So I keep reading conflicting reports about the speed of 4th editon combat. Many say that it is faster than 3.5 while some have said that it is the same or slower. I have quickly looked over the combat section in the PH and it seems to me that it would be about the same or slower than 3.5 but I have not actually played it. Any 4th players have some good input on this? I like 3.5 but hate how long combat takes and I'm looking at 4th as a possible fix.
4th Edition combat does not take less time, on the whole. If you ran a 4 hour game session in 3.5 and 2 of those hours were spent in combat, you'll probably still spend those 2 hours in combat. What has changed is that each round in combat goes much faster; where a 3.5 combat might include four or five rounds, a 4th Edition combat might include eight or nine rounds. This means that each character gets the opportunity to do a lot more in combat. The battles are fast-paced and dynamic. So while the amount of time you put into them probably won't change all that much, they'll seem like they're going by much faster because you'll be having a lot more fun with it (at least, if your experience is anything like my own).
I kinda agree with bronze-dome. Each round goes faster, but even though the NPCs/baddies have more hit points, etc., combat still feels twice as fast for my group. We like the way it has cranked up the feel of the game. Plus, those first level Kobolds may have 25 hit points now, instead of 2, but your damage out put through Twin Strike, etc. makes you still take them down pretty quickly.
well if i'm going to spend the same amount of time in combat I would much rather it be exciting and at least seem like its going faster... I'm going to be getting back into DMing for the first time in a long while (since 2nd, although I have done one here and there in 3.5) and I'm only going to have 2 players. With the 4th rules, there are new roles, like Striker and defender, etc and multiclassing is more difficult to cover the different abilities. Will 4th still be a good fit for only 2 players or would 3.5 maybe be better?
|
So I keep reading conflicting reports about the speed of 4th editon combat. Many say that it is faster than 3.5 while some have said that it is the same or slower. I have quickly looked over the combat section in the PH and it seems to me that it would be about the same or slower than 3.5 but I have not actually played it. Any 4th players have some good input on this? I like 3.5 but hate how long combat takes and I'm looking at 4th as a possible fix.
This may be a completely useless comment and horribly off topic - but if you want fast combat and 3.5e "feel" then check out True20, failing that 1e AD&D. Depends if you feel combat is of equal importance to your game as the story bits.
S.
The battles are fast-paced and dynamic. So while the amount of time you put into them probably won't change all that much, they'll seem like they're going by much faster because you'll be having a lot more fun with it (at least, if your experience is anything like my own).
In my experience that's partially true.
The cool side:
* minions reduce dice-rolling and let you create the "Bridge of Khazad-Dum" effect with far less bookeeping than 3.5. I ran Siege of Bordrin's Watch and it worked marvels for moping through droves of orcs. On the other hand, in Hook Mountain Massacre (3.5) my PCs got in a few fighrs with a big bunch of basic ogres (almost a mook for 8th level characters) and the combat was slower as it required more calculations, even if a couple ogres were downed per round without much sweat.
The not-so-cool side:
* When the party has cleared out minions and beaten more basic opposition, the leaders and brute types are HP storehouses. When finishing off those guys, the streamlined and fast-paced cinematic effect breaks down into a predictable pattern: close in with defenders, try flanking with strikers, have your Leader in range to restore HP to the guys in melee and, if possible, have your Controller take shots at the baddies with attacks which don't hurt your fellows.
In my experience (5 modules of the Scales of War AP + Keep on the Shadowfell + 4e Scouring of Gate Pass), the "dynamic" phase on combat can take fewer rounds than the "just beating the boss down" part (especially if the boss in question, besides the huge HP, has a couple very high Defenses).
* Also, the encounter system is so precise and mathematical that there are no casual encounters with 1-2 small monsters. All of those are combo-ed into bigger encounters. Rounds are faster, but they do have more creatures.
* With the new save and condition system, plus re-assessment of damage per attacks and the role of spells, now you cannot get rid of an encounter "fast and dirty" by putting a goblin patrol to Sleep for several minutes or incinerating a spider swarm with a single fireball. That factor (incapacitating or highly damaging spells) made a few encounters by day faster to resolve.
All in all, I love the way of catering for large mook combats, but I acknowledge that some fights (especially fights with leader monsters) lag for longer. In 3.5 they could lag for that long (or go slow too or become a fast TPK), 4e is more even, but you know you're in for quite few rounds of "pound till it drops"
|
It's about the same amount of time as 3rd edition fights, just lacking a lot of the spice that made the older edition's things more interesting. By about round 5 everyone is usually out of the powers you'll be willing to expend against not the big bad guy monsters so you've got a lot of at-wills being tossed about.
