Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6857981">Focus-fire has ALWAYS been a way to win.&nbsp; This is more a DM-side issue than a player-side issue, which no edition is going to provide a solution for.&nbsp; The answer to focus-firing enemies (which is a good strategy) is to have enemies focus-fire players.&nbsp; When 4/5 goblins are left open to target whoever they want while you spend 2-3 rounds killing that other guy, that's 2-3 rounds they get to spend picking off your healers, your squishes or whoever they want to target.&nbsp; The only way to counter this strategy is to split up your attacks, which will make each individual enemy last longer and typically generates a better fight where everyone takes some damage, instead of noone or just one guy.5E lacks granularity.&nbsp; &quot;resistance&quot; and &quot;vulnerability&quot; much like &quot;advantage&quot; and &quot;disadvantage&quot; are HUGE game changers.&nbsp; AC provides regularity and is a fairly granular feature (since it can be increased incrementally).&nbsp; Thus by 5E's design standards where as&nbsp; [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] points out &quot;the dice matter&quot; granular features are much less vibrant than non-granular features.&nbsp; Providing resistance or disadvantage will ALWAYS be a superior choice than +2 AC.Right, 5E is very much &quot;either/or&quot;, not both.&nbsp; There's a reasonable amount of &quot;threat&quot; a defender needs to produce towards enemies before they'll realize they just can't hit him, and move on to other targets.&nbsp; If he's not able to keep them invested in stopping him, and they're not reasonably able to land a hit on him, then he has failed in his purpose.&nbsp; Now I certainly think defenders do need to sacrifice some offense to gain defense, just as glass cannons sacrifice defense to gain offense.&nbsp; You should not be able to build a guy who is both amazing at defense and amazing at offense (though paladins and barbarians are fairly awesome at doing both simultaneously though &quot;encounter&quot; and &quot;daily&quot; features).I agree with the direction they took, but I don't think they've found the right amount of balance.&nbsp; I think one of the best elements they lost from 4E was the &quot;Defender Aura&quot;, which allowed you to keep enemies near the tank, so they didn't just walk away from his low damage and near invulnerability.&nbsp; Now that's a feat, which as above: making a defender in 5E requires heavy feat investment.&nbsp; I don't like that, it doesn't provide options, it provides drag.Reliably, yes.&nbsp; However cantrips simply don't do some of the cool stuff the rest of your magic does.&nbsp; Which is IMO, a good thing as it leaves room for casters to take spells that are cool or fun instead of spells that just blast stuff.&nbsp; There's certainly less reliability in those spells but I like the idea of providing room for utility by moving the IMO &quot;boring&quot; simple straight damage spells to cantrips.From personal experience one of the two will happen:1: it will grow on you.2: it'll make you want to play your preferred edition even more.If #2 happens, go play your preferred edition.&nbsp; No harm no foul.&nbsp; If #1 happens, then that's cool too.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6857981"] Focus-fire has ALWAYS been a way to win. This is more a DM-side issue than a player-side issue, which no edition is going to provide a solution for. The answer to focus-firing enemies (which is a good strategy) is to have enemies focus-fire [I]players[/I]. When 4/5 goblins are left open to target whoever they want while you spend 2-3 rounds killing that other guy, that's 2-3 rounds they get to spend picking off your healers, your squishes or whoever they want to target. The only way to counter this strategy is to split up your attacks, which will make each individual enemy last longer and typically generates a better fight where [I]everyone[/I] takes [I]some[/I] damage, instead of noone or just one guy. 5E lacks granularity. "resistance" and "vulnerability" much like "advantage" and "disadvantage" are HUGE game changers. AC provides regularity and is a fairly granular feature (since it can be increased incrementally). Thus by 5E's design standards where as [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] points out "the dice matter" granular features are much less vibrant than non-granular features. Providing resistance or disadvantage will ALWAYS be a superior choice than +2 AC. Right, 5E is very much "either/or", not [I]both[/I]. There's a reasonable amount of "threat" a defender needs to produce towards enemies before they'll realize they just can't hit him, and move on to other targets. If he's not able to keep them invested in stopping him, and they're not reasonably able to land a hit on him, then he has failed in his purpose. Now I certainly think defenders do need to sacrifice [I]some[/I] offense to gain defense, just as glass cannons sacrifice defense to gain offense. You should not be able to build a guy who is both amazing at defense and amazing at offense (though paladins and barbarians are fairly awesome at doing both simultaneously though "encounter" and "daily" features). I agree with the direction they took, but I don't think they've found the right amount of balance. I think one of the best elements they lost from 4E was the "Defender Aura", which allowed you to keep enemies near the tank, so they didn't just walk away from his low damage and near invulnerability. Now that's a feat, which as above: making a defender in 5E requires heavy feat investment. I don't like that, it doesn't provide options, it provides drag. Reliably, yes. However cantrips simply don't do some of the cool stuff the rest of your magic does. Which is IMO, a good thing as it leaves room for casters to take spells that are [I]cool[/I] or [B]fun[/B] instead of spells that just blast stuff. There's certainly less reliability in those spells but I like the idea of providing room for utility by moving the IMO "boring" simple straight damage spells to cantrips. From personal experience one of the two will happen: 1: it will grow on you. 2: it'll make you want to play your preferred edition even more. If #2 happens, go play your preferred edition. No harm no foul. If #1 happens, then that's cool too. [/QUOTE]

Verification