|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 3:14PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
As someone who had problems with combat lenght in 4E, I have to say that eventually we've managed to hit a sweetspot (upon several tweaks) of about 6 rounds for a normal fight. Tough ones will take more, easy ones less. Our range is around 4-8 (with the very rare 10+ full session battle royale once or twice in a campaign). For 3 rounds or less I wouldn't bother doing a fight, unless the PCs deliberately push for it (which they won't for fear of retaliation  ).
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 3:18PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
2-8 rounds. Most fights should be 4-5 rounds. Easy fights should be 2-3 rounds. Tough fights should be 5-6 rounds. Fights against gods should be 7-8 rounds. I REALLY like D&DN's fast combats.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 3:29PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Long enough to keep the players entertained, short enough that it doesn't become a slog  Our longest fight in any of the playtests was about 6 rounds, our shortest was...well not everyone got to act after they rolled Initiative (two crits under the max damage +2d6 system certainly wrecks a "boss" monster's day). The main thing though is that they were fun. A rough guideline of 2-3 rounds for an easy fight, 4-6 for an average one and higher for boss fights works well for me, but I always let my ability to read the table affect the pacing. If the players are having fun and are engaged then I'll alter the parameters of the combat without cheating. If they're not really and it's become a slog then I alter it in their favor. I have a fear that if there's hard and fast numbers people will cling to those as proof of how a fight is supposed to go.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 4:31PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I think fights should scale in length to how much time I as a DM have to spend setting them up. Three guards in a guard house done theater of the mind style can be over in 2-3 rounds in 10 minutes. Asmodeus and his retinue on a tabletop set up with 3D terrain? Probably 6-10 rounds over the course of an hour. Fast moving turns is a great idea, but the game needs to have a method to allow for enough give and take to make the important combats interesting, rather than a version of who won initiative rocket tag. If they do modules right, using different modules for different fights should enable this. At the very least, I do think the game needs some sort of elite or solo designation to create monsters designed to handle a sustained assault by a party of PCs that lasts longer than 3 rounds. Also, if the game doesn't have encounter powers, and daily abilities are designed to be useful past one round, you can substantially reduce the instance of mop up time, because everyone is fighting at a similar ability throughout the encounter. If you ensure that monsters don't become a weaker threat after round 3-4 and the whole fight can be interesting down to the last blow. Later 4E solo design did this well, with built in changes to how they acted when the chips were down. That way even if that dragon is pretty much destined to lose, it's not so clear if it will or will not take a party member or two down with it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 4:41PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
I feel that combat , ATM, is just a little too short. Short fighths should be about 2-3 rounds, tough fights 4-5, and boss fights 6-10, depending on the intensity. We just ran the fight against the wight from Reclaiming Blingdenstone, and the battle only lasted 3 rounds. This feels off to me. I hope that when my party squares off against Asmodeus (or any other big bad) eventually, the fight isn't a matter of 4 rounds.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 4:52PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
Run the math on his HP vs a party's DPR. It won't be a matter of 4 rounds. More like 2-3. 1 if you've got a really nic soul gem.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 4:57PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2011
|
Run the math on his HP vs a party's DPR. It won't be a matter of 4 rounds. More like 2-3. 1 if you've got a really nic soul gem.
That's ridiculous. I get that WotC wants quick combat, and to some degre. i do too, but 2 rounds of beating the crap out of an Infernal Prince is not a good finale.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 4:59PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
People talk about number of rounds per fight, number of fights per day and try to relate that to balance - but that's not the correct approach.
Balance cannot be on a razor's edge, where a little bit above or below ideal conditions you have severe damage. Balance must be across a tolerable range of potential encounter design, character choices, and adventure/campaign styles. Now, what "tolerable" means is inherently subjective, but there's incentive to having that range being wider rather than narrower. Some slack in the design is critical to the system as a whole being able to meet the other goals in addition to balance.
This means that you may have some fights where one character or another is overly strong. That's fine. It's important to know how fight duration affects various classes, but to then take that information and make a judgment on what is "best" - that is a step too far.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:12PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Not even the most fabulous on-screen fight scene would stretch over ten minutes and still keep its audience. No D&D conbat should break fifteen, and even then only for major set-piece battles with end bosses.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Dec 19, 2012 - 5:14PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Not even the most fabulous on-screen fight scene would stretch over ten minutes and still keep its audience.
Helm's Deep, Siege of Gondor.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
