I've only played a game of 5e once, just the once. The group was bad and the GM too, but I thought "Well...

I've only played a game of 5e once, just the once. The group was bad and the GM too, but I thought "Well, if they need a Druid I guess I'll play a Druid". I didn't make my character, I made a story and they did all the stats and stuff since I was completely new. Tl;dr, it didn't work out and I left after three sessions when the GM encouraged me to hoard gold from a dungeon because it meant I got more xp. Apparently that was a house-rule. But the whole time I was playing a Druid of the Land, because we needed some sort of ranged character. But it got me thinking, is "group composition" really a problem in games like this? Be it 3.5/PF/5e/Fantasycraft/whatever. To raid the most dungeons and fight the dragons, do you need a balanced group comp?

I'm looking into picking up 5e pretty soon to play with friends and I'm fairly sure none of them would want to play a Healer or be a Tank-character.

You do NOT need a "balanced" party to have a fun game of 5e. In fact, I'd even argue that having an unbalanced party is better sometimes, as a party that's balanced too good is sorta difficult to challenge effectively. That being said, the GM has to be good at their job and yours sounds like a faggot (gold-to-exp, really?!).

Ignoring the context (which is frustrating for sure) and trying to answer your prompt:

Group composition is a lot less about filling roles and more about synergy. D&D types don't really have your classic Tank role so much as it has frontliners who are mostly their to block enemy movement and punish running by to attack squishier characters. Similarly Healer is a secondary role at best with in-combat healing being an emergency use only. Typically you just want to make sure your party has ways to enable each other:
>The Wizard buffs the fighter and conceals the Rogue, then falls back on spells
>The Rogue scouts for the wizard and flanks with the fighter, then escapes with evasiveness
>The Fighter protects the Wizard and distracts targets for the Rogue, then locks down close combat

It's much more complicated than that but a simple look should show lots of symbiotic relations within the party, even if you have less diversity of classes. For example, having a full party of heavily armored characters might alleviate the need for fighters to play so defensively and they can simply push forward into enemies. Having lots of wizards might allow the group to have a perfect spell ready for every situation, summon an army, or concentrate on multiple spells together that might otherwise never interact. A full party of rogues can infiltrate in and out of a place without ever raising an alarm. And so forth. Strengths can build upon each other.

But it depends heavily on the system. Some systems reward each character specializing in one field more, while some reward each character being a generalist or being able to assist each other in different field.

I think I follow, thanks user. I assume there's even more interactions between classes with the sub-classes? I'm not sure if that's the right name, I mentioned that I was a Druid of the Land, but I remember a Druid of the Moon being more about shape shifting. I assume that Shape-shifting is into multiple forms, but if a character turns into a Boar/Bear/Rhino, can they fulfil a front-line role similar to a fighter? Or does a Druid in a frontline bring something different to the table than a Fighter or a Paladin?

Sorry if this all sounds a bit ignorant.

I figured gold to xp would make sense for a Rogue or a thief, but even that sounded like a weak justification. Glad to hear it's not a real rule.

Depends on the GM (and the system - arguably, you can fill all necessary roles with full casters if you're playing 3.x). A good GM can tailor his game to the group. If everyone rolls a rogue-type, then the game will involve more sneaking around and disarming traps. If no-one rolls a rogue-type, then there will be less emphasis on those parts - there might still be times when the group wishes that they had a character of thievish persuasion, but it shouldn't be NECESSARY. A mediocre GM (or a good GM who is running premade adventurers and doesn't have the time to customize them sufficiently) won't necessarily be able or willing to make those kinds of adjustments, and so a party that can cover all bases(even if it isn't necessarily "balanced" around roles like fighter/rogue/wizard/healer) will be more important.

Hey, of all the boards this may be the only one where we have no problem with people being new. It's always nice to see someone new getting into the hobby.

To answer your question, yes shape-shift can be used to be a front-line character or a much more mobile flying animal or a great deal of other things. This flexibility is what makes Moon Druids so useful in D&D 5e. Land Druids are focused more on spell casting and the flexibility that comes with that.

