An all-Monk party feels like it could actually be very viable with one of each subclass: Open Hand for frontline combat, Shadow for roguish infiltration, Mercy for Healing, and Elements as the “blaster caster.”
Those are based on the 3e NPC classes Warrior, Expert, and Adept. Adept being a fairly weak Divine Spellcaster, Expert being an undifferentiated skill monkey, and Warrior being what common guards and soldiers usually are, having less training than a Fighter and getting less bang per level - roughly the power level of a Cleric as a front-line fighter absent the divine magic angle.
As primarily a GM, I encourage my groups to think and plan and act together but always eschew "needed roles" in the group. If one incoming player asks what they should play based on what is already in the group, I always suggest that they first play what they want and if they would like inspiration to consult the other party members. No healer? No problem! No rogue/skill-monkey? No problem! Just like he says in the video, awkward holes in the capabilities of the group tend to be where the RP treasure is hidden. Great video! Thanks
It used to matter. A long rest in D&D in the old days would restore used spells and 0-2 HP. SO if you were running through a dungeon and you didn't want to leave after every violent encounter to spend a week in town recovering you needed a healer. Generally in 5 E everybody can do everything. Our warrior priest has the picklocks skill and has dumped a lot of skill points into perception. They are great at finding traps and opening locks. Poor old school thief is redundant. It depends on what kind of game you are playing. oh you are saying that. Professor dungeon master does a city adventure , low magic, with a party of rogues. Looks very cool.
We have 2 tanks I think. And my ranger has never gotten beat up despite getting up in the face of monsters and being the reason that the monsters and or people are found
There are a couple of points that could help with party diversity that are DM dependant. What magic items do they have access to? The right magic items would do wonders. Can the party use tool proficiencies in skill checks? Mason's and carpenter's tools could be used to investigate most structures the party comes across. Smith's leather working and Weaver's can help with most armor and clothing you come across. Most tools can be useful in some way for skill checks
4 players of the same class can create some wildly unbalanced encounters. the game is designed with the idea that there is a limit on certain resources within a party. being able to quadruple down on something can change the whole feel of the game. WIZARDS WIN. every time the party levels up they all get 2 spells and they just swap books to copy the new ones. the only reason you don't use fireball in every encounter, is because you only have so many, but with 4 wizards that isn't a problem. give them all alert and a familiar. you'll roll 8 initiative dice and always use the best 4. then pepper the battlefield with fireball or massive single target damage. Clerics
4 clerics with spirit guardians 4 assassins getting the first strike 4 raging barbarians will overwhelmed a front line 4 spellcasters summon the same creature Basically, the game was designed with the assumption that your party will be varied. specializing overwhelms an encounters ability to handle a problem unless it just happens to have the perfect defense for your 1 trick (which is super unlikely).
Arguably it makes it easier to create balanced encounters just harder to create a variety of them. Wizards wouldnt be optimal if the dm could balance them correctly. Theres multiple reasons you dont use fireball every time. Positioning, range, hurting your allies or npcs, fire resistance, tight spaces, flammable environments, wizards being flimsy and needing to buff themselves first to survive etc theres plenty of ways to prevent the same strategies from appearing every fight and letting the party demolish some encounters thanks to that composition and struggle in others is fun. You shouldnt be scared 24/7 to let your players use their cool moves and having them work letting that happen occasionaly can feel very rewarding in its own way
For 1, I don't think we should be including feats as the game was not designed with them in mind. 2 copying spells isn't cheap. It costs at least 50 GP, which isn't cheap, especially when you're that low and still have to worry about things like buying rations. 3 wizards are still squishy, and now they lack any good frontline. This means this party composition has the greatest failure rate. It would rarely ever get to the levels where it could start to actually do the things you said.
@@lordmew5 the game was ABSOLUTELY designed with feats in mind. 5th edition is the first time the game was simplified to a point where they could be played with optionally. playing without them was intended as Ultra-beginner mode and without them, the characters are LESS balanced, but less complicated.
the Failing is Fun section reminded me of something that happened in a campaign that ended a few months ago. The party made their way into the central chamber of a demilich, and one of the players suggested as a joke that we sell him girlscout cookies. I brought up that we dont do stupid stuff often enough, and so we actually went up to him and attempted to sell girlscout cookies we didn't have. According to the DM afterwards, he heard the entire conversation and was just trying to be nice to get us to go away. Anyways, after he refused several times, the barbarian ate the demilich.
