|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:27 pm
Would be wise. Though we'll have to come up with an in-game reason for the expenses on specific characters
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:55 pm
ummm... yeah. How is that gonna work? That's why I was curious. ummm, would I be able to buy both? ...Or do I need to steal one? smile wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:42 pm
We should have roughly 3500 gold, but Zackus, you do realize that a rogues best damage source is backstabbing, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:02 pm
Thief... and.... Idk, i fire arrows it would be harder to find me, I backstab... well. I'm right there next to them. So, both have ups and downs. Besides, I could always reason my character buying it for the elf or druid to use it. Trust, that whole thing. Either way, seeing better would be a great thing for a thief. Better judgement. Rather with throwing daggers or judging the distance of back up garrison and if they would hear anything from a fallen member. I figure both would be good in one way or another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:07 pm
It would also allow for a long range takeout if it's unknown about, plus it's own critical chance, plus well... power of a crossbow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:01 am
Okay, here's how it works:
Team gold is shared, meaning, do not be greedy and go buy out a store, because then the group is broke.
Zack: Thief = Rogue; interchangeable. The sight thing doesn't matter too much for you, it would give you better protection than the robes you are currently wearing. Beyond that, the sight range would mainly be better for the ranger, who primarily uses bows.
The crossbow would be nice, but like Kaiten said, as a thief, you do the absolute most damage in backstab melee. Yes, you still get bonus damage if you remain stealthed and hit someone with a ranged attack, but the multiplier will be smaller, therefore damage will be nowhere near as large. There's nothing saying you can't be effective with a crossbow, but at the same time, it's not the ideal method, a good idea for a fall back when things get too hairy.
Think of things this way:
Here's the party makeup and order:
Tjaden and Erron: Frontline melee
Kal: backline melee
Prometheus: blocker/healer
Laren and Selce: Ranged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:53 am
Acutally I'd rather think of Rangers as people that can fit in anywhere from the frontlines to melee so I tend to think as follows.
Tjaden and Erron: Frontline melee
Kal: backline melee
Prometheus: blocker/healer
Selce: Ranged
Laren: Where needed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:57 am
purest_heart Acutally I'd rather think of Rangers as people that can fit in anywhere from the frontlines to melee so I tend to think as follows. Tjaden and Erron: Frontline melee Kal: backline melee Prometheus: blocker/healer Selce: Ranged Laren: Where needed Due to the ranger's tendency to forgo heavy armour, that class is better used ranged since they tend to get all the proficiencies and feats for that role. In 3.5 and 4 ed DnD, Ranges have attempted to branch out with the free duel wield feats instead of ranged feats, but since the warrior tends to get those same feats from their selection plus the better armour, rangers still are not at their best in the front lines. A melee ranger is more like a plug: Good for holding water, out you never want to use it on a ship....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:48 am
Ranged is an understatement.... Can fire blasts of flame anywhere she can see. Lol But anyway sry for bein goneish...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:33 am
Okay. Thank you. I've editted my last post to better go along with my spot in our fighting order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:21 am
I think he meant that if we were to go into a formation for battle, that would be the most efficient formation we'd be able to take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:27 pm
Kai Karasurei purest_heart Acutally I'd rather think of Rangers as people that can fit in anywhere from the frontlines to melee so I tend to think as follows. Tjaden and Erron: Frontline melee Kal: backline melee Prometheus: blocker/healer Selce: Ranged Laren: Where needed Due to the ranger's tendency to forgo heavy armour, that class is better used ranged since they tend to get all the proficiencies and feats for that role. In 3.5 and 4 ed DnD, Ranges have attempted to branch out with the free duel wield feats instead of ranged feats, but since the warrior tends to get those same feats from their selection plus the better armour, rangers still are not at their best in the front lines. A melee ranger is more like a plug: Good for holding water, out you never want to use it on a ship.... I agree with this statement overall but it seems you missed my point. I was saying that rangers are not just limited to their bow(even though that is their most effective form of attack) some situations though, not many, would require the ranger to move into close-quater combat, say a small room where range is almost impossable or an enemy that is immune to attacks from a bow due to their speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:15 pm
purest_heart Kai Karasurei purest_heart Acutally I'd rather think of Rangers as people that can fit in anywhere from the frontlines to melee so I tend to think as follows. Tjaden and Erron: Frontline melee Kal: backline melee Prometheus: blocker/healer Selce: Ranged Laren: Where needed Due to the ranger's tendency to forgo heavy armour, that class is better used ranged since they tend to get all the proficiencies and feats for that role. In 3.5 and 4 ed DnD, Ranges have attempted to branch out with the free duel wield feats instead of ranged feats, but since the warrior tends to get those same feats from their selection plus the better armour, rangers still are not at their best in the front lines. A melee ranger is more like a plug: Good for holding water, out you never want to use it on a ship.... I agree with this statement overall but it seems you missed my point. I was saying that rangers are not just limited to their bow(even though that is their most effective form of attack) some situations though, not many, would require the ranger to move into close-quater combat, say a small room where range is almost impossable or an enemy that is immune to attacks from a bow due to their speed. Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Hmm guess I should have gotten the one close range spell ... Burning hands, ah well to the back for me a couple pulses of magical energy should still work in close though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
