D&D 5E Too much arcane in the party?

[ObligatoryHuman]

I'm starting up a new campaign and we have (of varying races and alignments) a multiclassed barbarian/druid, a tempest cleric, a wizard (not sure what tradition), a dragon sorcerer, and a warlock (unsure on the pact or boon). My question is: are there too many arcane magic users in the party? Or am I just reading too much into it? I get the feeling the three will be stepping on each other's toes a lot.

 

[steeldragons]

You're reading too much into it.

If those are the characters that will be fun for those players...then those are the characters. Who steps on whose toes, how they get along, learn to work together or hate each others guts and/or everything in between are all matters for role-playing that will work themselves out as the characters (not players) get to know each other as the campaign progresses.

PS: and WELCOME to ENworld! Have some start up XP.

 

[Ancalagon]

Is it the best balanced party? No. Does it *really* matter? Not really. And it's not that bad balanced either. The druid/barbarian covers "nature stuff", he/she and the tempest cleric will be decent melee combatant *and* healers, the wizard and the warlock can have a lot of utility spells, the warlock could be a "bladelock" and fight or be more of a trickster (ie pseudo rogue), and 4/5 of the characters can deal serious blasting damage via magic... so yeah, you should be able to handle trouble

welcome to EN world!

 

[Shiroiken]

Party Balance is overrated. During the playtest, one Encounters group decided to play all Wizards. They did wind out with a Barbarian, because another player was added, but it really didn't matter. They planned themselves out as a teacher (older PC with Sage background) and his students (younger PCs with various other backgrounds). They were so varied, even at 1st level, that they didn't even step on each others toes. They had a lot of fun, and were fairly powerful (they worked together to manage spell slots, no one ever went "nova," but instead each round 1 PC cast a "real" spell while the others cast cantrips).

 

[cheezitmojo]

Party Balance is overrated. During the playtest, one Encounters group decided to play all Wizards. They did wind out with a Barbarian, because another player was added, but it really didn't matter. They planned themselves out as a teacher (older PC with Sage background) and his students (younger PCs with various other backgrounds). They were so varied, even at 1st level, that they didn't even step on each others toes. They had a lot of fun, and were fairly powerful (they worked together to manage spell slots, no one ever went "nova," but instead each round 1 PC cast a "real" spell while the others cast cantrips).

That actually sounds like a lot of fun. Is this something you saw personally, or is there a video/blog somewhere of it?

 

[Ancalagon]

To elaborate on my last reply, it would be very easy to have the sorcerer, warlock and wizard have very different styles of casting and functions in the party. Traditionally the sorcerer would be the blaster, wizard focus utility and battle field control and the warlock more the trickster type... but do whatever is fun and works

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm starting up a new campaign and we have (of varying races and alignments) a multiclassed barbarian/druid, a tempest cleric, a wizard (not sure what tradition), a dragon sorcerer, and a warlock (unsure on the pact or boon). My question is: are there too many arcane magic users in the party? Or am I just reading too much into it? I get the feeling the three will be stepping on each other's toes a lot.

It'll be fine.

It might help to emphasize the different "flavors" of magic. Your Wizard is your only Int-based character, for instance, so stuff like "what school of magic is this" and "what's this magic doodad do?" should go to them. Point out ritual casting - it's something pretty special for wizards. Your dragon sorcerer drops the fatty boom boom better than anyone. Your warlock, depending on pact, might be better at the charms/curses/ongoing stuff, but if nothing else, they'll have more staying power than the others.

I play in a game with two sorcerers currently and we manage to fill very different niches (he's the blasty mage, I'm the controlly mage). Just get folks to talk to each other about what they can do that no one else can do, and they should find their baselines pretty easily.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The one thing that I always worry about is distribution of magical items. If a cool wand drops, then you'll have 3-5 people who might want it; but if they find a cool bow, then nobody will care in the slightest.

In the game I'm currently running, there's a wizard and a warlock, with exactly one Robe of the Archmagi between them. One character has a decent AC and nigh-unresistable spells, and the other is a punching bag. It is a minor point of contention.

 

[Horwath]

There cannot be too much of a certain thing in D&D as classes go. Usually.

But you should look up if you are missing something.

it's cool to have 3 arcane spellcasters and it's even better that they represent 3 different classes.

But as I see it you're missing a specialist; rogue/ranger/bard. some one who can tinker around traps.

If one of your casters got skills for that great, go for 3 arcanes.

you should have all "ROLES" covered, it doesn't matter what class they come from.

 

[Bera]

I get the argument that whatever character a player wants to play is good for the party, but its a good opportunity to have the player's talk first about their character ideas and concepts, because sometimes after talking it out you get a good sense of how the characters might have bonds with one another and can complement one another without really sacrificing anything. An Illusionist or Enchanter wizard and fey-pact warlock might end up being too similar, but the players might be going back and forth between a few different choices or how to focus their character. By talking it over, the fey warlock might focus less on illusions and more on other trickster powers. Additionally, another player might modify their concept a bit to fit with a party of tricksters.

 

[Shiroiken]

That actually sounds like a lot of fun. Is this something you saw personally, or is there a video/blog somewhere of it?

It was at my FLGS, but I wasn't actually part of it. We had 3 Encounters tables during the playtest, and I was DMing a different table. I knew about it because the DMs discussed things after each session to figure out what worked and what didn't.

