Gosh... I feel like each class is so well designed and unique, it's really hard to rate them.
Overall though, I think ranger is probably the weakest class, while paladin and "skill monkey" classes are generally pretty good.
Honestly, it's hard for me to do "class ratings" since each class is unique and good in it's own way, and a lot depends on subclass.
As for the typical party: The first four are usually fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. The best however? That's also hard.
I'd say, barbarian over fighter, probably a cleric (you always need a healer, I think this one is non-negotiable), a wizard, and a skill monkey such as an artificer, bard or rogue. A ranger would also work as well.
I honestly cannot build a party like the poll requires because I think that’s best decided on a campaign by campaign basis. Like, a Ravenloft campaign would do well to skip the Wizard and double down on Paladins, etc. See my point?
I honestly cannot build a party like the poll requires because I think that’s best decided on a campaign by campaign basis. Like, a Ravenloft campaign would do well to skip the Wizard and double down on Paladins, etc. See my point?
Nope.
I think it's very easy to just go "From a pure mechanics standpoint, what do you think would be the best party?"
For me its Cleric, Paladin, Rogue and Wizard. Four different main stats. Two classes who can swap spells out every day. Two physical damage dealers, one of which can be ranged if need be. Sure, different campaigns might require different things but this is just setting agnostic "What would you think does really well together"
Honestly for me, since you can't do what the topic asked, I don't understand why you even posted.
I honestly cannot build a party like the poll requires because I think that’s best decided on a campaign by campaign basis. Like, a Ravenloft campaign would do well to skip the Wizard and double down on Paladins, etc. See my point?
Nope.
Well thank you. It’s so nice of you to inform me my opinion is wrong.
I think it's very easy to just go "From a pure mechanics standpoint, what do you think would be the best party?"
At the time of my posting, that phrase you quoted appears nowhere in the title of this thread, the poll, or the OP. So why should I go “from a pure mechanics standpoint” when that’s not what was asked?
For me its Cleric, Paladin, Rogue and Wizard. Four different main stats. Two classes who can swap spells out every day. Two physical damage dealers, one of which can be ranged if need be. Sure, different campaigns might require different things but this is just setting agnostic "What would you think does really well together"
👍 I guess. 🤷♂️ Your opinion as at least as valid as mine is. 🤨
Honestly for me, since you can't do what the topic asked, I don't understand why you even posted.
The poll asked what we feel is the “best party composition,” full stop. My honest opinion is that each individual party is best built for each campaign. Since my honest opinion was not represented in the options available in the poll, I wrote in my answer in the form of a comment. I fail to see how my honestly answering the question actually asked is in any way not doing precisely what the topic asked of us.
Although, if pressed I suppose I would try to build a variation of the A-Team. You need someone who can make whatever it is go, and some muscle (B.A.), a party face who can also hold their own when everything hits the fan (Face), someone who can take whatever goes and use it well, and who can float around to support various other team members as needed (Murdock), and someone to pull it all together and make sure the team runs smoothly (The Col). So, if I were to try to make a variation of those rolls I would go with an Artificer, a Bard or Warlock, a Paladin, and a Cleric I suppose. Now, I have taken the various A-Team members and played a li’l mix-an’-match with their attributes, combining bits and pieces from each so, the wrench half of B.A. went to the Artificer, the and the muscly part went Paladin for example, etc. But that would be my A-Team if I had to pick. Happy meow?
For me the big problem of picking a team of four is that it requires you to shoehorn the characters into certain roles roles. I mean, yes, a wizard with a high int for skill checks is really good but that role could also be filled by the right bard build. Do you really need a Paladin to be the face of the party or can the Swashbuckler Rogue do that? And so on.
Another problem as I see it that most parties have more than four roles that you need to fill. Of course, many classes can perform more than one role and certain subclasses are more suitable than others. Then, depending on how you divide the different roles, it pretty much a matter of personal preference. For me those roles are
Frontliner. Someone big and tough that can prevent the enemy from reaching the squishy party members. Good options include barbarians, paladins, fighters, rangers, moon druids and artificers. Monks if you build and play them right can work as well.
Arcane caster. Someone who deals with that side of the magic field. Is able to use spell scrolls, counterspel to their heart's content and balst things wth ifreballs. Wizards, bards, sorcerers and the odd one, warlocks. Artificers can also kind of fit in this role.
Divine caster. More focused on buffs, debuffs and the always important healing aspect. Clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, Holy Soulies and even Artificers.
