D&D (2024) Party Balance?

[Ashrym]

cant the fighter be replaced with valor bard?

Not really. I'd use a valor bard to replace the cleric as armored front line support. The valor bard doesn't have the fighter weapon masteries, armor training, and fighting styles; and we're already into the subclass before looking at fighter subclasses.

But @Lanefan was going by the quote from the PHB that states a bard can be a substitute for a cleric, rogue, or wizard. I think that would be a valor bard, dance bard, and glamour or lore bard respectively.

 

[Distracted DM]

Do they say why those are the classic four, and what makes them each fill their role? The Ranger isn't going to fill for the Rogue all that well if no one has investigation and Thieves Tools proficiency.

 

[DragonLancer]

The classic fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard/sorcerer party is a classic trope for a reason. It covers all your bases. It's what I would recommend for most new players and even some experienced groups.

Fighter - good but can easily be replaced by barbarian, paladin or even melee focused ranger without problem.

Rogue - this slot is for scouting, trap finding and ranged combat. Ranger covers most of this as an option.

Cleric - cleric or druid both serve a good role here, although for my money, cleric is the better option. I wouldn't put paladin under this category.

Wizard - any of the arcane casters plus bard are a good fit here, although better with the wizard/sorcerer direct damage.


Personally I don't like when people say rogues are irrelevant because casters can do their job. If your casters are doing the job of another class, they aren't doing their own role. Casters shouldn't be thr trap finders and removers.


Same sort of thing goes with healers. Healing may be more available than in earlier editions but having a healer is one of those I'd rather have and not need than need and not have situations. Clerics and to an extent druids can also back up the melee characters if needed.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I love the idea that WotC is suggesting a party of three bards and one miserable paladin.

I want to play in that campaign.

I had exactly the same thought.

 

[steeldragons]

A traditional D&D party is never 4 people.

In my experience, the "classic party" construction is actually 1 Fighter (or fighter type) per non-fighter class.

So if you have, as most old school parties did: 1 Mage/Wizard, 1 Cleric, and 1 (almost certainly halfling) Thief; then you had at least 3 fighters. Or 2 fighters and a Ranger or Paladin. Or 1 fighter, 1 Ranger or Paladin, 1 Elf or half-elf Fighter/Mage (so you'd get, essentially, 1.5 Arcane spellcasters)

Beyond 6, you could go nuts. Add a monk or druid. Add an illusionist. Add an assassin or fighter/cleric. etc. I've always found parties of 7 or 9 members to do the best/be most successful...and be able to keep everyone alive.

And, of course, when in doubt, add a bard who could provide "support role" in any of the given game areas.

 

[mamba]

It's just 4e roles with the serial numbers filed off, bundling in the idea of subroles (e.g. Cleric can be a pinch Striker and/or a decent Controller if built for it, in addition to its core healing capability.) It's the tiniest bit looser but like... it's still fundamentally the same concept.

Of course, since 5e is doing it, it is naturally God's gift to tabletops.

they could have given similar advice in 1e (minus the suggestions for alternatives).

I get it, you like 4e, but 4e did not invent TTRPGs, not sure why you pretend it did and everything went downhill from there

 

[DEFCON 1]

Do they say why those are the classic four, and what makes them each fill their role? The Ranger isn't going to fill for the Rogue all that well if no one has investigation and Thieves Tools proficiency.

I don't think they need to say why. Because the new players will just learn it via their experience playing it.

I always get the feeling that many veteran players have this need to continually "protect the new players" by making sure that anything that could go wrong is sanded down and smoothed out so that those issues never happen. As though these new players are like toddlers and we have to keep them safe at all costs... lest they decide D&D "isn't for them" and they stop playing. Everything should be explained away so that these players "know what they are getting into", rather than just figuring it out for themselves.

But in truth... more often than not these "rough edges" that veteran players wanted sanded down ostensibly to "protect the new players" are really just burrs under their own saddles that they want removed for their own sake more than anything else. They don't like some particular set of rules so they come up with reasons why those rules don't "help new players" to be the reason why those rules should be taken out or changed. When in actuality... those veteran players are so far removed from what they actually do need or want as a new player that no one can take their claims on faith. They haven't been a new player for years, if not decades-- especially not new players who have experienced games of other types that have tropes or concepts adapted from or taken directly from RPGs-- so what they think is "necessary" to play the game as a new player is not in fact true.

Which means that these recommendations that game is giving that the Core Four classes are your typical party composition is not in fact "necessary". And heck depending on how a particular table of new players plays... might not even be true. They may play a game with 4 Barbarians and find the game plays fine just because of how their DM runs things. But that's not to say this information is completely useless to everybody nor is it actively a hindrance even if it isn't necessary or required to be there. Some people might find it useful, some won't. But that's okay. It's there to be used if some table wants to, but they don't have to if they don't want. Just like the game gives 1st level spell recommendations to starting characters and offer up starting equipment. And players won't know if they are useful until they try and use them. But a veteran player making a declaration that they absolutely won't or absolutely will is a bunch of hooey. They have no idea either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

they could have given similar advice in 1e (minus the suggestions for alternatives).

I get it, you like 4e, but 4e did not invent TTRPGs, not sure why you pretend it did and everything went downhill from there

My point was that this is nothing new, but 4e got eviscerated for doing something 5e is now doing, and apparently it's great and wonderful now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I always get the feeling that many veteran players have this need to continually "protect the new players" by making sure that anything that could go wrong is sanded down and smoothed out so that those issues never happen.

No. Instead, my expectation is that we will pass along knowledge and skills we have already obtained, so that future new players do not need to spend a long time developing those same things themselves.

This is not somehow bad or wrong or weird. It is literally the foundation of all human knowledge: that we collect, condense, and preserve the knowledge our forebears obtained. We then apply it to tasks and questions of our own, which we and those who come after us will collect, condense, and preserve similarly.

They may play a game with 4 Barbarians and find the game plays fine just because of how their DM runs things.

Exceedingly, astoundingly unlikely. Especially if using 2014 Barbarian rules (in part because this was one of the classes, and especially its subclasses, that really needed some love.)

 

[payn]

My point was that this is nothing new, but 4e got eviscerated for doing something 5e is now doing, and apparently it's great and wonderful now.

I think there is a big difference with generality of role which 5E does, and built specifically to work in a way that 4E does.