Quote from: ggroy;379180In one game I played in, the DM used 16 minions for an encounter.  It took forever to kill them all, especially since the player party didn't have a controller.  It basically resembled "death by a thousand cuts".

I ran an encounter a couple of weeks ago with a 3rd level party vs. 16 level 3 orc minions.  The minions were all dead in 3 very quick rounds and the party took maybe 2-3 hits.  They didn't have a wizard- just a fighter who eats thru minions like they were chips.  They are totally not worth the points to use and I probably won't use them again.  Even when used in a mixed group, they don't do there intended job very well.  Cheap, low level soldiers or traps would be better blockers.  All minions say to my party is easy encounter.

Quote from: Thanlis;379222This is wrong, as already noted. It would be closer to correct if you assumed that all monsters simply used basic at-will attacks with no effects. But that's a boring game.

Um, no, as any perusal of the MM reveals. See Rakshasa Archer, Rakshasha warrior (better than 50% chance to hit, but d8 +5 really isn't that high), red slaad (ok, expected damage there is 7.5), thunderfury boar (high damage possible, but expectation is more like 6.4 due to lower chance to hit). I see no reason to go to every monster, so I'll give a little.

Ok, fine, I guess I am a little low. Instead of '6', make it '7'. Fair enough? Still, far below what would be necessary to threaten a character with 100 or more hit points, and many, many, healing powers waiting in the wings.

Yes, a very few monsters have the ability to 'spike' up to double that, once an encounter, or every few rounds...not very relevant, honest. I'm not addressing the broken solos here, perhaps that's the confusion you're having.

So much for that.

QuoteAlso: AC in plate at level 15 is 17 (base) plus 10 (plate) plus 3; AC 30. A level 15 soldier's bonus to hit AC is +22. So he's hitting 65% of the time against plate, which is a bit more often than Doom projects. My sorcerer will be sitting at 26 or 27 AC when he hits level 15, depending. The equal level soldier will hit my PC 80% of the time.

Again, no, and you're probably not trying very hard with your sorcerer (note: I bet your sorcerer has a few defensive abilities that cancel attacks or cause defenses to go way up for a turn...same thing, overall).

Anyway, let's do that math carefully for plate:

10 + level (7) + gith plate (10) + enhancement bonus (3) + shield (2). That's 32, without even trying hard (the armor could easily be +4, after all).

So much for that.

It's worth noting the bonuses for level 15 monsters go from +18 (boar) to +22(wherever you got this one). Seriously, we're talking 0.35 point a shot one way or the other, this is worth quibbling about?

So, um, yeah, so much for that, again.

QuoteMy sorcerer has 83 hit points at level 13 and will have 93 at level 15. My fighter should be up to... 120 or so? But that's a Constitution-oriented character filling the defender role. "Typical" is inaccurate.

Ok, I'm off a bit with the hit points, sorry about that. Let's see here (assuming con of 13 for heavy armor, 12 for other, level 15):

Cleric (95), fighter (112), Paladin (112), Ranger (95, depends on build, could be 110 or more), Rogue (92), Warlock (92, greatly offset by massive temp hit point gain), Warlord (95), Avenger (111), Barbarian (111)...seriously, we're talking 10-25 hit points here, and completely disregarding a huge number of possible powers and abilities and racial things that can easily move it up.

That's what you're forgetting here: almost every class, and some races, have built in things that basically mean more hit points. Whether it's the self-healing powers of the fighter, the interrupting shots of the ranger, the damage prevention of the half-giant whatevers, the regeneration of the shifters, or whatever...for all intents and purposes, characters really do have quite a bit more hit points than that number.

But, the point remains: characters have vastly more hit points than they know what to do with, at least against 'level appropriate' monsters. Using the new numbers, it now takes around 17 rounds for a monster to kill a character that just stands there, instead of 20. Whoop de doo, and irrelevant if the fights take around 7 rounds, which they're supposed to.

You want to factor in possible spike damage from the occasional monster that can do more than the spam attack? RIghto, make it 15 rounds bare minimum for a kill, again assuming only basic healing pops up (I don't think you realize just how much healing there is in this game). Note: 15 is still many more rounds than the fight should ever last.

Seeing as the maximum hit points would only be a factor in a fight where the characters had some chance of dying, this is a non-issue.

