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

[IceFractal]

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.


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."

 

[MaelStorm]

But how much damage a Dragonborn Fighter with a two-handed axe will he inflict on a roll of 20? I think it's a little bit too early to jump to this kind of conclusion.

 

[Hjorimir]

I have to agree with MaelStorm here; we don't have nearly enough information yet. I understand you see the 5d6 Sneak Attack damage at 21st level (and up) and think that it is just too little against a 350 hp monster, but we don't have a real view of magic items, feats, and class abilities at these levels to come to any kind of judgement.

 

[Christian]

Bear in mind that we're seeing the class write-up, but not the full list of powers. Damage per round for a rogue is likely to be much higher than one would guess from looking at that write-up; we need to see the whole system.

The reports of faster overall combats are coming from playtests, not just the designers, so I'm willing to treat that as a factual representation. If we don't see how that happens from the snippets we've been made privy to, it's probably because they're just snippets, and also that it's hard to accurately estimate the speed of each combat round and each combat just from looking at the system descriptions. The people actually playing it say it's faster ...

 

[Glyfair]

Now it doesn't matter how streamlined they made the rounds - you can't make rolling a single attack much faster.

The actions still could be made faster. I agree that it's unlikely, but I'll judge it after I've had a chance to use it.

I will say, as I recall the stock answer the designers had about combats was that they took about the same time as in 3.5. It was other elements of the game that were faster (such as DM design).

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.

However, it doesn't seem that it will be that much higher except during the early levels. We also haven't seen a lot of things that will likely help this issue at higher level (especially at 10+).

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.

I think it likely is an improvement. One of the biggest complaints about 3.5 has been that combats make take a long time, but they rarely last more than a few round. Many character abilities (especially NPC and monster abilities) rarely get used because they never get the chance.

4E has per encounter abilities, whose use becomes more strategic when the combat last longer. Shorter combats mean you want to use any appropriate per encounter abilities ASAP. If you don't than the combat will be over without your using it.

How long will combats run? The designer reports seem to have indicated the same (I assume slightly longer until you get used to the new system), at least in the early reports. Even if they are longer, the early playtester reports all say that combats are much more fun, and I would rather have longer fun combats than much faster combats that aren't as much fun.

 

[Kvantum]

One idea that occurs to me is, what if Paragon and Epic paths have Sneak Attack dice that stack with Rogue ones? As in a Character Level 21 Rogue gets his 5d6 from being a Rogue, then 5d6 from being an Character Level 21 Assassin, and then 1d6 more from being a Character Level 21 of whatever Epic path the Rogue has chosen? If Heroic, Paragon, and Epic path features are all based off of total character level and not just class level, you could be looking at some damage outputs just as high as the new hit point values.

 

[neceros]

Let me reiterate this.

The Sneak Attack portion in the class description is a freebie. It is literally applied once per round if you have combat advantage no matter which power or attack you're using. It's pure extra damage that, so far, no other classes get. I have a feeling warlocks' curses will be similar.

I'm assuming the powers of the class will make up it's actual damage output, with the sneak attack as an entirely additional benefit.



Now, this edition is supposed to be much more streamlined. The part of gaming they don't like they made simpler. Looking up rules, trying to figure out bonuses, etc, those have all been streamlined. Combat is the fun part of D&D (Mechanics wise), so obviously that's going to be a major portion of the game. That doesn't need to take less time, it just has to be more fluid.

Also, combat is streamlined to take less time per round. Everyone will be doing their actions quicker (Presumably), though now HP and damage scales differently so everyone has more time to act in a given combat.

That's my opinion.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.


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."

They said they wanted most combats to last (I think around )5 rounds. When they said "quicker combats" they meant rl time, not necessarily in rounds.

I also don't think strikers will we the huge damage outputs people seem to think, the Paladin Smites did about as much damage than the Rogue powers, and similarly the claim of "more hp" just doesn't stand up, a 20th level 4e rogue's hp will most always be 117-121, (although you can raise it through at least toughness) 3.x rogue might have as low as 110 (12 base, +2 item), but the ones I've seen tended closer to around 150 (14 base, +4 item) or even higher, (admittedly, Dwarven rogues are popular in our group, due to their ability to auto detect certain traps).

As for the ability to bypass hp, that would be why SoD/S was so powerful, and they know that and that's why it's being removed.

I know this will come of as condescending, and I'll try to tone it down as much as possible, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about, this just isn't the kind of thing that can be easily deduced from reading previews, we're just going to have to wait until after D&D Experience, or after we play the game ourselves.

 

[mach1.9pants]

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.

I thought this at first but I think it is not correct.
I is a bit like looking at a 3E Wizard class description and a couple of 1st level spells and saying a 3E Wiz cannot dish out the damage. The Rogue (and I would imagine all other classes) will get his major damage from his powers, not his sneak attack. E.g. level 3 power: add 2d6 to your sneak attack damage 1/encounter; or what ever.

 

[Incenjucar]

My impression has been that the idea behind 4E combat was that you would spend about the same amount of time in a combat but get to take more actions within that time.

Essentially, an encounter may take half an hour, but instead of it lasting three rounds of ten minutes it lasts five rounds of six minutes.