I've seen fights in 4E at like 5th level last as long or longer then fights in 3.5 I've seen at level 16. It was really tedious at that point too, everyone was just completely empty. At least the 16th level fight was slow because we were taking a long time thinking about what to do. :(
just lacking a lot of the spice that made the older edition's things more interesting. By about round 5 everyone is usually out of the powers you'll be willing to expend against not the big bad guy monsters so you've got a lot of at-wills being tossed about.
I just don't get this train of thought. At all. People complain that once you have no more encounter and daily powers, all you can do is use at wills... well, in 3.5, all that the non-spellcasting characters HAD were at-wills.
Fighter - I swing my weapon. (4E has feats, too, so you can't say that well, there were a ton of feats you could use.) Whereas, in 4E, you can mark an opponent, preventing them from moving AND you have 2 at will powers in addition to a basic melee attack.
Rogue - I sneak attack. (You can sneak attack in 4E, too. AND, you can do your other at-will attacks.)
Etc.
Sure, wizards, clerics, etc. have far fewer spells to choose from, but the other classes have far more things to choose from. I like how it balances out the game.
Plus, with all of the movement based mechanics and cooperation based mechanics thrown in, 4E combats seem much more interesting and challenging to me. I just do NOT get the "there's nothing to do in 4E combats compared to 3.5 combats" argument at all.
It's about the same amount of time as 3rd edition fights, just lacking a lot of the spice that made the older edition's things more interesting. By about round 5 everyone is usually out of the powers you'll be willing to expend against not the big bad guy monsters so you've got a lot of at-wills being tossed about.
I've seen fights in 4E at like 5th level last as long or longer then fights in 3.5 I've seen at level 16. It was really tedious at that point too, everyone was just completely empty. At least the 16th level fight was slow because we were taking a long time thinking about what to do. :(
Yeah, I don't really see this happening in my rather extensive experience with 4th Edition.
The variety in powers is nice in 4th Edition, but that's not the only thing that makes combat more dynamic and tactically interesting. The increased ease (and importance) of movement, the larger reserves of hit points, the ability to heal effectively while still participating in the combat itself, etc...all of these things make 4th Edition combat more entertaining than its 3.5 equivalent.
I have to say that as far as "spice" goes, the fact that fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, etc. can do more than "I attack with my weapon," round after round is a freaking spice rack compared to how it's traditionally worked.
The edition does not matter.
The logo on the books on the table doesn't make the game faster or slower.
It all depends on the DM and players.
Same than for a movie, according to the scenario and director.
Since the first movies, there has been fast (furious) movies and slower movies.
Even if the new generation has a lot of high octane action movies, with a bunch of special effects, there are also some romantic comedies, some intimate stories, intrigues, and so on.
For my games with four and five person groups, each encounter has been taking roughly an hour and a half to two hours to complete. Compared to the same group running a 10th level PFRPG game, combats are a bit longer in the 4th edition game even though rounds go slightly faster (this causing myself to find the PFRPG game to be more exciting that the 4th edition game).
Not sure exactly why this is occuring, just that it is for myself and my group.
The edition does not matter.
The logo on the books on the table doesn't make the game faster or slower.
It all depends on the DM and players.
That doesn't mean that the game isn't designed in a way that allows it to be played faster or slower.
You can't ignore the mechanics of a system by saying "It's all up to the players and DM!" Of course it is, but there's still going to be something of a normal amount of time spent on combat based on an average between all groups, and that average will vary based on the design of the system.
The edition does not matter.
The logo on the books on the table doesn't make the game faster or slower.
It all depends on the DM and players.
You, my friend, have never played Rolemaster.
|
|
So a fight like that could take an hour or so, or over 2 hours for a really climactic fight - but those would not be regular events.
Again depends if you really like the "tactical" combats. Only you and your group can decide if that is acceptable. I play in a 4e game and the "wargamer" in me really enjoys the combats*, however I also play in a 1e AD&D game where the combats are over very quickly and for ripping throught a story that's better IMO.
Again if you really like the 3e mechanics but not the time taken to run a fight (similar as you have read to 4e) then download the free quickstart rules for True20 and give them a bash.
