That’s a fairly open field; you’ve got two skill monkeys, a full caster with access to healing, and a tanky hard hitting melee with some additional healing. About the only significant consideration is that the rest of the party won’t gain much back from Short Rests, so if you run Monk or Warlock- particularly the ‘14 versions- you might need to budget your resources if the other players are more inclined to push through rather than rest after a few encounters. Beyond that, there’s not any major niches that stand out as needing to be filled.
I'm a firm advocate for "whatever you want" in all cases, because 5e can handle it, but, as pointed out above, it's particularly true in this case. Anything will be useful, but nothing is essential.
While I agree with jl8e there are times I have 2 or 3 character ideas I would like to play at some point and have to choose one, and in such cases might choose the one that fills as many holes as possible in the party composition.
On the face of it the party has a mix of range and melee and martial and spellcaster, two character have acess to healing so you are good there as well (if one healer goes down the other can get them up). So the party is pretty well balanced but is probably missing someone with high wisdom (perception, insight and survival checks are very common), and someone with high intelligence (for investigation, history, religion, nature, arcana checks) so you might want to go with a character that focuses on one of those.
D&D is very flexible however and just knowing the classes of the party says very little, for example (assuming 2024 rules) the rogue might be focussing on intelligence or wisdom and using their action to cast true strike, or the bard might not want ot ever take any healing spells.
I wouldn't worry too much about short rest compatability, often the one most needing a short rest is the one most hurt, the Paladin will get a channel divinity back on a short rest and the bard after level 6 will get their bardic inspirations on a short rest, in my experience short rests availability is more down to the DM than the composition of the party.
I agree you don’t strictly need a fully balanced party. But if it were me, I’d go wizard or artificer. It’s nice to have someone with a good int, if only for the skills you’ll bring along. And someone throwing AoE spells can always be helpful. That’s assuming the bard is willing to pick up the bulk of the healing duties. Otherwise a cleric or Druid might be useful.
I agree you don’t strictly need a fully balanced party. But if it were me, I’d go wizard or artificer. It’s nice to have someone with a good int, if only for the skills you’ll bring along. And someone throwing AoE spells can always be helpful. That’s assuming the bard is willing to pick up the bulk of the healing duties. Otherwise a cleric or Druid might be useful.
The Paladin can also take on healing duties especially now lay on hands is a bonus action. The only issue with them is no paladin feature provides healing at range (though if they want to take on healing duties it is easy enough to get healing word through something like magic initiate.
If the bard is focused on spellcasting, then maybe play a warlock, ranger, or a cleric (war, death, blood, moon, twilight, forge, or grave - not spell focused). If the bard is focused on weapons, then play a sorcerer, wizard, cleric (arcana, light, or other spellcasting subclass), or PotT (Pact of the Tome) caster warlock (but that’s pushing it).
I always recommend barbarian. Or bard, but you already have one.
But yea, the barbarian: Does everything, and does it well, although mostly if it's combat - and social skills exclusively when they rely on shouting, or lifting smaller people by the scruff of their necks and staring balefully at them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think the party already has too many weapon focused classes (unless the rogue is an arcane trickster and the bard is a lore bard). Adding a barbarian would be amazing in fights against some creatures, but when you end up against a creature with resistance to all nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage at a low level and you don't have many magic weapons, then only the paladin (and maybe the bard) will be helpful.
I think the party already has too many weapon focused classes (unless the rogue is an arcane trickster and the bard is a lore bard). Adding a barbarian would be amazing in fights against some creatures, but when you end up against a creature with resistance to all nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage at a low level and you don't have many magic weapons, then only the paladin (and maybe the bard) will be helpful.
Depends how the DM plays things- +1 weapons tend to be early drops/finds/rewards, plus more often in tier 1 silvering is all you need to overcome weapon resistance.
but when you end up against a creature with resistance to all nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage at a low level and you don't have many magic weapons
I mean, you mileage may vary, and this is only my humble opinion - but that should never happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
but when you end up against a creature with resistance to all nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage at a low level and you don't have many magic weapons
I mean, you mileage may vary, and this is only my humble opinion - but that should never happen.
I had it happen once as a boss fight at low level early in a campaign; wasn’t actually that bad. Minor fiend, took an extra round or two to kill but wasn’t particularly stressful or anything.
