4e One-trick ponies: Why is it the DM's fault about combat grind?

[Cadfan]

I don't really agree with this statement. You'd have a point if the enemy is hard to hit, but if they have a relatively low AC and more HP, just being able to hit them on a 6 vs. an 8 really isn't going to increase the amount of damage you're doing.

Its true that damage increase due to increased accuracy is better the harder the target was to hit in the first place. If you hit on a 13+, increasing to 11+ is a functional 25% damage increase. If you hit on an 8+, increasing to 6+ is a functional 15.38% damage increase. But even that's pretty good, especially if you're granting it to multiple allies. Daze one enemy that's being attacked by three allies, and that's three people gaining a significant boost to overall damage.

Also the issue of area affects is really a hairy one, namely because area affects aren't always viable. Especially if you have multiple melee allies, you can't keep dropping area affects without the increased risk of hitting them.

This is true, but can be at least somewhat mitigated by smart play.

But this really is getting off topic.

Not really, if the question is the origin of grinds, the comparative advantages of multiple strikers versus synergistic use of several roles is very on topic.

 

[Cadfan]

I simply do not accept the statistical average increase = more damage output. Period.

But, but... it does. Math says so.

It also doesn't help grind, which is the point. The increase in chance to hit still is depending on another character attacking with something they would've done on their turn anyway, and if that isn't exciting, then it's still grinding.

But more hits means more damage means fewer rounds means less grind. And since it means each encounter takes fewer rounds, and you have limited use abilities per encounter, you get more diversity in what you do each round as well.

 

[Rechan]

But, but... it does. Math says so.

But more hits means more damage means fewer rounds means less grind. And since it means each encounter takes fewer rounds, and you have limited use abilities per encounter, you get more diversity in what you do each round as well.

You say math says so. And if that were so, then there would be evidence that leaders = less grind. I haven't seen a lot of that.

The issue is not 'we're not doing enough damage'. 4 strikers = a lot of damage. THe issue is that combats take a long time, or is boring. Regardless of the rounds.

Besides. Math says that a +1 is important, but if that were the case, then Careful Shot/Sure Strike would be a significant power boost. They are, after all, providing a +2. Considering the amount of complaint that they are underbalanced or less important, would show that's not the case. Just because we are presenting averages does not = common play experience.

Cadfan, using your argument, grind would be decreased if the ranger relied on Careful Shot and a fighter relied on Sure Strike. But the two continually using those powers would still contribute to grind. Everyone standing around spamming the same attacks isn't going to make the fight more fun, and that goes for those powers that grant +2 to attacks.

 

[Spatula]

I don't really agree with this statement.

But he's right. Your average damage isn't defined (solely) by your damage dice, but by a combination of your hit chance and your damage dice.

If you have a 50% chance to hit and deal 2d6+7 dmg, your average damage with that attack is 7.

If you have a 60% chance to hit instead, your average damage improves to 8.4. An increase in hit chance increases your damage.

edit:

Besides. Math says that a +1 is important, but if that were the case, then Careful Shot/Sure Strike would be a significant power boost.

cost/benefit. What's the average damage of regular hit bonus, regular damage vs +2 hit, no stat bonus to damage? The former generally comes out ahead, which is why those powers are poorly valued.

 

[Rechan]

You can provide all the numbers you want, I'm still not going to agree with it. Averages schmaverages.

 

[Celebrim]

Another contributing factor is the narrower focus of the monsters.

Late in the 3rd Edition design cycle, the design team at WotC decided that monsters had too many abilities. Their logic was basically:

(a) A typical monster only survives for 5 rounds in combat.
(b) Therefore, a monster only does 5 things and then it's dead.
(c) Therefore, a monster only needs to be able to do 5 things. At most.

Even in 3rd Edition their logic was pretty badly flawed, since it ignored things like:

(1) You might encounter groups with more than one monster in them.
(2) You might encounter the same type of monster again at some later date.
(3) The tactics of the players or the circumstances of the encounter might have an effect on what the monster can do, thus making additional options valuable.
(4) You might encounter the monster in a non-combat scenario.

