"Looks like we're going to win this battle . . . in about 90 minutes from now."

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I also got hung up on the comment about "after a few rounds are up, the monsters have used up all their encounter powers." Monsters typically get a chance to recharge their powers, allowing them to use them multiple times a fight. Anything big enough to stay around the fight a while typically has multiple at-wills, also, although brutes, not so much I admit.

In any case, I have no doubt it's possible to come up with encounters that don't play out as dynamic and interesting, but it seems like having a mix of enemy roles in the encounter does help avoid that.

Not all monster powers have a recharge mechanic. But I can't say how much do and how much don't...

 

[Cadfan]

Really? What about the option of having all the numbers be smaller? That's neither particularly swingy nor does it take an hour and a half for "mop up".

Which numbers? If you halve all the numbers proportionally (both hit points and damage) you've accomplished nothing at all. So I assume you mean halving hit points but not damage. If you do, you get more swingy combat. That's pretty much it.

I suggest the "encounter design" solution to this problem. Don't put lots of hit hit point low damage enemies into the same fight unless you really do want it to take a long time. Have monsters surrender or flee when appropriate.

Its a rare combat where I don't have at least one monster flee the field of battle.

 

[Harr]

Forrester: You're spot-on with your observations.

I've DM'd around 15 5-6 hour sessions for my group so far and I can tell you from pure play experience that if you as a DM get off the ball even a little bit, the situation you describe is extremely common, ie the "combat that should have been over half an hour ago but looks like it will go on a half hour more".

This situation is wholly preventable but it requires you to be actively monitoring the situation and thinking on your feet a little bit. If you do nothing but throw monsters at the players and fight to the death every time you WILL end up in that place sooner or later.

Check out a thread I had a while ago (on the WotC boards) where I and a few other people discuss what to do to avoid falling into this: "Making Combats that Resolve Quickly"

Ok, I really need a bit of help here.

First I should pre-face by stating that I very much like the combat system. Rounds go by quick, everything is easy to arbitrate, the action is fast and engaging, etc, etc. That part is good.

What I have problem with it that they take a long time, sometimes seemingly forever, to 'wrap it up'. A combat starts out with fast and furious tactics, everyone's into it and everything. But it takes a whooole dang lot of these 'furious tactics' to get the combat to actually being finished.

...and it goes on from there. Some really good suggestions towards the end.


PS, As to the replies you've gotten so far, I'd venture to say almost none of them are coming from an actual play experience especially those that are asking for you to post specifics or stats so that they can have a little imaginary simulation of "what should have happened". Guys... if the OP is saying that his fights drag, it's because his fights drag. What do you think you're accomplishing by refuting that... that you're going to convince him through text that his fights actually don't drag, that he's just wrong about that? Seriously... the guy's coming coming in with a specific problem, and asking for people to suggest solutions. Either suggest one or don't, but don't try to convince him that he doesn't have the problem in the first place, that's just silly.

 

[Rechan]

Guys... if the OP is saying that his fights drag, it's because his fights drag.

And as it has been pointed out earlier, the flaw was in the DM's tactics: Vine Horror spellthingajiggers could have used their blind+ongoing attack against PCs because they have blindsight and the wall of fire did not block LOE. In fact, the Vine Horrors, standing behind the WoF, have a great defensive position against the rest of the party.

No one is saying "You're full of crap, your fights don't drag". The intention of getting specifics is to understand how they could drag, which has been illustrated above.

If I said to you, "My PCs never die, never drop below bloodied status. PCs are invincible!" You'd want to know how, because in every experience that has been recorded here, people are dropping left and right. You'd want to know what the hell I'm doing that is not allowing my PCs to even reach bloodied status, because that isn't jibing with your experience.

 

[jeffwik]

Redacted

 

[SteveC]

I'm afraid I have to agree with the OP here. I'm currently running the Keep on the Shadowfell, and I've seen this exact problem in several of the battles. I'm currently running the game with full transparency (meaning the players get to know the relevant stats for the monsters, AC, defenses and so forth) and I have several players with a strong, intuitive grasp of math, and they've been agreeing that the fights reach a foregone conclusion about 4-5 rounds before they're done.

Now we're at low levels, so perhaps this will change, but when you're at round 10 you've mostly seen everything that you're going to about a particular battle and environment, and all that's left is the grind of finishing it out with your at-will powers.

I'm still enjoying things, but I find that some HP modification for PCs and monsters will likely be necessary for my next campaign. I'm actually stacking up a considerable number of house rules for this edition, which has surprised me.

--Steve

 

[Cadfan]

I'm currently running the game with full transparency (meaning the players get to know the relevant stats for the monsters, AC, defenses and so forth) and I have several players with a strong, intuitive grasp of math, and they've been agreeing that the fights reach a foregone conclusion about 4-5 rounds before they're done.

... I have a solution for your problem.

 

[SteveC]

... I have a solution for your problem.

You know, you're right. I was actually following Robin Law's suggestion on teaching 4E, and it has worked very well. I am not planning on running the entire game this way, although I have found that the players who are new to the system are really enjoying things this way. I don't tell them the powers and abilities the bad guys have until they use them, and I don't mention encounter versus at-wills.

Still, that doesn't alleviate the problems with combats being foregone conclusions well before they're over. It would just mean that I'd know this, and my more mathematically inclined players would soon figure it out.

--Steve

 

[cangrejoide]

He already has, in post #13.

Doh!

Sorry it got lost in wall of text.

let me read up on it , and I'll post my thoughts about it.

Edit:

Okay Many peoples have made fine points, I can just add my personal experience.

When I first read about the new monsters( tons of hit points, role, etc.) I made a knee jerk reaction of halving everyones hit points. I though back then that combast will just drag on. I decided against this, and ran 4E as per the RAW.

So far, all of my combats have been touch and go. It is quite hectic the way hit points fluctuate between the rounds. And this unexpected situation has actually made my players focus more into the combat. In your combat example there was some monsters that were not used to their maximun potential, and also you guys had some really nice tactital advantage. I wonder on a similar combat in 3E ( where some spells control most of the enemy, the enemy isnt used to his max abilities and the players are just choice picking mobs apart) would it have been any different?


I have to ask you, do all your 4E combats been this way ( boring, etc)?

 

[Cadfan]

Still, that doesn't alleviate the problems with combats being foregone conclusions well before they're over. It would just mean that I'd know this, and my more mathematically inclined players would soon figure it out.

Well, that's a tough thing to answer. The players are supposed to win. So from a certain perspective, most fights are foregone conclusions before they even start.

Generally, fights have a domino effect which means that once the tipping point is past, they progress more swiftly. That is, once the main opposition has dropped and the enemy as a group is no longer a meaningful threat, the PCs outnumber their enemies and can gang up on them to wipe them out faster.

There are certain types of fights where this doesn't happen. Fights with single, large opponents, for example. The key tends to be what I'd call "sub-goals." Your overall goal is to win the fight, but maybe your sub-goal is to win the fight before the rogue drops. And if the rogue does drop, your sub-goal is to win the fight before the rogue bleeds out. And if no one is in danger of dropping or bleeding out, then perhaps your sub-goal is to win the fight before the enemy can flee the field. These add tension to what would otherwise be the "mopping up" process.