How do we really want combat to be?

[Cyraneth]

To follow up my post on "why are wizards getting nerfed?", I thought I'd start this discussion.

How do we really want combat to be? Are players getting afraid of "unbalancing" spells, such as death effects, harm, domination, etc. because they shift the battlefield too drastically? Would we prefer all battles to be hit point fests, only checking who got the most hit points, is able to pound out the most damage, and avoid the most attacks? Face it. Healing magic, buffs, and direct-damage magic are only modifiers to these factors.

In other words, was harm nerfed 'cause is was "too drastic"? Were wizards considered too powerful and thus balanced (read: nerfed) 'cause of their ability to drastically affect the battlefield (though only a few times each day)? Would we all prefer if wizards only had buffs, utility magic, and damage-dealing spells? Is the fighter's way the ideal (read: only) way of carrying out combat? Do we really want to reduce combat to the following comparison?

Party's total HP + Party's total average damage output in X rounds + Party's total AC + random dice roll >< Monsters' total HP + Monsters' total average damage output in X rounds + Monsters' total AC + random dice roll

If so, I fear the excitement of cunning and clever character concept has faded, being replaced by the simple need for a stereotypical fighter with high Str and Con, needing only a +1 ghost touch greatsword to win virtually any equal-challenge fight.

- Cyraneth

 

[Metallian]

If so, I fear the excitement of cunning and clever character concept has faded, being replaced by the simple need for a stereotypical fighter with high Str and Con, needing only a +1 ghost touch greatsword to win virtually any equal-challenge fight.

One of the things I enjoy the most about combat is trying to do "cunning and clever" things to give allies and advantage and enemies a disadvantage:

- Seek higher ground for a higher ground bonus
- Alter the landscape to impede/entangle an enemy
- Get into a better position to strike a blow or hinder the enemy
- Interesting combinations of non-combat and combat actions to optimize combat actions when they occur

As for spellcasters, I don't generally find "save or die" spells (or their near equivalents) to be much more fun than slugging away with brutal melee attacks every round. However, I love using spells like Rock to Mud, Web, or the various "Wall" spells in combat...just to give a few very obvious examples. I find that those sorts of spells fit the "cunning and clever" character concept better than "Harm," "Power Word Kill" and the like. Then again, I have not played a Wizard or Sorceror in a 3e game (as a player, anyway) yet.

The Metallian

 

[Celtavian]

re

I would like to see battle more interactive. I think they should allow casters to counter spells with equivalent spells without having to choose a certain set of feats. As a full round action, a caster should be able to cast spell and counter an incoming spell using an opposed caster level check. This would make spell combat more interesting IMO. Right now when two wizards go at it, its all about who wins initiative rather than who is actually the more prepared and better wizard.

I would like to see the same thing with melee combat. They should bring back the old opposed parry and include a dodge mechanic. Then again, if they do this I would be playing GURPS.

 

[Thanee]

Well, I'd prefer to have combat in a way, that you can actually imagine what happens and translate it into a real situation taking place, but with hit points, flanking and other abstractification monstrosities, this can hardly happen.

Also, what the others said. More actual tactics, instead of "metagaming" tactics.

Bye
Thanee

 

[kreynolds]

How do we really want combat to be?

Faster! I'm getting sick and tired of how long combat takes at the upper levels. At this point, I'm considering droping all dice rolls and just going with averages. Its that, or I may just use the Miniatures combat system. Takes too frickin' long!

 

[Black Omega]

How do we really want combat to be?

Faster is good but only an ideal. My group tends to do terrain and space control in combat, which can draw it out. Walls, entangles, webs, etc. The fighters do most of the killing, by player choice.

Are players getting afraid of "unbalancing" spells, such as death effects, harm, domination, etc. because they shift the battlefield too drastically?

They barely effect the battlefield. My players don't like death effects and didn't like Harm because there's no fun or drama in missing one die roll at the start of a battle and being dead.

Domination is a totally different thing, we don't have any problem with that. The wizard in my game often uses it.

Would we prefer all battles to be hit point fests, only checking who got the most hit points, is able to pound out the most damage, and avoid the most attacks?

Disliking save or die spells doesn't mean we prefer this.

In other words, was harm nerfed 'cause is was "too drastic"? Were wizards considered too powerful and thus balanced (read: nerfed) 'cause of their ability to drastically affect the battlefield (though only a few times each day)?

