Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6089211" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I think balanced parties should do better than unbalanced parties. So if you have three fighters, I think you should do better as a group if the fourth player plays a cleric rather than another fighter. But you can adjust things so the difference is within reasonable bounds.It's all commensurable when it comes to a party's total staying power. If you heal some damage, then you take less damage to the next fight. If you do more damage, then the enemy dies faster and you take less damage to the next fight.They claimed in one of the google videos that the math stuff is an afterthought because it's so easy for them to tweak, so they should be able to do this <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />edit:I guess the complicating factor is the use of healing to spread out damage more evenly across the party, as was brought up by [MENTION=2446]DonAdam[/MENTION].I think a party without a cleric should be a little less able to do that (I'm wary of perfect balance) but other classes can have the parry or parry-like ally-defending abilities to help pick up the slack on that.They could bring back random determination of target in mass melee. That's how AD&D emulates a fighter defending their ally. Stick a fighter beside you and they take 50% of the attacks.</blockquote>

Verification