8 goblins, 1 AoE

[Fitz10019]

Years ago, I was in a party and we faced 8 goblins. I cast Bane. The DM made one roll of the d20, and announced, "they made their save." I had expected 8 rolls, some to pass, some to fail. When I challenged his call, he said, "they have the same stats, so I made one roll." I was surprised, but I was willing to let it drop. Another player chimed in, "the DM's right, that's the way it works" -- which surprised me even more.

How do your groups handle situations like this?

[Spore]

1) No each individual has to make its own save.

2) It's simpler to to make only one save. It's wrong however. Still by rules of proabability, enforce that you want several saves. This helps you scale your saves.

[Xuldarinar]

You have 8 individuals, they each should be making separate saves. The reason for the rolls, the entire purpose, is due to variance between individuals and instances. If 8 people are set to do identical tasks and have effectively identical stats, some may fail where others succeed. There should be 8 rolls, not 1.

[Slipperychicken]

I would probably expect my GM to roll each goblin's save separately, for fairness and verisimilitude.

[Kudaku]

Unless the result of the roll is irrelevant (5th level caster casts fireball at 4 HP targets), you should definitely roll each save individually.

If the result is irrelevant, don't bother with the rolls and just announce the result.

[Ravens_cry]

You have 8 individuals, they each should be making separate saves. The reason for the rolls, the entire purpose, is due to variance between individuals and instances. If 8 people are set to do identical tasks and have effectively identical stats, some may fail where others succeed. There should be 8 rolls, not 1.
Damn skippy. This is why multiple sets of sets of dice are important. To save time if their stats are identical, figure out the number they need ahead of time, and roll. Any number at or above is a save.
Now, if this is how the DM wants to play it, it's how they play it, BUT I'd be very cross if DM did the right way with a different group. Consistency is more important, in my opinion, than spot on RAW accuracy.

[Jenrock]

Personally, if a targeted group is composed of creatures who all share stats, I'll roll once for speed and ease of play. That being said, my players know this. If, for some bizarre reason, a player at my table didn't know that, I'd roll individually (since that's what they expected) that time only.

[Fax Celestis]

Next time your party gets fireballed, have the party rogue roll the save and use it for the whole party.

That should illustrate rather succinctly why individual saves should be used, and why monsters should use the same rules as the PCs.

[Agincourt]

I will agree with everyone and say you were right and your DM was wrong.

As a houserule, it would not be one I would particularly like, but if a DM kept it consistent I would learn to live with it. Therein lies the rub. Somehow I doubt the DM would have 8 goblins drop unconscious if you managed to catch them all in a Color Spray. (You would probably need some metamagic to make this possible.) It makes combat very swingy when everyone has the exact same result on saves. Either you've effectively debilitated everyone, or nothing happens. It definitely would encourage casters to pump their save DCs when the result is entirely binary like that.

[Ravens_cry]

Personally, if a targeted group is composed of creatures who all share stats, I'll roll once for speed and ease of play. That being said, my players know this. If, for some bizarre reason, a player at my table didn't know that, I'd roll individually (since that's what they expected) that time only.
Why? This should be a house-rule explained ahead of time, and doing it one way once and other times another way is just going to be inconsistent and annoying to both the new players and the old.

[OldTrees1]

Against large numbers of opponents, it becomes cumbersome to roll saves individually despite that being the rule.

Personally (as a house rule) when I have a large number to roll for, I roll in clumps (each clump is between 10% and 25% of the group).
8 goblins would be 4 rolls each representing 2 goblins.
100 skeletons would be 10 rolls each representing 10 skeletons.

[Ravens_cry]

Against large numbers of opponents, it becomes cumbersome to roll saves individually despite that being the rule.

Personally (as a house rule) when I have a large number to roll for, I roll in clumps (each clump is between 10% and 25% of the group).
8 goblins would be 4 rolls each representing 2 goblins.
100 skeletons would be 10 rolls each representing 10 skeletons.
If you have a 100 bone daddies, I'd apply the Mob template. That way they are a threat and not a simply an annoying and cumbersome group.

[Knaight]

Personally (as a house rule) when I have a large number to roll for, I roll in clumps (each clump is between 10% and 25% of the group).
8 goblins would be 4 rolls each representing 2 goblins.
100 skeletons would be 10 rolls each representing 10 skeletons.

