We're starting the Rise of the Runelords adventure path and I am making my 1st level character and looking for advice.
I'm playing a Sylph (the DM as agreed to give me a bonus feat a la humans to make the race a little more balanced). +2 Dex/Int, -2 Con.
Our party has an Enchanter Wizard, a very-unoriginal Sword-and-board fighter, and a typical bard.
I'm looking for something to fill in the gap (i'm the last to join). I was thinking something that can fight decently but also a little sneaky or good at skills or maybe a few spells.
Considering Ranger, Druid, Inquisitor, Cleric and Rogue but open to suggestions. Possibly multiclassing?
Thanks!
|
Bonus to dex but loss to con. Hmmm, I'd go for a range based inquisitor if you want to use those to best effect. Inquisitors are good secondary healers, and will synchronise with the bard nicely. They can be good debuffers, can double as tank if needed ( though not advised for a ranged build), have access to large numbers of skills etc.
Having said that, this is one AP where some kind of rural character will be helpful a number of times. A Druid or Ranger will help in these situations for the survivalist bent they bring to the game. It's one AP that truly explores multiple landscapes so covering all bases with your party can be very useful. Druids of course have the benefit of being able to heal asa well, but not as well as clerics. You can get away without a cleric in the AP though.
Cheers
We're starting the Rise of the Runelords adventure path and I am making my 1st level character and looking for advice.
I'm playing a Sylph (the DM as agreed to give me a bonus feat a la humans to make the race a little more balanced). +2 Dex/Int, -2 Con.
Our party has an Enchanter Wizard, a very-unoriginal Sword-and-board fighter, and a typical bard.
I'm looking for something to fill in the gap (i'm the last to join). I was thinking something that can fight decently but also a little sneaky or good at skills or maybe a few spells.
Considering Ranger, Druid, Inquisitor, Cleric and Rogue but open to suggestions. Possibly multiclassing?
Thanks!
This party is light on healing. Actually, a Druid might work best with your stated wishes, and you may be able to share some of the healing duties with the bard.
The AP includes a significant amount of wilderness travel and with Wildshape, you could do the Melee and Sneaking thing fairly well.
One thing your group will want to think about though is handling undead (The enchanter and bard will be somewhat limited with these encounters).
Inquisitor would be the most likely choice for filling in any remaining needs. They are extremely versatile, but I would reconsider the race choice and look at 1/2 Orc for the Inquisitor. They receive nice bonuses that compliment the Inquisitor and their racial trait variants are also handy. Have fun!
Traper ranger/ cleric/ holy vindicator (or grey warden). Reach weapon all the way. Protect the wizard!
The group's healer should be a wand of CLW, not a PC. Wand of Infernal Healing is also good and slightly more efficient if you have the time.
For the most part, this is true. (Some groups may be wary of the "infernal healing" option.) But, for the first couple of levels a wand may not be an option.
This party seems to be exceptionally light on HP damage, bard is understandably on the low end, enchanter doesn't help there and sword and board fighter might as well be useless. You should try to convince your sword and board fighter to be something useful, like not a sword and board fighter.
There is nothing wrong with the "Sword & Board" tactic. I have played with one for years (both as one and having one in the party), and this idea that they can be by-passed and ignored does not stand up to actual play.
Edit: Saves are also laughably bad in comparison to proper martials
Ah! An proponent of "the one true way."
Remember, you do not control what the other people play.
RoTRL is not that easy of an AP, it's very easy to get TPKed suddenly in a few places especially with a party composition like that. I can think of three before level 11.
This is true. Worse, the combats can be very swingy, quickly going from very easy to TPK.
Besides, having an Enchanter and a Bard is badly redundant - and a much bigger problem then the fighter's build.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your group needs heals, I'd go Cleric for the Channels, our group is nearly done with this AP and I have played a Sword and Board Paladin. Half our party has died throughout the AP some more than once, my Paladin has not.
The group's healer should be a wand of CLW, not a PC. Wand of Infernal Healing is also good and slightly more efficient if you have the time.
