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

[Lobsopdoy]

I too am interested in that.

 

[The Grackle]

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.

The length of a fight isn't really the trouble, it's the pace. When it takes four hours for two rounds of combat, that's lame. If it takes just as long, but a lot of stuff happens, no problem.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I thought that too. It doesn't sound any simpler or faster; just different.



That probably won't be so bad, since feats/maneuvers will never be as numerous as spells.

What I'm worried about is that every class could have abilities to buff allies. Then it wouldn't just be the cleric's spells and the bard's song, but a fighter's maneuvers and whatever else. It's the same problem as 3e where there are a hundred +1s to keep track of.

I was thinking that instead of bonus types, there could be a rule that says that you can only get one bonus per character on any given category like to hit, damage, AC, Fort save, etc. So if you have a bonus to hit from the cleric's spell, if he gives you a second bonus from, say, an aura, you take the better of the two and ignore the other. That way, for any given category you'll have a fairly low cap on the number of effects you need to track. There could also be a cap on the number of buffs you can carry, period. So if you hit (let's say) five buff effects, that's it. If you want to increase your AC, and you already have five buffs, you have to drop one. Or, set it up so that there's no more than one buff per category. You can only ever have one buff to AC at a time, so just go with the best one.

 

[howandwhy99]

If you look at SWSE and Bo9S, many maneuvers and talents are "roll again" powers. There are all different types of situations and qualifications, but most are either "Roll Again & Keep" or "Roll Again & Choose".

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.

 

[Grog]

If the "dragon fight" column is any indication, the numbers in 4E will be even more ridiculous than in 3E. A thousand hit points for a dragon? When we're dealing with numbers like one thousand, that looks to be an indication that modifiers are going to be numerous and crazy.

A great wyrm red dragon has 660 hit points in 3.5, and that's without any of the numerous buff spells it can cast. It's not that big a leap.

 

[Korgoth]

A great wyrm red dragon has 660 hit points in 3.5, and that's without any of the numerous buff spells it can cast. It's not that big a leap.

Given that I think 3E sucks, that's not helping.

I don't think dragons should even have 100 hp (close, but let's keep it to 2 digits, eh?). So at this rate it's looking like 4E will be about 10% of the game I think it should be. Too bad.

 

[RangerWickett]

Given that I think 3E sucks, that's not helping.

I don't think dragons should even have 100 hp (close, but let's keep it to 2 digits, eh?). So at this rate it's looking like 4E will be about 10% of the game I think it should be. Too bad.

I'm guessing PCs shouldn't have more than 20 hp then?

As long as there are easy rules for climbing onto the back of a dragon and stabbing it from a position where it can't attack back (and no, the grappling rules don't work here), I'll be happy.

 

[Korgoth]

I'm guessing PCs shouldn't have more than 20 hp then?

As long as there are easy rules for climbing onto the back of a dragon and stabbing it from a position where it can't attack back (and no, the grappling rules don't work here), I'll be happy.

Depends what level. I don't see why a Name level PC shouldn't have roughly as many HP as a mighty dragon.

 

[Baron Opal]

I don't think dragons should even have 100 hp (close, but let's keep it to 2 digits, eh?). So at this rate it's looking like 4E will be about 10% of the game I think it should be.

How many hit points should it have? How much damage should a 15th level fight dish out? Why is triple digit hit points aestheticly displeasing?

 

[Baron Opal]

1. With the addition of all the new time segments....will the game actually run smoothly?

2. Now that the other classes have what I will refer to as "special maneuvers", will we have to sit around the table waiting for the fighter to pick his attack maneuver much like the wizard of old had to sit around and pick his spells?

I am a little concerned about that as well. Right now, reading SWSE, I can hand the newbie players in my group a blue, red and white chip and explain standard, move and swift actions that way. They can "spend" the chips and quickly grasp that a blue chip (standard action) can buy a white action activity (drop something). More than that seems to be too much for even a visual aide. There are, what, 5-6 different actions right now in 3.5? I hope that simplifies in 4e.

I don't have the Tome of Battle, but I can see option paralysis affecting the fighter now, too. However, the fighters have the basic option of "I smack him" that they can default to if things get really hairy and they need to make a quick decision. Wizards don't really have that option now. Sure, they can fire a crossbow but that has some logisitical issues that a fighter with a sword doesn't have. I imagine in 4e there will be a magic missle equivalent that does 1d6 + 1/2 level or so in damage that a magician can default to in similar circumstances.