Average Length of Combats [Poll]

[el-remmen]

I have to say, this thread makes me very happy that I run my game the way I do - and reinforces the reason I kept rules like how fireball is 33,000 cubic feet of fire, and you have to be careful how and where you use it or you could fry your companions or yourself, for example. . .

And I think any combat that becomes "just die-rolling" should be faulted on the DM - it is his or her job to keep the combat and the descriptions thereof, interesting. . .

Also, people should stay in character while fighting (I think) - for example, I rule that all group tactics must be discussed "in-character" - and that means if you want to call out to someone to aid you or do something you must wait for your turn and speak as a free action - and if you speak too long (more than 6 seconds worth) I will cut you off.

 

[Mark]

Also, people should stay in character while fighting (I think) - for example, I rule that all group tactics must be discussed "in-character" - and that means if you want to call out to someone to aid you or do something you must wait for your turn and speak as a free action - and if you speak too long (more than 6 seconds worth) I will cut you off.

I'm fairly strict on this also. If someone is not close enough to give advice, they cannot. If the only way to do it is to move, I require them to move. For instance, I had someone in a game who always had tons of suggestions for other combatants. You can only shout so many orders in a brief period of time.

Once when he was around a corner and made a suggestion to another fighter, I ruled that he could not make the suggestion without seeing the combat. I moved his miniature on the battle map back to the corner, diced out an AoO (since that took him out of immediate comabt with another creature, and at a run), then I let him know he had just used his next turn to do what he had done.

I get very tired of people treating everyone else's character like they were merely extensions of their own, to be used as they see fit and not allowing the other players to grow on their own.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

But my question still stands: Are such short combats satisfying? I don't see how they could be - the fun of a combat (I think) comes from the tactics and the dramatic tension

They can be very satisfying. In our campaign, the rogue loves it when she brings down a sentry in a single sneak attack, allowing the party to sneak on unseen. The barbarian absolutely relishes cleaving through two ogres while his dragon helmet flies off and bites a third. And the cleric with destruction, well, let's just say he likes showing off the power of the gods.

also, not every combat (not most, in my case) happens when the party is prepared with buffing spells and the like - so this must drag out a combat some

Interesting. I read this as you're saying that without buffs, the combats take longer. I find just the opposite: the more buffing spells, the longer the combat. When the PCs or the enemy have all kinds of stoneskins, hastes, globes of invulnerability, iron bodies, mirror images, shields, and fly spells up, the combats are much more drawn out as everyone attempts to debuff each other before they can do killing damage. Conceivably, PCs and villains that enter combat unbuffed take the time to buff themselves, but in my campaign, we've found it almost always more effective to launch an all-out attack immediately rather than waste time on buffs that may be interrupted, countered, or quickly dispelled. Buffs are almost always cast ahead of combat in our campaign.

Also, don't your DMs (or you as DM) try to make encounters unique - so there is some variety and mystery to what could otherwise be a die-rolling marathon?

I find that having a lot of short encounters does more to improve variety than having one or two long encounters. Of course, you can have variety with long enounters too - just stretch the same encounter over different terrain, bring in new enemies, have a stealth portion of the battle while adversaries are healing, have a third party interrupt and offer to mediate/arbitrate - but I've just found it easier and more suited to our tastes to have many short encounters. Maybe we just have short attention spans. As always, ymmv.

 

[Martin Olarin]

I have to say, this thread makes me very happy that I run my game the way I do - and reinforces the reason I kept rules like how fireball is 33,000 cubic feet of fire, and you have to be careful how and where you use it or you could fry your companions or yourself, for example. . .

And I think any combat that becomes "just die-rolling" should be faulted on the DM - it is his or her job to keep the combat and the descriptions thereof, interesting. . .

Also, people should stay in character while fighting (I think) - for example, I rule that all group tactics must be discussed "in-character" - and that means if you want to call out to someone to aid you or do something you must wait for your turn and speak as a free action - and if you speak too long (more than 6 seconds worth) I will cut you off.

As a player in Nemm's game I think his emphasis on staying in character during combat is the single most effective way he maintains tension and realism. Even groups trained to fight together will find combat a chaotic experience and our group is in no way a well oiled machine created with group tactics in mind. We rarely know in advance when a combat is coming so preparation is generally slight and even when plans are made a simple miscalculation of distances and speed can throw everything off. Once things break down tactics dicussed in character at the biggining of a round can be useless by midround. Add to this rping considerations like showing fear or concern for a fallen friend and combat can get very gnarly.

