Party compositions: What 4 character combos have worked?

[madocs]

Do you NEED a rogue, or a Cleric? Or can you substitute with ranger or paladin?

Do you need a mix of melee, ranged, and magic, or can you get by with more homogenous groups?

I have seen one post of someone who ran a group of 3 wizards and a cleric, and apparently it was going ok at that point.

Obviously being able to have crazy combinations increases replayability!!
Might be nice to be able to play with less than 4 characters as well (not currently possible).

Any thoughts or experiences regarding different character combinations?

[CharlieB81]

When I'm finished with this first run through (in about an hour game time), I am going to run a party of 4 clerics on a pilgrimage using the point buy system.

That is to say, I think any/most party compositions are viable in this game, at least in EA at the current difficulty.

[brassi77]

The rogue, even with easy sneak attack, hasn't impressed me. The archetypes for them aren't appealing to me. I wanted my rogue to dual wield. But the only good archetype forces him to be ranged.

I started a new party and replaced my rogue with a ranger with the lockpick kit proficiency and am much happier. I have HE paladin, the wisdom dwarf as a cleric, sylvan elf ranger, and high elf wizard. I also picked greenway as archetype for the mage to get the archery fighting style so I can sabe her magic for tougher fights. With no bab she is one of my most consistent and reliable damage dealers, especially since she can cast the light cantrip if raanged attacks have disadvantage.

[Twitch.tv/KAEN_SG]

I'm 100% sure you can finish the Early Access content with any 4 character classes. Doesn't matter if it's 4 fighters or 4 wizards. On my first run I used Pally/Ranger/Rogue/Wiz and did not have a dedicated healer. I did not have any real trouble. If you need a heal after combat, do a short/long rest.

[wizard1200]

Escrito originalmente por brassi77:

The rogue, even with easy sneak attack, hasn't impressed me. The archetypes for them aren't appealing to me. I wanted my rogue to dual wield. But the only good archetype forces him to be ranged.

I think that the shadowcaster is great if you combine it with the lawbringer (offensive) or sellsword (defensive).

[Faray]

The problem with Clerics is not so much you need one, but having a support class who can spot heal is really good in D&D. Clerics are the only pure caster support class you get (As the game won't have Druids or Bards) so your options are limited.

I'm sure you can beat the game without a Cleric, but it makes things easy overall.

[Mork]

- Two handed fighter
- A tanky cleric with life domain to get heavy armor
- A archer ranger that also cover the rogue stuff
- A toolbox wizard that try to focus on crown control and party spells

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

I've always found the presence of strong healer-type classes to be problematic in these games (speaking digitally). In a tabletop setting, you can adjust availability of rests and such on the fly as needed.

However, every D&D-like videogame I can think of has one of two issues:
1. There are not enough rests/heals to play without a dedicated supporter or healer. This means that at least one cleric-type is for all intents and purposes a soft requirement.
2. There are plenty of rests/heals available. This means that a cleric-type is not required, but with the presence of one, you can zerg your way through the game and brute force every encounter because your sustain is so high.

I ran my first party specifically without a cleric (pally/rogue/ranger/wiz) to see where this falls. And so far, this title seems to be in the latter category.

I've yet to see a satisfactory solution to this issue in any videogame, and frankly I'm not positive that there is one.

[BW022]

Escrito originalmente por madocs:

Do you NEED a rogue, or a Cleric? Or can you substitute with ranger or paladin?

No. Rogues can be replaced by anyone with a good dexterity (for stealth) and who gains thieves tools from a background. Without a cleric is doable, but you'd likely need a paladin and ranger in the party for enough lay-on-hands and cure spells.

Do you need a mix of melee, ranged, and magic, or can you get by with more homogenous groups?

I'd say Yes. The game does a great job varying encounters and it is possible to get surprised/swarmed such that ranged entirely ranged isn't an option or facing foes on walls or flying opponents where it really hurts if you can't to close on them. Magic is always useful and so many classes get some spells. However, it isn't 100% critical and even a few minor spells can buff melee/archers enough to get through fights.

