Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kaomera" data-source="post: 5194373" data-attributes="member: 38357">I agree with just about everything you point out in your post. I'm not suggesting that 4e wanting a certain level of optimization from players is a problem, but rather that because this expectation is there, players who don't meet it are a problem. I'm not sure I think it's a "great thing" all the time, but I am sure it's a deliberate design goal of 4e.This goal does a lot more good in the game I'm playing in right now (experienced / educated players with access to all the rules and an interest in knowing how to best use them) than the one I'm DMing (inexperienced players who don't own many 4e books between them). (And it doesn't help that some of my players do seem to feel that they're doing themselves a service by making mechanically non-optimal character choices.)I wouldn't suggest that because the party has a hard time with some encounters the 4e rules as written should or need to be changed. But that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't change the game I play at my table. I've played in LFR games with groups that where a bad mis-mash of roles & classes with multiple new players and/or badly suboptimal PCs, and when the DM won't do (or let us do - running the heck away from an obvious TPK waiting to happen should always be an option, IMO) anything to balance things it can make for a really unfun experience that isn't actually going to teach anyone at the table anything (other than to avoid that DM / that group / LFR / 4e in general in the future...).Actually, the argument I've seen the most is "The numbers on PCs don't scale as quickly as on monsters, so the math is obviously broken." I think that's a purely knee-jerk reaction. I saw the same math and thought it was a neat idea. I wondered if it was intended that higher-level play just got harder, or if other bonuses where supposed to pick up the slack; I didn't assume that it was some kind of design error. The statements I've actually seen regarding the math based on actual play have seemed pretty mixed, with some saying 4e gets too easy and others that it's too hard.I'm kind of hoping that the Essentials books will (at least when used as a self-contained thing) create a bit more of a benchmark for a "normal" 4e game. But even then you have to deal with the fact that different players and different groups want / enjoy different levels of challenge. And there are a lot of ways that a DM can balance the challenge of 4e to his players, there's even  ways for the players to do it themselves.</blockquote>

Verification