I think we're done with 4E

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Would greater flexibility help alleviate the problem?

Lets say that instead of choosing Encounter and Daily powers, your character could instead use said number of encounter and daily powers of your level. At each use the character could use any power available to the class. For example, a 1st level PC would not pick 1 encounter power and 1 daily power; instead they would have 1 use of each per encounter/day. When they use the power they decide which power. (This could also make the latter 3 multiclass feats seem more worthwhile to those who question their value by having the feat add one power of the type to the available powers instead of replacing.)

This could be totally game-breaking, but might be worth some playtesting to see if it helps increase variety.

 

[Nebulous]

Of course, this is also be the point where players and DM would start adding their own powers, rituals, feats, and class options to make the game more interesting.

Yes, i'm adding new spells from past editions, and the wizard player is writing up some house rules so that he can cast from a wider range of utility spells. Come to think of it, we've reached the end of Keep on the Shadowfell and i don't think anyone has cast a single ritual. They HAVE them, they just don't come up.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Thanks. They don't do a transcript for those, do they?

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

 

[D'karr]

Note the bolded part. This says a lot. The Ranger is the most boring and predictable class in 4E, and nothing comes close.

This is personal preference, but in reality I've found no class that is boring. I've found players that describe a "boring" maneuver in combat.

Let me explain, if the players are immersing themselves into the game there are no classes that are boring. If they are not, you end up with "boring" narrative in combat.

As a DM I chose to change the perspective of the game, instead of a player telling me he was using "Twin Strike" and rolling for damage, I've asked him to describe how he uses "Twin Strike". This has led to many more memorable encounters because the game goes back to being played mostly in the imagination.

I had a player running a ranger character that asked if there were stalactites on the ceiling of a cavern they were being attacked in. When the answer was yes, he then proceeded to tell me how he was aiming, not at the goblins that were attacking from behind a low-wall but at the stalactites right above them. When his twin strike hit the stalactites (using the same game statistics as goblins behind cover), he described how the torn pieces of rock landed on the goblins, stunning them (just regular damage from Twin Strike).

The same player once grabbed onto the underside of a net, cut the rope and "rode" the net to the hobgoblins that were attacking them (bull rush). He missed the attack, but man do the player's still talk about that combat.

So you see, in my opinion, by changing the "perspective" of what the players describe you can make the combats much more interesting. Let the terrain be used for these kind of things and use it yourself as a DM to let the players see that it can be done. It took about 3-4 sessions to "train" my players in that manner. Before that change in perspective we were having fun, now we are having a blast.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This is personal preference, but in reality I've found no class that is boring. I've found players that describe a "boring" maneuver in combat.

Let me explain, if the players are immersing themselves into the game there are no classes that are boring. If they are not, you end up with "boring" narrative in combat.

As a DM I chose to change the perspective of the game, instead of a player telling me he was using "Twin Strike" and rolling for damage, I've asked him to describe how he uses "Twin Strike". This has led to many more memorable encounters because the game goes back to being played mostly in the imagination.

I had a player running a ranger character that asked if there were stalactites on the ceiling of a cavern they were being attacked in. When the answer was yes, he then proceeded to tell me how he was aiming, not at the goblins that were attacking from behind a low-wall but at the stalactites right above them. When his twin strike hit the stalactites (using the same game statistics as goblins behind cover), he described how the torn pieces of rock landed on the goblins, stunning them (just regular damage from Twin Strike).

The same player once grabbed onto the underside of a net, cut the rope and "rode" the net to the hobgoblins that were attacking them (bull rush). He missed the attack, but man do the player's still talk about that combat.

So you see, in my opinion, by changing the "perspective" of what the players describe you can make the combats much more interesting. Let the terrain be used for these kind of things and use it yourself as a DM to let the players see that it can be done. It took about 3-4 sessions to "train" my players in that manner. Before that change in perspective we were having fun, now we are having a blast.

For what its worth, it doesn't even require what you've said. It is possible for the Ranger to be a dynamic and interesting character. I know this because I've personally done it with my Ranger in our 4E Dragonlance game. The problem with the Ranger is that it is really easy to just sit there and Twin Strike every turn. Its simple, its stupid, and it works. The only thing making the Ranger dynamic and interesting is how you play it, as the class itself doesn't really give you much. The other classes do a much better job at being dynamic and interesting through what they do.

 

[mach1.9pants]

For what its worth, it doesn't even require what you've said. It is possible for the Ranger to be a dynamic and interesting character...

I am with this idea, yes you can do the same thing over and over but you do not have to. My biggest gripe with 4E is not the sameness/cookie cutter/etc of the classes some see but the point the OP had. At a certain round in the combat the PCs can say we have won (most times) then it is a grind to actually finish the enemy off...even if I get the baddies running away etc.

 

[GRStrayton]

I agree about the grindiness of combat, which to me stems from the large hit point values for monsters. For the past six months I've been running combats with monsters starting at half hit points (their bloodied value becomes half of that number). To balance out that decrease I give monsters a bonus to damage equal to half their level. I don't apply this rule to minions as I'm obviously not cutting their hit points. It has worked out well in terms of game balance and has definitely cut down the length of combat encounters.

I also agree with the other posters about morale. Unless I have some specific story reason that the monsters will fight to the death (fanatic cultists, for example), I either allow the party to make an intimidate or diplomacy check against the monster's Will, or I roll a Wisdom check for the monster against its own Will to see if it surrenders. Depending on the circumstances, I adjust this number by +/- 2 or +/- 5.

 

[D'karr]

For what its worth, it doesn't even require what you've said. It is possible for the Ranger to be a dynamic and interesting character. I know this because I've personally done it with my Ranger in our 4E Dragonlance game. The problem with the Ranger is that it is really easy to just sit there and Twin Strike every turn. Its simple, its stupid, and it works. The only thing making the Ranger dynamic and interesting is how you play it, as the class itself doesn't really give you much. The other classes do a much better job at being dynamic and interesting through what they do.

But that is the case with almost every striker class. The warlock could just sit back, curse and Eldritch Blast every round. The rogue could also sit back and Sly Flourish every round. For that matter the same can be said of any class. But the class is not what "forces" this behavior. If the DM provides no incentive to do anything but use the same At-Will power every round that is what the players may end up resorting to.

If the combats are dragging and boring then the DM needs to change the dynamic.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But that is the case with almost every striker class. The warlock could just sit back, curse and Eldritch Blast every round. The rogue could also sit back and Sly Flourish every round. For that matter the same can be said of any class. But the class is not what "forces" this behavior. If the DM provides no incentive to do anything but use the same At-Will power every round that is what the players may end up resorting to.

If the combats are dragging and boring then the DM needs to change the dynamic.

The issue is that Twin Strike is light years better than the other Ranger at-wills, and often overshadows the Ranger's encounter powers. A Rogue with Sly Flourish still can use Deft Strike to gain combat advantage when they don't already have it or to hit and run. Sly Flourish is better most of the time, but not to the extent that Twin Strike is always better, and Sly Flourish generally does not overshadow Rogue encounter powers. The same can be said of Warlocks.

 

[D'karr]

The issue is that Twin Strike is light years better than the other Ranger at-wills, and often overshadows the Ranger's encounter powers. A Rogue with Sly Flourish still can use Deft Strike to gain combat advantage when they don't already have it or to hit and run. Sly Flourish is better most of the time, but not to the extent that Twin Strike is always better, and Sly Flourish generally does not overshadow Rogue encounter powers. The same can be said of Warlocks.

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.