Anyone else not feel "the grind"

[Blizzardb]

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...

Of course you are right, but this is an extreme example - I believe these figures are unrealistic, especially the ranger's chance to hit is too low. On average, if both characters have optimized their attacks and are fighting against a foe on their level with Ref lower by 2 than his AC, the numbers with combat advantage (don't forget that the ranger can get CA from his allies flanking thanks to the new PHB2 feat) would be more like these: ranger - 70% (that translates to 91 percent for two attacks)/ rogue - 85% with the rogue falling significantly behind against high level foes, elites and soloes, or foes with high reflex defense.

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread...

 

[Old Gumphrey]

I figured I'd get a response like that, and almost preempted it, but thought that would be rude.

If he's only happy when he has 10x more options in combat than anyone else, it's time to look at the player, and not the system. What did you call that back when we were arguing about Shield, KD? Entitlement?

If you have to have more (and more powerful) options than the other players, so much so that you quit the game over it when you don't get it, I'm pretty sure that's player-based, and not system-based.

 

[TheNovaLord]

I find combats go one of two ways....

either the party utterly overwhelm the encounter pretty quick and all its done save a bit of mopping up after 1 or 2 rounds OR

a lot of encounter powers have missed, or done poor damage, and after 3-4 rounds all EP have gone, item powers used, a number of DP have been used as well and you hit grindy at wills, with bits of shifting to get flank but not a lot else going on. By this time the baddies EP have gone as well, this can go on for another 3-4 rounds.
Been discussed before i guess but monster seem to difficult to hit, but they dont do enough damage when they hit to make you feel very threatened

Most of my 4e stuff has been playing Living FR, so in the one session you get a formula: 3 fights, 1-2 skill challenges and 1-2 no xp earning RP bits.

party is warlock, ranger, wizard, paladin, fighter

we play for 4 hours if needed and often have to rush a bit in the end.

 

[Nail]

If you have to have more (and more powerful) options than the other players, so much so that you quit the game over it when you don't get it, I'm pretty sure that's player-based, and not system-based.

<chuckle>


...if anything, 4e forces players who don't want many options to take 'em, rather than the reverse. I've got a friend who's playing a Fighter in 4e...'cause he wanted a "simple" PC. Ha! Playing the 4e fighter's taught him different.

 

[KarinsDad]

If he's only happy when he has 10x more options in combat than anyone else, it's time to look at the player, and not the system. What did you call that back when we were arguing about Shield, KD? Entitlement?

If you have to have more (and more powerful) options than the other players, so much so that you quit the game over it when you don't get it, I'm pretty sure that's player-based, and not system-based.

Who said anything about him wanting more powerful options?

And, it's not about entitlement. He did not feel entitled. He just disliked the repetitiveness of the game system and quit. That's the opposite of entitlement. He didn't try to get us to change for him like an entitled person would. He's still friends with us. He still games with us in another game.

But, unlike some holier than thou people here, I don't crap on the guy because he does not like what I like. I was just using it as an example of someone who felt the grind. His tolerance for it differs from other people's.

 

[KarinsDad]

...if anything, 4e forces players who don't want many options to take 'em, rather than the reverse. I've got a friend who's playing a Fighter in 4e...'cause he wanted a "simple" PC. Ha! Playing the 4e fighter's taught him different.

I've seen this too.

Think of it as a bell curve. 3E allowed a wider range of number of options preferences. 4E narrowed the curve and gives most players pretty much a similar number of options. Some people handle this easily. Some do not.

 

[Keenath]

...if anything, 4e forces players who don't want many options to take 'em, rather than the reverse. I've got a friend who's playing a Fighter in 4e...'cause he wanted a "simple" PC. Ha! Playing the 4e fighter's taught him different.

Hehe. Funny.

Actually, it seems to me that if you want a "simple" PC, in 4e you want to go for the Striker classes. They've got a very straightforward mission in life: pick a monster you want dead, and make it that way.

Among the available strikers, the Barbarian is probably the simplest (since your spike damage is part of the powers rather than something you have to think about), with the archery ranger coming in second. A dragon sorcerer can be simple, depending on your power selections. Rogues tend to have to think about how to get combat advantage too often to really be simple (they're fairly tactical), while melee Rangers juggle the two weapon stuff.

But like you said, really, most of the classes are just about equal across the "complexity" scale. There are choices you can make to adjust it up or down a bit, such as choosing powers with straightforward effects (like Reaping Strike) versus those with more thought required (like Tide of Iron), and similarly distinguished feat selections (like, say, Toughness versus Power Attack).

 

[Nytmare]

But, unlike some holier than thou people here, I don't crap on the guy because he does not like what I like.

Comedy gold.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

We've had one grind so far. I don't think I can really blame that on the system, though. We had lots of player distractions. The fight was in an interesting location--but unfortunately, the spider opponents made better use of it than the players. And then I totally goofed up and forestalled clever use of some rafts when the players got smart. (I blame the aforementioned distraction, since I was kicking myself almost as soon as the fight was over.) There was also some whiffing involved. But mostly it was the distractions.

That fight was also unusual, I gather, in that the grind was all upfront. We had several rounds where nothing really happened, and it did it slowly--and then once things cranked up, we had a good, fast finish.

In contrast, the fight against a dragon plus 2 lurkers and 2 traps and some minions versus 8 PCs was long (2.25 hours), but never boring. We had many times where the players felt like they really needed to do 2 or 3 things, "Right Now!" but had to pick. Those are real choices. The players cheered when that dragon went down--and not ironically.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Has anyone allowed players to pick TWO abilities per 'pick' so that they would have two Level 3 encounter powers? They can still only use one Level 3 encounter power per encounter, however. I say two because some classes like the Cleric or Ranger would not benefit if you could pick from all four.

It seems like this could add some analysis paralysis to fights, and in some cases, depending on your options, it might not change anything. You'd still always use the same Level 3 power.

Still, if a player genuinely feels like he doesn't have enough options, could it be a worthwhile fix?