The ideal 4 member party in 3.5

[Ogre Mage]

With the changes made in 3.5, I was wondering what people would consider to be the optimal 4 member party? Assume that the adventuring terrains are a fair mix of dungeon, wilderness and city, with equal chances for combat and roleplay.

 

[SpuneDagr]

I see no real reason to think it's changed from
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard.

 

[Endur]

I could see an argument for Paladin, Druid, Sorceror, and Bard.

I see no real reason to think it's changed from
Fighter
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Fighters still don't get these things called "abilities" after second level. So the ideal party is now:

Wizard
Rogue
Cleric
Ranger 2/ Fighter 2/ (Barbarian or Paladin 2)/ Prestige Class X

That's a slight change from 3rd ediiton when the final member of the ideal group was a:

Ranger 1/ Fighter 2/ (Barbarian or Paladin 2)/ Prestige Class X

-Frank

 

[Nifft]

Can't think that there is an ideal party for all situations.

-- N

 

[Endur]

Advantages of Bard, Druid, Paladin, Sorceror.

Party also has Animal Companion, Paladin's Mount, and Familiar as extra NPCs.

4 spell casters, 3 of whom can cast cure spells.

And you have the machine gun Arcanist, the Sorceror.

Its also a very charismatic party, and charismatic parties are cool and get all the good quests.

Clerics are tough, but I think Druids caught up in 3.5. Now that Druids can wear full plate and use any weapons they want and their animal companions advance like a paladin's mount, life is cool for druids.

I could see an argument for Paladin, Druid, Sorceror, and Bard.

 

[gtJormungand]

Clerics are tough, but I think Druids caught up in 3.5. Now that Druids can wear full plate and use any weapons they want and their animal companions advance like a paladin's mount, life is cool for druids.

Druids can't actually wear full plate in 3.5. As far as proficiencies/restrictions, they only gained the ability to not loose spellcasting for using a non-druid weapon.

 

[FrankTrollman]

Its also a very charismatic party, and charismatic parties are cool and get all the good quests.

The charisma of oyur party has essentially no influence upon the quests it gets. The quests come from what the DM has time to write up coupled with player choice. The DM isn't ever going to bother writing up quests that your party can't get - so essentially your options are limited by DM spare time and enthusiasm - not by player character charisma, or anything else.

-Frank

 

[Dark Jezter]

Ah, the eternal question: What is the perfect D&D party? Ask this question to 10 different D&D players, and you'll get 10 different answers. For this thread, I'll assume that by "ideal" you mean a party that's well-rounded and will be able to handle most challenges its put up against.

In 3.0, I'd go with...

Fighter
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

In 3.5e, I'd go with...

Barbarian
Rogue
Cleric
Wizard

Mostly the same, anyways. The only change being that the fighter is replaced with the barbarian, since barbarians are deadlier melee combatants than fighters in 3.5e.

 

[Spatula]

Druids can't actually wear full plate in 3.5.

Not metal full-plate. Of course, they're no different than 3.0 Druids in that respect. But in any case, the loss of the weapon restrictions means that druids gain a lot more from multi-classing with one of the martial classes in 3.5 vs 3.0.