 

[eayres33]

I’ll just echo what a few others have said that almost any grouping works in 5E. I’ve run a group with 3 fighters and a Ranger and its worked well. Of course I had to change a few things as a DM because the best Dex bonus in the group was + 1. So if your DM is flexible there should be no worries and even if they are more ridged as long as you make sure one of your magic users can handle a more roguish role the group should be fine

Currently I’m in a game with a champion fighter, a War Cleric a Wizard and a Dragon Sorcerer. As the Dragon Sorcerer I'm high Dex, and focus my spells on stealth, damage, and some buffing, while the Wizard focus on battlefield control, debuffing and some buffing. Buffing is the only real overlap and that’s only so the I as the sorcerer can twin haste.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having too many casters causes all sorts of problems. You have too many spell slots to get you through the day, too much flexibility to deal with unexpected problems that come up, and too much versatility to adapt yourself for new challenges when you see them coming. It'll be a disaster, I'm sure.

;P

 

[Ashrym]

There's too little arcane in the party. ;-)

Get the barbarian druid to go bard, get the cleric to go eldritch knight, add an arcane trickster. The group can play 6 different arcane casting classes and still work out not stepping on toes. As mentioned, they don't necessarily need to be different classes.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

What's the magical equivalent of a sausage fest? Wand party? Staff room?

 

[ChelseaNH]

I have a new campaign starting with 7 players and this is the first time most of them have rolled up characters in 5e. There was some discussion but not real coordination. We wound up with 1 human barbarian, 1 elf barbarian, 1 elf ranger, 1 dragonborn warlock, 1 elf wizard, 1 gnome wild magic sorcerer and 1 tiefling favored soul sorcerer. Seeing the obvious gap, I created a half-elf lore bard with Urchin background for proficiency with thieves tools and some extra healing. Also, bards are wicked useful for dropping information on a party.

 

[Rhenny]

Like others have said, it is not necessary to have party balance in 5e so this should work out fine. Sometimes, lacking something actually makes the game more interesting (especially for players who have experience and tend to steamroll encounters when they have a well-balanced party). Sometimes, I enjoy playing or DMing an all stealth party. Sometimes, I enjoy the challenge of few or no healers. I think a lack of warrior/melee meat shield will be equally interesting.

This also raises another point. Sometimes, it is actually pretty fun to play a party of PCs that share a common link. Having a bunch of arcanes might give all the PCs more to talk about and heighten camaraderie or competition depending on how they play it. I love that stuff. Just recently, I ran a few sessions with an an all Dwarf party. It actually made interaction between characters really natural, cohesive and rich. I can see an arcane heavy group playing a similar way.

Let us know how it goes.

Cheers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There's too little arcane in the party. ;-)

Get the barbarian druid to go bard, get the cleric to go eldritch knight, add an arcane trickster. The group can play 6 different arcane casting classes and still work out not stepping on toes. As mentioned, they don't necessarily need to be different classes.

Wizard: 8 schools Traditions
Warlock: 3 Patrons
Sorcerer: 2 bloodlines
Bard: 2 Colleges
Fighter: 1 Archetype (EK)
Rogue: 1 Archetype (AT)

6 classes that can cast Arcane spells, half the classes in the PH, and 17 Arcane sub-classes, nearly half the sub-classes in the PH. A plurality of PC options are arcane.
Hardly surprising, really, to have an arcane-heavy party. Lacking an arcanist would be stranger.

 

[Ancalagon]

Wizard: 8 schools Traditions
Warlock: 3 Patrons
Sorcerer: 2 bloodlines
Bard: 2 Colleges
Fighter: 1 Archetype (EK)
Rogue: 1 Archetype (AT)

6 classes that can cast Arcane spells, half the classes in the PH, and 17 Arcane sub-classes, nearly half the sub-classes in the PH. A plurality of PC options are arcane.
Hardly surprising, really, to have an arcane-heavy party. Lacking an arcanist would be stranger.

Very true - and you forgot some of the monks sub-classes have some arcane magic too...

Having a party with no magic at all (given the high number of divine magic users) would be astonishing. You would have the barbarian, 2/3 of the fighter archetypes, 1/3 monks, 2/3 rogues and... that's it.

Could make an interesting party - 1 barbarian, 1 fighter, 1 monk, 1 rogue. Lots of butt-kicking

 

[Ashrym]

I wouldn't include the barbarian's totem abilities as representative of a divine subclass. They still have less magic than the open hand monks acquire. I wouldn't call the monk sub-classes arcane either -- they are specifically called out as ki powers to manifest or duplicate spells and are left out of the arcane / divine classification later in the magic section. They use magic (ki powers) but appear to be distinct as neither arcane nor divine.

It's the casting class and not the spell / ability which dictates divine vs arcane. It doesn't really matter, however. The group can run bard (arcane) as a cleric or a druid (divine) as an offensive / utility spell caster just fine. The current system classifying arcane vs divine spell casters is pretty much just generalization and flavor.

It is true that there are a lot of options with magic but players will still tend towards what they like as opposed to taking options simply because they exist. It's hard to make a non-magical wizard as an archetype and it's easy to make a magic using fighter so I think that illustrates why there would be more magical options than non-magical, at least at a basic level.