monsters since I'm faster at it and she handles a lot of the narrative. 5th is highly adjustable and it is easy to combine low-level monsters for that feeling of "large numbers" with a couple of stronger ones to get the perfect challenge and feeling. I do think it requires more effort to do, and requires a DM who is willing to modify what they planned to what will work. A good DM will adjust an encounter meant for 5 to work for 3, a bad DM will bemoan the fact that the table is too small.

I have a game where half the party has to leave early, while half the party can play late, including the DM, when those nights come about, the remainder party simply deals with less potent threats, often the "side quests" around town.

The biggest problem only comes from DMs who are unwilling to adapt and play with what they have instead of what they want. The same is true for large parties. Otherwise I think the system is perfectly fine with handling larger or smaller parties.

 

[Shiroiken]

Small groups, such as 3 PCs, are fantastic for character growth campaigns, where the story is focus, and combat is minimal. You can still easily run other types of games using only 3 PCs by adding a few NPCs (such as henchmen) as needed.

The only real issue with only 3 PCs, is that you need everyone to be regular. Any missing player will probably cause the game to cancel, so this isn't something to be taken lightly.

 

[SirAntoine]

Three players can be great. The game actually runs great even for one player, too. Three players gives you some more ideas, and it broadens the scope of adventure. It can be as combat-intensive as you want.

 

[Psikerlord#]

We have a couple of threads about best group size or maximum number of players, but I'm interested specifically in people's experiences with groups of 3, just because it always seemed unfeasible to me to play with so few PCs. Now, it seems like we're going to be doing just that. I think the magic number is 4, but 5 is okay because then you can afford to be down a player, although it easily starts to be just slightly too many players.

Over the weekend, our old group got back together and tried 5e. Our previous games of six (DM+5 players) had ground to a halt due to two players (the DM and his wife) preparing to move away, followed by actually moving away. Those were the dark times, wherein there was no D&D.

We were going to get back together with the four of us who were left and a new guy, but the new guy had to cancel. We couldn't reschedule or else we wouldn't be able to play for something like three more weeks, so we just ran a one-shot with three players. My primary fears were that combat was going to be disappointing because:

1) Our team would have poor versatility and, therefore, synergy
2) We would not be able to fight many enemies at once, so it would be boring

To a lesser extent, I was afraid that having only three players would mean that interaction and roleplay would be dull due to the decreased number of personalities, story hooks, and skills.

In practice, it actually went surprisingly well. In terms of roleplay and exploration, fewer PCs meant that our individual characters and their skills were more important, and you don't need more interesting PCs as long as your DM can come up with interesting NPCs. So in terms of narrative and sharing the spotlight, 3 seems better than 5.

Combat surprised me the most, because--despite my expectations--it was very exciting, intense, and fun. We ran two encounters: one group of 5 human soldiers (and a total of 8 tiny-sized spiders who appeared in groups of 4 through the battle), and one encounter with two groups of 4 or 5 zombie kobolds each, two tall and hostile mushrooms, and one boss mushroom. The second encounter was built on a lethal XP budget, and although nobody actually went down to 0, I think that has more to do with 2/3 of our PCs being very well optimized to work together--but the player with the third PC, the sorceror, had a lot of trouble getting used to his PC's mechanics, so I think it evened out. Since this was a one-shot, the DM didn't pull punches.

Is this pretty representative of 5e combat encounters with smaller groups? I hope so, because I enjoy intense fantasy combat as much as I like the dramatics of engaging roleplay scenes. Does anyone prefer groups of 3, or has your experience shown that they do suffer in terms of survivability or versatility over the long run?

Yep I think 3 PC's is perfect. 4 is OK. 5 is Max.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I love gaming with 3 players no matter the system. Fewer PCs means more opportunities for those players to shine, quicker combat rounds ("What, it's my turn again? Already?"), and generally more interesting play as the party is less likely to have the character with the instant win-button for each and every challenge. I also think it's easier for a smaller group of players to stay focused on the game rather than getting distracted with cross-talk and socializing.

Gaming with 2 PCs works really well too, if you're careful with the mobs and challenge level. I honestly hate running games with 5+ players since I always feel that I'm short-changing someone on game play.

 

[Elf Witch]

We played an Age of Worms with three players and that is known as a meat grinder and we handled it just fine. I actually enjoyed it because there was a lot of role playing and combats didn't drag on and on while people dithered on what to do next. I have also played with only two PCs and that worked well too. The trick is to use NPCS generously to fill in rolls when needed. And for the DM to look carefully at encounters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would say that three players is ideal, and two is... probably too few. If anything, the biggest problem with having three players is that each player is so important -- it makes it difficult to play if one player can't make it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I would say that three players is ideal, and two is... probably too few. If anything, the biggest problem with having three players is that each player is so important -- it makes it difficult to play if one player can't make it.

We played for two years with three players and how we handled it was to share the running of the missing PC between the other two players. The DM gave the player full XP because the character was active and taking risks.

In a game with two we didn't play if all couldn't play but my experience was that with such a small party it was easier to schedule a time that could accommodate everyone schedule.