How long does your average combat take?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Just curiois. The group I play in with 6 level 6 PC's we probably average an hour every time initiative is rolled. The group I DM with 3 or 4 level 1 PC's is shorter but I can't say as I've time it because as a newb DM I have my hands full.

[JBPuffin]

Just curiois. The group I play in with 6 level 6 PC's we probably average an hour every time initiative is rolled. The group I DM with 3 or 4 level 1 PC's is shorter but I can't say as I've time it because as a newb DM I have my hands full.

Sound about right for us - we're averaging about five players a night, and we're level 5. I know that in a 4-person level 1 one-shot I ran, some of the combats were over in ten minutes due to mixing the difficulty of the encounters.

[Malifice]

Depends on if your DM is hurrying the players. My group gets 5 seconds max to tell me what they're doing or they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

18th level party and combats last 15 minutes.

It's part of the DMs job. I hate sitting at tables where turns drag on and players aren't paying attention.

[Xetheral]

30-45 minutes for 8-9 round combats is common for my group, with 6-10 level 7 characters. Big battles can last an hour (or two) and go 12 (or more) rounds.

[imanidiot]

18th level party and combats last 15 minutes.


Wow.

I generally expect 2-3 combat encounters and 1-2 non combat in 3-5 hours.

High level encounters usually take about an hour or so.

The only way I can see a high level encounter resolving in 15 minutes would be some high stakes rocket tag. Which, for the record, I'm way into.

[Malifice]

Wow.

I generally expect 2-3 combat encounters and 1-2 non combat in 3-5 hours.

High level encounters usually take about an hour or so.

The only way I can see a high level encounter resolving in 15 minutes would be some high stakes rocket tag. Which, for the record, I'm way into.

Do you (or your DM) give players all the time in the world to act?

Or do they get 5 seconds (max) then they take the dodge action and their turn ends?

**** being a player and waiting 20 minutes to have your turn.

Turns should take 1-2 minutes. Max. That includes rolling to hit and damage, adding everything up and so forth.

At mid and low level they should take 30 seconds max.

It's down to the DM to manage it mate.

[Talamare]

One thing that newb DMs tend to do is focus too much on the exact HP of the monsters, try keep the combats fluid.
A few good rounds of a burst combat is more interesting than a standstill slog of mass hitting each other for chip damage.

Are you about to attack a group of Orcs? Instead of having them all hit at once, send in like 3 and keep the rest without having spawned yet.
Then after like 2 turns, send in like 2 more on wolves that do hit and run tactics. Finally spawn like 2 distant ish Archers on a tree.
As like I said, if the players ever deal a decent amount of damage, just let it die. Regardless of it still had a bit of HP. Especially if it was a player who hasn't gotten any kills recently.

It's much more entertaining than just sending in at the same time, and keeping all 7 locked in this combat blob in the middle as players try to more or less efficiently handle them.


Depends on if your DM is hurrying the players. My group gets 5 seconds max to tell me what they're doing or they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

18th level party and combats last 15 minutes.

It's part of the DMs job. I hate sitting at tables where turns drag on and players aren't paying attention.

I'm assuming you're exaggerating with that 5 second rule, but I do agree that it's important to be fairly quick on your turns.

[Malifice]

One thing that newb DMs tend to do is focus too much on the exact HP of the monsters, try keep the combats fluid.
A few good rounds of a burst combat is more interesting than a standstill slog of mass hitting each other for chip damage.

Are you about to attack a group of Orcs? Instead of having them all hit at once, send in like 3 and keep the rest without having spawned yet.
Then after like 2 turns, send in like 2 more on wolves that do hit and run tactics. Finally spawn like 2 distant ish Archers on a tree.
As like I said, if the players ever deal a decent amount of damage, just let it die. Regardless of it still had a bit of HP. Especially if it was a player who hasn't gotten any kills recently.