Full team of the same class does require some clarification, so technically speaking, a Raging MoonDruid, Berserker, raging fighter and a Zealot Paladin are considered as a team of the same class in some extend, while everyone of them are unique in its way, probably also covered every aspect that is needed. (Well, they are flavorful multiclassed.) On the other hand, a team of 4 Zerkers could be a very bad idea since it covers nothing but raw power😅
In general, agree 100%. But.. You go through this "qualifying statement" a couple times about groups or games that are "rules light" or "narrative based." These groups don't need to be qualified, as the conditions that make them different is that they're simply ignoring part of all of the rules. ANY case where the rules are ignored is already outside of consideration, where making decisions within the rules is the entire consideration. They're not playing an alternative ruleset or special situation. They're simply stepping outside of the rules, in many cases for very good reasons. But that's also the reason that they don't need to be qualified as a separate consideration.
Well you worded that very obtusely but most games ignore some of the rules whether its intentionally or by accident so talking about common ways they are ignored seems worthy to consider especially whenever the video isnt trying to reach an objective conclusion about optimisation but rather throwing out pros and cons for several scenarios.
@TisAHandle obtuse just means you don't like it. That doesn't alter the fact that as soon as rules are no longer rules, decision making within those rules no longer has a better or worse value. Regardless of what decisions are made within the rules, if the option to ignore the rules is on the table it will always beat everything else... by definition.
@@ChristnThms "By definition" that literaly isn't what obtuse means mate 💀 just means you could work on getting your point across. And decisions made under altered rules do still have a value, that value being fun, not power under optimisation.... as is the literal point of the video you clearly didn't watch fully through if at all. If you care about optimisation that's fine. But complaining about a conversation including people who don't, while wording it like an ai essay response is precisely why people stay to groups with a lesser focus on rules, in fear of playing with guys like you...
All were one shots but I have run an all paladin party, an all barbarian party (both of those at lvl 20 and a lvl 1 one shot with the A-Men combo (all cleric)
Not a single party composition, but I have once played as a paladin in a party where 3 other players all played rogues. Backstory was that while my PC was doing some goody-goody thingies, he's found them all in a prison and they all pledged to serve his holy goodness in exchange for freedom.
11:26 imprtant to note that if the dm is trying to make combat treacherous like he says in the video, or if they simply happen to not be thinking about everyone's dump stats, they may pick a particularly devastating spell or effect that completely turns the tide of the battle with only one effect. And parties that are above level 6, the paladin's aura of protection can make sudden tpk's due to dire saving throws failing happen less, especially if its repeated saving throws, and because of the nature of sudden saving throws like this just not working out, it can be an incredibly disappointing way to end a campaign and why its advisable to think about having a paladin specifically, despite the possibility of that aura never really being impactful, its just that sometimes the group and the dm just wont notice a group's collective weakness until all but one person collectively choke to death in a cloud kill, or be charmed, paralyzed, or frightened into a terrible situation, before being able to break concentration on the villain casting it, or say if the plan is that when everyone barges deep past enemy lines to grab the maguffin and have the wizard teleport everyone out immediately afterwards, when they pick up the maguffin, nobody predicted(not even the dm) that when the wind trap goes off the group would fail at stopping the wizard from being swept into the bottomless pit. In some way this is like one weird hidden role to think about adjacent to support, where its "being able to make sudden catasrophies not happen" which in part is like just ability or saving throw buff spells, but when something happens that you either couldn't or didnt plan ahead for, something like a counterspell can be used as a reaction, no prior planning required, but aura of protection specifically is always on, and covers more areas than counterspell as aura can work on things that arent just spells.
in 4e, you wanted in a 5 person party, a leader, a defender, a controller, and 2 strikers. and it was more optimal to add a 3rd or 4th striker in a 6 or 7 person party before adding a second leader then a second controller. with the second defender being the 10th.
4e also had a lot of "off-specialists". That Fighter could be a great Defender, but also be a decent Striker. Warlord or Animist Shaman could work as a secondary Striker too, if you had someone with a decent basic attack in the party. The Animist Shaman's Spirit Companion could also work as a decent off-tank sometimes. A Ranger could work as an off Controller, and an Invoker could work as a decent Striker. There are plenty of other examples. You could easily create a 5 person party where no one is the designated Striker, but everyone is an off-Striker.
