|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:22AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
define "more things".
More options, and more actions. Players tended optimized to fully use their minor and immediate actions. Also, the designers started introducing more free and triggered actions.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:24AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
define "more things".
More options, and more actions. Players tended optimized for fully utilize their minor and immediate actions. Also, the designers started introducing more free and triggered actions.
Ah, okay. Makes sense. I didn't think it possible to make combat more detailed, but then again, I always had a standard house rule of "3 free actions per round and no more". As it is supposed to be a 6 second round, therefore there's only so many things you can do in 6 seconds before you're bending time and space...
Edit: Or hell...was it 2 free actions? I can't remember.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:29AM
#33
|
|
|
One thing that bothers me about 4e is the commonly-held belief (in my experience) that if you don't use each one of your actions for something, you've failed somehow as a player. I sit in disbelief at the number of players that hem and haw and waste everyone's time desperately trying to fill up all of their actions.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:37AM
#34
|
|
|
The longer I play, the more convinced I become that D&D initiative is a terrible system -- it's swingy (espeically in its modern d20 incarnation), slows down play, and seldom has any interesting effects other than "we alphastrike him before he can alphastrike us".
I've tried various times to convince the players that they should just act in the order they are seated, like how you take turns in a card game. (Rationale: How much real-time does it take to determine who goes when in a poker game? Answer: basically zero seconds.) However the players don't like this idea so I haven't enforced it.
I will admit that as a DM, I typically cheat on monster init. I won't make the highest monster's init higher than it was, but I will flagrantly make up inits for the other monsters specifically to spread them out. I like the rounds to go PC / monster type 1 / PC / monster type 2 / PC monster type 3 / etc.
Anyway. If you can figure out a way to remove initiative rolling from the game, do so. It will speed things up drastically.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:40AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I sit in disbelief at the number of players that hem and haw and waste everyone's time desperately trying to fill up all of their actions.
The DM should be on to the next player by then. Protests of "I'm not done yet" from new players go away quick enough.
In fact: anytime a player tells me what his minor action is, I try to give him a look of "if this does not affect my creatures, why are you even telling me this?!"
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:44AM
#36
|
|
|
The longer I play, the more convinced I become that D&D initiative is a terrible system -- it's swingy (espeically in its modern d20 incarnation), slows down play, and seldom has any interesting effects other than "we alphastrike him before he can alphastrike us".
I've tried various times to convince the players that they should just act in the order they are seated, like how you take turns in a card game. (Rationale: How much real-time does it take to determine who goes when in a poker game? Answer: basically zero seconds.) However the players don't like this idea so I haven't enforced it.
I will admit that as a DM, I typically cheat on monster init. I won't make the highest monster's init higher than it was, but I will flagrantly make up inits for the other monsters specifically to spread them out. I like the rounds to go PC / monster type 1 / PC / monster type 2 / PC monster type 3 / etc.
Anyway. If you can figure out a way to remove initiative rolling from the game, do so. It will speed things up drastically.
A man after my own heart... I can't stand initiative either. The "gearshift" alone from non-combat to combat is excrutiating.
I'll be playing Marvel RPG this weekend and (as I understand it), someone jumps in and goes first, then when they are done with their spotlight time, hands it off to whoever they want, and that person does the same. That makes so much more sense to me.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:01AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
curious as to why 4e combat takes so long
More HP than previous editions, and more things that you can do.
There's more damage, too, so I don't think more HP is really the issue. There are more cool options, though, and people feel the need to maximize these in every fight.
There are more numbers and people always feel they need to keep exact track of the numbers. Most of the numbers don't matter though, and a group with a little experience can be just as fast in 4e as in any other editions (which, as I recall, didn't have combat that was either particularly speedy or interesting in the slightest.)
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:03AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
I've tried various times to convince the players that they should just act in the order they are seated, like how you take turns in a card game.
My groups do that. The DMG even recommends it.
But you can do it within the rules. Having the monsters go on the same init allows for it.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:12AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
I've tried various times to convince the players that they should just act in the order they are seated, like how you take turns in a card game.
My groups do that. The DMG even recommends it.
But you can do it within the rules. Having the monsters go on the same init allows for it.
I think this could work and solve many issues with initiative. Just be sure to mix it up and go from left to right for one encounter then right to left for the next. Maybe even a game of musical chairs between sessions so the guys in the middle get a chance to go first that night in combat. Otherwise, you could have arguments pop up about who should be sitting where, as eventually, someone is going to get upset that their high dexterity character never gets to go first in combat.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:13AM
#40
|
|
|
But you can do it within the rules. Having the monsters go on the same init allows for it.
Sure, our groups just prefers not to use that rule.
I go back and forth on "all monsters act on same init". Yes, it is faster. However, it can lead to situations where due to geometry of the battle, all the monsters attack the same PC(s) on the same init count, which is pretty dangerous when it happens. Thus, I prefer to spread the monsters out.
|
|
|
