D&D 4E The 4E combat poll: grind and more!

I would prefer if a typical (RAW) 4e combat encounters…(pick all that aply)

  • Was less dependent on minis

    Votes: 26 17.2%
  • Took less real time to play out

    Votes: 85 56.3%
  • Took fewer rounds

    Votes: 16 10.6%
  • Was more dangerous for the PCs

    Votes: 56 37.1%
  • Involved tracking fewer conditions, marks, etc

    Votes: 70 46.4%
  • Has longer lasting effects (slower recovery)

    Votes: 28 18.5%
  • Was generally simpler

    Votes: 26 17.2%
  • Was generally more realistic/simulationist

    Votes: 17 11.3%
  • Does not change at all, its perfect!

    Votes: 31 20.5%
  • Came with rot grubs

    Votes: 18 11.9%
  • I deny the premise of this poll and the sick internet based society that produced it

    Votes: 28 18.5%

  • Poll closed .
Oh, also, I don't want to buy minis.
Using minis on a table doesn't necessitate buying Official minis.

When I run a game, I use pennies, aquarium stones, little plastic bunnies, chess pieces, anything I can get my hands on. Or make my own counters via printing off FranktehDM's counters and pasting them to cardboard.

I have never bought a mini and it doesn't effect my gaming any.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've had grind as a player. Generally for a few reasons:

Mis-aimed monsters. Level 10 standard soldier (as part of a big fight) vs level 3 PCs. Pure grind.

Easy fights. Yes, a L4 elite soldier vs a 2nd-3rd level party doesn't take too long and therefore avoids some meanings of grind. It's also pointless. Surround it and beat it down. Next!

Too much terrain. To the point where there's almost no shifting allowed and combat becomes static.

Line-fighting. The PCs walk up four abreast along the main road with artillery in the rear. The monsters walk up five abreast with artillery in the rear. And they meet in the middle and form shieldwalls.

Distracted players. Enough said.
That's a DM who doesn't know how to make encounters.
 

Was less dependent on minis - no way, love minis and terrain.

Took less real time to play out - definitely. I keep wanting to tell players, go faster!

Took fewer rounds - nah, I like 4-8 rounds, and have nearly full control over how long I want an encounter to be as DM. As player, if an encounter doesn't look like we're winning on round 6-7, I start looking for get away options.

Was more dangerous for the PCs - I make my own encounters. They are as dangerous as I want them to be. As player, I've witnessed the same treatment from other DM's.

Involved tracking fewer conditions, marks, etc - definitely. I really don't care to remember if my monster has -2 to his will defense (save ends). Just remember to give yourself a +2 to hit. In general I wish everything was bonuses, and penalties were fewer. Penalties are always a pain to remember.

Has longer lasting effects (slower recovery) - meh, I'm fine the way things are. Back when I played Rolemaster, I used to run around with -70 penalties for broken arm, fractured hip, etc. This is not what I'm looking for in D&D.

Was generally simpler - it's easy enough to learn the basics, but timing issues are getting complicated. I do wish certain aspects were simplified. Also wish there weren't 2378 feats.

Was generally more realistic/simulationist - no way. Simplicity/fun over realistic/simulationist approach all the way.

Does not change at all, its perfect! - it's perfectly serviceable as long as you don't mind introducing a few house rules, and are liberal at adjusting encounters to taste.

Came with rot grubs - mmm, rot grubs.

I deny the premise of this poll and the sick internet based society that produced it - 'tis getting a little annoying, but I can always find nuggets I can use in these discussions.
 
Last edited:

I voted for them to be more dangerous - yes, I know as a DM, I can make them as dangerous as I want, but I really wish encounters were a bit more "swingy" - I think WotC went a little too far in that respect. Part of my feeling may be having 2 leaders in a party of 4 - hard to threaten the PCs when they have so many healing triggers.

Other than that and keeping track of the miriad of conditions/bonuses/penalties metted out, I'm really happy with 4e, both as a player and as a DM.
 
Last edited:


I would just like more (positive) incentive for players to try to go more encounters / milestones before an extended rest. Most of the suggestions I've seen are in regards to forcing more encounters or penalizing the PCs for stopping early; if the players are going to get their characters in trouble I'd prefer it was for trying to do / get something cool, not avoid something uncool.
 

Overall, I like 4E combats, the only problem is that by the rules set up, you need to do 3-4 well-balanced ones to start wearing down surges and dialies sothe players have to start making hard choices.