Obviously being able to have crazy combinations increases replayability!!
Might be nice to be able to play with less than 4 characters as well (not currently possible).
Any thoughts or experiences regarding different character combinations?

Even without multi-classing there are lots of possible builds and party combinations which can work. My party is a half-elf paladin, dwarven wizard with medium armor, elven dex cleric using a bow, and an elven wizard using a bow. The paladin (with protection style) often puts shield of faith up on the dwarf and dodges. The dwarf buffs the other wizard and uses his axe in melee or blasts with spells for ranged. The elves often use levitate to get out of melee.

Lots of combos likely work. I think the replay would be high as there are a lot of party combos you can try. The game does play like 5e and a lot of 5e PnP tactics translate brilliantly here.

[Kasa]

I have a party of 2 clerics and 2 wizards.

The clerics chose the life domain for heavy armor and the lawmaker background for martial weapons.

One wizard went criminal background and can now do every thing a rouge can do minus sneak attack but with full casting (mage armor is best armor anyways)

Other wizard went Academy trained.

Just about 2 half elves for clerics and 2 sylvan elves for wizards.
Everyone has perception checks darkvision, light cantrips, full caster progression and all skills covered.

[Aranador]

My thoughts:

Wizard - 5e was made to make wizard players happy, and the game is all about being a spellcaster of some kind. Their utility and capabilities are great.

Cleric - again a full caster, and hey, you can run them as your tank.

Rogue - while you might not need them for their skills, their mobility and sneak attacks are great.

What ever you like. I like a ranger.

When/if they add classes and increae level cap and give some classes options tha are missing, this would of course change.

And daymn I wish you could have a 6 PC party. What is it with modern games and only four PCs.

[Titansfury]

Currently Rogue is the least necessary of the classes, their only saving grace is their skill with lockpicking, which aside from the minor benefits expertise gives you is possible with any character with the right background. Darkness penalties currently cripple rogues.

Meanwhile, casters are unusually strong thanks to the minimal number of successive fights between rests, at least in the early game. Thanks to the low number of fights, you can usually afford to just blast away with your spells, with certain ones performing above the rest (burning hands on at least 2 targets, magic missile, guiding bolt, etc.).

I am having a fun time running ranger/ranger/paladin/wizard at the moment. The rangers can each pick up the slack when it comes to healing and utility magic, while the paladin deals the big damage and frontlines, and the wizard supports the party (or blasts when needed).

[ChristopherN4G]

1st party: paladin/god of life/death, rogue/the wall crawling archetype, cleric/insight god, wizard/loremaster -- strong party as far as able to do everything. Rogue's ability to climb tons of walls was very nice and I kept him at range. Paladin was fine with 2h, but never found anything nice for him. Cleric was okay, nice to see chance to succeed persuasion/intimidate. Wizard was good.

2nd party: Fighter/caster subclass, ranger/colossal slayer, cleric/war, wizard/greencaster

Was more fun. Two classes that dual wield, all that could cast (no need to waste 1st level cleric/wizard on jump). Positioning fighter in a rare moment with thunderweave was nice (plus always magical dual wielding). All rangers seem kind of boring and samey, so I went for the safe one. Cleric was great with magic missile spam. Wizard was great with all ranged and faerie fire was pivotal in some scenarios.

The 2nd party was an all elf party.

If I roll a 3rd party, might considering short folk only.

[djinnxy]

I took a pair of clerics, a wizard, and a rogue. By far the best of them is the wizard greenmage and it will only get better as it has more spell uses.

[Mysta67]

Very simple, rogue warrior cleric wizard, this is the base of the 4 man party in 5e cookie cutting nonsense, since the lack of 6 party characters. This is a mundane rhetorical question, yes you can exchange the wizard for another dps type character / 2h weapon etc..... i dislike 5e lame and worthless edition of the rule set.

[Mysta67]

2e is far more exciting 6 player rendition