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

[S'mon]

I halve all monster hit points and healing surge values. Works great IMO. I also typically increase monster numbers by around 50% to maintain overall threat level - this can lead to first round kills on the PCs though, esp if I use Elites.

 

[LostSoul]

This sounds pretty much how I ran all my combats pre-3e. The only question I have is when do the monsters go once the fight has started? Just when you feel it's appropriate? Once the PCs have all done their thing?

Everyone goes at the same time.

[sblock]What happens is that everyone declares their action(s) for the round, such as:

DM: The 3 giant ants are charging your henchman who fell into the hole.
PC: I am drawing my rope and throwing it down to my henchman, then pulling him out.
Henchman: He's grabbing the rope and climbing out.

All those things happen at the same time. As the PC gets out the rope and the henchman starts climbing, the ants are charging. In this case the Henchman would get some modifiers to Defence (+2 for a defensive action and +4 for being pulled 20' out of range of the ants - out of the hole). If the ants miss, either they didn't get there in time or they missed.

I like it much better than turn-based initiative. Combat feels real and chaotic. At one point I used turn-based in this system, but ditched it because it caused too many headaches.[/sblock]

 

[KarinsDad]

What happens is that everyone declares their action(s) for the round, such as:

DM: The 3 giant ants are charging your henchman who fell into the hole.
PC: I am drawing my rope and throwing it down to my henchman, then pulling him out.
Henchman: He's grabbing the rope and climbing out.

All those things happen at the same time. As the PC gets out the rope and the henchman starts climbing, the ants are charging. In this case the Henchman would get some modifiers to Defence (+2 for a defensive action and +4 for being pulled 20' out of range of the ants - out of the hole). If the ants miss, either they didn't get there in time or they missed.

I like it much better than turn-based initiative. Combat feels real and chaotic. At one point I used turn-based in this system, but ditched it because it caused too many headaches.

We tried these types of systems a few decades back. They can be used, but there are good mechanical reasons why many game systems dropped them (and action time based systems) for circular turn-based systems.

The problem is that it's all at the whim of the DM.

For example, one DM states that the Ants charge while the PC is getting out the rope, hence, there is no +4 bonus to defense because the rope isn't there (or because the rope might be there, but the PC hasn't yet pulled it) before the Ants actually attack. In your example, not only does the PC get the rope out, but he manages to throw an end to the henchmen, he manages to hang on to the other end, the henchmen manages to get a good grip, and he manages to pull the henceman significantly fast enough to give him an extra +4 to defense (which is a huge bonus). Are the Ants 200 feet away??? The DM is also giving the henchmen a +2 to defense for the defensive action of climbing whereas a different DM would give the henchmen a -2 penalty for climbing.

It's not that it's more real and chaotic, it's that the DM decides a lot of rules that normal 4E already has baked in. On a good day, the DM gives the PCs all of these actions and bonuses in the small fraction of time that the Ants charge. On a bad day (or with a different DM), the PCs only get some of the actions done in a single round, cannot react in time to manage all of these actions or the modifiers might be totally different.

It takes a lot of trust and forbearance on the part of the players. "Last week, I got a bonus for climbing, but this week, I'm getting a penalty. WT?". That tends to work with groups that have been tor together a long time, but it tends to not work so well with pick up games. It's not that the results are more chaotic than the normal game system, is that the rules are more chaotic than the normal game system.

Some of your rules sound strange as well. "pushing him back down into the hole gives you a +2 to AC". I have no idea the rationale behind this, especially if I miss with the attack. So as a player, I would be wondering why the heck the DM is handing out this bonus to AC for using Tide of Iron. The power doesn't give this bonus out. So regardless of whether I hit or miss, the monster gets a penalty to hit me because everything is happening at the same time and just the declaration of which attack I am using changes the outcome of the encounter, regardless of whether I hit or miss with that power. Or alternatively, if I hit I get the bonus to AC, but if I miss I don't, so we cannot necessarily adjudicate the results of the Ant's attack until we adjudicate my attack.

I also might ask a question "Why am I getting an AC bonus?" where stopping to talk about it would slow up the encounter. In normal 4E, I know what the bonuses are and why they are there for the most part. The rules are laid out for the players as well as the DM. There is the occasional question, but multiple random on the fly bonuses and penalties are not typically part of the game system.

