Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is there a general theory of party construction?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8544963" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>This will of course be intensely controversial because some folks view D&D in a maximally loosey-goosey, anything-goes, "it's just FUN stop trying to STUDY it, GOSH," but we can do quite a bit of analysis on this.</p><p></p><p>5e openly features three pillars: combat, exploration, and socialization. These have various expectations. Combat is generally the easiest to optimize for, and the least open (not NOT open, just less so) to unpredictable DM intrusions that can throw off analysis, thus it gets a lot of attention and effort. This is where much of the (often undeserved) bad reputation of optimization comes from. By knowing typical HP, AC, and saving throw values, common resistances and immunities, and the types and likelihoods of various creatures, it is possible to make fairly accurate claims across a broad swathe of plausible scenarios. E.g., players who wish to be at least decent at combat should generally be able to do at least an unmodified damage cantrip's worth of damage each round, or something more valuable but not directly comparable (e.g. locking down enemies so they cannot respond to the PC or their allies.)</p><p></p><p>For the combat pillar, we can generally say the following things:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The best saves are Wis, Con, and Dex, generally (but not always) in that order. Characters should all have at least one of those saves Proficient simply by 5e's design, and if the party is lacking in proficient saves of any of these, that's a thing to consider. The other three saves CAN be bad if failed, but are dramatically rarer especially before high levels.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As noted, cantrip's provide a solid baseline of expected damage per round. There will always be times where doing damage is not as valuable as some other goal. But in the generic, <em>firebolt</em> is effectively a baseline of DPR.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spells are very powerful in combat (as they are in every pillar) and usually a character is stronger if they can cast spells than if they can't. This increases significantly if the party does not actually follow the expected "about 2-3 short rests per day, and about 6-8 encounters, most of them combats, every day" pattern, which unfortunately most groups do not follow.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If possible to do so without sacrificing a lot of damage, use Dexterity to attack rather than Strength. Dexterity boosts a much more powerful save, AC, the all-important Initiative, and a larger number of skills. Some classes cannot pull this off very effectively or provide incentives that make it worth considering Str instead of Dex, but again, this is a general rule not a special exception.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Your three highest stats should be Dex, Con, and whatever your focus stat is for your class, e.g. Paladin/Bard/Sorcerer value Cha, Cleric/Druid/Monk value Wisdom, etc. There may be exceptions as noted (e.g. Paladins may prefer Str/Con/Cha), but overall this is a good pattern.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Certain types of equipment are Just Better or Just Worse, e.g. the rapier is the best one-handed melee weapon for anyone who can wield it, because it is a d8 finesse weapon, as good as any Str weapon but usable with Dex. The trident, meanwhile, is strictly inferior to the spear: it is heavier, more expensive, and belongs to a more difficult category of weapons (spears are simple, tridents are martial), but otherwise has exactly the same mechanical properties. Why bother with it when the spear exists?</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some effects or damage types are much less useful than others. Necrotic and poison, for example, are extremely common resistances or immunities, as many undead, celestial, and/or fiendish enemies have such resistance or immunity; having resistance to necrotic is pretty useful though. Fire is commonly resisted, but also readily available in a lot of spells, so it kind of balances out. Radiant is very rarely resisted, but hard to find as a damage type both offensively and defensively. Etc. Use these facts to shape your class and spell choices.</li> </ul><p></p><p>I could probably add more. Point being, we can do a lot to narrow down useful things most if not all groups should strive to have, and thus make a "theory of party composition" as you put it.</p><p></p><p>From my time thinking on the subject I would say every party of at least 4 people needs the following (some of which may be doubled up on a single char):</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one magical healer. Sadly, non-magical healing just cannot keep up with damage in 5e, and the resting rules don't help on that front.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one full caster with the ability to cast rituals. Preferably two of distinct traditions (e.g. Cleric and Wizard, Druid and Bard, Bard and Wizard, etc.), but one will suffice.