Dead / incapacitated things do no damage, make them deaderer and you don't need healing in combat. Not to mention that healing in combat is extremely inefficient in comparison to the damage that is being thrown out.
This party seems to be exceptionally light on HP damage, bard is understandably on the low end, enchanter doesn't help there and sword and board fighter might as well be useless. You should try to convince your sword and board fighter to be something useful, like not a sword and board fighter. Sword and board fighters don't hit hard enough to be a threat and are too tough a target to hit reliably, if the GM is playing properly he'll just ignore the fighter and punch your wizard or bard.
Edit: Saves are also laughably bad in comparison to proper martials like paladins, barbarians and monks, so if he wants the fighter dead there are lots of things in RoTRL that can make him dead without even looking as his AC.
An archer cleric would be a nice addition, you can cast almost as well as a support cleric and you can put out respectable damage with your bow. An Oracle of battle would also be nice, or a wildshape druid that uses a guided amulet of fists if your GM allows it so he still has a powerful spellcasting stat.
Look, a person with an agenda.
Cure wands are good, if they give more than 2 hps, and you don't need to do some emergency healing in the combat (which happens far more than people give credit for).
Sword and Board works in this AP far better than things such as Kingmaker since much of Runelords happens in confined spaces. Plus, the defined tactics in the AP means you as DM are not meant to be changing what enemies do. Not too many of them bull rush to get the squishy. Guys like you constantly overrate how non deadly the guy hitting you for big damage is too. A fighter is the most efficient means of killing something a caster has. A caster who uses spells with intelligence makes the enemy easier for the fighter to kill so the caster isn't in danger and doesn't spend too many spells. In this way the 15 minute day is avoided.
Sword and board can do a ton of damag if built to, or soak heaps up, or bull rush with the shield to provoke AoO's if needed, or shut down casters if needed. You need to check the builds out, and maybe play one properly it seems. The options for fighters are amazingly broad now, and none of them have been shown to be useless in any games I've seen actually played, rather than the mystical world of Theoryville.
I'm not surprised you've seen some TPK's in the AP. There are some tough fights, and given your philosophical approach to the game a TPK seems quite likely in your groups. Groups with in built player healing certainly don't TPK that often. Must be the wands you guys are using.
His party is perfectly valid for this AP. They will adapt as the game progresses. The only thing they really need is to cover the wilderness aspects of the AP. Druid, Ranger and even Inquisitor can do that. Two of those bring added healing that's quite effective too.
Before bandying your advice too much, it is probably helpful to know how his friends are built, how versatile each class now has become, and the fact that fighters are only useless with useless players. Any class is usesless with a useless player though.
I shall now get of my high horse
Thanks
Cure wands are good, if they give more than 2 hps, and you don't need to do some emergency healing in the combat (which happens far more than people give credit for).
Well, you can use the wand in combat, but ... the idea is to prevent the damage/disease/poison in the first place.
So, the healer should carry a few healing spells, just in case. Still, that is no reason to reduce the cleric/druid/oracle to a healbot.
His party is perfectly valid for this AP. They will adapt as the game progresses. The only thing they really need is to cover the wilderness aspects of the AP. Druid, Ranger and even Inquisitor can do that. Two of those bring added healing that's quite effective too.
See my above comment on having both an Enchanter & a Bard.
|
Your group needs heals, I'd go Cleric for the Channels, our group is nearly done with this AP and I have played a Sword and Board Paladin. Half our party has died throughout the AP some more than once, my Paladin has not.
The group's healer should be a wand of CLW, not a PC. Wand of Infernal Healing is also good and slightly more efficient if you have the time.
Dead / incapacitated things do no damage, make them deaderer and you don't need healing in combat. Not to mention that healing in combat is extremely inefficient in comparison to the damage that is being thrown out.
