D&D 5E (2024) The Most Meta Party to Make the DM Cry?

[Ancoulainn]

Ah damn. Somehow I thought there was already a 5.5e version of Redemption, so I thought I was sticking only to 5.5e options. Guess not. So, I guess replace Redemption with Ancients, given it has magic resist aura.

Twilight, Eloquence, Watchers, and Peace do not exist yet for 5.5e, so I wasn't considering them.

Ah, ok. I thought so as well at first, but then you mentioned Redemption and thought we'd include everything.
But Oath of Ancients no longer has the magic resist aura. It's now resistance to necrotic, psychic, and radiant damage. Devotion gives protection against charmed. Between those two and considering the stronger Channel Divinity, I'd probably go with Devotion. Or you give the new Noble Genie a spin for Dao's Crush and CME.

 

[Zardnaar]

Zardnaar:


Also Zardnaar:


Sixty percent of your second party ARE FULL-CASTERS. And of the other two, one is ALSO a partial spellcaster.

Of your first group, one is a full-caster, and one is nearly so, especially if you take certain things to make you more of a caster (like Pact of the Tome).

You keep pushing this "full casters SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK" message, but your choices do not match your claims. I find that very telling.

Beyond that, if you actually want to be a nightmare for your GM, yes, something like the second party is a much, much better fit for that purpose. I would personally swap out the Sorcerer for a Wizard (especially as that party is otherwise very likely to be hurting for Int skills). Long as you choose the right subclasses of Barbarian and Paladin--my money's on World Tree and Redemption--you have an extremely solid group that can do some pretty tricksy things, and with even just a very small amount of advanced warning, can be almost completely prepared to deploy against many different threats. Divination is likely the best Wizard subclass for this context--after all, being able to force positive/negative results with Portent dice is by definition one of the game's greatest ways to screw with the GM, as it can only be countered by Legendary Resistance, though you can argue that a Bladesinger allows a Wizard to be enough of a gish that even you can't call it weak. For Bard, Lore allows for a max flex potential, and gives you great ways to juice skill checks, again allowing you to oppose the GM's preferences/choices. Cleric doesn't really matter; sure, some subclasses are worse than others, but none of them are truly awful; Light, War, or Knowledge would all be fine, and Life wouldn't be bad even if it would be a tad unnecessary with two other support-leaning characters in the party.

So...yeah. World Tree Barbarian (or something replacing it with more power/versatility), Redemption Paladin, Divination or Bladesinging Wizard, Lore Bard, and (say) Light Cleric? Yes, you are absolutely going to be screwing over your GM on the reg, because you actually have abilities that can tell the GM "nope, that didn't happen" and "well guess what, I can't roll less than 30 on this, so you're just hosed." (Redemption Paladin rolling Persuasion with Lore Bard support, Diviner Wizard in the back holding onto an awesome Portent die, and just innately having effectively Reliable Talent? Especially if she's picked up Expertise in Persuasion, not just Proficiency? Yeah. You might literally be able to push that roll up into the 40s, that's how juiced you are.)

At least partial spellcasters are, in nearly all cases, simply superior in their general capabilities than pure non-casters. Of the ten characters you listed above, half of them were full casters. Your arguments simply don't hold water by your own analysis!

I said wizards syck and full casters tend to suck at damage with the exceptions of emanations and vs paralyzed.

At levels people actually play.

There's some higher level theory craft builds abd specific situations eg DM is feeding fodder encounters into fireball perhaps.

At higher levels I also want higher defenses espicially wisdom saves. Druid, clerics,fighters, Monks, Paladins have the best saves.

And this threads assuming youre going all the way to level 20 from 1. I dont want a weak class at tier 1 or 2 and I dont want one that peaks at 12.


Spellcasters are comparatively weak at levels people play. Bladesinger starts getting good around lvl 8 most games end by 7. Thats assuming the bladesinger has multiclassed.

Real game I dont care about a class that peaks tier 4 peaking tier 1 or 2 is more relevant. Theres 4 classes i would t play 1-20 in 5 5, 8 in 5 0 (excluding artificers in both).

