DM'ing a new group. Some folks dropped out, so we're left with 3 players so far. Going to add a 4th (Unknown as of now) person to the group, and possibly a 5th. The players thus far are:
A half-orc barbarian. Very standard.
An elf Moon-Druid. Lots of focus on melee combat as well.
A tiefling valor bard. Naturally a lot of skills, plus some support magic, plus a slightly bigger focus on melee combat.
I don't know the rules of 5e as well as other editions, but looking at it, I see no one using any kind of ranged combat, and while I see a lot of buffing magic, not a lot of blasting or control.
So when my eventual 4th player joins, my natural inclination is to suggest a Ranger, a Rogue, a Wizard, etc. To do something no one else in the party is doing.
Any tips from more veteran 5e players?
Two notes.
The party is currently 1st level. I'm using a house rule where they choose their archetype at 1st level and get some benefits of it, if not all, and then don't get anything extra at 3rd level (Or whenever they'd get that stuff) It kinda front-loads the power of the party a little bit, but it balances out as time goes on.
I know that there's gonna be at least one person who objects to my question, on principle, because I should let the player play what they want, and it's meta-gaming, and trying to force players into roles is whatever. I get it. I'm not planning on forcing anyone to do anything. If I was really concerned with party "roles" I probably would've been a little meaner about these other 3 players all playing front-line fighters with no controllers or whatever other optimizer terms you want to use. I'm mainly concerned with making sure that every player feels like they're contributing something unique to the party. The bard gets a lot of really good support. The Druid still gets a lot of nature abilities. The Barbarian gets to rage and kick ass like no other. I want to know what classes are going to feel really unique in play with this party and which are going to feel like they're doing the same job as someone else.
I vote ranger (Horizon Walker). Hail of thorns is halfway decent AoE damage that gets a lot better when cast at 2nd level. Or just force the bard to learn faerie fire.
Don't plan on forcing the bard to do anything, given she's my wife. I know ahead of time that's not gonna go well.
Besides that, I'm not looking to help this party become the most mathematically bad-ass thing on the planet. I know a fourth player is gonna join this group. When that happens, I want to help that fourth player feel unique and meaningful within the group.
Hi someguywithakatana, welcome to the D&D Beyond forums!
As you say, something with some range would be ideal. Sorcerer is a personal favorite of mine, but wizard, warlock and ranger are also good choices. You also have the potential of having a cleric for someone who can offer full support.
How prevalent are traps? Magic traps? Swarms? What is the campaign focus? Can anyone work as a scout? Anyone with detect magic capabilities? I consider those to be important roles,
As of right now, the campaign doesn't have too much of a focus. I dropped the players at a random spot in the world map and let them pick what they wanted to do. They decided they wanted to go to the Capital city. So the game is more a series of misadventures they're having along the way. There are many traps in the dungeon they're currently in, but that's because of the specifics of the location. Their next dungeon is actually a small village that's been overrun by bandits and turned into an encampment, with all the civilians being kept as hostages. Swarms aren't anything I plan to do just because... Dunno, don't wanna do them. The druid is perfectly capable of working as a scout since she can just turn into a rat, a cat, or whatever other creature will allow her to sneak around undetected and un remarked upon. The bard has magic detecting abilities.
From what I'm reading it looks like your players like getting stuck in with a foe in melee.
My suggestion is to let the new arrivals know that so they don't roll a Dwarven cleric of life that can't keep up with the mad rushing about with the highly mobile characters.
I also don't think getting stuck in like that is necessarily a bad idea, at least until they have to deal with archers.
So keep the shock troop/ vanguard play style by suggesting bladesinger wizards, tempest and war clerics, monks, blade warlocks, rogues, paladins and rangers.
From what it looks like you have two characters that are capable of healing in the group already so minor healing would be a bonus but not necessary and as treantmonk points out in his lovely guides it's almost always better to be proactive than reactive.
Basically your players will figure out what their niche is, just let them know if they are setting themselves up to wreck how the established players roll (ie if they are all stealthy, getting a loud slow Dwarf to drag around might crimp their style, or they might use it to their advantage my Dwarf life cleric was affectionately known as bait by the rest of the stealthy, swift party I ended up in for 5 years)
I'm personally leery of suggesting a moon druid as a scout - there are limited uses per rest, and the point of moon druid is combat form, and not utility. I would lean that direction, be it rogue, ranger, shadow monk, or the like. This way, the moon druid gets to have a choice (help scout or conserve) without being forced into a role.