Could have sworn Harm was a cleric spell. And it was broken. Way too powerful. And very easy to use it to kill PC's. The wizard ability to alter the battlefield has to do with wall spells, earth to mud, entangle spells. I think they still do that just fine.

Would we all prefer if wizards only had buffs, utility magic, and damage-dealing spells? Is the fighter's way the ideal (read: only) way of carrying out combat? Do we really want to reduce combat to the following comparison?

Do we really need save or die spells? I'm really not sure what game you are talking about here.

If so, I fear the excitement of cunning and clever character concept has faded, being replaced by the simple need for a stereotypical fighter with high Str and Con, needing only a +1 ghost touch greatsword to win virtually any equal-challenge fight.

Frankly, save or die spells have nothing to do with cunning and clever tactics. but they are very effective at putting an end to cunning and clever character concepts, by destroying them too fast. Cool fun tactics involve creative used of spells, not save or die.

All IMHO and IMC, of course.

 

[Iscariot]

Faster! I'm getting sick and tired of how long combat takes at the upper levels. At this point, I'm considering droping all dice rolls and just going with averages. Its that, or I may just use the Miniatures combat system. Takes too frickin' long!

Here here! Seven hours fighting a lich (his vampire cohort and assorted wraith and wight minions) is what my players took. Less than 2 minutes of actual combat time. SEVEN HOURS. Ugh. Momentum-killer.

On the other hand, as a player, I have not played a warrior-class in 3-e...nor have I had a character with a strength or constitution above 14. Those melee bricks are merely distractions I use so I can do all the work. *grins* And forget wizards...it's all about the bards and clerics and charisma. I have cohorts to touch those dirty creatures. I have rumours and social battering for those nasty city-dwelling villians. Have a tribe of orcs bothering you? Disguise yourself as an orc and launch a hit and run on that neighbouring tribe of hobgoblins and then let them duke it out. I grew bored with the old "A foe! I run up and swing my weapon" approach to combat. Same goes for massive death-dealing spells. I want the finesse...that personal touch people will remember.

Not to say if I am pushed into a corner, I won't dig deep into my pockets for a Holy Smite of a Divine Might...but those are last resorts.

 

[Cyraneth]

Faster is good but only an ideal. My group tends to do terrain and space control in combat, which can draw it out. Walls, entangles, webs, etc. The fighters do most of the killing, by player choice. (Look to original post for full message.)

Good argument, and I find it very appealing, but then again, death effect are IMO dramatic. Charging a lich only to find the undead wizard-king counter your foolish attempt at hindering him with a finger of death can be awe-inspiring, dramatic, and makes the players think again. Things like that don't really happen when you're just trying to anticipate where the next wall of iron will appear or when wading through an entangle spell. And regarding the "destruction of character concepts", let your characters whine when their oh-so-cool character suddenly dies. Let them feel the dangers of adventuring. Don't let them feel safe, knowing that a huge bunch of hit points will unerringly keep them alive for at least 5-6 rounds, and that their weapons are indestructible by simply not sundering them, and so on. Face it: Adventuring is dangerous. You wouldn't be a hero if it was a cakewalk, or if it just was some simple riddle or plot that had to be unraveled. A hero's very life must be at stake, not just a few of his hit points. And if it does go wrong, heroes the characters have grown close to can be resurrected or otherwise brought back to life. If the characters can't pay for a resurrection, have them undergo a small quest for it. It isn't really that hard.

- Cyraneth

 

[hong]

And regarding the "destruction of character concepts", let your characters whine when their oh-so-cool character suddenly dies. Let them feel the dangers of adventuring.

Because, as we all know, death is character building.

Don't let them feel safe, knowing that a huge bunch of hit points will unerringly keep them alive for at least 5-6 rounds, and that their weapons are indestructible by simply not sundering them, and so on. Face it: Adventuring is dangerous. You wouldn't be a hero if it was a cakewalk, or if it just was some simple riddle or plot that had to be unraveled.

Exactly. And think of how heroic your wizard is, now that all the broken feats and spells have been nerfed.

 

[dcollins]

Faster! I'm getting sick and tired of how long combat takes at the upper levels.

That I agree with 100%, wholeheartedly. The more it can time-wise resemble the actual fight itself the better, I say. My personal grief is a player taking 10 minutes to plot out the move their PC is making in 6 seconds. The quickest way to make things faster, IMO, is remove the minis and battlemat (still technically optional as of 3.0), but when I do this for my players now they act surprised that I'm apparently breaking the rules.