I've recently become aware of a bit of a split in thought about how to build a character. In reality people will fall along a spectrum and seek some sort of balance but I find people tend to come more from one direction or another.
On the one hand (where my bias lies) is to make character choices that will help fill a party role and choose skills and spells that will help the group succeed. On the other side people have a view that you should build the character you want to play, that excites and is fun for you. My understanding, please correct me if I'm strawmanning at all, is that the party will find interesting solutions for group deficiencies and play to strength overlaps.
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.
How do others feel about these approaches to character builds?
I believe that a combination of both is the best option. You have to like and enjoy your character to really bring the most to table, but you also need to consider your party as well. What I try to do is have two possible character ideas that fit either a fighter type or spellcasting/healing role. In that way, whichever fits the table's needs better is what I play. But I make sure that the character is a concept I'm interested in or have wanted to play.
I believe that a combination of both is the best option. You have to like and enjoy your character to really bring the most to table, but you also need to consider your party as well. What I try to do is have two possible character ideas that fit either a fighter type or spellcasting/healing role. In that way, whichever fits the table's needs better is what I play. But I make sure that the character is a concept I'm interested in or have wanted to play.
That's sort of my approach as well and I think most people will fall somewhere in the middle.
Let me give some specifics to illustrate what I mean. During a recent session 0 I went in with 2 characters in mind, I asked what others were planning on playing to help decide which one I'd choose. The feedback I got was choose the one you want to play, well I want to play them both at some point. What struck me was that filling a group need and effectively contributing to the group are important factors for my having fun and it didn't sound like much of a consideration for the other person (that's probably some sort of misperception on my part but seemed to highlight a difference of perspective). Later I made a suggestion that our one charisma based character think about taking a face skill like persuasion and got a gentle response from the GM along the lines of "if that's what you want for your character".
It seems like a legitimate perspective but I'd %100 find an RP reason to take persuasion if I were the only charisma character. I'm trying to understand where my perspective is in relation to others, and is one better than the other? Basically, what the F is up with that?
I've recently become aware of a bit of a split in thought about how to build a character. In reality people will fall along a spectrum and seek some sort of balance but I find people tend to come more from one direction or another.
On the one hand (where my bias lies) is to make character choices that will help fill a party role and choose skills and spells that will help the group succeed. On the other side people have a view that you should build the character you want to play, that excites and is fun for you. My understanding, please correct me if I'm strawmanning at all, is that the party will find interesting solutions for group deficiencies and play to strength overlaps.
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.
How do others feel about these approaches to character builds?
As a GM, I do not care either way whether my players want a balanced party, or if they just play want to play what each individual wants, which may cause deficiencies in the party. My players prefers the former approach, but as a GM, I do not mind the latter either, as having clear weaknesses gives me the opportunity create encounters to exploit that weakness and make the party think of more interesting solutions. I am not going to stick my finger into their pain point all the time and make it feel like a punishment, but poking at it from time to time to create challenge would be interesting.
Filling a specific role tends to ensure you have a clear way to be useful, and if there's not too much redundancy that means your character will get the spotlight every now and then. So, for me, it's somewhere down the middle. Sure I'll look at party composition and try to find a niche to fill, but that's as much for me as it's for the party's benefit. And it's not like a character has to be one-dimensional, it's not hard to pick up a few qualities just for you right next to what you choose to bring to the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Always the one you want to play. It’s better people are having fun. If the dm has to change a few bits, provide forms of healing more freely, or whatever then that’s fine.
Having someone do something for potentially years playing something they hate? Or at the least isn’t fun? No way. That ain’t right.
the main goal of this game is fun. If people want to rock 5 clerics/Paladins and be the Amen then go for it? 5 sneaky rogues and make a thieves guild? All in! 5 barbarians to be an immovable object? Awesome!
Just need some buy in from the dm and make sure everyone is on the same page and we good.
And sometimes we have a story we want to use. A story that might mean something. Forcing that to change radically to fit a team comp… ehh I am not a fan.
