One thing I do not want to see is combats written assuming that every table has an optimized striker in it. I absouletly hate 12-14 round grind combats, and I've played in some recent mods that took that long because we didn't have an optimized striker that could dump massive dmg in a round. While a DM could call a combat before it becomes a grind, many don't and play it out to the end if you're not in a strict timed environment like a con.
A number of posters here seem to have an issue with any non-minion monster being killed by one character in one round unless he has leader support, spends two dailies and crits--and even then, according to at least one poster here, if the character was not a striker from level 1 (never mind if he multiclassed into a striker class and started out in a class with a very strong secondary striker role (such as ardent vow paladin)), the best they should be able to do is bloody a standard monster (with two dailies, leader support, and a crit). ... If we are to take the complaints at face value then the proposed solutions really do need to apply to every monster--otherwise they don't solve the perceived problem.
I believe, some of what was being complained about, was that some mods have synergies, where monsters are supposed to play off one another to be effective. The dazing BBEG with a few CA-advantaged lurkers or brutes. The Controller with slow and the ability to make the PCs wade through some sort of damage dealing mob, trap, environment or the like. Etc.
When certain monsters go down quickly, there's not a lot that can be done to salvage the rest of the encounter. And let's face it, in 4E, targetting the caster/BBEG/elite in the back is just as much of a tactical 101 goal priority as it was in 3.5. Solos can often take the beating for a round or two, very few others can.
Perhaps, when building encounters, such synergies need to be examined in the face of particular monsters dying. Perhaps encounters should rely on two or more synergy pairs (tuples), such that if any one monster dies immediately, the other synergies can still take hold, maybe not with as much affect, but with enough to make the fight interesting.
Except that it's not BBEGs going down quickly that was spawning these complaints. A number of posters here seem to have an issue with any non-minion monster being killed by one character in one round unless he has leader support, spends two dailies and crits--and even then, according to at least one poster here, if the character was not a striker from level 1 (never mind if he multiclassed into a striker class and started out in a class with a very strong secondary striker role (such as ardent vow paladin)), the best they should be able to do is bloody a standard monster (with two dailies, leader support, and a crit).
Since that's me your talking about, that's not quite my position. In that "this I believe" essay, I was talking about expected results, not lucky ones (so, better with crits). And (while I didn't say this at the time) I'm perfectly willing to consider secondary strikers/built strikers as strikers as far as their expected capabilities are, and I think it's fine for a non striker to be able to nearly kill a standard monster, no crit required.
I just think the game can suffer some when one monster will be removed from the board, every encounter, before it gets an initiative pass. And currently, that's happens with only one optimized striker in the party.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
Except that it's not BBEGs going down quickly that was spawning these complaints. A number of posters here seem to have an issue with any non-minion monster being killed by one character in one round unless he has leader support, spends two dailies and crits--and even then, according to at least one poster here, if the character was not a striker from level 1 (never mind if he multiclassed into a striker class and started out in a class with a very strong secondary striker role (such as ardent vow paladin)), the best they should be able to do is bloody a standard monster (with two dailies, leader support, and a crit).
Since that's me your talking about, that's not quite my position. In that "this I believe" essay, I was talking about expected results, not lucky ones (so, better with crits). And (while I didn't say this at the time) I'm perfectly willing to consider secondary strikers/built strikers as strikers as far as their expected capabilities are, and I think it's fine for a non striker to be able to nearly kill a standard monster, no crit required.
I just think the game can suffer some when one monster will be removed from the board, every encounter, before it gets an initiative pass. And currently, that's happens with only one optimized striker in the party.
That's a helpful clarification. But I still think you are focused far too much on role. (For example, a warlord could very well use inspired belligerence and war of attrition then action point to hit a monster with hail of steel to give everyone in the party a basic attack with combat advantage and +2+Cha to hit and +2x Cha damage; it doesn't seem out of line if that kills the monster even though the warlord is called a leader rather than a striker; after all, why would warlords get all sorts of "give the whole party an attack" powers if they weren't supposed to do high damage through their allies?)
