"How to run a PC quick, clean and effective - Forked Thread: (...prevent Grindspace!)

[TheLordWinter]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could we talk a bit about class roles and monster roles? I think, particularly for new players, it'd help them get a better grasp of the game to know where their character will shine and where they will struggle.

 

[shilsen]

Nice thread guys. One very basic thing that I didn't see mentioned above: roll your attack and damage dice at the same time. It's a little thing, but it definitely helps speed it up.

Good point. To tie this back to Mengu's earlier point about watching the initiative and preparing for your action while the preceding person is taking their turn, to speed things up even further you can roll your attack and damage on their turn. Then when your turn comes up all you have to do is tell the DM the results.

We have a warlock in one of my groups whose round lasts forever because he likes to roll his attack roll for his eldritch blast, then roll the first damage die, then the curse die . . . it goes on for a bit, and then it takes him another little bit to add it all up.

Have any of you pointed it out to him?

 

[Rechan]

Once you understand monster roles, you can thereby understand how to attack them.

It's a waste of time to attack the fortitude of a Brute. Or the Reflex of a Skirmisher. Once you've made an educated guess about that monster's role, follow that assumption and attack it's assumed weakspot.

Understand how to maximize your ability to hit. Even if you're not a rogue, you get a +2 to hit when you have combat advantage. This can be granted by waiting until the wizard or someone else in the party grants such an effect. Same with flanking.

If you're out of powers, or it's more imperative that your ally makes the hit, then help him. Aid Another is a simple method. As is providing a flank.

 

[nittanytbone]

If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could we talk a bit about class roles and monster roles? I think, particularly for new players, it'd help them get a better grasp of the game to know where their character will shine and where they will struggle.

Just my $0.02.

SKIRMISHER MONSTERS
How to Identify them: Often described as being lightly armed and armored. Tend to be highly mobile, perhaps with alternate movement modes (flight speeds, teleportation, etc) or with "flyby attacks" where they can move and attack in one standard action.
Who excels: Fighters and Controllers are both good at stopping movement which significantly limits these foes.
Who wastes their time: Characters without ranged attacks may have trouble keeping up with them.

BRUTE MONSTERS
How to Identify Them: Often described as hulking or strong. Tend to be larger than similar monsters and use larger weapons. They do lots of damage but have poor to-hits.
Who Excels: Rogues and Rangers love shredding through the HP. Warlocks -- who often can attack Will -- will also have a good time. Controllers may be able to lock down a brute and keep him far from the fight, but their good Athletics checks (due to high STR) may allow them to break some grabs or deal with difficult terrains, and their high HP allow them to shrug off wizardly attacks. Leaders may enjoy landing a nice buff on a brute so the entire party can whittle down those HP.
Who Wastes their Time: Defenders have a tough time dealing with all those HP. Plus, a brute with his ton of HP may not care much about defying a mark. However, defying the mark means -2 to hit, which hurts a brute's already poor chances to hit. So, even fighters may be interested in locking down a brute.

SOLDIER MONSTERS:
How to Identify Them: Often described as well disciplined and equipped. Often operate as bodyguards or in groups. Often have the ability to lock down PCs or apply Marks. Tend to have high defenses but low damage output.
Who Excels: Controllers can lock these foes down far from the fight which is the best way to deal with them. Rogues, with their ability to bypass AC and go right for REF with many attacks, may be able to negate the soldier's superior defenses.
Who Wastes Their Time: Pretty much everyone else. Soldiers are rarely the linchpin of an encounter; usually they are bodyguarding something more important.

ARTILLERY MONSTERS:
How to Identify Them: Often described as being lightly armored or having ranged weapons. Usually prefer to operate at range. Can be highly damaging if left uncontrolled to operate freely.
Who Excels: Controllers have ranged attacks that may be able to touch these foes, but they are vulnerable to being turned into pincushions. Ranged PCs such as warlocks or rangers will do just fine. If a melee character can reach them, then they will be in good shape. The defender will need to weigh the situation carefully -- a fighter rampaging around in the midst of the enemy artillery will shut them down, but will that leave his party members exposed to enemy brutes and skirmishers? A second defender grants the flexibility to go off on such an excursion.
Who Wastes Their Time: Melee characters who lack the speed/skills/positioning to get to the artillery may waste several rounds trying to get to the artillery's protected position. For example, wasting three rounds to climb on to a wall where the enemy archers are positioned is not a good use of time. This tends to include most leaders and some defenders.

ELITES/SOLOS:
How to Identify Them: They often have a name. They have superior gear. There are fewer monsters in the encounter. They identify themselves as being elite.
Who Excels: Leaders tend to have devastating dailies that grant lasting benefits, and against an elite or solo they will get great bang for the buck. Strikers are essential to whittle through the HP and defenders can help to lock down the attacks, although many soloes have ways to include multiple foes in a single attack, making the mark less effective.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

It's not really about smart play (though it is conductive to smart play) but one tip to speed up play is to use one unified intiative for the bad guys. That way after round 1 it's just us-them-us-them. Trust me, it's a lot faster. It especially helps with complex tactics; the PCs can go in whatever order is more advantegeous without bothering to keep track of delayed actions.