I generally like to be able to do something that's unique in the party and also (like many D&D players I know) always have multiple concepts simmering in my head so chances are pretty darn good I can do both. As pangurjan pointed out, a balanced party means everybody is probably going to get the spotlight at different points in addition to the party as a group being better prepared for any given situation, so I generally prefer that approach.
That being said, the universal guideline of "do whatever works best for your group" does apply. I personally recommend discussing what classes everybody wants to play ahead of time as one of the numerous reasons to have a Session Zero. If somebody says "I don't care wat anybody else is playing, I'm going with X race Y class then that's fine; if any others want to choose something different then great, but if not then they have the same right of choice as the first player. And even if multiple players want to play the same class there's still a decent chance that they're angling for different subclasses which can still result in significantly distinct skillsets, playstyles, and roles within the party even if there is overlap. And while I've never actually been part of such a game, I have mused on what it would be like to be part of a party that's all the same core class and different subclasses, particularly with the ones with more internal variety like Bards or Clerics (JoCat's joke about a party of Clerics calling themselves "The A-Men" comes to mind and I have heard of at least one liveplay stream or podcast that's gone for some time with all bards).
And if everybody wants to be polearm wielding Sentinel Battle Masters or a bunch of Assassin Rogues, then I guess you should just make the most of it with your Dynasty Warriors-esque phalanx or your squad of ninjas and see how well you can make that work.
I almost always look to be the one filling holes, trying to pick my character last to ensure I fill as many gaps as I can. That said, I, like several others, tend to have 3-5 characters crafted, who can fill a wide variety of roles and I am usually quite interested in playing all of them, so my personal enjoyment is intact. On an upcoming campaign, I have a character ready and as a result of one of the party changing his idea slightly, I simply changed my background to one that gave me a couple missing proficiencies and also tied to what I wanted his history to be.
My group seems to be willing to accept this as well, as they know I study the mechanics and everything extensively and thus tend to bring a character who is interesting and well rounded RP wise, while also offering the proper boosts to the required dice rolls when needed. It's fun for me to be the one filling missing roles, honestly and fun is the #1 thing to have in D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The most important thing is to create a character you want to play. The game isn't built in a way that requires certain roles be present in a party so there's no reason to forsake your own fun to fill a role. That said, most of us have a variety of characters that we want to play and it's generally more fun to have a role in the party that the rest of the group can't cover. The more situations where you are uniquely useful, the more fun you are likely to have.
I have a bunch of characters on DDB that I will never get to play. But they are there so once we finish our current campaign I can select a character that will fit well with the party. And I just like making characters.
But I find it odd how the other approach is framed as selfish and the group having to work around your decision to play what you think is fun instead of what’s good for the group. So you show up with your wizard character in hand. The group says “well, we made our characters and we really need a front liner” and you’re the selfish one if you don’t want to change? They get to choose their characters and expect you to ”full the gap”?
Im sure that’s not exactly how the OP intended it. But I think it is perfectly acceptable for players to choose what to play based solely on what they will have fun playing. Every person is different. Some enjoy playing the damage dealers, some like to play the healer and buffer, others the support and control. And others like to play all of those things so are more ready to jump on and fill the gap the party has. Not any of these is right or wrong or selfish.
Some think a balanced party is the only way to go. I think any party makeup can be successful.
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!"
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.
Able to win? Sure, although the definition of "win" can change in different scenarios
It's still up to the party to find that win
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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?
The DM can do anything regardless. Which includes challenging the group according to their capabilities, such as they are. That isn't really dependent on whether you deliberately create a group of compatible characters with a wide array of qualities and strengths or all come up with a character separately and only find out what you ended up with halfway through session one (or maybe even later).
