Wrong facts about D&D3 combat?

[Remathilis]

Right who needs those items you have eliminated anyway! Yes 4e is simpler because it eliminates alot of factours. IF i take sugar out of a recipe I can make any food flavourless.

I have a better idea. Just play warhammer fantasy roleplay. It eliminates all of that as well, and its better than 4th edition.

Fortunately I think 3rd edition fighting is great. edition is more like a grind.

clearly, I forgot to include the smiley showing the latter was a humorous statement. Oh, wait.

Now, my point is that spell casting, the buff system, and and various subsystems (dispel magic is a sub-system, so is grapple, so is turn undead) all slow relatively quick paced combats down. Suddenly, its opening the PHB to see what the role for dispel magic is. Or how you break a pin. Or what is the line of effect on turning. Or what is the difference between dazed and stunned. Or if I'm hasted, bull strengthed, have gauntlets of ogre power, enlarged, and now got hit with ray of enfeeblement (mind you, each of these effects happened on a different round, require EACH round an addition/subtraction) what my total to hit is (oh, and I power attacked 5).

Sure, they're extreme cases, but unless I play with some of the most extreme players, I see at least one or more example of these per session.

Oh, BTW: 4e combat grinds because of hp:damage ratio, not because constant looking up rules and recalculation. That's a different kettle of worms.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Right who needs those items you have eliminated anyway! Yes 4e is simpler because it eliminates alot of factours. IF i take sugar out of a recipe I can make any food flavourless.

I have a better idea. Just play warhammer fantasy roleplay. It eliminates all of that as well, and its better than 4th edition.

Fortunately I think 3rd edition fighting is great. edition is more like a grind.

It isn't about flavor, it's about having fun. I don't have much fun discussing bonuses and rules for multiple minutes on each and every round of combat. My friends are pretty anal. I'll say it(sorry guys if anyone reads this). As I mentioned before, it doesn't matter if I write down my total bonus to hit from everything, I'll still be reminded of them every time I miss.

It will be, continuously, "Did you remember the +1 from Haste? Heroes Feast? Righteous Wrath of the Faithful? Bless? Higher ground? Flanking?"

And, it's very likely that I forgot one of them. I didn't put the higher ground bonus into my total bonus because I didn't have it last round or I forgot(or didn't hear) that someone cast Bless on their last turn because the player next to me was telling me about something that happened to them at work today(since they were bored and it was taking too long to get to their turn again). So, I did hit, just barely for 27 damage.

What's that? Don't forget that Righteous Wrath gives a damage bonus as well? Yeah, I included it. Don't worry.

What now? You're telling me that Bless doesn't stack with Heroes Feast because they are both morale bonuses? That can't be right, I thought Bless was a luck bonus. That's Prayer? Are you sure? Let's check the book, because if it doesn't stack then I miss.

Looks like it doesn't stack. I guess I missed.....Now the DM is asking me how much damage I did since he already erased the monsters hitpoints and took off the damage. I don't know. I just told him the number and picked up my dice.

Ugh, just remembering it gives me a headache. It isn't completely gone in our 4th Ed games, as my players haven't become any less anal. However, it HAS been reduced heavily. With no one playing wildshaping druids with animal companions, dervishes, or 3e wizards, the time for certain people to take their turns has gone down to about half what it was in 3e. People still don't pay much attention, but I'm always amused when I DM and I call out someone's name to let them know it's their turn in init and they say, "Me? Already? I just went."

 

[Remathilis]

Only thing is, there are also people who feel that it's the caster who's 'broken,' and would rather narrow the gap by de-powering the high-level spellcaster, instead of powering up the high-level warrior. In that viewpoint, Bo9S attempts to fix a broken class by breaking another.

Yeah, but its easier to add something than to take it away. WotC could create Bo9S, give the classes new names, and silently float the warrior "fix". To fix spellcasting, you have to put out something that says "X is broken. Here is the fix. Recalculate your PC/game with it."

The nerdrage would have been palpable.

So toning down spellcasting is, unfortunately, something left to individual DMs.

 

[Darrell]

I don't know Microlite20, but there's no way you're achieving that kind of resolution time in B/X D&D unless all of your combats are resolved in one-hit kills in the first round of combat. (Which would, frankly, be mind-numbingly boring for me.)

If a game wasn't particularly focused on combat, I could see using a one-roll combat resolution check type of mechanic that could achieve interesting results in that type of timeframe. But D&D just isn't (and has never been) that game.

I can assure you that we use the regular B/X combat procedure, and that combats in our game last for several rounds; though I can affirm that 40 seconds is probably not that far off for some of their turns. "Description" for some of 'em = "I swing my sword, hit AC X, do X damage...NEXT!"

Combat happens, of course, but it's not the point of, nor even a primary feature of, our games. They prefer figuring their way out of traps, puzzles, etc. One of the more time consuming sessions involved their finding a scroll written in the goblin tongue (in other words, transposed into a random runic font from my computer). None of them spoke goblin, so I didn't provide a translation. They found the scroll about 20 minutes into the game, and rather than taking it back to town to have it translated (as I'd intended), spent the rest of the session comparing symbols with commonly-used letters in English (Common) and translating it themselves.

I also haven't seen much in the way of combat 'slow-down' by spellcasters, simply because only one PC (an elf) casts spells at all, and she doesn't use her spells all that often; and since magic isn't a huge interest for the players, I only rarely throw magic-using foes at them.

In that respect, my game is probably an anomaly.

 

[Darrell]

Yeah, but its easier to add something than to take it away. WotC could create Bo9S, give the classes new names, and silently float the warrior "fix". To fix spellcasting, you have to put out something that says "X is broken. Here is the fix. Recalculate your PC/game with it."

The nerdrage would have been palpable.

