Using a timer in combat? Length per turn?

[kellyda4]

DMing a group right now that is moving pretty slow in combat; sometimes over 1 minute for turns. I make people lose turns when needed, however sometimes the reactions just make it not worth it, lol.

I wanted to see if anyone had any experience using timers to keep things moving? I was going to buy some little sand timers to make it look cool and the group seems ameniable to it. What time limit do you think is fair, 15, 20, or 30 seconds (or longer)?

[gfishfunk]

I would first answer the following questions:

What level are they?
How new are the characters to the player?
How long have they been gaming?

The more novice they are, the more time is acceptable. I would go 45 seconds. That should be enough. How many players do you have?

Also, get people to put away phones and tablets at the table if those devices are distracting. I know some folks use them to check rules and google information relevant to the game, but if folks are playing games or surfing the internet, ask them to put it away.

[kellyda4]

I would first answer the following questions:

What level are they?
How new are the characters to the player?
How long have they been gaming?

The more novice they are, the more time is acceptable. I would go 45 seconds. That should be enough. How many players do you have?

Also, get people to put away phones and tablets at the table if those devices are distracting. I know some folks use them to check rules and google information relevant to the game, but if folks are playing games or surfing the internet, ask them to put it away.

Good thoughts,

They are level 7
4 people in the group, 3 been playing for about a year, the other since December 2015.
They've been playing these same characters since February.

What time limit are you thinking based on that; maybe 30 seconds or should I go less?

[Fighting_Ferret]

To speed things along and to make combat less of a group event and more of a hectic spur of the moment decision (things in game are happening at once within 6 seconds...) I think 20-30 seconds would be more than fair to non-new players. They should be figuring out their next move inbeween their turns, not reacting to every other person's turn.

If you are working with new players, then don't worry about time, you are better off spending the time to explain what they can/can't do... and encourage them to make a decision, not just do what everyone at the table tells them to do.

[gfishfunk]

That is all fairly new (by old guy standards).

30-45 seconds.

Also: are they not very knowledgeable on the rules? In other words, do they often slow down combat by asking how something works, something you previously explained several times? They might simply need to re-read through the rules now that they have been playing for a while.

[kellyda4]

It's less the rules and more, "oh if I do this, maybe you could do this and then we'll get him". "Oh wait, you should do that instead".............

I'll go ahead with 30 seconds at most, I'm looking to get a few timers of varying lengths but can't find a package with varying timers of less than 30 seconds.

[Mjolnirbear]

It's less the rules and more, "oh if I do this, maybe you could do this and then we'll get him". "Oh wait, you should do that instead".............

I'll go ahead with 30 seconds at most, I'm looking to get a few timers of varying lengths but can't find a package with varying timers of less than 30 seconds.

Hi!

The simple answer is not to let them debate what the best option is in combat. Make combat an in-character thing only.

Because no one who is fighting for their life has time to debate the best action. It would be absurd.

Player 1: I attack the ogre with my bow!
Player 2: No, attack him with your axe, so that I can get sneak attack on my next attack!
Player 3: But if he attacks with his axe, his fragile little body will get smushed. He needs to keep his distance. I'll have my familiar use the Help action to help with your attack.
Player 1: What does that do?
Ogre: me smush puny creature
DM: Your indecision has resulted in the death of Player 2.

Also, because no one should be discussing strategy in front of the bad guy.

Player 1: I'll attack the cleric!
Player 2: No, if you use Suggestion, you can make him do whatever you want!
Player 3: Yeah, yeah, do that!
Player 1: Okay! I cast Suggestion!
DM: The cleric Counterspells.
Player 1: What? How did he know what I was gonna do?
DM: Dude. You discussed it right in front of him.



I also use something called Popcorn Initiative. The highest roller goes first... after that, each player declares who is going next, including enemies. The last creature to go can nominate themselves--so if they don't nominate an enemy, he will go last, and then first next round, which is a very dangerous proposition. It tends to keep them on their toes and interested in combat, and they pay more to see what develops because they can be picked next right away.


