By using an 'Attack power'? Even though the target is not an enemy, I would say that violates both the letter and spirit of the power. But I guess if your DM allows that sort of shenanigans, that's her/his business. I certainly wouldn't allow an attack power to be used.
Do we need a Leader?
- Thread starter Havrik Stoneskimmer
- Start date
By using an 'Attack power'? Even though the target is not an enemy, I would say that violates both the letter and spirit of the power. But I guess if your DM allows that sort of shenanigans, that's her/his business. I certainly wouldn't allow an attack power to be used.
Argyle King
Legend
yes and yes
That's only one power that I used for an example. As I said in a previous post, both myself and the Warlord who is in the same party have many powers which grant extra actions. The other three party members do striker damage. Ensuring they hit with a higher percentage of the multitude of attacks they are being given has indeed made a difference. Especially in the amount of time it takes for a battle to play out in real time.
It may not be a requirement, but if I was in a 5 or 6 man group and no one was going to be playing a leader, I'd definitely switch characters and run one. They may not be completely needed, but they smooth things out drastically. We have a very well balanced group for one game and we've talked about starting a side game for 2 couples, since we end up hanging out a lot. Our friend decided she wanted to play a Brutal Rogue and my Wife opted for a Sorcerer. Since I'm the only other player, I decided I'd try and cover both the tanking and healing by running a Paladin. He isn't a full on leader, but he's a Charismadin w/good Wisdom, so he'll have several LoH a day.
In our main group, I actually ended up making most of the original characters for people and I switched from playing a Bard to a Rogue. After I did that I made a Wizard who used lots of illusion and psychic spells as well as a psychic weapon and suddenly I had a Wizard who could throw out large aoes that would debuff the enemy w/immobilize and such, as well as -2 to next attack from Psychic Lock. That character helped make up for all the debuffing we would be losing by me not running that Bard. We only have 1 leader in our 6 man group, but she's running a Cleric, so her healing is pretty nuts even w/o a heavy focus on it in her feats. Amusingly enough, we lost that Wizard pretty early in the game due to scheduling and have recently gained both a Psion and a Bard, so our new party mix should be pretty interesting.
In our main group, I actually ended up making most of the original characters for people and I switched from playing a Bard to a Rogue. After I did that I made a Wizard who used lots of illusion and psychic spells as well as a psychic weapon and suddenly I had a Wizard who could throw out large aoes that would debuff the enemy w/immobilize and such, as well as -2 to next attack from Psychic Lock. That character helped make up for all the debuffing we would be losing by me not running that Bard. We only have 1 leader in our 6 man group, but she's running a Cleric, so her healing is pretty nuts even w/o a heavy focus on it in her feats. Amusingly enough, we lost that Wizard pretty early in the game due to scheduling and have recently gained both a Psion and a Bard, so our new party mix should be pretty interesting.
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
And that's why I give my basic attacks to the mul fighter, whose player doesn't question it and rolls to hit and damage fast. If either the oassassin or monk had a good basic attack*, I'd give it to them, too.
...and not to the dragonborn warlock, whose player takes forever and forgets that perfect is the enemy of good enough.
* - I cry a little inside when it's just the oassassin and monk at the game.
I figure any extra discussion time generated is going to be there anyway, too. If they're going to ask "wait, who's the most damaged?" when they're given a basic attack, they were going to ask that on their turn anyway, and this may result in their not needing to ask it then. And, frankly, that's why I pay attention, so I can tell them what to hit.
Brad
I discovered another way everyone can get self heals if they build for it (i.e. 13 wis). It is a bit risky.
Feat: Disciple of Death
Equipment: Haunted Armor, Periapt of Recovery
Being unable to fail a death save is all well and good, but I don't think I would count being able to scrape yourself up off the floor as reliable self-healing. You still have to roll a 20 or better to be able to spend a healing surge to get above 0. I regularly spend entire sessions rolling most of my rolls in single digits (thank god my rogue is as accurate as he is) so I would rarely get to spend a surge and get up. I don't think that set of gear and feat is a feasible replacement for a leader
DarkLord Of DForce
First Post
Unless I'm misreading this, he gets a +5, a +2, and another +2 for a total of +9 (they are all diff. sources) to his death saving throw. Now, again, if I'm reading it right, you don't have to roll a "natural" 20 to get to spend a healing surge, only a 20 or higher. If that is correct, he only has to roll an 11 or higher with this setup to reach 20 and obtain the healing surge.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
PS and I understand that if you do roll single digits all night long this isn't going to help, but...on average...its surely gonna put things in his favor.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
PS and I understand that if you do roll single digits all night long this isn't going to help, but...on average...its surely gonna put things in his favor.
You are correct. The rules state "On a result of 20 or higher, he or she can spend a healing surge." (italics mine)
Yeah that was just me being unclear. Our group usually says things like "Yeah you need to roll a 31 to hit him". The point is still that even w/that +9 you still need at least an 11. I don't consider a 50/50 chance of a healing surge when you would drop below 0 to be effective and reliable healing.
Similar Threads
