How many rounds is in an average combat?

[Lokiare]

How many rounds is in an average combat at level 20 with an optimized party composed of single classed characters?

At some point I would like to figure this out. But at the moment I don't have the time between learning unity, designing a balanced OGL clone and doing some freelance work on fantasy grounds.

Bonus question, which is more important, who does the most damage or who can end an encounter faster?

[Finieous]

How many rounds is in an average combat at level 20 with an optimized party composed of single classed characters?

At some point I would like to figure this out. But at the moment I don't have the time between learning unity, designing a balanced OGL clone and doing some freelance work on fantasy grounds.

Bonus question, which is more important, who does the most damage or who can end an encounter faster?

A1: I only played one session with level 20 PCs, so take the anecdote for what it's worth (not much). About 3 to 4 rounds, on average, for a "hardish" fight. I actually think this has been pretty consistent across levels IME.

A2: An optimized party needs both.

[MaxWilson]

How many rounds is in an average combat at level 20 with an optimized party composed of single classed characters?

Depends on what distribution you are integrating over. It might be easier to compute the median or mode.

To contribute my own data point toward the mode: I haven't run any level 20 combats, but for levels 8-12 I find my combats tend to run long, 8-10 rounds or more (depending on terrain, how tough the opponent is, etc.). The other guy that I play with tends to run much larger groups, and combats for level 8-10 with high-powered magic items run about 2 rounds. I would expect these trends to still show up at level 20 because 5E is pretty linear but it's hard to know for sure. Hope that's somewhat helpful.

[Fwiffo86]

How many rounds is in an average combat at level 20 with an optimized party composed of single classed characters?

At some point I would like to figure this out. But at the moment I don't have the time between learning unity, designing a balanced OGL clone and doing some freelance work on fantasy grounds.

Bonus question, which is more important, who does the most damage or who can end an encounter faster?

A1 - 3-4 rounds for fights the players knew before hand.
6-9 rounds for fights the players had no previous knowledge of.

A2 - Neither. Swing one way, then the other. Player fun is the goal, not dpr or one round combats.

[EugeneVoid]

Should be 4 rounds tops for high-op to 8 rounds for dramatic end-game boss battles or the DM is being screwy.

DPR is extremely important in earlier levels, but 4e demonstrates that Alpha Striking (How much stuff you can do in round 1 and round 2 to as as many people as possible) is much more important. This means Rogue Assassinating a key target, paladin enmity-ing someone then smacking them, the fighter action surge smacking them, and the wizard wizarding along with the cleric cleric-ing
Though 5e is a lot like 3.5, so I don't know, man.

[Slipperychicken]

Run 30 or more fights at level 20, with optimized characters of varying classes and builds. Or convince other people to record and report to you the number of rounds their fights took, until you have a large number.

For each fight, record any variables of interest, like encounter length in rounds, outcome (win/loss/draw), real life date/time, etc. Damage isn't hard; just record things like attack rolls, whether it was a hit or miss, and how much damage is dealt.

Take descriptive statistics (average, median, standard deviation, etc) for rounds.

???

PROFIT!




Real life example: I'm a crazy person and started using excel to record combat logs for every fight my group runs, complete with combatant names, initiative counts, attack results, damage rolls, names of spells cast, hit-point tracking, save results, and so on. We did 4 fights recently. All of them involved level 4 parties. They lasted a number of rounds as follows: 7, 1, 14, and 6. The average number of rounds per fight was equal to (7+1+14+6)/4= 7 rounds per fight. Median rounds is 6.5, standard deviation 5.35.

This data is garbage because I have sample size n=4, but you get the idea, and can probably apply it to bigger samples.

[Lokiare]

A1 - 3-4 rounds for fights the players knew before hand.
6-9 rounds for fights the players had no previous knowledge of.

A2 - Neither. Swing one way, then the other. Player fun is the goal, not dpr or one round combats.

For many players having the opportunity to do as much or as well as other characters/players is considered fun. For people like me pitting my skill against the DM's skill while both of us work within a perfectly balanced framework is fun. For those that gain fun from other sources it shouldn't matter if the game is balanced or not because that doesn't factor into their fun.



Run 30 or more fights at level 20, with optimized characters of varying classes and builds. Or convince other people to record and report to you the number of rounds their fights took, until you have a large number.

For each fight, record any variables of interest, like encounter length in rounds, outcome (win/loss/draw), real life date/time, etc. Damage isn't hard; just record things like attack rolls, whether it was a hit or miss, and how much damage is dealt.

Take descriptive statistics (average, median, standard deviation, etc) for rounds.

???

PROFIT!




Real life example: I'm a crazy person and started using excel to record combat logs for every fight my group runs, complete with combatant names, initiative counts, attack results, damage rolls, names of spells cast, hit-point tracking, save results, and so on. We did 4 fights recently. All of them involved level 4 parties. They lasted a number of rounds as follows: 7, 1, 14, and 6. The average number of rounds per fight was equal to (7+1+14+6)/4= 7 rounds per fight. Median rounds is 6.5, standard deviation 5.35.