So like I said, it takes a certain type of group who is just willing to go with the flow and not question the DM's whims as opposed to a group that likes concrete rules. These type of DM controlled modifiers are similar to the DM rolling his dice in private. Some players are ok with that, other players feel that DM whims of changing the dice results shouldn't be part of the game system. It smacks too much of DM railroading the story and results, and a lack of DM fairness to follow the same rules as the players.

Personally, I think that decades ago, D&D combat systems were not as mature as they are now and DM on the fly adjudication in combat was more required. Anymore, the game systems are mature and flexible enough that this type of "seat of the pants" DMing during combat is less desirable, especially in pick up games.

 

[Skyscraper]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION]: though I agree with much of what you state with regards to specific examples taken from Lostsoul's explanation, for example the +2 to AC resulting from use of Tide of Iron that I find odd and rather arbitraty and also that it's likely I would not agree with many rulings by DMs that use this kind of arbitrary approach, I do think that a system like 4E has failed to mature into a practical gaming system, to use the expression you put forward.

In battle, 4E has become more of a table-top tactical board game, the battles take a long time to resolve (unless you play with a group of experienced RPG-ers that know their PCs perfectly - and even then) and the 4E mechanics have failed in several aspects to provide interesting role-playing opportunities IMO. I don't know whether I'm ready to revert back to a DM-oriented playstyle that I played for a long time - and was quite comfortable DMing - but I clearly do not think that I would refer to 4E has being the quintescence of maturity. It is clear to me now that 4E has been very, very appealing in theory, but in practice has failed to deliver. (And I've played it a lot.)

And yet, it looked so good. When I saw it, I was under the impression that they had hit the sweet spot big time.

What was lost? Well, to me, for a RPG experience to be really entertaining, it requires us to find way to put some of those story elements back into battle, to have the fighter decide that he'll push the ant into the hole without the player counting squares on the battlemap and wondering wether they'll be an OA if the ant climbs back up, etc... We need to switch back to our imaginations more, for my taste.

What is a mature gaming system? You have your idea; I don't think it coincides with mine. Maturity might well be the act of having to accept the other person's ideas (even a DM that adjudicates differently than I would); not necessarily the act of being bound to follow very strict rules that forbid you from free-forming.

 

[KarinsDad]

In battle, 4E has become more of a table-top tactical board game, the battles take a long time to resolve (unless you play with a group of experienced RPG-ers that know their PCs perfectly - and even then) and the 4E mechanics have failed in several aspects to provide interesting role-playing opportunities IMO. I don't know whether I'm ready to revert back to a DM-oriented playstyle that I played for a long time - and was quite comfortable DMing - but I clearly do not think that I would refer to 4E has being the quintescence of maturity. It is clear to me now that 4E has been very, very appealing in theory, but in practice has failed to deliver. (And I've played it a lot.)

And yet, it looked so good. When I saw it, I was under the impression that they had hit the sweet spot big time.

What was lost? Well, to me, for a RPG experience to be really entertaining, it requires us to find way to put some of those story elements back into battle, to have the fighter decide that he'll push the ant into the hole without the player counting squares on the battlemap and wondering wether they'll be an OA if the ant climbs back up, etc... We need to switch back to our imaginations more, for my taste.

What is a mature gaming system? You have your idea; I don't think it coincides with mine. Maturity might well be the act of having to accept the other person's ideas (even a DM that adjudicates differently than I would); not necessarily the act of being bound to follow very strict rules that forbid you from free-forming.

Everyone's ideas are different in this regard. I do think that a game system that has simple rules that handle 95% of combat situations is better than a freeform system where the DM changes his mind from week to week. A system with decent rules where too much on the fly modifiers do not have to be used is, to me, what I consider a mature system.

4E falls apart in some areas. Specifically, having too many conditions and effects with too many differing durations, and too much bookkeeping to keep track of all of this. It also has too many options for many players to handle. Sure, when it's 2 At Wills, 1 Encounter, and 1 Daily at first level, it's pretty darn simple. But by 21st level when the player has at least a dozen and possibly more options, it starts getting daunting. Finally, it has no meta-rules for power, item, and feat creation balance, hence, the designers did what was cool as opposed to what was cool and balanced and pertinent to a given power source. That is why some powers suck and others are errata-ed.

