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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IndyPendant" data-source="post: 871094" data-attributes="member: 8738">Well, I didn't mean to imply that a party needs a tank, if that's what came across.  It certainly helps, but it's not necessary.  However, if you don't have a tank in the party, or above-average healing abilities to compensate--don't act as if you do.  From the scenario given, that's precisely what this party tried to do: go toe-to-toe with a massive damage dealer.I stand by my statement that the party presented is a total mess, too; it looks like everyone played the 'wouldn't-it-be-cool-if' char they wanted to try (except probably for the Sorceror), without any thought given to the other player's chars or party balance and diversity.  The result?  One offense-melee-oriented char that can't take damage (the rogue/ranger/fighter); another char that quite simply sucks in terms of mechanics--but is probably loads of fun to play (the paladin/monk); a combination cleric/elemental adept--so that he can neither heal nor nuke well; and the sorceror, most likely played as a nuking battlemage with 1 or 2 defensive spells and 1 or 2 buff/debuff spells.Now, there's nothing wrong with creating a party like this; if the players are having fun, good for them!  However.  If they then fail to use tactics, trying to take on powerful enemies in a I-attack-you-attack format, and then whine that the rules are unfair....Tough.  They chose their chars; live (or die) with that choice.  Don't snivel that the rules are unfair; learn to run away.But then again, I have been accused of being a very harsh-but-fair GM myself--a description I happyily accept...</blockquote>

Verification