# I think we're done with 4E



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

After the end of our last session our group has pretty much decided that 4E wasn't the game for us. Having given the system 6 months playtime, 1 session a week of 3-5 hours we've started to see a lot of repetition in the system and combats are taking way to long so we're now looking at alternatives.

Some of the things in 4E I think are truly great, for example encounter balance design, and differences in monsters abilities, minions, as well as class balance. I also like some of the powers that non spellcasters get, however we'd started to feel like we were playing a tactical skirmish game with limited options. A couple of the players had reached the stage where every combat was a sequence of similar powers, one was a ranger and used twin shot all the time as it was stat wise the best choice. Also they'd got to the stage where they could spot the exact round a fight changed from going either way to an ok we've won now we just have to spend the next 30 minutes grinding the opponents down.

As regards looking at options I personally don't want to return to 3E, I'm the DM mostly and it's just too much work. We're going to try out three systems in our next session combat wise to see how they play. We're looking for a game where combats are fast, we don't want to spend half the session on every fight and flexibility is a must as one of the player's likes experimenting. The options are Castles and Crusades, WFRP2, and Earthdawn.

We've played WFRP2 before and generally liked it, although I have some reservations regarding the end point of characters careers, everyone seems to end up as a champion. C&C hasn't been played before but is very similar to D&D with less rules, and Earthdawn is a system I've had sitting on my shelf for 20 years and never played but seems similar to D&D in theme.

Anyway just lamenting the seeming demise of our 4E game.


----------



## Baumi (Dec 2, 2008)

I don't get these kind of complaints. There is nearly no system that gives you so many build in options in a fight than in 4E (most are simply hit, hit, hit). Even if you don't want to use your powers, you still have stunts, terrain features, skill challenges and if all else fails your normal attacks (like the thing that got used all the time in earlier editions ).

I can really understand if anyone doesn't like a system (there wouldn't be a point to have so many different systems if everyone has the same taste), but complaining about that 4E has no options in combat is simply wrong.

P.S.: Sorry about the rant. To be more helpful, try Savage Worlds it's very cheap but complete, gives you many options and has a great stunt system (even non combat-characters can help greatly with taunts and tricks).

C&C is also great fun but I didn't like the unbalanced classes, weapons and hated the different experience charts. But it's very easy to run and you can concentrate on creating flaverfull adventures.

Another vote goes for Gary Gygax's Lejendary Adventure. It doesn't read well but it plays wonderfully.


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 2, 2008)

Kudos for giving it a good run. I have to say that, all else being equal, I've also learned to spot the turning point of a fight, at which time I tend to handwave the rest of the battle with some small concession to attrition (Healing Surges, basically), if I feel it's relevant, and the players agree. Honestly, I started doing this towards the end of my 3.5E run as well; if anything, it appears to be easier to spot in 4E.

Good luck finding yourself something new to play.  Perhaps when 4E is splatted out into infinity, you'll find the variety you're looking for.


----------



## Drowbane (Dec 2, 2008)

3e would welcome you home, you cheating bastage! (heehee)

Earthdawn is a fun game. You should take it down off the shelf, dust it off and learn the system.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 2, 2008)

wedgeski said:


> I have to say that, all else being equal, I've also learned to spot the turning point of a fight, at which time I tend to handwave the rest of the battle with some small concession to attrition (Healing Surges, basically), if I feel it's relevant, and the players agree. Honestly, I started doing this towards the end of my 3.5E run as well; if anything, it appears to be easier to spot in 4E.




So you charge the PCs a Healing Surge for ending the fight early?  That's a great idea, i'll have to do that.  I have just been killing monsters sooner or starting them with less hit points to avoid the inevitable grind.


----------



## roguerouge (Dec 2, 2008)

Run modules for 3e. Seriously, there's a ton of good ones. This simple hack saved me from burnout. My player loves it and I have so many starter towns that I don't even need to do much world-building.


----------



## jenskot (Dec 2, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> So you charge the PCs a Healing Surge for ending the fight early?  That's a great idea, i'll have to do that.  I have just been killing monsters sooner or starting them with less hit points to avoid the inevitable grind.



That's a great idea! 

We've been playing 4E for around 16 sessions (We're almost level 6) and we've been running into many of the problems described by the original poster. I love 4E combat, powers, and especially monsters. But as we level up, combat seems to drag and drag. We play for about 3.5 hours and the last few times I kept track of our rolls. Generally speaking I would say that with 5 players, each person gets to go every 15 minutes, so around 12 rounds a night. The odds on average seem to be 50/50. If we optimize all our bonuses, we usually need around an 9-11 to hit. So out of 12 times, we only do something cool 6 times a night. When you throw in constant condition effects that limit our options, spending move actions to keep getting up from prone or being slowed or weakened and so on, I would say that I would reduce doing cool stuff from 6 to an average for 3-4 times a night. 

I really do enjoy playing. But I feel there are some basic tweaks needed that could help speed things up. I'm going to recommend your trick of spending a healing surge when the battle has reached a turning point to end it early. That's a very elegant solution!


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I don't get these kind of complaints. There is nearly no system that gives you so many build in options in a fight than in 4E (most are simply hit, hit, hit). Even if you don't want to use your powers, you still have stunts, terrain features, skill challenges and if all else fails your normal attacks (like the thing that got used all the time in earlier editions ).




I agree the wealth of build options in 4E is amazing. In terms of balance of the classes as I said above we think as a group that 4E has done a great job. The trouble is that the players all started to use the same combinations over and over regardless of what was put against them. Every fight was twin shot or flaming sphere. It's almost as if the strict powers have become a straight jacket.

The hit point grind was something that I'm not too keen on. The players had seen it and as I said had learned to identify almost the exact point when they knew they'd win. Also they all have said for a few weeks now that monsters in 4E are just better than characters.

For information we have 3 players who each played two characters in 4E so we had a Ranger/Paladin, a Fighter/Wizard, and a Cleric/Rogue. That's something else I probably wouldn't do again, one character per player in the future.

I'm not saying we won't come back or keep playing 4E occasionnaly. I've enjoyed much of the game and would certainly look to pinch a lot of the ideas into any other system.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 2, 2008)

roguerouge said:


> Run modules for 3e. Seriously, there's a ton of good ones. This simple hack saved me from burnout. My player loves it and I have so many starter towns that I don't even need to do much world-building.



That might help. I think it definitely gave our 3E game a longer lifetime.

But I still know that all of our DMs that ran modules (or rather adventure path) prefered converting them over to 4E then continue running them in 3E! 

Warhammer sounds like a decent choice. (Though even here: Without the other players knowing, the campaign of one of us turned out to be a D&D 4E game set in the Warhammer Universe, maybe with some serial numbers filed off...)

So, I suppose I can't speak objectively here, if anything our group does at the moment leads to D&D 4. (And if I may note: If we were to play Shadowrun, it would be SR 4E, too. 4 is a magic number at the moment.  )


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 2, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> So you charge the PCs a Healing Surge for ending the fight early?  That's a great idea, i'll have to do that.  I have just been killing monsters sooner or starting them with less hit points to avoid the inevitable grind.



It entirely depends on what's left, and what threat it represents, but yes, basically. Plus, the players can elect to continue the fight if they feel my 'offer' isn't worth it. Kind of like Deal or No Deal.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 2, 2008)

I'll have no hesitation whatsoever using fewer monsters or monsters with 3/4 of the regular hit points. I don't do it all the time, but it keeps the game running at the pace I want.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2008)

Drowbane said:


> Earthdawn is a fun game. You should take it down off the shelf, dust it off and learn the system.




I agree. Earthdawn is my favorite system of all time. The modules written for it are superb if you can still find them. The only reason I'm not running it anymore is because I found it difficult to design my own adventures. But I haven't had time to create my own adventures for any system in a long time and only run published adventures nowadays.



roguerouge said:


> Run modules for 3e. Seriously, there's a ton of good ones. This simple hack saved me from burnout. My player loves it and I have so many starter towns that I don't even need to do much world-building.




My experience varies. As I said, I only run published adventures. I still found it difficult to prepare for a 3E game. Now, I will admit that I like add-on material. And the way third edition was designed made it hard to allow all supplements. [Insert argument from others about how I was a Stupid DM for allowing all splat books, therefor it was ME that broke 3E, not the multiclass and feat mechanics.] It was either too much work deciding what needed to be banned or (with my own 3E 'say yes' to splat books policy) too much work to make sure encounters were a good challenge (not too deadly, not a cakewalk).

I always liked WFRP's career system and even looked at ways I could import it into other systems. But the mechanics were too gritty for our group.

Never played C&C.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 2, 2008)

Drowbane said:


> 3e would welcome you home, you cheating bastage! (heehee)
> 
> Earthdawn is a fun game. You should take it down off the shelf, dust it off and learn the system.




It's not cheating when the other women is so much better and more beautiful than your wife. Then it's just inevitable. 

On a more serious note, I want to commend the OP for actually basing his opinion on more than 4 hours of playtest. I hope you find what you are looking for elsewhere.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 2, 2008)

We might be reaching the same point once KOTS is done. The problem of dragging fights is the result of too much balance being built into the system. 

Combats are less exciting and more of a grind because they are so balanced. Knowing that nothing that your character or a monster can do but cause X amount of damage makes it too easy to spot these turning points.

Ending the fight at that point by simply declaring a winner makes the whole struggle feel like a boxing match thats won by decision. It gets the game moving again but feels so unsatisfying. 

On either side of the screen I prefer being in combats where that turning point could happen in any round for either side and that once it does, the finish is close to follow, win or lose.

If the price for staying engaged and awake for combats is a higher mortality rate then sign me up. Characters are potato chips, crunch all you want, then make more.


----------



## fuindordm (Dec 2, 2008)

Another thumbs-up for Earthdawn from me.  There's a world with tons of flavor (and lots of _awesome _ sourcebooks), a magic system whose rules have a impact on everything in the world, and lots of cool options for players. 

It even has healing surges... I mean, 'recovery tests'. 

I heard rumors that Earthdawn is getting reincarnated as a 4E-compatible game.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 2, 2008)

I am not playing 4e but I do not get the problem regarding the turning point. As soon as it is clear which side is winning check perception for the losing side. If they succeed they should try to withdraw or retreat. Players could chase them or not but if they chase them they could risk falling into traps or ambushes and what not.


----------



## jokamachi (Dec 2, 2008)

Hey, don't feel bad. I playtested 4e, played it for months affter that, then finally gave up for many of the same reasons. It just wasn't my cup of tea. And thank God I didn't waste any money on that system.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> I heard rumors that Earthdawn is getting reincarnated as a 4E-compatible game.




Not a rumor:

Age of Legends 4E

And according to their forums the designers are shooting for a 2009 release. [Although they make it clear that their company policy is to not announce release dates.]


----------



## wedgeski (Dec 2, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Ending the fight at that point by simply declaring a winner makes the whole struggle feel like a boxing match thats won by decision. It gets the game moving again but feels so unsatisfying.



An interesting observation, but not borne out by my experience. The ultimate decision point tends to rest on what creature roles are left in the fight: artillery that has no defensive line, brutes locked down by a controller and taking punishment from everyone else, etc. If multiple creature roles are left on the battlefield, I would never handwave the fight. Ultimately, the decision tends to be pretty easy, and my players don't ever seem unsatisfied; by the time we're declaring the fight over and discussing attrition, the most exciting elements of the encounter are already over. I also always have the option of declaring the fight over by having free and able-bodied opponents make a break for it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 2, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I don't get these kind of complaints.




And yet they seem to come up so regularly...



> I can really understand if anyone doesn't like a system (there wouldn't be a point to have so many different systems if everyone has the same taste), but complaining about that 4E has no options in combat is simply wrong.




Every system has its adherents who blame the complainers who blame the system. It's foolish to wholly blame either the system or the complainers (and equally foolish to think that one system will suit all tastes).



Lord Vangarel said:


> The hit point grind was something that I'm not too keen on. The players had seen it and as I said had learned to identify almost the exact point when they knew they'd win.




4e removed the swingyness from combat. It should not come as a surprise that everyone is able to predict the outcome. 4e is _designed _to be predictable-- one of the reasons DMs love it.

The trend seems to be that DMs love 4e because it is so predictable, forgiving, and easy to run-- but players quickly tire of it. I think this might have to do with the removal of "mastery." 

And that's not simply an issue of "no splatbooks yet." If you are the sort of player for whom predictable = boring, you have to hope that the splatbooks unbalance the carefully balanced system. (Then you'll have a new set of complainers.)


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Dec 2, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Another thumbs-up for Earthdawn from me.  There's a world with tons of flavor (and lots of _awesome _ sourcebooks), a magic system whose rules have a impact on everything in the world, and lots of cool options for players.
> 
> It even has healing surges... I mean, 'recovery tests'.
> 
> I heard rumors that Earthdawn is getting reincarnated as a 4E-compatible game.




Sorta.  The way I understand it, Age of Legends is a 4th edition verison of Earthdawn, but Redbrick is going to continue to publish classic Earthdawn stuff as well.


----------



## jensun (Dec 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> The trend seems to be that DMs love 4e because it is so predictable, forgiving, and easy to run-- but players quickly tire of it. I think this might have to do with the removal of "mastery."



My, what an enormously broad brush you have. 

Try harder next time.


----------



## xechnao (Dec 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> And yet they seem to come up so regularly...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps the solution would be to give unique strategic points to each combat which means that in each combat players struggle to accomplish a different thing. For example struggle to protect an imobilized comrade that the enemies want to kill or capture (example from the fellowship of the ring). 
But I think D20 is not optimized for this sort of thing because of its baggage of artificats and absurdities of the whole combat system. It is possible but not optimized. This is my opinion.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Dec 2, 2008)

I run C&C and love it. The have a free quick start pdf book on their website (Troll Lord Games) that you can try out and see if you like the system. The best part about it is the ease of converting 1E and 3E D&D materials to the C&C system. All of the D&D stuff I've gotten over 30 years is now usable again.


----------



## NerfedWizard (Dec 2, 2008)

Would it be cheeky for me to plug my game, Omnifray - http://www.omnifray.com

I've never seen a match for it in terms of the tactical element and sheer number of options a combat character can have in actual combat (want to mix a vicious strike with a mighty blow at 1st level? be my guest - or do you think you need to spend more energy points and use a death blow this time? maybe you need to save energy points and just do a sure strike - or how about going all out with burst of speed and burst of strength, or throw your toys out of the cot in a berserk rage?). Even if some might be "better" statistically (and that will depend very much on your opponent), you have to save energy points for when you need them, so judging which power is appropriate is important.

Combat can be very quick because although injury is dealt as a percentage (i.e. 100% injury = destruction of victim), mooks do not keep track of injury but instead have an equivalent % chance of dying (and ref's discretion for major injuries etc. if you roll close to the required number).

Omnifray has two basic mechanics which most players seem to really like. It has a continuous randomised "speed of action" system (no "rounds" or "turns" or "phases" or "initiative" - each action takes a random number of "segments" of 0.1 seconds depending on how quick you are, and you just keep track of how long it is until your next action). It also has a core mechanic of matching stat v stat to get a % success chance. Sometimes you make a "rough and ready" roll where, if you have X% success, you have to get under X to get at least a clear success or clear hit.
Then reverse the dice (e.g. 54 becomes 45) and if that's under, you get +1 success category (fail => modest success, clear success => critical success).

Most people who've played Omnifray have enjoyed it tremendously - the only drawback is that sometimes they find it a little complicated, but that's the price you pay for tons and tons and tons of options and total flexibility.

Some convention playtesters who were only exposed to one 4-hour slot of Omnifray felt that (even with non-magical PCs) they had too many options (each 1st level character gets a small menu of feats powered using energy points). However in longer games lasting a few sessions or more people tend to get the hang of the basics pretty quickly.

The general view seems to be that the setting (the Enshrouded Lands) is awesome. It appears non-magical at first glance (inhabitants:- humans and animals), but magic bubbles away beneath the surface, beyond the ken of the common folk. Also brim-full of secret cults etc. which are detailed in the 2nd book (the Expert Manual).


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2008)

One option for the "Dragging fights" Mearls suggested was, after all is said and done and people look bored, treat the monsters as minions. The example he used was two skeleton archers who were cornered at full HP, but who clearly could not "do their thing" because they are in melee and stuck. So it didn't hurt to just let them die after a hit or two. 

My fights seem to swing back and forth. Usually the PCs _chew_ through the situation rather quickly. The only times that things seem to drag was when the PCs battled with Elites, who have twice the HP.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 2, 2008)

wedgeski said:


> An interesting observation, but not borne out by my experience. The ultimate decision point tends to rest on what creature roles are left in the fight: artillery that has no defensive line, brutes locked down by a controller and taking punishment from everyone else, etc. If multiple creature roles are left on the battlefield, I would never handwave the fight. Ultimately, the decision tends to be pretty easy, and my players don't ever seem unsatisfied; by the time we're declaring the fight over and discussing attrition, the most exciting elements of the encounter are already over. I also always have the option of declaring the fight over by having free and able-bodied opponents make a break for it.




Oh yes, morale can be a big factor in deciding when the bad guys surrender or flee. As far as the exciting elements of an encounter being over and creature roles, I find that to be an interesting observation. Wizards/casters are typically in the artillery category yet if there were one or two still able to fight then I would hardly call the encounter done because there were no fighter types left, at least using a system where the casters had the potential to do more than grind off some more HP before they went down. With spells like hold person, web, mirror image, confusion, ect. the battle could still turn with some timely spell use. 

A 4E caster in this situation could only do some damage and perhaps cause a minor annoyance that would only delay the inevitable which is why calling the fight makes sense in the first place. Thats why the focus on balance kind of kills the magic and excitement of combat IMHO.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 2, 2008)

jenskot said:


> We've been playing 4E for around 16 sessions (We're almost level 6) and we've been running into many of the problems described by the original poster. I love 4E combat, powers, and especially monsters. But as we level up, combat seems to drag and drag. We play for about 3.5 hours and the last few times I kept track of our rolls. Generally speaking I would say that with 5 players, *each person gets to go every 15 minutes*, so around 12 rounds a night. The odds on average seem to be 50/50. If we optimize all our bonuses, we usually need around an 9-11 to hit. So out of 12 times, we only do something cool 6 times a night. When you throw in constant condition effects that limit our options, spending move actions to keep getting up from prone or being slowed or weakened and so on, I would say that I would reduce doing cool stuff from 6 to an average for 3-4 times a night.




Emphasis mine.

I'm really surprised by that figure of 15 minutes before your next turn. How many players are there in the group?

I'm playing with anywhere between 6 and 8 players, and I'd estimate (because I haven't done any real checking yet) that even with that number we get round to everyone about once every 7 or eight minutes or so. I think you might want to look into ways to speed your combat up.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> 4e removed the swingyness from combat. It should not come as a surprise that everyone is able to predict the outcome. 4e is _designed _to be predictable-- one of the reasons DMs love it.
> 
> The trend seems to be that DMs love 4e because it is so predictable, forgiving, and easy to run-- but players quickly tire of it. I think this might have to do with the removal of "mastery."
> 
> And that's not simply an issue of "no splatbooks yet." If you are the sort of player for whom predictable = boring, you have to hope that the splatbooks unbalance the carefully balanced system. (Then you'll have a new set of complainers.)




I disagree here. I enjoy a bit of swing and upredictability from combat and this has nothing to do with " mastery". The majority of mastery that a lot of players enjoy comes from character building rather than mastery of the resolution mechanics. You can get swingy combat from just having save or die (or suck) effects in the game with no character build options at all.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> 4e removed the swingyness from combat. It should not come as a surprise that everyone is able to predict the outcome. 4e is _designed _to be predictable-- one of the reasons DMs love it.




I'd agree that combats do seem to reach a predictable stage. One player said that it feels like he's just moving his miniature round the board waiting for the combat to end, and another said he wanted unpredictability of previous editions.

As I've said large parts of 4E are great and I'll definitely be taking lot's of its ideas with me. Generally I really like the powers for the non spellcasting classes but not perhaps the implementation. I sort of feel if they'd done powers as mostly dailies with the ability to bring some down to encounters and at wills as they advance in level it would feel different.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 2, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> I disagree here. I enjoy a bit of swing and upredictability from combat and this has nothing to do with " mastery".




You're right. Swingyness has nothing to do with mastery. I was making two distinct points-- well, they were _intended _to be distinct.


----------



## jenskot (Dec 2, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Emphasis mine.
> 
> I'm really surprised by that figure of 15 minutes before your next turn. How many players are there in the group?
> 
> I'm playing with anywhere between 6 and 8 players, and I'd estimate (because I haven't done any real checking yet) that even with that number we get round to everyone about once every 7 or eight minutes or so. I think you might want to look into ways to speed your combat up.



What techniques do you guys use to speed combat up? 

Right now we have 5-6 players and a DM. As we level up, it seems things take longer. We have a player keep track of the initiative for the DM. Combat encounters tend to be at our level or 2 levels higher. With 15 minutes, we're averaging at around 1.5 minutes per player, and 6 minutes for the DM spread around between various monsters (since he rolls separate initiative for each monster type) and looking up rules, tracking conditions, and making saving throws. In play it doesn't seem excessive. But in the context of a night of playing, it feels like we aren't doing enough if that makes sense. At first I thought it was quicker but I timed it the last few games.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 2, 2008)

Rechan said:


> My fights seem to swing back and forth. Usually the PCs _chew_ through the situation rather quickly. The only times that things seem to drag was when the PCs battled with Elites, who have twice the HP.




Weird, in my campaign, it's the opposite, since whenever an elite is spotted, all firepower is immediately focused on him, and he drops like, very quickly.

