Low Damage, High HP ... How is this "Faster"?

[MaelStorm]

Which is faster? This:
Player 1: 5' step, attack, attack, attack
Player 2: move, attack, attack (Manyshot )
Monster: attack, attack, attack

Or this?
Player 1: 5' step, attack
Player 2: move, attack
Monster: attack
Player 1: attack, swift action
Player 2: move, attack
Monster: attack, swift action
Player 1: attack, move
Player 2: move, attack, swift action
Monster: move, attack

Your example apply the 3.5E combat to 4E.
i.e.: In 3.5E it was 1 monster for an average group of 4 players.

It is said in W&M that 4E encounters work differently.
i.e.: In 4E it will be 1 monster per player *big difference here*

Also in an encounter the monsters will have roles and will work in concert.
i.e.: A pair of ogres shield an orc archer and shaman.

That is why more round is needed to apply different player options. [It will not necessarily be faster] Because of all of these changes higher HP is needed at 1st level to survive combat. And the low damage part is too early to judge, but you can think otherwise.

 

[Zelc]

No, they don't. Neither the Pit Fiend nor the Spined Devil had half their level added to their damage. It was all based on their raw strength bonus ("Strength Modifier").

That is true, but they did add 1/2 their level to their Strength Modifiers .

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

That's designer marketing BS. Since the first 3e games, 3e combats quite regularly had more than one monster. (The first two Living Greyhawk modules for 3rd edition--Dragonscales at Morningtide and River of Blood both featured multi-opponent battles ranging from three to seven opponents per party memmber; late 3.5 modules like Red Hand of Doom also typically pit multiple monsters against the PCs). Conversely, in the 4e previews, they have anounced solo and elite monsters where the PCs are designed to outnumber the monsters. So, 3rd edition never really was only single monster encounters (module design doesn't even appear to have been biased towards single monster encounters). Neither is 4th edition exclusively multi-monster set piece battles.

The only real difference that I can tell from the previews is that 4th edition is trying to make it easier to design multiple opponent encounters by giving monsters handy labels like skirmisher, lurker, etc that tell DMs how they are supposed to use the monsters and by changing the way that CR/monster level works so that the math is easiest at one creature per PC. Whether or not that will actually work out any simpler than CR when you want one elite boss monster (1/2 PCs), a couple challenging monsters, a group of mooks, and a weak monster who makes the other monsters all work better is an open question.

And, long term, whether the designers will be any better at assigning monster levels than they have proven to be at assigning CR is also yet to be seen. (My guess is that they won't be).

Your example apply the 3.5E combat to 4E.
i.e.: In 3.5E it was 1 monster for an average group of 4 players.

It is said in W&M that 4E encounters work differently.
i.e.: In 4E it will be 1 monster per player *big difference here*

Also in an encounter the monsters will have roles and will work in concert.
i.e.: A pair of ogres shield an orc archer and shaman.

That is why tactic in combat is important (more round is needed to apply different player options) and is a drastic departure from the 3rd edition. [It will not necessarily be faster]

 

[hong]

The only real difference that I can tell from the previews is that 4th edition is trying to make it easier to design multiple opponent encounters by giving monsters handy labels like skirmisher, lurker, etc that tell DMs how they are supposed to use the monsters and by changing the way that CR/monster level works so that the math is easiest at one creature per PC. Whether or not that will actually work out any simpler than CR when you want one elite boss monster (1/2 PCs), a couple challenging monsters, a group of mooks, and a weak monster who makes the other monsters all work better is an open question.

Given that Iron Heroes has a villain class that is all about making the other monsters work better, I'd say they've at least got some experience on the matter.

 

[MaelStorm]

That's designer marketing BS. Since the first 3e games, 3e combats quite regularly had more than one monster. (The first two Living Greyhawk modules for 3rd edition--Dragonscales at Morningtide and River of Blood both featured multi-opponent battles ranging from three to seven opponents per party memmber; late 3.5 modules like Red Hand of Doom also typically pit multiple monsters against the PCs). Conversely, in the 4e previews, they have anounced solo and elite monsters where the PCs are designed to outnumber the monsters. So, 3rd edition never really was only single monster encounters (module design doesn't even appear to have been biased towards single monster encounters). Neither is 4th edition exclusively multi-monster set piece battles.

