D&D 4E Changing the Combat Parameters of 4th Edition

[Garthanos]

I am not sure that I would agree, but I think it is all a preference here.

This is likely true.

I could see a skill challenge for a minor skirmish be resolved with and Athletics group check for all melee fighters and a group Arcana/Religion check for the magic/divine users. Question is what fun is that?

Sounds like a false dichotomy...

The two round finds sound like you find 3 orcs in a square mostly empty sound proof effectively context free room OH look break out the tactics free basic attacks ie it doesnt sound interesting at all... whittle whittle whittle. Sounds un fun to me indeed.

Sometimes you are just showing the area is dangerous and would be deadly to the ordinaries of the world and heros can waffle stomp them. (ie their presence is flavor rather than real danger)

The only way I think they should or need to be a challenge and worth much at all is if they they are only a portion of the scenario ie they occur within a greater context of a regular skill challenge or something which escalates into a larger battle scene unless handled with care (which is where other skills come in to play). ie perhaps they may sound alarm that will bring another wave of enemies or trigger a trap that diverts passage requiring figuring out the ancient writing and the complex mechanisms or floods the area forcing everyone to do athletics including that erudite fellow ... or inspires the party to start using that ritual for breathing water on a more regular basis.

But if you prefer a bunch of boring 2 round isolated fights whose only purpose is to whittle the player characters down and make them vulnerable in the end fight have at it. I kind of like having player characters being at a fairly predictable degree of ability (arent you giving that up)

"There are two ogres stepping out in the road. You quickly kill them and recieve 400 XP. You are now finally on your way to the Dungeon of Doom".

Since 2 round fights cannot really involve tactical choices not sure how they would be any better..

Indeed remove the XP all together from the above... unless its actually interesting and involves thinking, OR even that house rule about Advancing characters levels when it seems appropriate after N adventures (One mentioned by the game designers i vaguely recall)

 

[Myrhdraak]

The two round finds sound like you find 3 orcs in a square mostly empty sound proof effectively context free room OH look break out the tactics free basic attacks ie it doesnt sound interesting at all... whittle whittle whittle. Sounds un fun to me indeed.

Yes, and that is the purpose here. If your definition of fun is only combat, yes it would be a boring room. I would say 90% of the rooms in D&D history would be boring from that definition. If you compare the 5th Edition adventures towards the 4th Edition ones, you will find hundreds of these small encounters, but the rooms have more details and information tied to exploration. 4th Edition adventures had usually quite short room description and then a dedicated page just to handle the combat and tactics. It was obvious where the focus in the adventure design was.

Sometimes you are just showing the area is dangerous and would be deadly to the ordinaries of the world and heros can waffle stomp them. (ie their presence is flavor rather than real danger)

Yes, but I would exchange the word flavor with exploration instead. Having saved one hour of table time by having a more simple encounter, more time can be free for exploration or role-playing. The small encounters are not a challenge per see, you are going to need 6 to 9 of them (in 5th edition) to make them count.

But if you prefer a bunch of boring 2 round isolated fights whose only purpose is to whittle the player characters down and make them vulnerable in the end fight have at it. I kind of like having player characters being at a fairly predictable degree of ability (arent you giving that up)

I think the purpose of them is not to be deadly or tactical, they are more part of the exploration of the cave system/castle/dungeon, etc. I totally agree that you can build a completly other kind of game play trying to simulate a similar experience by stripping a 5th Edition adventures of 70% of the content, replacing it with skill challenges and a few traditional 4th Edition tactical fights. It would most likely even play faster than 5th Edition, but much of the "old" D&D exploration feel would be lost in the translation. It might be a better game, for some, but if you want to have that "old" feeling AND 4th Edition like tactical combats, I believe you have to do changes to the 4th Edition system in order to allow it to do both. It is harder to make 5th Edition to play like tactical 4th as you would have to add tactical powers to all monsters and classes (which is much more work in my opinion).

4.5 Edition Conversion Guide

/Myrhdraak

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, but I would exchange the word flavor with exploration instead. Having saved one hour of table time by having a more simple encounter,

I think Scribner brought this up earlier but why treat "this" as an encounter, why not just minion speed bump you can explore the room and its cobwebs and blood stains in the corner and nonsensical location all you want even if those goblins go down in one hit to non-optimized non-strikers.. if the danger/fight is uninteresting and un "real" that is what it should be.

Why not go through 70 percent of those 5e adventures and make the encounters minion stomps ...then you can acomplish your true exploratory goal of finding out what is written on that scrap of paper in the corner.(goblin 647's laundry list oh well)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I totally agree that you can build a completly other kind of game play trying to simulate a similar experience by stripping a 5th Edition adventures of 70% of the content, replacing it with skill challenges and a few traditional 4th Edition tactical fights. It would most likely even play faster than 5th Edition

Nod, not so much simulate a similar experience as a similar narrative: You spend days poking carefully through a dangerous underground complex, a surfeit of tedium & anxiety punctuated by moments of violence & horror. The classic/5e approach is to faithfully go through all the tedium in detail and whisk through the brief moments of violence, which must be great for immersions.

