I know this question has been asked a thousand times, but I am currently in the hospital and board out of my mind, and please any spelling/grammatical errors I may caused.
I've just beaten Rise of the Runelords with Ezren, Valeros, Lini, and Merisiel. I'm now going to starting Skull and Schackles.My question is, and /sarcasm I am sure it has never been asked before; should I play with three or four characters?
People tend to say it comes down to differences which I'm sure it does but there must be some "hard evidence" suggesting what size a solo group plays. I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this matter, like what the average party size would be? The biggest difference between playing 3 and 4 characters. I notice is that if you have a 3 character team, each member gets to go twice. However if you have a four person team, you could explore faster. Then there is the whole bit on missing out on certain enemmies, locations, items, weapons, etc. I've heard that mentioned several times. Sorry... I went on a bit of a tangent there. I'm also worried that having four characters would make my gaming table too cluttered.
So.. umm... yeah, that was it. I really do hope that someone wil help me or a friendly argument could happen. Lastly are the primary stats stil Str, Dex, Wis, Int, or is ther more focus on I guess what would be the primary stat.
Cheers,
Grabnar
However if you have a four person team, you could explore faster.
I would say "The more characters you use, the faster you *must* explore", not "you could explore faster".
The rate at which you explore is a trade-off between using cards to explore (blessings and allies, usually) and saving these cards for their other uses.The other primary character-count trade-off is time pressure versus both support and health. One or two characters have nearly no noticeable time pressure -- 30 blessings is almost always more than you need for 40 or 50 cards. At the far end, six characters must prioritize exploring quickly. OTOH, with six characters, another character can most often help the active character in a pinch, and with only 5 turns, health is much less of an issue. With one or two characters, you quit the scenario to avoid death more often you do at higher counts; with six characters, you lose on time WAY more often than you do at lower counts.
I'm saying all that as part of a general discussion -- I do realize your question is about playing 3 or 4 characters...
Speaking only for myself -- I've played the game solo with every character count. I enjoy 4 the most, but 3 is a close second. Higher counts are too busy, and at lower counts there is far less character interaction.
The main differences between 3 and 4 for me are:
-- With 4 characters, time pressure is noticeable. Not bad, but noticeable. It is much less noticeable with 3.
-- With 3 characters, a character has to be prepared to 'go it alone' (succeed on their turn without any help) more often than with 4. (This is ameliorated a bit by strong support characters like Oloch).
-- I find soloing 3 characters to be easier to manage than 4.
-- With 4 characters, as I mentioned, there is more character interaction than with 3.
I think, though I'm not certain, that in S&S there won't be any locations that you would see with 4 characters but not see with 3. Usually the designers keep an eye on that.
It's true you will see less cards, and therefore fewer unique boons and banes (and, probably, henchman) with 3 players than with 4. Boons are waaaaay down in my priorities when I play, so I never cared, but YMMV.
However if you have a four person team, you could explore faster.I would say "The more characters you use, the faster you *must* explore", not "you could explore faster".
The rate at which you explore is a trade-off between using cards to explore (blessings and allies, usually) and saving these cards for their other uses.The other primary character-count trade-off is time pressure versus both support and health. One or two characters have nearly no noticeable time pressure -- 30 blessings is almost always more than you need for 40 or 50 cards. At the far end, six characters must prioritize exploring quickly. OTOH, with six characters, another character can most often help the active character in a pinch, and with only 5 turns, health is much less of an issue. With one or two characters, you quit the scenario to avoid death more often you do at higher counts; with six characters, you lose on time WAY more often than you do at lower counts.
I'm saying all that as part of a general discussion -- I do realize your question is about playing 3 or 4 characters...
Speaking only for myself -- I've played the game solo with every character count. I enjoy 4 the most, but 3 is a close second. Higher a are too busy, and at lower counts there is far less character interaction.
The main differences between 3 and 4 for me are:
-- With 4 characters, time pressure is noticeable. Not bad, but noticeable. It is much less noticeable with 3.
-- With 3 characters, a character has to be prepared to 'go it alone' (succeed on their turn without any help) more often than with 4. (This is ameliorated a bit by strong support characters like Oloch).
-- I find soloing 3 characters to be easier to manage than 4.
-- With 4 characters, as I mentioned, there is more character interaction than with 3.I think, though I'm not certain, that in S&S there won't be any locations that you would see with 4 characters but not see with 3. Usually the designers keep an eye on that.
It's...
You read too much much into... I was simply asking for a comparison btween a three character party and a four character party, and yes believe it or not there are differences which I am looking for. I do thank you for your last few lines of post though as they were the only thing mildly related to the question at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually you caught me at a chatty moment... as you said you were hospital-bound, I went with it. I hope I contributed less to your boredom than I detracted. :)
Actually you caught me at a chatty moment... as you said you were hospital-bound, I went with it. I hope I contributed less to your boredom than I detracted. :)
I'm in a bed in constant agony. I'm just so tired and exhausted now-a-days. I think that's why I like fantasy and science fiction so much. It takes me away from my crappy reality. I mean there are good parts: my wife, family, friends, and our fur balls.
So, you've never played Skull and Shackles?
You have me sympathy for your travails. I hope improvement comes soon.
I played the S&S campaign with 4 characters, ages ago. Played a few scenarios at other counts.
What characters did you use if you don't mind me asking?
At the risk of sounding senile -- I think the quartet was Merisiel, Jirelle, Lini and Alahazra. These were chosen for fun, not for strategy.
For me, playing with 4-6 characters on the PC is fine because the computer enforces the rules.
When I play a physical game, the more characters I use the more likely I am to forget a location effect, a character ability, the cards in hand(s), or the scenario rules. So when I play solo, I usually restrict myself to three characters.
YMMV, of course. You may be less senile than elcoderdude or me.