Quote from: Benoist;379568It's about this: "IF it's not specified by the rules, you CAN'T do it". It's about the way rules codify all the going ons at the game table, and phagocytize the game itself to then build walls around it, walls that need to be blown up for the game to be a role playing game.

I was having a very similar discussion with a friend of mine just the other day. If you believe the above to be true about 4E (or 3E), then that's your problem, not the system's. I can see where some people can come to think that way, that if it's not on the power card, you can't do it. But that's just not true, and if a player is playing that way, he's limiting himself greatly.

Or alternately, if the DM doesn't allow players to do things not on their power cards, then he's limiting the game greatly. But that would be a DM problem, not a system problem.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379582I was having a very similar discussion with a friend of mine just the other day. If you believe the above to be true about 4E (or 3E), then that's your problem, not the system's. I can see where some people can come to think that way, that if it's not on the power card, you can't do it. But that's just not true, and if a player is playing that way, he's limiting himself greatly.

Or alternately, if the DM doesn't allow players to do things not on their power cards, then he's limiting the game greatly. But that would be a DM problem, not a system problem.

It's a common enough misconception so that I'm willing to put some of the blame for it on WotC -- I mean, they did write the books. Page 42 should have been in the PHB, big time.

Quote from: Thanlis;379546OK. So you're not actually playing the game as written. Be aware that one thing that will slow your games down is if your players are short on action points; if you're not using skill challenges, they're short on action points. Also, there are different approaches to using action points. Some will speed up fights, some won't. No idea how your players tend to use them.

So now we're moving on to something completely different. Fair enough, although at this point it should be taken that, finally you've ceded the legitimacy of the model showing why fights in 4e will take more than 2 hours, at least if they offer any challenge whatsoever. Well, it should be, but you're pretty resistant to input.

I was unaware you got APs for skill challenges. You sure about that?

As usual for your issues, it doesn't matter. Let's suppose you give an AP for a skill challenge, and players always use APs whether they need to or not. I give 4 encounters before a rest, you give 3 encounters and a challenge.

You use 3 encounters and a skill challenge. They start with 1 AP, get an AP after an encounter/challenge, and finish the day with an AP they can't use.

Net result: 2 used APs.

My way, they start with an AP, get an AP after two encounters, and finish the day with an AP they can't use.

Net result: 2 used APs.

Seriously, you should think a bit.

Even if your subjective mathematics allows for 2 to not equal 2, it still doesn't matter. I stopped using challenges right before the last session, so have no influence on anything regarding APs, even if they could have influenced anything.

Even if they could have, they still would have no influence on the sample combat given, since the sample combat given was so easy, so trival, that players would have no need to use an AP. I keep reminding you of this, but you keep forgetting.

So, basically, you're wrong on top of irrelevant on top of irrelevant. This is quite an achievement, and I applaud you for that. But do get back to me on challenges give APs...maybe that'll give my players incentive not to hate them, rather than the relatively easy EP they grant.

You might recall, however, that if the use of APs weren't completely irrelevant, it was already shown that if every single player used an AP, it would turn that trivial 119 minute fight into a 114 minute fight. Even being as generous as possible and assuming no AP generates any extra effects at Paragon level, we're at a 110 minute fight. Admittedly, this is something of an improvement, but it requires every player to burn a limited resource on a very easy fight that offers no risk to any character. I don't believe you're advocating incredibly stupid play, so why are you still harping on this?

QuoteExcept that wasn't the fight. The fight was a level 16 elite and 4 minions, but they stop fighting once the elite goes bloodied and it transitions into a fight against 3 level 16 normal monsters and another level 16 minion, plus a level 16 hazard.

So I agree. A fight against a same level monster and 4 minions isn't challenging at all. But that's not the fight I described.

Well, again, the point is the fight you described is woefully unchallenging, that really is the point here, not the particular details of a particular fight. I keep reminding you of this, but you keep forgetting. If this particular thing your sole fixation, well if you don't understand how fighting one monster, then four monsters later, isn't dramatically easier than fighting 5 monsters, well, not much I can do.

But for those following at home, picture 5 guys kicking the crap out of another guy...then fighting four guys later. Sound like the same kind of fight as 5 on 5?

QuoteWell, sure. You've been wrong on everything from average AC to average hit points. You think my sorcerer's piddling 20-25 expected DPR is ultra-optimized.

Well, I've shown you wrong about the AC thing, and the HP thing was really a moot point (and I was only off a small amount).

I remind you, yet again, the fight is a pointless combat, it doesn't matter what the player's AC and HP are, they're 100% guaranteed to win anyway, since it's a fight only slightly harder than the fights you describe. Do you have like a goldfish memory or something, because it really seems like I remind you of this every single post, and you keep forgetting.

Uh, your expected DPR has dropped quite a bit from when you calculated it the first time. I guess now you're also agreeing about the average of 20 points. I'm sure you've forgotten, but you used to claim:

QuoteIf you really truly believe that the average damage per attack, counting encounters, is 20 points at level 15, you are really playing poorly. My sorcerer has a static damage bonus of +25 at level 15. He's got a +17 to hit. Average Reflex for a level 15 monster is 27, meaning he hits 55% of the time. The variable damage is 1d8, so that's (2d8+50)*.55, which is expected damage of 32 points every time he uses his at-will, if he gets an average of two monsters in the blast.

You're pretty much agreeing with me in all details now, except for irrelevant parts, where you're mostly wrong.

QuoteYou assumed the paladins must have had Certain Justice to be as effective

Nope, I never said that at all, lying again. You're advocating a certain level of optimization is necessary for extremely easy fights to be do-able in under 2 hours. Certain Justice is the most effective, in my opinion, and considering the
 play style you advocate, that would be the choice. Get a grip, dude.

Quoteas they were. You've been calculating the length of combats based on using nothing but at-wills, even though by your own figures a smart player would use encounters more often than at-wills. I would not particularly want to keep playing either, if I were you.

*chuckles, yet again* No, I haven't, I'm using concepts so foreign to you that I'll stop trying to explain, even if you could remember anything. On the other hand, you seem to be scraping harder, and harder, and harder, and harder here. Having dispensed with APs and Dailies, you're now trying this angle. But, by your own admission, above, your sorcerer is now doing only 20-25 DPR...assuming you know your own character, the numbers line up, as demonstrated, repeatedly, and as you've now agreed.

Quote from: Doom;379586Ok, so you've ceded the points on fights taking 2.5 hours, and now we're moving on to something completely different. Fair enough.

You know perfectly well I haven't done that. Do you have anything to say about my observations on how action points are force multipliers, enabling players to get maximum benefit out of temporary advantages? Any questions about what I meant there? I could go into more detail.

QuoteI was unaware you got APs for skill challenges. You sure about that?

Yep. You can look it up; page 259 of the PHB. "You gain certain benefits when you reach a milestone -- when you complete two encounters without stopping for an extended rest." Also page 123 of the DMG. Also every single LFR adventure ever published, which are reviewed by WotC.

You've been wrong on a number of rules-related topics. You were wrong on this, you were wrong about average damage for level 15 monsters, you were wrong about average AC for PCs, and you were wrong about average hit points for PCs. Nonetheless, you're very confident that you aren't making other mistakes.

QuoteWell, again, the point is the fight you described is woefully unchallenging, that really is the point here, not the particular details of a particular fight. If this particular thing your sole fixation, well if you don't understand how fighting one monster, then four monsters later, isn't dramatically easier than fighting 5 monsters, well, not much I can do.

OK. Remove the one monster. Now it's a level 17 encounter, and our three encounters are level 17, level 17, and level 16. The encounters you pretended I was running were level 15, level 14, and level 10.

Are you going to say "yeah, your fights were tougher than I said they were," or are you going to avoid that point some more?

QuoteWell, I've shown you wrong about the AC thing, and the HP thing was really a moot point. Heck, both points were irrelevant but you're so determined to be right that you just don't care.

No, you showed that a character in plate could be AC 32. You did not show that the average AC for a level 15 PC is 32, because it isn't.

Anyway, lemme get this straight. You did a lot of calculations based on how hard it is for monsters to hit PCs, and how much punishment PCs could take, but you feel it's irrelevant that you were off on the two numbers that determine those factors?

Quote*chuckles, yet again* No, I haven't, I'm using foreign concepts for you that I'll stop trying to explain. On the other hand, you seem to be scraping harder, and harder, and harder, and harder here. By your own admission, above, your sorcerer is now doing only 20-25 DPR...assuming you know your own character, the numbers line up, as demonstrated, repeatedly, and as you've now agreed.

No, you're right; I dropped my sorc's DPR, and that was a mistake. I shoulda referred back to my previous calculations instead of letting myself get weary and quote your 20, which is still pretty bogus. Tell you what. You calculate his DPR based on these numbers:

1. +16 to hit non-AC defenses. (+6 stat, +6 half level, +3 magic implement, +1 expertise feat.)
2. +24 static damage modifier. (+6 stat, +3 magic implement, +3 off-hand magic implement, +2 for Weapon Focus, +1 Siberys Shard of the Mage, +6 draconic sorcerer Str bonus, +3 Radiant Dagger.)
3. 1d8 base damage.
4. Two targets for each attack.

Then we'll have a nice number we can both agree on. That's the current numbers; both to hit and damage will go up a bit at level 15, but whatever. The extra +3 for the Radiant Dagger is cause I use the dagger's at-will to make all damage radiant, which lets me double-dip. A bit of cheese there. I could do the same thing with a Staff of Ruin, though, so I don't feel too bad about it. I prefer using the dagger for roleplay reasons.

Come to think of it, this might be fun: show me the same numbers I just gave you for your PCs, and I'll calculate their average expected damage for a round. I'll show my work and all, it'll be good times.

Quote from: Fifth Element;379582I can see where some people can come to think that way, that if it's not on the power card, you can't do it. But that's just not true, and if a player is playing that way, he's limiting himself greatly.

Fifth - Just quoting here as an example, not meaning to pick on you in particular.
Isn't that problem with powers not what's written on your power card, but what's written on everyone else's cards? If the Ranger gets two-weapon fighting as their 'power', there's some grounds for them to be annoyed when the rogue fighting the mummy wants to try to hit it with the torch in their offhand. Same way, if Exorcism of Steel is a L17 fighter power, the rules seem to indicate you shouldn't be trying to grab the evil wizard's staff before slamming him back to disrupt the ritual.
(Much as I hate 4e, this can't be a specific criticism of it, either. I'm often annoyed in 3.5 by how often trying to do something cinematic will trigger 3 attacks of opportunity, need 4 feats I don't have, and require cross-references of pages 57, 68 and 132).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379544Ironic.
The threadwar battle about the length and pointlessness of 4e combat appears to be jamming due to length and pointlessness...

Well, it wouldn't be so long if I didn't have to remind the guy every single post about the same things repeatedly.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;379589Fifth - Just quoting here as an example, not meaning to pick on you in particular.
Isn't that problem with powers not what's written on your power card, but what's written on everyone else's cards? If the Ranger gets two-weapon fighting as their 'power', there's some grounds for them to be annoyed when the rogue fighting the mummy wants to try to hit it with the torch in their offhand. Same way, if Exorcism of Steel is a L17 fighter power, the rules seem to indicate you shouldn't be trying to grab the evil wizard's staff before slamming him back to disrupt the ritual.
(Much as I hate 4e, this can't be a specific criticism of it, either. I'm often annoyed in 3.5 by how often trying to do something cinematic will trigger 3 attacks of opportunity, need 4 feats I don't have, and require cross-references of pages 57, 68 and 132).

I don't see it being anymore annoying than a wizard in an old edition trying to hit things with a longsword at a penalty.

As for grabbing the staff, I'd probably have the player make a check/attack against the wizard's dex save, or maybe use the grapple rules.  Grabbing/wresting the staff and then slamming him back would probably constitute two full actions, regardless of edition, so I'd just have the actions take place on different turns.

Quote from: Doom;379590Well, it wouldn't be so long if I didn't have to remind the guy every single post about the same things repeatedly.

Eh. I mean, we've figured out the useful stuff -- you have slow combats because your players tend towards making defensive choices rather than offensive choices. Nothing wrong with that; I've done it myself. Again, Dragonsoul Heir. If you want faster combats, it's a good idea to balance that out some, but if you don't care, why change anything?

Quote from: Thanlis;379588Yep. You can look it up; page 259 of the PHB. "You gain certain benefits when you reach a milestone -- when you complete two encounters without stopping for an extended rest." Also page 123 of the DMG. Also every single LFR adventure ever published, which are reviewed by WotC.

I've looked on those pages, none of the references given say you get APs for completing skill challenges.

They say encounters, and the chapter on 'building encounters' has nothing on skill challenges in it.

I had to look around to see that skill challenges are 'noncombat encounters', so I guess you're finally right about something. Probably.

Of course, it's irrelevant. Please see previous posts for reminders.

QuoteYou've been wrong on a number of rules-related topics.

No, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteYou were wrong on this, you were wrong about average damage for level 15 monsters,

You're lying again, and damage is highly debateable, and not relevant. Please read reminders, previous post.

 

Quoteyou were wrong about average AC for PCs,

You're wrong again, for too many reasons to list here. Also, irrelevant, please read reminders, previous post.

Quoteand you were wrong about average hit points for PCs. Nonetheless, you're very confident that you aren't making other mistakes.

Got one, by a slight margin. Irrelevant, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteOK. Remove the one monster. Now it's a level 17 encounter, and our three encounters are level 17, level 17, and level 16. The encounters you pretended I was running were level 15, level 14, and level 10.

Addressed repeatedly, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteNo, you showed that a character in plate could be AC 32. You did not show that the average AC for a level 15 PC is 32, because it isn't.

You're wrong and misleading here, but not worth explaining, again. Also, irrelevant, please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteAnyway, lemme get this straight. You did a lot of calculations based on how hard it is for monsters to hit PCs, and how much punishment PCs could take, but you feel it's irrelevant that you were off on the two numbers that determine those factors?

You're wrong here, too, and lying, again. As explained repeatedly, no matter how you twist the numbers, monsters have no chance of killing the players in the very simple battle, which demonstrated clearly why fights are designed to take as long as they do. Please read reminders, previous post.

QuoteNo, you're right;...4. Two targets for each attack.

Already explained that you need to learn what is meant by 'standard deviation' before this discussion wouldn't be a waste of time. For good measure: please read reminders, previous post.

Quote from: Thanlis;379593Eh. I mean, we've figured out the useful stuff -- you have slow combats because your players tend towards making defensive choices rather than offensive choices. Nothing wrong with that; I've done it myself.

Actually, we figured out that you have fast combats because your heroes don't fight anything challenging. Nothing wrong with that, I've seen anti-paladins burn down orphanages plenty of times.

Quote from: Doom;379595Actually, we figured out that you have fast combats because your heroes don't fight anything challenging. Nothing wrong with that, I've seen anti-paladins burn down orphanages plenty of times.

OK. Define a challenging fight for me, in terms of encounter level vs. party level. What's the necessary delta?

A fight that takes more than 2.5 hours, as explained previously.

Quote from: Doom;379601A fight that takes more than 2.5 hours, as explained previously.

So.. just to be clear. That's your definition?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379602So.. just to be clear. That's your definition?

Not, not my definition at all. As explained briefly earlier, it's a natural consequence of the game design, low monster damage combined with high healing means it'll take quite some time before monsters can have at least a minimal chance to endanger a character, RAW.

It's not linear, at least, as characters will unleash their more powerful attacks when faced with powerful foes, but roughly a half hour more than the established minimum for a very minimal fight, although I've had challenging fights take over 3 hours on a few occasions (note: this is paragon, at lower levels a challenging fight can take less than 2 hours).

(I emphasise 'RAW', as it's quite possible to house-rule a monster that deals, say 150 damage a hit, at level 5, and that would be quite challenging. I add this to, hopefully, reduce irrelevant niggling)

I realize 'average' is meaningless to a few here, but just consider the specific case of the sorcerer in a party wtih 2 paladins, and no leader. Put the sorcerer in front, with no attempt to defend him by himself or the rest of the party, against the worst same-level monster we could find, and assume worst case scenario of expected 11 damage per monster, with 5 monsters.

Just using 'lay on hands' and Second Wind, even if the monsters all focus fire (assume a dungeon without doors or walls, or the player never moving from a central location allowing the focus fire), and the rest of the party does nothing, it STILL takes 9-13 rounds (depending on how badly players exploit the 'heal from 0' rule) before that sorcerer can die (and this is assuming both paladins made it to level 15 without taking a single healing, defend other player, or temporary hit point power, and the other two characters in the party likewise have nothing of the sort...and that they never attack and/or kill any monsters in those 9-13 rounds, and that they never even stand in front of the sorcerer).

But, back to the OP, hopefully 4.5 can clean this up, as well as other issues.

Quote from: Peregrin;379592I don't see it being anymore annoying than a wizard in an old edition trying to hit things with a longsword at a penalty.
As for grabbing the staff, I'd probably have the player make a check/attack against the wizard's dex save, or maybe use the grapple rules.  Grabbing/wresting the staff and then slamming him back would probably constitute two full actions, regardless of edition, so I'd just have the actions take place on different turns.

OK - cool. 'Requires two turns' is probably a decent attempt as far as a patch for balancing that goes -in all likelihood, this means you're charging a PC an action point to do something from another classes' power framework.

Edit Note: Oops! Added quote for clarity. Which will screw up context of next 2 posts, sorry.