D&D 5E The Mono Class Party

[Ancalagon]

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 a different party will have different levels of difficulty with different parts of the adventure. The secret vault opening will be a major challenge to the "all paladin" party. They may have to leave, do some research and return with a magical doo-dad or a competent NPC to deal with the secret vault door. *However*, the 4 undead gardians behind the vault door - which would have been a major challenge for an average party - will be completely demolished by the all paladin party.

And I think this is perfectly ok

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is a silly idea, but not that different than the perfectly viable sole-Source(pi) party in 4e, or the workable 'theme' party in 3.x (all-woodsy: Barbarian, Ranger, Druid; all-pious: Paladin, Cleric, Monk). All-Cleric could work well, the Domains give some variety, and you have plenty of healing/restoration/mitigation to get you through the rough patches - a War Cleric can tank, a Light cleric blast, and so forth. Most other classes wouldn't be very good candidates, the rest would be terrible.... ;P

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?

Nature of the game, itself. You could re-write it enough to work with just anything, even a PC party of standard-issue Kobolds using the MM stats. But short of that level of re-work, it assumes a reasonably varied party with individuals able to make a wide range of contributions to its success.

You could also end up with the characters being too similar mechanically (less likely with a class that has 7 sub-classes than with one that has 2, obviously), making it hard to get 5e's style of roving spotlight balance running.

What is this, 1978?

1997.

 

[bedir than]

You could also end up with the characters being too similar mechanically (less likely with a class that has 7 sub-classes than with one that has 2, obviously), making it hard to get 5e's style of roving spotlight balance running.

By using SCAG and UA you shouldn't have this issue.

Even if it did, the very foundation of the game resides in fiction that had a near monocultural party at it's core - a hobbit thief, a powerful mage and 12 dwarven fighters.

 

[Tony Vargas]

By using SCAG and UA you shouldn't have this issue.

Doesn't really change things much. There's some new sub-classes, but the primary/significant contributions they make is still a function of class.

Even if it did, the very foundation of the game resides in fiction that had a near monocultural party at it's core - a hobbit thief, a powerful mage and 12 dwarven fighters.

Tolkien as the primary inspiration for D&D is a bit overblown (Moorcock, REH, the relatively obscure but influencial Karl Edward Waggoner, Lieber, and Lovecraft all probably were at least as important), but, even if we go with Tolkien, it's very clearly LotR, even specifically the passage through Moria, that's the really iconic bit. Hobbits, an Elf, Dwarf, Wizard, Ranger, and Fighter.

Now, sure, there's no Cleric in LotR & in the classic game, they'd've all died 99 times out of 100. It's just one of many ways D&D has deviated from it's sources of inspiration.

But, hey, even if we go with The Hobbit, you notice the Dwarves figured they 'needed' a Thief...

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

If I run a prepublished adventure I kind of don't want to rewrite it. If the PCS want to have an oddball party fair enough but I am not gonna spend much effort rewriting an adventure. The main reason I would run an adventure is the save time thing in the first place.

 

[Arial Black]

6 of those would be hilarious;
View attachment 75012

Management Notice!

You must be this tall to ride on this charge!

 

[Ath-kethin]

If I run a prepublished adventure I kind of don't want to rewrite it. If the PCS want to have an oddball party fair enough but I am not gonna spend much effort rewriting an adventure. The main reason I would run an adventure is the save time thing in the first place.

20 years ago, I looked down upon anybody using a published adventure instead of making one from scratch. That attitude changed when I had to juggle a full time job and full time school plus a long commute for both plus a wife and toddler.

The thing is, I like small groups (2-3 players is my comfort zone). So I am accustomed to dealing with situations where the PCs are not exactly optimized to a published adventure's specifications.

I have found that rather than re-writing the adventure, it's easier to just work around stuff. My current group is a rogue/arcane trickster and a cleric of Thor, both 3rd level. Running classic BD&D modules with that group has been challenging, but we've all enjoyed them immensely.

All I am saying is that if I refused to allow the adventure to continue at some point because the module expected a wizard in the party, I would be a lousy DM. Playing with a nonstandard group requires thinking outside the box for both the players AND the DM. Buy I also know you've been running games for at least as long as I have, Zardnaar, so I confident in your ability to manage it.

 

[Jabborwacky]

I still think seeing a full rogue party trying their darnest to make it work would be awesomely hilarious to behold.

Pros: You'll never die to a trap or be ambushed ever again.
Con: Han Solo always shoots first. These aren't normal murder hobos: They're alpha strike murder hobos.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

All rogue party is awesome. We did it in 2E and it was a blast. No frontline to protect you from the baddies. No healing. No artillery support. Just you, your wits and your willingness to run away from everything you didn't get into position to backstab. Highly recommended. D&D on hard/crazy mode. I think it'd be about the same in 5E.

I actually find highly optimized parties a boring. When you have to cobble together cockamamie solutions to plug gaping holes in your skillsets is when things really get going. Plan B is always more fun than Plan A. Plan Z that much more so.

 

[Unwise]

For the Tank, don't go messing up the beauty of the all rogue party with a level of Fighter. Stay rogue, go Swashbuckler, as they get a great taunt later and can fight 1v1 unlike other rogues. Being strength based, I would go Dwarf for the Medium Armor proficiency. You likely want +2 Dex anyway, so the party does not leave you entirely behind and you can't go heavy armor anyway or you can't sneak. The lack of a shield will hurt a bit, but their should be ways around it with the DMs approval and the shield mastery feat. Maybe give up some proficiencies, or even an expertise. The swashbuckler lends itself to 2WF anyway.