Now, battling a full group of elites, on the other hand, does take a while. But I feel they work really great for end-of-mission type of battles.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> I'll have no hesitation whatsoever using fewer monsters or monsters with 3/4 of the regular hit points. I don't do it all the time, but it keeps the game running at the pace I want.




I'd started doing this in recent sessions. It did keep things more interesting from my point of view (the DM). I'd also started advancing monsters up or down a level or two to change things round a bit.

Another thing the players disliked was some monster abilities that they couldn't replicate or could do only once while monsters could recharge. I'd guess that comes from playing 3E for its entire run.


----------



## delericho (Dec 2, 2008)

My group decided against 4e for many of the same reasons as the OP, only much more quickly. (There was also a style issue at play.) The points about combat being fairly predictable and about monsters generally being better than PCs are both things we commented on. And, yes, we did find that the use of powers quickly became very repetitive, even when stacked up against the Fighter's previous "charge and then full attack every round" SOP.

We have agreed to revisit the system when and if we can recruit at least two more players (to bring us to the recommended five), but for now we're not going to carry on with the system. If nothing else, this prevents us from becoming totally disillusioned with a game that just didn't work for us (although partly because of the composition of our group).

The top three things I _did_ like most about 4e: I really liked the encounter design philosophy, with the emphasis being on facing multiple opponents with different roles (rather than a single monster, or three identical orcs, or whatever). I really liked the concept of skill challenges, even if the math wasn't quite right. And I really liked that monsters were actually able to hit far more often than was previously the case, and could actually use their most interesting abilities without them being either anti-climactic or TPK in scale (as most save-or-dies tended to be - if you saved they often had no effect, but if not you were out of the game).


----------



## Rel (Dec 2, 2008)

Upon reading through the 4e rules I saw some things that I considered weaknesses similar to those the OP mentions.  One thing I knew I wanted to avoid was the "same powers over and over" syndrome.  I think that is partially alleviated by the aquisition of new powers as the PC's rise in level.  But I'm also a huge fan of "rules that let you break the rules" once in a while.

I won't bother reposting my house rule here but I allow players to use Action Points to do things other than take extra actions so long as it fits the theme of their character.  We had our first session last night and I got to see one of the PC's put this into action when his Eladrin Ranger Fey Stepped _into the mouth_ of a huge creature that was in the process of chewing on the Halfling Paladin and then spent Action Points to grab him and Fey Step back out again.  It had just the feel I wanted and gave me hope that this rule will keep us from feeling that the PC's are locked into using a rigid set of powers.

EDIT:  Oh but I meant to mention that Savage Worlds sounds like it might be a good fit for the OP and his group.  Though I'm also a huge fan of WFRP2.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> I'm really surprised by that figure of 15 minutes before your next turn. How many players are there in the group?




I'd say that over the last few sessions each player would take on average two minutes to resolve their turn. Each player had two characters which were resolved on separate initiative so the players would take around 12 minutes for their actions in combat and I'd take another 2-3 minutes to resolve the monsters and any npc's.

Each combat would last for 6-10 rounds so a typical fight for the pc's level should have lasted around 2 hours. One of the problems we had, and this existed in 3E as well was in a 3-5 hour session a challenging combat would go on for half the session. In 3E we had less combat rounds but each player took a longer time to resolve their actions. In 4E faster rounds but twice as many so we get the same result.

What we'd all see happening is that once the tilt point of the fight had been hit player boredom crept in taking each player a little longer to resolve their turn.

One feeling we all discussed after the last session was that combat has to be quicker. If, to achieve this, it has to be more swingy then so be it. We looked at altering 4E to fit this requirement, (change powers to do more damage or acquire them in a different way so you have a wider set) or (reduce monster hit points) but I felt that it's too early to start pulling the system to pieces.

I personally would like a challenging combat to be resolved in about 30 minutes. That could give an average of 5 minutes for everyone to resolve a round and have 6 combat rounds but this would need to be three times faster than we're currently achieving.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

There is a solution to every combat being the same, and the solution is to up the difficulty. The characters are doing the same thing every combat because the monsters let them. If the monsters crash out of the gate, kick the characters in the teeth, and force them back on their heels things become interesting. The monsters have just as much right to dictate how the battle progresses as the PCs do. 

4E characters are tough and can come back from difficult odds. They can handle encounters 1-4 levels higher than they are and consistently survive. I also am the best tactical player at the table, and I run the monsters to the best of my abilities with the intention of killing the players. The game can withstand this, as while my game features higher level enemies ruthlessly run by a superior player and I still rarely kill anybody.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 2, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> There is a solution to every combat being the same, and the solution is to up the difficulty.




If the monsters already have high hit points and defenses, won't that just aggravate the problem?


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

delericho said:


> And, yes, we did find that the use of powers quickly became very repetitive, even when stacked up against the Fighter's previous "charge and then full attack every round" SOP.




I agree. I sometimes think we're crazy when we complain that character x can only do these powers when previous editions had the option of move/attack or full attack. I've sat at the table saying but now you can do x,y, and z as well as b and c all the time. To which they say that once or twice was ok but on the 20th time doing exactly the same sequence of powers kind of lost its newness.



delericho said:


> We have agreed to revisit the system when and if we can recruit at least two more players (to bring us to the recommended five), but for now we're not going to carry on with the system.




I think we'll revisit the system if the splatbooks add new options. Kind of funny really, in 3E the endless splatbooks killed it fo us, yet in 4E they may eventually save it.



delericho said:


> And I really liked that monsters were actually able to hit far more often than was previously the case, and could actually use their most interesting abilities without them being either anti-climactic or TPK in scale (as most save-or-dies tended to be - if you saved they often had no effect, but if not you were out of the game).




This reminds me of a climatic 3E adventure from about 4 years ago. The bad guy cast his spell and because the DM had miscalculated the odds those that failed died and those that succeeded died. Certainly don't miss that anymore.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> If the monsters already have high hit points and defenses, won't that just aggravate the problem?




The problem he described was that the characters do the same thing every battle. I reply that its hard to do that when they are being stomped in the face and focusing more on not getting killed than killing the enemy. I would call the mop up phase of 4E combat a different problem with different solutions, such as handwaving it or having the enemies run away when it becomes clear they have lost.


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 2, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> If the monsters already have high hit points and defenses, won't that just aggravate the problem?




Not really, since you don't "increase the power of the monsters".

What I found effective in keeping combat fresh was varying the standard encounter. I regularly use monsters of levels lower than the party but simply increase the count for the budget and add in a LEADER to help them out...

What really works is finding mob monsters (like gnolls) that work better with a lot of them around....


----------



## Mark (Dec 2, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> I'll have no hesitation whatsoever using fewer monsters or monsters with 3/4 of the regular hit points. I don't do it all the time, but it keeps the game running at the pace I want.





That's a useful tip.




Rechan said:


> One option for the "Dragging fights" Mearls suggested was, after all is said and done and people look bored, treat the monsters as minions.





Do you recall where he wrote this or even have a link to it, please?


----------



## Festivus (Dec 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> And yet they seem to come up so regularly...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps I am in the minority, but I play this game for the story, not the combat.  If the combat is boring and predictable, why not throw in curve balls like the environment changing (e.g. a pit opening in the middle of the room, cave in, fog moves in, etc) or a diplomatic solution presenting itself (e.g. a group of female orcs with their young plead with the PCs not to kill off the last of their hunters).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 2, 2008)

Festivus said:


> Perhaps I am in the minority, but I play this game for the story, not the combat.




Not to be snarky, but if you're not playing D&D to kill monsters and take their stuff, you are probably in the minority.

D&D is now and ever has been a game about combat.

Campaigns that focus on story (as many do, successfully) _transcend _that core function.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Dec 2, 2008)

For my group, the issue of repetative attack routines seems to be all in the name.  The Ranger saying "I'll Twinstrike" every round does grate on my nerves more than previous editions, but in those other editions we actually had fewer attack options.

The difference for us was that the players rarely said "I full attack the orc", they just described what they were doing.  "I'll strike at the orc with my sword to try to keep him away from the wizard" was a much more typical exchange.

I'm going to try to encourage my 4E players to use more description in their combat routines, and only note the power name as a minor part of the declaration.  "I'll attempt to strike the orc leader with as many arrows as I can in order to distract him from the rogue: I'm using twin strike." might help break the monotany.

I'll let you know how it works out.


----------



## Rechan (Dec 2, 2008)

Mark said:


> Do you recall where he wrote this or even have a link to it, please?



It was in the most recent podcast.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

Lhorgrim said:


> I'm going to try to encourage my 4E players to use more description in their combat routines, and only note the power name as a minor part of the declaration.  "I'll attempt to strike the orc leader with as many arrows as I can in order to distract him from the rogue: I'm using twin strike." might help break the monotany.




That's a similar idea I'd had as well. Whatever we end up playing I want to encourage the players to describe what they're doing in combat and try to forget about the powers, not just call out the power name.


----------



## Mark (Dec 2, 2008)

Rechan said:


> It was in the most recent podcast.





Thanks.  They don't do a transcript for those, do they?


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 2, 2008)

I haven't seen as many cool, creative moves as I would like.  I'd like to see quite a few, though!

In the last game the Wizard cast Mage Hand to wrap a bugbear (who was standing in burning coals) in a sheet and light the sheet on fire.

Int vs. Ref attack, pretty simple.  Damage, at first I pegged it at 1d6+Int Mod.  He might as well have just used an at-will.

Then I checked page 42 for the damage expressions - I used the limited damage one because this move couldn't happen too often - and it read 3d6+4.  So we changed that to 3d6+Int mod, ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).

That made it a much better deal.  I think we might see more creativity because of this.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 2, 2008)

*Morale* is the solution to long combats: just have opponents run away. It also happens to be more realistic (why wouldn't they, are they all that stupid/brave?). And, when a combat is close, and they don't run, then it can grow to nice, epic, proportions. 

*Variation* is the response to predictability. Even simple use of terrain, movement and range can change things. Variation in opponents also helps, but I am guessing you did that. And of course this is true in many games. 

Finally: being a *rat bastard* helps liven things up. I don't know what your mortality rate was like, but that real threat of charecter death can encourage creativity and break up routines.


----------



## malraux (Dec 2, 2008)

So far I've noticed my players get most excited when the terrain includes something to push/slide monster into.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 2, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> I haven't seen as many cool, creative moves as I would like. I'd like to see quite a few, though!
> 
> In the last game the Wizard cast Mage Hand to wrap a bugbear (who was standing in burning coals) in a sheet and light the sheet on fire.
> 
> ...




Sounds like fun. The only problem with basing damage on perceived rarity is that soon it may become less rare. Knowing the damage potential of that move, the player may stock up on sheets and torches.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 2, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> I don't know what your mortality rate was like, but that real threat of charecter death can encourage creativity and break up routines.




We'd had an early almost TPK early on when they got outmaneouvered by hobgoblins and some characters regularly dropped towards death saves. Thinking about it, it was the one player that didn't ever get close that said the system was too predictable, however he's also the player most prone to system optimization and created a character that always had an out, in this case a ranger. The other players had started to complain about always having the same set of options though and recognizing the point of the battle where things were effectively over and it started to be a grind.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 2, 2008)

Well, i'm enjoying 4e well enough as a DM, but i hate to say this, i really don't think i want to be a PLAYER in 4e.  Does that sound weird?  For one, i hate the magic system in 4e, it's the same thing as everything else with minor tweaks.  As DM, i get to be every monster and thus enjoy a pretty vast array of powers and tactics i can throw against the party, rather than being a single character relegated to the same attacks over and over. 

And although i own every supplement for Warhammer Fantasy, i have never played the game.  But it looks like a ton of fun, as if they spliced D&D and Cthulhu.  I was actually reading over the combat rules and magic in the core book last night and really wanted to play.  

The combat is frigging lethal (expect characters to die frequently and bloodily) and the magic actually FEELS like magic, something wild and unpredictable and tainted with evil.  Casting a spell can potentially kill your character, or get him possessed, or open a rift to hell. Worse case scenario of course, but it makes you think twice before rolling a handfull of dice for your most potent spell. 

The only thing about Warhammer that doesn't jump out and grab me is the setting, although i love the grim and grittiness of it.  Maybe it's the pseduo-European words and culture, but i feel a disconnect when i start reading about it.  I would almost consider plopping the campaign in another world.


----------



## billd91 (Dec 2, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> I agree. I sometimes think we're crazy when we complain that character x can only do these powers when previous editions had the option of move/attack or full attack. I've sat at the table saying but now you can do x,y, and z as well as b and c all the time. To which they say that once or twice was ok but on the 20th time doing exactly the same sequence of powers kind of lost its newness.




I think a lot of people have understated (or underestimated) the interplay of the tactical choices that previous editions, particularly 3e, actually have and how satisfying they actually can be in a diverse and interesting party.

In the Shackled City game I run, there are 3 characters built on tumbling and mobile melee (scout, dragon shaman, and swashbuckler) and two that you'd think were more toe-to-toe combatants (paladin, barbarian). But the paladin has a history of rolling low hit points, so he became more of a mobile charger as well, particularly after picking up enough bard levels to be able to cast swift fly. Had he not had variable hit points and not rolled low, he might have gone a more traditional route as a stand-up holy warrior.
And the way we play, there tends to be a lot of mobility vs # of attacks choices that have to be made. Most of my NPCs aren't going to stand too much in one place - the barbarian (who happens to be a half-ogre) is far too scary. So my monsters are moving around a lot, as are the PCs. The swashbuckler is frequently trading off mobility with multiple attacks with her two-weapon fighting. And that often becomes an interesting choice as she tries to find ways to lead the monsters between herself as hammer and the barbarian as anvil.

Now, I'll agree that keeping the game mobile and fluid has a lot to do with making combat particularly interesting. And I'll give 4e kudos for recognizing it. But by removing the choice of staying put and doing more damage vs moving and doing less damage, I think they've removed one of the really interesting tactical tradeoffs that combat games have. And you see it in plenty of other games too, not just D&D. Try to hit anything really effectively with a moving tank in Advanced Squad Leader or with a squad's advancing fire and you'll get the idea. Allowing players to have their cake and eat it too with respect to movement and damage removes the tradeoff of tactical position vs damage, leaving choices that I think a lot of us find less fulfilling in our game play.

I'm not really trying to bash 4e here. I'm mainly trying to point out how the combat choices available in 3e were actually more interesting than a lot of people seemed to realize with the design of 4e. And the choices presented as the solution to the reputedly limited choices of 3e may turn out to be a lot less interesting in the long run than they initially appear (particularly so, it seems to me, as they blend together as variations of the same thing when unleashed against the embarassment of elite and solo monster hit point wealth).


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 2, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Sounds like fun. The only problem with basing damage on perceived rarity is that soon it may become less rare. Knowing the damage potential of that move, the player may stock up on sheets and torches.




I think that would be fine - they'd have to use at least two actions to get it to do basically encounter power damage.  1 action to get the sheet on someone and another to light it.

Though that first action might be to wrap the bad guy's head in the sheets, making him blind.  Nice move, though you'd have to be in melee to do it.  Unless you have some kind of magic spell that can manipulate objects at range...

Man, wizards are powerful in 4e, so many creative uses of their powers.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 2, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Man, wizards are powerful in 4e, so many creative uses of their powers.




Correction..........wizards can be powerful in your game because you have the DM skills to handle such situations well. I can't think of any mechanics from another edition that would handle that situation any better. 

So I think its got nothing to do with 4E or any other edition. Its about the people at the table, not the rules. The better the group, the less detailed and fiddly the rules need to be.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> We'd had an early almost TPK early on when they got outmaneouvered by hobgoblins and some characters regularly dropped towards death saves. *Thinking about it, it was the one player that didn't ever get close that said the system was too predictable, however he's also the player most prone to system optimization and created a character that always had an out, in this case a ranger.* The other players had started to complain about always having the same set of options though and recognizing the point of the battle where things were effectively over and it started to be a grind.




Note the bolded part. This says a lot. The Ranger is the most boring and predictable class in 4E, and nothing comes close. 

As for that point of the battle where things are effectively over, that is truly something that happens. The thing is, things need to change at that point. Monsters should be able to see that point just as well as players and act accordingly, either to run away, surrender, or (and this is something you need to houserule) or sacrifice themselves in a blaze of glory by dropping their defenses to try to take somebody with them.


----------



## Miyaa (Dec 2, 2008)

Of course, this is also be the point where players and DM would start adding their own powers, rituals, feats, and class options to make the game more interesting.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2008)

Would greater flexibility help alleviate the problem?

Lets say that instead of choosing Encounter and Daily powers, your character could instead use said number of encounter and daily powers of your level. At each use the character could use any power available to the class. For example, a 1st level PC would not pick 1 encounter power and 1 daily power; instead they would have 1 use of each per encounter/day. When they use the power they decide which power. (This could also make the latter 3 multiclass feats seem more worthwhile to those who question their value by having the feat add one power of the type to the available powers instead of replacing.)

This could be totally game-breaking, but might be worth some playtesting to see if it helps increase variety.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 2, 2008)

Miyaa said:


> Of course, this is also be the point where players and DM would start adding their own powers, rituals, feats, and class options to make the game more interesting.




Yes, i'm adding new spells from past editions, and the wizard player is writing up some house rules so that he can cast from a wider range of utility spells.  Come to think of it, we've reached the end of Keep on the Shadowfell and i don't think anyone has cast a single ritual.  They HAVE them, they just don't come up.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 2, 2008)

Mark said:


> Thanks.  They don't do a transcript for those, do they?




No, you need technology more advanced than your rotary phone to listen to them Mark.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 2, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> Note the bolded part. This says a lot. The Ranger is the most boring and predictable class in 4E, and nothing comes close.




This is personal preference, but in reality I've found no class that is boring.  I've found players that describe a "boring" maneuver in combat.

Let me explain, if the players are immersing themselves into the game there are no classes that are boring.  If they are not, you end up with "boring"  narrative in combat.

As a DM I chose to change the perspective of the game, instead of a player telling me he was using "Twin Strike" and rolling for damage, I've asked him to describe how he uses "Twin Strike".  This has led to many more memorable encounters because the game goes back to being played mostly in the imagination.

I had a player running a ranger character that asked if there were stalactites on the ceiling of a cavern they were being attacked in.  When the answer was yes, he then proceeded to tell me how he was aiming, not at the goblins that were attacking from behind a low-wall but at the stalactites right above them.  When his twin strike hit the stalactites (using the same game statistics as goblins behind cover), he described how the torn pieces of rock landed on the goblins, stunning them (just regular damage from Twin Strike).

The same player once grabbed onto the underside of a net, cut the rope and "rode" the net to the hobgoblins that were attacking them (bull rush).  He missed the attack, but man do the player's still talk about that combat.

So you see, in my opinion, by changing the "perspective" of what the players describe you can make the combats much more interesting.  Let the terrain be used for these kind of things and use it yourself as a DM to let the players see that it can be done.  It took about 3-4 sessions to "train" my players in that manner.  Before that change in perspective we were having fun, now we are having a blast.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

D'karr said:


> This is personal preference, but in reality I've found no class that is boring.  I've found players that describe a "boring" maneuver in combat.
> 
> Let me explain, if the players are immersing themselves into the game there are no classes that are boring.  If they are not, you end up with "boring"  narrative in combat.
> 
> ...




For what its worth, it doesn't even require what you've said. It is possible for the Ranger to be a dynamic and interesting character. I know this because I've personally done it with my Ranger in our 4E Dragonlance game. The problem with the Ranger is that it is really easy to just sit there and Twin Strike every turn. Its simple, its stupid, and it works. The only thing making the Ranger dynamic and interesting is how you play it, as the class itself doesn't really give you much. The other classes do a much better job at being dynamic and interesting through what they do.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Dec 2, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> For what its worth, it doesn't even require what you've said. It is possible for the Ranger to be a dynamic and interesting character...



I am with this idea, yes you can do the same thing over and over but you do not have to. My biggest gripe with 4E is not the sameness/cookie cutter/etc of the classes some see but the point the OP had. At a certain round in the combat the PCs can say we have won (most times) then it is a grind to actually finish the enemy off...even if I get the baddies running away etc.


----------



## GRStrayton (Dec 2, 2008)

I agree about the grindiness of combat, which to me stems from the large hit point values for monsters.  For the past six months I've been running combats with monsters starting at half hit points (their bloodied value becomes half of that number).  To balance out that decrease I give monsters a bonus to damage equal to half their level.  I don't apply this rule to minions as I'm obviously not cutting their hit points.  It has worked out well in terms of game balance and has definitely cut down the length of combat encounters.

I also agree with the other posters about morale.  Unless I have some specific story reason that the monsters will fight to the death (fanatic cultists, for example), I either allow the party to make an intimidate or diplomacy check against the monster's Will, or I roll a Wisdom check for the monster against its own Will to see if it surrenders.  Depending on the circumstances, I adjust this number by +/- 2 or +/- 5.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 2, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> For what its worth, it doesn't even require what you've said. It is possible for the Ranger to be a dynamic and interesting character. I know this because I've personally done it with my Ranger in our 4E Dragonlance game. *The problem with the Ranger is that it is really easy to just sit there and Twin Strike every turn.* Its simple, its stupid, and it works. The only thing making the Ranger dynamic and interesting is how you play it, as the class itself doesn't really give you much. The other classes do a much better job at being dynamic and interesting through what they do.




But that is the case with almost every striker class.  The warlock could just sit back, curse and _Eldritch Blast_ every round.  The rogue could also sit back and _Sly Flourish_ every round.  For that matter the same can be said of any class.  But the class is not what "forces" this behavior.  If the DM provides no incentive to do anything but use the same At-Will power every round that is what the players may end up resorting to.

If the combats are dragging and boring then the DM needs to change the dynamic.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

D'karr said:


> But that is the case with almost every striker class.  The warlock could just sit back, curse and _Eldritch Blast_ every round.  The rogue could also sit back and _Sly Flourish_ every round.  For that matter the same can be said of any class.  But the class is not what "forces" this behavior.  If the DM provides no incentive to do anything but use the same At-Will power every round that is what the players may end up resorting to.
> 
> If the combats are dragging and boring then the DM needs to change the dynamic.




The issue is that Twin Strike is light years better than the other Ranger at-wills, and often overshadows the Ranger's encounter powers. A Rogue with Sly Flourish still can use Deft Strike to gain combat advantage when they don't already have it or to hit and run. Sly Flourish is better most of the time, but not to the extent that Twin Strike is always better, and Sly Flourish generally does not overshadow Rogue encounter powers. The same can be said of Warlocks.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 2, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> The issue is that Twin Strike is light years better than the other Ranger at-wills, and often overshadows the Ranger's encounter powers. A Rogue with Sly Flourish still can use Deft Strike to gain combat advantage when they don't already have it or to hit and run. Sly Flourish is better most of the time, but not to the extent that Twin Strike is always better, and Sly Flourish generally does not overshadow Rogue encounter powers. The same can be said of Warlocks.




I think then that we are talking about two different things.  Combat is not boring and grindy because a character is "forced" to use his At-Will powers.  Combat becomes grindy and boring because the creatures have a lot of hit points *AND* the DM is not taking measures to keep the interest of the players.

That has nothing to do with what power is being used to attack.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

D'karr said:


> I think then that we are talking about two different things.  Combat is not boring and grindy because a character is "forced" to use his At-Will powers.  Combat becomes grindy and boring because the creatures have a lot of hit points *AND* the DM is not taking measures to keep the interest of the players.
> 
> That has nothing to do with what power is being used to attack.




What I was referring to when I criticized the 4E Ranger class for being boring was the OP's description of his players using the same array of attacks/tactics at the start of every battle. 

The grind at the end is a separate issue, and as you said has little to do with character classes.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 2, 2008)

My usual rules as a (relatively new) DM for 4E:

1.  If the enemies have a purpose or some kind of goal, they have full HP.
2.  If the enemies are simply there to battle the PCs, they're at 3/4 or so, except for VIPs and what-not.
3.  Always make sure to have at least 1-2 combats include a goal (either for the PCs OR the enemies) that isn't based around wanton murder, even if it's a small thing.

Although I feel this holds true for any edition, I feel that in 4E it's crucial to make combats as dynamic and story-specific as possible.  Like others have said, the problem with balance is that it, well, balances things.  There has to be something to interrupt the standard roll roll roll of a combat session.

However, some people just don't like 4E, and that's fine!  I've been meaning to try Savage Worlds out for at least a one-shot or not.

If you like game balance but want more of a swingy feel to combat, you might try Castles and Crusades?  It's quite awesome, and from what I hear it's pretty easy to integrate your favorite parts of most fantasy systems.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 2, 2008)

I have run 12 or 13 sessions of 4e or so and have not had the op's problem, I had a few combats fall flat but that was usually my fault. I do agree that there are issues of grid and it is worse (in my expericence ) with smaller parties. That said, I think I have found 2 good ideas in this thread, that of using action points to recover powers and less monster hp for random or non plot essential monsters.


----------



## cougent (Dec 2, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> -snip-
> 
> As regards looking at options I personally don't want to return to 3E, I'm the DM mostly and it's just too much work. We're going to try out three systems in our next session combat wise to see how they play. We're looking for a game where combats are fast, we don't want to spend half the session on every fight and flexibility is a must as one of the player's likes experimenting. The options are Castles and Crusades, WFRP2, and Earthdawn.
> 
> ...




Another vote for trying EarthDawn.  Hindsight being what it is, I think it may actually be more fun that ANY D&D version.  That coming from an avid 3E fan and a rabid AD&D fan.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 2, 2008)

I'm considering the following:

When the grind begins and the battle is already decided, if I'm not having the monsters run or surrender, the monsters decide to go out in a blaze of glory, pulling out all the stops and leaving themselves vulnerable. When this occurs, all encounter and recharge attack powers on both PCs and enemies become At-Will powers, and Daily attack powers used during this period are not expended after combat is over.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Dec 2, 2008)

cougent said:


> Another vote for trying EarthDawn.  Hindsight being what it is, I think it may actually be more fun that ANY D&D version.  That coming from an avid 3E fan and a rabid AD&D fan.




To me the value of Earthdawn is its setting otherwise whenever I'm playing Earthdawn I can't help but wonder "Why aren't we playing D&D?"


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 2, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> so we're now looking at alternatives.




If you are open to suggestions for things that would be quite different, I recommend looking at the relatively new "Basic Roleplaying" from Chaosium. They've cleaned up and redeveloped a system based on their tried and true mechanism which has worked well for decades. It is well written and a system which enables hugely fun adventures.

Definitely worth a look!


----------



## Halivar (Dec 2, 2008)

thecasualoblivion said:


> When the grind begins and the battle is already decided, if I'm not having the monsters run or surrender, the monsters decide to go out in a blaze of glory, pulling out all the stops and leaving themselves vulnerable.



Yep. In the game I run, the monsters will notice the inevitable at about the same time the players do, so they get desperate. Their tactics change to reflect this. Some will try to run, some will go in a blaze of glory.

In our last session, I had six death cultists jump off a cliff in unison rather than face defeat (and possible interrogation).


----------



## fuindordm (Dec 2, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:


> To me the value of Earthdawn is its setting otherwise whenever I'm playing Earthdawn I can't help but wonder "Why aren't we playing D&D?"




So many reasons...

I could list the dozens of specific things I find cool about ED, and you're right that some of them could be ported into D&D. But it wouldn't have the same feel to it.

What it comes down to is this: the best RP experiences for me have always been in games where the rules are specifically tailored to the setting.  

Generic rules (d20, GURPS, HERO) may be easy to learn, but they add nothing to the setting. All the flavor has to come from the iron fist of the GM, and let's face it--how many players actually listen to everything the GM has to say?

Ciao


----------



## Mark (Dec 2, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> No, you need technology more advanced than your rotary phone to listen to them Mark.





This from the guy with the gerbil-powered computer.  Get real, Flintstone.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 2, 2008)

(1) While my group is enjoying 4e, I need to speed up combat, and this thread has been great for that.  (We had the same problem in 3e, by the end.)

(2) Earthdawn is an odd duck.  When it was competing directly with 2e, there was no contest - it had better mechanics and a better setting, with higher-quality materials all around.  On the other hand, it's a very 90's style game...  There's some character customization, but less than 4e and much less than 3e.  Balance goes out the window by about 6th Circle or so.  Karma is all-powerful.  The Step system can get cumbersome.  With that said, the setting is pure excellence.  The sourcebooks are great reads, but contain very few mechanics.  The setting detail can either be enriching, enlightening, or oppressive ...  Mostly, I found I cared about the setting way, way more than my players did.  They just wanted to play D&D with better mechanics. 

(3) WFRP2 is outstanding.  I love it, and it's one of the 3 games I have in rotation.  You can run a comprehensive game with nothing but the Core + Old World Bestiary.  (I'd recommend Tome of Salvation, Tome of Corruption, Sigmar's Heirs, and Realms of Sorcery - but they're not necessary.  You could probably run an entire campaign without the Brettonia, Kislev, Border Princes, or Vampire books - but they're all well-done and lots of fun as fluff.)  I know that all roads end in Champion, but if the PCs get that far, something has gone wrong.   Really, you're talking 50+ sessions, at 100 xp per session, with a very deadly combat system.  About the only thing I'd recommend is house-ruling armor to go 1/2/3 (or 1/2/4 or 1/3/4) instead of 1/3/5 for Leather/Chain/Plate.  Plate plus a high TB makes for gruesomely long combats.

-O


----------



## Rackhir (Dec 2, 2008)

Festivus said:


> Perhaps I am in the minority, but I play this game for the story, not the combat.  If the combat is boring and predictable, why not throw in curve balls like the environment changing (e.g. a pit opening in the middle of the room, cave in, fog moves in, etc) or a diplomatic solution presenting itself (e.g. a group of female orcs with their young plead with the PCs not to kill off the last of their hunters).




Do you realize who you were talking to?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 2, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> We're looking for a game where combats are fast, we don't want to spend half the session on every fight and flexibility is a must as one of the player's likes experimenting. The options are Castles and Crusades, WFRP2, and Earthdawn.




My experience with Earthdawn goes back over a decade and I have yet to really get a look at the latest version so I can't comment there. WFRP2 - I don't even know what that is. If someone wants to enlighten me, I'd be grateful.

Finally Castles and Crusades is something I have some experience with. It plays just like classic AD&D except without some of the complications. Combat is as easy as it ever was and the SIEGE system is, in my opinion, the ultimate streamlined system. Saving throws - gone and incorporated into the system. Skills and skill points - gone and incorporated into the system. If there's a weakness to this approach, it's that everything is so uniform, but in actual play, it's a dream - provided that system mastery isn't your bag. If it is, then players are likely to get bored. Or to put it another way, if players like tons of combat options and ways to min/max their characters, C&C will get old. 

If you like a very narrative approach to roleplaying, you should enjoy C&C. If you like a few more options and complexity, you may want to look elsewhere. Personally I see C&C as the basic D&D of our day, and then my system of choice for standard D&D is Pathfinder (though not particularly being a 3E fan, it may not be your bag either). True20 and Modern20 are my systems of choice fo modern and future games.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 2, 2008)

Piratecat said:


> I'll have no hesitation whatsoever using fewer monsters or monsters with 3/4 of the regular hit points. I don't do it all the time, but it keeps the game running at the pace I want.




Do you change their damage also?


GRStrayton said:


> For the past six months I've been running combats with monsters starting at half hit points (their bloodied value becomes half of that number).  To balance out that decrease I give monsters a bonus to damage equal to half their level.  I don't apply this rule to minions as I'm obviously not cutting their hit points.  It has worked out well in terms of game balance and has definitely cut down the length of combat encounters.




Does this +damage apply equally to all attacks? melee, close, range etc?


----------



## Rel (Dec 2, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> My experience with Earthdawn goes back over a decade and I have yet to really get a look at the latest version so I can't comment there. WFRP2 - I don't even know what that is. If someone wants to enlighten me, I'd be grateful.




WFRP2 is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edition.

For whoever said that they weren't that keen on the WFRP base setting, I used WFRP2 to do a "Pirates of the Caribbean - Warhammer Style" that was tremendous fun.  I used the real world map of the Caribbean and inserted some of the Old World powers in place of their European counterparts that colonized the region.

There was action, intrigue, ships, cannons, undead, lizardfolk, giant dinosaurs.  Everything a body could want!


----------



## Rechan (Dec 3, 2008)

I find it particularly vexing, because I (the DM) love 4e. Adore it. But, my group are either 3e lovers, or one who has his heart set to Rolemaster.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 3, 2008)

Good for you and your group Lord Vangarel! Fortunately there are plenty of options out there so you should find a good one soon.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 3, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Finally Castles and Crusades is something I have some experience with. It plays just like classic AD&D except without some of the complications. Combat is as easy as it ever was and the SIEGE system is, in my opinion, the ultimate streamlined system. Saving throws - gone and incorporated into the system. Skills and skill points - gone and incorporated into the system. If there's a weakness to this approach, it's that everything is so uniform, but in actual play, it's a dream - provided that system mastery isn't your bag. If it is, then players are likely to get bored. Or to put it another way, if players like tons of combat options and ways to min/max their characters, C&C will get old.




One of our players is more of a system mastery type player than the others so they could well start to see character (abilities) development as limited. Still the test in the next session will be to see which plays as the best  combat. We could always add some things back into C&C as it seems very easy to do so.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 3, 2008)

Nebulous said:


> Yes, i'm adding new spells from past editions, and the wizard player is writing up some house rules so that he can cast from a wider range of utility spells.  Come to think of it, we've reached the end of Keep on the Shadowfell and i don't think anyone has cast a single ritual.  They HAVE them, they just don't come up.




Same experience for us. It took ages before the first ritual was cast, the players said they were just too expensive for what they were (compared to previous editions).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Dec 3, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> We could always add some things back into C&C as it seems very easy to do so.




Well you could do that, but if you add feats back in you're more or less back to 3rd edition.

Not saying that would be a bad thing though.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 3, 2008)

Rel said:


> WFRP2 is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2nd edition.
> 
> For whoever said that they weren't that keen on the WFRP base setting, I used WFRP2 to do a "Pirates of the Caribbean - Warhammer Style" that was tremendous fun.  I used the real world map of the Caribbean and inserted some of the Old World powers in place of their European counterparts that colonized the region.
> 
> There was action, intrigue, ships, cannons, undead, lizardfolk, giant dinosaurs.  Everything a body could want!




That might have been me that said that. Maybe it's just the wording used, not so much the grim, despairing nature of it all.  And i can't find a good, evocative map of the realm, that bothers me.  I'm probably just looking in the wrong place.

What i considered is plopping the whole campaign wholesale into the Midnight world, which has one of my favorite maps ever.  Use the names of cities and countries and whatnot, but otherwise incorporate the Warhammer gods and rules and monsters, etc. 

There's another WFRP2 thread going on  here.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 3, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:


> To me the value of Earthdawn is its setting otherwise whenever I'm playing Earthdawn I can't help but wonder "Why aren't we playing D&D?"



Ha! I think there is a kernel of truth in this. Currently I'm playing in an Earthdawn campaign and in a DSA campaign. In both cases I really enjoy the game until it's time for combat. Then I start wishing for the tactical depth and options available in D&D.

I'm really, really looking forward to 'Age of Legend' for that reason. I believe that may finally give me the best of both worlds!


----------



## Nom (Dec 4, 2008)

I have a large group (8 players) and decided to give up on KotS.  A lot of the mechanical variety in 4E is in encounter design; by running my own adventures, I've got a lot more room to write interesting and dynamic encounters that work with an 8 PC party.  KotS is OK, but it's a dungeon crawl designed to have lots of relatively quick, tough encounters with a smaller party.  That's not great when I have time for only two large, interesting encounters each night (and we play ~ monthly).

By writing my own encounters, I can introduce dynamics into the encounter.  4E encounters work best when there's something about the encounter itself that changes, either by allowing PCs to manipulate it or just in reaction to certain events.  4E is at its worst when you have two opposing groups of hp just slugging it out*.  If you can get the players to go "Wow!" and react 1-2 times _during_ each encounter, then 4E keeps a lot more freshness.

* I don't necessarily think 4E is worse at "slug-fests" than other games, but it feels worse because it seems to promise much more but slug-fests fail to deliver.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 4, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> Well you could do that, but if you add feats back in you're more or less back to 3rd edition.




No. No it doesn't. At least not necessarily. Like in my games you earn "feats" through actually attempting them. Plus you can allow a very limited number of feats into your game. Some DM's have only allowed Cleave and about 6 others into their game.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 4, 2008)

Baumi said:


> I don't get these kind of complaints. There is nearly no system that gives you so many build in options in a fight than in 4E




You mean limits your options to things only spelled out in concise rules rather than allow you the depth of your imagination to try things with?

I would suggest AD&D, and if you cannot get your hands on the older books I here this OSRIC thing is like the core books in one place and is free. I am liking what I am reading form it. But of course I am biased towards AD&D so take that into consideration with my suggestion.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 4, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I would suggest AD&D




I played AD&D back in the 80's and remember it nowadays as always been a blast. I've still got all the books, saved the lot of them. We played fast and loose with the rules. Combats seemed fast, even with multiple opponents. It's one of the reasons I'm thinking C&C. Of course I may just be looking back and remembering the good bits. We rarely got any characters anywhere near to 10th level before things fell apart and we started again. If I reread the rules now they seem kind of restrictive when compared to 3E and 4E.

Wow, nostalgia trip. Sometimes it's good to remember all those dark nights and afternoons playing D&D as a kid.

Whatever system we end up with I want combat to be alot faster than we've recently achieved in 3E and 4E.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 4, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> Whatever system we end up with I want combat to be alot faster than we've recently achieved in 3E and 4E.




If speed is what you are looking for then I would suggest Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic & Expert or Labyrinth Lord. The system is simple enough to add your own character build options without all the combat rules baggage that comes with 3E or 4E. Your system mastery player will probably be bored with this option though.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 4, 2008)

justanobody said:


> You mean limits your options to things only spelled out in concise rules rather than allow you the depth of your imagination to try things with?




It really doesn't, though.  I think 4e has the best rules for adjudicating actions on the fly.


----------



## Benimoto (Dec 4, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> My usual rules as a (relatively new) DM for 4E:
> 
> 1.  If the enemies have a purpose or some kind of goal, they have full HP.
> 2.  If the enemies are simply there to battle the PCs, they're at 3/4 or so, except for VIPs and what-not.
> 3.  Always make sure to have at least 1-2 combats include a goal (either for the PCs OR the enemies) that isn't based around wanton murder, even if it's a small thing.




I think this is good advice.  If you're willing to try out a few more things, I have even a few more suggestions

4. Have maybe 1-2 combats where something happens in the middle of combat that drastically changes the combat.  Reinforcements arrive (on either side), the terrain suddenly changes, or one of the monsters changes into an entirely different monster.
5. Instead of simply reducing the monsters HP by 1/4, just have the monsters make more desperate choices in combat that result in them being hit 25% more.  Have them provoke more OAs and other similar attacks, as they move to attack more vulnerable targets.  One complaint I commonly hear from players in this forum (although not in your post specifically) is that they never get to use their OA abilities, so this kills two birds with one stone.
6. Finally, as plenty of people have mentioned, don't be afraid to consider using a sort of morale system to end the combat early.  See if you can get your players into the habit of yelling "surrender" at more civilized foes, or simply having the monsters rout and resolving the resulting mop-up with a few dice rolls.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 4, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> Wow, nostalgia trip. Sometimes it's good to remember all those dark nights and afternoons playing D&D as a kid.




Since there are still people playing OD&D, AD&D and so on, I think it doesn't have to stay nostalgia.


----------



## Quartz (Dec 4, 2008)

I've yet to play 4e but having read this thread, it seems to me that a lot of the problems of the grind could be solved by using minions. I mean, in films you see it again and again that there are very few opponents who individually give the heroes pause. You could even minionify brutes and the like by saying that instead of being killed they become bloodied, and only then can they be killed.


----------



## TerraDave (Dec 4, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> Same experience for us. It took ages before the first ritual was cast, the players said they were just too expensive for what they were (compared to previous editions).




This is interesting. One of my players used a ritual, in the _first session_. 

If you aren't, then the game is less interesting, wizards are a lot less interesting, and you certainly do loose a good amount of "D&Disms". 

Also, there are not enough rituals, I will conceded that, but more are available on DDI


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 4, 2008)

Quartz said:


> it seems to me that a lot of the problems of the grind could be solved by using minions.




Over the last month or so I started using minions in greater and greater quantities. I've also altered hp's for monsters so they drop quicker. 

What initiated the discussion at the end of the last session was the players saying they had to use the same powers over and over again from one combat to another. What we'd seen was the players were almost following a sequence in their attacks as they'd worked out which was best for each given situation. Like I've said above I like the powers system I just wish they'd done it with more flexibility, more powers but make them mostly dailies.

We found that there is a grind point with the rules as they stand, so you can houserule around it or adjust hit points. I personally don't like the idea of monsters suddenly becoming minions once the decision point is reached and you can only have them runaway so many times before it becomes old. 

We reached the point where we said if we have to start adjusting this much after just 6 months to get the feel we want then let's look at te alternatives available and see where we are.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 4, 2008)

TerraDave said:


> This is interesting. One of my players used a ritual, in the _first session_.




I agree, I tried getting them to use the rituals but they all said that for what they were they were too expensive. All the players had played 3E since it came out and two have played 2E. I started with the old red basic set. I eventually almost forced them to use a ritual by exposing them to elemental ice so thet had to use a ritual or start taking lots of damge. After this they sort of looked a bit closer at them.


----------



## pawsplay (Dec 4, 2008)

I have always hated having two spend a small fortune every time you wanted to do something. I hated spending hundreds of gps on NPC weapon trainers. I hated the thousands of gps associated with unlocking a Weapon of Legacy. I hate 5000 gp diamonds. Not because I object to money being spent. It's just so senseless and arbitrary. 100 gp is like an entire year's income to a peasant. Has anyone noticed that in 3.5, you burn a _half pound_ of silver to enchant a vial of holy water?


----------



## Rel (Dec 4, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I have always hated having two spend a small fortune every time you wanted to do something.




Me too.  That's why...



			
				Me said:
			
		

> A casual glance told me that the cost of Rituals can add up quick. Right away I saw this as an opportunity to hand out Ritual ingredients as treasure and I'll be doing that early and often. Nope, those Demons didn't have any cash on them. But their eyeballs sure do make good Alchemical Reagents! Those carnivorous vines that attacked only had some rusty armor as treasure but fortunately their leaves count as Rare Herbs! The Evil Cleric had a magical mace, which is great! But he also had a pocket full of 400 GP worth of Sanctified Incense! Hawt!
> 
> Now another route is to give out the Rituals themselves as treasure. And that's cool but we're going to run out of Rituals in a hurry if we do much of that. There's only like 50 Rituals in the whole PHB! And only 35 of those are usable by Heroic level PC's. But what if we break some of those Rituals into smaller bits?
> 
> ...


