Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

In my experience, aside from the few cases in which we had to look up a spell with a long and detailed description, the very problems you mention that 4e won't solve are the primary reason 3e combats take so long too. 4e's attempt to fix how long an individual's turn takes fixes a small set of cases I've encountered.

I'm also one of those DMs who doesn't really feel that fights in 3e were too short. Who cares if my monster goes down before he fires off all of his kewl powrz? My ego isn't invested in doing so. My ego as a DM is invested in my players having fun taking him down, neutralizing him, whatever, to achieve their goals. If they figure out a way to shorten the encounter or manage to bring enough smack down to end it fast and enjoy doing so, I'm good. The idea that the monster has to do a bunch of stuff or the encounter isn't somehow fulfilling is just alien to me.

As a DM, I didn't care how long things lasted as long as the players had fun.

As a player.... nothing pissed me off more than a 1 or 2 round fight against a big bad. That's the soul of anticlimax. Might be a nemesis we've had for a long time, might be a monster of legend... and it dies to a bad saving throw in round 2 before half of the players have had time to do anything cool.

Massively unsatisfying. Heck, IME, it's not even satisfying for the player who forced the saving throw.

 

[Mallus]

-25% hit points/+25% damage to all monsters except minions... Always replace at least one to two standard monsters in an encounter with minions (though this doesn't always work out that great, as far as combat speed goes, for various reasons I won't go into)...

I experimented w/similar changes. I ended up sticking to the RAW but paying a lot closer attention to monster selection --when session-prepping I used to focus on theme, rather than mechanical abilities. So far I like the results.

I've also gotten good mileage out using Minions that were either much higher level than the PC's (glass cannons that are hard to hit but do reliable damage) or w/special abilities (like the wonderful Pale Reaver Creeper - they can phase and drain Surges).

A new one I have been thinking about trying next week is to have monsters make morale checks (a save) each round once at least half their number are dead and they reach less than half their bloodied value (25% of hit points= demoralized once half their number are dead)

Sounds good. Or you could give PC's an Intimidate-to-surrender check as a free action once per encounter.

Again you're assuming things... that's not asking.

I think what I was doing was misreading...

Now I did pose the question (you know like you are possing questions to me) that I would be interested in finding out if others end combats prematurely but claim they are not having any problems with combat length in 4e.

I can't recall ending a combat prematurely... but my group hasn't had a problem dishing out large quantities of imaginary damage, at least so far, and I try to avoid selecting opponents which combine high defenses and a great big sack of HP.

Our play style also tends toward a single large set-piece battle per session, or every every other session. The only traditional dungeon crawl we had was done play-by-post on our message board over the course of a week or two.

 

[Dausuul]

What do you consider "prematurely" (aside from the obvious "before it's over?")

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that "prematurely" in this context means "before it's over." That is, before all the monsters are defeated according to the rules as written. A monster that has one hit point left is still up and fighting; a monster that has not been successfully Intimidated does not run away.

Yes, that's a very stringent standard. But the original poster's complaint is that he's being forced to rely on DM fiat and "tricks" to speed up combat, so "Does combat in fact require speeding up if you don't use DM fiat?" is a fair question.

 

[Scribble]

Why? So we can argue for a few more pages about the true meaning of prematurely? I think it's pretty apparent what I mean by prematurely within the context I was using it.

Well ok then- the answer is no, combats end when they're over, and therefore not prematurely.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that "prematurely" in this context means "before it's over." That is, before all the monsters are defeated according to the rules as written. A monster that has one hit point left is still up and fighting; a monster that has not been successfully Intimidated does not run away.

So every monster has to be dead or a PC has to make a successful intimidate check for them to run away?

Otherwise it's premature?

Yes, that's a very stringent standard. But the original poster's complaint is that he's being forced to rely on DM fiat and "tricks" to speed up combat, so "Does combat in fact require speeding up if you don't use DM fiat?" is a fair question.

I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?

I don't consider this DM fiat.

 

[Obryn]

I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?