In case you are wondering, 4e on weekends where time isn't so much a problem and 1e AD&D during the week as I can still get dinner in and be in bed for work the next day without feeling all I did was one fight.
S.
*Before the beatings start, I mean "the combat" not saying 4e is only a wargame, just the "combats are tabletop wargames" and this is a fact.
|
Yeah, I don't really see this happening in my rather extensive experience with 4th Edition.By about round 5 everyone is usually out of the powers you'll be willing to expend against not the big bad guy monsters so you've got a lot of at-wills being tossed about.
Its a perception thing, I think. Just like the caterwauling over the 15 minute adventure day, some players feel that if their character has a limited use per day ability that is expended anything else they can do is, well, less cool. After all, if it were cool, it would have limited usage, right?
This problem of perception was really introduced in 3ed, where many powers had metered usage tied to character level. The problem was exacerbated by the wealth per level rules. While good for balance, they really pushed players away from buying disposable items. The feeling seems to be that once used that wealth is lost and that character is at a disadvantage vs characters who don't buy consumable items. Combined, these attitudes are what led to people wanting to rest after just 3 or 4 encounters in a couple of hours of game time.
I've said it before, but if you house rule 1 rest period per 24 hours, and provide incentive not to grab 2 or 3 fights and then retreat until tomorrow (time limits, smart monsters that adapt to players, etc...) this problem can be eliminated in any edition. I think people would be amazed at how ingenious desperate players can get. if you're creative there is always a "cool option" regardless of edition or character.
|
|
You, my friend, have never played Rolemaster.The edition does not matter.
The logo on the books on the table doesn't make the game faster or slower.
It all depends on the DM and players.
HA! after a 5 year campaign, my old group had major combats down to a science. We could plow through an encounter in a little under 8 hours.
no seriously, that game took forever.
I've said it before, but if you house rule 1 rest period per 24 hours
Just pointing out that this isn't a house rule in 4th Edition. It's in the real rules.
I'm going to agree with the general consensus that, on average, encounters in 4E are about the same length and feature something close to twice as many rounds.
That said this is a number that is not really simple to pin down because there is quite a bit of variance. Generally I think variance tends to come from four things. Some of these factors are more important in one edition then in another.
A) The kinds of Monsters the players are fighting.
B) The number of Monsters the players are fighting.
C) The level of Players/Monsters.
D) The composition of the players party.
A) The kinds of Monsters the players are fighting.
This category is most important to 4E. A prepared DM in 3.5 should have at his fingertips all the abilities a monster can use and how they work. While it takes longer to bring down some monsters then others its not that extreme from a full encounter perspective. This is not true in 4E, the tight math means that certain kinds of monsters, Soldiers and certain Solos in particular, are really hard to hit and have buckets of hps. These take significantly longer to kill and can sometimes lead to the dreaded Grind if the enemies also pose no real danger to the PCs.
B) The number of Monsters the players are fighting.
For 4E the number of enemies is not that huge a variance for combat length because it probably will take roughly the same number of hits on the bad guys to finish the encounter whether or not their are 5 enemies, on big solo or tons of minions. The biggest factor here is how long the DMs turn takes but its not as extreme as one might think because an encounter that includes bazillions of minions is one involving the simplest of monsters while the big Solo has a lot of special moves that leave the DM pondering longer. Hence a bazillion minions takes longer then a single solo but not that much longer.
In 3.5 we tend to see a lot of variance in this regard. The encounter with just one or two enemies is often (though not always) very quick while larger groups can take significantly longer. Monster complexity to not necessarily tied to expected numbers encountered as well so its much more common to find the single really simple big enemy and its possible to bump into a great many fairly complex enemies.
C) The level of Players/Monsters.
This pretty much only has variance in 3.5. It takes longer to run a 20th level 4E character or monster then a 1st level one but only slightly. The character in particular, once the player is comfortable with his powers, runs very close to the same speed at 1st and at 20th. The only big point of variance here would be if your just handed a character and told 'go'. Then it takes a lot longer to do 20th then 1st. Higher level monsters have slightly more variance then the characters because the DM is always playing them for the 1st time but its nothing really notable.
In 3.5 characters take significantly longer the higher they are in level. Low level characters have only a handful of basic moves and the spell casters have few spells and probably know all of them pretty much by heart. At high level the number of spell effects can be large and working out how they interact with each other can take time. Even the most basic martial type characters often have complex attacks with a lot of ifs and buts associated with them from feats and magic items as well as a plethora of different modifiers for each individual attack. In a challenging combat the spell casters may need to review their options from a very sizable list of spells and could have to look up one or two of them for pertinent information for example what kind of save is involved - Will or Fort? Does SR apply? What is the type of damage being inflicted? High level combat is swingy and lethal so the answers to these types of questions are important.
D) The composition of the players party.
Again there is much variance in this category in 3.5 then 4E. Especially at higher levels. High level spell casters take a lot longer to run in 3.5 then low level martial types so a party that has a lot of high level casters takes more time then one that is made up of low level fighters. In 4E pretty much all the characters take roughly the same amount of time. That said one with a lot of defenders puts out a lot less damage then one with a lot of strikers so a 4E defender heavy party will take longer then a striker heavy party. In this case it will take significantly more rounds for the defender heavy party to win or lose a fight then a striker heavy party.
Hence I do believe that if we average everything out you'll find that 4E combats take about as long as 3.5 ones but involve significantly more rounds of combat. However variance can make this hard to see. A low level 3.5 encounter with three orcs is going to be faster then the vast majority of 4E encounters at every level. On the other hand a party composed of mostly high level spell casters in 3.5 will tend to result in particularly long 3.5 encounters.
As an example (one I used in another post):
[In my 3.5 game] For us, in a 4 hour session we played 6 rounds of combat. My players are 14th level and they were facing off with a CR 15 Demon acting as a body guard for a 15th level Half-Fiend Sorceress and a 15th Level Half-Fiend Wilder. Combats at this level with these kinds of opponents tend to be all about massively powerful magical effects flying back and forth and how each side mitigates them. So, for example during one the baddies rounds I used blasphemy which was interrupted by an immediate action power that lets the parties psion act out of sequence, he used the action from this power to activate a Belt of Battle in order to get enough actions to both be able to move and use another power that teleports his allies to a safe place. To this I responded with, well if there is no one around hit with blasphemy then I guess I'll use...umm...oh I know horrid wilting and I'll also try using a quickened orb of acid, lesser on the mages phantom steed...what are its stats?
Just to do this one baddies turn we had to look up how the psions interrupt power worked (in order to decide if he could use his Belt of Battle after using the power) as well as the phantom steed spell in order to figure out what happens if it is the target of a spell and I had to decide what power to use for a complex high level NPC caster and then had to choose again when her power was interrupted and her circumstances changed.
However its just not the complex casters that take time at high level in 3.5. One of the characters in the party is a two weapon specialist whose schtick - beyond having an absolute ton of attacks is to get criticals. To run this guy the player keeps six piles of meticulously organized dice in front of him. The piles are colour coded because each attack has different modifiers and some of them do different damage then others (two weapon build with different magical effects on the short sword or the long sword). The players pretty good at doing his turn but there are a lot of calculations to work out.
You, my friend, have never played Rolemaster.The edition does not matter.
The logo on the books on the table doesn't make the game faster or slower.
It all depends on the DM and players.
HA! after a 5 year campaign, my old group had major combats down to a science. We could plow through an encounter in a little under 8 hours.
no seriously, that game took forever.
One of our players integrated all the combat tables into a computer program and we were able to do most of our combats in 1 or 2 hours.
I find that well-tuned combats tend to be a little faster, but much more smoothly (less looking up rules, page fliping, etc). The revised design guidelines for solos used in MM2 (and beyond) should greatly reduce the grind that does exist.
|
|
I've said it before, but if you house rule 1 rest period per 24 hoursJust pointing out that this isn't a house rule in 4th Edition. It's in the real rules.
You are correct. You can ignore that comment, and the rest still stands. Characters (in all editions) always have something useful to do even when they are out of their glitziest abilities. You just need to be creative.
One of our players integrated all the combat tables into a computer program and we were able to do most of our combats in 1 or 2 hours.
We actually got close to that fast as well (1 - 2.5 hours per fight), but we had everyone doing something for the GM. One guy ran the weapon charts, one handled RRs and spell charts, and the rest pitched in by looking up creatures for the GM, checking class abilities, diagramming our tactics, etc...Sounds like we did the same as your group, merely with less automation.
You, my friend, have never played Rolemaster.
Yes i did, "my friend".
Also MERP and Space master.Don't assume.
|
|
You, my friend, have never played Rolemaster.The edition does not matter.
The logo on the books on the table doesn't make the game faster or slower.
It all depends on the DM and players.
Yes i did, "my friend".
Also MERP and Space master.
Don't assume.