So much for that.

QuoteNote that this math assumes that nobody has any out of turn powers that cause damage to the monsters. This is very likely to be wrong, given that any defender is going to have something. Since you explicitly mentioned deliberately triggered opportunity attacks, you should be aware that these exist. It also assumes that nobody's using any encounters or dailies during the fight.

Actually, the encounter powers are part of the expected damage (very few characters have at-wills that can reasonably hit for 40+ damage--play some and you'll seel). I did assume no dailies, since the fight is so ridiculously weak that it's unreasonable to assume players would use dailies.

So much for that.

QuoteThe rest of your numbers aren't awful. I note that you blithely started thinking about status effects and the like when calculating time, although you ignored them when discussing damage. Funny, that.

By not awful, I'm sure you mean 'fairly accurate'.

"Expectation" Look it up. Please. It's also worth noting that stuff like "slow", "Immobilize", "daze", etc, don't do damage, anyway. Play the game some, and you'll see very few at-will powers, and only a bit more encounter powers, that deal ongoing damage, anyway. In the case of 'ongoing five', if you have a character, that adds a glorious +4 or so to the expected damage and that's a pretty generous thing to do, since it's already been factored. The fight still takes 7 rounds.

And done with that, too.

QuoteBut your basic idea of how many rounds it takes to finish a fight is so weird that it renders your overall calculations problematic.

And yet despite your tiny quibbles, mostly irrelevant, it's still very accurate. This is probably because the only actual error involved character hit points, not really a factor since they can't die in such a combat, and thus have no real bearing on the time it takes.

QuoteOh, and that's assuming you ignore the by-the-book advice about ending combats early when it's obvious which side is going to win.

Actually, the fight should have been ended before it began, I mentioned that several times, so no ignoring of the by-the-book advice, I was simply showing how the game is designed to take 2.5 hours at that level. I guess you only lie like this because you have nothing else?

In any event, an 'actual' fight is easily going to go over 2 hours, and I've shown quite clearly why this must be the case, with 2.5 hours a pretty good guess at the average observed empirically.

Quote from: Doom;379229Um, no, as any perusal of the MM reveals. See Rakshasa Archer, Rakshasha warrior (better than 50% chance to hit, but d8 +5 really isn't that high), red slaad (ok, expected damage there is 7.5), thunderfury boar (high damage possible, but expectation is more like 6.4 due to lower chance to hit).

Sorry; quoting a couple of exceptions doesn't make me wrong. I'm working from the damage guidelines as per the DMG. I'm right; you're wrong.

But hey, I'm a nice guy; let's look at your examples. Rakshasa Archer! Oooh, yeah, that's a weak basic attack... 1d10+5. No big deal, average damage pretty low -- hey, wait. He gets two attacks per turn. Against a 30 AC, the Archer needs a 10 or better to hit, so he'll hit 55% of the time. 1d10+5 is 10.5 average, bringing us to... call it 5.5 expected damage per arrow to make it easier, although it's really a bit higher. Two arrows. 11 expected damage. Yeah, I'd say you're a little low.

You blew it on the Boar, too. Didn't figure the extra damage while the boar's bloodied, didn't figure the extra damage on a charge, ignored the close burst 2 attack... I mean, didn't I just point out that you're ignoring single use or rechargeable abilities? Tsk.

QuoteAgain, no, and you're probably not trying very hard with your sorcerer (note: I bet your sorcerer has a few defensive abilities that cancel attacks or cause defenses to go way up for a turn...same thing, overall).

What does "not trying very hard" mean? I spent a feat on better AC -- does that count?

You're right, I forgot the shield. But you're still figuring the best AC plausible and counting that as typical. If your PCs have all gone for the best AC and spent their feats on that rather than offense... well, that explains part of your problem.

QuoteIt's worth noting the bonuses for level 15 monsters go from +18 (boar) to +22(wherever you got this one).

I got it from the DMG, dude. Page 185. Soldiers and artillery attacks vs. AC are equal to their level + 7. Brutes, at the low end, are level + 5 -- there's the +18. As is your pattern, you took the worst possible numbers and acted like those were averages.