Party cohesion is good but there is nothing wrong with what you choose just have to think differently and when a party is just one class is due to just having a fun session
I like themes: These parties aren't all balanced nor are they necessarily optimal. They are thematic. All Gish Party: Arcane Trickster Rogue Blade Singer Wizard Eldritch Knight Fighter Valour Bard All Primal Party: Barbarian (any subclass) Druid (any subclass) Ranger (any subclass) Scout Rogue Four Elements: Draconic Sorcerer (Representing Water) Tempest Cleric (Representing Air) Wildfire Druid (Representing Fire) Wizard (any subclass. Representing Earth). All Martial: Barbarian (any non magical subclass) Fighter (any non magical subclass) Monk (Open Hand or Kensai) Rogue (any non magical subclass) All Divine: Cleric (any subclass) Monk (any subclass) Paladin (any subclass) Sorcerer (Divine Soul) All Skilled: Skill Monkey Party. All 18 skills covered. Bard (any subclass) Rogue (any subclass) Ranger (any subclass) Fourth slot (any class so long as they have skilled feat)
"What's your specialty?" "Versatility." I always like a character to have at least TWO major roles of interest, if not outright jack of all trades. I gravitate to Paladin, Ranger, Bard, and subclasses that mix a warrior with a spellcaster (Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight) or in other systems, magic knight archetypes broadly (Hero, Paladin, and Armamentalist in Dragon Quest; Red Mage, Blue Mage, Paladin, and Mystic Knight in Final Fantasy). In most editions of D&D, a Cleric does well enough at this and can be seen as the "specialist" at healing the party, if needed, but IMO Bard provides plenty enough healing actually.
I heard an interesting (and old) argument against the existence of the "rogue" as a class. In dungeon crawlers, everybody should be attacking from stealth, searching for traps, and trying to diversify their skill proficiencies. The existence of a class that does all those things better (rogue) can make PCs with other classes choose to not do those things on the premise that their class does not include extra buffs for doing them, while the rogue class does. I really like the rogue, so I prefer it in the game, but it is the case that I've never played a fighter that surprise attacks or a wizard that keeps to the shadows. And I'd probably benefit from doing so.
My old group is starting a new campaign and on our meeting to coordinate - we didn't as three of five players didn't know what they wanted to play. We know we have a rogue and a barbarian. Whatever the other three will be I'll find out during the first session. I kind of hope we get a mix missing one of the classics like no cleric/paladin.
I’ve always tried to complement my character to the other characters that are being played. Some people don’t like that for some reason, especially when you decide to take a class. That nobody want it. and then they complain about it when you start making major attacks and and they said that your character shouldn’t be doing that good point here I was playing a halfling monk who both some spell casting ability and healing ability and they didn’t like that because they said I should be nothing more than a straight tank
I don't think party comp matters other than its way too easy to have no INT or WIS in a group and then get crushed by all mental challenges and psychic monsters.
Hasbro WOTC D&D did away with the need for traditional party of a Cleric, Thief, Fighter and Wizard and went for everyone can cast magic and fight concept with is trash.
Not even going to watch the video, because 5th Ed, the Answer is YES, 4 Barbariann can absolutely work with the homogenized slop that is Subclasses. You can have a Divine Caster Barbar, an Arcane Barbar, a Sneaky Barbar, a Charming Barbar, and a Straight Up Blender Barbar, unfortunately like 4th Edition Before it, the classes don't matter that much. Especially in an edition where two 7th Level Fighters on flying carpets can easily kill the Tarrasque.
An all-Monk party feels like it could actually be very viable with one of each subclass: Open Hand for frontline combat, Shadow for roguish infiltration, Mercy for Healing, and Elements as the “blaster caster.”
7:54 That explains why the three Sidekick classes in Tasha's are the Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert.
Those are based on the 3e NPC classes Warrior, Expert, and Adept. Adept being a fairly weak Divine Spellcaster, Expert being an undifferentiated skill monkey, and Warrior being what common guards and soldiers usually are, having less training than a Fighter and getting less bang per level - roughly the power level of a Cleric as a front-line fighter absent the divine magic angle.
