Combat Speed Comparison

[CleverNickName]

One of the main issues with the earlier renditions of the game (3.X, PF, 4E) has been the speed of combat (as measured from the time we roll initiative, to the time we resolve the encounter and move on.) It was not uncommon for even the low-level encounters to take more than a half-hour each...and "boss" encounters could take all evening. Some thought this was a good thing, but most of us didn't care for it too much. "Boss" encounters aside, I was always frustrated with the speed of combat in the newer editions. I guess I had gotten spoiled from all of the years I spent playing the Moldvay Basic and Expert Rules...I don't like to spend more than 10 or 15 minutes per battle unless it's some kind of Grand Finale to a quest or something.

So imagine my delight, when I was able to run a battle of 5 goblins vs. 4 player characters, in 12 minutes flat in the playtest rules...from the time we rolled initiative to the time I was dishing out XP. Same thing for a 4-on-4 battle against some orcs (11 minutes). Or the 4 vs. 1 battle with the ogre (14 minutes.) These same battles would have taken at least a half-hour to run under the 3.5 rules that I most commonly play. I think this is a great improvement, and I applaud the game designers.

The "tell the DM what you want, and leave it up to him to figure out the rolls you need" part of the rules were a huge help in this department, I think. I hope they reinforce this concept as the game design moves forward...and I hope they resist the urge to add stuff that might slow the game down.

-----

So how does the playtest combat speed measure up, in your experience? Do combat sequences take longer or shorter amounts of time? Or are they more or less unchanged?

 

[rjfTrebor]

i've only played two full encounters so far, both were about 40-60 minutes long and only involved 6-8 combatants.

i don't want to make any assumptions until i've run through the caves of chaos, but it seems like combats might have a tendency to run for nearly 10 rounds of almost the exact same thing.

 

[CleverNickName]

i've only played two full encounters so far, both were about 40-60 minutes long and only involved 6-8 combatants.

i don't want to make any assumptions until i've run through the caves of chaos, but it seems like combats might have a tendency to run for nearly 10 rounds of almost the exact same thing.

As others have said in other threads, if your characters are doing "almost the exact same thing" every round, that isn't the fault of the rules.

Our battles did take about 8 to 10 rounds to resolve, that's true. But each round took just a minute or two, not five minutes or more. This is a big deal for my friends and I, because I run a combat-intensive game.

 

[Melkor]

As others have said in other threads, if your characters are doing "almost the exact same thing" every round, that isn't the fault of the rules.

Our battles did take about 8 to 10 rounds to resolve, that's true. But each round took just a minute or two, not five minutes or more. This is a big deal for my friends and I, because I run a combat-intensive game.

Our play test combats were much quicker than our 3E or 4E combats.

 

[Sunseeker]

As others have said in other threads, if your characters are doing "almost the exact same thing" every round, that isn't the fault of the rules.

That's not entirely true.

It depends on A: the obvious options to the character(different abilities, different options, different spells, different maneuvers, ect..) and B: how easy to create and resolve non-obvious options are. IE: how easy it is to translate creative RP into combat.

Yes, some people aren't very creative, but like in previous editions, if certain choices are obviously inferior, it limits the viable options a player has. Thus leading to repetition.

I would say that right now in DDN the "obvious options" are pretty straight forward, but the number of options(and this is typical of most low-level games, so it's not entirely DDNs fault) are fairly limited. Because the rules are new, I feel that translating creative RP into combat is somewhat difficult. I'm not sure if this is a hard-coded issue or just a unfamiliarity issue.

Comparing later playtests and higher level games will clarify, but right now I think it's mostly unfamiliarity, but the translation process is...rough, but that could also be a "beta rules" issue.

 

[Melkor]

the rules are new, I feel that translating creative RP into combat is somewhat difficult. I'm not sure if this is a hard-coded issue or just a unfamiliarity issue.

Comparing later playtests and higher level games will clarify, but right now I think it's mostly unfamiliarity, but the translation process is...rough, but that could also be a "beta rules" issue.

Good points. As a gaming group that cut our teeth on 1E, and probably spent the most time (and had the most memorable campaigns) using 2E, it was fairly easy for the me, playtesting the Fighter, to come up with interesting options, and the DM to judge the effect.

Hopefully, the more people delve into the way Next seems to be constructed to cater to this, the more freedom they will feel in trying anything they can imagine in and out of combat.

 

[CleverNickName]

More than anything, I hope the game designers resist the temptation to add a bunch of "tricks" to the game (whether they are called class features, special attacks, combat tactics, or so forth). Tricks are great, and I like having a few of them...but too often, they just bog the game down. The player spends several minutes each turn trying to decide which one of the fifteen different tricks his character will perform, while everyone else waits for him to decide. Then, based on his decision, the next player in line spends several minutes deciding...and so on.

This is especially frustrating when there is no appreciable difference between any of the tricks. All things considered, most of these tricks are simply a melee attack with a fancy name. So you spend several minutes per player, per round, waiting for him or her to say (essentially) "I attack the monster."

I much prefer the D&DNext concept of "describe what you want to do, and let the DM figure out the math." It takes very little time, it has infinite variety, and it doesn't chain the players or DM to a static list of options.

 

[NewJeffCT]

While I'm happy about having a fraction of the prep time under 4E as I did under 3.5E rules, one thing I dislike about 4E is that there are so many interrupts.

DM: "My BBEG rolls a 19 with his {Big Attack Power} and hits AC: 35 for (rolling a lot of dice) 38 points of damage, and you're pushed 3 squares and knocked prone"
Player 1: "I use my immediate interrupt power to shift away 1 square before your BBEG can hit"
DM: Aha, I use my {once per encounter} interrupt to stop your interrupt, hitting (rolls) Reflex Defense of 30."
Player 2: "I use my special interrupt power to shoot a deflecting arrow, so the damage is halved, only 19 points."
DM: "Aha! because my BBEG at least hit, all of his allies within 5 squares gain a massive 3 hit points."
Player 3: "Because of the Aura I have up, any enemies adjacent to my PC cannot gain temporary hit points."

Sometimes, it's dizzying how many immediate interrupts and reactions the players and the DM can pull out of the butts...

While our combats have run faster than 3.5E, it's still taking much longer than I'd like.

(I have not run a playtest game yet...)

 

[nnms]

I'm the guy who voted slower because I decided not to compare it to 4E/3.x but to Basic D&D, which I am currently playing.

Of course it's faster than 4E (anything is) and around as fast as 3.x without too many options. Play full 3.x/PF with everything in terms of rules and 5E is faster.

 

[bbjore]

I think part of the issue isn't a lack of creativity as well. I playtested the fighter, I had a great axe, and I spammed the great axe attack over and over. Why? Because even if I tried to get really creative, chances are, the best idea was usually just lopping off heads with that great axe.

All these creative options people keep talking about, all this improvising, most of the time it boils down to some sort of flashy Jackie Chan style fight choreography that while looking cool, usually just prolongs the fight and is less effective than chopping off a monster's head with your basic attack. Damage is almost always better, and it's really hard to justify to the DM why my attack not only damages, but also pushes, knocks prone, or does something else cool as well. Yes, there are cool times to improvise, but a lot of times they're few and far between, or require elaborate set ups to work. It's usually just more effective to stab, stab, stab, and been done with it.

I think the game could go a long ways towards making combat tactical and interesting if most characters had a set of four or five simple options that could be added to this basic attack that they're expected to spam, things like a push an opponent back, knocking them down, or grant an ally advantage on their next attack.