Honestly, it depends, a cleric can be very different depending on subclass. Some fighters can even work as archers.
Generally, however I think the fifth party member should be (and usually is) a skill monkey, such as monk, rogue, or bard. They provide quite good support and can fill more niched areas depending on your campaign.
Went with ranger. Assuming the fighter went the traditional route of being a melee fighter, as did the rogue, the archer ranger seems like a traditional choice.
I considered bard too though. Mostly didn't pick it though because there weren't really any in LOTR except maybe Pippen. More of a rogue with performance though!
Its got to be a charisma class. The archetypal 4 already cover STR, DEX, INT, and WIS. CON only applies to the self and doesn't support a party.
While the other classes are perfectly capable of being a party face, a CHA class could do it more easily. On that note:
Bard. An excellent support that fills pretty much any weak spot in the party regardless of build leaving tons of flexibility to fill another roll.
Paladin. A second front liner, second DPR, backup healer, and passive buffer. Build options mostly flavor these roles rather than provide new ones, but still a lot of coverage.
Warlock. Can be built flexibly but not as much total coverage as a bard or paladin.
Sorcerer. Second spell singer only. Not likely to provide much more than a wizard with high CHA (slightly dependant on subclass).
Honestly, I would pick druid over sorcerer and barely over warlock. Druids are also back up healers and get control and support options other casters don't, providing pretty similar benefits as paladins, but not as efficiently. More build flexibility than paladins though. Plus they have the whole nature theme going on.
The traditional 4 PC group is Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. If you're adding a fifth party member, what class would it be?
I thought the traditional four were wizard, warrior, elf and valkyrie
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"Archetypical" fifth would be ranger, methinks. One of the oldest and most well-known classes, arguably the game's best-known character (like it or hate it, everybody's heard of Drizzt and not everybody's heard of Mordenkainen or the rest) was a ranger, and the idea of a Fantasy Adventuring Party without a woods-wise archer strikes most folks as odd. The bard is usually a tagalong that gets the party into trouble, your "Toss a Coin to Your Witcher" sorts, if we're speaking strictly of archetypes and expectations rather than 5e game reality.
The traditional 4 PC group is Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. If you're adding a fifth party member, what class would it be?
The most traditional 5th is not currently available at all as a class, the Psionicist. That was usually the 5th back in the day in my circle since they were the only ones who could counter NPC Psionicists. Today it would probably be the Artificer I suppose, since they can fill in just about any holes in skill set the party might have.
Frankly, this edition doesn’t really care so much about party composition. I am currently DMing for a 12th level composed of 2 Fighters, a Barbarian, and a Hexblade Warlock with an Artificer NPC tag along to do whatever they tell him to do. (Although now that we’re nearing the end of the quest the Artificer is in hospital to focus more on the actual Player Characters, that kinda stuff happens to tag alongs all the time.) So you could have just about any party composition these days and it can work out.
I disagree about the core group. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard are traditional because they were the first classes and are NOT 'core'.
To me the core group is: Tank, DPR, Utility.
You need those things in a party, just as you need them in a person. You wouldn't go adventuring without Armor, Weapon, or Gear, would you? That would be stupid. Just as you personally need Armor, your party needs a Tank. You need a Weapon, your party needs a DPR guy. You need Gear, your party needs Utility. And while you need just one suit of armor and one weapon, you need a lot of gear. Bandages and rope and food and a tent and a bedroll.
Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians do Tank and/or DPR. Clerics do Tank and/or Utility, Rogue/Bards/Wizards do Utility. Which mean you do NOT need a Fighter if you have a Paladin or Barbarian and you can easily replace either a Rogue or a Wizard with a Bard.
There is no real need for anything else besides 1 Tank, 1 DPR, and 2 Utility players. You can even get away with only 1 Utility player. But you can't do it with less than 3 characters.
A fifth character can do either a) Fill in some holes and/or b) specialize the party. Does your Cleric not like healing and spends most of his spells in combat? Get a Paladin/Druid/Bard/another Cleric to turn that weakness into a strength. Do you have no Party Face? Get a Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock to deal with that. Does neither your Fighter nor your Cleric want to tank? Get a Barbarian/Druid/Paladin/another Fighter. Are you short on Control spells because your Wizard likes to blast away? Get Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard/Warlock.
The traditional 4 PC group is Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. If you're adding a fifth party member, what class would it be?
By whose tradition?
When I started playing D&D, the typical party would be fighter, cleric, thief, elf, another fighter, dwarf, third fighter, and maybe magic user or another cleric. After all there were four of us and each played two characters.
In OD&D there were only Clerics, Fighting Men and Wizards.