As primarily a GM, I encourage my groups to think and plan and act together but always eschew "needed roles" in the group. If one incoming player asks what they should play based on what is already in the group, I always suggest that they first play what they want and if they would like inspiration to consult the other party members. No healer? No problem! No rogue/skill-monkey? No problem! Just like he says in the video, awkward holes in the capabilities of the group tend to be where the RP treasure is hidden. Great video! Thanks
It used to matter. A long rest in D&D in the old days would restore used spells and 0-2 HP. SO if you were running through a dungeon and you didn't want to leave after every violent encounter to spend a week in town recovering you needed a healer.
Generally in 5 E everybody can do everything. Our warrior priest has the picklocks skill and has dumped a lot of skill points into perception. They are great at finding traps and opening locks. Poor old school thief is redundant.
It depends on what kind of game you are playing. oh you are saying that.
Professor dungeon master does a city adventure , low magic, with a party of rogues. Looks very cool.
I like the party being full of variety but I like it when we have no healer or no heavy armor people and it changes the dynamic of the campaign
The tension and creative problem solving that comes out of that situation is pretty awesome.
We have 2 tanks I think. And my ranger has never gotten beat up despite getting up in the face of monsters and being the reason that the monsters and or people are found
There are a couple of points that could help with party diversity that are DM dependant.
What magic items do they have access to? The right magic items would do wonders.
Can the party use tool proficiencies in skill checks? Mason's and carpenter's tools could be used to investigate most structures the party comes across. Smith's leather working and Weaver's can help with most armor and clothing you come across.
Most tools can be useful in some way for skill checks
An optimal party is 4 multiclassed wizards
"Surely you need a healer!" Was the funniest part for me.
4 players of the same class can create some wildly unbalanced encounters.
the game is designed with the idea that there is a limit on certain resources within a party. being able to quadruple down on something can change the whole feel of the game.
WIZARDS WIN. every time the party levels up they all get 2 spells and they just swap books to copy the new ones. the only reason you don't use fireball in every encounter, is because you only have so many, but with 4 wizards that isn't a problem. give them all alert and a familiar. you'll roll 8 initiative dice and always use the best 4. then pepper the battlefield with fireball or massive single target damage.
Clerics
4 clerics with spirit guardians
4 assassins getting the first strike
4 raging barbarians will overwhelmed a front line
4 spellcasters summon the same creature
Basically, the game was designed with the assumption that your party will be varied. specializing overwhelms an encounters ability to handle a problem unless it just happens to have the perfect defense for your 1 trick (which is super unlikely).
if the boss will use it's legendary resistance against a specific spell and 4 players have it, you drain them right away.
Arguably it makes it easier to create balanced encounters just harder to create a variety of them. Wizards wouldnt be optimal if the dm could balance them correctly. Theres multiple reasons you dont use fireball every time. Positioning, range, hurting your allies or npcs, fire resistance, tight spaces, flammable environments, wizards being flimsy and needing to buff themselves first to survive etc theres plenty of ways to prevent the same strategies from appearing every fight and letting the party demolish some encounters thanks to that composition and struggle in others is fun. You shouldnt be scared 24/7 to let your players use their cool moves and having them work letting that happen occasionaly can feel very rewarding in its own way
For 1, I don't think we should be including feats as the game was not designed with them in mind. 2 copying spells isn't cheap. It costs at least 50 GP, which isn't cheap, especially when you're that low and still have to worry about things like buying rations. 3 wizards are still squishy, and now they lack any good frontline. This means this party composition has the greatest failure rate. It would rarely ever get to the levels where it could start to actually do the things you said.
@@lordmew5 the game was ABSOLUTELY designed with feats in mind. 5th edition is the first time the game was simplified to a point where they could be played with optionally. playing without them was intended as Ultra-beginner mode and without them, the characters are LESS balanced, but less complicated.
the Failing is Fun section reminded me of something that happened in a campaign that ended a few months ago. The party made their way into the central chamber of a demilich, and one of the players suggested as a joke that we sell him girlscout cookies. I brought up that we dont do stupid stuff often enough, and so we actually went up to him and attempted to sell girlscout cookies we didn't have. According to the DM afterwards, he heard the entire conversation and was just trying to be nice to get us to go away. Anyways, after he refused several times, the barbarian ate the demilich.
Full team of the same class does require some clarification, so technically speaking, a Raging MoonDruid, Berserker, raging fighter and a Zealot Paladin are considered as a team of the same class in some extend, while everyone of them are unique in its way, probably also covered every aspect that is needed. (Well, they are flavorful multiclassed.)
