Community

Jun 2, 2010 -- 2:03AM, RCanine wrote:

I think LFR authors need to reconsider their tack here. Some examples:

•  A situation where, if the PCs kill the monsters before they trigger the macguffin, The Bad Thing happens.
• A situation where all of the monsters cannot be damaged while PCs aren't standing in certain squares.
• A situation where alpha striking on the monsters will let a retreating monster get away.

Sure, you can make combats harder, but I think that's a dangerous route to take. All it does is reinforce the behavior that's causing the problem.

This.

The most fun and memorable encounters I've had in LFR have been the ones where the primary objective has been something other than "kill everything on the map".  For example, several of the missions in the Battle Interactive, or the combats in QUES 1-1.  Alphastrikers tend to fail these sorts of encounters if they simply try to blow everything up and forget that they have a more important mission.

It's all fine and good if your paragon sorceress is tricked out to do d4+37 damage at will to all targets in an area bust 3.  Enjoy your sexy damage rolls.  But that will only get you so far in a situation that requires finesse rather than pure brute force.

Jun 3, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Alpha-striking is a pretty old problem

I disagree that it is a problem at all. It's just a different style of play. Some people like it, others don't.

By calling it a problem, you portray it as the somehow inferior style.

If all people at the table are fine with alpha strike it's fine. If some people are not, these people are just as much a problem as the people who like alpha strike.

Jun 3, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

(remember the 20 page post "Greyhawk Finale so awful" with the wizard that summoned the earth elemental with the falchion and had an easy time with all the encounters?) That player wasn't out to ruin anyones fun, it just turned out that way and no one said anything to him-he heard about it through the boards.

That's not a problem with the wizard owning the mod, that's a problem with the wizard owning the mod at a table who didn't appreciate it. On a different people other player's might have not minded that at all.

In LG I had a very weak skill-monkey. Pitiful AC, very low damage. From time to time I had the luck to play with a guy whose wizard had a "super familiar" (it was a buffalo with a couple of buff spells on it that just dominated the battlefield). Personally I never minded at all, because whenever he was present at the table my character could suddenly feel that much more comfortable when doing his "talking to NPC" stuff, because he knew that the wizard was there to save his ass if it comes to blows (and one of the last times I played with him, he had changed his buffalo into a rhinoceros, which actually was gargantuan after he applied a certain spell just after calling it - good times).

The problem is not the "dominate the battle" play style. This style is perfectly fine. It's only a problem if it's forced on the same table as others who don't enjoy it. And even then it's not the style that should automatically receive the "you are the problem" card, depending on the majorities on the respective table the disagreeing style can very well be the "you are the problem" style.

That's just the way it is at random tables. Each style is equally called upon to make mutual concessions (based on the majorities on the current table) and it's not the alpha striker that are always "somehow more to blame" and having to make greater concessions by default (because to me much of this thread just sounds as if having this undertone).

Jun 3, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

I personally would tone it down,

Me too (if I were an alpha striker). However certainly less in the hypothetical 4:1 in favor of alpha strike situation than in the hypothetical 3:2 or 2:3 situations.

If the one in the 4:1 situation would still find the concessions of the 4 absolutely unbearable for him, then the table might reach the point where the 1 is the one to blame (it's sad, but mixing strangers this can just happen once in a while).

Jun 3, 2010 -- 4:17AM, Mirtek wrote:

Jun 2, 2010 -- 11:25PM, Hibiki54 wrote:

I don't see a problem with a player going Nova. At Conventions I'd rather have a player going nova and I don't get a turn because everything is dead, then have to cut the adventure short because of time.

Or miss the rest of the fight because I am dead. I agree, I'd rather see someone else winning the fight for my side without me needing to unsheathe my sword, than having to make death saving throws because someone thought it was a good idea to leave a baddie for me to beat up which then proceeded to beat me up instead.

Ditto.

This whole topic is a little odd, because 4e naturally lends itself to novas (due to APs and status conditions).  Monsters nova as well.  And sometimes they can do it really really well too

And I personally find it rare that every single monster is dead by the time the last person takes his turn in the first round.  Usually there's at least a bloodied enemy left that he can get the kill-shot on.  In fact, I've yet to see an entire fight over in less 1 round -- happened in LG a couple of times (and we actually loved it and still talk fondly about those days) but not in LFR yet.

In any given encounter and say the first two or three players alpha striking to reduce the battlefield to one bloodied enemy, in my opinion, the combat is effectively over.

If my turn came up at that moment, I would ask the DM to waive it at that point.

In my area, this situation comes up more than one would think.  I can remember when I played WATE 1-6 and feeling how anti-climatic the last battle turned out since both the controllers controlled the entire battle.  What should have been a showdown battle with the main antagonist of the quest became a mop up operation during the middle of round 1.  I have other examples as well but I will assume most will understand the point.

More times than it should, I have felt, why am I here? I was basically sponging exp and gold because I was on the low end of the initiative order.  But then again, I was playing with a group of above average players.

Then again, it is my opinion that the level of challenge for current LFR adventures is primely suited for two characters, maybe 4 players at the currently scaling for 6.

Jun 4, 2010 -- 9:28AM, -Aribeth- wrote:

But then again, I was playing with a group of above average players.

Then again, it is my opinion that the level of challenge for current LFR adventures is primely suited for two characters, maybe 4 players at the currently scaling for 6.

Which I think relates directly to your group being above average players. I for one have  seen characters die and more than one would-be-TPK (that is a battle that would have rightfully been a TPK if not the DM had suddenly hit the emergency brake hard)

Players in my area ranged from youngin's to older adults with varying styles of play. Our regular group has optimizers, min/maxers and balanced players. We all prefer to enjoy an adventure and get into story, especially when we're playing characters that have adventured together many times. These are the times we play at someone's home were we can relax, drink some beers and just have fun.

You can't do that at Conventions unless you kill the monsters fast and now. I purposely played my TacLord almost an entire Con just for this purpose. I wanted to play the Discomfort, Pain and Agony series because I know for a fact I would most likely not be able to play it again until later in the year when more people have P1/P2 characters.

But on topic, it comes down to play style.

When I play a leader, for example. I have no problem doing absolutely nothing. My main focus, whether I'm playing a Warlord or Cleric, is to make sure my party is healthy, give them buffs, free attacks or debuff the enemy with status effects. When none of that is needed, I do what's necessary for my party of succeed. If that means one enemy on the board and bloodied, I'm taking it out. I'm contributing for the party success in an encounter despite how minor it may be.

When I play a striker, I'm going to unload everything I have at whoever we are going to concentrate on. That's what strikers do. My most infamous character is a Drow Sorcereress apt named Storm and she's based off Storm from the X-men. I'm going fly in the air and say some cool **** while bringing down hail, fire, brimstone and a couple fricken "tornadoes" on the enemy.

When I play a defender, I'm going to lock enemies down and provide a flank for other melee. Unless I play a tempest Fighter -- I defend by killing the enemy.

When I play a controller, I do the controller thing and provide area denial.

Everything culminates down to play style. I know you can't base anything off my style of play, but check this out --if you're at a table with a bunch of strikers that love killing things and you're playing a controller, you better believe you might not get a turn if initiative isn't in your favor. That's what it comes down to at a convention. I know that might be poor thinking, but it's happened before and it's always going to happen.

My experience in LFR is limited enough that I haven't seen hardly any alpha-strikes as described - more on the monsters' side than the players, in fact. But here's my $0.0193...

I view D&D as to a great extent a cooperative game - people should not just enjoy themselves, but help other people enjoy themselves as well. So it is desirable to avoid stepping on other players' toes. Duh. But part of that cooperative play includes letting other people shine, and if that includes them cutting loose a BBEG-killing alpha strike, so be it. (It helps when I play my taclord; I contribute when other people spend APs just by standing around!)

Having been in a couple of encounters where the monsters did win initiative, at least enough to unleash huge party-shutdown attacks, I would never try to hold back a fellow player who had the option to win the fight in the first trun. A one-turn win by an ally is generally, to me, better than spending three or four turns trying to make saves and stand up (again) while the monsters dance all over. Sure, it's disappointing to not get to do my schtick, but if we win, it's over and maybe I can do something kewl in the next encounter.

Fast-fast alpha-strike is encouraged by the way the game is set up.

DMs want to use the monsters' kewl powrz, which often impose status effects - prone, stunned, dazed, etc. and make it harder for the PCs to do their stunts; so anyone who doesn't fast-alpha-strike not only doesn't get to be the star, s/he doesn't get to do *anything*. Between the desire to use interesting stuff, and simple tactical competence, this is pretty much just going to happen.

In part, it's that 'self-policing' thing already in discussion; the problem is that it's not just 'cooperation' or 'role-playing' or whatever, it's just the way the 4e world works. Plus, players are likely to feel disappointed if they win and the DM reveals that s/he never used the critter's unique/interesting stuff - interesting stuff is part of the game for everyone.

On top of that, the typical encounter starts with all the PCs in a tight group, perfectly positioned for any bursts or move-by attacks. Tactical planning is therefore negated in favor of quick-draw alphas; unless you win initiative, you're sitting ducks. Under this setup, the best move is to build for enhanced initiative and instant kill. Arguably, this has some echo of the real world, but it does not encourage battles of maneuver and escalation.

The point of most encounters is simply to kill all the bad guys; the best way to do that is to kill them as fast and completely as possible - and that means the fast-alpha-strike guy is the MVP. It chaps my hide to say that, but it's true under the typical setup. If you don't want fast alpha strikes to rule, then encounters must be built to discourage that:
-- don't force PCs to start in tight groups
-- offer or require solutions which don't require killing bad guys, or at least not all of them
-- allow PCs to have strategic initiative, rather than just kicking in the door or being ambushed (how often do the PCs get to ambush bad guys in LFR?)
-- multi-wave enemies, as already mentioned in this thread, can be very nasty; especially if they come from different directions ('what? the wizard's now in melee? oh, ****!)

Between timing, rules, and encounter design, the game encourages fast-alpha-strike as the premium. It makes little sense to hold back if you have that ability, either tactically or metagaming. Yes, it can be less fun for thers who don't get to do that (whether because they can't, or they simply got lower initiative), but there's no in-game reward for holding back - the encounters take longer, use up more party resources, and are more frustrating for PCs suffering under conditions.

If you want people to not fast-alpha-strike, you have to provide reasons for them to choose not to do so. Rational, concrete reasons - asking them to do it 'just to be nice' is not likely to stick, and all it does is shift the frustration from one person to another.

Alpha strikes are definitely a problem: a design priority of 4E was to stop them being possible. I'm not against it particularly but it was definitely intended that 4E fights not be over in the 1-3 rounds of previous editions.
D&D is written by a committee however and they don't even talk to each other very much or read what each other have written let alone understand the consequences.


Dice of Cheese are approximately half as powerful as they started and about twice as powerful as the maximum they should be allowed. There are a couple floating around locally and I make a point of mocking the players
Lucky Shot is a smaller problem in the same vein.

I find the Dice of Auspicious Fortune too 'cheesy' to use:
- I had a later-to-become-a-Pit-Fiend* Grey Elf Wizard crafted three  belts of Battle and wore a Ring of Spell Battle among other things so  I'm not averse to a bit of power here and there;
- My Wis18 base elven wizard has an Orb of Temporal Dissonance 'oh  whoops did we all win initiative and fail to kill the monsters, let's  roll initiative again and see if we can finish them off before they  act'.
       ..so you can see that I'm not averse to a little power on my characters  but these dice are just way too much.



I'd be interested to know how many of the 'problem' tables would have been better without these two (Dice and LS).


I will try to moderate my playstyle if people ask but they have to be pretty blunt and may need to remind me.
I don't consider alpha strikes a problem on occasion.
I'm leaning towards DMEing in more challenges within reason.
I have pulled punches before now as a GM.


* Yeah that's not relevant but I thought it was cool

So long as a player has a knife, a fork, and enough time they will always try to build The Great Wall of China  

I'm all for the potential of alpha strikes.

Sometimes they're needed.

But I'm against their use in all situations.  It really depends on the rest of the table makeup and the feel of the group. 

Insisting on dominating combats just because you can seems like a jerk move to me.

