"Looks like we're going to win this battle . . . in about 90 minutes from now."

[ryryguy]

90 minutes?

Two points.

First.

Even if situations like the one the OP described do turn out to be distressingly common, where the battle is a foregone conclusion but 5-10 rounds of mop-up are required, why should that mop-up last for 90 minutes? Especially if everyone has used their complicated encounter and daily powers, and things have more-or-less devolved to "stand around and whack each other", shouldn't you be able to get through even 10 rounds of combat much faster than 90 minutes?

Maybe combat is still a bit slow for your group due to inexperience with 4e? Additionally, some table techniques should help to speed things up. Many of these are mentioned early in the Gleemax thread posted earlier, and I think some are in the DMG as well. They include the obvious things like rolling damage along with attack rolls, limiting time to decide player actions, etc. So the mop-up may still be boring, but you ought not to have to suffer it for so long, I think.

Second.

A poster mentioned wandering monsters and an influential article about not using them, stating that this was a bad idea. I think that's a great point. The threat of a wandering monster could help to keep the tension higher during mop-up time. Plus all the other things about not allowing the players to always control the rhythm of encounters and how that can help mix up resource management and attrition issues.

My followup to that point is that, although I like the advice, the article may have had a point too. Pure, straight up "wandering monsters" can be bad if overused. If ill-used, they can seem artificial, capricious, grindy. (I don't think I've read the article that was referred to, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the point of it.)

You have to expand on what "wandering monster" means beyond rolling for a random creature group on a terrain table. Ideally, it's also a handcrafted encounter the DM has in his back pocket for exactly the sort of situation the OP's group found itself in. Something that also fits in and advances the story in its own right.

Some of the other suggestions in this thread about dynamic terrain, traps, and so forth could also be used as fancy "wandering monsters". In my view, to be helpful the wandering monster doesn't actually have to be wandering or a monster. It's the timing that's important. If the collapsing ceiling doesn't start to collapse until you get to that boring mop-up point, the mop-up is no longer boring. Perhaps you can even not decide in advance "this ceiling in this room is going to collapse"; rather, you know a ceiling is going to collapse in whichever room the boring mop-up happens to occur in.

 

[Fenes]

I handle that in 3E rather simple: Once the fight is over but for the mopping up, I end it with a few lines of "and after the evil wizard has fallen, his demoralized bodyguards surrender/try to make a run for it/get killed by you in a minute or two".

Should I run 4E, I'd expect to handle such fights the same way. If the outcome is clear, if only at will powers are left, then I'd not bother playing it out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I agree that this is at least part of the solution, it seems to me that the OP is lamenting that he perceives a difference as to when the fight's outcome seems guaranteed versus 3.X, and that in 4Ed the moment of epiphany comes early in the combat when there is still much RP and damage to be done on both sides of the battle.

And ending a battle because of a "skunk" rule too early has ramifications about resource management. End it too early, and the party is probably healthier than the adventure designers anticipated them being, and it may make subsequent battles a little too easy. End it too late, and perhaps the party is a bit too nicked up.

In 3.X, you typically realize the outcome with only a few rounds left to play out. The party is about as nicked and depleted as its going to get.

It would seem, to the OP at least, that the point of realization comes early in the combat, possibly too early to invoke a "skunk" rule.

 

[MerricB]

I think the situation is roughly analogous to the following:

Let's say that we have a dice-roll-off -- I roll a d6 and you roll a d8. A '4' counts as a 'hit' for either of us.

Scenario #1: I have to 'hit' you 3 times before you 'hit' me 4 times.
Scenario #2: I have to 'hit' you 9 times beore you 'hit' me 12 times.

I think I'm at a general advantage in this contest -- I'm going to win this little battle the majority of the time. But the number of times I win Scenario #2 is going to be a *much* greater percentage than I win Scenario #1.

If I can just make an observation...

Yes, D&D 4e is balanced such that 1 vs. 1 combats will tend to take quite a number of rounds. However, that balance is there because 5 on 1 combats are quite likely... as was the case in 3e where most "solo" fights would last 1 or 2 rounds!

If we take the second scenario you mention there where you're at a 4:1 disadvantage, suddenly you need to hit 9 times before being hit (effectively) 3 times... uh, oh!

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

That's not how it works in 4E -- monsters that tear off a huge chunk of hit points simply *do not exist*

Forrester, meet the Bodak.

Cheers!

 

[AllisterH]

re: Resting

In 1e/2e, unless it was level 13+, even if the wizard ran out of spells, we would still go on. However, starting from level 1+, if the CLERIC was out, that's it. Say good night gracey, we're done. You just couldn't take on anything worthwhile without healing.

