D&D 5E A Party of One Class

[ro]

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?

 

[TwoSix]

Bard, assuming feats are in play. Your valor bards can leverage sharpshooter/GWM if needed for better at-will damage, and you can use Magical Secrets to cover up any weaknesses. Can have coverage in pretty much every skill, and JoaT ensures no one is terrible at any skill.

If no feats are available, I'd say cleric. Tons of spell versatility and strong defense overcome weaker offense, and really, with spiritual weapon and spirit guardians, their damage is still pretty good.

Any class can work, of course (all warlocks with disguise self and the Actor feat would be amazing for a social game, for example), but I think full casters with some healing are the best bet for your generic "adventure" template.

 

[AmerginLiath]

Four rogues might be interesting, seeing the range of styles and abilities among the subclasses (assassins and swashbucklers providing extra damage, thieves and scouts interacting with the environment, arcane tricksters providing magic, masterminds acting as social controllers). They could even mess with NPCs by doing their intraparty chatter in Thieves Cant!

 

[aco175]

Any class can work. Bard may be the best to sub-class into the traditional rolls better though. I wonder how long it will take before someone multi-classes as well.

I would like to play in one with thieves or mages, or even bards. A game with all mages may need some hirelings to add front line muscle making things a bit harder to run. You could make a 'Harry Potter' type of campaign where the PCs are students at a school. Thieves could be good if players have a couple PCs and each adventure they choose which one gets to play. I may want to play my sneaky guy or brute type depending on the mission.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

you can also create a party with a wide range of abilities using the right combinations of cleric subclasses and backgrounds.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I think any class could work, provided the characters have distinct personalities. As long as they feel different, things should be good. As a DM, that’s what I would want out of a group that was all playing the same class.

Now, if I had to mechanically encourage that, I’d go with clerics or wizards.

 

[Satyrn]

Paladins would be the best.Or the worst.

It all depends on whether they're gnomes.

 

[Ath'kethin]

Best: the classes and subclasses the players want to play. Worst: the classes and subclasses the DM wants to force them them to play. Same as any game.

Assuming the DM isn't crap, any combination will be fine.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Clerics would probably work best, because they have so much variety amongst their subclasses, but they also have the least reason to be traveling together. Bards could easily cover the required roles, if each one chose to specialize appropriately. Druids would fare almost as well as clerics, but they would lack significant differentiation. Four fighters would have a lot of staying power throughout the day, but the lack of expertise and restoration might prove a major hurdle.

If I had to choose one of those parties to play in or run for, I would go with the fighters. If nothing else, combat would resolve quickly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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?

Cleric. It's a solid class all-around, to begin with, it has plenty of sub-classes, some of which reach for quite different capabilities.

Similarly, the Bard has solid abilities and can poach spells from other lists, and pick up expertise. But, it's light on sub-classes.

The Druid is also a candidate as a base class (and I'm not just saying that 'cause it's my favorite 1e & 5e class), that can off-tank, scout a bit, blast, & do support - but it's also light on sub-classes.

Now, it's no accident I mentioned those three, they're the full-caster 'support' classes (healers).

An all-Paladin Party would be tough, hard-hitting and resilient, but it'd have limited versatility.

Wizards (and to a lesser extent Sorcerers or Warlocks) would obviously be very versatile and powerful, but a bit fragile (they could summon blockers of course) and would lack support capability. They'd probably also best be able to choose their battles and set their own pace.

The remaining classes would be viable only in campaigns limited in scope & pacing to match their capabilities. A party of mercenary Fighters in a long military campaign, lots of battles, with plenty of time between them for a short or even long rest in lieu of all that healing they don't have - and to use action surge and/or CS dice in as many fights as possible. Barbarians could excel in a few-encounters-a-day pacing thanks to their rage. Rogues could work well in a citified and social/exploration-heavy adventures, light on combat so lack of toughnesss & support doesn't hurt so much, heavy on skills and opportunism - Rangers, perhaps, in similarly-exploration-oriented wilderness adventures, combats could be intense, but infrequent. A cabal of Monks, each representing a different Order, exploring a metaphysical mystery and facing martial-arts tests on the way, might work - they could even be rivals who must work together, though, in the end, only one will succeed, winning honor for his Order? Of course, in the PH, none of them have all that many sub-classes.