Why do 4e combats grind?

[Felon]

I wanted to know why you think players don't have any choices to make in 4e combat.

If I'm reading you right, all anyone would have to do is write a script like you've provided and they should be good for 80%+ of encounters.

You're inferring more than a little, as I don't recall saying characters have absolutely no choices in combat. They have more than one, just nothing approaching what they had at the point where 4e was announced. We had reached a point where we had some nice options like tactical feats and spell reserve feats and much other goodness. Sadly, the level of depth and diversity that tactical feats afforded is exactly what 4e moved away from.

Having said that, the aforementioned copy-paste tactics have been pretty much the norm so far. My group is certainly canny enough to quickly realize which of a handful of powers should be their de facto openers and closers in a given situation.

 

[Rechan]

Well, first point of order: it sure seems like you missed a lot of stuff I was saying in my posts

I do not appreciate the patronizing tone.

Secondly, I'm left wondering if you abjectly refused to play previous editions.

I do not appreciate the patronizing tone.

Diatribe against all of that as badwrongfun if you wish, but you have to do so in the face of D&D working that way for a long, long time and lots of people having tons of fun sweating as they endeavored to deal with it.

Diatribe against enjoying having your powers work no matter the opponent as badwrongfun if you wish, but you have to do so in the face of D&D now working that way for a long, long time to come, and lots of people having tons of fun not having to worry about it.

I'm done talking to you.

 

[chaotix42]

Having said that, the aforementioned copy-paste tactics have been pretty much the norm so far. My group is certainly canny enough to quickly realize which of a handful of powers should be their de facto openers and closers in a given situation.

The only predictable action I've seen IME is the rogue abusing Sly Flourish like a red-headed stepchild. My players most often use their encounter powers before their daily powers, but that's to be expected and about the only predictable element in their play.

Oh, the friendly fire stuff - we're on the same page there. Without fail the wizard will have blasted a friend or two by the end of an encounter.

 

[Felon]

I do not appreciate the patronizing tone.

I do not appreciate the patronizing tone.

You might wish to examine your own tone in your last couple posts, as it might asuage your feelings of indignation.

Scout's honor, those were two genuine questions. When I said you must have missed my posts, it was because that's the only explanation for why you would tell me things that I've already said myself. When you were laying out the scenario of how swarms don't work if you provide them sweeping immunities, and that you'd refuse to play a martial character in a game where such monsters existed, it begged the question to my mind of how you could cope with previous editions and their immunity-laden criters.

I'm done talking to you.

You're going to let me have the last word? Mmmmmm-kay. Guess that's it then.

 

[Felon]

Oh, the friendly fire stuff - we're on the same page there. Without fail the wizard will have blasted a friend or two by the end of an encounter.

Since a tangent about simulation has touched upon, I find it noteworthy that this is actually an area where 4e has yielded to simulation. In the MMO's that D&D took so many pointers from, friendly fire is a non-issue--fireballs simply don't affect allies. OTOH, martial attacks that affect arreas always affect enemies only, simulating their nature as precise barrages rather than explosive blasts.

So far it also looks like the PHB2's invoker will prove superior at avoiding friendly fire, as his smitings seek out enemies, and if that bears out it will actually make the wizard something of an anomaly when it comes to friendly-fire-heavy attacks (though there's also the forthcoming sorcerer to consider).

 

[ExploderWizard]

4E combat grinds simply because it does its job of balance too well. A system designed for tight balance with room for a lot of give and take without wacky disabling effects that could swing a particular conflict quickly will become an ablative grind.

The "big gun" abilities can still miss quite often and even when they hit the effects are rarely decisive in the short term. A few of these abilities used successfully by one side can decide a conflict mathematically but still leave many rounds of tedious cleanup to resolve without handwaving the outcome. Doing this is fine if it avoids boring grindspace but its a bit silly to say that the system doesn't need work if one ends up having to do this.

The attrition only balance model is going to grind to one degree or another regardless of tweaks, until a certain degree of imbalance is introduced that can add more wildcards into the predictable mix. Dynamic combats need elements that have the possibility of bringing the conflicts to conclusion that aren't purely ablative.

 

[Zustiur]

4E combat grinds simply because it does its job of balance too well. A system designed for tight balance with room for a lot of give and take without wacky disabling effects that could swing a particular conflict quickly will become an ablative grind.

