Rule of Three: March 13

[Dragonblade]

If 4e combats are taking too long thats a problem with the players and the DM wasting too much time. When my group was prepping to compete in the Ultimate Dungeon Delve, which is a timed convention event, we really examined 4e combat and how long it should take to play through a turn.

We determined that in almost every case, a player's turn takes time because they don't know their PC, they don't know the rules, or they aren't paying attention. If a player is chit chatting at the table and not paying attention to combat until their turn comes up, and then has to sit and have the battle recapped to them and then has to pore over their power list to decide, then yes combat will be slow. That's a truism that applies to all editions.

If you know the rules, your PC's powers, and have been paying attention, no player's turn in a 4e game, with rare exception, should ever take longer than 30 seconds to get through.

If I'm playing a simpler class like a Slayer, I can take my entire turn in under 10 seconds. As an experienced 4e DM running multiple monsters even with interrupts, I can still get through 5 or 6 monster's combat turns in under 5 minutes.

Once my group stopped wasting time and started making sure we knew our PC's and paid attention to what was going on in battle, combat length ceased to be an issue. We can regularly get through 4 or 5 full blown combat encounters in a 3 hour 4e gaming session and still have lots of RP scenes.

This isn't 4e specific either. 3e and even prior edition combat has the same issue. Player's not knowing the rules, their PCs, and not paying attention to what's going on are the reason that combat in any edition is slow. Interrupts may exacerbate things, but the real issue of slowness almost always lies with the group itself.

 

[Mattachine]

If 4e combats are taking too long thats a problem with the players and the DM wasting too much time. When my group was prepping to compete in the Ultimate Dungeon Delve, which is a timed convention event, we really examined 4e combat and how long it should take to play through a turn.

We determined that in almost every case, a player's turn takes time because they don't know their PC, they don't know the rules, or they aren't paying attention. If a player is chit chatting at the table and not paying attention to combat until their turn comes up, and then has to sit and have the battle recapped to them and then has to pore over their power list to decide, then yes combat will be slow. That's a truism that applies to all editions.

If you know the rules, your PC's powers, and have been paying attention, no player's turn in a 4e game, with rare exception, should ever take longer than 30 seconds to get through.

If I'm playing a simpler class like a Slayer, I can take my entire turn in under 10 seconds. As an experienced 4e DM running multiple monsters even with interrupts, I can still get through 5 or 6 monster's combat turns in under 5 minutes.

Once my group stopped wasting time and started making sure we knew our PC's and paid attention to what was going on in battle, combat length ceased to be an issue. We can regularly get through 4 or 5 full blown combat encounters in a 3 hour 4e gaming session and still have lots of RP scenes.

This isn't 4e specific either. 3e and even prior edition combat has the same issue. Player's not knowing the rules, their PCs, and not paying attention to what's going on are the reason that combat in any edition is slow. Interrupts may exacerbate things, but the real issue of slowness almost always lies with the group itself.

Well said, Dragonblade.

I think that when I look back on faster combats in an earlier edition, there were a few things at work:

1. Monsters had fewer hp in older editions, and tended to die sooner. Remember the 88 hp ancient red dragon?
2. Characters only took one action per turn.
3. My players and I didn't have electronics at the table. Without cell phones, ipads, and other devices, the game goes faster. Playing groups have to be firm about game time being engaged in playing the game.
4. We played much more AD&D, since we had more time on our hands back then. Consequently, we had greater knowledge of our PC capabilities, and greater system mastery.

 

[avin]

This isn't 4e specific either. 3e and even prior edition combat has the same issue. Player's not knowing the rules, their PCs, and not paying attention to what's going on are the reason that combat in any edition is slow.

3E took time due mostly to multiple attacks, in my experience.

4E took far more time... all the powers, all the options, interrupts...

And I can say it with a light heart, cause in combat therms I do prefer 4E. But it takes forever...

People will always waste time on RPG tables, always, and the system should help to avoid that.

 

[pauljathome]

Asking something be made optional? I'm all for it. Asking for something not to be printed in the base books lest it be considered 'core'? Too pathetic for words.