This data is garbage because I have sample size n=4, but you get the idea, and can probably apply it to bigger samples.

I would love to do that, but so far only a handful of people have listed their results since the game was released. Though it does look like its running close to the 7 rounds I predicted.

[Ghost Nappa]

For many players having the opportunity to do as much or as well as other characters/players is considered fun. For people like me pitting my skill against the DM's skill while both of us work within a perfectly balanced framework is fun. For those that gain fun from other sources it shouldn't matter if the game is balanced or not because that doesn't factor into their fun.



I would love to do that, but so far only a handful of people have listed their results since the game was released. Though it does look like its running close to the 7 rounds I predicted.

Our group is definitely closer to the 2-3 turn combats (although all of our fights have been rather easy or moderate in difficulty: no one has been downed to 0 in 4 sessions, and we've had about 2 combats every session).

[Uldric]

How many rounds is in an average combat at level 20 with an optimized party composed of single classed characters?
As a person who designs his own adventures I wish WotC had given us a little more idea of what they expected on this front. I haven't run any high level encounters to really be able to say.


Bonus question, which is more important, who does the most damage or who can end an encounter faster?
As a player I would say the latter, but what can end an encounter fast will vary greatly depending on the encounter design. Spell casters obviously have a lot of resources that can do this in mundane encounters but throw in mobs with high saving throws, Magic Resistance and Legendary Resistances and they are sharply neutered. As an encounter designer I can design an encounter where the fully optimized Wizard reigns supreme, or the polearm fighter, or the unoptimized 3.5 monk. Perhaps an optimized Necromancer with an army of skeletons (how did you get so many piles of bones and where did you get all of those magic bows?) end an encounter in just a couple of turns but those turns will drag on endlessly and be no fun for anyone at the table.


For many players having the opportunity to do as much or as well as other characters/players is considered fun. For people like me pitting my skill against the DM's skill while both of us work within a perfectly balanced framework is fun. For those that gain fun from other sources it shouldn't matter if the game is balanced or not because that doesn't factor into their fun..
I have never understood the players vs. DM philosophy. D&D is at it's core a exercise in collective story telling with the players and the DM working together. Making it players vs. DM never ends well. If the DM takes this approach it leads to TPKs. The DM always wins because he sets the parameters of the encounter. When players take this approach it leads to people bringing things like Pun-pun to the table and that is no fun for anyone but the player who brought him to the table and thought himself so clever.

EDIT: I should also note that as a Campaign designer I hate TPK's. I have spent hours designing the campaign and the story. Every time the players die they become less interested in the campaign and there is the problem of introducing new characters into the campaign in a reasonable way. This is not to say that I don't make the encounters hard. The encounters need to be hard enough to engage the players and give them a sense of accomplishment for overcoming them. I also will not sugar coat the consequences of when my players just do something dumb. Actions do have consequences, and some encounters are not meant to be engaged in head-on combat. Of course what makes a hard encounter will differ from one group to the next based on party composition and player competence. This is one of the major problems of pre-published adventures. Some of the encounters in HotDQ are nie imposible without an optimized group.

[Z3ro]

I have never understood the players vs. DM philosophy. D&D is at it's core a exercise in collective story telling with the players and the DM working together. Making it players vs. DM never ends well. If the DM takes this approach it leads to TPKs. The DM always wins because he sets the parameters of the encounter. When players take this approach it leads to people bringing things like Pun-pun to the table and that is no fun for anyone but the player who brought him to the table and thought himself so clever.

Not to mention, if what you're looking for is balanced, player versus player tactical combat, there are plenty of wargames that will fit the bill without having to worry about the various drawbacks that rpgs bring to such an endevor.

[Slipperychicken]

EDIT: I should also note that as a Campaign designer I hate TPK's. I have spent hours designing the campaign and the story. Every time the players die they become less interested in the campaign and there is the problem of introducing new characters into the campaign in a reasonable way. This is not to say that I don't make the encounters hard. The encounters need to be hard enough to engage the players and give them a sense of accomplishment for overcoming them. I also will not sugar coat the consequences of when my players just do something dumb. Actions do have consequences, and some encounters are not meant to be engaged in head-on combat. Of course what makes a hard encounter will differ from one group to the next based on party composition and player competence. This is one of the major problems of pre-published adventures. Some of the encounters in HotDQ are nie imposible without an optimized group.

Regarding TPKs, one idea I've been tossing around in my head is simply allowing them to try again. Much like a checkpoint or auto-save feature in a video game, the GM would simply rewind the clock, reset some encounters and things (including PCs' inventory and health totals; perhaps also randomizing some elements of the environment so the players' meta-knowledge isn't 100% effective), and just let the players try the scenario again with the same characters. This saves the whole group from the hassle of creating new characters and contriving ways to continue the story.

[archaeo]

Regarding TPKs, one idea I've been tossing around in my head is simply allowing them to try again. Much like a checkpoint or auto-save feature in a video game, the GM would simply rewind the clock, reset some encounters and things (including PCs' inventory and health totals; perhaps also randomizing some elements of the environment so the players' meta-knowledge isn't 100% effective), and just let the players try the scenario again with the same characters. This saves the whole group from the hassle of creating new characters and contriving ways to continue the story.

You could even pretty easily come up with a literal deus ex machina explanation for this reset, if you want. "As you die, you hear Pelor's voice booming in your skulls: 'Is that the best you could do, mortals? Try again.'"

It's a totally legitimate method for dealing with TPKs, though it's one that you'll want to run by the group first. Some groups will love this kind of thing, others will absolutely loathe it. I'd say D&D has a long tradition of avoiding the "checkpoint" thing, and many people are going to regard it as a gamist conceit.

[Uldric]

Regarding TPKs, one idea I've been tossing around in my head is simply allowing them to try again. Much like a checkpoint or auto-save feature in a video game, the GM would simply rewind the clock, reset some encounters and things (including PCs' inventory and health totals; perhaps also randomizing some elements of the environment so the players' meta-knowledge isn't 100% effective), and just let the players try the scenario again with the same characters. This saves the whole group from the hassle of creating new characters and contriving ways to continue the story.

I don't like it simply because of the moral hazard, players are more likely to do stupid things if the think their actions don't have consequences. I will more often fudge die rolls, or introduce another story element, or if there is any reason for the villains to want the PC alive they just get knocked out and captured and the story moves on from there. Players who do stupid things will still die but I won't kill players because I rolled three natural 20's in a row.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't like it simply because of the moral hazard, players are more likely to do stupid things if the think their actions don't have consequences. I will more often fudge die rolls, or introduce another story element, or if there is any reason for the villains to want the PC alive they just get knocked out and captured and the story moves on from there. Players who do stupid things will still die but I won't kill players because I rolled three natural 20's in a row.


You could even pretty easily come up with a literal deus ex machina explanation for this reset, if you want. "As you die, you hear Pelor's voice booming in your skulls: 'Is that the best you could do, mortals? Try again.'"

It's a totally legitimate method for dealing with TPKs, though it's one that you'll want to run by the group first. Some groups will love this kind of thing, others will absolutely loathe it. I'd say D&D has a long tradition of avoiding the "checkpoint" thing, and many people are going to regard it as a gamist conceit.

Those are valid concerns. One could implement something like a limited number of continues, or a penalty like the party not getting XP for sessions in which they're TPK'd.

[MaxWilson]

I have never understood the players vs. DM philosophy. D&D is at it's core a exercise in collective story telling with the players and the DM working together. Making it players vs. DM never ends well. If the DM takes this approach it leads to TPKs. The DM always wins because he sets the parameters of the encounter. When players take this approach it leads to people bringing things like Pun-pun to the table and that is no fun for anyone but the player who brought him to the table and thought himself so clever.

Note that Lokiare didn't say player vs. DM, he said player's skill vs. DM's skill. It doesn't take any skill to add invisible disintegration rays, or the Tarrasque polymorphed into a wolf (so that when you kill the wolf, it turns into the Tarrasque), or anything like that. In other words, "Encounter Builder" DM vs. players isn't appropriate. Once the encounter begins, though, it absolutely is "kobolds vs. PCs" and either the DM or another player needs to play them. In fact, even before the encounter begins, the kobolds should have an opportunity to be non-stupid about how their lair is, so while they don't have the capability to create disintegration rays, they can and should have the opportunity to dig pit traps and set alarm tripwires that summon the rest of the kobolds, etc.

It is totally cool to let a dead PC's player run the kobolds, but somebody needs to do it, and he should do it as effectively as is realistic for the kobolds' Int score. That is how a simulationist sees it, anyway. Gamists may have a different view. YMMV.

[archaeo]

Note that Lokiare didn't say player vs. DM, he said player's skill vs. DM's skill.

I would argue that D&D generally and 5e in particular has never been about pitting the DM's monster-running/campaign design skills against the players' optimization skills. I see a system that allows for campaigns of many stripes, both those focused on collaborative storytelling and those focused on providing a gamist challenge to the players, but I see nothing whatsoever that supports a reading of any edition of D&D pitting the DM's skills against the PCs' skills in some kind of competition. You can do it -- 4e makes it particularly easy because of its sophisticated balance -- but you're generally going to be working against the system's expectations about the DM/PC relationship, as the system assumes an impartial DM instead of a participatory DM interested in matching wits with the players.

However, as you say, YMMV, and it does vary quite a bit, as any reader of these threads will soon discover.