The Grind Problem (My 2 Cents)

[Felon]

Here's my observations:

(1) No encounter is guaranteed to be a member of "grindspace."
(2) Any encounter can be a member of "grindspace."
(3) The higher the difficulty level of the encounter, the more likely it is to be a member of "grindspace."
(4) The higher the average AC of the monsters in the encounter, the more likely it is to be a member of "grindspace."
(5) If the players aren't good at finding the "syngergies" of 4E or don't have characters that create said synergies, the chance of an encounter being a member of "grindspace" increases.

So is the problem that monsters have a hitpoint to AC ratio that's too high or is it something else? Personally, my bet is on "mostly something else but maybe a bit of the former." Contrary to what some people have said, the game is actually rather swingy, just not in a way that results in character death.

I would disupte #1 to some degree. There are elite and solo monsters that are almost guaranteed to grind. Fight a hydra, and watch the dynamic tension just drain away. The hydra can't do anything interesting to shake things up, and all the PC's can do is wail away.

However, the real determining factor here, which I'm surprised you didn't touch on, is whether the PC's land their encounter and daily attacks. These attacks represent large chunks of DPS that have no better chance of hitting than an at-will attack. When they miss, the wind really leaves the players' sails, and the players have to make up for the damage defecit by mashing their at-will hotkeys even more.

 

[Jack99]

Its more than just qualifiers but you can test them out if you want to. Take 2 fighters and 2 clerics into dungeon ( a very viable D&D party) in 4E and try it out. A combat will feel very much like trying to finish off a boss with only tank and heals. You may be successful but deep in grindspace.

Funnily enough, that's not the typical party recommended by the PHB/DMG. I must however admit that the chances that I see that party in my campaign is slim to none, so I doubt I will have the chance to test it.

And because you think they're not correct, they're not, no counter-argument required? There you go again, Jack.

I am stating an opinion. Why is it that you think I am talking about universal truths every time I do just that.

Besides, I do not see one person who has supported anything in this thread.

First of all, I am not denying that there is a grind problem. My groups do not have any issue (in fact, after the threads that have been posted here on the subject, I took it up with my group last night, and all I got was blank stares from them) with this alleged grind, but.. since some people do have a problem, it's definitely there.

I just do not think the problem is with the to-hit. You see, my experience with 4e has showed that players will hit a lot more than they will miss. In fact, with just a few conditional modifiers that are hard to avoid, no matter the party composition, many classes will hit on just about anything above a 5 (or so), as long as the monsters met are not several levels higher.

Lets take a look at my party at level 8, for example.
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue
Warlock

Fighter has +15 to hit (+6 stat, +4 level, +2 magic, +1 class, +2 prof)
Rogue has +15 to hit, (+6 stat, +4 level, +2 magic, +3 prof) +18 with CA
Casters all have +12 or +13 (+6 stat, +4 levels, +2 or +3 implement)

At level 8, you will meet a wide variety of monsters. Probably from level 6 to level 10. That's a decent range, and I am pretty certain most DM's would use monsters from that range against said party. Sure, there might be a BBEG or a few other that fall outside the range, but the biggest majority would fall within.

So what do we have in that range (non-elite, non-solo, 1 monster of each level picked at random)
Skirmishers: AC from 20 to 24, defenses from 15-23
Soldiers: AC 21-26, defenses from 16-24
Controller: AC 19-23, defenses from 14-23
Artillery: AC 20-24, defenses from 17-24
Lurker: AC 21-25, defenses from 16-24
Brute: AC 18-22, defenses from 14-24

When I look at those numbers, I notice one thing that my game shows. Players hit a lot. They really hit a lot. Sure, they might have a bad streak once in a while (The fighter did on Tuesday, when he rolled 6 rolls below 7 in a row.. but we had a good laugh) but overall, you will hit a lot more than you will miss. Some classes hit so often, it's almost silly (hello rogue, I am looking at you), so if you start handing out more + tohit, you risk ruining the game. After all, there is not much fun in rolling a d20, if you know you will hit every time, aye?

So, in case I was unclear in my explanation above.
My position on this is that there is ample possibilities within the game to grant players more than enough to hit to be able to hit the monsters. So, if some players in some group are experiencing a "grind", because they do not hit very often, maybe the problem is not with the system, but elsewhere. Or maybe the problem is with the system, but elsewhere in the system. Meaning that they do not need more tohit.

My suggestion would be do fiddle with the monsters' hitpoints. When asked, I usually advice people to shave off 25% of the hitpoints, while adding 25% to the monsters' average damage. Mostly because I think that if there is an issue with the system, it's with the hitpoints you have to find the fix, not with the tohit.

 

[LostSoul]

When they miss, the wind really leaves the players' sails, and the players have to make up for the damage defecit by mashing their at-will hotkeys even more.

Or they could get creative and try to use the environment to deal a "limited damage" expression.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Nice post, though obviously everyone's "grindspace" experience seems to vary.

One thought: if you have the "Hero's Stance" option, won't players just use that as their first action to get the +1 for all encounters, all the time?

I think there should be some general guideline of when a DM should consider giving the PC's a "grind-buster." Perhaps if, after X number of rounds, the bad guys still have over half their total HPs (are there fewer dead/bloodied than not?), announce that the "Hero's Stance" option is now available.

Or, as Felon mentioned, pay attention to Encounter and Daily attack powers that miss. A missed Encounter power might give everyone a +1 attack until the end of that PC's next turn. A missed Daily +1 'til the end of the encounter. Allow the two to stack with each other and other bonuses, but not themselves.

If you have this bonus kick in after only, say, four or five rounds, it might have the added benefit of making players have to think about whether they want to open with their best attacks, or wait 'til later when they might need the bonus. Of course, it may not kick in at all if the DM thinks the encounter isn't entering grindspace.

 

[Felon]

Or they could get creative and try to use the environment to deal a "limited damage" expression.

I confess that I'm not sure what you're talking about. I welcome elaboration.

 

[Lacyon]

I confess that I'm not sure what you're talking about. I welcome elaboration.

Page 42 of the DMG gives some really good guidelines for Actions the Rules Don't Cover, including damage values by level - two tables, actually. One is "normal damage expressions" which are reasonably competitive with at-will damage, and the other is "limited damage expressions" (for really impressive actions that can't be easily repeated) which are a bit higher.

 

[Doug Sundseth]

For now, I know from personal experience that the average d20 roll in a given encounter tends to bunch up on one side of the divide or the other far more than the game system seems to acknowledge.

The phenomenon you are referring to is called "random walk" in probability theory. For more information than you probably want, try (for instance) this page.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The closest to non-standard party we played so far was with two Defenders (both Fighters, but one multiclassed to Wizard). It didn't seem to matter then. We rocked.

I agree with the notion that there is still some type of system mastery involved. But the system mastery doesn't happen at character creation or party creation. It happens in combat. You have to understand how to aid your allies to get their best results. How the leader (if he exists) uses one of his at-wills and/or flanking to grant an ally a big bonus for his daily or encounter. How to get the most bang for your buck from a power.

The 4 combat roles are a helper in figuring out how the PCs need to interact. A group without all roles will "suffer" in certain situations, but they will rock in others. And with enough team work experience, they will figure out how to minimize their weaknesses.

 

[LostSoul]

I confess that I'm not sure what you're talking about. I welcome elaboration.

Sure!

When you're down to at-wills, you can afford to get fancy with your actions. If the encounter was well-designed and your DM read the DMG, there are a whole bunch of things you can do to dish out "a limited damage expression" (for example, 3d6+3, 2d10+3, 3d8+3 at 1st-3rd level).

For example, in a recent game the PCs were fighting a bugbear and some goblins in their barracks. One of the goblins tipped over a brazier full of hot coals on the Rogue. He made an attack that would have dealt 3d6+3 damage, but he missed.

Anyways, the bugbear ends up in the square with the hot coals. The Wizard used Mage Hand to wrap some sheets from an adjacent bed around the bugbear, having them catch on fire because of the coals.

I ruled that it dealt 3d6+Int mod damage.

 

[Remathilis]

However, the real determining factor here, which I'm surprised you didn't touch on, is whether the PC's land their encounter and daily attacks. These attacks represent large chunks of DPS that have no better chance of hitting than an at-will attack. When they miss, the wind really leaves the players' sails, and the players have to make up for the damage defecit by mashing their at-will hotkeys even more.

This.

The great problem I've seen with my players (all 2e/3e vets) is that they won't use encounter/daily powers until there is a significant advantage to do so (read bonus to hit). Since they are expended* fairly easily on poor roles, there is a major reason to verify your ability to hit first, with advantages like higher ground, prone foes, and power-based bonuses like Furious Smash.

Since such activities take longer to set up, I find my encounters tend to go AW, AW, AW, (set up), ENC, (bonus leaves) AW, AW, (set-up) ENC...

Some meaningful bonus to hit with encounter powers (ability +2?) and dailies (ability +4?) would give PCs more incentive to use them before setting up long "bonus stacking" parades that make the combat even more grindy...