Wrong facts about D&D3 combat?

[Darrell]

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". :/

Well, not quite that simple, but pretty close.

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.

The things you're listing as limitations, we tend to see as features. We played exactly one game of 3e before abandoning the concept of attacks of opportunity; my spellcasting players almost never used critter-summoning spells; and skills and feats, multiple buffs, and the like were a major sticking point, and tended to be ignored.

Monopoly is better than Go (WTH is "Go," BTW?) if you're wanting to play Monopoly (which, by the way, we also speed up when we play it).

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

That would depend on your gaming group and the kind of game they like.

I run the kind of game my players want to play. If I tried to run a combat-heavy, summoning/buffs/multi-attack/feats/AOO-heavy game, they'd either bolt for the door or we'd end up watching a movie when they lost interest.

In that light, simpler and faster combat is better.

For my part, I don't want to run a flip-a-coin, 'heads you win, tails you lose' kind of combat (though several of my players would probably love it that way), but neither do I want combat so ultra-detailed that my players would rather drag out Monopoly or a DVD. B/X D&D combat is simple and fast enough to keep them happy, but has just enough variables to keep me happy.

If I were running another type of group, 3e or 4e might be better, but then, 3e is (for me, at least) a bit too complex, and my limited 4e experience was, at best, unsatisfying (again due to complexity issues).

When you take such group dynamics into consideration, it's not just a case of one being different. For us, one choice is better.

YMM (and apparently does) V.

Regards,
Darrell

 

[Mournblade94]

Oh, that's clever! I so see what you did there! You were talking about 4th edition, and then you noticed that the $ symbol is just shift-4! So you can cleverly imply that, you know, 4th edition is all about money!

How insanely brilliant and insightful!

Next, maybe you can start replacing S's with $'s, too! They look similar, so I think it would be a great way to make a point!

-O

Well then you deserve a prize for figuring it out!

Kudos to you!

And if you like you can replace all your S's with $ since you are enamored with the idea. I will just use it where relevant

 

[Remathilis]

I timed myself on the rule look-ups and the math. The polymorph depends on what you're shifting into, but that's just a matter of swapping ability scores. It took me four minutes.

So even if ALL OF THAT was done to me in a single round and I hadn't bothered to either look up the spells as they were being cast or to note the changes as they were happening instead of waiting until my turn to figure out what my stat block looked like... Well, I'm still not quite figuring out where the 10-15 minute turn is supposed to be coming from.

It surely can't take you that long to roll dice, can it?

(And surely you're not re-calculating your stats every time you roll them, instead of actually keeping track of them? I can see how that kind of silliness would waste a lot of time. But it makes about as much sense as keeping separate track of every wound you've sustained and then adding them all up every time you get hit again to see if you're going down or not.)

Let's do a hypothetical 11th fighter. 21 str. +3 greatsword. Grtr Weapon Focus/Spec, power atk.

Base stats: +11+5+3+2 = 21/16/11. 2d6+14 damage.

Round one: Cleric casts bull's strength. Str. rises to 25. Fighter power-attacks 5.

21 +2 (bs) -5 (PA) = 18/13/8. 2d6+27

Round two: Wizard enlarges him. Str. rises to 27, but -1 from size. AC -2, reflex -1. Fighter power attacks for 4.

23 (en) -4 (PA) = 19/14/9 2d8 (enlarged GS) +27.

Round Three: wizard haste's party. AC -1, Reflex normal. Fighter power attacks 6

23 (base) +1 (hst) - 6 (PA) = 18/18/13/8. 2d8+31.
....

That's three rounds, using only 1 first (enlarge) 1 second (bull str) and 1 third (haste) level spell. Notice that on no-round is the fighter using the same to hit or same damage. Notice his AC and reflex saves bob up and down as well. Notice his str. had to be re-calibrated to account for his 1.5 str 2hander bonus. Granted, he's adding a huge amount of headache by not power-attacking the same amount, but he's taking advantage of higher "to hit" bonuses and most likely figuring out what he needs to roll on d20.