Oh, I can see, from a financial and ease-of-incorporation standpoint, why WotC would rather put out an add-on book. I just won't use it.

So toning down spellcasting is, unfortunately, something left to individual DMs.

I did. When I was playing 3e, we got tired of the power creep, and went to only the core books; then later (at the players' request), I reconfigured spell progressions to limit the number of spells-per-day a caster could have, and removed a great many spells from the spell lists.

In retrospect, we probably should have done what we eventually wound up doing, anyway...playing an earlier edition.

 

[Hussar]

I can assure you that we use the regular B/X combat procedure, and that combats in our game last for several rounds; though I can affirm that 40 seconds is probably not that far off for some of their turns. "Description" for some of 'em = "I swing my sword, hit AC X, do X damage...NEXT!"

Combat happens, of course, but it's not the point of, nor even a primary feature of, our games. They prefer figuring their way out of traps, puzzles, etc. One of the more time consuming sessions involved their finding a scroll written in the goblin tongue (in other words, transposed into a random runic font from my computer). None of them spoke goblin, so I didn't provide a translation. They found the scroll about 20 minutes into the game, and rather than taking it back to town to have it translated (as I'd intended), spent the rest of the session comparing symbols with commonly-used letters in English (Common) and translating it themselves.

I also haven't seen much in the way of combat 'slow-down' by spellcasters, simply because only one PC (an elf) casts spells at all, and she doesn't use her spells all that often; and since magic isn't a huge interest for the players, I only rarely throw magic-using foes at them.

In that respect, my game is probably an anomaly.

Well, that certainly is another option for speeding up turns in combat - strip out every option available other than, "I attack once" or, "I cast magic missile". :/

I mean, come on. I can take turns in Monopoly pretty quickly too, but, that doesn't make Monopoly better than Go. Different yes, but not better. B/X combat has pretty much no options - no summoning, few if any buffs, 1 attack per round, no feats or variable adjustments and no attacks of opportunity.

Sure, it's faster, but, that hardly makes it better.

But, back OT. I've never hit the 15 minute round either. But I've certainly hit the 10 minute round. It just takes time. I find it very difficult to believe Bullgrit's story that his friend is dealing with multiple trip attempts (because that requires TWO rolls - the DM better be on the ball as well), spells and his own personal attacks in under a minute and a half. I'm sorry, I flat out do not believe that.

But, remember too, he's only summoning wolves who have one attack each. Summon creatures with multiple attacks, or attacks that force saving throws and watch the speeds drag. Or, perhaps Bullgrit never moves his opponents so they never draw AOO's, thus dragging turns on even longer.

Bullgrit, I do agree that the 15 minute turn is probably hyperbole. However, OTOH, I do not believe that you are being accurate when you say that the druid player is doing all that in 90 seconds consistantly. Perhaps if his turn goes exactly as planned, his wolves draw no aoo's, and everybody is paying 100% attention, the stars and the moon line up just exactly, then you might get that. Regularly? If true, that's bloody impressive.

 

[Ourph]

My current game (round robin style, so I’m a player and a DM, in turn) has a druid who’s main shtick is summoning wolves (especially dire wolves)

He regularly has 2-4 wolves or dire wolves in play, and a flaming sphere and call lightning working. He manages to resolve all his wolves’ attacks (including follow up trips), his spells, and his own movement (often as a wolf or eagle) within 60-90 seconds. Over and over, for sometimes up to 10 rounds.

See, it's statements like this that make me wonder if people are just saying things without really knowing the reality they're talking about.

 

[Psion]

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

Very much so. Long before 4e was a twinkling in Mearls' eye, I had a tendency to hear complaints about things I never see at the table. As, well, complainers post.

But the dawning of a new edition brought a new fever pitch to tales of things I never see at the table. Different people run the games in different ways; some styles meshed well with 3e. Some don't.

 

[Bullgrit]

I find it very difficult to believe Bullgrit's story that his friend is dealing with multiple trip attempts (because that requires TWO rolls - the DM better be on the ball as well), spells and his own personal attacks in under a minute and a half. I'm sorry, I flat out do not believe that.
. . .
I do not believe that you are being accurate when you say that the druid player is doing all that in 90 seconds consistantly. Perhaps if his turn goes exactly as planned, his wolves draw no aoo's, and everybody is paying 100% attention, the stars and the moon line up just exactly, then you might get that. Regularly? If true, that's bloody impressive.

<shrug> I have the time recordings, so I believe what I'm saying. The next time the druid plays, I will specifically record his rounds with a stopwatch (seriously). Unfortunately, that Player is DMing next week's adventure (and will probably last 2-4 sessions).

We hate his wolves' and dire wolves' trip attacks (when we are DMing). Not because of the mechanic, which is very easy (two rolls by two different people can be made at the same time, so don't take twice as long to handle), but because they frickin' trip everything -- giants, dragons, humanoid BBEGs, etc. (Dire wolves are too strong.) If we go a round without at least one trip attack, the druid must not be in the fight.

See, it's statements like this that make me wonder if people are just saying things without really knowing the reality they're talking about.

The difference between me saying this about someone else, and you saying this about me is that I have actually directly measured/timed what I'm talking about. I'm not talking from feel or guesstimate, I'm stating recorded facts (for my group).

As an experiment, you can perform right now, do this:
Stop what you are doing, look at your watch, and wait 60 seconds. Don't do anything else other than wait for 60 seconds. See how long that is. Then do 120 seconds. Most people find it a surprisingly long time.

Bullgrit

 

[Ourph]

The difference between me saying this about someone else, and you saying this about me is that I have actually directly measured/timed what I'm talking about. I'm not talking from feel or guesstimate, I'm stating recorded facts (for my group).

And you know other people aren't doing the same thing...how?