In 4th Edition, all of these problem areas remain. But then they increased the duration of combat by bumping up hit point totals.

So now you have longer combats in which the opponents have fewer things to do. More time, less variety. That's practically the definition of grind.

This.

 

[Cadfan]

Besides. Math says that a +1 is important, but if that were the case, then Careful Shot/Sure Strike would be a significant power boost. They are, after all, providing a +2. Considering the amount of complaint that they are underbalanced or less important, would show that's not the case. Just because we are presenting averages does not = common play experience.

Cadfan, using your argument, grind would be decreased if the ranger relied on Careful Shot and a fighter relied on Sure Strike. But the two continually using those powers would still contribute to grind. Everyone standing around spamming the same attacks isn't going to make the fight more fun, and that goes for those powers that grant +2 to attacks.

The +2 from Careful Shot and Sure Strike comes at the cost of losing your ability score bonus to damage. Remember the calculation from before, where going from hitting on an 8+ to a 6+ was a 15% damage increase? If you lost more than you gained when you lost your ability score to damage, then it was counterproductive. That's the problem with those powers, they tend to be counterproductive versus the majority of opponents at the majority of levels.

What's even worse is that both the Ranger and the Fighter have another at will who's sole job is to boost damage per round without providing any tactical bonuses. No one can say whether Careful Strike is objectively better than Footwork Lure, because they both do different things. But Careful Strike versus Reaping Strike? That can be analyzed for any given attack bonus, damage, strength modifier, and target AC. And since Reaping Strike often wins, that just makes Careful Strike more irrelevant.

Those attacks actually do come back to life at higher levels if you have enough static bonuses to damage, but their reputation is usually so tarnished by the past two tiers of play that no one gives them a second look.

As for grinding by repeated use of these powers, that's no more likely than is grind from any other worthwhile at will. Every power has some sort of additional benefit besides that of a basic attack. Some are more useful at times than others.

 

[Rechan]

And I still contend that hitting more often isn't the solution, and doesn't solve the grind issue. If anything it's a drop in the bucket.

Case in point, many people on these boards have pointed out that a grind-causing problem is Clean-up. That is, when it's clear the PCs are going to win, it's clear that the the monster does not pose a significant threat, but there are multiple rounds in the combat left because the monster isn't dead yet (or isn't close to dead yet). For instance, if you have 1-2 artillery monsters who are the last remaining monsters alive, and they're at full health.

Even if everyone hit the monster every round, that's several rounds of uneventful grind, because everyone knows the outcome. It's just watching HP decrease without any excitement. The OP said it himself: "the combats are pretty much decided about an hour into a 2 hour large combat so the remainder of the rounds is just 'grinding it out.'"

Not to put words in his mouth, but the OP's point is that the system itself does not prevent grind, and to some extent, it exacerbates it due to design. The responsibility then is on the DM to prevent grinding, and the suggestions how a DM should do that are bandaids that cover the system's flaws, and in some cases are just crappy bandaids.

 

[Fifth Element]

You can provide all the numbers you want, I'm still not going to agree with it. Averages schmaverages.

I agree that a few bonuses here or there aren't enough to solve a grind problem by themselves.

But really, you're essentially saying "damage schmamage" in a discussion that's essentially "the characters aren't doing enough damage".

 

[Rechan]

I agree that a few bonuses here or there aren't enough to solve a grind problem by themselves.

But really, you're essentially saying "damage schmamage" in a discussion that's essentially "the characters aren't doing enough damage".

I don't like averages and percentages, because dice run the gambit of rolls. Arguing percentages utterly disregards how it plays for "how it looks on paper". It comes across as "Mathamatically this grind you speak of does not exist" when it clearly does

And this business of "+2 to attack is money in the bank" is what lead to Sure strike/Careful Shot and Mearls saying "we put priority in accuracy". It's also what leads to a desperate scramble to have the highest x bonus possible, milking every single +1 for a 5% increase at the cost of everything else, or making a spreadsheet for Power Attack so you can optimize what number when.