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 4, 2008)

Rel said:


> Me too.  That's why...




Agreed, I read your post in another thread and whatever we end up playing rituals will exist and the gp cost will be replaced by components.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 4, 2008)

pawsplay said:


> I have always hated having two spend a small fortune every time you wanted to do something. I hated spending hundreds of gps on NPC weapon trainers. I hated the thousands of gps associated with unlocking a Weapon of Legacy. I hate 5000 gp diamonds. Not because I object to money being spent. It's just so senseless and arbitrary. 100 gp is like an entire year's income to a peasant. Has anyone noticed that in 3.5, you burn a _half pound_ of silver to enchant a vial of holy water?




Yes, we noticed in our group.

Maybe the only way to get away from these arbitrary cost is using the gp cost as a "background value", but instead require the use of special components. (See also Rels post)

Group these components by tier (or level range) and item type and/or skill. 

For example, a quartz might be a level 3 component. It can be used to create a level 3 armor or weapon. If you have 5 of them, you can create a level 8 armor or weapon with it. 

But you can't use 25 of them to get a level 13 item. The quartz is to weak for such an item. You'd need an opal for that. But that opal can't be broken down to 5 level 8 quartz or used for 5 level 8 items. 

Such level ranges of worth and usability means that exchange rates aren't straightforward, since the exchange process is imprecise. If you don't need a level 13 item, the opal is either stronger or weaker then what you need, and you will lose "worth" in the process. 

If you also limit their applicatibilty to types of items and rituals, you get a further constraint. Your Level 13 Opal is great for building Rings, but you actually need Mithral for your sword. So, yeah, maybe you are willing in to trade a Level 13 Opal for a Level 11 lump of Mithral Ore. 

You go from currency based trade to barter. By making exchange and "change money" harder to come by, you can avoid a few issues.

Unfortunately, 4E allows the use of Residiuum and Gold Pieces. Though: If you remove Gold Pieces from the equation, and only keep Residium with it "20 % back" rule, you get a good explanation why every merchant will sell you 20 %, but nothing more. Finding a buyer for a +3 Greatsword of Flaming might be possible given enough time, but just "melting it down" to Residuum if that fails means he won't make any losses.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 4, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> Agreed, I read your post in another thread and whatever we end up playing rituals will exist and the gp cost will be replaced by components.




Yes, i added ritual components as treasure in the last session of Keep on the Shadowfell.

I'm tinkering with some house rules to make Rituals cast much quicker, although i'm sure someone will make this official down the road in the next few years.

Anyway, my idea was for the caster to spend the money and time early and save the last part of the ritual as the Standard action to finish it.  It would probably take up a significant slot, or maybe several rituals can be queued up in place of a Daily spell. 

Alternatively, maybe rituals can be cast faster but drastically reduced in duration or effectiveness.


----------



## scarik (Dec 4, 2008)

I do two things.

I give out Ritual Components as treasure as others do.

Ritual Scrolls cost the same as a using a Ritual once to prepare. If you have mastered the Ritual on the scroll it casts as a Standard Action. Otherwise use the normal rules.

So the Wizard has a Scroll of Arcane Lock that he prepared. Suddenly the portcullis with the 5 Dire Bears behind it starts to raise up, the Wizard pulls out his scroll (minor action) runs over closer to the portcullis (move) and then speaks the final word of the ritual to activate the scroll's magic. The portcullis slams shut and stays shut.

If the Ritual requires a roll then make it when the Ritual is cast not when the scroll is prepared.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 4, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> I played AD&D back in the 80's and remember it nowadays as always been a blast. I've still got all the books, saved the lot of them. We played fast and loose with the rules. Combats seemed fast, even with multiple opponents. It's one of the reasons I'm thinking C&C. Of course I may just be looking back and remembering the good bits. We rarely got any characters anywhere near to 10th level before things fell apart and we started again. If I reread the rules now they seem kind of restrictive when compared to 3E and 4E.
> 
> Wow, nostalgia trip. Sometimes it's good to remember all those dark nights and afternoons playing D&D as a kid.
> 
> Whatever system we end up with I want combat to be alot faster than we've recently achieved in 3E and 4E.



I know for one AD&D was faster for us than 3rd and 4th combat. Maybe because how well we know the system, 3rd took a degree in accounting and particle physics, or 4th combat just feels like forced actions...but if you cut out the weapon speed calculations it does speed up AD&D.


----------



## Gruns (Dec 5, 2008)

*Roleplaying takes too long, too.*

Yeah, my group also decided that all the dicerolling got in the way of the game, too. The solution that I found to work best was this: we just started our characters at level 30, and each player got to give a 2 minute explanation of how they fulfilled their epic destinies. That was it. Simple and easy. We beat the game in under 10 minutes. Then we ordered pizza and played Guitar Hero for the rest of the night. Best campaign ever. 
Later!
Gruns


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 5, 2008)

Gruns said:


> Yeah, my group also decided that all the dicerolling got in the way of the game, too. The solution that I found to work best was this: we just started our characters at level 30, and each player got to give a 2 minute explanation of how they fulfilled their epic destinies. That was it. Simple and easy. We beat the game in under 10 minutes. Then we ordered pizza and played Guitar Hero for the rest of the night. Best campaign ever.
> Later!
> Gruns




Glad you enjoyed it. Guitar hero is fun!!


----------



## Treebore (Dec 5, 2008)

Vang,

You may find this guys blend of 1E, 3E, and C&C rules of interest...

Castles & Crusades

Its the one he calls "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons", its what he thought 3E should have been after playing 3E and C&C and wanting a lot of what 1E offers.

If that intrigues you then check out his "Unearthed Arcana" PDF.

Definitely play with the "Castle Keeper Screen Program" too.


----------



## justanobody (Dec 5, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> It really doesn't, though.  I think 4e has the best rules for adjudicating actions on the fly.




Here we go with the whole attempt at a "crushing blow" on an opponent all over again. 

4th has no rules for on the fly, it has rules for what it has. page 42 is a bad HHGTTG joke. Because it may be the answer, sadly many people don't know the right question to ask to get the answer from it!

Has anyone mentioned Hackmaster yet?


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 5, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Glad you enjoyed it. Guitar hero is fun!!



Guitar Hero is *awesome!*

Rock Band is *awesome!*


----------



## ExploderWizard (Dec 5, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Guitar Hero is *awesome!*
> 
> Rock Band is *awesome!*




Be careful. Your post is so full of *AWESOME *that it may sink under the weight.


----------



## Seule (Dec 5, 2008)

Rangers suffer a lot from always doing the same thing, really any ranged character will. Melee characters, on the other hand, and particularly melee strikers, and particularly particularly rogues, will behave differently every encounter. When you absolutely require flanking to get combat advantage to get sneak attack, what exactly you are fighting and where they are standing becomes critically important.
My rogue, 3rd level now, is never boring in combat and is always a tactical challenge to get the most out of. I don't see him getting repetitive, well, ever.

--Penn


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 6, 2008)

ExploderWizard said:


> Be careful. Your post is so full of *AWESOME *that it may sink under the weight.



That would be *awesome!*


----------



## korjik (Dec 6, 2008)

scarik said:


> I do two things.
> 
> I give out Ritual Components as treasure as others do.
> 
> ...




I think that rituals not being incorporated into the treasure system better is one of the few real flaws in the game. Then again, I think the whole treasure system is one of the few real flaws.

They should have given some ideas on the when and wheres for rituals, residuum, and reagents.


----------



## Shroomy (Dec 6, 2008)

korjik said:


> I think that rituals not being incorporated into the treasure system better is one of the few real flaws in the game. Then again, I think the whole treasure system is one of the few real flaws.
> 
> They should have given some ideas on the when and wheres for rituals, residuum, and reagents.




They all have set monetary values, so it shouldn't be too hard to incorporate into the treasure system.  My DM has twice included ritual books into the treasures, though I'm not sure if he added up all the costs or not (he was studying the PHB for a bit and writing down something before he told us what we found).


----------



## korjik (Dec 6, 2008)

My group is coming to the conclusion that 4e is not for us either. We like the encounter design philosophy, and it is much easier to DM than 3e, but we do have some problems with how the game is set up.

We dont feel that magic is any different than mundane. Or impressive at all, most of the time. Kinda lessens the game.

There are too many HP for monsters, and too many conditions/modifiers to keep track of. One of our players likes to 'I hit it with my sword' all the time. She dosent like to use her powers. 

I personally dont agree that 4e gives more options than 3e. You must get a paragon path at 11th, you must have an epic destiny at 21th, as opposed to my never playing a prestige class in 3e. Picking one of 3-5 powers about every level, with a max of about 17 different powers at 30th as opposed to my wizard baving several hundred spells to choose from.

I do have to qualify this tho. I never came across the same problems that seemed to be common here. The 5 minute workday in my game would get the camp ambushed and the players killed, and my players new that. I dont have any power gamers, so min/maxing didnt happen.

Oddly enough, I think I like the game alot more as a DM than as a player. I love the monster design philosophy, where the stats underneath the hood are pretty generic but the differences in specials gives flavor. It gives the DM a good base to work from. I never liked 3e's philosophy of trying to make monsters more like PCs. 3e is a very hard game to run.

I think I might try to come back in a year or so after a couple expansions come out to see how the game works. 

I am curious, have many played the game up into epic levels? It looks to me like it would be very grindy, and probably out of whack.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 6, 2008)

korjik said:
			
		

> I am curious, have many played the game up into epic levels? It looks to me like it would be very grindy, and probably out of whack.




Unless they started close to it, I doubt it. Unless they really play alot


----------



## Felon (Dec 6, 2008)

I started a thread about the grindyness of 4e combat, and almost respondant shrugged like they had no idea what I was talking about. Glad to see that I continue to be ahead of my time, and gladder still to see others speaking out and prompting discussion.



Baumi said:


> I don't get these kind of complaints. There is nearly no system that gives you so many build in options in a fight than in 4E (most are simply hit, hit, hit).




Right, most systems are simply hit, hit, hit, dead. D&D is hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, hit, dead. Unless the guy's elite, in which case it's hit, hit, hit, hit.....well, I think most folks can get the point without going on for five minutes like it was a bit from Family Guy. 

The other systems aren't trying to do what D&D does with powers. Of course, just because you don't have powers with little rider effects, that doesn't mean you don't have variety. Two battles can be very different based on factors that have nothing to do with mashing hotkeyed powers. 

I think a lot of the repetitiveness stems from the presentation. 4e presents its game as a series of encounters. You set out all of the little pieces, you have your fight, and an hour or so later you mop up and take your little recharge break and then move on to the next encounter. Man, back when I was passionate about RPG's, I never ran or played in campaigns that presented the game as being boiled down into that little formula, even when that's what it was. You can't break something down and document its components without rendering it somewhat passe'. 

I enjoy DM'ing 4e to some extent because it's fun to band monsters together and create devlish little synergies in their tactics. The problem is, the heroes are static in their synergies. You're going to see the same magic tricks from them over and over again. That's why 4e monsters lack immunities that they traditionally had before; zombies can now be charmed, ghosts now be hit any weapon, swarms can be knocked prone. You can't have characters mashing their hotkey and having the desired effect not occur on a successful hit. Of course, there's only so many times you can see the same magic trick before it loses its coolness.

EDIT--This was the thread I referened: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...ion-combat-anyone-tried-solo-monster-yet.html


----------



## TheNovaLord (Dec 6, 2008)

i think a lot of people have hit the right nail on the head

for the DM, it is so much easier to run

unfortunately the player part of me is going off it quickly, and so  alot of my group...this is reflected by number of 4th ed books bought

TBH i went back to GMing 3.5 last week, and it seemed such hard work so 3.5 isnt where i wanna go either

more savage worlds for me i think


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 7, 2008)

Felon said:


> I started a thread about the grindyness of 4e combat, and almost respondant shrugged like they had no idea what I was talking about. Glad to see that I continue to be ahead of my time, and gladder still to see others speaking out and prompting discussion.




I still don't see the hit point grind in my game.

Most encounters that are not very hard (4+ levels above the PCs) end in 5 rounds.  Easy encounters are over in 1-3 rounds.

Even the last encounter I ran - 3 4th-level encounter groups coming in waves about 3 rounds apart vs. 5 slightly drained 5th- and 6th-level PCs - ended in about 12 rounds.  It included 2 elites and only 1 minion.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 7, 2008)

The hit point grind comes and goes. I've seen it happen, and I've also run several combats in succession without seeing it happen. Its usually difficult to predict. Having the enemies run away when they begin to lose helps a lot.


----------



## Remathilis (Dec 7, 2008)

My group decided 4e is not their tea either. One player loves is, and I generally like it, but the others recount every typical 4e negative trait/bash there is. I won't bother recounting them.

We're going back to the 3.5 game we left before 4e. That group is between 9th & 11th level, and set in Eberron with most supplements. My groups not too power-gamey, so the game worked til now (even in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) but this will be my first real test DMing HL 3.5 (I've played it from 16th-20th, at that was a pain). 

Perhaps come PHB2, Arcane Power and Divine Power (plus whatever else filters down the pipe) we'll go back to it. Until then...


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Dec 7, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> I still don't see the hit point grind in my game.



I do. But just as 3.x had combats that fizzled (big bad guy getting KO'd too early), so does 4E where the result is known far earlier than when the curtain comes down. I think the fix for this is to turn the enemy into "minions" when the result is obvious to everyone. On the whole, I still enjoy combat in both editions.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 7, 2008)

I prefer the 4E hp grind to 3E's rocket tag.


----------



## Anunnaki (Dec 7, 2008)

Hiya,



Nightchilde-2 said:


> Sorta.  The way I understand it, Age of Legends is a 4th edition verison of Earthdawn, but Redbrick is going to continue to publish classic Earthdawn stuff as well.




Nightchilde is correct here.

*Age of Legend 4E* is simply a port of the Earthdawn setting to D&D4E, with the first products due in 2009.

However, the *Earthdawn* game is still well-and-truly in production, with new supplements due (and scheduled) throughout 2009 and beyond. *Earthdawn* is our "core" fantasy RPG and we are absolutely committed to ongoing production and support.

RedBrick has a busy 2009 coming up, with a number of projects across all of our game lines that we "hoped" would reach fruition in 2008, but are hitting finalization in 2009 instead. Only so many hours in the week, alas... 

Take kaer,

JAMES FLOWERS
Managing Director


----------



## Obryn (Dec 7, 2008)

My players and I love 4e, but there can definitely be a grindiness to combat.  I'm trying several ways to speed things up, and so far they're working just wonderfully.  But yes, if I were to pinpoint an issue my group has with 4e, it would be this.

Mostly, a DM needs to acknowledge that not every fight should be to the last HP. 

-O


----------



## Kunimatyu (Dec 7, 2008)

4e is working for me so far, but combat often makes me grit my teeth.

The roleplaying aspects are *great* -- I love 4e wizard cantrips to death. Some folks may whine that wizard isn't as powerful, but to me, this is the first time I actually feel like my character commands powerful arcane secrets. Annoying NPCs hear malevolent whispers from behind their back, ghostly hands turn the pages of my spellbook and pour my drinks, and that's just two of my cantrips!

Combat, on the other hand, seems like it grinds to a halt at times, and we've petitioned our DM to end combat early several times, when we've clearly got the upper hand and all of the tactical advantage, but the monster's HP still aren't gone. It's happened too many times now for it to be anything other than a major issue with 4e.

I like balance in combat mechanics and such, but when a fight is won, it should be over, not have 15-20 minutes to go.


----------



## Rel (Dec 7, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:


> Combat, on the other hand, seems like it grinds to a halt at times, and we've petitioned our DM to end combat early several times, when we've clearly got the upper hand and all of the tactical advantage, but the monster's HP still aren't gone. It's happened too many times now for it to be anything other than a major issue with 4e.
> 
> I like balance in combat mechanics and such, but when a fight is won, it should be over, not have 15-20 minutes to go.




I've heard this complaint enough times that I have to give it some credence (I don't think I've run 4e enough - only about 4 sessions worth - to have my own impression).  However I am a bit puzzled by how the complaints manifest.  Generally people seem to feel that the fight is won but yet it grinds on for several more rounds.  These two things seem incongruous to me.

If the fight goes on for several more rounds, aren't those several more rounds of the bad guys having chances to land a lucky crit on the PC's?  Heck, given that crits are now just max damage, even a few regular hits with decent damage rolls can be threatening.  In the few sessions I've run (all at 1st or 2nd level) just one or two crits against the PC's suddenly had things looking very chancy for them.  I'm wondering why, in the complaints I'm hearing, the monsters aren't still a threat for those "several more rounds" of combat that seem to be a grind.

Please be assured, I'm not being snarky at all.  I'm just not quite understanding this.  Enlighten me.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 7, 2008)

Obryn said:


> My players and I love 4e, but there can definitely be a grindiness to combat.  I'm trying several ways to speed things up, and so far they're working just wonderfully.  But yes, if I were to pinpoint an issue my group has with 4e, it would be this.
> 
> Mostly, a DM needs to acknowledge that not every fight should be to the last HP.




I am the DM in our group, and maybe that's the reason.  I try to do as much damage as possible, but when I know I've lost I have the NPCs run away - because that way I can influence future encounters with what is happening now.


----------



## D'karr (Dec 7, 2008)

Rel said:


> I've heard this complaint enough times that I have to give it some credence (I don't think I've run 4e enough - only about 4 sessions worth - to have my own impression).  However I am a bit puzzled by how the complaints manifest.  Generally people seem to feel that the fight is won but yet it grinds on for several more rounds.  These two things seem incongruous to me.
> 
> If the fight goes on for several more rounds, aren't those several more rounds of the bad guys having chances to land a lucky crit on the PC's?  Heck, given that crits are now just max damage, even a few regular hits with decent damage rolls can be threatening.  In the few sessions I've run (all at 1st or 2nd level) just one or two crits against the PC's suddenly had things looking very chancy for them.  I'm wondering why, in the complaints I'm hearing, the monsters aren't still a threat for those "several more rounds" of combat that seem to be a grind.
> 
> Please be assured, I'm not being snarky at all.  I'm just not quite understanding this.  Enlighten me.




You are correct that a few more rounds of the bad guys pounding at your characters should still be a threat.  But what I think is being exposed here is that a combat feels grindy when it becomes "I hit", "monster hits."

A DM really needs to keep on his toes and make the entirety of the combat exciting, including those last few rounds where the creature and the PCs might be resorting to "At-Will" powers and the flashiness of "Encounter" & "Daily" powers has gone (they've been spent).  

In my experience this shows up too often in low-level play because the players don't have enough variety of powers.  In addition, they might miss one or two times and then the creatures last longer.  This leads to a few rounds towards the end where it seems monotonous.

If you look at a party of 1st level character they can attempt to take on a 3rd-4th level solo monster.  The problem is that even though they can take that challenge, if the challenge does not include other excitement, it can become boring.  A solo is going to have good AC, and high hit points.  So if the party spends most of it's time not hitting, the combat can be boring.  Take a look at Scalegloom Hall as an example.

If a DM does not "work" at making the encounters exciting (exciting terrain or use of terrain, additional reinforcements, wild combats, etc.) it might turn out boring if the party has a bad streak of luck and keeps missing.  That is when combat feels grindy.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 7, 2008)

korjik said:


> We dont feel that magic is any different than mundane. Or impressive at all, most of the time. Kinda lessens the game.




I agree.  I really dislike how magic has been neutered in the name of balance.  I didn't even think magic was out of control in 3.x (or earlier) until 12th level or higher, and i rarely ran games that high anyway. 



korjik said:


> Oddly enough, I think I like the game alot more as a DM than as a player. I love the monster design philosophy, where the stats underneath the hood are pretty generic but the differences in specials gives flavor. It gives the DM a good base to work from. I never liked 3e's philosophy of trying to make monsters more like PCs. 3e is a very hard game to run.




I'm having the exact same problem.  I like RUNNING 4e as a DM, the monsters are cool and encounters are easy to build and easy to wing, but i don't want to really play it. But the players are liking it a lot, so i suppose as long as we're both happy. 

We played yesterday and something i've noticed cropped up again.  There are so many powers and abilites that the group has that i'm not aware of. They keep pulling these weird abilities out that i haven't seen (we have new characters though, so that's expected) but i still can't keep track of what everyone does. I just can't read the PHB/splatbook powers section for fun because i don't enjoy it.  It's boring.  Hundreds and hundreds of simililary themed abilities. 



korjik said:


> I am curious, have many played the game up into epic levels? It looks to me like it would be very grindy, and probably out of whack.




I have not, nor will I.  Looking ahead, i think the game becomes too "superhero" by 15th, and i would never run a game past that.  If we ever get that high, maybe even by 12th, i'm going to end the campaign and get us to switch to Warhammer for awhile.


----------



## Mark (Dec 7, 2008)

Rel said:


> I've heard this complaint enough times that I have to give it some credence (I don't think I've run 4e enough - only about 4 sessions worth - to have my own impression).  However I am a bit puzzled by how the complaints manifest.  Generally people seem to feel that the fight is won but yet it grinds on for several more rounds.  These two things seem incongruous to me.





Too much time in a combat between tipping point and denouement.


----------



## Felon (Dec 7, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> I still don't see the hit point grind in my game.
> 
> Most encounters that are not very hard (4+ levels above the PCs) end in 5 rounds.  Easy encounters are over in 1-3 rounds.
> 
> Even the last encounter I ran - 3 4th-level encounter groups coming in waves about 3 rounds apart vs. 5 slightly drained 5th- and 6th-level PCs - ended in about 12 rounds.  It included 2 elites and only 1 minion.



