Why do 4e combats grind?

[Jack99]

This, this, this... a thousand times this. I thought I was the only one who went back, read pg. 42 and realized it has been highly overrated and way too often pulled out as the answer to questions it doesn't answer.

XP for you my good man.

Nope, you are not the only one. Page 42 is certainly useful, but far from the Holy Grail some other 4e players seem to think it is.

It's nice. It saves me from making up some stuff on the spot, such as how much damage does the wizard take when he is pushed into the fire, or how much damage does the stalactite causes when the warlock shoots it loose with his eldritch blast and it drops on the head of the troll. But that's about it. It does not solve any grapple, disarm or sunder issues that I may have (I don't have any, luckily).

 

[Felon]

This, this, this... a thousand times this. I thought I was the only one who went back, read pg. 42 and realized it has been highly overrated and way too often pulled out as the answer to questions it doesn't answer.

XP for you my good man.

Thank you, sir. I was wondering if it was just me as well.

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn't want a disarm that was so reliable that everybody would be doing it all the time. You needed feats to be a specialist at it. Without the feats, there was a reasonable cost and chance for success, usually somewhere in the 50% arena, which isn't too far from what people are looking at with many of their attacks in 4e.

But yes, you certainly could try. Which now you can't.

50%? Really? You draw an AOO, which, if it hits, means you fail. Right there is probably less than a 50% chance of success. But, then you have to hit his touch AC. Probably not a significant reduction, but, reduced nonetheless. Now you have the opposed roll, which means fighters only get to try this one, because there's no way in Hell the rogue is going to do it. And, I hope the baddy isn't bigger than you, or using a two handed weapon, cos, if he is, you're chances just got even less.

In 8 years of playing 3e, I never once saw anyone try to use disarm because the chances were just so bad. Trip? Sure, I see that one from time to time. Pretty much only when someone deliberately makes a trip specialist. Because, if you don't, you fail far more often than you succeed.

Not sure what all that's in reference to.

Sorry, was responding to the line above yours about at-wills pretending to be sexy.

 

[LostSoul]

That a DM can use some vague guidelines to jury-rig a disarm rule on the fly only makes it "untrue" in the sense that a DM can whip up a house rule whenever he feels like making a granny shot.

It's true in the fact that it's a basic application of the rules.

Otherwise, it's absolutely true that 4th edition rules do not make allowances for disarming someone without a power. If you don't believe me, go check out the last podcast David Noonan did with Mearls before he was let go. They say it's intentional that there's no disarming in 4e, and they proceed to explain their rationale for dropping the maneuver.

That's good for them. I'm the DM in my own game, though.

So, you've whipped up a way to go knocking the weapon out of an opponent's hand that's about as reliable as attacking them for damage. Are you comfortable with that? According to Mearls and Noonan, that's an undesirable thing, but I'm a little more optimistic. I'd be curious to know how else it works.

Yes, I'm comfortable with that. Now maybe I'd give a solo or elite monster a bonus to Defense - equal to their save bonus - but that's because I'm awesome.

A disarm can shut an opponent down completely, or it can be a meaningless trifle. There are other factors to figure out. Does the weapon just drop in the disarmee's square? And we all know what action it takes to pick up an object in your square, right? Or, does the weapon go flying off to some other square? It'd be good to know this before I try the maneuver. But, page 42 just doesn't help us out with any guidelines for this, true? So, it's a house rule or bust.

I would say it falls in the target's square, but this is covered by the player's declaration of intent and/or the DM's narration of effect.

I guess we disagree fundamentally on how the game is played.

Me:

Player declares an intent for his character.
DM decides if it's valid.
DM decides if it's opposed or not. (I'm including the environment as opposition.)
If it's opposed, we have to make a check of some kind.
If we are making a check, is it an attack? Then we decide what Defense is targetted. If not, then the DM provides a DC.
Roll.
If the roll is a success, your intent is achieved. If it was an attack, we figure out how much damage is done.
If the roll is a failure, the DM figures out what happens.

