D&D Combat Time - Edition comparisons

[Mark CMG]

When I have run 3.XE without minis it doesn't take any longer to handle combat than when 1E is run. I haven't seen 4E run without minis so I cannot make that comparison. I think claims of one or another or another being "more fun" are pointless to a discussion about such comparisons (and the comparisons might well be, too, if such biases are really the main point for the discussion).

 

[Mercurius]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems that the general consensus is that you can assign different editions of D&D into three general groups:

Quick - OD&D, BECMI
Moderate - AD&D 1E and 2E
Slow - 3.x, 4E

I think Merric hit the nail on the head when he says that 3.x starts quicker than 4E and then slows down, where 4E has a less steep curve.

I've also found that the best way to speed up 4E combat is to reduce monster HP about about 33% and maybe increase monster damage by 20-25%.

 

[Ulrick]

Pre-3.0e D&D combats were shorter, hands down.

In 3rd Edition, low-level fights can be fairly fast, but at higher levels they can slow to a crawl. I think a huge part of this is that combat is less abstract in 3.0/3.5e/4e Player's are given a huge suite of combat options and rules to choose from. And in 3.0/3.5e, each monster is treated as a character, each with their own abilities.

4e simplfies monsters--each has their own little shtick. But back before I gave up on 4e, combats seemed to drag out longer than necessary, IMO.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems that the general consensus is that you can assign different editions of D&D into three general groups:

Quick - OD&D, BECMI
Moderate - AD&D 1E and 2E
Slow - 3.x, 4E

I think Merric hit the nail on the head when he says that 3.x starts quicker than 4E and then slows down, where 4E has a less steep curve.

I've also found that the best way to speed up 4E combat is to reduce monster HP about about 33% and maybe increase monster damage by 20-25%.

I do it a slightly different way - use up your encounter budget with slightly lower level monsters. So, you have eight baddies instead of 5, for example, but the baddies get hit more often and die faster.

Besides, I'm a big believer in having lots and lots of bad guys on the board.

I'd go with what seems to be the consensus - combat in 3e probably averaged out at about 40 minutes over the course of a campaign. I know in our 3 hours sessions it was pretty regular to see three combats. 4e, so far at least, for us seems to be about an hour on average, so, I'd say that 4e runs slower.

But the point about more rounds is spot on. That 40 minutes in 3e would likely have been 5 rounds at most. In 4e, that seems to be nearly double by the end of the combat.

 

[Korgoth]

Man, combat in OD&D is fast. Really, really fast.

I like it, because combat in D&D is inherently uninteresting to me, save the occasional twist (I've thrown in some cool stuff in my time). But the real fun is exploring the environment and the adventure plot and such.

If I want an interesting combat, there's always Advanced Squad Leader or Conflict of Heroes or something like that.

 

[pemerton]

ID&D4 combat <snip> is designed specifically to accommodate and encourage the types of encounters that also take longer in classic D&D

While 4e combats take much longer than pre-3e ones, their quality is different. A well done 4e combat should be a centerpiece of a session, treating players and characters to surprises, demanding tough tactical decisions, and instilling them with the satisfaction of having successfully completed a task.

I think this is right - and that the 4e rulebooks should be written to make this clearer (and WotC modules could then be written that reflect these clearer guidelines!).

If you want "filler encounters" in 4e I've found it works to use short(ish) skill challenges, or combats with fewer and lower-level enemies. I also use double or more the suggested quest XP, to maintain the rate of level gain without needing absurdly many level-appropriate centrepiece encounters. (By "absurd" here I mean "absurd from the ingame point of view").

I do it a slightly different way - use up your encounter budget with slightly lower level monsters. So, you have eight baddies instead of 5, for example, but the baddies get hit more often and die faster.

This works for me too. Although I find it doesn't so much speed things up, as keep things dynamic and therefore prevents grind setting in.

I don't use random monsters in 4e not because I don't like the idea, but because when you only have time for 3 encounters per session having one eaten up by a wandering monster really hurts.

I don't use wandering monsters in 4e for the reasons just stated - 4e combats are meant to be centrepiece encounters. Even the "filler" encounters I described above I run as planned encounters. For example, it may be a waste of time to run such an encounter when the party is at full strength, if the main interest in such an encounter is for the players to see how they can handle things when their PCs are short on resources.

 

[MerricB]

If I want an interesting combat, there's always Advanced Squad Leader or Conflict of Heroes or something like that.

You're sort of going to extremes with ASL, surely? (I really enjoy ASL; it's just finding opponents that is difficult!)

Cheers!

 

[Thunderfoot]

The earlier editions also had this interesting thing where everyone rolled their hitpoints, even monsters. Combined with that was the fact that everyone's hitpoints were so much lower.

That meant that a significant proportion of monsters were effectively minions, but cost full encounter budget (not that there was such a thing). Just think how often the wizard pulled out fireball and an encounter was either outright ended or reduced to 1 or 2 monsters who took a single hit to dispatch.

I think it would be possible to play 4e in a 1-2e style, simply by swapping out 2/3rds of monsters for minions and then not making it up in the encounter budget (but still award the correct minion xp - to simulate that slow levelling curve). You would also not tell the players which creatures were minions in this case.

I would probably also implement some sort of "much bigger crits for monsters" rule, say 2d8 per tier? Again trying to simulate that "sure this encounter is a pushover, but someone might still die if we're unlucky" factor that old editions had.

See and this is one of the reasons I don't like 4e; minions. Yes, I realize I don't have to use them, but the rules say I should. Frankly a monster with 1 hp should be small, scaly and speaking in barking yips (kobolds). Anything else should make you go, hmmm can I take it or or we screwed?

I do agree that 4e is faster than 3.X, but I find it less fun. 1e/2e AD&D runs faster than either of the later 2 editions, and BECMI is probably as quick as you can get without eliminating combat all together. OD&D varied by combat. (all editions used minis.)

 

[Saeviomagy]

See and this is one of the reasons I don't like 4e; minions. Yes, I realize I don't have to use them, but the rules say I should. Frankly a monster with 1 hp should be small, scaly and speaking in barking yips (kobolds). Anything else should make you go, hmmm can I take it or or we screwed?

But in 2e, monsters that had 1hp (effectively - enough that a single hit kills them) were identical to the other monsters in the encounter. That's a big factor in why 2e combats were quick: a significant proportion of monsters had rolled really low hitpoints OR died instantly to spells (either way, effectively minions) without being different in any other way (which is why the threat was still high).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But in 2e, monsters that had 1hp (effectively - enough that a single hit kills them) were identical to the other monsters in the encounter. That's a big factor in why 2e combats were quick: a significant proportion of monsters had rolled really low hitpoints OR died instantly to spells (either way, effectively minions) without being different in any other way (which is why the threat was still high).

It's amazing how many Old School things in 4e are decried as being "too new" by people who primarily if not only played 3e ;p

"What is this, I don't have a rope tying skill? How do I tie ropes?!"
"Same way you did in every edition before third, man."