Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[MerricB]

but it is proof that what you are talking about is not true.

Please read my post again. I don't think you properly did so the first time.

 

[Imaro]

Sure it does.

The OP boiled down to "I am unhappy with how this game is working, and I do not think I should have to make house-rules or change how we play to make it work better."

If you've eliminated house-rules and changes in play-style, there's nothing (well, very little - like changing the kinds of monsters in a fight) else left to suggest, assuming that the OP was looking for a way to a more enjoyable gaming session. If 4e's not meeting his needs, and he doesn't want to try and change 4e to make it meet his needs better, playing another game is really the only solution left. That or, "suck it up and deal," but I don't think that's very helpful, either.

-O

What I'm saying is that the OP very clearly states it's a rant... and the question is "why" not "how do I fix"... so again he isn't necessarily looking for solutions as he has already used kludges on his combats in 4e, but moreso asking what are the reasons people use these kludges and why.

 

[Obryn]

What I'm saying is that the OP very clearly states it's a rant... and the question is "why" not "how do I fix"... so again he isn't necessarily looking for solutions as he has already used kludges on his combats in 4e, but moreso asking what are the reasons people use these kludges and why.

Last I checked, this was not RPG.net and there's no [4e-] tag ahead of it.

Come on. If you post a rant on a message board, instead of your personal blog, you invite discussion and comment. Including, "Wow, you're right, 4e isn't working for your group and it sounds like you aren't having much fun. Why not do something else?" It's absolutely topical, whether you say it's a rant or not.

-O

 

[Imaro]

Last I checked, this was not RPG.net and there's no [4e-] tag ahead of it.

Come on. If you post a rant on a message board, instead of your personal blog, you invite discussion and comment. Including, "Wow, you're right, 4e isn't working for your group and it sounds like you aren't having much fun. Why not do something else?" It's absolutely topical, whether you say it's a rant or not.

-O

Totally agree, never said he didn't have the "right" to say it, however the "get a new game" line has been brought up already numerous times in the thread. And not once has it spurred any further commentary or discussion.

 

[xechnao]

Please read my post again. I don't think you properly did so the first time.

I did read your post. I disputed the point of no battlemap with 4e style choices generally means no interesting mechanic options for a swordsman like guy. I believe I was clear in this, no?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I am really starting to see the purpose classes like these serve as I struggle in 4e to find a class that can be operated by my young nephew as well as players who maybe aren't as interested or adept at grid-tactics but like roleplaying games without someone else having to basically coach them.

I hear that an archer Ranger can be stupidly easy to run. Stay away and Twin Strike all day long. Use dailies/encounters when you feel like doing something different.

 

[Obryn]

I hear that an archer Ranger can be stupidly easy to run. Stay away and Twin Strike all day long. Use dailies/encounters when you feel like doing something different.

Yes, if you Quarry and Twin Strike every single round, your archer ranger will be about 80%+ effectiveness.

But with a few feats, and a few interesting power choices, it's not that simple... Getting stuff to buff Prime Shot adds a lot of tactical interest to the class, for example. (Why yes, I'd love an extra +2 to-hit and +5 damage per attack, thankyouverymuch!)

-O

 

[Shazman]

I guess that an archer ranger is the closest thing to a "simple" class that you can get in 4E. As long as they can remember quarry and prime shot, they should be fine. An archer ranger is what I made for my wife when I tried to get her to play LFR. Alas, she never did.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, the archer ranger probably would have been a better choice. I made him a Beastmaster Ranger because he wanted a pet and it seemed like the simplest class that got an animal companion. I mean don't get me wrong he's having fun, and I have already scaled the fights back to account for him mostly protecting his wolf confused: yeah I know, crazy right) with basic melee and the occasional basic ranged attack (for some reason his dwarf tends to throw anything he can get his hands on... including his own weapons and even shield at times.).

Edit: Maybe I'll try to talk him into switching over and give him a really weak companion animal from DMG 2... that way he will have his pet and be able t contribute... maybe reskin his "archery" as "throwing stuff"...lol

 

[Umbran]

Hmmm. I believe your point confuses matters. Go and Chess are games that are exactly about this: a tactical analysis exercise.
Rpgs OTOH need to use tactics as a means to make things interesting within their own roleplaying environment: "If I do this I am risking this - if I do that I am risking that other thing: now what do I want to risk?" RPG tactics should not ruin this kind of roleplaying immersion. For this reason rpg tactics should pay respect to verisimilitude.

With respect, it seems to me that you might be confusing, "RPGs need..." with, "I prefer RPGs have...".

RPGs are an outgrowth of wargames. There's loads and loads of folks who seem to like the tactical wargame aspect - killing things and taking their stuff. There's any number of folks out there who are "beer and pretzel" gamers - immersion and verisimilitude are not necessarily high on their agendas.

The point is that there's loads of different things that people can get out of RPGs. Immersion is one. A good time playing a tactical wargame with some story and role-playing to give the whole thing some context is another. What your game has in it will depend on exactly which gamers you're trying to get to play the game.

Tactical richness requires more than just "meaningful" choices, the player also has to have to have a bunch of different options at hand. Weighing choices and making decisions can take time, as you review options. If you're trying to get the players who like tactically rich combat, you have to be ready for that combat to not be particularly quick.

D&D has always tried to draw players who like the tactical side of combat, and D&D combat has historically never been particularly quick, in large part for that reason.