This party seems to be exceptionally light on HP damage, bard is understandably on the low end, enchanter doesn't help there and sword and board fighter might as well be useless. You should try to convince your sword and board fighter to be something useful, like not a sword and board fighter. Sword and board fighters don't hit hard enough to be a threat and are too tough a target to hit reliably, if the GM is playing properly he'll just ignore the fighter and punch your wizard or bard.
Edit: Saves are also laughably bad in comparison to proper martials like paladins, barbarians and monks, so if he wants the fighter dead there are lots of things in RoTRL that can make him dead without even looking as his AC.
An archer cleric would be a nice addition, you can cast almost as well as a support cleric and you can put out respectable damage with your bow. An Oracle of battle would also be nice, or a wildshape druid that uses a guided amulet of fists if your GM allows it so he still has a powerful spellcasting stat.
Lot's of people say this, but sometimes you really need healing in combat, and wands don't cut it for that by mid levels. I know my channel focused life oracle in carrion Crown has saved my party's collective butts many times by in combat healing. Of course to be good enough at it to matter, you need to have lots of channels and quick channel.
Hey, thanks for the input! I'll probably go with a Cleric or Ranger. Ranger because it's a decent fit and I played one once for 1 session and liked it a lot.
I've played a "designated healer" cleric before in 3.5 and it was incredibly boring. Especially when my GM gave me a shield as an end-of-quest, best-treasure-you're-going-to-get type reward. I was a 2-handed weapon guy so it wasn't too useful but I couldn't sell it because it was a "gift from my god". So a big paperweight. Haha enough complaining though. . .it would be nice to have a couple healing spells for the group but not focus on that. Clerics seem pretty versatile, I bet I can find something that suits me.
|
|
Cure wands are good, if they give more than 2 hps, and you don't need to do some emergency healing in the combat (which happens far more than people give credit for).Well, you can use the wand in combat, but ... the idea is to prevent the damage/disease/poison in the first place.
So, the healer should carry a few healing spells, just in case. Still, that is no reason to reduce the cleric/druid/oracle to a healbot.
His party is perfectly valid for this AP. They will adapt as the game progresses. The only thing they really need is to cover the wilderness aspects of the AP. Druid, Ranger and even Inquisitor can do that. Two of those bring added healing that's quite effective too.See my above comment on having both an Enchanter & a Bard.
Yeah Fryre, agreed about dedicated healing. It's certainly unnecessary, but having one or two prepared is very useful. The channel of a cleric even more so, but clerics may not fit this party.
Bard and enchanter can synergies, if the bard swings his build more towards buffing and secondary combat rather than controller and enchanter. One of the bard archetypes perhaps.
I think they'll change organically as the ame progresses to tell the truth. This AP has lots of variability so character concepts that remain fluid are important.
Cheers
I've been playing through runelords as an alchemist, enjoying the heck out of it. Mutagen I'd strong, archetypes give amazing options, and the discoveries run the gamut from amazingly useful (feral mutagen) to crazy (tumor familiar). I'm using vivectionist for the sneak attack damage, and master chemist is both powerful and colorful as a prestige class.
Edit: Echoing the previous poster, summoner is a great pick if you're down with all the nexessary paperwork. Our gm allowed the third party Celestial Commander archetype, but Master Summoner is a beast if you're interested in battlefield control. Our group often only has three players, but we've handled all of the content so far with an alchemist and a summoner.
Cleric is fantastic at pretty much everything, archer cleric is one of my favourites, you don't need to prepare healing spells as some misinformed people in this thread imply, you can spontaneously convert your spells into cure spells of that level if you channel positive.
True, but Remove Disease and Neutralize Poison do have to be prepared in advance.
(And Druids do need to prepare cures.)
Plus, the defined tactics in the AP means you as DM are not meant to be changing what enemies do.
Bwa??? There's tactics sections written in the adventure, therefore the enemies are moronic automatons that cannot adapt to circumstances? I... just.. WHAT? Who would ever DM that way?
If the GM of a society game is required to have enemies use their abilities on characters that have demonstrated immunity, or even high resistance to those abilities while ignoring other characters that are causing it harm then I think maybe I'm glad that there's no society play around here. That's the sort of thing I'd expect in a poorly-coded computer game, not in any kind of RPG.
