Slow combats

[Jack99]

Another issue which comes into play, is the probability of hitting the monster and how many rounds it takes to finally kill a monster. In general, a harder to hit monster can significantly drag on an encounter to more and more rounds.

Here's a model of this which is exactly solvable mathematically. The assumptions are:

- a target starts off with H "hit points"
- an attacker has probability p of hitting the target
- the attacker attacks the same target each round
- each time the attacker hits the target, 1 "hit point" of damage is done on the target

For this model, the average number of rounds (denoted A) it takes to kill the monster is A = H/p, with variance H(1-p)/(p^2).

Looking at this formula A = H/p, an attacker with a 50% probability (ie. p=0.50, or a roll of 11 or higher on a d20) of hitting a target monster with 2 "hit points" (ie. H=2), it takes on average around A = 2/0.50 = 4 rounds to kill the target monster. For an attacker with a 25% probability (ie. p=0.25, or a roll of 16 or over on a d20) of hitting the target monster with 2 "hit points", it takes on average around A = 2/0.25 = 8 rounds to kill the target monster.

The "hit points" of the above model can be thought of as "health units". Using my first elaboration of Jack99's example in a previous post, a monster's 3d8+9 damage roll has an average numerical damage of 22 hit points of damage, which can thought of as 1 "health unit" damage. For a target paladin/fighter/barbarian with 175 hit points, this can be thought of as the target having around 8 "health units". If a monster attacking a paladin target has a 25% chance of hitting the paladin, it would take an average of A = 8/0.25 = 32 rounds to kill the paladin. For a monster attacking the paladin with a 50% chance of hitting the paladin, it would take an average of A = 8/0.5 = 16 rounds to kill the paladin.

For my second elaboration of Jack99's example, the monster having a 3d8+31 damage roll has an average numerical damage of 44 hit points, which can be thought of as 1 "health unit" damage. For a target paladin/fighter/barbarian with 175 hit points, this can be thought of as the target having around 4 "health units". If a monster attacking a fighter target has a 25% chance of hitting the fighter, it would take an average of A = 4/0.25 = 16 rounds to kill the fighter. For a monster attacking the fighter with a 50% chance of hitting the fighter, it would take an average of A = 4/0.5 = 8 rounds to kill the fighter.

I am not quite sure of what point you are making. If you are saying that increasing the to hit of a monster equals increasing it's average damage, well duh, yes. It is however not the best of handling things. Mostly because it becomes quite boring if players are always hit by the monsters. At least IME and all that jazz.

Anyway, will run all monsters with the +100% damage -50% hit points model next time we play (thursday) - I have a decent mix of standard, elites and a solo, so plenty of variation to test how well it works out. Will report back, should anyone care.

 

[ggroy]

I am not quite sure of what point you are making. If you are saying that increasing the to hit of a monster equals increasing it's average damage, well duh, yes. It is however not the best of handling things. Mostly because it becomes quite boring if players are always hit by the monsters. At least IME and all that jazz.

Anyway, will run all monsters with the +100% damage -50% hit points model next time we play (thursday) - I have a decent mix of standard, elites and a solo, so plenty of variation to test how well it works out. Will report back, should anyone care.

What I'm saying is that increasing the player to-hit bonuses and/or decreasing the monster's AC (and other defenses) can significantly decrease the number of attack rounds it takes to kill a monster.

Cases where it requires a natural 19 or 20 on a d20 attack roll to hit a monster, can really drag on an encounter really long. I've only really used such monsters with a 10% probability to hit (ie. rolling a natural 19 or 20 on a d20), for solo guards. The few times I used such a monster, it took around 10 attacks to even hit such a monster, to the point of frustration on the players. For every 1 hit the players made on the monster, the players missed 9 times.

 

[ggroy]

One thing I've noticed which really causes combat encounters to grind really slow, is when the AC and other defenses of the monsters are out of whack from being too high. (This is from a lot of trial and error and messing up too many of my encounters over the last year or so).

An example of stats being too high are generic minions which require a natural 16 or 17 (and over) on a d20 roll to hit them (ie. 25% or 20% probability to hit). Now when making up generic minions, I'll adjust their defenses such that they can be hit with a natural 10 or 11 (and over) on a d20 to-hit attack roll (ie. 55% or 50% probability to hit).

In most of my encounters I use a lot of minions. I have modified some of the minions in ways such as:

- requiring 2 or 3 hits to kill them instead of just 1 hit
- supplying them with daily and/or encounter type powers
- wearing armor
- etc ...

An example would be spellcasters and other controller type badguys, which I generally make to be minion-like with dailies and/or encounter type spells, that can do a lot of damage to the players before a player finally kills them with one hit. Same story with minion-like archers repeatedly shooting arrows at the players.

Depending on how powerful a particular "modified minion" is, I typically make them equal to two or three generic minions for XP purposes. Sometimes for a relatively powerful or tough minion, I'll make it equal to a generic monster/badguy for XP purposes.

 

[Ariosto]

I'm working on a "quick combat" system that's kind of like Basic D&D in its resolution; I'm hoping that will be faster.

That seems to me a feasible project, and as sensible as the degree to which your players are on board!

One thing about Basic (or other old) D&D is that combatants with more hit points tend to score hits more often; AC does not improve at the same rate (if at all). That's very different from how 4E is set up.

As already noted, the initiative system is a contributing factor. When the situation can change so much between a figure's successive moves, and declaration of intent can be delayed until the time of action, there is a strong incentive to consider tactics at that time.

