I think we're done with 4E

[Wulf Ratbane]

I disagree here. I enjoy a bit of swing and upredictability from combat and this has nothing to do with " mastery".

You're right. Swingyness has nothing to do with mastery. I was making two distinct points-- well, they were intended to be distinct.

 

[jenskot]

Emphasis mine.

I'm really surprised by that figure of 15 minutes before your next turn. How many players are there in the group?

I'm playing with anywhere between 6 and 8 players, and I'd estimate (because I haven't done any real checking yet) that even with that number we get round to everyone about once every 7 or eight minutes or so. I think you might want to look into ways to speed your combat up.

What techniques do you guys use to speed combat up?

Right now we have 5-6 players and a DM. As we level up, it seems things take longer. We have a player keep track of the initiative for the DM. Combat encounters tend to be at our level or 2 levels higher. With 15 minutes, we're averaging at around 1.5 minutes per player, and 6 minutes for the DM spread around between various monsters (since he rolls separate initiative for each monster type) and looking up rules, tracking conditions, and making saving throws. In play it doesn't seem excessive. But in the context of a night of playing, it feels like we aren't doing enough if that makes sense. At first I thought it was quicker but I timed it the last few games.

 

[Jack99]

My fights seem to swing back and forth. Usually the PCs chew through the situation rather quickly. The only times that things seem to drag was when the PCs battled with Elites, who have twice the HP.

Weird, in my campaign, it's the opposite, since whenever an elite is spotted, all firepower is immediately focused on him, and he drops like, very quickly.

Now, battling a full group of elites, on the other hand, does take a while. But I feel they work really great for end-of-mission type of battles.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I'll have no hesitation whatsoever using fewer monsters or monsters with 3/4 of the regular hit points. I don't do it all the time, but it keeps the game running at the pace I want.

I'd started doing this in recent sessions. It did keep things more interesting from my point of view (the DM). I'd also started advancing monsters up or down a level or two to change things round a bit.

Another thing the players disliked was some monster abilities that they couldn't replicate or could do only once while monsters could recharge. I'd guess that comes from playing 3E for its entire run.

 

[delericho]

My group decided against 4e for many of the same reasons as the OP, only much more quickly. (There was also a style issue at play.) The points about combat being fairly predictable and about monsters generally being better than PCs are both things we commented on. And, yes, we did find that the use of powers quickly became very repetitive, even when stacked up against the Fighter's previous "charge and then full attack every round" SOP.

We have agreed to revisit the system when and if we can recruit at least two more players (to bring us to the recommended five), but for now we're not going to carry on with the system. If nothing else, this prevents us from becoming totally disillusioned with a game that just didn't work for us (although partly because of the composition of our group).

The top three things I did like most about 4e: I really liked the encounter design philosophy, with the emphasis being on facing multiple opponents with different roles (rather than a single monster, or three identical orcs, or whatever). I really liked the concept of skill challenges, even if the math wasn't quite right. And I really liked that monsters were actually able to hit far more often than was previously the case, and could actually use their most interesting abilities without them being either anti-climactic or TPK in scale (as most save-or-dies tended to be - if you saved they often had no effect, but if not you were out of the game).

 

[Rel]

Upon reading through the 4e rules I saw some things that I considered weaknesses similar to those the OP mentions. One thing I knew I wanted to avoid was the "same powers over and over" syndrome. I think that is partially alleviated by the aquisition of new powers as the PC's rise in level. But I'm also a huge fan of "rules that let you break the rules" once in a while.

I won't bother reposting my house rule here but I allow players to use Action Points to do things other than take extra actions so long as it fits the theme of their character. We had our first session last night and I got to see one of the PC's put this into action when his Eladrin Ranger Fey Stepped into the mouth of a huge creature that was in the process of chewing on the Halfling Paladin and then spent Action Points to grab him and Fey Step back out again. It had just the feel I wanted and gave me hope that this rule will keep us from feeling that the PC's are locked into using a rigid set of powers.

EDIT: Oh but I meant to mention that Savage Worlds sounds like it might be a good fit for the OP and his group. Though I'm also a huge fan of WFRP2.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

I'm really surprised by that figure of 15 minutes before your next turn. How many players are there in the group?

I'd say that over the last few sessions each player would take on average two minutes to resolve their turn. Each player had two characters which were resolved on separate initiative so the players would take around 12 minutes for their actions in combat and I'd take another 2-3 minutes to resolve the monsters and any npc's.

Each combat would last for 6-10 rounds so a typical fight for the pc's level should have lasted around 2 hours. One of the problems we had, and this existed in 3E as well was in a 3-5 hour session a challenging combat would go on for half the session. In 3E we had less combat rounds but each player took a longer time to resolve their actions. In 4E faster rounds but twice as many so we get the same result.

What we'd all see happening is that once the tilt point of the fight had been hit player boredom crept in taking each player a little longer to resolve their turn.

One feeling we all discussed after the last session was that combat has to be quicker. If, to achieve this, it has to be more swingy then so be it. We looked at altering 4E to fit this requirement, (change powers to do more damage or acquire them in a different way so you have a wider set) or (reduce monster hit points) but I felt that it's too early to start pulling the system to pieces.

I personally would like a challenging combat to be resolved in about 30 minutes. That could give an average of 5 minutes for everyone to resolve a round and have 6 combat rounds but this would need to be three times faster than we're currently achieving.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There is a solution to every combat being the same, and the solution is to up the difficulty. The characters are doing the same thing every combat because the monsters let them. If the monsters crash out of the gate, kick the characters in the teeth, and force them back on their heels things become interesting. The monsters have just as much right to dictate how the battle progresses as the PCs do.

4E characters are tough and can come back from difficult odds. They can handle encounters 1-4 levels higher than they are and consistently survive. I also am the best tactical player at the table, and I run the monsters to the best of my abilities with the intention of killing the players. The game can withstand this, as while my game features higher level enemies ruthlessly run by a superior player and I still rarely kill anybody.

 

[pawsplay]

There is a solution to every combat being the same, and the solution is to up the difficulty.

If the monsters already have high hit points and defenses, won't that just aggravate the problem?

 

[Lord Vangarel]

And, yes, we did find that the use of powers quickly became very repetitive, even when stacked up against the Fighter's previous "charge and then full attack every round" SOP.

I agree. I sometimes think we're crazy when we complain that character x can only do these powers when previous editions had the option of move/attack or full attack. I've sat at the table saying but now you can do x,y, and z as well as b and c all the time. To which they say that once or twice was ok but on the 20th time doing exactly the same sequence of powers kind of lost its newness.

We have agreed to revisit the system when and if we can recruit at least two more players (to bring us to the recommended five), but for now we're not going to carry on with the system.

I think we'll revisit the system if the splatbooks add new options. Kind of funny really, in 3E the endless splatbooks killed it fo us, yet in 4E they may eventually save it.

And I really liked that monsters were actually able to hit far more often than was previously the case, and could actually use their most interesting abilities without them being either anti-climactic or TPK in scale (as most save-or-dies tended to be - if you saved they often had no effect, but if not you were out of the game).

This reminds me of a climatic 3E adventure from about 4 years ago. The bad guy cast his spell and because the DM had miscalculated the odds those that failed died and those that succeeded died. Certainly don't miss that anymore.