QuoteOk, I'm off a bit with the hit points, sorry about that. Let's see here (assuming con of 13 for heavy armor, 12 for other, level 15):

Note again: you're assuming that your PCs are putting their points into Con, which is essentially defensive, as opposed to offensive stats. E.g., my sorcerer burned those spare points on Dex so that he could get a couple of key offensive feats. His primary stat is Cha, and his secondary stat is Str.

QuoteActually, the encounter powers are part of the expected damage. I did assume no dailies, since the fight is so ridiculously weak that it's unreasonable to assume players would use dailies.

If 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.

And that's at-wills. Encounters boost that and apply useful effects. Hey, let's talk about effects!

Quote"Expectation" Look it up. Please. It's also worth noting that stuff like "slow", "Immobilize", "daze", etc, don't do damage, anyway.

Uh, sure, daze has no effect on expected damage at all. Other than increasing the chance to hit by a substantial amount.

Hey, does a monster's expected damage output for any given round increase if the target is stunned? How about "redirect the attack to any creature within 10 squares, then teleport next to the attacker and make two attacks against him" as an interrupt? Would it make a difference to the monster's damage output if they had that sort of power?

Quote from: Koltar;379223So,....they won't do a public game for charity?

Oh Well.

 Some got the dice, some don't.


- Ed C.

Well, I haven't decided if I'm going to GenCon...I'm reluctant to commit when I haven't bought the tickets, and I'm a procrastinator by nature. Hopefully I'll get my E3 plane tickets soon, and this is the first year in over a decade of going I've been this far ahead of the game on that.

But, yeah, sure, if there's a serious chance of raising some money for charity, I'll be more inclined. Although, I've had bad luck with charity events, getting punched in the face in a 'pie tossing' thing (kid was, well, mentally challenged, and just got excited...cracked a tooth), and bruised my foot rather badly in the dunking booth thing I did just a few days ago.

Won't rule it out if something serious is put together. He can put up 60 level 10 melee minions in a featureless room with some hallways, and I'll make a level 2 party that will quite easily annihilate them.

Quote from: Thanlis;379233Sorry; quoting a couple of exceptions doesn't make me wrong. I'm working from the damage guidelines as per the DMG. I'm right; you're wrong.

But hey, I'm a nice guy; let's look at your examples. Rakshasa Archer! Oooh, yeah, that's a weak basic attack... 1d10+5. No big deal, average damage pretty low -- hey, wait. He gets two attacks per turn. Against a 30 AC, the Archer needs a 10 or better to hit, so he'll hit 55% of the time. 1d10+5 is 10.5 average, bringing us to... call it 5.5 expected damage per arrow to make it easier, although it's really a bit higher. Two arrows. 11 expected damage. Yeah, I'd say you're a little low.

Try again. First off, already established AC30 assuming too low. You're also mysteriously assuming the players don't move...the archer won't get to use that ability all that much, and it averages out with the lower damage he'll be forced to use when he gets stuck in melee. Oopsie.

QuoteYou blew it on the Boar, too. Didn't figure the extra damage while the boar's bloodied, didn't figure the extra damage on a charge, ignored the close burst 2 attack... I mean, didn't I just point out that you're ignoring single use or rechargeable abilities? Tsk.

Really didn't want to go to every single monster and consider every single situation, just looking at averages here, not particular examples that, in some situations, will do a bit more, or a bit less. For a round, or two, or maybe even three. So, it'll take 20 rounds without such powers, and 17, worst case scenario. Too bad the fight ends on round 7. Actually I did mention this detail, but I can understand missing it.

You point at one monster that has a situational above 7, I'll point at another monster (Rakshasa Warrior) that has a uniform below damage. That's how an average works.

Will you take 8? Still takes way too many rounds to be relevant.

QuoteWhat does "not trying very hard" mean? I spent a feat on better AC -- does that count?

You're right, I forgot the shield. But you're still figuring the best AC plausible and counting that as typical. If your PCs have all gone for the best AC and spent their feats on that rather than offense... well, that explains part of your problem.

Well, I pointed out the flaws in your plate example, it WAS the example you gave, after all, sorry you chose such a bad and poorly thought out one. Nobody said anything about using the 'best possible', I assumed level 11 armor on a level 15 character. Meanwhile, you keep referencing a min/maxed sorcerer of uber l33tness. You seem to be a bit hypocritical here, I think that's your problem.

