4E at higher levels question?

[Plane Sailing]

True, it's easy enough to create a buffed & debuffed (normal) character sheet. However, if you're at higher level and half the buffs are dispelled and half are not, then it's not so easy. Or, if you walk into a beholder's anti-magic ray and not only are your buffs gone, but all the plusses from the various magic items you have are gone as well (at least temporarily.)

Certainly true, although unless a dungeon is about a horde of beholders or lots of creatures with added caster class levels it probably doesn't come up in the majority of cases.

However, the fact that it could come up at all was definitely one of the big failings of 3e in my mind (and I've said that since the very earliest days too. Cascading bonuses seems elegant but has serious practical problems!)

Cheers

 

[MerricB]

My experience of 3E vs. 4E combat looks like this:

The last session of my 3.5e campaign (at about 16th level) was painful. The only reason it played in a reasonable time was because most of the players were using laptops: spreadsheets for character stats, prerolling attacks, rolling attacks on the computer...

Without using those technological aids (and rolling dice ahead of time), the session would have taken a very long time indeed.

In our 4e game (currently at 16th level, by a strange twist of fate), our recent combats have been taking longer than normal: perhaps 60-80 minutes. That covers about 10-12 rounds of combat, and the chief reason they've gone that long is because one or other of the PCs has been extremely unlucky with saves and spent a number of rounds unable to affect the combat. (Seeing the dwarf fail his save 5 times in a row last session while immobilized in a pit of zombies was painful).

Cheers!

 

[Dragonblade]

Merric, I would say your chart is pretty accurate. That generally reflects my experience as well as we get higher in level in 4e.

 

[darjr]

Try group initiative. Where the players go then the monsters go. If it's normally a while between players turns this might get them to participate together to fight the fight and not have to wait for their turn. Handle surprise by the group as well. It's doable without actually changing any rules, using held actions and such, but it's easier to just house rule. It drowns out individual initiative bonuses, use an avg or the highest or lowest depending upon circumstance.

Change the makeup of the opponents. Fewer non-minion bad guys with more mobility and more area attacks, ranged and melee. Also consider lots more minions instead of non-minion bad guys. Combining more minions and fewer non-minions I think you'll get a more dynamic combat with out 'lingering' targets. Stay away from brutes and solo's.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Try group initiative. Where the players go then the monsters go. If it's normally a while between players turns this might get them to participate together to fight the fight and not have to wait for their turn. Handle surprise by the group as well. It's doable without actually changing any rules, using held actions and such, but it's easier to just house rule. It drowns out individual initiative bonuses, use an avg or the highest or lowest depending upon circumstance.

Change the makeup of the opponents. Fewer non-minion bad guys with more mobility and more area attacks, ranged and melee. Also consider lots more minions instead of non-minion bad guys. Combining more minions and fewer non-minions I think you'll get a more dynamic combat with out 'lingering' targets. Stay away from brutes and solo's.

The problem I've found with group initiative is that the PCs (or the bad guys) get to concentrate their firepower on the "boss" bad guy (or key PC)

 

[darjr]

The problem I've found with group initiative is that the PCs (or the bad guys) get to concentrate their firepower on the "boss" bad guy (or key PC)

Cool! That's actually the point. They should probably do this anyway, especially if their combats are dragging or take a long time to complete.

 

[Shazman]

If you move the 4E line on Merrick's chart up an inch or two, then it would be more accurate. A 1st level 4E combat probably takes as long as a 10th level 3.5 combat, and steadily increases. 3.5 length of combat increases more sharply over time, but 4E starts way up there to begin with.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem I've found with group initiative is that the PCs (or the bad guys) get to concentrate their firepower on the "boss" bad guy (or key PC)

It is less of an issue in 4E, I think. Even a full round of attacks can be survivable for PCs and monsters alike. And of course, 4E has more options that make "focusing fire" more difficult, thanks to stuff like conditions and marking - and also more reactive abilities. Of course, all these aspects also increase the length of play, since you need to track or resolve them. (But with "group initiative", this would probably become a lot easier)

I also tend to think that 3E had a lot of "hidden" time to combats. Those handy Excel Spreadsheets didn't make themselves, for example, and you didn't always know what your allies would provide you with. I seem to remember every game session starting with distributing spell slots and buffs.

I think one of the more fundamental differences between 3E and 4E is that 4E has more things "happening" only at the game table, while 3E allowed - and forced sometimes - to make important decisions before the game session (or at its start).

The Character Building mini-game in both editions are a good example of this. You could spend a very large amount of time creating a 3E character and fine-tune a lot of things. Some of it had a large impact, some not. 4E is a lot more "restrictive" and the impact you have - while certainly not fully negligible- is a lot lower.

 

[Harlekin]

My experience of 3E vs. 4E combat looks like this:

That graph looks about right. While the scale on the axis will depend on the groups, I would estimate that the intersection is usually around level 6, when iterative attacks show up and buffing becomes SOP in 3.x.

 

[Gimby]

If you move the 4E line on Merrick's chart up an inch or two, then it would be more accurate. A 1st level 4E combat probably takes as long as a 10th level 3.5 combat, and steadily increases. 3.5 length of combat increases more sharply over time, but 4E starts way up there to begin with.

No, I think the chart is pretty accurate in my experience. Low level 3.5 is faster because its all over in a hit or two, but it gets a lot slower as hitpoints inflate.

I have found that combats do take around an hour or so, but theres generally a good number of rounds going on there.