Id go Cleric all the way, but then again I am a bit partial to them.
Focus on channeling for heals, Go nuetral so you can take versatile channel allowing you to channel negative and positive( with negative being 1d6 less than your total dice)
Feats can be focued on channeling, and if you need more combat umph you can go holy vindicator later on, or just use your spells to boost your attack skills as needed.
Like i said im biased as i play a cleric anytime i get a chance...
Currently in jade regeant im trying out the inquistor to see how they are, little bit more skill based and a ton of versitility with them but if i needed to heal a party id take cleric channels over inquistor. ( on a side note i think there may be some way for an Inquistor to channel but i have not found out how to yet if any can point me in the right direction)...
|
|
I know my channel focused life oracle in carrion Crown has saved my party's collective butts many times by in combat healing. Of course to be good enough at it to matter, you need to have lots of channels and quick channel.This shows more weakness in the other PCs rather than a strength of yours. It's perfectly fine to play this way, but not every group needs healing. Players who like to play strong characters should need healing less / never. Not munchkin builds, just mechanically competent ones.
It doesn't matter how good the players or characters are, sometimes things go really bad, and you have to heal. For instance, one time we entered a cavern and a prisoner of some mee-gohs transformed into huge sized lovecraftian horror that got initiative on us. Before the first round was finished, most of the party was grappled and being squished to death. My channels kept us alive while the remaining party members eventually took it down.
...
comparison to proper martials like paladins, barbarians and monks,....
So you're recommending monk over fighter? I personally have nothing against monks, but they get a lot of flack for being useless on the boards. Care to elaborate on why they are better than a fairly common fighter build?
And the metagaming that some groups hate with a passion.
That being said, sword and boards aren't so much about putting out damage as they are knocking enemies prone with free bull rush attempts coming out of shield bashes. Level 12, have a lion's shield, and then abuse it. Not only that, but the bull-rushing is even better if you can knock someone into your party, all of whom get AoO's.
This isn't so much about trying to make a super-metagamed character as it is trying to make the adventure path enjoyable.
That being said, I don't even know why I felt the need to post that. Someone with the name "Yumad" ? Man's obviously a troll, and no matter what we say, his opinion stays concrete and correct. So yeah, Op, pick your poison and play what you think you'd enjoy, but try and avoid being Just a heal bot.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned it yet, but Magus!
They're so ridiculously broken!
It's a tough campaign so you need all the help you can get, but I've helped make my girlfriend's Magus, recommending many things to her, and she's just hit level 7 and will be able to deal a maximum of about 1d10+4+1d6 sneak+7d6shocking grasp (level 1 spell) without upping her abilities with her Arcane Pool.
Now because you get a free attack and she uses Spell Combat with Spell Strike, she can deal 1d10+4+1d6 sneak+7d6shocking grasp+1d10+4+1d6 sneak, for a maximum of 76 damage. Then all she needs to do is use her arcane pool to increase the crit range to 17-20x2 and we have a possible 156 damage in one round at level 7.
When she gets to Bab 6, she can do this twice in one round, up to 3 times by level 15, as Magus is a 15 BAB Class, probably for this reason. Bare in mind that's without any extra damage like holy etc, and what she's planning to do is make her weapon a Brilliant Energy weapon.
She's 2 levels of Rogue (Roof Runner), 5 levels Magus and will go one more level Rogue for 2d6 sneak and a talent, before going full Magus again. By level 16 because of traits and feats, she'll have a level 1 spell that deals 15d6 damage....whenever she casts it!
The build is devastating, and next to my mostly drunken GMPC Fighter Cleric, she's the only character who's survived from the beginning of the AP and we're just approaching the last third of book 2.
The big N dealt 70 damage to my Cleric in book 1, and I don't fudge for my GMPC, so I was amazed when he was still standing on 1hp, blood gushing from his throat. He protected the unconscious Magus with his own life, standing above the body.