Skill monkey. Rogues, bards, Rangers to some extent and even Artificers can fill this role. Someone to pick the lock or find the hidden door.
Sneaky person. To scout, sneak around a mansion and steal stuff. Rogues, Rangers (especially gloom stalkers) and dex fighters could fill this role. Monks are also a good option. Perhaps bards and even barbarians, depending on how you build them.
Party face. The one that talks to NPCs, persuades guards to let them in, lies to the king or scares off the bandits.
Naturally, you can always break these downs further or come up with more categories. It's a matter of taste, really. Now, does the fact that barbarians or monks only show up once or twice on the list mean that they are a bad class? Not really. Because they do what they do so well that it leaves room for other roles to focus on other things. If you have a Barbarian but not a Cleric that could leave your Paladin to be able to focus more on healing and buffing instead of on being a frontliner. If you have a Ranger, Paladin and Artificer you probably don't need a Cleric so you can have a bard. The possibilities are endless and we haven't even gone into backgrounds, which can often help fill out these roles further.
This discussion btw is why Ithink D&D 5E is such a well-designed game. There are so many options to do things that it's really hard to create the "best" party. :)
For me the big problem of picking a team of four is that it requires you to shoehorn the characters into certain roles roles. I mean, yes, a wizard with a high int for skill checks is really good but that role could also be filled by the right bard build. Do you really need a Paladin to be the face of the party or can the Swashbuckler Rogue do that? And so on.
Another problem as I see it that most parties have more than four roles that you need to fill.
I thought about 'pick 5' or something, but I wanted to force hard decisions; having only four really does mean some roles will be represented marginally or not at all. I was assuming 'typical D&D' rather than 'all possible campaigns' -- you could do Regency Romance in D&D, but it's not exactly a focus of the game -- and to some degree I was expecting answers to reflect what people think typical D&D is. For example, if you think there's going to be a lot of wilderness adventuring druid or ranger are more likely to show up on your list.
Interesting that wizard is ranked third for 'best class' but is the only one to be on everyone's list of party roles.
Wizard's can throw around a lot of damage, but at least in my opinion, they're mostly reliant on not losing HP, and thus they usually work a lot better with a party to protect them than on their own.
I'm just curious how many of the many votes for Cleric in both polls are from those who actually know and acknowledge the awesome superiority of the gods' own class and how many are dweebs thinking "i NeEd HeAlInG" two rounds into every combat because they play like an axe wielding lemming.
For me the big problem of picking a team of four is that it requires you to shoehorn the characters into certain roles roles. I mean, yes, a wizard with a high int for skill checks is really good but that role could also be filled by the right bard build. Do you really need a Paladin to be the face of the party or can the Swashbuckler Rogue do that? And so on.
Another problem as I see it that most parties have more than four roles that you need to fill.
I thought about 'pick 5' or something, but I wanted to force hard decisions; having only four really does mean some roles will be represented marginally or not at all. I was assuming 'typical D&D' rather than 'all possible campaigns' -- you could do Regency Romance in D&D, but it's not exactly a focus of the game -- and to some degree I was expecting answers to reflect what people think typical D&D is. For example, if you think there's going to be a lot of wilderness adventuring druid or ranger are more likely to show up on your list.
Yeah, I got you. It was meant as any kind of criticism, just a musing on the game design. It's a fun mind game. :)
a solid party is both survivable and effective over a wide range of situations for me that typically means some multiclassing to bring in at least some greater spread of abilities. However, this is calling for single class so here goes.
1) the single most versatile class is the wizard - combat spells, buffs, debuffs, and rituals so you need a wizard in the party. Of course wizards are notoriously squishy so you need some protection too. that means a fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian. While each has its strengths (and weaknesses) for me its a tossup between a straight fighter (its hard to beat those 4 attacks at high level) and a ranger (wilderness covered plus additional spells and control capabilities as well as sufficient damage to keep a small party fairly safe as well as some healing. Especially with a small party your going to need healing and while both the cleric and druid cover that if you have a ranger then the Cleric is a far better choice here. generally higher AC than a druid, a greater range of healing and control spells and better tanking/combat capability in most cases. Finally you need a skill monkey/striker. to me the two top choices are Bard and Rogue. Bard brings in a fourth caster but is generally weak in combat so my choice here is the rogue especially if you have a ranger rather than a fighter so your casting is well covered. The rogue's damage potential as well as skills make them the better choice to round out the party that can probably take on any level appropriate challange and come out alove and bragging. so there you go my "ideal" party: Ranger, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue - fairly standard but able to get you there, deal with problem, and get you home alive, in one piece and with more than you left with at the start.
