D&D 5E The simplest and most effectiv 3 PC team

[Ancalagon]

On roles with three players: You can cover most roles with three players - especially if the players work together to for a party - but chances are that one typical adventuring role will be lacking (or missing altogether. Backgrounds can help immensely there. But for me; that's also a plus in the "pro" column of three-player games; the party has a weakness. The chances of multiple players competing for the same niche is also reduced, and even when two characters are strong in the same role, that becomes one of the party's strength rather than "wasted resources".

I think all roles can be covered BUT not with simple characters. It also requires the 3 players all be willing to play along to optimize etc, so while it is possible, maybe it's not a good idea to force it? "Ok Joe, you have to play a paladin outlander so you can be the tank/healer/nature guy" "What?!? I hate paladins! " That's not great.

The main drawback IMO is that when one character is down, the party is amputated of 33% of their resources, which is huge!

Yup, which is why they need to be tough, or at least slippery.

Sorcerer is a bit more straightforward IMO. The hardest mechanics is spell slot / sorcery point conversion, but metamagic is relatively easy to grasp.

See I'm not sure that sorcerers (or warlock) are simpler, because you have to construct your spell list with a lot of thought if you want to be good at multiple things....

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

I think the OP wanted to avoid all prepared casters, particularly clerics and druids, because knowing every spell on their spell list puts strain on players, and the OP aims for simplicity and ease of play.

Indeed.

They don’t need that. Just give them pregen spells on level up.

I do no want to tweak the rules.
And even with a fixed "prepared spells" list i'm quite sure the Life Cleric needs more reading and understanding of spells than the Valor Bard.

 

[FrogReaver]

So make them spontaneous casters instead of prepared? That'd be easy enough. # of spells the cleric/druid/wizard can prepare = spells known is easy enough to implement.

That or just leave out the part about being able to change your spell list.

Indeed.



I do no want to tweak the rules.
And even with a fixed "prepared spells" list i'm quite sure the Life Cleric needs more reading and understanding of spells than the Valor Bard.

Not if you are choosing the spells.

while bard is a very good class it’s not one I would pick for new players to learn the game. Bards lore doesn’t jive for a lot of people. Choosing one on your own is one thing. Being forced into one is another. IMO

 

[Shiroiken]

I think the OP wanted to avoid all prepared casters, particularly clerics and druids, because knowing every spell on their spell list puts strain on players, and the OP aims for simplicity and ease of play.

I think this might be a question of the goal of the OP. If this is just a short, simple game to get people to learn the game, then this really isn't an issue. The cleric can have their spells already chosen by the DM, and the spellbook for the wizard can have a few rituals that the wizard can cast without preparing.

If the OP is actually trying to start up a full campaign, then he's probably best to help the players build their own characters from scratch. He can help keep it simple, but the players will have to learn everything eventually anyway. In such a case he'd be better off sticking to the basic game.

 

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Not if you are choosing the spells.

If i'm correct :

a Level 1 Bard knows 2 cantrips & 4 spells
a level 1 Cleric (with +3 WIS and a fixed list of spells) knows 3 cantrips, 4 spells & 2 domain spells

a Level 9 Valor Bard knows 3 cantrips & 12 spells
a level 9 Cleric (with +5 WIS and a fixed list of spells) knows 4 cantrips, 14 spells & 10 domain spells

From my point of view the Bard is still simpler than a easy-to-play version of the Cleric.

 

[FrogReaver]

If i'm correct :

a Level 1 Bard knows 2 cantrips & 4 spells
a level 1 Cleric (with +3 WIS and a fixed list of spells) knows 3 cantrips, 4 spells & 2 domain spells

a Level 9 Valor Bard knows 3 cantrips & 12 spells
a level 9 Cleric (with +5 WIS and a fixed list of spells) knows 4 cantrips, 14 spells & 10 domain spells

From my point of view the Bard is still simpler than a easy-to-play version of the Cleric.

