Community

How about this for AoE and Monks:  If you hit multiple targets you can take fractional KPR for your primary target, but all secondary targets you can only count them if you've killed them, all excess damage to secondary targets go to the next set of secondary targets

.5 KPR to primary
.25 KPR to 3x secondary targets

Round 1

• Monster 1 is bloodied
• Monster 2-4 are 1/4th down
• KP1R = .5

Round 2

• Monster 1 is dead
• Monster 2-4 are bloodied
• KP2R = 1 

Round 3

• Monster 1a is bloodied
• Monster 2-4 are at quarter HP
• KP3R = 1.5

Round 4 

• Monster 1a is dead
• Monster 2-4 are dead
• KP4R = 5

Round 5

• Monster 1b is bloodied
• Monster 2a-4a are 1/4th down
• KP5R = 5.5 

If you were using encounter powers you are already doing a round by round breakdown
If you are doing simple at-will calculations you have to seperate it into primary KPR (fractional) and secondary KPNR = n attacks * floor(KPNR)

In this case
5*.5 + 3*floor(1.25)
2.5+3*1 = 5.5 KP5R

One problem I see with it is that we now have an arbitrary threshold where your secondary KPR will give you a huge boost to KP5R
that arbitrary threshold for KP5R is .2.  Once you hit that value as secondary targets you can kill your secondary targets after 5 rounds but wouldn't do the same for KP4R, which may/may not be wanted.
Since we are allowing primary targets to have fractionaly KPR because of variance in monster HP, allies contribution... why would this not also be the case for secondary targets.  The only reason I can see for favoring primary over secondary is that killing the BBEG is more important than killing his bodyguards.  How much is bias. 

Jan 27, 2012 -- 3:15PM, onecrazymojo wrote:

Mm. What if we allowed .5 fractions for secondary targets? Personally, I liked the first idea specifically because it did have aggregated bursts. That might be because in my experience our groups tend to focus fire, so save for the one guy doing AOE, they won't take any damage unless the primary target is dead. I suppose in less organized groups, focus fire might not exist....but I kind of assumed along with our optimal strikers and optimal monster decisions that they would also have an optimal party making optimal choices.

Every group I've played in the tactic is "Well he's attacking that guy so I'll attack that other dude."  5 rounds later all baddies are still there and they all look like minions.  Then the AoE guy looks realy nice.

I fear we may be wrongly preaching Single target > multi-target.
A 5 round combat = a 5 round combat.
Total rounds being equal, the spreading out damage has only 2 negative concequences: team hero takes more damage, team hero has a greater chance of having bad conditions from still-alive monsters.  And when has DPR king cared about survivability?