I'm not surprised. 4e was released a year too early.
Yes, it definitely needed more time in the oven. Also, I think it was a huge mistake to wait almost 2 1/2 years to release entry-level material (Essentials). None of the classes from the 4e PHB are particularly suited for new players; the ranger comes close but it's saddled with the fiddly
Hunter's Quarry feature, which is just as aggravating to track as marks and curses.
That would do it. The faster you put monsters down, the less time they spend beating you up! That said, you often save your encounter powers against MV Solos as they often get really nasty once they are bloodied.
Yeah, they weren't fighting solos, just regular encounters. The bard had
Shout of Triumph as her encounter power (close blast 3, 1d6+Cha damage and push Con mod squares, slide each ally in the blast Con mod squares), and I don't think she ever used it. While it's a good power, I think that it's rather fiddly and I can see how a player sit on it while waiting for multiple enemies and allies to get into a 3x3 area. If we resume that campaign, I might suggest that she take
Inspiring Refrain instead (2[W] + Cha damage, each ally within 5 squares gains a +1 bonus to attack rolls until end of bard's next turn). It's much less situational (a 2[W] damage attack is always useful), and the +1 bonus applies to everyone and can only happen once per encounter instead of feeling random.
And my recommended leader has pretty much always been the Warlord (I hit him ... with the barbarian!). A Warlord/Slayer combination is especially scary - the warlord in this case has approximately the damage output of the slayer (mostly because the slayer is making all the attack and damage rolls)
The bard is one of the fiddliest classes (the Runepriest is the absolute worst). It's also one of my favourites, but then I'm used to running half a dozen monsters rather than a single PC.
I haven't seen a warlord in play, but they look rather fiddly to me as well. I guess there is a certainly fiddliness inherent in any of the leader classes. The "lazy warlord" doesn't strike me as something that would be that much fun for a lot of players, with so many of your rounds being devoted to giving another PC a chance to shine.
Of the four players in my 4e campaign, only one owned any 4e books. One player (my sister) has been playing D&D as long as I have (since 1987) and knows 3.x quite well, but neither owns nor has read any 4e books. The other two players were completely new to D&D. I think that if I DM 4e again, I will strongly recommend that players mainly stick to the two Essentials books unless they're the sort of player who enjoys spending time outside the game sessions reading the books.
The best way of wearing down the PCs I've found is one of the few house rules I use - extended rests only happen in a place of safety rather than on the road. (For a sandbox it would be your base town or a friendly one). Makes for much more risk/reward analysis and PCs feeling threatened.
Yeah, I'll definitely be doing that if we play 4e again. I think that it's more believable and it also puts the "adventure" at the center of the game. I also like the idea that an extended rest happens when it is narratively appropriate, not simply because the PCs used their best abilities and want them back. There some interesting ways that altering extended rests can work within the context of scene-framing, but I think I'll share those thoughts over on that thread.
This would also make milestones more significant, although the game probably needs something else attached to milestones other than action points (and an occasional paragon path feature, I think).
Do you find that restricting when and where extended rests can take place impacts the balance between characters with AEDU-style powers and the Essentials martial characters that lack daily attack powers?
