Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tension in combat
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5416254" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Well, I don't think it is really like that. All sorts of powers are handy when you want to unload on team monster. The wizard might toss a daily to AoE some monsters, AP, and toss out another attack to slow down some other monsters. The Warlord might toss out a daily to bunch some monsters together for the Wizard to fry, and then use an AP to grant the Fighter an MBA or buff all the other character's attacks. The strikers will probably unleash their most damaging assaults, but that is pretty much their schtick. A well-coordinated party is probably NOT all about nothing but dealing damage and is probably more effective using a good mix of powers. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This gets into the design of 4e. Lets look at it in contrast to AD&D (any flavor). In AD&D both sides are fundamentally glass cannons (the PCs definitely are and if the monsters are a threat they are too). If a party unleashes its 'alpha strike' the enemy is done for, and the encounter ends right there. Tension exists because death is always around the corner. You succeed mostly by arranging things so you get the drop on the enemy. Or the tension arises because the party has shot its wad and now has to hope they can high tail it out of dodge without running into anything too deadly so they can recharge.</p><p></p><p>4e effectively reduced the lethality of the most potent attacks. What it didn't, and to some extent can't, do is get rid of fundamental tactical logic. Striking hard and early is still the best tactic. If you're going to unload there's rarely a better time to do it than round 1. The problem arises because the monsters are still standing on round 2. They're decimated and they will go down, the outcome of the fight is no longer the issue. However you now have 4-5 more rounds of combat where the party needs to still finish off team monster, and either doesn't have or doesn't want to further dig into its supply of the good stuff. So you fall back to at-will and encounter powers that will do the job, but you have to spend 30-40 minutes in cleanup.</p><p></p><p>From the monster's perspective it is pretty much the same. They have usually got one or two nice one-use powers. They're going to pretty much unload those on round 1 as well, and then spend the rest of the fight trying to do as much damage as they can before they inevitably die. </p><p></p><p>So 4e fights, at least the important ones, tend to boil down to both sides unleashing quickly and then the action tends to slow down into slugfest mode. This is where the problem comes in. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, the solutions proposed all boil down to trying to entice the players into not using their big guns right off. It isn't really a matter of damaging vs other sorts of powers. The PCs could use mostly powers with only secondary damage effects, the result then is just monsters that are all loaded with debilitating conditions. Either way the fight slows down, and in the second case it may actually slog more because cleanup takes longer.</p><p></p><p>I see two mechanical fixes. Either go back to the sort of 'Russian roulette' of earlier days where the potent powers on both sides are devastating and end the fight or induce the players not to strike right off.</p><p></p><p>The third solution is good encounter design, but there is an element of Oberroni Fallacy in there. Just because good play can make the game work well doesn't make it not a problem with the game itself. I think what I've proposed is that the medicine may be worse than the disease. That of course is open to question and in any case a matter of personal preference. </p><p></p><p>So maybe you aren't lucky, maybe you just have a very good sense of how to make encounters that work really well. In that case 4e works fine for you and there's no real need to think about it. My experience is I can USUALLY make it work well, but there are those encounters that just don't turn out the way you'd like, and they do usually drag when that happens.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5416254, member: 82106"] Well, I don't think it is really like that. All sorts of powers are handy when you want to unload on team monster. The wizard might toss a daily to AoE some monsters, AP, and toss out another attack to slow down some other monsters. The Warlord might toss out a daily to bunch some monsters together for the Wizard to fry, and then use an AP to grant the Fighter an MBA or buff all the other character's attacks. The strikers will probably unleash their most damaging assaults, but that is pretty much their schtick. A well-coordinated party is probably NOT all about nothing but dealing damage and is probably more effective using a good mix of powers. This gets into the design of 4e. Lets look at it in contrast to AD&D (any flavor). In AD&D both sides are fundamentally glass cannons (the PCs definitely are and if the monsters are a threat they are too). If a party unleashes its 'alpha strike' the enemy is done for, and the encounter ends right there. Tension exists because death is always around the corner. You succeed mostly by arranging things so you get the drop on the enemy. Or the tension arises because the party has shot its wad and now has to hope they can high tail it out of dodge without running into anything too deadly so they can recharge. 4e effectively reduced the lethality of the most potent attacks. What it didn't, and to some extent can't, do is get rid of fundamental tactical logic. Striking hard and early is still the best tactic. If you're going to unload there's rarely a better time to do it than round 1. The problem arises because the monsters are still standing on round 2. They're decimated and they will go down, the outcome of the fight is no longer the issue. However you now have 4-5 more rounds of combat where the party needs to still finish off team monster, and either doesn't have or doesn't want to further dig into its supply of the good stuff. So you fall back to at-will and encounter powers that will do the job, but you have to spend 30-40 minutes in cleanup. From the monster's perspective it is pretty much the same. They have usually got one or two nice one-use powers. They're going to pretty much unload those on round 1 as well, and then spend the rest of the fight trying to do as much damage as they can before they inevitably die. So 4e fights, at least the important ones, tend to boil down to both sides unleashing quickly and then the action tends to slow down into slugfest mode. This is where the problem comes in. Well, the solutions proposed all boil down to trying to entice the players into not using their big guns right off. It isn't really a matter of damaging vs other sorts of powers. The PCs could use mostly powers with only secondary damage effects, the result then is just monsters that are all loaded with debilitating conditions. Either way the fight slows down, and in the second case it may actually slog more because cleanup takes longer. I see two mechanical fixes. Either go back to the sort of 'Russian roulette' of earlier days where the potent powers on both sides are devastating and end the fight or induce the players not to strike right off. The third solution is good encounter design, but there is an element of Oberroni Fallacy in there. Just because good play can make the game work well doesn't make it not a problem with the game itself. I think what I've proposed is that the medicine may be worse than the disease. That of course is open to question and in any case a matter of personal preference. So maybe you aren't lucky, maybe you just have a very good sense of how to make encounters that work really well. In that case 4e works fine for you and there's no real need to think about it. My experience is I can USUALLY make it work well, but there are those encounters that just don't turn out the way you'd like, and they do usually drag when that happens. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Tension in combat
Top