On the other hand, a team of 4 Zerkers could be a very bad idea since it covers nothing but raw power😅
In general, agree 100%.
But..
You go through this "qualifying statement" a couple times about groups or games that are "rules light" or "narrative based."
These groups don't need to be qualified, as the conditions that make them different is that they're simply ignoring part of all of the rules. ANY case where the rules are ignored is already outside of consideration, where making decisions within the rules is the entire consideration.
They're not playing an alternative ruleset or special situation. They're simply stepping outside of the rules, in many cases for very good reasons. But that's also the reason that they don't need to be qualified as a separate consideration.
Well you worded that very obtusely but most games ignore some of the rules whether its intentionally or by accident so talking about common ways they are ignored seems worthy to consider especially whenever the video isnt trying to reach an objective conclusion about optimisation but rather throwing out pros and cons for several scenarios.
@TisAHandle obtuse just means you don't like it. That doesn't alter the fact that as soon as rules are no longer rules, decision making within those rules no longer has a better or worse value.
Regardless of what decisions are made within the rules, if the option to ignore the rules is on the table it will always beat everything else... by definition.
@@ChristnThms "By definition" that literaly isn't what obtuse means mate 💀 just means you could work on getting your point across. And decisions made under altered rules do still have a value, that value being fun, not power under optimisation.... as is the literal point of the video you clearly didn't watch fully through if at all.
If you care about optimisation that's fine. But complaining about a conversation including people who don't, while wording it like an ai essay response is precisely why people stay to groups with a lesser focus on rules, in fear of playing with guys like you...
@TisAHandle all that cope just to avoid addressing the point head on.
@ChristnThms ....It wasn't even my goal but still literaly what point haven't I adressed
All were one shots but I have run an all paladin party, an all barbarian party (both of those at lvl 20 and a lvl 1 one shot with the A-Men combo (all cleric)
Love the A-men!
How did they each go? Was one super successful? Was one a comedy sketch? Did you need to "quietly assist" one team to avoid Total Party Kill?
Party composition only matters with inflexible DMs who don’t tailor the game to the party.
I played one game with 4 life domain clerics. We actually did really well. All of us were arguing about religion the whole time. We're atheists.
Not a single party composition, but I have once played as a paladin in a party where 3 other players all played rogues. Backstory was that while my PC was doing some goody-goody thingies, he's found them all in a prison and they all pledged to serve his holy goodness in exchange for freedom.
11:26 imprtant to note that if the dm is trying to make combat treacherous like he says in the video, or if they simply happen to not be thinking about everyone's dump stats, they may pick a particularly devastating spell or effect that completely turns the tide of the battle with only one effect. And parties that are above level 6, the paladin's aura of protection can make sudden tpk's due to dire saving throws failing happen less, especially if its repeated saving throws, and because of the nature of sudden saving throws like this just not working out, it can be an incredibly disappointing way to end a campaign and why its advisable to think about having a paladin specifically, despite the possibility of that aura never really being impactful, its just that sometimes the group and the dm just wont notice a group's collective weakness until all but one person collectively choke to death in a cloud kill, or be charmed, paralyzed, or frightened into a terrible situation, before being able to break concentration on the villain casting it, or say if the plan is that when everyone barges deep past enemy lines to grab the maguffin and have the wizard teleport everyone out immediately afterwards, when they pick up the maguffin, nobody predicted(not even the dm) that when the wind trap goes off the group would fail at stopping the wizard from being swept into the bottomless pit.
In some way this is like one weird hidden role to think about adjacent to support, where its "being able to make sudden catasrophies not happen" which in part is like just ability or saving throw buff spells, but when something happens that you either couldn't or didnt plan ahead for, something like a counterspell can be used as a reaction, no prior planning required, but aura of protection specifically is always on, and covers more areas than counterspell as aura can work on things that arent just spells.
in 4e, you wanted in a 5 person party, a leader, a defender, a controller, and 2 strikers. and it was more optimal to add a 3rd or 4th striker in a 6 or 7 person party before adding a second leader then a second controller. with the second defender being the 10th.
4e also had a lot of "off-specialists". That Fighter could be a great Defender, but also be a decent Striker. Warlord or Animist Shaman could work as a secondary Striker too, if you had someone with a decent basic attack in the party. The Animist Shaman's Spirit Companion could also work as a decent off-tank sometimes. A Ranger could work as an off Controller, and an Invoker could work as a decent Striker. There are plenty of other examples. You could easily create a 5 person party where no one is the designated Striker, but everyone is an off-Striker.
