Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 4629710" data-attributes="member: 22424">Yep, this matches my experience. It might be to do with my relatively small group, the fact that we're now relatively expert in the rules, or that I'm relatively draconian at enforcing decisive actions, or something else, but we definately see quick rounds.In 4e, the rounds were individually close to the same duration each (slightly longer, but we're not experts in that system), but there were a lot more of them.No, in general our combats were quite short, especially in the mid levels. Generally, the reason things would take longer was due to a period of 'mopping up', where the PCs are having difficulty chasing down (or sometimes just hitting!) that last orc.In 4e, combats took a lot longer, due to the higher hit points of the monsters encountered. (I think the &quot;Kobold Hall&quot; adventure is maybe a bit weak, in that it doesn't make enough use of minions, dragging things out.)My personal preference is for short, decisive battles in most cases.(We did have exceptions in D&amp;D - in the adventure &quot;Zenith Trajectory&quot;, the PCs found themselves in a running battle that lasted 6 hours of real time, at a round every 5 minutes or so. By the end, the combat came down to the last PC taking out the last monster with his final attack of the round, while knowing that if he missed then that monster would probably hit him for enough damage to knock him out... and thus TPK. That was a good campaign.)It varied quite a lot. However, the encounter design guidelines in the DMG certainly seemed to favour the use of a single powerful opponent. And the CR/EL rules were such that encounters with more than a couple of monsters tended to either be walkovers or overpowered.I consider the encounter design guidelines, and the minion/normal/elite/solo division in 4e to be the highlight of the system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 4629710, member: 22424"] Yep, this matches my experience. It might be to do with my relatively small group, the fact that we're now relatively expert in the rules, or that I'm relatively draconian at enforcing decisive actions, or something else, but we definately see quick rounds. In 4e, the rounds were individually close to the same duration each (slightly longer, but we're not experts in that system), but there were a lot more of them. No, in general our combats were quite short, especially in the mid levels. Generally, the reason things would take longer was due to a period of 'mopping up', where the PCs are having difficulty chasing down (or sometimes just hitting!) that last orc. In 4e, combats took a lot longer, due to the higher hit points of the monsters encountered. (I think the "Kobold Hall" adventure is maybe a bit weak, in that it doesn't make enough use of minions, dragging things out.) My personal preference is for short, decisive battles in most cases. (We did have exceptions in D&D - in the adventure "Zenith Trajectory", the PCs found themselves in a running battle that lasted 6 hours of real time, at a round every 5 minutes or so. By the end, the combat came down to the last PC taking out the last monster with his final attack of the round, while knowing that if he missed then that monster would probably hit him for enough damage to knock him out... and thus TPK. That was a good campaign.) It varied quite a lot. However, the encounter design guidelines in the DMG certainly seemed to favour the use of a single powerful opponent. And the CR/EL rules were such that encounters with more than a couple of monsters tended to either be walkovers or overpowered. I consider the encounter design guidelines, and the minion/normal/elite/solo division in 4e to be the highlight of the system. [/QUOTE]

Verification