The only real difference that I can tell from the previews is that 4th edition is trying to make it easier to design multiple opponent encounters by giving monsters handy labels like skirmisher, lurker, etc that tell DMs how they are supposed to use the monsters and by changing the way that CR/monster level works so that the math is easiest at one creature per PC. Whether or not that will actually work out any simpler than CR when you want one elite boss monster (1/2 PCs), a couple challenging monsters, a group of mooks, and a weak monster who makes the other monsters all work better is an open question.

And, long term, whether the designers will be any better at assigning monster levels than they have proven to be at assigning CR is also yet to be seen. (My guess is that they won't be).

If it's designer BS fine, but as you say it still remains to be proven.

 

[Zelc]

That's designer marketing BS. Since the first 3e games, 3e combats quite regularly had more than one monster.

I've noticed it's really hard to build a multi-monster encounter that still challenges the players well. For example, if you have a party of 4x level 10 players and want to throw 4 monsters at them, the 4 monsters should have a CR of 6 for a CR10 encounter. But those monsters won't really be that challenging. For example, the Girallon, a CR6 bruiser monster, only gets an attack bonus of +12. A level 10 tank character can have something around 28 AC (+3 Full Plate, +2 Large Shield, +1 dex mod, +1 Ring of Deflection, +1 Amulet of Natural Armor is 28 AC), meaning the Girallon will only hit on a roll of a 16. Meanwhile, its AC of 16, its low HP of 58, and its low saves mean they won't last very long. Alternatively, a CR 6 spellcaster can cast only level 3 spells, compared with the level 5 spells the party has access to. Trying to have more than 4 monsters means using monsters that really aren't threats.

Conversely, in the 4e previews, they have anounced solo and elite monsters where the PCs are designed to outnumber the monsters. So, 3rd edition never really was only single monster encounters (module design doesn't even appear to have been biased towards single monster encounters). Neither is 4th edition exclusively multi-monster set piece battles.

Well, yes, but the 3rd ed single monsters also had their flaws: they usually got 1 action to the PCs' 4+ per round, and effects like Slow or Entangle that take away actions were much more effective against them.

 

[SaffroN]

...So - lower damage + higher HP = larger # of attacks to kill something. Now it doesn't matter how streamlined they made the rounds - you can't make rolling a single attack much faster. And while one attack/round is faster on a per-round basis, it's slower on a per-attack basis - imagine 3E if you could move and do a swift action between each attack of a full-attack action.

This leads me to believe that battles will, if anything, take rather longer. Sure, each round may be faster, more time may pass "in-game", but you're still looking at long, drawn out battles in real-time.

Combats will take more rounds to complete. Will it take more time?

You will no longer see attacks that cause 10d6 damage. You will no longer see 4 Attack Rolls against a target in the same turn. The game shouldn't bog down when some one utters "I grapple the...".

4e is made up of single attack (standard) actions which deal a small amount of variable damage along with constant damage. Rules like Grappling are streamlined for ease of use.

I haven't played the game, but from what i can tell so far, and playtest reports, it looks faster.

 

[Stalker0]

This is important because some character archetypes, namely assassin and sniper (basically a ranged assassin), are all about the spike. You go in, take your shot, and get out. Getting into an extended combat/shootout is not what being an assassin/sniper is about. 4E's combat model appears to have the pressure side handled, but I wouldn't want the spike side to be neglected.

Your precisely right, by increasing the length of average combats you take away from the potential for one shot kills and assassination type characters. Now, the assasin archetype is not a common one for the standard dnd group, but its certainly an archetype that some people want to play.

I think 4e's compromise is the minion rule, which allows characters to one shot an enemy fairly easily. Because 4e seems to take the stance that "PCs are special, regardless of level" it is likely many of the npcs in a city would be considered minions, allowing an assassin type character to deal with them effectively.

