Length and difficulty of combats

[Kzach]

In another thread the issue of grindiness and combat length was brought up. I decided I wanted to discuss this aspect of 4e more so here's a thread for it.

My take on this is that I think a lot of DM's wrongly assume that combat in 4e is too easy. I think a lot of DM's attempt to compensate for this by throwing large and difficult encounters at the PC's, which in turn makes combats far longer than they're generally meant to be.

I don't think most DM's realise that 70% or so of combats SHOULD be easy for the PC's. Combats are a stepping stone in a process of investigation and story building. They should form a part of that process and be obstacles that the heroes need to overcome. They shouldn't, however, dominate the play experience.

Combats serve many purposes but ideally, most combats are merely hiccups, and shouldn't be the cause of indigestion. They provide rewards, XP, and further clues to help the story progress. 70% of combats are stormtroopers, with a few battle droids and the odd AT-AT.

Then you rescue the princess, steal the battle plans, and run for your life.

It's only when you face off with an important NPC that a combat should ever be deadly or difficult. An important question DM's should ask themselves when building large or very tough encounters is, "What purpose does this encounter serve and how does it drive the story forward in a meaningful way?"

If every encounter is at the level of Darth Maul and his entourage, then the DM is doing something very wrong. I mean... if everyone is having fun with that style of play, then sure, whatever, but if they're complaining that combats are taking too long, even if they defeat them all (and even if the combats are fairly tough, the odds are still in the PC's favour, it just means things take much longer and they have to rest more often), then the DM really has to take a step back and adjust both his expectations and his understanding of the game's mechanics.

At least, that's what I think. What do you think?

 

[Talysian]

by what you say I must be doing it wrong. I've always been a believer that if you draw a weapon, you should realize that you may die. In my homebrew games the world is not a happy place. I've found that unlike the design intent for 4e I like to have 1-2 combats a day for the most part, and I want the players to be worried that they could loose during any fight. I've found the single best ways to speed up combat to be below.

1. Clear init order and tracking.
2. Limit time on a players turn. (2 minutes max)
3. Reduce all non solo's hp by25% Increase there Damage by 1/2 Level. (or if under 5 +2)
4. Reduce the amount of dice rules. I do this by having my players roll their defense vrs me ruling the attack, and average damage (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...e-houserule-has-made-your-game-awesome-2.html ) described there.

All of this has greatly sped up my combats.

 

[kaomera]

I find that yes, most combats should be fairly easy for the PCs, by the standard assumptions of 4e. You're supposed to go through ~5 combats a day, so if you're going through fewer you could run more difficult encounters, but that increases the chances that bad luck will lead to a TPK. Every encounter is a chance for something to go wrong. If you're running harder encounters there's that much less room to account for chance, etc. Players will have to play more conservatively (and, IMO, less heroically) to keep their characters alive.

I don't really enjoy it when bad luck kills characters, and I like that 4e has generally reduced the situations where that is likely to happen. I understand the philosophy of "oh, well, characters die", and I don't expect PCs to be invulnerable or always win, but I get kind of nervous when the DM takes a combat where everything went right for the PCs and says "that was too easy, I need to ramp things up!"

 

[Orcus Porkus]

Your style is definitely fun, and I've played with a DM who ran his game this way. It was good.
I don't think though that this is the "official" way. When you look at all published adventures, from Dungeon Delves to Prince of Undeath, there are no little skirmishes that are over in one round or even less, which I would define as really easy.
They all follow the encounter XP budget rules as set forth in the DMG, and even if the encounter is only of the same level the party has, it still has grinding potential.
I really wish that it was different though. Players start believing that they can't be defeated if they don't make a dumb tactical mistake, because a level +4 encounter is always manageable if your party is somewhat balanced and has some experience. It also creates a metagame sense of "we'll have 3 encounters or so per day, and the first one is probably easy, and the last one is probably with elites, so I hold back with my dailies, blabla".
The negative impact of this phenomenon on the game experience can't be underestimated.
Letting go of the encounter xp budget system for the most part by running tons of small one- or two-turn skirmishes, and on the other hand creating a sense of certain death around every corner, meaning, encounters of level +6 or even higher, that must be avoided somehow rather than fought, will increase the fear on the PC's part and dampen their arrogance for good. And it will shorten the amount of time spent on grinding turns. The boss fight and some key fights would be balanced level +3/+4 encounters in this scenario.

 

[Chzbro]

I feel strongly that one of the biggest reasons why combats feel "easy" or that players don't feel challenged is that often monsters are chosen to fit into the xp "budget" rather than to compliment one another.

In my experience, there is more of an onus on the DM in this regard than is generally acknowledged. That's not to say that you can't just throw any group of monsters into a room and have an interesting fight; however, if you want a challenging fight that's not a grind you really need to be aware of how the powers/tactics of the monsters will interact. (Have a creature that does extra damage with combat advantage? Make sure he has was to get that CA or allies who can help provide it with more than just a flank. Have a ranged controller? Be sure he has allies that can take advantage of that control specifically.) If they play off of one another, even an even level fight will suddenly be much more frightening. If they don't, even a +4 encounter can be something of a snooze.

I even recommend taking it a step farther and modifying the encounters slightly to account for your particular play group (making it more fun for them, not intentionally trying to kill them). For example, one group I DM for is decidedly melee heavy. One or two well-guarded artillery can chew them up, so I make sure they have to work a little to get after such guys. On the other hand, if a solo (for example) has an immediate interrupt when targeted by a ranged attack, I know that won't be a factor so I might alter that power so that it actually will have an impact on combat.

