Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6639428" data-attributes="member: 82106">And this really does bring it back to the fact that 4e is VERY hard to pin down as "this is what you have to do." I don't think D&D ever is, but in previous editions there were definitely classes, weapons, spells, and items that were "just better". I mean arguably a 1e wizard is just a better combatant than a fighter. There are cases where it isn't true though, which is why you generally haul along a fighter, and a rogue, instead of just all clerics and wizards. Normally, at low-mid levels anyway, its safer.I think even in a fairly tactical sense this is also true with 4e. The all-ranger party will toast a lot of encounters, but 10% of the time things will go wrong for them, BADLY wrong, TPK wrong. They're too all-or-nothing. If you OTOH drop in a warlord or a cleric, and a wizard, it may be that 30% of the time the party does measurably worse in a fight, but they're only 1% likely to tank. You can survive 1% of your encounters going bad, that's only a handful in 30 levels, 10% is like one every level, pretty soon that all-ranger party is just done. At best they'll be high-attrition.The point is, in 4e its safer to have a mixed party, and MUCH better when you start considering all the crazy things that can happen to a party outside of just needing to slag monsters fast.</blockquote>