Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7518901" data-attributes="member: 6880599">I know what kitting is, my point is that if your shooting an enemy attacking an ally who is not moving closer the lost of kitting is none existent because the point of kitting is being met by you melee ally holding the target in combat at a safe range. Different tactic but its the same effect so their is no break down.Well then your enemies are being silly because they are choosing to pointlessly chase someone and do no damage instead of doing damage. That's bad GM tactics because ranged class I know has the ability to distance themselves for most enemies and shoot them from safety. lol, But's that just dumb fighting. Not a range vs Melee argument. GMs deliberately spread damage to prevent party wipes when the party is not using good tactics or got in over their head. As players, we always focus fire when possible because eliminating enemy numbers quickly can result in quick strategic shift in our favor by ether eliminating their numbers advantage or creating out own. Don't get me wrong I do that a GM too if it looks like my players are going to die or if I am running stupid enemies like zombies but even dogs, lions, really any pact hunters know how to focus there attacks. So you have one healer your tank drops and you heal the archer because you healed the thank last turn... No sorry, if you use healing word every turn on the same target to bring them back on their feet while the rest of the party is just staying away from damage you are more likely to all survive because if the damage spreads you can only healing word one target so if two drop you can't bring them both back and the attackers will auto-crit kill the downed ally you didn't heal unless your GM is being kind. Your not wrong heal but at the same time the if the wood-elf rogue goes down because he is involved and the healer has to choose who to heal one of you is going to die because the healer could not focus healing on a single target. That's a double edged sword until you get AoE heals in which case you likely get one of the massive heal upgrades too. Then that falls away from Melee vs Ranged to "are you and effective healer?"... on this topic its better to focus healing as a rule because if you don't the healer can't keep up but their are spells that make that no longer an issue so that's situational. Not true. If your going to be the Melee fighter up front, that's how you decide to play then you as the melee player need to build for defense. Higher AC, HP, and damage mitigation is the best way to keep the "tank" alive. Then you can take it. If you build a low HP, low AC, character that runs toward death... no amount of healing will keep you up and no amount of melee ranged standing semi close will take enough damage to save you. So you have turned the away from the Melee vs Ranged argument again to argue melee characters survival dependent on damage sharing, which is not something ranged has to deal with pointing to their tactical superiority for one but two, in my group we have 2 melee fighters as I mentioned.. one is tank and one is not, the one that is not does not share damage with the tank if he can help it because he is not built for it and when he tries he goes down every time. Instead he runs in attacks and runs back out or behind the tank to shield him... he is a monk and can do that. Just like rogue we had that did that my last game. When the Monk tries to "hold the line" our healer always says "Stand their if you want but I can't heal the tank AND you successfully, so if you die you die, I am keeping the tank up because he is protecting the rest of us"</blockquote>

Verification