This actually seems pretty reasonable, though one roll for all 8 or 100 doesn't. It still allows for intermediate effects between all succeeded and all failing, which makes it closer to the expected odds. Though, with 100 skeletons you might as well just figure out the percent chance of them saving and have that many save.

[Fitz10019]

Personally, if a targeted group is composed of creatures who all share stats, I'll roll once for speed and ease of play. That being said, my players know this. If, for some bizarre reason, a player at my table didn't know that, I'd roll individually (since that's what they expected) that time only.

I figured if he always does it this way, it would be fair in the long run (as in your case, JenRock). On the other hand, this was a one-shot, so the long odds didn't really kick in for me.

As a compromise, I would be okay with 4 rolls for 8 goblins, some grouping if that saves time, but still distribute the odds.

Really, I think he didn't want to keep track of which had failed and which had not, which is a bigger headache/timedrag than rolling 8 times. I think that's what JenRock means by 'ease of play.'

[Zanos]

I would expect my DM to roll multiple saves. It's just better, even if it is slower.

Let's assume that on a failed saves, the goblins die, and on a passed save, they live. If you're rolling for all of them at once, they either all die, ending the encounter in one spell, or they all live, and all get to take their turns, and everyone gets minced because D&D runs on critical existence failure.

Neither outcome is desirable.

If you're dealing with a number of creatures so large it would be cumbersome to roll individual saves, they probably shouldn't be living on a pass anyway, or the party should be running.

[lsfreak]

Were I to have such a large group of enemies that I couldn't reasonably roll for all them of, I'd do it probabilistically. They need a 13 or higher to pass, so 60% are affected. Never would I make one roll for a whole group.

Of course, if I had such a large group I didn't want to roll saves, then wtf am I doing because attack and damage rolls would take a lot longer than that.

[Jenrock]

Why? This should be a house-rule explained ahead of time, and doing it one way once and other times another way is just going to be inconsistent and annoying to both the new players and the old.

That's why I used the phrase "for some bizarre reason." If a player at my table didn't know that I ran my encounters in that manner, then I clearly failed to communicate with them. Doing it one way once is a way of righting that miscommunication, and one that moves them game along without delving into "Oh, it doesn't work like that here, maybe you should take twenty minutes and pick a new option. Maybe a new class, too, if you made that choice with AoE in mind."

Obviously, I'm being hyperbolic here, but my games tend to be looser with rules, especially in the players' favor (as I would, in fact, allow a player to knock out 8 goblins with Color Spray). I respect that that might send some people away from my table, but hopefully they'd talk to me first and we could develop a compromise.


I figured if he always does it this way, it would be fair in the long run (as in your case, JenRock). On the other hand, this was a one-shot, so the long odds didn't really kick in for me.

As a compromise, I would be okay with 4 rolls for 8 goblins, some grouping if that saves time, but still distribute the odds.

Really, I think he didn't want to keep track of which had failed and which had not, which is a bigger headache/timedrag than rolling 8 times. I think that's what JenRock means by 'ease of play.'

That is certainly a compromise worth considering, though I seldom clump my enemies together enough that 8 of them could be hit by Color Spray. Still, it makes the caster feel powerful, which is always nice.

I'm a huge fan of player-DM communication. I always email or hand out a sheet with my houserules, even for a one-shot. It's a game, and I want everyone to have fun. Sometimes that means knocking out 8 goblins with one spell. Sometimes that means the spell misses and the barbarian and fighter get to wade into melee and knock some heads.

[Deophaun]

Against large numbers of opponents, it becomes cumbersome to roll saves individually despite that being the rule.
Not really. They all have the same target number, which means it takes a whole two seconds when rolling 5d20s to figure out who made it and who didn't. Really, independently adjudicating the effects of a widened fireball hitting 30 mobs takes no longer than a twf hitting with six attacks, and probably less.

[OldTrees1]

Not really. They all have the same target number, which means it takes a whole two seconds when rolling 5d20s to figure out who made it and who didn't. Really, independently adjudicating the effects of a widened fireball hitting 30 mobs takes no longer than a twf hitting with six attacks, and probably less.

Try rolling 20d20 as fast as 5d20. or 100d20 as fast as 10d20.

[Deophaun]

Try rolling 20d20 as fast as 5d20. or 100d20 as fast as 10d20.
I used 5d20 because it's really the most you'll ever practically need. Once you need 20d20, you've already collapsed the monster into a mob template.