I'm not at all certain about this. In my experience, when initiatives end up in player and monster blocks, play slows down. The DM is effectively a player too, one who has to decide a lot more actions than any of the other players. With a block, he/she ends up having to work out the actions for five+ creatures in effectively just the last two or so player actions *since player actions frequently have extensive effects on the combat and tactical environment* That's a bottle-neck. Further, it creates larger blocks of time when particular players may not be actively engaged in what's going on at the table. Fast but boring is worse than slow and engaging.

 

[shilsen]

I'm not at all certain about this. In my experience, when initiatives end up in player and monster blocks, play slows down. The DM is effectively a player too, one who has to decide a lot more actions than any of the other players. With a block, he/she ends up having to work out the actions for five+ creatures in effectively just the last two or so player actions *since player actions frequently have extensive effects on the combat and tactical environment* That's a bottle-neck. Further, it creates larger blocks of time when particular players may not be actively engaged in what's going on at the table. Fast but boring is worse than slow and engaging.

Seconded. Another downside for me is that it cuts down on tactical complexity for the PCs/players, since they can always delay, ready and move their initiatives around without having to worry about the enemies who go in between. I much prefer, as DM and as player, to have PC and NPC initiative intersecting at multiple points. The only place where I prefer all enemies to go together is in play-by-post games, where it saves a ton of time.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

I'm not at all certain about this. In my experience, when initiatives end up in player and monster blocks, play slows down. The DM is effectively a player too, one who has to decide a lot more actions than any of the other players. With a block, he/she ends up having to work out the actions for five+ creatures in effectively just the last two or so player actions.

I don't see that at all.

So what if I have 13 creatures to play? How can it possibly take more time overall if I play them all at once rather then in block? First you move all monsters on the map then you resolve all attacks by batches that have the same target or the same bonuses, depending of what's best suited for the situation. It's a snap.

That's a bottle-neck.

Technically, to have a bottle neck, every players and the DM would have to be resolving their actions simultaneously. Then the bottle neck would be the last to complete his actions. You can't have a real bottle neck in a turn based situation (though someone can be taking his sweet time!)

Just saying.

Further, it creates larger blocks of time when particular players may not be actively engaged in what's going on at the table.

For this to be true, I'd have to resolve my actions slower in large block than scattered accross the initiative, which I maintain I do not. So my players experience less waiting time between their turns.

Beside, in my experience, players are very focused when it's my turn. I'm about to roll sometime upward of a dozen of attack roll with the intention of taking their PC's head off. If you care about your PC, you care about that! Especially if you have interrupt actions up your sleeve.

 

[James McMurray]

Technically, to have a bottle neck, every players and the DM would have to be resolving their actions simultaneously. Then the bottle neck would be the last to complete his actions. You can't have a real bottle neck in a turn based situation (though someone can be taking his sweet time!)

Just saying.

In programming and other sciences perhaps, but in common terminology a bottleneck is frequently used (and defined by some dictionaries) to mean any point in a process where progress is impeded.

Just saying.

 

[nittanytbone]

As a player, I find that having all the monsters go at once is a BAD idea. Just as its useful for the players to go all at once and synch up their tactics, its dangerous for the monsters to get the same chance.

Perhaps this is worthy of a second thread, but I think it is a good idea for at least one PC -- probably the defender or controller -- to go in the middle of the monsters so that they can throw a monkey wrench into the middle of the GM's tactical gameplan.

As for the rest of the PCs, once the first round or two are over, I think it is generally advantageous for folks to delay until after the leader (or whoever has the most encounter-renewable healing and is least likely to be downed). This prevents wasted actions from characters that are unconscious on their initiative, because the leader-type can get everyone hale and hearty before their turns come up.

 

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't see that at all.

So what if I have 13 creatures to play? How can it possibly take more time overall if I play them all at once rather then in block? First you move all monsters on the map then you resolve all attacks by batches that have the same target or the same bonuses, depending of what's best suited for the situation. It's a snap.

Because you also have to decide what they're going to do. Where are they moving, what paths are they moving along *risking OAs or not, or triggering immediate actions. It all takes mental processing time and unless monsters are playing entirely scripted rather than reacting to what players do, then many DMs are going to end up spending some of that mental processing time during their "turn" rather than making those decisions during the turn of the player just preceding the monster(s). You might be fast enough to manage it but I know I'm not, and I'm certain I'm not alone.

For this to be true, I'd have to resolve my actions slower in large block than scattered accross the initiative, which I maintain I do not. So my players experience less waiting time between their turns.

Doesn't necessarily matter. Most people *not all by any means, but most* are more bothered by several large chunks of "down-time" than an equal amount of time split up into smaller segments, assuming they aren't able to go do something else during that time, i.e. that they're kinda expected to stay at the table so they can use the immediate and opportunity actions you and I have both referenced.