AbdulAlhazred
Legend
We just see things VERY differently. The way I see it you guys are having a problem not because the game is somehow broken, but because you are putting a lopsided emphasis on only one aspect of play. Of course if the only way to succeed is by slagging monsters in situations where the only options are which powers to blast things with then you have created this problem. It isn't a problem that is inherent to the rules system.
Try creating adventures where the ultimate encounter is a level + 4 skill challenge. It is just as much a high difficulty encounter as throwing the most brutal possible monsters at the party, but as the rules are written your super combat expert characters WILL FAIL. They should fail because they are one sided characters and the reason they're one sided is that that's all they were ever asked to do! Every problem's solution that they ever faced was whipping out their trusty brutal superaxe and hacking things up.
Combat encounters can also involve a lot more stunting opportunities and mixed skill challenge and combat elements instead of just a battlefield with monsters to kill. I'm not saying a good proportion of encounters shouldn't be mainly combat, but a good proportion should be the other type too.
When you simply give everyone all the various numbers that your totally combat-dominated games require, you're solving your adventure design issue, but what about the type of game I'm talking about? It would be unplayable by your approach since the characters will certainly have all the skills they need, given that they got every combat benny for free.
I think at least a part of the blame for this rests with the 4e designers, especially WRT the DMG. They did pay lip service to non-combat elements of the game, but they failed to emphasize that these needed to be just as critical as combat. The various module authors have followed suite and pretty much created canned adventures that always revolve around mostly only what you can do with your sword. I'm sure it requires a lot less thought and creativity to build adventures like that, and they simplify play, but that doesn't make them superior game design.
Good 4e REALLY requires a LOT from DMs in terms of adventure design. Just like it requires a lot from players if they want to succeed. I think the vast majority of DMs have just been encouraged to take the easier path, and then it shows up problems. They aren't necessarily problems with the design of 4e. They can also be the result of limited adventure design channeling the party too much in one direction IMHO. I just would be disappointed if the game system itself gets munged into a shape where that is the only way you can play it, and I'm actually glad to see that the 4e core design team seems to understand that.
Try creating adventures where the ultimate encounter is a level + 4 skill challenge. It is just as much a high difficulty encounter as throwing the most brutal possible monsters at the party, but as the rules are written your super combat expert characters WILL FAIL. They should fail because they are one sided characters and the reason they're one sided is that that's all they were ever asked to do! Every problem's solution that they ever faced was whipping out their trusty brutal superaxe and hacking things up.
Combat encounters can also involve a lot more stunting opportunities and mixed skill challenge and combat elements instead of just a battlefield with monsters to kill. I'm not saying a good proportion of encounters shouldn't be mainly combat, but a good proportion should be the other type too.
When you simply give everyone all the various numbers that your totally combat-dominated games require, you're solving your adventure design issue, but what about the type of game I'm talking about? It would be unplayable by your approach since the characters will certainly have all the skills they need, given that they got every combat benny for free.
I think at least a part of the blame for this rests with the 4e designers, especially WRT the DMG. They did pay lip service to non-combat elements of the game, but they failed to emphasize that these needed to be just as critical as combat. The various module authors have followed suite and pretty much created canned adventures that always revolve around mostly only what you can do with your sword. I'm sure it requires a lot less thought and creativity to build adventures like that, and they simplify play, but that doesn't make them superior game design.
Good 4e REALLY requires a LOT from DMs in terms of adventure design. Just like it requires a lot from players if they want to succeed. I think the vast majority of DMs have just been encouraged to take the easier path, and then it shows up problems. They aren't necessarily problems with the design of 4e. They can also be the result of limited adventure design channeling the party too much in one direction IMHO. I just would be disappointed if the game system itself gets munged into a shape where that is the only way you can play it, and I'm actually glad to see that the 4e core design team seems to understand that.