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one character with high HP and good defenses (which may mean AC, damage resistances, or spells that prevent or mitigate damage).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one (and preferably as many as possible) character with Perception proficiency. It is the most important skill in the game. It should not be ignored. Ideally at least one such character also has high Wis, but it's not essential.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one character proficient in each of the "major" saving throws (Con/Dex/Wis). Preferably, there's at least someone proficient with any of the six, but that's harder to pull off with only 4 people.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one character whose focus ability is Charisma and who has trained at least one Charisma skill. Faces are <em>very</em> important.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">At least one character whose focus ability is Dexterity and who has Stealth proficiency (and hopefully other Dex skills). Ideally they also have lockpicking tool proficiency, but that's not strictly necessary.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The party employs a diversity of damage types. Unless you can be confident that the party won't deal with tons of fire-immune critters, you want to keep damage type diversity. Psychic, force, and radiant damage are generally good against most enemies, while necrotic and poison are unreliable. It's okay for individual characters to specialize so long as the group overall has decent coverage (easily achieved by most full casters).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Optionally, one character with high Strength. Strength is a somewhat niche stat in 5e, good for specific things but not very broad. However, it's reasonably likely that situations where strength would be useful will pop up, and it's nice to not need spells to deal with those. It is not very useful to have more than one or two such characters in a party due to the risk of over-specialization.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Similarly optional, either one character specialized in skill expertise (e.g. Rogue or Bard) or in Intelligence is useful. Intelligence almost exclusively affects knowledge skills unless you're a Wizard or Artificer, but those knowledge skills can be useful in the right contexts. (It also doesn't help that the difference between Investigation and Perception is extremely unclear in many groups.)</li> </ul><p></p><p>That covers most of what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed things, but this is fairly comprehensive nonetheless.</p><p></p><p>A "solid group" of four is definitely met by the classic Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric, but you could also do Moon Druid/Bard/Artificer/Paladin, or Barbarian/Rogue/Sorcerer (with Ritual Caster)/Land Druid, or a variety of other substitutions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8544963, member: 6790260"] This will of course be intensely controversial because some folks view D&D in a maximally loosey-goosey, anything-goes, "it's just FUN stop trying to STUDY it, GOSH," but we can do quite a bit of analysis on this. 5e openly features three pillars: combat, exploration, and socialization. These have various expectations. Combat is generally the easiest to optimize for, and the least open (not NOT open, just less so) to unpredictable DM intrusions that can throw off analysis, thus it gets a lot of attention and effort. This is where much of the (often undeserved) bad reputation of optimization comes from. By knowing typical HP, AC, and saving throw values, common resistances and immunities, and the types and likelihoods of various creatures, it is possible to make fairly accurate claims across a broad swathe of plausible scenarios. E.g., players who wish to be at least decent at combat should generally be able to do at least an unmodified damage cantrip's worth of damage each round, or something more valuable but not directly comparable (e.g. locking down enemies so they cannot respond to the PC or their allies.) For the combat pillar, we can generally say the following things: [LIST] [*]The best saves are Wis, Con, and Dex, generally (but not always) in that order. Characters should all have at least one of those saves Proficient simply by 5e's design, and if the party is lacking in proficient saves of any of these, that's a thing to consider. The other three saves CAN be bad if failed, but are dramatically rarer especially before high levels. [*]As noted, cantrip's provide a solid baseline of expected damage per round. There will always be times where doing damage is not as valuable as some other goal. But in the generic, [I]firebolt[/I] is effectively a baseline of DPR. [*]Spells are very powerful in combat (as they are in every pillar) and usually a character is stronger if they can cast spells than if they can't. This increases significantly if the party does not actually follow the expected "about 2-3 short rests per day, and about 6-8 encounters, most of