Frankly, I don't give my players as much as 30 seconds, because they will debate forever. They can ask me a question (is there someplace to hide? Can I get cover from the big table? Is there anyone attacking the wizard?) or declare an action. I hold my hand up and start counting down with my fingers. If they don't decide, they automatically do the Dodge action and play proceeds to the next player. I'm not rabid about it, but I do have players who will take forever deciding what to do, and in combat, indecision is a very, very bad idea.

[Specter]

I always give my players 10 seconds to announce what they're doing in combat. Works out wonderfully to keep emergency and prevent metagaming.

In order to push for more realism this should be 10 or maybe 6 seconds, but that would be pushing it.

[D.U.P.A.]

Long turns break immersion too, this is combat just right there, not moving of armies through the land.

[N810]

ONLY 1 MUNUTE !!!

Lucky,
my group takes several minutes per turn.
sometimes up to 10.

[keeblrkid]

I use an app on my phone which allows me to have multiple timers saved. I then allow each player an amount of seconds on their turn equal to their Intelligence score multiplied by 5.

It was one of the first little random things I did to our home-game for this edition. I'm not sure I would ever suggest another table to adopt it, but I like that it gives Intelligence another function (albeit, a weird one). And I like that it allows our Wizard to feel like he has the time to really examine the battlefield and make the right decision, while our baffoonish paladin makes more brash decisions as a result.

[ad_hoc]

It's less the rules and more, "oh if I do this, maybe you could do this and then we'll get him". "Oh wait, you should do that instead".............

I'll go ahead with 30 seconds at most, I'm looking to get a few timers of varying lengths but can't find a package with varying timers of less than 30 seconds.

We use an initiative app on my phone. Every round initiative gets rerolled and I call out the characters when it is their turn.

So no one knows who is going next, they just do what they think is best at the time.

[pwykersotz]

Side Initiative is my answer to this.

From a previous post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19977725&postcount=5) I've made:


I implemented a group initiative fix, I either got it from the books or these boards somewhere, I don't remember where.

Monsters roll initiative as a group, using the highest modifier.
Players roll initiative separately.

Those who rolled higher than the monsters go first.
The monsters go.
All players go.
All monsters go.
etc...


Actions happen whenever someone decides to go. Three players can move, another can chug a potion, then one can try to trip a monster, and on success the others can wallop him with advantage for being prone. It lets the players work together, and people who are having a tough time deciding what to do can take their time without slowing down game. It encourages group strategy and allows for the monsters to do the same. It feels more free flowing and fun overall. And the rules for doing it are super simple so there's no learning curve.

The downside to this situation is it encourages the same over-analysis that is trying to be avoided here, because it encourages heavy teamwork instead of discreet turns. My players don't do this though, they tend to be looking up spells or reading over their item lists to cause delays, which this system patches nicely.

Also, as has been pointed out in other threads, the natural control of mixed initiative against groups nuking single targets on both sides is removed, but I haven't had an issue with it myself.

[DeAnno]

As a note, it could be difficult for something like a Level 11 Battlemaster using extra attack and action surge to physically take his turn in 30 seconds. That could be 7 attacks with about 4 seconds per attack. You could do nothing but pointing and rolling, declaring attack totals, and rolling damage when the DM declares hits, and it might take more than 30 seconds. You also have Superiority dice you might want to use, which could require saves or lengthen the attack roll process.

[MaxWilson]

DMing a group right now that is moving pretty slow in combat; sometimes over 1 minute for turns. I make people lose turns when needed, however sometimes the reactions just make it not worth it, lol.

I wanted to see if anyone had any experience using timers to keep things moving? I was going to buy some little sand timers to make it look cool and the group seems ameniable to it. What time limit do you think is fair, 15, 20, or 30 seconds (or longer)?

Abandon cyclic initiative and the problem goes away. Have everyone declare their actions, then resolve all of them at once, rolling initiative as necessary.

Cyclic initiative is the worst thing about vanilla 5E, and it causes problems exactly like the one you're experiencing, where certain players (not just PCs) have to sit around doing nothing because the dice say it's not their turn to talk yet. That never happens outside of combat, and it also never happens in combat if you toss cyclic initiative.

[Tanarii]

The simple answer is not to let them debate what the best option is in combat. Make combat an in-character thing only.

Because no one who is fighting for their life has time to debate the best action. It would be absurd.This. So much this. Anything said between players out loud is in-character. All the time. Not just in combat. Curb-stomp that out-of-character meta-game playing into the ground with just one play-style change.

You get three huge bonuses from doing this. First, combat goes much faster. Second, the players will start to plan out tactics in advance between themselves, just like real groups of people do. Third, it's absolutely hilarious the first few times they forget, and the enemies react to their out loud declared tactics.

Another helpful house-rule to add is having them automatically default to Dodge action if they can't decide what to do as soon as their turn comes up. Give them a little leeway though, 10-15 seconds. But they've already had plenty of time to consider what action they want to take during the previous players turns, they should just be adjusting for things that have changed since the last player's turn. (Note: this house-rule makes characters with lots of combat options much harder to play.) Edit: I consider 10-15 seconds to think about what you want to do VERY generous for what's supposed to be 6 seconds of in-game time. IMO you should cut it down to almost zero time once they're used to the system.

Here's an article I highly recommend you read by Angry DM:
http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/

[Belac93]

Give them a certain amount of time to declare what they are going to do that turn. After that, you can give them however long they actually need to roll the dice, do the math, ect.

[RickAllison]

I kind of like having a minute for the party to make decisions in a round (haven't tried it yet). Not to conspire, that is the total amount of time available. Gives extra weight to initiative throughout combat as the higher initiative can take a longer amount of time (I count thinking and rolling as separate) while the one at the bottom of the bracket could have to write down their plans because they have no time to actually think.

The irony is my characters tend to be at the bottom of the intiativd order...

[pwykersotz]

Incidentally, I finally remembered (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/72/initiative-the-silent-killer/) where I grabbed the style of side initiative I use. This was the argument that swayed me to abandon discreet turns altogether.

I've got to re-read a bunch of those articles. Good stuff.

[Giant2005]

I was going to buy some little sand timers to make it look cool and the group seems ameniable to it.

You definitely don't want to do that - you can't reset those things until they have run dry. You will end up waiting on the timers after the player has already finished their turn, essentially achieving the opposite result of what you were going for.

[Kryx]

Incidentally, I finally remembered (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/72/initiative-the-silent-killer/) where I grabbed the style of side initiative I use.
This style of side initiative goes completely against what Mjolnirbear wrote earlier:


The simple answer is not to let them debate what the best option is in combat. Make combat an in-character thing only.

Because no one who is fighting for their life has time to debate the best action. It would be absurd.
Each person is better able to determine what style they prefer, but "huddle for 5 mins to make a plan" seems to be rather unrealistic.

[pwykersotz]

This style of side initiative goes completely against what Mjolnirbear wrote earlier:

Each person is better able to determine what style they prefer, but "huddle for 5 mins to make a plan" seems to be rather unrealistic.

Yep, they're fairly different styles. The 5 minute huddle doesn't happen in practice though (for my table). It just ends up meaning that the spellcaster who needs to check some spell minutia or the Rogue who's trying to decide what poison to use aren't slowing down the rest of the table.

And as a style preference, I will sacrifice some realism for team dynamics and playability. That's why I play 5e. But I definitely don't believe in the one-true-way for this. Just different ways for a table to have fun.

[Kryx]

But I definitely don't believe in the one-true-way for this. Just different ways for a table to have fun.
To fully specify my stance: I'm with Mjolnirbear. Small amounts of coordination is fine, but there shouldn't be massive coordination. It breaks immersion too much and I don't find it very fun.


But you're right. People prefer different things. :)

[BurgerBeast]

I tend to just explain this problem to characters in the moment. Last game, a player who had a tendency to take a long time to make decisions (I myself am one of these players, so I get it) started to do just that. I just said to him "look, I don't want this to turn into a lengthy discussion about strategy and tactics. What would your character do in this very moment?" Done and dusted.

But one thing to consider is whether or not the players have adequate information. Often the reason the characters have indecision is because they have no idea what the chances are of their action succeeding, and the result is that they go with what they know. For example, if a character decides to swing from a chandelier and dropkick a foe, but the DM tells them: "Great, make an acrobatics check to grab the chandelier, and then an attack roll to see if you hit the enemy. If you hit him it will do 2d4+Str damage and push him back 5 ft." Now, the character might end up miffed because his fighter could have just made three attacks to what (in his mind) is a better result. And rightly so. This is the sort of thing that a character would probably know from experience, but the player doesn't, so the player can't make an informed decision.

Also in my last session, a different player went into a bit of analysis paralysis because didn't want to retreat from a boulder trap but also had no way of knowing the difficulty of avoiding it (or the damage that would come form getting smushed). I just had to give him that information: alright, it's a deadly boulder: you'll be looking at 4d10 damage. If you try to scale the wall right where you stand, it's a DC 15 Athletics check to avoid it, but if you retreat and use the rock ledges to your advantage, it's DC 10. You can outpace it to the bottom if you just run away down the path toward the pit.

Then he just made a quick decision based on that. He succeeded, but had he failed at least he could easily accept the consequences.

[RickAllison]

But one thing to consider is whether or not the players have adequate information. Often the reason the characters have indecision is because they have no idea what the chances are of their action succeeding, and the result is that they go with what they know. For example, if a character decides to swing from a chandelier and dropkick a foe, but the DM tells them: "Great, make an acrobatics check to grab the chandelier, and then an attack roll to see if you hit the enemy. If you hit him it will do 2d4+Str damage and push him back 5 ft." Now, the character might end up miffed because his fighter could have just made three attacks to what (in his mind) is a better result. And rightly so. This is the sort of thing that a character would probably know from experience, but the player doesn't, so the player can't make an informed decision.

Also in my last session, a different player went into a bit of analysis paralysis because didn't want to retreat from a boulder trap but also had no way of knowing the difficulty of avoiding it (or the damage that would come form getting smushed). I just had to give him that information: alright, it's a deadly boulder: you'll be looking at 4d10 damage. If you try to scale the wall right where you stand, it's a DC 15 Athletics check to avoid it, but if you retreat and use the rock ledges to your advantage, it's DC 10. You can outpace it to the bottom if you just run away down the path toward the pit.

Then he just made a quick decision based on that. He succeeded, but had he failed at least he could easily accept the consequences.

In that case, I would be far more vague. "The Boulder looks very large and is rolling fast, Erkar figures he could probably tank the damage, but it would significantly hurt him. The rock wall to your right looks like it could be clambered up with difficulty, and he would have a higher chance of falling. He remembers there were also some outcropping that would be easier [I would be okay about mentioning that it is 5 DC easier here, as gauging relative difficulty is generally easier than absolute difficulty]."

If he had decent Perception, I might add the following factoid: "You see a defect in the Boulder, one that could possibly be climbed while gaining ground, though this would be an incredibly difficult feat."

[BrianDavion]

end of the day combat like the rest of the game is supposed to be fun, keep em on task but don't got bogged down measureing turn time. especially as length might be differant depending on whose taking the turn, it doesn't take long for a fighter to hit something with his axe, but if the mage wants to cast that new spell he's got for the first time he might need a second to give it a quick read over.