A DM can adjust a published campaign or stick to it to the letter. You can see whatever adjustments they make as making things easier for you, but in practice most DMs will rather try to make things more interesting than easy. Let's say the group ends up with little in the way of investigating prowess, and part of the adventure doesn't happen if the party overlooks something. Should the DM think "too bad for you, you should have created a better party" or should they think "you know what, I'll jig things up a little so they stumble on whatever clues they need to get to that sidequest because it's more fun if they get to do all that stuff too"? I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd say odds are the large majority of groups would prefer the former. Of what if the party literally can't beat a combat encounter because they don't have anyone capable of wielding the weapon needed to harm the critter or they don't have the right magic or whatever - I think most groups would feel that encounter is just a bad design for their group and want the DM to change it a bit, instead of saying "well, I guess you lose this one. Better luck next time y'all".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I always personally recommend that everyone build their characters together. That way people can play something they want while keeping the party composition in mind. It isn’t fun to show up with you [Class X] character and realize that 2 other people already picked [Class X]. But if you build them together then you can say, “that’s okay, I also wanna play [Class Y] too” and switch it up.
I'm aim to play the character I want to play most of the time, BUT with that being said I love playing Support so I'm almost always still building for party balance too. I suppose it's hand to be a cleric main.
And if everybody wants to be polearm wielding Sentinel Battle Masters or a bunch of Assassin Rogues, then I guess you should just make the most of it with your Dynasty Warriors-esque phalanx or your squad of ninjas and see how well you can make that work.
As a GM, that is how I will handle it too, and I will throw them obstacles and quests that are appropriate and works for the party. And as far as I can tell, LMOP and a few other low level adventures after that seem pretty doable even without a balanced party, so I tell my players they do not have to worry about a balanced party, but they do so anyways.
If my whole group are a bunch battle masters, I am not going to send them on a quest with lots of political intrigue, and I will ask them if they just want a campaign focused on fighting pitched battles and ignore most non-combat encounters.
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?
The DM is also capable of adjusting to the group comp in the other way, so no matter what choices you make you'll be able to lose. The DMs goal is typically to push the party to their limits but no further, making them more akin to a coach in your team sport than the opponent.
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.
Personally, I think it depends on the players at the table and the DM. Some tables will need to have as many gaps filled as possible because the DM will exploit those gaps to present the party with a challenge. I personally choose not to DM in this way and instead elect to present challenges that play to the party's strengths. I believe that is more fun overall and allows the players to choose PCs that they are genuinely interested in playing.
On the player's side, there is sometimes pressure to play something other than what you truly want to play because someone else has already covered some aspect with their character (like making a face). Again, I choose to take on the responsibility as a DM to create situations where having two faces may be beneficial to the party. It really depends on the table but I feel that my way works well for my table.
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.
I've recently become aware of a bit of a split in thought about how to build a character. In reality people will fall along a spectrum and seek some sort of balance but I find people tend to come more from one direction or another.
On the one hand (where my bias lies) is to make character choices that will help fill a party role and choose skills and spells that will help the group succeed. On the other side people have a view that you should build the character you want to play, that excites and is fun for you. My understanding, please correct me if I'm strawmanning at all, is that the party will find interesting solutions for group deficiencies and play to strength overlaps.
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.
How do others feel about these approaches to character builds?
I believe that a combination of both is the best option. You have to like and enjoy your character to really bring the most to table, but you also need to consider your party as well. What I try to do is have two possible character ideas that fit either a fighter type or spellcasting/healing role. In that way, whichever fits the table's needs better is what I play. But I make sure that the character is a concept I'm interested in or have wanted to play.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
That's sort of my approach as well and I think most people will fall somewhere in the middle.
Let me give some specifics to illustrate what I mean. During a recent session 0 I went in with 2 characters in mind, I asked what others were planning on playing to help decide which one I'd choose. The feedback I got was choose the one you want to play, well I want to play them both at some point. What struck me was that filling a group need and effectively contributing to the group are important factors for my having fun and it didn't sound like much of a consideration for the other person (that's probably some sort of misperception on my part but seemed to highlight a difference of perspective). Later I made a suggestion that our one charisma based character think about taking a face skill like persuasion and got a gentle response from the GM along the lines of "if that's what you want for your character".
