One of the complaints I hear about 4e is that because the combat rules are so detailed, the combat takes forever.
I will be honest. I am not sure that I see it. Anecdotally, I have run 4e combat that takes a few minutes and I have run 5e combat that takes hours. On average, a typical combat encounter takes about 30-45 minutes in either version.
What do you think? Do you find that 4th edition combat is noticeably, and consistently, slower than other editions of the game? I am interested to hear about your experiences.
I'll get this started by adding that I think the speed of combat has more to do with readiness of the players and the DM than it does with the rules in question. When players know their characters and play with intent, the combat flies by even when using all the tactical rules that 4e has to offer.
I came here to venture this point. A little after 4e launched, I was involved in a Pathfinder campaign. Everyone at the table except my friend and I had been onboard D&D for at least a couple editions and were solid 3.5 players prior to Pathfinder, so what I experienced as a complicated process of combat was just part of their muscle memory.
On the other hand, I ran an excursion for completely inexperienced players in 4e and combat pretty much just happened. Is it possible that because the people at our 4e table were experienced MMO players that we had a background in some of the concepts undergirding 4e combat? My recollection was running my eyes over the scenario and thinking, ah, ok, got it. But maybe 4e was close enough to something I was experienced in that I didn't feel like I needed to dwell on it?
My recollection is that back in 2008 I saw something from the 4e development team indicating they felt they had sped up combat, and I didn't disagree, so I feel like I'm missing something when people say they felt it was ungainly. Not to disagree with them, just wondering where the problem spots were.
My first exposure to D&D was 4e so the combat rules it contained became what I expected combat for D&D would be. I had no prior experiences to color my opinions.
When I could not find a 4e game, I played Pathfinder and had no issues with the crunchy nature of that game. I enjoyed the assorted bonuses and penalties available.
When 5e came out, it was noticeable how much they had reduced combat. This was advertised as a selling point to make the game simpler, but I always felt it was missing something. It was fun in its own way, but I like the crunch. I like have all these cool things that I can do with a character or a monster.
I've never played an MMO so at least in my case that did not contribute to my ease of adoption of the the 4e rules.
I am with you that I would love to hear from someone with 4e experience that finds the combat too complex and try to understand what they do not like—beyond the generalized complaints that get passed around.
I started with Basic then AD&D long time ago and a single combat encounter might not take as long as 4e but it isn’t as interesting & fun either. First level fighter in AD&D is basically “I’ll attack the goblin with my long sword. Rolled a 12… let’s see with my strength giving me plus one that’s a 13 does that hit?” DM “let me see… (checks a chart) no you just missed him” & that goes on until he rolls a few 13s rolls up some damage and kills the goblin… then same thing for the next one. 4e the fighter uses Reaping Strike and with a 12 plus 3 from his strength he would miss too but still do 3 (STR modifier) damage because the player built his fighter to wield a two handed weapon to take advantage of this miss trigger… but wait! He doesn’t miss because he is flanking with the Rogue so she has combat advantage & does Sneak damage & they BOTH get plus 2 to hit. So he rolls d12 for his Great Axe and adds his 3 STR modifier to the damage. The goblin has more hit points in 4e (unless he’s a minion that just dies to the blow) but the duo likely finish him off in a couple rounds. The fighter has combat challenge to keep the goblin from wanting to attack the Rogue, and he’s a dwarf so he can heal with his Second Wind as a minor action… I find all this stuff to be fun. I mean why am I getting out the battle maps & minis just to do a boring 10 minute goblin slaughter? Back in Basic we just did the combat in our heads. I’d Rather do a longer and more interesting goblin slaughter 😀
This sums up one of my biggest complaints about 5e and what is so great about 4e. So often, the 5e combat turns into a couple creatures standing in the same position, hitting each other round after round until someone's hit points are gone. There is no drama. No excitement. No strategy.
This is especially problematic in the situations where you use theater of the mind. I can understand the desire to not have to roll out the maps for every small encounter, but if the encounter is not worth spending a couple extra minutes to make it tactically interesting, then why bother having it in the first place?
