The most fun (D&D) class for a single class campaign?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

So... what the title says. What would be, in your opinion, the coolest idea for a single class game (of any version of D&D, or any other system you'd like to share an opinion about). A clerics only pilgrimage? A jungle adventure with 5 rangers (with or without color coded outfits and/or a certain amount of "power")? Going to town with a group of bards? A gathering of barbarians threatened by a common enemy? And are there any classes that would hilariously fail at even the simplest tasks if they were no longer supported by any characters from outside their own class?

The floor is yours.

(Also, yes, that example is hilarious.)

[Ashtagon]

Somewhere on the wotc forums, someone once blogged about their commoners campaign. It looked fun.

[JAL_1138]

In 5e? Bard. Either two valor and two lore, or four valors.
From 10th level and up, there is no role they don't have covered, except maybe tank (properly-built they can manage that reasonably well, but it's not ideal).

[Brendanicus]

Well, Fighters could be diverse, but unable to handle anything outside of combat. It could work if the DM builds the campaign around them. Still, this party would probably have the most internal diversity, because there are so many different Fighter builds. (Sword and Board, GWF, Archery, Grapplers, Eldritch Knight, Polearm Sentinel, etc)

Rogues could be fun, if the campaign was very carefully built nd the players were smart.

But all in all, Bards, Clerics, and Druids could probably handle this the best.

[JAL_1138]

In 2e, Cleric. No question.

[sovin_ndore]

Barbarians are the most fun to play... they are short lived, ineffective, but never a dull moment.

[Comet]

I'd personally go for clerics, for sure. Maybe even a sort of mythical journey where every cleric really gets into acting like their god would, with all the hilarity and bickering that would ensue.

Wizards are an easy choice, on the other hand. Because wizards have always been the most mechanically and creatively engaging thing to play in whatever version of D&D you might have and having a whole party of them would mean that whatever disadvantages or bummers are associated with the wizard in that edition are much less important.

[Quertus]

A few things come to mind...

• The all-cleric religious debate (and what can't a cleric do, should they ever decide to stop RPing long enough to "actually adventure"?)
• The all-rogue "we lightheartedly steal from each other" guild (hilarious munchkin potential in 2e)
• The ninja squad

Nearly played the all-mage game back in 2e. Sad that we never did. Probably fun in any edition.

Having never seen more than one psion in a party, the party of all psions sounds interesting.

The all-Crusader party could run like the all-cleric party. If everyone takes Iron Guard's Glare, it would make the party almost untouchable - allowing them to continue their religious debate while the random encounter is attacking. If you include prestige classes, the all-devoted-defender circle has similar "ignore the monster" potential. The all Crusader-prestige-into-devoted-defender party...

But I think the most fun would be the all 2e Wild Mage party: "OK, so, your allies are speaking in bubbles, at the bottom of a 10' pit of their own devising, and trying to run away with oversized feet while being rained on by their own personal rain cloud. What would you like to do about the lone goblin you surprised?"

[Murk]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail: an all-paladin campaign.

[Jormengand]

Having done all-bard, all-cleric, all-wizard, all-warp mage, all-raid leader, all-devoted specialist, and (of course) all-truenamer, I have to say that...

Bards isn't as good as it sounds as though it ought to be. You're all good at the same thing.
Clerics is nice, because you can all be good at different things. The same reason goes for my warp mage and devoted specialist.
Wizards end up all trying to stay as far away from the action as possible, until someone decides, screw it, I'm PAOing myself into a dragon. It doesn't tend to work as well at lower levels, primarily because transformation is a bad spell and should feel bad.
Truenamer is actually quite fun. You can have a healy-buffy person, an archer, a blaster, and a general know-all and talky dude.

(Of course, Raid Leader got silly. You end up using tons of move actions on loads of whelps every time someone decides to rearrange the party).

[LibraryOgre]

A jungle adventure with 5 rangers (with or without color coded outfits and/or a certain amount of "power")?

In one party, there is a three-ranger limit in 1e.

