I think we're done with 4E

[thecasualoblivion]

I think then that we are talking about two different things. Combat is not boring and grindy because a character is "forced" to use his At-Will powers. Combat becomes grindy and boring because the creatures have a lot of hit points AND the DM is not taking measures to keep the interest of the players.

That has nothing to do with what power is being used to attack.

What I was referring to when I criticized the 4E Ranger class for being boring was the OP's description of his players using the same array of attacks/tactics at the start of every battle.

The grind at the end is a separate issue, and as you said has little to do with character classes.

 

[RefinedBean]

My usual rules as a (relatively new) DM for 4E:

1. If the enemies have a purpose or some kind of goal, they have full HP.
2. If the enemies are simply there to battle the PCs, they're at 3/4 or so, except for VIPs and what-not.
3. Always make sure to have at least 1-2 combats include a goal (either for the PCs OR the enemies) that isn't based around wanton murder, even if it's a small thing.

Although I feel this holds true for any edition, I feel that in 4E it's crucial to make combats as dynamic and story-specific as possible. Like others have said, the problem with balance is that it, well, balances things. There has to be something to interrupt the standard roll roll roll of a combat session.

However, some people just don't like 4E, and that's fine! I've been meaning to try Savage Worlds out for at least a one-shot or not.

If you like game balance but want more of a swingy feel to combat, you might try Castles and Crusades? It's quite awesome, and from what I hear it's pretty easy to integrate your favorite parts of most fantasy systems.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have run 12 or 13 sessions of 4e or so and have not had the op's problem, I had a few combats fall flat but that was usually my fault. I do agree that there are issues of grid and it is worse (in my expericence ) with smaller parties. That said, I think I have found 2 good ideas in this thread, that of using action points to recover powers and less monster hp for random or non plot essential monsters.

 

[cougent]

-snip-

As regards looking at options I personally don't want to return to 3E, I'm the DM mostly and it's just too much work. We're going to try out three systems in our next session combat wise to see how they play. We're looking for a game where combats are fast, we don't want to spend half the session on every fight and flexibility is a must as one of the player's likes experimenting. The options are Castles and Crusades, WFRP2, and Earthdawn.

We've played WFRP2 before and generally liked it, although I have some reservations regarding the end point of characters careers, everyone seems to end up as a champion. C&C hasn't been played before but is very similar to D&D with less rules, and Earthdawn is a system I've had sitting on my shelf for 20 years and never played but seems similar to D&D in theme.

Anyway just lamenting the seeming demise of our 4E game.

Another vote for trying EarthDawn. Hindsight being what it is, I think it may actually be more fun that ANY D&D version. That coming from an avid 3E fan and a rabid AD&D fan.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm considering the following:

When the grind begins and the battle is already decided, if I'm not having the monsters run or surrender, the monsters decide to go out in a blaze of glory, pulling out all the stops and leaving themselves vulnerable. When this occurs, all encounter and recharge attack powers on both PCs and enemies become At-Will powers, and Daily attack powers used during this period are not expended after combat is over.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Another vote for trying EarthDawn. Hindsight being what it is, I think it may actually be more fun that ANY D&D version. That coming from an avid 3E fan and a rabid AD&D fan.

To me the value of Earthdawn is its setting otherwise whenever I'm playing Earthdawn I can't help but wonder "Why aren't we playing D&D?"

 

[Plane Sailing]

so we're now looking at alternatives.

If you are open to suggestions for things that would be quite different, I recommend looking at the relatively new "Basic Roleplaying" from Chaosium. They've cleaned up and redeveloped a system based on their tried and true mechanism which has worked well for decades. It is well written and a system which enables hugely fun adventures.

Definitely worth a look!

 

[Halivar]

When the grind begins and the battle is already decided, if I'm not having the monsters run or surrender, the monsters decide to go out in a blaze of glory, pulling out all the stops and leaving themselves vulnerable.

Yep. In the game I run, the monsters will notice the inevitable at about the same time the players do, so they get desperate. Their tactics change to reflect this. Some will try to run, some will go in a blaze of glory.

In our last session, I had six death cultists jump off a cliff in unison rather than face defeat (and possible interrogation).

 

[fuindordm]

To me the value of Earthdawn is its setting otherwise whenever I'm playing Earthdawn I can't help but wonder "Why aren't we playing D&D?"

So many reasons...

I could list the dozens of specific things I find cool about ED, and you're right that some of them could be ported into D&D. But it wouldn't have the same feel to it.

What it comes down to is this: the best RP experiences for me have always been in games where the rules are specifically tailored to the setting.

Generic rules (d20, GURPS, HERO) may be easy to learn, but they add nothing to the setting. All the flavor has to come from the iron fist of the GM, and let's face it--how many players actually listen to everything the GM has to say?

Ciao

 

[Mark]

No, you need technology more advanced than your rotary phone to listen to them Mark.

This from the guy with the gerbil-powered computer. Get real, Flintstone.