Party Composition?

I'm going to be running my first dungeon world game soon and I'm wondering, is there a recommended party composition?

I'm curious because one of my players said wanted to be a bard, but thinks he might be fighter instead because the rest of the party (a druid, a thief, maybe a wizard) seems awfully scrawny and could use a good melee class.

Does the typical dungeon world party need a good heavy-hitting class, or do you think he would be fine playing as a bard?

A bard can be a darn fine warrior (especially if ya'll agree arcane art can affect oneself)!

Charming & Open is excellent in a fight, when used by a spider-man-style talkative warrior. Especially with Devious.

Cha + dex as top two stats plus a dueling rapier is an excellent choice.
Cha + con for a defensive fighter... not much H+S but buff, heal, and defend (and deal increasing damage on defend). Also comboes well with Metal Hurlant.

Duelist's Parry is a free armor for a fighting-bard. Duelist's Block is even better.
Two multiclass options before level 6 is great...

My overall point, I guess, is that in Dungeon World, it's very easy to have someone play outside of (or in addition to) type, based on stat, move, and gear choices.

There's no reason he can't be a bard *and* a warrior.
Or the druid can be the warrior (seriously, druids **** things up in a fight if they want to).
A thief can be a nasty fighter, too.
War-wizard? Yes please.

You get the point! :D
- Alex

Does the typical dungeon world party need a good heavy-hitting class, or do you think he would be fine playing as a bard?

Good question.  The answer hinges on how a party of any composition chooses to overcome complications.  If a player wants to play a fighter, that is a pretty clear sign that someone is looking for a straight up fight.  Players choosing to roll a druid, wizard, or thief might be more interested in slightly different solutions. 

If you are assuming that the group is too scrawny, what does that say about your assumptions of the adventures they have yet to experience?  If you foresee straight up fights that would be problematic without a fighter, perhaps some revision is in order to allow for other skill-sets to shine.  Try to ensure there is always more than one way to solve a problem, even if the consequences of some solutions are more deterring than others.

If characters that might not be best suited to a straight up fight still decide to take it on the chin, wish them luck and play to see what happens.  You might be surprised at how they not only survive but thrive.

I wouldn't worry overmuch.  Consider :

A level 1 wizard, CON of 8 and STR of 9, gets into a fight with the town guard.
At worst the lvl 1 wizard has 12 hit points to start.  The guard probably has three.
The wizard has a 50/50 chance of dealing damage.  That first blow has a 50/50 chance of killing the guard.
This is if the wizard doesn't take advantage of ANYTHING and just acts like some kind of martial zombie.

A lumberjack sneaks into the bedroom of the level one thief with "Shoot First" and makes to chop off his head in his sleep.  Un-ambush-able, the thief wakes up in time to fling a hidden dagger upward into the lumberjack's throat.  Most of the time that's an immediate kill.  From a prone sleeping position.

A Druid, Wizard, Thief and Bard might even win against a Dragon if they prepared, approached intelligently, and were lucky.

Alright, sounds like we wont have any trouble as long as I have a nice variety of challenges. Thanks.

If they really do need more muscle power, they can just recruit some hirelings.