The Grind Problem (My 2 Cents)

[Connorsrpg]

Have seen a bit if this in our games too.

Soldiers certainly do it. Despite the 'maths' of the game I belive sev monster ACs are just too high. Currently fighting lvl 4-6 duergar in scale and ACs in 20s. I would prefer to calculate them closer to PC ACs, so the armor you wear does actually count for something.

Other options to consider:

1. Have foes run away (esp when bloodied).
2. Surrender.

(Seriously - often, b/c we look too often at numbers, and the fact we have full written stats we feel we must use them). Sometimes a DM needs to step back and just picture the fight.

3. Make more interesting (as suggested several times re terrain - but also creatures and items, such as smashing nearby lantern on foe. We had a devil with the duergar, it started in the forge. When it leapt out it spayed coals everywhere and created an area of hot coals on the floor).

4. Be very generous with the DM advantage rule. If a fighter gets on a table let them have +1-2 for advantageous positioning (like the old +1 for higher ground).

5. I know some hate swingy fights, but we love them. We are bringing back x2 dam for crits rather than max. (Nothing worse than rolling dice together and rolling max on crit anyway. We may even just do the x2 when max dam is rolled...not sure yet (any suggestions...other than we are well aware swingy means players suffer most - but depends upon # of encounters anyway). We also have a d100 chart for crits and fumbles which adds a lot to a fight.

There are some ideas off the top of my head.

Good thread and well put in the OP BTW. It would be nice if people offered solutions or egs n their own games, rather than get into bun fights over who said what

C

 

[Connorsrpg]

Ooo. And forgot to add, these so called grinds are taking what 10 rounds?

Is that a full minute? What about some great fights from movies? Don't they take at least this long? Saving time at the table would help the eating of time at the table rather than the perceived grind in game.

C

 

[Harr]

But even perfectly 'fair' dice don't solve the problem. The most common solution is to create a deck of 36 cards representing the possible outcomes of the throw of a 2d6. In this way, you are gauranteed to have the desired smooth outcome over a relatively short term. The game loses something, but there is alot less 'grindspace'.

Funny, we tried the exact same solution for the exact same problem with our Settlers games and we got the exact opposite result. Why? Because it turns out the early rolls in a Settlers game are MUCH heavier and more important than the middle or later rolls. They are what set you up for the rest of the game pretty much, so in the end it doesn't matter if your card deck is perfectly distributed as a unit in itself, if the cards bunch up around a particular number for the first 18 cards and to the other side for the next 18 cards, one or two of the players still get randomly boned. Same thing can happen in a combat if you 'card out' the dice rolls; the high cards can still end up bunched up around the monster's actions while the low cards can end up around the player's actions and vice versa.

I think what's called for are ways to deal with the 'bunching up' when it happens, rather than trying to prevent it from happening in the first place, cause, really no matter what you do it'll probably end up happening anyway, it's just the nature of randomness.

 

[Zelc]

I think this problem gets worse in the higher levels.

Consider this. In the DMG, it's advised that monster AC and defenses rise on a 1:1 relation with their level. I haven't examined the MM deeply, but I'll assume this is the case. That means at level 30, they've gained +29 AC and defenses compared to when they were level 1.

PCs have higher attack bonuses from +1/2 lvl, enhancement bonuses, and ability boosts. 1/2 level accounts for +15, enhancement bonuses for +6, and ability boosts for +5. That's a total of +26, 3 less than what the monsters gained. That's 15% lower chance to hit, or if you hit on an 11 at level 1, that's a whopping 30% decrease in your total number of hits. This is hypothetically balanced by the better bonuses you get from powers. However, you must often hit with those powers to gain the bonuses, which further feeds into the boom or bust problem in combat. Miss those dailies (and your chance to hit with those dailies is down) and you're stuck in grindspace.

(This is even more amusing in PvP combat. Some characters can hit 51 AC without too much effort. Good luck getting more than a +36 attack. Hurray for 30% chance to hit!)

There's a similar problem with defenses, by the way. I'm hesitant to mess with this, but a +1 attack and defense bonus at levels 11 and 21 might go a ways to fixing this problem. I'm also thinking of adding a substantial damage bonus on attacks against bloodied creatures, which will make combat more dangerous for both monsters and PCs and hopefully speed up combat.

All in all, I agree that Wizards made some serious mistakes with tweaking 4E. It just does not scale well at all. At level 30, one of your defenses will be so low attacks against it will auto-hit. To add insult to injury, several character builds have TWO such weak defenses. Anyway, that's a separate problem.

 

[Thasmodious]

In all honesty, I never once encountered this kind of mindset amongst my players while playing 3e - and I've DMed quite a number of groups over the years. And I don't think 3e was designed simply as a war of attrition, as you suggest. Sure, every edition of D&D has been a war of attrition to war extent (hit points exemplify that), but every edition of D&D has tried to add more combat options in it. 3e had bull rush, disarm, AofO, Overrun, Sunder - just to name a few. And 3e did put emphasis on the need to move, hence the diagrams in the PHB and DMG showing mins cutting across terrain, etc.

The mechanics of 3e encouraged static battles. Iterative attacks depended on it. Locking down opponents so they wouldn't move, so the melee-ists don't have to move and get to take full attacks is a basic part of the design, iterative attacks are the major class feature of a number of classes centered around the core 'fighter' role, as well as ranged attackers, who are encouraged not to move for the same reason. The combination of the need to limit movement so you could get the extra attacks and the more devastating effects of AoOs made static combat the "proper" strategy.

Those other options you talk about don't generally lead to a lot of options as most any of them require a character built around it, and then that's about all they do. If you want a fighter who can trip effectively, you have to build a trip-fighter, and then that is generally all he does, charge-trip-full attack-full attack-full attack. Or charge-sunder-full attack.

It's hard to make the case that 3e encouraged movement and dynamic battle scenes. That's not to say you couldn't have them, its a statement about how the system was built. I didn't say "jdsivyer ran static battles in 3e". I didn't. I've always enjoyed dynamic fights and my players list that as one of my strengths as a DM. Many of the houserules I used in 3e were there to make combat more dynamic. When I read the DMG and saw 4e was built for dynamic combats, I was a very happy camper.

In my 3e games we had people using cover, aiding others, getting into good positions, trying to back enemies into a corner, using the terrain, etc. - rarely, if ever, did they ever stand still and hack away at a monster. And the same went for the monsters. If a DM is just having a monster stand in the one spot and simply do the same thing over and over again, then, but sorry, that's the sign of a reasonably lazy DM...unless, of course, the monster in question is as thick as a piece of wood.

It's the way the system was built. The system doesn't give mechanical advantage, viable mechanical advantage, to approaching combat in this way and it mechanically encourages static combat. Classes depend on it, other classes have the ability (spells, etc) to make sure it happens so the others can use their iterative attacks. I had a whole set of houserules to encourage the kinds of combat I wanted to run, from XP rewards for RPing (in combat and not) and tactical brilliance to making full attack a standard action.

I think this is part of the reason why I liked low level play so much in 3e. Casters didn't rule the game and the lack of iterative attacks left the PCs free to be considerably more active.

 

[jdsivyer]

Not true. There's a single prominent feature of 3e that encourages standing still in a fight: full attack.

But you have to remember, that's only 1 option you have. There are many more.

 

[jdsivyer]

...If you want a fighter who can trip effectively, you have to build a trip-fighter, and then that is generally all he does, charge-trip-full attack-full attack-full attack. Or charge-sunder-full attack...It's hard to make the case that 3e encouraged movement and dynamic battle scenes. That's not to say you couldn't have them, its a statement about how the system was built. I didn't say "jdsivyer ran static battles in 3e". I didn't. I've always enjoyed dynamic fights and my players list that as one of my strengths as a DM. Many of the houserules I used in 3e were there to make combat more dynamic. When I read the DMG and saw 4e was built for dynamic combats, I was a very happy camper...

Hey, I never once claimed you said "jdsivyer ran static battles in 3e." All I said was that I tend to disagree that 3e encourages static battles. And, in all honesty, you don't have to build a trip-fighter. Sure, there are feats, etc., that aid a PC with these actions, but there are still combat options in the game that allow you to do it without feats or any particular skill. If I have a basic Fighter character I can make him do anything I want in regards to basic combat options, whether it be trip, sunder, bull rush - whatever.

All I said was that I thoroughly enjoy dynamic fights, and I've never felt as though 3e hampered me from doing just that. I'm more than happy that 4e is doingit for you, truly am. Glad you found the system that "clicks" for you. Me? The system that clicks most for me is Alternity, but hey, we're talking about D&D now

Did 3e encourage dynamic battle scenes? Not as much as 4e, that's for sure, but you can still have them. And I still don't get the impression that 3e encourage static battles, I really don't. When I flip through the pages of the 3e core rulebooks I always feel as though there are plenty of options in regards to combat. But maybe that's just me

 

[wedgeski]

In general I've come to decide that for any one encounter, if there isn't a lot of running, shifting, pushing, pulling and sliding going on, and if there's isn't a respectable amount of 'terrain and hazards' type damage being dealt almost every round, then something needs improving.

Which is, after all, the exact advice given by Mike Mearls in one of his earliest editorials after the release of the new edition.

 

[Harr]

Which is, after all, the exact advice given by Mike Mearls in one of his earliest editorials after the release of the new edition.

Yep Mike's a smart guy. I have to say his adventure work (KotS, etc) has left me underwhelmed, but anytime he writes design or gives DMing advice in general I find myself agreeing.

Anyway I hope some 3rd party publisher twigs onto this 'big book of fantastic terrains' idea, cause WotC has no plans for anything like that and I haven't found anything, and something like that would be just awesome for a 4e DM.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But you have to remember, that's only 1 option you have. There are many more.

But it is usually the best. Move and Attack is often worse (Provoke, get only one attack). Trip is often worse (the opponent can't be tripped, can easily counter-trip, you might suffer an AoO). Disarm is often worse (the opponent is not armed, can easily counter-disarm, you might suffer an AoO). Sunder is often worse (the opponent might not have equipment to be sundered, can make AoO, you lose potential treasure). Grapple is often worse (the oponent is too large, can make opportunity attack, you lose Dex Bonus against opponents allies).
And in most cases, you simply deal less damage without gaining the benefit of the enemy dealing less damage.

And worse, Trip or Disarm can all be made as part of a full attack. Tripping is particularly great with one of your iterative attacks.