Take out one, or damage many...

[RigaMortus2]

In 3E it seemed like the best combat strategy was to take out one enemy at a time until you won (unless of course you were powerful enough to take out multiple enemies with one attack).

I wonder if 4E is going to be like this, or if the group can afford to split their attacks and attention on more than one foe at once.

The prior strategy isn't just good for D&D though. Even in MMOs, it is usually best to concentrate all your attention on one foe at a time.

Any thoughts or playtesting reveal anything different?

 

[Rashak Mani]

I just played a Wizard... so Wizards should just fire away at minions since area spells are good for that.

Otherwise its wiser to concentrate on 1 bad guy and take him out. For the simple reason that it means one less attack on the group.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Rashak,
no, not always

Using effects that slow, stun, weaken etc are VERY good.
For example, if the enemy is knocked prone, they are forced to use an action move ot get back up...
If they are weakened, they do half damage...
If they are slowed it takes them time to reach the party during which ranged attacks can gank them
etc.

As I noted before, think about AOE group strategy from MMORPGs. Sometimes, it's actually best for everyone to use AOES and gank the whole damned lot of the enemy, because multiple effects of different types = slaughter on crippled mobs.

So, groups coming up with *strategy of overlapping, compouding effects* = "WHO'S YER DADDY!"
Hm "SOOCE" strategy, "Saucy Strategy", i like it!

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Since D&D doesn't attach any real penalties for wounded fighters, it's almost always best to kill one at a time. Area damage lessens the overall fight time, so I'd say a combination of area damage and focus fire would be the best method. Especially since classes with lots of area damage (IE wizard) don't really do a whole lot more damage with single target attacks.

 

[Aloïsius]

The thing is, many attacks are more than just removing HP : the targets end prone, weakened, marked, slowed etc... Those debilitating effects won't kill the target, but they will make it less dangerous than before.

What is the worst : 4 enemies using all their might against you, or five diminished enemy attacking you ?

Depending of your party power selection, you may have interest to attack a lot of targets rather than concentrating on one. This is especially true if they are of equivalent strength. IE : 4 dragonshields and one wyrmpriest. Sure, you can concentrate fire upon the priest, but if you weaken half of the dragon shield, trip another one and cast "slow" upon the two remaining kobolds, you may expand less of your resources in the following rounds.


edit : I'm so slow...

 

[Family]

"It is always better to be outgunned than outnumbered." -Not Sun Tzu

With minions who deal normal damage but crumple if they take any I'd put the smart money on Adventurers wise enough to play defensively; which is hard to do when they see the enemy grabbing the glory of offensive play.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Unless you can provide significant debuffs to the enemy crowd, it is always better to kill as many as is possible to kill as soon as possible, rather than damaging a larger number of them. This is because a monster with 1 HP left can still fight just as well as one with all its HP.

The only exception to this is with powers that give you an edge for getting things Bloodied, but enough enemies have boosts when they are Bloodied to make that a wash, I think.

Of course, under both of these paradigms (and really nearly all smart paradigms for battling in 4e), the hordes of minions should be wiped out with AoE as soon as is feasible.