Party cohesion is good but there is nothing wrong with what you choose just have to think differently and when a party is just one class is due to just having a fun session
I like themes: These parties aren't all balanced nor are they necessarily optimal. They are thematic.
All Gish Party:
Arcane Trickster Rogue
Blade Singer Wizard
Eldritch Knight Fighter
Valour Bard
All Primal Party:
Barbarian (any subclass)
Druid (any subclass)
Ranger (any subclass)
Scout Rogue
Four Elements:
Draconic Sorcerer (Representing Water)
Tempest Cleric (Representing Air)
Wildfire Druid (Representing Fire)
Wizard (any subclass. Representing Earth).
All Martial:
Barbarian (any non magical subclass)
Fighter (any non magical subclass)
Monk (Open Hand or Kensai)
Rogue (any non magical subclass)
All Divine:
Cleric (any subclass)
Monk (any subclass)
Paladin (any subclass)
Sorcerer (Divine Soul)
All Skilled: Skill Monkey Party. All 18 skills covered.
Bard (any subclass)
Rogue (any subclass)
Ranger (any subclass)
Fourth slot (any class so long as they have skilled feat)
Is rogue a martial?
Love this idea!
"What's your specialty?"
"Versatility."
I always like a character to have at least TWO major roles of interest, if not outright jack of all trades. I gravitate to Paladin, Ranger, Bard, and subclasses that mix a warrior with a spellcaster (Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight) or in other systems, magic knight archetypes broadly (Hero, Paladin, and Armamentalist in Dragon Quest; Red Mage, Blue Mage, Paladin, and Mystic Knight in Final Fantasy). In most editions of D&D, a Cleric does well enough at this and can be seen as the "specialist" at healing the party, if needed, but IMO Bard provides plenty enough healing actually.
I mean...a team of full clerics only is a rather diverse party based on domains. Call'em the A-men and you are solid, and its a classic
I heard an interesting (and old) argument against the existence of the "rogue" as a class.
In dungeon crawlers, everybody should be attacking from stealth, searching for traps, and trying to diversify their skill proficiencies. The existence of a class that does all those things better (rogue) can make PCs with other classes choose to not do those things on the premise that their class does not include extra buffs for doing them, while the rogue class does.
I really like the rogue, so I prefer it in the game, but it is the case that I've never played a fighter that surprise attacks or a wizard that keeps to the shadows. And I'd probably benefit from doing so.
My old group is starting a new campaign and on our meeting to coordinate - we didn't as three of five players didn't know what they wanted to play. We know we have a rogue and a barbarian. Whatever the other three will be I'll find out during the first session. I kind of hope we get a mix missing one of the classics like no cleric/paladin.
The real question is does class even matter in a game like 5E or 24E?
That’s new I’ve never heard someone say 24e
Multiple characters of same type can break nearly every situation in their way. Overheal, stunlock, overdamage...
hehe, my moon druid does the last three points very well, also first point when he is an elemental :P
I’ve always tried to complement my character to the other characters that are being played. Some people don’t like that for some reason, especially when you decide to take a class. That nobody want it. and then they complain about it when you start making major attacks and and they said that your character shouldn’t be doing that good point here I was playing a halfling monk who both some spell casting ability and healing ability and they didn’t like that because they said I should be nothing more than a straight tank
Don't worry I'm the same when making characters!
3.5 you could get awzy with straight druid, cleric, wizard or psion. Possibly even sorcerers
I don't think party comp matters other than its way too easy to have no INT or WIS in a group and then get crushed by all mental challenges and psychic monsters.
Depends on the difficultly of the campaign imo
Druids are perfect and omnipotent. Change my mind.
Hasbro WOTC D&D did away with the need for traditional party of a Cleric, Thief, Fighter and Wizard and went for everyone can cast magic and fight concept with is trash.
Not even going to watch the video, because 5th Ed, the Answer is YES, 4 Barbariann can absolutely work with the homogenized slop that is Subclasses. You can have a Divine Caster Barbar, an Arcane Barbar, a Sneaky Barbar, a Charming Barbar, and a Straight Up Blender Barbar, unfortunately like 4th Edition Before it, the classes don't matter that much. Especially in an edition where two 7th Level Fighters on flying carpets can easily kill the Tarrasque.