Balance does seem to have a lot to do with it. And it seems to me, that this eternal search for balance is the real item that is 'computer gamey'.
In essence, board games are balanced because they're generally aimed at young players.
Computer games are balanced because so many people play them online.
Role playing games were about telling stories, and didn't need balance, until recently when the computer game industry began to dominate the cultural awareness so much.
It is my belief that forcing so much balance into 4E is exactly what is making it feel to much like a MMO or other computer game to some people. Personally I think balancing DnD was the wrong move to take. Sure, tweak things to rule out some of the overpowered options, but taking it to this extreme has taken too much flavour out of the dish.

 

[Felon]

Personally I think balancing DnD was the wrong move to take. Sure, tweak things to rule out some of the overpowered options, but taking it to this extreme has taken too much flavour out of the dish.

Well, I'm a fan of balance, but it seems that the strategy in 4e was to maintain balance by ensuring that nothing has any really powerful effect. Your average big, bad daily power doesn't pack a heck of a lot more punch than an at-will. Minions notwithstanding, you're not one-shotting anything. Probably not two-shotting much. Maybe three-shotting. Often more-shotting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure, although I don't have every power's name memorized. For the ranger, it's pretty straightforward: Most encounter attacks get burned right away for maximized damage at the lowest resource cost. If Dire Wolverine Strike or something similar is on-hand, it's saved for when the most targets are on-hand. After those are burned, Twin Strike is spammed since it's generally the best all-purpose attack at-will. Jaws of the Wolf, Two-Wolf Pounce, or something similar is reserved for brutes or other heavy-hitters.

For the warlock, spam Dire Radiance if enemies still need to close, spam Hellish Rebuke if he's pulling aggro, spam Eldritch Blast if the other two aren't ideal. Wait for monsters to cluster, then use Diabolic Grasp to swat an outlying monster into the huddle, then burn an AP to blast with a multi-target attack like Fiery Blast or Avernus Eruption or whatever power he's currently cribbing from his wizard multiclass (followed quickly by enduring the scathing look from whichever melee character(s) got burned).

Is that enough? Not sure what you're looking to hear.

This doesn't sound like the players are all that effective in using their powers. Do they even bother to think about synergy between powers, and to react to monster special abilities and weaknesses? If they want to blow off their encounter powers early, do they work together with the Warlord or Cleric to help that these hit? And how do they manage this in every combat? Do they need to come up with decisions where to move, who to attack? Or do they just pick the first target in sight?

Why do you believe this players would do something more interesting or better in a game where not everyone can be sneak attacked or tripped. I would assume that the most likely outcome for this type of players would be just finding ways to up your attack bonus and your damage, and ignore any other option, because they just might not work in most cases, and requires them to take the circumstances into account.

 

[Felon]

This doesn't sound like the players are all that effective in using their powers. Do they even bother to think about synergy between powers, and to react to monster special abilities and weaknesses? If they want to blow off their encounter powers early, do they work together with the Warlord or Cleric to help that these hit? And how do they manage this in every combat? Do they need to come up with decisions where to move, who to attack? Or do they just pick the first target in sight?

They're highly effective in using their individual powers. If the leader's got a buff to toss out, he knows to get it out there quickly. In 4e, there's nothing like the 3.5e's tactical feats or WoW's combo and rage meters--i.e, there's no big set up for your Sunday punch, so why should folks sit on their encounters if there are are valid targets? People know what they're best-suited to attack; defenders form a front line and try to pin damage-dealing brutes and soldiers with marking powers. Ranged attackers know to pick off skirmishers and leaders (though some are best ignored). Controllers know they should be sweeping up the mooks. This part of the strategy is a self-evidencing and constant formula.

Team synergies are something I'd like to see more of. Players aren't as heedful of other players' capabilities as I'd like. Defenders don't pick a lot of ally-protecting powers, but rather stick to the self-buffs. Defenders and strikers frequently clog up openings for the controller. I hope to see that stuff improve, but that's really just a matter of getting more regimented, not coming up with dynamic tactics; it'll just get added to the copy-paste list.

Why do you believe this players would do something more interesting or better in a game where not everyone can be sneak attacked or tripped.

In 4e, as it currently stands, I don't. I can't reiterate that enough, it seems. In 3.5e, characters would often have to dig deep and look what they have in their reserve. Could be in the form of a scroll or some infrequently-used magic item. Could be some less-used application of an multi-effect spell. It could be that a timely disarm, sunder, or grapple is just the ticket. Might be some feat or class feature that they sit on just for an off-the-wall situation. There were more resources, and perhaps more importantly, they were often versatile in application. 4e characters are simpler and streamlined, which has its advantages, but as with everything there's a cost. And that cost is a dearth of situational "ace-up-the-sleeve" resources.