|
I can give you the raw numbers.
I ran three 4e groups since 2008. Every one of them took forever to get through combat. My last group took average of three hours per combat. The group before that was online so we can chalk it up to the fact that it was online and took longer. The first group took about two-three hours per combat.
That same exact group in Pathfinder/3.5 that took three hours in 4e takes on average 20 minutes to get through an encounter. The last 3.5 group I ran pre-4e in 2008 took about 20-30 minutes per combat encounter.
Same people. Same basic character concepts ranging from fighters to paladin to cleric to druids with spell lists.
The last game that I was a player in (4e) we were third level and with five players combat took on average Ninety minutes to two hours. After a couple of months of that the DM wrapped up the campaign and they switched to 3.5/PF and I at the time wasn't interested in PF so took my leave, but they cited combat length as a reason for quitting 4e (among other things, to include the generic powers system)
So for my group it would seem that PF/3.5 is the best option when it comes down to time spent in combats.
I typically don't say NO to players (which has led me to issues in the past with broken characters). I still don't restrict from the core rulebook. I restrict the splat books.
I'm a little surprised by that, especially at low levels. That said, while it hasn't generally been my experience, party mix can make a difference. If you lack strikers, combat in 4e can be a grind since only they do significant damage beyond the other classes, on average. And early versions of monsters like in the 4e MM1 probably have too many hit points, which is something they looked at more recently. Also, there is a lot more save or die in 3e too, though that's at higher levels. That said, my general experience is that we got maybe two fights per five hour session in 3e, and two to three in 4e - roughly the same, maybe a bit quicker in 4e but probably slowing as the options grow as the PCs level.
|
|
Luckily, 3.5 has multiple versions of dragons, much like 4e has multiple versions of goblins. If you've got MMIV, it's even got multiple versions of monsters like 4e does.
Yes, I have those so it makes life easier for my PF games. That said, especially for complex monsters, the slight changes from 3.5 to PF can accumulate into something reasonably significant overall, which limits its usefulness, unfortunately.
I'm a little surprised by that, especially at low levels. That said, while it hasn't generally been my experience, party mix can make a difference. If you lack strikers, combat in 4e can be a grind since only they do significant damage beyond the other classes, on average. And early versions of monsters like in the 4e MM1 probably have too many hit points, which is something they looked at more recently. Also, there is a lot more save or die in 3e too, though that's at higher levels. That said, my general experience is that we got maybe two fights per five hour session in 3e, and two to three in 4e - roughly the same, maybe a bit quicker in 4e but probably slowing as the options grow as the PCs level.
I had been modifying the monsters to the new MM3 format for quite some time now. Both in making them do appropriate damage (since in MM1 and MM2 the monsters damage output was laughable) and in keeping their defenses and hit points in check.
At lower levels, 4e is not that bad. I'd say the best play levels in 4e are between 5th and 10th level. Mid to late heroic tier. Those were a blast.
Once you get into paragon tier things start to slow, and epic tier is just too bloated with powers (every one had a giant power deck at the table) and the characters and monsters have far too many hit points.
The problem is that leveling in 4e for my playstyle is very fast because at-level encounters are so easy that I usually bump up the difficulty, which bumps up the experience points.
You can get through levels 5-10 fairly quickly, while in PF/3.5 level 5-10 takes some time.
Mentioning the lack of strikers is an important thing that you wrote and very true. The group consisted of a dwarf cleric, a genasai fighter geared out to be a striker, a paladin geared and built out to be a striker, a diva shaman, a gith monk, and a human fighter whose fort save made even monsters +6 levels higher than him require a natural 20 to strike it...
|
|
Yeah, your party wasn't optimised for damage output, certainly - even striker-ish paladins and fighters don't really have anything like the punch of a dedicated striker. We played without one of our two strikers a couple of weeks ago, and a fairly trivial encounter turned into an extended grind that left us all exhausted (though, funnily, the boss fight that evening was fairly easy).
I hear what you say about the accumulation of powers as the PCs level. Some of these powers can be time consuming to play, especially where one power triggers as the result of another so a turn can involve several attacks. And yet... That's not so different from iterative attacks at higher levels in 3e, which was something that really led to delays (rolling, and then calculating DR separately where applicable, and so on). Like I say, I haven't really noticed a big difference in combat times for my crew. I very surprised by the twenty minute combats in 3.5, though I've heard rumours of such fabled things...
Yeah, your party wasn't optimised for damage output, certainly - even striker-ish paladins and fighters don't really have anything like the punch of a dedicated striker.
