Combat length

[Blackbrrd]

Indeed. Even with the efforts the designers made to simplify the system and even with the Character Builder to hold your hand, 4E is not exactly newbie-friendly, and keeping track of all the numbers is not for the mathematically disinclined.

I have a player that is mathematically disinclined and she thinks playing a 4e character is relatively easy. She got the hang of it after two short sessions of about 2x3 hours. The math is usually very easy: d20+number from character sheet or 30hp -7hp = 23 hp.

There is quite a difference between the different classes and builds though, the Druid for instance isn't particularly newbie friendly, while the ranged Ranger is very newbie friendly.

 

[Abisashi]

This combat felt really grindy... but a big part of it is the players unfamiliarity with the tactical combat rules (and for 3 of them RPG's in general), and one player who cannot seem to remember how her powers work from turn to turn. She also has problems finding her dice. Some of her turns last 10 minutes.

3 Suggestions that really helped my girlfriend when she started playing:
1) Set aside the dice she doesn't need, and find her matching dice for her primary attack powers, so her d20s and [W] dice would all be one color/pattern, and her other dice would be noticeably different). Alternately, color-code dice by size, red d20s, blue d12s, green d10s, etc.

2) Spend 5-10 minutes with her explaining which powers to use in which situations (and maybe changing around her powers to make this easier and more obvious); for example, "use ABC (close burst power) when you are next to at least 2 enemies, use XYZ (reduces AC) against enemies the party is having trouble hitting, etc".

3) If your other players comment when she makes a tactical mis-step, get them to stop doing so; fear of doing something wrong might be causing her to over-think.

If she doesn't have power cards, make some for her, and make sure they are easy to read (Character Builder cards are too busy). You could even write tactics suggestions on her power cards. If you color-coded the dice by size, you could color-code the cards so it is easier for her to find the right dice.

You may want to work with her to change her feats and power so they are less complicated and require less remembering, either by letting her swap them or re-writing them to be simpler.

edit: You could also run some combats for just her, or her and one other player, in order to help her learn in a low-pressure situation.

 

[Meridius]

I found that one-on-one playing (one DM and one player) works REALLY well for teaching. You can take all the time you need for explaining the character sheet and the basics of roleplaying.

Another clear advantage is that you gently roll into a combat encounter, and can simply -stop- the game for an explanation.

I run a game where combat varies, the fastest game ever was less than 1 minute per round, with 4 players. While the pace was nice, it actually felt a little rushed.

Most of my other games take longer. Last week I had 4 players (the usual group is 6), 5 rounds of actual major combat took about 30 minutes, and the other 7 rounds where quicker and less intensive. Total around 10-12 rounds, in about 40 minutes.
(They had to pass a group of 3 (very aggressive) woolly rhino's without killing them, and they have quite the caravan of horses, a wagon and a cart).
For this fight I played each rhino, and a friendly NPC each with a separate initiative count though (like I usually do).

Thus, am I really that unique in assigning each combatant (or small group of combatants) a unique Initiative count and HP? (I do use a combat tracker on my laptop, a friend of mine, one of the players, programmed it for me )

 

[Goonalan]

I have found that the higher the PCs level the longer the combat takes, while many of their powers were doing 1/6th HP damage/hit they're now down to 1/8th or worse, and with some poor rolls the grind becomes much more apparent.

Also we play via Skype & Maptools and it's really slow at times.

Fighter takes ongoing damage- use macro, now bloodied, press macro that confers bonuses for being bloodied.

Fighter moves five, no... hang on... moves a different five... one, two, three, four, five- that's it.

AoO from Monster A, find macro for monster, find other macro that confers additional bonus for AoO, roll do the maths- subtract damage from Fighter, apply condition to fighter.

Fighter has Strikebacks... Here we go.

Resolve movement- bloody hell. Some Fighter close burst attack follows- count the bad guys in the attack effect- press macro, fill in additional bonuses because flanking one enemy, but not the others. Add bonus to damage granted by X power. Roll.

