|
Post by tombowings on Jan 23, 2021 14:40:59 GMT -6
I'll take your word for it. I wasn't playing any D&D at all during the years 4e was a thing. I barely played any 3e. Most of the d20 stuff I did was Star Wars and I never owned any of the books. I hear two completely different representations of what 4e was online. It seems people either really liked it or really hated it and there's no middle ground much. I'm on the fence with regards to 4e. I liked the idea of powers. I didn't like feats. I wish more utility powers applies to non-combat situations. I like the elf/eladrin split. I loved power sources. I liked healing surges, but I didn't like how quickly they returned. Warlords and warlocks were cool. Cleric powers only meshed with a handful of deities. Overall, there was a lot I liked and a lot I didn't. It's not a game I'd return to, but it's a game I enjoy thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 23, 2021 17:32:03 GMT -6
I guess I should start charging- I was a Professional Dungeon Master when I ran 4E! I suppose it comes down to how you define "professional," but I've run games at my local game store and they throw perks at the DM for doing it. Does that count? I'm trying to remember if I was ever paid actual cash to run a game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 5:55:29 GMT -6
I guess I should start charging- I was a Professional Dungeon Master when I ran 4E! Well, if you can gather an audience like Matthew Colville has then go for it. A slight aside from the main topic, but I have a feeling I'd enjoy playing in M.C.'s games. Most people wanna play for Mercer but I feel like he has a railroady story in mind whereas Coleville applies more of an old school sandbox approach. Back on the main topic, definitely study the DMG for tips on faster combat. It's been about a year and a half since I ran 5e but the last ten or twelve sessions I ran, I was using average damage for monster attacks instead of rolling, to name one. The fewer dice you roll per combat round, the faster combat is, for better or worse. The obvious downside here is that you miss out on those lucky swipes where you only take minimum damage, or those "oh crap" moments where he whollops you good. But this was a level 16 party against monsters that had up to four or five attacks per round and that's soooooo many actions. They were fighting Balors and their minions. Good Lord. So many Actions.
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jan 24, 2021 6:19:17 GMT -6
In my current 5E game, combats rarely take that long; it's clearly not as fast as some older editions would be, but simple combats (as opposed to 'boss fights') don't generally take us 2 hours (though in my old in-person, pre-COVID game, with 9 people at the table, stuff could certainly drag out). But I think this may be because we don't usually have a ton of 'analysis paralysis' in our group - most people have one or two standard things they do unless there's a specific obvious reason to do otherwise, people aren't checking their whole spell list every turn. 5E with 'analysis paralysis' inclined players is potentially *way* slower, since most characters have spells or some equivalent.
I actually looked at the time in last night's game. A simple battle took about 20 minutes; a big, complex boss fight took about an hour and 15 minutes.
I'm not using average damage for monsters, either, so it could be faster... but it doesn't "feel" slow.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 24, 2021 6:36:55 GMT -6
In my current 5E game, combats rarely take that long; it's clearly not as fast as some older editions would be, but simple combats (as opposed to 'boss fights') don't generally take us 2 hours (though in my old in-person, pre-COVID game, with 9 people at the table, stuff could certainly drag out). But I think this may be because we don't usually have a ton of 'analysis paralysis' in our group - most people have one or two standard things they do unless there's a specific obvious reason to do otherwise, people aren't checking their whole spell list every turn. 5E with 'analysis paralysis' inclined players is potentially *way* slower, since most characters have spells or some equivalent. I actually looked at the time in last night's game. A simple battle took about 20 minutes; a big, complex boss fight took about an hour and 15 minutes. I'm not using average damage for monsters, either, so it could be faster... but it doesn't "feel" slow.
And that's similar to my experience. The net effect is that it seems to take so much longer to accomplish something that OD&D can handle quickly. So here is my current thought: (1) Half hit points for everyone to make battles faster. No other alterations at this time. (2) My son is moving 40 minutes closer, so we will get to play twice as often. Those two things might clean up my issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 6:48:47 GMT -6
The half hit points idea is good. 5e seems to have kept the Health Bloat that started in 3e and continued to develop. You have an obscene amount of HP at higher levels in 5e, and a simple Ancient Dragon or Storm Giant in this edition has more HP than some of the Deities & Demigods from 1e. Everything is just bigger and stronger.
Hey, that brings me to an idea of sorts. What if we used the d6 standard from Brown Box? Forget variable dice. Use the Oe/Holmes methodology. d20s for attack rolls and saves. D6s for everything else, including Hit Dice and damage dice. It could work. I'd like to test it out with a micro-campaign sometime, maybe on here via pbp. Might be a good summertime side project.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 24, 2021 9:20:24 GMT -6
I halved HP for 4e, it def makes for significant improvement. Increased accuracy in 4e and 5e is the reason for HP bloat. Hit more often, so they toughen things up. I'm all for the increased accuracy but instead of making combat last more rounds they need to design monsters to be more dangerous in the rounds they are up. Give them more things to do, which 4e was great at ( and you did not need to reference anything outside of the statblock)
As for Colville. I tried to watch his liveplay one time and ...IDK... I'd much rather play under his friend Jim who started back in 75 with OD&D. I can't recall his last name but Colville did a 2 hour interview with him (and talked over Jim most of the time, really dooshy) and he has his own YT channel too.Interesting perspective from a west coast wargamer from BITD.
|
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dohojar on Jan 24, 2021 14:22:33 GMT -6
I agree hit point bloat is at least a part of the issue with combat taking longer but the characters can do a lot of damage in a single turn at higher levels so I don't really see it as being that much of an issue. The main reason I see for combat taking longer is the players themselves. With more character option, they tend to take way longer figuring out what they are doing on their turn. This might not be an issue with some groups if they have their shirt together, but in my group, some of my players take way to long figuring out what they are doing. Or they are looking up what a certain spell does. I am thinking of adding a timer to my game and player having only a minute or so to give me their action.
The other thing I see causing combat to take longer is the players using math. Even though 5e is all addition, I find some players just can't add up their dice rolls and modifiers very fast under pressure. Especially when there are a lot of dice to add up. Even if they take and extra 10 seconds to add up dice rolls, over time it adds up.
For the monster they are fighting, I just usually go for the average damage on hits. It saves me a lot of dice rolling. And if the characters are having to easy of a time with an encounter that is supposed to be difficult, then I just up the damage output and/or the creatures hit points. 5e give the average hip points for all monsters and their actual hit dice as well. It's not to hard to figure out a creatures max hit points on the fly. Same for damage output.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 24, 2021 15:39:39 GMT -6
...the characters can do a lot of damage in a single turn at higher levels... It's maybe worth noting that I tend to cap my campaigns somewhere around level 7 or 8. To me that's "high levels" even though the 5E rulebook goes to level 20.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 16:26:06 GMT -6
I halved HP for 4e, it def makes for significant improvement. Increased accuracy in 4e and 5e is the reason for HP bloat. Hit more often, so they toughen things up. I'm all for the increased accuracy but instead of making combat last more rounds they need to design monsters to be more dangerous in the rounds they are up. Give them more things to do, which 4e was great at ( and you did not need to reference anything outside of the statblock) As for Colville. I tried to watch his liveplay one time and ...IDK... I'd much rather play under his friend Jim who started back in 75 with OD&D. I can't recall his last name but Colville did a 2 hour interview with him (and talked over Jim most of the time, really dooshy) and he has his own YT channel too.Interesting perspective from a west coast wargamer from BITD. You're talking about Jim Murphy, the Game Methusela. He's a big proponent of what he calls Zero Edition and also Fantasy Trip, and an avid miniatures collector and painter.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 24, 2021 17:51:27 GMT -6
In 13A, HP run pretty high as well- but characters roll a # of damage dice (depends on weapon/class) for each experience level. E.G. a 10th level Fighter with a Greatsword on a normal hit does 10D10, + whatever bonuses for str. There is an option for average damage as well for PCs. But talents and "powers" allow for extra potent attacks, sometimes doubling damage output or more. Additionally, some extra potent attacks trigger off the die roll itself (an even or odd roll, or a natural 16+) But the game caps out at level 10, which is Epic level play- i.e. fighting the most ancient of dragons, Balors, etc.
Despite the high numbers of damage and HP, I don't find combat nearly as time consuming as 3,4,5E (RAW) because though characters have more potential triggers to increase damage, the powers themselves are few in number, and for most classes not terribly fiddly. Characters get better or open up new possibilities in the things they already have been doing since level 1. Some classes are more complex than others for sure, but players are not constantly barraged with a new spell/feat/talent that requires learning an entirely new subsystem/set of mechanics. Also, most PCs have no more than 1 attack per round-one is still the norm (you may get a second attack cause you rolled well on your first attack, or you get to do a re-roll because of a talent if you roll poorly). They keep the # of attacks to a minimum and increase damage output and hit probability.
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jan 24, 2021 17:54:55 GMT -6
I halved HP for 4e, it def makes for significant improvement. Increased accuracy in 4e and 5e is the reason for HP bloat. Hit more often, so they toughen things up. I'm all for the increased accuracy but instead of making combat last more rounds they need to design monsters to be more dangerous in the rounds they are up. Give them more things to do, which 4e was great at ( and you did not need to reference anything outside of the statblock) As for Colville. I tried to watch his liveplay one time and ...IDK... I'd much rather play under his friend Jim who started back in 75 with OD&D. I can't recall his last name but Colville did a 2 hour interview with him (and talked over Jim most of the time, really dooshy) and he has his own YT channel too.Interesting perspective from a west coast wargamer from BITD. You're talking about Jim Murphy, the Game Methusela. He's a big proponent of what he calls Zero Edition and also Fantasy Trip, and an avid miniatures collector and painter. Yep, that's the guy!
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on Jan 25, 2021 0:59:09 GMT -6
The main reason I see for combat taking longer is the players themselves. With more character option, they tend to take way longer figuring out what they are doing on their turn. This might not be an issue with some groups if they have their shirt together, but in my group, some of my players take way to long figuring out what they are doing. Or they are looking up what a certain spell does. Yeah, definitely this. My current group, people generally know what they're going to do very quickly -- even when battles run long, they're complex battles, and it doesn't "feel" slow since the individual turns go quickly.
A previous group had much more "analysis paralysis" and it could take ages.
|
|