It seems like a legitimate perspective but I'd %100 find an RP reason to take persuasion if I were the only charisma character. I'm trying to understand where my perspective is in relation to others, and is one better than the other? Basically, what the F is up with that?
As a GM, I do not care either way whether my players want a balanced party, or if they just play want to play what each individual wants, which may cause deficiencies in the party. My players prefers the former approach, but as a GM, I do not mind the latter either, as having clear weaknesses gives me the opportunity create encounters to exploit that weakness and make the party think of more interesting solutions. I am not going to stick my finger into their pain point all the time and make it feel like a punishment, but poking at it from time to time to create challenge would be interesting.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Filling a specific role tends to ensure you have a clear way to be useful, and if there's not too much redundancy that means your character will get the spotlight every now and then. So, for me, it's somewhere down the middle. Sure I'll look at party composition and try to find a niche to fill, but that's as much for me as it's for the party's benefit. And it's not like a character has to be one-dimensional, it's not hard to pick up a few qualities just for you right next to what you choose to bring to the party.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Always the one you want to play. It’s better people are having fun. If the dm has to change a few bits, provide forms of healing more freely, or whatever then that’s fine.
Having someone do something for potentially years playing something they hate? Or at the least isn’t fun? No way. That ain’t right.
the main goal of this game is fun. If people want to rock 5 clerics/Paladins and be the Amen then go for it? 5 sneaky rogues and make a thieves guild? All in! 5 barbarians to be an immovable object? Awesome!
Just need some buy in from the dm and make sure everyone is on the same page and we good.
And sometimes we have a story we want to use. A story that might mean something. Forcing that to change radically to fit a team comp… ehh I am not a fan.
I generally like to be able to do something that's unique in the party and also (like many D&D players I know) always have multiple concepts simmering in my head so chances are pretty darn good I can do both. As pangurjan pointed out, a balanced party means everybody is probably going to get the spotlight at different points in addition to the party as a group being better prepared for any given situation, so I generally prefer that approach.
That being said, the universal guideline of "do whatever works best for your group" does apply. I personally recommend discussing what classes everybody wants to play ahead of time as one of the numerous reasons to have a Session Zero. If somebody says "I don't care wat anybody else is playing, I'm going with X race Y class then that's fine; if any others want to choose something different then great, but if not then they have the same right of choice as the first player. And even if multiple players want to play the same class there's still a decent chance that they're angling for different subclasses which can still result in significantly distinct skillsets, playstyles, and roles within the party even if there is overlap. And while I've never actually been part of such a game, I have mused on what it would be like to be part of a party that's all the same core class and different subclasses, particularly with the ones with more internal variety like Bards or Clerics (JoCat's joke about a party of Clerics calling themselves "The A-Men" comes to mind and I have heard of at least one liveplay stream or podcast that's gone for some time with all bards).
And if everybody wants to be polearm wielding Sentinel Battle Masters or a bunch of Assassin Rogues, then I guess you should just make the most of it with your Dynasty Warriors-esque phalanx or your squad of ninjas and see how well you can make that work.
I almost always look to be the one filling holes, trying to pick my character last to ensure I fill as many gaps as I can. That said, I, like several others, tend to have 3-5 characters crafted, who can fill a wide variety of roles and I am usually quite interested in playing all of them, so my personal enjoyment is intact. On an upcoming campaign, I have a character ready and as a result of one of the party changing his idea slightly, I simply changed my background to one that gave me a couple missing proficiencies and also tied to what I wanted his history to be.
My group seems to be willing to accept this as well, as they know I study the mechanics and everything extensively and thus tend to bring a character who is interesting and well rounded RP wise, while also offering the proper boosts to the required dice rolls when needed. It's fun for me to be the one filling missing roles, honestly and fun is the #1 thing to have in D&D.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The most important thing is to create a character you want to play. The game isn't built in a way that requires certain roles be present in a party so there's no reason to forsake your own fun to fill a role. That said, most of us have a variety of characters that we want to play and it's generally more fun to have a role in the party that the rest of the group can't cover. The more situations where you are uniquely useful, the more fun you are likely to have.
