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

[ECMO3]

double post

 

[ECMO3]

The real translation of 4e Commander's Strike would be something like "You use your action to empower an ally. That ally can use their reaction to immediately attack as if taking the attack action on their turn." Now you're using up your full action damage potential to let an ally use their full action damage potential at the cost of a reaction. I don't see any serious balance issues with this sort of ability.

Your theory presumes your action and your allies action do the same damage and if that is true you are correct. When this is used it will not be the case though. Fore example a 13th level cleric in plate and shield running shield of faith and with access to the shield spell (AC27) engages someone. Said cleric can attack for about 8 damage or throw a cantrip for about 20 damage (on a save, less with an attack cantrip). If the cleric turns that attack over to a Rogue with a crossbow, that is going to average about 34 and it is an attack so it is generally more likely to land and comes with a chance to crit.

When it will be used is when the damage is lopsided. I don't see a raging barbarian giving up his 2 attacks to let the wizard stab someone with his dagger.

 

[ECMO3]

I'd say a "general theory," like a general relative theory of party comp, could be boiled down to

The ratio of "Frontline/fighter-types/combat classes" to "casters, experts, and other support classes" should be 1:1. That is, for every caster, skill monkey, healer there should be a meat shield, er, I mean, warrior/fightery 'in your face" type to run interference and blocking for them.

So, ye olde [a.k.a. "classic"] party comp still stands. If you have...
1 Mage
1 Cleric
1 Thief
Then you need/"should" have...
1 Fighter
1 Fighter or Paladin or Ranger (or martial/combat focused cleric)
1 Fighter or Barbarian or Monk (or martial/combat focused druid)

I don't think that is the general theory in 5e.

It is always nice to have a meat shield, but in 5e I would say most parties I have played with have averaged around 1 meat shield for every 3 casters/experts/support and you are more likely to survive with this breakdown I think.

There is a caveat though - the Ranger and to a lessor extent fighter can primarily fill the caster, expert and support roles instead of the meatshield role and do it very well. On the flip side Bladesingers and most clerics can be a primary meat shield too.

Your party will almost certainly all survive...or most of them will...as long as you don't split the party

As a DM I must say if the players split the party I need to be very disciplined not to punish them for it.

 

[tiornys]

Your theory presumes your action and your allies action do the same damage and if that is true you are correct. When this is used it will not be the case though. Fore example a 13th level cleric in plate and shield running shield of faith and with access to the shield spell (AC27) engages someone. Said cleric can attack for about 8 damage or throw a cantrip for about 20 damage (on a save, less with an attack cantrip). If the cleric turns that attack over to a Rogue with a crossbow, that is going to average about 34 and it is an attack so it is generally more likely to land and comes with a chance to crit.

When it will be used is when the damage is lopsided. I don't see a raging barbarian giving up his 2 attacks to let the wizard stab someone with his dagger.

I mean, yes, it will be used when the damage from your ally is going to be better than your own damage. That's the point. Where I disagree is that this must make the ability unbalanced.

(also, if we're mimicing the original's melee restrictions, your Rogue needs to be using a rapier, not a crossbow)

 

[GMMichael]

Also, numbers matter. A 6 (minimum) or 7 person party is going to function better and get further (and contain more diverse talent and skill to draw from) than a 4 or 3 person party.

...because the elf listening post will never hear seven variously-equipped adventurers trying to sneak by?

The hungry leviathan would probably prefer to swallow the boat with seven adventurers on it than the one with three.

I won't attempt to say who would complete the typical party, but I'd advise having someone who likes fighting, and someone who can use magic.

 

[Lanefan]

The hungry leviathan would probably prefer to swallow the boat with seven adventurers on it than the one with three.

Complete side note here, but for some reason this prompted a thought: what about a leviathan-like or kraken-like monster who isn't in fact trying to eat the people on boats but is instead trying to eat the boats themselves because it gets its nutrition from the wood they're made of?

The passengers and crew are merely collateral damage.

/side note

 

[Mind of tempest]

Complete side note here, but for some reason this prompted a thought: what about a leviathan-like or kraken-like monster who isn't in fact trying to eat the people on boats but is instead trying to eat the boats themselves because it gets its nutrition from the wood they're made of?

The passengers and crew are merely collateral damage.

/side note

they are also likely to eat mangrove trees near the side fo shoreline as well as coconut trees.

 

[Lanefan]

they are also likely to eat mangrove trees near the side fo shoreline as well as coconut trees.

And driftwood brought downstream by rivers; but tasty tasty boats still make the best meals!

 

[Mind of tempest]

And driftwood brought downstream by rivers; but tasty tasty boats still make the best meals!

also, they are like an all you can eat buffet.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

What on earth can be wrong with parties taking a day - hell, a week or a month or a season - off between adventures?

It is not a matter of can. It is a matter of must. That is what I do not like.