QuoteI got it from the DMG, dude. Page 185. Soldiers and artillery attacks vs. AC are equal to their level + 7. Brutes, at the low end, are level + 5 -- there's the +18. As is your pattern, you took the worst possible numbers and acted like those were averages.

So, I said +18 to +22, I'm taking these from the MM, the actual book people actually use for their monsters. The boar is on page 35, go and see for yourself it's +18. The Rakshasha warrior is +21 (page 216), the archer is +20 (p216). This is ridiculous, you're really disputing the numbers in the actual book?

I only accepted the +22 because you said it, and I was taking it on faith. Still, we're talking 0.4 of point at best, not even 3 extra points of damage (in a 7 round combat) on a character that will likely have over 100 hit points, and more like 200 once healing'/damage prevention during a fight is accounted for.

I'm taking the actual numbers in the actual book, honest, and using those numbers as they actually are.


And you're quibbling and quibbling, and quibbling over fractions of a percent...are you truly this desperate?

QuoteNote again: you're assuming that your PCs are putting their points into Con, which is essentially defensive, as opposed to offensive stats. E.g., my sorcerer burned those spare points on Dex so that he could get a couple of key offensive feats. His primary stat is Cha, and his secondary stat is Str.

*chuckles* No, I assume the character will have enough con to wear his armor, for the most part. Again, con only matters for 1-3 hit points, on a character with 100 hit points, it really makes very little difference by level 15. You truly are this desperate, aren't you?

It's queer that you keep going to this worst case example of a sorcerer that's taken no defense whatsoever. Do I really need to crack open the book and find a defensive power or two for your sorcerer?

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.[

And, again, you go with this one, extreme, example. If all parties everywhere were all sorcerers, you'd be onto something. Do you have a pacifist cleric in your party? If so, you and him put together are now behind the 20 average.

This is what I was talking about with that 'standard deviation' concept that went over your head. Yes, some uber strikers will get an expected 32 points. Some less damage focused characters will expect 0, or well less than 20. So, 'average of 20, standard deviation of 20' means, well, the average is 20, but it's quite easy for a character to have an average between 0 and 40. You're only seeing the top side. Go to the character builder and make a few besides this one minmaxed character of yours. Fighters, for example, don't get double-shot at-wills and are well below an expected 20per hit...it'd bring down the overall party average, but they also get more oppportunity attacks than others, offsetting it a bit.

And you have to know this sort of thing already, I'm sensing some intellectual dishonesty here.

Heck move the average up to 23--that's the net effect of your completely damage-optimized sorcerer, along with everyone else using 'normal' characters. Again, this is how an 'average' works, you don't just take the absolute maximum of the absolute maximum, you look at the other reasonable possibilities as well--honest, not every player completely optimizes all aspects of his character for damage.

Moving the average to 23, still takes 7 rounds to kill the wimpy monsters that pose no threat to the party. Oh well.

QuoteUh, sure, daze has no effect on expected damage at all. Other than increasing the chance to hit by a substantial amount.

Yep, another 20% in that one particular case. Which of your at-wills dazes? How many of your encounter powers? How about the rest of the party? Once again, you're taking one exception and disregarding that the discussion is 'average', not 'particular special case'.

When WOTC starts printing at-wills with Daze that all classes can take, or so many encounter powers that every class can daze every round with every power, then up the damage 10% (you might think 20%, but you still only hit around half the time, so daze is only in play half the time...this is kinda why it's stupid to consider one guy having one daze power really making much difference in a long run average).

Still takes 20 rounds to kill a character if has mediocre healing capability, and, at best, optimal, situationally, you're now moving it to a 6 round fight against monsters too weak to pose any threat to the party; in a 'real' encounter worth playing, we're back to 7 or more rounds, anyway.

QuoteHey, does a monster's expected damage output for any given round increase if the target is stunned? How about "redirect the attack to any creature within 10 squares, then teleport next to the attacker and make two attacks against him" as an interrupt? Would it make a difference to the monster's damage output if they had that sort of power?

Ah, you need some rules help here. I'll answer as best I can:

1) Yes. Note that none of the monsters mentioned have a stun power, much less a power that can be used every single round.

2) Yes. Which monster has this at-will power, among the ones mentioned? Sure looks like 'none' to me. Even if there is one, it's unreasonable to assume that will be the only monster the characters ever face (that kind of sounds like a sorcerer defensive power, fwiw).