[Zaq]

The tricky part with "just roll 8 dice and see how many are above the target number" is clearly and quickly determining ahead of time which dice go with which targets. Some of them will be in more or less advantageous positions, so just saying "three make the save, now pick which three" is a very different situation from "these three save, those five fail."

There are ways of doing it (color-coding dice, for one), but if it's not a very common occurrence in a given group, I wouldn't be surprised if that proves to be a snag.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Perhaps you could use percentage die in conjunction ...

[Deophaun]

The tricky part with "just roll 8 dice and see how many are above the target number" is clearly and quickly determining ahead of time which dice go with which targets. Some of them will be in more or less advantageous positions, so just saying "three make the save, now pick which three" is a very different situation from "these three save, those five fail."

Color coordination isn't necessary, just use spatial organization: Left to right, top to bottom.

[Ravens_cry]

That's why I used the phrase "for some bizarre reason." If a player at my table didn't know that I ran my encounters in that manner, then I clearly failed to communicate with them. Doing it one way once is a way of righting that miscommunication, and one that moves them game along without delving into "Oh, it doesn't work like that here, maybe you should take twenty minutes and pick a new option. Maybe a new class, too, if you made that choice with AoE in mind."

I still don't agree. If you realize you've deviated from the rules in the book but wish to keep going as before, explain you understand your mistake, but since you've been doing it this way all this time, you will keep doing it. On the other hand, if you realize your mistake, and wish to return to the rules of the book, you should do so, acknowledge your error, and do so that way henceforth.
Either way, once a decision is made, you should stick with the precedent, either that made before or the new decision to follow the book rules that forms the new precedent.
If you don't, you'll still have to take time to explain why things changed, so I don't see any advantage to 'throwing the dog a bone' just the once.

[OldTrees1]

I used 5d20 because it's really the most you'll ever practically need. Once you need 20d20, you've already collapsed the monster into a mob template.

The mob template in DMG II is not suited to my purposes. It deals a mere 5d6 damage per turn with reach 0 which is much less than the equivalent 48 medium or 12 large creatures could do. I guess this is reflected in it merely being CR 8.

What mob template are you using?

[Jenrock]

I still don't agree. If you realize you've deviated from the rules in the book but wish to keep going as before, explain you understand your mistake, but since you've been doing it this way all this time, you will keep doing it. On the other hand, if you realize your mistake, and wish to return to the rules of the book, you should do so, acknowledge your error, and do so that way henceforth.
Either way, once a decision is made, you should stick with the precedent, either that made before or the new decision to follow the book rules that forms the new precedent.
If you don't, you'll still have to take time to explain why things changed, so I don't see any advantage to 'throwing the dog a bone' just the once.

My players tend to be very understanding and flexible when it comes to people new to the table, and, as such, make no cry of "foul!" should we have to make a quick alteration to the rules. As it pertains to taking time to explain, I don't. In the situation in question, it would simply be a matter of "We don't actually work saves like that, but since you made that decision under certain assumptions, we can play it out this time."

That's it. Like I said, I'm a huge fan of DM-player communication, but any protracted discussion about houserules or play style are for outside of the game proper. A ten second sentence like the one above is fine, but I try to keep the game relatively distraction free.

[Fax Celestis]

As long as you're aware that you're destroying the point of using statistical probabilities as a deterministic mechanic, fine.

[Slipperychicken]

The mob template in DMG II is not suited to my purposes. It deals a mere 5d6 damage per turn with reach 0 which is much less than the equivalent 48 medium or 12 large creatures could do. I guess this is reflected in it merely being CR 8.


I think that's partly because only so many of those creatures can reach the target, or are actually trampling it in a given round. The damage might be balanced out by it being per-round, without an attack roll, presumably while the mob has the target grappled/pinned (and for the most part unable to retaliate), and doing this to several creatures at once.

Also, useful as it is for representing pitchfork-wielding peasants, I don't think the template is suitable for creatures attacking in any kind of organized fashion.

[OldTrees1]

As long as you're aware that you're destroying the point of using statistical probabilities as a deterministic mechanic, fine.

Hold on. Let's be fair to him. He is merely changing the scale at which the statistical probabilities are being used as a deterministic mechanic. Normally they are used at a per action per monster per encounter level. He is using them as a per group per action per encounter level.



I think that's partly because only so many of those creatures can reach the target, or are actually trampling it in a given round. The damage might be balanced out by it being per-round, without an attack roll, presumably while the mob has the target grappled/pinned (and for the most part unable to retaliate), and doing this to several creatures at once.

Also, useful as it is for representing pitchfork-wielding peasants, I don't think the template is suitable for creatures attacking in any kind of organized fashion.

My problem (similar to your critique) is that the templateCR 8 stat block is not very useful for representing large numbers of enemies except during the ECL 5-11 period.

[Fax Celestis]

Hold on. Let's be fair to him. He is merely changing the scale at which the statistical probabilities are being used as a deterministic mechanic. Normally they are used at a per action per monster per encounter level. He is using them as a per group per action per encounter level.

Right, which makes multi target spells potentially more effective or less effective based upon how many creatures it can include in its area, and makes spell DC enhancers ridiculously more effective than they already were.

It is frankly not worth the damage that is done to the game to save a few seconds of die rolls.

[Valtu]

Against large numbers of opponents, it becomes cumbersome to roll saves individually despite that being the rule.

Personally (as a house rule) when I have a large number to roll for, I roll in clumps (each clump is between 10% and 25% of the group).
8 goblins would be 4 rolls each representing 2 goblins.
100 skeletons would be 10 rolls each representing 10 skeletons.

That's a good idea. Our DM usually has a laptop nearby and uses a software roll for large groups, that way each individual actually gets a roll, but it isn't time-consuming. For individuals or smaller groups, physical dice are used.

[Invader]

It feels like people are vastly overestimating how long it takes to roll a d20. They have all the same stats so you know the target they need to hit. Let's say it takes it takes 5 seconds to make each roll (which is totally reasonable) that's a grand total of 40 seconds to make the saves individually for all 8 monsters. What kind of crazy speed game are you people playing that 40 seconds is to long to follow the rules? :smallconfused:

[OldTrees1]

It feels like people are vastly overestimating how long it takes to roll a d20. They have all the same stats so you know the target they need to hit. Let's say it takes it takes 5 seconds to make each roll (which is totally reasonable) that's a grand total of 40 seconds to make the saves individually for all 8 monsters. What kind of crazy speed game are you people playing that 40 seconds is to long to follow the rules? :smallconfused:

Explanation:
The kind of game where there are better uses for 40 seconds per turn per round per combat per session?

Say
40 seconds per turn [5 seconds per roll seems high]
4 turns per round (4 PCs)
5 rounds per combat
5 combats per session
= 66.67 minutes or 1.11 hrs

Rolling 4 times for 2 enemies each roll, (rather than 8 times for 1 enemy each roll) saves more than half an hour per session. This time can be used on roleplaying or another combat.

[Valtu]

It feels like people are vastly overestimating how long it takes to roll a d20. They have all the same stats so you know the target they need to hit. Let's say it takes it takes 5 seconds to make each roll (which is totally reasonable) that's a grand total of 40 seconds to make the saves individually for all 8 monsters. What kind of crazy speed game are you people playing that 40 seconds is to long to follow the rules? :smallconfused:

Yeah that's a very good point hahaha. We recently surrounded a group of 20-something Half-Orcs and they all had to make Will saves to see if they were frightened enough to throw themselves over the edge of the wall we were all standing on in order to escape our group of 6 closing in on them :P

Quick software roll and it was done instantaneously, but even in that case, wouldn't have taken all that long to roll them for real :P

[Invader]

Explanation:
The kind of game where there are better uses for 40 seconds per turn per round. nd per combat per session?

Say
40 seconds per turn
8 turns per round (4 PCs and 4 enemies)
5 rounds per combat
5 combats per session
= 133.33 minutes or 2.22 hrs

You consider 26 minutes for a fight a long time in 3.5 :smallconfused: you play a vastly different game than we do at our table.

You're right about 5 seconds seeming long, I was giving the benefit of the doubt but you're making my point for me.

[OldTrees1]

You consider 26 minutes for a fight a long time in 3.5 :smallconfused: you play a vastly different game than we do at our table.

No I realize that combats are long, I just prefer the parts of combat that are not the resolution of lots of d20s. By reducing the time die rolls take, we can focus on the good part of combat (the tactics and player agency).

By reducing the die rolls from 8 to 4, I would be able to save about 30 mins (assuming the 5 sec estimate) per session which is enough for a quick fight or for some more roleplaying.

[LogosDragon]

You consider 26 minutes for a fight a long time in 3.5 :smallconfused: you play a vastly different game than we do at our table.

