Overly durable monsters are the #1 cause of grind, by far. The worst culprits IME are higher level than the party Soldiers and prerata Elites. The most grindy fight I had was the ca 2nd level PCs vs a single 5th level Soldier Elite (delevelled Ettin), a very badly designed monster IMO. Another culprit was 1st level PCs vs a 5th level Brute Elite (Gelatinous Cube), due to its controller powers. The fight last session with 3rd-4th level PCs vs a Grell (7th level Elite) had some potential to be grindy, but its being backed up by gnoll huntmasters, and its very vicious attack routine, kept it interesting I think.
What constitutes Grind? What causes it?
- Thread starter Lord Zardoz
- Start date
Yes - if it's clear to GM and players that the PCs are winning, it should be clear to the monsters too! In the majority of cases that means the monsters will seek to retreat/flee, possibly to join with other monsters deeper in the dungeon - the PCs can try to stop them escaping, let them go and short rest, or chase after them, which can be disastrous if the PCs then blunder into a second encounter.
How I got around the too many hit points problem, is to use a completely different system. The system I've been using, is to set the hit points of a particular monster to:
(number of hits to kill monster) * (average player weapon damage per attack)
For example, if the players are doing something like a d8 + 4 damage (using their at-will powers) on the monsters every time they hit, the average damage will be 4.5 + 4 = 8.5. For a monster that dies after 4 hits, the monster should have around 4(8.5) = 34 hit points.
For a tougher elite monster, one may want it to die after 8 hits. With the same d8+4 at-will attack damage, the elite monster should have around 8(8.5) = 68 hit points.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
have you ever thought about taking that a stage further and not using hit points at all, but treating all monsters a bit like 'super minions', where they just have to be hit 4 times to die, 8 times for elites. Bloodied when they've taken half their total hits. Crits against them count as 'two hits'? I guess encounter and daily powers would be a bit of a mess though!
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Aside from the possibility of "the fight is already decided, we are just negotiating the number of healing surges", grind also happens when not much happens each round, or only the same things happen. This is often the case in the former case, but it doesn't have to.
I think a "grindy" fight for example can be against a Black Dragon - he always retreats himself back into that sphere of darkness, and nobody has a real chance to hit. That's pretty boring most of the time. Only if he manages to bring your hit points low it might get exciting again, but even that can become grindy, if you just don't seem to put a dent into your enemies.
I think fights against many monsters often do not become that "grindy" because you have many "mini-events" like "enemy bloodied" and "enemy killed" and also events like "oh my god, they are all hitting the wizard this round, do something!".
If there is no terrain to exploit, maneuvering makes no difference, then longer combats get "grindy". It's important for a combat to allow for making meaningful decisions. If you are down to your at-will powers and everyone has every enemy flanked, there isn't much decision-making necessary, or it at least doesn't have a meaningful impact.
I think a "grindy" fight for example can be against a Black Dragon - he always retreats himself back into that sphere of darkness, and nobody has a real chance to hit. That's pretty boring most of the time. Only if he manages to bring your hit points low it might get exciting again, but even that can become grindy, if you just don't seem to put a dent into your enemies.
I think fights against many monsters often do not become that "grindy" because you have many "mini-events" like "enemy bloodied" and "enemy killed" and also events like "oh my god, they are all hitting the wizard this round, do something!".
If there is no terrain to exploit, maneuvering makes no difference, then longer combats get "grindy". It's important for a combat to allow for making meaningful decisions. If you are down to your at-will powers and everyone has every enemy flanked, there isn't much decision-making necessary, or it at least doesn't have a meaningful impact.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Beating on walls of hit points at a predictable pace produces grind.
Knowing that there are no major tide turning resources on either side adds to the feeling of predictability.
Generally I have found that less swing = more potential for grind. The added elements of set piece terrain, hazards, and additional objectives in combat can help somewhat but I honestly believe that if these things are needed in liberal doses to fix grind and make combat interesting then there is an underlying problem.
The pressure to keep up these gimmicks in a large number of encounters or else the battles become grinds isn't a satisfying solution. The mechanics for resolving combat should not attempt to dictate playstyle.
A combat should be interesting and keep players engaged equally whether it is fought in a plain 40 x 40 guardroom or inside a pinball machine.
Another factor that can contribute to the feeling of grind is turn based initiative. The measured rhythm of cycling turns is capable of inducing a hypnotic lethargy all on its own at times. This is simply another predictable pattern. All the excitement of first strike and gaining tactical positioning is decided in the opening round. After that, moves become chesslike and everyone waits in thier own little world until they get to do something. Certainly there are tactical moves to be made throughout the combat but most are cold calculations based on the initiative order that will settle into a predictable routine much like a mathematical order of operations. I think this is also why the pinball machine effect is so heavily relied upon. It adds an element of change to a combat system that is fairly static.
Knowing that there are no major tide turning resources on either side adds to the feeling of predictability.
Generally I have found that less swing = more potential for grind. The added elements of set piece terrain, hazards, and additional objectives in combat can help somewhat but I honestly believe that if these things are needed in liberal doses to fix grind and make combat interesting then there is an underlying problem.
The pressure to keep up these gimmicks in a large number of encounters or else the battles become grinds isn't a satisfying solution. The mechanics for resolving combat should not attempt to dictate playstyle.
A combat should be interesting and keep players engaged equally whether it is fought in a plain 40 x 40 guardroom or inside a pinball machine.
Another factor that can contribute to the feeling of grind is turn based initiative. The measured rhythm of cycling turns is capable of inducing a hypnotic lethargy all on its own at times. This is simply another predictable pattern. All the excitement of first strike and gaining tactical positioning is decided in the opening round. After that, moves become chesslike and everyone waits in thier own little world until they get to do something. Certainly there are tactical moves to be made throughout the combat but most are cold calculations based on the initiative order that will settle into a predictable routine much like a mathematical order of operations. I think this is also why the pinball machine effect is so heavily relied upon. It adds an element of change to a combat system that is fairly static.
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
All reasonable suggestions. But as I said previously, this thread is not intended to be yet another 'Too much grind, how do I fix it' thread. I am convinced that there are enough variable elements from one game to the next that it may be more productive to find out why people end up encountering grind. To that end, having people describe what constitutes a grind and why it happens is more interesting.
That to me is interesting. Just consider the level differentials here a momnet:
Lvl 2 PCs vs Lvl 5 Elite.
Lvl 1 PC's vs Lvl 5 Brute.
Lvl 3/4 PC's vs Lvl 7 Elite
It has been decisively proven that in 4th Edition, PC's can punch well above their weight due to improved durability. But in 3rd Edition, no sane Dm would habitually put level 1 and 2 players up against 5 HD monsters, becuase such fights would be mechanically broken. An Elite at any level is by definition supposed to be a creature that is just much more durable, and able to last a few more rounds against level appropriate players while not having the overwhelming offense that a similar amount of HP would indicate in previous editions. It does not have the means to challenge every party member like a Solo can.
In 3rd Edition, lvl 2 vs CR 5 is a risk of a TPK. In 4th you get the risk of a grind. But complaining that either is broken seems like complaining that your car gets stuck when you take your Smart Car offroading in the mud. Why do we expect these fights to work in this ruleset?
Ok, so from this, I would slightly alter your first sentence. "The fightis already decided in the players favor, we are just negotiating the number of healing surges". That does seem to be the most common type of grind.
The Black Dragon example is what I would call Lurker Grind. The fight is not really certain at that point, since the dragon has a good shot at winning. A solo Lurker that is a few levels higher then the PC's is probably going to be one of the longest possible fights you can have. Monster does not have enough damage output to put anyone at risk, so every player has at least 1.25 normal HP (from 2nd wind), and more if Leaders and temp HP are a factor.
Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Those two elements are a factor. Many enemies creates the possibility of the Dm having a 'hot' round with the dice and inflicting more damage then any X+3 Elite could do. Flanking will help against high player AC.
The presence of interesting terrain will help compensate for a too long combat against many opponents. I do not think it will matter much against low numbers of Elites who fight best toe to toe.
Very good points here regarding the definition of grind. I will question whether beating on a wall of HP is boring in and of its self, assuming the players are able to hit reasonably often. I will accept that beating on a wall of HP with only At Will attacks will get boring. I also expect that having that wall of HP with an AC that causes most of the encounter and daily powers to miss is a big factor. But it is also possible that if you use a few too many level appropriate elites and the players run out of such attacks, that the fight starts to grind.
END COMMUNICATION
I've used "super minions" which die after 2 or 3 hits. I usually allocated half XP or full XP for them, depending on how powerful they were.
For tougher monsters, the "minion" accounting doesn't work quite as well. It doesn't handle very well stuff like ongoing damage, marks, etc ... as easily. The scheme I mentioned in my previous post, handles it better for tougher 4E monsters like elites/mini-bosses and bosses.
In practice, I've found that many encounter powers pretty much function damage-wise like an at-will. For many daily powers, they function damage-wise approximately as two at-will powers on a hit and as a single at-will on a miss with half-damage.
JohnSnow
Hero
I derive my definition partly from the way it's used by my friends in MMOs, where it generally involves having to slay hordes of low-level monsters just to get to the next quest. Basically, when combat becomes boring, it's a grind. So here's the definition I use.
"Grind is when an encounter has become predictable and player victory is obvious to everyone, but the PCs just have to keep pounding on the monsters until the last monster loses its last hit point."
By contrast, if the monsters are winning, the situation would not usually be considered in the least bit, grindy. That's where the players are hoping for a miracle comeback. And since the PCs have much more ability to "bounce back" from adversity than their adversaries do, this can make for a truly memorable encounter when it happens. It's like a Rocky movie, provided it ends with a bang and doesn't degenerate into futile whacking.
If the PCs pull out all the stops, use their dailies to hit, and then have the damage dice turn ugly and leave the hard-to-kill bad guy with a few hit points, the combat's still over. And the bad guy, at that point, is either dead or running away.
Sometimes, I miss morale checks.
"Grind is when an encounter has become predictable and player victory is obvious to everyone, but the PCs just have to keep pounding on the monsters until the last monster loses its last hit point."
By contrast, if the monsters are winning, the situation would not usually be considered in the least bit, grindy. That's where the players are hoping for a miracle comeback. And since the PCs have much more ability to "bounce back" from adversity than their adversaries do, this can make for a truly memorable encounter when it happens. It's like a Rocky movie, provided it ends with a bang and doesn't degenerate into futile whacking.
If the PCs pull out all the stops, use their dailies to hit, and then have the damage dice turn ugly and leave the hard-to-kill bad guy with a few hit points, the combat's still over. And the bad guy, at that point, is either dead or running away.
Sometimes, I miss morale checks.
3e CR isn't really comparable to 4e level. In 3e, a lone monster with CR 2 is a moderate challenge to a 4-PC 2nd level party, expected to take 20-25% of their resources. A CR 4 monster is twice as powerful, making it about _equal_ to a 2nd level party (lasts twice as long, hits twice as hard, will take around 80-100% of party resources to beat). A CR 5 monster is more powerful than a 2nd level party and on average will TPK them.
In 4e, a 5th level monster is 1/5 of a moderate challenge for a party of 5 5th level PCs. It's twice as powerful as a 1st level monster, so 2 of them in theory make a suitable challenge for a 1st level party. An Elite is twice as powerful as a standard monster, so a single 5th level elite is, in theory, a suitable challenge for a 1st level party, or a rather easy challenge for a 2nd level party. And that's true - they'll usually beat it, but often its high defenses and hp can make the fight very grindy.
