I think we're done with 4E

[thecasualoblivion]

If the monsters already have high hit points and defenses, won't that just aggravate the problem?

The problem he described was that the characters do the same thing every battle. I reply that its hard to do that when they are being stomped in the face and focusing more on not getting killed than killing the enemy. I would call the mop up phase of 4E combat a different problem with different solutions, such as handwaving it or having the enemies run away when it becomes clear they have lost.

 

[AllisterH]

If the monsters already have high hit points and defenses, won't that just aggravate the problem?

Not really, since you don't "increase the power of the monsters".

What I found effective in keeping combat fresh was varying the standard encounter. I regularly use monsters of levels lower than the party but simply increase the count for the budget and add in a LEADER to help them out...

What really works is finding mob monsters (like gnolls) that work better with a lot of them around....

 

[Mark]

I'll have no hesitation whatsoever using fewer monsters or monsters with 3/4 of the regular hit points. I don't do it all the time, but it keeps the game running at the pace I want.

That's a useful tip.

One option for the "Dragging fights" Mearls suggested was, after all is said and done and people look bored, treat the monsters as minions.

Do you recall where he wrote this or even have a link to it, please?

 

[Festivus]

And yet they seem to come up so regularly...



Every system has its adherents who blame the complainers who blame the system. It's foolish to wholly blame either the system or the complainers (and equally foolish to think that one system will suit all tastes).



4e removed the swingyness from combat. It should not come as a surprise that everyone is able to predict the outcome. 4e is designed to be predictable-- one of the reasons DMs love it.

The trend seems to be that DMs love 4e because it is so predictable, forgiving, and easy to run-- but players quickly tire of it. I think this might have to do with the removal of "mastery."

And that's not simply an issue of "no splatbooks yet." If you are the sort of player for whom predictable = boring, you have to hope that the splatbooks unbalance the carefully balanced system. (Then you'll have a new set of complainers.)

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I play this game for the story, not the combat. If the combat is boring and predictable, why not throw in curve balls like the environment changing (e.g. a pit opening in the middle of the room, cave in, fog moves in, etc) or a diplomatic solution presenting itself (e.g. a group of female orcs with their young plead with the PCs not to kill off the last of their hunters).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I play this game for the story, not the combat.

Not to be snarky, but if you're not playing D&D to kill monsters and take their stuff, you are probably in the minority.

D&D is now and ever has been a game about combat.

Campaigns that focus on story (as many do, successfully) transcend that core function.

 

[Lhorgrim]

For my group, the issue of repetative attack routines seems to be all in the name. The Ranger saying "I'll Twinstrike" every round does grate on my nerves more than previous editions, but in those other editions we actually had fewer attack options.

The difference for us was that the players rarely said "I full attack the orc", they just described what they were doing. "I'll strike at the orc with my sword to try to keep him away from the wizard" was a much more typical exchange.

I'm going to try to encourage my 4E players to use more description in their combat routines, and only note the power name as a minor part of the declaration. "I'll attempt to strike the orc leader with as many arrows as I can in order to distract him from the rogue: I'm using twin strike." might help break the monotany.

I'll let you know how it works out.

 

[Rechan]

Do you recall where he wrote this or even have a link to it, please?

It was in the most recent podcast.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I'm going to try to encourage my 4E players to use more description in their combat routines, and only note the power name as a minor part of the declaration. "I'll attempt to strike the orc leader with as many arrows as I can in order to distract him from the rogue: I'm using twin strike." might help break the monotany.

That's a similar idea I'd had as well. Whatever we end up playing I want to encourage the players to describe what they're doing in combat and try to forget about the powers, not just call out the power name.

 

[Mark]

It was in the most recent podcast.

Thanks. They don't do a transcript for those, do they?

 

[LostSoul]

I haven't seen as many cool, creative moves as I would like. I'd like to see quite a few, though!

In the last game the Wizard cast Mage Hand to wrap a bugbear (who was standing in burning coals) in a sheet and light the sheet on fire.

Int vs. Ref attack, pretty simple. Damage, at first I pegged it at 1d6+Int Mod. He might as well have just used an at-will.

Then I checked page 42 for the damage expressions - I used the limited damage one because this move couldn't happen too often - and it read 3d6+4. So we changed that to 3d6+Int mod, ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).

That made it a much better deal. I think we might see more creativity because of this.