You:

If the books don't explicitly spell out how to do something, you can't do it.

edit: I will also keep it on topic and say that my game does not have the grind described elsewhere. If you want to interpret the rules in such a way that creates "copy-paste" tactics and combat grind, and you don't like copy-paste tactics and combat grind, maybe you should approach the game as I feel it was written.

 

[Felon]

It's true in the fact that it's a basic application of the rules.

Attacking someone with melee weapon vs. Reflex is an application of the rules on page 42.

Actually disarming someone is not. Never mentioned on any of those page numbers you listed.

You:

If the books don't explicitly spell out how to do something, you can't do it.

Don't start getting into petty straw man crap. You've been doing good up to this point with staying on the high road.

Me: If the books don't explicitly spell out how to do something, then you're making up a house rule. And if that thing you're trying to do is now the purview of certain powers, then letting you do it without the power is kind of...magoo.

 

[LostSoul]

Attacking someone with melee weapon vs. Reflex is an application of the rules on page 42.

Actually disarming someone is not. Never mentioned on any of those page numbers you listed.

We disagree on that!

Don't start getting into petty straw man crap. You've been doing good up to this point with staying on the high road.

Me: If the books don't explicitly spell out how to do something, then you're making up a house rule. And if that thing you're trying to do is now the purview of certain powers, then letting you do it without the power is kind of...magoo.

Sorry about that! I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position; I should have asked for clarification instead.

I think it's okay to run the game my way, and I don't think it requires house rules (rulings, to be sure, but I wouldn't call it a house rule). I think your interpretation is valid but I don't think it would be as much fun - for me at least!

 

[rjdafoe]

Attacking someone with melee weapon vs. Reflex is an application of the rules on page 42.

Actually disarming someone is not. Never mentioned on any of those page numbers you listed.

Actually, the example that is given on page 42 does exactly what he wants to do. There is a swing(an action), a push(an effect), and fire damage, and it is compared to an encounter power. He has done an action, an effect, and he could do some small amount of damage if he would like to. Looks like an application of page 42 to me.

 

[Felon]

We disagree on that!

Sorry about that! I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position; I should have asked for clarification instead.

I think it's okay to run the game my way, and I don't think it requires house rules (rulings, to be sure, but I wouldn't call it a house rule). I think your interpretation is valid but I don't think it would be as much fun - for me at least!

Fair enough. I think as far as this tangent goes, we've both acquitted ourselves at articulating our points of view.

 

[firesnakearies]

I haven't felt this once I got used to 4E combat. I have been surprised by the ebb and flow of the combat, and how, in many of the combats, the action has been tense down to the last blow.

One of the most notable differences from 3e combat is that once a character drops, it's very, very hard to get them up again in a combat. If you're exceptionally lucky you have four healing surges you can use in the entire combat at the Heroic tier.

So, once a PC drops, the dynamics of the combat change greatly. If it was the defender of the group (very likely) all the nice holding of monsters in position for combat advantage and other bonuses go away.

Many of my combats have come down to the PCs nursing along their last hit points whilst they defeat the last of their enemies.

Unexpected events - sudden pushes, immobilizations, or other conditions - change the flow of the combat. They can be as devastating as almost killing a PC - get a monster to the lightly defended back line and things change!

Cheers!

I agree totally with almost all of this post, except for the part about dropped characters being hard to get back up. Maybe we've just had different kinds of groups in our games, but in my experience thus far, characters pop up and down like weeble-wobbles. There are so many heals now, even for 1st level characters.

Now, if you're talking about people running out of healing surges for the day, then yeah, I see your point. If they're going into a fight with only one or two (or zero) surges left, then it's going to be more likely to be a problem. But relatively fresh PCs with plenty of surges left can get back up quite a lot of times in an encounter, from what I've seen so far.

But I suppose I have played in and DMed for pretty cleric/warlord/paladin/fighter heavy groups, so my experience may not be typical.



$

 

[Felon]

But I suppose I have played in and DMed for pretty cleric/warlord/paladin/fighter heavy groups, so my experience may not be typical.

That's probably it. Most classes don't have any way to spend a healing surge other than through a second wind. Fighters have some self-heals, but those aren't too useful once they're unconscious. Paladins can lay on hands, but for the most part the burden is on leaders.