Anyone else not feel "the grind"

[KarinsDad]

...because it seems to me that if you can't decide on an option when you level up, you're probably going to be slow choosing an option in the middle of combat.

I think you are seriously underestimating the intelligence and tactical capabilities of some 4E players.

Players that do not want to do this or are incapable of doing this would probably not do it. Players who are bored with the repetitiveness of 4E might jump at the chance to do this.

I think that a lot of this issue stems from a desire to have your character be a "one man army," or even a "one man band." Not so much that you have to be the star of the group or the combat, or be better than all the other PCs, but that you want to have a shtick available for any given situation at any given time.

And, what's wrong with this concept? As a player, my least enjoyable and memorable moments are when I am stuck with a single choice because nothing else will work, or worse yet, I have no options and am forced to move and set up an action for the following round. My most enjoyable and memorable moments are situations where I find a unique way to save a fellow PC or prevent the BBEG from fleeing or some such.

4E allows any PC to use any armor or any weapon if so desired. What's wrong with having a good tactical choice for any situation (not necessarily the same choice as or even an equally as potent choice as other PCs, but one that can work)?

Btw, this can be accomplished to some extent with Alchemical items. Why not with powers? In any case, this type of house rule works well in our game. People who want to use it, do so. People who do not, do not.

 

[Storminator]

Hm. Interesting. That's an insightful point, and I'll have to think about it.

So, your opinion is that grind comes from the 3.x Bard Problem -- being modest at everything and awesome at nothing. Therefore, if you're feeling the grind, refocus on your role, and let the other party members do what they do...

I used to play my cleric more fightery - I had Student of the Sword, I had a good damaging Daily, and I'd jump into the front and fight.

When I re-speced my PC to have more leaderish powers and focused more on helping the rogue out, I felt more useful and the party as a whole seemed more effective.

PS

 

[Dan'L]

I think you are seriously underestimating the intelligence and tactical capabilities of some 4E players.

Players that do not want to do this or are incapable of doing this would probably not do it. Players who are bored with the repetitiveness of 4E might jump at the chance to do this.

Not in my experience. In my experience, at my gaming tables, the players who complain the most about lack of choices are also the ones who get into a grindy thought-lock when it comes to taking their turn in combat. It's not that they aren't intelligent or tactical, and I do not mean to imply so; it's not a question of capability. What I'm referring to is that the same frame of mind that leans towards having an option for everything quite often leads to a frame of mind that wants to weigh over Every. Single. Option. At. Your. Disposal in combat in order to make sure you're using "the right one." And meanwhile, the rest of the players are counting the cracks in the ceiling.

Obviously, YMMV.

And, what's wrong with this concept? As a player, my least enjoyable and memorable moments are when I am stuck with a single choice because nothing else will work, or worse yet, I have no options and am forced to move and set up an action for the following round. My most enjoyable and memorable moments are situations where I find a unique way to save a fellow PC or prevent the BBEG from fleeing or some such.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. (Although I'd turn it around and ask "what's wrong with the story sometimes NOT being about your character?" Sometimes you have to let one of the other characters have the answer to the problem.)

My point was that sometimes, possibly oftentimes, a player only has a single choice because he built his character that way. That when you try to make a limited number of options cover all the bases, at any one time you may only have a single option to use because all else is so situational and don't mesh well with each other.

That's not really a fault of the system providing enough choices, it's a problem of wanting your choices to cover EVERYTHING. I find that when I focus my characters into doing only a couple of things really well, rather than everything *enh*, that I actually find that I have more choices at any given time in combat that work to do the job that my character should be doing. By not trying to fulfill every role, I fill one better and have much more fun with it.

4E allows any PC to use any armor or any weapon if so desired. What's wrong with having a good tactical choice for any situation (not necessarily the same choice as or even an equally as potent choice as other PCs, but one that can work)?

It doesn't seem like this is what you have been asking for, though. Do you want _a_ "good tactical choice for any situation?" or do you want _several_? You seem to be saying "several." Personally, I have found that even at first level I'm seldom left wanting for a good choice when I've focused my character on its job, whatever that might be, and let the other PCs fill in where I cannot.

In any case, this type of house rule works well in our game. People who want to use it, do so. People who do not, do not.

Well, I happy that it works for you then. Big system-changing house rules give me a headache, and this one in particular seems more guilty of "power creep" playing than anything out of Martial Power or PHB2.

-Dan'L

 

[Dan'L]

Hm. Interesting. That's an insightful point, and I'll have to think about it.

So, your opinion is that grind comes from the 3.x Bard Problem -- being modest at everything and awesome at nothing. Therefore, if you're feeling the grind, refocus on your role, and let the other party members do what they do...

More or less, that's it, yes.

(Although I never had that problem with the 3.x Bard; I just saw his strength as non-combat-focused.)

- Dan'L

 

[KarinsDad]

Not in my experience. In my experience, at my gaming tables, the players who complain the most about lack of choices are also the ones who get into a grindy thought-lock when it comes to taking their turn in combat. It's not that they aren't intelligent or tactical, and I do not mean to imply so; it's not a question of capability. What I'm referring to is that the same frame of mind that leans towards having an option for everything quite often leads to a frame of mind that wants to weigh over Every. Single. Option. At. Your. Disposal in combat in order to make sure you're using "the right one." And meanwhile, the rest of the players are counting the cracks in the ceiling.

Wow. That sucks. I can only remember one player like that and it was decades ago.

I didn't say that there was anything wrong with it. (Although I'd turn it around and ask "what's wrong with the story sometimes NOT being about your character?"

Story?

I'm talking about extra power options in combat. Combat has very little in the way of story outside of "we trashed these dudes and we trashed those dudes and we accomplished our mission du jour". Once in a while, PCs get to fight some re-occurring villain and there actually is some significant part of a story there, but for the most part, combats are more memorable for how some player pulled off some amazing stunt (like swinging from a rope and rescuing a hostage, or killing the BBEG by Thunderwaving it over a cliff or whatever) or by how something incredibly vicious and bad (like maybe a curse or a super NPC crit or something) happened to a PC. The combat actions become part of the flow of the overall story, but they are rarely the highlights that are remembered unless something special happens during it.

But, how many undead we waded through to rescue the village? Couldn't tell you. Might not even remember that they were undead. Not memorable.

I have forgotten literally several thousand encounters in the last 30+ years of gaming. I might even forget an encounter from last week. But, I remember many of those where some PC (not necessarily mine) did something amazing and that is what I like to try to do every time at bat for my PC. It's more difficult to do that when the PC runs out of options quickly and is stuck with At Will powers.

Sometimes you have to let one of the other characters have the answer to the problem.)

Do I?

That wasn't in my hero manual.

Last I saw, every PC gets a shot during initiative. Every PC gets a shot out of combat. But, if I think my PC has an answer to a problem, I have no qualms about using it, especially in combat. I'm not going to say "Oh no old bean. You kill the dragon. You were here first. Good show, what?".

And btw, out of combat I am the last person to force a solution. I often only try to come up with one if the other players are stumped or appear to be going down the wrong path. I'll participate, but I try to not force the direction of the game. If someone wants to head to the miller's house, or enter the creepy mausoleum, or try to bluff the local lord, I'll help do that if that is what the group decides to do.

But in combat, my PCs do the best actions I can manage and try to quickly end any encounter. You might consider that to be stealing the limelight from other players, but I consider it to be efficient and helpful to the entire team.

Well, I happy that it works for you then. Big system-changing house rules give me a headache, and this one in particular seems more guilty of "power creep" playing than anything out of Martial Power or PHB2.

If it were part of the core rules, it probably wouldn't bother you though.

As for power creep with our house rules, we haven't seen it. The players are still challenged. They tend to not do the re-use or swap actions too often because out of their two action points, they have several different options and it's not that difficult to burn through the two action points trying something else.

 

[Jhaelen]

I've found that in my experience, and in observing the experiences of others that I play with, the least fun/most grind with 4e characters is had when you try to cover all the bases. You end up with a character that has a smattering of this and that, but you often feel that you do none of it well, or that you have a lot of situationally dependent stuff that you are always waiting for the right time to use.

I plead guilty! I have a tendency to try to pick stuff that can help me out in any conceivable circumstance.

Whenever I've felt grindy/option deprived, I've taken a closer look at the powers that I've used the least, retrained them at level-up, and been much happier for it.

That, however, is similar to my approach. When levelling up, I look over my powers and if I find one that I hardly ever used, it gets retrained. I rarely regret my choice.

Often what I've found is that I was trying to cover too many situationals, and not taking stuff that works well together. I had to let go of certain preconceptions, and say "I don't have to be the character that can do that, I can let other party members cover that shtick." I find that it's less grindy and more fun to have a party of characters who do their "things" well, than do everything mediocre.

Which is the long way around to bring me to the point: 4e is very party focused rather than single charcter focused. Get a good party balance, and things will hopefully be a lot less grindy for the individual members of the party. And intrinsic to this is being able to trust the other PCs to pick up the deficits in your character, and not feeling that you need to cover every base and be the man for the occasion in every occasion.

I think that's excellent advice!

 

[Dan'L]

Story?

I'm talking about extra power options in combat. Combat has very little in the way of story outside of "we trashed these dudes and we trashed those dudes and we accomplished our mission du jour".

Okay, yeah I can see that point.

...for the most part, combats are more memorable for how some player pulled off some amazing stunt (like swinging from a rope and rescuing a hostage, or killing the BBEG by Thunderwaving it over a cliff or whatever) or by how something incredibly vicious and bad (like maybe a curse or a super NPC crit or something) happened to a PC...

I have forgotten literally several thousand encounters in the last 30+ years of gaming. I might even forget an encounter from last week. But, I remember many of those where some PC (not necessarily mine) did something amazing and that is what I like to try to do every time at bat for my PC. It's more difficult to do that when the PC runs out of options quickly and is stuck with At Will powers.

Sure, but is the player out of options because he used up his options, or because he started with a list of options that don't interact well with each other? For example, it's nice to occasionally be able to do a decent ranged action, but if your character is mostly up in melee then you probably won't be using it much. Similarly, if you tend to do a lot of ranged attacks, trying to keep out of melee, then that close burst 1 attack probably won't come in handy very often.

Do I?

That wasn't in my hero manual.

To a certain extent, yes. IMO, one of the better parts of 4e is how it relies a lot on teamwork, particularly reflected against earlier editions. It really isn't about being the army of one; this isn't Superman, or even the Justice League really, it's the X-men.

Last I saw, every PC gets a shot during initiative. Every PC gets a shot out of combat. But, if I think my PC has an answer to a problem, I have no qualms about using it, especially in combat. I'm not going to say "Oh no old bean. You kill the dragon. You were here first. Good show, what?".

Of course not. And that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a player will probably find that they will have a better chance at contributing to killing the dragon if they focus their character on a small number of methods rather than trying to cover all of them.

And btw, out of combat I am the last person to force a solution. I often only try to come up with one if the other players are stumped or appear to be going down the wrong path. I'll participate, but I try to not force the direction of the game. If someone wants to head to the miller's house, or enter the creepy mausoleum, or try to bluff the local lord, I'll help do that if that is what the group decides to do.

But in combat, my PCs do the best actions I can manage and try to quickly end any encounter. You might consider that to be stealing the limelight from other players, but I consider it to be efficient and helpful to the entire team.

Okay, first let me apologize. I use "you" in the universal sense, I was not intending that you (in the specific sense) take it to mean your personal play style. I'm pretty clear that earlier you were talking about a player who left your campaign for want of more options, and that this wasn't you.