Also, I think you overestimate how common it is for a monster to disappear before he gets to go. It will, of course, only happen when that monster loses initiative. In most of the examples that have been given, luck played a part (I think both of the actual example novas (rather than my theoretical nova--my inspiring warlord is only lvl 11 and can't do that yet) involved a crit). Also, in both of the examples given, the character spent an action point--which will only happen in 60-75% of fights. Finally, at least in the rogue example, the rogue had to start out adjacent to the monster (since he used both his move and his minor action to make minor action attacks) and that will generally be the case for melee striker novas. (It is certainly true of my ranger, though by paragon, he will probably have five squares of range if he uses attacks on the run (daily 9) as a part of the nova. Likewise, it is true of my avenger, though at paragon, he'll get a shift two when he uses oath of enmity and can pull undead creatures to him with abjure undead as a part of the nova). It is a little bit less true of ranged striker novas, but since ranged strikers tend to have somewhat less powerful novas, and the example given on this thread was a warlock knocking half the hp off of every monster rather than dropping any of them. So, what we come down to is that this actually seems more like a possibility if, in the 60-75% of fights where PCs have an action point, they also win initiative, start off in range of monster (or are moved into range by another PC), and get a little bit lucky. I would expect that that combination of events only happens in something like 30-50% of combats rather than all of them.
Additionally, I expect that that kind of thing will also vary a lot depending upon the party's leader. Warlords will make it happen much more often than clerics or bards. (All warlords make the PCs more likely to win init, Tactical warlords increase attack and damage on an AP, bravura warlords give an extra attack, resourceful warlords give a massive damage increase on APs, and while inspiring presence doesn't do much for the nova, inspiring warlord powers are able to set them up very well). That is part of the design of the class though. Warlords favor more aggressive play than other leaders and that playstyle shouldn't be designed out of the game by module writers.
I believe, some of what was being complained about, was that some mods have synergies, where monsters are supposed to play off one another to be effective. The dazing BBEG with a few CA-advantaged lurkers or brutes. The Controller with slow and the ability to make the PCs wade through some sort of damage dealing mob, trap, environment or the like. Etc.
When certain monsters go down quickly, there's not a lot that can be done to salvage the rest of the encounter. And let's face it, in 4E, targetting the caster/BBEG/elite in the back is just as much of a tactical 101 goal priority as it was in 3.5. Solos can often take the beating for a round or two, very few others can.
Perhaps, when building encounters, such synergies need to be examined in the face of particular monsters dying. Perhaps encounters should rely on two or more synergy pairs (tuples), such that if any one monster dies immediately, the other synergies can still take hold, maybe not with as much affect, but with enough to make the fight interesting.
How's that for a non-gimp the PC approach?
I think that's a big improvement. I think we could go one step further, however, and build multiple synergies into encounters. Rather than, "we've got monster X who makes monster Y better and a bunch of monster Ys," you could have, "We've got monster X who makes monster Y better in one way and monster Z that makes monster Y better in another way--and by the way, monster Y also makes monster Z better." That way, if you kill monster X, you have accomplished something, but you haven't pulled all of monster Ys' teeth either.
That's a helpful clarification. But I still think you are focused far too much on role. (For example, a warlord could very well use inspired belligerence and war of attrition then action point to hit a monster with hail of steel
Also, I think you overestimate how common it is for a monster to disappear before he gets to go.
In my LFR experience, with a party with two high-heroic spike focused strikers? No, not really. Two monster-equivilents melt almost every encounter, one of which before it ever goes (And then my spike-focused striker is pretty irrelevant to the encounter, but the other one has good DPR).
November's update helped out our DMs, at least until Wil can afford the replacement gear.
Also, in both of the examples given, the character spent an action point--which will only happen in 60-75% of fights.
