|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 10:41PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2012
|
These are good ideas, thanks.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 9:18AM
#82
|
|
|
Who loves thread necromancy? Anyway, I wanted to add a small point of dissention. I don't agree with the "average dmg" suggestion for combat expediting mostly because it takes a lot of the random excitement away. Combat becomes more clockwork machinery than an exciting and dynamic event with random outcomes. When all your hits are resolves like a minion's...what's cool about that? Further, for all the players out there with conditional damage, this doesn't help much. For example, a mid to high level character probably has damage modifiers off all kinds of conditions (target is granting combat advantage, prone, vulnerable to your damage (re: frost cheese), bloodied, closer to you (re: prime shot), etc). Personally, I find the biggest time sinks are cross-talk, rules arguments, tactics/strategy injection, and interrupts (one creature's action triggers 3 players to interrupt and 1 other player is triggered from one of their triggers....rinse repeat once per round). Combat speed by far slows down at paragon and grinds to a halt at epic. In epic play, it's not uncommon for a single battle (6-8 enemies) to take a party of 6 players 3-4 hours to complete. There are simply so many possibilities for action. On the player's turn, even assuming they are paying attenion, they have to:
- evaluate tactical situation up to their turn (it changes up to the last second before their turn starts)
- handle any ongoing or status effects on them
- review their list of magic items
- review and select encounter/will/daily powers based on conditional effects (that guy is prone and next to 2 other enemies, so if I use this power I will produce the optimal result)
- execute the powers
- calculate hit attacks based on conditions
- calculate damage result based on conditions
- move or not move
- review if all actions that could be taken have been taken and reassess the tactical situation
As soon as a player makes playing effectively and intelligently their goal they have to process all of this data mentally and compound it with how to synergize with his party members (if I hold off 1 round, I know my priest will put a vulnerability debuff on that demon so I should hold my big multi-attack power for then). Even with veteran players, it just takes a lot of time. It's a product of the game mechanics and design. I do very much like the idea of roles for players at the table (rules guy, init guy, status guy, etc). I think I may try that next time.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 10:52AM
#83
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I don't agree with the "average dmg" suggestion for combat expediting mostly because it takes a lot of the random excitement away. Combat becomes more clockwork machinery than an exciting and dynamic event with random outcomes. When all your hits are resolves like a minion's...what's cool about that?
Preference noted. However, at higher levels the damage dice don't actually account for much randomness (i.e. the more dice you roll, the less swingy something becomes). Also, after playing Dungeon Command last night, I can vouch that you can have randomness, excitement and coolness without any dice even (despite what most players intuitively presume).
Still, I understand your preference that dice are cool, but even that really shouldn't stop the DM from using average damage to speed play for the monsters.
for all the players out there with conditional damage, this doesn't help much.
It has worked great for these in my experience. My epic rogue had a huge amount of conditional damage... all of which was pre-calculated (which, as a conservative estimate, quadrupled my speed in combat).
Even Stephen Radney-MacFarland (one of the original 4e writers, and a legendary DM) has recommended the method, stating in this article that: "keeping the attack die roll while using average damage should almost cut the time for each turn in half"
I don't necessarily expect you to trust me, but I've used this method a lot (multiple games a week for 4 years) and it has helped immensely. I don't think I still be playing 4e otherwise.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 1:46PM
#84
|
|
|
Pre-calculating for the conditions doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps you could explain it?
For example, I have a ranger who has conditions like this:
If applying quarry: +3d8 dmg
If closest to enemy: +5 to damage Called Shot
If already hit once and target cold vuln +5 dmg
If using cold "mode", do +4 dmg (Icy Heart)
If using cold "mode", do +4 dmg (Gloves of Ice)
If using cold "mode", do +5 dmg (Siberys Shard)
If prone +2 dmg
If bloodied and providing combat advantage +5 dmg
If using daily power Master of Hunt, +6 wisdom to damage
That doesn't even factor in if I'm using magical ammution which adds an additional amount of variable damage depending on arrow (I have a dozen different types). In addition, exactly ZERO of this is added up for me in the character builder...
So...how do I preroll that? I've found I'm not unusual, either. My party members have similar conditions as melee fighters when enemies are prone or granting combat advantage or bloodied, etc.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 2:00PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
As soon as a player makes playing effectively and intelligently their goal they have to process all of this data mentally and compound it with how to synergize with his party members (if I hold off 1 round, I know my priest will put a vulnerability debuff on that demon so I should hold my big multi-attack power for then). Even with veteran players, it just takes a lot of time. It's a product of the game mechanics and design.
No, it isn't. It's a product of the concept of having the goal of "playing effectively and intelligently." That's ok, in reasonable amounts, but it gets taken too far. Players want to play perfectly even if "somewhat adequately" would have roughly the same end result. Numerous times I've been playing or running a game in which the players are discussing optimal play, even when the monsters are clearly on the ropes. Once I point this out to them, they stop worrying about maximizing their turns, and just move.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 2:17PM
#86
|
|
|
Centauri, I think you've made a clear point. It's true that players who are maximizing are having to do this extra mental processing to optimize...
But then the counter point is that in order to play the game quickly, one must sacrifice playing it well/effectively. That seems like shaky design ground for WoTC to stand on.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 2:21PM
#87
|
|
|
Centauri, I think you've made a clear point. It's true that players who are maximizing are having to do this extra mental processing to optimize...
But then the counter point is that in order to play the game quickly, one must sacrifice playing it well/effectively. That seems like shaky design ground for WoTC to stand on.
Anyone brave enough to make this into its own thread? (I don't have that kind of courage much as I'd like to see it discussed.)
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 11, 2012 - 2:36PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
But then the counter point is that in order to play the game quickly, one must sacrifice playing it well/effectively. That seems like shaky design ground for WoTC to stand on.
You have to sacrifice playing it perfectly. Characters can be quite effective with about half the effort players put into them. Most of the time, the counting, the adding, the comparisons, the back-tracking, the arguing adds up to a big null that changes nothing about the overall outcome and just wastes time. That doesn't mean the numbers don't matter at all, but that most of the time it's easy to see from the d20 roll whether they will or not. I just rolled a 2 and an 8 for my attack rolls in an online game. I don't have to double check anything, query the DM, argue about the game or anything else to know those are misses. Done. Move on. And one of the enemies might have had cover. I could have asked about that before the roll, consulted the rules, gone back and forth until we all agreed, and then rolled. For what?
I agree that WotC is not in a good position. They're trying to accomplish too many things. They're boxed in by their own player base. I guess that's why the goal of the next edition is explicitly to let people use only the rules they want (even though they always could and always have). But some people want complex characters and quick combat. That's why Essentials didn't save 4th Edition.
The potential for speed is there, if we just get out of our own way. Another thing to consider is that, since combat is still roleplaying, we should relish that time. My fights still take over an hour each, even with only 3 players. But we never notice because the fights are about the characters and the world.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