Trick question actually. The most archetypical 5th member of the adventuring group is the libero. It's the ranger when you track a target through vast terrain, it's the druid when you mediate between the forces of nature and civilization, it's the bard when you are hired as bodyguards to the biggest musical act on the Sword Coast and it's the Barbarian when you help a young tribes person to reclaim his honor by hunting a mythical beast/threat.
The quintessential 4 roles of dnd remain, melee strength, dexterity/ranged, divine spellcaster, arcane spellcaster. You can mix and match here and there or put a different coat of paint on it, but ultimately that's been something at the heart of dnd, especially since fourth edition, but it goes back much further. The Dexterity Character is probably the least clear, the rogue only ever was essential back when they were the only one who could disarm traps. So you could substitute it for a scout, agent, spy, ranger, archer whatever you got.
Lastly in terms of tactical combat, if you have a fifth spot to fill you could argue that now that you have all your bases covered, you could risk setting up a "star player" . Traditionally something like a fighter/wizard. A high investment which needs some support to become one of the most powerful characters.
I changed my vote from bard to ranger. I think the bard is the best choice for a 5th but based on stories I was convinced that a ranger is a more typical 5th.
Traditionally it was meant to be a Bard, I guess, but previous editions didn’t have a number of other Classes of course.
To be honest, I always felt that Clerics were more of peculiarity as D&D Core Class although they’ve been with the game since its inception. Based on Fantasy literature, I’d probably say the core Classes were the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Wizard, although the Ranger would look a bit different to the current Class (it would be more of a tracker, survivalist and healer).
The current game groups the Classes by type into Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk), Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin), Expert (Rogue, Bard, Ranger) and Mage (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) and the recent D&D movie also did similar with a Barbarian, Druid, Bard and Sorcerer. In that movie they also added a Paladin as sort of supporting NPC, so I guess this could be seen as a fifth character in the party. Paladins make a good option for a DM-driven NPC if they want to give some moral guidance to the party! :)
I would choose Bard myself, both because it is my favorite class and because it fills gaps better than any other class can. I do think a strong case can be made for Ranger as a close second and was even asked to join a game with my Ranger in a recent recruiting thread specifically because the Ranger would round out the party's needs (there was a bard also applying).
The traditional 4 PC group is Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. If you're adding a fifth party member, what class would it be?
Honestly, it depends, a cleric can be very different depending on subclass. Some fighters can even work as archers.
Generally, however I think the fifth party member should be (and usually is) a skill monkey, such as monk, rogue, or bard. They provide quite good support and can fill more niched areas depending on your campaign.
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.For clarity, I didn't mean "what is the best choice". I meant "what is the most traditional choice".
Went with ranger. Assuming the fighter went the traditional route of being a melee fighter, as did the rogue, the archer ranger seems like a traditional choice.
I considered bard too though. Mostly didn't pick it though because there weren't really any in LOTR except maybe Pippen. More of a rogue with performance though!
Its got to be a charisma class. The archetypal 4 already cover STR, DEX, INT, and WIS. CON only applies to the self and doesn't support a party.
While the other classes are perfectly capable of being a party face, a CHA class could do it more easily. On that note:
Honestly, I would pick druid over sorcerer and barely over warlock. Druids are also back up healers and get control and support options other casters don't, providing pretty similar benefits as paladins, but not as efficiently. More build flexibility than paladins though. Plus they have the whole nature theme going on.
Bard: good face and very versatile for every situation you can find yourself in.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I thought the traditional four were wizard, warrior, elf and valkyrie
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Pretty sure it was fighting-man (fighter), magic-user (wizard), cleric, and thief (rogue).
And the blue Valkyrie needs food, badly.
Wait a minute. Is this a Gauntlet reference? I used to love that game. There is a book based on it you know.
If it's Blue Valkyrie, Gauntlet II.
"Archetypical" fifth would be ranger, methinks. One of the oldest and most well-known classes, arguably the game's best-known character (like it or hate it, everybody's heard of Drizzt and not everybody's heard of Mordenkainen or the rest) was a ranger, and the idea of a Fantasy Adventuring Party without a woods-wise archer strikes most folks as odd. The bard is usually a tagalong that gets the party into trouble, your "Toss a Coin to Your Witcher" sorts, if we're speaking strictly of archetypes and expectations rather than 5e game reality.
Please do not contact or message me.
The most traditional 5th is not currently available at all as a class, the Psionicist. That was usually the 5th back in the day in my circle since they were the only ones who could counter NPC Psionicists. Today it would probably be the Artificer I suppose, since they can fill in just about any holes in skill set the party might have.
