Yep. However, as someone correctly pointed out to me on these boards, the feat doesn't mention you can take it multiple times, so that's only one extra skill power
Grind
Argyle King
Legend
I think skill powers is a great idea. It's one of the later 3E options (skill tricks) which I was hoping would be brought back into 4E.
Here's something I've been thinking about since I made my previous post. There *are* plenty of options and choices in 4E, but not all of those options and choices are meaningful. There are times when the system gives me a choice between two things, but one of them is obviously far better than the other; this happens more than I would like for it to. Also, as I mentioned, as an encounter goes on longer, my options dwindle as I use my powers.
To answer your question, the other system I was running was a session of GURPS. Granted, by default it's a somewhat hefty system compared to 4E, but -even considering that- that's not what stood out to me as what allowed for more meaningful choices and less grind. What stood out to me was that every option a player has is available to them at all times as long as their character is physically (or mentally) capable of using those options. This allows for meaningful choices throughout the entire fight.
Speaking of meaninful choices and having all options available at all times, this is an area where I feel Skill Challenges are a fantastic idea, yet they don't quite fit into the system quite right. In a lot of games I've played as a player, I often feel as though I'm playing two different games which are stitched together. When I'm in combat mode, I get to use my combat powers; when I'm in skill challenge mode, I get to use my skills. That doesn't mean that I feel it's impossible to mix the two; however, mixing the two sometimes creates pretty odd results.
An example given in the 4E books is to have a trap which needs to be disabled via skill challenge in an encounter. In theory this sounds like a good idea, but it doesn't work out very well in practice. In practice, this leads to a party member given the choice of spending 4+ rounds not contributing to the fight while his allies are beat upon OR using one action to use a power which smashes the trap. It's a choice, but not a meaningful choice because nobody would ever go with option one unless the GM forces that as being the only viable option. Compare this to the other system where all options are equally available at all times; it's just as viable, just as supported, and just as rewarded for me to attempt any of my skills in any situation. Page 42 of the DMG helps in this regard, but it's also something which needs to be used with caution so as to not invalidate powers and make them less meaningful choices.
I'm not in any way saying 4E is bad. I play pretty regularly, and I enjoy playing, but there are a few things I've noticed about the system as I've gained more experience with it. One of the things I've noticed is that I feel monster design needs some work in 4E; a lot of the homebrew monsters which I create deviate from the suggested creation guidelines. I understand the reasoning behind why monsters are supposed to be built the way they are, but I think there's a better way.
Monster design is again somewhere that I find certain things just simply aren't always meaningful. In later levels, PCs often don't take the attacks of typical monsters seriously. This is part of the grind issue in my experience. There are times when you're limited on options as a player, yet the enemy has virtually no chance of winning. Quite a few rounds of the combat turn into a 3E style slugfest where you're just waiting for the creature to die.
Overall, I enjoy D&D 4E, but there are certain areas of the system which seem not quite there. A lot of great ideas which don't seem as though they are fully worked out yet. In some areas of the game, I also sometimes feel as though there are some very conflicting design ideals which are trying to create two different things at the same time. This isn't bad, and I think it's helpful when designing something to have a variety of ideas, but some of the conflicting ideals create odd interactions with the rules sometimes.
Again, I enjoy 4E. I'll be honest and say there were times when I bashed the system, but that's because I learned that I was trying to do things with the system which it wasn't designed to do. Since then, I've broadened my rpg knowledge and have learned other systems. I now find myself more able to relax and enjoy 4E because I now understand that different systems cater to different styles of game. While I do enjoy the game, and I do understand many of the ideas behind the game, I don't always feel the way those ideas are implemented are up to par. A lot of good ideas are there, but I think it will take some time (and possibly another edition) to fully realize the potential of those ideas.
keterys
First Post
When I played GURPs, I remember most characters only having a couple attack options at all.
I mean, they could also do crazy stuff like "aim for the eyes", but mostly it was two real choices that were situational (eg: area vs single target or thrust vs slash) so mostly decided for you.
I mean, they could also do crazy stuff like "aim for the eyes", but mostly it was two real choices that were situational (eg: area vs single target or thrust vs slash) so mostly decided for you.
Argyle King
Legend
What I notice is that every option the character has is available at all times; all skills and abilities. There's no division of my abilities depending upon if the GM tells me a situation is an encounter or a situation is a skill challenge.
There are a plethora of options in a GURPS combat, but I don't want to dive into that in this thread because that (I feel) would start to break away from the topic of the thread and make it seem like I'm trying to make one system seem better than the other. My only intention in bringing it up was to describe what I noticed when running the game. Though, to touch on why I felt there was more freedom - even if there are less bare bones options than there are powers, I'm free to combine those options in any way I see fit; in effect, I create my own powers. Part of grind in 4E is deciding whether or not it's worth it to use a power on a creature which doesn't pose a threat; I have a resource which -once gone- determines how many meaningful choices I have.
Part of why (IMO) 4e might sometimes feel grindy or boring is due to a lot of choices not being real choices. This can easily be seen in feat selection, and this is also an area which touches upon what seems to be a conflict of design ideals. Feats were supposed to be a way to customize and flesh out your character; they were supposed to offer choices. They still do offer choices in some regards, but most players -even if they don't care about Char Op at all- will find it hard to choose something like linguist over something like versatile expertise.
keterys
First Post
Poor D&D - so few people really use p42. Or even change the flavor text on their powers (p55 PH).
They've done a pretty bad job at their stated goal of making flavor choices actually viable choices, yeah. Most game systems actually fail that, which is pretty annoying. I remember once designing something where every single non-combat element was in a single other unbound/unbalanced bucket... but frankly I don't think many people would approve of that approach, and others would even decry it for stifling RP because the character building (balance, points, etc) was so focused on combat.
Anyhow, back to Grind - I'd also advise not using the first Monster Manual. Anything in it. Just safer that way.
Argyle King
Legend
Poor D&D - so few people really use p42. Or even change the flavor text on their powers (p55 PH).
They've done a pretty bad job at their stated goal of making flavor choices actually viable choices, yeah. Most game systems actually fail that, which is pretty annoying. I remember once designing something where every single non-combat element was in a single other unbound/unbalanced bucket... but frankly I don't think many people would approve of that approach, and others would even decry it for stifling RP because the character building (balance, points, etc) was so focused on combat.
Anyhow, back to Grind - I'd also advise not using the first Monster Manual. Anything in it. Just safer that way.
I actually use page 42 quite a bit when running a game, but sometimes you have to be a little careful about using it too much for worry of causing a power to be made to feel obsolete. The DMG has great advice on running a game, and page 42 is a good tool, but it's a tool which has to compete with how the power system is balanced. It may be an option which a new DM isn't completely comfortable with; apparently somebody somewhere felt this was at least a little bit of an issue because DMG 2 introduced terrain based powers which a DM could write into an encounter.
Again, I'm not saying D&D 4E is a bad system. It's a good game, and I applaud the design team for some of the changes made to the system. In particular, I find combats which involve greater numbers of foes to be far more enjoyable than a group of PCs hacking away at one single monster. I also like that the power curve between levels was lessened; this allows a DM to more easily tell a consistant story by keeping foes viable at a broader range of levels. However, I also feel there are a few aspects to the system which don't seem quite there yet... if that makes sense. Some of the aspects which "aren't quite there yet" are some of the things which (again, IMO) contribute to grind.
Like I already said, a lack of meaningful choices can be a cause of grind. If I'm holding a list of powers in my hand, but I'm looking at a monster which doesn't pose a threat to me, I'm probably not going to use some of those powers because it's not worth spending the resource. On the other end of the spectrum, if I do use those powers, I put myself in a position where I know I'm going to win, but I'm stuck with spamming at-wills for the rest of the combat. In both of these instances, it can feel to the player like their choices aren't meaningful; especially when a monster has a huge sack of HP, yet not much ability to harm the party. This seems to starts to become a problem somewhere around level 14 in my experiences, and the game between monster HP and monster damage output only seems to get worse from there.
I agree with you about MM1; and a lot of what I just said is a reason why. MM1 Solo monsters are especially guilty of being sacks of HP without enough ability to challenge the party. Some of the later books have improved upon monster design, but, as with other aspects of the game, 'it's not quite there yet.' Unfortunately, I don't feel that it's possible to change those aspects enough to get them to where they should be to reduce grind without making significant enough changes to warrant at least a '4.5.' 4E is a great system, and I think there will be a lot of good lessons learned from the system as it matures, but I don't think we'll benefit from those lessons until much later because some of the things which I feel need changed are deeply entwined with the design ideals the game is structured around.
In my experience, 4E grind doesn't only occur in combat. It's possible to have skill challenge grind as well, and it usually occurs for the same reasons. Looking at the character sheet of one of my characters right now (a half-elf bard to be more specific,) I don't think it's possible for me to fail a skill challenge when it comes to the majority of skills; even some of the ones I'm not trained in. In practice this turns into the same problem people had with 3E skill checks where one roll decided a situation, but the current system just stretches out the same result and makes it take longer. Like with monster design, skill challenges are also an area where I find myself tinkering with the system.
I'm not against house rules; I use them in other games I play as well. I think they're somewhat necessary when it comes to playing a rpg due to the fact that each group will have different tastes and wants from a gaming system. However, I find it somewhat telling when DDI articles written by the people who made the game more-often-than-not show that they depart somewhat significantly from the advice given in the DMG. I'm not entirely sure what I should take from reading those articles though; should I determine it's a result of conflicting design ideals or should I determine it's a result of more experienced players looking for more depth than what's presented by default in the system as written?
Either way, grind does happen for many people. I suppose the way I see things would be somewhere along the lines of the following: 4E is a well put together system, and it very easily allows pretty much anyone to run a game. However, while the default system as presented is very easy to run and very easy to prepare, it comes with a little bit of grind and a few other issues which are caused by the structure. If you want a more smoothly running machine, you'll need to fiddle with the nuts and bolts of the system. 4E makes it very easy to reach the minimum bar for being able to run a game or play in a game, but learning to push beyond that minimum bar and run a more satisfying game takes more effort, and it takes feeling comfortable with doing things outside of the box, and going against some of the advice given by the box.