I play on the revised Anniversary edition, but it's still brutal!
Lol let me add that I too have been mislead by so called optionally efficient tactics touted on these boards.Off the top of my head: in combat healing as badwrong, AC being irrelevant at higher levels and vital strike as junk well get hit with vital and power attack a couple times and chances are you'll scream for in combat heals. Yeah lots of stuff uses that combo too, in Rotrl with big nasty weapons and high bonuses after the dice. But don't let my experience interfere with good old theorycraft!
|
|
Plus, the defined tactics in the AP means you as DM are not meant to be changing what enemies do.Bwa??? There's tactics sections written in the adventure, therefore the enemies are moronic automatons that cannot adapt to circumstances? I... just.. WHAT? Who would ever DM that way?
Tactics in the modules can change, upon contact with the party. Many of the obituary threads from the APs are littered with the corpses of adventurers killed because the DM meta gamed their NPCs and didn't play them as the AP suggested. Just like most players, NPCs have tactics they generally use until proved in effective. Unless they somehow get advance knowledge of the group and its abilities, they use those tactics first, and then adjust. Assuming they survive long enough.
I also find it hilarious on these boards when certain folk play every creature as some kind of tactical genius. Flavour text for certain species and their tactics is ignored so they can run some meta gamed enemies and kill the player.
The DMs job ins to provide an experience that's based around the setting. Yes challenging a party is important, but if you as GM constantly change the tactics of the APs to target your parties weaknesses then it takes away from the parties planning and careful use of feats etc.
Of course, if your players do something like attack and retreat, then you're free to mix up tactics for enemies s you se fit. At least now they've seen what the characters can do and can plan for that.
I also find it laughable that many people say the guy at the back is a bigger threat to something than the guy who just drove three feet of steel into your gut. Especially if you can't tell the effect of what the guy at the back is doing ( as is often the case with an enchanter). Many folks on the boards suggest that you can easily ignore the guys in front to target the guys at the back. I suggest some of those people go and try a mass combat situation like a group sparing in martial arts, or maybe one of the soccer game practices where there three balls in play. When your in a situation where someone is in your face trying to defeat you, you spend a lot of time focusing on them, and not much time being distracted looking around the place.
This is what the marking mechanic in fourth edition represented. Not focusing on your opponent.
Smart enemies dict from the back of course, but your sword and board is in their face and sticking them with steel, you bet your bottom dollar they're going to stop him.
|
|
I also find it laughable that many people say the guy at the back is a bigger threat to something than the guy who just drove three feet of steel into your gut. Especially if you can't tell the effect of what the guy at the back is doing ( as is often the case with an enchanter). Many folks on the boards suggest that you can easily ignore the guys in front to target the guys at the back. I suggest some of those people go and try a mass combat situation like a group sparing in martial arts,...
Implying every combat ever is on the ground, implying every enemy ever isn't an intelligent caster who also might have scryed you before hand, implying some enemies don't have spellcraft.
You could think of it for some fights against very powerful (and large typically) creatures as a knight in full plate against two people, one with a sharp, pokey implement and one with a gun. If the knight in full plate hears the gunshot and knows what it means he might focus a bit more on the gunman than the pokey person. And while the knight only has the ability to charge the gunman or run away (both bad ideas) a dragon has many more options to reach said gunman.
You are making it seem like I am implying every fight ever would ignore the fighter, which is not true, but against some of the BBEGs who are versed in spellcraft they very well COULD ignore the fighter and go for something more deadly especially since they might not be alone and have other minions to distract the fighter while they make your wizard deaderer.
I didnt imply anything, that's what your argument was against sword and board fighters. Its a crap argument. And you posted it in your first or second post in this thread.
When you fight a BBEG who does try to ignore the fighter, then the party chages tactics. Enlarge the fighter, shrink the caster and have the fighter stand near the caster. BBEG cant avoid the fighter now, if he wants to target the caster in combat at least. And that's only one tactic out of infinite tactics available in combat with people who play as a team.
