Maybe I need to adjust my view of the game slightly. I think I probably think of it more as a life simulator where success comes from effectively adapting to the situation to overcome challenges. But it sounds like for most people D&D is more about playing a game where you're free to break free of any constraints in order to have fun doing whatever you can imagine.
And again, we'll all come at it from some sort of balance between extremes. I find it helpful to understand the poles.
Many people start with (and often maintain) a similar opinion as you have. (Had?) It often stems from familiarity with games like WoW and other MMO games. The thing is, those games have no DM, everything is preset, pre-programmed, and pre-generated. Every party that runs [Mission X] will inevitably all face the exact same challenges regardless of party composition, so things like party optimization and “Builds” are an important part of playing those games.
That's a really helpful point. I have spent many years playing games like WoW and Diablo. Both are heavily about optimizing character build to overcome harder and harder challenges.
Honestly though that sort of play, while fun, became fairly boring and repetitive to me. Play the game, learn the rules, learn how to manipulate the rules to be better. Once that was done though the games just become sort of a grind with marginal gains and I lost interest in playing them. I played D&D as a kid in the 80s and now in my 40s getting back into it what excites me is the ability to flavor your character the way you like, outside of any rules and the ability to create character personalities and arcs that develop and progress. I still want to create effective, powerful characters but am happy to make less optimum choices if it fits the flavor of my character. I'm excited to play my new druid with druidcraft, which people seem to say is more of a flavor spell than being effective, over something like shillelagh or thornwhip. But will still obsess over whether to take magic stone or produce flame and when would be the optimal time to swap magic stone for produce flame (the correct answer by the way is either 4 or 8 depending on spell attack bonus and if you want steadier or higher potential damage)
I usually come into a new group with a few characters that I'd like to play and pick the one that helps group balance and make adjustments based on what others choose.
I'm hesitant to get judgy, but the latter approach seems a little on the selfish side. You want to play what you want and its up to everyone else to adjust to you and make what you want work, rather than considering the needs of the group. This is where I'm coming from, I'm sure there is a more positive spin on the latter view and I'd be interested in hearing what it is.
The first sentence above is what I tend to do if I am joining a game.
The next statements can be an issue with the group and the GM's campaign setting. For example you want to play a halfling and in the GM games all halfling are servants of the evil gods and there are no good or neutral halflings. The last is an extreme examples but I have seen other lesser variations of this problem.
In general I try and do the following, follow the GM's rules for setting and campaign, then if possible see what PC's the others want to play and or if it is going to be possible to fill the holes in the group with NPC's because the group wants to do something different (ie every player wants to play a more martial character and there are no spell casters).
Note: having everyone play a PC from a reduced list of classes and having the group be supported by NPC's in lacking areas can be different and fun. Also when and if someone dies they can then create a PC to fill a hole in the party's make up.
I think where I'm coming from is I'm thinking of D&D as like a team sport, we're all here to play and have fun but in order to play someone needs to play shortstop and someone needs to play outfield. But maybe D&D is open and creative enough that it doesn't have to be like a team sport.
I think I also like to think of the challenges being faced in the world as already existing and the party needs to find a way to overcome them. Saying the DM can just adjust to whatever the group comp is, to me feels like saying you'll be able to win no matter what choices you make, the DM will see to that. And that feels less fun to me. I wonder is there a difference in how much a DM can adjust in a published campaign vs a homebrew one?
Mostly here I'm arguing a perspective to gain some clarity rather than saying, "this is the way you have to play! If you don't you're bad!"
It’s not the dms job to make sure they win. But it’s the dms job to make the players have fun and to challenge them with what they bring to the table. That means making it harder, or giving them the means to deal with problems they literally can’t deal with. Giving out a few healing potions to a team with no healer isn’t letting them win. It’s letting them play the game with the characters they want. They can still die. they can still lose. But it’ll be way more fun for them to take a crack at the game playing the thing they want than having to “play meta”.
Fun is all that matters. And if the group as a whole wants to play meta that’s awesome. But if not, then help facilitate a fun game regardless.
Both are important. For me it will depend on the DM. Skilled DMs can provide a good experience no matter the party. All fighters with not a lick of magic between you? Or all mages with the highest AC being 14 and everyone squishy? A bunch of bards... being bards? All perfectly okie dokes. 5e has more tools and flexibility and with a decent DM you never have to worry about party composition.
Newer DMs or those relying too strictly on pre-made adventures will be different and often less adaptable so party composition is going to be more important. In a linear game with little opportunity to ambush and a party that prefers to just beat the door down and go for broke means anyone trying to play Assassin will find it a poor experience - as 3/4 of their subclass features go entirely unused. The melee fighter in a party of AoE spamming spellchuckers is going to have a poor experience never able to get up into the fray. The vice versa is also true: a wizard with big AoE spells in a party of melee bladeswingers getting in the way, is going to suck all the joy out of it if you're not an Evoker with sculpt spells. Clever DMs can circumvent these obstacles, customising encounters and quests to provide something for everyone, but newer DMs or those relying on pre-made don't have the experience or flexibility to do this.
That being said, I will only make characters I think I will have fun playing. If I absolutely had to choose between "for party" or "for myself" - I pick myself. I have a very limited amount of time, opportunity and mental headspace for playing D&D , so I'm going to ensure I will enjoy it. There is no point playing, if you're not enjoying it. Thankfully, there's enough versatility in options that this is rarely a problem. Need melee and tanks but really want spells? EK, Bladesinger, Valor/Swords Bards, AT, Hexblade etc. All martials and need some heals? MoH Halfling, Aasimar, V:Human with a feat, and voila: some healing without needing a single spell slot. There's options for all sorts, so it's actually quite easy to make a char that could be enjoyable to play and still provide the missing functions of the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think where I'm coming from is I'm thinking of D&D as like a team sport, we're all here to play and have fun but in order to play someone needs to play shortstop and someone needs to play outfield. But maybe D&D is open and creative enough that it doesn't have to be like a team sport.
