Combat takes too long

[erik_the_guy]

To answer Jasperak's questions about rogues

My attack bonus: +1 from level (2), +1 to attack for daggers with rogue, +3 proficiency, + 4 dex, +2 from combat advantage (usually) and +1 from nimble blade when I have combat advantage. +12 to hit. Since I can attack AC or reflex, I almost never miss with combat advantage.

Damage: 1d4 for dagger (average 2-3) , +4 for dex, +2d8+2 for sneak attack (average 11). This is about 17-18 damage. A bit less than I previously guessed. I could deal more with a short sword (+1 damage average) but I prefer the +1 to hit since it increases my chance of getting the 2d8+2 sneak attack. I have also ditched powers that deal extra weapon damage in favor of those that grant me combat advantage, since these set the target up for more sneak attack damage next round.

But don't feel bad about your dwarven fighter. Usually when I sneak attack it is only because the dwarven fighter on our team is giving me flanking. I love the guy. He also soaks damage for me so I don't go down (plate armor, heavy shield, +2 con and second wind as a minor action for being a dwarf). I really love fighters.

 

[AtomicPope]

I ran a session where the final battle was +4 level against level one characters. It took about 1 hour and 45 minutes and only one character died out of ignorance. The entire party is nine people strong and three of the players are younger than 15. The reason the fight took so long is one person is legally blind and deaf in one ear. Two of the kids aren't game savvy and weren't using any powers other than At Will (one was only using basic and it was his second game).

As the DM I thought the combat was dragging but the players didn't. We're coming off of a long time in 3e land so a combat with 15 creatures would have probably been the entire session. Or it would have been quick cause at 1st level everyone would have been dead from critical hits. That's the difference. We're used to large groups of gamers and 3e doesn't work well with a large group. As a DM I thought the game was too long because I only saw what the players weren't doing (I'd intentionally set monsters up so the kids would use their powers but they didn't). When I asked what they thought it really changed my perspective. Looking back I saw three players that worked very well together.

The Rogue was and outstanding player. He killed a 3rd level Soldier in two turns w/o action points. He worked with the Fighters to take down the other Soldiers. Some players learn quickly. Others, not so much. The two Fighters and Rogue communicated well, by tying up monsters until a Striker could go in for the kill. They would also alert the Leaders when they were bloodied (like theyr'e supposed to) and remained in good health.

It's a matter of perspective.

 

[med stud]

I think I'm going to pay little more attention to what the strikers do. A rogue better in combat than a fighter. I might just have to let a couple of those pesky minions through the front lines

Not really better, the rogue is different . A fighter has a lot more staying power than the rogue. The rogue kills fast but it dies fast too. The fighter doesn't kill fast but he kills reliably and it takes a lot to take him down.

 

[Shabe]

6 Players
Wizard
Fighter
Paladin
Warlock
Cleric
Warlord

Our first two fights in KotS took around 2 hours each, encounters have been leveled up and in keeping with the basic encounter design. So pretty much our entire session for 1 fight, we run for 3 - 3.5 hours. Later, when the players were more comfortable with their characters, the burial site and the outside of the kobold lair was cut down to an hour-ish for a fight.
Irontooth both waves took around 2.5hours.
Just counted through in my head and all encounters have the equivalent of 6 creatures in them, except irontooth which is like 2 seperate encounters rolled into one.

Rounds wise I think fights are taking around 5-6 rounds, but with lots of players reluctant to spend encounter powers / dailies then it will probably speed up even more when people get into the swing of things and realise what are threats.

Also as pointed out its the first few rounds that tend to take the time up, the final rounds are usually mopping up the 1 or 2 strays.

 

[jtarbox]

Rogues can take out things fast. My lvl 1 brutal scoundrel rogue can currently do a +8 hit w/ an absolute max of 34 damage. (Easy Target w/ shurikens, 15 str, 18 dex, burtal scoundrel, backstabber: 2d6+4+2d8+2 & potentially slowed w/ CA till at least next round.)