The obvious 4e approach would be to abstract the many hours of exploration into a not-too-complex Skill Challenge highlighting the more significant bits, with failures triggering minor encounters, and then linger over a big set-piece battle or few for hours.

but much of the "old" D&D exploration feel would be lost in the translation.
..if you want to have that "old" feeling AND 4th Edition like tactical combats...

Of course, nothing forces you to abstract the fascinatingly intense tedium of dungeon crawling into a skill challenge: you can still explore, map, and clear a devious/improbable tunnel complex in detail, making checks all the while to search each innocuous square foot of crudely-worked stone for fiendish traps and so forth, punctuating that systematic process with a series of 'minion-stomps' and wandering-damage encounters with lone level-appropriate standard lurkers and the like, each quickly resolved in a round or two - AND, still have a climactic set-piece battle or few if you want.

That's not entirely hypothetical, either, I've done it. I left the option of dropping the map and going abstract skill challenge open, and after a bit, the players went for it, but if you have players who can endure the classic dungeon crawl, you can certainly run one.

 

[Myrhdraak]

Ran my first session with the new 4.5 edition rules. This session was quite roleplay centric, but I got the chance to test the rules in a fight where the 9th level party encountered a Level 15 Thunderfury Boar, and it worked very well. I think the Encounter Level 8 which was the result under the new XP rules described the threat level quite well. The ability to use a wider level range of monster when staging the game as a DM is quite fun.

 

[Myrhdraak]

I have found it quite useful to take a look at the encounter length when I do my adventure planning. It is quite good to ask oneself if the encounter is worth the table time or not from a story point of view. If you want to have table time left for other things as well, it might be worthwhile to cut down on some of the encounter levels.
I have therefore added a chart which allow you as a DM to lookup the average length of the encounter based on your party level and the encounter level. See page 12 in the 4.5 Conversion Guide below.

4.5 Edition Conversion Guide

/Myrhdraak

 

[Mondaynightgamer]

I have been playing a "playtest" of the 4.5 Rules shared on this thread.

Here are my observations:

1. My players love 4e. 5e is too meh, too simple.
2. The 4.5 conversion has allowed for on average about 20 minutes long combats where the players are all engaged, having fun, and no one seems to think the combats are "too long," a major complaint of 4e.
3. The healing changes are good, except for the "short rest." Having the hour long rest seems to bog the game down. We've "fixed that" by just sticking with 4e short and long rests. But still using the other rules provided.

Overall my players are very much enjoying the game. It will be something we continue in the future.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. My players love 4e. 5e is too meh, too simple.

So they're biased, then. ;P
Also, I've run 5e, including introducing it to new players - it ain't 'simple.' It's familiar to returning players who last played in the TSR era, though...

2. The 4.5 conversion has allowed for on average about 20 minutes long combats where the players are all engaged, having fun, and no one seems to think the combats are "too long," a major complaint of 4e.

Is the savings in rounds or time spent per turn? Is more saved on some turns than others? (ie 5e combat is 'faster' than 4e, but some of the savings is from combats being easier and thus shorter in # of rounds, and some of the savings is in the form of some classes being simplified and taking much shorter turns, while others take as long or longer on their turn than in 4e).

3. The healing changes are good, except for the "short rest." Having the hour long rest seems to bog the game down. We've "fixed that" by just sticking with 4e short and long rests. But still using the other rules provided.

IDK where the idea that an hour was 'short' came from. Minutes vs hours seems 'short.'

 

[Mondaynightgamer]

I believe the issue is more on the DM-side for the rests. IMO in an hour long rest a lot can happen, but with a few minutes passing it's more "realistic" to think that monsters won't emerge to challenge them all the time. I think a few minutes also doesn't seem to disrupt the flow of the adventure. Again, just my opinion and the opinion of my players.

In reference to combat, 4.5 rules change monster hit points to be lower and damage to be slightly higher, so the battles take rounds (about 3 is the usual) and less real time (about 15-20 minutes, on average). This change helps in that we get intense, tactical combat that doesn't eat the night up. Finally, not every fight is designed to be a full immersion combat with terrain and multiple monsters. Some "feel" more like the 5e mindset of skirmishes: quick and easy.

Again, all of this is all just my opinion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

...so the battles take rounds (about 3 is the usual) and less real time (about 15-20 minutes, on average). This change helps in that we get intense, tactical combat that doesn't eat the night up. Finally, not every fight is designed to be a full immersion combat with terrain and multiple monsters. Some "feel" more like the 5e mindset of skirmishes: quick and easy.

Again, all of this is all just my opinion.

Nod. JMHO, too, but I wouldn't expect a lot of tactics to develop & play out in a 3-round combat.