Thanks for the advice so far, changing rules this early on may be jumping the gun, and we do need some more experience - on the player and the DM side - before coming to definitive conclusion. I would like to add, Andur, that the combat was far too easy, and a TPK was nowhere in sight. It seemed rough the first couple of rounds, because of the ludicrous amount of HP per beastie (400+ apiece or so), but once the enemies - and players - depleted their powers, the "standard-attack-i-punch-u-u-punch-me"-finale was terminally boring.
Combat takes too long
NeoNick
First Post
Why not both Brutal Scoundrel and use Sly Flourish?
My favourite build for a rogue is Brutal Scoundrel with DEX 17 (adding +2 for racial to 19), STR 14 and CHA 14 (+2 racial if you're willing to play halfling to 16). Feat Backstabber. At will: Sly Flourish and Piercing Strike.
At range (close range = throw a dagger, longer means sling or X-bow) use Sly Flourish to get damage: 1d4 (dagger) + 4 (DEX) +3 (CHA) + 2d8 (sneak attack assuming Combat Advantage) + 2 (STR from Brutal Scoundrel)
= 2d8 + 1d4 + 9
= 20,5 average if CA and only using an at-will.
edit also Critting for 29 damage at lvl 1 with an at-will power isn't that bad!? At lvl 2 I will Nimble Blades and at lvl 4 Weapon Focus Daggers. Wintertouched and Lasting Frost are candidates for lvl 10 and 11 plus a Frost weapon.
If you fight a heavy armored target go close combat and use Piercing Strike. You will loose +3 from CHA but gain at LEAST +3 attack (possibly more, check the Monster Manual for examples). If you don't gain enough bonus (+3 or more), distans your rogue to range again.
The good part with this build is also that you keep all three defenses up; Reflex from DEX, WILL from CHA and FORT from STR. And in my campaign a lot of skill rolls are made on those three stats.
In the case of Sly Floursing Brutal Scoundrel I like the fact that he get's his [W] + three (3) stats in case of Combat Advantage (DEX, STR and CHA).
This is my contribution to shortening the combats.
Last edited:
Holy Bovine
First Post
I hasn't been my experience that combat takes too long. I've played & ran about 20 hours of 4E with an estimated 15 encounters total. None seemed to last longer than an hour and many were over in less than 20 minutes. On average I'd say we have 6 rounds per combat.
solomon, if the all players depleted all their powers (which means at least 8 rounds have gone by) there is no reason that there should be any enemies left standing, barring bad rolling, and I mean like 75%+ of the rolls not hitting anything and not doing damage on a miss.
400 hp for level 30 monsters is ludricous? With all the choices the party has they should be dropping a monster every other round at worst going the supernova route.
And if the encounter is equal to the party, then there should be basically a 5% chance of a TPK unless the players are really stupid or the Dice Gods are against them. As stated above, 2x expereince is where things get tricky real fast, a "hard" encounter is between a 1.5 and 1.75 multiplier, superhard starts around a 2.5 multiplier and almost guaranteed TPK starts at about the 3 multiplier.
400 hp for level 30 monsters is ludricous? With all the choices the party has they should be dropping a monster every other round at worst going the supernova route.
And if the encounter is equal to the party, then there should be basically a 5% chance of a TPK unless the players are really stupid or the Dice Gods are against them. As stated above, 2x expereince is where things get tricky real fast, a "hard" encounter is between a 1.5 and 1.75 multiplier, superhard starts around a 2.5 multiplier and almost guaranteed TPK starts at about the 3 multiplier.
Regardless, at the end of the day, it's all about our fun, if 4e combat still feels too sluggish next time round, we're going to experiment with a few parameters to approximate the exitement of that all-out mountain-razing shredfest that was 3e. Seeing as how 4e is infinitely more balanced, fun for all should be garanteed. Right now, I'm having my doubts, the thing feels too...mechanical
keterys
First Post
So... remember that advice that people are playing things more slowly at level 1-2 and that time would let them speed up? And even some people weighing in that they've halved (or less) the time it takes within a couple sessions?
Yeah, starting at level 30 may not have been the way to go for learning to play quickly. I would suggest actually really learning the game before altering things significantly.
One thing you could do is have the characters go through a series of very spread out fights where you always get an extended rest in between - that lets you know you can burn your dailies freely so you'll speed up a bit more in that respect.
That said... how fast were your fights at level 30 in 3e? I mean, my experience with high levels has mostly been that they either take forever to run just, like, 3 rounds of combat... or they're over semi-instantly to something broken.
Yeah, starting at level 30 may not have been the way to go for learning to play quickly. I would suggest actually really learning the game before altering things significantly.
One thing you could do is have the characters go through a series of very spread out fights where you always get an extended rest in between - that lets you know you can burn your dailies freely so you'll speed up a bit more in that respect.
That said... how fast were your fights at level 30 in 3e? I mean, my experience with high levels has mostly been that they either take forever to run just, like, 3 rounds of combat... or they're over semi-instantly to something broken.
re
I have very limited experience, but I agree.
The problem is thatto hit scales to somewhere between 40% and 60%. You could get a much better accuracy percentage in previous editions which would boost how often you hit.
I found myself missing attacks alot more. With only one attack per round and monsters having alot more hit points, that made combat longer.
I think with the way to hit scales that will increase the length of battles. Because if you are fighting creaures of a suitable challenge for your level, you will rarely be able to strike them easily and thus take them out easily without the use of attack boosing powers from leader classes or the like.