I really think that thieves could be fun, simply because they usually get so little chance to shine. With a chunk of the party clanking, and little strong combat options, they wind up not being able to use their abilities to their best most of the time. A thief party could really use those abilities, while still having enough flexibility (though distribution of bonus points in 2e) to create difference.

[Anonymouswizard]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail: an all-paladin campaign.

Nah, only Galahad was a Paladin, thus requiring him being saved from danger. Lancelot was obviously a bard.

Also, Jormengand, all Raid-Leader sounds hilarious.

As for my suggestion, I'd say you want a class that specialises, so something like all-sorcerer or all-favoured soul rather than all-wizard or all-cleric.

[Honest Tiefling]

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd lean to Druid over Cleric. The Druidic life style isn't a problem if everyone is doing it, and you can get interesting tactics and situations with everyone being in wild shape. Sure, you might get a rain of bears from bears riding other bears commanding yet more bears, but I'd love to do that at least once.

[LibraryOgre]

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd lean to Druid over Cleric. The Druidic life style isn't a problem if everyone is doing it, and you can get interesting tactics and situations with everyone being in wild shape. Sure, you might get a rain of bears from bears riding other bears commanding yet more bears, but I'd love to do that at least once.

I don't know. It sounds kinda unbearable.

[Anonymouswizard]

Maybe I'm weird, but I'd lean to Druid over Cleric. The Druidic life style isn't a problem if everyone is doing it, and you can get interesting tactics and situations with everyone being in wild shape. Sure, you might get a rain of bears from bears riding other bears commanding yet more bears, but I'd love to do that at least once.

Now just give the bear animal companions levels in the Bear Totem Barbarian prestige class... (or druid/ranger so they have their own animal companions)

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'd join that game.

The bearpocalypse never worked in my favor before.

[Pex]

So... what the title says. What would be, in your opinion, the coolest idea for a single class game (of any version of D&D, or any other system you'd like to share an opinion about). A clerics only pilgrimage? A jungle adventure with 5 rangers (with or without color coded outfits and/or a certain amount of "power")? Going to town with a group of bards? A gathering of barbarians threatened by a common enemy? And are there any classes that would hilariously fail at even the simplest tasks if they were no longer supported by any characters from outside their own class?

The floor is yours.

(Also, yes, that example is hilarious.)

Roleplaying is up to me, so game mechanics is the deciding factor. Personal bias I'd want to play a class who can take care of itself, can fight, and have some spellcasting. That means Cleric (3E or Pathfinder), Crusader, Pathfinder Paladin, Oracle. I lean towards Crusader.

[Nifft]

Cloistered Cleric can cover all the roles pretty nicely.

- Elf of Fharlanghn (Celerity, Travel) for skirmisher & archery
- Dwarf of Hextor (War, Domination) for melee
- Human of Vecna (Magic, Destiny) for Wizardy stuff
- Kobold of Kurtulmak (Trickery, Kobold) for traps and such

All of them would be Neutral Evil, of course.

[BWR]

An all-bard campaign has always appealed to me. Either you're a band that works well together or you're a group of primadonnas who continually argue and fight with each other trying to get the most attention from people around you. I'd want to play the latter.

[Joe the Rat]

Ideally, if you are setting up a one-party game, you should be tailoring the adventures to the party.

For D&D, all-rogue can be a lot of fun. A whole party of sneaky little problem-solvers. 3e era, you have insane piles of skill points, which lets your group specialize into a proper Ocean's 11. (Social Rogue, Acro Rogue, Box Man, UMD Specialist, Assassin, Thug Legbreaker, etc.). Although unless you specifically prohibit MC & prestige classes, You can cover a lot of bases with a couple level dips. Outside of D&D, you'd be looking at one-roll/archetype parties: All-Casters or All-Riggers in Shadowrun, all-Occultist Cthulu, etc.

5e, you can get a different kind of thing: All-class, or all-background. You can all be rangers or coastal druids or vengeance paladins from a variety of walks of life (And now I want the All-Barbarian Anger Management Support Group Party). Alternatively, you share a common background (all soldiers, all pirates, all glassblowers) with a more diverse range of skills. This is more in line with what you'd get with some no-"class" games (One-clan Vampire/ One Tradition Mage). You still get the variety, but have a clear commonality to hang the group on (or with).