The problem is that I play a lot via Yahoogroups, so it takes a long time to get through 3-4 combats there. I have tried to think of ways around it, but so far I am still experimenting.
 

The problem is that I play a lot via Yahoogroups, so it takes a long time to get through 3-4 combats there. I have tried to think of ways around it, but so far I am still experimenting.

Here's a suggestion for that.

Before our PCs got to Paragon levels, I implemented a "Paragon creatures do 1die more damage, Epic do 2 dice more damage house rule" because I did not think the encounters were dangerous enough (which just happens to be #3 currently on this poll). It made it more dangerous, but it also wasn't as much fun for the players because they were often getting the snot kicked out of them.

So, I dropped that house rule.

This last weekend at level 16, I re-implemented that house rule along with a house rule that monsters have 75% of their normal hit points.

We had a N+1+ encounter (Assault on Nightwyrm Forest T2, 10,500 XP for 6 16th level PCs) that took 3 rounds. We had a N+4 encounter (T4, 16,000 XP for 6 16th level PCs plus my minions roll dice for damage, so the epic level minions in that encounter were averaging 24 points of damage) that took 5 rounds (note: we started a new initiative system that keeps track of rounds automatically, so we now know exactly how long an encounter takes round-wise).

The players loved it. Even with the second encounter with 17 creatures on the board, the encounter was fast paced, threatening, and quick.

We would have never dreamed of having a 5 round N+4 encounter with 17 creatures ever before that took less than an hour and a half to play. Such an encounter would previously have taken at least 2.5 hours because of ~3 additional rounds of pulling out At Will powers and slogging out the finish. In 5 rounds with a tough encounter, most of the PCs never even used At Will powers.


Your group should consider similar house rules. Making the enemies offensively stronger and hit point weaker makes a big difference on the encounters. It addresses both "Took less real time to play out" which is currently the #1 item on this poll and "Was more dangerous for the PCs" which is currently the #3 item on this poll.


Btw, the N+4 encounter here knocked two out of six PCs unconscious. Previous to this, we had only had one unconscious PC in the last 3 levels of playing (and that one was due to a mega-explosion that did 60 points of damage that I added to one of the Revenge of the Giants major encounters, otherwise, the swordmage wouldn't have gone unconscious in that encounter either). N+4 encounters should be threatening enough to knock one or two PCs unconscious. Without these types of house rules, that almost never happens in Paragon.

But, the players didn't care too much that two PCs went down. They were having fun laying the smackdown on monsters where it didn't take 3 or 4 rounds to take down the first monster. And it wasn't the minions that they were taking out first, the minions were epic level foes that were hard to hit and the players weren't rolling well against them, the non-minions were the ones they smacked down first for the most part.
 

I only had one grindfest fight, and that one was a mix of bad planning and bad luck.

I used a Purple Worm, Solo Soldier, and leveled it down to fit a 9th-level party. It still had way too many hit points (1000?) and too high defenses (requiring a 13-14 to hit). It also had no interesting tactical options except for swallowing someone.

The party threw all of their dailies and encounters at it, but they all missed. It was ridiculous, I've never seen so many 3s and 4s coming up in succession on a d20.

That fight took something like 5 hours game time and two sessions. Awful.

So yeah, grind can happen, if bad factors come together. However, if every fight is a grind, it's a good sign that the group is doing it wrong.

----

As for the vote, no option really applies to me: I like the system, I don't see any major flaws, but there are a few minor tweaks where I would say the system is not perfect.

I do kind-of agree with the condition issues. One major annoyance for me are marks of different type.

As a defender, it's not enough to keep tracked whether you marked an enemy, but also whether it's a generic mark, or your standard class mark, or a mark from some power (think divine sanction or sword of sigils). This could be more streamlined. Paladin and swordmage marks should just be generic marks, and their punishment a separate power.

I'm also not a big fan of the Ranger quarry mechanic. It kind-of-works, but our group has introduced an unofficial "retroactive quarry" policy. Ranger players always forget to quarry before their first attack, so we allow them to quarry on the first hit. If there is ever a fifth edition, I hope Rangers just get flat bonus damage like Sorcerers.
 
Last edited:

I vote for "Was generally simpler".

More precisely speaking, I wish if triggered actions (and non-triggered actions) and timing issues are simpler and more clear.

Personally, I have never been truly annoyed by "grinding" issues at all.
 

Remove ads

Top