As DM im sitting behind the screen seeing DC 19-27 wisdom saves that shut you down (good luck barbarians).

Lvl 4-5 Im seeing Barbarians dealing 60-80 damage, Monks punching people into emanations, forced movement into emanations and lerics/druids dealing reasonable damage with said emanations.

This is why I think Fireballs mediocre even in 5MW situations as one can use emanation+ better spell in those situations.

I dont think you can even theory craft a bladesinger hitting 80 damage level 5. Saw a Barbarian do exactly that yesterday iirc

 

[Ancoulainn]

I said wizards syck and full casters tend to suck at damage with the exceptions of emanations and vs paralyzed.

At levels people actually play.

There's some higher level theory craft builds abd specific situations eg DM is feeding fodder encounters into fireball perhaps.

At higher levels I also want higher defenses espicially wisdom saves. Druid, clerics,fighters, Monks, Paladins have the best saves.

And this threads assuming youre going all the way to level 20 from 1. I dont want a weak class at tier 1 or 2 and I dont want one that peaks at 12.


Spellcasters are comparatively weak at levels people play. Bladesinger starts getting good around lvl 8 most games end by 7. Thats assuming the bladesinger has multiclassed.

Real game I dont care about a class that peaks tier 4 peaking tier 1 or 2 is more relevant. Theres 4 classes i would t play 1-20 in 5 5, 8 in 5 0 (excluding artificers in both).

You clearly have a particular objective in mind. And you see that other people have different objectives in mind. Based on that, what are you trying to achieve here by making this list? People are going to make recommendations based on how they are playing, not based on how you play. As you said to me at some point, individual experiences are not universal. Maybe you need to ask the people in the community at large about how they feel, but you also voiced what you think about the Internet community. So, I don't really know where this is supposed to go.

 

[Zardnaar]

You clearly have a particular objective in mind. And you see that other people have different objectives in mind. Based on that, what are you trying to achieve here by making this list? People are going to make recommendations based on how they are playing, not based on how you play. As you said to me at some point, individual experiences are not universal. Maybe you need to ask the people in the community at large about how they feel, but you also voiced what you think about the Internet community. So, I don't really know where this is supposed to go.

Its a general thing vs a typical expectation.

My picks also cover non combat. Warlocks, Paladins sorcerers, druids and other spellcasters for exploration.

All bases ate covered for a typical game. If youre playing something very specific sure it may not be good for that.

 

[Ancoulainn]

Its a general thing vs a typical expectation.

My picks also cover non combat. Warlocks, Paladins sorcerers, druids and other spellcasters for exploration.

All bases ate covered for a typical game. If youre playing something very specific sure it may not be good for that.

I think what you said in your previous post is quite a typical expectation. Hence, my question. If you want something general, that would be something that includes all levels from 1-20 and considers all pillars of the game and you explicitly said that you don't want that. If you're saying that most games would end at 7, something that I can't confirm outside of that one time I played WbtW, I think that would qualify as something very specific.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think what you said in your previous post is quite a typical expectation. Hence, my question. If you want something general, that would be something that includes all levels from 1-20 and considers all pillars of the game and you explicitly said that you don't want that. If you're saying that most games would end at 7, something that I can't confirm outside of that one time I played WbtW, I think that would qualify as something very specific.

It was numbers WotC released a while back.

70% of games end by 7
10% make it to 10th
1% make it to epic levels.

I think the numbers have changed slightly since (it takes time to hit high level).

The bog selling D&D adventures are low level ones (1-5 Strahd was 1-10) and modern adventures generally top out around 10 with the odd exception.

My suspicion is 10 is effectively capstone. My last game hit 13 theres 1 person here who reliably plays high level.

So a lot here haven't played 5.5 the ones that have hit level 10 even snalker group, thise who gave run level 10+ 5.5 very rare.

Alot of arguments here are actually theorycrafting.

 

[Ancoulainn]

It was numbers WotC released a while back.

70% of games end by 7
10% make it to 10th
1% make it to epic levels.

I think the numbers have changed slightly since (it takes time to hit high level).

