Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7518885" data-attributes="member: 6795602">That's what kiting is...#1&nbsp; Not having any other character in attack range does tend to focus enemy attacks on the guy in their range.&nbsp; #2&nbsp; It's not really true that multiple melee characters allow for easy focus fire.&nbsp; OA's and melee ally positioning tend to keep most melee focus firing from occurring.&nbsp; Also it's much easier for a DM to justify the melee guys attacking both available targets than always focusing on only guy in their reach.&nbsp; #1&nbsp; It's actually hard to do massive in battle heals.&nbsp; For most of the game you get cure wounds and healing word for single target in combat healing.&nbsp; Healing word being the only ranged heal option really doesn't restore that much hp even on a good day.&nbsp; It's easier to keep multiple allies healed up just enough not to drop when the incoming damage is being split between them.&nbsp; I have seen it time and time again as well.&nbsp; Being the only melee in a party of ranged guys sucks.&nbsp; You take all the damage and they worry more about saving their behind than yours.&nbsp; Don't get me wrong, my ranged sharpshooter wood-elf rogue follows a similar concept to yours and I feel nearly invincible.&nbsp; But that doesn't keep my party members from dying.&nbsp; Having 3-4 attacks directed my way in many of those fights may very well have been the difference in my ally surviving and him dying.&nbsp; It really does break it down.&nbsp; If your goal is to not have the melee character die and for him to actually be able to play his character in melee as opposed to holding your 20 quivers of arrows then it really does negate nearly all the ranged advantages on the party scale.&nbsp; Individually you are still the same, but party wise your worse off than if you had instead been a melee character as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7518885, member: 6795602"] That's what kiting is... #1 Not having any other character in attack range does tend to focus enemy attacks on the guy in their range. #2 It's not really true that multiple melee characters allow for easy focus fire. OA's and melee ally positioning tend to keep most melee focus firing from occurring. Also it's much easier for a DM to justify the melee guys attacking both available targets than always focusing on only guy in their reach. #1 It's actually hard to do massive in battle heals. For most of the game you get cure wounds and healing word for single target in combat healing. Healing word being the only ranged heal option really doesn't restore that much hp even on a good day. It's easier to keep multiple allies healed up just enough not to drop when the incoming damage is being split between them. I have seen it time and time again as well. Being the only melee in a party of ranged guys sucks. You take all the damage and they worry more about saving their behind than yours. Don't get me wrong, my ranged sharpshooter wood-elf rogue follows a similar concept to yours and I feel nearly invincible. But that doesn't keep my party members from dying. Having 3-4 attacks directed my way in many of those fights may very well have been the difference in my ally surviving and him dying. It really does break it down. If your goal is to not have the melee character die and for him to actually be able to play his character in melee as opposed to holding your 20 quivers of arrows then it really does negate nearly all the ranged advantages on the party scale. Individually you are still the same, but party wise your worse off than if you had instead been a melee character as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification