D&D 5E Experiences With Party Composition

[Hexmage-EN]

One of my favorite things about video game RPGs that allow you to build your own party of characters (such as Darkest Dungeon and the Etrian Odyssey series) is the freedom of customization you get to mess around with what individual characters can do, how effective the characters are at synergizing as a unit, and how certain challenges can prove more challenging for certain kinds of characters than others. In both of the games I mentioned earlier I've found scenarios where the current party I was using was ill-equipped to handle certain challenges, necessitating that I switch up at least some of the characters in the party to better handle the new kinds of opponents.

Games like D&D are similar in that certain party compositions are going to be more effective in certain circumstances. For example, a party with a paladin is going to be much more suited for handling undead and fiends. Unlike the video games I mentioned earlier, though, the default for D&D is that PCs aren't switched out for alternates if the going gets rough.

For DMs, do you take the composition of the party into consideration when designing encounters? For players, have you ever been in a situation where you felt like the challenges your group faced were made much harder because either yours or another player's PC was often unsuited for handling them?

Personally, as a DM I try to use a combination of evaluating what kinds of monster groups would be challenging without being a slog or making certain PCs effectively useless while also having options to purchase or find magic items to mitigate certain shortcomings a character may have.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As a player I always like to make character choices in consultation with the other players so we end up with a more or less balanced party and everyone has their own area of spotlight. With a group of 4-5 PCs, even doing that means you will still probably have some situations you aren’t ideally suited for, and that’s okay. It makes each party have strengths and weaknesses as well as each character. I‘m even fine with theme adventures where an entire party plays the same class, or at least similar classes, if that is appropriate for the scenario being played (I wouldn‘t do that for a more general campaign).

As a DM, the only time I take the slightest notice of party composition is if there happens to be something they are likely to come up against which they will likely get destroyed by. In that case I’ll attempt to create some sort of forewarning so they can either get what they need to have a chance, or avoid the situation. Other than that, I feel it cheapens the experience if the DM adapts to party capabilities. If this were 3e or earlier, I would make sure to let the players know if they were thinking of a character that would have real problems (like a rogue in a campaign where undead and other foes immune to sneak attack prominently featured), or if no one in the party had a class feature they might want to have (like Turn Undead in that same example), but those aren’t really issues in 5e.

If the challenge goes up because I made my character (or our party) well suited for it, then my character/party has become simply averagely suited for it. If challenges are nerfed because my character/party is poorly suited for them, then, again, we have just been made averagely suited for them rather than getting to experience having to struggle through our weakness. For me, the freedom to explore a world that does not adapt to my character or party (other than through natural in-setting results of our actions) is a huge part of what I want out of D&D. I want the DM to present a world with adventures, challenges, and interesting places before we even think up our characters. And then once we make characters and start playing I want the DM to play the setting as if it was his character and not change things in ways that invalidate the experience of our exploration of that setting.

I think a lot of people have never even had that experience, and so have no reference point for how satisfying it can be. Some of that probably has to do with the prevalence of shorter campaigns. If you’re only playing for a couple of months it makes little difference whether the world is independent, consistent, and impartial to your party, or whether the DM is making everything up on the spot and customizing it to them (unless they arent any good at it) because a short scenario like that would play similarly either way. But in campaign that either goes on for years, or is part of consistent setting hosting multiple campaigns, it won’t take long before the lack of that true freedom of choice starts to be felt.

 

[iserith]

For DMs, do you take the composition of the party into consideration when designing encounters? For players, have you ever been in a situation where you felt like the challenges your group faced were made much harder because either yours or another player's PC was often unsuited for handling them?

No, I do not take the composition of the party into consideration when designing encounters. I design them without any particular party or sometimes even level in mind.

Certainly challenges can be made more difficult by not having the right tool for the job. But that's not anything that I'm concerned about as DM. It's on the players to use the tools they have to maximum effect.

 

[BookTenTiger]

When creating encounters I try to choose enemies who would logically fit the themes and environment of the adventure. But I do absolutely tweak them for party composition.

For example, the Barbarian in my group loves to rack up kills (he has an ongoing count). So I put in a bunch of weak minions so that he has fun (and leaves my more powerful enemies alone).

Meanwhile, my Artificer and Warlock love to fling spells from across the room. So I'll give them some big, slow targets to hit, as well as some fast or ranged enemies who can strike back.

Overall I try to put in both enemies the characters are effective against, as well as enemies that are more of a challenge for this composition.

 

[the Jester]

My philosophy on party composition is that it's really up to the players to choose what kind of party they want to play and, to a great extent, what kind of adventures they go on.

In an ideal spread of three sessions, I'd like every class to have a chance to shine- which also means that the party notices the absence of those they are missing ("man, we really could have used a ranger here!").

Generally, I don't take party composition into account when designing challenges. I prefer to make adventures that are true to the setting, and let the logic of the situation dictate which classes are best suited to it.

 

[Shiroiken]

Party composition and cooperative tactics is a player issue, which should ideally be resolved in session 0. In most editions you had certain party requirements for party composition: healer, mage, and thief were of descending importance. Without them, certain challenges because either impossible or nearly so. 4E was the first to make it possible to run without any specific class/role, although without certain ones it becomes harder. 5E kept this concept, although the healer role has become prominent again (if not absolutely necessary). Because of this, it's much easier for people to play the concepts they want without "needing" to play something for the group.

As a DM, I don't care about the party's composition and tactics. If they're not prepared, that's their problem. If they're fully optimized and ready to overcome anything, good for them.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't design encounters based on party composition, but I do take it into account. For example, I won't avoid using undead if there's a paladin (or other undead specialist) in the party, but I might throw a few extra undead into the mix to make it more challenging (assuming I intend the encounter to be challenging).

 

[payn]

It really depends on sandbox versus specifically themed campaign. If the adventures take place in say a desert, dropping a shark encounter or something entirely out of place can be annoying for players. Paizo is notorious for doing things like this in their APs. I get that there is a huge swath of bestiaries out there and its fun to switch it up a little, but its nice to make some logical sense as well. In a sandbox campaign, I try to signpost as a GM, and if the players ignore it, well dems da breaks.

 

[Ath'kethin]

I have never in 30 years cared about the composition of the party.

If an adventure requires certain class features in order for the group to succeed, it's a lousy adventure and I will happily jettison and adjust it.

 

[prabe]

I only care about party composition because I aim to put things in front of the party that they will engage with. So, things the characters want to do, I hope; and it's possible some of that will play into what they can do.