I'm just curious how many of the many votes for Cleric in both polls are from those who actually know and acknowledge the awesome superiority of the gods' own class and how many are dweebs thinking "i NeEd HeAlInG" two rounds into every combat because they play like an axe wielding lemming.
If you save up the heals and only use them to play yo-yo with downed PCs, most of the time a Bard with Healing Word can cover more than ⅔ of a party’s healthcare needs.
If you save up the heals and only use them to play yo-yo with downed PCs, most of the time a Bard with Healing Word can cover more than ⅔ of a party’s healthcare needs.
The line between "this fight needs top tier healing" and "this fight is a TPK" is fairly narrow, because it's dependent on the healer actually staying up. I've had the dramatic "3 of 5 PCs are downed and then Channel Divinity (Restore Live) and Mass Healing Word resets everything", but that only worked because the life cleric wasn't one of the downed characters (also, the effect that caused this also took out a couple bad guys).
If you save up the heals and only use them to play yo-yo with downed PCs, most of the time a Bard with Healing Word can cover more than ⅔ of a party’s healthcare needs.
The line between "this fight needs top tier healing" and "this fight is a TPK" is fairly narrow, because it's dependent on the healer actually staying up. I've had the dramatic "3 of 5 PCs are downed and then Channel Divinity (Restore Live) and Mass Healing Word resets everything", but that only worked because the life cleric wasn't one of the downed characters (also, the effect that caused this also took out a couple bad guys).
That’s why I wrote “⅔.” Why did you think I left the other ⅓ of the times unaccounted for?
I said it. I’ll say it again – clerics are overrated.
The cleric spell list is baby-back booty buttcheeks. It’s awful. It’s real bad. People yell “but muh heals! Muh heelz!”
So what?
Virtually all cleric healing before Greater Arcana is accomplished via either Cure Wounds or Healing Word, both of which are widely available outside the class. Cleric domains vary wildly in usability, with the ‘good’ ones often being ‘Good’ primarily because their Domain Spells patch the clerics booty-buttcheeks awful spell list. Clerics have medium armor proficiency, a very few have heavy, but they’re stuck with a d8 hit die and aren’t noticeably sturdy – and I say this as somebody who’s played a heavy-armored shield-wielding Tempest cleric that tried to do the frontline battle priest thing. There’s a reason “melee cleric” is a meme, even after Wizards gave half of them extra damage on their single swing a turn. My DM was as generous as a DM could reasonably get with Cynai and she was still “Acceptable” at best as a frontliner. Super fun and I loved her dearly, but I hold no illusions about her level of Gudness.
None of the cleric’s other class features are worth writing home about. Useful in the niches they’re designed to be useful in, but so is almost every other class feature in D&D. Every tool in the game will shine when put to the specific task it’s written for; the measure of versatility is whether that tool shines anywhere else, and most cleric stuff simply does not.
Healing in this game is best when it’s spread out to as many people as possible. A party that has one really great healer is up a creek when that healer goes down first. A party of four in which all four people have a little bit of healing is far safer and more resilient than a party of four with one really great healer and nothing else.
Clerics. Overrated.
The core of ‘the best’ adventuring party is a paladin and a wizard. A paladin because they have all the martial capability of the fighter and every inch of the CLS capacity of the cleric, as well as bearing one of the most powerful abilities in 5e in Aura of Protection. Fighters get to be Indomitable and reroll failed saves once per rest; paladins get to be Protected and just not fail saves in the first place. Fighters get extra attacks; paladins get smites to make the attacks they do get matter more. Clerics get healing spells; paladins get a Lay On Hands pool that can’t be Counterspelled, doesn’t take up/interfere with the paladin’s spells, and can be apportioned with millimetric precision. AND ALSO healing spells. The paladin is the most self-sufficient and omnicapable class in 5e. And of course, wizards have access to the best spells in D&D bar none; a well built wizard can turn every spell slot they have into “I cast Solve Problem”.
Honestly? If you have those two, the other two don’t matter. Or rather, the other two just tilt the party into different directions of ‘the best’. I selected rogue and druid mostly on a lark, but you could as easily substitute a bard for the rogue (or the druid), double up on martial hammering with a fighter or barbarian, expand your toolset with an artificer, whatever floats your boat. If you have the dingdong, the wizzerd, and at least one other source of CLS healing? You’re golden. The rest depends on the particulars of your campaign.
