Basically, I'm sticking with 4e and trying to accentuate its positive (which are manifold, to be sure) until the design & development team feel like they can get a little ambitious. So many ideas wound up on the cutting room floor just because they were keen on keeping everything so simple and undaunting. I think that sold a big chunk of their player base short.
Why do 4e combats grind?
- Thread starter LostSoul
- Start date
LostSoul
Adventurer
The Wizard in my game does 1d6+7 with his Thunderwave.
A while back, we used page 42 to have him deal 3d6+4 and ongoing Fire 5 (save ends) with one of his at-wills (Mage Hand).
Tactically goofy?
XP for you right there!
Tension and excitement often comes from what might happen, not what happens every combat. This is part of why the powers aren't exciting, you see them all the time, so the 'might' part is invalid. If you dropped at wills, and turned encounters into dailies, you'd see a lot more excitement from using them. But that would throwing the current balance out the window.
Right, it's sort of like playing poker with everyone but the DM being dealt the same hand repeatedly (until you level and can respec).
LostSoul
Adventurer
What would you do "at-will", then?
If it's just a basic attack, I'd say that a basic attack + push 1 offers more tactical choice and more opportunities for something to happen then just damage.
shilsen
Adventurer
Right. And why does the existence of powers change the possible variety in what might happen? Presumably the PCs are fighting varied enemies, in varied locations, with different things happening in the various fights. If the same thing happens in every combat, maybe you need to get a new DM.
I think that's a false dichotomy. Variety comes not only from what powers the PCs possess, but from what effect their powers have on the particular combat, the specific foes and the given situation. By your definition, almost nothing a non-spellcaster did in 3e (leave alone earlier editions) could be exciting, since the vast majority of the time all they did was make full attacks or use one of a limited set of combat maneuvers. But people had exciting encounters in 3e and there's no reason they should be any less exciting in 4e.
Felon said:
Even if that were an accurate simile (which I don't think it is), how would that be different to any earlier edition, esp. when it comes to non-spellcasters? In 4e, by 6th lvl each character has 2 each of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers. In 3e a fighter, for example, had the ability to make an attack or two attacks on a full attack. And wouldn't gain another till 11th level. Talk about being dealt a lousy hand!
Last edited:
In that context the existence of powers has no direct affect on the possible variety... All I was trying to get across is that at-wills are essentially the same as the old 'full attack', in that they're used so often that they lose their charm. Full attack never pretended to be special in the first place.
The fights are different, but the level of tension and excitement varies less than it could. Precisely because after each 5 minute rest your characters 'reset' and dailies are the only excitement, because they're the only ones that don't get used in (nearly) every combat.
Again, the difference from my point of view, is that powers attempt to be exciting. They fail at this because they're seen too often. Whereas basic attacks and full attacks etc in earlier editions never tried to be cool in the first place, so they didn't 'fail'. I'm not arguing that playing full attack every round was exciting. I'm just saying that powers you use every round are equally uninspiring. The same would be said if you used disarm every round in 3E. It's exciting if it's used sparingly and thereby makes an impact on what is otherwise a repeat of normal effects, but used every time it is just as boring.
To take a different simile - Compare Australian Rules Football vs Soccer for a moment. In Australian rules a team may score say 20 goals, and their opponents might get 18 goals. I find this much less exciting than Soccer where one team might score 1 goal, and that one goal then really counts. This doesn't mean people don't find Australian Rules Football exciting, but I personally prefer to watch soccer. Others find soccer boring because 'nothing happens' all game except that one goal.
Absolutely, but I wasn't discussing tactical choice. I was talking about how sometimes Basic Attack + Push is no more exciting than Basic Attack alone.LostSoul said:
Taking an extreme of that one example: 2 combatants with equal powers, HP etc on a flat field.
What difference does it make if they push each other around? Neither gains any benefit from doing so. Pushing only becomes exciting when there is something to push into, onto, off of etc. And of course when there are other combatants around to take advantage of the push. But the push itself is not exciting, the possibilities that are gained from it can be. Having the same set of possibilities (powers) in each combat is potentially less exciting than having varying sets of possibilities in every combat.
Having powers essentially reset in this manner reduces the variety from the point of view of each combat.
Another example: Imagine all powers were effectively dailies, but functioned multiple times per day, and the at will/encounter designation was only an indication of how many times you could use it in a given encounter. So you have 10 at wills, 3 encounters and 1 daily.
If you use up your 10 at wills in the first encounter, the remaining two encounters that day are automatically going to be different to the first one. Even if fought against the same monster type, in the same room. As you might encounter in a siege.
What does 'trying to be cool' mean in this context? Combat options are tactically interesting to use or they're not. If they are interesting to use, then they're exciting.
Are you saying that a fighter could only do the same thing every round 3e? Well, if that was the kind of fighter a player was content to play, he certainly could. But if you're saying that was it all for fighters, then we have vastly different experiences playing a 3e fighter.
Recall if you will the days when feats did things more ambitious than add the tiny bland buffs they provide in 4e. Some feats actually offered the fighter different attack options, and often built on top of the basic attack options all characters had in 3e that now require a power to execute. You didn't need a power to knock someone prone in 3e, for instance, or be a 17th-level fighter to disarm someone.
Hussar
Legend
True. In 3e you required an Int of 13 and two feats to try to do it even remotely reliably. And, even then, you would fail most of the time against anything larger than you or that might have more than two legs. But, you could certainly try.
I'm not sure why people think that at-wills are trying to be "cool". At wills are the bread and butter attacks of a class. They aren't cool any more than full attack was cool.