Other than that, an evoker could work, but not necessary.
What I am seeing is a party weak in healing and ranged. A ranger or wizard would be my first suggestions followed by a cleric or warlock. Another bard focused on ranged versus melee would also be a possibility. I'd discourage the remaining classes but players can often be like children and do the exact opposite of what you want.
Really with the bard and druid in the party most options are open since those two classes are already multifaceted. I don't think you have much to worry about.
My perspective on this is: Well rounded parties are great (probably vital) when tackling published adventures. Well rounded parties make the DM's life easier, as you can throw pretty much anything at a party, safe in the knowledge that they should be able to handle it. (Assuming the overall challenge rating is appropriate.) Well rounded parties give each player a chance to feel "unique and meaningful within the group."
So what you are asking is perfectly reasonable.......but:
You already have an 'oddball' party and your "Here's a sandbox - enjoy!" style of gaming should have plenty of room for exploration - both geographical and character based. Judging from your posts above, I suspect any character choice will fit in. Sure there'll be situation they will struggle to handle in conventional means - stuck in a shack, pinned down by goblin archers (or the Mexican army*) - and that is where the best dialogue will be found. And if dialogue fails, a last minute rescue by allies who owe the PCs a favour never goes amiss. (They have made some allies, right?)
If a party has a ready made solution to every obstacle, then where is the innovation?
*If you don't get the reference, then I don't want to spoil a genuine classic. Watch more westerns!
Personally, I think a Cleric would really shine here; having a wide array of buff spells, healing spells and general support (while not being deprived of any damage spells) would help the entire party shine.
I'd suggest Warlock or Cleric. They both can be melee or ranged, buffing spells or damaging, both can provide healing with the right background, etc. and they both have easy backstory tie-ins (my patron/ deity commanded me blah blah)
Plus those are both hella fun classes to play
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
"What I am seeing is a party weak in healing and ranged." Bards and druids have great healing powers. Why would the group be weak in healing?
Bards and druids can heal but not as good as a cleric. Or rather bards and druids would have to try harder than a cleric to be a top notch healer and with both PC's in the party focused on melee builds they are unlikely to be trying to heal in the middle of combat.
But having two party member who can heal is pretty beneficial. That's why cleric is my second choice rather than first.
If the group is weak in healing it would be better to let them have a recharging wand of healing rather than 'forcing' a player into that role. Of course, if the party is damage focused, they are likely going to take less damage on account of their enemies 'getting dead' quicker, so less need for healing.
Provocative comment #1 D&D is not about having the most combat effective group; leave that to World of Warcraft High End Raiders. (You must have a gear score of 920+ to join our team!)
I agree Tombs ( can I call you Tombs? ) I think my suggestions were made with the thought of what is the party already good at and how do they succeed right now and not adding characters that would break that synergy.
With that in mind I would avoid slow, low armored, low hitpoint characters, ranged is less of an issue than some have made it as usually most characters have at least a few ranged options, besides that have fun with whatever your characters come up with someguywithakatana.
I agree Tombs ( can I call you Tombs? ) I think my suggestions were made with the thought of what is the party already good at and how do they succeed right now and not adding characters that would break that synergy.
With that in mind I would avoid slow, low armored, low hitpoint characters, ranged is less of an issue than some have made it as usually most characters have at least a few ranged options, besides that have fun with whatever your characters come up with someguywithakatana.
Please do - I enjoy the irony. :)
" I would avoid slow, low armored, low hitpoint characters," Or walking corpses as I call them! :)
The cleric class is probably better (e.g. more fun) now than ever before, ignoring 4th edition where it was just a fighter that could heal a bit, but I have never enjoyed playing clerics - it's a personal thing. I don't really like rogues, and wizards before 5th edition totally sucked. Ranger or traditional warrior - that's me. I'm the same in computer games and boardgames. Freud would probably have plenty to say about this.
Wizards think they know more than everybody else even though it's stuff nobody else cares about. Rogues are deceitful and out for themselves. Priests are sanctimonious and condescending.
I don't want to roleplay me!
I want to be a big tough man with rippling muscles and a Scandinavian accent! Or Faramir.