There is the whole notion that you should never ask for a skill check if there is no penalty for failure. Well, why bother running an encounter that does not allow the characters to do anything more than the most generalized actions.
I'd much prefer taking a little extra time to have something amazing.
I'll get this started by adding that I think the speed of combat has more to do with readiness of the players and the DM than it does with the rules in question. When players know their characters and play with intent, the combat flies by even when using all the tactical rules that 4e has to offer.
I came here to venture this point. A little after 4e launched, I was involved in a Pathfinder campaign. Everyone at the table except my friend and I had been onboard D&D for at least a couple editions and were solid 3.5 players prior to Pathfinder, so what I experienced as a complicated process of combat was just part of their muscle memory.
On the other hand, I ran an excursion for completely inexperienced players in 4e and combat pretty much just happened. Is it possible that because the people at our 4e table were experienced MMO players that we had a background in some of the concepts undergirding 4e combat? My recollection was running my eyes over the scenario and thinking, ah, ok, got it. But maybe 4e was close enough to something I was experienced in that I didn't feel like I needed to dwell on it?
My recollection is that back in 2008 I saw something from the 4e development team indicating they felt they had sped up combat, and I didn't disagree, so I feel like I'm missing something when people say they felt it was ungainly. Not to disagree with them, just wondering where the problem spots were.
My first exposure to D&D was 4e so the combat rules it contained became what I expected combat for D&D would be. I had no prior experiences to color my opinions.
When I could not find a 4e game, I played Pathfinder and had no issues with the crunchy nature of that game. I enjoyed the assorted bonuses and penalties available.
When 5e came out, it was noticeable how much they had reduced combat. This was advertised as a selling point to make the game simpler, but I always felt it was missing something. It was fun in its own way, but I like the crunch. I like have all these cool things that I can do with a character or a monster.
I've never played an MMO so at least in my case that did not contribute to my ease of adoption of the the 4e rules.
I am with you that I would love to hear from someone with 4e experience that finds the combat too complex and try to understand what they do not like—beyond the generalized complaints that get passed around.
I started with Basic then AD&D long time ago and a single combat encounter might not take as long as 4e but it isn’t as interesting & fun either. First level fighter in AD&D is basically “I’ll attack the goblin with my long sword. Rolled a 12… let’s see with my strength giving me plus one that’s a 13 does that hit?” DM “let me see… (checks a chart) no you just missed him” & that goes on until he rolls a few 13s rolls up some damage and kills the goblin… then same thing for the next one. 4e the fighter uses Reaping Strike and with a 12 plus 3 from his strength he would miss too but still do 3 (STR modifier) damage because the player built his fighter to wield a two handed weapon to take advantage of this miss trigger… but wait! He doesn’t miss because he is flanking with the Rogue so she has combat advantage & does Sneak damage & they BOTH get plus 2 to hit. So he rolls d12 for his Great Axe and adds his 3 STR modifier to the damage. The goblin has more hit points in 4e (unless he’s a minion that just dies to the blow) but the duo likely finish him off in a couple rounds. The fighter has combat challenge to keep the goblin from wanting to attack the Rogue, and he’s a dwarf so he can heal with his Second Wind as a minor action… I find all this stuff to be fun. I mean why am I getting out the battle maps & minis just to do a boring 10 minute goblin slaughter? Back in Basic we just did the combat in our heads. I’d Rather do a longer and more interesting goblin slaughter 😀
Yes. This!!!
This sums up one of my biggest complaints about 5e and what is so great about 4e. So often, the 5e combat turns into a couple creatures standing in the same position, hitting each other round after round until someone's hit points are gone. There is no drama. No excitement. No strategy.
This is especially problematic in the situations where you use theater of the mind. I can understand the desire to not have to roll out the maps for every small encounter, but if the encounter is not worth spending a couple extra minutes to make it tactically interesting, then why bother having it in the first place?
There is the whole notion that you should never ask for a skill check if there is no penalty for failure. Well, why bother running an encounter that does not allow the characters to do anything more than the most generalized actions.
I'd much prefer taking a little extra time to have something amazing.