Second, I'm not addressing "stealing the limelight" so much. Tangentially I'm addressing "sharing the limelight," but in the broader sense I'm trying to address the desire for more meaningful options in combat. Hence my advice to focus a character rather than dilute.

If it were part of the core rules, it probably wouldn't bother you though.

Actually, it probably would still bother me. Action Points bother me; there really is no good non-meta reason for them that I can see. So having one every other encounter with very limited uses or two every encounter with a bevy of uses making specific ones less likely looks to me equally annoying. And I suspect that my irritation with Action Points would increase with their occurrence in the game.

But as I said, I'm glad it works for you!

-Dan'L

 

[KarinsDad]

Action Points bother me; there really is no good non-meta reason for them that I can see.

In earlier systems, they were bonuses to hit. I really disliked that incarnation of them. I didn't think players should have the option to say after the roll: "No, I actually hit". It felt too much like metagaming. I feel like this a little with regard to 4E re-roll rules.

In 4E, action points are (typically) get one extra action (and in the case of core, 1 encounter out of 2).

They are a bit of a panic button. "Oh shoot I missed, let me try again" or "Great I hit, let me beat on him while he is distracted".


In my game, I just extended that panic button concept a little to give players more options. I prefer the players to have minimialist "go to the well" capabilities to resolve tough encounters (either because the foe is tough or the dice are cold or both) instead of the Deus Ex Machina of the DM stepping in, or a TPK. But, just because a player re-gains an Encounter power does not mean that he will actually hit with it and it will actually affect the encounter. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

It also allows me to send tougher encounters at the group more often in order to challenge them a bit more.

These action point options are easy to burn through if the player does not do resource management. If not, c'est la vie. Most players use them sparingly and have one or sometimes even both remaining at the end of an encounter.

 

[Nifft]

Which is the long way around to bring me to the point: 4e is very party focused rather than single charcter focused. Get a good party balance, and things will hopefully be a lot less grindy for the individual members of the party. And intrinsic to this is being able to trust the other PCs to pick up the deficits in your character, and not feeling that you need to cover every base and be the man for the occasion in every occasion.

Yep. The basic unit of combat in 4e is the party.

IMHO this is a lot more interesting than having the basic unit of combat be the PC (+ his buffs).

Cheers, -- N

 

[Keenath]

Last I saw, every PC gets a shot during initiative. Every PC gets a shot out of combat. But, if I think my PC has an answer to a problem, I have no qualms about using it, especially in combat. I'm not going to say "Oh no old bean. You kill the dragon. You were here first. Good show, what?".

Totally missing the point, there. The point is not to give up your actions to let somebody else do something fun.

The point is to take your cleric, for example, and concentrate your power selections and feat choices and such on making yourself an awesome leader, instead of becoming a mediocre leader who can deal out a lot of damage once per fight, stick down an enemy once per fight, and build a wall once per fight. Because you may have only five powers plus two dailies, and by the time you pull out three of those to go into off-topic choices, you're left with a pretty slim selection of powers -- and that's when you start hearing, "Oh, I guess I'll lance of faith again."

The point is that people who say they don't have "enough options" are often spread too thin. Taking more options that support a particular aspect of your character means you get to do more things while playing towards that aspect.

This can easily happen without even jumping outside your class, actually. Looking over the Cleric, for example, if you start mixing wisdom and strength based powers, you can easily halve your action choices in any given situation. If half your powers are ranged and half are melee, and you know you want to be in melee, you suddenly are looking at two or three choices instead of half a dozen. Going to range does the same thing, and often the response from the player is, "I don't have enough options!" No, you have plenty of options, but they're a schizophrenic mishmash. (This gets particularly bad when you start taking feats to play two different positions -- some that help you when using a weapon, some that benefit your implement powers, whatever.)

When you're really focusing on your role, it's not boring to use Sacred Flame for the third time in a row, because you're tossing out temporary HP to the people who need it. And it's not boring to keep throwing down Righteous Brands because you're constantly deciding which ally needs the boost most.

It's not about who kills the dragon.