Jun 2, 2010 -- 10:08AM, Ferol_debtor_of_Torm wrote:

Jun 2, 2010 -- 9:53AM, amysrevenge wrote:

Unfortunately I don't think most people feel this way. What advice would you have for people that get frustrated when they can't get a turn because everything is dead when their initiative comes up? 

Unfortunately you are making an assumption that most people feel that way. Talk about how you feel and don't assign opinions to MOST people. I have played and judged all LFR Tiers from H1 to P2 and I do not see it as a serious problem. Maybe rarely, when a group ALWAYS plays together and are optimized for that specific team's tactics, but even then, its not really a problem. For the record NONE of my PC's have improved init or a similar feat. I personally think its a waste for most classes and deal with circumstances as the come.

Jun 7, 2010 -- 10:37AM, CdrcJsn wrote:

I'm all for the potential of alpha strikes.

Sometimes they're needed.

But I'm against their use in all situations.  It really depends on the rest of the table makeup and the feel of the group. 

Insisting on dominating combats just because you can seems like a jerk move to me.

A possible solution I have considered in the past was banning action point use during the first turn. It would mean fewer attacks that first round and likely fewer dailies since some players might not take the gamble of forgoing action point to-hit bonuses. The slow initiative guy would at least get a full turn be the maelstrom was brought down. It would need to be either a change to the D&D rules or added as some sort of environmental effect to encounters in the adventures but, I think it would mitigate the effect down to reasonable levels.

Jun 9, 2010 -- 10:43AM, MatteBlack wrote:

A possible solution I have considered in the past was banning action point use during the first turn. It would mean fewer attacks that first round and likely fewer dailies since some players might not take the gamble of forgoing action point to-hit bonuses. The slow initiative guy would at least get a full turn be the maelstrom was brought down. It would need to be either a change to the D&D rules or added as some sort of environmental effect to encounters in the adventures but, I think it would mitigate the effect down to reasonable levels.

You can't change core rules in a public LFR game.  You can use DME to bring in reinforcements for the bad guys if you feel the group is not being challenged.

Allen.

I don't think DME could change it but, I'd think a writer could say a confusing setting or some sort of trap going off causes a pseudo dazed effect that prevents action point use until the fighter is well under way. Maybe even some sort of "groggy feeling" when teleported into an ongoing fight because they used some story-provided 2nd rate means of teleportation. Admittedly, it would be bad form for the same writer to unload on the party in the very same scene.

Jun 9, 2010 -- 12:05PM, aljergensen wrote:

Jun 9, 2010 -- 10:43AM, MatteBlack wrote:

A possible solution I have considered in the past was banning action point use during the first turn. It would mean fewer attacks that first round and likely fewer dailies since some players might not take the gamble of forgoing action point to-hit bonuses. The slow initiative guy would at least get a full turn be the maelstrom was brought down. It would need to be either a change to the D&D rules or added as some sort of environmental effect to encounters in the adventures but, I think it would mitigate the effect down to reasonable levels.

You can't change core rules in a public LFR game.  You can use DME to bring in reinforcements for the bad guys if you feel the group is not being challenged.

Allen.

What about this one:

Anyone who uses an action point in the 2nd or subsequent rounds gets a bonus to the attack roll(s) equal to the round number.  Use it in the 2nd round?  Get a +2 bonus.  4th round?  +4 bonus.

That was just off the top of my head and might be bonkers as-is, but giving bonuses to rolls seems within the jurisdiction of any D&D DM, entirely independently of LFR's DME regulations.

Jun 9, 2010 -- 12:47PM, MatteBlack wrote:

I don't think DME could change it but, I'd think a writer could say a confusing setting or some sort of trap going off causes a pseudo dazed effect that prevents action point use until the fighter is well under way. Maybe even some sort of "groggy feeling" when teleported into an ongoing fight because they used some story-provided 2nd rate means of teleportation. Admittedly, it would be bad form for the same writer to unload on the party in the very same scene.

Be prepared for people (including me) to scream bloody murder if this ever makes it into a module.

From some of the responses I see in this thread another side of the issue isn't that it's asking whether or not to hold back the alpha strike for one round, it's the issue of losing the chance to do the alpha strike for an unknown time.

Because if they try to hold back just one round, the many area status effect powers the monsters will unleash during this one round can very quickly mean that the PCs can't perform an alpha strike for the next X rounds even if it's now necessary and anyone agrees to it (because by then all PCs are dazed/slowed/weakened/stunned/blinded/whatever).

Jun 9, 2010 -- 1:05PM, amysrevenge wrote:

What about this one:

Anyone who uses an action point in the 2nd or subsequent rounds gets a bonus to the attack roll(s) equal to the round number.  Use it in the 2nd round?  Get a +2 bonus.  4th round?  +4 bonus.

That was just off the top of my head and might be bonkers as-is, but giving bonuses to rolls seems within the jurisdiction of any D&D DM, entirely independently of LFR's DME regulations.

Whether or not this is legal, I'm not sure a player will take you up on it. The reason alpha strikes happen is because it's way more important in terms of resource management to take monsters off the field NOW than it is to take them off 10%-20% more efficiently 1-3 rounds later.

Jun 9, 2010 -- 2:03PM, Mirtek wrote:

From some of the responses I see in this thread another side of the issue isn't that it's asking whether or not to hold back the alpha strike for one round, it's the issue of losing the chance to do the alpha strike for an unknown time.

Because if they try to hold back just one round, the many area status effect powers the monsters will unleash during this one round can very quickly mean that the PCs can't perform an alpha strike for the next X rounds even if it's now necessary and anyone agrees to it (because by then all PCs are dazed/slowed/weakened/stunned/blinded/whatever).

There could be something to this. I had a levelled down Mirage Dragon in a H3 high module. (EDIT: Just to be clear, it was a My Realms.) Both times I ran it the PCs got a surprise round on the dragon and most of the party beat it in initiative. It started its first turn nearly bloodied and then took 5-6 more rounds to take down. There was a huge difference between PC effectiveness before it started acting and after it started acting. :P
Sure, some of  the difference was that a bunch of dailies and action points were flying left and right in the openning salvo, but part of why I arranged a possibility of a surprise round is that its control effects would otherwise make it a long painful slog.

I always judge extensively at the major national 'cons (Origins, Gen Con, and DDXP), play frequently enough to have 10 active characters at level 3+ (including three in P2 range), and regularly play with power gamers. Despite that, I can honestly say that I have never seen Alpha Striking to be as extensive a problem as some in this thread are making out to be - even at P1 or P2. Sure, incidences of encounters being over before a full round of initiative is up happens occasionally, but every mod? Or even every other mod? Definitely not. When it does happen, usually a substantial element of luck and/or a not-always-planned perfect synergy of character abilities is involved. (Or else the encounter was a push-over to begin with.) And it can be fun to see the inventive ways people come up with to deal with troublesome problems.

My experience has also been that attempting to Alpha Strike can result in a party being overextended if it doesn't work, resulting in fights dragging out longer than they ordinarily would have because the big guns missed or were wasted on the wrong opponents, so it can be risky. Besides, some of the most abusable Alpha Strike powers (Blood Pulse and Solar Wrath immediately come to mind) have been errated down to reasonable levels in recent months.

Encounter design has also gotten stiffer in recent months, so obliterating an encounter with an Alpha Strike is harder to do than it used to be. This past weekend I played a relatively recent P1 mod as part of a table of mostly 13s and 14s playing high where four of the characters had RROT (two Avengers, two battle-oriented clerics) and two of the characters were Divine Oracles. Six crits went off at 100+ damage, including two at 160+, and we had an artificer handing out ridiculous amounts of temp hp, and the encounter still lasted long enough for a couple of PCs to get bloodied. I'd played the mod before, so I knew the DM hadn't tweaked the encounter, either. H3 in particular right now also has several relatively recent mods that can be lethally strong. (And I'd challenge anyone to honestly admit that they Alpha Striked their way through a non-DMEd CORM1-4. . .)

Although it can have its place, I am not a fan of DMEing in additional monsters to avoid this perceived problem, as it can have unexpected side effects on resource use and encounter difficulty level, especially if a party has had to burn all of their good tricks to get rid of the first wave. I have seen this backfire more than once. There are other ways to handle the situation as a DM if you legitimately think the players are going to have it too easy, though, such as fudging a bit on hit points and initiative rolls (as both a player and DM I find combats more fluid, reactive, and interesting if the monster initiatives are more evenly spread out amongst PC initiatives), adjusting the map or monster placement on the map, and so forth. (You have to be careful about the latter two, however, as I have seen cases where just putting the monsters a few squares closer or farther away has had a dramatic effect on the encounter's difficulty level.)

I do agree that there are some potential trouble spots, though. Even with current errata, Dice of Auspicious Fortune are a poorly-thought-out item subject to terrible abuse, especially when a player rolls good and/or is using them in multiples. That's why I won't allow any DoAF use as a DM unless I witness the rolls. I also haven't seen anyone mention yet the biggest potential trouble spot, the 10th level Bluff utility skill Stall Tactics; I dread running into the paragon table which has specifically designed itself so that three different PCs are trained in Bluff and thus have this ability available for use.

Jun 9, 2010 -- 1:06PM, GreySector wrote:

Be prepared for people (including me) to scream bloody murder if this ever makes it into a module.

You are going to throw a forum tantrum (or worse, one at a table) over an encounter that caused you to wait to use your action points? It's hardly even a meaningful threat and undermines your own credibility to present reasonable arguments.

Debtor,

I don't think this is as much of a problem as you think it is.  Now, I've not yet played past low-heroic so maybe things scale badly at higher levels and I haven't experienced it.  Here is the experience I have had:

at convention.  All L1 characters, want to storm through door into room.  I dash in and run up to enemies on left side of door.  (I'm going to flank guard while everybody else gets in.)  Bigger tougher guys head for the enemy front-and-center for melee.  Initiative mixed so players and enemies alternate moves.  Everybody else has to help me out in the end because it is a mistake to use an RBA (Warlock Eldritch Blast) on an enemy adjacent to yourself.

at campaign.  My Warlock has a reputation for missing everything he tries to shoot.  The group actually agreed to dispence with Initiative and let me fire first as trigger for an ambush.  (I actually CRIT !)

at convention.  Initiative rolls mixed, with myself going last.  While melee brawl erupts in one corner of the map, I finally move to center to draw fire and discover hidden enemies.  The Barbarian4 (his second turn) followed me and proceeded to smash up several enemies I located.

Having a successful nova turn does not sound like a total fun-killer to me.  I'd like to be able to one-hit-KO an enemy once in a while.  I can see if you have an init+ glory-hog along, everybody else may not enjoy the scene much.

I am totally open to the possibility that I am just too self-sacrificing and liable to create a group effort out of any dumb idea somebody may have had.

A group (maybe that should be in quotes) that wants to be a collection of solo stars will have the kind of problem you describe.  But if the players will try to work together, everybody can get a chance to contribute.

Jun 10, 2010 -- 6:59AM, MatteBlack wrote:

Jun 9, 2010 -- 1:06PM, GreySector wrote:

Be prepared for people (including me) to scream bloody murder if this ever makes it into a module.

You are going to throw a forum tantrum (or worse, one at a table) over an encounter that caused you to wait to use your action points? It's hardly even a meaningful threat and undermines your own credibility to present reasonable arguments.

Such a beautiful and succinct response. Here I was just going to provoke him with "QQ MOAR!"

IMO the Alpha Strike is just good 4.0 DnD tactics.  If you win initiative, you want to go and strike at the monsters as hard and fast as possible.  As others have noted, many 4.0 monsters have AOE daze, stun, weaken, etc. effects.  If you kill them you avoid those attacks.  Further, even if you can't kill them, it still makes sense to go all out -- because by the 2nd round you might not be able to attack (due to being under some condition).

I have a couple of LFR paragon characters and play in a home game now at high paragon and the Alpha Strike happens most fights.  And it makes all the difference in the world.  Despite all the talk of things being different, initiative is once again KING in 4.0.  I have played numerous paragon mods where the bad guy was either dead before he got to go or stunned or had some other combination of crazy conditions.  I have DMed mods that I thought would be challenging and watched as the party obliterated them in round 1.

And I don't mind at all if other players destroy an encounter before I go.  I played Spec 2-1 at P2 with my Swordmage (who doesn't have high init.) and every fight our 2 strikers demolished the bad guys.  So much the better.  It was fun watching the show.  I really think part of being a good striker in particular is hitting hard and hitting fast.  It would be foolish for me to be mad at them for doing their job well.

Daren

Jun 10, 2010 -- 10:50PM, Drezden wrote:

IMO the Alpha Strike is just good 4.0 DnD tactics. ...

...if your only goal is defeating encounters.

People play D&D for alot of reasons, and for many of us it is not collecting XP and treasure for our character while watching other party members eliminate any challenge mounted by the NPCs. The player who wants to interract with the battle encounter and expand on their character's tale is pretty unsatisfied when he doesn't get to take a meaningful turn and his character faces no peril.

I wouldn't say never Alphastrike an encounter. However, having 3 characters do it before the monsters go or the same player goes first and Alphastrikes each encounter can be boring for the DM and players being left out of the challenge. Know who you are playing with and be considerate to their fun.

At least someone gets it.

I've seen it occasionally at various levels, but from my point of view it seems like it's a reaction to combat design. Any fight where the enemy will stun or dominate more than one or two PCs if they go first is one where players will have strong motivation to get their biggest, baddest stuff on the table as soon as possible. Stunning, in particular, is just plain anti-fun; and yet it seems to be one of the few ways that opposition can challenge a party.

Until that changes, the dynamics will make alpha striking a winning strategy *for having fun*. Stunned = not fun; usage power = fun. Ergo, alpha strike to use as many powers as possible before stunning. 

Instead, better encounters can be built that discourage alpha-striking and encourage team play. The use of terrain is an excellent example (and you can tell it works because alpha strikers hate it and complain about it all day). Reaction control powers are what I would like to see more of. Things like "when hit, push the target 3 squares" or "turn invisible and teleport 3 squares" work nicely. They make players think more carefully and encourage the judicious use of big powers. When an intelligent monster hears you invoke RRoT or other alpha-strike cheese, they should use their "when an enemy moves beside you, shift  squares as a free action; recharge 5-6 and when bloodied" power. 

I also like the powers that redirect attacks. An alpha strike is a much more iffy proposition if you know the monster has a reaction power that will redirect your attack on a nearby team member. 

So, adventure designers. Stop using monsters with powers like this:

 Wave of Fear (minor, recharge )  Fear, Psychic Close blast 3; targets enemies; +19 vs Will; 4d8+6 psychic damage, and the target is stunned until the end of the fear moth’s next turn. Miss: Half damage, and the target is not stunned.

And start using ones like this:

 Roll With It (immediate reaction, when hit by a melee or close attack, recharge 6 and when first bloodied) The iron archon crescent blade shifts its speed. If it ends this movement in a space adjacent to a marked enemy, it can then make a sickle attack against a marked enemy as a free action.

The first says "Alphastrike or die!" The second says "you're getting one attack and then your friend will get his full strike" -- and the GM has the option for the creature to go hide somewhere if the first hit really was nasty. With some decent terrain, that could lead to a much more fun "hunt the iron archon" combat.

 

Jun 11, 2010 -- 7:43AM, MatteBlack wrote:

Jun 10, 2010 -- 10:50PM, Drezden wrote:

IMO the Alpha Strike is just good 4.0 DnD tactics. ...

...if your only goal is defeating encounters.

People play D&D for alot of reasons, and for many of us it is not collecting XP and treasure for our character while watching other party members eliminate any challenge mounted by the NPCs. The player who wants to interract with the battle encounter and expand on their character's tale is pretty unsatisfied when he doesn't get to take a meaningful turn and his character faces no peril.

I wouldn't say never Alphastrike an encounter. However, having 3 characters do it before the monsters go or the same player goes first and Alphastrikes each encounter can be boring for the DM and players being left out of the challenge. Know who you are playing with and be considerate to their fun.

Bingo.

The problem is most players read Dragon Magazine so they get to build crazy effecient charactors that stomp mods while monsters are stuck they don't have the capacity to gain a power from a recent issue or gain a new racial power. So by the time the mod is printed several months have gone by and that creature is simply out classed because the players are more up to date. When one employs the "Alpha Strike" tactic the problem is increased exponentially I read Dragon and have several charactors that are influenced by what I've read but I wouldn't call myself a power gamer.  However sometimes powerful builds just seem to emerge by chance like my Dwarven Battlerage Vigor Fighter Dor Stop he's seventh level but his Combat Challenge is +14 attack +17 damage and he uses an Avalanche Mordenkrad. It's turns out using a Hammer with that build is just HORRIBLY abusive and conventional wisdom will tell you that a Basic Meele Attack it a weak attack but with a Battlerage Vigor Dwarf Fighter it's STUPIDLY POWERFUL I almost never use At-Wills his BMA is that good.          

I think an interesting way to look at this issue is through the lense of intimidation and social skill checks. Alot players get really bent out of shape if an encounter is ended or circumvented via a social skill roll even though it probably is the most effective tactic in the many situation is is allowed. The rules allow it but, very few quibble if a given mod does not allow such "tactics".

I quibble.  Removing a legitimate tactic "just because" is shades of anti-magic.  This is the sort of thing 4E purposefully left out.

Jun 9, 2010 -- 1:06PM, GreySector wrote:

Be prepared for people (including me) to scream bloody murder if this ever makes it into a module.

So a surprise round would cause you to scream too? I suppose you could build your character such they are never surprised, but it's a similar thing.

Jun 12, 2010 -- 11:03AM, tirianmal wrote:

So a surprise round would cause you to scream too? I suppose you could build your character such they are never surprised, but it's a similar thing.

I'm fine with surprise rounds, because there are actual rules for how surprise rounds work.

One of my pet peeves, and something that gets an author put on my "wait for reviews before playing anything else by this guy" list, is trying to create a situation where the enemies effectively get a surprise round without any of the limitations the rules have on them (e.g., the PCs are required to roll initiative before they can see or affect any creatures).

Jun 12, 2010 -- 11:43AM, bgibbons wrote:

Jun 12, 2010 -- 11:03AM, tirianmal wrote:

So a surprise round would cause you to scream too? I suppose you could build your character such they are never surprised, but it's a similar thing.

I'm fine with surprise rounds, because there are actual rules for how surprise rounds work.

One of my pet peeves, and something that gets an author put on my "wait for reviews before playing anything else by this guy" list, is trying to create a situation where the enemies effectively get a surprise round without any of the limitations the rules have on them (e.g., the PCs are required to roll initiative before they can see or affect any creatures).

I concur. It's usually even worse than a surprise round that can't be avoided, because people only get a single action in a surprise round. In those situations, you usually see the big bad guy (and sometimes some of his minions) getting a full complement of actions. Add to it the whole "you can only go down one particular path, so you walk straight into the ambush" and/or "start in the 4-by-2 box" problem that you get with LFR, and it gets very annoying.

Action points are one of the few advantages that PCs get which most monsters don't. When you deny the PCs that advantage, and give the enemies favorable terrain which isn't included in XP calculations, what do they have left? Healing is the other big advantage, but it's partially offset by the greater number of hit points that monsters get. Heck, the last advantage I can think of is granting saving throws, but I find that we're getting more attacks which work "until the end of the X's next turn" ever since the warden came out. That's supposed to be a shorter duration, but its effect is to devalue granting saving throws.

In cases where the author starts you off with the weight of everything against you (something I hate), I am all for players alphastriking their way back out of it. I think the real issue is with players who immediately dump optimized dailies, encounters and action points on their first turn in every fight. Alot of the time it is just unnecessary and counter to what many players find as enjoyable D&D play. Some players argue it is the most effective tactic while others find no joy in completely smearing the NPC off the board or not getting a meaningful turn. Sometimes alphastriking is the right thing to do and at other times it's merely a masturbatory validation of an overbuilt character build.

If everyone at your table is down with alphastriking, go for it (ask, don't assume). If they aren't pick your spots and don't alphastrike every encounter or be the third guy in encounter to do it before the mosnters go and potentially deprive other players form getting to play because they don't have high initiative.

Sadly, alpha strikes are the result of the bastardized form of 4e that is LFR. When you only get 2-3 encounters in a day, and KNOW it, players have no reason not to unleash hell. To be honest, it seems silly to hamstring yourself so that you can have more fun... at least to me. However, it's becoming an issue for sure. I, personally, want to play my PCs to their fullest, but also want to have more fun in combats. I find that when I do the former, I don't experience the latter.

It's something I'm trying to address in some form or anything as I write my last two mods. Hopefully we can find more ways to work around it, both from the players perspective and the author perspective.

I wont ask for permission to alpha strike at a table. I'll go out and do it, and kill whatever it is on the board.  People who whine, piss or complain because the monster died, should be thankful it didnt kill them instead. But instead of worrying about death and losing characters - we complain because of what? Someone doing their job as a damage dealer and destroying a threat?

This is by far the sadest thread I have read in a while.

Earlier today I was recounting to a friend a recent session I DM-ed, where the players completely wrecked everything in the module. They had a blast, I had a blast, there were great RP moments, etc.

And yeah, she'd played that same module too. In their session, the monsters didn't get removed from play as aggressively. And so they narrowly avoided TPK, had ruinously frustrating combats, and came off hating the module and never wanting to play it, and maybe anything from the module writer, again.

It's a tough line to walk, and one you're not likely to see easy agreement on.

Jun 14, 2010 -- 5:12PM, Cpttylorx wrote:

I wont ask for permission to alpha strike at a table. I'll go out and do it, and kill whatever it is on the board.  People who whine, piss or complain because the monster died, should be thankful it didnt kill them instead. But instead of worrying about death and losing characters - we complain because of what? Someone doing their job as a damage dealer and destroying a threat?

This is by far the sadest thread I have read in a while.

I don't think permission plays a role in this, you shouldn't have to ask. Consideration for your fellow players and compromise should be the rule when there is a divide like this. You very obviously don't care about your fellow players. I would hope you'd at least voice such an opinion during mustering to better surround yourself with like-minded players and let those who would brsitle at your playstyle attempt to adjust accordingly. Just opening this discussion when there is a chance to seperate incompatible playstyles can drastically help table enjoyment for both groups.

I'm tyring to understand where; care = consideration ? If I sit down with complete strangers - I dont know them, they dont know me. In many cases care goes out the window. Its how the world works. When I sit down with people I have even passing familiarity with, then such things are opened to view.
I just find it silly, that there needs be compromise on something so foolish as first round of combat, going in - using knockout, aping then hitting with your biggest weapon attack to try to kill the threat.  I think the consideration there, is "I dont want to die, so I'm going to kill this threat".
But then again, this is coming from someone who onced played a game called "Whose the better killer" with a rogue at a table, much the amusement of people there.

YMMV. But please dont make assumptions based on shock value statements about caring - that belittles the conversation, into more personal based attacks. Thanks!

Jun 10, 2010 -- 6:59AM, MatteBlack wrote:

Jun 9, 2010 -- 1:06PM, GreySector wrote:

Be prepared for people (including me) to scream bloody murder if this ever makes it into a module.

You are going to throw a forum tantrum (or worse, one at a table) over an encounter that caused you to wait to use your action points? It's hardly even a meaningful threat and undermines your own credibility to present reasonable arguments.

Meddling with fundamental game mechanics is one of my personal pet peeves.

BTW I never said that I would 'throw a forum tantrum'.  Maybe my choice of words was a bit hyperbolic.  I will vociferously express my dislike (after the module is over, maybe on one of these fora) of such a mechanic that has absolutely no foundation in the rules.  I might grumble at the table, but I never bring it to a level that affects the enjoyment of my fellow players.

BTW the last time I checked this was a team game.  If Team PC wins, I am happy.  For the record, nearly half of my characters are leaders.  I play support, and count it as a victory when the other members of my party wipe the floor with Team Monster (even if I don't get to take an action in the combat).  I don't complain that I didn't get to do anything, I chalk up a victory and move on.

