D&D 4E Is PF combat any faster than 4e?

[GregoryOatmeal]

I'd have to take issue with 'deadliest'. 3e is by far the deadlist (to PCs) iteration of D&D IME, except for 1st level 0e & Basic. Certainly much deadlier than AD&D or C&C.

In the interest of making me a better and more informed DM and possibly sparing my PF players a TPK I'm curious what you think the deadlier elements are.

Lots of 1E modules are full of instant-death effects. Low hit points mean more potential for swing and faster combats mean more combats and more potential for death. That was my rationale.

Also as a DM I'm much more willing to kill my C&C players than 4E/PF players since I know it would take them a lot longer to make new characters.

 

[billd91]

In the interest of making me a better and more informed DM and possibly sparing my PF players a TPK I'm curious what you think the deadlier elements are.

Lots of 1E modules are full of instant-death effects. Low hit points mean more potential for swing and faster combats mean more combats and more potential for death. That was my rationale.

Also as a DM I'm much more willing to kill my C&C players than 4E/PF players since I know it would take them a lot longer to make new characters.

There are a few things I can think of that drive up some of the deadliness of 3e:

1) critical hits - there were no official crits in previous editions
2) strength bonus for many monsters - not in previous editions, plus large creatures get an extra bonus to drive their strengths up
3) iterative attacks come all at once - in 1e/2e AD&D, you alternated between characters with iterative attacks, in 3e, you take them all on your turn, for high level characters, this can be quite a spike of damage that cannot be answered
4) saving throw DCs can be driven quite high - save or die/sit spells generally more dangerous than they were in 1e/2e (where saving throw targets numbers could never get completely out of reach)

A little bit more on #3 above - creatures with multiple natural attacks didn't have to alternate with other characters with iterative attacks. They could always make all of their attacks at once, but check out #2.

Pathfinder has significantly worked on making many save or die effects a bit less nasty or gradual (check out petrification effects in the Bestiary for the cockatrice and basilisk). So it's not quite as deadly as 3e could be.

EDIT: And because I can't resist chiming in with more, the most common way I've killed (or nearly killed) a PC has been because of #1 - critical hits. Got 2 in one session - scythe crit (x4 crit damage) and battleaxe crit (x3 damage).

 

[S'mon]

In the interest of making me a better and more informed DM and possibly sparing my PF players a TPK I'm curious what you think the deadlier elements are.

The scaling save DCs are one factor - Fighters actually getting *worse* at saves as they go up levels. But the biggest factor by far is monster damage output: huge melee brute attack bonuses & damage numbers, x3 criticals - try critting a 1st level PC with a CR 1/3 orc's battleaxe - and nearly all of that damage focused on the Fighter types, whose hit points to level 9 are practically unchanged from 1e.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Good answers. As a youngun we always used crazy crit tables from random products or our own invention in 2E. I distinctly remember racking up a lot more dead characters than any other period of my gaming.

2) strength bonus for many monsters - not in previous editions, plus large creatures get an extra bonus to drive their strengths up

You could argue the con bonus negates this, but I guess if you don't have a con bonus the spread gets wider.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I played some RPG's growing up (back in the day), but haven't touched them in years. I recently got a bug for some roleplaying, and I picked up some 4ed books and have played some Encounters and LFR adventures.

I have to say that I haven't had as much fun as I thought I would. It seems like the bulk of the time I've spent in these adventures is devoted to combat encounters. Not because there are a lot of encounters in these adventures, but because it tends to take a solid hour to wrap up an encounter. This is at level 1. That strikes me as an insanely long time for a single run-of-the-mill fight. It just doesn't leave much time for roleplaying and skill challenges and such.

Additionally, I don't care for the transition from non-combat to combat. It's jarring, and I lose my sense of immersion in the process. When I think back on a given adventure in my minds eye, I may have some picture painted in my head of a cool skill challenge where we chased a criminal through the crowded streets of Waterdeep (cool!), but when I remember the fights, all I see is miniatures on a battlemap (lame!)

Don't get me wrong, I like tactics and strategy, but if I have to choose between rich tactical encounters and immersive encounters, I'm going with the latter. I can get a deep strategic/tactical experience by playing PC games.

Here is my question. Does Pathfinder solve any of these issues? I know that people frequently use the battle map with Pathfinder, but I've heard that it's not required, and if you don't use it, it can really speed combat up.

I know that there are games out there that move much quicker than either PF or 4e, but I don't have a lot of friends that play, so I'd like to stick with something popular, to facilitate finding a group.

Most of the posters are correct in that 4E takes longer than PF. I'm relatively new to PF, but have ran quite a few games of 4E and to me it's the conditions and the player choices that make 4E bog down in the combat department. In my experience the 4E combat is at least 2x as long as PF or any other gaming system that I've played in. I love all the different editions, but if you are looking for faster combat 4E will not be your cup of tea.

