|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:42 pm
joe-dude667 Wasn't there an all Deva team before? there was, they didn't finish the first round. a two-man team would probably be very shaky and/or require very specific combinations to be viable in 4e. I imagine most teams would crumble or make it out of every fight by the skin of their teeth.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:03 pm
SporkMaster5000 a two-man team would probably be very shaky and/or require very specific combinations to be viable in 4e. I imagine most teams would crumble or make it out of every fight by the skin of their teeth. You think? It puts a bit more emphasis on coordinating with your partner both during character creation and on the battlefield. But, it shouldn't take much more than minor optimization. At least for the first couple rounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:57 pm
New idea: Gnome vampire who obsessively counts things
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:14 pm
Arc Vembris New idea: Gnome vampire who obsessively counts things Oooh, interesting. Been watching Monk and he just counted all the poles and the like walking down the street.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:32 pm
Virulent Lover SporkMaster5000 a two-man team would probably be very shaky and/or require very specific combinations to be viable in 4e. I imagine most teams would crumble or make it out of every fight by the skin of their teeth. You think? It puts a bit more emphasis on coordinating with your partner both during character creation and on the battlefield. But, it shouldn't take much more than minor optimization. At least for the first couple rounds. the problem is that a two man team will either be missing a significant part of the expected party makeup, or will do nothing well. a three man team will likely be missing one role, but one or more of the party can try to fake the missing role to make up for it, and together they can pretend to be a full party. a two-man team either needs two classes that can split fairly evenly between two roles, in which case neither will be very good, or they have to decide one or two roles just aren't going to be met, which is a hole the enemy will be able to exploit, even if the encounters aren't designed that way. a lack of a meatshield, no heavy damage, no heals, no control -- any one, completely missing can become a huge hole with one monster coming at them the wrong way. especially if you go with the teams making each others' encounters. I know I tried to be crafty, if not outright malicious, and the number of flying enemies I went up against leads me to believe I was not alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:51 pm
SporkMaster5000 Virulent Lover SporkMaster5000 a two-man team would probably be very shaky and/or require very specific combinations to be viable in 4e. I imagine most teams would crumble or make it out of every fight by the skin of their teeth. You think? It puts a bit more emphasis on coordinating with your partner both during character creation and on the battlefield. But, it shouldn't take much more than minor optimization. At least for the first couple rounds. the problem is that a two man team will either be missing a significant part of the expected party makeup, or will do nothing well. a three man team will likely be missing one role, but one or more of the party can try to fake the missing role to make up for it, and together they can pretend to be a full party. a two-man team either needs two classes that can split fairly evenly between two roles, in which case neither will be very good, or they have to decide one or two roles just aren't going to be met, which is a hole the enemy will be able to exploit, even if the encounters aren't designed that way. a lack of a meatshield, no heavy damage, no heals, no control -- any one, completely missing can become a huge hole with one monster coming at them the wrong way. especially if you go with the teams making each others' encounters. I know I tried to be crafty, if not outright malicious, and the number of flying enemies I went up against leads me to believe I was not alone. Ditto this, I looked for the missing role in a team in order to target the encounters. No controller, they ate up the minions. No defender, I delivered a high hp brute. Virulent Lover Oooh, interesting. Been watching Monk and he just counted all the poles and the like walking down the street. I mention a counting vampire and you think of Monk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:12 pm
Arc Vembris I mention a counting vampire and you think of Monk. The Count was too obvious. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:13 pm
As far as team size, I'll wind up going with what's voted. But, as things are now, based off of the poll, we don't have close to enough with 3 man teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:18 pm
Go for two-man I say, it'll be a challenge and we can test out some of the theories floating around. Just size the encounters accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:40 pm
Arc Vembris Go for two-man I say, it'll be a challenge and we can test out some of the theories floating around. Just size the encounters accordingly. if we do that i want to offer rain a partnership now, because if I can't be on team fighter, I want to be on team nucking futs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Cross Nemesis Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:43 pm
why not have teams of all three and just have different "brackets" set up for them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:48 pm
frog_mage why not have teams of all three and just have different "brackets" set up for them? Not near enough people, for starters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Southern Cross Nemesis Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:15 pm
Virulent Lover frog_mage why not have teams of all three and just have different "brackets" set up for them? Not near enough people, for starters. no miss understand If a team dies, they are moved to the next bracket(from 2 man teams to 3....) or group up with another dead team (2 to 4) with the exp/gold/rewards falling lowere and lower the more people on the team
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:26 pm
frog_mage Virulent Lover frog_mage why not have teams of all three and just have different "brackets" set up for them? Not near enough people, for starters. no miss understand If a team dies, they are moved to the next bracket(from 2 man teams to 3....) or group up with another dead team (2 to 4) with the exp/gold/rewards falling lowere and lower the more people on the team might be doable but would be a pretty big task to set up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:38 pm
Would be an entirely different coliseum. I'm unlikely to undertake such a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