I pretty much agree with all the opinions of the posters above. I would be interested in what the new player goes/went with and how that played out.
A dex based fighter or paladin might also be good. That way they can use longbow or sword depending on the situation and free up the druid for spellcasting if they so choose
If I was joining this group, I'd probably come in as a wizard. Some nice ranged damage bundled up with aoe, crowd control, and utility. A sorcerer wouldn't be a bad option either as they mostly fill similar roles. Another option could be a cleric. Would ease up on the heal\buff duty on the bard so they'd be free to focus more on nukes and control (depending on how they wanna play that bard really). Plus, they'd get dibs on all the plate gear that drops!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DM'ing a new group. Some folks dropped out, so we're left with 3 players so far. Going to add a 4th (Unknown as of now) person to the group, and possibly a 5th. The players thus far are:
A half-orc barbarian. Very standard.
An elf Moon-Druid. Lots of focus on melee combat as well.
A tiefling valor bard. Naturally a lot of skills, plus some support magic, plus a slightly bigger focus on melee combat.
I don't know the rules of 5e as well as other editions, but looking at it, I see no one using any kind of ranged combat, and while I see a lot of buffing magic, not a lot of blasting or control.
So when my eventual 4th player joins, my natural inclination is to suggest a Ranger, a Rogue, a Wizard, etc. To do something no one else in the party is doing.
Any tips from more veteran 5e players?
Two notes.
The party is currently 1st level. I'm using a house rule where they choose their archetype at 1st level and get some benefits of it, if not all, and then don't get anything extra at 3rd level (Or whenever they'd get that stuff) It kinda front-loads the power of the party a little bit, but it balances out as time goes on.
I know that there's gonna be at least one person who objects to my question, on principle, because I should let the player play what they want, and it's meta-gaming, and trying to force players into roles is whatever. I get it. I'm not planning on forcing anyone to do anything. If I was really concerned with party "roles" I probably would've been a little meaner about these other 3 players all playing front-line fighters with no controllers or whatever other optimizer terms you want to use. I'm mainly concerned with making sure that every player feels like they're contributing something unique to the party. The bard gets a lot of really good support. The Druid still gets a lot of nature abilities. The Barbarian gets to rage and kick ass like no other. I want to know what classes are going to feel really unique in play with this party and which are going to feel like they're doing the same job as someone else.
I vote ranger (Horizon Walker). Hail of thorns is halfway decent AoE damage that gets a lot better when cast at 2nd level. Or just force the bard to learn faerie fire.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Don't plan on forcing the bard to do anything, given she's my wife. I know ahead of time that's not gonna go well.
Besides that, I'm not looking to help this party become the most mathematically bad-ass thing on the planet. I know a fourth player is gonna join this group. When that happens, I want to help that fourth player feel unique and meaningful within the group.
Hi someguywithakatana, welcome to the D&D Beyond forums!
As you say, something with some range would be ideal. Sorcerer is a personal favorite of mine, but wizard, warlock and ranger are also good choices. You also have the potential of having a cleric for someone who can offer full support.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
How prevalent are traps? Magic traps? Swarms? What is the campaign focus? Can anyone work as a scout? Anyone with detect magic capabilities? I consider those to be important roles,
As of right now, the campaign doesn't have too much of a focus. I dropped the players at a random spot in the world map and let them pick what they wanted to do. They decided they wanted to go to the Capital city. So the game is more a series of misadventures they're having along the way. There are many traps in the dungeon they're currently in, but that's because of the specifics of the location. Their next dungeon is actually a small village that's been overrun by bandits and turned into an encampment, with all the civilians being kept as hostages. Swarms aren't anything I plan to do just because... Dunno, don't wanna do them. The druid is perfectly capable of working as a scout since she can just turn into a rat, a cat, or whatever other creature will allow her to sneak around undetected and un remarked upon. The bard has magic detecting abilities.
From what I'm reading it looks like your players like getting stuck in with a foe in melee.
My suggestion is to let the new arrivals know that so they don't roll a Dwarven cleric of life that can't keep up with the mad rushing about with the highly mobile characters.
I also don't think getting stuck in like that is necessarily a bad idea, at least until they have to deal with archers.
So keep the shock troop/ vanguard play style by suggesting bladesinger wizards, tempest and war clerics, monks, blade warlocks, rogues, paladins and rangers.
