Battles taking too long - whats the tricks?

ggroy said:

I've always been doing this since 1E AD&D.



There appears to be an implicit assumption of the players having magic weapons of an appropriate level. I don't know if 4E was originally design this way, but in practice this assumption makes the combat encounters less "grinding". But on the other hand, this assumption does make the combat encounters somewhat "cookie cutter" regardless of level. In a previous recent thread,

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/270715-1-level-instead-level.html

it was shown that the to-hit roll scales approximately as:

~ d20 + level

for an attack using a player's primary stat along with the assumptions of magic weapon enhancement and regular player ability stat increases.

Click to expand...

Yes the system is designed assuming that over the course of their adventures characters will increase their weapon, armour and neck items.
This is built into the system.

I've read that whole thread and I can't work out at all why all the proposed changes are a) needed and b) any better.

MerricB said:

However, the tactics of the party, along with the party's composition, can have a huge bearing on how long it takes. In addition to the usual suspects: poor mathematical skills, slow decision making, etc.

Click to expand...

This. Plus, I underlined what I feel is the single most important factor in slow combats as far as my group is concerned. I also bet it's the most important (largest) factor in a majority of groups. The slow decision making, IMO, is not needed in 4E. A PC will NOT be killed in a single blow, nor is it necessary to agonize over the perfect tactical decision. Sometimes, delaying or using an at-will is more than acceptable. So, simply tell the players to hurry it up. Maybe impose a timelimit on decisions or offer rewards for quick combats (e.g. +10% treasure when combats take under 45 minutes).

MerricB said:

See also the link in my signature.

Click to expand...

You have a problem in it. The code is visible.

Infiniti2000 said:

You have a problem in it. The code is visible.

Click to expand...

Hmm? Looks fine (and works fine) for me.

Cheers!

MerricB said:

Hmm? Looks fine (and works fine) for me.

Click to expand...

Under your Recent Sessions I reports I see the "url" code and not an actual link. If that's what you intended, then okay, but I doubt it since your other links aren't formatted like that.

Attached is a screen capture. I would've responded privately, but it doesn't seem like one can attach images in a private message.

edit: feel free to take this off-line if you wish, my EN World name at gmail.com.

MrBeens said:

Yes the system is designed assuming that over the course of their adventures characters will increase their weapon, armour and neck items.
This is built into the system.

I've read that whole thread and I can't work out at all why all the proposed changes are a) needed and b) any better.

Click to expand...

Mainly to reduce the time combat encounters last. Back in the 1E AD&D days, I was accustomed to combat that lasts 15 or 20 minutes (or less) for an entire encounter.

yeah, but this encounter was more or less static (at least in our 2nd edition games)

We usually faught at bottlenecks, figthters in the front line and the enemies piling up in front of us. Later at higher levels a combat is resolved in a single turn, when the mage/bard throws his fireball which cannot be meaningfully saved against.

But the most important factor is the way the combat rounds are resolved: no bookkeeping:

dm considers his actions
players decide theit action (taking more than 10 secs means standing around doing nothing)
roll initiative. resolve in order.

No time wasted in who goes first, and you cannot plan that excactly. Does it work in 4e? Probably not with players used to 3.x... it also didn´t work there
Also many forced movement effects could screw up actions, but maybe it could make forced movement powers much more fun

Trying that soon!

MerricB said:

Hmm? Looks fine (and works fine) for me.

Cheers!

Click to expand...

The signature link is missing a bracket end and a text for the link:

http://rpg.geekdo.com/thread/485900/descent-into-the-depths-part-6-spoilers<right here>[/url

ggroy said:

Mainly to reduce the time combat encounters last. Back in the 1E AD&D days, I was accustomed to combat that lasts 15 or 20 minutes (or less) for an entire encounter.

Click to expand...

I personally don't see that as a good thing. A combat that is too short is not any better, and probably worse, than a combat that is too long. I think the optimum time is about 45 minutes, maybe +/- 15 minutes (more + than -) depending on size and some other factors. I think that 15 minutes is too short and I would not like it any better than one that lasted for 1.5 hours. Encounters are "action," and having 15 minutes for action leaves a lot of extra time for "inaction." Obviously, it's not so black and white, but hopefully get the gist.

depends, what kind of combat... a random encounter took too long in 3rd edition too... (or was not worth the effort)

You are neglecting the third dimension of a combat encounter; terrain features.

If combats are grinding, be sure your battlefield hazards are deadly and interesting.