Big wilderness hike, spending most of your time in the howling wilds? Strap on a ranger and a druid, profit.
Got loads of downtime in a long-runner game? Artificer is worth their weight in all the magical tools, scrolls, and other handy items they can fabricate.
Lots of urban skullduggery, plenty of indirect threats and chicanery rather than Rolling Initiative thirty times a game? Get your rogues and bards out, put Expertise to work.
Whatever your campaign is aimed at will determine the other two ‘Best’ choices, but it’s very difficult for me to picture a ‘Best 4’ that doesn’t include a wizard or a paladin. It is, however, effortless to picture a ‘best 4’ that doesn’t include a cleric.
The is also so much variety in subclass and other options that is if difficult to say the best party composition by just class.
For example you want a mix of melee and ranged, that most popular group includes a bladesinger, a forge cleric, a swashbuckler and a smiting paladin they are likely to be all melee. The they are an evokation wizard, a light cleric, a bow wielding rogue and a spell casting dexadin, they could all be ranged. For party composition I like ot see as manty of the following as possible covered:
Balance of range and melee
A high int character
A high wis character
A high cha character
someone with the ability to heal (ideally two in case the healer goes down)
Someone with the abilty to open locks and disarm traps
At least one full spell caster.
A high dex character can also be useful but a lot here depends on the DM and the party. If the rogue is 30 foot n front of the rest of the party while exploring a dungeon some DMs will ask the rogue to roll stealth and some will ask for everyone ot roll for stealth, if the later the rogue's 26 wont help if the paladin gets 4. Some parties regard having someone with slight of hand as critical while others would never consider stealing.
The need for high strength comes up less often and can often be bypassed with magic.
Clearly a PC can fill more than one roll a cleric can heal and is (usually) high wis. An Artificer is high int and can disarm traps and pick locks and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's been a while since we had one of these, and the last was by 'best' when there are better choices, so... what do people think of classes?
Gosh... I feel like each class is so well designed and unique, it's really hard to rate them.
Overall though, I think ranger is probably the weakest class, while paladin and "skill monkey" classes are generally pretty good.
Honestly, it's hard for me to do "class ratings" since each class is unique and good in it's own way, and a lot depends on subclass.
As for the typical party: The first four are usually fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. The best however? That's also hard.
I'd say, barbarian over fighter, probably a cleric (you always need a healer, I think this one is non-negotiable), a wizard, and a skill monkey such as an artificer, bard or rogue. A ranger would also work as well.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Interesting that wizard is ranked third for 'best class' but is the only one to be on everyone's list of party roles.
I honestly cannot build a party like the poll requires because I think that’s best decided on a campaign by campaign basis. Like, a Ravenloft campaign would do well to skip the Wizard and double down on Paladins, etc. See my point?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Nope.
I think it's very easy to just go "From a pure mechanics standpoint, what do you think would be the best party?"
For me its Cleric, Paladin, Rogue and Wizard. Four different main stats. Two classes who can swap spells out every day. Two physical damage dealers, one of which can be ranged if need be. Sure, different campaigns might require different things but this is just setting agnostic "What would you think does really well together"
Honestly for me, since you can't do what the topic asked, I don't understand why you even posted.
Judging by the voting, that's a pretty popular combination. Making guesses:
Well thank you. It’s so nice of you to inform me my opinion is wrong.
At the time of my posting, that phrase you quoted appears nowhere in the title of this thread, the poll, or the OP. So why should I go “from a pure mechanics standpoint” when that’s not what was asked?
👍 I guess. 🤷♂️ Your opinion as at least as valid as mine is. 🤨
The poll asked what we feel is the “best party composition,” full stop. My honest opinion is that each individual party is best built for each campaign. Since my honest opinion was not represented in the options available in the poll, I wrote in my answer in the form of a comment. I fail to see how my honestly answering the question actually asked is in any way not doing precisely what the topic asked of us.
Although, if pressed I suppose I would try to build a variation of the A-Team. You need someone who can make whatever it is go, and some muscle (B.A.), a party face who can also hold their own when everything hits the fan (Face), someone who can take whatever goes and use it well, and who can float around to support various other team members as needed (Murdock), and someone to pull it all together and make sure the team runs smoothly (The Col). So, if I were to try to make a variation of those rolls I would go with an Artificer, a Bard or Warlock, a Paladin, and a Cleric I suppose. Now, I have taken the various A-Team members and played a li’l mix-an’-match with their attributes, combining bits and pieces from each so, the wrench half of B.A. went to the Artificer, the and the muscly part went Paladin for example, etc. But that would be my A-Team if I had to pick. Happy meow?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
For me the big problem of picking a team of four is that it requires you to shoehorn the characters into certain roles roles. I mean, yes, a wizard with a high int for skill checks is really good but that role could also be filled by the right bard build. Do you really need a Paladin to be the face of the party or can the Swashbuckler Rogue do that? And so on.
