D&D 3E/3.5 Will 4E combat actually run slowly...slower than 3E?

WhatGravitas

Explorer
howandwhy99 said:
Yes, I think maneuvers will slow the game, but they may be removing many elements from 3e that also do. I believe the developers are playing faster games with less prep needed rules-wise. As cool options for combat are one of the biggest selling points today, I think they'll be core. Not an option.
Additionally (at least in my experience), maneuvers speed up play: People who choose their maneuvers, usually get to know 'em pretty fast, because it's their goodie, while feats and general rules are less "sticky" and have to be looked up more often.

Additionally, maneuvers and spells can be easily transcribed on a little card, because they're self-contained little rule-packages, and hence easier to remember than the cross-referencing combat rules from a multi-page chapter.

Of course, YMMV.

Cheers, LT.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mort

Legend
Supporter
WotC_Logan said:
I can't say 4E fights are any shorter than 3.5's. However, that's with at least four more monsters on the table and the interesting decisions spread out more among players (and less rules lookup). The DM's turns go more quickly since there's less chaff in the monster stats.

I know it's early - but any way you can expand on this statement?

Lots of rumors floating around that Bo9S and MMV are inspirational for 4e.

Bo9S is a great book from the player perspective, but it's a bookkeeping nightmare from a DM viewpoint (for example, no way I'm using a crusader NPC without a pre-planned list of maneuvers recovered, and even then it's burdensome)

I'm looking at MMV right now and while I like the way the monsters are presented, I have to say all the listed abilities are going to be tough. I have a hard enough time remembering what a monster is capable of - giving a monster "if X then Y abilities" will significantly add to that burden (it may add to the play experience of the players, but at the expense of giving me a headache).
 

ruleslawyer

Registered User
Mort said:
Bo9S is a great book from the player perspective, but it's a bookkeeping nightmare from a DM viewpoint (for example, no way I'm using a crusader NPC without a pre-planned list of maneuvers recovered, and even then it's burdensome)
This is an issue that's already been addressed even in the scant preview, what with the "different rules for NPCs/monsters than for PCs." That said, I use hong's villain classes , which use Bo9S maneuvers and stances, and it hasn't slowed down my combats or builds one bit.
I'm looking at MMV right now and while I like the way the monsters are presented, I have to say all the listed abilities are going to be tough. I have a hard enough time remembering what a monster is capable of - giving a monster "if X then Y abilities" will significantly add to that burden (it may add to the play experience of the players, but at the expense of giving me a headache).
This is interesting, to be sure. I should probably take a read through MMV.
 

Zurai

First Post
Mort said:
Bo9S is a great book from the player perspective, but it's a bookkeeping nightmare from a DM viewpoint (for example, no way I'm using a crusader NPC without a pre-planned list of maneuvers recovered, and even then it's burdensome)

Crusaders are really easy. All you do is get a handful of index cards, write down the maneuvers they have readied, shuffle them, place the stack face down, and flip over the appropriate number of cards at the start of the fight and after each of the crusader's rounds. When you can't flip any more cards, shuffle them up and start over again.

Really, it's not hard. It's just a very small deck of playing cards. If you've ever played - or even watched someone play - any card game, you'll have no problem. I promise.
 

Darth Shoju

First Post
ruleslawyer said:
This is an issue that's already been addressed even in the scant preview, what with the "different rules for NPCs/monsters than for PCs." That said, I use hong's villain classes , which use Bo9S maneuvers and stances, and it hasn't slowed down my combats or builds one bit.

I just read that over. Would it be wrong for me to say "Hong is a genius"?

Because I think he just might be.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Darth Shoju said:
I just read that over. Would it be wrong for me to say "Hong is a genius"?

Because I think he just might be.

I'd say he's brilliant.
 

Attachments

  • Guiness.jpg
    Guiness.jpg
    200.2 KB · Views: 84


Glyfair

Explorer
Mort said:
Lots of rumors floating around that Bo9S and MMV are inspirational for 4e.

Actually, that's backward. They said they have been developing 4E for a while, so it's no surprise that things they were working on for 4E influenced things in Bo9S and Star Wars Saga edition (presumably MMV, too, but it wasn't specifically mentioned).
 

Stalker0

Legend
I don't think the maneuvers will be too bad. One thing about B09S is that your breadth of manuevers doesn't increase that much. You trade out low level manuevers for higher level ones. Because you recharge manuevers every encounter, you never consider using low level manuevers instead of high level ones. I think this will keep things quick. Wizards have to worry about resource management, but if your resources replenish after the encounter you don't have to fret as much.

The other advantage of maneuvers is they reduce die rolling. A high level fighter can make 4 attack rolls in a round, each with a different modifier to the roll (and that's not including twf). With maneuvers, you make a single roll with some added extra. Its quicker to run and calculate.
 

Moggthegob

First Post
...and by and large less efective. Bo9S when incorporating in my vcampaign slowed gameplay ruined some encounters and caused TPKS in others. In otherwords it was a mess and i honestly fee las thoguh id rather a fighter than a Warblad and a paladin rather than the Crusader. I could accept swordsage as a replacement for monk but thats only due to monk being supposed to be wierd.
 

Remove ads

Top