Frankly, this edition doesn’t really care so much about party composition. I am currently DMing for a 12th level composed of 2 Fighters, a Barbarian, and a Hexblade Warlock with an Artificer NPC tag along to do whatever they tell him to do. (Although now that we’re nearing the end of the quest the Artificer is in hospital to focus more on the actual Player Characters, that kinda stuff happens to tag alongs all the time.) So you could have just about any party composition these days and it can work out.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I disagree about the core group. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard are traditional because they were the first classes and are NOT 'core'.
To me the core group is: Tank, DPR, Utility.
You need those things in a party, just as you need them in a person. You wouldn't go adventuring without Armor, Weapon, or Gear, would you? That would be stupid. Just as you personally need Armor, your party needs a Tank. You need a Weapon, your party needs a DPR guy. You need Gear, your party needs Utility. And while you need just one suit of armor and one weapon, you need a lot of gear. Bandages and rope and food and a tent and a bedroll.
Fighters/Paladins/Barbarians do Tank and/or DPR. Clerics do Tank and/or Utility, Rogue/Bards/Wizards do Utility. Which mean you do NOT need a Fighter if you have a Paladin or Barbarian and you can easily replace either a Rogue or a Wizard with a Bard.
There is no real need for anything else besides 1 Tank, 1 DPR, and 2 Utility players. You can even get away with only 1 Utility player. But you can't do it with less than 3 characters.
A fifth character can do either a) Fill in some holes and/or b) specialize the party. Does your Cleric not like healing and spends most of his spells in combat? Get a Paladin/Druid/Bard/another Cleric to turn that weakness into a strength. Do you have no Party Face? Get a Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock to deal with that. Does neither your Fighter nor your Cleric want to tank? Get a Barbarian/Druid/Paladin/another Fighter. Are you short on Control spells because your Wizard likes to blast away? Get Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard/Warlock.
Leeloo.
...Wait, sorry, that's the fifth element. The Blue Raja? No, no...Hmmmm...are we considering "Elf" to be a class in this scenario, or no?
By whose tradition?
When I started playing D&D, the typical party would be fighter, cleric, thief, elf, another fighter, dwarf, third fighter, and maybe magic user or another cleric. After all there were four of us and each played two characters.
In OD&D there were only Clerics, Fighting Men and Wizards.
Trick question actually. The most archetypical 5th member of the adventuring group is the libero. It's the ranger when you track a target through vast terrain, it's the druid when you mediate between the forces of nature and civilization, it's the bard when you are hired as bodyguards to the biggest musical act on the Sword Coast and it's the Barbarian when you help a young tribes person to reclaim his honor by hunting a mythical beast/threat.
The quintessential 4 roles of dnd remain, melee strength, dexterity/ranged, divine spellcaster, arcane spellcaster. You can mix and match here and there or put a different coat of paint on it, but ultimately that's been something at the heart of dnd, especially since fourth edition, but it goes back much further. The Dexterity Character is probably the least clear, the rogue only ever was essential back when they were the only one who could disarm traps. So you could substitute it for a scout, agent, spy, ranger, archer whatever you got.
Lastly in terms of tactical combat, if you have a fifth spot to fill you could argue that now that you have all your bases covered, you could risk setting up a "star player" . Traditionally something like a fighter/wizard. A high investment which needs some support to become one of the most powerful characters.
I changed my vote from bard to ranger. I think the bard is the best choice for a 5th but based on stories I was convinced that a ranger is a more typical 5th.
Traditionally it was meant to be a Bard, I guess, but previous editions didn’t have a number of other Classes of course.
To be honest, I always felt that Clerics were more of peculiarity as D&D Core Class although they’ve been with the game since its inception. Based on Fantasy literature, I’d probably say the core Classes were the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger and Wizard, although the Ranger would look a bit different to the current Class (it would be more of a tracker, survivalist and healer).
The current game groups the Classes by type into Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Monk), Priest (Cleric, Druid, Paladin), Expert (Rogue, Bard, Ranger) and Mage (Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard) and the recent D&D movie also did similar with a Barbarian, Druid, Bard and Sorcerer. In that movie they also added a Paladin as sort of supporting NPC, so I guess this could be seen as a fifth character in the party. Paladins make a good option for a DM-driven NPC if they want to give some moral guidance to the party! :)
I would choose Bard myself, both because it is my favorite class and because it fills gaps better than any other class can. I do think a strong case can be made for Ranger as a close second and was even asked to join a game with my Ranger in a recent recruiting thread specifically because the Ranger would round out the party's needs (there was a bard also applying).
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing