Quote:
Originally Posted by Kich867
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Is that me? Idrc that the thread is going on or that people are shit talking, I do think its funny though that this dude's ramblings evokes such an enormous emotional response from this many people, he has to live rent free in a lot of heads.
That one dude was sitting here for like 16 hours spam refreshing so he could drop his weird copy-pasta after every single person's post. The best part about that though was, I actually went and read some of that thread he said he had backed this dude into a corner in, it was pretty fuckin cringe. The entire argument was an enormously flaccid floppy weiner of an argument.
FWIW I actually disagree with DSM though on the original topic, but more so because I think that the fourth person functionally doesn't matter. That person doesn't relevantly contribute to the groups kill speed, anything over a trio (or duo really) seems obnoxious since they would have to pull gargantuan weight for their presence to offset how much they just reduced the XP per kill, but gun to my head I'd probably argue for a druid because at least keeping enemies snared prevents them from running, they can root-rot as well if that's actually an argument, and they can teleport the group wherever they'd like to go, and evac in a worst case scenario.
So I would opt for whoever has the most value to that group outside of combat, that group will kill things too quickly for a fourth person's in-combat contribution to matter.
|
Thanks for being a calm and rational poster. I have enjoyed all of your posts. I do agree with you, once you get to a four man group it doesn't matter as much. Duos or Trios are where class compositions matter a lot more. But OP asked for our opinions on a four man group, and we obliged.