I think we're done with 4E

[MrMyth]

OK, it seems my statement about characters being lucky to do 20 pts of damage bears some qualfiication.

I'm referring collectively to the damage output from the parade of characters I've seen within the half-dozen 4e parties that I've played in, ranging from levels 1-12, of which only a few have been tricked-out rangers and rogues (and that fighter doing +26 damage per hit is conspicuously absent altogether). If encounters were built using 3e's design of a 1-monster/4-players ratio, I could see only focusing on characters whose role it is to close down opponents and just not counting the healers and buffers and mezzers and meat shields.

But 4e's design is 1-monster/1-player, with all classes designed to contribute damage. Now you ought to count everybody, not just the total badarses. And yeah, some of those characters roll single digits on damage with rather alarming frequency.

I'll certainly admit that not every character will be regularly dealing out 20 damage, and that super-optimized characters should be used as the baseline - but that is still a very different story than your original claim, which was that 20 damage was rare for non-daily powers at heroic and paragon levels.

Now, I'll also note that average damage is a different thing entirely - but your original discussion was about damage dealt when people hit, so that is what is being discussed.

Any Rogue and Ranger will be dealing over 20 damage with Encounter Powers in the Heroic tier. Many Rogues and Rangers will be dealing over 20 damage with At-Will powers in the Heroic Tier.

(Rogue, with Dex 18, 2W Encounter Power, +2 Weapon, Backstabber: 2d8 (Sneak Attack) + 2d4 (Dagger) + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Enhancement) = 20 damage.)

(Brutal Rogue, with Dex 20, Str 14, +2 Weapon, Backstabber, Weapon Focus, At-Will Attack: 2d8+2 (Sneak Attack) + 1d4 (Dagger) + 5 (Dex) + 2 (Enhancement) + 1 (Weapon Focus) = 21.5 damage.)

(Ranger, with Dex 16, +1 Weapon, 2 attack Encounter Power: 2d10 (Longbow) + 1d6 (Quarry) + 6 (Dex x 2) + 2 (Enhancement x 2) = 22.5 damage.)

(Ranger, with +2 Weapon, Weapon Focus, Twin Strike, Lethal Hunter: 2d10 (Longbow) + 1d8 (Quarry) + 4 (Enhancement x 2) + 2 (Focus x 2) = 20.5 damage.)

Fighters, Paladins, Clerics and Warlords with two-handed weapons will be dealing over 20 damage with Encounter powers in the Heroic Tier.

(Str 18, +2 Weapon, Maul, 2W attack: 4d6 (Maul) + 2 (Enhancement) + 4 (Str) = 20 damage.)

Warlocks have a harder time of it, but can deal over 20 damage with At-Will powers when those At-Wills deal the full effect. (Dire Radiance and Hellish Rebuke being triggered.) Most Encounter Powers will deal almost 20 damage - or more, from an optimized Warlock.

(Con 18, +2 Implement, 2d8 damage encounter power: 2d8 (Power) + 1d6 (Curse) + 4 (Con) + 2 (Implement) = 18.5 damage.) Higher Con and a feat pushes it to 20.5 damage.

(Con 18, +2 Implement, Dire Radiance or Hellish Rebuke triggered: 2d6 (Power) + 1d6 (Curse) + 8 (Con x 2) + 4 (Implement x 2) = 22.5 damage.)

By Paragon Tier, pretty much everyone's Encounter Powers will be dealing over 20 damage when they hit.

Any melee characters with a 1d10 or bigger weapon: 2W + 2 (Weapon Focus) + 5 (Primary Stat) + 3 (Enhancement) = 21 damage.

By Paragon Tier, pretty much every Striker's At-Will Powers will be dealing over 20 damage when they hit.

Warlock At-Will Eldritch Blast: 1d10 (Power) + 5 (Primary Stat) + 3 (Enhancement) +2d6 (Curse) = 20.5 damage.