That is certainly based on the importance of the combat and the type of group playing. Roleplaying-heavy, multi-staged, progressive BEG fights at the end of a long plot segment? Enjoy your four six-hour sessions-long fight. A few goblins trying and failing at Tucker's Kobolding in a field with a peninsula formation behind rocks? No reason for that not to take less than ten minutes, even if you roll individual saves with area effects against thirty or so goblins.

[Invader]

No I realize that combats are long, I prefer the parts of combat that are not the resolution of lots of d20s. By reducing the time rolls take, we can focus on the good part of combat (the tactics and player agency).

By reducing the die rolls from 8 to 4, I would be able to save about 30 mins (assuming the 5 sec estimate) per session which is enough for a quick fight or for some more roleplaying.

But you're only saving a few minutes per encounter by doing it wrong which is my point, it's not like you're freeing up hours of playtime over a session.

[Fax Celestis]

No I realize that combats are long, I just prefer the parts of combat that are not the resolution of lots of d20s. By reducing the time die rolls take, we can focus on the good part of combat (the tactics and player agency).

By reducing the die rolls from 8 to 4, I would be able to save about 30 mins (assuming the 5 sec estimate) per session which is enough for a quick fight or for some more roleplaying.

There are fairer ways to reduce combat durations.

[OldTrees1]

But you're only saving a few minutes per encounter by doing it wrong which is my point, it's not like you're freeing up hours of playtime over a session.

You do realize that the freed time accumulates over the session. If I can increase my players' enjoyment by 20% (5 encounters to 6 encounters) by reducing the dice in mass rolls by half, then I would be out of my mind not to. On the other hand if my players did not enjoy that shortcut, then I would be out of my mind to use it.


There are fairer ways to reduce combat durations.

True and I implemented those first. However changing from 8d20 down to 4d20 does not seem unfair to me. Could you please enlighten me as to how this is an unfair? There remains a bell curve and it is not all or nothing.

(My players do not dislike the houserule and they enjoy the benefits. However if the houserule is unfair, this would merely redeem my usage of it. It would not redeem the houserule itself.)

[Jenrock]

You consider 26 minutes for a fight a long time in 3.5 :smallconfused: you play a vastly different game than we do at our table.

You're right about 5 seconds seeming long, I was giving the benefit of the doubt but you're making my point for me.

This, I believe, is the key issue. No two games are the same, and that's awesome. We all play a game founded on the same core mechanics, but catered to the needs and desires of our specific groups. For my group, 26 minutes is a pretty long encounter time. I've spoilered a description of my group and play style to perhaps make my resolution mechanic a little more palatable (though perhaps I am nefarious and beyond redemption in some eyes. I'll do my best to develop an accompanying evil laugh. :smallwink:).

My group is focused on telling cool (though, truthfully, not terribly gripping emotional) stories. They also can't optimize to save their collective lives. They wouldn't know what to do with an effective cleric if I built one for them. Which I have. One time, I got into a deep conversation with a fellow DM who felt that my Holocaust Cloak-sporting Swordsage was "grossly overpowered". I love my group, but when they play casters (which is rare), they tend to be the blasty kind who still need help relative to other party members. So I make games to accommodate them. It wouldn't work for the bulk of people on this forum (and perhaps any forum), but it works for us, and we have fun. I don't need or want anything else.

[LogosDragon]

In support of OldTree's math, think about that over the course of a real long campaign. I mean, I don't know how long you guys' campaigns usually go, but if you meet, say, twice a week, and saving about half an hour per session, let's see how that adds up:

One-shot: 30 minutes. Whoopdie-frakkin-doo, I'd prefer mechanical integrity.

Six-month campaign (that's fairly average, right? Though I guess that would be for once-a-week players...): That's about four and a half weeks per month, so in one month you'll have met up nine times. Six months makes that 54 meetings. That's saving you about 27 hours, or 3-4 entire sessions. Congratulations, in an equal-length campaign without doing this, you've missed out on two weeks of material. There's a lot of awesome stuff that can happen in four sessions, especially with a DM worth their salt. But that's just the beginning...

Multi-year-spanning campaign: If you're like me, your campaigns will often last anywhere from 1-3 years. So let's look at that. For the sake of simplicity, I'll ignore leap years and the fact that February only has four weeks rather than four and a half. Assuming perfect attendance, you're missing anywhere from 54 to 162 hours in this amount of time. That's somewhere between 6-8 sessions (depending on your session length) and 18-24 sessions (again, depending on session length, either six or eight hours as I've been assuming). I know it doesn't seem like all that much when you've got that much time being put into the game... but that's space for quite of lot of potentially very meaningful material.



Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with Fax mostly. There are multitudes of better ways to save meaningful amounts of time. But you can't ignore that stuff like this really adds up, and this is a pretty easy solution if you're giving your best effort but are on that line of maybe-or-maybe-not-cut-out-to-DM, or if you're the only person willing even if you're not really able.

[Deophaun]

My problem (similar to your critique) is that the templateCR 8 stat block is not very useful for representing large numbers of enemies except during the ECL 5-11 period.
The bigger issue is large numbers of enemies are just not very useful, period. They will either kill the party/force a retreat, or the party will triumph. I've learned quick as both a DM and a player that if the party can handle 30 mooks, regardless of what they are, they can handle 1000. So all that mooks past 30 do is eat up game time.

Plus, if you are dealing with 200 individually commanded mooks, rolling individual saves is still an inconsequential part of combat.

You do realize that the freed time accumulates over the session. If I can increase my players' enjoyment by 20% (5 encounters to 6 encounters) by reducing the dice in mass rolls by half, then I would be out of my mind not to.
Yeah, no. You aren't saving nearly enough time to go from five encounters to six encounters just by doing that. You're probably saving two minutes, tops.

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with Fax mostly. There are multitudes of better ways to save meaningful amounts of time. But you can't ignore that stuff like this really adds up...
Yes, you can, because sessions don't normally stop when a timer goes off. It's "encounter's over; is there enough time for the next?"

[Fax Celestis]

True and I implemented those first. However changing from 8d20 down to 4d20 does not seem unfair to me. Could you please enlighten me as to how this is an unfair? There remains a bell curve and it is not all or nothing.

(My players do not dislike the houserule and they enjoy the benefits. However if the houserule is unfair, this would merely redeem my usage of it. It would not redeem the houserule itself.)

yours is reasonable. The One For All version mentioned in the OP is not.

[OldTrees1]

The bigger issue is large numbers of enemies are just not very useful, period. They will either kill the party/force a retreat, or the party will triumph. I've learned quick as both a DM and a player that if the party can handle 30 mooks, regardless of what they are, they can handle 1000. So all that mooks past 30 do is eat up game time.

Plus, if you are dealing with 200 individually commanded mooks, rolling individual saves is still an inconsequential part of combat.

I agree that a decent mass combat mob template would be ideal. I do not have a decent one. Where can I find the one you use?



Yeah, no. You aren't saving nearly enough time to go from five encounters to six encounters just by doing that. You're probably saving two minutes, tops.

The 5 encounters -> 6 encounters was based off the 5 seconds per die roll estimate the person I was talking to made.

In reality I probably save 5 minutes per session by cutting the mass rolls in half. However see LogosDragon's post about how time adds up.



Yes, you can, because sessions don't normally stop when a timer goes off. It's "encounter's over; is there enough time for the next?"

There are usually many small events that can be taken in that spare time that would have otherwise eaten into next session's time. The time saved can be used to split loot, go shopping or talking to NPCs.


yours is reasonable. The One For All version mentioned in the OP is not.

Agreed there. One for All has side effects I would not want to touch with a 12 ft pole.

[Deophaun]

Where can I find the one you use?
In 4th edition. :smallbiggrin:

Really, I gave up in 3.5.

There are usually many small events that can be taken in that spare time that would have otherwise eaten into next session's time. The time saved can be used to split loot, go shopping or talking to NPCs.
Where I'm from, splitting loot and going shopping can be done via email. Talking to NPCs is generally a bigger part of those "encounters" I was discussing, and often a "we'll get that next session" is needed because otherwise next session will have start with repeating what the NPC said anyway. It's just not significant.

[Worira]

Explanation:
The kind of game where there are better uses for 40 seconds per turn per round per combat per session?

Say
40 seconds per turn [5 seconds per roll seems high]
4 turns per round (4 PCs)
5 rounds per combat
5 combats per session
= 66.67 minutes or 1.11 hrs

Rolling 4 times for 2 enemies each roll, (rather than 8 times for 1 enemy each roll) saves more than half an hour per session. This time can be used on roleplaying or another combat.

Why is your entire party hitting 8 creatures with identical stats with an AoE every round of every combat?

