Anyone else not feel "the grind"

[DracoSuave]

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?

There's a feat that obstensively does this in PHB2.

 

[Pale Jackal]

There's a feat that obstensively does this in PHB2.

Well, that costs a feat, it's for a single power, and it's during a rest. Even if the former two conditions were acceptable, the last one kills my intent. Though maybe that's a good point: maybe it'd be better if this applied to only encounter powers, or if you only got to select one or two additional powers, since I'm afraid of analysis paralysis and making things too complicated. Though the lattermost option seems a bit 'fiddley.' It's (a bit) easier to sum up the former.

I may give this a try, since I do think that at the lower levels (until about level 7), your combat options are a bit lacking. I haven't played (or DMed) much 4E though, so maybe I'm wrong, especially since I've been pleased so far with how quick the combats have felt. (Party of 4, sorcerer, rogue, shaman and shield fighter.) I don't want the players to be bored during combat, but I don't want to level them too quickly, either. The boredom factor might not be a problem though, and if AP rears its ugly head, this could make it worse.

 

[Ginnel]

13 games and no grind here, either. We're striker-heavy and leader-light.

Paladin, Fighter, Cleric, Warlord, Ranger.
Defender/Leader heavy here

It seems at the moment we get a fight done per session, the session usually lasts around 3 hours but generally has to get called at 2 and a half because the first bit of roleplaying and the fight then a bit of roleplaying and when we get on to another fight theres not enough time to start and finish.

Sometimes I feel the grind sometimes not, in general though I wish fights would go quicker and that there were less of them in the prepublished adventures.

EDIT: we've played from 1st -7th at the moment through the first two modules, I think the most fights we've ever done in a session was 2.5 maybe 3, we tended towards 2 earlier on but now we might average 1.5 fights a session.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Pale Jackal,

I haven't tried this, because we are rushing through the low levels, but I've given serious consideration to simply upping the number of powers available at low levels, and then trading some of those in for the higher ones, instead of simply adding. For example, something like this:

At 1st level, a character gets 2 encounters, 1 daily, and 1 (2nd level) utility. At 2nd level, the character gains another (1st level) daily and another utility. At 3rd level, trade a 1st encounter for a 3rd level one. At 5th level, trade a 1st level daily for a 5th level one. At 6th level, trade a 2nd level utility for a 6th level one. From there one, follow the standard rules.

That's a substantial power upgrade at 1st and 2nd, but then the characters get slightly less of an upgrade (relatively) for the next 4 levels, and everything washes out. Gives the low level guys a few more toys to play with. I was originally going to try something like this that gave more up until about paragon, but by the time I'd settled on this less powerful idea, we were pushing 6th level anyway. So I guess next campaign.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

We did something like this for our campaign.

A player has two class powers for every class power attained. One power is prepared. One power is unprepared. The player can then:

1) Swap an unused prepared power for an unprepared one.
2) Re-use a used prepared power.

We have a different action point system (each PC gets 2 action points per short rest and they have a max of 2) than core rules (we dropped the milestone concept because it is purely mechanical), but doing these power modifications cost action points and/or a healing surge. #1 costs a healing surge plus 0 action points for an at will, a healing surge plus 1 action point for an encounter, and a healing surge plus 2 actions points for a daily. #2 costs 1 action point for an encounter, and 2 actions points for a daily.

Players that do not want this level of complexity never swap in unprepared powers. Players that enjoy it, do. And, most players have a few powers that they will never swap in (especially at will powers), but all classes have many powers that are useful to swap.

Most players eventually re-use used powers.

#2 is nice for missing on a Daily. Instead of being bummed about missing, the player can try again on the next round. He might still miss, but it feels a lot better when Daily powers miss on round x and hit on round x+1 and are not totally lost for the day.


This adds to the versatility and the power of the PCs. However, action points are also used for other quasi-potent actions as well, so it's not all Pro PC. There is some balance there. As an example, the first round of sustain for a Sustainable attack power costs an action point. The Wizard using Flaming Sphere this encounter is one action point lower than other PCs.

 

[Mallus]

My group is currently 6th level and we've been grind-free. Full disclosure: we don't use published modules.

 

[keterys]

It is a little disturbing how much published stuff is... bland... constrained areas against normal stuff, with little in the way of terrain or traps or elements to really shake things up.

 

[Dan'L]

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.

So, essentially treating all Encounters and Dailies as Channel Divinities?

It seems like this could add some analysis paralysis to fights.

Yes, yes it does...

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

...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 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.

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've played a number of characters now up through mid-heroic tier (the timeframe where it seems people are claiming that they don't have enough options.) 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.

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.

-Dan'L

 

[Dan'L]

Though maybe that's a good point: maybe it'd be better if this applied to only encounter powers, or if you only got to select one or two additional powers, since I'm afraid of analysis paralysis and making things too complicated.

I may give this a try, since I do think that at the lower levels (until about level 7), your combat options are a bit lacking.... I don't want the players to be bored during combat, but I don't want to level them too quickly, either. The boredom factor might not be a problem though, and if AP rears its ugly head, this could make it worse.

If players really do feel bored during combat, and you want to try diversifying their choice like this, I'd suggest doing it for only one level at a time. That is, when you reach, say, level 3 you get to pick two encounters that you run like Channel Divinity, but when you level up to 4th, you have to pick one that you keep and one that you let go. This will let players who have a hard time picking what will work best for their build to field test their options a little, but will help keep the "analysis paralysis" from creeping into every power option in a combat.

I haven't played (or DMed) much 4E though, so maybe I'm wrong, especially since I've been pleased so far with how quick the combats have felt. (Party of 4, sorcerer, rogue, shaman and shield fighter.)

This sounds like a particularly solid party build. You've got a good basis for dishing out damage to end things quickly with two strikers and a strikery defender; good battlefield control with a defender, defendery leader, and ranged striker; and a nice little backstop of healing for when things don't go as quick as you'd hope. It seems to me that you probably won't have much to worry about from grind & boredom from the PCs as long as you keep encounter design varied.

-Dan'L

 

[Keenath]

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.

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.

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...