It's much more entertaining than just sending in at the same time, and keeping all 7 locked in this combat blob in the middle as players try to more or less efficiently handle them.



I'm assuming you're exaggerating with that 5 second rule, but I do agree that it's important to be fairly quick on your turns.

No I'm not exaggerating.

5 seconds is probably too long. I'll count down from 3 on turns often.

Peeps watch the table, listen when it's not their turn, put phones away, wait less when it's not their turn, and it flows much better.

Look **** up when it's not your turn. When it's your turn and I call your name, you have a few seconds to tell me what you're doing or you dodge and your turn ends.

Combats play out a ton better when you do it that way.

[Strangways]

No I'm not exaggerating.

5 seconds is probably too long. I'll count down from 3 on turns often.

Peeps watch the table, listen when it's not their turn, put phones away, wait less when it's not their turn, and it flows much better.

Look **** up when it's not your turn. When it's your turn and I call your name, you have a few seconds to tell me what you're doing or you dodge and your turn ends.

Combats play out a ton better when you do it that way.

The duration of combat is highly dependent on the number of combatants involved. A 1v1 combat is going to be very fast. A party of 5 versus 10 monsters is going to take a long time, especially if the monsters include spell casters or creatures with a wide variety of attack options.

[imanidiot]

Do you (or your DM) give players all the time in the world to act?

Or do they get 5 seconds (max) then they take the dodge action and their turn ends?

**** being a player and waiting 20 minutes to have your turn.

Turns should take 1-2 minutes. Max. That includes rolling to hit and damage, adding everything up and so forth.

At mid and low level they should take 30 seconds max.

It's down to the DM to manage it mate.

Yeah there's a ton of table talk about strategy in combat. I give people as long as they want to take their turn.

Some people don't like it but that's how we've always played. No one in our group seems to mind.

[Xetheral]

I recall an old 3.0 game where the enemy mind flayer had all four tentacles wrapped around the party druid. No other PC was in a position to help. All the players brainstormed options for the imperiled druid. In the end, the druid wildshaped into a Portuguese man o' war (yes, yes, it's not technically a single creature, we didn't care), with nasty results for the Mind Flayer. It took at least 15 minutes out of game, but the epic result was totally worth it.

And if they hadn't come up with a plan to save the druid, at least the druid's player would have the solace of knowing that all the options had been considered and that the death was, at that point, unavoidable.

[Tanarii]

It would have been equally "unavoidable" if the Druid had 6 seconds to decide what to do, panicked, and died as a result. Just for a different benchmark of unavoidable. One in which you can't pause the game, and have all the time in the world to decide how to avoid a situation. Also epic, and in an epic way to go out! (Edit: Plus doubly Epic if you can think your way out of it in a time crunch!)

Not bashing the way you guys did it, just showing the flip side of alternate thinking that it still works. I'm sure you guys had a fantastic whoopie! :smallbiggrin:

BTW I'm taking it your group doesn't take character death that well? :smallwink:

[imanidiot]

Im assuming the "some people" aren't in your group. And hey, if people in your group are having fun and/or don't mind, good!

[/SIZE]

If anyone doesn't like it they haven't spoken up about it.

But if I was in someone else's game and the were like "Hey shut up you can tell them what to do and you only have 6 seconds to take your turn." Then that's what I would do.

[Malifice]

Ive played in games where on players turns they were flicking through books and debating with other players what to do, and counting out squares and just generally taking ages.

Meanwhile other players (waiting ages for their turns) start screwing around on phones or zoning out.

It just drags on and is boring as bat****.

I can run multiple monsters vs 5 x 18th level PCs easy. I had 6 Bearded devils (full plate with mechanical wings and multiattack) a Cambion (added the spell casting of a Mage, elemental adept feat, doubled HP) and Erinyes (+1 attack with mulitattack) fight them on a bridge the other day, and it lasted 20 minutes of real time.