[Invader]

So if you recognize the time saved per session is negligible why not just roll correctly? I refuse to believe anyone is so time conscious that they're worried about saving minutes over dozens of sessions and months of play time.

[BrokenChord]

Why is your entire party hitting 8 creatures with identical stats with an AoE every round of every combat?

Because the DM is an idiot and that was the only hope for reprieve? *shrug* I agree with Logos though, especially considering all the averaging out of stuff, there are a lot of di-related things in-game that can be shortened this way so it's still a meaningful amount of time being saved.

EDIT: @ the above post; um, actually, I don't care about a lot of the other time-crepz mentioned, but Logos drove the point home with missing several weeks over the course of a campaign. This isn't even that hard of a change to make.

[OldTrees1]

In 4th edition. :smallbiggrin:

Really, I gave up in 3.5.

Where I'm from, splitting loot and going shopping can be done via email. Talking to NPCs is generally a bigger part of those "encounters" I was discussing, and often a "we'll get that next session" is needed because otherwise next session will have start with repeating what the NPC said anyway. It's just not significant.

Darn, that would be trouble to convert to 3e.

Here is where our groups differ. I can get them to remember what an NPC says (if the PC initiates the conversation) but I cannot get them to spend time outside of the sessions (even for leveling :smallfrown:).


Why is your entire party hitting 8 creatures with identical stats with an AoE every round of every combat?

The non-casters have a on-hit save effect
The casters like evocation
I like encounters of a few groups of similar individuals
The rest was a result of averaging and adjusting to meet the 8 identical creature premise of the person I was talking to.

Cutting down mass rolls (like 8d20) down to smaller mass rolls (4d20, 1 d20 per 2 creatures) has worked for me. I do not advise eliminating mass rolls (1d20, 1 d20 per group) but I have not found any negative consequences from slightly reducing the dice involved (8d20 to 4d20).

[ericgrau]

Ya 8 rolls isn't that much, especially if you have 8 d20s like a proper gamer and can roll them all at once.

But here's something you can do for a very large group: Assume an average number of foes fail their save. Then roll 2 saves. If both pass 1 more foe passes, if both fail 1 more foe fails, if 1 passes and 1 fails then stick with the average. It doesn't usually vary by much more than that anyway.

For example the goblins save on a 9 which is 21-9=12 out of 20 times. 12*8/20 ~= 5 goblins save on average. Then depending on your rolls 4, 5 or 6 goblins might save.

[OldTrees1]

Ya 8 rolls isn't that much, especially if you have 8 d20s like a proper gamer and can roll them all at once.

But here's something you can do for a very large group: Assume an average number of foes fail their save. Then roll 2 saves. If both pass 1 more foe passes, if both fail 1 more foe fails, if 1 passes and 1 fails then stick with the average. It doesn't usually vary by much more than that anyway.

For example the goblins save on a 9 which is 21-9=12 out of 20 times. 12*8/20 ~= 5 goblins save on average. Then depending on your rolls 4, 5 or 6 goblins might save.

For more range on larger groups you might want to add the +/-1 to the ratio that saves rather than the number that saves.

40 goblins that save on a 9 (12 times out of 20)
If 2 fails: 40* 11/20 = 22 save
If 1 save and 1 fail: 40* 12/20 = 24 save
If 2 saves: 40* 13/20 = 26 save

However I'll stick with rolling 6d20 for those 12 goblins.

[Ravens_cry]

My players tend to be very understanding and flexible when it comes to people new to the table, and, as such, make no cry of "foul!" should we have to make a quick alteration to the rules. As it pertains to taking time to explain, I don't. In the situation in question, it would simply be a matter of "We don't actually work saves like that, but since you made that decision under certain assumptions, we can play it out this time."

That's it. Like I said, I'm a huge fan of DM-player communication, but any protracted discussion about houserules or play style are for outside of the game proper. A ten second sentence like the one above is fine, but I try to keep the game relatively distraction free.
Why do it one time? If they truly based their character under the assumption saves for groups for one way, it's not exactly going to make things any better for them if it works the other for the rest of the campaign, or at least until their character dies.

[ChaoticDitz]

Why do it one time? If they truly based their character under the assumption saves for groups for one way, it's not exactly going to make things any better for them if it works the other for the rest of the campaign, or at least until their character dies.

