Terrible ideas

If I was the DM for a full fighter campaign, you can bet your ass the realm would be lower magic.
Probably end up facing a mighty warlord who regards the PCs as worthy opponents/successors or something.

>Highlander game

>Full Barbarian Murder Rape Party

Full rogue/spy party would be fun with a good DM.

A spy game would be really fun. But I probably wouldn't use D&D for it.

>full fighter party
>bad idea

BALLS TO THE WALL

BALS*

No, it would be hilarious, specially if each party member works for a different faction

It's not, unless the clerics worship gods of drastically different alignments.

If the gods are compatible, it's an awesome idea.

it will never be stop to be funny how the most unbalanced party in FF1 for the NES is the best one

i'm pretty sure a full bard party is called a band.

>Each Bard specializes in something different party-role wise
>each Bard uses a different type of Perform
I've always wanted to do this

>full cleric party
>bad

you maggots aren't even considering fights to the death to decide who hits on the inn's barmaid

>all cleric party
>each a member of the Knights Hospitaller

that would be thematic and a bit more boring way to do it

I've done a full bard party. It was a pretty decent campaign. What exactly is the problem with any of these ideas, as long as the GM is on board and calibrates things appropriately?

jesus

>full bard party
This was actually the most fun our party ever had. We did a Hannah-Barbera-esque band on the run sesh where we tracked down clues to expose our booking agent for using us to stage robberies in the towns we performed at. Good times.

>full rogue party
this is asking for fun hijinks

>full cleric party
>implying an all-out war on the undead and unholy wouldn't be a great campaign

Not him but don't be a bitch. You're calling a party breakdown "terrible" based on class selection. Thinking you're talking about crunch is not a giant leap of logic.

should have said terrific if I knew Veeky Forums was going to be full of bitching today

>"You all meet on a Longship..."

Played a short hillbilly campaign with all three players being Bards, specializing in the jug, the spoons and the banjo.
Shit was cash, y'hear.

If everyone's a healer, who's gonna bully them?

>full masochist party

quest for the bully

>LE EBINS HEALER BULLY MAYMAY XD

Yes. That's what it is. Thank you for pointing it out user.
Much appreciated.

Okay, I looked through the thread...
Could someone please direct me to the terrible ideas?
I didn't find them.

>cleric = healer
I take it you've never played anything other than AD&D 2nd edition?

Not gonna lie, I'd fucking play my first healer as that.

> all guardsmen party

>Full Tech Priest Party
>Full Dark Eldar Party
>Full Tau Party
>Full Rogue Trader Party
>Full Sister Party
>Full Ork Party

>quest for the bully
fund it!

An alp, clearly

>Full Tech Priest party
>Full Ork party

Stop, please. My soul wishes for more but my body can't handle it.

Even in 2nd Cleric can be a damn solid beatstick, also besides heals and buff they also get Summons which really make difference

>full cleric party

I've played in several rogue campaigns that went excellently.

We had a full halfling party, once. That was pretty funny

cleric = healer is entirely a video game thing. The further you go back, the less the cleric resembles a healer

Okay so there's actually an old game design principle:

Any class based system needs enough variety WITHIN a class that a party of 5 people containing nothing but that class can be fun and each player can play a notably different version of that class.

Bards are always the easiest of course, but you have the face/scout/utility/UMD/strike rogue splits, as well as the tank/DPS/Knowledge/Face/blaster caster/healer splits for clerics.

Spies are just a type of rogue anyway.

How would a full dragon party work? Not dragonborn, actual dragons.

I mean, is it really terrible?

Seems like the guardsmen mentality of "Explosives and shooting" everything until it stops moving and then continuing works fairly well.

It ends in an orgy with several floozies. Ground-up hallucinogenic plant roots go up everyone's nose!

I had to explain this to one of my group members who rolled a cleric in Pathfinder with the intent of being strictly a healer and then complained that he didn't have enough heal spells, but didn't question why his class had a *mace* as a basic weapon. Clerics are essentially Paladin-lite, but with a focus on spell-casting rather than tanking. They buff party members and smash stuff with hammers in service to their god. Paladins cover themselves in armor and smash stuff with giant hammers in service to their god.

>full bard party
>bad

Never heard of All Guardsmen Party, I see.