Jun 12, 2010 -- 11:03AM, tirianmal wrote:

Jun 9, 2010 -- 1:06PM, GreySector wrote:

Be prepared for people (including me) to scream bloody murder if this ever makes it into a module.

So a surprise round would cause you to scream too? I suppose you could build your character such they are never surprised, but it's a similar thing.

Surprise rounds are in the game rules, as are game mechanics (perception and stealth skills and powers) to determine who is surprised.

Invented effects in modules to prevent action point expenditure aren't.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Cpttylorx wrote:

I'm tyring to understand where; care = consideration ? If I sit down with complete strangers - I dont know them, they dont know me. In many cases care goes out the window. Its how the world works. When I sit down with people I have even passing familiarity with, then such things are opened to view.

Last I checked, consideration pretty much == caring. If you don't care about those other players at the table, sure, you won't show them any consideration, by definition.

Given LFR's "dying" rules, and I do use those quotes for their literal meaning, I think it is a joke to think that anyone would care that their PC died. Aside from some sort of machismo about enemies counting coup on you.

Back to the attitude that the other players in the game don't matter because you randomly sit down with them and you don't know them ... do you announce this when you sit with them? Do you give them a warning about this attitude? I doubt it. You know that its impolite (at the least) and you know that there is an assumption about the shared fun everyone is looking for. Stating this up front would make if clear you weren't there for that and may well result in folks getting up from the table and leaving. DMs included. So, ... why would you then -act- that way later?

The answer you're looking for is the obvious one. I'll leave you to it.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:15PM, GreySector wrote:

Surprise rounds are in the game rules, as are game mechanics (perception and stealth skills and powers) to determine who is surprised.

Invented effects in modules to prevent action point expenditure aren't.

Just for the sake of argument, since the game rules don't cover all the possible variations of skill challenges, when a writer/DM either makes up a new affect for a skill challenge (imposing some penalty on a failure) or a new use for a skill ... you're ok with that, right?

It's just the combat mechanics you have issues with? Because every possible way to play D&D combat is in the books?

I know this. The line you think you're drawing, isn't as sharp, clear or as well placed as you think it is. D&D, at its heart, is a framework. Everything else, comes from our imaginations and creativity. Sometimes those will reflect more challenge on a PC that the powers and abilities they claim to have. No PC is invincible, and no PC is able to fiat that they can never be X by a monster doing Y. Just doesn't exist.

I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.

I think the point that Cpttylorx was making is that it is silly to expect a player not to Alphastrike out of some "concern" or "caring" for the other players.  I agree with him and disagree with the OP of this thread.  In combat the name of the game is (normally) killing the monsters.  It is silly for a player to have to think about whether they should go all out or not because some other player might not get to go.  First, I have never seen anyone actually get upset about an Alphastrike or not getting a meaningful turn in a fight (and I have been the person who didn't get to go).  Second, if they care that much than maybe they should boost their initiative.

But again, I have never seen a player get upset because a fight was too easy due to an Alphastike going down.  I have seen plenty of DMs get their bubble burst -- but those are normally the same DMs who were eagerly anticipating which Monster of Doom power they wanted to use first.  Too bad Monster of Doom A is dead and Monster of Doom B is blind, dazed, weakened and prone with 5 hps.  lol  To me, having your monsters get waxed by the PCs is just part of the DM job description -- its something you should just expect.

Daren

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:35PM, tirianmal wrote:

I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.

The difference?  Lots.  Spending an action point is NOT a power.  It's an ability keyed off a free action.

If you want to deny AP use, prevent characters from taking free actions.  This degree of powerlessness blows, so I'd never recommend it, but that's how you'd do it.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 2:11PM, sigfile wrote:

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:35PM, tirianmal wrote:

I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.

The difference?  Lots.  Spending an action point is NOT a power.  It's an ability keyed off a free action.

If you want to deny AP use, prevent characters from taking free actions.  This degree of powerlessness blows, so I'd never recommend it, but that's how you'd do it.

You're quibbling. But fine. It is part of the game. It is a part of the game that a player can invoke on a PC. Fair? Both are examples of mechanics that a player can invoke on his PC and both are, in my mind, things that can be prevented from being invoked by a player on his PC.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:11PM, GreySector wrote:

Jun 10, 2010 -- 6:59AM, MatteBlack wrote:

You are going to throw a forum tantrum (or worse, one at a table) over an encounter that caused you to wait to use your action points? It's hardly even a meaningful threat and undermines your own credibility to present reasonable arguments.

Meddling with fundamental game mechanics is one of my personal pet peeves.

BTW I never said that I would 'throw a forum tantrum'.  Maybe my choice of words was a bit hyperbolic.  I will vociferously express my dislike (after the module is over, maybe on one of these fora) of such a mechanic that has absolutely no foundation in the rules.  I might grumble at the table, but I never bring it to a level that affects the enjoyment of my fellow players.

BTW the last time I checked this was a team game.  If Team PC wins, I am happy.  For the record, nearly half of my characters are leaders.  I play support, and count it as a victory when the other members of my party wipe the floor with Team Monster (even if I don't get to take an action in the combat).  I don't complain that I didn't get to do anything, I chalk up a victory and move on.

Felt like the point needed to be made that that style of overstatement has little place here and generally just moots your own point. I don't want any instituationalized obsolescences of alphastrike players but, I am fine with the occasional use of reasonable plot devices to force people outside of their comfort zone or to face the flaws over over-optimized builds.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:23PM, tirianmal wrote:

Jun 15, 2010 -- 12:03PM, Cpttylorx wrote:

I'm tyring to understand where; care = consideration ? If I sit down with complete strangers - I dont know them, they dont know me. In many cases care goes out the window. Its how the world works. When I sit down with people I have even passing familiarity with, then such things are opened to view.

Last I checked, consideration pretty much == caring. If you don't care about those other players at the table, sure, you won't show them any consideration, by definition.

Given LFR's "dying" rules, and I do use those quotes for their literal meaning, I think it is a joke to think that anyone would care that their PC died. Aside from some sort of machismo about enemies counting coup on you.

It's not about caring or consideration IT'S ABOUT RESPECT I play with people I don't know everytime I go to a convention so depending on what charactor I'm playing I may or may not be inclined to play the role of "hero" and will from time to time use them to serve my charactors needs. But there is always respect if a person wants to cry after the death of a charactor they put a lot of time and effort in to building I can understand it as silly as I personally think they're behaving. I respect a person's right to express the passion they feel when playing anyway they see fit so long as they don't cross the line into becoming that jerk who endlessly talks about how great his charactor is. 

Jun 15, 2010 -- 4:46PM, MatteBlack wrote:

force people outside of their comfort zone or to face the flaws over over-optimized builds.

Right.

Because the one thing that makes the sort of person who purposefully builds an over-optimized PC have the most fun is to have that PC not work the way it's supposed to.  lol

If you want to be challenged or face big obstacles, you build a mildly optimized (or *gasp* unoptimized) PC.  If you go the route of hyper-optimization, it means you probably like to win and really really really hate to lose.  I don't think that it is our role (collectively, as a campaign) to try to put the optimizer in his place, or show him the error of his ways.



The optimizer is not inherently wrong.

The non-optimizer is not "better", in an ethical sense.

If there is a conflict between the two, the default should not be to knock the dirty optimizer down a rung.  It should also not be to kill off all the unoptomized PCs in some sort of sped up version of the evolution of species, until only Pun-pun is left.

The most sensible solution I can see is to build up a campaign that tries to challenge the folks who want to be challenged, and is a cakewalk for folks who want to cakewalk.  It is only when these groups mingle that there is any conflict at all  - and again, I can't stress this enough, the onus is not only on the cakewalk crew to do all the compromising.  In mixed playstyle groups, once the mismatch has been detected, the challenge crew need to accept that the adventure might very well be a bit eay for their taste, and the cakewalk crew need to accept that they need to share the limelight a bit more than they'd like.

Just to add feul to the fire, I'll say that sometimes people create damage optimized characters and alpha strike whenever possible because they feel they need to make up for other characters at the table, especially in a con or gameday event when they're sitting down with people they've never played with before, or if another character at the table is obviously a low or no-damage outputting character like a pacifist cleric build.

So assuming that a person does it as a "jerk move" or because they don't care about anyone else at the table is a bit presumptuous, IMHO.

Look, as gamers, we all want a chance to use our cool powers/tricks. I think that is what the OP is saying. If it is clearly an easy fight, hold back just a little(you dont have to daily, AP and daily again).
Just have a little empathy and let other people participate in the fight. Which from some of these posts, I suppose it is asking too much.  Gamers aren't known to be considerate of one another, and this kinda proves it.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:13AM, ARlife wrote:

Look, as gamers, we all want a chance to use our cool powers/tricks. I think that is what the OP is saying. If it is clearly an easy fight, hold back just a little(you dont have to daily, AP and daily again).
Just have a little empathy and let other people participate in the fight. Which from some of these posts, I suppose it is asking too much.  Gamers aren't known to be considerate of one another, and this kinda proves it.

How do you -- in the first round of combat before many monsters have gone (hence, Alphastrike) -- that the fight is "clearly an easy fight?"  Also, you might not know the initiative order.  So, sure if you knew the fight was easy and knew that 2 other PCs were going next, it could make sense to not action point, etc.  But what if you don't finish him off and then he goes and subjects the table to the AOE power of doom stun, dominate, etc. effect??  In real time, assuming you haven't read the mod, you just don't know how easy the fight is going to be or just how dangerous the monsters are (if they haven't gone).  That's why it makes sense to eliminate the threat if you can.

Further, I really think being considerate of other players is totally unrelated to alphastriking.  Most of being considerate has to do with player to player behavior rather than character to character.  To the extent being considerate does have to do with actual character behavior, I can think of more important things to focus on, such as:  don't run ahead of the leader and expect him to come rescue you; don't hog all the party resources; coordinate with the controller about positioning; don't put down a zone that hinders sight if the party would be better off without it, etc., etc.

Daren

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:36AM, Drezden wrote:

How do you -- in the first round of combat before many monsters have gone (hence, Alphastrike) -- that the fight is "clearly an easy fight?"  Also, you might not know the initiative order.  So, sure if you knew the fight was easy and knew that 2 other PCs were going next, it could make sense to not action point, etc.  But what if you don't finish him off and then he goes and subjects the table to the AOE power of doom stun, dominate, etc. effect??  In real time, assuming you haven't read the mod, you just don't know how easy the fight is going to be or just how dangerous the monsters are (if they haven't gone).  That's why it makes sense to eliminate the threat if you can.

Knowledge monster checks.

I disagree, this is about being considerate. Yes alpha striking is effective, and is appropriate at times.  No one is saying the people should never alphastrike. Im just saying that, when you see a solo brute and some minions, dont banish/sleep the brute forever so other PCs dont get the chance to do something meaningful. A lot of people here have the used the excuse of "I wanna kill it before it stuns/dazes/kills me". While that can happen, I doubt it will happen every single fight, especially in LFR. Like when your replaying a mod, where you know what monsters your fighting(thus know how easy the fights are), hold back so everyone can wail on the encounter.  Sure it makes sense to eliminate the threat if you can. It also makes sense that other people want to play too and it isnt just about your PC at the table(no matter how bad ass you are).
 

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:54AM, lorika wrote:

Knowledge monster checks.

I wonder how revealing monster knowlege checks at the end of the first round would effect the alphastrike practice? It would require a change to the game rules but, the "in-game" reasoning would be that you need to see the creature act a little before you can understand and properly identify it. Perhaps, the DC might effect how long it takes to identify the creature.

I am sure it would have little effect on most hard-core replayers but, might cause a few players to hold back on their top-shelf attacks for a round.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 11:35PM, amysrevenge wrote:

The optimizer is not inherently wrong.
The non-optimizer is not "better", in an ethical sense.

D&D is a "roleplaying game". That has several components, one of which is "playing a role" and the other is "playing a game". The optimizer has decided to focus on one aspect to the detriment of the other. That, to me, really is inherently wrong. It is out of balance with the purpose of the game. It would be the same as a player who created a combat-incapable roleplaying character. It is inherently wrong to ignore one aspect of the game.

Now, I know that all the optimizers reading this thread will immediately chime in and say "but I have an *in-character* reason for multiclassing and taking RRoT" or "the two are completely different; I can optimize a character and speak in a funny voice! See! I do both!", but frankly, I've played across three decades and multiple systems, and It Just Ain't So. Feel free to disagree -- I'm not going to respond -- but in my lengthy experience, the mst fun is had by tables of non-optimal characters and a GM who respects that non-optimality. This thread is an example of that; if the table is full of characters who cannot alpha-strike, and the GM is good, then they will avoid the problem this thread describes and Have More Fun. Add one alpha-strike optimal character and the fun becomes harder to find.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 11:35PM, amysrevenge wrote:

Jun 15, 2010 -- 4:46PM, MatteBlack wrote:

force people outside of their comfort zone or to face the flaws over over-optimized builds.

Right.

Because the one thing that makes the sort of person who purposefully builds an over-optimized PC have the most fun is to have that PC not work the way it's supposed to.  lol

If you want to be challenged or face big obstacles, you build a mildly optimized (or *gasp* unoptimized) PC.  If you go the route of hyper-optimization, it means you probably like to win and really really really hate to lose.  I don't think that it is our role (collectively, as a campaign) to try to put the optimizer in his place, or show him the error of his ways.



The optimizer is not inherently wrong.

The non-optimizer is not "better", in an ethical sense.

If there is a conflict between the two, the default should not be to knock the dirty optimizer down a rung.  It should also not be to kill off all the unoptomized PCs in some sort of sped up version of the evolution of species, until only Pun-pun is left.

The most sensible solution I can see is to build up a campaign that tries to challenge the folks who want to be challenged, and is a cakewalk for folks who want to cakewalk.  It is only when these groups mingle that there is any conflict at all  - and again, I can't stress this enough, the onus is not only on the cakewalk crew to do all the compromising.  In mixed playstyle groups, once the mismatch has been detected, the challenge crew need to accept that the adventure might very well be a bit eay for their taste, and the cakewalk crew need to accept that they need to share the limelight a bit more than they'd like.

Nicely said.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:36AM, Drezden wrote:

How do you -- in the first round of combat before many monsters have gone (hence, Alphastrike) -- that the fight is "clearly an easy fight?"  Also, you might not know the initiative order.  So, sure if you knew the fight was easy and knew that 2 other PCs were going next, it could make sense to not action point, etc.  But what if you don't finish him off and then he goes and subjects the table to the AOE power of doom stun, dominate, etc. effect??  In real time, assuming you haven't read the mod, you just don't know how easy the fight is going to be or just how dangerous the monsters are (if they haven't gone).  That's why it makes sense to eliminate the threat if you can.

First, you have to have a little faith that the adventure is appropriately scaled and realize that dying in a mod has precious little impact should it go wrong and be improperly scaled. There are some notable exceptions but, the general LFR community would say that most mods tend toward being underscaled for optimized characters. If you you don't have a heavily optimized character, chances are alphastriking is much less of an issue.

Secondly, if you are the first guy alphastriking it might be an issue unless you just did on all the previous encounters in which case somewhere along the line, you went way overboard on an encounter and are probably now showing off and/or continuing to prevent another player from enjoying some of the last chances to impact the adventure. Alphastriking once is not the same as multiple characters doing so on one encounter or opening up that way in every encounter. Moderation helps alot and can be the difference between viewed as a party asset or an encounter hog.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:36AM, Drezden wrote:

Further, I really think being considerate of other players is totally unrelated to alphastriking.  Most of being considerate has to do with player to player behavior rather than character to character.  To the extent being considerate does have to do with actual character behavior, I can think of more important things to focus on, such as:  don't run ahead of the leader and expect him to come rescue you; don't hog all the party resources; coordinate with the controller about positioning; don't put down a zone that hinders sight if the party would be better off without it, etc., etc.

I am all for consideration of your other party members and these are some good examples. The key is knowing what your party members goals are. Some are to dominate encounters, some are to play out their character, some are to see interesting fights play out. Have that discussion and work to create a balance. That may mean you warned the reckless guy about overextending and his healing priority slips down the list a little or that another player's action means you need to move a little, target one fewer opponent or suffer and extra -2 penalty. Alot of times those small adjustments are a big deal to the optimizer but, not to another player. Compromise a little, work on different parts of a battle and stay away from completely working against one another.

I would agree it's not only the alphastriker who needs to adjust but, they are often the most rigid about there being only one razor thin way to walk the line. Absolutes and "right answers" tend to be their stock and trade so compromises can be difficult. Most people want to be successful and accomplish the mods but, flawlessly and expertly overcoming an encounter is not the only goal of our game.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 1:00PM, MatteBlack wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:36AM, Drezden wrote:

How do you -- in the first round of combat before many monsters have gone (hence, Alphastrike) -- that the fight is "clearly an easy fight?"  Also, you might not know the initiative order.  So, sure if you knew the fight was easy and knew that 2 other PCs were going next, it could make sense to not action point, etc.  But what if you don't finish him off and then he goes and subjects the table to the AOE power of doom stun, dominate, etc. effect??  In real time, assuming you haven't read the mod, you just don't know how easy the fight is going to be or just how dangerous the monsters are (if they haven't gone).  That's why it makes sense to eliminate the threat if you can.

First, you have to have a little faith that the adventure is appropriately scaled and realize that dying in a mod has precious little impact should it go wrong and be improperly scaled. There are some notable exceptions but, the general LFR community would say that most mods tend toward being underscaled for optimized characters. If you you don't have a heavily optimized character, chances are alphastriking is much less of an issue.

Secondly, if you are the first guy alphastriking it might be an issue unless you just did on all the previous encounters in which case somewhere along the line, you went way overboard on an encounter and are probably now showing off and/or continuing to prevent another player from enjoying some of the last chances to impact the adventure. Alphastriking once is not the same as multiple characters doing so on one encounter or opening up that way in every encounter. Moderation helps alot and can be the difference between viewed as a party asset or an encounter hog.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 9:36AM, Drezden wrote:

Further, I really think being considerate of other players is totally unrelated to alphastriking.  Most of being considerate has to do with player to player behavior rather than character to character.  To the extent being considerate does have to do with actual character behavior, I can think of more important things to focus on, such as:  don't run ahead of the leader and expect him to come rescue you; don't hog all the party resources; coordinate with the controller about positioning; don't put down a zone that hinders sight if the party would be better off without it, etc., etc.

I am all for consideration of your other party members and these are some good examples. The key is knowing what your party members goals are. Some are to dominate encounters, some are to play out their character, some are to see interesting fights play out. Have that discussion and work to create a balance. That may mean you warned the reckless guy about overextending and his healing priority slips down the list a little or that another player's action means you need to move a little, target one fewer opponent or suffer and extra -2 penalty. Alot of times those small adjustments are a big deal to the optimizer but, not to another player. Compromise a little, work on different parts of a battle and stay away from completely working against one another.

I would agree it's not only the alphastriker who needs to adjust but, they are often the most rigid about there being only one razor thin way to walk the line. Absolutes and "right answers" tend to be their stock and trade so compromises can be difficult. Most people want to be successful and accomplish the mods but, flawlessly and expertly overcoming an encounter is not the only goal of our game.

I couldn't have said it better. This is all about being considerate for your fellow gamer. Everyone(DM included) has a right to have fun at the gaming table. Just not at the expense of someone else's fun

Everyone plays for different reasons.

None of those reasons are any more "right" or "wrong" than any other.

The only qualifier is, take a moment of consideration when your particular play preference might negatively impact another player's.

That alpha strike is nifty and cool, but it's not so cool for the guy who has the lowest initiative that doesn't get to do anything combat-wise all adventure.

This is not to say, "Never do it", just, y'know, be aware of your fellow players.

This applies to non-combat situations too. I don't know how many loud bombastic roleplayers I've seen completely dominating a game and monopolizing the DM's time, completely oblivious to how he or she is affecting the other players.

Be considerate. That's not asking too much.



-karma

Jun 16, 2010 -- 1:00PM, MatteBlack wrote:

First, you have to have a little faith that the adventure is appropriately scaled and realize that dying in a mod has precious little impact should it go wrong and be improperly scaled.

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

My highest level character in LFR is level 16, and he isn't optimized for initiative or damage. Sometimes, when the rest of the group rolls high, my main contribution to a fight consists of my warlord class features boosting the alpha strikes of other characters. Even so, I'd rather see that than have the ranger decide that bloodying the elite was enough... and then the elite stuns half the party, or worse, dominates the ranger and has him bloody one of his allies.

There is talk of alpha striking in the vacuum here but a major problem with the paragon alpha strike is that it tends to work together with people that are replaying.

If someone at the table who's replaying says "we have to kill this thing first" does that change your opinion on the alpha strike? Or do you feel you should max all aspects-including your in/out of game knowledge? Do you feel using replay knowledge to selectively target and paragon alpha strike down certain enemies (and ignore other encounters) is fair to others at the table?

Jun 16, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

So why are you not using all dailies (attack and utility)  in the first encounter of every adventure?

Jun 16, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 1:00PM, MatteBlack wrote:

First, you have to have a little faith that the adventure is appropriately scaled and realize that dying in a mod has precious little impact should it go wrong and be improperly scaled.

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

My highest level character in LFR is level 16, and he isn't optimized for initiative or damage. Sometimes, when the rest of the group rolls high, my main contribution to a fight consists of my warlord class features boosting the alpha strikes of other characters. Even so, I'd rather see that than have the ranger decide that bloodying the elite was enough... and then the elite stuns half the party, or worse, dominates the ranger and has him bloody one of his allies.

"Real Life" only holds so much water when roleplaying a fantasy hero. There are alot of things I would do differently in real life that makes sense in in D&D because it facilitates play or is more heroic nad fun. "Real life" heroes don't know there are only going to be 3 scaled fights  or that they can trust everyone they are working with to share the  tresure evenly. Personally, I wouldn't go on mercenary missions with shifty dudes I met in a bar and immediately start unloading the the heaviest of my limited ammo on the largest bunch of guys who weren't in my party when someone twitches. There are any number of sensible real world justifications for any game action, holding back a little in reserve for the way back out or trip home is not so outlandish and would make the game more fun in alot of instances.

As I say this, I try to stay with in my character's likely actions and a sort of heroic reality that attempts to accomodate the game rules and a good time for those at the table. I don't try to kill myself but, am willing to take calculated risks to win the day. Yes, characters should fear death but, I think game fun takes priority over the risk of death's small price in LFR.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 1:00PM, MatteBlack wrote:

First, you have to have a little faith that the adventure is appropriately scaled and realize that dying in a mod has precious little impact should it go wrong and be improperly scaled.

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

My highest level character in LFR is level 16, and he isn't optimized for initiative or damage. Sometimes, when the rest of the group rolls high, my main contribution to a fight consists of my warlord class features boosting the alpha strikes of other characters. Even so, I'd rather see that than have the ranger decide that bloodying the elite was enough... and then the elite stuns half the party, or worse, dominates the ranger and has him bloody one of his allies.

Well said.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 8:04PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

So why are you not using all dailies (attack and utility)  in the first encounter of every adventure?

Sometimes -- but not often -- I do use all my dailies in the first fight.  For me, dailies are often situational.  If the situation comes up and the fight is serious (in a roleplay not game sense) then I use the daily.  Often, ending the first fight early means we have more time and resources for the later, more interesting combats.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

Our "real life" is completely different than the reality our characters live in, so it's not really a valid comparison.  I don't know about anyone else, but in real life I don't expect to get into more than one fight a day.  So yes, if I got into a fight there'd be no reason not to put all my energy and effort into it.  And, in real life, if I had "spent all my daily powers" and was totally exhausted after the "first encounter" but was still in grave danger (being chased by a serial killer or something), I could just go to the nearest hospital or call the police or get help from people around me.  Our characters, on the other hand, KNOW that they are going to face multiple combat encounters in a day - they are in the middle of a dangerous mission or are dungeon crawling or whatever.

In fact, I'd argue that roleplaying-wise it makes much less sense for a character (or an entire party) to alpha-strike instead of moderating their resource-use over many encounters.  Having several party members all using daily powers, action pointing, and using more daily powers is just unnecessary and makes no sense from your character's perspective, especially once it becomes obvious that the fight is well under control.  Our characters don't know that they will be in 2-3 combats a day and that all encounters will be level-appropriate.  Our characters don't know that there is only 20 minutes left in the convention's time-slot and the DM has already said he absolutely has to leave on time (so it's safe to assume that this is the last fight).  That's all meta-game knowledge. 

Maybe an encounter is a fight in a bar.  Your character probably gets in bar fights all the time (off-screen) with lame level 1 guys.  So why would your character automatically blow all their resources on just one more "typical" fight?  You (the player) knows that this will be a real, level-appropriate fight because you're rolling initiative and know you're playing LFR.  Your character may have no idea that this guy is a BBEG until he acts.  Maybe your character is arrogant: "Ha!  This guy is pathetic!  He doesn't know who he's messing with!  I'll show him - I'll beat him into a bloody pulp with my eyes closed and embarrass him in front of all his friends!"

Yes, in-game our characters are constantly in life-and-death scenarios.  That means that they need to be smart and conservative about how to spend their resources, not just blow them all the first chance they get.  Maybe the adventure takes place in the middle of a dangerous wilderness.  We know as players that we'll only have a few combat encounters and then the adventure will be over.  Our characters just know that they're in a dangerous wilderness on a dangerous mission (and that they may not be getting paid that much for risking their lives like this).  Maybe they're invading a camp and then they have to trek back through the wilderness to a city.  We as players know that the mod will end climatically with the last battle invading the camp.  The "curtain" doesn't fall for our characters at the end of the mod like it does for us.  While we're figuring out who's paying for the pizza next week, our characters are still in potentially life-and-death situations.  Our characters don't know if they'll get attacked by ferocious wilderness animals walking back to the city or have a party member turn on them or have the agents of that BBEG they foiled 3 mods ago attempt to assassinate them as they sleep. 

Extreme alpha-striking is the same as chugging all your water right after you've realized that you're lost in the wilderness. 

Slight tangent: Blowing all your dailies on one encounter is bad. Whether it's the first fight or the last fight. Hoarding them all slows down previous fights and trivializes potentially interesting fights.

I actually really like divvying mine up so I use 'one big punch' per encounter. Whether I have two or four. And I really appreciate the design of certain classes, like barbarian and warden, that help reinforce and reward that concept. 

Jun 15, 2010 -- 4:46PM, MatteBlack wrote:

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:11PM, GreySector wrote:

Jun 10, 2010 -- 6:59AM, MatteBlack wrote:

You are going to throw a forum tantrum (or worse, one at a table) over an encounter that caused you to wait to use your action points? It's hardly even a meaningful threat and undermines your own credibility to present reasonable arguments.

Meddling with fundamental game mechanics is one of my personal pet peeves.

BTW I never said that I would 'throw a forum tantrum'.  Maybe my choice of words was a bit hyperbolic.  I will vociferously express my dislike (after the module is over, maybe on one of these fora) of such a mechanic that has absolutely no foundation in the rules.  I might grumble at the table, but I never bring it to a level that affects the enjoyment of my fellow players.

BTW the last time I checked this was a team game.  If Team PC wins, I am happy.  For the record, nearly half of my characters are leaders.  I play support, and count it as a victory when the other members of my party wipe the floor with Team Monster (even if I don't get to take an action in the combat).  I don't complain that I didn't get to do anything, I chalk up a victory and move on.

Felt like the point needed to be made that that style of overstatement has little place here and generally just moots your own point. I don't want any instituationalized obsolescences of alphastrike players but, I am fine with the occasional use of reasonable plot devices to force people outside of their comfort zone or to face the flaws over over-optimized builds.

::throws up his hands::  I read, deleted and re-wrote my post about three times to keep a calm and measured tone, only to have you flatly dismiss me.  I fail to see what in my post 'moots' my own point.  Maybe I am being obtuse.  I guess we just have two different ways of looking at the game.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:35PM, tirianmal wrote:

Just for the sake of argument, since the game rules don't cover all the possible variations of skill challenges, when a writer/DM either makes up a new affect for a skill challenge (imposing some penalty on a failure) or a new use for a skill ... you're ok with that, right?

I am fine with new uses for skills.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:35PM, tirianmal wrote:

It's just the combat mechanics you have issues with? Because every possible way to play D&D combat is in the books?

Pretty much.  D&D is basically a combat simuation game and the majority of the PHB is devoted to combat rules, combat powers, what characters can do in combat, etc.  My brain has only so much processing power, so I generally leave my RP for out of combat situations.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:35PM, tirianmal wrote:

No PC is invincible, and no PC is able to fiat that they can never be X by a monster doing Y. Just doesn't exist.

We weren't talking about monsters (at least I didn't think we were).  We also weren't talking about a character being blanket immune to something.  I thought we were talking about contrived ways to deny PCs the use of their action points.

Jun 15, 2010 -- 1:35PM, tirianmal wrote:

I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.

I can see your point, I just disagree with it.  As somebody else noted and you stipulated in another part of this thread spending an action point isn't a power.  I would go further to say that spending a healing surge isn't a power either, but there are many powers that allow a character to spend a healing surge. 

Bottom line: I don't think that action point denial should be something that should ever happen outside of a surprise round.  If you want to deny PCs their action points then do it the old fashioned way: knock them unconcious or stun them.

I have run out of time to modify this post any further.  I hope that I got my point across without offending anybody.

Jun 17, 2010 -- 1:57PM, GreySector wrote:

I can see your point, I just disagree with it.  As somebody else noted and you stipulated in another part of this thread spending an action point isn't a power.  I would go further to say that spending a healing surge isn't a power either, but there are many powers that allow a character to spend a healing surge. 

Bottom line: I don't think that action point denial should be something that should ever happen outside of a surprise round.  If you want to deny PCs their action points then do it the old fashioned way: knock them unconcious or stun them.

I have run out of time to modify this post any further.  I hope that I got my point across without offending anybody.

I'm fine with the "old fashioned way" in most cases. I think we can agree to disagree on the principle but I get you. ;-)

Cheers.

Probably players might disagree whether there is actually a problem but, many including myself do. When considering ways to respond to those dissatisfied players and DMs and mitigate the impact of alphastriking, would it really be preferrable to include a stun trap over some sort of environmental mechanism in the encounter notes that merely prevents AP use until the second round? Seems like a pretty big swing in lost early actions. I personally like late-arriving NPCs if better scaling can't be attained but, I'd like to see as large of a variety as possible methods used and avaialble.

Jun 17, 2010 -- 12:02PM, lorika wrote:

While we're figuring out who's paying for the pizza next week, our characters are still in potentially life-and-death situations.   

That reminds me - it's your turn to pay for pizza this week.

 

Everything being said here, is just a way to bastardize 4e rules. How can we remove a critical part of 4e adventures? How do we take away that evil action point.. OOOH ITS A SCARY BAD MAN.

LFR isnt DnD 4e core. Its 4e combat light. 4e is a combat simulator with roleplaying on the side in home games. If you dislike being an alpha strike. Dont play up, and dont play paragon, and for the love of all thats holy, dont play epic. Because all you will do is find some reason to complain.

Alphastrikes happen. Ludicrous speed has been engaged and we dont break for road runners. Its just how it is. Get improved init, get a init boosting item, and roll with the fact, that if you dont have a 16 in your primary attack stat; at creation - you just dont get the rules behind this edition of DnD. (By the way, the 16 attack stat was a Mike Mearls saying. Not mine.)

I hate to be blunt. I really do. But at Origins if someone tells me at P1 or p2 that my alphastrike ruined there fun, Im gonna get up, leave and let that entire table die. Because thats what will happen if the judge dosent softball down.
-Skip

Jun 18, 2010 -- 8:50AM, MatteBlack wrote:

Probably players might disagree whether there is actually a problem but, many including myself do. When considering ways to respond to those dissatisfied players and DMs and mitigate the impact of alphastriking, would it really be preferrable to include a stun trap over some sort of environmental mechanism in the encounter notes that merely prevents AP use until the second round? Seems like a pretty big swing in lost early actions. I personally like late-arriving NPCs if better scaling can't be attained but, I'd like to see as large of a variety as possible methods used and avaialble.

"As soon as you start fighting, you feel an odd sensation -- your soul is fatigued.  You're unable to call upon inner reserves of strength for the next six seconds.  No, not those inner reserves -- Second Wind is still okay.  You just can't spend action points for the next six seconds."

Yeah, I'd rather face a stun trap.  At least that's an XP-compensated avoidable feature as opposed to terrain that's awful solely for the sake of temporarily depriving heroes of a really abstract combat advantage.

Jun 18, 2010 -- 10:49AM, Cpttylorx wrote:

I hate to be blunt. I really do. But at Origins if someone tells me at P1 or p2 that my alphastrike ruined there fun, Im gonna get up, leave and let that entire table die. Because thats what will happen if the judge dosent softball down.
-Skip

In that case, I'll just be blunt too.

You're displaying a downright selfish, self-centered, and inconsiderate attitude. Quite frankly, it's more than a little childish and immature. Not too dissimilar to taking your ball and going home if the ballgame doesn't go your way.

Your right to have fun does not supercede anyone else's. You are not better than other people. Period.

It's an elitist, snobbish, primadonna attitude. I personally won't ever stand for it in games I run.

Again, nobody's saying, "Don't ever alpha strike", just, really, be aware that dominating the table all the time really isn't much for for the other guys.

If I'm the unfortunate guy with the lowest initiative, I'm going to be a little annoyed if I never get to do anything. Especially if it's a convention I've taken time off of work for, and possibly spent hundreds of dollars in transportation, hotel, and convention fees to be there.

Heck, even if I'm NOT that guy, I'm going to be annoyed at the guy grandstanding and overbearing. It's likely to leave me with a sour taste in my mouth and be a distinct downer to the day.



-karma

Well, I never claimed to be better then others.  But if someone complains that me alphastriking has ruined the time at the table for them, I'd leave. I cant rewrite history, but I'd certainly leave them to their own devices the next combat.
Charity and selfishness go hand in hand. Its eye of the beholder.  Take words with no pretext or emotion and lay them out, and watch and see how people react to them.
Am I elitest? Maybe I am, am I snobbish? No more then anyone else who wants to win in any pretext, am I a primma donna? No I'd be a prima uoma - that is, if you are saying I want to take the center focal point and lead the charge, or be controling? Or do you mean it as an egotistical, unreasonable, irritable person? Could you use it in the sense of, vain, obnoxious ?

The fun thing is, about throwing out terminology like prima donna, is quite simply - is someone you can't do without.  Yes it has derogatory statements hidden behind it, but its also a core component to a play to have one.

Now step back Jason, and look at what I said. If I ruin someone elses fun, by alphastriking, then I would leave the table. Now take that with kind consideration, that I feel I might not be suited to that table and wouldnt want to dominante it, or ruin other peoples fun.

The only reason you read it the way you did, is your own inflection added in. You dont know how or what I'll be playing, you just made an assumption.. You are a far smarter individual then that, to take some comment, that is intentionally incendiary for the point of arguement, not the point of name calling, and turn such a great potential debate into mudslinging. 8(
I r a sad panda now.

Jun 4, 2010 -- 2:26AM, Mirtek wrote:

Jun 3, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Alpha-striking is a pretty old problem

I disagree that it is a problem at all. It's just a different style of play. Some people like it, others don't.

By calling it a problem, you portray it as the somehow inferior style.

If all people at the table are fine with alpha strike it's fine. If some people are not, these people are just as much a problem as the people who like alpha strike.

Jun 3, 2010 -- 3:00PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

(remember the 20 page post "Greyhawk Finale so awful" with the wizard that summoned the earth elemental with the falchion and had an easy time with all the encounters?) That player wasn't out to ruin anyones fun, it just turned out that way and no one said anything to him-he heard about it through the boards.

That's not a problem with the wizard owning the mod, that's a problem with the wizard owning the mod at a table who didn't appreciate it. On a different people other player's might have not minded that at all.

 

As the referenced player with the wizard from LG in question, I'll throw in my 2 cents, and how I think it relates to this thread.