3) Depends on the chance of the power going off and chance of hitting. Moot point, since very few, if any, monsters have that power, much less as an at-will. Did you have a level 15, non-solo, non-elite, monster in mind?

Anyhow, back to the main discussion. It's quite possible to quibble a point here, a point there, and if you want to say   "2 hours, 23 minutes, 15 seconds", you certainly can. I'll say "2.5 hours", and not really concern myself with such minutae.

Heck, I'm a nice guy, too. Your 1-2% quibbles might change things to the point of "2 hours, 20 minutes for a somewhat weak encounter", giving you a full 10 minutes instead of what should only be 5 minutes. Good enough to stop splitting hairs like this?

Quote from: mhensley;379225I ran an encounter a couple of weeks ago with a 3rd level party vs. 16 level 3 orc minions.  The minions were all dead in 3 very quick rounds and the party took maybe 2-3 hits.  They didn't have a wizard- just a fighter who eats thru minions like they were chips.  They are totally not worth the points to use and I probably won't use them again.  Even when used in a mixed group, they don't do there intended job very well.  Cheap, low level soldiers or traps would be better blockers.  All minions say to my party is easy encounter.

In the encounter I was referring to, it was a 1st level party against sixteen level 1 kobold minions.  The players had already used up their daily powers, in a previous encounters.

What made it last too long, was partly that the players were not rolling very well and the DM was playing the kobolds to flank the players.  I think the crappy rolling on the part of the players, really prolonged it significantly.

Absolutely, at low levels, minions work pretty well.

But once you hit paragon, and characters get autodamage encounter burst powers, or 'take damage when they attack me' powers, or half a dozen other things, minions don't even come close to working properly.

Like I said, at levels where 4e was playtested (eg, 1, 2, maybe 3, a little), combat works quite well and is fairly solid fun. It's the higher levels where stuff starts to collapse, hard.

Hopefully 4.5 will fix this, and many other, design issues.

Quote from: Doom;379238Try again. First off, already established AC30 assuming too low. You're also mysteriously assuming the players don't move...the archer won't get to use that ability all that much, and it averages out with the lower damage he'll be forced to use when he gets stuck in melee. Oopsie.

Actually, no, we didn't. 30 is too low for a fighter, a paladin, or a swordmage. Someone who specializes in defense. It's too high for anyone other than a defender.

QuoteIt's queer that you keep going to this worst case example of a sorcerer that's taken no defense whatsoever. Do I really need to crack open the book and find a defensive power or two for your sorcerer?

He's got leather armor, dude, that's how his AC got as high as it is. With no defensive feats, he'd be two points lower.

QuoteAnd, again, you go with this one, extreme, example. If all parties everywhere were all sorcerers, you'd be onto something. Do you have a pacifist cleric in your party? If so, you and him put together are now behind the 20 average.

Upside of a pacifist cleric is that everyone's getting +2 to hit a fair portion of the time. But once again you've failed to consider the positives -- you're just looking at the factors that could hurt damage output. And for all your talk about averages, you've chosen the leader type that boosts party damage by the least. I imagine you know what happens if there's a tactical warlord in the party, right?

Oh, which reminds me: action points. Your hypothetical fight seems to be the one where nobody uses dailies or action points. I mean, talk about tying your party's hands behind their backs...

Look, you aren't serious about this conversation. You want to be right. If you want to have a real conversation about why your fights take two hours, we could do that, but you're not even willing to consider the possibility that when I say I cranked through a level 15 game with three fights and a skill challenge in 5.5 hours, I'm telling the truth.

And if you're happy with that, cool! There's nothing wrong with two hour fights. I've used the word "wrong" and that was dumb; it's only wrong if you aren't enjoying it.

Quote from: Thanlis;379264Actually, no, we didn't. 30 is too low for a fighter, a paladin, or a swordmage. Someone who specializes in defense. It's too high for anyone other than a defender.

Or warden, or a few other classes. You're still arguring for another 0.4 points of damage per hit, at best. Anyway, you seem to forget that those defender classes attract attacks more often than non-defender classes (it's how the game is designed, after all), and that those 'devastating' ranged attacks, that might consume almost 5% of a character's hit points, are only going to go against vulnerable characters if such characters don't do something silly, like stand behind another character.