While I'll certainly throw a creature of level +2-3 at my party, I try to keep the encounter level at +1 or so. The level +3 elites are typically brutes. The minions are often soldiers. This way, the big scary guys are big and scary, but not overly difficult to hit and the minions don't drop at the first strong gust of wind. By keeping all the opponents close to even level (although I do tend toward level +1), the fights rarely become grinds.

It's also important not to start every fight with the players on one side of the map and the monsters on the other. Have them get hit from two flanks, get skirmishers after their leader, find ways to create multiple fronts. Don't let them easily focus fire while protecting the leader/ranged in every fight.

This all takes a bit more work, but like anything, with practice it becomes more and more simple. Honestly though, without the Adventure Tools it would probably be a lot harder. I probably tweak 80% of the monsters I put into encounters, even if all I do is adjust levels or re-skin powers. In my game it's made a world of difference.

I have a strong, tactically-minded group, but using these strategies I can typically throw a scare into one or two of them every fight and have them ready for an extended rest after 2-3. Two sessions ago, this group (6 level 4s) squared off against a level 3 solo, a level 5 elite, and a couple waves of nasty even level minions (level +1 or 2 encounter). That fight made me nervous when I was planning it; I mean, I really do want them to win, after all. And in the end, it was a great success. They did win, but they weren't sure they were going to until the end...and everyone was beat up.

By no means am I saying that this is the only right way to DM, but it works for me. I, personally, prefer a combat that makes me sweat a little (as a player or DM).

 

[Shazman]

I can see how fewer encounters with the same xp budget for the session/adventure would mean tougher encounters that last longer, but I think the main problem is the math of the system. In 4E monster defenses and hitpoints start out very high compared to the hit and damage bonuses of the PC's and their hit points and defenses scale faster than PC's to hit and damage bonuses. The end result is combat that takes a long time. Compared to earlier editions, you will most likely fight more monsters, have a harder time hitting the monsters, and have to hit them more (unless they are minions which seem to be used infrequently in all the adventures I've seen) times to drop them. Under these circumstances how can combat not take a long time? Throw having to track myriad ongoing damage, conditions, penalites, and bonuses that all begin and end at different times into the mix, and you have a bookeeping nightmare. The mechanics of combat and the logistics of keeping track of all the mechanical bits during combat pretty much make combat that doesn't crawl at a snail's pace and take a long time to resolve nearly impossible. So much for making combat quicker, simpler, and more streamlined than in 3.5. They not only failed to accomplish this, but did exactly the opposite.

 

[keterys]

I can see how fewer encounters with the same xp budget for the session/adventure would mean tougher encounters that last longer, but I think the main problem is the math of the system. In 4E monster defenses and hitpoints start out very high compared to the hit and damage bonuses of the PC's and their hit points and defenses scale faster than PC's to hit and damage bonuses. The end result is combat that takes a long time.

I've only played up through 18th level at this point, but I really haven't had this problem.

I have had problem with particular players or DMs who are quite slow. Especially if they try to overthink things, have too many interrupts, or use the wrong types of monsters in combination.

But, we kill things plenty fast at high level. I barely get to use at-will powers, so that pegs fights in the 3 to 5 round range. So we get to do 4 or so combats per session, which keeps things on a solid moving pace.

 

[Amaroq]

Right.

At 1st level, at At-Will does 1[W] + bonuses
At 19th level, an At-Will does 1[W] + Bonuses

At 1st level, a level-appropriate Skirmisher has about 30 hit points.
At 19th level, a level-appropriate Skirmisher has about 180 hit points.

Yes, "Bonuses" is higher at 19th level - but not that much higher! And yes, you have more Encounter powers, which can start becoming 3[W] instead of 2[W], and you have some cool Paragon path powers ... but the net result is, bad-guy hit points seem to increase a bit more quickly than good-guy damage-dealing power.

That difference is what, IMHO, causes mid-Paragon-level combats to take that much longer than 1st-level combats: it simply takes more Standard actions to reduce a level-appropriate monster to zero hit points.

 

[Shazman]

Good for you. I don't know how you are doing it, but I have yet to see such thing as a "speedy" combat in 4E. Maybe you have the right combination of luck, optimization, tactics, and opponents of lower level to make this possible. I wish it was easier to get that magical combination because it has eluded me and a large number of players I have seen complain about the "gridiness" of 4E.

 

[DracoSuave]

Right.

At 1st level, at At-Will does 1[W] + bonuses
At 19th level, an At-Will does 1[W] + Bonuses

At 1st level, a level-appropriate Skirmisher has about 30 hit points.
At 19th level, a level-appropriate Skirmisher has about 180 hit points.

Yes, "Bonuses" is higher at 19th level - but not that much higher!

At level 1, bonuses is likely +4, with, on average, a 1d10 weapon (going up or down depending on role and class), for an average damage of 9.5.

At level 19, bonuses is likely +12 minimum, for an average damage of 17.5, with strikers doing considerably more. It's not unusual for strikers to be hitting bonuses almost equal to +30 at this point.

And then the leaders toss in their hit and damage bonuses, and you actually do get parity.

One way of looking at it is:

When you gain a level, are you able to squeeze in 8 more points of damage? No more is needed. If you do so by making others attack harder, or by the right feat, or you can bank it, and do sixteen more the next level... then you're golden.

So let's say you take that encounter power that does an extra [W] of damage, and knocks them prone. +[W] is on average, about 5 points of damage, so the question is, is that +2 to hit giving the monster an extra 3? Usually, it's much greater than that, so you can take that improvement, bank it for the next level, and not worry about it.

Most of the time tho, this level of analysis is unneeded. The game's pretty good about increasing damage done over an encounter as you gain levels.