Community

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:09PM, Samrin wrote:

3e requires them just as much as 4e does, perhaps even more in some cases. 4e has more forced movement, but 3e's movement is more strict thanks to extra cost for diagonal. Other than that, they basically assume a grid for the exact same stuff.

I always arranged combat 'lines' from the player's facing perspective (I know, no facing, hush) so there was never a 'diagonal' to worry about unless they were asking from one discrete point to another.  Sliding made that more of a no-go, hence my very fine distinction between the two.  At either rate, requiring grids at all is bad.  I'm not a 3.x lover, so you don't have to objectively factually prove to me the design failure of 3 vs 4 or anything.  I think all the editions had good things, although its pretty clear I enjoy some more than others (*cough* 2E).

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:13PM, anjelika wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:09PM, Samrin wrote:

3e requires them just as much as 4e does, perhaps even more in some cases. 4e has more forced movement, but 3e's movement is more strict thanks to extra cost for diagonal. Other than that, they basically assume a grid for the exact same stuff.

I always arranged combat 'lines' from the player's facing perspective (I know, no facing, hush) so there was never a 'diagonal' to worry about unless they were asking from one discrete point to another.  Sliding made that more of a no-go, hence my very fine distinction between the two.  At either rate, requiring grids at all is bad.  I'm not a 3.x lover, so you don't have to objectively factually prove to me the design failure of 3 vs 4 or anything.  I think all the editions had good things, although its pretty clear I enjoy some more than others (*cough* 2E).

I prefer a grid just because it eliminates any confusion at the table. It actually speeds things up in my experience. Not having to ask the DM about every single npc in the encounter, asking if they're in range, if you can see them, what kind of cover they have, etc. It's right there in front of you.

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:39PM, lokiare wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:16PM, anjelika wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:14PM, lokiare wrote:

you mean the combat eats into your 'interaction' or 'expoloration' time right? As you can role-play in combat just as easily as out... I think there's a thread out there somewhere that goes into exacting details on this subject...

"Over there!"
"Get 'im!"
"Now, go for the knees!"

"Great session everyone, 6,000 xp for that -amazing- in-combat roleplay..."

(This is a joke post, lighten up! )

I was thinking more along the lines of a narrative style where each character describes what they are doing in a dramatic way.

"The Orc king is getting ready to blow the Horn of Valhalla. We have to stop him. He's over there"
"Markelth, charges forward pushing Orcs out of the way left and right, slamming some with his sheild, and others with his hammer."
"Swift ducks his head and uses his short halfling stature to run between the legs of the Orcish crowd and tackles the Orc King just as he puts the Horn to his mouth."
"The wizard waves her hands in intricate gestures and mouths a long dead language that makes your ears tingle. A ball of coruscating fire forms between her outstretched hands. She fling it forward shouting "Fireball"."

DM "The crowd of Orcs burst into flames scattering in all directions just as Markelth slams into the Orc King with his shield shattering his bones and leaving him a crumpled mess on the ground."

While some of the player examples are probably a bit over the top (and nicely so!) for constant combat (if my wizard player put that 'intricate gesture and long dead language' bit in every spell...I might be forced to kill her lol), I definitely know what you mean.  I can't imagine a round of combat -not- involving an evocative declaration and described outcome by the DM.  I'd quit the hobby if the above weren't something I could find anymore.

...although I don't do third person unless I'm the DM.  If I'm playing Bob Dole (god help me), I won't refer to myself as 'The Bob Dole' lol.  But you know what I mean.

Jun 18, 2012 -- 5:10PM, Shasarak wrote:

Jun 18, 2012 -- 4:33PM, Tectuktitlay wrote:

You keep saying this on multiple threads, but 4E is not a tactical minis game. It is a roleplaying game, where combat is easiest to resolve, but not required, on a grid-based board of some sort.

Of course 4e is a roleplaying game, but it is a game that focuses too much on tactical miniature combat and that is not what I personally want out of my roleplaying games. 

When the system forces my group to spend over an hour on each combat then that eats into valuable time when we could be roleplaying. 

I only get to play once a week and wasting that time stuck in a grinding combat sim where my friends struggle to decide which of their two at-wills they should play just sucks all the fun from the game.

So far combat in the DnD Next playtest games have been fast and furious and our group agrees that it feels much more like the type of DnD that we enjoy.

Haven't had that problem, except with new people in situations like Encounters. Some intense combats take an hour, most regular ones take half that, and when you intersperse small ones in, those take 10-15 minutes and drain away some resources. Just like in every edition.

On the other hand, many 1E through 3E games have also always had lengthy combats, mostly due to people...looking up powers from the huge lists of spells and magic items. Similar to the 4E complaints I hear, even though once you know your powers, and it really just isn't all that many even at epic levels, it just doesn't take that long to choose the best one for the situation.

So no, sorry, with extensive 1E, 2E, 3E and 4E experience, I simply have not had 4E combats take up any more time than the previous versions. 

All anecdotal, all related to the same problems overall. Some PLAYERS are just slow to look up powers, and can't decide. That's not a system problem. It's a player problem.