Slow combats

[Destil]

I've been wondering something along the same lines. I've been wondering whether DMs and module designers sometimes "pad up" the number of fights in an adventure or a module because they want the PCs to be at a certain level after the adventure or module, and the easiest way for the PCs to earn the necessary XPs is to have them fight combat encounters.

Interesting point. Personally I don't use XP, and the players level up "Whenever I feel like it" in my game (generally something like once a month). However I still end up wanting to pad out some adventures with fights more to chew up player resources and make them think twice about using dailies the first time their turn comes up. It's more the resource management for me.

 

[Stalker0]

For me, I don't mind starting slow, to give the PCs the opportunity to probe the monsters' defences and develop good tactics to use against them, but I want the pace of combat to pick up in the later rounds of a fight. So, I've decided to introduce the following "combat escalation" house rule in the campaign that I will be starting soon

From a mechanical standpoint, self correcting mechanics like these are the best way to correct flaws in game design....but they often have a big price that isn't picked up until Playtesting. Its what I like to call the "Dodge Problem" or the "Bard Bonus problem".

The dodge problem stems to the 3e dodge feat. Each round you declare your dodge target, and get a +1 to AC. Based on evidence I have seen speaking with many people on these boards....it is amazing how often people forget to declare their dodge target! In essence the feat becomes a complete waste...the bonus is only rarely applied.

Having played a bard for a while in a 3e game, the bard bonus is another often forgotten conditional bonus. I would provide my fellow players a +3 bonus to attack and damage....not a piddly amount by any stretch. Yet constantly I would have to remind them about the bard bonus.

I got a 20 attack roll....damn I missed!
Hey...did you remember the +3 to your attack roll?
Oh...a 23, I hit!

That would happen all the time.
So the moral is be careful about assuming mechanics introduced mid fight will solve your problem. Players that suddenly have to remember new bonuses may not remember them half as much as you would like.

 

[Stalker0]

The 50% hitpoint rule.

I've seen it many times on the boards, and each time I provide the same caution. The math doesn't tell you everything.

Or more precisely...your not looking at all the math


1) Mathematically when multiplying two numbers together, the closer they are to the "middle" the larger the result.

For example: 10 x 10 = 100. If I reduce the first 10 by 50% (5). I have to raise the second 10 by 100% (20) in order to get the same result.

That is the same with hitpoints x damage = monster threat. Reduce hitpoints by 50%, you will need a lot more damage to compensate (100%...which I believe later posts are starting to note).


2) 25 damage done over 2 rounds is NOT the same as no damage the first round and 50 done the second round. 4e healing allows a party to take continuous damage pretty well...but "shock" damage is different. Take your cleric for example. He takes 25 damage the first round and is now bloodied. Uses a healing word and he's back to full...no problem. Or....cleric takes no damage in the first round...is sitting pretty. Second round takes 50 damage and is knocked out....he can't heal himself now. When you bump up your damage...your increasing the "shock" factor.


3) 4e gives a strong allowance for players to take focused fire damage. And in a game where the default assumption is you are going to fight 5 monsters at once....its a good mechanic to have. So while any single hit doesn't do that much...5 hits on the same guy can suddenly leave him barely alive....but alive nonetheless. Bump up that damage though...and suddenly you might watch your player go from full hitpoints to dead in the blink of an eye. That might be what you are going for in your game...but if its not watch out.

4) Decreasing the number of combat rounds actually strengths PCs. PCs are like fireworks...they have big attacks but run out quickly, then relying on smaller ones. Monsters just keep going and going. The faster combat ends, the less at-wills a party had to rely on....which means they are stronger then they were.



So with all of those factors, here's my take home message: START SMALL!!

A 50% change in hitpoints is a huge alteration. Try 15%, 20%....and see how that goes. Run that for a while and see if its to your liking. The greater the change you make, the more likely other things will crop up you just didn't account for when running the numbers (like the points I mentioned...and others even I didn't think of).

 

[Elric]

The 50% hitpoint rule.

I've seen it many times on the boards, and each time I provide the same caution. The math doesn't tell you everything.

Or more precisely...your not looking at all the math


1) Mathematically when multiplying two numbers together, the closer they are to the "middle" the larger the result.

For example: 10 x 10 = 100. If I reduce the first 10 by 50% (5). I have to raise the second 10 by 100% (20) in order to get the same result.

That is the same with hitpoints x damage = monster threat. Reduce hitpoints by 50%, you will need a lot more damage to compensate (100%...which I believe later posts are starting to note).

Indeed, I pointed this out here and here. I make mostly the same points you make in this post, though in slightly different words. Great minds, great minds

 

[Jack99]

The 50% hitpoint rule.

I've seen it many times on the boards, and each time I provide the same caution. The math doesn't tell you everything.

Or more precisely...your not looking at all the math

Yes, I know.

