4e Combat made Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger.

[Trog]

I have no idea where this idea originated. I think on the Enworld forums. But my group has been using it for a while now and I am very satisfied with the results.

To speed combat (as a DM) do the following:

Half the enemy's HP
Add the enemy's level to their damage for each attack.


What this does is allow the PCs to drop the enemy in less time which keeps combats shorter. In my experience (playing in a group with an average level ranging in between 7th and 16th) it still allows for most of the enemy to use most, if not all of their powers so they remain effective since they are dealing out more damage with a single hit.

You should also note that it seriously ups the need for a leader and a group that keeps a very close eye on making sure they stay healed in combat in one form or another.

The time it takes to run combats is seriously halved. Meaning you can get in twice as many fights per night as it were. Or more. And it cuts out a lot of rounds where the PCs are down to their At-Will powers, slowly whittling away the opponents too.

This all still balances out according to the rules otherwise - there is not really any other adjustment that need be made to make this system work. If you haven't tried this yet I'd recommend trying it for a night and discussing it with your gaming group to see if it a play style that works better for you. :smallsmile:

[DeltaEmil]

That's okay if you're using monsters from the Monster Manual 1, where the solos have way too much hit points, and all monsters in there deal not that much damage.

The new proposed damage charts do hurt player characters enough.

[Gillric]

I would recommend taking a look at the monster vault. It has updated versions of most of the old monsters that have some slightly different stats and abilities.

[Trog]

That's okay if you're using monsters from the Monster Manual 1, where the solos have way too much hit points, and all monsters in there deal not that much damage.

The new proposed damage charts do hurt player characters enough.
I've used many different monsters from MM1, 2, and all the ones available prior to MM3, really. Works on them all.

I would recommend taking a look at the monster vault. It has updated versions of most of the old monsters that have some slightly different stats and abilities.
I kind of doubt doubt these speed up game play. Which is the whole point here. The upping in damage is only to balance out the speed, not because there wasn't enough damage in the first place. Just to, you know, clarify.

[DeltaEmil]

Monster Manual 2 didn't have the new monster damage charts yet. However, beating up monster fast enough isn't that much of a problem, if the monster was an even challenge.
One of the problems of earlier combat was that to deal sufficient damage, most gms used higher-level monsters in a fight against the player characters. Those higher-level monster have more hit points and better defenses, making some attacks miss more often, and make combat go on for longer than normal. Others used more monsters from a lower level, so that also increased the amount of hit points that needed to be taken down.
The new damage chart is for gms so that they don't have to always use higher-level monsters or that much more non-minion enemies against the player characters, without having to sacrifice damage output and still making combat dangerous.

[Erom]

As other have said, your houserule here is almost exactly what WOTC did when they made the transition from MM1/2 to MM3/Monster Vault. So yeah, I use similar modification to the MM1/2 monsters, and it is good, but don't do it to the MM3/MV monsters or you'll be hurting.

And yeah, having run a bunch of both now, the changes WOTC made for the MM3/MV monsters do speed up gameplay, since they decrease hp/defenses for basically the exact same reason you did.

I guess what I am saying is, this is a good houserule, except it's less of a houserule and more of an actual official rule backported to older monsters.

[Trog]

As other have said, your houserule here is almost exactly what WOTC did when they made the transition from MM1/2 to MM3/Monster Vault. So yeah, I use similar modification to the MM1/2 monsters, and it is good, but don't do it to the MM3/MV monsters or you'll be hurting.

And yeah, having run a bunch of both now, the changes WOTC made for the MM3/MV monsters do speed up gameplay, since they decrease hp/defenses for basically the exact same reason you did.

I guess what I am saying is, this is a good houserule, except it's less of a houserule and more of an actual official rule backported to older monsters.
Well I've been using it for almost two years or so, so it predates the MM3. So it was never 'backported.' To my knowledge a player in my group read about it on the Enworld forums and we gave it a go. Likely WotC used feedback like that to make changes since a lot of game developers hang out on there or so I've been told.

Where did they publish that new rule, exactly? :smallconfused:

[Mando Knight]

I guess what I am saying is, this is a good houserule, except it's less of a houserule and more of an actual official rule backported to older monsters.

They don't have half HP, though. It's more of a 90%-ish thing, except when comparing high-level MM1 Solos to MV Solos, where it's closer to 72% HP due to WotC deciding that Solos really shouldn't go from 4x HP to 5x HP once they get to a higher level.

[Gralamin]

To speed combat (as a DM) do the following:

Half the enemy's HP
Add the enemy's level to their damage for each attack.



That doesn't quite balance out, Math wise.

For enemies that have a single attack per round, Halving their HP should give them +100% damage. Without altering their to hit, this gives them, on average the same exact damage as before while halving the HP.
(Equations: DPR = (Hit Chance - Crit Chance) * Damage on A Hit + Crit Chance * Damage on A Crit. D/Encounter = DPR * Rounds Alive. So If you halve Rounds Alive (by halving HP), DPR must be doubled to keep the balance. Halving rounds alive = halving HP is generally a good assumption, since most players are good about focus firing.)

For enemies with n > 0 attacks per round, halving their HP should give them +100% damage as well (Just a more thorough proof).
DPR = n*((Hit-Crit Chance) * Damage on a Hit + Crit Chance * Damage on a crit)).
DP/Encounter = n*((Hit-Crit Chance) * Damage on a Hit + Crit Chance * Damage on a crit)) * Rounds alive
DP/Encounter = 2*n*((Hit-Crit Chance) * Damage on a Hit + Crit Chance * Damage on a crit)) * (Rounds alive / 2)
DP/Encounter = n*((Hit-Crit Chance) * 2 * Damage on a Hit + Crit Chance * 2 * Damage on a crit)) * (Rounds alive / 2)

[Mando Knight]

That doesn't quite balance out, Math wise.

For enemies that have a single attack per round, Halving their HP should give them +100% damage.

Yes, but then in early levels you get monsters easily capable of turning the players into chunky salsa just by rolling well once. Take the original Young White Dragon.

Let's double its Bite damage. That gives us 2d8+8 normal damage and an additional 2d6 Cold damage, for a total of (assuming no Cold resist) 14-36 damage on a hit, averaging 24 damage. That average is enough to drop a level 1 non-Defender who doesn't have Con as a secondary stat in one hit.

Now, it would be utterly ridiculous to try this with some of the Monster Vault critters, since they've already got beefed up damage dice... (the MV Young White has a 3d10+4 bite rather than a 1d8+1d6+4 bite. Still able to crunch a poor Rogue in one hit, but does so less than half the time it hits)

[Trog]

That doesn't quite balance out, Math wise
It might not, true. *shrug* Just saying what I've done and how it worked out in case anyone out there was unhappy with the duration of combat encounters for whatever reason.

Like all things in D&D results may vary and creatures of the same level and role may or may not be as effective as one another, DMs may not use the same tactics, nor might players, etc.

I should note that when this is applied to solos it didn't always work. The half hit points downs them rather quickly. I can't recall what I did in that case. Might have used 3/4 HP, iirc.

[Jack_Banzai]

Well I've been using it for almost two years or so, so it predates the MM3. So it was never 'backported.' To my knowledge a player in my group read about it on the Enworld forums and we gave it a go. Likely WotC used feedback like that to make changes since a lot of game developers hang out on there or so I've been told.

Where did they publish that new rule, exactly? :smallconfused:

It's not a rule that was published, it's a new system that they seem to be using for creating monster stats.

And, as said previously about five times already, MONSTER VAULT.

[valadil]

I just double the static portion of their damage. So 2d6+7 becomes 2d6+14. This works well for my group, but we have a striker heavy party, so the high HP of monsters isn't really a problem.

What is problematic is that monsters with lower static damage don't get as big of a bonus. 4d6+0 should be equivalent to 2d6+7. But after the doubling, I get 4d6+0 and 2d6+14. This doesn't come up often, but it is an issue.

[Eorran]

One thing I've done for smaller groups is half HP and add one die of damage to each attack (for minions, add 3 or 4 damage). This worked great for a group of 3; each fight brought at least 2 PCs below bloodied and required healing mid-combat, but allowed the fight to take much less time, and never resulted in TPK.

Plus, players fear the DM grabbing four or five dice more than they fear additional static damage, because they can't see it.:smallamused:

In a group with 5 players, it might not be enough.

[Gralamin]

Yes, but then in early levels you get monsters easily capable of turning the players into chunky salsa just by rolling well once. Take the original Young White Dragon.

Let's double its Bite damage. That gives us 2d8+8 normal damage and an additional 2d6 Cold damage, for a total of (assuming no Cold resist) 14-36 damage on a hit, averaging 24 damage. That average is enough to drop a level 1 non-Defender who doesn't have Con as a secondary stat in one hit.

Now, it would be utterly ridiculous to try this with some of the Monster Vault critters, since they've already got beefed up damage dice... (the MV Young White has a 3d10+4 bite rather than a 1d8+1d6+4 bite. Still able to crunch a poor Rogue in one hit, but does so less than half the time it hits)
This is why I generally go: -25% HP, +50% Damage... Which converts things into the new monster rules quite well.

[Erom]

There actually is a published table for the official version of this change. Not sure if it is worse or better than the house rules. It can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/updatesarchive if you click on Compiled Rules Updates, head to Page 40, and look for
Monster Statistics by Role.

[Fox Box Socks]

I would recommend taking a look at the monster vault.

As other have said, your houserule here is almost exactly what WOTC did when they made the transition from MM1/2 to MM3/Monster Vault.

Now, it would be utterly ridiculous to try this with some of the Monster Vault critters, since they've already got beefed up damage dice...

And, as said previously about five times already, MONSTER VAULT.
MONSTER. VAULT.

[Trog]

MONSTER. VAULT.
9_9 Got a page number for that rule?

@v :smalltongue:

[Surrealistik]

MONSTER VAULT.

Just figured I'd get in on it, looked like fun, carry on.

[Fox Box Socks]

9_9 Got a page number for that rule?

@v :smalltongue:
All of them. Monster Vault reprints a large chunk of monsters from MM1 but with slightly less HP and more damage.

[Trog]

All of them. Monster Vault reprints a large chunk of monsters from MM1 but with slightly less HP and more damage.Slightly less isn't half. Not that you yourself said this but many people are implying that the house rule above is the SAME as what's been done in the Monster Vault. It isn't. It's a step in that direction, yes. But not enough for my tastes. And certainly not enough to say that the house rule above and what's been done in the Monster Vault is the very same thing, clearly.

I still recommend people trying out the above rule if they find their combats taking up too much of their gaming sessions. Even with Monster Vault monsters.

[Kurald Galain]

I still recommend people trying out the above rule if they find their combats taking up too much of their gaming sessions. Even with Monster Vault monsters.
I think that if you object to combat taking up the majority of your gaming sessions, then you should look into different systems than D&D... :smallwink:

[Fox Box Socks]

I think that if you object to combat taking up the majority of your gaming sessions, then you should look into different systems than D&D... :smallwink:
This too. If combat isn't what you're looking for, then you probably should be playing something other than D&D, regardless of your edition.

[Trog]

I think that if you object to combat taking up the majority of your gaming sessions, then you should look into different systems than D&D... :smallwink:


This too. If combat isn't what you're looking for, then you probably should be playing something other than D&D, regardless of your edition.

Oh please. Nope aaaaand nope. I've been gaming for over 20+ years now and I've always been a D&D man and always will be. But I've never stopped looking for things to improve the play experience for myself and my players. Heck, some of the things that made it into 4th edition were things that my group had proposed independently in our own living rooms (scene healing not requiring a cleric, monster roles, etc.). It was nice to see WotC thinking along the same sort of lines.

The people in my gaming group have busy lives with jobs and kids and spouses and a social life and such so there's only so often we get to game. And when we do we like to have a variety of fights. Getting in as many as possible. Meeting and having a fight-a-night gaming session when you might not game again for 3 weeks just wasn't a satisfying experience for us. So shorter, more intense combats work very well for us. It lets us get in a distilled down and intense D&D experience and it allows for time for role playing as well. For time to move the story forward. For making progress that they can feel each session.

Combat is most definitely what I am looking for. And more varieties of it. Hence the implementation of this rule which has served us well in that regard. YMMV.

[John_D]

If you don't want to buy Monster Vault, Erom's link is really useful for translating old creatures to the updated standards. It's still well worth it though as they changed the abilities of quite a few creatures - solos is particular get to shed effects easier, get more reaction abilities and often get more than one initiative pass.

Monster Manual 3 on a business card (http://blogofholding.com/?p=512) is essentially the same information pared down further, I think he misses a couple of things out (like attacks targeting NADs should be 2 lower) but it's a decent rule of thumb.

[Leolo]

Yes, but then in early levels you get monsters easily capable of turning the players into chunky salsa just by rolling well once. Take the original Young White Dragon.

Let's double its Bite damage. That gives us 2d8+8 normal damage and an additional 2d6 Cold damage, for a total of (assuming no Cold resist) 14-36 damage on a hit, averaging 24 damage. That average is enough to drop a level 1 non-Defender who doesn't have Con as a secondary stat in one hit.

Now, it would be utterly ridiculous to try this with some of the Monster Vault critters, since they've already got beefed up damage dice... (the MV Young White has a 3d10+4 bite rather than a 1d8+1d6+4 bite. Still able to crunch a poor Rogue in one hit, but does so less than half the time it hits)

And now combine this with dragon's fury (two claw attacks + possible bite attack).:smallcool:

I never understood why people want to raise the damage. The original young white could do 3d8+12+1d6 damage in a single round as an at will standard action. And double this with action points. His dpr would be about 10.6, 21 with action points. So it could kill about every character it want's to kill in two rounds. And still do area damage that also slows and weakens with save ends.

That's level 3. Unlucky characters will simple be prone to the ground rolling death saving throws after the first rounds. If you raise this damage, it does not only happens to unlucky characters.

It does happen to every single character who is attacked by the monster with the intention to kill the character. And that's the point. Raising the damage leads to DM's who does not use all the monsters strengths to kill the players.

Because you don't want your player characters to die. They should feel they could be dying, but not face death every two encounters. It is allready not that difficult to kill player characters due to 4E nature to require team tactics (if the group does not play together it is screwed anyway)

Look at the new dragon from the monster vault. Combat could start against the 5 heroes with the dragon getting a free attack against every one (2d8+4 damage). After this it uses its breath weapon (3d8+4 damage) and two claw attacks with it's action point (twice 2d8+4 damage) against the weakest character or the character that looks like a healer. So we have a maximum number of 72 damage, 48 of it against every character in the group.

And now imagine all those guys who are saying: Hey, you can throw some higher level encounters on the players. +2 is just fine.

Is it fine? Try the attack sequence against level 1 characters. It is likely that some will die before the final 2 attacks have been done. And they didn't even acted in this encounter! Think about what happens next if you are playing the dragon like you really want the players dead. The healer is dead, most of the group is injured. The monster has taken some opportunity attacks but has still more hitpoints than the group. How will they survive? I don't even think they will survive on average. Why should i want this as a dungeon master? It's a story about the player characters having an adventure. Not about me, killing the characters of my players.

It is ok if players die if they do crappy actions or if the dice are rolling bad. But it shouldn't be what happens in general with average rolls and good decisions.

[Kurald Galain]

His dpr would be about 10.6, 21 with action points. So it could kill about every character it want's to kill in two rounds.
No it can't. 31.6 damage is not going to kill even a level-1 character.

[Gillric]

Ok, as far as fights taking too long. The only group I have ever encountered a serious issue with on this front has 3 pcs (2 controllers and a defender) and we have very low DPR. The average group with a moderately well built striker should not have an issue mowing through most encounters, even better if you can get two strikers.

I am playing in a game with only two pcs (Avenger and Paladin), we are at level 5 and we took down a level 8 or 9 solo in about 4 rounds. It would have been even faster with a full party. The only time this one drags on is it takes us a while to kill hordes of minions.

With half HP, most monsters of the same level can probably be almost one shotted by a good striker at low levels. At level 5, my striker hit for 105 damage in one turn.

[Leolo]

No it can't. 31.6 damage is not going to kill even a level-1 character.

A solo has 2 action points so its 42 damage.

But kill was the wrong term nevertheless - i was thinking more on below zero. It does not make that big difference if it hits the leader of the group of course.

The point was that those monsters allready have a high chance of taking a players character out. As more this chance gets increased, as more the DM will focus on saving the player characters instead of fighting them.

For example by using suboptimal tactics, or avoiding monsters with synergies. And this is bad because one of 4E's strengths is tactical combat.

[Erom]

I think it's worth pointing out that the official changes lower the HP of the monsters less, but also lower defenses a tad. -10% HP, -2 defenses is probably about the same as -50% HP.

Also, it's worth pointing out that you guys are talking about Young Adult/ Adult dragons, AKA The Only Scary Monsters In MM1. They probably don't need the fix, since they were already brutal, but they are the exception that proves the rule in a lot of ways. I mean, Young Adult Black Dragon? It's basically That Damn Crab for 4e.

[Leolo]

Dragons are powerful. But i would not say they are that exceptional.

Other monsters, even non solos can be similar deadly. Mainly those with multiple attacks. For example the umber hulk could do 2 attacks that both deal 2d6+8 damage (plus maybe ongoing 10). 4 if it is using an action point. 6 including a surprise round it could easily have using it's burrowing speed.

And an encounter could include 2 of them plus some other monster.

That might or might not kill a character that happens to get many of those attacks. But that's not the point. The point is: If you add +12 damage to every of this attacks it would be hard not to kill the players.

A lvl 12 cleric has 12+con+55 hitpoints. Let's assume con 13 it would summarize to 80 HP.

Not that bad. But if those umber hulk would do 2d6+20 damage this means the cleric could not stand 3 hits.

Another example: Monsters with area attacks. If you add the level of the monster to the attack this might multiply the damage boost. For example a howling hag has a close blast 5 (read: attack all PCs) ability. Add the level to those power and you might double the damage per round of the monster. If you would fight one hag this wouldn't be a big deal.

If you fight 5 of them this could kill the party.

The solution to this would be: Do not let the umber hulk lurk in the earth, and do not use multiple area attacks on the player characters. As more you increase the damage, as less the DM will use tactics, environment and surprises.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it's worth pointing out that the official changes lower the HP of the monsters less, but also lower defenses a tad. -10% HP, -2 defenses is probably about the same as -50% HP.

No, not particularly.

If it takes 10 rounds (on average) to kill a monster, then with -50% HP it will take 5 rounds, and with -10% HP -2 defenses it will take 8.2 rounds.

[Gillric]

No, not particularly.

If it takes 10 rounds (on average) to kill a monster, then with -50% HP it will take 5 rounds, and with -10% HP -2 defenses it will take 8.2 rounds.

10 rounds to kill a monster? Wow, I think people need to increase their strikers DPR if that is the case. Even the fights at DND Encounters which our DM makes harder by either adding monsters or adding stuff to the monsters aren't that rough.

[Sploosh]

My memory may be a little fuzzy but if I recall the benchmark for a decent striker from the wizards forums is four rounds to kill something and a strongly built striker can do it in about two.

All of the groups I play in that care anything about good damage usuall clean up most fights in four to five rounds at the latest unless the encounter was designed to be long.

As others have also pointed out, you run into a lot of other issues with the system when you begin to turn monsters into glass cannons. I am one of Gillric's fellow players and we've had a few times when I've been playing pretty fairly optimized defenders who've been gibbed down to dying by a few crit strings against MV monsters. If you had of increased the damage you could very easily have gotten a situation where in one round I was dropped down from full to dead.