I'm a firm believer in not giving the DM the power to do whims in combat though. I'm not playing LARP. I prefer solid rules. With regard to adding more story into combat, I personally don't see the need for the game system to do this. The narrative portion of that can be handled by the DM and players to whatever level they wish without changing rules or adding a bunch of free form modifiers on the fly. Imagination can be handled in the game without resorting to yanking out the game elements that allow a player to intimately understand the situation as if he were there (which miniatures and squares give players).

One way to get past your issue of counting squares (which I too dislike) is to prevent players from counting squares. Move the PC along the path that the PC is moving. If you've moved too far to still get in a standard action, I'll let you know as DM. Kind of like the touch rule in chess. You cannot take your miniature back to the starting square and start your move over, just because you picked a poor path. As a player, you can be alert enough to not make a mistake, but I guarantee that mistakes happen in all games. Oh well. Players, especially in 4E, have a birds eye view of the situation, so they already have an advantage over discriptive forms of combat without miniatures.

I really don't want to go back to the days when the DM described the situation and 3 different players had 3 different ideas about what the DM just said, and the 4th guy who was drinking his Coke never heard the DM at all. Some people are more visually capable than audibly capable. Miniatures and squares and colorful images of an area give a much greater visual "in character" feel than all of the verbal description did for many decades. And online tools can make that even better. If I can see a bed on the board, I don't need the DM wasting time describing it as a bed. He can spend his time describing what's on the bed instead. The generalities are in front of me and the DM is describing unique specific things. I also know that the bed is within 5 feet of my PC, I don't need the DM asking me why I am doing a given action because I am 30 feet from the bed in his mind, but right next to the bed in my mind like the old days.

Sometimes, the good old days weren't that good. There were pros and cons then, there are pros and cons now.

 

[LostSoul]

Thanks for the analysis, KD; I think you bring up good points.

The problem is that it's all at the whim of the DM.

That's pretty true. One way that I hope to deal with this problem is by limiting the number of modifiers. You can get a total of +6 to attack based on what's happening. Defences can be higher, though.

Attack mods are:
Associated skill applies - +2 (I use a different skill system)
Situational combat advantage - +2
Following up on last successful action - +2

Defence mods are:
Target has situational advantage - +2
Target moves out of range in the round - +2 per 5’ out of range
Target has superior cover - +5
Target’s only action is to defend - +2
You are attempting a called shot w/o a power - +2
You cannot see the target - +5

I'm less sure about the Defence mods; still seems like too much.

For example, one DM states that the Ants charge while the PC is getting out the rope, hence, there is no +4 bonus to defense because the rope isn't there (or because the rope might be there, but the PC hasn't yet pulled it) before the Ants actually attack.

When the modifiers are applied, we don't know: if the ants are there before the PC is able to get out the rope, if they show up after but while the henchman is still within striking distance, or if they show up after the henchman scrambles up the slope of the hole.

What we do know is what a character can accomplish in a round.

A PC can pull out the rope and throw it and pull in the course of a regular round. That'd be a minor (get rope) and standard action (throw it and pull). That's what the PC does, and that's what will happen; we don't know yet if that happens before the ants reach the henchman.

The henchman can grab the rope and use it to help him climb out of the pit in a round. That'd be a minor (get rope) and move action (climb out of the pit). That's what he does, and that's what will happen; we don't know yet if that happens before the ants reach him.

The ants can charge the PC. That'd be a standard (charge) action. That's what they do, and that's what will happen; we don't know yet if the ants will reach him, nor if they'll be able to penetrate his armour with their mandibles.

(The ants could have climbed out of the hole, since they have a climb speed, but I didn't declare that as their action. Two reasons: first, is that they're stupid (a flimsy excuse!); the second is that I wanted to show the player of the henchman how moving out of range of an attack works when everyone goes at the same time.)

Now if we used 4E's standard initiative system, depending on who wins init, this could happen:
PC gets out rope, throws it to his henchman, and pulls him out
Henchman draws bow, shoots it at ants
Meanwhile, the ants are just standing around, watching.