Apply damage to all tokens, a macro of course but that causes Monster X to be bloodied- which instigates Immediate Reaction. Forget that monster Y has Immediate Interrupt which negates first roll. Re-roll- reapply bonuses to hit and damage- one target and hit the macro, oh he's hit anyway.

The attack power applies a condition, set condition to all targets hit.

Set all targets attacked as marked.

Realise that monster A that did the AoO was marked by the Fighter back then and so should take an extra 3 damage, which bloodies it... Immediate Reaction kicks in... Ahhhhhhhh!

Work it all out again.

Hmmm...

Fighter spends Action Point.

Player B confers bonus for Action Point use- hit macro.

Fighter goes for another close burst type power, go back to 2nd paragraph above and re-visit with new attack power and additional bonuses conferred by player B for action point use. Hit the new power macro.

Apply new results, discover monster Z is now bloodied and has Immediate Reaction also.

Fighter then uses free power from magic item- shifts or applies bonus to defences, or whatever. Sets new status on himself- shielded, whatever.

Turn over.

Oh hang on Fighter required to make saving throws for ongoing damage and another condition. Fighter rolls... fail, searches out macro that will give him +... hang on it's here somewhere, yeah that's it... Here, +2 to saves vs...

That's still not enough- save failed.

Somebody else's turn.

Two minutes later...

Fighter realises he has magic item that means he has resist 10 acid, therefore he shouldn't have taken any damage, and wouldn't have been bloodied, and so wouldn't have hit half the creatures he hit.

DM goes silent.

Fumes.

Refuses to go back.

Player fumes, but understands.

I've been using Maptools for three years so it's not a usage thing, the maps etc I build are getting better looking all the time, however the weight of macro's and the variables required to work them is growing exponentially with each and every level rise, and/or new magic item.

I play via maptools because I don't know anyone in Grimsby, UK that plays 4e, oh there's a D&D club but they're not shifting from 3.5e (still), and believe me I've asked around (for nigh on 12 years).

And so imagine my surprise when five guys from work decided that I should teach them the game, and so I did- here's the thing, even with newbies the game around the table, from a time perspective is soooooooooo much easier. Particularly as real life often intrudes on our internet game- wives, children, etc. The only interruptions we had in our first session was the Pizza guy.

And so Maptools etc, typical session 4-5 hours, maybe two combat encounters and an hour of roleplay etc.

Round-the-table, typical session (we've played four so far) 3-4 hours, easily 4 combat encounters (sometimes 5, or 6). Lots more roleplay. Pizza- cups of tea, a chat about the weather, football, the state of the nation- short tirade; a look at Dave's new tattoo, and time to level up design new character traits, catch phrases, etc.

Maptools is ace, it saved my sanity, but the real thing... you really can't beat it.

So count yourself lucky fellow gamers.

Cheers Paul

 

[Iron Sky]

Last 4e combat I played in:

Character level: 1
PCs: 5
Enemies: 10
Rounds: 3
Time: 10 days

4e combats take way too much time. Isn't there some way to speed things up? I mean, come on, that's, like, almost 4 days per round! I remember back when I used to play 3.5, we could get through a high-level 3 round combat in 5 or 6 hours! 10 days? Come on Wizards, get your act together!

[sblock=Unimportant details]
Probably unrelated, but the 4e game is PbP and the 3.5 game mentioned was RL.[/sblock]

 

[Henry]

I'm looking at this with a lack of 4e expertise relative to those who have played it a lot. At first glance, that strikes me as very strange. Especially with 4e's basically reciprocal "easier to hit you = harder to get hit by you" setup, that seems like a pretty notable advantage.

However, the multiplying double whammy of having more HP and better defenses makes the high-level monster take longer to wear down. The excitement factor is probably less than if players were able to mark progress by felling foe after foe. I guess it might add interest if the damage the monster dishes out were enough more to put individual characters significantly more at risk -- but that seems to me not the way 4e tends to go.

You have the problem exactly. The monsters, for those extra three or four levels, don't do enough damage to force the point, so when the PCs are taking 14's and 16's to hit, combat is dragging a bit.

