D&D 5E Ideal Party Composition

[SirAntoine]

What classes would make the best ideal party composition? Assuming for four, six, and eight players. Traditionally, the core four would make the most ideal for a four member party. Is this still true in 5th Edition? (I.e. the core four of fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard.) For six players, what are the next two best choices? And for eight?

EDIT: The most "well-rounded" party is what I was thinking of at first. That is what the core four classes traditionally provided.

 

[Paraxis]

Ideal, hmm

Tank, Healer, Scout/trap monkey, Utility Magic, Ranged damage

Everyone with a good dex as primary or secondary ability score, for high initiatives and trained in stealth wearing armor that doesn't impose disadvantage on those checks.

Cover all your roles, be first to act, be ninjas and sneak around encounters/problems, get surprise rounds.

 

[Zardnaar]

4 players.
Paladin
Light Cleric
Wizard
Lore Bard

6 players
Paladin
Light Cleric
Wizard
Lore Bard
Fighter
Rogue

8
Paladin
Light Cleric
Wizard
Lore Bard
Fighter
Rogue
Tempest Cleric
Life Cleric

 

[Gecko85]

I wondered the same thing before my first session as a player. I now believe it doesn't really matter. The classic ideas of an ideal party don't really apply anymore since each class can fill multiple roles. Our current party is a rogue, barbarian, cleric, and bard...and we've been kicking [MENTION=40136]SS[/MENTION].

 

[SirAntoine]

Ideal, hmm

Tank, Healer, Scout/trap monkey, Utility Magic, Ranged damage

Everyone with a good dex as primary or secondary ability score, for high initiatives and trained in stealth wearing armor that doesn't impose disadvantage on those checks.

Cover all your roles, be first to act, be ninjas and sneak around encounters/problems, get surprise rounds.

Speed, stealth, and surprise can be very efficient, but if you face monsters with many hit points better armor will pay off because they'll get to attack you a lot before they're killed. Offensive magic in this kind of group could make up all the difference, though.

 

[DaveDash]

My players have been running:

Half-Elf Paladin.
Half-Elf Lore Bard (with Dungeoneering feat).
Drow Wizard.
Half-Elf Light Cleric.

The group is fricken awesome for dungeon crawls. The main downside however is I have managed to isolate some of the squishier characters and drop them from time to time, and they lack ranged power. If I was to change this group, I'd probably swap Light Cleric for Life Cleric, since they have a bit more staying power and can off-tank.

When it comes to fighting Fiends, Humanoids, and Undead they cut through those monsters like butter.

 

[was]

4 players = Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard
6 players = Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard
8 players = Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock and Wizard

 

[SirAntoine]

4 players.
Paladin
Light Cleric
Wizard
Lore Bard

6 players
Paladin
Light Cleric
Wizard
Lore Bard
Fighter
Rogue

8
Paladin
Light Cleric
Wizard
Lore Bard
Fighter
Rogue
Tempest Cleric
Life Cleric

It's interesting that you put the bard over the rogue. That's because in 5e it's actually easy for other characters to disarm traps, am I correct? The two extra clerics would really make healing plentiful. The bard gets healing spells, too.

I'd probably try the following right now:

Four Players

1 fighter
1 ranger
1 cleric
1 wizard

Six Players

1 fighter
1 ranger
1 cleric
1 wizard
1 bard
1 monk

8 Players

1 fighter, champion or battle master
1 ranger
1 cleric
1 wizard
1 bard
1 monk
1 fighter, eldritch knight
1 barbarian

I start with the fighter who will lead the party into battle. Then you have the ranger who can back him up at the front line, but who also is a ranged specialist who can weaken the enemy before they get into melee. The cleric is the party's defender and life-line. He will come to the aid of anyone caught off-guard, and back-up the other characters. The wizard is the party's tactician, who sizes up the battle and decides when to use a spell to influence the outcome.

The next character I'd add is the bard, who can be a diplomat and help the party's morale and also back-up the cleric and wizard in healing, reinforcement, and tactics.

The monk is who you have to go it alone for a time, when the situation calls for it. They have a good balance of offensive and defensive abilities, and the intuition to know when it's time to return. When among the rest of the party, this character would most actively stand with the fighter.

The next character I'd pick is the eldritch knight, with a nod to the elf fighter/ mage. The character can supply extra offensive magic, and do well in melee if an enemy gets into the party's midst, defending the wizard if needs be.

Then I'd say the barbarian, because heavy extra damage in melee is very often just what the party needs. The barbarian's resilience and primal knowledge are also great additions to the standard party.

 

[Gecko85]

It's interesting that you put the bard over the rogue. That's because in 5e it's actually easy for other characters to disarm traps, am I correct? The two extra clerics would really make healing plentiful. The bard gets healing spells, too.

In out party, during session zero, we debated bard over rogue, but ended up going bard over wizard (4 PC party). Between the cleric and the bard we have plenty of spells (for now). So far we haven't missed the wizard.

 

[SirAntoine]

My players have been running:

Half-Elf Paladin.
Half-Elf Lore Bard (with Dungeoneering feat).
Drow Wizard.
Half-Elf Light Cleric.

The group is fricken awesome for dungeon crawls. The main downside however is I have managed to isolate some of the squishier characters and drop them from time to time, and they lack ranged power. If I was to change this group, I'd probably swap Light Cleric for Life Cleric, since they have a bit more staying power and can off-tank.

When it comes to fighting Fiends, Humanoids, and Undead they cut through those monsters like butter.

I'm sorry, I meant to say, "I've read others who say this, too. Maybe it was a design decision for 5e?", in reply to one of the other posts. Let me say, in reply to this comment I would say it's interesting. They are all half-elves or drow, I notice. That is for infravision, am I correct?