I have a bunch of characters on DDB that I will never get to play. But they are there so once we finish our current campaign I can select a character that will fit well with the party. And I just like making characters.
But I find it odd how the other approach is framed as selfish and the group having to work around your decision to play what you think is fun instead of what’s good for the group. So you show up with your wizard character in hand. The group says “well, we made our characters and we really need a front liner” and you’re the selfish one if you don’t want to change? They get to choose their characters and expect you to ”full the gap”?
Im sure that’s not exactly how the OP intended it. But I think it is perfectly acceptable for players to choose what to play based solely on what they will have fun playing. Every person is different. Some enjoy playing the damage dealers, some like to play the healer and buffer, others the support and control. And others like to play all of those things so are more ready to jump on and fill the gap the party has. Not any of these is right or wrong or selfish.
Some think a balanced party is the only way to go. I think any party makeup can be successful.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thanks for the feedback, its been helpful.
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!"
Able to win? Sure, although the definition of "win" can change in different scenarios
It's still up to the party to find that win
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The DM can do anything regardless. Which includes challenging the group according to their capabilities, such as they are. That isn't really dependent on whether you deliberately create a group of compatible characters with a wide array of qualities and strengths or all come up with a character separately and only find out what you ended up with halfway through session one (or maybe even later).
A DM can adjust a published campaign or stick to it to the letter. You can see whatever adjustments they make as making things easier for you, but in practice most DMs will rather try to make things more interesting than easy. Let's say the group ends up with little in the way of investigating prowess, and part of the adventure doesn't happen if the party overlooks something. Should the DM think "too bad for you, you should have created a better party" or should they think "you know what, I'll jig things up a little so they stumble on whatever clues they need to get to that sidequest because it's more fun if they get to do all that stuff too"? I'm not much of a betting man, but I'd say odds are the large majority of groups would prefer the former. Of what if the party literally can't beat a combat encounter because they don't have anyone capable of wielding the weapon needed to harm the critter or they don't have the right magic or whatever - I think most groups would feel that encounter is just a bad design for their group and want the DM to change it a bit, instead of saying "well, I guess you lose this one. Better luck next time y'all".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I always personally recommend that everyone build their characters together. That way people can play something they want while keeping the party composition in mind. It isn’t fun to show up with you [Class X] character and realize that 2 other people already picked [Class X]. But if you build them together then you can say, “that’s okay, I also wanna play [Class Y] too” and switch it up.
Edit: Spelling Error
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm aim to play the character I want to play most of the time, BUT with that being said I love playing Support so I'm almost always still building for party balance too. I suppose it's hand to be a cleric main.
Who said Tieflings had to be so damn amazing?!
As a GM, that is how I will handle it too, and I will throw them obstacles and quests that are appropriate and works for the party. And as far as I can tell, LMOP and a few other low level adventures after that seem pretty doable even without a balanced party, so I tell my players they do not have to worry about a balanced party, but they do so anyways.
If my whole group are a bunch battle masters, I am not going to send them on a quest with lots of political intrigue, and I will ask them if they just want a campaign focused on fighting pitched battles and ignore most non-combat encounters.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
The DM is also capable of adjusting to the group comp in the other way, so no matter what choices you make you'll be able to lose. The DMs goal is typically to push the party to their limits but no further, making them more akin to a coach in your team sport than the opponent.
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.
Personally, I think it depends on the players at the table and the DM. Some tables will need to have as many gaps filled as possible because the DM will exploit those gaps to present the party with a challenge. I personally choose not to DM in this way and instead elect to present challenges that play to the party's strengths. I believe that is more fun overall and allows the players to choose PCs that they are genuinely interested in playing.
On the player's side, there is sometimes pressure to play something other than what you truly want to play because someone else has already covered some aspect with their character (like making a face). Again, I choose to take on the responsibility as a DM to create situations where having two faces may be beneficial to the party. It really depends on the table but I feel that my way works well for my table.
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
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.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting