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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4699049" data-attributes="member: 5143">I completely agree.  You have problems both ways.  One way, a particular mechanic may be slightly off and hard to wrap your brain around it because it is designed around balance first and making sense second.  It'll work fine inside the game but those who attempt to make sense of it might find it dissatisfying.  The other method causes accidental TPKs, player frustration at being unable to hurt an enemy, unsatisfying encounters which go way too long or end too early, and so on.No, the 4e principle is that the average fight should be X rounds.  Monsters should be designed to survive X rounds and should be interesting to fight for that length of time.  If players come work well together and come up with good ideas, they can cut the time down by 2 or 3 rounds.  But there will be a minimum length so it doesn't feel too short.The example in question shows what happens when you change one thing without considering all the factors.  The reason it was boring wasn't that it lasted 8 rounds.  It is because:-We expected it to die in 1 or 2 rounds after we crit it a couple of times and did pretty stupid damage for our level.  Our damage didn't matter, since he added more hitpoints than we did every round.  At least if you determine a creature has 250 hitpoints and everyone decides to use their dailies in the same round, it'll die in 3 rounds.  You have the power to make it shorter.-It was a fighter and we were all fighter types.  So, it was 8 rounds worth of "I attack, He attacks, I attack, He attacks".  With no at-will powers, it was just rolling attack rolls with no variation.No disagreement here.  Not following the rules of the game you are all playing causes problems.  That was the main lesson I learned.  Like, not removing at-will powers from all the classes or not allowing people to short rest when they obviously have.Ironically enough, I believe there IS a feat that does that.  I'll have to wait for the full text, but the feat in PHB 2 lets you use a stat other than strength for basic attacks.  Although, I believe it is melee attacks only.Still, you miss the point.  The goal is to have each class have their own cool thing to do that they don't suck at and fits their class.  They do things other than their shtick badly.  That's why the group needs to work together.  Fighters do melee attacks.  Of course, they aren't good at ranged weapons.  That's what the Ranger is for.  And he can do ranged attacks well every round, but he's unlikely to be able to also do melee attacks well.  The wizard shoots magic missiles well but doesn't use weapons well.The exact point is NOT allow Fighters to throw around STR based-magic missiles so they don't start doing the Wizard thing as well as the Wizard.That's not true at all.  The entire point of establishing a baseline is so that you can accurately predict the effect of going OFF of that baseline.If you set a DC 15 skill check at first level, the average person who is not trained in the skill and has a 0 modifier to the check has a 30% chance of succeeding.  With this as the baseline, you know that someone who is trained in the skill has a 55% chance of succeeding, those trained in it with a good stat have a 75% chance of succeeding and those who also take Skill Focus have a 90% chance of succeeding.In combat the same thing applies.  If the average AC of 1st level enemies is 16, then those with an 20 Strength, a +3 prof weapon and fighter bonus have a 75% chance to hit.  They are better.  Those who put a 14 into their Strength and use a +2 prof weapon have a 45% chance to hit.  They are worse.Contrast that to whether or not a Cleric with a 16 Strength who can cast Righteous Might and Divine Power is better than the 22 Strength Barbarian at melee combat.  The answer like depends on who you ask and the exact factors at play.  But normally ends up as "The Cleric is better".  Possibly a LOT better.It didn't matter what you chose, it was random.  Which monster were you fighting, how did your DM plan the session?  The number of random factors was so high, you didn't know if your choices made you good or bad.  Against a creature with an AC of 12, you can hit every time.  If a creature has a will save of -1, the cleric might be able to use his best spell without chance of failure.  So why bother predicting?  Just do whatever you do and see what happens.  The creature might have a will save of +30 for all you know.  There was no standard.  Your powers might be completely useless this combat.That's my point about randomness.  Your choices don't give you a distinct advantage or disadvantage.True.  It doesn't change much outside of combat at all, just inside.</blockquote>

Verification