That - the ants standing around, doing nothing, while the PCs take their actions - is really jarring to me.

In your example, not only does the PC get the rope out, but he manages to throw an end to the henchmen, he manages to hang on to the other end, the henchmen manages to get a good grip, and he manages to pull the henceman significantly fast enough to give him an extra +4 to defense (which is a huge bonus). Are the Ants 200 feet away??? The DM is also giving the henchmen a +2 to defense for the defensive action of climbing whereas a different DM would give the henchmen a -2 penalty for climbing.

Now for modifiers:
Since the henchman is going to end up out of the hole, which is 20' away from the ant's charge, he gets that +4 bonus. Hmm, I guess that should have been a meaty +8. Maybe I'll change that to +1 per 5'.

The henchman is just moving away. Since he's getting a rope thrown down to him he doesn't have to climb so much as scramble up the side (it was a sloped pit; he didn't take damage for falling in). I figured that was good enough for a purely defensive action, or +2. (Maybe I should tighten up the language.)

If the PC hadn't thrown that rope, then the climb would have been more difficult, and probably not a defensive action. Though still not enough to give the ants a +2 to attack.

Then we roll and see if the PC gets the rope to him and if he gets out of the hole or not. In fact, when we played, he didn't; the ants got to him and, while he ended up out of the hole (as was his action), he collapsed at the end of it.

It's not that it's more real and chaotic, it's that the DM decides a lot of rules that normal 4E already has baked in. On a good day, the DM gives the PCs all of these actions and bonuses in the small fraction of time that the Ants charge. On a bad day (or with a different DM), the PCs only get some of the actions done in a single round, cannot react in time to manage all of these actions or the modifiers might be totally different.

Yeah, I feel that it's necessary to have human judgement in order to allow fictional causes to have an effect on resolution.

Though all DMs should allow the PCs to get all those actions done in a single round, since clearly the rules state that they can.

Some of your rules sound strange as well. "pushing him back down into the hole gives you a +2 to AC". I have no idea the rationale behind this, especially if I miss with the attack. So as a player, I would be wondering why the heck the DM is handing out this bonus to AC for using Tide of Iron. The power doesn't give this bonus out. So regardless of whether I hit or miss, the monster gets a penalty to hit me because everything is happening at the same time and just the declaration of which attack I am using changes the outcome of the encounter, regardless of whether I hit or miss with that power. Or alternatively, if I hit I get the bonus to AC, but if I miss I don't, so we cannot necessarily adjudicate the results of the Ant's attack until we adjudicate my attack.

The +2 bonus is there because the ant's below you and you're putting your shield in his face and shoving him down. There's a situational advantage to the defender there - the ant's below him on slope of the hole.

Now if you did a wild overhand swing that situational advantage might dry up.

We don't need to know if you hit or not to know that you have an advantage.

 

[KarinsDad]

The +2 bonus is there because the ant's below you and you're putting your shield in his face and shoving him down. There's a situational advantage to the defender there - the ant's below him on slope of the hole.

The PC is already getting a +2 shield bonus. Why is the PC getting a second +2 bonus for his shield? If a foe were above the PC or to the left, or right, the PC would still be putting his shield in the foe's face. Why not give the Ant a +2 bonus to hit as it surprise attacks the PC from an unexpected direction as it climbs over the shield because the PC cannot see the Ant because the PC is putting his shield in the way? What does attacking from above or below or any other direction have to do with anything?

Do you see how totally arbitrary your adjudication is? The game is abstract, but I could come up with a dozen different arbitrary reasons to put in bonuses or penalties right or left. The idea is to not do this except in the most extreme situations. That gives the game consistency.

Another problem with your "on the fly" system is that the player who can convince you as DM "I'm doing xyz, that should give me a bonus" will likely get his bonus if his rationale sounds convincing enough whereas the player who is shy, or not quite as witty, or not quite as smart might come up with a stupid rationale which you won't give a bonus for, or might come up with no rationale at all. The second player's PC might have an Int of 18, but the player is not capable of coming up with the good combat rationales that you are looking for, so the PC doesn't get the bonuses (shy of the DM being generous).

