D&D 5E A Party of One Class

[jgsugden]

Bard, Paladin, Warlock, Ranger.

 

[Shiroiken]

Cleric and Bard would provide the greatest flexibility; cleric due to sub-classes and bard because... bard. Paladins would probably be the toughest to defeat, but are weak to ranged enemies (such as flying foes). Wizard has a lot of options, but none of them are strong in routine melee, creating a serious deficiency. The one I would suggest avoiding would be Barbarian, because without a dedicated healer, barbarians have a... short... life expectancy.

 

[cbwjm]

Fighters would work pretty well, they can take a lot of damage, dish out a lot of damage, and they have some minor healing from second wind.

I do want to do an all wizard game. I also wouldn't mind expanding that into an all arcane party (bard, sorcerer, wizard, warlock).

 

[jaelis]

For a while I played with a group that had no class at all

 

[TwoSix]

For a while I played with a group that had no class at all

Welcome to our forums, you'll feel right at home.

 

[GlassJaw]

Suppose you had a party of four players who all wanted to choose the same class, though possibly different subclasses. Which 5e classes would be best or worst for such a party?

Definite "best".

Do you mean what would the most versatile for a standard campaign or the best to create a campaign tailored to the idea that all the characters are the same class?

For example, in a standard campaign, as others have mentioned, bards and clerics are going to be most versatile. But if the campaign premise is that all characters are members of a thieves' guild or an acrobat troupe or just graduated wizard school, any class would work. I love this idea actually and I've always wanted to run something like this (especially the acrobat troupe).

It also works with races: dwarven warband, halfling acrobats, gnomish....something.

 

[hastur_nz]

Fighters would work pretty well, they can take a lot of damage, dish out a lot of damage, and they have some minor healing from second wind.

Agreed, and they actually have loads of options to make them different - they can be excellent at 'sword and board', two-handed melee, dual-wielder, crossbow expert, longbow expert, then each of these can be mixed with the actual sub-classes (all 3 in PBH are great and can apply well to any weapon), then if you use feats there's loads more great possibilities... Fighter is a great class, and you can't really get too much of them in 5e.

Suppose you had a party of four players who all wanted to choose the same class, though possibly different subclasses. Which 5e classes would be best or worst for such a party?

But in all honesty, why would a DM ask this question? Don't you just let your players run the PC they actually want to play, unless it's something totally disruptive or similarly no good for your campaign?

Personally my current game started with two barbarians, a monk, a ranger and a bard; and has quickly morphed into a barbarian, a fighter, a monk, a ranger and a wizard. So very much four 'fighter types" and a wizard. It's totally fine, in fact if anything it's quite powerful because there's a mix of melee and ranged attackers, and their backgrounds etc cover many bases, and there's no need for a traditional healer type as the pacing of the campaign doesn't force endless fights per day.

 

[TwoSix]

But in all honesty, why would a DM ask this question? Don't you just let your players run the PC they actually want to play, unless it's something totally disruptive or similarly no good for your campaign?

I'm sure most games do, but I'm always up for a more themed campaign also. I wish more DMs would suggest things like a thieves guild game or an all-cleric game, actually.

 

[Sunseeker]

Clerics, Bards and Druids (be surprise right guys!?) make the ultimate "Party of One". Build versatility as well as access to a wide range of spellcasting both offiensive and defensive.

I'd say short of 5E CoDzilla-ing the game, Paladins make a good 2nd tier Party of One. Again, versatility, lots of good defense and some more limited spellcasting. I'd probably throw Barbarians in there with them. Not much in the way of healing but lots of offense and good defense.

Fighters sound like a good idea for a Party of One, but they're okay. Their offense is moderate and their defense is moderate. If you've eliminated all CoDzilla classes, you're better off going Rogue or Monk and sacrificing your defense for increased offense and mobility.

So: CoD if you want to beat up the game and make it cry, Bards too. Paladins or Barbarians if you want to win but act like you gave the game a fair chance. Wizards can be a great Party of One if they don't have to fight in melee much, which is possible but requires higher teem coordination than the aforementioned classes. Don't be a Sorcerer or a Warlock, be a Wizard. Rogues and Monks before Fighters.

Hey now don't look at me like that! I didn't say Fighters were the worst Party of One.

...I didn't even mention Rangers.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm sure most games do, but I'm always up for a more themed campaign also. I wish more DMs would suggest things like a thieves guild game or an all-cleric game, actually.

I've thought about it, and then I've realized the game is ten-hundred-percent more betterer when you make everyone a criminal, not a rogue. I mean, anyone can be a sneak, a thug, and work against the law. You don't need to be a rogue for that. If everyone is a cleric...why not allow paladins? If paladins are in...what about divine sorcerers? Non-magical witch hunter rogues/fighters?

I don't like to push themes any deeper than "You all work for X organization." or "You are all members of X race (which I still allow "under the hood" races for statistical variety)." I'd rather see Joey make a convincing argument for how a Druid is part of the Church of Divine Grace than tell him he has to be a Cleric.