It might be something to consider about talking to your group about how much they are putting into their offense. It is likey easier and safer to work a more offensive party than it would be to try and readjust a lot of monsters and debug such a radical change to the system.

You can get some pretty scary damage out there that nobody should need to change anything to get fights done in 3 rounds for the most part. Check out DPR kings.

[Yakk]

I like using normalized stats for the purpose of comparing PCs of different levels.

Subtract your level from your attacks and defences. Subtract half your level from your skills. Divide your damage and HP by (level+3).

The level+3 thing comes from the fact that monster HP is roughly (level+3)*8 (and player HP is roughly (level+3)*5).

To distinguish these from the non-normalized stats, I stick a lowercase n at the start. So nAC, nFORT, nREF, nWILL, nATK (vs defence) , nHP, nDAM and nDPR (normalized Damage Per Round).

A nDPR of 1.0 is roughly what you get if you take the character builder and say "build me a random character" past heroic tier (or someone who builds a character who is as good at doing damage as a random build, which is very common).

nDPR of 2.0 is baseline striker. This is easier to reach at level 1 (where you have few meaningful choices). A striker who spent the vast majority of feats on killing things, and most of the item budget is spent on damage-boosting items, reaches this point relatively easily. This is also called a "4 round striker".

nDPR of 3.0 is hard to reach without doing research on CharOp. You could call this a '3 round striker', but that really happens at ~2.7.

nDPR of 4.0 is considered a CharOp success. Such a build on average bloodies an even-level opponent. This is also called a "2 round striker".

nDPR of 8.0 is broken territory. Such a build kills a normal critter in 1 round on average, elites in 2, and solos (all by themselves) in 4. (A "1 round" striker).

nDPR of 16 kills elites in one round, 32 kills solos in one round.

---

Being aware of this gives you context to what you want to do to monster HP. One issue with late-heroic and later 4e is that optimization starts mattering more.

[Erom]

That's a good algorithm Yakk. Thanks. I had tried normalizing stats before, but it's a lot clearer when someone has spelled out the general trends/expectations like that.

[Dr paradox]

I'm presently DMing an eighth level party, and the general trend is that it's taking the better part of three hours to run through a single combat. I've seen some clashing opinions here about how this does and doesn't work, but I'm not sure how much of it is aimed at specific level brackets. does anyone have any estimates about how well this houserule would work for an eighth level party? and if not, what changes to it would you recommend?

(on average, it's taking 8 hits to take down a monster of equal level)

[Kurald Galain]

I'm presently DMing an eighth level party, and the general trend is that it's taking the better part of three hours to run through a single combat.
THREE hours? Whoa, that's extreme!


(on average, it's taking 8 hits to take down a monster of equal level)
Well, for starters, it should take four hits.

What is your party composition and level? Do the players use power cards? What is the average level of monsters you're facing? Are the players new to the whole gameboard thing? Something is unusual here.

[Gillric]

The main idea behind the new math is that it should work regardless of level

[Balain]

We do something a little different to make it more dangerous for the players. The HP of monsters are cut in 1/2 (sometimes less) but they double the damage. So 2d10 damage becomes 4d10 and 3d10+10 becomes 6d10+20 Makes the players fear for their lives much more.

[Doug Lampert]

THREE hours? Whoa, that's extreme!


Well, for starters, it should take four hits.

What is your party composition and level? Do the players use power cards? What is the average level of monsters you're facing? Are the players new to the whole gameboard thing? Something is unusual here.

Without any optimization high heroic can be pretty bad. You don't get many fancy tricks to increase damage (the big payoff from frost-cheeze is still in the future for example).

Your "obvious" gains over level 1 for damage per hit are +1 from two ability increases, probably +2 from your better magic weapon, probably +1 from weapon focus. So you are at +4 damage from level 1, the monsters are at +60 or so HP from level 1. You're falling behind BADLY if you don't optimize your build some by this time.