Two of the players at the table were friends of mine, while the rest were strangers.  I had planned on playing with a table of all friends, so there would be no surprises about who could do what.  However, some of those friends couldn't make it.  I had to find the 2-3 players I didn't know for us to make a table.

While forming the table, we discussed that this was the LG finale, and our characters were extremely powerful.  If that was a problem, we could find other players to play with.  However, the father and his son said it was OK.  They joined us, and we played.

The short of the game was that all the encounters were done usually in the first round (perhaps one went two round).  The last fight, though cleaned our clock and sent us packing.  It was the only opportunity for the father and his son's characters to take actions (which didn't amount to much, being that we were facing multiple high level wizards).

At no time did the father and son express their feelings about the game until the post the following few days later.

What was the problem with this?  Building nova characters?  No.  Building 'underpowered' characters (which the son was using)?  No.

The problem was that the players at the table were used to playing different styles of games.  The father said playing with powerful characters was fine...but he didn't realize how powerful they were.  The players did not match well, and this resulted in a poor playing experience for the father and son.  I say that because the friends that I played with enjoyed themselves - even though they did not act much during combats.  However, they were on the same page as me, and we knew what to expect.  We tried to communicate with the father and son, but the father was polite at the table, and did not express his agitation at the situation (in this case, politeness resulted in no change to the play style).

Each player at each gaming table gets something different out of a role playing game.  I enjoy a good amount of role playing - but I also like making effective characters.  Some players lean more one direction or another.  There is nothing wrong with preference over one or another.

How does this translate in 4e?  Each player at each table gets something different out of these games - specifically, 4e LFR games.  I would like to say that we are all human (and adults), and generally want others to succeed and have fun...of course, that is not always true .  It is a challenge to find players who match your style well, and there is always a certain amount of risk sitting with new players...hoping these new people will make a great experience rather than leaving players in a foul mood.  I believe most of the best answers to helping players have fun are to be open-minded, and try to be empathetic to others.  As in any large group of people, empathetic abilities can range from person to person ("What, you mean you DIDN'T find that funny?!"), but that is the best tool for helping everyone have a good gaming experience.

As to the LG game, while the finger can be pointed at the father for failure to communicate more about what they were looking for in a game, I failed as well.  I should have seen that they were not enjoying themselves, smiling and cracking jokes during the module like my friends.  And it is only logical that going to a big event, and not doing much during combats can be a downer.  Logical, but something I wasn't considering during my final event at the end of the campaign - I was so focused on doing well that I failed to be as empathetic as I should have been.

In 4e, my characters are more low-key...but I still have a powerful character or two in the mix.  As more rule books get released, more options will make overpowered PCs more likely.  Many of the answers to fun adventures (for all) are still the same.  Try to be aware of who you are playing with - if we just wanted to do stuff with no personal interaction, we would play computer games.  Since personal interaction is so important in these games, try to keep it in mind during play.  Don't make it the end-all be-all of your playing experience (at least, as a player - "Oh, is that player across the table feel like he's contributing enough" is not your focus.  That's more of the DM's focus), but do keep it in mind.

Making overly-powerful PCs is not a huge player problem at this point (that is an attribute of the rules).  Making them and playing them without considering others CAN be a problem.

Jun 18, 2010 -- 2:56PM, evilaustintom wrote:

 



At no time did the father and son express their feelings about the game until the post the following few days later.



As to the LG game, while the finger can be pointed at the father for failure to communicate more about what they were looking for in a game, I failed as well.  I should have seen that they were not enjoying themselves, smiling and cracking jokes during the module like my friends.  And it is only logical that going to a big event, and not doing much during combats can be a downer.  Logical, but something I wasn't considering during my final event at the end of the campaign - I was so focused on doing well that I failed to be as empathetic as I should have been.



Making overly-powerful PCs is not a huge player problem at this point (that is an attribute of the rules).  Making them and playing them without considering others CAN be a problem.

It can be a problem, but empathy is a weird thing. It's not a magic power and sometimes we concentrate on our own stuff and miss clues. Other players need to communicate.  I ran at a similiar problem at a recent con. I wound up playing several P1 mods with nearly the same group of people. My PC had a shtick where I pushed and knocked prone several enemies multiple times per encounter. I consulted the group about where to push them or not to push at all and the melee characters were very happy to get combat advantage, but toward the end of our third adventure together the ranger started screaming at me that I need to be more considerate and he hated the -2 to hit (not that he missed much anyway). My stupefied reply to him was, why didn't he say something earlier? I could see then that he was upset over it, but I was upset to be screamed at also (empathy goes both ways). All the player in question needed to do is say don't knock this one or those ones prone and I would have been happy to oblige. Since he didn't say anything all this time I assumed he had grounding shot or just didn't care.

The point is we can't guess what other people are thinking, if you don't say it I might not guess it.

PS: I have been asked by a frequent LFR GM of mine not to use THE DICE, so I don't. Easily said, easily done.

Jun 16, 2010 -- 8:04PM, Mind_Flayer_Monk wrote:

Jun 16, 2010 -- 7:38PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Frankly, I think that's a horrible attitude and flies in the face of role-playing a believable character. No one in real life holds back in a combat situation to make sure that all of his allies also get a chance to do something to their enemies. Within the game, it's a life-and-death scenario, and even resurrection magic isn't justification enough for taking such a risk.

So why are you not using all dailies (attack and utility)  in the first encounter of every adventure?

Because some encounters are more threatening than others. I am not saying that there are not reasons to hold back the most powerful attacks, but that holding back in order to allow everyone to take a turn is not a good one.

The structure of LFR being the way that it is, it can be fairly clear when you've reached the last combat encounter for the module. At that point, you often do see all unused dailies being used. There's nothing to save them for, whereas at the first fight of the day, you don't know what is to come. Also, from a story perspective, you rarely see the first fight being the hardest one. (There are one or two modules where this isn't the case, and I know that a lot of PCs get surprised as they try to muddle through the fight while husbanding resources for a threat that doesn't materialize).

Jun 18, 2010 -- 8:19PM, Herid_Fel wrote:

Because some encounters are more threatening than others. I am not saying that there are not reasons to hold back the most powerful attacks, but that holding back in order to allow everyone to take a turn is not a good one.

The structure of LFR being the way that it is, it can be fairly clear when you've reached the last combat encounter for the module. At that point, you often do see all unused dailies being used. There's nothing to save them for, whereas at the first fight of the day, you don't know what is to come. Also, from a story perspective, you rarely see the first fight being the hardest one. (There are one or two modules where this isn't the case, and I know that a lot of PCs get surprised as they try to muddle through the fight while husbanding resources for a threat that doesn't materialize).

One of the things I've been doing is trying to always spend either an action point and/or a daily in every combat. Even at 1st level, assuming a skill challenge, you can do that in 4 combats(3 action points from skill challenge+3 combats). Assuming 3 combats, my goal is to end up with a maximum of an action point and a daily for the final combat.

So that does some things:
Reduces metagaming in a logical way. I'm not reacting to the possibility of 3 combats, I'm trying to consistently use resources assuming 4 combats. This is partially illusionary, but it means I won't usually be in a position to use 2 dailies and an action point in the 3rd combat and having to metagame about suddenly using everything at once.

Generally avoids full-blown alpha strikes. If I'm a Fighter, I might be doing Come and Get It and Rain of Blows or I might do Come and Get It and Sweeping Blow with an Action Point, but I'm not generally doing all 3 in the same combat. At the same time, it does mean I toss off a beta strike in every combat which helps the party and doesn't dominate.

Here are some truths about LFR mods.

Skill challenges make things easier as they assure an action point spent in each combat (even for non battle field archers) =)

spreading xp thin in more than 3 combats makes things very easy

the higher level PC's go the more encounters they are supposed to be able to face before resting

LFR does not take into account the additional resources PC's get as they level


The current ways of challenging players are

Insanely High DEFenses  which turns into long combats of missfesting.
Crippling status effects, terrain or features which deny actions which make you feel like you are not doing anything for half the combat
Increased Monster damage, which gives a realistic danger of death.

If you at a base are going to have 2-3 paragon combats they need to have a real chance to down pc's

Monster tatics at paragon should mirror pc tatics that work.

Focus fire, down pc's and attempt to coup de grace them. Try and ignore defenders
to go after other classes.

If this fails Id suggest Upping the XP allowed for monsters but not raising the XP for the adventure.

There is a lot of anti Alpha strike mentality in this thread and I think that this needs to be looked at from both sides of the coin.

It is disrespectful for a player to alpha every combat and not allow a player with low initiative to have what they consider a meaningful turn.

It is also disrespectful for a player with low initiative to expect the optimizer to never alpha strike.

Both players are there to have a good time and both players came there to play in their own style. Each player has the responsibility to try and allow the other player to have their fun. This can be hard at times as players do not always communicate their feelings until after the game has ended and often not directly to the offending player. Acknowledging the other players and allowing them to have their fun is an important part of convention play and if you overdo it then try and make peace afterwards. Saying "sorry man, I didn't mean to leave you out of a fight, its just how our group usually plays" could go a long way to fixing the situation. Next time you see that player delay until after they get a chance to act then alpha and they will hopefully see you are trying to be considerate. Yes it means they will have to eat the occasional alpha round and you might get the occasional sub optimal combat but maybe the social part of meeting new people at a convention will make up for that.

There is nothing wrong with Alpha striking occasionally with strangers or constantly with your gaming group. Just try to remember that everyone is there to play and not just watch from the sidelines. Don't hate the striker for doing his job, just let them know you would like a piece of the action next time. I have yet to run into players that flat out did not want others at the table to have a good time, some people just don't know what that means to someone they have never met before.

I am not an alpha striker by any sense of the word and yeah sometimes I don't get to act in a fight though it is usually because of a save ends stun or dominate and not other players. It sucks but it does not happen often enough for me to stress over it. In fact last time I was dominated, it was the alpha striking assassin who rescued me by killing the guy that was dominating me when I couldn't roll a saving throw for 2 rounds. I don't mind missing a turn of combat if it means I have more time to RP.

BTW I play a Priest of Tempus and I do not have RROT so please no hating on the priesthood. There are many ways to serve the lord of battle. Some of us prefer to support our allies.

My Fighter was MC'd Barbarian and Avenger (long story) *and* just recently bought a set of Dice of Auspicious Fortune.  Her level 13 Barbarian power is *designed* for being a big hit (literally) and it worked out that this mod (DALE1-6, in fact) would be her proving ground with this setup.

In the first combat, I rolled low on initiative.  Surprise, surprise, even though everyone went before me and used a few powers, I still managed to have time to make an attack against something.  In fact, that combat lasted 4 rounds, if I remember.  Anyway, I unloaded on one guy with Fortune's Favor.  Since I hit with the attack (4[W] damage) I can reroll the attack and add 1[W] to it.  Well, I had a 20 stored in my Dice, so I used it.  Auto-crit on 5[W]?  Yes, please.  I think the damage was over 100.  Enough to bloody the guy but not enough to drop him.  I action pointed and hit him with an at-will.  That was enough to drop him.

But, here's the catch: I waited until round 2 before I did that.  Why?  Well, for one thing, I was trying to set up a better position for myself so I wouldn't be in a flank.  But, when my second turn came up and I knew the combat was going to last for a while, I went ahead and took the chance.

Here's the thing: if the DoAF didn't have a crit stored, I couldn't have done it (without a natural critical roll.)  How often do you have players roll a crit on their DoAF?  Not very often, I'd wager.  Instead of using DME to make combats tougher, use it to ensure those stored digits are real: make the player roll his dice in front of you.  If they get a 19 or 20, good for them.  If they don't, good for you, I guess? 

Also, my fighter, won't be able to make that nova round again because, since she leveled to 14 after that mod, I fixed her feats and background back to being a MC Avenger only and being from Akanul.  She didn't really fit into the Barbarian lifestyle. 

I will make a complaint of my own, that goes along with this thread: Barbarian's suck because they can nova every round and can make any encounter trivial.  I've seen it all through-out heroic tier and I shudder to think of what it'll be like when the barbarian in our LFR group makes it to paragon....

EDIT: Also, from a player's point-of-view, how are we supposed to know that a combat is "under control" before combat even begins?  If they are alpha striking (meaning that are making that nova attack in round 1) then they are gambling that this is the big fight and is when they need to do so. 
If they didn't go nova on round 1 in the encounter you ran at the convention, OP, would they have had the combat "under control"?

"Alpha Striking" is also sometimes just a bad tactic. 

I once saw* a BBEG who, by the end of the first round, was:
~ Stunned (x2)
~ Restricted to only making basic attacks
~ Forced to attack thin air
~ "Thief of Five Fates'd" (the warlock PC could cancel any BBEG d20 roll by rolling higher on a d20), and
~ Had a huge penalty to attack rolls

All at the same time.  It was ridiculous.  The fight was obviously the last encounter, so everyone just automatically piled their absolute biggest, baddest daily power on the BBEG without paying any attention to what anyone else was doing.  Most of the effects on the BBEG only lasted one round.  So together, the table effectively cancelled out the majority of attacks that other players had made.  (The BBEG isn't "more stunned" if he's stunned twice, the BBEG doesn't care if he has a huge penalty to attacks if he is only making an attack against thin air anyway, etc.)  There were plenty of other non-minion baddies around and the fight lasted many rounds, so everyone would have gotten a chance to use their cool attack (and had it be meaningful) if people had just spread out their attacks a little (either spread them out over time or among several targets).  Because everyone decided to blindly "nova" in the first round, the fight dragged out longer than it should have. 

Constant and excessive Alpha Striking undermines teamwork and also discourages the use of interesting and/or effective tactics.  You could program any computer to play D&D as an Alpha-Striker - use the biggest [W] attack on the first round of every combat on the BBEG, action point, and then use the second biggest [W] attack.  Rinse and repeat.  I have also seen Warlords rearrange everyone's initiative so that all the mega-strikers went first (instead of, for example, a defender) and then all the strikers got beaten into a bloody pulp.  And then, of course, they complained that the mod was way too hard even though the fight would have been fine with non-Alphastike tactics. 



* Disclaimer - This happened a few months ago, so my details might be slightly off.  I wanted to throw that out there before someone who was at that table reads this post and says "No, you're remembering it wrong!  The BBEG didn't have a huge penalty to attack rolls - he had a huge penalty to damage rolls!"  The general idea is the same even if I'm misremembering a detail or two - the BBEG had 5 or 6 essentially overlapping conditions on him all at the same time.

19-20 on a d20 is 1/10.
Rolling 3d20 comes to about 1/4: so with the Lucky Shot and the silloy dice you are pretty likely to have a crit stored (except that you aren't making an attack roll and therefore can't crit :P)

NPCs should *NOT* be using Coup de Grace except in exceptional circumstances. In-combat healing is *rare* in Faerun so it's not something that they should expect (and even if they've seen it they shouldn't expect a lot more)  ...but more importantly it's not much fun having your character picked on that hard and the GM can pretty much guarantee a kill on most tables (well many anyway) if they really want to play that game.

I'm all for tougher combats myself: there's a reason LG gave out a lot less xp than was 'earned' in the fights. The only combats I've thought really unreasonable were
**  CORM1-4 (bad mod in many ways but the final fight crowned it: regen20 with high defences and huge HP and very strong terrain is not much fun even if you didn't rely on spectacularly poor tactics from the monster to have any chance at all).
** WATE 1-5: iirc our APL1.25 party faced a level 7 fight (playing down for once) in hostile terrain.

One anti-Alpha Strike gimmick that I have seen used a couple of times in the same recent mod is to give BBEGs some sort of "negate the initial attack" power, such as one fight where the main elite, for the first couple of rounds of combat, could grab a nearby civilian to use as a shield as an immediate interrupt. I would find this irritating if it was happening all of the time, but as an occasional gimmick it can put players on their toes about whether or not to go full-bore with their first attack. (The group I was running this for found it entertainingly evil, but that's a side benefit.)

After playing and/or running all of the Origins mods over the course of seven rounds of slot zeros and nine rounds at the convention (at all tiers) over the past couple of weeks, I saw maybe two cases where Alpha Striking was a problem. Of those, one involved two ranged rangers landing multiple crits each and the other involved the DM running what I knew to be a bad-ass encounter soft combined with some fortunate initiative rolls. In all the other cases a strong opening salvo either merely made the encounter manageable, was negated, or else wasn't enough to break the encounter. Could be that I was just lucky not to encounter the AS-focused tables, but I think that's more a testament to encounter design in recent mods which makes that more difficult to do.

Did they have DoAFs?

This is why I don't mind an alpha strike in the LFR games.  I play in an all-dwarf group.  We have low initiative scores and aren't the best strikers.  One thing we are, however, is durable.  We can take alot of damage and keep going.  Its a stratagy that works well at home, but during events like DnDXP and GenCon its a problem....


Since you're on a timer, you have to be able to deal damage fast and reliably.  We took on a SPEC event on its hard version and at the minimum level to attempt it.  The DM aknowledged at  the time limit that we would have been able to finish if we had more time, but we had to settle for an incomplete adventure / partial failure.

Since we're not built for damage dealing, alpha striking, and other optimal combat we're at a large disadvantage.  It may not be my style, but its needed at times.

My solution to that particular issue would be to play faster
You can get through a round surprisingly quickly if you have someone pushing the initiative tracker and people know what they want to do (or delay while they think -often it will be someon else on the same team's turn next anyway)  ..does rely on the GM being quick too of course.

Ranged combat isn't really a RPG issue. It's intrinsic to ranged attacks and has to be actively mitigated by the rules (making ranged damage or attack bonuses lower than comparable melee) if you want them to be balanced. Another way to balance them is to make ranged attackers more vulnerable if they can be reached (glass cannon) which ranged PCs will often do for themselves in a system where they find defences largely unnecesary (tends to happen in LFR) ...but that's only so they can pile more damage on instead making the problem seem even worse.

Of course LFR further exacerbates this by often making it seem pointless to invest in passive defences as you'll get hit anyway if you're attacked (generally not quite true but it can seem that way).

Jul 13, 2010 -- 5:31PM, Timlagor wrote:

My solution to that particular issue would be to play faster
You can get through a round surprisingly quickly if you have someone pushing the initiative tracker and people know what they want to do (or delay while they think -often it will be someon else on the same team's turn next anyway)  ..does rely on the GM being quick too of course.

Ranged combat isn't really a RPG issue. It's intrinsic to ranged attacks and has to be actively mitigated by the rules (making ranged damage or attack bonuses lower than comparable melee) if you want them to be balanced. Another way to balance them is to make ranged attackers more vulnerable if they can be reached (glass cannon) which ranged PCs will often do for themselves in a system where they find defences largely unnecesary (tends to happen in LFR) ...but that's only so they can pile more damage on instead making the problem seem even worse.

Of course LFR further exacerbates this by often making it seem pointless to invest in passive defences as you'll get hit anyway if you're attacked (generally not quite true but it can seem that way).

Here's the solution get rid of 99% of the dice and just make a straight D20 roll if all weapon damage were a static number rounds would travel at a hypersonic speed effectively every hit would do max damage then it would be a matter of adding a static amount per plus for the crit damage.
So a War Axe would deal 10+ strength, a +2 Vicious War Axe would deal 12 + strength + 24,  and a +1 Vicious War Axe would deal 11 + strength +12.

If you really want to do that you should at least use average damage Vamroc.

Using average damage is actually a pretty good deal for a DM (and table) sometimes. For example, I was scheduled to run a 4-combat SPEC in 3.5 hours, so I predid initiative, figured out average damage so I could do my turns quickly, even prepped knowledge check results. We did all 4 fights plus an optional 5th cause we still had time.

The DM and players being willing to _just go_ helps immensely for time saving. Who cares if it takes 6 rounds if each person takes 30 seconds or less for their turn?

Jul 18, 2010 -- 1:13AM, Timlagor wrote:

If you really want to do that you should at least use average damage Vamroc.

The issue with average damage is that some creatures have reduction or insubstantial so if the charactor is starting with an average of 15 damage before insubstantial he's doing about 7 after and a PC who averages 15 or more is typically going to be the highest damage dealer on the table. Everyone else will be relagated to 8 or 9 points BEFORE INSUBSTATIAL imagine if someone decided to put a paragon level swarm in a high tier 7-10 do you know how long that fight would take when the highest damage dealer is only capable of 7 points and god forbid if it had resistance a party would have to crit on every attack just make any kind of dent.     

Wouldn't that imply a problem with Insubstantial, and not the other regular combat stuff?

Putting everyone to max damage rolls changes EVERYTHING. Monsters would have to get their HP beefed up to compensate, damage reduction would have to increase across the board, etc.

All to fix a problem with Insubstantial.

I'd say, fix the actual problem.




-karma

Jul 18, 2010 -- 6:29AM, Keithric wrote:

Using average damage is actually a pretty good deal for a DM (and table) sometimes.

In the last few Battle Interactives for Living Arcanis, we used average damage.  It particularly speeded up spellcasters -- I was playing a psion, and instead of rolling large handfuls of dice each time for Energy Ball (or whatever), I'd just tell the DM, "empowered Energy Ball, 84 points electrical damage, DC 22 Reflex save for half" (or whatever).  Unless I was making a saving throw, I was never picking up a die during most combats.

I wouldn't want to always do it this way, but in a situation in which time is of the essence, it's not a bad solution.

Jul 19, 2010 -- 12:35AM, Vamroc wrote:

Jul 18, 2010 -- 1:13AM, Timlagor wrote:

If you really want to do that you should at least use average damage Vamroc.

The issue with average damage is that some creatures have reduction or insubstantial so if the charactor is starting with an average of 15 damage before insubstantial he's doing about 7 after and a PC who averages 15 or more is typically going to be the highest damage dealer on the table. Everyone else will be relagated to 8 or 9 points BEFORE INSUBSTATIAL imagine if someone decided to put a paragon level swarm in a high tier 7-10 do you know how long that fight would take when the highest damage dealer is only capable of 7 points and god forbid if it had resistance a party would have to crit on every attack just make any kind of dent.     

My short response is "And?"

Longer response: Erm ... so, your point is that it takes forever to whittle down an insubstantial creature? That is sort of the way they work.

Sure, you can both speed up each round using max damage and not rolling it and the number of rounds all told that gets played. But the former speeds up the game and the latter speeds up the game -and- changes the tactics and power of the monsters.

So, yeah, I'd be against using max damage. Average dmg preserves the approximate tactics and way that monsters should work without giving the PCs too much of a boost in power.

Jul 1, 2010 -- 8:18AM, TheronM wrote:

One anti-Alpha Strike gimmick that I have seen used a couple of times in the same recent mod is to give BBEGs some sort of "negate the initial attack" power, such as one fight where the main elite, for the first couple of rounds of combat, could grab a nearby civilian to use as a shield as an immediate interrupt. I would find this irritating if it was happening all of the time, but as an occasional gimmick it can put players on their toes about whether or not to go full-bore with their first attack. (The group I was running this for found it entertainingly evil, but that's a side benefit.)

After playing and/or running all of the Origins mods over the course of seven rounds of slot zeros and nine rounds at the convention (at all tiers) over the past couple of weeks, I saw maybe two cases where Alpha Striking was a problem. Of those, one involved two ranged rangers landing multiple crits each and the other involved the DM running what I knew to be a bad-ass encounter soft combined with some fortunate initiative rolls. In all the other cases a strong opening salvo either merely made the encounter manageable, was negated, or else wasn't enough to break the encounter. Could be that I was just lucky not to encounter the AS-focused tables, but I think that's more a testament to encounter design in recent mods which makes that more difficult to do.

Ed, is that you?  I think one of the "two ranged rangers with multiple crits" was me at your table on Saturday night.  It was Crazy how well the dice were rolling.
Though that was my first paragon table, so I was still feeling out all of my new PP abilities, which honestly are stronger than I had expected.

But this thread has given me something to think about.  Oftimes I think of it as my job as ranger to kill something before it goes - before that table, I don't think it ever happened twice in one module.  Maybe I'll try a little restraint at GenCon and see how that works (or at least look to another player or two and ask "Whaddya think - AP?").

Cheers.
-VIC