Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="IceFractal" data-source="post: 4068229" data-attributes="member: 27704">Well that's the thing - I wouldn't necessarily call it a "better" ratio.  Quick and deadly fits many settings just fine, sometimes much better than long and drawn out.  Secondly, you're assuming that it takes the same amount of time out-of-game - I'm contending that it would take more, as resolving the added move and swift actions takes time itself. Unless a fight took less than one round, everyone already got a chance to act.  Is it really three times as good to get three rounds with one attack each as one round with three attacks?  You're having the same amount of impact on the battle either way, and while this means less waiting between turns, it also means doing less on your turn.  However, they've previously stated that feats won't be as big a power factor in 4E, sticking to filling in gaps rather than adding to primary abilities.  And the feats we've seen seem to bear this out.   I should clarify this.  I'm not saying that a 30th level character should die instantly from a knife to the back.  I'm saying that between equal-level foes, completely getting the drop on someone should give you a big edge.  That is, if you manage to sneak up on a foe that would normally be an even fight, and jump them in their sleep - it shouldn't be a fair fight.  You should have a major advantage, and their best hope should be running away to fight under better conditions.  In 3E this was accomplished by the fact that a free round of attacks, especially from a whole party, was a significant influence on a battle.  If 4E fights all last 10+ rounds, then even the best ambush is of minor consequence.And this isn't just about making the PCs keep watch at night.  It's about sometimes encountering foes that outclass you, but being able to emerge triumphant through scouting, stealth, and changing the battlefield.  If 4E combat boils down to "either you can beat it through brute force or it's unbeatable", then I'm going to be sad.One last thing:Something that I've encountered in battles that went on too long is that at some point in the battle, the winning side became obvious, and the losing side was too far behind to be a threat.  Everything after that point is pretty much mopping up, and more than a round or two of that is just dull.So while high-level 3E battles lasting 1-2 rounds it too short, making battles too long can be just as bad, IMO.</blockquote>

Verification