Simply reducing hit points is one way to decrease the number of steps to a decisive outcome. So changing the ratio of damage to h.p., so that each attack is more significant, also introduces more variation -- as there are fewer rolls to "wash out" random fluctuations. (Some folks call that excitement, but not, I think, those at whom 4E is mainly directed.)

To reduce that swing, one might weight rolls that otherwise would be on a linear distribution. For instance, substituting 2d4 for 1d8 raises the average by half a point but makes the maximum half as likely.

 

[Novem5er]

Elric, thanks for running the math on the whole 50% HP thing. I'm glad the conversation is picking up steam because this new strategy really saved my game.

Now, obviously, one would think that reducing HP by 50% would require a 50% increase in damage. I immediately thought about taking that route... but for lower levels, it just looked TOO damaging.

A level 6 gnoll usually does 1d8 + 8.... plus 50% would be something like 1d8 + 16.... that's a very hard hit! And if someone is hit twice in a round, it's 2d8 + 32??

It felt too swingy to me... so I just did 1/2 level + 1.

 

[FireLance]

For me, I don't mind starting slow, to give the PCs the opportunity to probe the monsters' defences and develop good tactics to use against them, but I want the pace of combat to pick up in the later rounds of a fight. So, I've decided to introduce the following "combat escalation" house rule in the campaign that I will be starting soon:

1. After the first round of combat, everyone (PCs and monsters) gains a +1 bonus to damage rolls. This increases by +1 at the start of each subsequent round.

2. After the bonus to damage rolls increases to +2 or more, everyone gains a bonus to attack rolls equal to half the bonus to damage rolls.

3. After the bonus to attack rolls increases to +2 or more, everyone's crit range increases by half the bonus to attack rolls.​

I'm hoping this will achieve a few things:

1. There is a self-correcting anti-dragginess mechanism because the longer the combat lasts, the deadlier it gets: everyone hits and crits more often, and deals more damage.

2. There is a built-in incentive for the PCs to hold on to their more powerful attacks until a few rounds of combat have passed, to increase the chances that they will hit and crit. Hence, there will be a greater chance of spectacular "finishing moves" occurring in-game.

3. Since I personally won't be holding back on the monsters' attacks, combats will be more likely to evoke the feeling that the PCs are hard-pressed at first, before rallying and turning the tide on their opponents.​

 

[Jack99]

Elric, thanks for running the math on the whole 50% HP thing. I'm glad the conversation is picking up steam because this new strategy really saved my game.

Now, obviously, one would think that reducing HP by 50% would require a 50% increase in damage. I immediately thought about taking that route... but for lower levels, it just looked TOO damaging.

A level 6 gnoll usually does 1d8 + 8.... plus 50% would be something like 1d8 + 16.... that's a very hard hit! And if someone is hit twice in a round, it's 2d8 + 32??

It felt too swingy to me... so I just did 1/2 level + 1.

it only deals that amount while bloodied technically - also it will only have 42 hit points instead of 84 - so just tell your players that they should win initiative if they want to stay alive

 

[Jack99]

Here are 4 versions of the Frost Giant. Starting with the original, we scale him down (or up, at least damage-wise) towards ½ hit points.

Normal Frost Giant for comparison:

This one has -25% hit points, which translates into +33% damage

This one has -33% hit points, which translates into +50% damage

And finally, this one has -50% hit points, which translate into a whooping +100% damage.

 

[winndwalker]

Compared to other editions, I find 4th's combat to be lightning quick. We run combats at around 45-50 minutes. I've tried the suggested intitiative change (people go as a group and take their turns when they want) discussed in this thread, and I must say it does speed things up and discourage inattentiveness. I'd recommend everyone try it once.

That said, I did try something in a game that seemed to achieve some success. I was doubtful, but the players really gravitated toward it. I don't think it's for everyone though. I call it the Story Combat Skill Challenge.

I started with the standard easy, moderate, and difficult DC's of a given level from the skill table, then I made three more sets to go with AC, ability defenses, and simple ability checks. I used the monster creation info from the DM's guide for help with this. I found myself with a table of DC's for any roll that could be made in the game, each with a normal, moderate, and difficult version.

We were playing an adventure on the Isle of Dread, running with the encounter tables from the Paizo Dungeon version from a few years back. So instead of running the encounters, I presented the more mundane ones as skill challenges. I told my players I that I wanted them to tell me the story of their combat. We rolled initiative, then whoever rolled highest went first and we went around the table clockwise. The rule was: have fun describing what your character does, then make a check. You can't use the same type of check twice.

The cost for each encounter was automatically one healing surge. Then I had players take predetermined amounts of damage if they failed (10 for an easy, 15 for a moderate, etc.) and I would roleplay the results of their checks. Outright failing the skill challenges cost the players more surges and death saving throws, depending on the difficulty. Also, if a player wasn't happy with a roll he could spend any one of his daily powers to re roll it.

We went twelve successes before six failures, and the players had a blast. It allowed us to put more focus on the story we were telling and not worry about the numbers. I ran three standard combats that day (the more difficult, cool ones that had interesting guys in them) and five story combats in a four and a half hour session. While I was initially skeptical, my players loved it.

Again, I don't think this type of thing is for every group. Some people come to the game for the rules and the combat, and that's fine. But if your group can focus on the roleplay, trusts their DM, and enjoys making things up as they go along, it's something to try.

I plan on doing it again, but I need to revise some of my rules first. The DC's were perfect but it was difficult to find the right penalty for failure. Any suggestions you have in this area (after trying it yourself, of course ) would be appreciated.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Compared to other editions, I find 4th's combat to be lightning quick. We run combats at around 45-50 minutes.

Which other editions are you comparing this to?