I think I also like to think of the challenges being faced in the world as already existing and the party needs to find a way to overcome them. Saying the DM can just adjust to whatever the group comp is, to me feels like saying you'll be able to win no matter what choices you make, the DM will see to that. And that feels less fun to me. I wonder is there a difference in how much a DM can adjust in a published campaign vs a homebrew one?
Mostly here I'm arguing a perspective to gain some clarity rather than saying, "this is the way you have to play! If you don't you're bad!"
It’s not the dms job to make sure they win. But it’s the dms job to make the players have fun and to challenge them with what they bring to the table. That means making it harder, or giving them the means to deal with problems they literally can’t deal with. Giving out a few healing potions to a team with no healer isn’t letting them win. It’s letting them play the game with the characters they want. They can still die. they can still lose. But it’ll be way more fun for them to take a crack at the game playing the thing they want than having to “play meta”.
Fun is all that matters. And if the group as a whole wants to play meta that’s awesome. But if not, then help facilitate a fun game regardless.
I think it goes back to what IamSposta said, this game has a DM. I've been playing games most of my life that had a fixed world where character builds and group composition were vital to being able to overcome challenges. The flexible nature of TTRPGs allows for a different style of character build.
That said, I think I still find value in bringing a character that has its own niche in comparison to the rest of the party.
I can't discern which way I lean, I try to build my character with getting the skills I know will be important (Perception, Stealth, etc) but also getting the ones I know would come into use but no one takes (all the int skills) because they are so useful. So I try to at least give myself at least a not bad INT. But the thing is that having a character that has the important skills and good skills that people sleep on, is kind of just characters I like anyway? That's why I like artificers and rogues, they are toolboxes that can come in clutch with assistance with something the rest of the party lacks. Though I don't do it necessarily in a "I'm thinking of the group" way, more in a "I want to be sufficient and reduce my chances of defeat/death as much as possible" type of way. Which just ends up helping the party in the end. However I usually think about what character I want in the first place and then go with the rest of the process. Unless I'm joining an already established game, because then I ask at least what's already being played so I don't step on someone's toes.
Maybe I need to adjust my view of the game slightly. I think I probably think of it more as a life simulator where success comes from effectively adapting to the situation to overcome challenges. But it sounds like for most people D&D is more about playing a game where you're free to break free of any constraints in order to have fun doing whatever you can imagine.
And again, we'll all come at it from some sort of balance between extremes. I find it helpful to understand the poles.
Many people start with (and often maintain) a similar opinion as you have. (Had?) It often stems from familiarity with games like WoW and other MMO games. The thing is, those games have no DM, everything is preset, pre-programmed, and pre-generated. Every party that runs [Mission X] will inevitably all face the exact same challenges regardless of party composition, so things like party optimization and “Builds” are an important part of playing those games.
D&D does have a DM however. The DM is an actual real live human being who picks which challenges that the party faces. So if a particular party is unsuited to overcome a specific challenge, the DM just doesn’t (shouldn’t anyway) place that particular challenge in front of that particular party. That’s why things like party composition and even “PC Builds” and “Character Optimization” are so ludicrously unnecessary in D&D. (To me anyway. 🤷♂️) Think about it, having Expertise with Thieves’ Tools just means that the DM will start using higher CR locks and traps. If you skip the Expertise, the DM keeps those CRs lower for you. Having an attack bonus of +7 instead of +6 just means the DM will raise monster AC by 1, if you pick that feat instead of the ASI, the monsters’ AC will stay a li’l lower for a while. Simple as that.
Optimization is only really important if everyone at the table is optimizing. That’s to keep power levels consistent for the DM to make balanced encounters. If nobody is chasing optimized builds, then it’s still just as easy for the DM to keep things balanced. It’s only a problem at a mixed table where one person or some people are optimizing and the other(s) are not. That throws things out of wack. But if everyone is playing purely for funsies, and therefore occasionally make un-optimized choices, then it’s still a balanced table.
That's sort of a problem with our table. Some players are optimizing, other aren't. The DM ended up having to bump up the HP of the monster we face. Since other players' optimization led to the DM increasing the difficulty, I suddenly feel obliged to create an optimized character. If I don't, it won't have a chance to stand out because one of the optimized characters would overshadow me. That's the thing about optimizing. Just like darkvision, it's all or none. If the players are split down the middle on either darkvision or optimization, things get crazy. The issue is the player without a min-maxed build or darkvision won't contribute as much as the other players, and the DM usually buffs the encounters to make it balenced for the min-maxers. When the DM ups the difficulty, the non-optimizers have to suffer, and it kind of forces them to sacrifice playing their preferred character in exchange for a powerful build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
I can't discern which way I lean, I try to build my character with getting the skills I know will be important (Perception, Stealth, etc) but also getting the ones I know would come into use but no one takes (all the int skills) because they are so useful. So I try to at least give myself at least a not bad INT. But the thing is that having a character that has the important skills and good skills that people sleep on, is kind of just characters I like anyway? That's why I like artificers and rogues, they are toolboxes that can come in clutch with assistance with something the rest of the party lacks. Though I don't do it necessarily in a "I'm thinking of the group" way, more in a "I want to be sufficient and reduce my chances of defeat/death as much as possible" type of way. Which just ends up helping the party in the end. However I usually think about what character I want in the first place and then go with the rest of the process. Unless I'm joining an already established game, because then I ask at least what's already being played so I don't step on someone's toes.
That's fine. Taking skills that are always useful is great (Perception and Stealth), then the other skills should be based off your character concept.
Your second point: It's smart to think about your abilities before your team abilities. You can't pour from an empty cup after all. All characters should be self-sufficient in some way, and should be able to hold their own. But D&D is a team game, so think about the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
I can't recall when I have ever gotten ready for a campaign and did not have at least 3 different ideas I was very excited to play and can't decide between them. So I decide between them based on what works for the party.
Also, I have found 5e is better than past editions with, is that when figuring out what works for the party, it's nearly always avoiding repetition rather than trying to fill in a gap. 5e PCs are versatile enough that I'm far less concerned about making sure we have every important role covered than I am with having two PCs that heavily overlap in their focus. Even that avoiding repetition has nothing to do with being able to overcome challenges and instead has to do with giving other PCs room to shine.
So, I guess, honestly, it's playing who I want to play, and deciding between my favorite options in a way that doesn't overlap with other PCs too much.
Maybe I need to adjust my view of the game slightly. I think I probably think of it more as a life simulator where success comes from effectively adapting to the situation to overcome challenges. But it sounds like for most people D&D is more about playing a game where you're free to break free of any constraints in order to have fun doing whatever you can imagine.
And again, we'll all come at it from some sort of balance between extremes. I find it helpful to understand the poles.
Many people start with (and often maintain) a similar opinion as you have. (Had?) It often stems from familiarity with games like WoW and other MMO games. The thing is, those games have no DM, everything is preset, pre-programmed, and pre-generated. Every party that runs [Mission X] will inevitably all face the exact same challenges regardless of party composition, so things like party optimization and “Builds” are an important part of playing those games.
D&D does have a DM however. The DM is an actual real live human being who picks which challenges that the party faces. So if a particular party is unsuited to overcome a specific challenge, the DM just doesn’t (shouldn’t anyway) place that particular challenge in front of that particular party. That’s why things like party composition and even “PC Builds” and “Character Optimization” are so ludicrously unnecessary in D&D. (To me anyway. 🤷♂️) Think about it, having Expertise with Thieves’ Tools just means that the DM will start using higher CR locks and traps. If you skip the Expertise, the DM keeps those CRs lower for you. Having an attack bonus of +7 instead of +6 just means the DM will raise monster AC by 1, if you pick that feat instead of the ASI, the monsters’ AC will stay a li’l lower for a while. Simple as that.
Optimization is only really important if everyone at the table is optimizing. That’s to keep power levels consistent for the DM to make balanced encounters. If nobody is chasing optimized builds, then it’s still just as easy for the DM to keep things balanced. It’s only a problem at a mixed table where one person or some people are optimizing and the other(s) are not. That throws things out of wack. But if everyone is playing purely for funsies, and therefore occasionally make un-optimized choices, then it’s still a balanced table.
That's sort of a problem with our table. Some players are optimizing, other aren't. The DM ended up having to bump up the HP of the monster we face. Since other players' optimization led to the DM increasing the difficulty, I suddenly feel obliged to create an optimized character. If I don't, it won't have a chance to stand out because one of the optimized characters would overshadow me. That's the thing about optimizing. Just like darkvision, it's all or none. If the players are split down the middle on either darkvision or optimization, things get crazy. The issue is the player without a min-maxed build or darkvision won't contribute as much as the other players, and the DM usually buffs the encounters to make it balenced for the min-maxers. When the DM ups the difficulty, the non-optimizers have to suffer, and it kind of forces them to sacrifice playing their preferred character in exchange for a powerful build.
It's perfectly possible for the DM to differentiate challenges between different players. If there's an issue, it's usually that a character is not the best at anything and so they never get much of a chance to shine, but even for that there are options for a DM who doesn't mind putting in a bit of work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's sort of a problem with our table. Some players are optimizing, other aren't. The DM ended up having to bump up the HP of the monster we face. Since other players' optimization led to the DM increasing the difficulty, I suddenly feel obliged to create an optimized character.
As someone who has trouble not optimizing characters I've taken to finding things to optimize that aren't combat effectiveness. My monk was optimized for mobility, not just in terms of movement speed, but also modes of movement and ranges of attack. My AT rogue was intended to be a skill monkey and eventually turned into one of the greatest arcane scholars in the world with a combination of expertise, reliable talent, and ritual caster just for good measure. Encouraging the players that feel the need to optimize to aim in different directions than damage can make it feel more balanced overall.
I think it's important, when speaking on this topic, to emphasize an important point: The better you know your other players and DM, the better you can make the choice between "optimized" and "interest." These things often overlap, but not always. After all, they lean into the Pillars of Play: Combat vs RP vs Exploration. Everyone has different tastes in regard to the amount of each of the Pillars in any given game.
It's a bit trickier, of course, when you're new to a group, and even moreso if everyone is new to each other. Having a Conversation about "how do you like to play D&D" and "what is your favorite part about playing D&D" is an excellent way to help each other play characters they're be the most satisfied with - whether that's "optimized" or not.
Personally, I aim for a mix. If it's a new group and we're all making characters, I build what I want to play, though I usually ask "What is everyone else thinking of playing?" first, but it rarely impacts my final decision. If I'm joining an existing group, or one where everyone knows what they want to play already, I'll try to fill in a hole if there is one, but I won't play something I'm not interested in just because the group "needs" it (like healer or support, which I almost never play because I seldom find it satisfying; I'm more a DPS glass cannon sort of player).
I'm having an interesting conundrum in the Curse of Strahd game I'm playing that kind of touches on this issue, though is a bit separate (and I have nowhere else to really whine about this so I'm sorry but I'm going to Whine Here). My first character was a homebrew class that I made which the DM approved (for playtesting purposes), and I had a TON of fun with it; however, I was given a lot of reasons in-character for my character to leave (including but not limited to the DM making my character Half Vistani, which I was 100% cool with, but it meant they had some inherent ability to just... leave Barovia? Add in their long-lost brother, some IC prompting to just leave by a mystical force, etc, and there was no reason they wouldn't leave). So they left. My replacement is a Divine Soul sorcerer with a homebrew race and background, who I seriously nerfed for the sake of characterization; I won't get into too many details, but for background reason they only spoke one language (not common), are illiterate, don't look people in the eye, had literally zero items and zero coin on them at the start of the game, etc. They were still capable of casting the majority of their spells (only a couple had material components, most of which could be found in nature, such as a feather for Enhance Ability or two lodestones for Mending, etc).