When you give players a definite time limit (fellas you get a few seconds to declare to me what you're doing or you take the dodge action and your turn ends) these problems go away.

Combat is quicker, all your players are engaged the whole combat (they're watching the battle unfold and constantly updating their plans as turns come and go), there is more of a sense of desperation and chaos, and its just a win/ win/ win.

Those of you not doing it I suggest giving it a go.

[ZorroGames]

Ive played in games where on players turns they were flicking through books and debating with other players what to do, and counting out squares and just generally taking ages.

Meanwhile other players (waiting ages for their turns) start screwing around on phones or zoning out.

It just drags on and is boring as bat****.

I can run multiple monsters vs 5 x 18th level PCs easy. I had 6 Bearded devils (full plate with mechanical wings and multiattack) a Cambion (added the spell casting of a Mage, elemental adept feat, doubled HP) and Erinyes (+1 attack with mulitattack) fight them on a bridge the other day, and it lasted 20 minutes of real time.

When you give players a definite time limit (fellas you get a few seconds to declare to me what you're doing or you take the dodge action and your turn ends) these problems go away.

Combat is quicker, all your players are engaged the whole combat (they're watching the battle unfold and constantly updating their plans as turns come and go), there is more of a sense of desperation and chaos, and its just a win/ win/ win.

Those of you not doing it I suggest giving it a go.

The only problem to this approach is 99% of my games are AL with new players. Last week it was an 8 player (8!) game where 7 players had never played D&D or even had help setting up their characters plus myself (brand new first level character.) the two DMs - since the usual AL DM was not available - ran CoS, part 1. I think most of them had the 15 second response down by the ending encounter but a 5 seconds rule would have been a TPK which we almost had anyway.

That aside, the biggest delay, besides mental math skills, I see regularly is inexperience with their characters or spells. Some would substitute ignorance for inexperience but for the first four levels I think inexperience better explains it.

As a player who changes characters with each new group (AL or not) and who has been playing less than a year after a multiple decades gap, 5 seconds is pushing it for a level or two. Give me four levels with a character, especially with spell cards selected pre-game, and that might be a quite viable rule.

Anyway, never seen the kind of time delays some are reporting.

[Xetheral]

It would have been equally "unavoidable" if the Druid had 6 seconds to decide what to do, panicked, and died as a result. Just for a different benchmark of unavoidable. One in which you can't pause the game, and have all the time in the world to decide how to avoid a situation. Also epic, and in an epic way to go out! (Edit: Plus doubly Epic if you can think your way out of it in a time crunch!)

Not bashing the way you guys did it, just showing the flip side of alternate thinking that it still works. I'm sure you guys had a fantastic whoopie! :smallbiggrin:

BTW I'm taking it your group doesn't take character death that well? :smallwink:

It was long time ago, so I don't remember all the details, but from what I recall, that group took death in stride, partially because the campaigns were shorter back then and the players were always keen to make and try new characters.

My more-recent groups have been both less combat-focused and more attached to their characters, and the campaigns have lasted for years. Permanent character deaths from those groups have generally been limited to players choosing to deliberately sacrifice their characters to achieve some objective.

[Malifice]

It was long time ago, so I don't remember all the details, but from what I recall, that group took death in stride, partially because the campaigns were shorter back then and the players were always keen to make and try new characters.

My more-recent groups have been both less combat-focused and more attached to their characters, and the campaigns have lasted for years. Permanent character deaths from those groups have generally been limited to players choosing to deliberately sacrifice their characters to achieve some objective.

With ease of access to raise dead and revivify is this really an issue in 5E?

Death is a 500gp diamond.

Barring TPK of course.

[Xetheral]

With ease of access to raise dead and revivify is this really an issue in 5E?

Death is a 500gp diamond.

Barring TPK of course.

No, it isn't an issue in 5e (or 3.5 for that matter). I was just answering Tanarii's question and providing extra context.

