D&D 3E/3.5 4E/3E Combat Time Question...

Grossout

First Post
This is a very noob question, and I'm sure something like it has been discussed before, but I need to know: As someone who never played 3E, why did its rounds take so long? I hear that overall battle time in 4E is about equal to 3E, but in 3E you had very long, but fewer rounds. Why?

Is it because players were constantly looking up rules every round? Was it that complicated? I mean, I never played 3E because it did seem a little, I don't know..."nit-picky?" to me, but not so much that I thought you could accomplish 10 rounds of 4E in the same time it tooks 3 rounds in 3E. What gives?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Vymair

First Post
The biggest factor would probably be resolving iterative attacks and the impact of buffs on said attacks. Both players and monsters in 3e end up with a lot of attacks at higher level and once you start applying buffs and attack options to multiple attacks, they take longer to resolve.
 

Patlin

Explorer
I found that, as a DM, some monsters had stat blocks that were extremely complicated and often had small tidbits that made a dramatic difference. If you didn't want to screw up, you had to read very carefully. I think this contributed a lot to the time required for high level combats.

Some examples:

Player: Since he's flat footed and can't take an opportunity attack, I'll circle around him so we can set up flanking.
DM: Wait, let me check if he has Combat Reflexes.

DM: Monster's turn. Lets see, which spell to cast... he has 30 to choose from, and whoever wrote this module seems to have picked the most useless spells imaginable. What does "Cloak of Chaos" do again?
 


Dragonblade

Adventurer
Multiple attacks at high levels, plus spells and buffs.

High level characters often had more than one attack. Assuming a party of four characters composed of the traditional fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard. You have 3 characters that will potentially have multiple attacks by level 10. Each one requiring a separate attack and damage roll. In 4e, only area attacks really require multiple attack rolls but usually only one damage roll. Plus 4e has less fiddly modifiers that have to be calculated in combat.

Speaking of modifiers, buff spells are the worst. As casters add buff spells, you have to calculate the different bonus, determine what will and will not stack with what and so on. Then if you get hit with a dispel magic, you potentially have to recalculate everything. Buffs that target ability scores are the worst, since upping or decreasing an ability has a ripple effect across your entire character. If your Dex goes up, it affects your initiative, your AC, your Reflex save and multiple skills.

Likewise, monsters often had spells and spell like abilities that simply reference the spell in the PHB. For an ad-hoc or on the fly encounter, the game would come to a screeching halt while the DM went out and looked up spells to see what the monster would and should cast. This is further compounded again by the buff issue because monsters would of course buff and debuff just like PCs.

In my 4e playtest games, 4e combat not only spanned more rounds, but were over in less real world time than 3e combats.

My group played through the entire Second Son 4e fan adventure in a little over 6 hours. We had 7 multiple round combat encounters plus at least a couple of hours of role-playing mixed in there. Getting through 6 combat encounters, with 6 players and multiple monsters in each encounter, in about 4 to 4.5 hours would be flat out impossible in 3rd edition.
 

DM_Blake

First Post
Most 3e rounds, most of time, can go pretty quickly.

I think a lot of people are hoping 4e will be the "silver bullet" to solve all their problems.

In my experience, 3e combat rounds are usually quick and painless. The slow downs come from:

1. Player not knowing what to do. He's indecisive. Should I charge, or use my bow, or maybe I should throw a tanglefoot bag, or maybe I should drink a barkskin potion this round and run in to fight next round, or maybe... This kind of thing will still happen in 4e too.

2. Player trying to do unusual stuff. I will kick cinders from the campfire into the beholder's eyes, then try to stab it with the stick I've been roasting my marshmallows on. Do the cinders cause damage? Daze? Blind? Does the beholder take extra damage if the marshmallow on my stick is on fire? True, this kind of thing doesn't happen often, but when it does, it can slow down combat, and it will slow down 4e too.

3. Player tries to use a normal combat option that is hard to remeber/understand in game ters. Examples in 3e include grapple, overrun, and even turn undead. Some spells are hard to remember, either because they are complex (Dispel Magic) or just not used much. These things are difficult to remember exactly, so often it involves players digging up the manuals, finding the rule, then figuring out how to apply the rule. Sometimes arguments happen when players disagree. These can cause major slowdowns in 3e. My understanding is that much of this stuff has been drastically simplified, or even oversimplified, or just plain removed entirely from 4e, so these slowdowns shouldn't be too common in 4e.

4. Player just doesn't know the rules very well. How far can I move? What die to I roll to attack? Can I cast my spell then hit this orc with my sword? If I move this way, will those goblins get opportunity attacks? Etc. This happens in every RPG; 4e won't fix this problem.

5. Player controls too many creatures. Druids with multiple animal compaions, summoners who cast summon spells, etc. This means the player won't just move and attack, but instead he will move, attack, move, attack, move, attack, move attack, etc. This can result in a long turn for this player in 3e. It seems that 4e is limiting many of these options for players, so this may not be too much of a problem anymore in 4e.

6. Player isn't really paying much attention to everyone else's turns. He's watching TV, surfing the net, outside smoking, gone to the bathroom, chatting with another player about the latest South Park episode, etc. When it's this player's turn, he has nothing prepared, might even have to ask what's been happening. He wastes everyone's time while he figures out what to do because he's not prepared. This happens in every RPG; 4e won't fix this problem.