I hear what you say about the accumulation of powers as the PCs level. Some of these powers can be time consuming to play, especially where one power triggers as the result of another so a turn can involve several attacks. And yet... That's not so different from iterative attacks at higher levels in 3e, which was something that really led to delays (rolling, and then calculating DR separately where applicable, and so on). Like I say, I haven't really noticed a big difference in combat times for my crew. I very surprised by the twenty minute combats in 3.5, though I've heard rumours of such fabled things...
It's definitely a party-thing. All parties have their own composition and playstyle, which affects many things.
My players happen to be very slow at 4e due to the number of choices that they have, and in 3e are quicker. Last night we had four encounters, plus a lot of exploring, in a three hour game session.
If they were horribly slow at 3e but quick with 4e, I'd have stuck with 4e (because again I'm not saying the system is horribly bad or evil, just that it was not fun for me to run due to the length of the encounters for the most part, and a few of the other niggling things I posted about)
|
Yes, I have those so it makes life easier for my PF games. That said, especially for complex monsters, the slight changes from 3.5 to PF can accumulate into something reasonably significant overall, which limits its usefulness, unfortunately.
Depends on how you view PF backwards compatibility. I find 3.5 stats perfectly suitable for use in a PF game as is. But I don't have to worry about it anyway, still playing 3.5.
Depends on how you view PF backwards compatibility. I find 3.5 stats perfectly suitable for use in a PF game as is. But I don't have to worry about it anyway, still playing 3.5.
I don't have beastiaries, I have all the 3.5 MMs. Are they horribly different?
|
|
I think it's recommended to drop the CR of a 3.5 monster by one if putting it up against a PF party, but it varies a bit. For example, PF gives constructs the high BAB progression whereas it doesn't in 3.5, undead get CHA bonus as extra hp per level, all creatures get more feats (like PCs do), and so on. Depending on the monster, you can convert with varying degrees of ease too - by and large the changes are simply down to different mechanics, although some get a bit of extra stuff in PF, I suspect mainly to justify the CR if the original monster was a bit underpowered. I would recommend the bestiaries (but not the dragon entries - aaaaargh!) if you want to pay up for them.
I think it's recommended to drop the CR of a 3.5 monster by one if putting it up against a PF party, but it varies a bit. For example, PF gives constructs the high BAB progression whereas it doesn't in 3.5, undead get CHA bonus as extra hp per level, all creatures get more feats (like PCs do), and so on. Depending on the monster, you can convert with varying degrees of ease too - by and large the changes are simply down to different mechanics, although some get a bit of extra stuff in PF, I suspect mainly to justify the CR if the original monster was a bit underpowered. I would recommend the bestiaries (but not the dragon entries - aaaaargh!) if you want to pay up for them.
I'll look into that thanks. So basically the MM monsters are a bit on the weak side it seems. that makes sense considering that I've always had to bump up encounter danger.
When I said Modern in philosophy, I meant it strictly in the philosophy of the game. DDI actually wasn't even in my area of discussion. What I mean is this, 4e is "modern" as a game, as it takes the concept of "Yes, but" to heart. Making the game much more of a cooperative storytelling. You want some crazy character idea? Here's how we can make it work. Earlier editions were very firm in their understanding of the line between DM and player.
Furthermore the game seeks the modern philosophies of time managemant and accesibility. The game is easier to understand out of the box for someone just picking it up, and it is easy to run. It's intended to access the desires of the modern gamer by identifying what they want out of a game. As has been stated you can agree or disagree on how well it achieved this as that is subjective, but it is a modern approach.
As for the speed and quickness of crafting encounters for 3.5/PF, it varies on the experience of the person writing the stats and the complication. I can easily throw together an(insert almost any humanoid race from MM) fighter at any CR because I know to ignore the unimportant. If anything it's something I've learned over the years as I progressed through various systems. Need a level 20 drow wizard? Just grab the important stuff like stats, saves, hp, ac, gear, and spells (important ones like defenses). I didn't learn this from a book, I learned it playing. However 4e is the first version of D&D that specifically says "if it doesn't matter ignore it" which is a modern, evolved philosophy of gaming. (To be fair I played a fair amount of 1e and 2e and basic this way, using stat blocks like "4 lizardfolk, HD 4, Ac 4, Atk #1, Spear (d8), Saves F4" It wasn't explicitly stated to do that, but it was taught to me over time. I never felt entirely comfortable doing that in 3e(or PF) due to cmb, cmd, feats, dex for initiative ties, etc. in 4e I need HP, defenses, the attack and damage and any nifty notes on abils and Im golden for a fight) As always YMWV, results are probably not typical, and if it itches see a doctor after 3 days. Thanks!