The bog selling D&D adventures are low level ones (1-5 Strahd was 1-10) and modern adventures generally top out around 10 with the odd exception.

My suspicion is 10 is effectively capstone. My last game hit 13 theres 1 person here who reliably plays high level.

So a lot here haven't played 5.5 the ones that have hit level 10 even snalker group, thise who gave run level 10+ 5.5 very rare.

Alot of arguments here are actually theorycrafting.

Strahd is around 1-10, Tyranny of Dragons is 1-15, Lost Mines & Pandelver and Below, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and Rime of the Frostmaiden are 1-12, Tomb of Annihilation is 1-11+, Descent to Avernus is 1-13, Princes of the Apocalypse and Out of the Abyss are 1-15, Storm King's Thunder is 1-11, and Wild beyond the Witchlight is 1-8. Those are the most popular modules that begin at level 1, not including compendiums like Tales from the Yawning Portal or Quests from the Inifinite Staircase or 3rd party modules.

 

[Zardnaar]

Strahd is around 1-10, Tyranny of Dragons is 1-15, Lost Mines & Pandelver and Below, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and Rime of the Frostmaiden are 1-12, Tomb of Annihilation is 1-11+, Descent to Avernus is 1-13, Princes of the Apocalypse and Out of the Abyss are 1-15, Storm King's Thunder is 1-11, and Wild beyond the Witchlight is 1-8. Those are the most popular modules that begin at level 1, not including compendiums like Tales from the Yawning Portal or Quests from the Inifinite Staircase or 3rd party modules.

Biggest selling though are lost miles, before that Kee on Borderlands and Steahd sold well.

HotDQ also sold really well.

WotC basically said most groups wont be finishing them.

 

[Ancoulainn]

Biggest selling though are lost miles, before that Kee on Borderlands and Steahd sold well.

HotDQ also sold really well.

WotC basically said most groups wont be finishing them.

All I found was a best selling list from 2023. It lists Curse of Strahd, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, Tales from the Yawning Portal, and Ghosts of Saltmarsh as the top 5. No idea how accurate it is, but here's the link: D&D 5E’s Top-Selling Adventures and What It Means for the Hobby

 

[kigmatzomat]

"Longer marathon type meta" functionally doesn't exist.
I'm 100% certain that there are real GMs out there who actually do run things that way. I'm also 100% certain that such GMs are a vanishingly tiny minority.
The vast, VAST majority of games simply do not run that long because it is not actually all that fun for most people to deal with a slog like that.

The "all marathon, all the time" meta are "World's Largest Dungeons" and games where each dungeon must be cleared without leaving and there are no non-dungeon encounters. Once the campaign includes traveling encounters, scouting parties, enemies that flee, etc you get a mix of 5MWD and marathon. So a tiny fraction of games are pure marathon.

And I would think that once you add those non-dungeon encounters they would outnumber the dungeon days by a noticeable margin. I mean, two road encounters for each day of dungeon is 33% marathon days.


The real question is the percentage of "boss battles" that are marathon/5mwd. And at higher levels, short rests are also pretty key for many classes....so the 70mwd?

I feel like from a rationality standpoint, most boss battles should not allow the 5mwd, or even the 70mwd, because the boss should get up and leave.

"Boss, 5 adventurers just killed 80% of the camp!"
"Where are they now?!?"
"Ummm....they are fluffing pillows and laying out bedrolls."
"Fantastic! Find a couple of survivors you hate and tell them to make a commotion when the invaders decamp and then run away from us. Then tell everyone else to grab their most important gear and head to fallback point A. You and I will go to fallback point B as I suspect these heroes will pursue and kill everyone at point A."
"Excellent plan boss!"

Alternately, when the boss has to protect their lair (e.g. dragons and hoards) or ca not afford to simply flee (charismatic leader), they attack during the rest to keep the PCs weak. It doesn't have to be a particularly credible threat, just enough to ruin rest.

I've played one WotC 5e adventure path and it was filthy with short rest opportunities. We could take 2-3 short rests per boss, which was a terrible design imo.