7. Distractions. Ofen the gaming table gets off on a sidetrack, chatting about any old thing under sun. Even the DM gets sidetracked sometimes. Even the player who should be taking a turn, moving, attacking, etc., might be sidetracked in this conversation. Sometimes the sidetrack goes on for quite a while, drawing out the entire time of the combat. This can happen in every RPG; 4e won't fix this problem.

8. Iterative attacks. High level 3e characters can sometimes make multiple attacks in a round, meaning several attack rolls and several damage rolls if the attacks hit. This is easy enough to handle without much slowdown, but few groups handle it, so the end result is roll attack, see if it hits, roll damage, then roll attack, see if it hits, roll damage, then roll attack, etc. This can slow down 3e combats and won't be a problem in 4e since getting multiple attacks in 4e will be very rare.

I'm not sure if that's the whole list.

You will note that some of those don't relate to the game system at all (4, 6 & 7). Some won't be fixed in 4e (1 & 2).

That leaves 3, 5 & 8 that 4e will likely improve.

So, in a nutshell, if you're playing in a group that has all these issues, then you can spend hours on a single combat in 3e, but in 4e, that same combat will probably take almost as long. But if you're playing in a group that rarely if ever has any of the issues, then your combat is already pretty quick and 4e won't make it much quicker. If your group is really quite good but issues 3, 5 & 8 are common, then 4e will probably make a huge difference for your group.

But, even with those, #3 can be offset by having the player become familiar with that combat option if he uses it a lot. If the player likes to grapple, have him study the grapple rules. Have him look them up during other players' turns so he knows what to do and what to roll when his turn comes up. This can eliminate most of the slowdowns caused by 3.

There isn't much to do about #5. When it happens in combat, it will result in that player having long turns. The only real way to minimize the impact is to not allow players to do this in the first place, otherwise you just have to suck it up.

As for #8, training players to roll all the dice at once really helps. Use color-coordinated dice. Red d20 and red d8 for the first attack and damage, blue d20 and blue d8 for the second, etc. When it's the player's turn, he rolls all the dice. Look at the red d20, add his attack modifier, tell the DM the modified roll. DM says "hit" or "miss", if it's a hit, look at the red d8 and add damage modifier and tell the DM. Then do the same for the blue dice. It still takes longer than when you only have one attack, but by doing this, 3 attacks don't take 3x as long as one.
 
Last edited:

timbannock

Adventurer
Supporter
Agreed. As a DM, playing a monster effectively either takes lots of prep-time beforehand to memorize certain facets, or lots of lookup time in play (usually the latter...I don't have lots of free time before a game).

Players often have to reference something, or take into account multiple buffs. I just started a new campaign and have slowed XP to a crawl, so we're spending a LOT more time at levels 1 and 2 (the PCs have gained about 1 level every 4-6 sessions, and just hit 3). Oddly enough, I'm seeing that even low-level characters are dealing with a lot of numbers. Not high numbers, per se, but just so many different SOURCES of numbers:

+n from the bard's singing
+n from a feat that only applies at this particular moment
+n from flanking
-n from a status effect placed on them the previous round
-n due to range increment
-n due to firing into a melee

It's a damn good thing my players know mathz.

Seriously, if more modifiers were "static" (as in "always on") then it'd be a lot easier to remember. The bard singing doesn't always occur...the feat doesn't always apply...the range increment changes everytime either you or the opponent moves...

It's still fun though. But I'll be looking at 4E as I've already seen some neat things that cut down on this kind of stuff (static mods, different ways of tracking effects, etc.).
 


AllisterH

First Post
It really depended on the level. Levels 1-3, those pretty much moved fast IME as long as the monster didn't reference anything from the PHB, however as you go up in levels, iterative attacks AND buff spells played havoc with you as a player while as a DM not only do you those but also your monsters start using more esoteric abilites.

Like others, once you got past level 12, combat could start slowing down significantly depending on the monster used.
 

jimpaladin

First Post
I'm going to weigh in on this topic since I haven't yet OMG! After reading DM Blake's reply I have to say that although he has a point I disagree with the premise. In addition, the whole notion of "fast" or "slow" rounds in ANY edition is based on several of the same factors. The 2 biggest are the players and the DM.

When I DM the idea is to impart some cinematic action for my players hoping to get a return response. Usually this works. BUT I know it has happened that 1 player if all they want to do is say "I attack the yellow monster and roll a 16 and do 7 points of damage if I hit." Is going to make others do the same and will speed up the game as it looks like the DM is dragging things along making it appear the combats take forever.

I didn't make myself clear in that last paragraph. What I am saying is that depending on how combat is conducted can make a "slow" as in long or 20 minute combat seem short or forever by how one views it. IMO if combat takes 7 rounds and each round is 10 seconds or 5 minutes of real time as long as EVERYONE enjoys it then the combat will seem quick. For those that don't enjoy the combat sequence every combat seems to take forever.

Granted; you still have those points brough up about disinterested players and distracted DM's. But isn't that a function of the group dynamic not the fault of the game? Choices have always been in the game. Even 3e with its attempt to "rule" most situations still had to quote that if you weren't sure +2/-2 a roll that you though reasonable and go from there.

Whether combat or Roleplaying or levelling up it is the group dynamic that makes or breaks our fun factor and the time spent. 6 hours of fun no matter how many encounters are ran equals 6 hours of fun. IN ANY EDITION :)
 

Remove ads

Top