Speeding up combat: have you tried to halve hit points?

[Skyscraper]

Are you then saying that the player has to move and guess whether that will take one or two actions, but the DM then counts every player's moves and tells the players whether they have any action left in the round? If so, and with all due respect, that's a pretty bad idea It will take longer than usual since the DM will have to control every move by each player, and will foster player frustration like hell. Assume the player's purpose is to move then attack. He moves... but then:

DM: nope, you just went one square too far bud, so you can't attack this round".
Player: "But, I wanted to move and attack, can I change my move then, let me count, 1-2-3-4-5-6... To here?"
DM: "nope, you can't count squares. Your turn is up, see, you went 7 squares. Unless you have a minor you'd like to do?"
Player: "..."

Actually, before your last post I thought you were suggesting taking square-counting out of the equation completely. Both players and DM all forgetting about squares and the DM adjudicating whether a specific move is allowable or an OA, provoked. Sorta:

Player: "I wanna move and attack. I move to... here."
DM: "You can't get there. You can move up to that rock if you want to attack this round."
Player: "Here?"
DM: "Sure."

I actually think it's an idea worth considering, by the way Hopefully everyone gets a sense of how far one can move so many move actions are just "I move there", DM nods approval and that's it.

 

[Arctic Wolf]

On a sidenote Skyscraper, couldn't they move and then do a charge since it is a standard action or have I confused something? Sorry for interrupting the thread.

 

[Skyscraper]

On a sidenote Skyscraper, couldn't they move and then do a charge since it is a standard action or have I confused something? Sorry for interrupting the thread.

Curse you for being rules-relevant but thread-irrelevant!

 

[KarinsDad]

Are you then saying that the player has to move and guess whether that will take one or two actions, but the DM then counts every player's moves and tells the players whether they have any action left in the round? If so, and with all due respect, that's a pretty bad idea It will take longer than usual since the DM will have to control every move by each player, and will foster player frustration like hell. Assume the player's purpose is to move then attack. He moves... but then:

DM: nope, you just went one square too far bud, so you can't attack this round".
Player: "But, I wanted to move and attack, can I change my move then, let me count, 1-2-3-4-5-6... To here?"
DM: "nope, you can't count squares. Your turn is up, see, you went 7 squares. Unless you have a minor you'd like to do?"
Player: "..."

Nope. Not talking about that.

Actually, before your last post I thought you were suggesting taking square-counting out of the equation completely.

Nope. Not that either.

By square counting, I meant that the player shouldn't move his PC along a given path, then realizing that the PC isn't where the player wants him, starting at the original square all over again and trying again.

I don't care if the player counts the squares as he moves the miniature. I care if the player counts a different set of paths multiple times with or without moving the miniature, finds the absolutely best path by doing than, and then moves the miniature. If the player moves the miniature northeast by 1 square, then the player shouldn't be allowed to undo that partial move action. IMO. No takebacks.

From an in character perspective, the PC doesn't have this bird's eye view of the world and the PC doesn't have this level of omnipotence. The PC just moves in the general direction of where s/he wants to go and then either runs out of move for a move action, or doesn't.


As an example, I care if the player counts out loud the squares to determine how far he can move his zone without it winking out. Instead, I want the player to just move the zone. If it winks out, it winks out.

This doesn't stop a player from mentally counting squares before his or her turn comes up and then having the PC do the appropriate action. I just don't want a player taking his finger and counting out squares. Worse yet is when the player stares at the board and whispers under his breath "one, two, three". I find these types of things annoying and distracting and metagaming, and it jars me out of the feel of the moment.

Figure it out before your turn comes up.

There is no way to totally prevent metagaming (as an example, tactical table talk), I just want it to not be so overt as some players make it out to be. Just move the damn miniature and we'll sort it out if there is an issue.


The same with rolling the dice. Just roll the damn dice. If you roll a 3 or a 15, we usually don't have to sit there and add modifiers to figure out if you hit. I've seen players sit there and talk about all of the modifiers that apply on this attack, and add them all up out loud, and the rest of the people at the table are falling asleep as the player takes out a minute, just adding modifiers. 2 times out of 3, the group can tell by just looking at the die whether it hits or misses. On those 1 time in 3 when it might be close, then sit and figure out the modifiers. I cannot stand it when a player sits and figures out modifiers before rolling the dice. It drives me especially nuts when this happens and the player then rolls a 1 or a 20. All that wasted talk and time over nothing.


To me, combat isn't slow because there are too many monster hit points and too many rounds. Combat is slow because players aren't ready when their turn comes up, they don't know what they want to do, they want to talk out options with other players, and they don't just decide right away and roll the dice right away. Players tend to make combat slow, not necessarily the game mechanics.

 

[Arctic Wolf]

Curse you for being rules-relevant but thread-irrelevant!

It happens heh.

 

[Skyscraper]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]: okay, gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you on not counting squares then, we already work this way, at least pretty much.

To me, combat isn't slow because there are too many monster hit points and too many rounds. Combat is slow because players aren't ready when their turn comes up, they don't know what they want to do, they want to talk out options with other players, and they don't just decide right away and roll the dice right away. Players tend to make combat slow, not necessarily the game mechanics.

Yeah, I hear you. The thing is, I play with different people who play different systems, some of whom are quick to pick up new systems and some not that much; I also play with a few new players (some of which are quick, some not that much). And in the end, we've discussed these issues but they still crop up. So I have the choice of (a) brining this up all the time, but I don't feel like doing it because people are having fun nonetheless and butt-kicking for people to act quicker is not fun; or (b) choose playgroups that have only quick players in them, but we have fun with our slow(er) friends too, again this is not a solution I contemplate.

Really, I can point fingers at my gaming table to identify who takes longer to play, but in the end, my finger ends up pointing at the rules books as the main antagonist. People are people and I can't expect that'll change anytime soon. It's the game that should adapt to them, not the other way around. The 4E system is great, but too complex (read: to get a diversified group of people to play it and end battles in a reasonable time, for my taste. Not too complex in an absolute, is-it-understandable-at-all kind of way).