LostSoul
Adventurer
It's player-dependant. The guys in my game like to take some time to consider things... which I discourage, but I can see why it happens. So much to consider! It's like chess, very complex (in a good way).
Slow combats
- Thread starter LostSoul
- Start date
It's player-dependant. The guys in my game like to take some time to consider things... which I discourage, but I can see why it happens. So much to consider! It's like chess, very complex (in a good way).
weem
First Post
I'm going to repost something I have posted here (at ENW) before because it was for the same topic (speeding up combat). It's a simple change of the way initiative is handled - it's saves us a lot of time. My campaign adopted it first, and three others have followed (others i play in) after seeing it in action... Anyway, here is the paste, but see my notes after the 'paste' as well...
---paste---
Basically PC's/Creatures roll initiative. Those players who beat the creatures go (if any do) then the creatures go (all of them) then back to ALL PC's including those who got to go before the creatures and we then simply alternate from there, Creatures > PC's > Creatures > PC's etc.
Players decide amongst themselves who is going to go, who follows next etc. It keeps everyone engaged, and those who are not quite ready figure it out while the others go. It also allows for more player strategy (you go here, then i will go here and do this) etc. It's all per RAW since a) everyone can delay to go at the same-ish time and b) you can shout commands as free actions.
This method (referred to as the ars ludi method) sped our encounters up enough that nothing else needed to be done. It's become one person after the next after the next - bam bam bam, no real downtime between each persons actions.
As has been pointed out to me, it is not EXACTLY per RAW because you can have a situation where, let's say for example, someone is unconscious... so when it comes back to the PC's turn, they could (using this method) have the cleric go first and heal the unconscious player, who could then stand when the cleric is done and have his turn -- but as per RAW if you are unconscious, you can not delay -- so you could argue the unconscious player has to roll his death save before the rest of the players go and do nothing else, etc. I let it go (the one time it has happened from what I remember). These little workings of the system are exciting to the players and don't hurt the encounter imo.
Again, this has 1) saved us a lot of time and 2) made the encounters much more dynamic and exciting. Previously it was easy to ignore what happened after you went - the battle field was going to change so much as players kind of did their own thing etc that there wasn't much of a point to plan what you were going to do next - might as well do something else. Now, the mobs go (I am quick at running this) and then right back to PC's who have been watching it unfold and have been planning as it went for how they were going to (together) setup their next turns.
This is the method I use, but it is NOT my invention. You can see it here... http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.ph...silent-killer/
---/paste---
I can't stress enough how much this sped up our encounters. Do they only take 15 minutes? No, but they are quick for the number of people we have (4 at least, and up to 7 at times).
My friend has been using it in his campaign as well, but this last weekend he decided to switch back (to the standard initiative method) during one encounter. He is going to make a program that tracks initiatives (which has been done before) BUT also has a really easy method for tracking conditions etc - so he wanted to test something. Anyway, that encounter was much slower - it took longer to setup, we weren't really sure who was up next (suppose he could have called out "on deck" but he didn't) - we couldn't setup combination's since our turns were all spread out with mobs in-between etc. Anyway, he said "that took too long" - not just for players to figure out what they were doing, but also for the DM to manage his side of it, so we went back to this method (above) after that.
Anyway, this has worked well for me and the other three games I am in. It's sped things up and made combat more dynamic at the same time. Try it for one encounter
---edit---
Link to that previosu post as well...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...e-speed-up-our-encounters-what-about-you.html
And another one on RPGnet where I also posted this...
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=466007
---paste---
Basically PC's/Creatures roll initiative. Those players who beat the creatures go (if any do) then the creatures go (all of them) then back to ALL PC's including those who got to go before the creatures and we then simply alternate from there, Creatures > PC's > Creatures > PC's etc.
Players decide amongst themselves who is going to go, who follows next etc. It keeps everyone engaged, and those who are not quite ready figure it out while the others go. It also allows for more player strategy (you go here, then i will go here and do this) etc. It's all per RAW since a) everyone can delay to go at the same-ish time and b) you can shout commands as free actions.
This method (referred to as the ars ludi method) sped our encounters up enough that nothing else needed to be done. It's become one person after the next after the next - bam bam bam, no real downtime between each persons actions.
As has been pointed out to me, it is not EXACTLY per RAW because you can have a situation where, let's say for example, someone is unconscious... so when it comes back to the PC's turn, they could (using this method) have the cleric go first and heal the unconscious player, who could then stand when the cleric is done and have his turn -- but as per RAW if you are unconscious, you can not delay -- so you could argue the unconscious player has to roll his death save before the rest of the players go and do nothing else, etc. I let it go (the one time it has happened from what I remember). These little workings of the system are exciting to the players and don't hurt the encounter imo.
Again, this has 1) saved us a lot of time and 2) made the encounters much more dynamic and exciting. Previously it was easy to ignore what happened after you went - the battle field was going to change so much as players kind of did their own thing etc that there wasn't much of a point to plan what you were going to do next - might as well do something else. Now, the mobs go (I am quick at running this) and then right back to PC's who have been watching it unfold and have been planning as it went for how they were going to (together) setup their next turns.
This is the method I use, but it is NOT my invention. You can see it here... http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.ph...silent-killer/
---/paste---
I can't stress enough how much this sped up our encounters. Do they only take 15 minutes? No, but they are quick for the number of people we have (4 at least, and up to 7 at times).
My friend has been using it in his campaign as well, but this last weekend he decided to switch back (to the standard initiative method) during one encounter. He is going to make a program that tracks initiatives (which has been done before) BUT also has a really easy method for tracking conditions etc - so he wanted to test something. Anyway, that encounter was much slower - it took longer to setup, we weren't really sure who was up next (suppose he could have called out "on deck" but he didn't) - we couldn't setup combination's since our turns were all spread out with mobs in-between etc. Anyway, he said "that took too long" - not just for players to figure out what they were doing, but also for the DM to manage his side of it, so we went back to this method (above) after that.
Anyway, this has worked well for me and the other three games I am in. It's sped things up and made combat more dynamic at the same time. Try it for one encounter
---edit---
Link to that previosu post as well...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...e-speed-up-our-encounters-what-about-you.html
And another one on RPGnet where I also posted this...
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=466007
Last edited:
IME it's not the multiplicity of options, unless the GM allows players to pore over their character sheet before acting - I don't; and we do actions round-the-table so everyone can see when their turn will be. What does slow combat is monsters with excess hit point totals and lock-down powers; eg last session my group met a Gelatinous Cube and it was a real drag. It needed half the hp and maybe 1.5 or twice the damage.
I've been doing this, taking a tip from The Iliad - most foes are spear carriers/minions; with a small number of enemy champions/non-minions.
Eg the first battle IMC was the 6 1st level PCs vs 6 hobgoblin grunts (minions) and 2 champions, level 3 - a hobgoblin archer and a hobgoblin soldier. Further battles with the hobgoblins had a similar mix, around 3/4 minions.
The minions are maybe *too* fragile - and this at 1st level, so it's likely to ge worse - though. So I also use regular monsters with 1/2 listed hp, giving 2/3 XP. Eg I needed 'giant weasels' for the adventure conversion, but no such stats in my MM, so I used Wolves with half hp, which worked very well.
I've been using smaller numbers of monsters typically 2 levels above party level, backed up by minions; this seems to work well.
I think re minions you need to eyeball their XP, some are clearly over-priced. Brute-based minions like zombie rotters seem the worst. The hobgoblin grunts I've been using were ok at 38 XP; if anything the hobgoblin warcaster seemed undervalued at 150 XP; taking the hobgoblin archers and soldiers' 150 XP to be about right.
I suggest looking at the minion, if XP seems excessive divide it by 2. I'll be doing that for zombie rotters, anyway. I'm also increasing damage in some cases, to low-average rather than near-minimum for the minion's level.
You can discourage this effectively by running most fights like the mook battles in Hercules/Xena - foes are minions, with one or two normals, and most battles don't threaten the PCs, they're just a chance to show off. With little threat there's no need to spend ages poring over the battleboard. If they insist, well go get a coffee or something.
I suggest you then think of most fights as cinematic pacing. Sometimes though there were will be serious battles; often the session or arc climax, which may be several levels over party level. You take this into account, plan for them to take an hour or so, and make them gruelling and exciting.
Yes, I use the Ars Ludi method in all my games now. I'm hoping WotC will eventually make it official.
Thanee
First Post
Oh, that's easy. You reduce the fights to the important ones (those worthy of the 45 minutes, basically), and simply remove the rest and turn them into roleplay descriptions. Like, if the PCs choose to attack the small number of guards you simply describe to them how they beat the guards and move on, instead of pulling out the battlemap.
Yep. Those figures (45 minutes or so) seem to be about right.
Bye
Thanee
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Sometimes I wonder if the problem is just we put too many fights into our stories.
Something like a plot/fight ratio.
How much encounters should a murder investigation contain? How much encounters a wilderness travel? How much a dungeon?
If the parties goal is, for example, to stop the ritual that opens a portal to the Shadowfell - how many fights do they really need to tell the story? Does it really have to 3 goblin encounters, 3 undead encounters, 1-2 random encounters, 3 hobgoblin encounters and one final encounter? Or wouldn't something like 3-4 encounters not be sufficient? A hook encounter, an encounter to enter the location, a counterstrike, and the climatic final encounter where you "resolve" the plot?
It took the party in my online campaign around 8-10 hours and probably 6 encounters to resolve a Far Realm infestation aided by Bullywugs? Were all these really necessary to "tell the story"?
[/Tangent]
Something like a plot/fight ratio.
How much encounters should a murder investigation contain? How much encounters a wilderness travel? How much a dungeon?
If the parties goal is, for example, to stop the ritual that opens a portal to the Shadowfell - how many fights do they really need to tell the story? Does it really have to 3 goblin encounters, 3 undead encounters, 1-2 random encounters, 3 hobgoblin encounters and one final encounter? Or wouldn't something like 3-4 encounters not be sufficient? A hook encounter, an encounter to enter the location, a counterstrike, and the climatic final encounter where you "resolve" the plot?
It took the party in my online campaign around 8-10 hours and probably 6 encounters to resolve a Far Realm infestation aided by Bullywugs? Were all these really necessary to "tell the story"?
[/Tangent]
FireLance
Legend
I've been wondering something along the same lines. I've been wondering whether DMs and module designers sometimes "pad up" the number of fights in an adventure or a module because they want the PCs to be at a certain level after the adventure or module, and the easiest way for the PCs to earn the necessary XPs is to have them fight combat encounters.
This is something I that had personal experience with recently - I was planning an adventure for my gaming group, and I realized that I was essentially trying to shoehorn additional fights into the adventure just so that the PCs will have earned enough XPs to legitimately make a level by the end of it. It was doubly stupid as my group has long ignored XP and just adopted the convention that every PC levels up at the end of the adventure, but old habits (in particular, the mindset that the PCs have to "earn" their levels) die hard.
Similar Threads