However, we go down like wet paper bags. The best thing for me is to let the defender (pally in my case) take agro w/ a mark, then I'll come from behind w/ flanking for constant CA. We took out a 'boss' npc in 2-3 rounds like this. Defender characters should be positioning to better allow for rogues to come in from behind, or to position the npc so the ranger gets clear shots, or to position multiple npcs together for wizards, etc.

 

[Andur]

We generally play 5-6 hours, have been doing so for the past 8 years give or take. Under 3.x we would be lucky to get 3 encounters in an evening, most the time we would get 2 combats into an evening, though it was not rare for only 1 combat to happen.

With 4e we are getting in 3-4 encounters in an evening. Most of the time we are getting 3 combats in an evening and have yet to get less than two.

There were several times in 3.x that one of the players at the table could literally drive to town, replenish food and drink, and get back before their next turn came up in combat, that's 40 minutes roundtrip without stopping. We have found with 4e we need to make sure supplies are stocked well up front, most rounds are over in 15 minutes with the players taking 2-3 minutes to resolve their actions and the DM taking 4-5 minutes. Majority of encounters are over in 3-4 rounds. "Boss" encounters tend to last longer. (Except for the time when one player expressed his thoughts on dragons being pansies, a party +5 Solo is pretty much a guaranteed TPK in 2 rounds or less... {good thing it was only a "dream sequence"})

 

[s0l0m0n]

We just finished our first 6 hour session in 4e, and I must agree with the OP that combat seems to take far longer than in 3e. I am willing to take into account this was our first session, and we did not yet know the rules instinctively. Nevertheless, our 3 combats took about 1.5 hrs apiece, and were quite boring after round 10 or so.

Mind you, we did start off at level 30, as the campaign in question has been running for almost 10 years. Nevertheless, a well-built system should display the same level of consistency across power levels.

Out main objection is that monsters have too much hit points compared to PC damage output, while monsters - oddly enough - cause too little damage too pose a serious threat. It is simply a war of attrition in which the PC's have the advantage.

We are currently examining possibilities to make combat more quick 'n dirty. If we're doing a combat session, it is much more fun doing 4 quick ones with a different set-up each time, than 2 excruciatingly long hackfests where everyone ends up using all their powers and pew-pewing their way to an undeserving win.

We are considering lowering Monster HP, or upping damage across the board. Any suggestions on this from you guys ?

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I've not experienced this problem in the game I'm running.

Partially because I keep harrying the players with "Who's next?" after each action, and because I make quick decisive actions with my monsters, I'm sure, but also because the simplicity of each monster being on a single stat block means that when anything happens I can just check the block, do the action and move on.

We ran the first Kobold ambush from KotS last night with 6 players, and extra kobolds to compensate - took about 30mins max. Was a great dynamic combat.

I think the best thing you can do is hurry the players along - and also then make sure you're being a decisive DM in return to help keep the pace up.

 

[Andur]

I"m a little confused solomon, there is no way your party would get through an encounter at level 15 in 1.5 hours in 3.5, without some great rolling on the PC"s part, and some poor rolling on the DM's part. Sure the combat would not last more than 2-3 rounds, but timewise 1-1/2 hours would be a minimum. Combats got slowere and slower in 3.x as the party progressed, I would expect them to take a "tad" longer in any system as one progresses.

As far as suggestions, how about playing the game more, leveling up so you get a better understanding of power combos and how the party needs to work together differently in 4e versus precious editions, and in general increasing your practical (as in experience) knowledge of 4e. What you are describing is like when somone who has never played WoW before buys a level 70 geared out toon and then says "it sucks" when they get pwned the first time they go out and try PvP or boss encounter.

It really sounds like your group was a little over ambitious with your first session of 4e. We always start a new mini campaign when a new edition comes out to "kick the tires" before we go converting old characters and pick up an old campaign. (Best example was the time we were doing a Slavers campaign kicking off with B2 using 2e Skills and Powers and then 3e came out, if we had tried porting right over we would have had a TPK, instead we started a ToEE mini-campaign)

 

[ShinRyuuBR]

I was under the impression that what the designers said was that combat is faster as in you do more in less time, not as in the encounter takes less real time.

Anyway, if combat is taking too long for you, you can always try using more minions instead of normal enemies. Or putting several lower-level enemies (lower HP and all).