I found that in 3E, even at level 7+, any decent challenge (a.k.a actually above the CR of the party), without magic, you're just boned. From the buffs on the player side to the effect of the monster's magic, magic just got way too strong in 3.x.

Seriously, I don't think people realize just how much more powerful the wizard became in 3E when compared to earlier. Frankly, the 4E "blaster" wizard more resembles the wizard of 1e/2e that people actually played.

re: Use of encounter powers
Wouldn't it make more sense to hold off on using those encounter powers? That's what my friends and I do since how HP and the bloody mechanic interact, it makes more sense to use at-wills at the beginning of combat.

For example, let's say a monster will go down in 7 hits (H). An at-will does 1H, an encounter does 2H and a daily does 3H. So, it would take 1 daily, 1 encounter and 2 at-wills to take this monster out.

As long as the monster doesn't have any "bloodied" reaction/mechanic, it doesn't matter what order it goes, but for anything that DOES, opening up with a daily actually results in the player being subjected to the Bloodied monster for a longer time.

So again, why open up with an encounter power?


re: Combat lasting too long
I actually think that was why the Intimidate skill was put in. Few creatures will actually fight to the death (Orcus cultists, animal with rabies etc) so even back in 1e/2e, we used to give full xp as long as the battle was won. Given that I as a DM *KNEW* if anything interesting was going to occur, I would either have the monster surrender or keep on fighting to wait on the event.

 

[MerricB]

The Sahaugin Baron (Level 10 Elite Brute) does 2d4+6 with his trident, or d6+6 and ongoing 5 with his claw.

It's not an "or" there. It's an "and". Check out Baron's Fury (at will).

He gets a lot better against bloodied opponents (Blood Hunger).

Now, vs. a level 10 defender, you're probably looking at about an AC of 27 (+2 platemail, heavy shield). +15 attack bonus, raised to +17 through combat advantage (flanking should be achievable), and you're talking about an average of 18 damage per round, but a maximum of 42 damage in a good round.

Against a bloodied opponent? Suddenly, the average goes up to 31, and the maximum damage to 57.

Level 10 defender? 75 hp. A bloodied defender is probably in for a world of hurt against the Baron.

The Blade Spider? Its ongoing damage gives it probable average of about 17 damage per attack. Two attacks hitting in the same round will probably eventuate in about 34 damage (or almost half that defender's HP), or - if it rolls maximum damage for both - 36 damage in just the first round, with ongoing damage still a problem. If you've got two Blade Spiders attacking the same defender, which you really, really should have, you can get him very close to 0 hp in a single round from full!

Teamwork isn't just about PCs in 4e... it's also about the monsters.

Cheers!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

re: Resting

In 1e/2e, unless it was level 13+, even if the wizard ran out of spells, we would still go on. However, starting from level 1+, if the CLERIC was out, that's it. Say good night gracey, we're done. You just couldn't take on anything worthwhile without healing.

I found that in 3E, even at level 7+, any decent challenge (a.k.a actually above the CR of the party), without magic, you're just boned. From the buffs on the player side to the effect of the monster's magic, magic just got way too strong in 3.x.

Seriously, I don't think people realize just how much more powerful the wizard became in 3E when compared to earlier. Frankly, the 4E "blaster" wizard more resembles the wizard of 1e/2e that people actually played.

re: Use of encounter powers
Wouldn't it make more sense to hold off on using those encounter powers? That's what my friends and I do since how HP and the bloody mechanic interact, it makes more sense to use at-wills at the beginning of combat.

For example, let's say a monster will go down in 7 hits (H). An at-will does 1H, an encounter does 2H and a daily does 3H. So, it would take 1 daily, 1 encounter and 2 at-wills to take this monster out.

As long as the monster doesn't have any "bloodied" reaction/mechanic, it doesn't matter what order it goes, but for anything that DOES, opening up with a daily actually results in the player being subjected to the Bloodied monster for a longer time.

Some monsters get weaker with the Bloodied state (some Angels, for example), and some player options get stronger (there's a Rogue power that deals more damage against bloodied foes, and Tiefling powers and a Paragon feat to deal more damage against bloodied foes).

I think there coud be more enemies that become weaker once bloodied, but I think that will happen eventually...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, what did I do! Edit, not Quote, dangit!

 

[billd91]

I gotta ask, just because I like the punishment. Is there a particular reason your "dream game" couldn't be published under the GSL, or are you just banging this drum out of habit?

Doesn't the GSL kind of frown in "redefining" things? Creating a dream game might require that.