And as you suspect yes, a lot of diversity comes in the sub classes. It differs from class to class as some classes have more power in the main class while some have more power in the subclasses.

Well, I'm not new to RPGs, just fantasy. I've been playing WoD and the 40k RPGs for about 6 years now, I started with WFRP and moved from there. But I've never made the jump over to high fantasy adventure, a lot of the number crunching of 3.5 and PF put me off, and 5e seems to have neatly solved a lot of that, so better late than never!

I see. My real love in Fantasy (and the one thing I want to play but suspect I never will), is a Paladin. The unambiguous good that you won't get in any game I've ever played. Are paladins a fight/support hybrid affair? There's room for both in the archetype so I imagine it comes down to sub-classes again?

I absolutely agree, but I was more asking if it was something encouraged within the system. Like NPCs attacks do enough damage that a squishier class like a mage or priest might need a tank to intercept the attack, that sort of thing.

Paladins are exactly that (and really damn good in 5e in general). The subclasses just decide whether you focus more on dealing out punishment or supporting allies although all Paladins can do both very effectively.

As for the unambiguously righteous character, paladins are whatever you make of them. You don't have to play a Paladin to be an idealist although it is certainly fun to mechanics backing your zealous fury.

Also, if you have further D&D 5e questions there is a pretty active community in the general threads at anyone time. There is always one up.

Actually, it can be pretty fun to not follow traditional group roles- I've been playing a Sorcerer for a little over a year now, who the group refers to as, "Cloth tank".

You should never fill a position, as if this was WoW, or if this is a job with certain positions... Play a character that's fun for you. Then you can worry about how the group functions.
(of course, everyone should come together to decide what they're doing, what game they're playing, who they want to play and go from there. IF you wanna play something that fits in this way, better on you.)

Cheers user, didn't notice it since the title was missing.
Why are you the cloth tank?

The monk decided to not follow the traditional norms when entering a cave, so he pushed me in front. I acted brave, and got my ass kicked my a flaming zombie. Now, everyone gives me shit (lightly) about stealing as many kills as I can. My magic missile is long, yo.

Well, it's not an easy job but I guess someone had to do it.

Cheers for the input and help guys, I'll amazon copies of the three books I'll need unless I've horribly gone wrong somewhere.

Nice double dubs; check the .pdf thread. Da Archivist has all the books you'll need. Give them a look over, then purchase.

I'm more of a learn by play guy, and apparently the starter set for 5e is really good. Would you recommend it? I might just pick that up, and then go over the rules in pdf form after I have an understanding of the mechanics and let that inform my decision?

I'd suggest Ryuutama if you want a good fantasy game instead of distilled mediocrity.

That looks like a really cozy game to play, sort of Euro-board game esque? But I don't think it's something i'd play with my mates, I appreciate the recommendation though.

>Ryuutama...
I mean is a good game but its orengo trail fantasy game.
Everything is shit and giggles until your fail your first camp check, then comes the horror.

>sort of Euro-board game esque?
That comparison makes zero sense to me.

Only if a black Ryuujin is watching you, and even then that's quite a stretch.

It looks like it'd make me feel like I feel when I play Catan. Like it's a family game that's warm and nice.

Oh. That's not a feeling I'd associate with eurogames at all. They tend to evoke more negative emotions in me.

Yes, it's a feelgood game, but you can make it a lot more heroic (red Ryuujin) or dark (black Ryuujin).

As for other fantasy games that are better than 5e, there's Tenra Bansho Zero, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Dungeonslayers, heck, even 13th Age (adjusted class list recommended).

does it metagame wise work best to have balance? Yeah, probably.
But I strongly value the unbalanced if more realistic party where you have a pair of more common classes like warrior, ranger, rogue, ect depending on what makes sense, and one or two rarer people. Feels a little more believable to me If the party isn't 100% special snowflake.