But, again, note how hysterical this is--even the vulnerable character would need to set himself up to be vulverable, and it still would take about 20 rounds for it to kill him, provided no major healing powers are being used.

As a side note, last game, the paladin took off his plate armor and fought naked--even with AC 17, my 'double damage' monsters simply couldn't do enough to hurt him. I haven't gone into detail how excessive the healing is, because it's irrelevant, the monsters present no challenge in this fight, so the healing isn't a factor.

Similarly, the point you keep raising repeatedly about AC, even if it were accurate--which it is not--is completely irrelevant, since the sample fight given presents no danger whatsoever to the characters, so it doesn't really matter what their AC is.

QuoteUpside of a pacifist cleric is that everyone's getting +2 to hit a fair portion of the time. But once again you've failed to consider the positives -- you're just looking at the factors that could hurt damage output. And for all your talk about averages, you've chosen the leader type that boosts party damage by the least.

Yes, and another leader type would do something different, and another leader type would do something different. Do you know what I mean by the word 'average'?

I've chosen no leader type at all...simply taken an average based on direct observation of the dozen or so level 15ish characters that have sat at the table. That's how an average works, it's clear this concept isn't in your repertoire of ideas, and there's not much I can do about it.

Honest, when I say "the expected damage for a character is around 20, with a standard deviation of 20", it's an ostentatious display of ignorance to respond with "you're wrong, my double-damage striker hits for an expected 35."

But, don't take my word for it. Are you in high school? If so, go to your math teacher, it's possible he or she will have enough training to explain to you, how, in the parameters given, 35 isn't demonstrating any inaccuracy at all.

QuoteOh, which reminds me: action points. Your hypothetical fight seems to be the one where nobody uses dailies or action points. I mean, talk about tying your party's hands behind their backs...

*chuckles again* Again, this is a pointless, easy, irrelevant fight, I don't expect players to use bonus attacks when there's absolutely no need.

In any event, action points represent another standard action. At paragon level, action points trigger bonus events...it doesn't speed up the game a bit.

I just don't think you can understand that 'taking more actions in a round' might mean less rounds, but means just as much time.

For example, if all players use an action point for this pointless, irrelevant, fight that represents no danger to any party members...that's basically a whole extra round right there (ok, I guess it does shave off 2 minutes over the course of 2 hours...again, note how you're quibbling just tiny details using a ridiculous hypothetical).

Now, in a tough battle, yes, the characters will use dailies and APs....but now they're dealing with tougher monsters. This is why I don't claim fights take much over 2.5 hours (the longest I've had is 3.5 hours), players use more powerful resources for more powerful threats.

Yet again, you're quibbling 1% here, 1% there...there's just not enough in the minutia you point out, even when relevant, to make a difference.

QuoteLook, you aren't serious about this conversation. You want to be right.

I'm using words and concepts and looking at things in a way utterly beyond you. You're basically saying "if I speed things up 2%, that'll reduce the time 50%" and "if we do more things in a round, the rounds will take less time".

You're not making any sense, sorry.

It's not a question of wanting to be right. I don't want 2 + 3 = 5, and what happens in that calculation is irrelevant of my desires. In your version of mathematics, such calculations clearly resolve according to your personal desires.

I respect your position, but can you at least acknowledge there are other points of view?

QuoteIf you want to have a real conversation about why your fights take two hours, we could do that,

I've already explained in detail, the design of the game necessitates fights of any challenge whatsoever to take over 2 hours, with 2.5 being a reasonable guess at the average, and constructed a model that explains why I see fights taking this long, week in, week out.

You keep going on and on about how water doesn't have to be wet if you don't want it to be...but it's clear you don't understand how the words work.

Quotebut you're not even willing to consider the possibility that when I say I cranked through a level 15 game with three fights and a skill challenge in 5.5 hours, I'm telling the truth.

I don't believe you've said this before, and in no way do I dispute this possibility.

First, your group fights, say, two level 15 monsters. Then, they fight 4 level 14 monsters. Then, they have a 2/1 skill challenge. Then, they have a 'level' fight pretty much as described. That barely would take 4 hours, and probably less if your whole party is as hyperoptimized towards damage as you (it's curious that AM hasn't come in here to complain how bad you are for using optimization).

