How we Speed up our Encounters -- what about you?

[tomlib]

Only half the slowness problem

I think the points you make are excellent but not every player is going to be that happy with such a military sequence. My players are busy reading books, checking games on their phones, and playing with miniatures on the side.


That being said there is one person whose speed I can control ... me! And the GM counts for about 50% of the total time.

• I pre-roll and print initiatives for each encounter - Huge savings
• I have a printed sheet for all player defenses so I know if I hit or miss quickly - Big savings
• I roll To Hit -Damage together as you suggest- Big savings
• I roll in the open for all to see - Small saving
• I try to have as little dice clutter as possible - Small saving
• I have a separate enemy sheet that lists powers as you suggest to avoid math - moderate saving (i'm quick with in head math)

I've found that if as the GM I can avoid pauses that keeps the players much better focused on the combat.

Happy Gaming

Tom

 

[0-hr]

If we do something so that encounters take about half as many rounds as normal, should we also turn all "Encounter" powers into "Milestone" powers?

Is there a significant power increase if PCs have encounter powers available for most rounds of a fight, instead of just a few?

 

[Zerakon]

This one is related to #1 in your list (limiting time to resolve your turn). We do not go with a time limit - instead, we use a different initiative method (there was a name for it somewhere, but I forgot). Basically PC's roll to beat creatures. Those who beat them go (if any do) then the creatures go (all of them) then back to ALL PC's including those who got to go before the creatures and we then repeat from here, Creatures > PC's > Creatures > PC's etc.

Players decide amongst themselves who is going to go, who follows next etc. It keeps everyone engaged, and those who are not quite ready figure it out while the others go. It also allows for more player strategy (you go here, then i will go here and do this) etc. It's all per RAW since a) everyone can delay and b) you can shout commands as free actions.

That's not quite per RAW, because if you allow the PCs to decide who goes in what order each time around, you allow them to bypass turn loss that RAW rules could create.

For example, let's say PC A is dropped and becomes dying. When you let the players decide who goes first, PC B says "hey, I'll go" and he proceeds to heal PC A. Then PC A goes, gets up, and attacks. In a normal initiative setting, PC A would have lost his turn and made a death save.

I'm not saying your method is bad; it's just not quite RAW.

 

[weem]

For example, let's say PC A is dropped and becomes dying. When you let the players decide who goes first, PC B says "hey, I'll go" and he proceeds to heal PC A. Then PC A goes, gets up, and attacks. In a normal initiative setting, PC A would have lost his turn and made a death save.

I'm not saying your method is bad; it's just not quite RAW.

Well, by RAW you can delay - and this simply equates to, everyone delaying.

So, that just about covers it.

I see your point in that it may create those kinds of situations where someone gets a turn that otherwise they may not have... but how often does that happen, and how much does it impact the results of the encounter? I would not claim to know that answer - there are many others better at determining those things than me, but my guess is that it doesn't occur often, and it doesn't really mean much when it does happen. In fact, I don't need to guess a lot for my own situation as I can tell you it's not a common occurrence (again, in my games). I am more than happy to have that occur every once in a while as a trade for a much faster, more fluid, interactive and tactical encounter.

And now that I think of it, in the situation where a player does get around something in that way (specifically using the example you gave, which I have seen once I think) the players can get pretty excited about it - "wait wait! let me help you up and then you can go after me!", and that is cool with me as well If it's giving them the feeling that they 'got an edge' over the encounter and they are super excited about it, then they are enjoying themselves even more - and that's what I'm all about anyway.

---edit---

One more thing, when these things do crop up, it's pretty obvious - you could easily rule, "No, he's down for this round". Nothing says you can't step in and prevent it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my friend DM's his that way - he said up front, don't abuse it. I don't worry about it because as much of a benefit as it seems they are getting, it really doesn't mean much by the end of the encounter... besides... I could always drop another mob in... call it a hidden fee

---edit2---

One more thing again -- just to clarify again, it's not my method (I didn't create it - and I don't want to take credit for it), I guess I'm just advocating it because it has been such a great aspect of our game. I'm not sure how many games we have been using it in my campaign - maybe 12-15 as well as incorporating it into some of the other campaigns I play in, etc, but it's made a huge difference.

 

[Zerakon]

Yeah, again, it's a fine system that I'm not knocking. It's just not RAW because you can't always delay. According to PHB pg. 288, you "can't delay if you're dazed or if you're unable to take actions."

 

[weem]

Yeah, again, it's a fine system that I'm not knocking. It's just not RAW because you can't always delay. According to PHB pg. 288, you "can't delay if you're dazed or if you're unable to take actions."

Oh ok, I see where you are coming from

Interesting - well, I won't be changing anything to account for that, but again I don't have a group abusing it. But If they were, I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to account for by making players with those conditions go first... of course, then you have to look at situations where, for example, multiple people are dazed - THEN who goes before who, etc... hehe.

The other thing to remember is that whatever the PC's can do in that regard, so can the mobs.

---edit---

You are right tho Zer, it's not technically RAW I suppose - but to me, the difference is very slight and I don't mind giving a slight advantage to the players in that regard, especially when it can be so easily/quickly compensated for behind the screen if you feel the need to

 

[PoeticJustice]

I double all variable damage expressions included in a monster's statblock and halve its HP (starts at bloodied, essentially). Note that this does not affect ongoing damage.

I also subtract two from each defense value and increase damage die by 1 size.

So a monster that does 1d6 + 3 instead deals 2d8 + 6.

This lights a fire under the butt of the PCs, which makes them more decisive, eager to get the kill, and also combat is reduced by more than half because usually all the monsters are dead before the party runs out of encounter powers.

The math is a little fiddly at lower levels, but come level 4, works every time.

 

[OchreJelly]

My recommendation to expedite play:
Have encounter maps ready ahead of time. Whether you draw them out on paper, white boards or what have you, it can be a huge time-saver. It also avoids deflating the tension and excitement of an encounter if the players have to wait for the GM to draw everything out.

 

[ggroy]

Add +level modifier to all damage for both players and monsters. It speeds up combat somewhat, at the expense players using more healing surges. Monsters with powers which kick in after being bloodied, show up a lot sooner.

 

[weem]

My recommendation to expedite play:
Have encounter maps ready ahead of time. Whether you draw them out on paper, white boards or what have you, it can be a huge time-saver. It also avoids deflating the tension and excitement of an encounter if the players have to wait for the GM to draw everything out.

Yea, this would be great, I just need to pick up some 1" grid paper (big of course)... I'm lazy though (think I need to order it online).