If the combat isnt on the ground, then the party deals with it by either - making the fighter fly (potion, or buff or equipment. All are valid).
- Taking on ranged options instead (which fighters can do even if sword and board, since they often have enough feats and options to focus on two or more wepon types)
- Bringing the opponents down as the casters job.
I'd like to point out that it's far more efficient to stop opponents avoiding the fighting types, if you're a caster. It means you cast only one or two spells then let your figher do the hard work. Far better than constantly trying to out cast or react to the BBEG. The smartest casters are the ones who realise that enabling their fighting types to get to and kill an enemy is the most efficient use of the spell economy.
Also, you mentioned earlier that Barbarian's are more efficient killers. Nearly every barbarian ive seen in play (inlduing PFS) is a healing sink. They take damage sooooo easily compared to fighters. This isn't more efficient. If the fight is over in 2 rounds but you took more damage, that's less efficient than over in 4 rounds but took hardly any damage. Easpecially if casters don't do something stupid like try to NOVA the combat.
True, one Barbarian build can maybe out perform an average fighter in terms of less damage taken. But that's only one build. How booooooring if you have to play a barbarian only one way to make an efficient tank.
I guess what I'm trying to say in all this back and forth between you is that you came in and derided his party for their build. You've done so using all sorts of reasons that have been proved numerous times on these boards to be complete fallacies. Believe what you will mate, but don't go sprouting your word as gospel in the face of many threads to the contrary.
Cheers
Look, a person with an agenda.
It sounds like the only person with "an agenda" in this thread is you. The fact that you take someone's opinion so personally is laughable.
I'm currently running RotRL and I have to agree with the poster you were responding to in that someone running dedicated healing is not going to make a huge difference in this campaign. My group also uses wands for topping up between combat, and one recurring theme in this AP is that a lot of the combat has the potential to get ugly if allowed to get past the first few turns. Thus, I have to agree that damage with support is going to be more successful than having a dedicated healer. (Good luck outlasting someone like Xanesha with PC heals, lol).
As for the "hurr durr martial classes" debate, a smart DM is not going to have his NPCs stand there like idiots while the warrior beats on them while soaking up damage from the casters. Any intelligent creature (casters especially) will know to target the squishies, and nothing a warrior can do outside of tripping or grappling is going to stop it.
See:
So, the healer should carry a few healing spells, just in case. Still, that is no reason to reduce the cleric/druid/oracle to a healbot.
This is 100% true. Read any reputable cleric guide (TreantMonk, anyone?) and the first thing they (should) say is that clerics/casters are NOT band-aids.
I didnt imply anything, that's what your argument was against sword and board fighters. Its a crap argument. And you posted it in your first or second post in this thread.
When you fight a BBEG who does try to ignore the fighter, then the party chages tactics. Enlarge the fighter, shrink the caster and have the fighter stand near the caster. BBEG cant avoid the fighter now, if he wants to target the caster in combat at least. And that's only one tactic out of infinite tactics available in combat with people who play as a team.
If the combat isnt on the ground, then the party deals with it by either - making the fighter fly (potion, or buff or equipment. All are valid).
- Taking on ranged options instead (which fighters can do even if sword and board, since they often have enough feats and options to focus on two or more wepon types)
- Bringing the opponents down as the casters job.I'd like to point out that it's far more efficient to stop opponents avoiding the fighting types, if you're a caster. It means you cast only one or two spells then let your figher do the hard work. Far better than constantly trying to out cast or react to the BBEG. The smartest casters are the ones who realise that enabling their fighting types to get to and kill an enemy is the most efficient use of the spell economy.
Also, you mentioned earlier that Barbarian's are more efficient killers. Nearly every barbarian ive seen in play (inlduing PFS) is a healing sink. They take damage sooooo easily compared to fighters. This isn't more efficient. If the fight is over in 2 rounds but you took more damage, that's less efficient than over in 4 rounds but took hardly any damage. Easpecially if casters don't do something stupid like try to NOVA the combat.
