Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4665189" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm right there with you, Minigiant.In fact, I've made Final Fantasy Zero with this idea firmly in mind: combats are supposed to last an average five rounds until one side depletes all of the other side's HP. For me, it helps a narrative flow be achieved, with an intro, building action, and a climax, and that kind of narrative flow is essentially the best thing about RPG's to me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> It's a good "pace."IMO, 4e has a few issues with hitting that pace well. It's true there's no real one or two hit kills, which is a very good thing, but it's also true that combats can drag very easily, taking 7, 10, even 15 rounds (though they may be decided in as few as 5, it takes that long just to sap HP). 4e PC's are also a bit swingy because of the Second Wind/healing surge mechanic that messes with the "number of hits" formula (making PC's take longer to kill for monsters, too).Though no edition of D&D has gotten this perfect, really -- 4e errs on the side of long combat, 3e errs on the side of short combat. FFZ, I hope, hits the sweet spot more often than not (And when it doesn't, like in a boss battle, it should be WORTH it).</blockquote>