Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5855206" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion, but what you describe here reminds me of Rolemaster, which relies upon active defence in melee (it's rules for missiles and spells are a bit different and more hazy).Rolemaster also has a wound system (via its crit charts), which means that it is often worth spreading attacks so as to inflict debuffs (wound penalties to action) before then cleaning up the much-weakened rabble.Rolemaster has a range of kludges to handle the multiple-opponent issue but none is fully satisfactory.Also, for what it's worth, I don't find focus fire to be a big issue in my 4e game, for a few reasons I think:*the &quot;closest enemy&quot; requirement for Hunter's Quarry means that often the ranger is attacking someone different from the sorcerer (the party's other ranged striker), who might be targetting a more dangerous backline enemy;*the party has 3 &quot;squishies&quot; (archer ranger, wizard, sorcerer) and so target's who aren't engaged will try to run around and squish them;*roleplay/story - there is a bit of a superhero dimension to the way we resolve fights, with different PCs seeking out their particular enemies, and likewise for the NPCs/monsters.The third of these factors isn't easily replicable without changing D&amp;D in ways that D&amp;D next is almost certainly not going to (eg a Belief system which creates mechanical incentives to do what my group tends to do out of habit/RM training). But the other two - especially the first - are some mechanical features that help introduce some diversity into engaging/disengaging/targetting.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5855206, member: 42582"] I don't have a lot to contribute to this discussion, but what you describe here reminds me of Rolemaster, which relies upon active defence in melee (it's rules for missiles and spells are a bit different and more hazy). Rolemaster also has a wound system (via its crit charts), which means that it is often worth spreading attacks so as to inflict debuffs (wound penalties to action) before then cleaning up the much-weakened rabble. Rolemaster has a range of kludges to handle the multiple-opponent issue but none is fully satisfactory. Also, for what it's worth, I don't find focus fire to be a big issue in my 4e game, for a few reasons I think: *the "closest enemy" requirement for Hunter's Quarry means that often the ranger is attacking someone different from the sorcerer (the party's other ranged striker), who might be targetting a more dangerous backline enemy; *the party has 3 "squishies" (archer ranger, wizard, sorcerer) and so target's who aren't engaged will try to run around and squish them; *roleplay/story - there is a bit of a superhero dimension to the way we resolve fights, with different PCs seeking out their particular enemies, and likewise for the NPCs/monsters. The third of these factors isn't easily replicable without changing D&D in ways that D&D next is almost certainly not going to (eg a Belief system which creates mechanical incentives to do what my group tends to do out of habit/RM training). But the other two - especially the first - are some mechanical features that help introduce some diversity into engaging/disengaging/targetting. [/QUOTE]

Verification