But gone are the days when an assasin can take out a pc from range in 1 round. That's a loss, but I think in general more is gained. The reality is there aren't a lot of fantasy story that go, "Brave Sir Aiden, who protected a town vs an army of 1000 men...and then was slain by an unnamed assailant, whose identify was never determined." PCs want to have a chance to fight back, I've seen riots over 1 round kills.

 

[Zinegata]

One thing that immediately struck me about the 4E Rogue is how much lower damage it was dealing than in 3E. And since the Rogue is a Striker, other non-Striker classes will presumably be doing less damage than the Rogue.

This isn't inherently bad - HP are all relative anyway. However, this lower damage doesn't seem to be paired with lower HP - quite the opposite in fact. Even though Con adds less to HP, the higher starting amount and higher per-level base, not to mention the higher number of levels, result in a usually higher total.

Which applies to monsters as well - the 4E Pit Fiend has significantly more HP than the 3E one, and is an "Elite" monster, apparently meant to be faced in pairs, with additionally the capability to summon backup. Overall, the opposition is fielding considerably more HP than before.


So - lower damage + higher HP = larger # of attacks to kill something. Now it doesn't matter how streamlined they made the rounds - you can't make rolling a single attack much faster. And while one attack/round is faster on a per-round basis, it's slower on a per-attack basis - imagine 3E if you could move and do a swift action between each attack of a full-attack action.

This leads me to believe that battles will, if anything, take rather longer. Sure, each round may be faster, more time may pass "in-game", but you're still looking at long, drawn out battles in real-time.

Is that really an improvement? Not so much, IMO - it may lend itself more to drawn-out swashbuckling, but it makes ambushes and assassinations somewhat nonsensical. And at the end of the day, it still takes -ing hours to run a fight.

Actually, it's worth noting that quite a few playtesters have reported their battles going as long as 10 rounds or so. That's significantly more than the norm for 3.X.

It may be the case that individual rounds are now much shorter due to reduced dice rolls or whatever, but I'm tempted to believe that a lot of the playtesters are real RPG pros who can decide fairly quickly regarding what action to take. Newbies, by contrast, may end up dragging the game considerably via the length of deciding what to do alone.

So yes, there is a distinct dichotomy between a stated design choide (make the game faster), and the actual consequence of mechanics (more HP and less damage = more combat rounds)

Bonus Feature:
My new guess for "Who will be the ___Zilla of 4E?" is "any class that can win/resolve a fight without having to ablate through HP."

I'm more inclined to say it's the Paladin, or any class that exercises substantial influence over the metagame.

 

[hong]

This is important because some character archetypes, namely assassin and sniper (basically a ranged assassin), are all about the spike. You go in, take your shot, and get out. Getting into an extended combat/shootout is not what being an assassin/sniper is about. 4E's combat model appears to have the pressure side handled, but I wouldn't want the spike side to be neglected.

WHY DOES NOONE LISTEN

Your precisely right, by increasing the length of average combats you take away from the potential for one shot kills and assassination type characters. Now, the assasin archetype is not a common one for the standard dnd group, but its certainly an archetype that some people want to play.

I think 4e's compromise is the minion rule, which allows characters to one shot an enemy fairly easily. Because 4e seems to take the stance that "PCs are special, regardless of level" it is likely many of the npcs in a city would be considered minions, allowing an assassin type character to deal with them effectively.

But gone are the days when an assasin can take out a pc from range in 1 round. That's a loss, but I think in general more is gained. The reality is there aren't a lot of fantasy story that go, "Brave Sir Aiden, who protected a town vs an army of 1000 men...and then was slain by an unnamed assailant, whose identify was never determined." PCs want to have a chance to fight back, I've seen riots over 1 round kills.

Ah. Yes, you're right; the new system is meant to discourage instakills, and rightly so. Still, I think you can support the idea of a character who deals large gobs of damage in concentrated chunks, without going all the way to that extreme. Typically spike damage is achieved at the cost of sustained DPS, so you could have, for example, someone who gives up their action(s) for 1 round to deal extra damage in the next round. The idea is similar to aiming to hit a critical point, or sizing up the target.

It's also great for kill stealing, but we're all friends here, right?