D&D 5E What's the WORST party composition possibly with 4 or 5 characters?

[jaelis]

So I guess the question is, say each individual character is at least reasonably optimized for some role. What combination would be least effective as a party?

An obvious choice is to have everyone focus on the same role. Even within a class itself. So for instance a party of all melee barbarians will have lots of trouble with ranged or magic-using opponents, not to mention skill challenges.

I think in fact all melee would be about the worst. A party of all skill monkeys would still be able to get a lot done while avoiding combat. A party of all faces ought to be able to talk/charm their way through many situations (and it is hard to make a pure face without any competence in other areas). All control would probably do quite well if they were smart about it. All ranged DPR would have many problems, but again it is hard to make a "pure ranged DPR" character. All support would be weird, but as long as they had some offensive capability I guess they would do OK.

So yeah, I'll vote for 5 barbarians, all straight up melee focused. They would tear up a melee encounter, but flail for pretty much anything else.

 

[steeldragons]

I am not sure there is an answer here without answering the question, "The 'worst' for what?"

If you're in an intrigue and espionage campaign, I'd say a bunch of non-standard raced evoker wizards, warlocks, paladins, et al with big flashy powers who can't help but call attention to themselves.

If you're in an adventure requiring a lot of intelligence, reasoning, puzzles and riddles, a group composed entirely of barbarians (or other bog-standard warrior types) might not be the best idea.

In a world setting where arcane magic is persecuted by The One religion, being a party of wizards, clerics of deities other than The One, druids, sorcerers, eldritch knights, and the like is probably going to be a baaad idea...or [while I can see the allure of such a party in such a setting] at least make things ten times more difficult than they'd need be.

Some might say -I certainly wouldn't. Love the classics. But some might- that the party of:
Human/Male Fighter.
Dwarf/Male Fighter.
Elf/Male Eldritch Knight.
Human/Female Cleric.
Halfling/Male Thief.
...would be "the worst" because it is kind of D&D tropey or "boring" or whatever folks' probably with that kind of set up might be.

So, there really is no answer without a definition for what "Worst" is supposed to mean.

 

[happyhermit]

5 bards!

A band of bards makes for the best party, they are also very capable.

 

[Wiseblood]

I would make DM's weep with 5 rogues. Even all the same rogues. My players would make me laugh.
I think the worst party would be 5 Tiefling champion fighters that were tanks with the guild artisan background or entertainer. Even then they might be successful. I just think they would be the worst.

 

[nswanson27]

All wizards in a dungeon where you can't cast magic.

 

[Caliban]

I'm just assuming an otherwise normal campaign - not one with situations specifically designed to help or hinder the party.

Most campaigns I've been in allow even non-social low charisma characters to stumble through social challenges without dying. You may not succeed, but you'll generally live.

A party of 5 rogues would very well at some tasks and flat out die in others. A party of 5 barbarians or champion fighters would fail at a lot of challenges, but probably won't die.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

5 Wild Magic Sorcerers who like to use Tides of Chaos - rolling the d100 constantly for Wild Magic Surge would be fun at first but get old quick

 

[ccs]

The absolute worst would be 4-5 characters that thier players don't enjoy playing. Doesn't matter how thier built.

 

[jaelis]

A party of 5 barbarians or champion fighters would fail at a lot of challenges, but probably won't die.

Hmm, tell that to their flying, spellcasting, or ranged opponents

But it is true if by "worst" you mean "most likely to TPK" then that would probably change my thinking a bit.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I didn't say you couldn't make it work - just that it's the "worst party composition" that I can think of. Adding almost any other class would make it better.

Which you did in your example by having one of the rogues multi-class into cleric.

Adding a single member of another class will only weaken the rogue party, since that one character will probably end up failing stealth rolls and thus compromise the party's ability to sneak around and set up ambushes.

Depends on the class of course, rouges aren't the only characters that are sneaky, but anyone in heavy armor is going to be a liability.