• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Why isn't WotC acknowledging Grind issue?

Badwe

First Post
making several threads about grind doesn't make it true. additionally, there are several potential complicatiosn factoring into each person's post:

1) an unclear definition of grind. in this case the OP seems to imply grind is encounter length. for some people it is round length. for some people it's weather the encounter is interesting. for _my_ group, it's neither, and we generally resolve 3 combats with 5-6 PCs in 5 hours plus exploration/roleplay/etc.

2) speaking of 5-6 PCs. the OP has 7, which is by no stretch of the imagination within the normal bounds. 4-6 is considered normal with 5 being what most modules assume. Your options to keep the XP levels of an encounter the same are: more monsters or bigger monsters. I made a post in another of the grind threads about how 2 brutes have the same XP of 1 brute at level+4, but the HP total initially favors the single brute.

3) at least one person was counting multiple encounters as a single encounter. I have thrown multiple encounters at PCs for barging into doors, but i have no illusions about what i've done. if you've made a delve with 3 level n encounters and the PCs pull all of them, you can either classify that as:
a) still 3 level n encounters, nothing has changed except it will take LONGER since they'll never recharge their encounter powers.
b) a single level n + 5 encounter. if you consider it a single encounter, congratulations you are likely to TPK your party according to the expectations of the book which caps at n+3 as a good idea. in order for your PCs to SURVIVE they must resort to slow, methodical, tactical planning and indeed doing things like taking advantage of chokepoints and sitting and waiting for the enemy to whittle down.


ok, so there are some incongruities when we talk about grind, as well as failing to address individual situations. as i've pointed out elsewhere, i have a group of PCs mostly (but not entirely) slanted towards damage, and i have trouble keeping the monsters standing. I can't tell you how many things in H2 get awesome when they're bloodied only to be summarily stomped to bits by the PCs before getting another action.

additionally, NUMEROUS places have offered suggestions. many people resort to -25%HP/+33% damage or some variant thereof. others use the solo guides from MM2 rather than MM1. still others will absolutely never use all brutes/soldiers, and maybe even favor more heavily artillery, lurkers, and skirmishers (you want to be careful about overloading controllers too, but it's not as bad as brutes/soldiers).

Honeslty it's hard for me to wrap my head around all this because i've never had any consistent issues with grind. but there are most CERTAINLY recommendations if it is, in fact, an issue for someone. and some of these recommendations even come from WotC themselves.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dausuul

Legend
2) speaking of 5-6 PCs. the OP has 7, which is by no stretch of the imagination within the normal bounds. 4-6 is considered normal with 5 being what most modules assume.

So, in other words, it's outside the normal bounds but only just. The game should not break down utterly when asked to cope with 1 more player than the recommended range; it should chug and whine a little, that's all.

And the OP has already stated he's tried most of the usual solutions.
 

MrMyth

First Post
So, in other words, it's outside the normal bounds but only just. The game should not break down utterly when asked to cope with 1 more player than the recommended range; it should chug and whine a little, that's all.

And the OP has already stated he's tried most of the usual solutions.

And the game doesn't break down utterly at 7 players - regardless of whether you feel the rules encourage grind or not, a 5 hour combat for 7 PCs is not the default. That is something significantly beyond any imbalance in the system.
 

Vyvyan Basterd

Adventurer
Another thing I found that was taking more time at the table was my lack of prep. Drawing maps takes time; I now do this ahead of time as much as possible, using a large pad of 1-inch presentation graph paper. I use index cards to track creatures' initiative and hit points. I was writing these up at the table, now I write them up ahead of time as much as possible. I was hunting for miniatures during game time; now I pull them ahead of time as much as possible.

You also need to observe why combats are shorter with your smaller group than your larger one. Are any of the 4 of the 7 that aren't in your other group taking too long on their turns? Are any of those 4 players less focused or more disruptive? Do you play both games in the same venue? Maybe some environmental factor is causing distractions or impacting your prep time.

I would expect combats with 7 players to take more time than the 75% longer the math makes it look like. Each person adds more factors than just being an extra body. I would expect that 7 players would take roughly between 2-3 times longer than your 4 player group. So if you are used to hour-long encounters with 4 players, 2-3 hours for 7 sounds about right for your group to me. My group of 5 averages an hours per encounter. Adding two players to my group would easily double the time.
 

S'mon

Legend
I find for me the average time for a 4e battle is very close to 10 minutes per player, counting the GM as 1 player. With 5 players + GM it's 60 minutes, with 7 players plus GM it's around 80 minutes. I'd quite like it be a bit shorter, around 8 minutes per player would be nice, but it's not usually a big problem.
 

Remove ads

Top