Some elaboration is in order. In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels. OTOH, hit points often top 100, even at heroic levels. Add into that the rather high whiff factor in 4e, and you've got a recipe for grinding, not brisk three-round battles.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Dec 7, 2008)

Rel said:


> If the fight goes on for several more rounds, aren't those several more rounds of the bad guys having chances to land a lucky crit on the PC's?  Heck, given that crits are now just max damage, even a few regular hits with decent damage rolls can be threatening.  In the few sessions I've run (all at 1st or 2nd level) just one or two crits against the PC's suddenly had things looking very chancy for them.  I'm wondering why, in the complaints I'm hearing, the monsters aren't still a threat for those "several more rounds" of combat that seem to be a grind.



Crits don't have quite the same impact in 4E as in 3E.  Given the numbers, it's unlikely for any one attack to take a PC from positive hp to the negative of their bloodied value.  By the time a combat reaches the grind stage, the odds of the monsters critting frequently enough to turn the tide is too low to consider.  Playing the combat out only determines the cost of the encounter in healing surges, but in most cases it's probably more fun to end the combat one way or another.  Really, the grind is a consequence of (and a price we pay for) the less swingy nature of 4E combat.


----------



## RefinedBean (Dec 7, 2008)

Pseudopsyche said:


> Crits don't have quite the same impact in 4E as in 3E.




While this is true, there's nothing like seeing a 4E Barbarian crit with a daily and immediately take a second swing.  Even Solo monsters cringe when it happens.  

On top of that, a Rogue and Ranger's max damage on a crit (with SA or HQ going) can be pretty nasty, easily bringing a healthy baddie to half or lower HP, if not killing it outright.

But this is all, of course, my experience.  YMMV


----------



## D'karr (Dec 7, 2008)

RefinedBean said:


> But this is all, of course, my experience.  YMMV




Yes, and the howls of joy when the players get multiple crits in a row.


----------



## Emirikol (Dec 7, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> A couple of the players had reached the stage where every combat was a sequence of similar powers, one was a ranger and used twin shot all the time as it was stat wise the best choice. Also they'd got to the stage where they could spot the exact round a fight changed from going either way to an ok we've won now we just have to spend the next 30 minutes grinding the opponents down.  (




Man, I thought I was the only one who was feeling this way.  As the DM, I'm finding the EXACT SAME THING.  The combat is decided about 45 minutes before the end of it and the rest is uninteresting drudgery!

I'm thinking of beefing up criticals to add some randomness back into the game or something..maybe drop 50% off everybody's starting hp's.

It's been frustrating (boring) as a Dm to say the least [edit: because the players are limited in their actions too (as the other poster said).

WFRP (warhammer fantasy roleplay) has been an interesting ADDITION to our D&D 4e campaign. SEE HOUSE RULES HERE. I'm running the Path's of the Damned series but using 4e D&D rules.  I ran KOTS as part of Middenheim and am using stat blocks from the other scenarios (and Dungeon).

After reading everyone elses posts (all good btw), I've decided that more dangerous critical hits is the answer.  Minions will still do max, but everyone else will do DOUBLE DAMAGE like in previous editions.  That should mix things up a bit.



jh


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 7, 2008)

And yupe, add a old-school theme, crits work on the first and last roll. That goes for all (NPCs/Monsters and PCs alike).



Emirikol said:


> Man, I thought I was the only one who was feeling this way. As the DM, I'm finding the EXACT SAME THING. The combat is decided about 45 minutes before the end of it and the rest is uninteresting drudgery!
> 
> I'm thinking of beefing up criticals to add some randomness back into the game or something..maybe drop 50% off everybody's starting hp's.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ahglock (Dec 8, 2008)

I like a lot of 4e D&D as a DM and I think I'd like a lot as a player.  

It has a quick and clean resolution mechanic.
I love the encounter design.
It is balanced.
I love the concept of rituals though i think costs and times to cast need a lot of work.

Still it has been grindy in many of the combats.  Both with HP and repetitive powers.  
The players who bother to look ahead in the PH have all said the same thing, I don't really care if I level its just more of the same but with bigger numbers.

These two things may be thew death of 4e for a long term game for us.  It has been fun, but grinding combats and no real feel of advancement will eventually stop people from coming back for more.


----------



## IceFractal (Dec 8, 2008)

> I agree. I sometimes think we're crazy when we complain that character x can only do these powers when previous editions had the option of move/attack or full attack.



I see this sentiment a lot, and I want to shake people and say "You realize that there were other classes besides Fighter, right?"  In the PHB, about half the 3E classes had massively more options than 4E ones, a couple were comparable, and the rest had less (although later splatbooks added some flexibility via feats).  That's a far cry from "you could only move or attack".

That aside, part of the issue is simply that the fights are longer.  When a fight only goes three rounds, then a character with six options has quite a variety of ways to approach that fight.  When the fight goes on 10 rounds, that same character will pretty much always use all their options, and the only question is which order.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Dec 8, 2008)

Out of curiosity, has anyone read something here that changed their mind from what they were comitted to previously? If you thought it was a grind, do you now think it's not? If you think it's great have you been convinced that it's bad?


----------



## Baron Opal (Dec 8, 2008)

Emirikol said:


> I'm thinking of beefing up criticals to add some randomness back into the game or something..maybe drop 50% off everybody's starting hp's.
> 
> I've decided that more dangerous critical hits is the answer.  Minions will still do max, but everyone else will do DOUBLE DAMAGE like in previous editions.  That should mix things up a bit.




I have considered eliminating the kicker. That cuts a first level character's hp from 50-70% right off the bat. A _fireball_ that does 3d6+Int mod damage is a bit more effective when the orc's got ~14 less hit points, too. 

I've considered max damage plus rolled for criticals too. That way the players get to roll the dice, which is fun, but don't end up sucking the roll by doubling a "1". And, of course, the confirmation roll remains gone. That adds a bit more tension.

I remember the developers stating that they put a number of "dials and switches" in the rules for us to tweak. Time to start.


----------



## Baron Opal (Dec 8, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> Out of curiosity, has anyone read something here that changed their mind from what they were comitted to previously?




No. I've only run a single game of 4e so far.  And, it will probably be ~6 months before I give myself the opportunity again. Lots of theories, little experimentation, sadly.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Dec 8, 2008)

Two comments based on recent posts, one on Barbarian crits, and one on a solution to the Grind:

1. Barbarian Crits--Somebody mentioned about the beauty of Barbarian crits. I was playing a recent game at 1st level. We were fighting a mix of Goblins and Hobgoblins. My Barbarian was raging, but in melee against a Hobgoblin soldier, and knocked to 10 hp. Since it wouldn't help anybody for me to disengage, and since I couldn't stand there and trade hits with the Hobgoblin, I decided to Howling Strike charge a Hobgoblin archer with my Fullblade behind the lines, and go out in a blaze of glory. I managed a crit, and then hit with the follow up attack reducing a 39hp Hobgoblin Archer to zero HP. I then triggered my swift charge power and Howling Strike charged the other Archer. As I was going down no matter what happened, I used an action point for Avalanche Strike and rolled a second crit, which was more than enough to kill the second archer. The Goblin hexer wasted me shortly thereafter, but the blaze of glory lived up to its name. I've been noticing myself sending the Barbarian on these suicide runs fairly often.

2. The solution to the grind: I instituted a houserule for tonights game for the end of combat grind. The idea was that if the monsters didn't run or surrender when the battle was lost, "Blaze of Glory" rules were invoked. The rules for "Blaze of Glory" stated that all encounter and recharge attack powers on both characters and monsters were recharged and treated as At-Will powers until the end of combat. The reasons for this were to make the end of combat grind go faster while making the endgame fun and exciting. I must say that "Blaze of Glory" was a fantastic success on both counts.


----------



## Thasmodious (Dec 8, 2008)

While this has been an interesting discussion, with a lot of good ideas, I can't say my group has experienced the grind much.  Involved, tactically interesting "battlefields" with plenty of terrain, hazards, traps, and environmental options keeps things moving.  Which is another thing, I think, keeping the combatants moving, even at the risk of OAs helps both grind down some HP with the extra damage here and there and keeps the fight active so a static exchange of at wills doesn't take over.  I've never liked static HP grinds, whether in a 3 round fight or a 13.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Dec 8, 2008)

I have DM'ed sessions with two different groups and only one group gets the grinding fights. Playing Scales of War, where as the group playing Keep on the Shadowfell do not seem to have the same problem. The group that grinds have played more 3e and fight in a more static fashion. 
One idea I have heard here that I might implement is the reintroduction of the swingy critical and I am also thinking of adding an idea I read in another thread that an action point can be spent to recover an encounter power.
For that puropse i would allow the expenditure of two action points in an encounter provided they were spent on different things, i.e on recovering a power or on an extra action.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 8, 2008)

So far, I didn't experience a lot of grind. Sometimes combats take long, but usually because the enemy nearly got the drop on us and we fight hard to survive, we're out of healing and there is still one of these pesky artilleries firing at-will and a soldier keeping our Striker contained...


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> If the fight goes on for several more rounds, aren't those several more rounds of the bad guys having chances to land a lucky crit on the PC's?  Heck, given that crits are now just max damage, even a few regular hits with decent damage rolls can be threatening.  In the few sessions I've run (all at 1st or 2nd level) just one or two crits against the PC's suddenly had things looking very chancy for them.  I'm wondering why, in the complaints I'm hearing, the monsters aren't still a threat for those "several more rounds" of combat that seem to be a grind.
> 
> Please be assured, I'm not being snarky at all.  I'm just not quite understanding this.  Enlighten me.




These are some of the grindy aspects I see (I'm running for a party of 4th level characters)

These characters have one daily, two encounter powers and two at-wills. Most fights are lasting 8 or more rounds. The daily and the encounter powers pretty much only count for 3 of those rounds (and they don't always want to use the daily); also with about a 50% chance of hitting we tend to get half a daily and one encounter attack hitting. This in itself is rarely enough to bloody an enemy and suddenly we are down to basically using at-wills for everything else.

The grindy aspect then becomes (for me) not so much that "we are going to win the fight but we just have to scrub off their remaining hit points" as "We only get to do 1-3 really interesting tricks before settling down to the at-will powers". Bull rush is so ineffective that it is rarely attempted (the max 1 square moved aspect of it). Fighters are so effective at tying people down and removing their mobility that fights involving fighters stagnate unless there is a teleporter involved.

3e had combats that zipped through too quickly, so monsters didn't get the chance to use all their powers. 4e has reduced the number of powers they have but also reduced the hit rate against them and improved their hit points. The damage that the monsters do remains pretty small too, relative to PC hit points. The end result means that I'm seeing combats which continue much longer, but which get a bit 'draggy' on both sides.

if the PCs are all above bloodied and the bad guys are all bloodied, it is very likely that the PCs will beat them simply on attrition (people have similar chances to hit and do similar damage) but it takes... time...

Cheers


----------



## AllisterH (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm curious....

How many rounds of combat does your party need to defeat a standard encounter with monsters of their level (+1)?

8 rounds seems like a LOT to me since in a normal encounter, my players average between 4-6 rounds. I haven't had a 8 rounder unless the players are going up against an Encounter +3/+4 but those are climatic battles where by round 5, it still is too close to call....


----------



## Obryn (Dec 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> Some elaboration is in order. In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels. OTOH, hit points often top 100, even at heroic levels. Add into that the rather high whiff factor in 4e, and you've got a recipe for grinding, not brisk three-round battles.



For the PCs, crits are significantly better, by and large, at Paragon level.  Minimally, the characters should be doing Max + 3d6 or 4d6, and for some weapons, it will be even higher...

Monster crits never get quite as dangerous, since they're missing the Xd6 magic item kickers.

-O


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 8, 2008)

I haven't had a real problem with grinding in combat, and i've run all of Shadowfell. There were a few times though where i had enemies die early, and once i had a goblin commit suicide rather than churn through his 25 hit points.  There was another time when i told the group that they had been attacked by 6 hobgoblin minions...but i didn't run the fight.  I just said you easily defeat them. 

In yesterday's session a 4th level character was able to brilliantly convince a Level 13 hill giant to surrender, ending the fight immediately.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> If the fight goes on for several more rounds, aren't those several more rounds of the bad guys having chances to land a lucky crit on the PC's?




What we found was that the combat reaches a point where the monsters have tried the best powers, the pc's have taken the hits and have plenty of healing surges left and now know that they can withstand what is thrown at them. In doing this they have used their encounter powers and possibly some dailies. They don't want to 'waste' any dailies now they know they can take the monster and so both sides resort to 'at wills'. If the monster is lucky a power will recharge. What we found is that by the time the combat has hit this point the monsters have usually lost half their hit points and so we face the same amount of time, or possibly longer with only at wills being used, getting the monsters down.

Yes different things can be tried, monsters run away, surrender, new monsters arrive, etc but it doesn't remove the problem for us.

I think if we return to 4E I'll put a house rule in place that when a monster hits its bloodied value its gonna die very soon. Not sure what the rule would be, possibly if it gets x more hits or whatever.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 8, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> I think if we return to 4E I'll put a house rule in place that when a monster hits its bloodied value its gonna die very soon. Not sure what the rule would be, possibly if it gets x more hits or whatever.




Fortunately (or unfortunately) i think a lot of this is going to come down to DM fiat and famililarity with the system.  If the grind is coming, shut it down.  It's not fun for anyone really.  Those boatloads of hitpoints can be really fun sometimes, but not when the end is inevitable. 

I THINK that in the 4e FRCG there is a goblin solo boss with over 300 points.  This is for like a 1st or 2nd level party to fight. I cannot imagine the complaints from the players.  "We've hit this bastard two dozen times!  Why is he still smiling?  Is he a freaking demigod?"


----------



## DandD (Dec 8, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> Yes different things can be tried, monsters run away, surrender, new monsters arrive, etc but it doesn't remove the problem for us.



Why doesn't it?


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 8, 2008)

DandD said:


> Why doesn't it?




I think it's a matter of repetition. The first few times different actions did feel new but once the players have learnt to spot the turning point it becomes old. I feel that in 4E monsters have too many hit points and like Nebulous said above 1st or 2nd level characters having to chew through a goblin solo with 300 hit points just doesn't feel the same as in previous editions.


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> I think it's a matter of repetition. The first few times different actions did feel new but once the players have learnt to spot the turning point it becomes old. I feel that in 4E monsters have too many hit points and like Nebulous said above 1st or 2nd level characters having to chew through a goblin solo with 300 hit points just doesn't feel the same as in previous editions.





My group has, and I while also checking out other groups and playing separate games have, also determined that there's nothing inherently heroic about dragging out the combats.  Although if you make a lot of changes you have to wonder at what point you are no longer playing the same game, finding ways to cut combats to the quick post-tipping point are something definitely needed.  The grind is no substitute for substance.


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2008)

Lord Vangarel said:


> I think if we return to 4E I'll put a house rule in place that when a monster hits its bloodied value its gonna die very soon. Not sure what the rule would be, possibly if it gets x more hits or whatever.




See, I'm inclined to go the other direction.  I'd tend to make monsters have more abilities or ways to recharge them so that they remain a threat up until the moment they're dead.

I don't yet have a Monster Manual so it's hard to for me to judge how much of the grind is built into the RAW but, again since I've heard the complaint often enough, I guess that it is.  Since I didn't have a MM, I've mostly used monsters from free online adventures.  But I've also had to improvise monsters where I had nothing similar.

One example was the Big Nasty Critter from the demo adventure I ran for my group in preparation of my campaign starting early next year.  This creature was called a "Mist Mind" and was sort of like a big Grell with it's own flock of giant bats.  The bats were Minions and had rather poor damage output but they were good at grappling.  They'd swoop down and grab somebody and drop them into the giant mouth on top of the Mist Mind.  Then it starts to chew on you.  If it eats somebody entirely then it hatches a new bat.  It also has a fairly damaging attack with its tentacles.

When I ran the combat with the Mist Mind, I knew that the PC's would have rescued some NPC's by that point and be trying to get them to safety.  So this battle became one about the PC's trying to protect that NPC's from getting grabbed by the bats and dropped into the mouth of the Mist Mind, all the while trying not to become victims of it themselves.  The Mist Mind managed to gobble up only one of the NPC's and hatch another bat.  It nearly began chewing on one of the PC's (the Halfling Paladin) but another PC (the Eladrin Ranger) managed to Fey Step INTO its mouth and fetch him out of there.

Anyway, my point is that I think the players should never be left thinking, "Well this thing has used all it's nasty powers so we can just sit back and pick away at its hit points until it is dead."  If this philosophy means that they burn through powers and Healing Surges faster and need to rest a bit more often to recover, that's fine by me.  My campaigns tend in that direction anyway.


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> See, I'm inclined to go the other direction.  I'd tend to make monsters have more abilities or ways to recharge them so that they remain a threat up until the moment they're dead.





That only addresses one side of the equation and doesn't change the grind insofar as PCs winding up battles repeating their most potent leftover power until the deed is done.  It's the spacebar tap.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Dec 8, 2008)

Another tack to take on the 4E "hp grind" is that once the realization sets in, the monster(s) should realize this too, and begin trying to withdraw from combat.  This has several benefits - its realistic, and it potentially changes the field of combat as the monster tries to leave.


----------



## Emirikol (Dec 8, 2008)

A* House rules to add randomness and speed combat:*​
*Per-Encounter powers *:  One of them may be tapped a second time (monsters and PC's).  

*Criticals:*  With the expenditure of an action point (or 5 healing surges), a d20 extra damage may be dealt (in addition to maximum).  Non-minion monsters may do this once per day.  

Does this solve the unrandomness and high hit points issue that causes the grind?

Jay H


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2008)

Mark said:


> That only addresses one side of the equation and doesn't change the grind insofar as PCs winding up battles repeating their most potent leftover power until the deed is done.  It's the spacebar tap.




Who cares about those guys as long as I'm having fun as the GM?



Ok, kidding obviously.  One thing I think that isn't mentioned in this broad brush discussion is that, even at low levels, there are more powers in play than the "two At Wills, one Encounter and one Daily" that come stock with a first level PC.  There are the racial powers of some characters and several classes have features that are encounter powers.  On top of that, many magic items grant powers that are powers of one variety or another.

There is also Healing.  Second Wind is an Encounter Power itself and should probably be seeing use in more combats than not.  Drinking Healing potions will similarly be taking up an action here and there.  If a PC goes down in combat then I'd expect to see the occassional Heal check.

Speaking of which, there are any number of skills that have direct combat applications and of course an infinite variety of ways they can be used creatively.  Heck I've even mentioned to my players how I like the fact that good old Page 42 lets us see things like using Intimidate checks to inflict (non-lethal) damage that could push intelligent foes to surrender.

I think creativity is key here though.  One thing that I've already told my players is that, despite the fact that we'll probably have cards to represent the powers, you can't consider the cards to be the only options available to you.  Gotta think outside the powers.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:


> I'm curious....
> 
> How many rounds of combat does your party need to defeat a standard encounter with monsters of their level (+1)?
> 
> 8 rounds seems like a LOT to me since in a normal encounter, my players average between 4-6 rounds. I haven't had a 8 rounder unless the players are going up against an Encounter +3/+4 but those are climatic battles where by round 5, it still is too close to call....




I'd guess about 8-12 rounds for a standard encounter with monsters at or about their level. It improves slightly if they are able and willing to focus fire on monsters to reduce the odds more quickly, and gets much worse if elites, solos (or sometimes lurkers/skirmishers) are in play.

Cheers


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Another tack to take on the 4E "hp grind" is that once the realization sets in, the monster(s) should realize this too, and begin trying to withdraw from combat.  This has several benefits - its realistic, and it potentially changes the field of combat as the monster tries to leave.




[RBDM]Or call for reinforcements![/RBDM]


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> despite the fact that we'll probably have cards to represent the powers, you can't consider the cards to be the only options available to you.  Gotta think outside the powers.




I think this is a key point. It is far too easy for players to see the powers as the only things they can do, and thus mentally restrict their own options. Unfortunately I find it difficult for them to play the game without having cards for the powers because of their nature and the way they are worded and used. Catch-22 at the moment!

Cheers


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> One thing I think that isn't mentioned in this broad brush discussion is that, even at low levels, there are more powers in play (. . .)





Kinda discussed somewhere up there in that it's agreed that fighters and some classes have seemingly more options and other classes similar or less.  Anyway, I think the grind boils down to using the best power one can once it is figured out and that often comes down to a spacebar tapping situation after the battle tipping point.  Once the daily is gone and the encounters are used (if the daily and the encounters are useful, of course) then it often comes down to picking the best at-will (or attack) and tapping it home (with brief respites for any necessary healing).


----------



## Lacyon (Dec 8, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Another tack to take on the 4E "hp grind" is that once the realization sets in, the monster(s) should realize this too, and begin trying to withdraw from combat. This has several benefits - its realistic, and it potentially changes the field of combat as the monster tries to leave.




Agreed. They should either be trying to withdraw, surrendering, or trying desperate tactics (such as provoking OAs in order to focus fire on a single PC).

If the monsters are bright enough to know that continuing to fight as normal is a losing grind, they shouldn't continue to fight as normal.


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this is a key point. It is far too easy for players to see the powers as the only things they can do, and thus mentally restrict their own options.