Now, this is a group I know fairly well, and have been playing D&D with for awhile (one of the other players has been a player in all my many campaigns I've DM'd over the past like, 3 years?). They are well-intentioned and reliably RP- and character-focused. All of us believe it's more important, and interesting, to play characters we want to explore in depth, and we don't prioritize optimization over RP (though one player is definitely more of a power gamer, but never insists others do the same). So when this new character of mine was introduced, everyone liked him, were proclaiming interest in various potential future RP scenes, etc, such as teaching him Autonomy and encouraging confidence and the ability to even make his own decisions vs doing what he's told to do. But in practice... It's been, idk, 5 sessions now? And there has been basically zero interaction with him beyond ordering him to do a Thing (no spoilers here) that would give him a language that the rest of the group either already had or managed to acquire through this same Thing (he explicitly always follows orders for Reasons), and aside from that, they've bought things he needs for spellcasting, and... That's it. There's been zero real attempts at interacting with him outside of this, which is exemplified by his inability to speak Common which is what everyone else is speaking. And sure, I did this to myself by nerfing him in this way, so I can't really complain? And most people would just say to ask to switch characters, possibly even back to my previous character (which is something I've discussed with the DM for 'if this character dies' as the most likely scenario), but because of how I've created him, this sorc would not leave the party willingly or even if he was ordered to by the PCs short of death. So unless I ask the DM to kill him, which would be tricky, there's not a Great narrative excuse to swap him.
(Unrelated: due to severe depression Reasons, this entire scenario has also left me wanting to just leave the game entirely, but that's a whole other Thing.)
So, anyway, ultimately, I think it's extremely important, as a player, to focus on what do you find the most fun in D&D? And then build your character around that. Do you enjoy being the person who is helpful purely for the sake of being helpful, thus lending to filling "holes" in the party comp? Do you resent having to build around what the party needs, especially if you really wanted to play something else? Do you thrive off intense RP situations, or combat ones? There's zero reason why you can't both help the party as a character, even if it somewhat overlaps with other PCs, and also build a character you enjoy. Personally, I think the most important facet of D&D is having fun yourself, without interrupting the fun of other players. If you absolutely want to play a rogue who sneaks and spies, but someone else is already playing that, your fun will impede on the other player's fun, and that's not cool. But if you both want to play rogues, but very different ones - say, one who is into espionage and counterfeit and being a face, versus one who is more the sneaky sort who scouts ahead and plants explosives in the pockets of enemies, then you can easily work together very well without stepping on each others' toes.
Anyway sorry for the rant, blah blah, D&D fun is what you make of it, be a good team player but don't play down your own fun for the sake of others', etc.
Generally I like to fill in gaps in the party no for optimisation reasons but so I have a roll. For example in one of my current campaigns There is a echo knight fighter, a soulknife rogue, an aberant mind sorcerer and an armorer artificer and me. It made sense for me to be a wisdom based character as I will have a specific role to watch out for things and read people. When I first started playing I thought the druid class would be a bit overwhelming but now felt experianced enough to cope and was wanting to try a new class so I ended up picking a stars druid.
The exception is another campaign I am just starting the DM was specifically looking for story hooks for characters, for a long time I had wanted to play a warlock with a particular backstory which would only fit into certain campaigns and require the DM (nd the rest of the party) to be willing to pick up that hook. This campaign fit perfectly so I decided to play the warlock. Of the 4 person party three are charisma based (a bard, a paladin and myself). Noone is particularly intelligent so either the DM will lower the DC for int checks or because we do not know a particular piece of history we might have to travel to a library or a particular NPC to find out (the same as if the wizard had rolled poorly). What I am not too sure about is how we will handle the face of the party. With 3 of us with very high charisma I am concerned that either the others hog all the social interaction or I do it all myself and the others feel they are not using their skills.
Maybe I need to adjust my view of the game slightly. I think I probably think of it more as a life simulator where success comes from effectively adapting to the situation to overcome challenges. But it sounds like for most people D&D is more about playing a game where you're free to break free of any constraints in order to have fun doing whatever you can imagine.
And again, we'll all come at it from some sort of balance between extremes. I find it helpful to understand the poles.
Many people start with (and often maintain) a similar opinion as you have. (Had?) It often stems from familiarity with games like WoW and other MMO games. The thing is, those games have no DM, everything is preset, pre-programmed, and pre-generated. Every party that runs [Mission X] will inevitably all face the exact same challenges regardless of party composition, so things like party optimization and “Builds” are an important part of playing those games.
D&D does have a DM however. The DM is an actual real live human being who picks which challenges that the party faces. So if a particular party is unsuited to overcome a specific challenge, the DM just doesn’t (shouldn’t anyway) place that particular challenge in front of that particular party. That’s why things like party composition and even “PC Builds” and “Character Optimization” are so ludicrously unnecessary in D&D. (To me anyway. 🤷♂️) Think about it, having Expertise with Thieves’ Tools just means that the DM will start using higher CR locks and traps. If you skip the Expertise, the DM keeps those CRs lower for you. Having an attack bonus of +7 instead of +6 just means the DM will raise monster AC by 1, if you pick that feat instead of the ASI, the monsters’ AC will stay a li’l lower for a while. Simple as that.
Optimization is only really important if everyone at the table is optimizing. That’s to keep power levels consistent for the DM to make balanced encounters. If nobody is chasing optimized builds, then it’s still just as easy for the DM to keep things balanced. It’s only a problem at a mixed table where one person or some people are optimizing and the other(s) are not. That throws things out of wack. But if everyone is playing purely for funsies, and therefore occasionally make un-optimized choices, then it’s still a balanced table.
