D&D 5E The Mono Class Party

[Zardnaar]

Why wouldn't absolutely any combination of any classes work? I mean, you are playing with a human DM that can think and adapt, right? Not a computer that can only follow its programs?

All wizard could struggle a bit. Assuming you are using prepublished adventures not DM customises game to your party.

 

[Horwath]

Why wouldn't absolutely any combination of any classes work? I mean, you are playing with a human DM that can think and adapt, right? Not a computer that can only follow its programs?

yes the DM can do that and to a degree he should, but;


thats why you have different characters in a party. So all roles are covered. If a party lacks perception capabilities then they are going to suck more damage from surprises and traps. Also if you lack any AoE kobolds and goblins are going to be a threat in mass numbers up to 10th level or higher.

If you build your party to be overpowerd in one direction, you're going to be weak on others. Simple and right.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Sorry, folks; if my group of players all want to be, say, gnomish paladins, I'm not going to punish them by refusing to work with it. What kind of crap DM does that?

"Well, you don't have a thief in the party, so there's no way to open the hidden door or avoid ambushes. Don't look at me like that! I spent $50 on this module and I'm not going to deviate from it just because you had a character concept different from the baseline assumption."

Please. What is this, 1978?

 

[Horwath]

Sorry, folks; if my group of players all want to be, say, gnomish paladins, I'm not going to punish them by refusing to work with it. What kind of crap DM does that?

"Well, you don't have a thief in the party, so there's no way to open the hidden door or avoid ambushes. Don't look at me like that! I spent $50 on this module and I'm not going to deviate from it just because you had a character concept different from the baseline assumption."

Please. What is this, 1978?

You will have to modify a little, but there should negative aspects to that party because you have a lot of good ones.
5×lay on hands, great melee damage, best armor, best saves, fair amount of spells. You can have bless up on all the fights.

you have to suck at something to balance this out.

 

[Ath-kethin]

You will have to modify a little, but there should negative aspects to that party because you have a lot of good ones.
5×lay on hands, great melee damage, best armor, best saves, fair amount of spells. You can have bless up on all the fights.

you have to suck at something to balance this out.

Why "should" there be negatives to it? Again, my goal as a DM is not to punish my players for having novel ideas.

And the "negatives" handle themselves anyway. The group would know that they won't even be able to teleport unless they can hire somebody to send them, that sneaking around probably isn't their forte, and they don't get the wizard cheat codes. If the above are necessary to achieve a goal, I say the adventure is poorly written, not just poorly run.

But that's a different discussion.

 

[mach1.9pants]

No one said it was necessary just that the party would struggle in certain situations. Maybe you run your games that the party can always solve every problem, straight up and design your adventures that way. A lot of people don't, I set the scenario and it is up to the characters to navigate it. I certainly don't have a situation where if you fail and or can't do one open locks, the adventure ends. But it will be much harder to circumvent for a party without that ability. However some people do play like that, and more power to them.

Also it is very rude to call out someone as a crap DM because their play style is different from you. Playing like it is 1978 is a perfectly valid play style. As is playing it dungeon world style where the players decide on the reality of the world. There is room for all games, even if it is not your preference

 

[Horwath]

Why "should" there be negatives to it? Again, my goal as a DM is not to punish my players for having novel ideas.

And the "negatives" handle themselves anyway. The group would know that they won't even be able to teleport unless they can hire somebody to send them, that sneaking around probably isn't their forte, and they don't get the wizard cheat codes. If the above are necessary to achieve a goal, I say the adventure is poorly written, not just poorly run.

But that's a different discussion.

I think that any written adventure can be completed with any class combination. If the encounters combat or social are varied.

Some party compositions would walk over some encounters but could be near death in others, some other party could be the opposite.
Thats why you try to vary party members in their role to try to cover it all.

If you dont have thief tools/perception trained it's just going to make some problems more difficult but not impossible. Same for teleport, same for lots of healing or survival skills or social banter.

IMO, 5 paladins would be great party. Inqusition!

 

[Ath-kethin]

it is very rude to call out someone as a crap DM because their play style is different from you. Playing like it is 1978 is a perfectly valid play style. As is playing it dungeon world style where the players decide on the reality of the world. There is room for all games, even if it is not your preference

It absolutely is unbelievably rude, and I was completely out of line in that regard. I have actually noticed that for some reason I'm being rather nastier today than I intend, and I think it would be a good idea for me to back away from the forums for a while.

A DM-vs-player game style is a classic one, and as valid as any other. My ultimate point is that punishing players for having ideas outside the box seems a very odd way to go about having fun. If it works for you, fine.

And there is no doubt that in D&D as in life in general, having a group of people with disparate, specialized skills will solve most problems faster than having a group of people who are only good at the same few things will. But in life and in D&D, sometimes that diversity isn't an option, and things may become more challenging as a result. If your goal in running a game is to teach people that only the right mix of specialists will solve a given problem, power to you.

But if you have a group who all really want to play kobold barbarian/monks and they approach problems differently, why would you stop them?

 

[Ath-kethin]

IMO, 5 paladins would be great party. Inqusition!

My go-to race/class example combo is always gnome paladins, as a callout to the silly advice in the 2e DMG defending race/class restrictions:

"Allow nonstandard race/class combinations only on a case-by-case basis. If you institute a general rule - 'Gnomes can now be paladins' - you will suddenly find yourself with six player character gnome paladins."

I've never ever had a player ask to be a gnome paladin, even after 3rd Edition when it became a RAW possibility, but I find the image of them to be pretty entertaining.

 

[Horwath]

6 of those would be hilarious;