Quote from: jeff37923;379073So what I am reading here is that people agree that one of the major criticisms of 4E that has been around since its release is correct: D&D4 concentrates too much on tactical combat to the detriment of all else in the game.

Actually that would be a certain subgroup of players that concentrate on that. But the payoff is worth it, because that tactical game makes for awesome action scenes. And in the hands of anyone who isn't trying to wargame it out, it's pretty great.

Quote from: StormBringer;379067I don't need any particular experience with a product or good to recognise unadulterated shilling.

Well, go "recognize it" somewhere else. Over here it's still gamers trying to talk about gaming.

Just wanted to point out an inconsitency in the 4e arguments.

You can't use both

'Your 4e combats are too slow because you are being too tactical and trying to optimise the tactics for the monsters so it turns into a chess game.'

and

'Some people complain that 4e combats are too easy so your arguments about the weakness of casters to kill a L1 monster in a sigle hit are moot.'


Either you are supposed to play the monsters tactically to the best of their abilities and the encounters are balanced or you play the encounters fast and loose and possibly suboptimally in which case they will be easier.

I assume you are not advocating that DMs go for rapid TPK on an encounter as the optimal resolution, and I also assume you still maintain your position from eariler threads that 4e has fixed the 15 minute adventuring day by use of the new power system and healing surges.

So either combats are tactical and lengthy and stretch the party or combats are quick and relatively simple for the party.

The only alternative would be a game where combats were short and lethal for the PCs such as you find in OD&D and 1e where unless you eliminted the opponents in 5 rounds Pcs started dropping (in  1e a 5th level figther would average c 33 hp inc con bonus) if fronting off to a bunch of say 3 ogres while his thief and wizard run the back office so to speak, he would expect to get hit 3 times every 2 rounds (based on an ac of 2 and the monster needing a 13 to hit ac2) each time he would get hit for an average of 10 damage(ish). Basically, you have 3 rounds to kill one ogre and 5 rounds to take them all out or you are dead.  

I say if you are having fun in the fights then great otherwise just halve the monsters hit points and remove healing surges for PCs during combat or something

Quote from: jibbajibba;379077Just wanted to point out an inconsitency in the 4e arguments.

You can't use both

'Your 4e combats are too slow because you are being too tactical and trying to optimise the tactics for the monsters so it turns into a chess game.'

and

'Some people complain that 4e combats are too easy so your arguments about the weakness of casters to kill a L1 monster in a sigle hit are moot.'


Either you are supposed to play the monsters tactically to the best of their abilities and the encounters are balanced or you play the encounters fast and loose and possibly suboptimally in which case they will be easier.

I assume you are not advocating that DMs go for rapid TPK on an encounter as the optimal resolution, and I also assume you still maintain your position from eariler threads that 4e has fixed the 15 minute adventuring day by use of the new power system and healing surges.

So either combats are tactical and lengthy and stretch the party or combats are quick and relatively simple for the party.

The only alternative would be a game where combats were short and lethal for the PCs such as you find in OD&D and 1e where unless you eliminted the opponents in 5 rounds Pcs started dropping (in  1e a 5th level figther would average c 33 hp inc con bonus) if fronting off to a bunch of say 3 ogres while his thief and wizard run the back office so to speak, he would expect to get hit 3 times every 2 rounds (based on an ac of 2 and the monster needing a 13 to hit ac2) each time he would get hit for an average of 10 damage(ish). Basically, you have 3 rounds to kill one ogre and 5 rounds to take them all out or you are dead.  

I say if you are having fun in the fights then great otherwise just halve the monsters hit points and remove healing surges for PCs during combat or something

I consider that a "We Tried Baseball and it didn't work" sort of solution. *

The thing is there's a false split that happens. First your'e in roleplaying mode.. and then a battle breaks out and (as Koltar says above) "all roleplaying goes out the window". Well, I'm saying these two issues are possibly related.

1) why stop the roleplaying during a battle?
2)  If you are roleplaying during the battle (as the DM), you don't have to suddenly go into chess match mode.
3) If you aren't roleplaying during the battle, and the monsters and such really are just pieces to move around to you, well then of course you are going to have issues of "less roleplaying" as well as "and the battle takes too long.. because these goblins are moving around tactically as if they were controlled by a single entity...using denial tactics and conserving their resources for as long as possible, so the party must really scramble for every last ounce of effort..."

Players should be less conservative in battle because there are far less resources to hoard. DMs should be less conservative because there is simply no benefit to doing so. I personally think it's a habit.

But that's sort of the players and DMs fault. Because those same rules given to someone else will probably seem to run fine.