 

[UHF]

I'm a big fan of 4e but I've switched for Pathfinder because the pre-made adventures are extremely good.

The best experience I had with 4e was running my own Death In Freeport conversion. The players had mostly martial characters (Strikers), largely mobile and\or sneaky. Combat was glorious... 3D because of the urban setting. Monk flying, Rogue climbing... (It was too much work and hit or miss to adapt.)

I feel that 4e combats are fine, but it is obvious that there are no fast combats for 4e. Grind is indicative of other issues with combat and more often than not, your group (take all healers and watch your combat drag out). Take all Strikers and its like a video game. *Bang Bang Bang* Done.

I've taken much of what I've learned about 'action' and encounter design from 4e, and applied that to Pathfinder. I get really interesting and vivid combats out of that. 3D where possible. (The Cleric leaped off a cliff the other day, screaming and with her arms arms windmilling about.)


Premade Paizo adventures for Pathfinder are head and shoulders above WOTC. There is no comparison.

 

[MerricB]

Here's my chart of comparing 3E combat to 4E combat lengths. Pathfinder, as a derivative of 3E, should have a fairly similar line:

The cross-over point comes around 12th level or thereabouts; at that time, PF is wandering into some serious complexity of modifiers, number of attacks and effects, whilst 4E is only slightly more complicated than at the start.

It should be noted that 4E Essentials combat runs significantly faster than PHB combat, with higher damage, less AC for the same (or fewer) HP.

Number of players makes a huge difference for 4E combat, due to the way combat scales with extra combatants for each new player.

As I like running high-level campaigns - one of my 4E campaigns finished at 30th, and the other is at 16th, and four of my 3E campaigns finished between 16-20, I end up spending a lot of time in the higher levels. So combat length at those levels is a big factor for me, and I'm not hopeful that PF fixes it.

I'm very hopeful that the next version of D&D will, however!

Seriously, understanding what you want out of a D&D game makes a huge difference as to which edition you play. Choosing the wrong edition is likely to be very frustrating. Every edition has its own strengths and weaknesses; I'm still waiting for my perfect edition!

Cheers!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Here's my chart of comparing 3E combat to 4E combat lengths. Pathfinder, as a derivative of 3E, should have a fairly similar line:

The cross-over point comes around 12th level or thereabouts; at that time, PF is wandering into some serious complexity of modifiers, number of attacks and effects, whilst 4E is only slightly more complicated than at the start.

It should be noted that 4E Essentials combat runs significantly faster than PHB combat, with higher damage, less AC for the same (or fewer) HP.

Number of players makes a huge difference for 4E combat, due to the way combat scales with extra combatants for each new player.

As I like running high-level campaigns - one of my 4E campaigns finished at 30th, and the other is at 16th, and four of my 3E campaigns finished between 16-20, I end up spending a lot of time in the higher levels. So combat length at those levels is a big factor for me, and I'm not hopeful that PF fixes it.

I'm very hopeful that the next version of D&D will, however!

Seriously, understanding what you want out of a D&D game makes a huge difference as to which edition you play. Choosing the wrong edition is likely to be very frustrating. Every edition has its own strengths and weaknesses; I'm still waiting for my perfect edition!

Cheers!

Not disagreeing, particularly, but where did you get the data points to create the graph?*

Going off of a single GM's campaigns would likely skew the data.

The Auld Grump

* No, really not disagreeing - the chart seems reasonable, though for me the bogging starts at a slightly higher level, at least for 3.5. Maybe level 15 or so.

But I also have only two data points for how long combat takes in 4e, which was longer than any combat that I have ever had in 3.X, regardless of level. It should not take the entire evening to kill a handful of orcs. I am more than willing to accept that my data pool is limited, and that the problem likely lies in the scenario.

 

[cattoy]

In general, I'm going to guess that on the average PF is going to have quicker fights.

4e doesn't feature SoL powers, PF does. I've seen plenty of one character, one turn kills in PF, outside of minions, I haven't seen that in 4e since 1st level (without an action point+multiple dailies).

 

[S'mon]

As I like running high-level campaigns - one of my 4E campaigns finished at 30th, and the other is at 16th, and four of my 3E campaigns finished between 16-20, I end up spending a lot of time in the higher levels. So combat length at those levels is a big factor for me, and I'm not hopeful that PF fixes it.

I'm very hopeful that the next version of D&D will, however!

Seriously, understanding what you want out of a D&D game makes a huge difference as to which edition you play. Choosing the wrong edition is likely to be very frustrating. Every edition has its own strengths and weaknesses; I'm still waiting for my perfect edition!

Cheers!

I agree with that. My best experiences by far with very high level D&D have been with 1e AD&D, I always found it very strange people complained the game didn't work at very high levels. I just piled on the daemons, demodands et al, cross-planar adventures, battles with enemy gods - a D&DG evil god with a squad of pit fiends makes for a nice encounter.