Unless, as seems to often be the case, an at-will power becomes the most effective of the last available things one can do and then it becomes tap, tap, tap.  One could mix it up by doing things that are less effective but that's not really how it is going to play out at most game tables, IME.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Dec 8, 2008)

Mark said:


> That only addresses one side of the equation and doesn't change the grind insofar as PCs winding up battles repeating their most potent leftover power until the deed is done.  It's the spacebar tap.



I believe the idea is that if monsters remain deadly to the end, then players may be more willing to cough up those daily powers they were hoarding.

As someone who enjoys both 4E and 3E, I find it vaguely amusing that 4E's version of the 15-minute adventuring day--a systemic problem that only some groups experience and others say is easily avoided with some DM effort--is that players may not be consuming daily resources quickly enough.


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2008)

Pseudopsyche said:


> I believe the idea is that if monsters remain deadly to the end, then players may be more willing to cough up those daily powers they were hoarding.





I have not seen the hoarding so much as the using of the daily power, then the encounter powers, then sticking with the most effective at-will rather than the other, suboptimal options.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> [RBDM]Or call for reinforcements![/RBDM]




Exactly what happened in my last run - the PCs outnumbered the Duergar and were spanking them, so the enemy by the door thought "blow this for a game of soldiers. I've got some mates and an ogre the other side of this door. I'll go and fetch them". Three rounds later he came back with major reinforcements!


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this is a key point. It is far too easy for players to see the powers as the only things they can do, and thus mentally restrict their own options. Unfortunately I find it difficult for them to play the game without having cards for the powers because of their nature and the way they are worded and used. Catch-22 at the moment!
> 
> Cheers




You know, even though it sounds a bit silly, I think that when I make the power cards for my group, I am going to include an Encounter card that says, "Do Something Awesome!" (because I have a house rule that allows the expenditure of Action Points + a Healing Surge to do something awesome) and an At Will card that says, "Do something creative".  I might even include some of the p. 42 guidelines on that card so they have an idea of the parameters of that.


----------



## Mark (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> You know, even though it sounds a bit silly, I think that when I make the power cards for my group, I am going to include an Encounter card that says, "Do Something Awesome!" (because I have a house rule that allows the expenditure of Action Points + a Healing Surge to do something awesome) and an At Will card that says, "Do something creative".  I might even include some of the p. 42 guidelines on that card so they have an idea of the parameters of that.





That might be a helpful reminder.  Be sure to start a new thread to allow us to follow this experiment, please.


----------



## Darkthorne (Dec 8, 2008)

I have seen the grind as well. As for the "use the dailies" there are issues I see with that

1) The next battle you're in your daily isn't there for you to use 

2) I've seen way too many misses with dailies and encounters due to either bad rolling or we just happen to target the highest defense and didn't roll well enough

3) The target that everyone kept missing ends up being a damn minion (either no controller in the group/ or was in negs)

4)Not every group has someone remotely effective with the intimidate skill


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 8, 2008)

Mark said:


> Although if you make a lot of changes you have to wonder at what point you are no longer playing the same game . . .




That's exactly the decision we faced as a group. In order for us to get the game we want we were discussing fairly radical house rules only 6 months in. I'm not talking slight tweaks like you'd get in any system but major tweaks such as completely changing monster hit points or changing the way character powers are available etc. My feelings were if I'm having to do this now then why not just play something else?

We've never had this sort of problem with any game system before where after 6 months I wanted to change a huge chunk of it. If it was just me and not the players then I could have sort of lived with it but they all agreed as well, and as I've said above I've played every edition since basic and they've all been playing since 2nd.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> See, I'm inclined to go the other direction.  I'd tend to make monsters have more abilities or ways to recharge them so that they remain a threat up until the moment they're dead.




Whilst making the monsters more interesting this would dramatically increase the power level and therefore the danger to the party. Also you'd have to come up with a lot more powers for each monster and space considerations in the MM would prevent this. I willingly do it for the very occasional special homebrew monster but you may as well not bother with the MM other than for seed ideas and one of the great things about 4E that this method would completely chuck out would be running monsters straight out of the book with less preparation.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> Some elaboration is in order. In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels. OTOH, hit points often top 100, even at heroic levels. Add into that the rather high whiff factor in 4e, and you've got a recipe for grinding, not brisk three-round battles.




Okay, let me try and go through each round as well as I can remember:

Pre-combat: Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard head in from the north; Warlock and Warlord head in from the south.

Surprise Round: Elf Scout dumps boiling oil on Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard via murder holes; misses everyone except the Wizard, who takes (3d8+4 = ~21) damage.

Round 1: Wizard goes up on balcony, opens pit.  
Elf Scout 1 opens door, stabs Wizard.
Elf Archer, Elf Scout 2, and goblin minion show up through another door.  The Elf Archer might have dropped the Wizard, while the scout went after the warlord/warlock.
Cave Bear comes up and melees fighter (the only one he can reach).
Warlord blasts them all with a Fire Shroud, killing the minion and destroying the rickety balcony they are standing on.  (Damage is 10 to all, 2 more to the elves, ongoing fire 5.)
Fighter Tide of Irons the Cave Bear back into the pit.  (Damage is 21; the pit is 20' down.)
Rogue - ?? Hits the bear for 16 damage?
Warlock does something... might miss.

Round 2: The Wizard Thunderwaves the Elf Scout off the balcony.  Damage is 17.
Elf Archer shoots Wizard, drops him.
Elf Scout 2 attacks the Warlord?
Elf Scout 1 attacks ??
Bear gets out of pit and attacks the warlord?
They all fail to save vs. Fire.

I can't remember what happened past this round, but the PCs are obviously able to deal enough damage to bring down monster HP quickly - all the elves had taken 17 damage after 1 round of PC attacks!  I think only one Elf Scout survived to the next round.

The bear survived, not quite Bloodied yet, but it was on a chain and the PCs didn't want to fight it.  That's when the goblins showed up.

edit: The bear didn't save against the fire, even with the save bonus, until late in the game.  So it started off taking 10/20/31/40/56/60 damage, and then 65/70.  I think I forgot to add the fire damage in one round and I am adding two rounds worth at that point.  So in the first round the bear's taken 31 damage, in the next two it has taken a total of 70.

Plus all the elves are dead; their damage looks like this:
Scout 1: 17/22/29/dead
Scout 2: 10/12/17 - that damage is 10 from the fire shroud, 2 from falling, and 5 from ongoing 5 fire - 29/41 (obviously dead at that point)
Archer: 10/12/17 - that's fire damage, and I think it dies after that from a Sneak Attack.

The bear's damage: 82/87 - that's probably one more round - 97/101/113/118 - another round - 130/151/164/dead.  It probably saved around the 118 mark and lasted about 2 rounds after that.


----------



## timbannock (Dec 8, 2008)

Kid Charlemagne said:


> Another tack to take on the 4E "hp grind" is that once the realization sets in, the monster(s) should realize this too, and begin trying to withdraw from combat.  This has several benefits - its realistic, and it potentially changes the field of combat as the monster tries to leave.




This is one of those simple-but-people-don't-always-think-of-it solutions (and by "people", I mean "me"!).  Good advice.

Also, I've either read or thought up (probably read) this one: anybody but the PCs that are Bloodied are also at -X to all of their Defense scores (-2 has always seemed to be the magic number).   If you want the grit to hit the PCs, do the same for them, too.

Makes Bloodied more fun, and also more tactically sound for a good cue as to when to start laying on the Dailies and Encounter abilities that might miss a high Defense critter.


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this is a key point. It is far too easy for players to see the powers as the only things they can do, and thus mentally restrict their own options. Unfortunately I find it difficult for them to play the game without having cards for the powers because of their nature and the way they are worded and used. Catch-22 at the moment!




Very very true.  We have to have the cards to play, but it focuses all of combat to what it says on the cards.  Which is bland pretty much. Fun in its own little world of course, the battleboard.  It will take more practice and encouraging them to do different things to fully break out of this Catch 22.

An excellent way to do this is to encourage more ways to use Action Points.  The "1 per encounter" will have to go bye-bye i think.  Maybe multiple action points can be queued up for truly specatacular acts of heroism?


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 8, 2008)

*End States*

Would any of these help?

*End State:* Reached when you immanent demise becomes clear (usually at around 1/4 hit points).

*Consequences:*

*Mindless/Fanatic:* Nothing different happens.  You are a mindless automaton (such as a golem or an undead), or are a fanatic and don't care.

*Berzerk:* You see your inevitable end and decide to go out in a blaze of glory.  ... insert appropriate 4E mechanic here ...

*Cower:* You see your inevitable end and cower and simper, revealing the craven fool that you are.  Alternatively, you rail at the gods for their unfairness and cry for mercy.

*Stoic Focus:* You see your inevitable end, and grimly hang on as best you can.

*Shell Up:* You give up almost all hope and adopt a totally defensive posture.

*Negotiate:* You continue to fight, but call out for terms of surrender.

*Flee:* You take any opportunity to flee, at hazard to yourself and to any companions.

*Panic:* You totally lose it and run mindlessly about the battlefield.

*Turncoat:* You switch sides and attack a companion, hoping that your opponents accept your sudden change of heart.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'd guess about 8-12 rounds for a standard encounter with monsters at or about their level. It improves slightly if they are able and willing to focus fire on monsters to reduce the odds more quickly, and gets much worse if elites, solos (or sometimes lurkers/skirmishers) are in play.




Seriously?

Your PCs would take 8-12 rounds vs 5 of these guys:

Elf Scout
HP 39
AC 16, Fort 13, Ref 15, Will 13

I think a level 4 Rogue, alone, would kill them all in 8-12 rounds.


----------



## Obryn (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I think this is a key point. It is far too easy for players to see the powers as the only things they can do, and thus mentally restrict their own options. Unfortunately I find it difficult for them to play the game without having cards for the powers because of their nature and the way they are worded and used. Catch-22 at the moment!
> 
> Cheers



(1) I like Rel's idea of a DO SOMETHING AWESOME card as a reminder to DO AWESOME THINGS.

(2) I have decided that I don't care for cards.  I vastly prefer a checksheet - if you use the Wiesbaden Sheet, something like the Pro Sheet version.  That way, you just check off which powers have been used each (encounter/day) and don't need to shuffle them around.  I know when I was a player (briefly) that I much preferred doing things this way.

My players like their cards, though.  What can I say?

(3) My problem with grindiness isn't so much HPs, after thinking about it.  It's hit percentages.  A lot of this is because my group often rolls poorly over the course of a night - averaging about an 8 or 9.  I think simple bonuses to hit would help a great deal.  This could be handled by the PCs doing cool stuff; I give bonuses to hit based on interesting narrative and/or skill checks.

-O


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Dec 8, 2008)

Mark said:


> I have not seen the hoarding so much as the using of the daily power, then the encounter powers, then sticking with the most effective at-will rather than the other, suboptimal options.




IME, the "most effective" at-will changes as the battlefield changes. And I make sure mine does alot. My creatures move constantly, epsecially if they have a power that gives them an advantage in a flank or pack. They provoke OAs to get into position if necessary, which also helps the high HP issue by giving the PCs more attacks when its not their turn. At first I would have creatures avoid provoking OAs like the plague, but I finally realized that risking a single AO to gain combat advantage was well worth it. It makes the creatures both more effective and more easily taken down at the same time.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 8, 2008)

In general, to those who have big issues with this grind. Try removing 25% of the monsters' hitpoints, while raising their average damage by 25% as well. That should make for quicker fights, while keeping the level of danger intact.



Felon said:


> Some elaboration is in order. *In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels. *



*
Sorry, but you do know that this is a gross exaggeration, untrue right?



Rel said:



			You know, even though it sounds a bit silly, I think that when I make the power cards for my group, I am going to include an Encounter card that says, "Do Something Awesome!" (because I have a house rule that allows the expenditure of Action Points + a Healing Surge to do something awesome) and an At Will card that says, "Do something creative".  I might even include some of the p. 42 guidelines on that card so they have an idea of the parameters of that.
		
Click to expand...


I love the DSA-card, but watch out with the additional uses of Healing Surges. They will be the commodity that limits your adventuring day.



Obryn said:



			(3) My problem with grindiness isn't so much HPs, after thinking about it.  It's hit percentages.  A lot of this is because my group often rolls poorly over the course of a night - averaging about an 8 or 9.  I think simple bonuses to hit would help a great deal.  This could be handled by the PCs doing cool stuff; I give bonuses to hit based on interesting narrative and/or skill checks.

-O
		
Click to expand...


Try using more monsters, but lesser level. Sure, there might be more hit-points there, in total, but the players' hit-rate will go up as well, and thus their average damage.*


----------



## Rel (Dec 8, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> I love the DSA-card, but watch out with the additional uses of Healing Surges. They will be the commodity that limits your adventuring day.




That's true but it's better than my original house rule that required that they spend an Action Point + Daily Power to use the "DSA" power.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 8, 2008)

Rel said:


> That's true but it's better than my original house rule that required that they spend an Action Point + Daily Power to use the "DSA" power.




Actually, I am not so sure. While dailies can have a significant impact on a fight, most fights are not a problem without using dailies, there merely take a couple of rounds more. However, running out of surges will stop most players, unless you are absolutely nuts, like one of mine.. 

The above is just IMO and IME. Nothing more, ofc.


----------



## timbannock (Dec 8, 2008)

Also, along the lines of a DSA card, is a suggestion fleshed out on another thread I saw a while back:

For any battles with some "set-piece effects" -- say, barrels you can knock down onto an enemy, stalactites you can break off the ceiling with a ranged attack to impale someone below them, or pools of water that flash-freeze when a Cold attack enters the square that the pool is in -- jot down said effects on an index card (with or without gamey rules info).  Then, at the start of the battle, give the PCs a Skill Check (not Challenge) to see if they notice these things.

Anyone who succeeds gets a copy of the index card, so they know they have new, sweet maneuvers to try out.

My personal take on this is that only the Leader character or a character with an applicable skill (if it's foresty terrain, a Ranger with Nature, perhaps) gets to roll to receive the card.  They then have to pass on this info IN CHARACTER to the other players in order for them to make use of the specified maneuvers.  

No "Hey, do X and it'll give you a plus X to hit and do Xd6 damage!"  It has to be "Hey, hit those barrels when the goblins get near it and we can crush the lot of 'em!"

Haven't playtested this yet, but it seems like it's got awesome written all over it.  Swap out the "index card" for "checklist" or whatever you prefer, and you're good to go.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Sorry, but you do know that this is a gross exaggeration, untrue right?



I know that you conflate what you don't understand with what's untrue, and that you conflate snideness with wit. In general, your comments seem to exhibit a presumption of indisputable authority that you don't actually possess.

I've played and run lots of 4e at heroic and paragon tiers. The consensus of my group is that 20 points is pretty ample for a non-daily.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Okay, let me try and go through each round as well as I can remember:
> 
> Pre-combat: Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard head in from the north; Warlock and Warlord head in from the south.
> 
> ...



I was actual a little more interested in what damage output in general was like for the party, rather than an actual blow-by-blow description of a particular battle. I do notice, however, that we're looking at a lot of hits there--in particular, from an AoE (the fire shroud). And in 4e, a lot of damage rides on the encounter powers hitting their marks. When they miss, that's when the grinding starts to set in.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> I know that you conflate what you don't understand with what's untrue, and that you conflate snideness with wit. In general, your comments seem to exhibit a presumption of indisputable authority that you don't actually possess.
> 
> I've played and run lots of 4e at heroic and paragon tiers. The consensus of my group is that 20 points is pretty ample for a non-daily.




So encounter powers generally deal below 20 damage, even though you roll multiple damage dice and by paragon levels should add at least +8 from feats, magic and attributes to damage?

You also don't seem to play with strikers as even a first level rogue can generally do >20 damage with a sneak attack and twin striking rangers are not far behind.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> I know that you conflate what you don't understand with what's untrue, and that you conflate snideness with wit. In general, your comments seem to exhibit a presumption of indisputable authority that you don't actually possess.
> 
> I've played and run lots of 4e at heroic and paragon tiers. The consensus of my group is taht 20 points is pretty ample for a non-daily.




From who, though?

I mean, my rogue was doing ~20 damage with At-Wills at level *one*. Now, the character was pretty well designed for damage - but most Strikers should be easily doing more than 20 damage with Encounter powers from the start, and with At-Wills by Paragon level. 

Even a character of a non-damage class, without a damage-oriented build, by Paragon level, is looking at ~15 damage from At-Wills - and a rogue or ranger is looking at ~25-30 damage At-Wills, and even higher from Encounters.

I mean, if you want to say that 20 damage is high from Heroic-level At-Will powers, I'll agree with that - it isn't impossible, but requires some pretty solid number-crunching. But by Paragon level it is par for the course - and Encounter powers are easily able to hit that mark in the Heroic tier.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> So encounter powers generally deal below 20 damage, even though you roll multiple damage dice and by paragon levels should add at least +8 from feats, magic and attributes to damage?
> 
> You also don't seem to play with strikers as even a first level rogue can generally do >20 damage with a sneak attack and twin striking rangers are not far behind.



Let's see, the party warlock (that's a striker, btw) will roll 2d8 with one of his encounters. He'll add +8, throw in his curse...Hmm, seems like that comes to around 20. Some encounters do more than 2d8, some less, but 2d8 seems like pretty standard. 

Yes, at the greatest extremes, an encounter power can top 20, but parties don't tend to be made up entirely of strikers. There's other guys dragging down the average.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> Let's see, the party warlock (that's a striker, btw) will roll 2d8 with one of his encounters. He'll add +8, throw in his curse...Hmm, seems like that comes to around 20. Some encounters do more than 2d8, some less, but 2d8 seems like pretty standard.
> 
> Yes, at the greatest extremes, an encounter power can top 20, but portraying extremes as the norm is gross exaggeration false.




By your numbers, the expected damage is 20.5, so he will deal 21 or more damage with exactly half of his damage rolls. How is that an extreme?


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 8, 2008)

Felon said:


> I know that you conflate what you don't understand with what's untrue, and that you conflate snideness with wit. In general, your comments seem to exhibit a presumption of indisputable authority that you don't actually possess.
> 
> I've played and run lots of 4e at heroic and paragon tiers. The consensus of my group is that 20 points is pretty ample for a non-daily.




Thats just not true.

If you have a paragon fighter he should easily do around +26 damage per attack (+3 weapon). And thats not even considering marked scourge or the pit fighter ability you get at level 16. That would boost it with an additional ~+9 to +35 damage per hit. Sure, this build would not be defender heavy, but hey, in our group every player got a MC leader feat. Cleric going MC Warlord for the extra heal, ranger going cleric etc... so i really think it depends on your group and how well you read the rules and know how to setup a character for doing good damage.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 8, 2008)

Shadowsong666 said:


> Thats just not true.
> 
> If you have a paragon fighter he should easily do around +26 damage per attack (+3 weapon). And thats not even considering marked scourge or the pit fighter ability you get at level 16. That would boost it with an additional ~+9 to +35 damage per hit. Sure, this build would not be defender heavy, but hey, in our group every player got a MC leader feat. Cleric going MC Warlord for the extra heal, ranger going cleric etc... so i really think it depends on your group and how well you read the rules and know how to setup a character for doing good damage.




I hope you mean 26 including weapon base damage and not [w]+26. Still, I would be interested in that math.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

Hey guys - we're getting a bit of snarkiness arising. Please don't go there, OK?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 8, 2008)

LostSoul said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Your PCs would take 8-12 rounds vs 5 of these guys:
> 
> ...




Why wouldn't I be serious?

Since the elf scout is a level 2 skirmisher (and five skirmishers together isn't exactly a good combination) I'm not sure why you put this up as a proposal.

Recent fights were: 
7x 4th level PCs against 1 tiefling heretic, 2 spined devils & 3 orc beserkers (6th level encounter), 8 rounds.

7x 4th level PCs against 3 Duegar Guards, 2 Arblalesters and a Duergar Theurge (5th level encounter), 10 rounds.

7x4th level PCs vs Ogre Savage, 2 Duegar Scouts, Duegar Theurge (4th level encounter) 9 rounds.

Cheers


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why wouldn't I be serious?
> 
> Since the elf scout is a level 2 skirmisher (and five skirmishers together isn't exactly a good combination) I'm not sure why you put this up as a proposal.
> 
> ...




That sounds about right. I think the game is designed for combat to take 6-12 rounds. However, I like several of the strategies suggested on this thread to shorten fights with an inevitable outcome.


----------



## Felon (Dec 8, 2008)

MrMyth said:


> From who, though?
> 
> I mean, my rogue was doing ~20 damage with At-Wills at level *one*. Now, the character was pretty well designed for damage - but most Strikers should be easily doing more than 20 damage with Encounter powers from the start, and with At-Wills by Paragon level.
> 
> ...





Harlekin said:


> By your numbers, the expected damage is 20.5, so he will deal 21 or more damage with exactly half of his damage rolls. How is that an extreme?



OK, it seems my statement about characters being lucky to do 20 pts of damage bears some qualfiication. 

I'm referring collectively to the damage output from the parade of characters I've seen within the half-dozen 4e parties that I've played in, ranging from levels 1-12, of which only a few have been tricked-out rangers and rogues (and that fighter doing +26 damage per hit is conspicuously absent altogether). If encounters were built using 3e's design of a 1-monster/4-players ratio, I could see only focusing on characters whose role it is to close down opponents and just not counting the healers and buffers and mezzers and meat shields. 

But 4e's design is 1-monster/1-player, with all classes designed to contribute damage. Now you ought to count everybody, not just the total badarses. And yeah, some of those characters roll single digits on damage with rather alarming frequency.

