Quote from: Mistwell;378968You're an idiot, a troll, or both

Pot. Kettle. Black.

:rolleyes:

Stormbringer, perhaps you should find somewhere else to go and stop stalking my posts.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378993Stormbringer, perhaps you should find somewhere else to go and stop stalking my posts.

As I have said before, when you stop saying stupid shit, I will stop pointing out that you say stupid shit.

And your bullshit accusation of stalking?  No one buys it.  No one buys it when you say someone is a sock-puppet, either.  Everyone knows that is just you pitching a bitch because you have no valid opinion on anything, but want people to take you seriously anyway.

Perhaps you should take your own advice, and find somewhere less critical of morons spewing nonsense.  I hear tBP is good for that.

Stormbringer, do you have any more questions about whether the rules update constitutes a new edition or not?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378938I'm not sure where people are getting 2.5 hour combats from.

I'm getting them because week in, week out, that's how long they take, and have been since around level 11 or so. A six hour session is basically 2 combats and a skill challenge, and the skill challenge rarely takes a whole hour (I finally dropped challenges a few weeks ago...after almost 2 years of trying, just can't make them work in a way players like).

Of course, when you say 'people', you're indicating others are saying the same thing.  Kinda reminds of this girl, a student in one my classes, a real whiner. I told her to grow up.

She responded with "Why do people keep telling me that?", and, I'm glad to say, I wasn't the only one who found it amusing.

Anyway, there's a reason why people keep saying combats past a certain level easily take over 2 hours, honest.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379014Stormbringer, do you have any more questions about whether the rules update constitutes a new edition or not?

Do you have any more posts telling people how they are playing wrong?  Let's not pretend you ever had any interest in posting to this thread to clear up any misunderstandings or discuss a set of errata.

Quote from: Benoist;378929Jesus fuck, man. Two HOURS and a half for a single fight.

I could do it in at least half that time with GURPS - as long I was the GM.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Doom;379019I'm getting them because week in, week out, that's how long they take, and have been since around level 11 or so. A six hour session is basically 2 combats and a skill challenge, and the skill challenge rarely takes a whole hour (I finally dropped challenges a few weeks ago...after almost 2 years of trying, just can't make them work in a way players like).

Of course, when you say 'people', you're indicating others are saying the same thing.  Kinda reminds of this girl, a student in one my classes, a real whiner. I told her to grow up.

She responded with "Why do people keep telling me that?", and, I'm glad to say, I wasn't the only one who found it amusing.

Anyway, there's a reason why people keep saying combats past a certain level easily take over 2 hours, honest.

Well, so far it's really just you. The rest is just irrelevant chatter from non-players. Or in Stormy's case, just a non-gamer who flopped over here from some heap.

I guess my question is.. is it still fun? If it isn't fun, how is it worth it? And what types of encounters are we even talking about?


As I recall, you're the guy that also felt that not having an 18 in a prime stat made a character "useless".. Perhaps you could also look at how you balance encounters. Are you generally trying to pick encounters that are budgeted over the PCs level? (This is a common mistake for DMs who fall into the arms race idea that they have to keep "challenging" their PCs simply by picking tougher monsters..)  At some point monster defenses are high enough that you have indeed screwed yourself over in battles as players can't hit anything that often. And yes, your battles will take a lot longer.

Is it something else?

Post a sample encounter and the average PC level.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027Well, so far it's really just you.

I don't disagree with you but the statement above is disingenuous; it is not only Doom.  Even without going through this thread post by post the same complaint has multiple threads on ENworld voicing the same issue.  Although I have yet to see the grind complained about by others, this shouldn't be marginalized as the complaint of one person.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027Well, so far it's really just you.  Or in Stormy's case, just a non-gamer who flopped over here from some heap.

Uh, every forum, every board, has posts from people saying the fights take a long time. You're really saying everyone else is a liar?

QuoteI guess my question is.. is it still fun? If it isn't fun, how is it worth it? And what types of encounters are we even talking about?

Sometimes, sure, but it's also pretty grindy. Like most folks, once there's only one or two monsters left, I break RAW and just end it already.

QuoteAs I recall, you're the guy that also felt that not having an 18 in a prime stat made a character "useless"

Not a question of 'felt', it's a question of 'math'. I'm not 'the' guy, either...once again, at every table you see every character with the 'golden' bonuses. It really sucks that there race/class combos are so minimal.

I guess I could demonstrate with math what happens if you fall into too many (i.e., 2) traps of poor character design, but I'm guessing you feel math is just gobbledigook for dweebs, and so not much point.

Or do you think I'm the only guy who still plays 4e?

QuotePerhaps you could also look at how you balance encounters.

Yes, perhaps it's me, and every other forum on the internet is just filled with posers. Possibly.

QuoteAre you generally trying to pick encounters that are budgeted over the PCs level? (This is a common mistake for DMs who fall into the arms race idea that they have to keep "challenging" their PCs simply by picking tougher monsters..)  At some point monster defenses are high enough that you have indeed screwed yourself over in battles as players can't hit anything that often. And yes, your battles will take a lot longer.

Heh, you should listen to yourself sometime. No, I don't pick higher level monsters, I've never once gone past level +3 on monster level, last thing I want to do is make monsters tough to hit. Usually, most of the monsters are level -1 or so (i.e., hittable on a 7+), with maybe one or two level +1 monsters.

Maybe now you'll accuse my players of all being sub-optimal? The cleric has all the broken powers (healing more than double a surge with each 'surge' power), the paladin has the broken 'Certain Justice', the Ranger combos off the broken Bard prestige path...not exactly a weak group, really. I think the lowest plus to-hit is +22, not bad for 15 and 16.

The problem is the math is wrong. The same thing that says Fireball, even from a high level wizard, is deeply unlikely to kill a level 1 monster says you need lots of high damaging attacks to kill an even remotely same level monster.

I don't feel like posting an encounter, one encounter proves nothing, anyway. On the other hand, every encounter, every week, for the last six months is more than sufficient empirical evidence for me that the comments seen on every...single...4e...board about the fights taking a long time are fairly accurate.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027Well, so far it's really just you. The rest is just irrelevant chatter from non-players. Or in Stormy's case, just a non-gamer who flopped over here from some heap.

Yes, non-gaming is how I got the second longest play by post thread here, with three times the responses and four times the views as the third most popular thread.

Doom and Stormbringer are NOT alone in this.

For a year and two months I was a player in a 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Whenever a combat encounter came up - it always took close to two hours or more to resolve. Any shot at actual roleplaying went out the window.

Now whats funny is you guys should realize that Wizards of The Coast agrees with me, Stormy, Doom, and othe other detractors on this. Or at least they have indirectly acknowledged the issue.

For the past month or so game stores around the country have been hosting ""D&D Encounters" on Wednesday nights. The company that makes D&D - WotC has allocated the time slot of 6:00pm to 9:00pm for these 'encounters, not game sessions, encounters,...they're saying ' encounters'.  Thats THREE hours aloocated for just an encounter!

Looks like some kind of corporate acknowledgement to me.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;379031For a year and two months I was a player in a 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign. Whenever a combat encounter came up - it always took close to two hours or more to resolve. Any shot at actual roleplaying went out the window.

I've been playing 4e for a little under a year, in total, and this matches my experience.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027The rest is just irrelevant chatter from non-players.

So, you'll only consider criticism from people dumb enough to play a game they don't like?  Well, I'm your guy.  It's at least partly the fault of my group (including myself), but my experience with D&D 4e has been very disappointing.  It's been full of long, boring combats, along with unappealing imagery mashed up from various old settings, ridiculously over-the-top classes, races, and monsters that somehow seem alike, distractingly stupid counterintuitive rules... I don't even want to get started, since it's all been said before. IMO, it's a bloated wreck of a game, and I play weekly.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379027I guess my question is.. is it still fun? If it isn't fun, how is it worth it?  

For me, playing 4e is fun about 10% of the time. I might be able to push that up to 20 or 25%, if I really immersed myself in it and spent more money, but 4e strikes me as a thin, sterile, numbers-based slog of a minis game.  It is fun hanging around with the guys, since it gets me out of the house, and sometimes we play boardgames, too.  

I don't waste much time complaining about it, since I should just get off my ass and run something else for the guys, instead.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;378889The reasoning I heard at DDXP went a bit like this:

If you were to ask what book you would need to start, most people would guide you to the players handbook.

...Well, now there's three players handbooks. Only the first one actually has the rules for the game, the other two are just extra content. (content isn't rules). But because they started out trying to keep things close to the way it has been always been done, they didn't realize that wasn't the way they should be doing it, at least at first.

So the boxed set (and the compendium, which is a standalone softcover, and according to the presentation at DDXP, this will be included in the DM's Essentials kit as well) will just be what you need to start, and then the hardcovers will be like the content expansions.

"Start with D&D Basic, kid.  Then we'll sell you all the Advanced hardbacks you want".  

Quote from: jrients;379041"Start with D&D Basic, kid.  Then we'll sell you all the Advanced hardbacks you want".  

Frankly, I wouldn't call that a bad thing. Well, okay, okay, it is 4e, but still. No problem with that strategy.