I don't consider this DM fiat.

I believe they are considering this DM fiat, yes, if they're also considering fudging 3 HPs from a monster DM fiat and failure to run the combat by RAW.

Personally, I'd think intention should have a lot to do with it. If you're having the monsters run away because you're sick of this long, dragging fight and want to get on with it already... well, you're using DM fiat to solve the problem. If you're doing it because it's dramatically appropriate, or if you want to keep your intelligent villains alive to return another day, it probably shouldn't.

By the same token, if you're fudging a few HPs here and there because you're bored with the fight, you're experiencing and trying to solve the problem the OP is talking about. If you're doing it because you and your players love big, dramatic hits, I'd say you're doing something else entirely - like upping the cinematic aspect of the fight.

-O

 

[Dausuul]

I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?

A problem? Not exactly. I cut my DMing teeth back in the 2E days, and I don't mind applying a little DM fiat to make things more realistic and make the game run more smoothly. I'm a firm believer in Rule Zero.

But let's be clear, DM fiat is what it is; there's a mechanic for deciding when monsters get scared and run away, and we're bypassing that mechanic in order to improve the outcome. 4E was supposed to be moving away from needing DM fiat to make things run smoothly.

By the same token, if you're fudging a few HPs here and there because you're bored with the fight, you're experiencing and trying to solve the problem the OP is talking about. If you're doing it because you and your players love big, dramatic hits, I'd say you're doing something else entirely - like upping the cinematic aspect of the fight.

Agreed.

 

[Imaro]

Well ok then- the answer is no, combats end when they're over, and therefore not prematurely.

Wow, sure didn't see something like that coming...

I guess if you consider, the monsters running away or surrendering when they're in a hopeless battle without the PCs making an intimidate check DM fiat then I can see where you might see a problem with this?

I don't consider this DM fiat.

So what do you consider it?

 

[Scribble]

A problem? Not exactly. I cut my DMing teeth back in the 2E days, and I don't mind applying a little DM fiat to make things more realistic and make the game run more smoothly. I'm a firm believer in Rule Zero.

But let's be clear, DM fiat is what it is; there's a mechanic for deciding when monsters get scared and run away, and we're bypassing that mechanic in order to improve the outcome. 4E was supposed to be moving away from needing DM fiat to make things run smoothly.

I don't think I agree with how far you're taking the idea of DM fiat.

By that idea wouldn't pretty much anything the monsters do kind of be DM fiat then?

Yes there's a mechanic for intimidating a foe and making it run away/surrender, but that's a player side option. How a player can force an outcome kind of, but I wouldn't say that's the ONLY way to get to that outcome...

One of the hobgoblin entries it talks about them running away if the fight seems hopeless, and monsters running away and regrouping is mentioned in the DMG... Clearly intimidate isn't the only reason monsters would run.

I don't really call this DM fiat so much as just running the game. (Unless everything a 4e DM is supposed to do is based on a predefined/written action or rule then yeah I guess it fails at doing that... Which I am happy for.)

 

[Scribble]

Wow, sure didn't see something like that coming...

If you saw it coming why not just answer the question instead of giving me a non answer? You complained to Mallus for assuming something, then complain to me for not assuming something... Which do you want?

All I wanted was clarification.

 

[Imaro]

I've also gotten good mileage out using Minions that were either much higher level than the PC's (glass cannons that are hard to hit but do reliable damage) or w/special abilities (like the wonderful Pale Reaver Creeper - they can phase and drain Surges).


Sounds good. Or you could give PC's an Intimidate-to-surrender check as a free action once per encounter.

The minions with special abilities is a good idea, but my party didn't have a controller until recently (our former rogue went wizard), and I kind of found too many minions sometimes added to the length of combat without a controller (or Dragonborn w/breath weapon) instead of reducing combat length.

The free action, Intimidate-to-surrender idea might be better... but I wouldprobably have to remind them constantly to do it. My way, I just have to remember... so not sure which one would be better for my group.