As to the warlock getting his 20 points of damage from his encounter power, I'm thinking he's "lucky" to get it because A) it's an encounter power that might be discarded on an all-too-likely miss, and B) that curse damage isn't a given, as I find that in practice it's not all that easy for a ranged attacker to get the enemy he wants to attack closer to him than any other enemy (of course, you can just shoot at the nearest target of opportunity to get the damage bonus, but that's often just playing into the enemy's hands).


----------



## MerricB (Dec 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why wouldn't I be serious?
> 
> Since the elf scout is a level 2 skirmisher (and five skirmishers together isn't exactly a good combination) I'm not sure why you put this up as a proposal.
> 
> ...




Hmm...
Ogre Savage - level 8 brute, AC 19, hp 111 (xp 350)
2 Scouts - level 4 lurker, AC 19, hp 48 (xp 175)
1 Duergar Theurge - level 5 controller, AC 20, hp 64 (xp 200)

That looks like a level 2 encounter to me (7 PCs, avg 128 XP/PC).


1 tiefling heretic - level 6 artillery, AC 20, HP 59 (xp 250)
2 spined devils - level 6 skirmisher, AC 20, HP 70 (xp 250)
3 orc berserkers - level 4 brute, AC 15, HP 66 (xp 175)

(182 XP/PC, level 4-5 encounter).


The ACs of a lot of those monsters are high enough to cause a lot of problems to low level PCs; mind you, those berserkers should have gone down pretty quickly.

Cheers!


----------



## dagger (Dec 9, 2008)

As a player I am fed up with 4e already, but I like to run it so far. I absolutely HATE running mid to high level 3/3.5, but I like to play characters under the right DM.

(man I am screwed)


I am going to try a revolution and get the group to try 1e AD&D again...already got one player on my side.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Why wouldn't I be serious?
> 
> Since the elf scout is a level 2 skirmisher (and five skirmishers together isn't exactly a good combination) I'm not sure why you put this up as a proposal.




Whoops, I got the level of the elf scout horribly, horribly wrong.  Sorry about that.

I am about to get into the duergar keep in Thunderspire, and the PCs just hit level 6.  We'll see how they do.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 9, 2008)

Harlekin said:


> I hope you mean 26 including weapon base damage and not [w]+26. Still, I would be interested in that math.




No, just +26 damage without weapon damage.

Well the math is easy. Lets use a dragonborn glaive fighter.

+6 strength bonus on level 11
+3 magic weapon
+2 weapon focus
+6 power attack
+9 blood-claw weapon

thats 2d4+26 damage with a -2 attack penalty thx to power attack.
Now lets assume your group has a cleric and this fighter(mc cleric) and they Righteous Brand each other every round for a +6 attack bonus (getting +4 cause of power attack). And we are not even taking about possible AOO cause of CS etc. he gets in combat too.

cleric does the same damage with the same attack bonus.

Take a wizard (11th level) which is a controller and is specialized on thunderwave, arcane reach with pushing equipment and high wis, mc cleric. He does close blast 4, 1d6+13 damage per target and pushes them 6 squares. If he gets the blast right, he should hit 2-3 targets letting him do plenty of damage.
+6 intelligence
+5 wand of thunder +3 (+2 due to property)
+2 raging storm

the bugbear brutal scoundrel rogue (11th level) gets combat advantage every round cause of flanked, dazed, stunned, prone enemies...

+6 dexterity
+6 subtle weapon +3 on CA
+4 brutal scoundrel
+2 weapon focus
+4 power attack
+1 two-weapon fighting

So he does 1d6+23 damage +3d8 Sneak attack damage using piercing strike with a -2 to penalty to attack, but with CA (+2 to attack) against the targets REF defense... guess what? he hits many times... and has a very high armor class.

So, really, i don't see a problem going over 20 damage per attack on paragon level. Its so easy.


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 9, 2008)

Felon said:


> I know that you conflate what you don't understand with what's untrue, and that you conflate snideness with wit. In general, your comments seem to exhibit a presumption of indisputable authority that you don't actually possess.
> 
> I've played and run lots of 4e at heroic and paragon tiers. The consensus of my group is that 20 points is pretty ample for a non-daily.




There was absolutely neither snideness nor wit in my post. And since you claim that I speak of things I do not know, let me present my facts.

My 14th level rogue does 1d8+3d8+10+5 (average 33) on a basic attack, with sneak. If he had spent 0 feats on improving his damage, he would still be doing 1d4+3d6+8+5 (average 25). 

Now granted, not all characters will be doing that kind of damage. But assuming the ranger and warlock spend just one or two feats on damage (since it is their job, after all), all three strikers will be doing >20 damage regularly on at-wills, and just about every time on encounter powers. Hardly what I would call "extreme".

Fighters can get there easily too, with a lot of feats/items to improve their basic/OA attack. Now granted, it's a little harder since they do not have all that extra striker damage, but they usually use a larger die, which helps them out a bit. The larger die certainly ensures that at least their encounter powers go over 20 in average.

Example: A fighter will have around +12 damage without spending feats on anything special, and with just a appropriate magic weapon. Add potent challenge feat and those bracers, and you are looking at around +17 damage when using the combat challenge. With a 1d8 or higher die, you are looking at 20+ damage for a basic attack.

So, while my comments are made from anecdotal evidence, so were yours certainly.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 9, 2008)

MerricB said:


> That looks like a level 2 encounter to me (7 PCs, avg 128 XP/PC).
> 
> (etc)




Thanks for doing the maths for me - I didn't have a DMG handy and couldn't remember the 'real' way of calculating encounter level, so I just pulled it out of the adventure where it was sitting.

Of course, this suggests that if the encounters were boosted up to actually be 'level 4' encounters then my combats would have been quite a bit  longer!

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 9, 2008)

Your examples are interesting, but are arguably super-optimised and using additional books and suggestions beyond the PHB. If I strip those out...



Shadowsong666 said:


> Lets use a dragonborn glaive fighter.
> 
> +5 strength bonus on level 11
> +3 magic weapon
> ...



Standard array gives Str 16+2 from race = 18. Ability bumps at 4th, 8th and 11th gives 21 Str. 

So a Standard PHB dragonborn fighter would expect to get +10, with +16 if he power attacks. Often people won't power attack since every point 'to hit' counts, and if he doesn't power attack with his glaive he is doing an average of 15 damage a round including his weapon.




Shadowsong666 said:


> Take a wizard (11th level) which is a controller and is specialized on thunderwave.
> 
> +6 intelligence
> +3 wand
> +2 raging storm (remembering this wants Con and Dex 13+ and since thundering blast wizards have an incentive to maximise Wis, that fights with their desire to up Dex too, so this isn't necessarily a given here)




So 1d6+11 to everyone in blast you hit. Average 14.5 each.




Shadowsong666 said:


> the [strikethrough]bugbear[/strikethrough] brutal scoundrel rogue (11th level) gets combat advantage every round cause of flanked, dazed, stunned, prone enemies...
> 
> +5 dexterity
> +3  weapon
> ...




Bugbear isn't one of the standard races, so we can remove his oversized weapon and extra strength bonus. Probably go for a halfling rogue as they are the most typical ones. He can have a standard +3 weapon at 11th level (I don't see subtle weapon in PHB - another AV item?). Standard array gives Dex 16+2 from race = 18 and str 14. Ability bumps at 4th, 8th and 11th gives 21 Dex and 17 Str. This puts him at 1d4+11 on a normal hit, and 1d4+14+3d8 on a sneak attack hit (+4 if using power attack, but again rarely see it taken and used because of the desire to, above all, get a hit in). Ave 29 damage on a hit but hey, he is a striker.

So this (slightly less optimised, PHB only) three party group would have a likely average damage per round each (assuming CA always available)  of (15 + 14.5 + 29) /3 ~= 20 each.

Which isn't far off Felon's original assertion, considering that this is when they hit - and hit rate might be about 50% or so.

Cheers


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Which isn't far off Felon's original assertion, considering that this is when they hit - and hit rate might be about 50% or so.
> 
> Cheers




Felon said that hits of 20+ damage with anything but a daily power are extremely rare. You are talking about average damage per round. How is that the same? Am I missing something?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 9, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Felon said that hits of 20+ damage with anything but a daily power are extremely rare. You are talking about average damage per round. How is that the same? Am I missing something?




Sorry, maybe I misread him. I thought he was saying that on average the party damage output was lucky to exceed 20 damage per person per round.

Cheers


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Sorry, maybe I misread him. I thought he was saying that on average the party damage output was lucky to exceed 20 damage per person per round.
> 
> Cheers




If he did, then I am pretty embarrassed.

EDIT: Nope, it seems that I am right. This was the quote that brought me into the argument.



> Some elaboration is in order. *In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels. *OTOH, hit points often top 100, even at heroic levels. Add into that the rather high whiff factor in 4e, and you've got a recipe for grinding, not brisk three-round battles.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 9, 2008)

oh sorry, the d6 wasn't ment to be there as we don't use oversized weapons in our game. Should be d4.

I am talking about one of our groups that gets played. 

1 dragonborn fighter /mc cleric (Tempus)
1 shifter cleric /mc warlord (Tempus)
1 dragonborn paladin /mc warlord (Tempus)
1 bugbear rogue /mc warlord
1 Eladrin wizard /mc cleric (Sehanine)

dont have all the stats in my head - but we are a bit - well - optimized? Its nice to roleplay and its a big part in our game (we try to solve encounters with words or intimidation from time to time, but somehow monsters quite dont react the way we want them to ^^).


----------



## Jack99 (Dec 9, 2008)

Felon said:


> OK, it seems my statement about characters being lucky to do 20 pts of damage bears some qualfiication.
> 
> I'm referring collectively to the damage output from the parade of characters I've seen within the half-dozen 4e parties that I've played in, ranging from levels 1-12, of which only a few have been tricked-out rangers and rogues (and that fighter doing +26 damage per hit is conspicuously absent altogether). If encounters were built using 3e's design of a 1-monster/4-players ratio, I could see only focusing on characters whose role it is to close down opponents and just not counting the healers and buffers and mezzers and meat shields.
> 
> ...




Okay, seemed I missed this post of yours. Obviously, we can agree that not all characters do equal damage, and that strikers do the most. However, I do not think it's quite as bad as you say. Also, while strikers do a lot of damage to one target, wizards do a bit less, but usually hits two or more targets per spell, causing them to deal more damage on average. Certainly way more than 20 per round, all things considered.

So, on one hand we have the strikers (rogue, warlock and ranger) who do more, with the fighter just behind, and the wizard who does more, not per hit, but per round, via his aoe spells. 

That leaves the paladin, cleric and warlord who do lesser damage. So, obviously your party composition will affect the length of your combats. If your party has a paladin defender, or if it has more than one leader, the damage per round will go down.

Please notice that I am not arguing if 4e has a problem or not. My group hasn't noticed any issues yet, but since a lot of groups seem to have some sort of issue, there must be one. I do however not agree with the numbers presented, in your first post. Your second post (the one quoted above) presents some issues your group has with the game (like the warlock not being able to use his curse) which again doesn't seem to be an issue with my group. Maybe your DM makes his encounters in small spaces, where mobility is non-existent. Maybe the guy playing the warlock doesn't "see" the possibilities he has for movement. I do not know. I just know that the warlocks in my campaigns haven't had that issue yet.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 9, 2008)

neuronphaser said:


> Also, I've either read or thought up (probably read) this one: anybody but the PCs that are Bloodied are also at -X to all of their Defense scores (-2 has always seemed to be the magic number).   If you want the grit to hit the PCs, do the same for them, too.
> 
> Makes Bloodied more fun, and also more tactically sound for a good cue as to when to start laying on the Dailies and Encounter abilities that might miss a high Defense critter.




Making monsters take a -2 to defenses when they hit blooded might be a really good idea, particularly if the players are finding it hard to finish a combat.

I had a group of hobgoblin soldiers last night in KotS and the Barbarian was only hitting them about 1/4 of the time. Admittedly he was rolling poorly, but several players expressed disappointment at how hard the fight was.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 9, 2008)

Shadowsong666 said:


> I am talking about one of our groups that gets played.
> 
> 1 dragonborn fighter /mc cleric (Tempus)
> 1 shifter cleric /mc warlord (Tempus)
> ...




 Sure looks like it!

I wasn't taking issue with your calculations at all, BTW - just modifying them to give a possibly more baseline version.

It is interesting to see everyone multiclassed with leader classes (even the cleric!). How is that working out in practice? Are the PCs taking the encounter/utility/daily power swap feats (or is it that at 11th level they all took the paragon multiclass option? I've heard people mention that paragon multiclassing seemed less interesting than the paragon paths, but you're guys all seem to be making a go of it)

Cheers


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 9, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> Sure looks like it!
> 
> I wasn't taking issue with your calculations at all, BTW - just modifying them to give a possibly more baseline version.
> 
> ...




basically the first feat for the skill and daily power and one or two feats (depends on the player imho but no one went full MC or took a paragon path out of class) for utility or encounter power (circles, heals). 
It goes quite good actually because we don't get into trouble if our healers can't act (stunned, out of combat) because of the extra healing and abilities we have ready.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 9, 2008)

I find it interesting that people are describing 'the grind' with respect to 4e.  My personal experience (which has only included 4e from 1st to 3rd level) runs exactly counter to that idea, since one of my biggst problems with 3e over the last 8 years is 'the grind'.  In 3e, combats (particularly after 11th level) feel like they're decided by the third round.  I don't doubt this can occur in 4e, as well...I just don't see it as a edition-specific problem.  Over the last few years, I adapted a '_I'm declaring combat has ended_' policy towards combats that clearly were going to waste our limited gaming time on a rote exercise.

People talking about combats being much longer in 4e also runs counter to my experience, so far....but people also are using two different metrics for combat length.  There's no question that, in terms of rounds, 4e combat takes longer.  But in terms of actual real time, 3e combats come off as being much quicker, at least for my group.  And more importantly, combat is much more of an equal-opportunity affair.  Higher-level combats, in particular, would feature battles in which some characters simply didn't get to do much of interest.  In some combats, certain characters were just irrelevant or merely window-dressing while the powerhouses brought their abilities to bear.  4e hasn't provided us with that feel.

And one thing that I'm looking forward to is NOT having to reference the books.  Or a website.  Or Excel.  We've been playing 3e for 8 years...and we STILL have to reference certain play-mechanics to make sure we do them correctly, such as grappling, dispelling, turning and so forth.  For my group, 3e has provided us with years of gaming entertainment...but we're ready to move on.  If 4e suddenly proves to be a disappointment (which after 6 sessions, it hasn't so far), then we'll shift laterally back to 3e or to True d20.

I certainly don't fault anyone for tiring of any game system and moving to another...or for staying with one that's worked for a long time.  Each group should make the choice that's best for them.


----------



## Felon (Dec 9, 2008)

Shadowsong666 said:


> No, just +26 damage without weapon damage.
> 
> Well the math is easy. Lets use a dragonborn glaive fighter.
> 
> ...



Sounds like this "blood-claw weapon" is providing a big boost. What the heck is it and why shouldn't it be nerfed?


----------



## Felon (Dec 9, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> Making monsters take a -2 to defenses when they hit blooded might be a really good idea, particularly if the players are finding it hard to finish a combat.



I think I'd prefer to see encounter powers receive a small bonus to hit, and dailies receive a big one. I'd be happy for these bonuses to be provided by feats, although they'd be must-haves. Another possibility is a feat that lets you add the "reliable" quality to a power. 

IME the number one cause of grind is having a series of big-gun fizzles.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 9, 2008)

Felon said:


> Sounds like this "blood-claw weapon" is providing a big boost. What the heck is it and why shouldn't it be nerfed?




you take 1 damage per weapon plus that can't be avoided and do double the damage extra - three times for a two-handed weapon. 
its ok imho.


----------



## Felon (Dec 9, 2008)

Shadowsong666 said:


> you take 1 damage per weapon plus that can't be avoided and do double the damage extra - three times for a two-handed weapon.
> its ok imho.



So, it allows hit points to be converted into damage, basically turning a defender into a striker. The guy with the surfeit of HP takes a 3 point boo-boo, and gets a damage bonus comparable if not better than a striker's daamge rider? If that's at-will, and that's all there is to it, it sounds pretty power-creepy and role-disruptive to me.

But to each their own. Not what the thread's about I guess.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Dec 9, 2008)

dagger said:


> As a player I am fed up with 4e already, but I like to run it so far.




Careful with that narrow brush.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 9, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> In 3e, combats (particularly after 11th level) feel like they're decided by the third round.



But isn't that because in 3E a typical combat is _over_ by the third round? Because that's been my experience. Combats taking more than three rounds are rare and almost always represent 'boss fights'.

So that's pretty much the opposite of what people generally call 'grinding'.
Grinding is chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, over.
In 3E it's *boom*, *boom*, *boom*, over.



WizarDru said:


> There's no question that, in terms of rounds, 4e combat takes longer.  But in terms of actual real time, 3e combats come off as being much quicker, at least for my group.



That's probably true but I don't think this has been the major complaint in this thread. This thread is about the 'quality' of a combat, i.e. how fun/interesting is it?

If of 10 rounds of combat only the first three are interesting and the rest is boring mopping up, then there's a problem even if the 10 rounds taken together only take half as long as three rounds in 3E.


----------



## Harlekin (Dec 9, 2008)

Felon said:


> So, it allows hit points to be converted into damage, basically turning a defender into a striker. The guy with the surfeit of HP takes a 3 point boo-boo, and gets a damage bonus comparable if not better than a striker's daamge rider? If that's at-will, and that's all there is to it, it sounds pretty power-creepy and role-disruptive to me.
> 
> But to each their own. Not what the thread's about I guess.




I had basically the same evaluation when I read up about it. In 3e a vicious weapon turns hp to damage in a 1 to 2 ratio and that is already pretty nice. I think the 1 to 3 ratio for two-handed weapons is just a little too much.

However, even without the +9, his expected damage for an attack is 24, so for the purpose of our argument it does not matter if this weapon is overpowered.

I am starting to think that strikers may be the least important role for a groups survival while being the most important role for a groups fun. a party without strikes will have more defenders and leaders and thus be able to take much more damage.  However, their fights will be long and sometimes grindy. Something to look out for when putting together a group.


----------



## Festivus (Dec 9, 2008)

I am just curious how many out there have run high level 3.5 and 4E games, and how do things compare at those levels?  

I have this feeling that 4E low level takes a lot longer / "grindy" because of a) lack of options at low level, and b) the way everyone has a lot of hitpoints.  But 4E remains fairly flat in terms of time for combat resolution across the levels, where 3.5 is very quick combats in levels 1-12ish, but starts jumping up in terms of time to resolve at higher levels (does it plateau at some point in 3.5?)  My home 3.5 game we are at level 18 and things take a bit of time to resolve.

I weigh this 4E low level action against how it might work high level (for the record, I have only run high level 3.5, not 4E yet... so this is speculation).  At high level 4E, I can see that the creatures have a few more hitpoints, a few more options, and the players have a few more hitpoints and options.  Does this increase the amount of time combats take?  I suspect less options makes for faster decisions when it comes time to use them.

I know in 3.5, most of the time is spent adding up massive numbers of dice... one roll can consist of 30d6 a couple d8s and whatever else... in 4E it's going to be 3[W]+modifiers.  That has to help speed things up.  Also in high level 3.5 games, the stat blocks for the bad guys can span several sheets of paper, particularly with things like dragons (as I prepare to run a massive fight with multiple dragons and giants).  It takes a lot of prep time to figure out tactics and options, and the stat blocks are so large I often find myself forgetting about some power or ability in the heat of the game.  Thus far in 4E I haven't had that problem.


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 9, 2008)

Rel said:


> There was action, intrigue, ships, cannons, undead, lizardfolk, giant dinosaurs.  Everything a body could want!




No hot girl on girl action?


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Dec 9, 2008)

Is the grind aspect due to hp's being too high, or maybe the power system being too limited? 

I really wish there were more uses for encounter and daily powers, or some mechanic that migrated encounter powers to at-wills at certain levels. Or maybe some kind of re-charge mechanic for PC's. 

I have to mirror the disappointment of some that I feel like I have to house-rule large chunks of 4E already.


----------



## MrMyth (Dec 9, 2008)

Felon said:


> OK, it seems my statement about characters being lucky to do 20 pts of damage bears some qualfiication.
> 
> I'm referring collectively to the damage output from the parade of characters I've seen within the half-dozen 4e parties that I've played in, ranging from levels 1-12, of which only a few have been tricked-out rangers and rogues (and that fighter doing +26 damage per hit is conspicuously absent altogether). If encounters were built using 3e's design of a 1-monster/4-players ratio, I could see only focusing on characters whose role it is to close down opponents and just not counting the healers and buffers and mezzers and meat shields.
> 
> But 4e's design is 1-monster/1-player, with all classes designed to contribute damage. Now you ought to count everybody, not just the total badarses. And yeah, some of those characters roll single digits on damage with rather alarming frequency.




I'll certainly admit that not every character will be regularly dealing out 20 damage, and that super-optimized characters should be used as the baseline - but that is still a very different story than your original claim, which was that 20 damage was rare for non-daily powers at heroic and paragon levels. 

Now, I'll also note that _average damage_ is a different thing entirely - but your original discussion was about damage dealt when people hit, so that is what is being discussed. 

Any Rogue and Ranger will be dealing over 20 damage with Encounter Powers in the Heroic tier. Many Rogues and Rangers will be dealing over 20 damage with At-Will powers in the Heroic Tier. 