That's sort of a problem with our table. Some players are optimizing, other aren't. The DM ended up having to bump up the HP of the monster we face. Since other players' optimization led to the DM increasing the difficulty, I suddenly feel obliged to create an optimized character. If I don't, it won't have a chance to stand out because one of the optimized characters would overshadow me. That's the thing about optimizing. Just like darkvision, it's all or none. If the players are split down the middle on either darkvision or optimization, things get crazy. The issue is the player without a min-maxed build or darkvision won't contribute as much as the other players, and the DM usually buffs the encounters to make it balenced for the min-maxers. When the DM ups the difficulty, the non-optimizers have to suffer, and it kind of forces them to sacrifice playing their preferred character in exchange for a powerful build.
Then, my friend, you are not at the best paired table for your playstyle.
What I am not too sure about is how we will handle the face of the party. With 3 of us with very high charisma I am concerned that either the others hog all the social interaction or I do it all myself and the others feel they are not using their skills.
It's tangential to the topic, but since it's come up a few times I think it's ok to offer a suggestion for a possible way to manage this: when it comes to social interactions, it's not hard for the DM to make an NPC react - in a noticeable way - more favourably to one PC than to the others. Maybe the innkeeper focuses on the dwarf in the party because dwarves are his best customers and he sees them as reliable and honest. Maybe the local guard captain subconsciously assumes the character with the shiniest armour is the leader and defers to them. Or maybe the local clergy senses something offputting about the warlock due to their somewhat unsavoury patron and chooses to pay more attention to the other party members. The sorcerer's arcane prowess and mystique could make one NPC try to curry favour and another try to avoid even looking them in the eye. In short, the DM can indicate with in-game clues that this conversation will go best if Bob the Paladin takes the lead, the next might be better for Tim the Sorcerer, the one after that is for everyone who has an idea, then one for Alanna the Elf because she's local, and so on.Not literally every time anyone opens their mouth to say something, but enough to ensure that everyone gets to be first violin once in a while.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm in the overall strength of the party vote, BUT - the character HAS to be fun for you to play as well.
I find that building for the part can lead to playing some roles that I might not consider otherwise, or a progression that I might not consider. That said - that's a personal choice, I don't think it's a choice for everyone, and I don't think anyone should dictate what you choose to build (or progress as). I think that it's easy to get locked into a single perspective, and for me building to strength the party can get me out of my comfort zone and doing things / considering options that I wouldn't if I was building purely for my own amusement.
Can I support a Barbarian that's decided to go purely unarmed? Play a character that's got a race that doesn't combine well with a specific class to support a friends RP? Those are fun challenges for me. BUT - it's got to be fun for me also - or why am I playing this character?
From the other side of the table - let people have their win, if someone is expert at picking locks - let me make short work of those locks, there's no need to change the CR of them, if they don't make a session, the rest of the crew will appreciate what they normally do for them. and - probably find a way around those locks - that's less elegant (like a sledge hammer).
The same is true for other classes / builds - let them shine at what they are good at - there's no need to penalize players for having a character that's good at something. You can simply throw more at them, of what ever "it" is, probability catches up, and resources are limited.
Side note! I do think it would be hilariously fun to play or run an all monk game (or any given class) that are all different subclasses, what the group excels at - they are amazing at, and what they don't do well at.. they may have to find creative solutions for. The creative stuff tends to be the things that people remember 10 years later.
I will make a character who I want to play, with their own backstory and so forth, as an independant individual. Their choices and classes are based on their past, with consideration to why they would join a party (I don't like making lone wolves).
Then, as I level up, I will do so for the party - if we need healing I will pick a healing spell, if we need a melee beast I will pick up great weapon master, and so on. I will also level up logically for the character.
If I am making a character who is already in the party, then the party forms their backstory and so drives their decisions.
The first player who makes a decisionm on what character to play gets to play whatever they feel like. Anything their heart desires.
Every successive player, according to conventional logic, must avoid and synergize with previous choices, removing more and more choice, until the final player in a typical four or five-man party has perhaps two 'logical' choices at best. They are effectively funneled into making the character the party wants, regardless of what they want.
Players who quickly nail down their chasracter get the freedom and benefit of playing whatever they want all the time. Players who deliberate and try to weigh their options are constantly forced to capitulate, play whatever the party decrees they play, and never get to play any of the characters that sing to them.
Is it any wonder that some tables have decided that intra-party balance can go to Hell and that everyone gets the same freedom to play what sings to them as that first player? I've had to flex, give up the characters I wanted to play for the characters the party insisted they needed, more often than the other way around at this point. I've made it work, found a way to have fun anyways. But sometimes? Sometimes it's somebody else's turn to play the party buttplug, bring up the rear and fill in the holes. If every table makes one or two players into the party buttplug every single game, forces those players to always give up on what they'd like to do in favor of what the party insists they need? That table may be down one or two players real shortly-like here.
I do think that party cohesiveness is slightly more important than everyone getting to play exactly the character they want to play, but I mean it more in terms of player cohesiveness than party balance. D&D isn't a game you really win so trying to optimize your character or party isn't always a priority, but making sure that everyone is feeling safe and having fun is always of utmost priority. So of course anything majorly traumatizing or anything that steps on major personal landmines should be regulated, but even getting down to it, sometimes a bit of creative tweaking can help everyone feel like they are getting the spotlight at appropriate times. Like, I wouldn't force anyone to play a cleric just because the party lacks healing, but I might suggest that if a player wants to play something similar to another PC, maybe they find a slightly different niche or if they are just as happy playing a different character concept, maybe they do that so that everyone can have the fun they want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well said, IamSposta.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
That's a really helpful point. I have spent many years playing games like WoW and Diablo. Both are heavily about optimizing character build to overcome harder and harder challenges.
Honestly though that sort of play, while fun, became fairly boring and repetitive to me. Play the game, learn the rules, learn how to manipulate the rules to be better. Once that was done though the games just become sort of a grind with marginal gains and I lost interest in playing them. I played D&D as a kid in the 80s and now in my 40s getting back into it what excites me is the ability to flavor your character the way you like, outside of any rules and the ability to create character personalities and arcs that develop and progress. I still want to create effective, powerful characters but am happy to make less optimum choices if it fits the flavor of my character. I'm excited to play my new druid with druidcraft, which people seem to say is more of a flavor spell than being effective, over something like shillelagh or thornwhip. But will still obsess over whether to take magic stone or produce flame and when would be the optimal time to swap magic stone for produce flame (the correct answer by the way is either 4 or 8 depending on spell attack bonus and if you want steadier or higher potential damage)
The first sentence above is what I tend to do if I am joining a game.
The next statements can be an issue with the group and the GM's campaign setting. For example you want to play a halfling and in the GM games all halfling are servants of the evil gods and there are no good or neutral halflings. The last is an extreme examples but I have seen other lesser variations of this problem.
In general I try and do the following, follow the GM's rules for setting and campaign, then if possible see what PC's the others want to play and or if it is going to be possible to fill the holes in the group with NPC's because the group wants to do something different (ie every player wants to play a more martial character and there are no spell casters).
Note: having everyone play a PC from a reduced list of classes and having the group be supported by NPC's in lacking areas can be different and fun. Also when and if someone dies they can then create a PC to fill a hole in the party's make up.
It’s not the dms job to make sure they win. But it’s the dms job to make the players have fun and to challenge them with what they bring to the table. That means making it harder, or giving them the means to deal with problems they literally can’t deal with. Giving out a few healing potions to a team with no healer isn’t letting them win. It’s letting them play the game with the characters they want. They can still die. they can still lose. But it’ll be way more fun for them to take a crack at the game playing the thing they want than having to “play meta”.
Fun is all that matters. And if the group as a whole wants to play meta that’s awesome. But if not, then help facilitate a fun game regardless.
Both are important. For me it will depend on the DM. Skilled DMs can provide a good experience no matter the party. All fighters with not a lick of magic between you? Or all mages with the highest AC being 14 and everyone squishy? A bunch of bards... being bards? All perfectly okie dokes. 5e has more tools and flexibility and with a decent DM you never have to worry about party composition.
Newer DMs or those relying too strictly on pre-made adventures will be different and often less adaptable so party composition is going to be more important. In a linear game with little opportunity to ambush and a party that prefers to just beat the door down and go for broke means anyone trying to play Assassin will find it a poor experience - as 3/4 of their subclass features go entirely unused. The melee fighter in a party of AoE spamming spellchuckers is going to have a poor experience never able to get up into the fray. The vice versa is also true: a wizard with big AoE spells in a party of melee bladeswingers getting in the way, is going to suck all the joy out of it if you're not an Evoker with sculpt spells. Clever DMs can circumvent these obstacles, customising encounters and quests to provide something for everyone, but newer DMs or those relying on pre-made don't have the experience or flexibility to do this.
That being said, I will only make characters I think I will have fun playing. If I absolutely had to choose between "for party" or "for myself" - I pick myself. I have a very limited amount of time, opportunity and mental headspace for playing D&D , so I'm going to ensure I will enjoy it. There is no point playing, if you're not enjoying it. Thankfully, there's enough versatility in options that this is rarely a problem. Need melee and tanks but really want spells? EK, Bladesinger, Valor/Swords Bards, AT, Hexblade etc. All martials and need some heals? MoH Halfling, Aasimar, V:Human with a feat, and voila: some healing without needing a single spell slot. There's options for all sorts, so it's actually quite easy to make a char that could be enjoyable to play and still provide the missing functions of the party.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I think it goes back to what IamSposta said, this game has a DM. I've been playing games most of my life that had a fixed world where character builds and group composition were vital to being able to overcome challenges. The flexible nature of TTRPGs allows for a different style of character build.
That said, I think I still find value in bringing a character that has its own niche in comparison to the rest of the party.
I can't discern which way I lean, I try to build my character with getting the skills I know will be important (Perception, Stealth, etc) but also getting the ones I know would come into use but no one takes (all the int skills) because they are so useful. So I try to at least give myself at least a not bad INT. But the thing is that having a character that has the important skills and good skills that people sleep on, is kind of just characters I like anyway? That's why I like artificers and rogues, they are toolboxes that can come in clutch with assistance with something the rest of the party lacks. Though I don't do it necessarily in a "I'm thinking of the group" way, more in a "I want to be sufficient and reduce my chances of defeat/death as much as possible" type of way. Which just ends up helping the party in the end. However I usually think about what character I want in the first place and then go with the rest of the process. Unless I'm joining an already established game, because then I ask at least what's already being played so I don't step on someone's toes.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU









That's sort of a problem with our table. Some players are optimizing, other aren't. The DM ended up having to bump up the HP of the monster we face. Since other players' optimization led to the DM increasing the difficulty, I suddenly feel obliged to create an optimized character. If I don't, it won't have a chance to stand out because one of the optimized characters would overshadow me. That's the thing about optimizing. Just like darkvision, it's all or none. If the players are split down the middle on either darkvision or optimization, things get crazy. The issue is the player without a min-maxed build or darkvision won't contribute as much as the other players, and the DM usually buffs the encounters to make it balenced for the min-maxers. When the DM ups the difficulty, the non-optimizers have to suffer, and it kind of forces them to sacrifice playing their preferred character in exchange for a powerful build.
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
My Homebrews: Monsters, Magic Items, Spells, Races
Rhulg- Hobgoblin Gunsmith
That's fine. Taking skills that are always useful is great (Perception and Stealth), then the other skills should be based off your character concept.
Your second point: It's smart to think about your abilities before your team abilities. You can't pour from an empty cup after all. All characters should be self-sufficient in some way, and should be able to hold their own. But D&D is a team game, so think about the party.
Brains over brawn? Mind over matter? These canny warriors rightly answer, "Why not both?" - Tasha
My Homebrews: Monsters, Magic Items, Spells, Races
Rhulg- Hobgoblin Gunsmith
Easily both.