I can definitely say I have not seen even a single 15 minute adventuring day in any of my 4e games. That is, defined as a game where the characters use all of their daily powers in the first encounter, and then go home and rest afterwards. And then go back to the adventure for ONE MORE ENCOUNTER..and do it again. and so on.

* "We tried baseball and it didn't work" is not about 4E, but it illustrates the self-nominated-yet-completely-clueless "expert" phenomenon we know from the internet.. pretty well.

Quote from: StormBringer;379068It's almost like WotC decided to emphasize highly tactical combat to the near exclusion of everything else, and for some magical, unknown reason, the players turn combat into a highly tactical exercise.

Who could have guessed? :jaw-dropping:

4E is very clearly designed to provide you with long combats, with many turns assigned to each player per combat. What looks like a good idea - fast paced turn order - turns on its back when you factor in the 4E idea that a combat with 5 combatants per side is now standard. Because now we aren't simply looking at fast turn order but on a too high amount of turns per combat.

Now I'm intrigued because 90% of the discussion on how to reduce combat time in 4E focuses on how to speed up taking turns - e.g., we're recommended to use power cards, know the rules forth and back and so on- instead of focussing on the simpler question on how to reduce the number of turns.

In this vein, here's two things.

1. Play with only 3 players-. This cuts down on the number of turns by 40% compared to your 5 players + 1DM group. If you have large gaming groups (6 players + 1 DM), I'd actually recommend you to either split the group or play something else.

2. Artificially induced victory conditions. I owe this point to Abyssal Maw. It's very simple, and very effective. Instead of having encounters where the PCs need to kill all 5 foes by depleting them down to the last pitiful hitpoint you say, "If they get THAT guy (say, the kobold tribe's shaman) bloodied by round 4, everyone - the shaman included - will surrender; and if the kobolds manage to get one of the PCs they perceive to be a 'leader' in some sense (say, the magician who keeps commanding the rest of the PCs) bloodied, the kobolds' morale will be boosted + they fight to the last man standing". The point is twofold here. First you have to HAVE these victory conditions. Then you have to COMMUNICATE them to the players in in-game terms (i.e. not in the manner I just did).

The end result won't just be quicker combats - it will also have clearly defined stakes which help focus the PC's interest in the combat as such. For instance, why is it so vital that the shaman doesn't get bloodied - how does that relate to the tribe's history and its customs, and so on and on. The point is, combats can be long as long as you consider that what's inherently interesting about combats is what surrounds them. This is where I, personally, feel that the 4e books (esp. the modules) fall flat. Players are happy to endure, indeed keep their excitement and attention on, long combats if there's a POINT to it that is directly proportional to the amount of attention given. If it's just fight #08 against kobolds, it's downright boring by turn 3.

I've linked to some of this before, but it's worth re-linking:

Part 1: The whole point about a light saber duels

Part 2: Like anything that's cool, if it's used too much it becomes boring

And as a PS:

Quote from: Amazon Review of 4E Eberron Module 1The big problem is that Fourth Edition really is not about dungeon crawling - period. Older editions of D&D had PCs hack their way from room to room in a series of small skirmishes, killing an orc here, a troll there, and hustling through even a large dungeon in a single night. 4E fights are meant to be big tactical setpieces, life-or-death struggles large and significant enough that a single fight is intended to take characters a tenth of the way to the next level. Filling a dungeon with ten of those epic setpiece battles, one after the other, is a recipe for the most extreme boredom. I like 4E's combat, but since it represents both a large investment of time and a large reward for the PCs, I make sure that every fight feels significant and is set up with a lot of story and characterization and avoid back-to-back encounters. The module designers still haven't fully come to grips with this new form of pacing, unfortunately.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379079I consider that a "We Tried Baseball and it didn't work" sort of solution. *

The thing is there's a false split that happens. First your'e in roleplaying mode.. and then a battle breaks out and (as Koltar says above) "all roleplaying goes out the window". Well, I'm saying these two issues are possibly related.

1) why stop the roleplaying during a battle?
2)  If you are roleplaying during the battle (as the DM), you don't have to suddenly go into chess match mode.
3) If you aren't roleplaying during the battle, and the monsters and such really are just pieces to move around to you, well then of course you are going to have issues of "less roleplaying" as well as "and the battle takes too long.. because these goblins are moving around tactically as if they were controlled by a single entity...using denial tactics and conserving their resources for as long as possible, so the party must really scramble for every last ounce of effort..."

Players should be less conservative in battle because there are far less resources to hoard. DMs should be less conservative because there is simply no benefit to doing so. I personally think it's a habit.

But that's sort of the players and DMs fault. Because those same rules given to someone else will probably seem to run fine.

I can definitely say I have not seen even a single 15 minute adventuring day in any of my 4e games. That is, defined as a game where the characters use all of their daily powers in the first encounter, and then go home and rest afterwards. And then go back to the adventure for ONE MORE ENCOUNTER..and do it again. and so on.

* "We tried baseball and it didn't work" is not about 4E, but it illustrates the self-nominated-yet-completely-clueless "expert" phenomenon we know from the internet.. pretty well.

I agree Rping in battle is great (hard in a highly tactical system though especially one with a break between real effect and game effect).

My 15 min day comment was that a combat could be completed quicker if the party blew all their dailies but then they would probably insist on resting. So you get quick resolution but re-instigate the 15 minute day as a result.

Oh and baseball is a shit game, its not as bad as cricket but its still shit Any game where half the players are sitting down waiting to bat and the other half are standing around waiting on the off chance that some one might hit the ball towards them... shit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379046I was mainly just talking about right here in this conversation. I only scrolled back a few posts, though. In any case, I have seen it, and I chalk it up to either the encounter or the DM is trying to be a little too cagey with the fight.

Possible, I suppose, that nearly everyone is doing it wrong. But, please, consider the possibility that there's something else going on.

>>

QuoteIt's a bad idea, though. It takes longer.

So it's the players' fault for playing a tactical game, tactically? I certainly have a few players that like to think about their moves, and I don't see this as a bad thing. I don't think it's fair to blame players for a game playing a certain way.

I use all the aids I can. Miniatures, whiteboard, status effects board, initiative board, $80 Aleatools set to help with tracking conditions, beads to track marks and curses and whatnots, color coded dice, GM screen, and draw-on battle board. Some of the players, the less math-facile ones, even have charts to facilitate adding a d20 roll to their + to-hit roll.

I'm just not about to say everyone is playing wrong.

QuoteI don't really think about it too much.

Indeed

QuoteHave you tried to analyze where the holdup is?

Of course. The issue is the mathematics is wrong.

Quote(Errata'd by the way!) I assume if your'e in an arsmrace with your players, they'd be anything but sub-optimal. They'd be the opposite.

Yep, a few days ago...but healing is still fairly excessive. A level 15 character has access to roughly an effective 250 hit points in a combat, a bit much when a level 15 monster hits for an expected 8 or so, and combats are intended to last half a dozen rounds, tops.

I really wish you'd stop blaming the players for the game playing a certain way.

QuoteDo the players concentrate their attacks? can you give me a sense of what the party balance is like?

Again, I really wish you'd stop blaming the players for the game playing a certian way.

Focus fire is irrelevant, however--the GM's turn is fairly quick (the monsters only have one or two powers to 'choose' from), each monster representing 2 seconds or so. What focus fire does is reduce the expected damage players take, as it indirectily reduces the number of times they're attacked. Doesn't really speed up the game, and you weren't kidding about not thinking about it much.

Party balance? Again, you're trying to blame the players, unless you can find something in the PHB saying certain balances are not illegal. In any event, the party has two strikers, so not exactly an issue.

QuoteOne of the reasons fireballs don't just kill everything in a room anymore is because wizards are controllers, not strikers....

Wow, way to miss the point. The point was, mathematically, the players will need many attacks to bring down the big bags of hit points. The issue isn't specifically fireball, the issue is the HP bloat is extreme, the damage bloat much less so.

QuoteA level 1 monster (skirmisher or soldier, anyhow) has around 29 hit points. It has a reflex defense of 14 or 15. I'll grant that it's probably also not going to be killed by a single serpentine blast.. but at the same time, it's probably at least bloodied.

Ok, you're getting a glimmer of the underlying issues.

QuoteYou know it's funny, but the other common slur is that D&D combats are all too easy for the PCs. You say they are too hard,

You are flat out lying here. I never said combats are too hard, never implied combats are too hard, never in any way said combats are too challenging, as per DMG guidelines. Mathematically, past a certain level the vast majority of same level monsters (as well as all solos, and all minions) are simply incapable of doing relevant damage to characters in anything remotely resembling a sane amount of time, RAW.

I just said combats take 2.5 hours with consistency.

Quoteand the same douchebags are here to agree with both points of view, because they see any negative assessment for D&D as a win for their big war on mainstream roleplaying.

Once again, I have presented only one 'point of view' in this particular thread, namely, that fights into paragon level regularly consume over 2 hours of combat, by game design. I dispute this is any more a 'point of view' than asserting water is wet, or 3 + 5 = 8, however.

QuoteSo the question is: can 11th level PCs hit the skeletons? They have an AC of 27. But they have a will of 22. How long would you predict a party of 5 11th level adventurers would take to fight this group?

Specific encounters mean nothing, especially ones with the completely broken minions wildly distorting things. I did subject my players to 'level + 20' battle, with 80 grimlock minions (along with half a dozen 'real' monsters)...even doubling the damage on the minions, and having the party attacked on all sides, no player was brought to zero (this was actually a fairly quick fight, right at 2 hours, if I recall correctly). But the brokenness of minions is another issue for another thread.

Quote from: Doom;379085Once again, I have presented only one 'point of view' in this particular thread, namely, that fights into paragon level regularly consume over 2 hours of combat, by game design. I dispute this is any more a 'point of view' than asserting water is wet, or 3 + 5 = 8, however..

YOUR fights do that, and mine don't. Why is that?

Hrm, no response to the rest of it?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379087YOUR fights do that, and mine don't. Why is that?

I don't know, but I'm guessing, from how most everyone's fights look like mine, and you're the only one whose fights look like yours, is that you're doing it wrong...but it's really hard to say how you're messing up. I can't help but notice from errors here, and in other posts by you, that you're probably not actually playing the game, but that's just conjecture.

From the sample encounter, I'm guessing it's because you think minions and elites are designed properly, but a single encounter demonstrates very little.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379075Actually that would be a certain subgroup of players that concentrate on that. But the payoff is worth it, because that tactical game makes for awesome action scenes. And in the hands of anyone who isn't trying to wargame it out, it's pretty great.

So you are saying that the Players wargaming out a RPG that concentrates on tactical combat are doing it wrong?

Quote from: StormBringer;379068It's almost like WotC decided to emphasize highly tactical combat to the near exclusion of everything else, and for some magical, unknown reason, the players turn combat into a highly tactical exercise.

Quote from: Benoist;379081Who could have guessed? :jaw-dropping:

Anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the rules of 4E.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379079I consider that a "We Tried Baseball and it didn't work" sort of solution. *

The thing is there's a false split that happens. First your'e in roleplaying mode.. and then a battle breaks out and (as Koltar says above) "all roleplaying goes out the window". Well, I'm saying these two issues are possibly related.

1) why stop the roleplaying during a battle?
2)  If you are roleplaying during the battle (as the DM), you don't have to suddenly go into chess match mode.
3) If you aren't roleplaying during the battle, and the monsters and such really are just pieces to move around to you, well then of course you are going to have issues of "less roleplaying" as well as "and the battle takes too long.. because these goblins are moving around tactically as if they were controlled by a single entity...using denial tactics and conserving their resources for as long as possible, so the party must really scramble for every last ounce of effort..."

Players should be less conservative in battle because there are far less resources to hoard. DMs should be less conservative because there is simply no benefit to doing so. I personally think it's a habit.

But that's sort of the players and DMs fault. Because those same rules given to someone else will probably seem to run fine.

I can definitely say I have not seen even a single 15 minute adventuring day in any of my 4e games. That is, defined as a game where the characters use all of their daily powers in the first encounter, and then go home and rest afterwards. And then go back to the adventure for ONE MORE ENCOUNTER..and do it again. and so on.

* "We tried baseball and it didn't work" is not about 4E, but it illustrates the self-nominated-yet-completely-clueless "expert" phenomenon we know from the internet.. pretty well.

Roleplaying in 4e combat will just increase duration of combat. Since people who aren't tactically interested in combat wants to get over with combat as soon as possible, they would just roll, apply effect, repeat until its over. TO these people, the focus out of combat exploration is the main part of gameplay and combat is just one of the ways to deals with situations.

Quote from: Thanlis;379069Put differently:

"If there is one major problem with a tactical game like D&D4, this is it: you can play it well enough that players are always denied a decisive victory. You can play it well enough that people will sit there and stare at the board trying to figure out what to do before finally deciding. This is frustrating, and it really is built into the game."

I wasn't disagreeing.  I was trying to point out that there seems to be a consensus that it is at least within the realms of possibility that the highly tactical combat can certainly drag on for far too long.

Even when someone is trying to desperately convince everyone that this only occurs when you are "playing it wrong".

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;379076Well, go "recognize it" somewhere else. Over here it's still gamers trying to talk about gaming.

When Pundit decides that I should be somewhere else, he is certainly free to act on that decision.  Your request is worth about as much as a polished turd.

And over here, it's you trying to look like a gamer while madly shilling 4e.