Brutal

Which is why an all fighter party can still be varied enough for fun.

One guy does the usual sword&board thing, another takes up the big "fuck you" two handers, a third specs into crossbows and the fourth focuses on mounted combat.

>>full cleric party
Four White Mages? It'll never work!

>>full rogue party
>>full spy party
What's the difference?

A higher amount of angst and edginess in rogues only.

In 5E, that's a Great idea.

It's a thing. One of the players writefags it.

I started a game with some friends. 4 other players, 5th edition. 3 players picked one each of the rogue archetypes, one was a rogue/fighter.

I was a cleric. Of light.

All of those would make for awesome games.

spys specialise in information

Paladin bard
I call it... BALLADIN

>Ctrl+F "full wizard party"
>0 results found
I am disappoint Veeky Forums

You're on Veeky Forums, the party is already full wizard

Wizards only, fool.

>boring
You have shit taste

>no full monk party
I guess it's because they all die out faster than we can observe them

That sounds magical

Ahem.

FUMBLES.

It is very bad idea in D&D because Mages will fuck it up so easily. In non-magical game it would be pretty basic stuff though.

No, no, let them make that mistake! I need more muscled oafs for my army.

The real treat of an all fighter party is with all fighters, everybody can take teamwork feats and tactical feats and such. Entire books worth of content becomes unlocked if you've got more than one straight fighter.

I was in a nation building game where I chose to play a full-on wizard for the first time. And a few sessions in, the DM told us we all had underlings now who could do things for us. I started rolling up a couple specialist wizards, including a master specialist diviner based on an idea I had for my apprentice's story.

Then the DM told me I should roll up one of every speciality.

I never got them totally filled out, partly because I actually had to account for all spells and spellbooks, but it was fun coming up with all the character concepts, even if they were kinda stereotypical. The Master Illusionist, "Harvey", always appeared by proxy, using illusionary forms to communicate and relying on disguise, trickery, and straight up hiding to avoid detection.

youtube.com/watch?v=A9tARhpYZkg

youtube.com/watch?v=UtlHz9PZS-8

>Full Psyker party.
>Full Blank party.

and doing crab impressions.

For a certain value of "full", I played an all cleric party in 4e. There were only three PCs at the outset and only two at the end of the campaign a few months later, but if you're willing to count that, I've done it. We played weekly for 3 months or so and desu we had great success.

>Full Fighter Party
That would be fucking awesome.

If I were a blank and was lead to a room full of other blanks I'd just assume I'm about to be shot

>Blank party
>group of people instinctively disliked and shunned by normal society

But user, my group enjoy escapism

You're the one bitching out pussy willow.

>full cleric party

I fail to see the Problem here...

>fourth focuses on being useless

I'm really not sure why mounted combat rules even exist in D&D. They're really cool and definitely a part of the aesthetic and everything but I have never ever experienced, seen, heard of, or read a story about a combat encounter that took place in a setting or scale large enough for mounts to even be usable, let alone a good idea. Unless people just use it for taking up more space on the battlegrid, I guess, but that's really not playing to the strength of mounts.

It's something I'd like to see someday but it requires such a departure from a lot of the accepted assumptions about what a D&D game is going to be.

>everyone has to buff before combat to be good at combat

>naturally not a single one of them heals because it's "inefficient"

>get shitter shattered

>if bad players play badly they'll be bad

Wow, really?

>fourth is useless because I only play shitty games with shitty GMs

It's actually a splendid idea as long as the DM doesn't throw "magic or lose" encounters your way. Usually if you're the only martial, you are forced to be that generic greatsword full plate strongdude weaponsman. But in a fighter-only party, people could actually allow themselves the luxury of specializing and taking fluff options, or taking teamwork feats and actually using maneuvers. You could easily make an extremely diverse and fun party that way, solely because your dudes can now have entire books of feats between eachother.

Fuck, I want to play this now.

Triggered?

Uh, no? I was lightly mocking a true but really pointless statement. If you play poorly you'll play poorly, yeah. I'm just not sure what that has to do with anything.

So far in the thread there has not been one single idea.

Uh, can you back the fuck off?

>it's a rerun of that episode where an user who doesn't think a thing is funny puts the joke in caps with "XD"