I think sometimes groups forget that a party is rarely a military unit and that acting cohesively even without advance planning is very diffulcult - even for military units. Nemm's emphasis on in game only discussion does a good job of representing this diffulculty in game.

 

[el-remmen]

As a player in Nemm's game I think his emphasis on staying in character during combat is the single most effective way he maintains tension and realism. Even groups trained to fight together will find combat a chaotic experience and our group is in no way a well oiled machine created with group tactics in mind. We rarely know in advance when a combat is coming so preparation is generally slight and even when plans are made a simple miscalculation of distances and speed can throw everything off. Once things break down tactics dicussed in character at the biggining of a round can be useless by midround. Add to this rping considerations like showing fear or concern for a fallen friend and combat can get very gnarly.

I think sometimes groups forget that a party is rarely a military unit and that acting cohesively even without advance planning is very diffulcult - even for military units. Nemm's emphasis on in game only discussion does a good job of representing this diffulculty in game.

Why thanks, Martin!

[SIZE=1[b]]Note: For those who are familair with my game, Martin here, plays Kazrack, while Ciaran plays Martin the Green.[/b][/SIZE]

 

[Lela]

I like the IC idea nem. How the heck to you implement it?

And will we need a new thread to discuss this?

 

[Olive]

i said five, but to be honest i don't really know.

but surely it will depend on relative cr/el... an EL at party lvl +4 will be relatively long compared to a combat at EL party level.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

It varies so much in the games I play in I can't give an answer. Sometimes we kill something very fast and sometimes the battle lasts for a longtime.

It often depends on how many adversaries we are facing. Armor class and resistances are also a big factor. If the creature is really hard to hit, he takes much longer to kill. If an adversary has a high resistance to magic, and some kind movement power it could take a while. If there are alot of them with a great many hit points, it sometimes takes a while. Very difficult for me to say.

Just an example of some recent combats:

1. Imix: Killed in 3 rounds once engaged because he had a low AC and no healing support. It took us roughly five rounds to get to him because we had to deal with an Elder Fire Elemental and Half-fire Elemental medusa cleric.

2. Battle against the first and third, both high level Clerics: 10 or 12 rounds. We lost half the party and only a few people made it through the Forbiddance he had cast.

3. 8 Ogre Elite Fighters: They had alot of hit points. Took about 7 rounds to kill them all.

4. 2 Fire Giants: 2 Rounds. We hacked down and outright killed the other because it was held.

I guess that would average to about 7 rounds per battle.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I think sometimes groups forget that a party is rarely a military unit and that acting cohesively even without advance planning is very diffulcult - even for military units. Nemm's emphasis on in game only discussion does a good job of representing this diffulculty in game.

I love that this idea was mentioned. Our group also chooses to play in character through the majority of combats. It leads to some very interesting combat situations which build tension and drama.

In game, we have honed our group into a military unit. We actually have the group set up a position in a recently cleared area then have a scout team move forward from room to room doing threat analysis. Then we plan our attacks accordingly.

We plan not only how we are going to take out the main enemy in a given room, but also how we are going to cut off escape routes and prepare for any reinforcements. We also practice positioning to cut off access to our casters and make sure that no one flanks us.

3rd edition D&D has really made combat interesting. The level of tactical acumen necessary for 3rd edition D&D far exceeds any previous editions, and being a person who enjoys tactics a great deal, I find 3rd edition combat entertaining.

 

[Lela]

Re: Re

I love that this idea was mentioned. Our group also chooses to play in character through the majority of combats. It leads to some very interesting combat situations which build tension and drama.

In game, we have honed our group into a military unit. We actually have the group set up a position in a recently cleared area then have a scout team move forward from room to room doing threat analysis. Then we plan our attacks accordingly.

We plan not only how we are going to take out the main enemy in a given room, but also how we are going to cut off escape routes and prepare for any reinforcements. We also practice positioning to cut off access to our casters and make sure that no one flanks us.

3rd edition D&D has really made combat interesting. The level of tactical acumen necessary for 3rd edition D&D far exceeds any previous editions, and being a person who enjoys tactics a great deal, I find 3rd edition combat entertaining.

Okay, that's it. I'm starting a thread about this when I wake up. Look for it in about 8-10 hours.