Uh, I'm pretty sure that comment was meant in a humorous fashion.
Uh, I'm pretty sure that comment was meant in a humorous fashion.
Maybe. Maybe not. Difficult to say.
That's why we use smileys. :)The funny thing it that my post saying that the edition does not matter didn't seem to hit the mark.
Although i was trying to moderate the opposition between the two editions, 3rd and 4th, it seems the partisans still want to oppose each other in the tradition of this futile edition war.
/sigh
Yeah, I don't really see this happening in my rather extensive experience with 4th Edition.It's about the same amount of time as 3rd edition fights, just lacking a lot of the spice that made the older edition's things more interesting. By about round 5 everyone is usually out of the powers you'll be willing to expend against not the big bad guy monsters so you've got a lot of at-wills being tossed about.
I've seen fights in 4E at like 5th level last as long or longer then fights in 3.5 I've seen at level 16. It was really tedious at that point too, everyone was just completely empty. At least the 16th level fight was slow because we were taking a long time thinking about what to do. :(
So YMMV. I'm with Morgan on this one. My pretty solid 4E experience is that rounds 1-5 are pretty exciting, but rounds 6+ (and rounds can go to 15 or 20 or more) are just a dull dice-rolling slog.
Combat in 4th edition are nor slower nor faster than in 3.X.
If the players know well their powers, the 5-6 first rounds are fast and exciting, then it's a long and more or less boring repetition of at-will powers.
Last night I played 4th edition with 2 of the 5 players that didn't remember what their character's powers did. It was a long and soporific nightmare ...
Thanks for all the replies. It definately seems like the consensus is that 4th would last at least as long as 3.5. So I don't think it would be worth it for me to switch (plus I would have to convince my group to change and that would be a hard sell). From looking around it would seem the only real option to speed up combat would be to go with a retro-clone. Which is a whole other beast.
stefan.. thanks for the suggestion on true20 but after looking at it a little I don't think I like the feel of it.. only 3 classes. Kinda weird.
Similar experiences as above. Our battles took about as long, but more rounds went by.
Unfortunately, the "slog" as someone referred to it, got the better of my players. Even I had to admit that more often than not, the last half of every battle was a slog of at-will attacks that took forever to grind down the monsters. One of my players got quite exasperated when he found out that a group of six worgs had 120 hp each, and the party only did an average of 15-20 damage every attack.
This is a problem that I have been unable to account for with 4e.
The damage seems too low for the kinds of HP some of these monsters (and players) have.
These have been my experiences anyway. I'd love to actually play 4e rather than run it, but I'm the only one in my gaming group still interested in 4e.
Here is a blog that another gaming friend of mine found for speeding up 4E combat as well.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This post incorporates by reference Jeremy Mac Donald's post, but reduces the calm explanatory tone and replaces it with inflammatory zest and drive-by insults.
Seriously, his post is a very good summary of the issues present in 4e combat. I am not finding that it goes significantly faster than 3e in the gross amount of time it takes to run, but there are more rounds in any given combat. The risk of grinding combat is something of a problem in 4e (it's less "swingy" than 3e, so it's easy to get into a situation where victory for the PCs is inevitable long before the opponents are dead), and only after a year or so of playing it am I getting the hang of creating encounters that avoid that problem.
One of my players got quite exasperated when he found out that a group of six worgs had 120 hp each, and the party only did an average of 15-20 damage every attack.
Consider following the DMG guidelines for creating dynamic, balanced encounters. Unless you're "required" to put six worgs into a fight (running a pre-made adventure, for instance), designing an encounter with nothing but six brutes is asking for a grind. Brutes are designed to have significantly more hit points than other monsters of their level.
Point in fact I was running a pre-written module (King of the Trollhaunt Warrens). That specific encounter called for six(might have been five) worgs and a troll worgmaster. The first few rounds were good, with the troll using all sorts of pack tactics to move amongst them and whatnot, but once he was brought down, the players did not enjoy the prospect of slogging through five/six enemies who weren't very threatening to them.
It happened more than once too, as most of the module called for encounters with multiple trolls. :/
Edit: Considering that your doing the Rise of the Runelords Conversion, Scott, I would be interested to see how you avoid this issue when designing encounters for all the giants later in the campaign.
Point in fact I was running a pre-written module (King of the Trollhaunt Warrens). That specific encounter called for six(might have been five) worgs and a troll worgmaster. The first few rounds were good, with the troll using all sorts of pack tactics to move amongst them and whatnot, but once he was brought down, the players did not enjoy the prospect of slogging through five/six enemies who weren't very threatening to them.
