How do I bring up the excitement in combat? Players claiming combat is boring.

[codyleaderbrand]

Hello all, I started a game for the first time in a couple years last weekend. Overall things went really well, the roleplay was good, the story progressed nicely but I had one small impromptu combat with street thugs that I didn't plan for. Once the session was done I asked everyone their favorite parts and the general consensus was that combat was boring in comparison to everything else happening with the story.

How do I make combat more exciting for impromptu combats as well as planned combat? I'm running a Pathfinder game based out of Eberron, namely Sharn. I appreciate any assistance! :D

[torrasque666]

Isn't that the floating city? Make use of narrow walk ways and flying enemies. Possibly ones on magic carpets. Make enemies run away if they realize they're getting beat to try and lure the players into a trap.

[Geddy2112]

Don't have random combats interrupt otherwise fun and exciting roleplay. When you are knee deep in political intrigue and a major quest that will change the balance of fate, nobody wants to deal with some random thugs trying to steal your wallet. In a hack and slash style game, you want tons of random fights. Your PC's want a more roleplay and less grindy combat game. Now that you know that, you know not to have random combat's.

Thugs attack, PC's use their combined arms/magic and wipe the floor, speed bump. Woo.

Combat should be relative to the story. If the PC's have to recover the magical item X from the ancient crypt, it makes sense there are gonna be some undead monsters in there that they have to fight. The point is not fighting the monsters, they are just a challenge in retrieving the item. The challenge does not always have to be combat, but when it is combat it should be relevant. Maybe rival assassins were sent to kill the party because they know too much. Maybe the house they were sneaking into was booby trapped, and there is a monster in the basement.

[Necroticplague]

Easy: make combat really, really short and really, really challenging. Then, it's exciting because the players know any mistake could be their last. It gets them engaged. That's why I find it's a good idea to avoid stonewall-type enemies (which are often as unchallenging as they are annoying), and use more glass-cannon types. Also, always make fights plot points in and of themselves. If fights just feel like speedbumps in between you and the actually interesting plot point, it feels like a chore*.

*= side note, this is a probelm I have a lot with most dungeons, in that they just feel like padding.Most the time, you could replace the dungeon with literally anything dangerous, and it has the same effect on the plot (typically none). The important plot points are the beginning where you enter, the end where you acquire mcguffin or fight boss, and what's in between is pointless chaff.

[codyleaderbrand]

Don't have random combats interrupt otherwise fun and exciting roleplay. When you are knee deep in political intrigue and a major quest that will change the balance of fate, nobody wants to deal with some random thugs trying to steal your wallet.

Fair enough, I should preface though, they aren't necessarily "random" just unplanned. They are currently investigating some "misplaced" goods in the city and these guys belong to the gang that stole them. I didn't intend for them to run into any of these thugs until later but they happened to be down a dark alley. I figured I place some of the misplaced sausage (the item that was stolen) on these guys and it should be a good clue. However, because of lack of planning it was just 6 halfing thugs down a dark alley. Combat ended up bunched up because of the small alley, the rogue was stuck, caster couldn't AOE and the fighters were left to knock down the thugs like dominoes. I made a portion of the enemies run away due to getting beat but also because I could tell some of the players were getting bored.

We ended the session on the last thug being killed where the others were left unconscious or fleeing so that should provide some interest with the Law next game. They also haven't searched the bodies of these thugs yet so they haven't found the sausage which will be another clue to the current issue. I apologize for not providing more detail, would have likely helped more. Also, the PC's are currently level 2, just as an FYI. I appreciate the feedback thus far though! :)

[OldTrees1]

Their response could mean one of 3 distinct things:
1) They don't like combat as much
2) The combat was the least great thing
3) The combat was lacking

Forget #2, in the case of #2 nothing needs fixing and nothing can be fixed.

#1 suggests reducing time spent on combat while #3 suggests improving time spent on combat. Start by dropping random encounters and focus on making planned and non random impromptu encounters (PC started fights) more engaging.

Terrain, Levels, Motion
Terrain: Almost every combat scenario makes sense to have 2 kinds of irregular terrain. Don't always default to "everything is open, difficult, or a wall". Chairs work as one way difficult terrain. Fences provide +1 AC and require a check/movement to cross.

Levels: Having multiple elevations makes things more detailed in a hurry, even simple 3ft tall tables.

Motion: The ground moves. This can get gimmicky quickly so use caution. Common examples are moving vehicles (overboard = need to catch up), gears, and flowing liquid.