[Citan]

30-45 minutes for 8-9 round combats is common for my group, with 6-10 level 7 characters. Big battles can last an hour (or two) and go 12 (or more) rounds.
This feedback is very similar to my own experience.

My group of players is not die-hard tacticians, so between half of them taking a long time to ponder options (up to the point I have to give them a 5-second timer or I narrate that they were so embarassed to decide what to do that they just spaced out on their turn) and the other time getting totally funky, stupidly clever (or just plain stupid but hilarious) tactics that I have to assert whether it has a slight chance to be acceptable...
Plus my own flaws at managing monsters (even though I tend to manage them as groups whenever it makes sense and usually decide how they would naturally act in less than a second, sometimes I need to pause a bit to see where to go) and the fact that I still struggle with roll20 interface...

Yeah, encounters last much longer than they could(should).
The fact that we don't have even one session every month obviously doesn't help us assimilate things...

Overall everybody has fun and doesn't mind, although one of them tends to let himself get distracted easily: another problem of online game: you cannot prevent a player from browsing somewhere else apart from sheer motivation to keep focused on YOUR window ^^. Meaning always keeping a part of your mind on each player to give him something to chew on when other player's turns are less than interesting.
This kind of "I'm not motivated in the first place" is a bit annoying, but the guy can still be pretty contributive when feeling inclined to, plus it's a good training for me to learn how to keep things entertaining for everyone... :)

Anyways: for my experience (either as a DM in 5e or as a player in other games), with the same group of people, most encounters last at the very least one hour for a number of rounds between 7 and 15, for encounters engaging a group of 3-4 players against 7-20 monsters (usually around 10), in environment providing always covers and obstacles, sometimes traps.

[Hyde]

Up to an hour or so for "difficult" encounters.

If this wasn't their first game ever, I'd implement something similar to the 5-seconds-or-dodge rule.
But it is, and we're an online game, so it's w/e. I'll probably start tightening the buckle a bit next campaign.

[furby076]

Does this include using grid maps, or are you gaming of the mind.

Most of our time is spent with players trying to help (sometimes DM wont allow it or tells the other players to leave the 1 player alone). We have 1 player who cant seem to learn hsi character, and we have to help him figure out his character. Then there are last minute changes (you killed that guy? Ok, well, instead of x now i gotta figure out y). Finally, to better have plans and work as a team, we do talk "wait for me to attack, so you can do x"


I feel our battles take a bit of time, and i plan to do time recording next session.

[ad_hoc]

Definitely not very long. I think we average 6 encounters in a 4 hour session. A lot of that time is also spent making jokes.

My table likes to plan out and talk about combat. It is moreso that we don't like to feel rushed. The flipside is that it is painful to wait a long time for a turn to come around sowe use Greyhawk Initiave. It has really sped up play, keeps everyone involved and is cinematic.

[Lombra]

Depends on if your DM is hurrying the players. My group gets 5 seconds max to tell me what they're doing or they take the dodge action and their turn ends.

18th level party and combats last 15 minutes.

It's part of the DMs job. I hate sitting at tables where turns drag on and players aren't paying attention.

Isn't it a bit stressful for the players? At that level spellcasters have a wide variety of options, and maybe things could turn from one round to the next one, doing considrations on the fly when you have 10+ spells to choose from looks a bit tough? Just asking.

I can understand the barbarian: "I rage and attack" although I can't see how such a short period of time doesn't hamper the player's creativity.

[Malifice]

Isn't it a bit stressful for the players?

Thats kind of the point.

It wakes them watch the entire combat closely, adjusting plans on the fly. It simulates the chaos of combat, and stops them making unrealistically optimal choices - including detailed plans and in depth discussion - every single action. It speeds up the game, aand stops combats from ever becoming boring. It enhances player engagement. It cuts down on boredom waiting for your turn to come up. Every not only watches the table, but they also listen closely to what every other player is doing.

Once you do it, and then go back to untimed turns, those latter combats become as boring as bat****.


At that level spellcasters have a wide variety of options, and maybe things could turn from one round to the next one, doing considrations on the fly when you have 10+ spells to choose from looks a bit tough? Just asking.

Im not expecting optimal decisions from round to round. They know their abilities (they're expected to) and tell me on their turn (within a few seconds) what they are doing, pr their turn ends and they Dodge.

Really they're getting a minute or two throughout the turn to plan and react to the activity of a six second round (full of the chaos of combat), whereas their characters have only a fraction of a second to process whats going on around them and act/ react.


I can understand the barbarian: "I rage and attack" although I can't see how such a short period of time doesn't hamper the player's creativity.

It enhances creativity. You'll find players blurt out the weirdest stuff when on the clock.

[Lombra]

Thats kind of the point.

It wakes them watch the entire combat closely, adjusting plans on the fly. It simulates the chaos of combat, and stops them making unrealistically optimal choices - including detailed plans and in depth discussion - every single action. It speeds up the game, aand stops combats from ever becoming boring. It enhances player engagement. It cuts down on boredom waiting for your turn to come up. Every not only watches the table, but they also listen closely to what every other player is doing.

Once you do it, and then go back to untimed turns, those latter combats become as boring as bat****.



Im not expecting optimal decisions from round to round. They know their abilities (they're expected to) and tell me on their turn (within a few seconds) what they are doing, pr their turn ends and they Dodge.

Really they're getting a minute or two throughout the turn to plan and react to the activity of a six second round (full of the chaos of combat), whereas their characters have only a fraction of a second to process whats going on around them and act/ react.



It enhances creativity. You'll find players blurt out the weirdest stuff when on the clock.

I understand, it's not how we like to play at our table, but I see how it works for yours. We generally tend to separate the player from the character, so we don't like to actually feel in a hurry, the characters will, and it will be reflected in-game at our table.

I'm happy that it works for you tho! We'd love to have such short fights, yesterday a single dragon turtle took almost 2 hours for our level 9 party.

Sometimes even the monsters' movement destroys the tactics so you'd have to come up with a whole new plan B, deciding on the fly does give more immersion but at our table we believe that a character with 20 intelligence or 20 wisdom would react differently and in a better way than we could, so we take our time.

[Malifice]

I understand, it's not how we like to play at our table, but I see how it works for yours. We generally tend to separate the player from the character, so we don't like to actually feel in a hurry, the characters will, and it will be reflected in-game at our table.

I like my players to feel pressured when the pressure is on, frightened when things get scary, excited when there is something to be excited about.

They're engaged in life or death combat. Take it from me (who has seen life or death combat IRL) you dont have an eagle eye view of the battle, all the information, and time to make informed decisions in war.


Sometimes even the monsters' movement destroys the tactics so you'd have to come up with a whole new plan B, deciding on the fly does give more immersion but at our table we believe that a character with 20 intelligence or 20 wisdom would react differently and in a better way than we could, so we take our time.

That Charisma 20, Intelligence 20 PC is played by someone with Godlike vantage over the battle, complete knowledge of what everyone is doing around him (and how succesful they are), and the ability to slow activity spanning a six second timeframe down to a minute or two.

And thats in my game. He's literally had a few minutes to think about what he's doing, and watch what others do, all with a godlike vantage point over the battle field. Giving him a few seconds to decide what to do with that information is realistic, even for a god-like PC.

[Tanarii]

Sometimes even the monsters' movement destroys the tactics so you'd have to come up with a whole new plan B, deciding on the fly does give more immersion but at our table we believe that a character with 20 intelligence or 20 wisdom would react differently and in a better way than we could, so we take our time.
Isn't Int 20 & Wis 20 comes in to play whenever you have to make a Int check or Wis check.

If your tactical maneuvering on the battlefield, and adapting plans on the fly, require those, then make them, and said character will have the advantage you seek.

It they rely on player decisions (aka player skill), then have them rely on that and don't worry about a characters ain't Int or Wis.

Also, based on this argument, do you prorate the amount of time players are allowed to take to start their turn based on their PC Int and Wis? If not, you're throwing out a justification that doesn't actually hold together when examined closely.

[ZorroGames]

What I think we see here is Combat as War versus Combat as Game. Or whatever that expression is, neither is “wrong” in the context of a particular game.

It is like food. My wife (French Canadian) does not like food as spicy as me (East Los Angles Hispanic and American Indian) or my East Indian daughters (and they, being North India and South India backgrounds disagree on what is “too spicy.”)

Beginners in an AL game this is IMO too short a time, experienced players understanding the “house rule” adapt or die.

[Tanarii]

Beginners in an AL game this is IMO too short a time, experienced players understanding the “house rule” adapt or die.
I agree it's too short for brand new players. I give them leeway but encourage them to keep moving. Especially if they didn't listen to me and went straight to a complex class. The one I really dread is when a complete newcomer insists on playing a Druid.

And it's still too stressful for some newcomers. Even though that's pretty much the point. But some people want turn based tactical play to take time.

To use an experience from video gaming: I remember the first time me and a buddy went into WoW battlegrounds. I didn't like it, because I was used to playing Civ. But I adapted, and eventually came to love the quick thinking needed. He always hated it, because it was too stressful. Similarly, he'd never play first person shooter PvP like Halo or Call of duty. Different strokes for different folks.

Chess is another good example. You can either play without a timer for the match, or fairly short timer for each individual turn, or a limited time for the entire match. The latter requires quick thinking for most turns, but let's you take a time extra time when you really need it. Each results in quite different styles of play.

[ZorroGames]

I agree it's too short for brand new players. I give them leeway but encourage them to keep moving. Especially if they didn't listen to me and went straight to a complex class. The one I really dread is when a complete newcomer insists on playing a Druid.

And it's still too stressful for some newcomers. Even though that's pretty much the point. But some people want turn based tactical play to take time.

To use an experience from video gaming: I remember the first time me and a buddy went into WoW battlegrounds. I didn't like it, because I was used to playing Civ. But I adapted, and eventually came to love the quick thinking needed. He always hated it, because it was too stressful. Similarly, he'd never play first person shooter PvP like Halo or Call of duty. Different strokes for different folks.

Chess is another good example. You can either play without a timer for the match, or fairly short timer for each individual turn, or a limited time for the entire match. The latter requires quick thinking for most turns, but let's you take a time extra time when you really need it. Each results in quite different styles of play.

Yes the goal should be for a new player to learn the character/race/class etc., so they react as the character.

Being a returnee from OD&D I have yet to get a character above 5th (that changes in 2018) as I keep trying out the classes but while I have made some blooper reel mistakes this year some of them slipped right past the DM, like the guy last week with 7 never played FRPG 17-19 year olds and my new first level Gnome Fighter. (Confusing Second Wind abilities with Action Surge went unnoticed by everyone including the DM and assistant DM. I realized it after the game.)

Phased times that shorten in a non-AL game as the levels advance might push players to act instead of dither. I frequently hear, “... plan your next move after your turn ends, Blood Axe you are up next, Fire Blight it is your turn, what do you do?” When games get close to store closing times. One DM starts that mantra right after, “Roll initiative!”

[Tanarii]

There is definitely a learning curve.

But I find the bigger problem is players who have a "perfect tactical move" mindset. They want as much time as it takes to avoid making a possible mistake.

Which is good and all. More power to perfectionists, or at least not making major screw ups. But IMO that breaks combat verisimilitude more than anything else possibly can. Not that verisimilitude is the be all and end all. It's just in this case, I find, and the players that like it seem to find, this particular kind of verisimilitude enhances excitement, which enhances our fun.

Or maybe I'm just an adrenaline junky. :smallwink: