I know there is a ton of stuff on this forum and elsewhere on combat acceleration, but surely the designers of the system would be able to address this better than anybody. If there are tips or tricks they've used to streamline combat, or more likely, things that a lot of DMs or players are doing that they shouldn't be that slow things down, it would really be good to hear an official word on it. There are lots of suggestions out there. What actually works?
I'm honestly quite shocked that none of the designers or books have seriously addressed this yet. Am I missing this?
Every game I've DMed or played in in the past year has been a race against time as we tried to cram more than two encounters into a single game session. When I first started DMing a 4e game last summer it was taking my six player party between 2-3 hours to complete a combat encounter. Since then we've gotten it down to somewhere between an hour and an hour and a half, but that's still pretty significant. It means there are no minor encounters, that's for sure!
I look around these forums and the internet generally and I see that this is not a problem just specific to me, but it's a serious issue that large numbers of people have. Where are the designers on this?
I understand that not all groups have this problem, but there's no denying that many do. I think 4e is a great system that has withstood many of the criticisms leveled against it early on, but this is the big issue that I see popping up everywhere again and again. I know there's probably not a magic bullet, but I would just like to see this addressed in an official capacity, if not in a book at least in a good couple of blog posts.
Also, here are some specific questions I would like to see answered:
- What is the length of time the designers expect for a basic, no frills, non-boss combat encounter?
- What is the level of said encounter? How many minions are they using?
- Are things like cutting HP and upping damage a good idea, or do they mess with the attrition rate the math is built around?
- How do you encourage your players to take their turns quickly without cutting into their freedom to roleplay or make good, tactical choices?
- Are there specific classes, group configurations or play-styles that significantly slow combat?
- Are there any plans for rules or frameworks for streamlining combat for minor encounters?
I imagine long, slow combats could be a big turn off for new players, so as Wizards works on bringing them into the fold I really hope they'll start to talk about this!
Wizards has put out a lot of wonderful books for 4e D&D. They keep impressing me. But I'm starting to wonder why they haven't put out anything to help deal with a big issue that a lot of groups have - long combats.
I know there is a ton of stuff on this forum and elsewhere on combat acceleration, but surely the designers of the system would be able to address this better than anybody. If there are tips or tricks they've used to streamline combat, or more likely, things that a lot of DMs or players are doing that they shouldn't be that slow things down, it would really be good to hear an official word on it. There are lots of suggestions out there. What actually works?
I'm honestly quite shocked that none of the designers or books have seriously addressed this yet. Am I missing this?
Every game I've DMed or played in in the past year has been a race against time as we tried to cram more than two encounters into a single game session. When I first started DMing a 4e game last summer it was taking my six player party between 2-3 hours to complete a combat encounter. Since then we've gotten it down to somewhere between an hour and an hour and a half, but that's still pretty significant. It means there are no minor encounters, that's for sure!
I look around these forums and the internet generally and I see that this is not a problem just specific to me, but it's a serious issue that large numbers of people have. Where are the designers on this?
I understand that not all groups have this problem, but there's no denying that many do. I think 4e is a great system that has withstood many of the criticisms leveled against it early on, but this is the big issue that I see popping up everywhere again and again. I know there's probably not a magic bullet, but I would just like to see this addressed in an official capacity, if not in a book at least in a good couple of blog posts.
Also, here are some specific questions I would like to see answered:
- What is the length of time the designers expect for a basic, no frills, non-boss combat encounter?
- What is the level of said encounter? How many minions are they using?
- Are things like cutting HP and upping damage a good idea, or do they mess with the attrition rate the math is built around?
- How do you encourage your players to take their turns quickly without cutting into their freedom to roleplay or make good, tactical choices?
- Are there specific classes, group configurations or play-styles that significantly slow combat?
- Are there any plans for rules or frameworks for streamlining combat for minor encounters?
I imagine long, slow combats could be a big turn off for new players, so as Wizards works on bringing them into the fold I really hope they'll start to talk about this!
First of all, there has been some good first steps- the MM2/DMG2 fixes solos to make them less grindy - the new MM3 stat block will likely shave a few minutes off DMs turns in combats...
but.... the problem for long combats is different for every group that has the problem. For some its because they're playing with 8 players. Others have slow players, players unwilling to use dailies, still others its all because of shear mechanical grind-factor due to indifferent encounter design, others are just easily distracted.
