Quote from: Imp;339088If I were to run 4e, one thing I would do as a matter of course is to have 2-hit and sometimes 3-hit minions. There's a whoole ton of space between minion and regular monster who knows why it's there – and a lot of ways to fill it up, apparently.

I've experimented with these as well. I created "Elite" Minions, that were bloodied when damaged, and then killed when damaged again. I gave modestly more powerful and interesting attacks, and a damage threshold, where if you dealt a specific amount of damage to them(typically a Striker rolling well or a Daily/big Encounter power) you could kill them in one hit.

I've also instituted a rule that minions get a saving throw against automatic damage, and survive if they save. Auto-damage works too well on minions and trivializes them.

Half HP mooks are my favorite solution thus far though. They are dangerous, more interesting, and they still die really fast.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;339113And your prejudgement does far more to achieve those results than any action I take.

No, not really.  If this thread were just about your group having fun, then it would be fine.  I can only imagine that you do, indeed, have some sort of irritating purpose for it, given that you specified how it is an "example of 4e combat" rather than "a combat from my last game."  I'm going to wager that it has to do with how 4e's risk of defeat is superior to 3e's because 3e just killed characters whereas 4e gives those characters the opportunity to succeed (or some other nonsense along those lines).

Call me cynical.

Quote from: B.T.;339118No, not really.  If this thread were just about your group having fun, then it would be fine.  I can only imagine that you do, indeed, have some sort of irritating purpose for it, given that you specified how it is an "example of 4e combat" rather than "a combat from my last game."  I'm going to wager that it has to do with how 4e's risk of defeat is superior to 3e's because 3e just killed characters whereas 4e gives those characters the opportunity to succeed (or some other nonsense along those lines).

Call me cynical.

Naa i'd call you an asshole

Quote from: Hairfoot;339083And to think some people claim 4E is all about outlandish superheroes and combat with miniatures.  Thanks for showing the haters 4E's depth and dimension, TCO.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;339112My post was about 4E combat. If I wanted to talk about the other half of things, I would have said other things.

Ok, so could you give quick descriptions of the characters themselves, their personality, motivation, etc, rather than their combat role?  For instance, my own 3.5 scarred lands character could be described in 2 ways:

As you did, for combat:

(Formerly-Forsaken) Elf Psion (telepath) / Cleric - Striker/Controller, ranged blaster and wall of energy spammer with mind-controlling effects as well, and a small Cleric dip to provide some healing.

Or like this:

(Formerly-Forsaken) Elf Psion (telepath) / Cleric - A former atheist who believed the Slaraciens to be noble, Jedi-like heroes and trained in their psionic powers since childhood, only to have the god of the Forsaken Elves return to the world and personally bring him back to life, causing a crisis of conscience and and a slow awakening to the true nature of the Slaraciens.  

Now, I know you are describing a combat encounter, but most folks would agree that 4e does combat pretty well... it's 4e's "thing".  But how developed are the characters' personalities, backstories, motivations, etc?  Is each one a unique and memorable character with a story all their own, or are they just "generic striker" and "party tank #1"?

Quote from: samurai007;339132Now, I know you are describing a combat encounter, but most folks would agree that 4e does combat pretty well... it's 4e's "thing".  But how developed are the characters' personalities, backstories, motivations, etc?  Is each one a unique and memorable character with a story all their own, or are they just "generic striker" and "party tank #1"?

I would assume all D&D characters have detailed stories. Everyone in my campaigns certainly does, even in the low continuity of the living campaign.

No joke names or disposable characters, either.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;339138I would assume all D&D characters have detailed stories. Everyone in my campaigns certainly does, even in the low continuity of the living campaign.

No joke names or disposable characters, either.

I've seen a fair number that don't (for all editions, not just 4e).  Some players don't bother making an interesting and unique personality and background, they just roll it up, pick some stuff, and go, so I don't assume anything.  But I'm interested in hearing about the characters themselves, not their combat roles, and how well 4e handles and encourages that.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;339111As a DM I've learned what creates "the grind" and how to build encounters so it never happens. I've also taught players the system to avoid grind both in their behavior and in creating characters who can take care of business.

Not meaning to threadcrap, but if you can give us details about the DM side to this equation (aka reducing grind) I'd be really grateful. I've been eager to soak up advice on that score for months, and found Stalker0's thread on Enworld and a related discussion on Amazon.com really helpful (unfortunately, I can't find the latter now). It's not that I think grind in 4E is hopeless, it's just that every little bit helps.

I found the OP disappointing. It was not a detailed example of 4E combat. It was a detailed description about what happened, but very little about the how.

What skills and attributes did the characters call on? Special talents, powers? What actions did the players declare? What rules did these actions invoke? What were the rolls? The modifiers? The game results?

The OP tells me you had a fun time that night. It doesn't do anything to help me understand or evaluate 4E.

I know you asked to be excused for being general, but this—

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;339049In the next phase, the main party had its hands full with the Dragon, but managed to finish off the Scorpion, who failed to get a hold of anybody. The Swordmage did its best to control the Dragon, but against a Solo there's only so much you can do, and the Breath Weapon was recharged multiple times. The Avenger managed to smash one of the Archers, and began work on the Second. The Warden was being worn down by the Chain Devil and Scorpion, taking heavy punishment(and was in serious danger of being taken out) but locking them down. The Warden was even dropped to negative HP at one point, but he used his Utility power to heal himself back into things. The Warden started to wear down at the same time the other Scorpion was defeated, and the Druid and Sorcerer peeled off from the Dragon and moved to assist. The Pacifist Cleric threw all of her control prayers at the Dragon, the Swordmage kept it marked, the Assassin hit it whenever it had amassed four shrouds(to deal max damage), and the Seeker took long range shots at the other side where the Warden was. After trading some hits, the second Scorpion fell to the combined attacks of the Warden, Sorcerer and Druid, and the Cambion fell to a few odd hits but mostly the Dragon breathing on it multiple times.

—tells me the results of play but nothing about the mechanics or flow of play.

Quote from: samurai007;339132But how developed are the characters' personalities, backstories, motivations, etc?  Is each one a unique and memorable character with a story all their own, or are they just "generic striker" and "party tank #1"?

NONE of that depends on edition or even which RPG.   All that stuff depends completely on the players and the DM.

Quote from: Spinachcat;339188NONE of that depends on edition or even which RPG.   All that stuff depends completely on the players and the DM.

It doesn't depend entirely on the game, but IMO the game rules can influence it.  For instance, a game like SotC/FATE3 just about requires you to create a character's backstory and personality, at least a bit.  Your 10 Aspects tie into who you are, what matters to you, and what you've done before.  By contrast, at the other end is a game like 4e where pretty much everything non-combat is optional.  All of your major powers and abilities are focused around what you do in combat.  Backgrounds are an optional extra that was added in PHB2, and are at least a small gesture toward encouraging a backstory, but other than them, you can create an entire character without once thinking about who he is, where he's from, or what his motivations are, describing him merely by his combat role.  Now, a player can, if he wants, create that story, but in game it doesn't really matter.  So I was just wondering how many of his players did create a background and personality for their characters beyond "generic ranged striker", which sounds really uninspiring to me.

How is this a 'detailed' example of DnD4.0 combat? The transcripts on my blog, dubious as they are, have more detail than this.

Quote from: Doom;339197How is this a 'detailed' example of DnD4.0 combat? The transcripts on my blog, dubious as they are, have more detail than this.

I just read your blog and it's pretty good! I'll send you something later if you'd like to link exchange.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;339103I'm not sure you realize it, but this entire forum used to be about actual gaming before it became a threadcrapper refugee camp. If you have a problem with this thread, please feel free to report it. Otherwise GTFO.

I actually agree with you for once, AM....but this thread does belong in the Design, Development, and Gameplay subforum. Otherwise, CO....please carry on.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;339112My post was about 4E combat. If I wanted to talk about the other half of things, I would have said other things.

Fair enough, in the context.  But as B.T. reminds us, you've spent the month since you signed up evangelising 4E and trying to de-legitimise all prior editions of D&D, and now you've contributed a didactic thread detailing, yet not detailing, 4E combat to an audience that largely knows how 4E combat works because we've played it.

What you've described in the OP are playing pieces, not living characters in a fantasy world.  That type of description would have been redundant in editions prior to 3E, because who the character is dictated its behaviour as much or more than what it is.

You can enthuse about the fun of miniature wargames - and I'll join you, because I love them - but considering that your usual schtick is "4E is more D&D than ever", I'll throw in with the cynics.

Quote from: samurai007;339147I've seen a fair number that don't (for all editions, not just 4e).  Some players don't bother making an interesting and unique personality and background, they just roll it up, pick some stuff, and go, so I don't assume anything.

This is true.  There are as many "Bob the fighter"s now as there ever has been.  This probably isn't surprising, since 4E targets an audience that is accustomed to running online characters with names like "1337r0XX0or92".

Quote from: Hairfoot;339215But as B.T. reminds us, you've spent the month since you signed up evangelising 4E and trying to de-legitimise all prior editions of D&D, and now you've contributed a didactic thread detailing, yet not detailing, 4E combat to an audience that largely knows how 4E combat works because we've played it.

He's evangelizing, sure, but this isn't an obnoxious way to go about it, provided of course a million of these don't start showing up.