Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 5182733" data-attributes="member: 5889">MyMyth made a good reply (which I'm not really quoting here, the quote is for the follow up point),  so I think its important to keep the debate to facts and personal experiences and try to be as objective as possible when discussing whether there is an issue present.I can say that from my own experience I have tried running the game both with and without visual indicators...and for me it simply was not possible without them. I was frequently forgetting conditions or which monsters had them applied. My group now uses tiny colored die to do our tracking.That said, the visual die can be a chore, and that bookkeeping aspect definitely leads to increase combat time.However, my personal take on grind is fairly separated from combat length. I personally don't believe grindy combats and long combats go hand in hand (with some exceptions, a 1 round combat no matter how pointless can't really be considered a grind imo it just goes by too quickly).To me, grind is combat without purpose pure and simple. With that definition I think there are aspects of 4e mechanics that can enhance this issue, though aren't necessarily the sole cause.1) Focus on Defense instead of Offense with levels. In 3e edition, offense scaled quicker than defense. At high levels you were frequently hitting and doing lots of damage. The goal was to kill your opponent before he killls you. This can lead to very swingy combats, but it tends to keep combats interesting.In 4e, defense often scales quicker than offense. Monsters can endure numerous attacks, but don't themselves often give out a ton of damage. As such there can come a point when a monster is no longer a threat, but is not in immediate danger of dying itself. That is when the grind flag might be raised.2) Removal of attrition removes the consequences of the last rounds of combat. In 3e, you had more resources that could run out (smites, rages, spells, healing etc). Now granted, with the wands of lesser vigor the healing part went away (though its still a money drain at the sweet spot levels), but the concept was a fight even if won could have a longer effect by draining a party's resources.4e's combat focus much more on each encounter, with the player getting a general reset of their abilities after each fight. There are still some resources that are expended (such as dailies) but for the most part you get everything back. The main aspect here may be the healing surge. At least in my games (which generally have at least one leader) party members just don't run out of surges. So taking damage is in one aspect completely pointless if its not enough to put you under.3) Less swingy combats reduce the dangers of final rounds. This one goes hand in hand with point 1. Because in 3e, offense was greater than defense, even the last monster could be a threat if he got off a lucky crit or that one spell you just roll a 1 on the saving throw. In 4e, a party can expect a reliable amount of pain delivered to them each round (especially since monster crits are often very weak compared to player ones).Because the pain is reliable it can be managed, which can greatly reduce the danger a party member faces and ultimately the feeling that the final rounds are simply pointless.Overall i feel that there are ways to build encounters to reduce or eliminate the grind aspect (I wrote the antigrind guide for that exact reason), but I the poll does show enough concern about grind that it may be more than simply an encounter management issue, and perhaps there are some mechanical aspects that could be examined.</blockquote>

Verification