I'm sure DMG3 will likely address some of these issues though - and give suggestions on how to speed up combat.
I have endured long combats in every edition from veteran DMs for years.
I also endure long combats in just about anyone's game design, so it isn't a D&D only issue.
It's the players and the DM. It's whether the players spend to much time gabbing and not enough time and effort playing the game. It's whather or not the DM did ANYthng to actually prepare.
And no book is going to solve that, although telling the players to keep shut p and focus on the game might help, and actually doing some pre game prep might help
In the past, combats would be resolved relatively quickly. ...
If your group doesn't enjoy long, drawn out battles where certain death hangs in the balance around every turn - your group is playing the wrong game.
Agreed. Just that it is confusing to some people due to the old game they were playing correctly has the same name as the new one which they are now playing wrongly.
but.... the problem for long combats is different for every group that has the problem.but.... the problem for long combats is different for every group that has the problem.
Hmmmmmm.
When multiple threads crop up on every forum weekly and sometimes daily abou the same problem, I begin to think there might be a real problem that players and DMs are actually dealing with. The idea that hundreds of unrelated gaming groups all have different problems which lead to the same outcome (slow combat) seems very suspect for me.
Obviously there is a learning curve. It takes some players a while to get a handle on gaining CA and using daily powers and action points to their advantage. Some groups carry over baggage from 3.x (not mine, for the record, we never played it). So those groups are understandably going to go a little slower at first.
But I don't think n00bs accounts for the whole problem. These are the kinds of issues that really should go away in about 1-3 sessions.
Then there's the eternal cry of "You shouldn't let your players talk too much during combat!" I don't know about you, but I run a gaming table, not a boot camp. Obviously a lot of extraneous silliness can slow things down, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the players should sometimes take more than thirty seconds to do their turn. Especially given the fact that in 4e the gameplay is a little deeper than "I hit it with my sword."
Let's say you're playing a game with five players and they have become involved in an encounter with five monsters of equal level. How long should this combat take?
Well, first we need to know how long the average turn should take. On a player's turn they might do all of the following:
- Handle ongoing damage.
- Select a power to use.
- Move their character.
- Make an attack roll (one die).
- Make a damage roll (1-5 die).
- Make a saving throw.
This is actually a lot of stuff. I could easily see even an experienced player who has been thinking about their move in advance taking two minutes to accomplish their turn. The shortest turns are going to be that same player missing their attack roll. When people start using complex multi-target dailies or action points, a turn could easily become much longer.
But let's say the average turn is two minutes, which feels about right for the groups I play in*.
Now five people taking two minute turns adds up to a ten minute round. Six rounds doesn't seem unreasonable for a typical fight. That brings us to a nice even sixty minutes. Combat is already an hour long without any complications.
But don't forget about the DM, who has five monsters to move and roll for every round. Plus he has to remember that status effect that got put on the monster ten minutes ago. He's pretty efficient, though, so let's say he needs just two minutes per round. So now we're up to an hour and ten minutes of combat.
This is of course a simplified version of combat, where no one has any interrupts or triggered actions. Let's tack on another five minutes for that.
Total time for an average number of players fighting an average number of equal level monsters: one hour and fifteen minutes.
I submit that this is pretty long for what is probably a fairly trivial combat.
Now some groups will be faster than this. A group of experienced players who are mostly just using At-Wills against standard baddies might need only a minute per round on average. This cuts thirty minutes out of the game and brings it down to the 45 minutes which some groups have reported. This is a lot better although it isn't exactly lightning fast. If your group can manage this they might actually hit the five-to-six encounters per session which seems to be the ideal of 4e pacing.
But I'm guessing most groups won't be this fast. And new groups or groups fighting higher levels of monsters will be significantly slower then the baseline.
What I'm saying is that without doing anything wrong, encounter times in 4e can rapidly balloon from minutes to hours. I think that giving DMs tips and tools to avoid or mitigate this effect is pretty important.
* This is totally subjective. I'd be really interested to see what kind of data a less lazy person with a stopwatch might collect.
The biggest thing from my experience is that monsters are just plain better in 4th and they are tougher but so are the players at low lvls. I don't think there is a way to speed up combat alot but you maight be able to shave a few mins off here and there depending on the group.
Videos of actual play and play aids are what I really like these days to learn some time-saving combat tricks. Sharing visual media is so much easier, faster and practical these days too.
The basic idea is a great one, but skip the book - give me a Video compilation!
Until then, here's a great thread of ideas, categorized by the Big 3 types of changes you make to your game to quicken combat:
Compilation: Combat Accelerators
In my opinion, the longer combats are intended in this edition. And if you follow the advice of the DMGII, and make each and every encounter be one that moves the story forward, you'll find that you don't need as many combats, which makes those longer combats not seem to matter as much.
You probably just want to skip this conversation. The problem is that you always get the same answers. "Combat long, what do you mean?" "Repeat something or other, repeat, repeat (I've read that answer a lot)," or the unfortunately not as helpful as you might think breakdown of what characters do on their turn that never seems to add up to a problem even though in practice, you've got a problem.
Real answer: if the combat is long for you and your group, do whatever you can to fix it. I advise you to cut hit points in half and double damage on everything. I've done it and expected it to turn combats that took an hour and half into combats that would take 45 minutes. It didn't. I can get through a combat in 15 minutes (yeah, I know). My game is better for it. Yours might not be. I don't know why it works--the math, the player psychology, anything. I just know that it does. I've been doing it for a few months in my game, once a week, five hours each week. No complaints at all. I don't double damage that happens out of combat (traps out of combat). There you go. Problem fixed and you didn't have to read the book.
When you combine the two premises:
Monsters living long enough to do something interesting: 1-2 rounds of being attacked, barring minions.
Monsters in groups of 2 or more to keep positioning and action economy interesting.
You get 5+ round encounters: this is a good thing since killing a single stray kobold was a waste of time.
Within these rounds though, a player turn often only needs 30 seconds; especially with simulataneous die rolling (or computer dice rolling), power cards to stay organized, and saving witty interjections or discussing future moves in the time between your turns. Almost every thread that suggests higher admits to disorganized players- if you pressure on your slower players, combat will speed up.
I want to try out the half HP, double damage houserule. Do you double the amount to roll or roll damage then double it?
Doubling damage makes Stikers better and Leaders/Controllers weaker- it's not a balanced solution.
So, the solution that cuts combat time at least in half, and in my experience a third, isn't good because it's not....balanced? The controller in my campaign never complains. Maybe its because she's no longer being bored to tears by combats that grind on and on and on for no reason.
Plus, this is one of those things. The minute you say game balance I shake my head: I have yet to figure out what those words are supposed to mean. The math involved in arguments about game balance generally takes one thing into account instead of another. Minions aren't reduced in power so the controller is weaker, right? That's the logic? But shorter combats make slide, push, and pull more effective. Plus, doubling their damage, makes minions stronger and thus become AoEs more important.
Look, I've playtested the half hp, double damage thing for a few months. In my opinion, it works. Telling a group of friends that D and D is quiet time will work too if you have the right group of friends who don't mind playing that way. Mine wouldn't. I tried that solution first and it was ludicrously unpopular with my group.
You probably just want to skip this conversation. The problem is that you always get the same answers. "Combat long, what do you mean?" "Repeat something or other, repeat, repeat (I've read that answer a lot)," or the unfortunately not as helpful as you might think breakdown of what characters do on their turn that never seems to add up to a problem even though in practice, you've got a problem.
Real answer: if the combat is long for you and your group, do whatever you can to fix it. I advise you to cut hit points in half and double damage on everything. I've done it and expected it to turn combats that took an hour and half into combats that would take 45 minutes. It didn't. I can get through a combat in 15 minutes (yeah, I know). My game is better for it. Yours might not be. I don't know why it works--the math, the player psychology, anything. I just know that it does. I've been doing it for a few months in my game, once a week, five hours each week. No complaints at all. I don't double damage that happens out of combat (traps out of combat). There you go. Problem fixed and you didn't have to read the book.
The reason the change is so big, is because most characters are frontloaded, and become even more so under this system. As the battle starts, you have all these big encounter powers that deal a lot of damage. Then, by the time you run out... the battle is over, because monsters only have half HP and you don't have to whittle away their other half of HP with your weaker at-will powers.
I'm assuming you've also seen a change in the importance of selecting the right at-wills, and less use of them?
It's a good system for reducing combat time, makes things a bit more swingy maybe but you can do a lot more. Might start using it myself when players reach into Paragon and things grind down too much.
So, the solution that cuts combat time at least in half, and in my experience a third, isn't good because it's not....balanced? The controller in my campaign never complains. Maybe its because she's no longer being bored to tears by combats that grind on and on and on for no reason.
