DLichen said:That's not always true. If your enemies killed you in a round and you kill them in 3, improving your damage to the point that you're able to kill them in 2 is not improving your situation.
Offense is the best defense only if you can kill all enemies fast, in 4e, with burst offensive beefy monsters like fire beetles (3d6 at in blast against a level 1-2 party, hot damn) - being able to tank is still important.
Danceofmasks said:Well, assuming either tactic is equivalent for a second, optimising to take down your foes faster also means you spend fewer surges in total.
DLichen said:That kind of reasoning simply does not work when you have discrete cases to work with.
Optimizing for damage might mean that one of your party members dies and then damage output drops which means a cascade of even more deaths, etc. It's really quite simple to die if a party member gets ganged up on in an encounter that is of your party's level.
It really depends on what you're fighting and what the play style of your group is. It's oversimplification to state that one way is always better than the other.
Danceofmasks said:But that's exactly what I'm saying, only flipside.
'cos the monsters' damage output decreases when you apply the cascade of deaths to them.
Besides, I never said one way is always better than the other, I said one way is better than the other.
Danceofmasks said:Exhibit A:
That horrible paragon-level podcast?![]()
Where concentrated fire in the first couple of rounds may have been a swing?
Ok, I take that back.
That podcast is just terrible example of how to be crap.