|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 7:13PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I voted for 6 rounds...not too few not too many, enought to crack all your expendable ressources and for Until the end of the encounter Effects to last enought to be enjoyable. Surprised Round not included.
Somethimes, Dazed or much worse Conditions prevent you from taking actions and so a 6 Rounds combat doesn't equate 6 Turn necessarly. Also, the 1st Round often serve to position yourself, sometime Melee characters dont even attack if the starting distance is too great etc..
6 the magic number !
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 7:51PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
I like 3-4 rounds better. But it also depends on the campaign conventions.
For a more Shadowrun feel, I'd try and tweak house rules to get closer to 2 (very very brutal) rounds. For a more heroic campaign, I might aim for 5 instead.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:15PM
#13
|
|
|
I like 3-4 rounds better. But it also depends on the campaign conventions.
For a more Shadowrun feel, I'd try and tweak house rules to get closer to 2 (very very brutal) rounds. For a more heroic campaign, I might aim for 5 instead.
It seems the optimal for the average number of rounds depends on the flavor of adventure. In any case, its a good idea to mix it up for combat length every once in a while.
Given the numbers here, the average average seems like it might be 4 rounds, with a bell curve ranging from 2 to 6. At the rarer extremes, the 6 rounds suit dramatic narrative climax encounters, and the 2 rounds suit high-speed action-adventure encounters.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:17PM
#14
|
|
|
Until people get bored.
If a combat takes 15 rounds and everybody's still engaged and excited and interested, not a problem.
If a combat takes 3 rounds and everybody's bored, problem.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:20PM
#15
|
|
|
I agree 4-6 depending on starting positions and suprize rounds ect...
But, I have a question. I am running a game soon with only 3 players, should I still aim for 4-6?
In the Nentir Vale, all injured creatures are required to wear a name tag!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:27PM
#16
|
|
|
Arbitrary Example
If that's how you think it should be run, wouldn't crashing the wedding in your example be better handled as a skill challenge, rather than as a collection of weak independent encounters?
That's actually my point. Thematically, as you reach higher levels, very little except the BBEG poses any real threat to the heroes in the world. To that end, you could reduce most sessions to a flavorful skill challenge and reduce multiple combats to a couple really interesting ones when you reach that kind of power level.
But that was all in response to the guy who said combats should go longer as you get to a higher level. I argue that it would be appropriate to the scale of the PCs' power that there would be fewer actual threats to their lives (combat would boil down to skill challenges) and the combats that are threats to their lives shouldn't last more than 5 rounds.
After all, when you have the kind of power to kill a god... You either do or you don't. There's no drawn-out battle when you miss killing the god. He gets to smite your uppity mortal coil if you don't put him down pretty quickly.
As a DM, I find it easier to just punish the players no matter what they pick, as I assume they will pick stuff that is broken. I mean, fight after fight they kill all the monsters without getting killed themselves! What sort of a game is this, anyway?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:28PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
2-5, with most fights sitting around 3, and tough fights reaching 4-5.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:43PM
#18
|
|
|
2-5, with most fights sitting around 3, and tough fights reaching 4-5.
I voted 3 but this is what I meant.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 8:46PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
I agree 4-6 depending on starting positions and suprize rounds ect...
But, I have a question. I am running a game soon with only 3 players, should I still aim for 4-6?
Currently playing a 3-characters moderately-optimized party, just hit paragon, and fights take about 1 or 2 rounds longer than the 4-6 average. Daze, stun and other nasty conditions have a bigger impact on a smaller party.
-Realize You are your own source of all Creation, of your own master plan.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 28, 2011 - 10:28PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
Level is pretty important here. If you're doing 2-3 round battles in epic, you're ending fights with the majority of your powers unused. Also, the scale and complexity of fights should increase as level goes up.
You should definitely avoid a slugfest, but if you have ideas for dynamic, multifaceted encounters, they simply can't be fully enjoyed in three rounds. If you're killing orcs in a field, 2-3 rounds should do it. If you're battling a wizard in his labratory with summoned pets and magical traps, 7-8 rounds could very well be called for.
I'd put my average around 5-6 rounds, just because I like things to happen during encounters that require changes in strategy, and if there is an easy series of fights we just RP/Skill it instead.
|
|
|
