Wrong facts about D&D3 combat?

[Jeff Wilder]

I play in two campaigns, at 12th and 15th level, and DM one at 11th level.

IME, at 15th level the fights are usually shorter, because "one round, one kill" becomes more common. The exceptions usually mean that things have gone badly, badly wrong for the PCs.

For example, in our last combat, we fought six hyped-up super-gargoyles, and we struggled with them for several rounds, because my half-ogre war hulk doesn't fly. Once they figured out how to get the hulk in the air, he dealt about 190 damage -- to each gargoyle -- in a single round. Encounter over.

Or, in an example going the other way, we were nuked by undead with area of effect negative energy, and if our DM hadn't had the bad guys behave suboptimally, we would have been TPKed in three rounds, tops.

(We're deliberately not tactically or strategically perfect in-game. I'm well aware that a 15th level bruiser without flight will have issues like this, and I'd rather deal with them than systematically try to eliminate every possible weakness in my PC. The other players feel similarly.)

On the other hand, I think we're still in the "attrition wins the battle" phase, in both of the mid-level games, and combats tend to take in the vicinity of eight to 10 rounds. The shorter exceptions tend to be because the PCs have time to buff, which of course effectively means they're operating at high-level, rather than mid-level. The (rare) longer exceptions are usually just really tough battles (CR +3 or higher, but with multiple monsters, rather than an overwhelming enemy).

As far as the single opponent thing goes, it's significantly less common than multiple opponents. In the AoW adventure path, we're rarely facing single opponents. My personal preference as a DM designing encounters is usually a balanced pair or trio, or else a leader with multiple weaker underlings. (A Huge white dragon, for instance, with a couple of frost giant slaves.) I don't personally find multiple identical enemies very interesting, as DM or player.

The biggest factor I've observed in combat being slow is the indecisive player. We all hem and haw through our turns occasionally, especially when we're playing complex characters, but IME some players habitually take much longer than others. (In fact, I need to talk to a player about this.) Not only does it objectively eat more clock, the pacing and excitement of the combat often crashes while a player is decision-paralyzed, and that can make time seem to pass even more slowly, and it's difficult to recover from.

 

[el-remmen]

First of all, here is a thread discussing some combat length (in rounds) stats I collected for the first 25 sessions of my current 3E campaign: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...cs-first-25-sessions-my-current-campaign.html

We are scheduled to play session #44 tomorrow, so six more after that and I will update that thread to see how thing have changed/not changed.

I have recently started trying to time the combats in real time and find that we are spending something like 10 to 20 minutes a round depending on the # of combatants. I would like to speed this up - but I want more data first - the problem with timing the combat is that there are often interuptions (dinner, phone calls, children that need attending to, etc. . .) and I forget to stop the clock.

The group is made up of 6 PCs and there are usually 1 to 2 NPC allies. Most of the combats are against multiple opponents.

Also, I have never run a game past 12th level and don't have much desire to.

Anyway, to address your questions/statements:

• Combats take a long time - I would have to say yes, but so far this has never been an issue for me and my group (except for one player who would probably prefer them to be slightly shorter. However, we can easily go from several sessions with a lot of combat, to several sessions with no combat. It evens out.
• Combats are short, 1-3 rounds - I would have to say no. Our average length in rounds is upward of 8 rounds. A handful are three or four rounds and there are occasional epic knockdown drag-out running battles that have taken 25 or 30 or more rounds.
• Combat is the PCs vs. one opponent - I would have to say no. Usually there are at least as many opponents as PCs if not more. At time they fought mixed groups of a score of goblins, wargs and an ogre (for example). Humans and humanioids are the most common foes in my games - I keep the truly monstrous rare because I like keeping them awe-inspiring and well. . . monstrous

And for the record, I agree with Bullgrit that the impression I get from the boards is that the complaints he lists are general complaints with 3.xE that only get worse as you go up in level. Perhaps a lot of people see 10th+ level as the "normal" levels of play and that is the case - but for me that is near the end of a campaign not the middle (in my games PCs advance at about the rate of 2.5 levels of real-time year - playing about every two weeks)

 

[Obryn]

All I can say is that your experiences are different from mine. Ain't variety wonderful?

-O

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I thought it was called the sweet spot because it is where 3e works best, not because it was what most people played...

I think these two are closely related. If it's the most enjoyable level range, people will also focus more on that naturally.

---

I am not sure if it's a "wrong fact" or a misrepresentation or misuse of the rules. The basic encounter guidelines suggest EL = PL encounters as a baseline, but they also allow more monsters and higher EL per encounter.

I currently have only the 3.0 DMG ready here. On p.102 Table 4-2 tells us the typical expected encounter difficulties (for "tailored" encounters. There are of course no encounter design guidelines for non-tailored encounters, since that part would be world/sandbox building. )
[sblock]
10% are easy (EL < PL)
20 % Easy if handled properly (Typically you need to figure out the dangerous monster in the encounter and take it down, or somethingl ike that. THe example is a invisible Cleric healing Ogres)
50 % Challenging (EL = PL)
15 % very Difficult (EL = PL +1 to PL+4)
5 % Overpowering (EL = PL +5 or higher)

I remember the DMG 3.5 also containing information on how much resources were to be expended per encounter.
Something as defined as "challenging" should cost 20 or 25 %, IIRC. So this would suggest you'd run through 4 challenging encounters before you need rest.
[/sblock]
Okay, where was I going with that? Well, first the tables don't tell us how many monsters to use. A few things that might become notable with experience though is.
1) A "challenging" encounter doesn't feel that challenging if you have all that arcana and divine power at your disposal, and heal away all damage with your Curesticks.
2) A "challenging" encounter with multiple monsters will feel very one-sided, since the monsters barely hit and are easily hit by the PCs.
3) Calculating EL for multiple monster with varying CR seems sometimes a little bizarre (though you can actually guesstimate it easily...)

I wouldn't be surprised if that lead to people to use harder encounters then challenging ones by just picking higher level opponents instead of building bigger monster groups.

---

How short combats are measured in rounds depends on:
- Do you use a lot of save or die effects (typically for high level play)?
- Do you optimize your power attack
- Do you powergame.

How long combats take in real life depend on:
- Does it involve ability changing effects (buffs and debuffs)
- Does it involve Dispel Magic?
- Does it involve Grappling, Tripping, Disarms or Sunders (extra dice rolls and rounds - you might neutralize your enemy, but you still need to kill him afterwards, and his round doesn't get shorter just because he is using an ineffective weapon. It doesn't matter much whether you roll for 1d4+5 damage or for 3d6+18 damage)

Another time-consuming aspects regarding combat was typically the "pre-combat buffing ceremony".
- Cast Heroes Feast.
- Who gets the Greater Magic Armor/Weapon spells?
- Who gets the Magic Circle vs Evil?
- Who is preparing the ability restoration spells?
And generally all the "who prepares what and what do we need to do now."

 

[Obryn]

If levels 4-10 are the sweet spot, where most people play, and things don't get wonky (long time, few rounds, one monster) until past level 12, why is the "long time, few rounds, one monster" spoken of as the accepted facts of D&D3 combat in general?

I can see complaining about this kind of combat when specifically talking about higher levels, but the complaint seems to be directed at all D&D3 combat. Why is all D&D3 combat smeared with the complaint of only rarer higher level combat? I mean, it's like complaining that all the game's magic spells are bad because many 7th-9th level spells are bad.

Bullgrit

Do you think it's fair that DMs and players should want a system that works pretty well across all levels of play, not just for half of them or less?

I mean, I agree that low- to mid-level 3e works much better than high-level 3e. But is there an expectation that I should be content with running all my games from 3rd through 10th level?

-O

 

[Lacyon]

Things that are regularly said about D&D3 combat that I just don’t see in my games:

Combats take a long time – we seem to naturally pace about 3-5 minutes per combat round.

Combats are short, 1-3 rounds – we regularly experience 4-8 rounds of combat, with some going up to 10+, only occasionally 3 or less.

Combat is the PCs vs. one opponent – we regularly fight multiple enemies, usually 3-6, sometimes a dozen or more, only occasionally just 1.

I regularly keep track of all the combat encounter stats when I DM, so my above numbers are based on actual facts, written down at the time, not based on estimation or feel. For instance, the past two game sessions from our current adventure (I’m the DM), the 4 PCs have fought opponents numbering: 10, 2, 9, 4, 6, 9, 1.

As a group, we’ve never intentionally worked to make the above happen, it’s just the natural way our combats evolve. So every time I read someone state the apparently “accepted facts” that D&D3 combats take a long time to play out, last only a couple of rounds, and are always against just one opponent, it makes me wonder who’s doing what wrong/different.

Is my group, are my games the anomaly, or are the “accepted facts” of the edition wrong for you, too?

Bullgrit
Total Bullgrit

Sometimes, my games work out like you say. Other times, not. A lot of it depends on how much buff-stacking is going on in a fight.

When I was running RttToH in 3.5E, the PCs (12th level+) routinely spent up to an hour buffing up for a fight. Of course, we were all still pretty new to the system then, and it would take less time now, but a Dispel Magic on that would still be time consuming to resolve.

In the Eberron game I'm playing now, and the Rappan Athuk game I'm running, we have these problems far less frequently. Mostly because we haven't reached that level yet.

It's definitely still true that the "sweet spot" of 3.x is really frikkin sweet.

 

[diaglo]

Is my group, are my games the anomaly, or are the “accepted facts” of the edition wrong for you, too?

for a full accounting of one of the groups i gamed with in this edition read the story hour in my sig.

part of it got lost in a database crash here. but you can certainly get an idea of how our combats went.

it is written from my character's perspective. as i as a player need this stuff when i don't game. it helps refresh my mind on where we are going and why between sessions.

 

[delericho]

I thought it was called the sweet spot because it is where 3e works best, not because it was what most people played...

I suspect most people played at those levels because that was where the game worked best.

Also, only 7 levels out of the 20 that are supported in 3e core rules really working well, is not what I'd call a high number, so I do think that people are allowed to criticize that...

If the vast majority of the play-time occurs in those levels, I don't think it matters too much.

