Wrong facts about D&D3 combat?

[Remathilis]

I think judicious use of index cards helps on so many levels - not just with buffs. As a DM I used them for initiative order (especially since my group liked to delay and hold their actions), keeping track of bad guy stats (and buffs/debuffs to them), and often notes on spells they could cast. A little prep goes a long way. I also think it made me better at winging encounters, since I'm one of those DMs who use random encounters.

That's SOOOOO CCG.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And people say there's no benefit to having "easy" classes and "hard" classes in the game...

Heh. Well, there's no benefit to having "hard" classes. If all of them are easy, on the other hand...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

As for actual numbers, I know that when running a 3.5e Living Greyhawk adventure with 3 combat encounters, I always estimated 45 minutes to an hours per combat. Generally, 2 hours 45 minutes for just the combats was pretty accurate. With another 1 and a half hours of roleplaying between. I've run adventures for my friends and for random strangers at GenCon. The difference in speed was negligible.

Most encounters took about 3-4 rounds. Monsters tended to drop to 0 pretty quickly, but if there were multiple monsters, it would take a couple of rounds to run from enemy to enemy mopping up. Against one monster, the battle often ended in a round of 2. But that round would be filled with full attacks, quickened spells, haste attacks, a number of saving throws, a lot of planning and a lot of adding up numbers.

 

[Reynard]

Heh. Well, there's no benefit to having "hard" classes. If all of them are easy, on the other hand...

Well, "hard" classes reward a certain kind of player, which is benefit enough. The problem is when "easy" and "hard" are defined by archetype or role. Having an "easy" caster and a"hard" caster allows everyone to play a caster who wants to (same with fighter types, skill monkeys and the rest).

 

[Hussar]

True. Although, the problem then comes, the "easy" class tends to get really easily (ahem) outpaced by the "hard" class. Sorc vs Wizard is a prime example.

 

[Reynard]

True. Although, the problem then comes, the "easy" class tends to get really easily (ahem) outpaced by the "hard" class. Sorc vs Wizard is a prime example.

I'm not suggesting it isn't a design challenge, to be sure. I think the best template might be the 3E fighter. Whatever the fighter's failings compared to other classes, within the fighter class itself there is plenty of room to play either an "easy" (hit it a make it die guy) or a "hard" (jump around the room and do lots of wacky maneuvers) fighter.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

These feel about right for our group as well. Combat is sometimes shorter at higher levels because of lucky die rolls: Order-of-the-Bow guy gets two arrow crits, or one of the main opponents rolls a 1 on his Disintergration save, etc.

The last one is especially baffling, and I suspect it comes from a too-rigid reading of the CR system or mis-interpreting what the designers 'meant' to happen. If the party is level 10, neither one of us has a problem with them facing 3-4 CR 10 critters in a combat.

 

[Shroomy]

I'd rather have no "hard" classes. I want every class to be "easy" out of the box, but with the option of layering complexity on top of it, as long as it doesn't unbalance the classes too much.

 

[Dausuul]

True. Although, the problem then comes, the "easy" class tends to get really easily (ahem) outpaced by the "hard" class. Sorc vs Wizard is a prime example.

Funny thing... while it's an article of faith on the Interwebs that wizards beat the crap out of sorcerors in 3.X, I have not found this to be the case in actual play. At the levels where the game is typically played (4th to 12th or so), the sorc's superior number of spells per day and greater tactical flexibility are extremely valuable, and the wizard is not nearly as impressive when he doesn't have access to Schrodinger's Spellbook*. For the rare "oh, if only I had this spell" situation, the sorc can just buy a few scrolls.

[SIZE=-2]*Schrodinger's Spellbook refers to the tendency of wizards on D&D forums to have indeterminate spells prepared until a hypothetical situation is put forward, at which point their prepared spells are observed to be exactly the right ones for that situation. In my experience, wizards in actual play are much more likely to find themselves in this position.[/SIZE]

 

[FourthBear]

I think in the case of a combat heavy campaign with 3-4 encounters per day the 3e wizard during the levels from 4-12 is pretty much even with the other classes in effectiveness. In combat, while wizards can be very effective, spell resistance and immunities can often fizzle the arcane might. If the wizard expects 3-4 encounters, I think that in those levels they'll wait to keep big spells in reserve and not overshadow the others in combat.

It's when a campaign starts deviating away from standard expectations that things go wonky even in the so-called sweet spot, IMO. If the campaign centers a lot on non-combat interactions and averages 2 or fewer challenging combat encounters per day, then the wizard can either kick out all of the big spells whenever combat kicks up or start keeping lots of spell slots open and start investing in many non-combat spells for the spellbook. It's when the wizard can comfortably dedicate slots to all those spells that tramp all over skills and non-combat challenges become more about working out spell durations than skill that the non-spellcasters start looking for more magic to even things up (either items or multiclassing).