I wonder why ... There is not much difference in combat between 4 and 6 members ...
Except you come to your turn more often, and it takes less rounds to finish the batte ... but beyond that? O_o
The same "logic" can be applied to arguing for 2 members instead of 4.
There is not much difference in combat between 2 and 4 members ...
Except you come to your turn more often, and it takes less rounds to finish the batte ... but beyond that? O_o
I require elaboration ... Since our math is obviously not working the same way ...
Lets say you have 4 enemies ... and 4 member group ... So half (4/8) of turns is yours ...
Then lets say you have 4 enemies ... and 6 member group ... So 6/10 turns is yours ... 6 > 4 ...
Then lets say you have 4 enemies ... and 2 member group ... So third (2/6) of turns is yours ...
In what universe is both "more often" ? O_o
Who said both? I compare 2 different cases - arguing for 4 vs 6 and agruing for 2 vs 4. And the arguments in those cases can be the same.
4 has no objective advantages over 3, 5, 6 or 2. It's just a limit for the sake of a limit. They should allow us to change it. And we're not asking for 200 party memebers.