_(Rogue, with Dex 18, 2W Encounter Power, +2 Weapon, Backstabber: 2d8 (Sneak Attack) + 2d4 (Dagger) + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Enhancement) = 20 damage.)_

_(Brutal Rogue, with Dex 20, Str 14, +2 Weapon, Backstabber, Weapon Focus, At-Will Attack: 2d8+2 (Sneak Attack) + 1d4 (Dagger) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Enhancement) + 1 (Weapon Focus) = 21.5 damage.)_

_(Ranger, with Dex 16, +1 Weapon, 2 attack Encounter Power: 2d10 (Longbow) + 1d6 (Quarry) + 6 (Dex x 2) + 2 (Enhancement x 2) = 22.5 damage.)_

_(Ranger, with +2 Weapon, Weapon Focus, Twin Strike, Lethal Hunter: 2d10 (Longbow) + 1d8 (Quarry) + 4 (Enhancement x 2) + 2 (Focus x 2) = 20.5 damage.)_ 

Fighters, Paladins, Clerics and Warlords with two-handed weapons will be dealing over 20 damage with Encounter powers in the Heroic Tier. 

_(Str 18, +2 Weapon, Maul, 2W attack: 4d6 (Maul) + 2 (Enhancement) + 4 (Str) = 20 damage.) _

Warlocks have a harder time of it, but can deal over 20 damage with At-Will powers when those At-Wills deal the full effect. (Dire Radiance and Hellish Rebuke being triggered.) Most Encounter Powers will deal almost 20 damage - or more, from an optimized Warlock. 

_(Con 18, +2 Implement, 2d8 damage encounter power: 2d8 (Power) + 1d6 (Curse) + 4 (Con) + 2 (Implement) = 18.5 damage.) Higher Con and a feat pushes it to 20.5 damage._

_(Con 18, +2 Implement, Dire Radiance or Hellish Rebuke triggered: 2d6 (Power) + 1d6 (Curse) + 8 (Con x 2) + 4 (Implement x 2) = 22.5 damage.)_

By Paragon Tier, pretty much everyone's Encounter Powers will be dealing over 20 damage when they hit. 

_Any melee characters with a 1d10 or bigger weapon: 2W + 2 (Weapon Focus) + 5 (Primary Stat) + 3 (Enhancement) = 21 damage._

By Paragon Tier, pretty much every Striker's At-Will Powers will be dealing over 20 damage when they hit. 

_Warlock At-Will Eldritch Blast: 1d10 (Power) + 5 (Primary Stat) + 3 (Enhancement) +2d6 (Curse) = 20.5 damage. _

_Rogue At-Will: 1d4 (Weapon) + 3d6 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Primary Stat) + 3 (Enhancement) = 21 damage. _

_Ranger At-Will Twin Strike: 2d10 (Weapon) + 2d6 (Quarry) + 6 (Enhancement x 2) = 24 damage. _

Stating that it is rare or lucky to be getting Quarry/Sneak Attack/Curse damage is absurd. Sure, it might not happen every single round, but it should definitely be present the vast majority of the time. If not, perhaps something else is going horribly wrong. 

Even if you are looking at the damage of the party as a whole - the non-Strikers aren't that far behind. As mentioned, any characters with two-handed weapons are looking at being in the 20 damage range with encounter powers. Those that aren't - casters like Wizards, wisdom-based Clerics, etc - are often using powers that are hitting multiple targets, thus boosting them up into that range as well. (And single target Encounter powers are still doing around 15 damage, which isn't far off.) 

As mentioned elsewhere, average-damage wise, you might have a point. But the quote that started this said: "*In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels.*"

And that is only true if the party has no strikers and uses no encounter powers. That seems... unlikely.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 9, 2008)

Here is data from my game:

PCs (lvl 4?) vs. Crusaders of Torog (2 Trog Maulers, 1 Trog Impaler, 1 Trog Curse Chanter, 1 Angel of Battle; lvl 7): 9 rounds.

3 PCs - Wizard, Cleric, Rogue (lvl 3?) - vs. The Dead Walk (12 skeleton minions, 2 gravehound zombies, 1 lvl 4 elf archer; lvl 4): 6 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Skeletal Legion (2 skeleton warriors, 8+ decrepit skeletons; lvl 1+): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Crypt of Shadows (10 zombie rotters, 4 zombies; lvl 3): 1 round.  (Maybe 2.)

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Ghoul Warren (1 ghoul, 12 zombie rotters, 2 zombies; lvl 4?): 2 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Some hobgoblins (Warchief, some soldiers, some grunts, deathjump spider; lvl ??): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. Torture Chamber (Hobgoblin Torturer (lvl 3 brute), Goblin Warrior, 3 Goblin Sharpshooters; lvl 2): 3 rounds.

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. Excavation Site (3 goblin sharpshooters, 2 guard drakes; lvl 2): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. A Lot of Hobgoblins (14 hobgoblin grunts, 9 hobgoblin soldiers, 1 deathjump spider, 1 hobgoblin archer, hobgoblin warcaster, hobgoblin warchief; lvl 10): 11 rounds.  (They came in waves, and the PCs lost.)

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. Chieftan's Lair (8 goblin cutters, 5 goblin warriors, Balgron the Fat (lvl 4 lurker); lvl 4): 4 rounds.  (Balgron was assassinated, coup de grace.)

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. The Shadow Rift (Kalarel, Scion of Orcus (lvl 8 elite controller), The Thing in the Portal (lvl 4 hazard), Deathlock Wight, 2 Skeleton Warriors; lvl 6): 7 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Cathedral of Shadow (5 vampire spawn, orcus underpriest, 2 human berserkers, 1 dark creeper; lvl 4): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 5) vs. The Devourer (1 gelatinous cube, 3 wraiths; lvl 5): 9 rounds (PCs lost this one).

PCs (lvl 5) vs. Pack Attack (7 hyenas; lvl 4): 2 rounds.

PCs (lvl 5) vs. Grimmerzhul Trading Post (4 duergar guards, Kedhira, duergar theurge; lvl 4): 4 rounds.


----------



## WizarDru (Dec 9, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> But isn't that because in 3E a typical combat is _over_ by the third round? Because that's been my experience. Combats taking more than three rounds are rare and almost always represent 'boss fights'.




Not for my group.  Typically, 3e/3.5e combats will run 6-8 rounds.  The end of the combat is effectively determined by round 3, but it can grind on for a while.  Especially in combats where three of the players can't hurt the monster, but one can devastate it or something similar, such as some undead battles, golem fights, creatures with high sr/hp/ac, etc.




Jhaelen said:


> If of 10 rounds of combat only the first three are interesting and the rest is boring mopping up, then there's a problem even if the 10 rounds taken together only take half as long as three rounds in 3E.




I agree.  So far, our combats in 4e have been more flavorful and exciting for the entire party overall than our average 3e combats.  The cleric's contribution to the combat is more than just casting Bless and CLW.  The rogue doesn't just hang up her hat if it's a powerful undead.  The wizard doesn't feel like he has to hoard his spells unless he's really, _really_ sure.  For us, 4e is offering some appealing combat actions.  

Which isn't to say that 3e did otherwise, just that 4e seems to be offering them without quite so much work, which is appealing to us.


----------



## Jhaelen (Dec 9, 2008)

WizarDru said:


> Especially in combats where three of the players can't hurt the monster, but one can devastate it or something similar, such as some undead battles, golem fights, creatures with high sr/hp/ac, etc.



Ah, okay. I just remembered a peculiarity of my group which might explain the different experience:

I've currently got nine players, with typically 6-8 being present in a given session. So the chance that a majority cannot hurt a given monster is practically nil.


----------



## dnddays (Dec 10, 2008)

*Swingyness?*

I haven't seen too much swingyness in my games, certainly not consistently and to the extent of some games described here.  I suppose in the end it might be subjective, dependent on the campaign's particulars.  How many strikers are in your party; whether or not you're stingy with magic items and what types of magic items your party carries; the builds chosen by your players; the skill, teamwork and tactics employed; and often plain old luck determines how long combats will take.

Now, if you really want to see swingyness, clear your calendar and try playing 3e at epic level, because it might take a while.


----------



## dnddays (Dec 10, 2008)

Jhaelen said:


> Ah, okay. I just remembered a peculiarity of my group which might explain the different experience:
> 
> I've currently got nine players, with typically 6-8 being present in a given session. So the chance that a majority cannot hurt a given monster is practically nil.




I would guess that having 8 players will slow things down, assuming a minute or more used by each player and an increase in the number of monsters to challenge them.


----------



## MerricB (Dec 10, 2008)

Drkfathr1 said:


> Is the grind aspect due to hp's being too high, or maybe the power system being too limited?




IME, the combats that seem to go into grind mode are generally those where the ACs of the monsters are quite high. When you send a higher-level monster against the PCs, especially if it is a soldier, that's quite likely.

It may also be part of why we underestimate the power of accuracy powers, as noted in a recent podcast.

If three or four PCs can concentrate on one monster at a time - rather than each PC pairing off against each monster individually - then you'll find the grindiness of combat going down quickly.

Cheers!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 10, 2008)

Here's something I posted on Circvs Maximvs and some seemed to see it as potential useful for dealing with "decision-making" in D&D 4. 

[sblock=Decision-Making in 4E Combat]
Decision-Making in combat. Maybe everything here is obvious. It's probably not complete.

1) Know your powers. You should have a general idea of what your powers do. Do they deal damage in an area? Do they daze, knock prone <apply other status effect>? Do they move an opponent?

2) Determine how the combat situation looks like. Look at your role to set your priorities.
- Are we in trouble or is everything fine?
- Are there any allies victim to a nasty effect or in a "suboptimal" situation? [Leader, Defender]
- Is their a group of enemies within a certain blast/burst radius? [Controller]
- Is their an ally in need of healing? [Leader]
- Do you flank someone or have otherwise combat advantage? [Strikers]
- Is an opponent unable to move but still mostly undamaged? [Defender and Controller]
- Any enemy hurting you unmolested [Defender, Controller]
- Are you in trouble?
- How can you help your allies inflicting out more hurt? [Leader, but also everyone]
- Anything running around that looks like an Elite or a Solos ?
- Any pits, chasmns or lava rivers around?

3) Make a decision based on the combat situation.
- If you're in trouble, a daily power should be considered. If not, usually only encounters and at-wills are an option.
- Anyone suffering a nasty condition or in a bad spot? Can you help him? Provide healing, a new save (or merely a save bonus), can you move him out of harms way or force opponents away or deal with you?
- Is their an ally in need of healing? As a Leader, heal him. As a defender, defend him! As a Striker, take out his attackers. As a Controller, force enemies away from him.
- Enemies lining up for a burst or blast? Let them suffer for it.
- Is an opponent unable to move? Get outside his range or reach and deal with him later.
- An unmolested enemy? Deal with him. Mark him, disable him, cut him off.
- If it's you who is in trouble, what can let you get out? Heal yourself (Second Wind, Potion)? Run away? Wait for help?
- How can you help your allies dealing more hurt? Help them get Combat Advantage. Move yourself or enemies into flanking position. Daze them.
- Any Elites or Solos around? Consider using one of your debilitating dailies on him. They work the best against these guys, particularly if they have ongoing effects or apply status effects.
- Pits, Chasmn or Lava river? Shove an enemy into it ASAP! It's fun!

Generally: Make your encounter attacks count. Use them on heavy hitters or on large groups. But use them at some point. A PC with an encounter power left after an encounter is embarrassing (either for you because you wasted a perfect way to inflict more harm, or for the DM because you beat him with your hands tied to your back!) 

*Addendum *(exclusive content! Not Found in the original Cirvs Maximvs post! Get it while it's still hot!): 
Again something that should be obvious, but is important in the decision making process: 
- Use Encounters and Dailies when you have a higher chance to hit then usual. If necessary, coordinate with an ally for this. A leader could grant you a bonus to your attacks, a Striker or Defender can provide you with flanking, a Controller might be able to move opponents into flanking position or daze/stun them. Or if available, spend an action point to gain a bonus to the attack (Humans get that nice feat for a +3 bonus to all attacks after spending an action point). This might be one of the most important points where good teamwork can speed up combat and avoid the frustration of missing with a cruicial power. 
- Use your Action Points. There is little point in having more then one action point lying around. If you know this encounter finishes a milestone, spend an action point. An extra action can double (and more) your damage output for a round, and this might mean you don't need to spend a daily power this encounter, or that you'll need a healing surge less.
[/sblock]


----------



## vagabundo (Dec 10, 2008)

MerricB said:


> IME, the combats that seem to go into grind mode are generally those where the ACs of the monsters are quite high. When you send a higher-level monster against the PCs, especially if it is a soldier, that's quite likely.
> 
> It may also be part of why we underestimate the power of accuracy powers, as noted in a recent podcast.
> 
> ...




Funny you should mention that, in my last session, some of my players noticed they were having a hard time hitting the soldier hobo's from KotS, so the fighter started using some exploits that targeted reflex - armour piercing ?? - and he made short work of them. 

This is the first time I've noticed that kind of talk.


----------



## PathfinderAP (Dec 10, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> And yet they seem to come up so regularly...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Couldn't you use something like some of the options in "Iron Heroes"
to add more unpredictable to the game?

(I don't know if someone here has already mentioned this, I don't have time to read the whole thread)


----------



## Ydars (Dec 10, 2008)

What we need are mechanics for monster powers that activate as a last ditch defence and can only be called upon when the poor creatures are on their last legs.

Maybe monsters should be given action points and only allowed to use them once the PCs have bloodied them or even create another condition, called moribund, that corresponds to 1/4 HP and let the monsters use APs when they are moribund?


----------



## Festivus (Dec 10, 2008)

Ydars said:


> What we need are mechanics for monster powers that activate as a last ditch defence and can only be called upon when the poor creatures are on their last legs.
> 
> Maybe monsters should be given action points and only allowed to use them once the PCs have bloodied them or even create another condition, called moribund, that corresponds to 1/4 HP and let the monsters use APs when they are moribund?




The mechanics exist already.  Elites and solos all have APs, many have effects that trigger when bloodied or at zero hitpoints, etc.  You can also take standard monsters and apply effects that trip when bloodied if you wanted... you get one of these rechargable or triggering encounter powers per tier.

Read the 4E DMG pages 184 and 185 for details.


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 10, 2008)

Ydars said:


> What we need are mechanics for monster powers that activate as a last ditch defence and can only be called upon when the poor creatures are on their last legs.
> 
> Maybe monsters should be given action points and only allowed to use them once the PCs have bloodied them or even create another condition, called moribund, that corresponds to 1/4 HP and let the monsters use APs when they are moribund?




I wonder if the best place for that is in the monster statblock or if it should be part of the encounter.

Recently I ran a home-brewed encounter area where I rolled a d6 to have a random event occur.  One of those was "a new random encounter arrives."  That spiced things up!


----------



## Felon (Dec 10, 2008)

MrMyth said:


> As mentioned elsewhere, average-damage wise, you might have a point. But the quote that started this said: "*In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels.*"



OK, come now. I'm on the verge of telling some folks to get a life. That's kind of "no, no, what you originally said was..." throwing the initial remark back in one's face ad infinitum is kid stuff. It was vague--my bad--but I've long since qualified the little unguarded, off-hand remark that has since been pounced upon in a locust-like fashion. 

Furthermore, I can't help but feel that parading a series tricked-out DPS strikers and then saying "how can you say this kind of damage isn't run-of-the-mill?" is basically presenting a bunch of ringers. I don't see those characters being predominant in any party I've played.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Dec 10, 2008)

Ydars said:


> What we need are mechanics for monster powers that activate as a last ditch defence and can only be called upon when the poor creatures are on their last legs.




I'm inclined to think that rather than that I need a way of PCs to get more use out of their encounter and daily powers - maybe if all encounter powers were reliable, for instance? Or allow them a recharge rate same as the monsters get (like recharge 5,6 for encounter powers)


----------



## VictorC (Dec 11, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm inclined to think that rather than that I need a way of PCs to get more use out of their encounter and daily powers - maybe if all encounter powers were reliable, for instance? Or allow them a recharge rate same as the monsters get (like recharge 5,6 for encounter powers)




Off the top of my head, I would say, make your highest or lowest level encounter power rechargable: heroic roll a 6; paragon roll 5 or 6; epic 4,5 or 6.

But only your highest or lowest, so it changes often. Just something to think about.


----------



## FireLance (Dec 11, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm inclined to think that rather than that I need a way of PCs to get more use out of their encounter and daily powers - maybe if all encounter powers were reliable, for instance? Or allow them a recharge rate same as the monsters get (like recharge 5,6 for encounter powers)



I prefer recharge on a miss (a missed daily allows you to recharge a used encounter). If the encounter or daily hit in the first place, I don't think the PCs will need the extra power.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 11, 2008)

I'm going a different way and am working on an 4e Update of the Critical Hit tables from Players Options: Combat & Tactics.

Players will do criticals on a roll of 18 and higher and beating the defense by a certain amount of points or something like that. Depending on the numer rolled, the die roll on the critical hit table gets determined, the magic weapon bonus gets added and an effect calculated.

The effects the players deal out will be heavy and a good critical hit (20 rolled, max rolled and a good magic weapon) will determine a fight against the enemy in seconds. Powers that give you a natural hit 20 will not roll on this chart like a natural 20, but will still impact the game as they should. I am working on a chart for weapons (light blades, heavy blades etc.) and for magic (psyche, acid, lightning etc.). If a weapon has multiple tables available, the player can choose the table. Power to the players! As boss mobs or elite monsters need to be extra tough they will get their own crit tables which are less dramatic, but still give an effect. Players can suffer criticals too, but only on a natural 20 by the monster and the table is not as permanent and evil as that against NPCs (well i somehow think that ripping the face of a PC is not really a thing enjoyed by the players...) because i want to boost the players in normal combat and just update them a bit in fights against the real tough guys. 

I don't know how much time it takes, but i think a lot til its ready for release. First, i am still writing and second i will playtest the stuff first in one of our games for some fights. But reading through it sounds like fun for the players and making fights faster against stuff thats not really important. I just think that fights in DnD 4e should be more like Record of Lodoss War - normal enemies get smashed like cake and bosses knock down some players but die after a good long fight. ^^


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Dec 11, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I'm inclined to think that rather than that I need a way of PCs to get more use out of their encounter and daily powers - maybe if all encounter powers were reliable, for instance? Or allow them a recharge rate same as the monsters get (like recharge 5,6 for encounter powers)




I agree.

I also think it would be interesting to look at ways to make the short & long rest mechanics more interesting.

Maybe rituals to simulate a long rest so you don't have to leave the dungeon, but do have to sacrifice some resources?

I don't know the DMG 2 is gonna have in it, but two features I would love to see would be:

1.) Just more stuff on skill challenge mechanics.

2.) A whole freaking chapter on mechanics for varying the pace of the game on every level.  Personally, I would love to see a version of DnD where you could engineer the pace of the game for narrative tension.

Here's what I mean:

Keep on the Shadowfell, basicly three parts - 

1.) Lots of awesome big set piece fights

2.) The top levels of the dungeon

3.) Big Boss fight

Wouldn't it be nice if you could set the pace for those?  So part 1 can be fast or slow depending on the mood of the party.

Part 2 could be relatively fast so you can engineer when the party has to take a break from fighting and the monsters get to re engineer the dungeon for defense.

Part 3 you give real devastating gravitas to by putting together a timer till the ritual completes and then making fights fast or slow within that timer so the PCs can really feel the action movie style tension.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Dec 11, 2008)

FireLance said:


> I prefer recharge on a miss (a missed daily allows you to recharge a used encounter).




That's a really interesting idea... and most encounter powers aren't too strong, either. I may have to think about that.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Dec 11, 2008)

Tallarn said:


> That's a really interesting idea... and most encounter powers aren't too strong, either. I may have to think about that.




We are using such a mechanic. 
If an encounter power or daily without a miss effect misses the target (or all targets if an area spell) the player gets a recharge counter (6). Every round he rolls for a recharge. If he uses another power and misses, counter gets to (5) and so on. if he rolls for for a positive recharge, he can choose one of the powers he used that triggered the recharge or he used after that and failed. All powers not picked are not regainable anymore.

Works quite well and makes a miss with a daily not so much of an "oh crap, again." thingy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Dec 11, 2008)

FireLance said:


> I prefer recharge on a miss (a missed daily allows you to recharge a used encounter). If the encounter or daily hit in the first place, I don't think the PCs will need the extra power.




This is a pretty good idea....elegant and fixes some of the grind problem.

I'd have given you XP for it, but I need to pass some more around first.

BTW, is there anything in 4e preventing a DM from using a series of classed NPCs from using sequential CAGI to slide PCs off a cliff or into lava without a save?


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Dec 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> BTW, is there anything in 4e preventing a DM from using a series of classed NPCs from using sequential CAGI to slide PCs off a cliff or into lava without a save?




"Rocks fall, you die"?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:


> This is a pretty good idea....elegant and fixes some of the grind problem.



Actually, I think it is flawed. There are many powers - specifically bursts and blasts that target multiple enemies. There are bound to hit _someone_, but that doesn't mean that they will feel satisfying. Like when you target 4 Minions and one Brute - the Brute is hit, but you manage to miss all Minions. That is a very unsatisfying use of an area effect power. But even if all 5 enemies were non-Minions, you'd rather would like to deal no damage and try again later. Reliable powers work best when they have very few (1-3) targets.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> BTW, is there anything in 4e preventing a DM from using a series of classed NPCs from using sequential CAGI to slide PCs off a cliff or into lava without a save?



No. Though everyone (NPCs and PCs) gets a save before entering such terrain and end up prone adjacent to it on a success. (Yes, that's basically the only remnant of "Save or Die" you can suffer when still on full or at least "okayish" hit points)


----------

