Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4517301" data-attributes="member: 2011">Not necessarily. Combat in the game is about action economy. The worse situation for the NPCs is if 5 NPCs each attack a different PC. The PCs will mop that up nearly every time, just like a battle where the PCs do not concentrate attacks will result in using more resources then one in which they do.The best situation for the NPCs is if multiple NPCs attack a single PC. Granted, the Fighter is not often the best target for this (typically the Leader is), but there are many scenarios where taking out the Fighter is optimal just because he is out front, easy to reach, and can be swarmed. Sure, his AC, Fort and hit points might be higher, but there are creatures with Reflex and Will attacks which combined with flanking foes can take out a Fighter quickly.Again, not necessarily. Wizards are not necessarily helpless. Their Int modifier to AC and Reflex makes them a bit difficult to attack. The best target is typically a Leader since most other PC roles cannot heal as much or buff/debuff as much. The real advantage of PCs is that they can adapt and the main reason they can adapt is the Leader. Controllers are a secondary role for adaptation.If the NPCs put down the Leader, the other PCs are at a greater risk because they do not have as much healing backup. If the NPCs put down the Controller, the Leader can just heal him back up and he's back in the fight. The free attack is the consequence, but it is not the design goal. The design goal is to lock down opponents. The design goal is to make the Fighter sticky. How they achieved that is not the goal, it's the game mechanic to accomplish the goal.The problem with a forced lockdown is that it is too much like compulsion magic. It appears that the designers prefered a system of choice with consequences.</blockquote>

Verification