I think the party already has too many weapon focused classes (unless the rogue is an arcane trickster and the bard is a lore bard). Adding a barbarian would be amazing in fights against some creatures, but when you end up against a creature with resistance to all nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage at a low level and you don't have many magic weapons, then only the paladin (and maybe the bard) will be helpful.
Depends how the DM plays things- +1 weapons tend to be early drops/finds/rewards, plus more often in tier 1 silvering is all you need to overcome weapon resistance.
You're right. Resistance isn't much of a problem, and magic items should/would be found early on.
My party has four people: me, a paladin, a rogue, and a bard. We are starting 1st level.
That’s a fairly open field; you’ve got two skill monkeys, a full caster with access to healing, and a tanky hard hitting melee with some additional healing. About the only significant consideration is that the rest of the party won’t gain much back from Short Rests, so if you run Monk or Warlock- particularly the ‘14 versions- you might need to budget your resources if the other players are more inclined to push through rather than rest after a few encounters. Beyond that, there’s not any major niches that stand out as needing to be filled.
I'm a firm advocate for "whatever you want" in all cases, because 5e can handle it, but, as pointed out above, it's particularly true in this case. Anything will be useful, but nothing is essential.
Ok, thank you for your help!
While I agree with jl8e there are times I have 2 or 3 character ideas I would like to play at some point and have to choose one, and in such cases might choose the one that fills as many holes as possible in the party composition.
On the face of it the party has a mix of range and melee and martial and spellcaster, two character have acess to healing so you are good there as well (if one healer goes down the other can get them up). So the party is pretty well balanced but is probably missing someone with high wisdom (perception, insight and survival checks are very common), and someone with high intelligence (for investigation, history, religion, nature, arcana checks) so you might want to go with a character that focuses on one of those.
D&D is very flexible however and just knowing the classes of the party says very little, for example (assuming 2024 rules) the rogue might be focussing on intelligence or wisdom and using their action to cast true strike, or the bard might not want ot ever take any healing spells.
I wouldn't worry too much about short rest compatability, often the one most needing a short rest is the one most hurt, the Paladin will get a channel divinity back on a short rest and the bard after level 6 will get their bardic inspirations on a short rest, in my experience short rests availability is more down to the DM than the composition of the party.
I agree you don’t strictly need a fully balanced party. But if it were me, I’d go wizard or artificer. It’s nice to have someone with a good int, if only for the skills you’ll bring along. And someone throwing AoE spells can always be helpful.
That’s assuming the bard is willing to pick up the bulk of the healing duties. Otherwise a cleric or Druid might be useful.
Yeah, any of the other prep casters are good if you want to bring some magical flexibility.
The Paladin can also take on healing duties especially now lay on hands is a bonus action. The only issue with them is no paladin feature provides healing at range (though if they want to take on healing duties it is easy enough to get healing word through something like magic initiate.
If the bard is focused on spellcasting, then maybe play a warlock, ranger, or a cleric (war, death, blood, moon, twilight, forge, or grave - not spell focused). If the bard is focused on weapons, then play a sorcerer, wizard, cleric (arcana, light, or other spellcasting subclass), or PotT (Pact of the Tome) caster warlock (but that’s pushing it).
Overjoyed follower of Jeff, the Evil Roomba!
I always recommend barbarian. Or bard, but you already have one.
But yea, the barbarian: Does everything, and does it well, although mostly if it's combat - and social skills exclusively when they rely on shouting, or lifting smaller people by the scruff of their necks and staring balefully at them.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think the party already has too many weapon focused classes (unless the rogue is an arcane trickster and the bard is a lore bard). Adding a barbarian would be amazing in fights against some creatures, but when you end up against a creature with resistance to all nonmagical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage at a low level and you don't have many magic weapons, then only the paladin (and maybe the bard) will be helpful.
Overjoyed follower of Jeff, the Evil Roomba!
Depends how the DM plays things- +1 weapons tend to be early drops/finds/rewards, plus more often in tier 1 silvering is all you need to overcome weapon resistance.
I mean, you mileage may vary, and this is only my humble opinion - but that should never happen.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I had it happen once as a boss fight at low level early in a campaign; wasn’t actually that bad. Minor fiend, took an extra round or two to kill but wasn’t particularly stressful or anything.
You're right. Resistance isn't much of a problem, and magic items should/would be found early on.
Overjoyed follower of Jeff, the Evil Roomba!