With 3E, though, I've found that you find out inside of 3 rounds if you're going to win or not -- if you don't have the monsters in hand, it takes nothing less than dumb luck or DM fudging to keep you alive long enough to run.

 

[MerricB]

A couple more combats... and some interesting stats:

PCs: Ranger 10, Paladin 10, Druid 10, Bard 10, NPC Cleric 15
Opponents: 2 Vine Horrors (10 Controller), 1 Ambush Vine (12 Elite Controller)
8 rounds, 1 hour.

Round 1: 18 minutes including set-up (minis used)
Round 2: 12 minutes
Round 3: 8 minutes (Vine Horror #1 dead)
Round 4: 6 minutes
Round 5: 5 minutes
Round 6: 5 minutes (Ambush Vine dead)
Round 7: 4 minutes
Round 8: 2 minutes (Vine Horror #2 dead)

PCs: Ranger 10, Paladin 10, Druid 10, Bard 10, NPC Cleric 15
Opponents: 5 Warped Ghouls (10 Brute)
5 rounds, 35 minutes

Round 1: 10 minutes including set-up (minis used)
Round 2: 7 minutes (Ghoul #1 dead)
Round 3: 9 minutes
Round 4: 5 minutes (Ghouls #2, 3, 4 dead)
Round 5: 4 minutes (Ghoul #5 dead)

Cheers!

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

I have limited 4th ed experience but I can tell you that in my many 3rd edition games the dividing line of combat was how quick the melee characters got into hand to hand with the opposition. Opening rounds could be dicey and might take more time as people positioned themselves and decided on tactics, but once the headbashers got in close rounds went quickly as the decisions were mostly over and it was down to hacking for a few rounds until things died. So an "average time per round" could be misleading - opening round or two could take 5 or 10 minutes of discussion for a 6-man party, but the melee rounds might last 30 seconds apiece.

Is this not the case in 4th edition? Like I said I have limited experience but I expect to be starting up a game in the near future so it would be good to know.

I've recently started and old-school basic game and let me tell you - combat typically lasts les than 5 rounds and those rounds go quickly as most things die in 1 or 2 hits, including the PC's.

 

[the Jester]

I have limited 4th ed experience but I can tell you that in my many 3rd edition games the dividing line of combat was how quick the melee characters got into hand to hand with the opposition.

It really depends on the party. If your party is heavy on ranged attackers and the defender just holds the line, this is less true; but if your party is paladin, avenger, fighter, warden, druid, you're absolutely right.

 

[Dausuul]

I have limited 4th ed experience but I can tell you that in my many 3rd edition games the dividing line of combat was how quick the melee characters got into hand to hand with the opposition. Opening rounds could be dicey and might take more time as people positioned themselves and decided on tactics, but once the headbashers got in close rounds went quickly as the decisions were mostly over and it was down to hacking for a few rounds until things died. So an "average time per round" could be misleading - opening round or two could take 5 or 10 minutes of discussion for a 6-man party, but the melee rounds might last 30 seconds apiece.

Is this not the case in 4th edition? Like I said I have limited experience but I expect to be starting up a game in the near future so it would be good to know.

I find this has less to do with getting into melee per se, and more to do with how dynamic the combat is.

In a "vanilla combat," the first few rounds are spent maneuvering and feeling out the enemy. Then the combatants settle into a sort of Nash equilibrium, where everybody's strategy is set, nobody has anything to gain by changing plans, and there's nothing left to do but roll dice until one side drops. At that point the rounds speed up considerably. (Unfortunately, they also get very boring, which makes them seem slower.)

This pattern is most visible in battles with solos, which can very quickly slide into "everybody crowd around the monster and beat it to death."

A combat where things get shaken up every so often--new abilities that trigger on bloodied, changing terrain, reinforcements arriving for one side or the other, et cetera--is much less likely to fall into this pattern. Likewise, a larger number of variables in a combat means it takes longer for everybody to sort out their optimal strategy; in some cases longer than the combat itself.