Personally, I don't like systems that can penalize a player at the table (or alternatively give an advantage to another player) because of how the DM feels (or what random thoughts go through the DM's head) at a given point in time or how convincing a player can come up with a rationale. The combat system should be equally fair for all players if their PCs have the same capabilities and do the same actions in combat, regardless of the narrative abilities of the players.

The narrative abilities of a player should not change the modifiers to an attack at all.

The player declares: "I do an overhand chop with my sword" shouldn't result in a bonus. The overhand chop (or underhand chop or thrust or low shot or high shot or whatever) is part of how the PC attacks. Attacking from above or below or around the crate or over the shoulder of my ally (with a reach weapon) shouldn't result in any surprise or other advantage. It's all built into the system already with the bonuses already.

There are times where the PC should get combat advantage, but those times are part of the rules. If the DM is going to add additional times or additional rules, then the DM should list those in a house rules list ahead of time so that the players know what to expect. It shouldn't be arbitrary, and on the fly, and vary from encounter to encounter. The rules should stay consistent. IMO.

 

[LostSoul]

The PC is already getting a +2 shield bonus. Why is the PC getting a second +2 bonus for his shield? If a foe were above the PC or to the left, or right, the PC would still be putting his shield in the foe's face.

I don't think you can just put your shield in someone's face. Most combatants have a "guard" that's hard to get through - unless they're doing something like climbing up a slope head-first.

Luckily one of the players is training in medieval combat, so I can ask him if my rulings make sense.

Why not give the Ant a +2 bonus to hit as it surprise attacks the PC from an unexpected direction as it climbs over the shield because the PC cannot see the Ant because the PC is putting his shield in the way? What does attacking from above or below or any other direction have to do with anything?

The ant didn't have surprise. The ant didn't climb over the PC's shield, it snapped at his legs. The PC didn't take his eyes off the ant. Attacking from an advantageous position is, from what I'm told, very important in medieval combat.

Do you see how totally arbitrary your adjudication is? The game is abstract, but I could come up with a dozen different arbitrary reasons to put in bonuses or penalties right or left. The idea is to not do this except in the most extreme situations. That gives the game consistency.

Not really, no. The system here isn't that abstract. We know where the characters are and what they are doing and I base my rulings on that. I do my best to ensure that my rulings are consistent and impartial.

The combat system should be equally fair for all players if their PCs have the same capabilities and do the same actions in combat, regardless of the narrative abilities of the players.

It's not hard at all to get a +2 bonus to attack or defence. It's not supposed to be hard. What it's supposed to do is pull you into the game world. That's the goal.

Attacking from above or below or around the crate or over the shoulder of my ally (with a reach weapon) shouldn't result in any surprise or other advantage. It's all built into the system already with the bonuses already.

Obviously I find the system lacking.

There are times where the PC should get combat advantage, but those times are part of the rules. If the DM is going to add additional times or additional rules, then the DM should list those in a house rules list ahead of time so that the players know what to expect. It shouldn't be arbitrary, and on the fly, and vary from encounter to encounter. The rules should stay consistent. IMO.

I already posted the list of modifiers. I put them on the character sheet, too, along with all the other procedures for combat. They're on the page opposite the PC's combat stats.

 

[Skyscraper]

Everyone's ideas are different in this regard. I do think that a game system that has simple rules that handle 95% of combat situations is better than a freeform system where the DM changes his mind from week to week.

I totally agree with you here. The problem is, of course, that I have yet to see simple rules that handle 95% of the combat situations.

One way to get past your issue of counting squares (which I too dislike) is to prevent players from counting squares. Move the PC along the path that the PC is moving. If you've moved too far to still get in a standard action, I'll let you know as DM.

Yes, perhaps removing the square counting could be good. I had not contemplated that option yet. I'll think about it.

But then, are you... gasp!... suggesting that the DM's whim might be called upon?

 

[KarinsDad]

But then, are you... gasp!... suggesting that the DM's whim might be called upon?

How do you figure? If the player moves his PC 7 squares, but only has 6 squares of movement and then attempts to do a Standard action on his turn, how is it DM whim for the DM to say that the PC has already used up 2 move actions? That's the DM just following the rules.