[Nifft]

If you're playing 3.x, then an option for the All Background idea would be having every character share one Gestalt choice.

So, everyone is a Rogue // X, and they get to pick X. Or everyone is a Barbarian // X, or a Monk // X.

[Jormengand]

Also, Jormengand, all Raid-Leader sounds hilarious.

Spoiler: Slightly tangential

Show

It sounds hilarious, until you realise that whenever someone uses Not Being Where You're Supposed To Be, you end up having to move 4 raid leaders and up to 4*level whelps again. Plus, everyone has a ton of turns anyway, so the turn ends up being "Okay, I'm just going to surround this dude with whelps, then use Kick Into The Whelps so that the whelps get more attacks". Also, remembering who has Aggro towards whom is a pain, especially if you Know How Aggro Works and Don't Over-Aggro.

You also don't have as many useful abilities as you would like, so it ends up being "Sigh, I guess I could actually use one of my lightning storms now," "Sigh, I guess I'm just gonna make him lose DKP," "Sigh, I'm just going to do a butt-ton of damage with my greatsword." It's not intended for actual use, and it shows.

[Hawkstar]

Well, Fighters could be diverse, but unable to handle anything outside of combat.

This is completely untrue, except maybe in AD&D games.

In 3e, fighters can't even handle combat.
In 4e, they've got skills and, through feats, can do almost anything, but suffer in combat (It's better to go All Martial Power Source)
In 5e, between feats and skills, they can do pretty much anything except teleport or fly without steeds.

[Pex]

This is completely untrue, except maybe in AD&D games.

In 3e, fighters can't even handle combat.

Yes, they can, and proven ironically enough in the WOTC forums that will be shutting down.

A gauntlet was challenged for a single fighter to battle his way through 20 levels of creatures, most of whom had reach and/or fast healing. Many people created different builds. It was agreed the fighter didn't have to win the fight, just last long enough and do enough against his opponent to prove his prowess. It would also show that it is worth it for a spellcaster to cast a buff spell or two on him as a strategy rather than casting an "I Win The Combat" spell that would enable the fighter to win the fight after all. Result: The various fighters were superb, actually killing the monsters most of the time and almost before defeat the rest depending on build.

Then there was a second gauntlet where those same fighters as they were built had to face a different set of foes, but instead of one monster of each level it was multiple opponents added together for the appropriate CR. The fighters were again victorious or almost.

[Kane0]

If you're playing 5e then a full party of any class is great fun. My group just did a one shot where we were all dragonborn wizards of differing specialties and colors.
It was glorious.

[Anonymouswizard]

If you're playing 5e then a full party of any class is great fun. My group just did a one shot where we were all dragonborn wizards of differing specialties and colors.
It was glorious.

Go Go Dragon Rangers.

You Mighty Morphin' Dragon Rangers!


Sorry, couldn't resist. Did you at least have Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, and Pink?

[Hawkstar]

Go Go Dragon Rangers.

You Mighty Morphin' Dragon Rangers!


Sorry, couldn't resist. Did you at least have Red, Blue, Green, Yellow, and Pink?

They were Dragon Wizards, not Dragon Rangers.

[Joe the Rat]

If you're playing 5e then a full party of any class is great fun. My group just did a one shot where we were all dragonborn wizards of differing specialties and colors.
It was glorious.

Please tell me the went all-chromatic. Team Tiamat would be just too much fun.

[LibraryOgre]

Please tell me the went all-chromatic. Team Tiamat would be just too much fun.

By your powers combined, I am THE END OF ALL THINGS!

[GungHo]

An all-bard campaign has always appealed to me. Either you're a band that works well together or you're a group of primadonnas who continually argue and fight with each other trying to get the most attention from people around you. I'd want to play the latter.

Did this. We wanted to be the Rolling Stones, but we ended up being Guns & Roses. Wasn't pretty.