Community

May 3, 2012 -- 5:07AM, Mablok wrote:

Kaldric is right on this point.  They are speeding up the game.  They could have just said it that way.  They want a game that something significant could be done in one hour.   Whereas now you'd be lucky to get a single combat done in that time.

 

If the combat is significant that is how long I want it take.. I want players getting enough choices and opportunities to change the flow of the fight and retreat if necessary.

If the combat isnt significant then a single choice and die roll per player might work. (like knocking it in to a skill challenge)

May 3, 2012 -- 2:43AM, Kaldric wrote:

'It doesn't take 4 hours to resolve 3 combats' is a laudable design goal, in my book. 

I guess thats a problem my group just doesnt have. As a GM I give people 30 seconds to atleast say what they are doing then a minute to do it or they lose their turn. The logic being that if you were paying attention during other people's turns you don't need more than a minute and half to have enough info to make your choice. I also expect everyone to know their character, which for me is easily since almost everyone is an optimizer and they know what their builds designed to do.

I've noticed almost no one else does this even though I've done is since 3.5 came out: Enemies who break and run when its clear they have lost. Not everyone is an elite agent with high will power or a mindless undead, they won't fight to the death unless cornered. Easily saves 2-3 turns of dragged out "sweeping up" when its clear the PCs have won.

May 4, 2012 -- 7:37AM, Phried wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 11:52PM, MusicOfCreation wrote:

Finally a mini-rant. Make a darned viable Necromancer. Not this Necromancy-specialized-Wizard-who-sucked-at-reanimating-the-undead-compared-to-the-Cleric nonsense that has been a part of the game for who knows how long now. That used to piss me off so much that arcane spellcasters made such horrible Necromancers in D&D when arcane magic seemed to be so closely linked to what necromancy was.

I too would like to see that, I prefer 4e but one thing I did not like was lacking a way for PCs to have effective pets. I do understand that it just adds more people to the initiative cycle and its not "heroic" to sit back casting buff spells while monster tear your enemies part but I was part of the initial pokemon generation when it hit North America so its to ingrained in me.

There are ways to do it that wouldn't hinder the game in any sense. Such as creating obstructed squares that opportunity attack when you move away from them, or summons that create minions over the course of several rounds that only attack on the necros command, etc...

May 4, 2012 -- 7:50AM, Kaldric wrote:

A turn that takes 30 seconds to say what you're doing, and a minute to actually DO it, takes 90 seconds overall. With 5 players and a DM running 5 significant NPCs in an encounter, that'll take 450 seconds for player turns, then another... let's say the DM is just lightning fast and takes half that time to do all his - 225 seconds for the DM. That's 675 seconds per round. About 11 minutes. Five rounds, 55 minutes.

About normal for 4E games I've played and observed - except I keep turns at 1 minute overall, and between 5 and 7 rounds.

It takes 40 minutes to an hour to run a combat. I can't stand that. *shrug* That's taking 9 to 12 TIMES longer than I want to take.

I agree they could and should speed up combat, but how do you get the players time down to less than a minute without making them all do the same thing over and over? (in other words how do you still give them options while keeping their time down)...

May 4, 2012 -- 8:07AM, Kaldric wrote:

I keep the time down by:

1. They declare their actions, all at once, before rolling initiative on one die for the entire group.
2. They don't use miniatures or a grid - they don't count squares or read over a character sheet to see what they can do.
3. They simply say what they want to do, and I resolve that. Being able to do so quickly and fairly is what makes me a good DM.

So. My game:

Me: What are you guys doing?

Player 1: I run around the front line, kick off the wall, and attack the leader.
Player 2: I scream a challenge and charge the front line, engaging as many as I can.
Player 3: I use a potion of invisibility, sneak around, and kack their caster in the coccyx. 

Me:  Initiative. (each side rolls 1d6) You guys go first.  P1, it's an easy stunt, take a -2 to hit and they can't block you. P2, the front line will answer your challenge and close around you - you can engage them all. P3, that's going to take a round at least. Roll attacks and damage.

Everyone rolls attacks and damage, and on to the next round.

Go play Savage Worlds, its obviously what you want even if you don't know it yet. Don't make WotC think people want D&D turned into Savage worlds for your own sake. Seriously, I suggest you check that game out, based on what you have said you will love its combat system.