Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gondsman" data-source="post: 5679907" data-attributes="member: 90057">I'm not saying the dm should only target the defender, I'm saying that completely ignoring the defender and everyone targeting a single striker all at once isn't going to make friends with anybody.I just finished an encounter where we were defending a palisade from the kobolds we stole it from.  the rest of us had ranged attacks and were attacking over the wall from towers, the defender didn't have anything ranged and so for the majority of the encounter he waited inside while our two strikers were making attacks and taking most of them.  But they had cover and the attacks were spread out over them and taking down the gates, so it wasn't that bad.  Point is, while the defender is designed to survive every enemy attacking it in the same round, the other members of the party aren't and will most likely die right away.  Let the defender soak up what he can, take the majority of the heat off, but ultimately it is all about balance and variety, give a little, take a little.It's okay now and then to create unique tactical situations like the defender being without armor, but i think that in every one of these situations there should be some unique tactics or other to compensate, or a very specific plot device.  Maybe the secret police needs the PC's for a mission and can't expose themselves so they ambush the PC's in bathhouses, and maybe even the DM gives them the opportunity to try and fight back unarmed.  That sounds fun, once.  If every night I'm getting pulled out of the bathwater, I'm gonna stop coming back. or I'm never again going to roll anything other than Unarmed, Unarmored Monks.IMHO if you are going to create a house rule that makes things seem more realistic (because Fantasy isn't Fantasy unless the mundane parts match our world exactly<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />) and it hurts a specific group of characters, I think you need to come up with a benefit or incentive to go along side it, since i don't believe in this idea of "if we're screwing the Armored Tanks, how are we gonna screw everyone else to make up for it."And just to add, remember, 4e is a different game.  In 3e, the higher level casters were a very unique threat, and had usually no melee range offense, so you got in close and took them out as fast as possible (and they did the same).  In 4e, almost every class has abilities similar to that 3e caster.  Every PC in the party is an equal threat.  Tactically it makes better sense to attack the guy who marked you most (not all) of the time.  Focus fire on the mage, or swarming him with minions isn't as tactically sound as it was in 3e (the caster may be deadlier when swarmed for instance).  Healing classes don't have the same ability to heal that they did in 3e so taking them out first while the strikers and defender thin the herd isn't as advantageous as it once was, so when i see people talk about hitting the casters and healers first, i wonder if they still think they are playing 3e.</blockquote>

Verification