There are an amazingly small number of things in D&D that don't involve your interactions with other players where you can be said to be doing it wrong. But I truly believe that if your build is so centrally focused on that one thing that you would need to completely revamp the character to accommodate for such a relatively small houserule, urdoinitrong.

EDIT: Especially considering your character ought not have knowledge of a concept such as "Saves" in the first place, especially on a numerical level, though they might gather that certain monsters are more resistant to mental effects than others and the like.

[Melcar]

Your DM is wrong. Just as if he threw a fireball at you, you would all have to roll your own save even though you had the same save bonus.

[Worira]

There are an amazingly small number of things in D&D that don't involve your interactions with other players where you can be said to be doing it wrong. But I truly believe that if your build is so centrally focused on that one thing that you would need to completely revamp the character to accommodate for such a relatively small houserule, urdoinitrong.

EDIT: Especially considering your character ought not have knowledge of a concept such as "Saves" in the first place, especially on a numerical level, though they might gather that certain monsters are more resistant to mental effects than others and the like.

And certain monsters function under a bizarre hivemind, apparently.

[TuggyNE]

And certain monsters function under a bizarre hivemind, apparently.

Well, there's always legion devils, but those are the exception that proves the rule, methinks.

[Ydaer Ca Noit]

I had a DM who was claiming that he just needs to roll 1 initiative for everyone. Which caused practical problems as I always had some tactic that involved playing between them.

As a DM I wouldn't want my encounters to be much harder or much easier depending on a spell (everyone saves = minimum dmg, none saves = max damage) I would prefer the average. As a player I would want separate rolls, because I don't want a massive save or die, I just want to do damage to some and let the fighter finish off/kill the rest.

[Spore]

Tell him the fighter killed one and as they have the same stats every goblin dies. :smallamused:

[Fitz10019]

OP here, and I don't think the DM's point was the time needed to roll a d20 7 more times. I think he was unprepared (or unwilling) to differentiate among his 8 generic goblins. He didn't want to think about whether this one or that one had a -1 to hit in the succeeding rounds.

In a way, he was being 'fair' in that he knew he would forget to differentiate later, so he lumped them together into one result that he could apply universally (-0 to hit, or -1 to hit). It was a Meetup one-shot at a gaming store, and he may not have invested much in his prep.

[Zirconia]

I had a DM who was claiming that he just needs to roll 1 initiative for everyone. Which caused practical problems as I always had some tactic that involved playing between them.

I actually tend to prefer that, since if the DM is keeping track of 8 separate initiatives for their 8 creatures, I've found it bogs the game down a bit as they try to reevaluate the situation and act 8 times in a round rather than once, in addition to the possibility of forgetting someone in initiative order.

I would not be too happy with an all-for-one save, though, I would imagine a lot of group encounters are designed and scaled with the idea that some crowd control will be used to avoid fighting ALL of them at once at full power. All-for-one saves tends to devalue high single target damage PCs, IMHO, as either they are attacking statues or they are fighting one guy while the other seven murder their friends.

[Jenrock]

Why do it one time? If they truly based their character under the assumption saves for groups for one way, it's not exactly going to make things any better for them if it works the other for the rest of the campaign, or at least until their character dies.

Because I'm a nice guy. Which is not at all to infer that you're not. I'm sure everyone on this forum is splendid, not to mention adored and adulated by their players.

It is my way of apology and consolation. That's as complicated as my reasoning gets. Should a player expect the game to work one way while it actually works another, I have failed at my job as DM. My job is to craft an enjoyable experience for the friends and incredibly odd strangers who gather around my table. The nature of the game dictates the principle way in which this is accomplished is clear communication. Should my communication be less than clear, then I have failed in that goal, and I feel bad about this, so I say "Here, have a cookie." That is occasionally a real cookie, but it also comes in the form of this minor accommodation.

And, as I've said from the beginning, this accommodation services speed and ease of play. If they want to discuss their character build, I'm totally fine with that; I love talking to my players about game mechanics (which, if you read my spoilered section on page 2, you'll deduce that a rare occurrence).

Obviously my method of play is anathema to yours. I understand and respect that. It's something I love about D&D. You and I can purchase the same rules and change them to something that functions in a way more to our liking (though clearly here, I am the rule changer). We have an entire subforum representative of this fact. It's a good game; I just happen to like it a little differently than others.

On a side note, if anyone actually is adulated by their players (or anyone for that matter), can you tell me how that feels? I bet it's nice.