Rogue At-Will: 1d4 (Weapon) + 3d6 (Sneak Attack) + 5 (Primary Stat) + 3 (Enhancement) = 21 damage.

Ranger At-Will Twin Strike: 2d10 (Weapon) + 2d6 (Quarry) + 6 (Enhancement x 2) = 24 damage.

Stating that it is rare or lucky to be getting Quarry/Sneak Attack/Curse damage is absurd. Sure, it might not happen every single round, but it should definitely be present the vast majority of the time. If not, perhaps something else is going horribly wrong.

Even if you are looking at the damage of the party as a whole - the non-Strikers aren't that far behind. As mentioned, any characters with two-handed weapons are looking at being in the 20 damage range with encounter powers. Those that aren't - casters like Wizards, wisdom-based Clerics, etc - are often using powers that are hitting multiple targets, thus boosting them up into that range as well. (And single target Encounter powers are still doing around 15 damage, which isn't far off.)

As mentioned elsewhere, average-damage wise, you might have a point. But the quote that started this said: "In 4e, you're lucky to see a non-daily attack do 20 points of damage, even at paragon levels."

And that is only true if the party has no strikers and uses no encounter powers. That seems... unlikely.

 

[LostSoul]

Here is data from my game:

PCs (lvl 4?) vs. Crusaders of Torog (2 Trog Maulers, 1 Trog Impaler, 1 Trog Curse Chanter, 1 Angel of Battle; lvl 7): 9 rounds.

3 PCs - Wizard, Cleric, Rogue (lvl 3?) - vs. The Dead Walk (12 skeleton minions, 2 gravehound zombies, 1 lvl 4 elf archer; lvl 4): 6 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Skeletal Legion (2 skeleton warriors, 8+ decrepit skeletons; lvl 1+): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Crypt of Shadows (10 zombie rotters, 4 zombies; lvl 3): 1 round. (Maybe 2.)

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Ghoul Warren (1 ghoul, 12 zombie rotters, 2 zombies; lvl 4?): 2 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Some hobgoblins (Warchief, some soldiers, some grunts, deathjump spider; lvl ??): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. Torture Chamber (Hobgoblin Torturer (lvl 3 brute), Goblin Warrior, 3 Goblin Sharpshooters; lvl 2): 3 rounds.

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. Excavation Site (3 goblin sharpshooters, 2 guard drakes; lvl 2): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. A Lot of Hobgoblins (14 hobgoblin grunts, 9 hobgoblin soldiers, 1 deathjump spider, 1 hobgoblin archer, hobgoblin warcaster, hobgoblin warchief; lvl 10): 11 rounds. (They came in waves, and the PCs lost.)

PCs (lvl 2?) vs. Chieftan's Lair (8 goblin cutters, 5 goblin warriors, Balgron the Fat (lvl 4 lurker); lvl 4): 4 rounds. (Balgron was assassinated, coup de grace.)

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. The Shadow Rift (Kalarel, Scion of Orcus (lvl 8 elite controller), The Thing in the Portal (lvl 4 hazard), Deathlock Wight, 2 Skeleton Warriors; lvl 6): 7 rounds.

PCs (lvl 3?) vs. Cathedral of Shadow (5 vampire spawn, orcus underpriest, 2 human berserkers, 1 dark creeper; lvl 4): 5 rounds.

PCs (lvl 5) vs. The Devourer (1 gelatinous cube, 3 wraiths; lvl 5): 9 rounds (PCs lost this one).

PCs (lvl 5) vs. Pack Attack (7 hyenas; lvl 4): 2 rounds.

PCs (lvl 5) vs. Grimmerzhul Trading Post (4 duergar guards, Kedhira, duergar theurge; lvl 4): 4 rounds.

 

[WizarDru]

But isn't that because in 3E a typical combat is _over_ by the third round? Because that's been my experience. Combats taking more than three rounds are rare and almost always represent 'boss fights'.

Not for my group. Typically, 3e/3.5e combats will run 6-8 rounds. The end of the combat is effectively determined by round 3, but it can grind on for a while. Especially in combats where three of the players can't hurt the monster, but one can devastate it or something similar, such as some undead battles, golem fights, creatures with high sr/hp/ac, etc.

If of 10 rounds of combat only the first three are interesting and the rest is boring mopping up, then there's a problem even if the 10 rounds taken together only take half as long as three rounds in 3E.

I agree. So far, our combats in 4e have been more flavorful and exciting for the entire party overall than our average 3e combats. The cleric's contribution to the combat is more than just casting Bless and CLW. The rogue doesn't just hang up her hat if it's a powerful undead. The wizard doesn't feel like he has to hoard his spells unless he's really, really sure. For us, 4e is offering some appealing combat actions.

Which isn't to say that 3e did otherwise, just that 4e seems to be offering them without quite so much work, which is appealing to us.

 

[Jhaelen]

Especially in combats where three of the players can't hurt the monster, but one can devastate it or something similar, such as some undead battles, golem fights, creatures with high sr/hp/ac, etc.

Ah, okay. I just remembered a peculiarity of my group which might explain the different experience:

I've currently got nine players, with typically 6-8 being present in a given session. So the chance that a majority cannot hurt a given monster is practically nil.

 

[dnddays]

Swingyness?

I haven't seen too much swingyness in my games, certainly not consistently and to the extent of some games described here. I suppose in the end it might be subjective, dependent on the campaign's particulars. How many strikers are in your party; whether or not you're stingy with magic items and what types of magic items your party carries; the builds chosen by your players; the skill, teamwork and tactics employed; and often plain old luck determines how long combats will take.

Now, if you really want to see swingyness, clear your calendar and try playing 3e at epic level, because it might take a while.

 

[dnddays]

Ah, okay. I just remembered a peculiarity of my group which might explain the different experience:

I've currently got nine players, with typically 6-8 being present in a given session. So the chance that a majority cannot hurt a given monster is practically nil.

I would guess that having 8 players will slow things down, assuming a minute or more used by each player and an increase in the number of monsters to challenge them.

 

[MerricB]

Is the grind aspect due to hp's being too high, or maybe the power system being too limited?

IME, the combats that seem to go into grind mode are generally those where the ACs of the monsters are quite high. When you send a higher-level monster against the PCs, especially if it is a soldier, that's quite likely.

It may also be part of why we underestimate the power of accuracy powers, as noted in a recent podcast.

If three or four PCs can concentrate on one monster at a time - rather than each PC pairing off against each monster individually - then you'll find the grindiness of combat going down quickly.

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Here's something I posted on Circvs Maximvs and some seemed to see it as potential useful for dealing with "decision-making" in D&D 4.

[sblock=Decision-Making in 4E Combat]
Decision-Making in combat. Maybe everything here is obvious. It's probably not complete.

1) Know your powers. You should have a general idea of what your powers do. Do they deal damage in an area? Do they daze, knock prone <apply other status effect>? Do they move an opponent?

2) Determine how the combat situation looks like. Look at your role to set your priorities.
- Are we in trouble or is everything fine?
- Are there any allies victim to a nasty effect or in a "suboptimal" situation? [Leader, Defender]
- Is their a group of enemies within a certain blast/burst radius? [Controller]
- Is their an ally in need of healing? [Leader]
- Do you flank someone or have otherwise combat advantage? [Strikers]
- Is an opponent unable to move but still mostly undamaged? [Defender and Controller]
- Any enemy hurting you unmolested [Defender, Controller]
- Are you in trouble?
- How can you help your allies inflicting out more hurt? [Leader, but also everyone]
- Anything running around that looks like an Elite or a Solos ?
- Any pits, chasmns or lava rivers around?

