Curious but lazy

In 4E, it is unlikely that any one character can be built to be able to handle multiple situations. A warlock in 4E can deal damage well, but is unlikely to be effective at preventing enemies from focussing its attacks on an ally.
It's not as easy as it was in 3.x, but it's possible. For example, the Hexhammer is a front-line Warlock who has high melee damage output without giving up much of his ranged strength, if any.

Another example would be a melee Ranger (Cleric) -> Warpriest. He'd keep his Striker damage, but add a nasty Mark, and could dabble in Leader powers.

Cheers, -- N
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, I've only played one session at 1st level, but my Panther Shaman (Leader/Striker) did more damage than anyone, provided all of the party's healing and showed that no enemy was out of his reach.

The day after the session, my GM ran my character through the DDI just to be sure all the "crazy stuff" I was doing was perfectly legal, which is was.



In our other game, my 14th level Bard's best shot would be 3d10+8, +3d6 on a crit, +2d8 if I pull in a daily weapon special, or 38+3d6+2d8 on a crit with everything on top, maximum of 72 if I rolled perfect.

Our Ranger (striker) does a lot better, more consistenly. I've seen him do over 100 damage in a round.
 


Well, I just got back from playing a 5th level Shaman (Panther Build). And, I can deal out a fair amount of damage. In the last round of combat, I think I dealt out about 30 points of damage in two attacks... and my average damage on an At-will is around 11-12 points.

Note that I didn't build my character as a damage-dealer, either. He's more of a "Let's try out some fun attacks" sort of guy. Though, that being said, I did use my daily today that deals 3d6+6 (plus knock prone) in burst 2 + burst 1 around my animal companion. That was pretty cool.

Mind you, our barbarian or our Sorcerer does MUCH more damage. I think I'm actually one of the lower damage dealers in our group (but I Know my role is super useful, and I know I kept the party going in this fight).
 

Some very nice numbers here for damage output, which makes me wonder - how is it that this idea of "grind" came about? Is it due to the very large HP totals of opponents, such that despite doing 30+ points per hit it will take 20 or 30 hits to bring the BBEG down? Or is there some other factor? Or perhaps the idea of grind is a fallacy?


It's not as easy as it was in 3.x, but it's possible. For example, the Hexhammer is a front-line Warlock who has high melee damage output without giving up much of his ranged strength, if any.

Another example would be a melee Ranger (Cleric) -> Warpriest. He'd keep his Striker damage, but add a nasty Mark, and could dabble in Leader powers.

Cheers, -- N


A factor I didn't really consider in my initial query was the versatility of character design. I realize that the above replies relate to my initial query on damage output; what about non-combat abilities? How hard/easy is it to accomplish teleportation, or create an illusion, or charm a target to become your friend? Is that all the type of stuff done with rituals? What about magic items, do they provide a decent level of variety of effects?

Additionally, how prevalent are non-damaging effects in combat, things such as charm or compulsions that can change the behavior of a combatant?
 

Some very nice numbers here for damage output, which makes me wonder - how is it that this idea of "grind" came about? Is it due to the very large HP totals of opponents, such that despite doing 30+ points per hit it will take 20 or 30 hits to bring the BBEG down? Or is there some other factor? Or perhaps the idea of grind is a fallacy?
I can't really answer that. Our group almost never experiences grind combats. It does happen on occasion, but not that often. When it does its usually with a solo that just isn't that interesting. But I've gotten better at spotting those coming, and WotC has gotten better at not writin them. Additionally, our group has gotten better about actually using our powers, rather than hording all of our dailies for a super battle that never comes. The informal rule around the table is that everyone should use about one daily ability per battle, particularly if you're from a class that has a couple stances or a couple sustainable powers that don't work well together in the same fight.

A factor I didn't really consider in my initial query was the versatility of character design. I realize that the above replies relate to my initial query on damage output; what about non-combat abilities? How hard/easy is it to accomplish teleportation, or create an illusion, or charm a target to become your friend? Is that all the type of stuff done with rituals? What about magic items, do they provide a decent level of variety of effects?
It depends on the non combat ability. Some are present, some are rituals, and some have been intentionally removed for balance reasons. Just looking at the ones you mentioned,

Teleportation is pretty freely available for short distances and in combat teleportation. As for long distance teleportation, rituals. My feel is that this hasn't changed that much between editions, but then I didn't abuse teleportation in 3e. So at least for the casual user, its about the same.

Illusions are pretty freely available in combat forms for the right classes. Stuff like making the illusion of a vast pit appear beneath an enemy is now considered to be an explicit combat action rather than a combat application for a non combat ability, so you'll find it in the combat powers for the appropriate classes. Beyond that, rituals. It depends pretty heavily on what sort of illusion you want, but rituals is where you should look.

Mind control has been toned down a lot outside of combat.



Additionally, how prevalent are non-damaging effects in combat, things such as charm or compulsions that can change the behavior of a combatant?
Pretty common, although a lot of them also do psychic damage. Like take your typical attack that forces an enemy to attack one of his friends- its going to probably do some psychic damage to him first, and then force him to attack.
 

Some very nice numbers here for damage output, which makes me wonder - how is it that this idea of "grind" came about? Is it due to the very large HP totals of opponents, such that despite doing 30+ points per hit it will take 20 or 30 hits to bring the BBEG down? Or is there some other factor? Or perhaps the idea of grind is a fallacy

Grind is two different things actually. Some people use it to describe fights where you know (relatively) early on who is going to win (usually the players) and another group uses it to describe long (duration) combats.

From your description, I take it you mean the second type of grind. I dunno how it came about - but my guess has always been DM's with a less than stellar grasp on encounter building was the main culprit. Either that or slow players.

Of course, it all depends what kind of frame of reference you use. If you are used to 1st ed's lightning combats, chance are that you will find it quite a grind to play 4e. But if you are used to the slowness of 3e combats, chances are you will find 4e faster and thus not a grind. Just IME and IMO and all that jazz of course.
 

Some very nice numbers here for damage output, which makes me wonder - how is it that this idea of "grind" came about? Is it due to the very large HP totals of opponents, such that despite doing 30+ points per hit it will take 20 or 30 hits to bring the BBEG down? Or is there some other factor? Or perhaps the idea of grind is a fallacy?

I agree with Cadfan on experience making grind easier to spot ahead of time and avoid. Its also my experience that a party who builds a few characters with sky high damage numbers avoids a lot of grind simply by killing things fast.
 

I think a lot of the talk about grind in 4E comes from party composition. I play in a Paragon game that is quite balanced (including two leaders) and combats tend to take a while, but we always get through them in the end. We have essentially traded a steady but sure victory for time (it takes us more rounds to get through the combat).

On the other hand, I'm running Burning Sky with an all striker party. Combats are much different, with more of a "with your shield or on it," feel. The strikers generate much more damage, but are also a lot more fragile.

So with my experience, grind is something you can plan for and work out based on your party composition. If your combats start to take too long, add a Sorcerer or Barbarian into the mix...that'll clear up the problem immediately.

--Steve
 

Some very nice numbers here for damage output, which makes me wonder - how is it that this idea of "grind" came about? Is it due to the very large HP totals of opponents, such that despite doing 30+ points per hit it will take 20 or 30 hits to bring the BBEG down? Or is there some other factor? Or perhaps the idea of grind is a fallacy?
"Grind" doesn't happen in everyone's game, but enough people have experienced it that I wouldn't call it fallacious.

My group hasn't experienced much of it.

A factor I didn't really consider in my initial query was the versatility of character design. I realize that the above replies relate to my initial query on damage output; what about non-combat abilities? How hard/easy is it to accomplish teleportation, or create an illusion, or charm a target to become your friend? Is that all the type of stuff done with rituals? What about magic items, do they provide a decent level of variety of effects?
Teleportation in combat comes from class-specific powers.
Teleportation outside of combat comes from Rituals (which anyone can do).

Charming a target to control its behavior in combat comes from class-specific powers.
Charming a target to control its behavior for days on end doesn't happen.

Cheers, -- N
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top