True, one Barbarian build can maybe out perform an average fighter in terms of less damage taken. But that's only one build. How booooooring if you have to play a barbarian only one way to make an efficient tank.
I guess what I'm trying to say in all this back and forth between you is that you came in and derided his party for their build. You've done so using all sorts of reasons that have been proved numerous times on these boards to be complete fallacies. Believe what you will mate, but don't go sprouting your word as gospel in the face of many threads to the contrary.
So basically what you're saying is that the entire party should work to synergize with YOU to make YOU useful so YOU can protect them.
"Enlarge the fighter", "make the fighter fly", "change to ranged options", "enable their fighter types". You're really not making a good case for yourself here. All I'm seeing is how other classes can make you useful. A good class shouldn't need the entire party's buffs to be useful; that's WHY the tier system exists.
|
|
So basically what you're saying is that the entire party should work to synergize with YOU to make YOU useful so YOU can protect them.
"Enlarge the fighter", "make the fighter fly", "change to ranged options", "enable their fighter types". You're really not making a good case for yourself here. All I'm seeing is how other classes can make you useful. A good class shouldn't need the entire party's buffs to be useful; that's WHY the tier system exists
<Sigh>, what makes you think anyone else is doing that to the fighter. Fighters buy stuff to do that to themselves. They only need them for occasional fights too. Particularly in the AP he's talking about.
Look, if they were playing Kingmaker, I'd suggesting something other than sword and board fighter. There is far more open ground in that one. I'd go archer build or maybe something mounted as a fighter. But when Yumad came in and told the guy his party sucked and rebuild all of it, he was wrong for this AP. This thread was advice for a particular AP.
I don't believe the Tier system is even remotely accurate to anything like 90% of games. I believe most of the percieved power comes from GM's empowering certain classes and many, many people ignoring the fact classes can cover their weaknesses with gear. I think some aspects of teh game need to be cleared up for rogues to get more advantage from stealth. And that's about it. It is a team game. Most folks play it as a team. Many folk who play intelligently help their party members to minimise their weaknesses. When folks play as a team, and grow organically through an AP, all the way up into high levels, then you don't even have a Tier system. Especially now the Advanced book, and the Ultimate books are out there.
And as for taking him personally, yeah I probably replied to this one more than I should have. Lack of sleep, increased work load and tired of the same wrong arguments I guess. Now I have an agenda, but since this is an online Forum, I'll never achieve the goal. What's worse, I stupidly let myself get emotional in a thread. Appologies to all for my terseness I guess. My position remains the same though.
Cheers
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
My experience is that a sword and board fighter can be perfectly viable in an AP. Ran one all the way through Carrion Crown and while I can't say I never had any problems, the character was effective at levels 1-15. Good damage(roughly +35 to hit for d8+35 damage), good AC(40ish), awesome CMD(over 50 vs trip, grapple, disarm, sunder). Wasn't even "optimized" well. I had many of the "bad" feats too, like Vital Strike (hint: Vital Strike isn't meant to replace a full attack. It's a consolation prize when you have to move and attack, which can be often) and Combat Expertise. Even a poorly built fighter can easily hit 3 digit damage in the teen levels.
The main problems with relying on wands for your healing are levels 1-3(where money is tight) and 7+(when you start really wanting restoration). Wands, potions, and scrolls of restoration are super expensive and can really dig into your group funds when ability drain and negative levels start to hit. It's almost always worth giving a thought to how your group will handle those things later on.
That having been said, you need to play something you find fun, not something just to fill a party niche. Actually, have you considered witch as an option? Misfortune and evil eye would combo well with the other characters and they get some healing. Also, your racial ability mods would go well with an Int based caster.
spoilers for Rotr:
You really need some sort of in combat healing for this AP; I strongly recommend playing a druid or a cleric; of course you don't have to be a healbot.
Battle Oracle would be ok, although his saves are worse than the cleric's.
On the other hand you have a bard in the group; might be enough healing, though I doubt it.