It happened more than once too, as most of the module called for encounters with multiple trolls. :/
Edit: Considering that your doing the Rise of the Runelords Conversion, Scott, I would be interested to see how you avoid this issue when designing encounters for all the giants later in the campaign.
I've actually already run into this issue with ogres (and ogrekin) in The Hook Mountain Massacre. Thankfully, 4th Edition usually provides multiple roles for each humanoid in the Monster Manual. I've been able to include skirmishers, brutes, controllers, minions, etc.
The Stone Giants in the Monster Manual 2 provide a soldier and a controller that are both appropriate for my conversion. I'm sure I'll also reflavor some other monsters, and create a handful of my own on the side. I don't anticipate any real problems in this department.
If you lower the hp of monsters like many have suggested, my advice would be to up the damage of their attacks. This could help to keep combat deadly, but make it faster.
|
|
Thanks for all the replies. It definately seems like the consensus is that 4th would last at least as long as 3.5. So I don't think it would be worth it for me to switch (plus I would have to convince my group to change and that would be a hard sell). From looking around it would seem the only real option to speed up combat would be to go with a retro-clone. Which is a whole other beast.
stefan.. thanks for the suggestion on true20 but after looking at it a little I don't think I like the feel of it.. only 3 classes. Kinda weird.
May want to check out Microlite20 as well. Strip down 3.x but, amazingly, still compatible. I'm hoping to do some test-runs in the (near) future with some experienced (aka powergamer) players in the future.
While Grind is part and parcel of a soldier heavy or high defense Solo encounter one can cut back on it in these encounters and get pretty close to eliminating it in other types of encounters by paying some attention to the types of characters in the party. I probably paid short shift ion my above post to the difference between a party composed of 4 Paladins (arguably the most defensively orientated character choice) and the 4 Barbarian party (a strong offensively orientated option).
I suspect that if you talk to a bunch of different groups you will see a fair amount of variance (there is that word again - I should make a drinking game) between the different groups regarding how much a problem this is. I'm sure some of this is simply that some groups have a higher tolerance for this then others but I suspect that a big chunk of this comes out of the different groups party design. This is probably the biggest factor explaining why many DMs complain about Grind a lot while others have virtually never seen this mythical 'Grind' in their game.
Essentially any character in a party can be divided, more or less (some are kind of right on the line) between characters that put out lots of damage just about every round and those that don't. Maybe they mainly soak it up or maybe they are more designed to control the battlefield or help out the rest of the party with healing.
When putting together a party you should all work to see that at least 1/2 the party is in the high damage dealing group and lean that way when you have an odd number. Three damage dealers and two characters for whom damage is not much of a focus is far better a design for a 5 player party then 2 damage dealers and 3 other character types.
I'd also take this a step further and limit the party to just a single defender. Defenders are the worst when it comes to Grind because they are so good at soaking that they get the party very quickly to a point where they are sure the Defenders can handle the remaining bad guys damage output and its just a matter of slogging off the bad guys hps. A party of Warlocks doing conditions to the bad guys might not take the enemies down as fast but they don't get to Grind as quickly because the enemies remain dangerous for far longer.
This is probably the most difficult with old school players because the traditional 5 player low level party is probably two tanks (to hold the corridor) a cleric for healing, a wizard and a rogue. Unfortunately in terms of grind this is a particularly problematic party. The only high damage output character in the party is the rogue. The Wizard is pretty much on the line and everyone else is defensively orientated. Make this party and you'll encounter a lot of grind.
Its a bit unfortunate that one should avoid having too many of the certain kinds of roles as a lot of players like classes like the wizard, cleric and bard. That said Strikers are the single most common role and the group should aim to have a lot of this role in the party, preferably 50% of the group, more then 50% if the number of characters in the party is odd.
This is what players can do to mitigate Grind. DMs should look at encounter design and make sure that there are not to many high hp Solo's with great defenses and weak attacks as well as there not being to many Soldier types. They can also mitigate the issue through their choice of what magic items to drop. Edge toward damage dealing and accuracy items over utility and defensive items and you'll significantly mitigate the Grind. If the party has lots of strikers, its found a fair number of magic items that pump up accuracy and damage output and the DM does not place encounters made up of lots of soldiers or low damage Solos then chances are you'll nearly never encounter Grind.