Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That's kind of the point. Change relatively short timespan a bit for a home game but otherwise we have the same issue. The individual encounters get so involved that the overall adventure that connects them gets a bit lost.

Not exactly. No individual encounter was so bad, but having 3 of them before you learn anything or do anything else interesting was asinine. I like an individual combat that takes an hour, but I want that combat to accomplish something if it takes that long.

Plus I'd rather have one or two good encounters than 5 crappy ones. 4e, for me, is very good at making fun encounters. Encounters that could be likened to fine chocolates. Used properly, they go a long way. Keep on the Shadowfell felt like they took those chocolates, smashed them to tiny bits with a hammer, and then used them as chips in crappy cookies.

If you're going to use fine chocolate in your cookies, up the level of your dough, man.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I have to disagree. The fact that 4E combat takes so long that it's difficult to have time to do much else is a failure of the system. The fact that you do have to houserule or put in extra work so you can actually finish more than two 4E combat encounters in an evening of gaming is a glaring failure of the system. Strawberries on cheescake aren't good for you wife, but they also don't require most other people eating said strawberry cheesecake to put in extra work to enjoy it. IMHO 4E combat does require more work to make it enjoyable than it should.

Sez you, my crowd are quite happy with it and get to do all that they want and are happy with the combat.
Which I think was Umbran's point. Tastes differ and we have not tricked about with house rules to shorten combat except as DM I might rule a monster dead if it is taken down a lot of hp in one attack and has only a couple of hps left, if the fight is over anyway.

 

[billd91]

I think we've been down this road before, and been down it already in this thread. Umbran covered it pretty succinctly, I think.

I have absolutely no doubt that you and/or your group did not like 4e combat, and that you found it both long and grindy. You, however, seem to doubt that others find it works just fine as-is - and can finish more combats without houseruling. Groups vary, and tastes vary.

If a tool doesn't work for you, it does not mean the tool is broken. Your experiences are not everyone's experiences.

You've got a point, but so does, I think, Shazman. One question I have to clarify would be "what was WotC's intent with respect to D&D's players?" How was the tool intended to serve and does it meet those expectations? So I'd say it's not just how well does it serve its actual users but how well does it serve its intended purpose.

Did they expect to serve players whose sessions run about 3-5 hours in length? If they did expect to reasonably serve them, then I think Shazman's criticism is valid. The tool fails to serve that segment of the market well.

Did they expect 4e to serve a market whose game sessions run at twice that length? Then I think the tool does a better job of serving its intended purpose.

If WotC expected to serve both then, again, I think the tool fails that expectation.

So while not universally broken, a tool may yet be a poor fit for certain applications, including indended applications.

 

[Imaro]

Sez you, my crowd are quite happy with it and get to do all that they want and are happy with the combat.
Which I think was Umbran's point. Tastes differ and we have not tricked about with house rules to shorten combat except as DM I might rule a monster dead if it is taken down a lot of hp in one attack and has only a couple of hps left, if the fight is over anyway.

So you've houseruled to shorten combat? Yet you claim the length of combat is perfect... sometimes I wonder how many who are "satisfied" with combat length in 4e do little things like this but claim they enjoy 4e combat with no houserules?

 

[Obryn]

So while not universally broken, a tool may yet be a poor fit for certain applications, including indended applications.

That's when we get into different play experiences, though.

If all of my combats are taking two to three hours, and I run three-to-five-hour sessions, it is clearly not a great state of affairs. I can look for ways to expedite things, or switch games, or accept it as a fair trade-off for the stuff I like.

If all of my combats are taking one hour, and I run three-to-five hour sessions, it's pretty great, IMO.

-O

 

[Glade Riven]

When I DM (3e, 4e, Pathfinder, Saga), I actually prefer to kludge.

1. This is so my players don't have to
2. The DM's turn can take the longest if played strictly by the rules; my goal is to get it to be the shortest
3. I like to use minions (even under 3e/saga) and adjust certaint bad guy hit points on the fly to control pacing.

Now, I understand why this would irritate some players who, philosophically speaking, prefer to adhere strictly to the rules. The result, however, is that my players can sit back, relax, and enjoy a well-paced battle. If I need it to be short, it is short and sweet. If I need it to be epic (which sometimes you need epic), I make it work.

 

[The Human Target]

You know, I kinda agree with you.

Or I thought I did.

But we busted out a casual game of Mutants and Masterminds this weekend, which is a more relaxed faster combat game.

And I found myself missing the elaborateness of 4E's combat.

I think it needs a tweaking for sure (hopefully in 5E) but I think I would miss it if it was gone.

 

[Obryn]

So you've houseruled to shorten combat? Yet you claim the length of combat is perfect... sometimes I wonder how many who are "satisfied" with combat length in 4e do little things like this but claim they enjoy 4e combat with no houserules?

Oh, gosh, calling that a house-rule is kinda silly. I've been doing that since my 1e days every once in a while. "Well, that was short by 2 hps... I'll just call them dead." It's no more a house-rule than "He's close to dead, so he's running away."

Now, if he'd done one of the various -HP/+dmg hacks, that's a house-rule.

-O

 

[Imaro]

Oh, gosh, calling that a house-rule is kinda silly. I've been doing that since my 1e days every once in a while. "Well, that was short by 2 hps... I'll just call them dead." It's no more a house-rule than "He's close to dead, so he's running away."

Now, if he'd done one of the various -HP/+dmg hacks, that's a house-rule.

-O

What you're ignoring is that many people have claimed that one large grind factor is when combat is a foregone conclusion... and yet it takes forever to land those final blows or clean up those final enemies. I've seen a string of misses draw out combat like no one's business in 4e... especially with certain monster roles, so yes I think if examining this in a fair manner this type of thing can skew how one perceives combat... especially if it's done for more than one monster throughout numerous combats.

 

[Mallus]

Did they expect to serve players whose sessions run about 3-5 hours in length? If they did expect to reasonably serve them, then I think Shazman's criticism is valid. The tool fails to serve that segment of the market well.

I don't think prior to starting our 4e campaign anyone in my group could have predicted we'd actually like session-long combats. But there you go, we do. Apparently we aren't in the share of the market we thought we were .

So while not universally broken, a tool may yet be a poor fit for certain applications, including indended applications.

I don't think anyone is actually debating this.

But we busted out a casual game of Mutants and Masterminds this weekend, which is a more relaxed faster combat game.

And I found myself missing the elaborateness of 4E's combat.

Clearly your M&M game needs more villains getting pyramids dropped on their heads. It isn't a proper session if a villain doesn't get a pyramid dropped on his or her head. A pyramid dropped on a teammate's head will do in pinch.

(can you tell my M&M character can drop pyramids on villains --and frequently, his fellow teammate's-- heads?)