3) Make a decision based on the combat situation.
- If you're in trouble, a daily power should be considered. If not, usually only encounters and at-wills are an option.
- Anyone suffering a nasty condition or in a bad spot? Can you help him? Provide healing, a new save (or merely a save bonus), can you move him out of harms way or force opponents away or deal with you?
- Is their an ally in need of healing? As a Leader, heal him. As a defender, defend him! As a Striker, take out his attackers. As a Controller, force enemies away from him.
- Enemies lining up for a burst or blast? Let them suffer for it.
- Is an opponent unable to move? Get outside his range or reach and deal with him later.
- An unmolested enemy? Deal with him. Mark him, disable him, cut him off.
- If it's you who is in trouble, what can let you get out? Heal yourself (Second Wind, Potion)? Run away? Wait for help?
- How can you help your allies dealing more hurt? Help them get Combat Advantage. Move yourself or enemies into flanking position. Daze them.
- Any Elites or Solos around? Consider using one of your debilitating dailies on him. They work the best against these guys, particularly if they have ongoing effects or apply status effects.
- Pits, Chasmn or Lava river? Shove an enemy into it ASAP! It's fun!

Generally: Make your encounter attacks count. Use them on heavy hitters or on large groups. But use them at some point. A PC with an encounter power left after an encounter is embarrassing (either for you because you wasted a perfect way to inflict more harm, or for the DM because you beat him with your hands tied to your back!)

Addendum (exclusive content! Not Found in the original Cirvs Maximvs post! Get it while it's still hot!):
Again something that should be obvious, but is important in the decision making process:
- Use Encounters and Dailies when you have a higher chance to hit then usual. If necessary, coordinate with an ally for this. A leader could grant you a bonus to your attacks, a Striker or Defender can provide you with flanking, a Controller might be able to move opponents into flanking position or daze/stun them. Or if available, spend an action point to gain a bonus to the attack (Humans get that nice feat for a +3 bonus to all attacks after spending an action point). This might be one of the most important points where good teamwork can speed up combat and avoid the frustration of missing with a cruicial power.
- Use your Action Points. There is little point in having more then one action point lying around. If you know this encounter finishes a milestone, spend an action point. An extra action can double (and more) your damage output for a round, and this might mean you don't need to spend a daily power this encounter, or that you'll need a healing surge less.
[/sblock]

 

[vagabundo]

IME, the combats that seem to go into grind mode are generally those where the ACs of the monsters are quite high. When you send a higher-level monster against the PCs, especially if it is a soldier, that's quite likely.

It may also be part of why we underestimate the power of accuracy powers, as noted in a recent podcast.

If three or four PCs can concentrate on one monster at a time - rather than each PC pairing off against each monster individually - then you'll find the grindiness of combat going down quickly.

Cheers!

Funny you should mention that, in my last session, some of my players noticed they were having a hard time hitting the soldier hobo's from KotS, so the fighter started using some exploits that targeted reflex - armour piercing ?? - and he made short work of them.

This is the first time I've noticed that kind of talk.

 

[PathfinderAP]

And yet they seem to come up so regularly...



Every system has its adherents who blame the complainers who blame the system. It's foolish to wholly blame either the system or the complainers (and equally foolish to think that one system will suit all tastes).



4e removed the swingyness from combat. It should not come as a surprise that everyone is able to predict the outcome. 4e is designed to be predictable-- one of the reasons DMs love it.

The trend seems to be that DMs love 4e because it is so predictable, forgiving, and easy to run-- but players quickly tire of it. I think this might have to do with the removal of "mastery."

And that's not simply an issue of "no splatbooks yet." If you are the sort of player for whom predictable = boring, you have to hope that the splatbooks unbalance the carefully balanced system. (Then you'll have a new set of complainers.)

Couldn't you use something like some of the options in "Iron Heroes"
to add more unpredictable to the game?

(I don't know if someone here has already mentioned this, I don't have time to read the whole thread)