1) Mathematically when multiplying two numbers together, the closer they are to the "middle" the larger the result.

For example: 10 x 10 = 100. If I reduce the first 10 by 50% (5). I have to raise the second 10 by 100% (20) in order to get the same result.

That is the same with hitpoints x damage = monster threat. Reduce hitpoints by 50%, you will need a lot more damage to compensate (100%...which I believe later posts are starting to note).

We have been over this, I believe...

2) 25 damage done over 2 rounds is NOT the same as no damage the first round and 50 done the second round. 4e healing allows a party to take continuous damage pretty well...but "shock" damage is different. Take your cleric for example. He takes 25 damage the first round and is now bloodied. Uses a healing word and he's back to full...no problem. Or....cleric takes no damage in the first round...is sitting pretty. Second round takes 50 damage and is knocked out....he can't heal himself now. When you bump up your damage...your increasing the "shock" factor.

We call it burst damage - and yes, you need to ensure that characters do not get 1-rounded.

3) 4e gives a strong allowance for players to take focused fire damage. And in a game where the default assumption is you are going to fight 5 monsters at once....its a good mechanic to have. So while any single hit doesn't do that much...5 hits on the same guy can suddenly leave him barely alive....but alive nonetheless. Bump up that damage though...and suddenly you might watch your player go from full hitpoints to dead in the blink of an eye. That might be what you are going for in your game...but if its not watch out.

Almost 300 hours in the same campaign, and I can not ever recall 5 monsters getting to attack the same character. Nor in the other campaigns. With dynamic combats and smart players, things like this rarely happen. And when it does, there is always healing or raise dead.

4) Decreasing the number of combat rounds actually strengths PCs. PCs are like fireworks...they have big attacks but run out quickly, then relying on smaller ones. Monsters just keep going and going. The faster combat ends, the less at-wills a party had to rely on....which means they are stronger then they were.

So on one hand, the players are weaker, because spikes of burst damage can kill them, but on the other, they are stronger because they will be using less at-wills? Sounds fairly balanced to me.

So with all of those factors, here's my take home message: START SMALL!!

A 50% change in hitpoints is a huge alteration. Try 15%, 20%....and see how that goes. Run that for a while and see if its to your liking. The greater the change you make, the more likely other things will crop up you just didn't account for when running the numbers (like the points I mentioned...and others even I didn't think of)

Thanks, I have been trying 25% for about 3 levels earlier in the campaign, so I think I am ready to try 50% - if that is okay with you.

 

[Rechan]

Jack, your last post comes off a little defensive. I don't think Stalker was talking directly to you, but to the thread as a whole/any who are thinking of fiddling with damage/HP, like the OP. Especially since he pointed out he sees the 50% Hp, 50% dmg posted a lot over the various boards.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Umm, BTW, what is Ars Ludi?????

 

[Stalker0]

Jack, your last post comes off a little defensive. I don't think Stalker was talking directly to you, but to the thread as a whole/any who are thinking of fiddling with damage/HP, like the OP. Especially since he pointed out he sees the 50% Hp, 50% dmg posted a lot over the various boards.

Correctamundo

 

[ggroy]

3) 4e gives a strong allowance for players to take focused fire damage. And in a game where the default assumption is you are going to fight 5 monsters at once....its a good mechanic to have. So while any single hit doesn't do that much...5 hits on the same guy can suddenly leave him barely alive....but alive nonetheless. Bump up that damage though...and suddenly you might watch your player go from full hitpoints to dead in the blink of an eye. That might be what you are going for in your game...but if its not watch out.

I think this may also depend on the composition of the party of players. In one case I DM'd, there was no controller type character and no characters that were experts in ranged weapon attacks.

In a level 1 encounter I made for this particular party, it consisted of all minions except for an evil spellcaster. For the spellcaster, it had a flaming sphere daily spell and a scorching burst at-will spell, but only 1 hit point. (I made it equal to a normal monster for XP purposes). In the encounter, the spellcaster was surrounded by minions which made it hard for the melee fighting type player characters to reach it. These layers of minions were also immune to all fire damage. Essentially the party had to grind through the layers of minions, while being bombarded constantly by scorching burst and flaming sphere attacks from the spellcaster. (Essentially the players were getting damage from both the minions fighting them and the spellcaster). By the time one of the players was able to reach the spellcaster and slaying it, the players were all out of healing surges by then.

I suppose this was an extreme example of "bumped up" damage, mainly coming from the evil spellcaster.

 

[Jack99]

Jack, your last post comes off a little defensive. I don't think Stalker was talking directly to you, but to the thread as a whole/any who are thinking of fiddling with damage/HP, like the OP. Especially since he pointed out he sees the 50% Hp, 50% dmg posted a lot over the various boards.

Thanks. I was just re-reading and realised that. Sorry to Stalker0 if I came off a little too defensive. I mis-read your intent and was in a mood at the same time.

Cheers