Sure if you hone in on a single area of complexity. IMO, it's not just the number of options but how complex each of those options are. Some points:

1. Why would we expect them to hit level 9 with pregen characters. I'd think somewhere between level 3-5 would be the end of the pregen campaign.
2. Bards get a ton of non-spellcasting features to increase their complexity.
3. Healing and direct damage spells are very straightforward to pick up on. Control spells and buff/debuff spells make things alot more complicated. Bards better spells tend to be control type spells with very little direct damage and without obvious additional benefits. Take dissonant whispers for example. We all know that's to generate OA's. I'm not sure that tactic would even cross a new players mind with it. Essentially the kinds of spells the Bard excels at are much more complex than the kinds of spells the life cleric excels at.
4. Bards are very squishy which tends to require alot firmer grasp about what is truly dangerous and how to position yourself to not be in harms way. Essentially, playing a bard effectively is alot more complex a process than playing a life cleric efficiently.
5. This is related to a different kind of complexity but is a very important point, D&D Bards don't hearken back to any fantasy trope they may already be familiar with which makes getting into such a pregen character quite a bit harder IMO.

At level 5 a bard knows 8 spells a cleric knows 14 spells. The clerics can be mostly very straightforward. The bards can be much more complex. The bard has a ton of features that add complexity. The life cleric has his channel divinity which is healing, so pretty straightforward.

 

[Laurefindel]

I think all roles can be covered BUT not with simple characters. It also requires the 3 players all be willing to play along to optimize etc, so while it is possible, maybe it's not a good idea to force it? "Ok Joe, you have to play a paladin outlander so you can be the tank/healer/nature guy" "What?!? I hate paladins! " That's not great.

I don't think all roles need to be 100% covered. IMO, that's when things becomes interesting. Even with the archetypal fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric 4-player party, players need to coordinate their builds a lot to cover them all. Also, a tempest or nature cleric, or a moon druid, or a ranger multiclass could fill a silmilar role as the outlander paladin, so players usually have a bit of leeway.

But hey, I'm just explaining why I like it, not why you or anyone else should like it too

See I'm not sure that sorcerers (or warlock) are simpler, because you have to construct your spell list with a lot of thought if you want to be good at multiple things....

I'm right there with you on that. That is especially true with characters having to mix both arcane utility and boom magic and divine healing and buff magic. But in a context of pre-made characters, I trust that the one who made the characters in the first place has done their homework right, and will be able to guide their players on level-up.

With that in mind, I still think that sorcerers are more straightforward (mostly because their spells selection is more focused, not simpler) than that of bards. For what it's worth, I think warlocks are not easy to play either because it require a judicious use of your two (or three) spell slots. Eldritch blast is always good, but warlocks are best when there's already another caster in the group IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think all roles need to be 100% covered. IMO, that's when things becomes interesting. Even with the archetypal fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric 4-player party, players need to coordinate their builds a lot to cover them all. Also, a tempest or nature cleric, or a moon druid, or a ranger multiclass could fill a silmilar role as the outlander paladin, so players usually have a bit of leeway.

But hey, I'm just explaining why I like it, not why you or anyone else should like it too




I'm right there with you on that. That is especially true with characters having to mix both arcane utility and boom magic and divine healing and buff magic. But in a context of pre-made characters, I trust that the one who made the characters in the first place has done their homework right, and will be able to guide their players on level-up.

With that in mind, I still think that sorcerers are more straightforward (mostly because their spells selection is more focused, not simpler) than that of bards. For what it's worth, I think warlocks are not easy to play either because it require a judicious use of your two (or three) spell slots. Eldritch blast is always good, but warlocks are best when there's already another caster in the group IMO.

Agree, Sorcerer is alot less complex than a bard. Especially if primarily choosing damage and/or healing spells.

I think a warlock would work well as long as you carefully curated the list to be primarily about dealing damage in combat. Things like hex/hellish rebuke/shatter etc. Maybe add in 1 utility spell in there somewhere.

 

[Voadam]

I think a warlock would work well as long as you carefully curated the list to be primarily about dealing damage in combat. Things like hex/hellish rebuke/shatter etc. Maybe add in 1 utility spell in there somewhere.

I think I'd want eldritch blast as the attack, just like the fighter has his sword. Save the spells for healing or other utility. If the spells known are attacks then they will be used in combat rather than the healing ones. Keeping eldritch blast as the attack option keeps it straightforward on choices for resource management and strategy and allows them to be the healer. If you take attack spells you become a little more effective at attacks sometimes but you give up using your limited slot for healing or utility to do so and make it a tougher judgment call on what to do in various situations.

 

[Asisreo]

Frenzy Barb, Draco-Sorc, Champion Fighter. Healing isn't as much of a necessity as it was in past games. If you're really anxious about it, though, you can swap Champ-Fighter with Devotee-Pal.