Again, my experience is higher. Most modules have 2 fights, and have a skill challenge between them. So one AP is spent in each fight. Daily powers tend to be conserved more, even at high heroic. Again, in my experience.
Additionally, I expect that that kind of thing will also vary a lot depending upon the party's leader. Warlords will make it happen much more often than clerics or bards.
My experience does include a decent Taclord, so that certainly holds.
Warlords favor more aggressive play than other leaders and that playstyle shouldn't be designed out of the game by module writers.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
Yeah, I'm thinking something like at least 90% AP use per encounter in most adventures. There are some where it ends up less due to having 4 combats... but even then, 4 combats, 2 skill challenges, start with 1... you might miss 1 of the combats to get at 75%, but you're unlikely to be lower.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
I think that's a big improvement. I think we could go one step further, however, and build multiple synergies into encounters. Rather than, "we've got monster X who makes monster Y better and a bunch of monster Ys," you could have, "We've got monster X who makes monster Y better in one way and monster Z that makes monster Y better in another way--and by the way, monster Y also makes monster Z better." That way, if you kill monster X, you have accomplished something, but you haven't pulled all of monster Ys' teeth either.
If the monsters and the XP budget allow, I think that's a great target.
Yeah, I'm thinking something like at least 90% AP use per encounter in most adventures. There are some where it ends up less due to having 4 combats... but even then, 4 combats, 2 skill challenges, start with 1... you might miss 1 of the combats to get at 75%, but you're unlikely to be lower.
There are a few modules (Akan 1-1 is an example) that feature 4 combats with no skill challenges. In those, assuming that PCs spend action points with maximium efficiency, no given PC will be able to spend an AP in more than 50% of combats.
There are also a few modules that feature only two combats with a skill challenge in between. (I don't think these modules--Luru 1-6 is an example of these--outnumber the first kind of module though). In those, and only those modules, will you ever see a single character spend an action point in every fight. (And even then, players who do not know in advance that it is that kind of mod rather than a different one may well hold back an AP in the first encounter).
There are also a few modules that feature two combats followed by a skill challenge or with a skill challenge interspersed between them so as not to allow characters to hit a milestone before all of the combats are finished. This is inherently the most difficult module structure and, like the first combat will not allow any character to spend an AP in more than 50% of the combats. (Core 1-11, Drawing a Blank is an example of such a mod).
Probably the most common module structure I have observed is three fights and a skill challenge, possibly followed by another skill challenge. This structure which appears in Dale 1-1, Core 1-2, Agla 1-1 etc, allows for the characters to spend APs in 2/3 of their fights but not all of them. (Skill challenge+combat+combat+combat leaves the charactes with an AP at the end but only one milestone before the last combat; combat+skill challenge+combat+combat is the same, as is combat+combat+skill challenge+combat. The last structure differs from the others in that it guarantees that the PCs will all have an AP to spend in the final encounter but that they will not be able to spend an AP in both the first and the second encounter; the other two structures allow the PCs to spend APs in the first and second encounters if they want, but leaves them without an AP in the final combat if they do so).
I don't know where either of you come up with any single character spending an AP in 90% of the encounters, but I suspect it is either selection bias rearing its ugly head or you have groups with battlefield archers, level 16+ adroit explorers, etc in them. Given the way LFR mods are structured, there is no way the number can possibly be higher than 75% without a non-milestone method of gaining APs, and I suspect that 66% is the most common percentage.
My uninformed feeling is that we're seeing more adventures which run two combat encounters and a skill challenge, with the skill challenge being either at the beginning or middle of the adventure; this is partially because spreading the experience points out among three combat encounters seems to provide less challenging/interesting encounters. To the degree which that becomes the norm, we'll see AP spending habits adapt.
The old model of three combats, plus one or two skill challenges, you typically had people holding their AP till the second fight then burning it immediately.
It would be interesting to actually figure out what's common. I'm not entirely sure I want to know that much about all the modules I haven't played, though. Maybe I can bribe an admin to do it for me over Christmas? I bake cookies...
