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

[Rechan]

I haven't played much 4e. What makes 4e combat so slow?

1) Monsters have more HP. The lowest amount of HP for a 1st level monster is 24 HP (unless we're talking minions, which have 1 HP). Players also have more starting HP (your standard 1st level wizard will likely have 24-27 HP).

2) Some monsters have higher saving throws.

3) Classes are more complex, with more choices to make on their turn. This can lead to choice paralysis, as well as lag in understanding what you're capable of doing, as well as resolving mechanics (such as multiple attacks).

4) Actions that take place outside of your turn (opportunity actions essentially) - defender classes operate on these. This "Wait stop everything we must resolve this action" can slow things down.

5) Misc Fiddly Bits. Conditions (you're on fire, you're immobilized) have to be saved for at the end of a turn. Many abilities have durations like 'end of your next turn', so keeping track of those. Feats and other things have corner cases ("Does the target have cover/concealment? Did you roll a crit? Is it Thursday?").

 

[SnowleopardVK]

The longest I've seen a combat in PF take was an hour and a bit, but that was my first time GMing, and one of the players insisted on looking up every single rule that was used because he was convinced I was making mistakes (I screwed up the grapple rules when I went from memory on the first encounter of the night, and he apparently didn't trust me after that). I made no other mistakes, but he still insisted. >_>

Normally, PF combats seem to take 5 to 10 minutes. Big fights can be about half an hour, but sometimes players manage to do them quickly. I've seen (what were supposed to be) big enemies taken down in 2 rounds with very little pause for planning.

 

[xenophone]

Wow, sounds like PF is a lot faster in most cases. I'll def. be giving it a shot.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It seems to me from play experience that combat takes the same amount of time in either game. The key difference is that combat in Pathfinder is slower, while combat in D&D4 is longer-- a 4e combat will require several more turns to resolve, while the Pathfinder combat will take longer for each turn.

 

[Wycen]

It seems to me from play experience that combat takes the same amount of time in either game. The key difference is that combat in Pathfinder is slower, while combat in D&D4 is longer-- a 4e combat will require several more turns to resolve, while the Pathfinder combat will take longer for each turn.

My gut tells me this is correct.

One thing about Pathfinder vs. 4E and even 3.5, PF characters generally have more options. Because they have unlimited ability to cast 0 level spells and have class features unavailable in 3.5, like sorcerer bloodlines or cleric domains that allow you to blast enemies with rays that don't use up spell slots, that might take longer if you are trying to decide how to attack.

 

[Rechan]

It seems to me from play experience that combat takes the same amount of time in either game. The key difference is that combat in Pathfinder is slower, while combat in D&D4 is longer-- a 4e combat will require several more turns to resolve, while the Pathfinder combat will take longer for each turn.

This has been my experience with 3.5 vs. 4e. Even with low level combats. Even with people mainly just attacking normally, in 3.5 each round was just longer.

 

[Thotas]

The decision paralysis point is very much an important factor. And while the question itself is comparing systems, and that factor is pretty much true of all of them, it's relevant because it looks like you're concerned about speed regardless of system.

So what ever choice you end up making, encourage everyone to pay attention to all the action, and to start evaluating your options and planning your moves before your turn, modifying them as things change before your turn comes up. Common sense, you say? Yes. And as the saying goes, sometimes, common sense ain't so common.

 

[Dornam]

Just yesterday we had an PF encounter with 5 PCs + 1 Cohort vs. 1 evil Wizard, 4 Xills and 3 different types of devils.

Took 12 rounds of combat and about 40 Minutes.

Saying the combat in PF is slower is not what I have experienced. Sure monsters with spells and spellcasting PCs have more rules to cover in PF than in 4e BUT there are a lot of easy classes in PF that can be played by people who are not that much in "rule"play. This, more than everything else, speeds up combat for "normal" groups.

If all players and the GM know their thing (and in PF that means to know MORE for the GM at least), then PF is half the time you need in 4e - even with funky things going on.

 

[Jadeite]

If players and DM know their thing, combats may be fast indeed, ending after a few rounds with the side that lost initiative or failed a saving throw totally devestated.
Just yesterday, I nearly killed the party with a single piscodaemon. Had the party's witch won initiative and cast a succesful charm monster, that would have ended the fight in round 1.
Faster doesn't necessarily mean more fun.

I like Pathfinder, but when it comes to combat, I'm pretty sure 4E is superior.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

If you quit playing in the 90s and want to pick up again at a place close to where you left off I can't recommend Castles and Crusades enough. Both Pathfinder and 4E are very different games from the D&D of the nineties.

IMO D&D is basically split into three major families of games, being AD&D, 3E, and 4E. Products are mostly compatible within their families of games and power levels of characters are about the same.

I gather you came from the AD&D era before the game saw a radical redesign with 3E. The AD&D family of games (1E, 2E, BECMI, free internet "Old School Renaissance" retroclones, and C&C) are relatively rules-lite with the exception of some fiddly bits. Combat is fastest and deadliest. Classes are often unbalanced. Castles and Crusades replaces a few of the fiddly bits of AD&D with some really streamlined innovations of 3E/4E games (ascending armor class, ability modifiers). It's like driving a stylish retro car with XM radio transplanted in for a touch of modernity. It's great.

The 3E games (3.5, Pathfinder) bump the power levels up a lot by allowing players to choose a bunch of options for their character. It's a good system for a world where you can order your coffee to be made in a million different ways and 31 flavors of ice cream feels like a low number. Books get much bigger and the number of rules increases, although rules are more logical and easier to remember. Combat is faster than 4E but slower than AD&D games (due to increased complexity and option bloat). Guys in my 18-30 age group that grew up with 3E and can tolerate big beautiful complex books really seem to love this style.

4E was a radical redesign that caused huge divisions amongst gamers. Books are written to be brief explanations of rules rather than simulation. Players are given a lot of narrative freedom to define themselves, but if they fail to realize this the game can grind like an MMO. Rules are less complex and fiddly than 3E but perhaps a bit greater in quantity than AD&D. Combat is richer and more tactical, classes are very well-balanced, and it's hard to make a broken character (as a player this can really ruin your game). Many people complain they lose sight of roleplaying and combat takes too long while playing 4E.

I played 4E for a year but found many of the complaints about combat grind to be true. I switched to Pathfinder and Castles and Crusades. So if you grew up playing a style of D&D that is different from the game currently called D&D the market can meet your needs.

To the credit of 4E you're probably seeing the worst of it. Even 4E fans tend to really dislike the WOTC adventures and the Encounters format. 4E works better when you homebrew, leave spaces for roleplaying and try to frame combat in "narrative" terms rather than "gamist" terms.