Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5503831" data-attributes="member: 996">Power creep definitely had something to do with it, and the beef-up didn't just affect Paragon &amp; Epic.&nbsp; I was in an Heroic campaign when the DM broke out some Displacer Beasts from the MV, and, *blat* one PC dropped in the firt round (OK, surprise round +1 regular round).&nbsp; I glanced through the MV, and it seemed like they just added a die to everything's damage more or less across the board.&nbsp; :shrug:Whatever the /reason/, though, higher monster damage will lead to combats ending in fewer, bloodier rounds, as the PCs feel forced to pull out all the stops - or, if they don't, take tons of damage - which means fewer combats/day.&nbsp; Exactly the phenomenon the OP is noticing.And, not unfamiliar to those of us who remember 3e.Personally, I don't get the idea that fewer rounds of combat is more fun.&nbsp; I like playing the game, I'd rather play through 6 rounds of combat than 2.&nbsp; Two is barely getting warmed up.&nbsp; One of the great things about 4e was it made the default combat take more rounds and involve more monsters.&nbsp; (The default 3e combat was 1 monster of CR = level; the default 4e combat is 5 standard equal level monsters.)&nbsp; 4e combats were tactically much more engaging.&nbsp; The 'nova' strategy didn't work because monsters had more hps and there were no save-or-dies.&nbsp; So, encounters became tactical exercises, where round-by-round decisions mattered.&nbsp; If you stuck to the old strategy, you did, indeed, have combats where you might anihilate one monster, or bloody a solo or whatever, in a round or few, but you were then left 'grinding' away at the remains of the encounter with your at-wills; if, OTOH, you took a more tactical aproach, you led with at-wills, and used encounters (and maybe dailies) at optimal times.&nbsp; The combat would still take a fair number of rounds, but they'd be interesting rounds.&nbsp; The game supported a different style, initially, and not everyone caught on to it.&nbsp; Now the game supports the styles prevelent in 3e a little more, though, obviously, still not as well as 3e did.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5503831, member: 996"] Power creep definitely had something to do with it, and the beef-up didn't just affect Paragon & Epic. I was in an Heroic campaign when the DM broke out some Displacer Beasts from the MV, and, *blat* one PC dropped in the firt round (OK, surprise round +1 regular round). I glanced through the MV, and it seemed like they just added a die to everything's damage more or less across the board. :shrug: Whatever the /reason/, though, higher monster damage will lead to combats ending in fewer, bloodier rounds, as the PCs feel forced to pull out all the stops - or, if they don't, take tons of damage - which means fewer combats/day. Exactly the phenomenon the OP is noticing. And, not unfamiliar to those of us who remember 3e. Personally, I don't get the idea that fewer rounds of combat is more fun. I like playing the game, I'd rather play through 6 rounds of combat than 2. Two is barely getting warmed up. One of the great things about 4e was it made the default combat take more rounds and involve more monsters. (The default 3e combat was 1 monster of CR = level; the default 4e combat is 5 standard equal level monsters.) 4e combats were tactically much more engaging. The 'nova' strategy didn't work because monsters had more hps and there were no save-or-dies. So, encounters became tactical exercises, where round-by-round decisions mattered. If you stuck to the old strategy, you did, indeed, have combats where you might anihilate one monster, or bloody a solo or whatever, in a round or few, but you were then left 'grinding' away at the remains of the encounter with your at-wills; if, OTOH, you took a more tactical aproach, you led with at-wills, and used encounters (and maybe dailies) at optimal times. The combat would still take a fair number of rounds, but they'd be interesting rounds. The game supported a different style, initially, and not everyone caught on to it. Now the game supports the styles prevelent in 3e a little more, though, obviously, still not as well as 3e did. [/QUOTE]

Verification