I can't recall when I have ever gotten ready for a campaign and did not have at least 3 different ideas I was very excited to play and can't decide between them. So I decide between them based on what works for the party.
Also, I have found 5e is better than past editions with, is that when figuring out what works for the party, it's nearly always avoiding repetition rather than trying to fill in a gap. 5e PCs are versatile enough that I'm far less concerned about making sure we have every important role covered than I am with having two PCs that heavily overlap in their focus. Even that avoiding repetition has nothing to do with being able to overcome challenges and instead has to do with giving other PCs room to shine.
So, I guess, honestly, it's playing who I want to play, and deciding between my favorite options in a way that doesn't overlap with other PCs too much.
It's perfectly possible for the DM to differentiate challenges between different players. If there's an issue, it's usually that a character is not the best at anything and so they never get much of a chance to shine, but even for that there are options for a DM who doesn't mind putting in a bit of work.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
As someone who has trouble not optimizing characters I've taken to finding things to optimize that aren't combat effectiveness. My monk was optimized for mobility, not just in terms of movement speed, but also modes of movement and ranges of attack. My AT rogue was intended to be a skill monkey and eventually turned into one of the greatest arcane scholars in the world with a combination of expertise, reliable talent, and ritual caster just for good measure. Encouraging the players that feel the need to optimize to aim in different directions than damage can make it feel more balanced overall.
I think it's important, when speaking on this topic, to emphasize an important point: The better you know your other players and DM, the better you can make the choice between "optimized" and "interest." These things often overlap, but not always. After all, they lean into the Pillars of Play: Combat vs RP vs Exploration. Everyone has different tastes in regard to the amount of each of the Pillars in any given game.
It's a bit trickier, of course, when you're new to a group, and even moreso if everyone is new to each other. Having a Conversation about "how do you like to play D&D" and "what is your favorite part about playing D&D" is an excellent way to help each other play characters they're be the most satisfied with - whether that's "optimized" or not.
Personally, I aim for a mix. If it's a new group and we're all making characters, I build what I want to play, though I usually ask "What is everyone else thinking of playing?" first, but it rarely impacts my final decision. If I'm joining an existing group, or one where everyone knows what they want to play already, I'll try to fill in a hole if there is one, but I won't play something I'm not interested in just because the group "needs" it (like healer or support, which I almost never play because I seldom find it satisfying; I'm more a DPS glass cannon sort of player).
I'm having an interesting conundrum in the Curse of Strahd game I'm playing that kind of touches on this issue, though is a bit separate (and I have nowhere else to really whine about this so I'm sorry but I'm going to Whine Here). My first character was a homebrew class that I made which the DM approved (for playtesting purposes), and I had a TON of fun with it; however, I was given a lot of reasons in-character for my character to leave (including but not limited to the DM making my character Half Vistani, which I was 100% cool with, but it meant they had some inherent ability to just... leave Barovia? Add in their long-lost brother, some IC prompting to just leave by a mystical force, etc, and there was no reason they wouldn't leave). So they left. My replacement is a Divine Soul sorcerer with a homebrew race and background, who I seriously nerfed for the sake of characterization; I won't get into too many details, but for background reason they only spoke one language (not common), are illiterate, don't look people in the eye, had literally zero items and zero coin on them at the start of the game, etc. They were still capable of casting the majority of their spells (only a couple had material components, most of which could be found in nature, such as a feather for Enhance Ability or two lodestones for Mending, etc).
Now, this is a group I know fairly well, and have been playing D&D with for awhile (one of the other players has been a player in all my many campaigns I've DM'd over the past like, 3 years?). They are well-intentioned and reliably RP- and character-focused. All of us believe it's more important, and interesting, to play characters we want to explore in depth, and we don't prioritize optimization over RP (though one player is definitely more of a power gamer, but never insists others do the same). So when this new character of mine was introduced, everyone liked him, were proclaiming interest in various potential future RP scenes, etc, such as teaching him Autonomy and encouraging confidence and the ability to even make his own decisions vs doing what he's told to do. But in practice... It's been, idk, 5 sessions now? And there has been basically zero interaction with him beyond ordering him to do a Thing (no spoilers here) that would give him a language that the rest of the group either already had or managed to acquire through this same Thing (he explicitly always follows orders for Reasons), and aside from that, they've bought things he needs for spellcasting, and... That's it. There's been zero real attempts at interacting with him outside of this, which is exemplified by his inability to speak Common which is what everyone else is speaking. And sure, I did this to myself by nerfing him in this way, so I can't really complain? And most people would just say to ask to switch characters, possibly even back to my previous character (which is something I've discussed with the DM for 'if this character dies' as the most likely scenario), but because of how I've created him, this sorc would not leave the party willingly or even if he was ordered to by the PCs short of death. So unless I ask the DM to kill him, which would be tricky, there's not a Great narrative excuse to swap him.
(Unrelated: due to severe depression Reasons, this entire scenario has also left me wanting to just leave the game entirely, but that's a whole other Thing.)
So, anyway, ultimately, I think it's extremely important, as a player, to focus on what do you find the most fun in D&D? And then build your character around that. Do you enjoy being the person who is helpful purely for the sake of being helpful, thus lending to filling "holes" in the party comp? Do you resent having to build around what the party needs, especially if you really wanted to play something else? Do you thrive off intense RP situations, or combat ones? There's zero reason why you can't both help the party as a character, even if it somewhat overlaps with other PCs, and also build a character you enjoy. Personally, I think the most important facet of D&D is having fun yourself, without interrupting the fun of other players. If you absolutely want to play a rogue who sneaks and spies, but someone else is already playing that, your fun will impede on the other player's fun, and that's not cool. But if you both want to play rogues, but very different ones - say, one who is into espionage and counterfeit and being a face, versus one who is more the sneaky sort who scouts ahead and plants explosives in the pockets of enemies, then you can easily work together very well without stepping on each others' toes.
Anyway sorry for the rant, blah blah, D&D fun is what you make of it, be a good team player but don't play down your own fun for the sake of others', etc.