them combats, every day" pattern, which unfortunately most groups do not follow. [*]If possible to do so without sacrificing a lot of damage, use Dexterity to attack rather than Strength. Dexterity boosts a much more powerful save, AC, the all-important Initiative, and a larger number of skills. Some classes cannot pull this off very effectively or provide incentives that make it worth considering Str instead of Dex, but again, this is a general rule not a special exception. [*]Your three highest stats should be Dex, Con, and whatever your focus stat is for your class, e.g. Paladin/Bard/Sorcerer value Cha, Cleric/Druid/Monk value Wisdom, etc. There may be exceptions as noted (e.g. Paladins may prefer Str/Con/Cha), but overall this is a good pattern. [*]Certain types of equipment are Just Better or Just Worse, e.g. the rapier is the best one-handed melee weapon for anyone who can wield it, because it is a d8 finesse weapon, as good as any Str weapon but usable with Dex. The trident, meanwhile, is strictly inferior to the spear: it is heavier, more expensive, and belongs to a more difficult category of weapons (spears are simple, tridents are martial), but otherwise has exactly the same mechanical properties. Why bother with it when the spear exists? [*]Some effects or damage types are much less useful than others. Necrotic and poison, for example, are extremely common resistances or immunities, as many undead, celestial, and/or fiendish enemies have such resistance or immunity; having resistance to necrotic is pretty useful though. Fire is commonly resisted, but also readily available in a lot of spells, so it kind of balances out. Radiant is very rarely resisted, but hard to find as a damage type both offensively and defensively. Etc. Use these facts to shape your class and spell choices. [/LIST] I could probably add more. Point being, we can do a lot to narrow down useful things most if not all groups should strive to have, and thus make a "theory of party composition" as you put it. From my time thinking on the subject I would say every party of at least 4 people needs the following (some of which may be doubled up on a single char): [LIST] [*]At least one magical healer. Sadly, non-magical healing just cannot keep up with damage in 5e, and the resting rules don't help on that front. [*]At least one full caster with the ability to cast rituals. Preferably two of distinct traditions (e.g. Cleric and Wizard, Druid and Bard, Bard and Wizard, etc.), but one will suffice. [*]At least one character with high HP and good defenses (which may mean AC, damage resistances, or spells that prevent or mitigate damage). [*]At least one (and preferably as many as possible) character with Perception proficiency. It is the most important skill in the game. It should not be ignored. Ideally at least one such character also has high Wis, but it's not essential. [*]At least one character proficient in each of the "major" saving throws (Con/Dex/Wis). Preferably, there's at least someone proficient with any of the six, but that's harder to pull off with only 4 people. [*]At least one character whose focus ability is Charisma and who has trained at least one Charisma skill. Faces are [I]very[/I] important. [*]At least one character whose focus ability is Dexterity and who has Stealth proficiency (and hopefully other Dex skills). Ideally they also have lockpicking tool proficiency, but that's not strictly necessary. [*]The party employs a diversity of damage types. Unless you can be confident that the party won't deal with tons of fire-immune critters, you want to keep damage type diversity. Psychic, force, and radiant damage are generally good against most enemies, while necrotic and poison are unreliable. It's okay for individual characters to specialize so long as the group overall has decent coverage (easily achieved by most full casters). [*]Optionally, one character with high Strength. Strength is a somewhat niche stat in 5e, good for specific things but not very broad. However, it's reasonably likely that situations where strength would be useful will pop up, and it's nice to not need spells to deal with those. It is not very useful to have more than one or two such characters in a party due to the risk of over-specialization. [*]Similarly optional, either one character specialized in skill expertise (e.g. Rogue or Bard) or in Intelligence is useful. Intelligence almost exclusively affects knowledge skills unless you're a Wizard or Artificer, but those knowledge skills can be useful in the right contexts. (It also doesn't help that the difference between Investigation and Perception is extremely unclear in many groups.) [/LIST] That covers most of what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure I've missed things, but this is fairly comprehensive nonetheless. A "solid group" of four is definitely met by the classic Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric, but you could also do Moon Druid/Bard/Artificer/Paladin, or Barbarian/Rogue/Sorcerer (with Ritual Caster)/Land Druid, or a variety of other substitutions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Is there a general theory of party construction?
Top