From what it looks like you have two characters that are capable of healing in the group already so minor healing would be a bonus but not necessary and as treantmonk points out in his lovely guides it's almost always better to be proactive than reactive.
Basically your players will figure out what their niche is, just let them know if they are setting themselves up to wreck how the established players roll (ie if they are all stealthy, getting a loud slow Dwarf to drag around might crimp their style, or they might use it to their advantage my Dwarf life cleric was affectionately known as bait by the rest of the stealthy, swift party I ended up in for 5 years)
I'm personally leery of suggesting a moon druid as a scout - there are limited uses per rest, and the point of moon druid is combat form, and not utility. I would lean that direction, be it rogue, ranger, shadow monk, or the like. This way, the moon druid gets to have a choice (help scout or conserve) without being forced into a role.
Other than that, an evoker could work, but not necessary.
What I am seeing is a party weak in healing and ranged. A ranger or wizard would be my first suggestions followed by a cleric or warlock. Another bard focused on ranged versus melee would also be a possibility. I'd discourage the remaining classes but players can often be like children and do the exact opposite of what you want.
Really with the bard and druid in the party most options are open since those two classes are already multifaceted. I don't think you have much to worry about.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
"What I am seeing is a party weak in healing and ranged." Bards and druids have great healing powers. Why would the group be weak in healing?
My perspective on this is:
Well rounded parties are great (probably vital) when tackling published adventures.
Well rounded parties make the DM's life easier, as you can throw pretty much anything at a party, safe in the knowledge that they should be able to handle it. (Assuming the overall challenge rating is appropriate.)
Well rounded parties give each player a chance to feel "unique and meaningful within the group."
So what you are asking is perfectly reasonable.......but:
You already have an 'oddball' party and your "Here's a sandbox - enjoy!" style of gaming should have plenty of room for exploration - both geographical and character based. Judging from your posts above, I suspect any character choice will fit in. Sure there'll be situation they will struggle to handle in conventional means - stuck in a shack, pinned down by goblin archers (or the Mexican army*) - and that is where the best dialogue will be found. And if dialogue fails, a last minute rescue by allies who owe the PCs a favour never goes amiss. (They have made some allies, right?)
If a party has a ready made solution to every obstacle, then where is the innovation?
*If you don't get the reference, then I don't want to spoil a genuine classic. Watch more westerns!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond StaffPersonally, I think a Cleric would really shine here; having a wide array of buff spells, healing spells and general support (while not being deprived of any damage spells) would help the entire party shine.
I'd suggest Warlock or Cleric. They both can be melee or ranged, buffing spells or damaging, both can provide healing with the right background, etc. and they both have easy backstory tie-ins (my patron/ deity commanded me blah blah)
Plus those are both hella fun classes to play
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
But having two party member who can heal is pretty beneficial. That's why cleric is my second choice rather than first.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
If the group is weak in healing it would be better to let them have a recharging wand of healing rather than 'forcing' a player into that role.
Of course, if the party is damage focused, they are likely going to take less damage on account of their enemies 'getting dead' quicker, so less need for healing.
Provocative comment #1 D&D is not about having the most combat effective group; leave that to World of Warcraft High End Raiders. (You must have a gear score of 920+ to join our team!)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I agree Tombs ( can I call you Tombs? ) I think my suggestions were made with the thought of what is the party already good at and how do they succeed right now and not adding characters that would break that synergy.
With that in mind I would avoid slow, low armored, low hitpoint characters, ranged is less of an issue than some have made it as usually most characters have at least a few ranged options, besides that have fun with whatever your characters come up with someguywithakatana.
Rogues are deceitful and out for themselves.
Priests are sanctimonious and condescending.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
A dex based fighter or paladin might also be good. That way they can use longbow or sword depending on the situation and free up the druid for spellcasting if they so choose
I'd say you'd be fine to add a wizard or Warlock. If you decide on a fifth player you could throw in a paladin (melee+some healing abilities).
If I was joining this group, I'd probably come in as a wizard. Some nice ranged damage bundled up with aoe, crowd control, and utility. A sorcerer wouldn't be a bad option either as they mostly fill similar roles. Another option could be a cleric. Would ease up on the heal\buff duty on the bard so they'd be free to focus more on nukes and control (depending on how they wanna play that bard really). Plus, they'd get dibs on all the plate gear that drops!