Generally I like to fill in gaps in the party no for optimisation reasons but so I have a roll. For example in one of my current campaigns There is a echo knight fighter, a soulknife rogue, an aberant mind sorcerer and an armorer artificer and me. It made sense for me to be a wisdom based character as I will have a specific role to watch out for things and read people. When I first started playing I thought the druid class would be a bit overwhelming but now felt experianced enough to cope and was wanting to try a new class so I ended up picking a stars druid.
The exception is another campaign I am just starting the DM was specifically looking for story hooks for characters, for a long time I had wanted to play a warlock with a particular backstory which would only fit into certain campaigns and require the DM (nd the rest of the party) to be willing to pick up that hook. This campaign fit perfectly so I decided to play the warlock. Of the 4 person party three are charisma based (a bard, a paladin and myself). Noone is particularly intelligent so either the DM will lower the DC for int checks or because we do not know a particular piece of history we might have to travel to a library or a particular NPC to find out (the same as if the wizard had rolled poorly). What I am not too sure about is how we will handle the face of the party. With 3 of us with very high charisma I am concerned that either the others hog all the social interaction or I do it all myself and the others feel they are not using their skills.
Then, my friend, you are not at the best paired table for your playstyle.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's tangential to the topic, but since it's come up a few times I think it's ok to offer a suggestion for a possible way to manage this: when it comes to social interactions, it's not hard for the DM to make an NPC react - in a noticeable way - more favourably to one PC than to the others. Maybe the innkeeper focuses on the dwarf in the party because dwarves are his best customers and he sees them as reliable and honest. Maybe the local guard captain subconsciously assumes the character with the shiniest armour is the leader and defers to them. Or maybe the local clergy senses something offputting about the warlock due to their somewhat unsavoury patron and chooses to pay more attention to the other party members. The sorcerer's arcane prowess and mystique could make one NPC try to curry favour and another try to avoid even looking them in the eye. In short, the DM can indicate with in-game clues that this conversation will go best if Bob the Paladin takes the lead, the next might be better for Tim the Sorcerer, the one after that is for everyone who has an idea, then one for Alanna the Elf because she's local, and so on.Not literally every time anyone opens their mouth to say something, but enough to ensure that everyone gets to be first violin once in a while.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm in the overall strength of the party vote, BUT - the character HAS to be fun for you to play as well.
I find that building for the part can lead to playing some roles that I might not consider otherwise, or a progression that I might not consider. That said - that's a personal choice, I don't think it's a choice for everyone, and I don't think anyone should dictate what you choose to build (or progress as). I think that it's easy to get locked into a single perspective, and for me building to strength the party can get me out of my comfort zone and doing things / considering options that I wouldn't if I was building purely for my own amusement.
Can I support a Barbarian that's decided to go purely unarmed? Play a character that's got a race that doesn't combine well with a specific class to support a friends RP? Those are fun challenges for me. BUT - it's got to be fun for me also - or why am I playing this character?
From the other side of the table - let people have their win, if someone is expert at picking locks - let me make short work of those locks, there's no need to change the CR of them, if they don't make a session, the rest of the crew will appreciate what they normally do for them. and - probably find a way around those locks - that's less elegant (like a sledge hammer).
The same is true for other classes / builds - let them shine at what they are good at - there's no need to penalize players for having a character that's good at something. You can simply throw more at them, of what ever "it" is, probability catches up, and resources are limited.
Side note! I do think it would be hilariously fun to play or run an all monk game (or any given class) that are all different subclasses, what the group excels at - they are amazing at, and what they don't do well at.. they may have to find creative solutions for. The creative stuff tends to be the things that people remember 10 years later.
I go for one, then the other.
I will make a character who I want to play, with their own backstory and so forth, as an independant individual. Their choices and classes are based on their past, with consideration to why they would join a party (I don't like making lone wolves).
Then, as I level up, I will do so for the party - if we need healing I will pick a healing spell, if we need a melee beast I will pick up great weapon master, and so on. I will also level up logically for the character.
If I am making a character who is already in the party, then the party forms their backstory and so drives their decisions.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The first player who makes a decisionm on what character to play gets to play whatever they feel like. Anything their heart desires.
Every successive player, according to conventional logic, must avoid and synergize with previous choices, removing more and more choice, until the final player in a typical four or five-man party has perhaps two 'logical' choices at best. They are effectively funneled into making the character the party wants, regardless of what they want.
Players who quickly nail down their chasracter get the freedom and benefit of playing whatever they want all the time. Players who deliberate and try to weigh their options are constantly forced to capitulate, play whatever the party decrees they play, and never get to play any of the characters that sing to them.
Is it any wonder that some tables have decided that intra-party balance can go to Hell and that everyone gets the same freedom to play what sings to them as that first player? I've had to flex, give up the characters I wanted to play for the characters the party insisted they needed, more often than the other way around at this point. I've made it work, found a way to have fun anyways. But sometimes? Sometimes it's somebody else's turn to play the party buttplug, bring up the rear and fill in the holes. If every table makes one or two players into the party buttplug every single game, forces those players to always give up on what they'd like to do in favor of what the party insists they need? That table may be down one or two players real shortly-like here.
Please do not contact or message me.
I do think that party cohesiveness is slightly more important than everyone getting to play exactly the character they want to play, but I mean it more in terms of player cohesiveness than party balance. D&D isn't a game you really win so trying to optimize your character or party isn't always a priority, but making sure that everyone is feeling safe and having fun is always of utmost priority. So of course anything majorly traumatizing or anything that steps on major personal landmines should be regulated, but even getting down to it, sometimes a bit of creative tweaking can help everyone feel like they are getting the spotlight at appropriate times. Like, I wouldn't force anyone to play a cleric just because the party lacks healing, but I might suggest that if a player wants to play something similar to another PC, maybe they find a slightly different niche or if they are just as happy playing a different character concept, maybe they do that so that everyone can have the fun they want.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!