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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 4705445" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, that's been my experience too. Healing is pretty handy, but it is really mostly a way to make up for bad luck or bad tactics. I think overall I would vote for having a cleric in most parties just because you'll run into those situations where you misjudge things or just plain MUST retreat, at which point you're probably going to need to keep the weaker party members going if they're getting out.Of course my original analysis didn't factor in things like 'clerics have attacks that do mass extra damage to most undead'. Those are factors that will always skew things in particular situations. Likewise if you have artillery monsters that melee characters cannot get at due to terrain then you will really need range damage strikers, etc. Tactically though a few observations can be made. Ranged attackers are generally going to be more flexible than melee attackers. You can always take a bow shot at someone at point blank, you cannot hit some monster that stays at range with a melee attack. Again you obviously cannot take that to an extreme due to OAs, but a party with 3 ranged strikers/wizards has some amazing flexibility in terms of how they can attack. Combine them with 2 defenders and you have a pretty strong combo.Of course none of this is telling us that such a party is the 'best' in overall terms. It is more fun to have more variety and other types of characters are obviously going to be quite handy in non-combat situations (rogues especially). Still, I think the 'you need to fill all roles' paradigm is a bit oversold, especially at higher levels.</blockquote>

Verification