That's the fighter. maybe not 10 minutes, but certainly not. 60-90 seconds. And that didn't even take into account what was actually rolled on the d20 or d6s/d8s. Or critical hits. Or bonus attacks from Cleave. You get the idea.

Trying to do that without a calculator (unless you're one of the blessed who can do math quickly in your head) is a nightmare.

 

[Mournblade94]

Let's do a hypothetical 11th fighter. 21 str. +3 greatsword. Grtr Weapon Focus/Spec, power atk.

Base stats: +11+5+3+2 = 21/16/11. 2d6+14 damage.

Round one: Cleric casts bull's strength. Str. rises to 25. Fighter power-attacks 5.

21 +2 (bs) -5 (PA) = 18/13/8. 2d6+27

Round two: Wizard enlarges him. Str. rises to 27, but -1 from size. AC -2, reflex -1. Fighter power attacks for 4.

23 (en) -4 (PA) = 19/14/9 2d8 (enlarged GS) +27.

Round Three: wizard haste's party. AC -1, Reflex normal. Fighter power attacks 6

23 (base) +1 (hst) - 6 (PA) = 18/18/13/8. 2d8+31.
....

That's three rounds, using only 1 first (enlarge) 1 second (bull str) and 1 third (haste) level spell. Notice that on no-round is the fighter using the same to hit or same damage. Notice his AC and reflex saves bob up and down as well. Notice his str. had to be re-calibrated to account for his 1.5 str 2hander bonus. Granted, he's adding a huge amount of headache by not power-attacking the same amount, but he's taking advantage of higher "to hit" bonuses and most likely figuring out what he needs to roll on d20.

That's the fighter. maybe not 10 minutes, but certainly not. 60-90 seconds. And that didn't even take into account what was actually rolled on the d20 or d6s/d8s. Or critical hits. Or bonus attacks from Cleave. You get the idea.

Trying to do that without a calculator (unless you're one of the blessed who can do math quickly in your head) is a nightmare.

There is no Calculus or differential equations in D&D. It is all simple arithmetic. It doesn't take me or members of my group long to figure this stuff out, and none of us are among the blessed math gods.

Calculators make it easier. Generally I don't need one, but I have one for situations that are outside of the norm.

I have never witnessed any of the problems with 3rd edition combat that people tout so religiously on the boards. 3rd edition combat is a simple system. Add this subtract that. 4th generally does the same thing.

If players do their homework in any game things go quicker. My players must do their homework I guess.

 

[Henry]

I have never witnessed any of the problems with 3rd edition combat that people tout so religiously on the boards. 3rd edition combat is a simple system. Add this subtract that. 4th generally does the same thing.

If players do their homework in any game things go quicker. My players must do their homework I guess.

You pretty much get to the crux of the argument, right here. Some people find 3e's dynamic round-to-round add/subtract math derivations and operations easy to handle; others find 4e's straight add or subtract the bonuses easier. Just like one person marvels at how complicated people are making 3e's system of doing things, others like myself marvel at people who are reporting two and three-hour long combats in 4e. I don't think, short of sitting down at a table together, people are going to really comprehend the differences in mindset or game styles that cause the reporting of such different outcomes.

Me, I'll enjoy a game of 3e, but it also has its parts where it bogs down for me (the grapple-specialist gets going, or an enemy wizard busts out a forcecage and our wizard doesn't have disintegrate spell, or a creature who stuns with every hit comes along and locks down half the party, etc.) I haven't had that yet with any 4E game I've played, but it might just be a function of the very few sourcebooks we have yet not breaking the system in twain.

 

[maddman75]

If players do their homework in any game things go quicker. My players must do their homework I guess.

This is not a blanket assumption one can make. My players will not do homework. The rules need to be simple and obvious, as well as easily accessible. One of the reasons I like 4e is that the rules to the powers can be right there in front of them, and none of them are overly complicated. Trying to adjucate spells and feats in the middle of the game when the player likely doesn't even own a copy of the rules, much less spends time studying them, makes for ponderous play.

Nor do I have the type that tends to obsess over builds. I don't think anyone thinks too much about what ability to get next until they can get one. Then look through the list and pick something that sounds cool.

I don't get what all the confusion is about. If your group runs 3e smooth and easy, they've got it down pat, and the game works, then great! Play to your heart's content! Not everyone had that experience.

 

[WizarDru]

I've run my players through three campaigns under 3e, and we've played through three other one-off campaigns at the same time. Our main game ran from 1st straight on through to 28th level, from 3e to 3.5e. Our Shackled City game went from 1st to 11th, Our Rise of the Runelords game (still-in-progress) has gone from 1st to 12th level. I point this out so you understand that I clearly don't have a problem with 3.Xe, that we've played quite a bit of it and that I'd like to think we have some degree of system mastery.

My players are hardly slouches, either mathematically or critically. Two of my players (a power systems engineer and a DBA) write their own custom excel applications to manage their characters in-game. All of them are college-graduates, except one...and that one is much better at math than I am. Most of my players crunch numbers to optimize their builds. The engineer once performed manual chi-square tests on his dice at the table to make sure they rolled true. Several players have constructed mathematical models of things like power-attack damage curves, skill feat progression tables and so on.

We enjoy 3e and have enjoyed it for years. It has some strengths and weaknesses, just like 4e does. As do all systems.

All that said, my experience is nothing like Bullgrit's or Mournblade94's. I attribute that to a differing playstyle, level differences, party compliment and materials used. I don't consider it a problem...but I also don't consider it to be 'wrong facts'.

For my group, the time of a round and the time of a combat are far from fixed. They become much more variable as play progresses to higher levels. In the famed 'sweet spot', things DO move quickly or at least traditionally do for us. That's because powers and effects are limited, while the players have reached a comfort level with their abilities. At higher levels, things get...dense.

No one is arguing, I think, that 3e's math is hard. I know I'm not. That's not really the issue. It's a question of breadth. We generally use miniatures for many combats. This slows things down if players are trying to determine optimal movements. I suspect folks like Bullgrit and Mournblade94 eschew them, since they haven't mentioned them. Our actual combat descriptions vary depending on the combat. They could be full of detail or just 'you hit', depending on the nature of the battle.

A combat for us might be like this:

Me: The shardling charges and attacks. [Roll] Is your AC higher than 23?

Z: Yes, it's a 25 at the moment. I moved on Total Defense.

Me: OK. Miss then. It slashes ineffectively at you. J, you're up. E, you're on deck.

Z: He takes [rolls] 4 points of fire damage.

Me: For?

Z: J's fire aura is on. When they melee...

Me: Oh, right. Doesn't he have to hit, though.

J: Yeah, he needs to successfully attack first. No hit, no fire damage back.

Z: Whoops, sorry.

Me: No worries.

E: Gotcha.

J: I change my Dragon Aura to DR 2/-. Everyone note that.

D: And don't forget we've got Haste and Prayer running.

J: Not for me, I was too far away when you cast them.

D: Both of them? You were close enough for Haste last round.

J: It's a 30' range?

D: No, it's close range. 25' plus 5' per two levels. But...oh, damn. No two may be more than 30' apart. You're right, you didn't get it.

J: OK. I'm shifting now. I'll do a charge and attack.

Me: Right.

Z: Dude. Move to that square opposite me; you'll cut off his escape and we'll get the flank.

J: Done and done. Got a 25. I guess with the flank that's 27?

Me: Actually, it lowers his AC, it doesn't raise your attack.

J: Same thing, pretty much.

Me: Fair enough. As long as we don't both factor it. Hit. Wait, what route are you taking?

J: This one. [moves mini] Does he have reach?

Me: Yes.

J: Take your shot, I'll risk it.

Me: Ouch. Rolled a '2'. You're safe. What's type of weapon are you using?

J: Longsword.

Me: I know that. Is it adamantine? Magical? Good?