The following has all been said before but bears repeating. This "well, it will all be optional so it doesn't really matter" meme is, in my mind, probably the biggest problem with 5th ed.

The problem is that those options are NOT free.

The biggest problem is in the testing and balance of the game. The number of "games" that have to be tested explodes hugely with the number of options.

The more options there are, the greater chance that some weird combination becomes totally unbalanced.

There are also other costs. In no particular order:
1) The book becomes bigger and more expensive
2) The scope for miscommunication between GMs and players becomes larger
3) The game designers will spend less time on the OTHER options. Game designer time is a limited resource
4) The book becomes harder to read and harder to access during game play. When I look up "Stealth" in the index many of the entries will be optional modules that I'm just not using
5) Portability of game experience between games (the whole Gaming Network effect) is reduced. Possibly eliminated.
6) Writing of adventures becomes much, much harder

 

[JohnSnow]

I could actually get behind characters who "come into" their class abilities a bit more slowly.

However, I would opt for still giving 1st-level characters enough hit points to make them reasonably "tough/lucky." The best example I can give of this from fantasy fiction is the Emond's Fielders in The Eye of the World. As much as they weren't seasoned adventurers to start, they had some skills, and they were lucky enough to survive their early adventures. Part of that is that they weren't overwhelmed, and they knew when to run away, but in D&D, that means making sure the characters don't get one-shotted right away if they get jumped. And that means giving them a decent number of starting hit points.

I like the notion of a 1st-level fighter who starts out being proficient with only a few weapons, lighter armor, and only knows a few fighting styles. A 1st-level fighter should be an experienced town guard or member of the village militia - perhaps even the squire to a knight. The wizard might only know a few spells, and so forth.

That would work for me, so long as "1st-level character" doesn't mean "disposable."

 

[Dragonblade]

3E took time due mostly to multiple attacks, in my experience.

Agreed. Main contributors to 3e combat length are multiple attack rolls per PC coming from different sources, two weapon fighting, crit confirm rolls, iterative attacks at higher levels, casters running turns for one or more summoned monsters, not to the mention the DM running sometimes multiple creatures all who may have multiple attacks or spells as well that need looking up. Cascading buffs and debuffs, too many conditions with multiple fiddly modifiers, and dense complex rules that nearly always require a lookup in the rulebook (i.e. Grapple). I find the Pathfinder CMB system an improvement, but still woefully inadequate in addressing these issues.

4E took far more time... all the powers, all the options, interrupts...

And I can say it with a light heart, cause in combat therms I do prefer 4E. But it takes forever...

I don't mean to sound rude, but if your 4e combats are taking longer than 3e combats than something is wrong. All of that stuff I listed above? 4e does away with almost all of it. As a fan and player of both 4e and Pathfinder, I feel that I can state that as objective fact.

Most likely your players are taking too much time on their turn because they are looking up, or reading over powers they should already understand intimately, or aren't ready to act when their turn comes up. Rolling attacks and damage together can also help.

Once you know how to play 4e there should be little to no book lookup at the table needed. Things like OAs and Grab are simple and easy to understand. Often explainable in two sentences or less. 4e also has a more streamlined action economy with fewer rolls in many cases.

I hate using anecdotal evidence, but my group looks up a 4e rule maybe 1 out of every 10 encounters I run. In contrast, my group can't even play Pathfinder without the SRD pulled up on someone's PC, and multiple books constantly being flipped through.

In 4e, the entirety of a players powers are right there in front of them in small easy to digest blocks. Players need to study upfront and be sure they understand how their powers work and interact with the game, but once they do, they should never need to even open a book at the table exact to read up on the rare corner case issue.

Also, regardless of system, the DM needs to keep the game moving. For example, don't let players retroactively apply interrupt powers they forgot to use. If they didn't think of it when it came up, then too bad. They need to pay closer attention and use it next time.

People will always waste time on RPG tables, always, and the system should help to avoid that.

True. A system can help or contribute, but I think groups need to bear some responsibility as well.

 

[the Jester]

I like the answers. I'm continuing to feel good about pretty much everything we've seen so far.

If 4e combats are taking too long thats a problem with the players and the DM wasting too much time. ...

