Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SimonMoon5" data-source="post: 658777" data-attributes="member: 5821">Yeah, but you don't often get to pick your fights. If there's an army of evil out there, great. How many armies are lurking in dungeons? (And recall the motto of 3e, &quot;the return to the dungeon&quot;?) For those who say that damage spread among multiple targets is just as good as damage done to one opponent, which would you rather have: a spell that does 500 points of damage to one target or a spell that does one point of damage to 500 targets? Are they really going to have the same usefulness?Damaging lots of foes is not as useful as doing the total damage to one individual, unless the horde of foes is very weak, weak enough to die from the damage, in which case, the foes probably did not pose a challenge anyway, so the method of defeating them is fairly irrelevant. In combat situations, is not the most useful tactic going to involve trying to gang up on one opponent rather than spreading damage to a variety of opponents? I think so, because the sooner that you take down one foe, the sooner he'll stop doing damage to you.But maybe in a fight with several opponents, you'd[*] rather attack each foe once before heading back to the guy that you damaged the first time?&nbsp; I wouldn't.[*] I don't mean you specifically, but instead anyone who thinks that a fireball that does 50 points of damage spread among 5 targets is as useful as 50 points of damage done to one target.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SimonMoon5, post: 658777, member: 5821"] Yeah, but you don't often get to pick your fights. If there's an army of evil out there, great. How many armies are lurking in dungeons? (And recall the motto of 3e, "the return to the dungeon"?) For those who say that damage spread among multiple targets is just as good as damage done to one opponent, which would you rather have: a spell that does 500 points of damage to one target or a spell that does one point of damage to 500 targets? Are they really going to have the same usefulness? Damaging lots of foes is not as useful as doing the total damage to one individual, unless the horde of foes is very weak, weak enough to die from the damage, in which case, the foes probably did not pose a challenge anyway, so the method of defeating them is fairly irrelevant. In combat situations, is not the most useful tactic going to involve trying to gang up on one opponent rather than spreading damage to a variety of opponents? I think so, because the sooner that you take down one foe, the sooner he'll stop doing damage to you. But maybe in a fight with several opponents, you'd[*] rather attack each foe once before heading back to the guy that you damaged the first time? I wouldn't. [*] I don't mean you specifically, but instead anyone who thinks that a fireball that does 50 points of damage spread among 5 targets is as useful as 50 points of damage done to one target. [/QUOTE]

Verification