But the obvious optimization mostly hits at paragon+.

Try using the classic character builder to make a few dozen random characters at level 8 for you. A ranger gets something like two attacks for 1d8+3 or so each and 1d8 from favored enemy once a round. +16 or so to hit vs. AC of 22 or so. DPR is less than 15. Monsters get about 90 HP.

That's a twin striking ranger taking 7 rounds to take down a single standard foe! Now make it a swarm, or regenerating, or incorporeal, or a brute and things get really slow.

DougL

[Kurald Galain]

So you are at +4 damage from level 1, the monsters are at +60 or so HP from level 1. You're falling behind BADLY if you don't optimize your build some by this time.
Wouldn't it help to open combat with your L7 and L3 encounter powers?

[Dr paradox]

so, should I try it, then?

[Kurald Galain]

so, should I try it, then?

That's up to you - but it would help if you could tell us why your combats take three times as long as normal.

[Trog]

so, should I try it, then?

I'd recommend doing what we did which is try things out as an experiment and see how things go over a few combats to see about where the difficulty level is vs. the time in combat. You should see the combat time drastically reduced but the power balance might take some time to figure out. Make sure the leader keeps a sharp eye out for who needs healing because it comes up almost immediately.

Just try it out and adjust it as you see fit for your particular group. Every group of gamers has a type of fight they enjoy having and your group's type might vary from mine. We tend to like the ones where half the PCs drop and it's a fight to very finish against foes that should be fighting PCs two levels higher than the PCs at the low end, 4 at the high end. For every fight. Very lethal but we can still get in multiple fights a night now at least.

[Dr paradox]

I'm not sure, but I think I know the culprit behid the slow speed of combat.

At the start of the campaign, I allowed them a few extra points for their abilities (4) so that I could hit with a harder adventure to begin with. The thing is, now I'm pitting them against fights two or three levels above them in order to challenge them, and provide any sort of threat so as to make combat fun.

the thing is, their damage output isn't quite up to par, causing combat to take even longer.

Therefore, I will tommorrow run two test encounters, using the houserule that began this thread, and downgading their characters to be legal. one will be of equal level, and one will be level ten. that should inform what is the correct level of encounterss they should be facing.

[Doug Lampert]

Wouldn't it help to open combat with your L7 and L3 encounter powers?

Yes, but if we're still looking at a badly optimized Ranger those encounter powers are likely to be (slightly) upgraded twin-strikes, so you do 6-10 or so more damage per hit on your first 4 attacks.

Open with those encounters and you have shortened the average patrol encounter from 7 rounds to maybe 6. And that assumes that everyone does damage as fast as the ranger, try a laser cleric not optimized particularly and you'll WISH you could do damage that quickly.

And I've got two players who are bad enough optimizers that they almost never use encounters (one of them doesn't use Dailies even on obvious boss encounters unless her husband prompts her, she loves having capabilities but doesn't pay attention to them after she gets them).

[Trog]

I'm not sure, but I think I know the culprit behid the slow speed of combat.

At the start of the campaign, I allowed them a few extra points for their abilities (4) so that I could hit with a harder adventure to begin with. The thing is, now I'm pitting them against fights two or three levels above them in order to challenge them, and provide any sort of threat so as to make combat fun.

the thing is, their damage output isn't quite up to par, causing combat to take even longer.

Therefore, I will tommorrow run two test encounters, using the houserule that began this thread, and downgading their characters to be legal. one will be of equal level, and one will be level ten. that should inform what is the correct level of encounterss they should be facing.
This is precisely why I run into the slow combat thing. My group, as I've said, likes the knock down drag out fights where they have a more than moderate chance of losing the fight otherwise it feels too much like it's not a challenge. So we run encounters over their level nearly all the time, with 2 levels above being the minimum. But as you've said it drags out the fight. It took us a while to get the difficulty level right and there were many mistakes on both sides. I still say it's worth it to not always have a one-fight-a-night playing sessions. Hope it works for you. :smallsmile: