Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shamsael" data-source="post: 5658098" data-attributes="member: 56453">We had twelve players and two DMs.  When they were trying to decicde how to split the groups betwee the two tables, I suggested everyone be divied up so that each table had all four roles covered.One of the DMs repsonded (sarcastically, I think...) "make sure you optimize those characters too."My immediate response was "I'm not optimized.  That's why I want a defender and leader in my group.  So I don't die."The rest of the encounter, I couldn't stop running my mind through through various fantasy stories, heist movies, super hero teams, power rangers episodes, sports teams, and I can't think of a single shred of precedent to suggest that a team of complementary specialists is somehow meta or has no place in a serious roleplaying game.  The most homogenous team I can think of is the Seven Samurai, but even they had specialties: a rogue, a tactician, some brutish guys, some light fighters...I just can't abide this idea that wanting to cover all roles in a party of six is a bad thing.In the end, my table had 2 leaders, 3 strikers, 1 controller and almost TPKed when the dragon got bloodied.  Fortunately, our halfling bard was able to force a reroll on that attack, resulting in a miss which only managed to bloody the entire party.</blockquote>