So I can see how your combats could have gone on longer. It took me three or four times as long to kill a simple kobold than it would have in previous editions. It looks like it scales so that killing a simple kobold will never be easy.
Even at lvl 30, you will be dishing 2 W plus appropriate modifers for feats, magic, and the like. That might still not be enough to kill a simple kobold in one round unless it is a minion kobold.
I have very limited experience, but I agree.
The problem is thatto hit scales to somewhere between 40% and 60%. You could get a much better accuracy percentage in previous editions which would boost how often you hit.
I found myself missing attacks alot more. With only one attack per round and monsters having alot more hit points, that made combat longer.
I think with the way to hit scales that will increase the length of battles. Because if you are fighting creaures of a suitable challenge for your level, you will rarely be able to strike them easily and thus take them out easily without the use of attack boosing powers from leader classes or the like.
So I can see how your combats could have gone on longer. It took me three or four times as long to kill a simple kobold than it would have in previous editions. It looks like it scales so that killing a simple kobold will never be easy.
Even at lvl 30, you will be dishing 2 W plus appropriate modifers for feats, magic, and the like. That might still not be enough to kill a simple kobold in one round unless it is a minion kobold.
That's what I remember the designers saying, as well.
I'm actually surprised at the number of people who had combats drag on so long in 3.5. My last 3.5 campaign routinely had complex fights with PCs of level 12-14 and 6+ opponents of varying types, and fights generally only lasted 60-90 minutes. Even with 7 players, we were at 10 minutes or less per combat round. Using index cards for initiative and enforcing the "if you're not ready to decide, you delay" rule sped things up considerably. Small encounters were usually over in 30-45 minutes.
I haven't had a chance to play 4e yet, but I have a hard time imagining things will be a whole lot faster than my 3.5 experience. More interesting, perhaps, but faster? I doubt it.
My experience was that combat initially took a while, but it sped up a lot as our group got used to it and learned smart tactics. 4E is much more of a "team" game than previous editions; it's all about working with the other PCs to set up advantageous positions. The fighter needs a chance to get close to a bunch of enemies and lock them down; the rogue needs room to flank; the wizard needs enemies bunched up and kept at a distance. If you don't keep an eye on what your allies are doing, combat will take a lot longer and be a lot more dangerous.
Admittedly, my gaming group is chronically short of players, which may be part of it. We usually have 3-4 PCs instead of the standard five. On the other hand, I tend to throw pretty tough opposition at my party, and so does the other DM in the group. I think our speed record for finishing a serious fight involved a 1st-level wizard, warlord, and rogue, versus an orc Eye of Gruumsh, an orc raider, and an orc berserker.
The PCs got highly advantageous terrain, time to position themselves, and the element of surprise, by way of making up for the encounter being almost 4 levels above them. The wizard was on a high ledge, the rogue hid behind a boulder, and the warlord was standing just behind a choke point, waiting for the orcs to close.
First round, the wizard cast sleep as the orcs approached. She was able to catch all three orcs in the area, and hit the raider and the berserker. The raider threw an axe and missed, and then both the raider and the berserker failed their saves and dropped.
The warlord moved out to engage the Eye of Gruumsh in melee, while the rogue popped up from behind the rock and began slitting throats. Neither the raider nor the berserker managed to snap out of it in time, and the rogue quickly dispatched them both. After that, beating down the Eye of Gruumsh was a fairly trivial exercise; normal controllers do not do very well with no backup against three PCs. I think the whole thing took maybe five or six rounds.
Admittedly, my gaming group is chronically short of players, which may be part of it. We usually have 3-4 PCs instead of the standard five. On the other hand, I tend to throw pretty tough opposition at my party, and so does the other DM in the group. I think our speed record for finishing a serious fight involved a 1st-level wizard, warlord, and rogue, versus an orc Eye of Gruumsh, an orc raider, and an orc berserker.
The PCs got highly advantageous terrain, time to position themselves, and the element of surprise, by way of making up for the encounter being almost 4 levels above them. The wizard was on a high ledge, the rogue hid behind a boulder, and the warlord was standing just behind a choke point, waiting for the orcs to close.
First round, the wizard cast sleep as the orcs approached. She was able to catch all three orcs in the area, and hit the raider and the berserker. The raider threw an axe and missed, and then both the raider and the berserker failed their saves and dropped.
The warlord moved out to engage the Eye of Gruumsh in melee, while the rogue popped up from behind the rock and began slitting throats. Neither the raider nor the berserker managed to snap out of it in time, and the rogue quickly dispatched them both. After that, beating down the Eye of Gruumsh was a fairly trivial exercise; normal controllers do not do very well with no backup against three PCs. I think the whole thing took maybe five or six rounds.
Last edited:
Actually it's the same. 4 encounters per session, 4 hours per session was the norm for 3.x.
As has been pointed out in this thread, the determining factor for length of combat is going to be how hard it is. A dozen kobolds at level 1 will take a couple hours, those same kobolds at level 3 will take a couple minutes.
For equivalently difficult combat however, 4E will take longer than 3.5E. The games are practically identical from a mechanical standpoint, but 4E has more steps to it with the shifting and additional effects, and the monsters have more HP compared to the damage output of the party (not counting minions, which are an obvious attempt to speed the game up when they found out how slow it had become.)
Similar Threads