Another problem as I see it that most parties have more than four roles that you need to fill. Of course, many classes can perform more than one role and certain subclasses are more suitable than others. Then, depending on how you divide the different roles, it pretty much a matter of personal preference. For me those roles are
Naturally, you can always break these downs further or come up with more categories. It's a matter of taste, really. Now, does the fact that barbarians or monks only show up once or twice on the list mean that they are a bad class? Not really. Because they do what they do so well that it leaves room for other roles to focus on other things. If you have a Barbarian but not a Cleric that could leave your Paladin to be able to focus more on healing and buffing instead of on being a frontliner. If you have a Ranger, Paladin and Artificer you probably don't need a Cleric so you can have a bard. The possibilities are endless and we haven't even gone into backgrounds, which can often help fill out these roles further.
This discussion btw is why Ithink D&D 5E is such a well-designed game. There are so many options to do things that it's really hard to create the "best" party. :)
I thought about 'pick 5' or something, but I wanted to force hard decisions; having only four really does mean some roles will be represented marginally or not at all. I was assuming 'typical D&D' rather than 'all possible campaigns' -- you could do Regency Romance in D&D, but it's not exactly a focus of the game -- and to some degree I was expecting answers to reflect what people think typical D&D is. For example, if you think there's going to be a lot of wilderness adventuring druid or ranger are more likely to show up on your list.
Since the poll didn't specify any particular criteria for rating each class, I simply chose the likelihood of me playing each class.
Wizard's can throw around a lot of damage, but at least in my opinion, they're mostly reliant on not losing HP, and thus they usually work a lot better with a party to protect them than on their own.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I'm just curious how many of the many votes for Cleric in both polls are from those who actually know and acknowledge the awesome superiority of the gods' own class and how many are dweebs thinking "i NeEd HeAlInG" two rounds into every combat because they play like an axe wielding lemming.
Yeah, I got you. It was meant as any kind of criticism, just a musing on the game design. It's a fun mind game. :)
I think ranger should at least be higher than sorcs here. They really are a very capable 5th party member, with the ability to assist in most roles.
late to the topic but ...
a solid party is both survivable and effective over a wide range of situations for me that typically means some multiclassing to bring in at least some greater spread of abilities. However, this is calling for single class so here goes.
1) the single most versatile class is the wizard - combat spells, buffs, debuffs, and rituals so you need a wizard in the party. Of course wizards are notoriously squishy so you need some protection too. that means a fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian. While each has its strengths (and weaknesses) for me its a tossup between a straight fighter (its hard to beat those 4 attacks at high level) and a ranger (wilderness covered plus additional spells and control capabilities as well as sufficient damage to keep a small party fairly safe as well as some healing. Especially with a small party your going to need healing and while both the cleric and druid cover that if you have a ranger then the Cleric is a far better choice here. generally higher AC than a druid, a greater range of healing and control spells and better tanking/combat capability in most cases. Finally you need a skill monkey/striker. to me the two top choices are Bard and Rogue. Bard brings in a fourth caster but is generally weak in combat so my choice here is the rogue especially if you have a ranger rather than a fighter so your casting is well covered. The rogue's damage potential as well as skills make them the better choice to round out the party that can probably take on any level appropriate challange and come out alove and bragging. so there you go my "ideal" party: Ranger, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue - fairly standard but able to get you there, deal with problem, and get you home alive, in one piece and with more than you left with at the start.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
If you save up the heals and only use them to play yo-yo with downed PCs, most of the time a Bard with Healing Word can cover more than ⅔ of a party’s healthcare needs.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The line between "this fight needs top tier healing" and "this fight is a TPK" is fairly narrow, because it's dependent on the healer actually staying up. I've had the dramatic "3 of 5 PCs are downed and then Channel Divinity (Restore Live) and Mass Healing Word resets everything", but that only worked because the life cleric wasn't one of the downed characters (also, the effect that caused this also took out a couple bad guys).
That’s why I wrote “⅔.” Why did you think I left the other ⅓ of the times unaccounted for?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Clerics are overrated.
