the worst party ever

[roguerouge]

3e:

Depends on the campaign style. If it's an urban campaign, 5 bards would kick ass. If it's a kick in the door to fight aberrations and demons campaign, they'd be dead. A wilderness campaign with only fighters would be a short one too. They'd never see the wolf pack coming. Of course, they're strongest early, so the badness of choosing fighters would only become apparent around 8th level, when they faced their first fully armed and operational cleric BBEG at EL+3.

 

[Nifft]

Five clerics or warlords would result in some really slow, boring fights.

5 bards and call em the Patridge family.

I'm gonna disagree here. IMHO five Leaders (same class, different builds) would be able to buff each other into Striker-level damage.

Five Clerics, three with Righteous Brand, two with Astral Seal? +5 to hit with all Encounter powers, -2 to opponent's defenses, free healing with every attack -- yes please!

Yep. Especially clerics of the peaceful build kind from DP.

... but if they were all the same build, that could very well suck.

Five controllers of any stripe. I have no idea how it was decided that controllers should have the least hitpoints AND the least damage of any class. They always seem to be a liability when I'm playing.

It's funny, my Wizard is usually the last one standing in the toughest fights, and he's usually the king of overall damage. It's a challenging class, but it can be made VERY capable.

Someone on the CharOpt forum posted about the multiplicative effect of stacked area damage, and posited that a group of Controllers could out-damage Strikers on a per-target basis, if they could consistently target 2 or more opponents per attack. With the Invoker's power list, I think this has become trivial, so I'd argue even a group of Controllers is playable. All Wizards would seem to lack melee power, but consider how nicely Thunderwave works to set up the next dude's area attack.

- - -

Playing all Warlocks would suck, if their Curses were mutually exclusive.

IMHO all Defenders could suck, but I guess they could take turns being "it", and thereby help spread the damage around.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'm gonna disagree here. IMHO five Leaders (same class, different builds) would be able to buff each other into Striker-level damage.

IMHO all Defenders could suck, but I guess they could take turns being "it", and thereby help spread the damage around.

Using your Leader logic for Defenders, you could easily have a balanced party of Defenders. A Paladin as your Defender/Leader, a Swordmage as your Defender/Controller, a Fighter as your Defender/Striker, and a Warden to round out the group.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Nifft]

let's say, by random chance, every player decides upon the same class for his character.

A Paladin as your Defender/Leader, a Swordmage as your Defender/Controller, a Fighter as your Defender/Striker, and a Warden

, -- N

 

[Thaumaturge]

, -- N

What, you expect me to read the whole thread? This is the Internet.



Thaumaturge.

 

[lotuseater]

for role playing purposes alone, i'd have to say 5 paladins. they would have no one to browbeat for being the wrong alignment.

 

[SSquirrel]

All Paladins don't have to be LG anymore, you could very well have some very different alignments in that group.

Worst group is 4 black robes. Oh wait, that's FF I.

A group of 5 Rangers, all named Legolas or Aragorn, stuck in a city campaign full of diplomacy and intrigue.

Really any group with no one able to pitch heals around will be a very painful thing. Can we have a group of Rogues sporting wands of healing and use magic device in 4E?

 

[Remathilis]

I'll say 5 warlords: A warlord depends solely on moving his allies around. Every ally would moving each other; it'd be a hectic mess as people shift, pull, and slide around the battlemat like a bizzaro-dance number.

 

[pawsplay]

For 3.5, five Complete Warrior samurai. The class has some potential as a fear-causing, Str-based two weapon wielder, but it is a little underpowered and has practically no tactical options. Combined with a lack of utility abilities, a restricted skill list, and a dependence on all needing the same of equipment, and you have a recipe for disaster. Five fighters would be like the A-team compared to five samurai.

 

[Remathilis]

For 3.5, five Complete Warrior samurai. The class has some potential as a fear-causing, Str-based two weapon wielder, but it is a little underpowered and has practically no tactical options. Combined with a lack of utility abilities, a restricted skill list, and a dependence on all needing the same of equipment, and you have a recipe for disaster. Five fighters would be like the A-team compared to five samurai.

Besides, the optimal number of samurai is seven.