(And, with 4e, I'm quite confident that the bulk of the play time will drop into a similar range, although not for the same reason. It's simple math, really: most campaigns start at first level, run for a while and then stop. Most groups will blow through the early levels very quickly, and the probability of the campaign fizzling over time (and hence levels) increases. So, a great many campaigns will fold before 30th level, and so the majority of the play time will still be spent in a subset of the level range. Quite what the numbers are is not yet clear, of course.)

However, I do agree that there were problems with the high-level range in 3e (less so with the low-level range, and don't get me started on epic play...). Part of this is that earlier versions of D&D changed as the game progressed - once characters reached 'name' level their rate of advancement slowed (fewer hit points, fewer skill advances, fewer powers). The game became more about accumulating followers and in-setting power, titles and land.

In 3e, the game still shifted as you entered high-level play, but the mechanics didn't change. Characters still accumulated hit points, skill points and everything else at the same rate. This, coupled with the differences between 'good' and 'poor' advancements (and the associated stats, which would also be boosted at different rates) led to problems with the math - a Cleric could make a Will save on a 2, where the Fighter needed a 20.

With 4e, the designers have restored explicitly stated tiers (last seen in BECM D&D, I believe), and 'fixed the math' to remove the massive difference between the 'good' and the 'poor' progression. This probably means that the game works significantly better (mathematically) across the whole level range. However, because both the dice roll modifiers and the target DCs advance at almost exactly the same rate, +1/2 per level, a lot of dice rolls at any level now boil down to "roll a 10" (which begs the question: why bother tracking the modifiers at all?). This may have the consequence that the game either lacks the same replayability as older editions, or that more campaigns fizzle out more quickly as people get bored more quickly and want to play different characters. It remains far too early to tell whether this is the case or not, and how much WotC can alleviate this with splatbooks (which constantly add 'new shiny' to keep people interested).

 

[Cadfan]

My experience over the life of 3e was that combats started taking less than an hour, and then grew to take a minimum of two hours. This scaled as players grew more adept at the game (better players cast more spells) and as players advanced in level. I ran virtually all my campaigns between levels 3 and 10.

The combats that went quickly involved mostly martial characters and mostly regular melee without many (or any) buff spells. The combats that went the most slowly involved spellcasters or spellcaster/melee hybrids, and multiple buff spells. In general, I've found that players are good at remembering the effects of buff spells they cast themselves, but poor at remembering ones cast by party members.

There were a lot of places that the game could get slowed to a crawl. One rogue who couldn't add very well trying to make 4 attacks, one spellcaster who couldn't memorize their spells well enough, you get the idea. I was often able to speed things up by remembering details for certain players, but I'm only human, and I have my own work to do behind my screen.

Its also worth remembering that "too long" is subjective and based on what you're doing in that timeframe. To use a phrase you'll hear more on BBG, sometimes 3e combat felt like 30 minutes of fun packed into two hours. There are a lot of little things that can make combat seem less tedious- shorter time between turns, mini-rewards as individual enemies die, etc.

Regarding the OP's experience, I believe him on most of it, but I do think that his "3 to 5 minutes per combat round" is anomalous. Really anomalous. Maybe if his group is made up of only low level characters... I've done a lot of timed public speaking. I don't think most people realize just how fast 3 to 5 minutes goes by. I wonder if this stat is actually based on measurements, or just a gut feel, because I have trouble believing that a 12th level ranger is firing 6 arrows in a round with varying attack modifiers while trying to remember which of the myriad buffs are present from the party's 12th level wizard and cleric, while trying to remember how the target's spells have modified things, all in an average of 36 to 60 seconds.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

With 4e, the designers have restored explicitly stated tiers (last seen in BECM D&D, I believe), and 'fixed the math' to remove the massive difference between the 'good' and the 'poor' progression. This probably means that the game works significantly better (mathematically) across the whole level range. However, because both the dice roll modifiers and the target DCs advance at almost exactly the same rate, +1/2 per level, a lot of dice rolls at any level now boil down to "roll a 10" (which begs the question: why bother tracking the modifiers at all?).

Tactics, powers can vary this from "roll a 5" or "roll a 15".

Either in 3E or 4E you always try to improve your chances about what your "raw" numbers would imply. You pick feats to improve your attack bonus. You go into flanking position. You buy a Belt of Giant Strength +4. You cast Cat's Grace and Bless. The bard uses Inspire Courage. The Warlord uses Furious Smash. You try to ensure that it's your 3[W] + Daze (save ends) attack get the "roll a 5" chance thanks to Furious Smash instead of the 1[W] attack. You try to give your enemy a penalty to a save.

The point is - it doesn't matter whether your hit chance moves from "roll a 5" to "roll a 15" or vice versa over levels. What matters is that you can actually, every level, every day, or every round ensure that it moves up from "roll a 15" to "roll a 5" if you just play smart enough, use the right strategy and tactic. Your decisions affect the numbers you need to roll. Of course, that's only a part of it. Ensuring that your two 20 ft radius 9d6 damage fireballs hit 6 targets instead of merely 1 is also part of it.