Plus, this is one of those things. The minute you say game balance I shake my head: I have yet to figure out what those words are supposed to mean. The math involved in arguments about game balance generally takes one thing into account instead of another. Minions aren't reduced in power so the controller is weaker, right? That's the logic? But shorter combats make slide, push, and pull more effective. Plus, doubling their damage, makes minions stronger and thus become AoEs more important.
Look, I've playtested the half hp, double damage thing for a few months. In my opinion, it works. Telling a group of friends that D and D is quiet time will work too if you have the right group of friends who don't mind playing that way. Mine wouldn't. I tried that solution first and it was ludicrously unpopular with my group.
Well every solution to this sort of problem will be group specific. For example if my group were to do double damage....well everything we fought would die in one round because we have two or three optimized strikers in the group who are already bloodying enemies two levels higher than us with one attack.
Did the devs took into account how many rounds for a monster to stay on in combat? I really dislike it when everybody is down to at-wills and just spamming it over and over again. I know that monsters have to stay longer in the game as a feature for tactical combat or else if it dies in 2 rounds, then all the power's tactics is useless when you can't execute it.
Personally I find that combat takes just as long in 4ed as it did in 3rd. My 3rd edition group took 3 hours for a single fight, and my 4th edition group takes 3 hours for a single fight. I blame it on the fact that we play online adding a whole variety of unique issues to each combat.So, the solution that cuts combat time at least in half, and in my experience a third, isn't good because it's not....balanced? The controller in my campaign never complains. Maybe its because she's no longer being bored to tears by combats that grind on and on and on for no reason.
Plus, this is one of those things. The minute you say game balance I shake my head: I have yet to figure out what those words are supposed to mean. The math involved in arguments about game balance generally takes one thing into account instead of another. Minions aren't reduced in power so the controller is weaker, right? That's the logic? But shorter combats make slide, push, and pull more effective. Plus, doubling their damage, makes minions stronger and thus become AoEs more important.
Look, I've playtested the half hp, double damage thing for a few months. In my opinion, it works. Telling a group of friends that D and D is quiet time will work too if you have the right group of friends who don't mind playing that way. Mine wouldn't. I tried that solution first and it was ludicrously unpopular with my group.
Well every solution to this sort of problem will be group specific. For example if my group were to do double damage....well everything we fought would die in one round because we have two or three optimized strikers in the group who are already bloodying enemies two levels higher than us with one attack.
Fair enough. There's an ongoing forum thread for this somewhere, but I can't find it right now.
Some other suggestions: encourage your players to use interesting ideas to do damage rather than at wills. The low, medium, and high numbers for limited damage in the dmg and dmg II will help put non-strikers in striker range. Encourage the use of intimidate on low willed opponents. Have minions run when their leaders die. Have anything run when it is clear that the fight isn't worth pressing on until death. Use more minions. Have players write their effects, beyond simple damage, on a white board (rather than taking the time to explain it to you). Start the round by having players put chits on the power they are most likely to use that round (give them the opportunity to change later if they need to)--this will insure that everyone quibbles over what action to take at the same time. Allow a free intimidate whenever a monster is bloodied (that's in house). Any and all of these will help speed up your combat.
...wish I could find the thread, there are more there.
Doubling damage makes Stikers better and Leaders/Controllers weaker- it's not a balanced solution.
So, the solution that cuts combat time at least in half, and in my experience a third, isn't good because it's not....balanced? The controller in my campaign never complains. Maybe its because she's no longer being bored to tears by combats that grind on and on and on for no reason.
Plus, this is one of those things. The minute you say game balance I shake my head: I have yet to figure out what those words are supposed to mean. The math involved in arguments about game balance generally takes one thing into account instead of another. Minions aren't reduced in power so the controller is weaker, right? That's the logic? But shorter combats make slide, push, and pull more effective. Plus, doubling their damage, makes minions stronger and thus become AoEs more important.
Look, I've playtested the half hp, double damage thing for a few months. In my opinion, it works. Telling a group of friends that D and D is quiet time will work too if you have the right group of friends who don't mind playing that way. Mine wouldn't. I tried that solution first and it was ludicrously unpopular with my group.
Controller/Defender effects to deny actions are pointless if monsters die before their next turn comes up. The stilted action economy of the enemies dying faster isn't made up for by the double damage; so healing and endurance is less important. It's fine if you group is so upset about combat time they just want to get it over; but don't pretend it's not marginalizing some classes while promoting others.