J: +2 Sword with 1d6 acid...and it's got undead bane.

Me: So it doesn't bypass his DR.

J: Is he? Undead, I mean.

Me: Hmm? Oh, no...he just butt-ugly. He's actually a construct.

J: Crap. So he doesn't take crits, right?

Me: 'Fraid not.

J: OK. 10 points. Should I split out the acid?

Me: Nah, keep it in. Easier that way. Oh, and make me a DC 14 Will save. When you hit him, he lets a keening wail that fills you with dread.

J: [Rolls] Damn. Wait, wait! I use my luck feat! [Rerolls] Nuts. Still boned.

Me: Heh. OK, he drains you for...3 ST.

Z: Drains or ability damage?

Me: Ability damage. I always get those mixed up. Moving on....


And so on. As you go higher in levels, with cohorts (especially spell-casting cohorts), pets, animals, wild-shapes, summoned creatures, planar allies, auras, burst spells, reserve powers, spell effects, special qualities, special attacks, bonus, magic items and so forth become legion. Turns will slow down for most, I'd wager. That doesn't mean they have to, but they can. One of our strategies was for me to turn over a lot of the responsiblity for such details to the players. DMs who don't do this walk the path to madness, IMHO.

Now as I said, turns can and sometimes do go MUCH faster. A combat CAN be determined in one or two rounds. When a 25th level paladin with a baned, blessed holy avenger and a prestige class for demon hunting tackles a Balor while hasted...the Balor sniffs back a tear (his final one) when two of the hits trigger an improved critical. When a 24th level cleric spends a Miracle to strip the demi-lich of his magical protection so the 25th level wizard can hit him with an epic spell version of disintegrate...well, whoever wins Init can often be who wins the battle. And when the PCs gets scores in the 30s and 40s for init rolls...well, they're going to win that bet. Which makes the Dm cry when Kyuss has a stat-block that runs 2 1/2 single spaced pages.

I'm not saying 3E combat is broken or bad. Quite the opposite. It's served us well for years and still does. But I don't think it's incorrect to say that for some people, it CAN drag or feel very swingy, particularly at high levels.

 

[Bullgrit]

I suspect folks like Bullgrit and Mournblade94 eschew them, since they haven't mentioned them.

I use minis. Always have (since 1980), always will (till I stop playing RPGs). Ironically, I find combats go faster using minis than without -- less questions about the scene.

Plus I have some really awesomely cool minis.

Bullgrit

 

[Dausuul]

My experience with high-level 3E play has been that the biggest time-sinks come not from the actual number-crunching (even the least mathematically inclined player doesn't need minutes to do basic addition), but from players' minds not being able to encompass the rules.

It's the novice player who has to be walked through the math for each possible option. It's the veteran player juggling numbers in his head while puzzling over tactics. It's the wizard who has to check the spell descriptions of three different spells to make sure they work the way he thinks they do in this particular situation. It's the fighter with buffs from two different casters and a magic item, trying to figure out which of those buffs applies, which have expired, and how much Power Attack to use. It's the DM fielding oddball questions and trying to come up with consistent rulings on the fly, while also remembering all the funky special abilities the monster has.

If the players know their characters well, if they've planned and practiced their tactics, if they've pre-calculated their bonuses and have a system for tracking buffs... that time can be drastically reduced. I think this probably accounts for most of the discrepancies people are seeing here.

 

[Bullgrit]

You know, we come across things all the time in the D&D3 rules that we (my group) agree could be easily streamlined and simplified. But we just shrug and carry on, thinking it's easier to just deal with the rules as they are than to work up a big document of house rules to "fix" things.

I mean, if we're happy and comfortable going 100 miles per hour, doing a lot of work to change things so we go 120 mph isn't worth it. And even if a different system can go 120 mph out of the box, it doesn't mean 100 mph is slow. It just amazes us that others complain about going 25 mph. We wonder what in the world are they doing different than us.

To restate, I would never have described our game play as "fast". But it staggers me that some others talk of their play as so slow.

Bullgrit