Anyone else not feel "the grind"

[Nebulous]

I (now) do not fell the grind. As a DM I eyeball the hit points of all baddies down about 15%, has made a big difference. Haven't done a solo with it yet but I might knock a few more off for that, I'll see.

\

I'm going to shave at least 20% hit points off solos and either up the damage or add a kewl power, depending on the situation.

 

[Mesh Hong]

Surprised no-one's yet pointed out that this is nothing more than a semantics issue. You (OP) don't feel grind because your definition of "grind" and your threshold for boredom is just different from the people who do.

That is a strikingly good point, and it is so glaringly obvious now you say it that I am embarrassed that I didn't see that myself.

So the point of this thread? Why, nothing but to go 'neener-neener, my game works fine and yours doesn't, neener-neener' at the people who have problems. Hey, whatever rocks your boat man.

That on the other hand might be a bit harsh. But I suppose it clearly makes your point. And there was I just happy to see a thread that was generally positive about the system.

 

[chaotix42]

For example? 2 or 3 fights in 3 hours. Wow. If any session of mine needed 3 complete hours to get through 2 (or 3) fights I would see that as a dismal failure of DM'ing of my part, and my players would be setting up hangman ropes for themselves. That would not only be grind for me personally, but would be full reason to not even show up for the next game.

So, what do you get done in 3 hours that keeps your players coming back week after week? More/fewer encounters? Something else?

Then again, you have another guy in the thread saying that he has a single fight every other session and that if he had more than that, THAT would be a grind to him. That's great for him, your thing is great for you, and my thing is great for me.

Agreed wholeheartedly!

 

[Storminator]

Surprised no-one's yet pointed out that this is nothing more than a semantics issue. You (OP) don't feel grind because your definition of "grind" and your threshold for boredom is just different from the people who do.

I think we've seen that people can have pretty similar boredom thresholds, and get very different experiences. Different DM styles, different PC and party builds, different actions can lead to different outcomes.

So the point of this thread? Why, nothing but to go 'neener-neener, my game works fine and yours doesn't, neener-neener' at the people who have problems. Hey, whatever rocks your boat man.

Definitely. So if you've come to this thread for a different reason... you're doing it wrong!

PS

 

[Rel]

So the point of this thread? Why, nothing but to go 'neener-neener, my game works fine and yours doesn't, neener-neener' at the people who have problems.

Personally this is why I make all my posts in any thread.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, if the Ranger attacks twice, that kinda gives him the best chance to hit at least once...

Err, no. You're mistaken there. It depends on the ranger's chance to hit if attacking twice will make him more accurate than the rogue:

E.g. if the rogue hits on a 3 (90%) and the ranger hits on an 11 (50%), attacking twice will increase the ranger's chance to hit at least once to 75%, still less than the rogue's chance to hit.

If you think that these example percentages aren't realistic, you may want to consider a dagger-wielding rogue with combat advantage using piercing strike...

 

[Terramotus]

Your rogue doesn't hit on a 6? He needs to do his job better (pick the right opponent, gain CA and target reflex if need be) - that should do the trick.

Man, that's the truth. We just finished our 20th game session in this campaign and the rogue missed once. We were shocked. We realized we couldn't remember the last time he had missed. It's to the point that he'll sometimes say a number while he's doing his rolling, I'll announce that he hits, and then he'll explain that that's his bonus.

We actually felt the grind early on, when we were getting used to the system. We were kind of worried after playing through Keep on the Shadowfell. However, we have the opposite experience now. My players are all very good tactically, and all have built extremely effective characters, and work together like mad. I like to think of us collectively as power-gamers in a good way.

The party they have right now is a freakin' wrecking crew (swordmage, rogue, warlord, wizard). Unless I've severely deprived them of resources or placed some other campaign-based restriction on them, I usually have to go to the highest end of what they should be able to normally handle to give them a real challenge.

On the other hand, when the combat is effectively over, I call it done rather than playing it out until the bitter end. 2/10 enemies are left, both bloodied, they flee. I usually decide this by having hidden victory conditions for a fight, which the players sometimes have clues that might help them figure it out.

Overall, we're really happy.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Basically, yes. He has about 8 force powers plus he is a blaster expert and a pilot/gunner.

This is a lot more options than even seventh level DND (the highest we got) with: 2 At Will, 3 Encounter, and 4 Dailies.

Aww, poor guy. Did you tell him that he can learn rituals and suddenly have 10x the options of any other character?

 

[KarinsDad]

Aww, poor guy. Did you tell him that he can learn rituals and suddenly have 10x the options of any other character?

In combat?

You actually believe that?

 

[DracoSuave]

Roleplaying is only about Combat?