This isn't 4e specific either. 3e and even prior edition combat has the same issue. Player's not knowing the rules, their PCs, and not paying attention to what's going on are the reason that combat in any edition is slow. Interrupts may exacerbate things, but the real issue of slowness almost always lies with the group itself.

Well, it depends. I love 4e and am currently running it, but I think a lot of the problem with slow combat is systemic. Compare how long it takes to run the same adventure for a good group in 1e and in 4e- the 1e guys can finish something like Ghost Tower of Inverness in one session of play, while a 3e conversion takes... several. 4e, in my experience, is about as fast as mid level 3e play.

Between the proliferation of actions (3/round/combatant), various immediate and opportunity actions (okay, so often 4 or 5 actions per round), tactical considerations (draw an OA if I move here to gain the fountain of hooptie's bonus or stay in the terrain that lets enemies crit me on a 19-20?) and the amount of bookkeeping (okay, I'm taking ongoing 5 damage, ongoing 5 poison damage and I'm slowed... must notate damage, then make saves at the end of my turn...) there is simply far more to keep track of and to do, as well as tons more rolling, than there was pre-2e.

 

[Andor]

The following has all been said before but bears repeating. This "well, it will all be optional so it doesn't really matter" meme is, in my mind, probably the biggest problem with 5th ed.

The problem is that those options are NOT free.

The biggest problem is in the testing and balance of the game. The number of "games" that have to be tested explodes hugely with the number of options.

The more options there are, the greater chance that some weird combination becomes totally unbalanced.

There are also other costs. In no particular order:
1) The book becomes bigger and more expensive
2) The scope for miscommunication between GMs and players becomes larger
3) The game designers will spend less time on the OTHER options. Game designer time is a limited resource
4) The book becomes harder to read and harder to access during game play. When I look up "Stealth" in the index many of the entries will be optional modules that I'm just not using
5) Portability of game experience between games (the whole Gaming Network effect) is reduced. Possibly eliminated.
6) Writing of adventures becomes much, much harder

Who on earth said "It's optional so it doesn't matter"? Oh right, no one.

If 5e has lots of options placed in different modules, then at some point, even if everything in the core 3 books is somehow perfect, there will be unbalanced or broken combinations found.

Yes. Just like in 2e with skills and powers or 3e with all the books or 4e with all the books. So what? It's the nature of complex systems, and it's why we have GMs who are allowed to say "No."

Apparently some people feel it's an unfair burden to make the GM say no, but honestly it's part of the job. Otherwise no system is so balanced that a bully of a player cannot make the game a trainwreck.

The flipside is that without lots of modules 5e will fail.

Let me say that again: Without many playstyle modules 5e will utterly fail at its primary design goal.

5e is supposed to be the edition everyone can play at the same table remember? The grognards, the 3e/PF loyalists, the 4e fanatics, heck maybe even the Vampire players. And if they are going to accomodate everyone the system must be simple (at its base), robust, forgiving, and highly modular.

So if I want to run B2 I can do it. If I want Eberron I can do it. If I want LotR or Disgaea the RPG it should do that too.

A crit/fumble table is not going to be the straw that breaks that camels back.

 

[Dragonblade]

4e, in my experience, is about as fast as mid level 3e play.

I would say that's a fair assessment, with the caveat that 3e can swing to extremes depending on the class makeup and rules expertise of the players. Lots of spell casters slow things down, but an all melee group is probably pretty fast.

 

[Sunseeker]

0 level character rules were in 4e? Holy doughnuts I need to re-read my 4e books...oh...no wait I don't really care about 0-level.

Also while I do tend to start my games off higher than 1st level(with a few exceptions) this is mostly to my benefit to allow me dish out more hurt on the players with the assurance that I know they'll be equipped to handle it. I don't like the idea that you really "start" your class at 3rd level. Classes really don't get that many special abilities at first level, even if we include background abilities and racial stuff, I mean we're talking what, 10 things? That's not really that bad, and a good DM will help you get introduced to these concepts if you're new. But the idea of default packages being "layered in" over several levels just strikes me as forcing my hand when it comes to running games with more experienced players.