I said it. I’ll say it again – clerics are overrated.
The cleric spell list is baby-back booty buttcheeks. It’s awful. It’s real bad. People yell “but muh heals! Muh heelz!”
So what?
Virtually all cleric healing before Greater Arcana is accomplished via either Cure Wounds or Healing Word, both of which are widely available outside the class. Cleric domains vary wildly in usability, with the ‘good’ ones often being ‘Good’ primarily because their Domain Spells patch the clerics booty-buttcheeks awful spell list. Clerics have medium armor proficiency, a very few have heavy, but they’re stuck with a d8 hit die and aren’t noticeably sturdy – and I say this as somebody who’s played a heavy-armored shield-wielding Tempest cleric that tried to do the frontline battle priest thing. There’s a reason “melee cleric” is a meme, even after Wizards gave half of them extra damage on their single swing a turn. My DM was as generous as a DM could reasonably get with Cynai and she was still “Acceptable” at best as a frontliner. Super fun and I loved her dearly, but I hold no illusions about her level of Gudness.
None of the cleric’s other class features are worth writing home about. Useful in the niches they’re designed to be useful in, but so is almost every other class feature in D&D. Every tool in the game will shine when put to the specific task it’s written for; the measure of versatility is whether that tool shines anywhere else, and most cleric stuff simply does not.
Healing in this game is best when it’s spread out to as many people as possible. A party that has one really great healer is up a creek when that healer goes down first. A party of four in which all four people have a little bit of healing is far safer and more resilient than a party of four with one really great healer and nothing else.
Clerics. Overrated.
The core of ‘the best’ adventuring party is a paladin and a wizard. A paladin because they have all the martial capability of the fighter and every inch of the CLS capacity of the cleric, as well as bearing one of the most powerful abilities in 5e in Aura of Protection. Fighters get to be Indomitable and reroll failed saves once per rest; paladins get to be Protected and just not fail saves in the first place. Fighters get extra attacks; paladins get smites to make the attacks they do get matter more. Clerics get healing spells; paladins get a Lay On Hands pool that can’t be Counterspelled, doesn’t take up/interfere with the paladin’s spells, and can be apportioned with millimetric precision. AND ALSO healing spells. The paladin is the most self-sufficient and omnicapable class in 5e. And of course, wizards have access to the best spells in D&D bar none; a well built wizard can turn every spell slot they have into “I cast Solve Problem”.
Honestly? If you have those two, the other two don’t matter. Or rather, the other two just tilt the party into different directions of ‘the best’. I selected rogue and druid mostly on a lark, but you could as easily substitute a bard for the rogue (or the druid), double up on martial hammering with a fighter or barbarian, expand your toolset with an artificer, whatever floats your boat. If you have the dingdong, the wizzerd, and at least one other source of CLS healing? You’re golden. The rest depends on the particulars of your campaign.
Big wilderness hike, spending most of your time in the howling wilds? Strap on a ranger and a druid, profit.
Got loads of downtime in a long-runner game? Artificer is worth their weight in all the magical tools, scrolls, and other handy items they can fabricate.
Lots of urban skullduggery, plenty of indirect threats and chicanery rather than Rolling Initiative thirty times a game? Get your rogues and bards out, put Expertise to work.
Whatever your campaign is aimed at will determine the other two ‘Best’ choices, but it’s very difficult for me to picture a ‘Best 4’ that doesn’t include a wizard or a paladin. It is, however, effortless to picture a ‘best 4’ that doesn’t include a cleric.
So there’s that.
Please do not contact or message me.
The is also so much variety in subclass and other options that is if difficult to say the best party composition by just class.
For example you want a mix of melee and ranged, that most popular group includes a bladesinger, a forge cleric, a swashbuckler and a smiting paladin they are likely to be all melee. The they are an evokation wizard, a light cleric, a bow wielding rogue and a spell casting dexadin, they could all be ranged. For party composition I like ot see as manty of the following as possible covered:
A high dex character can also be useful but a lot here depends on the DM and the party. If the rogue is 30 foot n front of the rest of the party while exploring a dungeon some DMs will ask the rogue to roll stealth and some will ask for everyone ot roll for stealth, if the later the rogue's 26 wont help if the paladin gets 4. Some parties regard having someone with slight of hand as critical while others would never consider stealing.
The need for high strength comes up less often and can often be bypassed with magic.
Clearly a PC can fill more than one roll a cleric can heal and is (usually) high wis. An Artificer is high int and can disarm traps and pick locks and so on.