[dextercorvia]

It sounds like your players aren't terribly prepared (tactically) for urban combat. They were bored because they weren't prepared, so had nothing they could do. So, in order for them not to be bored, either encounters have to be tailored to their preparations or they need to prepare for an appropriate variety of encounters. I would suggest debriefing them and offering some suggestions about how it could have gone differently. Remind them they can freely move through friendly ally's squares, and that preparing large AoE spells is probably not the best idea for close quarters. Not everyone thinks tactically, but they need to know that not every combat is going to occur in a featureless plane. Being bunched up and struggling to reach your opponents is common not just in urban combat but also dungeon combat.

[codyleaderbrand]

It sounds like your players aren't terribly prepared (tactically) for urban combat.

I agree with this, the problem with my group is that they aren't terribly experienced and it shows. Furthermore they don't know nearly as much as I do about the world. I've tried to combat this by being extra descriptive, providing optional notes about the world if they want to read in their spare time but not requiring it naturally. Plus, this being the first session, the group haven't established who fills what role just yet so currently everyone is trying to be the hero from a combat perspective. My current hope is that they learn from this combat so that they can be better prepared for the next combat.



Terrain, Levels, Motion
Terrain: Almost every combat scenario makes sense to have 2 kinds of irregular terrain. Don't always default to "everything is open, difficult, or a wall". Chairs work as one way difficult terrain. Fences provide +1 AC and require a check/movement to cross.

Levels: Having multiple elevations makes things more detailed in a hurry, even simple 3ft tall tables.

Motion: The ground moves. This can get gimmicky quickly so use caution. Common examples are moving vehicles (overboard = need to catch up), gears, and flowing liquid.

I can certainly make better use of terrain complications and Eberron will surely provide many opportunity for vehicle combat. My problem is that they literally turned a corner, short RP later with the clearly not looking to deal with adventurers thugs, and combat began. Not having time to prepare for some uniqueness in the combat showed some of my weakness which I'm hoping to curb with more experience and re-familiarization of gameplay.


Easy: make combat really, really short and really, really challenging. Then, it's exciting because the players know any mistake could be their last. It gets them engaged. That's why I find it's a good idea to avoid stonewall-type enemies (which are often as unchallenging as they are annoying), and use more glass-cannon types. Also, always make fights plot points in and of themselves. If fights just feel like speedbumps in between you and the actually interesting plot point, it feels like a chore*.

I like the idea of an increase in challenge for the combat, my next question would be scaling and how much should I scale forward a challenge for a 5 man group of lvl 2 characters?

[OldTrees1]

I can certainly make better use of terrain complications and Eberron will surely provide many opportunity for vehicle combat. My problem is that they literally turned a corner, short RP later with the clearly not looking to deal with adventurers thugs, and combat began. Not having time to prepare for some uniqueness in the combat showed some of my weakness which I'm hoping to curb with more experience and re-familiarization of gameplay.

Practice will help, so good plan.

A bunch o thugs in a, dead end?, alley:
Doorways provide +1 AC, -1 ranged attack from minor cover
Barrels provide soft cover, but are destroyed in one attack thus enabling a cleave
The refuse pile is a small incline. It allows passage on a Balance check otherwise step through and be entangled
The back wall can be scaled with a round's of effort, rewarding the climber with a height advantage
The thugs might have the ability to open one of the doors

The thugs don't want to deal with the adventures. So 2 of them scale the back wall. Next they drop down ropes and follow up with bombarding the PCs. The other thus are holding a defensive position for the first round, then they start a retreat under the covering fire of the increasing number of bombardiers.

[Vogie]

Since it's Pathfinder, You can also tap into lesser-used aspects such as Called Shots (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/variants/calledShots.html), making both individual combat more dynamic from both a player and storytelling capacity.

[Janthkin]

As both a player & a DM, I find combat gets "boring" when one of 3 things is happening:

1) The DM isn't prepared to handle the number of monsters he's using, and it slows down the game. Your monsters need to move VERY quickly when it's their turn, and act decisively. No looking up spells or rules - you should have that down before the session. Roll multiple attack rolls simultaneously, along with damage dice in case you hit.

2) Some players don't know the system well, and are getting stalled on their turns (and/or some of the players are offering "helpful" advice that further slows down the decision-making). If these are new players, you can easily institute a standing policy to roll attack & damage dice together, as that tends to speed up the game. (Ditto if there are separate miss chances due to concealment in play.)

3) The combat is set up in such a way that some characters just don't have anything meaningful to do.

In short, combat is boring when there are places where one or more players have a lot of time between meaningful actions.

The DM can address all 3 of these: 1 & 3 are directly under his control, while 2 requires some out of game conversation with one or more of the players. I would actually advise against introducing any more complicated combat mechanics until you're confident on these 3 issues.

[codyleaderbrand]

As both a player & a DM, I find combat gets "boring" when one of 3 things is happening:

1) The DM isn't prepared to handle the number of monsters he's using, and it slows down the game. Your monsters need to move VERY quickly when it's their turn, and act decisively. No looking up spells or rules - you should have that down before the session. Roll multiple attack rolls simultaneously, along with damage dice in case you hit.

2) Some players don't know the system well, and are getting stalled on their turns (and/or some of the players are offering "helpful" advice that further slows down the decision-making). If these are new players, you can easily institute a standing policy to roll attack & damage dice together, as that tends to speed up the game. (Ditto if there are separate miss chances due to concealment in play.)

3) The combat is set up in such a way that some characters just don't have anything meaningful to do.

In short, combat is boring when there are places where one or more players have a lot of time between meaningful actions.

The DM can address all 3 of these: 1 & 3 are directly under his control, while 2 requires some out of game conversation with one or more of the players. I would actually advise against introducing any more complicated combat mechanics until you're confident on these 3 issues.

1)Well there was no lie that I wasn't prepared, as I've mentioned that several times, however I don't believe everything should be planned. Being versatile is a huge strength is one can do it right, plus it keeps from railroading. I'm a firm believer of trying till I get it right. so I can't say I'll plan all combats ahead of time. This combat was literally opening up the NPC codex and flipping to rouge 1. Perhaps next time I'll call for a quick bathroom break before starting combat to allow myself more time to prepare. Hindsight 20-20, I should have replaced one of the thugs with a higher level combatant with a couple cronies.

2)The players don't know the system well at all, several are relatively new to the system of the class they are playing. I'm trying to teach them that they have more options. Rogue could have tumbled behind the enemies through and allies square. Fighter could have bullrushed over a halfing to create another space for a character. While I agree they should have some sort of idea of what they want to do, I don't mind talking over their options with them especially at these baby stages of combat.

3)This one can go back and forth, and at the end of the day I take all the blame upon myself. It's my job to ensure the players are having fun and are engaged. I think you're right, meaningful actions and meaningful combat are what my encounter lacked.

[johnbragg]

SAw this last week, and it sounds like something you could read. http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/

Short version is instead of doing this:

GM: Alice, your turn.
Alice: I’ll run up and attack the goblin with my mace. 15.
GM: You hit the goblin. Roll for damage.
Alice: 6 bludgeoning damage.
GM: Great. You hit for six damage.
Bob, your turn.


Do this:


GM: Alice, four goblins are charging the party. What do you do?”
Alice: I’ll run up and hit the goblin with my mace. 15.
GM: Damage? Alice: 6 bludgeoning damage.
GM: You charge the goblin and smash it with your mace, bringing it to a stop. It’s allies are hesitating.
Bob, you’ve got an opening…

[snowman87]

Don't forget about roleplay! If you make interesting adversaries instead of just "Thug #3", they'll be more motivated to interact in some way, either to smash their faces, run away, or be diplomatic. I made a pretty generic bad guy boss for a single encounter once and through the combat evolved his personality and dictated his actions according to that and the players truly came to revile him (not me, the DM, the character!). They became determined to show him up and prove he wasn't so superior. Combat doesn't have to just be "Player one, what do you do?" "I swing my sword." "Okay, you hit. Now bad guy one goes. He swings his sword. He misses. Player two, what do you do...?", etc. Tell the story!

[Cirrylius]

Maybe offer a 1-3 point bonus to hit or save or whatever if they can explain it themselves through cool narrative, like in Exalted.

[PraxisVetli]

Maybe offer a 1-3 point bonus to hit or save or whatever if they can explain it themselves through cool narrative, like in Exalted.

This would motivate the crap outta me!

[nedz]

It's about pacing and a sense of drama.
Running an exciting combat is a performance art.


GM: Alice, four goblins are charging the party. What do you do?”
Alice: I’ll run up and hit the goblin with my mace. 15.
GM: Damage?
Alice: 6 bludgeoning damage.
GM: You charge the goblin and smash it with your mace, bringing it to a stop. It’s allies are hesitating.
Bob, you’ve got an opening…
These are good. Short imperative questions which force a decision crisis.

Also you mentioned giving out lots of descriptions - Don't.

You have to describe the scene, but let the players prompt you for more information in a conversation instead of a monologue. Monologues are boring, conversations are interesting. Boring monologues just get ignored anyway.

[johnbragg]

It's about pacing and a sense of drama.
Running an exciting combat is a performance art.

These are good. Short imperative questions which force a decision crisis.

Also you mentioned giving out lots of descriptions - Don't.

You have to describe the scene, but let the players prompt you for more information in a conversation instead of a monologue. Monologues are boring, conversations are interesting. Boring monologues just get ignored anyway.

Twasn't me, those are direct quotes from the AngryDM article I linked. HE was saying "description" like in the example, a one-sentence description of what's going on in the combat as it comes to your turn. "The goblins are looking uncertain about continuing this fight. Aelric, what do you do?"

[Elder_Basilisk]

Their response could mean one of 3 distinct things:
1) They don't like combat as much
2) The combat was the least great thing
3) The combat was lacking

Forget #2, in the case of #2 nothing needs fixing and nothing can be fixed.

#1 suggests reducing time spent on combat while #3 suggests improving time spent on combat. Start by dropping random encounters and focus on making planned and non random impromptu encounters (PC started fights) more engaging.

Terrain, Levels, Motion
Terrain: Almost every combat scenario makes sense to have 2 kinds of irregular terrain. Don't always default to "everything is open, difficult, or a wall". Chairs work as one way difficult terrain. Fences provide +1 AC and require a check/movement to cross.

Levels: Having multiple elevations makes things more detailed in a hurry, even simple 3ft tall tables.

Motion: The ground moves. This can get gimmicky quickly so use caution. Common examples are moving vehicles (overboard = need to catch up), gears, and flowing liquid.

That is an excellent suggestion. I have a few suggestions to build on it and a few separate suggestions:

1. Use pre-printed maps like the detailed Paizo flip maps, the Fantastic Encounter Poster maps that WotC put out, or actual 3D terrain borrowed from Mordheim or Warhammer or similar games. If you want something less expensive/time consuming try looking for 0-one games tiles or some of the free heroquest tiles available on the internet or think about picking up a copy of Descent: Journeys in the Dark 2nd edition for the detailed map tiles.

The goal is for people to be able to say, "Can I push over those library stacks onto the enemy?" or "I jump onto the table to get the +1 higher ground bonus and the flank!" or "I slide down the bannister and jump onto the top of the barrel!" If you have a physical representation of those details, players are more likely to use them than if you have to describe all of them or draw all of them individually on the board. If players don't get the idea right away, you can also start using the terrain that way yourself with NPCs.

Warning: Stay away from generic pre-printed tiles like the ones WotC put out in the 4e era. You are looking for detail not just squares with walls.

2. Vary the number of combatants
One big monster vs the PCs is ok occasionally but gets old very quickly. Likewise, 3 or 4 of the same monster gets old fairly quickly too. Change up the formula. Have one big monster and a bunch of grunts one battle, a mated pair of not-quite-so-big monsters another time, six relatively equal threats another time, and then have an epic battle with one big (party level+2) monster, a couple medium (party level -1 or -2) monsters and a group of weak monsters who are boosted by each other or by a bard or cleric.

Vary the way you spread out those formulas too. If one battle is an evil spellcaster (the titan) and his zombie minions, have another encounter where the titan is up front and the minions are giving it flanking bonuses and magical support. For example, a group of cult guards with a trained owlbear where one of the low level cultists can cast bless and another knows snake's swiftness.

3. Vary the type of combatants.
Barbarians are good NPC villains because they hit hard and are therefore threatening, their once or twice per day rage (or x rounds/day in Pathfinder) isn't really a limited resource for NPCs who will only live one battle, and they have lots of hit points and a will save bonus while raging. But barbarians get old quickly. Add in ninjas and drow etc. Some should have undead, some should have demons. Some should have dragons and some should have owlbears. This will help to make the combats distinct and to force the PCs to vary their tactics in order to deal with different kinds of threats. That helps to keep combats interesting.

4. Vary the challenge level of encounters. Ten years ago or so in Living Greyhawk, a lot of adventures started to fall into a pattern where there would be two moderately challenging encounters followed by a slightly tougher encounter. APL+2, APL+2, APL+3 and then you're done for the day. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every encounter needs to be the same kind of challenge to keep it interesting. If there is an APL -1, APL +1, APL -1, followed by APL +4, things get much more interesting--especially if you vary the number of encounters per day and the pace of encounters as well (see 5 below). Things are interesting when the players don't always know if they need to save resources for later or not and can't tell at the start if this is an easy resource draining encounter with a couple ghasts, a challenging encounter with a pair of ghast ninjas, or the start of a knock down, drag out epic encounter with a couple ghasts AND a horde of skeletons led by an evil priest who come crashing through the door in round 3.

5. Vary the pace of the combat.
It is easy to start out by putting out the map, putting the PCs down, putting the enemies down, and saying "roll initiative." However while you can accomplish a lot with that formula, it gets old. Here are a few ways that you can change things up:

A. Combatants join the combat in later rounds.
For example, the PCs are assaulting a dungeon filled with undead and evil clerics beneath a moathouse. They find a small room with a couple ghasts in it and fight them. But the evil cleric in the next room hears the battle, casts a few spells and directs his skeletons into the room. In round 3, the door opens and skeletons pour into the room from ahead, supported by the cleric who drops hold person spells and firebolts on the group. In round 5, the assassin who has been tailing the PCs (and successfully hiding from their perception) tries to pick off the bard in the back with his assassination attempt.

B. Combatants are not all visible at the start of the combat.
This is an intermediate step between the normal scenario and A. In this scenario, all the bad guys are present, but the PCs only know about some of them. For example, against a party with low perception, there might be a couple bandits behind a road block demanding a "toll" but when the PCs say, "we'll pay in blood--yours!" the bushes along the side of the road sprout bad guys who shoot at them. And there is a ranger who is really good at hiding sniping them with a bow from 110 feet away.

C. Multiple factions in combat.
Who says there only have to be two sides to the battle. Maybe the PCs catch up to the evil orc warband they've been trailing while the orcs are crossing a stream and engage them, only to find that there is also a hungry crocodile or assassin vine in the neighborhood who wants to eat both the PCs and the orcs. Or the PCs are fighting with the thieves' guild when the town watch shows up and tries to subdue both groups of combatants.

D. Developments in the middle of combat. A and C can be variants of this: having new monsters or a third faction show up is a development, but developments don't have to be monsters. Maybe it's a fire that starts or a lamp that is shattered (plunging the formerly brightly lit combat into darkness) or a scaffolding (that the PCs were fighting on) collapsing. Anything that changes the terrain and tactical considerations significantly will add interest to the battle.

E. Non-standard victory conditions.
In a normal combat, you win by killing all of the bad guys. But what if the goal of the combat is to escape the dungeon with treasures or a mcguffin? What if you are trying to keep the bad guys from defiling the holy altar and allowing the undead to enter the (currently) hallowed cathedral? What if the bad guys are trying to kill an NPC (the dreaded escort mission)? What if you are? Giving the bad guys or good guys goals other than just "kill them all" can make combats more interesting.

F. Monsters with personality.
Does everyone fight to the death? If so, are they willing to go out normally, or will they drop a fireball at their feet in order to go out on their own terms (and maybe take the party with them)? Will one bad guy step into a potential flank and ready an attack for when his ally flanks with him, only to have the injured "ally" see an opportunity to get away and withdraw? Do the hobgoblins dispatch a runner for reinforcements when it is clear that the patrol is overmatched?

[Luch Ri]

Forgive me if I must channel Elan for a moment, but I have one word for you, Theatrics.

Setting up an interesting local or scenario is always helpful, but more to the point a key for any DM in this situation should be to talk up what is going on in a fun, creative, and descriptive manner.

For example, let's say you have some players in an arena. A party of 4 fighting a Wyvern. Now, let's also say that one of the party's heavies goes up to try grappling the Wyvern in order to keep it from lifting off a bit and getting out of melee, and succeeds. You could simply state that he succeeds at his role, or it could go like this.

"-blank- Dashes up quickly and thrusts himself at the legs of the beast. his own strenght along with the bulk of his brand new plate mail shock the creature just as it is ready to take off. -blank- strains, struggles, and against all odds actually manage to suplex the thing face first into the dirt!"

Now on paper, the guy just made a perhaps unlikely grapple role. But in game, he was just 11 different kinds of badass. Running up and suplexing a wyvern about to take flight.

Remember this is a shared narrative, and it is always better to make the attacks, both successful and failures, as interesting and fun as you can. Even something as simple as hitting a foe in the face with a sword should be a bit more flavorful, and if they roleplay out what they are doing a bit it should give you fodder to add how it affects things and perhaps even tweak how things are going. Give them new options. Take advantage of the living state that the game allows you and make it colorful.

It takes some practice, but it is so very, very worth it in any game and in any setting.

[SangoProduction]

Have people give brief descriptions to the combat. Unless they are spell casters, or highly optimized martial characters, they will just be autoattacking for far too long, and nothing interesting happens. Giving exciting descriptions, and having everyone also get in on it is basically the only way to make combats "fun" in 3.5.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Have people give brief descriptions to the combat. Unless they are spell casters, or highly optimized martial characters, they will just be autoattacking for far too long, and nothing interesting happens. Giving exciting descriptions, and having everyone also get in on it is basically the only way to make combats "fun" in 3.5.

I would advise ignoring this advice. The poster obviously does not find combats fun in 3.5 even with his recommendation (note the sarcastic tone and the scare quotes around "fun"), so the advice doesn't even work for him. If you are "auto-attacking for far too long" it is likely that DM-mandated descriptions will make the job less fun rather than more fun. After all, you can only say, "I slash my sword at the monster" or "I duck under his blade and stab at the monster" so many times before it gets old and if you are autoattacking for a long time, you will reach that point very quickly. You need to make the battle dynamic and the tactics interesting in themselves. If you don't do that, no amount of theatrical window-dressing will make the combat fun. If you do that, it will be fun whether or not you have the window dressing. In Luch Ri's example, it was the heroic grapple attempt that made the combat exciting and memorable, not the description of it. Description should enhance and acknowledge the excitement of the maneuvers. It won't create excitement that doesn't exist in the first place.

However, if you do find yourself in a situation where there is a lot of grinding attackfests (IME, this is much more a feature of 4e or other systems with bounded accuracy than 3.5 (which tends more toward the rocket tag side of the spectrum) though it does occasionally happen at low levels), you should evaluate if you can counter it with better encounter design and play. As the DM, you have all the tools you need to prevent grind.

1. The number 1 cause of grinding is high AC monsters at low levels. Unless you have a really good story reason, don't toss a bad guy wearing heavy armor and using a tower shield at low level players. If you have to choose, high hp, low AC is much less likely to become a grind than high AC/mid hp. At higher levels, this is less of a problem (see rocket tag comment above), but there is still a temptation to try for "unhittable" monsters. Unhittable monsters cause grind if players do not have attacks that bypass AC (spells, grappling, etc). If you don't like grind, and your players don't have AC bypassing attacks, don't use high defense monsters.

I played one game where we were fighting a shadow-templated dire bat in the dark. It was fun when my halfling got enlarged and bull's strengthed so that she could grapple the monster to death (pass the miss chance on that first touch attack and you don't need to roll miss chance again), but if your players are not used to or prepared for that kind of tactical approach, an encounter like that is going to be a grind every time.

2. You don't have to roll it out to the bitter end. If it is a fight that the players will clearly win but it will take ten minutes to roll out the twenty attacks to bring the monster down, it's perfectly fine to opt for a narrative summary and say, "you guys clearly have this won. Someone takes one more hit from the monster--who volunteers to take the damage?--and in a minute, you finally kill it and stand, panting and resting on your swordhilts as you catch your breath."

3. As the DM, you don't need to let the attack stay stalemated--especially if you have followed the previous advice and have a dynamic environment. The NPC can try to bull-rush PCs off ledges rather than grind out ten low damage attacks to finally drop a PC. You're playing in Ebberon and Skarn--there shouldn't be any shortage of ledges. The NPC can try to escape instead of grinding out a fight that is at best going to end with him being victorious but seriously injured. How much does he really need to win this battle anyway? Maybe it's not worth it. If neither party can hit, the NPC can switch combat modes and start a grapple or provoke opportunity attacks in order to trip. If your tactics are causing a combat to be a grind, change tactics.

[charcoalninja]

Maybe offer a 1-3 point bonus to hit or save or whatever if they can explain it themselves through cool narrative, like in Exalted.

I have this house rule. Best change I ever made. I offer a +1 bonus to hit, Save DC, saving throw or Armour class if the player describes what their character does or they can forego the accuracy for a +2 to damage.

Literally changed my combats overnight