Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ScottS" data-source="post: 5114670" data-attributes="member: 75465">Looking over that Stalker0 post and other similar posts that have come along, I'd say that the 4e fixes floating around are &quot;a good start&quot;. I'm currently using the 75%hp/133%damage fix, and a version of the &quot;watch action-denying effects&quot; fix (by just getting rid of at-will daze etc. entirely). I also made minions 12:1 xp rather than 4:1 (although that's not specifically a &quot;grind&quot; fix).&nbsp;One problem with the fixes, though, is that they tend to &quot;treat the symptoms&quot; rather than &quot;find the cure&quot;. When I look through some of these time-saver lists, I start to wonder why the underlying issues weren't dealt with in the edition upgrade (e.g. If &quot;rolling to-hit and damage dice together&quot; is an actual time-saver, then why are separate rolls for those two functions still in the game? Why was &quot;giving creatures large HP so they can't be one-rounded&quot; given design priority over &quot;fast, non-boring encounters&quot;? Why do I have to finesse the monster-role mix in order for fights to come out right, when the design conceit was supposedly &quot;throw any creatures you want into an appropriately-sized XP-budget bin, and the fights should always be balanced&quot;?).&nbsp;My line of thinking now (post-4e and looking back at older editions in hindsight), is that there are more fundamental issues with the game structure the way it stands; something to the effect of, &quot;everybody getting individual turns&quot; plus &quot;everybody having a menu of spell-like, board-changing powers to use&quot; equals &quot;game drag&quot;. In other words, if people really want to get combats down to a reasonable length, i.e. 15 minutes or less, then at least one of those major game assumptions has to be chucked out the window. I don't think that grid movement by itself causes that much drag (i.e. you could probably still have &quot;tactical depth&quot; in the game without the other stuff). Keeping individual initiative and ditching everyone's-a-spellcaster is probably the easier way of approaching the problem, although simultaneous initiative was used in earlier eds. and occasionally still gets thrown around as an idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ScottS, post: 5114670, member: 75465"] Looking over that Stalker0 post and other similar posts that have come along, I'd say that the 4e fixes floating around are "a good start". I'm currently using the 75%hp/133%damage fix, and a version of the "watch action-denying effects" fix (by just getting rid of at-will daze etc. entirely). I also made minions 12:1 xp rather than 4:1 (although that's not specifically a "grind" fix). One problem with the fixes, though, is that they tend to "treat the symptoms" rather than "find the cure". When I look through some of these time-saver lists, I start to wonder why the underlying issues weren't dealt with in the edition upgrade (e.g. If "rolling to-hit and damage dice together" is an actual time-saver, then why are separate rolls for those two functions still in the game? Why was "giving creatures large HP so they can't be one-rounded" given design priority over "fast, non-boring encounters"? Why do I have to finesse the monster-role mix in order for fights to come out right, when the design conceit was supposedly "throw any creatures you want into an appropriately-sized XP-budget bin, and the fights should always be balanced"?). My line of thinking now (post-4e and looking back at older editions in hindsight), is that there are more fundamental issues with the game structure the way it stands; something to the effect of, "everybody getting individual turns" plus "everybody having a menu of spell-like, board-changing powers to use" equals "game drag". In other words, if people really want to get combats down to a reasonable length, i.e. 15 minutes or less, then at least one of those major game assumptions has to be chucked out the window. I don't think that grid movement by itself causes that much drag (i.e. you could probably still have "tactical depth" in the game without the other stuff). Keeping individual initiative and ditching everyone's-a-spellcaster is probably the easier way of approaching the problem, although simultaneous initiative was used in earlier eds. and occasionally still gets thrown around as an idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification