• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

quicker battle mechanics? (not simply halving HP)

Evenglare

Adventurer
I came across this battle momentum mechanic. So the premise is that each round of a battle is that the battle begins to build intensity. To simulate this a d6 is used , after every round it increases effectively giving everyone a static bonus to hit AND damage. I was also toying around the idea to add half level to damage. Of course i wouldnt use these together, but any thoughts?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We always add half your level to damage in my group. Not only do battles go faster, but it allows the DM the option of giving out fewer magical items without hampering the party.

I like the quicker fights, but I really like the fact that with fewer magic items the things the characters do find really seem magical. Also, giving out fewer items means that you don't have to look for places to put treasure, just stick it in when it really makes sense.
 

Raith5

Adventurer
One option is to give PCs two standard actions per round for particular fights or double up and give both PCs and Monsters two standard actions per round.

I have never played it but it would certainly up the ante! It may speed up fights but it would take away some of the strategic pacing of normal 4th ed combat - it would be more swingy too I would imagine.
 

Evenglare

Adventurer
I have always toyed with the idea of adding level (or half level) to damage. I havent ever actually done it though. I really havent ever thought to let 2 standard actions per round... not sure why either. Might be interesting, ill let you know how it goes !
 

Colmarr

First Post
The OP's proposal is how the escalation die from 13th Age works (except the escalation die only affects PCs).

Ever since reading about it, I've been pondering applying it to all combatants and using it in my games. It certainly seems like it would wipe at least a round off an average combat.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I've played around with a flat (not by-tier) +2 to hit. More hitting means more damage, you don't need to increase that separately and adding damage is an advantage for those that hit multiple times. (Think like this, who gets more out of +2 damage, a rogue doing 1d4+2d8+4 to a single target, or a wizard doing 1d6+4 to three targets.)

An intended side effect of the bonus to hit is to reduce the need for math fix feats (folks can still take them, but you don't need to). It also makes dual-wielding-different-weapons or weapon + implement characters more viable since it would affect all of their options.

Also I've noticed that a lot fo DMs like to throw +4 or higher level foes at you, this makes it not a miss-fest.

Plus, frankly missing half the time against John Q Orc is boring - you can cut down on misses and still have them be meaningful.
 

Dragonblade

Adventurer
I think there are three combat issues that often get conflated but are different. The first is grind. The second is combat pacing taking too long. The third is lack of threat.

The grind issue has to do with the combat reaching the point where the PC's victory has become a foregone conclusion, but there are still a couple of monsters that need mopping up and it seems like its taking a lot of effort to just take them down.

There are different ways of dealing with grind. One way is simply through encounter design. Avoid using soldiers, and avoid monster powers that cause Weaken or that take away turns. Those all contribute to grind.

The next way of dealing with grind is through house rules. Bonus damage, halving HP and the like. Those are good as well. I like bonus damage myself because it also addresses the issue of threat which I will get to in a moment. And of course, don't be afraid to have monsters surrender or flee instead of fighting to the death.

The next issue is combat pacing. To be brutally honest, I believe this is a player issue more than a rules issue. A few years ago my group participated in the WotC Ultimate Dungeon Delve which is a timed event. During our training sessions prior to that event we really deconstructed why combat seemed to take a long time and we found that it wasn't the rules. It was us. We took far too long on our turns by not paying attention, by making separate multiple die rolls, and by not really knowing how our PCs worked.

We made an effort to know and understand how our powers worked and to pay attention. When our turn came up in combat, we were already prepared to act. And we rolled attack and damage dice together. We went from about 5 minutes a turn per player, to less than 30 seconds a turn per player.

The nice thing about this process is now that we know how to play fast we can turn it off an on as we need to in our home game without feeling like we are in full delve mode. In my last two hour 4e session, I ran 4 full set piece battles and we still spent a good 30-40 minutes solely on NPC interaction and RP. Most our combat time was spent taking up setting up the battle scene and grid (one of my few issues with 4e, but I digress). We never felt combat took too long.

The third issue that I see come up in regards to 4e combat is perceived lack of threat to the PCs. There are two ways to address this. First any pre-MM3 monster simply doesn't do enough damage. This was rectified by WotC in MM3 and later, but a good rule of thumb is to give them +5 bonus damage per attack per tier of the monster. The second way to address this is for the DM to not hold back.

And by not hold back, I mean you should still strive to make encounters that fit the narrative and our balanced within the parameters of your story. But once the encounter is designed and the players get involved, don't pull punches. In prior editions, the DM really had to always play with one hand tied behind their back. But in 4e you generally don't have to worry about that. I go for the throat with my monsters in 4e. They will target the weak PCs, the controllers and the strikers or leaders first, then the defenders last. Its up to the players to use their marks, or other powers to stop me with clever tactics. If they don't, they die, because the monsters will fight as a team and will take advantage of conditions that grant them bonus damage and such.
 

AeroDm

First Post
To clarify, do the d6 rolls each round stack? So if round one I roll a 3 and round two I roll a 4, are we now at +7/+7 or +4/+4? If the former, that feels like it would build wildly fast. It could be incredible if round one every looks down and sees a '6' and knows this is going to be an epic battle.
 

Colmarr

First Post
To clarify, do the d6 rolls each round stack?

No. The die is used only on a marker.

In round 1, the die is not used. In round 2, the die is turned to show a '1', and combatants get +1 atk and +1 dam. In round 3, the die is turned to show a '2' and combatants get +2 atk and +2 dam. etc
 

AeroDm

First Post
Gotcha. That makes more sense but takes some of the drama out of it. So it is just a steady promise that each round will become more tense. I guess that has a really neat effect of reversing the trend of opening combat with your biggest powers and entering into a slogfest with whoever survives. Now, you have tension because you could wait one more round and give your big power an extra 5% chance to succeed.

Neat, simple, efficacious. That's a good houserule.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top