Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Mallus]

I've seen a string of misses draw out combat like no one's business in 4e...

Would a string of misses have resulted in a shorter fight using 1e-3e?

 

[Scribble]

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.

To me this is akin to when you're playing a game like chess, or checkers, and it's kind of obvious one side is going to win, but the other player just kind of keeps moving his king around so as to ward off the inevitable as long as possible.

 

[Imaro]

To me this is akin to when you're playing a game like chess, or checkers, and it's kind of obvious one side is going to win, but the other player just kind of keeps moving his king around so as to ward off the inevitable as long as possible.

Yep, but the difference is a PC can still loose hit points to one of these near dead monsters... which in turn will cost you more healing surges, which in turn affects fights that come later in the adventure. In chess one game does not affect the next.

 

[Imaro]

Would a string of misses have resulted in a shorter fight using 1e-3e?

Taken in an isolated cotext with no reference or in the context of how long fights tended to last in the different editions... and at different levels?

a string of 4 misses in a 1st level 3e fight against a goblin warrior with 4 hp's.... will still be a shorter fight than a string of misses in a 1st level fight against 4e's goblin with 30+ hp's. In other words context matters, and the question isn't as simplistic as you've presented it.

Edit: Yep, context definitely matters... sorta like how you took this one line out of the context of my entire post and addressed it as an individual statement instead of as part of a larger statement.

 

[maddman75]

I'm sure that a number of people have no problem with 4E combat. However, a lot of people do have problems making it work out of the box. I'm not saying it should be perfect, but it shouldn't be so easy to have long, grindy combats. I believe more playtesting would have resulted in a system with better math that would be more enjoyable for everyone, which would be good for the game, good for WotC, good for the hobby, and good for gamers. Even if people do enjoy the lengthier combat time of 4E, it does make it less feasible to progress through a campaign at a reasonable pace. How many people can have a marathon session everytime they want to game, so they can fit in more than two combats? I'd say not too many.

Having long combats is one of 4e's design goals, and one of the things that people who like it, like about it. I'm a story-dude, but I like 4e for having lots of roleplay then a big huge dramatic fight. 4e does those big fights pretty good, so its cool for that, it works for me in that way.

But complaining that you can't run through fights in 10 minutes is a bit like complaining that your stupid cat won't learn to bark. Dumb cat.

 

[Scribble]

Yep, but the difference is a PC can still loose hit points to one of these near dead monsters... which in turn will cost you more healing surges, which in turn affects fights that come later in the adventure. In chess one game does not affect the next.

Well sure... I wasn't really arguing otherwise.

Just the motivating factor in both cases to me is the same.

 

[The Human Target]

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 .


I don't think anyone is actually debating this.


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?)

Someone got a Dipping Dots stand dropped on their head.

 

[Obryn]

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.

If anything, it's fudging - not house-ruling. I personally let my monsters stay around, most of the time, even if they're down to 1 HP because I'm ornery like that. And yes, they can still do something.

However, I don't think fudging a death blow once in a while would skew anyone's idea of how long 4e combats actually last. It's not like they're slashing 30 HPs off every monster or anything. Heck, at the end of a combat, it would probably make a minute or two difference, max - things go super-quickly when everyone's down to At-Wills and there's a lone enemy left standing.

-O

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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?

If the last remaining beastie has 40 hp left and its hit and has one remaining is anything served by saying its still alive? IMHO it is more dramatic for the player to drop a relatively healthy monster in one shot than to drag out a fight that is a foregone issue for another round but its not a rule in my opinion.
A house rule to me is something fairly formal that I would apply consistently and tell the players about. Not an excersise in DM judgement. Now you could accuse me of cheating but I don't care, it my table and my players are happy. By the way I do not inform the players how many hit points a monster has not how many it has remaining so in these cases of fudging they never know.

 

[Imaro]

If anything, it's fudging - not house-ruling. I personally let my monsters stay around, most of the time, even if they're down to 1 HP because I'm ornery like that. And yes, they can still do something.

However, I don't think fudging a death blow once in a while would skew anyone's idea of how long 4e combats actually last. It's not like they're slashing 30 HPs off every monster or anything. Heck, at the end of a combat, it would probably make a minute or two difference, max - things go super-quickly when everyone's down to At-Wills and there's a lone enemy left standing.

-O

So we're arguing about semantics... ok it's not a houserule... it's fudging that can still shorten the length of combat... is that bettter??

First, you are assuming he only does it for one monster per combat, Which I doubt is the case. Second, you assume it's the last monster in the combat so it's a given the PC's can gang up on it. And depending on the rolls doing this for more then one monster in combat can definitely affect the length of combat...

In the end, my point is that it's kind of disingenuous to say "IME combat as written works perfectly"... but you're not running it as written, and admit so.