It's fine if you group is so upset about combat time they just want to get it over; but don't pretend it's not marginalizing some classes while promoting others.
Alright, I won't pretend.
I have yet to do any encounters in the dungeon itself yet, but when we do I expect the encounters to be over even quicker.
Doubling damage makes Stikers better and Leaders/Controllers weaker- it's not a balanced solution.
So, the solution that cuts combat time at least in half, and in my experience a third, isn't good because it's not....balanced? The controller in my campaign never complains. Maybe its because she's no longer being bored to tears by combats that grind on and on and on for no reason.
Plus, this is one of those things. The minute you say game balance I shake my head: I have yet to figure out what those words are supposed to mean. The math involved in arguments about game balance generally takes one thing into account instead of another. Minions aren't reduced in power so the controller is weaker, right? That's the logic? But shorter combats make slide, push, and pull more effective. Plus, doubling their damage, makes minions stronger and thus become AoEs more important.
Look, I've playtested the half hp, double damage thing for a few months. In my opinion, it works. Telling a group of friends that D and D is quiet time will work too if you have the right group of friends who don't mind playing that way. Mine wouldn't. I tried that solution first and it was ludicrously unpopular with my group.
Controller/Defender effects to deny actions are pointless if monsters die before their next turn comes up. The stilted action economy of the enemies dying faster isn't made up for by the double damage; so healing and endurance is less important. It's fine if you group is so upset about combat time they just want to get it over; but don't pretend it's not marginalizing some classes while promoting others.
Guys this is derailing the thread a bit, but it does nicely illustrate my point. I see the suggestion of doubling up damage quite a lot. Fifteen minute battles sounds wonderful. But I have many of the questions brought up here about whether it would marginalize certain classes or powers. This is exactly the kind of thing I would like to see WotC officially address.
I'm really hoping there is a good chapter or at least a section on the DMG3 on optimizing combat.
As for books that tell you how to play alternative versions of D and D. Yeah. I'd like them, but I think the population of gamers is kind of split between people who want to get the game as it exists to work (or showing people that it already does), and people who want to see changes the likes of which no one can seem to agree on.
In other news though, it looks like there will be a section on speeding up combat in the new Players Tactics Guide book-thingee that's set to come out soon.
Indeed, in hindsight my post might have been more strident than intended. But I've played games where the monsters had half normal HP, or even worse when almost every monster was a minion repeatedly- battles went fast but there was no reason to do anything more than charging or an accuracy boosted at will: tactical debuffs or positioning was often wasted, and it really dampened the fight experience.
Exactly. If you want shorter fights, the trick is finding a way to do it that doesn't make it boring. I, personally, would rather have longer, interesting fights than quick, dull fights.
I've said this before, but there are some really easy ways to speed up combat that don't involve changing the rules of the game at all. It requires doing something harder, breaking bad player habits.
1. Minimize distractions. Unless it's critical, no cell phones, video games, TV, etc. If you have a laptop as a game aid, ONLY use it for a game aid. Do not putz around on Facebook, YouTube, or whatever.
2. Tangent to #1: Pay attention between turns. When the DM calls your name, you shouldn't look at the map and start asking 'where'd this guy come from? Is anybody bloodied? What's that figure there?'. Plan out your move as much as you can between turns; sometimes the DM will throw in a curveball that will make your idea unworkable, but usually it's not too hard to get an idea.
3. Minimize conversational tangents. I know gaming is a social activity, but once the game gets rolling, try to resist telling this funny story that you heard at work earlier or the joke you read on that forum.
4. Take a few minutes at the start of the game, before things get rolling, to familiarize yourself with your character, look over the sheet, and ask questions about how powers or feats work then rather than while you're in the thick of things. This is more a matter of tempo than time, since it'll take the same length of time to answer the questions, really.
And one for the DM side that I *highly* recommend:
5. Unless the monsters really do exist for no reason other than to get their butts kicked (guardian constructs, undead crypt guardians, extreme zealots), if/when it becomes painfully obvious that the PCs are going to win, have the monsters run away or surrender. The PCs will get full XP, if they're worrying about that, and you won't have to deal with what seems to be the most common complaint about long fights, that 'long grindy bit at the end where the PCs have obviously won but you still have to push through it'.