Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
More support oriented characters tend to struggle more with 2 players, because they have to do more of the fighting themselves to survive.
2 is bad cause you usually lack combos, damage, and cant rest properly while stunning/disarming, etc. Also the AoE skills lack power, cause not enough enemies for many of them.
4 is nice, but a bit of a mental burn, too much for my tastes.
So yeah I think 3 is the sweet spot.
2 characters is nice if you for example play with some specific classes, like circles for example. But for many many other is just bad.
2 characters is easier to manage than 3, but 3 is overall probably the best to go with. If you prefer not to micromanage 3 characters though you can play right through to the end with 2 characters.
The only scenario I will say you shouldn't play with 2 characters is Scenario 95, you need an INCREDIBLY tight 2 person party to be able to bear Scenario 95, but it's A LOT more manageable with 3 or 4.