So I'm not sure if there's a tool for this, but I want to sort of fill in the gaps in my current party and I'm not sure what would be the best fit. It's 4 people, the other three have (mostly) made selections, and it's just me left. We currently have: Gunslinger Fighter, Warlock, and one of Fighter/Paladin/Barb, since the person has said they want to play a "physical" class.
I'm not sure what we'd be lacking, in that case. My gut tells me we probably need more magic, especially utility magic, and someone to do some minor out of combat healing and buff that party up, so I was thinking Bard, but that really only leaves us with one beefy frontline sort of person, so I was thinking College of Valor Bard. Does that make sense? I'm trying to think if there's anything else that might also work, like a tanky Cleric or Druid. It'd also be my first time playing something like this, since I normally like to play Monks or grapplers, but those seem redundant/like a bad fit here.
I feel like 5e is more lenient on this stuff, and the answer is usually just "play what you want", but this is a newish/inexperienced group and I'd like to make the experience really fun for them.
Basically a party needs someone to do lots of magic damage, someone to heal, someone to do lots of weapon damage, and someone who can be high many times without dying.
The classes that fit those roles are: sorc, warlock, wizard for magic damage. Cleric, druid, bard, and paladin to heal (paladin usually busy with other roles. Ranger fits better here than other roles). Fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk and paladin for other for weapon damage. Paladin, fighter, and barbarian (and some clerics and druids) can tank.
Forge, tempest, and war domain clerics can be particularly effective front liners, you can also be effective with any domain that gets heavy armor and divine strike like life domain.
Moon druids can be really tanky because of all that bonus HP and self healing of their wild shapes.
If you go bard, consider college of swords. It gets you a fighting style and the ability to use your sword as your spell focus, so you can use sword and board without worry.
What DxJxC says is true in a classic sense, the classic optimal party is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard having the four classes fill each primary role of adventure and combat. In today's D&D you can get by without adhering to that formula as diligently. Many sub-classes can be utilized to touch on the various necessary roles to take the sting out of not having a dedicated type.
Gunsliner would be your ranged attacker, this also works similar to the Battlemaster sub-class which allows you to control creatures during the fight. You may not be a tank, but you can sway the battle by choosing which Trick Shot you'll use.
Warlock would be your spell caster, however it's not on the same playing field as the Sorcerer or Wizard. Warlocks are very good with utility and steady damage, not a lot of burst or high damage output that can be repeated. Their sustained damage can be very helpful, and some of their invocations can make them very helpful.
The multiclassed player is going to be the tanky type but will be spread thin on options. You'll notice that they're going to play roughly the same in every fight, and that is going to be to absorb damage as best they can.
I see that you could benefit from healing and casting. The healer doesn't need to be dedicated heals, but should be able to help out in a pinch, War Domain Cleric as an idea. The caster can be straight magic user and will help the party as a whole. Then you have a mixed breed caster that could fill both roles: Divine Soul Sorcerer, heals along with spells for battle. You could get away with another melee type, an Arcane Trickster Rogue as well, but this is more of a toy than a necessary fill in.
Part of this makes me wish each class was assigned a role like in 4th edition (Leader, Defender, Controller, and Striker). It made it easier for new groups to gain party composition.
The Gunslinger and Warlock are both essentially archers, though the latter is of course also a limited full-caster. Presumably the tank is a Strength build, while the Warlock and Gunslinger cover Charisma and Dexterity respectively. So it'd be nice to cover Intelligence and/or Wisdom ability checks, which Bard, Cleric, or Druid can do depending on how you build them.
Valor Bards are good, but if you're looking for a tank you might be disappointed. Heavy armor Clerics and Moon Druids are more solid frontliner casters. You can absolutely pull off a Valor or Swords Bard (I love mine), but if you're near the frontline be ready to get knocked unconscious a lot and be a bit behind in damage until Greater Invisibility and your level 10 Magical Secrets catch you up on buff spells.
It's probably a good idea to be "the caster" if you're the experienced D&D player in the party, as spell management is probably the most complicated part of the game from the player's POV. Bard is one of the most versatile spellcasters with Magical Secrets, Cleric has a really great spell list for balancing damage/buffs/healing (plus domain shenanigans), and Druids have excellent battlefield control when they aren't in 'beast mode', so I really don't think you can go wrong here with whatever you feel like playing.
Like you said, you don't have to worry about party role so much as what you want to play - the party could also use a Rogue or Monk as a sneaky damage-dealer, for example. But the above is what I'd be thinking about.
It kind of depends on what the "physical" player ultimately decides to do. The really nice thing about Bard as a class is that you can fold the class to "cover" pretty much anything your party is lacking in, whether it be damage, or utility, or whatever. Except for durability. Bards are pretty much always squishy.
If they're going Barbarian, I would definitely suggest a Cleric or Druid. Both classes can be built bulky enough to off-tank, and both give access to a variety of healing abilities (both for self or others). The Druid would, additionally, have a number of battlefield manipulation effects they can play around with to disrupt enemies and keep them in (or out) of effective range.
If they are going Paladin, I'd suggest your Bard idea or Druid. Paladins end up being more of a tank than a damage threat (though they do quite a bit in the long term). The party will be somewhat light on healing with just the Paladin, though, so either Bard or Druid could invest in 1 or 2 healing spells to pitch in. Again, Druid has lots of battlefield utility to work with, and can be built to focus more on putting out damage. And Bard, being Bard, can play pseudo-Wizard (though not so much Collage of Valor, I don't think).
If they are going Fighter, you're kind of stuck with a tanky Druid build, or a Life Cleric build -- a Bard is going to be too squishy. Fighters can be good off-tanks, but they can't effectively tank on their own. They will get focused down too quickly. This will also leave the party with no means of healing. Both a tanky Druid and a Life Cleric can fill these roles quite well. Life Cleric, in particular, will start getting a free bonus heal on themselves when they heal someone else at level 6. Druid can leverage Wild Shape shenanigans for lots of free hitpoints. Between the 2 options, it's kind of a toss-up between whether you need/want more healing, or more battlefield control.
I don't really have much to add to what other people said, but you didn't specify what kind of Warlock it is. Most Warlocks tend towards archers with a few spells, but if they are going Hexblade with Pact of the Blade, then they can tank fairly well. If the Warlock is your off-tank, that gives you more options for your build to focus on casting.
Party balance is honestly pretty overrated in 5e. Just make a list of things that you think you might want to play, and then pick from there as you see fit. You don't need to try hard to follow group guidelines super strictly, although I would advise against playing the same class / subclass as nother player simply because that can lead to confusion between you and the other player
Yeah, that's what I've heard, though the other concern is that I don't really want to push anyone else out, so to speak. I'm the player at the table with the most experience by a big margin (10 years of playing tabletop RPGs in general, mostly Pathfinder, though this is my first time with 5e proper) and for two of the other players it's their first time. I don't want to crowd any of them out or make them feel like they're not as useful or whatever, I'd rather make them feel amazing and powerful so they have a good time and want to play more in the future. So while something like Moon Druid could be a great choice and something I really want to play, it might make the newbie Barb feel a little bad when she doesn't realize we're at least eventually going to feel more on the level and like a team rather than me eating attacks for breakfast while clawing everything to pieces.
I say abandon the usual groupings. D&D is a role playing game. role play and you will have fun with your group.
However if you really want to fill the gap... you have lots of options here are some that I see. Play a divine sorcerer or a celestial warlock. for healing and debuffs and arcane spell casting
Any cleric would do well and Mage could debuff and buff the group.
I think this party is missing a cleric and a rogue. Having a cleric is obvious for healing in the heat of battle. A rogue is necessary for scouting ahead to provide you a good chance of avoiding surprise on every encounter. An even semi-alert enemy will know someone is coming in their area / lair.
I think this party is missing a cleric and a rogue. Having a cleric is obvious for healing in the heat of battle. A rogue is necessary for scouting ahead to provide you a good chance of avoiding surprise on every encounter. An even semi-alert enemy will know someone is coming in their area / lair.
I agree on the Cleric. However, the party does have a Warlock. If they are intending to specialize into Pact of the Chain, they will get the improved Familiars through their modified version of Find Familiar. While Familiars tend to not be that effective in combat, several of the Pact of the Chain alternates can be invisible, and are generally more intelligent than the standard options. This makes them better and more cautious scouts when out of telepathic contact range (is it 300 feet?). There are certainly things the Rogue could do better than a Pact of the Chain Warlock, but there are other options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I'm not sure if there's a tool for this, but I want to sort of fill in the gaps in my current party and I'm not sure what would be the best fit. It's 4 people, the other three have (mostly) made selections, and it's just me left. We currently have: Gunslinger Fighter, Warlock, and one of Fighter/Paladin/Barb, since the person has said they want to play a "physical" class.
I'm not sure what we'd be lacking, in that case. My gut tells me we probably need more magic, especially utility magic, and someone to do some minor out of combat healing and buff that party up, so I was thinking Bard, but that really only leaves us with one beefy frontline sort of person, so I was thinking College of Valor Bard. Does that make sense? I'm trying to think if there's anything else that might also work, like a tanky Cleric or Druid. It'd also be my first time playing something like this, since I normally like to play Monks or grapplers, but those seem redundant/like a bad fit here.
I feel like 5e is more lenient on this stuff, and the answer is usually just "play what you want", but this is a newish/inexperienced group and I'd like to make the experience really fun for them.
Basically a party needs someone to do lots of magic damage, someone to heal, someone to do lots of weapon damage, and someone who can be high many times without dying.
The classes that fit those roles are: sorc, warlock, wizard for magic damage. Cleric, druid, bard, and paladin to heal (paladin usually busy with other roles. Ranger fits better here than other roles). Fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk and paladin for other for weapon damage. Paladin, fighter, and barbarian (and some clerics and druids) can tank.
Forge, tempest, and war domain clerics can be particularly effective front liners, you can also be effective with any domain that gets heavy armor and divine strike like life domain.
Moon druids can be really tanky because of all that bonus HP and self healing of their wild shapes.
If you go bard, consider college of swords. It gets you a fighting style and the ability to use your sword as your spell focus, so you can use sword and board without worry.
What DxJxC says is true in a classic sense, the classic optimal party is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard having the four classes fill each primary role of adventure and combat. In today's D&D you can get by without adhering to that formula as diligently. Many sub-classes can be utilized to touch on the various necessary roles to take the sting out of not having a dedicated type.
Gunsliner would be your ranged attacker, this also works similar to the Battlemaster sub-class which allows you to control creatures during the fight. You may not be a tank, but you can sway the battle by choosing which Trick Shot you'll use.
Warlock would be your spell caster, however it's not on the same playing field as the Sorcerer or Wizard. Warlocks are very good with utility and steady damage, not a lot of burst or high damage output that can be repeated. Their sustained damage can be very helpful, and some of their invocations can make them very helpful.
The multiclassed player is going to be the tanky type but will be spread thin on options. You'll notice that they're going to play roughly the same in every fight, and that is going to be to absorb damage as best they can.
I see that you could benefit from healing and casting. The healer doesn't need to be dedicated heals, but should be able to help out in a pinch, War Domain Cleric as an idea. The caster can be straight magic user and will help the party as a whole. Then you have a mixed breed caster that could fill both roles: Divine Soul Sorcerer, heals along with spells for battle. You could get away with another melee type, an Arcane Trickster Rogue as well, but this is more of a toy than a necessary fill in.
Part of this makes me wish each class was assigned a role like in 4th edition (Leader, Defender, Controller, and Striker). It made it easier for new groups to gain party composition.
Published Subclasses
The Gunslinger and Warlock are both essentially archers, though the latter is of course also a limited full-caster. Presumably the tank is a Strength build, while the Warlock and Gunslinger cover Charisma and Dexterity respectively. So it'd be nice to cover Intelligence and/or Wisdom ability checks, which Bard, Cleric, or Druid can do depending on how you build them.
Valor Bards are good, but if you're looking for a tank you might be disappointed. Heavy armor Clerics and Moon Druids are more solid frontliner casters. You can absolutely pull off a Valor or Swords Bard (I love mine), but if you're near the frontline be ready to get knocked unconscious a lot and be a bit behind in damage until Greater Invisibility and your level 10 Magical Secrets catch you up on buff spells.
It's probably a good idea to be "the caster" if you're the experienced D&D player in the party, as spell management is probably the most complicated part of the game from the player's POV. Bard is one of the most versatile spellcasters with Magical Secrets, Cleric has a really great spell list for balancing damage/buffs/healing (plus domain shenanigans), and Druids have excellent battlefield control when they aren't in 'beast mode', so I really don't think you can go wrong here with whatever you feel like playing.
Like you said, you don't have to worry about party role so much as what you want to play - the party could also use a Rogue or Monk as a sneaky damage-dealer, for example. But the above is what I'd be thinking about.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.
It kind of depends on what the "physical" player ultimately decides to do. The really nice thing about Bard as a class is that you can fold the class to "cover" pretty much anything your party is lacking in, whether it be damage, or utility, or whatever. Except for durability. Bards are pretty much always squishy.
If they're going Barbarian, I would definitely suggest a Cleric or Druid. Both classes can be built bulky enough to off-tank, and both give access to a variety of healing abilities (both for self or others). The Druid would, additionally, have a number of battlefield manipulation effects they can play around with to disrupt enemies and keep them in (or out) of effective range.
If they are going Paladin, I'd suggest your Bard idea or Druid. Paladins end up being more of a tank than a damage threat (though they do quite a bit in the long term). The party will be somewhat light on healing with just the Paladin, though, so either Bard or Druid could invest in 1 or 2 healing spells to pitch in. Again, Druid has lots of battlefield utility to work with, and can be built to focus more on putting out damage. And Bard, being Bard, can play pseudo-Wizard (though not so much Collage of Valor, I don't think).
If they are going Fighter, you're kind of stuck with a tanky Druid build, or a Life Cleric build -- a Bard is going to be too squishy. Fighters can be good off-tanks, but they can't effectively tank on their own. They will get focused down too quickly. This will also leave the party with no means of healing. Both a tanky Druid and a Life Cleric can fill these roles quite well. Life Cleric, in particular, will start getting a free bonus heal on themselves when they heal someone else at level 6. Druid can leverage Wild Shape shenanigans for lots of free hitpoints. Between the 2 options, it's kind of a toss-up between whether you need/want more healing, or more battlefield control.
I don't really have much to add to what other people said, but you didn't specify what kind of Warlock it is. Most Warlocks tend towards archers with a few spells, but if they are going Hexblade with Pact of the Blade, then they can tank fairly well. If the Warlock is your off-tank, that gives you more options for your build to focus on casting.
Party balance is honestly pretty overrated in 5e. Just make a list of things that you think you might want to play, and then pick from there as you see fit. You don't need to try hard to follow group guidelines super strictly, although I would advise against playing the same class / subclass as nother player simply because that can lead to confusion between you and the other player
Yeah, that's what I've heard, though the other concern is that I don't really want to push anyone else out, so to speak. I'm the player at the table with the most experience by a big margin (10 years of playing tabletop RPGs in general, mostly Pathfinder, though this is my first time with 5e proper) and for two of the other players it's their first time. I don't want to crowd any of them out or make them feel like they're not as useful or whatever, I'd rather make them feel amazing and powerful so they have a good time and want to play more in the future. So while something like Moon Druid could be a great choice and something I really want to play, it might make the newbie Barb feel a little bad when she doesn't realize we're at least eventually going to feel more on the level and like a team rather than me eating attacks for breakfast while clawing everything to pieces.
I say abandon the usual groupings. D&D is a role playing game. role play and you will have fun with your group.
However if you really want to fill the gap... you have lots of options here are some that I see. Play a divine sorcerer or a celestial warlock. for healing and debuffs and arcane spell casting
Any cleric would do well and Mage could debuff and buff the group.
I think this party is missing a cleric and a rogue. Having a cleric is obvious for healing in the heat of battle. A rogue is necessary for scouting ahead to provide you a good chance of avoiding surprise on every encounter. An even semi-alert enemy will know someone is coming in their area / lair.
I agree on the Cleric. However, the party does have a Warlock. If they are intending to specialize into Pact of the Chain, they will get the improved Familiars through their modified version of Find Familiar. While Familiars tend to not be that effective in combat, several of the Pact of the Chain alternates can be invisible, and are generally more intelligent than the standard options. This makes them better and more cautious scouts when out of telepathic contact range (is it 300 feet?). There are certainly things the Rogue could do better than a Pact of the Chain Warlock, but there are other options.