Anyway, I'm not disputing any such thing, and good for you!


Tell you what, though, come over to my place, and I'll run your group through actual  fights that will take some effort to beat...I bet they'll take 2.5 hours apiece.

QuoteAnd if you're happy with that, cool! There's nothing wrong with two hour fights. I've used the word "wrong" and that was dumb; it's only wrong if you aren't enjoying it.

I never said there was anything wrong with 2.5 hour fights. I simply demonstrated why this must be the case for a slightly challenging fight at this level: it's fundamental to the game design. Your best arguments put it at more like 2 hours and 20 minutes, and that's fine, my group might be a little slow, seeing as we aren't all hyperoptimized just for damage.

I'm normally a defender of dumb criticisms of 4e.  However, in this case, the critics are right.  4e combats do take too long and minions are useless.

For minions, I generally fix the problem by doubling or tripling the amount of damage they are supposed to do.

But yes, combat is slow.  I don't know if its signifcantly slower than in past editions (I remember 2e and 3e combats taking forever, too).

But in my last session, it took 1.5-2 hrs each for 2 combats (3-4 hrs total) with only 3 PCs in ea fight.

One problem is there is so much crap to keep track of, and so many options, it takes people forever to decide what to do.  And half the people never remember how their powers work.  That kind of thing bogs down every edition, though the plethora of choices in 4e doesn't help.

But the math is off, too.  HPs are way higher now.  There is a ton more healing now.  But attack damage is pretty low for most creatures and not terribly high for PCs outside of dailies.  I mean, it's not as bad as, say, Rifts, but the problem is there.

If I were designing the game, I would have kept hit points from inflating so much.  I also think PCs have too many powers.  

Oh, and WTF is with healing surges?  They should have kept them at like 1-4 per day.  At 7 or more, PCs never even come close to using them all before they have to rest.

But of course, it's really difficult to play this game much and not see these issues.

About at what level did these problems start to become overwhelming for you? What classes seem to be the worst?

Cleric has pretty extreme healing, but I've also noticed the bard is ridiculous--every monster on the board, by bardic power, grants 32 temporary hit points to the party....it's kinda tough to keep up with that with monsters damage so low.

I'd mention other design issues, but I feel like I'd be giving it away.

While I'm pretty sure it's the overall design, it'd be interesting to see if you see the same classes as problematic.

Quote from: Doom;379386But of course, it's really difficult to play this game much and not see these issues.

About at what level did these problems start to become overwhelming for you? What classes seem to be the worst?

Cleric has pretty extreme healing, but I've also noticed the bard is ridiculous--every monster on the board, by bardic power, grants 32 temporary hit points to the party....it's kinda tough to keep up with that with monsters damage so low.

I'd mention other design issues, but I feel like I'd be giving it away.

While I'm pretty sure it's the overall design, it'd be interesting to see if you see the same classes as problematic.

I wouldn't say I find the problems overwhelming - we're still having a lot of fun in the campaign - just annoying.  I do think some of these issues should have been blindingly obvious in playtesting, much like the much-criticized (and rewritten) skill challenges.

I would say the problem has gotten worse as they gain more powers.  Especially interrupts.  Every time somebody has interrupts it grinds the game to a halt.  The group is at level 7 now - I'd say it was noticably slower starting at level 5 or so.

I don't know if I could narrow down the problems to specific classes.  I will say that some of the classes seem much more powerful than others.  By my experience:
Barbarians and Sorcerers > Warlocks and Avengers
Rangers > Rogues
Clerics > Shamans and Warlords
Swordmages and Wardens > Fighters and Paladins

Now, I'm not stating that as objective fact - just what I've observed.  Maybe some are just easier to play to their full potential, I don't know.

I guess that would be my biggest criticism - the way the whole tactical mastery is designed, and with the huge numbers being thrown around, the PCs can easily win some battles without barely a scratch with a good roll or two.  On the other hand, a poor choice or two combined with a couple of bad rolls will lead to a long, slow grind.

Well, you're awfully close to my assessment.

I feel the design starts to show very fine cracks at level 5--not bad, but this is where the classes clearly merge together. By this level, every class can have an area effect (or multi-target) power, a (self) healing power, a decent inflict affect power, a defensive power...and maybe one interrupt.

Definitely, the isues aren't overwhelming at level 7, but this is where minions really collapse. Since the non-controllers have area effect powers at this level, that means you've got 5 different area effect powers going off, minimum...the first 10 minions are meaningless in such an environment, and you're not supposed to use more than 8, by the guidelines.

If you think those interrupts are bad at level 7, wait until you get to level 15, where things really get nuts. Apparently WoTC didn't realize that an "interrupt, your attack is negated" is actually much more powerful than a stunning power (cancelling an attack is very nearly a retroactive stun, after all), which only a few characters get, unlike these interrupts.

I also agree mostly with your class assessments, with only quibbles at the last lines.

I wasn't impressed at all with the swordmage (the character died at level 2 or so), and the current warden in the party hasn't been too dominating (granted, that power that gives a -7 to the next attack is just pure stupid, and it has stupid high hit points, being a half-giant, or whatever they're called for purposes of IP), but I still find fighters too much. That 'combat advantage' power is nutsy strong, totally shutting down monster movement. Also, the fighter in the party is a juggernaut...jeebus, that's strong.

I think it's funny that they give kobolds and goblins all these shifty powers...then give fighters powers that make it impossible for the goblins and kobolds to USE the powers. It's almost as though WoTC wanted to really show off how awesome fighters are in 4e, and they're still plenty awesome in paragon.

Yes, the paladin doesn't do much damage, but he still does a decent amount. 'Certain Justice' is flat out broken...I'll wait while you go and read this encounter power, which is basically 'monster is dazed and weakened until the end of the encounter'. All encounters are now built around dealing with this power, which otherwise would shut down all solo monsters or encounters with a strong monster in them (uh, gee, isn't that everything worth fighting?). That power, along with a few other uber abilities (a guaranteed attack re-direct, for example), along with more of the oh-so-excessive healing, make the pally pretty darn good.

Back to the original topic, which I take to be Greg Bilsland's twitter account and whether we can determine whether there will be rules changes in D&D Essentials from it, I believe the answer is yes:

Quote from: Greg's Twitter AccountI'm going to look into it, but probably not for a few months since I'm focused on updates appearing in Essentials.

-Frank

Quote from: jgants;379377I'm normally a defender of dumb criticisms of 4e.  However, in this case, the critics are right.  4e combats do take too long and minions are useless.

For minions, I generally fix the problem by doubling or tripling the amount of damage they are supposed to do.

But yes, combat is slow.  I don't know if its signifcantly slower than in past editions (I remember 2e and 3e combats taking forever, too).

But in my last session, it took 1.5-2 hrs each for 2 combats (3-4 hrs total) with only 3 PCs in ea fight.

One problem is there is so much crap to keep track of, and so many options, it takes people forever to decide what to do.  And half the people never remember how their powers work.  That kind of thing bogs down every edition, though the plethora of choices in 4e doesn't help.

But the math is off, too.  HPs are way higher now.  There is a ton more healing now.  But attack damage is pretty low for most creatures and not terribly high for PCs outside of dailies.  I mean, it's not as bad as, say, Rifts, but the problem is there.

If I were designing the game, I would have kept hit points from inflating so much.  I also think PCs have too many powers.  

Oh, and WTF is with healing surges?  They should have kept them at like 1-4 per day.  At 7 or more, PCs never even come close to using them all before they have to rest.

Some of my houserules to patch these issues:

I use a different formula when determining monster Hit points. The end result is that HP is a bit more than half the usual amount.

Static damage bonuses of monsters are increased by +2 at heroic tier, +4 at paragon and +8 at epic. These values are added to minion damage as well.

Monster defences are decreased by -1 during heroic tier, -2 at paragon and -4 at epic.

Players may make an opportunity attack when a monster rolls a natural 1 on a melee attack. Players that roll a -1 on a melee attack grant combat advantage until the beginning of their next turn.

Healing surges are replenished at a rate of 1 per extended rest. This value increases to 2 surges/rest at paragon level, and 3 surges/rest at epic.

Most of these take place on my side of the screen so my players are scarcely aware of the rules that don't involve them directly.

So far it's been working really well. The only problem I've seen is that monster stats only increase incrementally by RAW, so the difference between level 20 and level 21 monsters isn't that extreme. My alterations have made that chasm considerably wider.