Where does the D&D 5e "combat will be over in three rounds" meme come from?

[KorvinStarmast]

I ask this question because that is foreign to my experience. For example, last night we had six zombies and a wight in battle with our four 3rd level PCs.

I was keeping track of how many arrows I loosed, and how long I had hunters mark up for.

It took 9 rounds for the battle to be finished.
The Paladin used 1 Divine Smite.
The Bard used 1 Shatter spell. (2/3 zombies saved)
Ranger shot arrows
Cleric used both spiritual weapon and quarterstaff
Sacred flames all failed to do damage (zombie saves)
Warhammer and rapier from paladin and bard otherwise.

while part of that was some of the zombies getting their 'zombie fortitude' roll made and getting back up, this wasn't a deadly encounter. it wasn't complicated.

In the other tier 1 and tier 2 battles I have been in, the shortest I can recall was 5 rounds long.

-------------------------------------------

Hmm, wait a sec, encounter math. 4 x 3rd level x 225 = 900 for hard. Deadly is 4x 400 = 1600 ish ...

Wight X 700 + 6 zombies times 50 = 1000. (2.5 multiple makes that 2500 due to being on the "7-10" chart, but at the low end.
If I use the multiple for 3-6 rather than 7 we get... 2000. (hmm, deadly is 1600 for 4 thirds).

But, due to disparity in CR (1/4 and 3) why not calculate it this way:
6 x 50 x 2.0 + 700 (wight) yields 1300.

So I'll call that a hard encounter, not deadly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The DMG assumes a 3 round active time for any monster implicitly by averaging over 3 rounds for DPR and having enough HP for about 3 combat rounds under normal circumstances.

Or so it seems. For me, the majority of non-boss encounters take 3-4 rounds before the outcome is clear.

[Unoriginal]

I ask this question because that is foreign to my experience. For example, last night we had six zombies and a wight in battle with our four 3rd level PCs.

I was keeping track of how many arrows I loosed, and how long I had hunters mark up for.

It took 9 rounds for the battle to be finished.
The Paladin used 1 Divine Smite.
The Bard used 1 Shatter spell. (2/3 zombies saved)
Ranger shot arrows
Cleric used both spiritual weapon and quarterstaff
Sacred flames all failed to do damage (zombie saves)
Warhammer and rapier from paladin and zombie otherwise.

while part of that was some of the zombies getting their 'zombie fortitude' roll made and getting back up, this wasn't a deadly encounter. it wasn't complicated.

In the other tier 1 and tier 2 battles I have been in, the shortest I can recall was 5 rounds long.

A Wight is CR 3. BY ITSELF, it is a Medium encounter for four lvl 3 PCs.

Then you add 6 zombies, who had luck with the saves' dice.

The "last 3 rounds" thing is more the time a solo Medium difficulty monster is expected to live by the game's developers than anything else.

I doubt that Wight would have lasted long alone.

[KorvinStarmast]

A Wight is CR 3. BY ITSELF, it is a Medium encounter for four lvl 3 PCs.

Then you add 6 zombies, who had luck with the saves' dice.

The "last 3 rounds" thing is more the time a solo Medium difficulty monster is expected to live by the game's developers than anything else.

I doubt that Wight would have lasted long alone.
OK, I checked the encounter difficulty and edited that in. Depending on how you use the tables, that was hard to deadly, due to numbers.

Thanks for the point on "single monster versus party" as the principle behind that. Focus Fire is a thing.

[LudicSavant]

I ask this question because that is foreign to my experience. For example, last night we had six zombies and a wight in battle with our four 3rd level PCs.

I was keeping track of how many arrows I loosed, and how long I had hunters mark up for.

It took 9 rounds for the battle to be finished.
The Paladin used 1 Divine Smite.
The Bard used 1 Shatter spell. (2/3 zombies saved)
Ranger shot arrows
Cleric used both spiritual weapon and quarterstaff
Sacred flames all failed to do damage (zombie saves)
Warhammer and rapier from paladin and bard otherwise.

while part of that was some of the zombies getting their 'zombie fortitude' roll made and getting back up, this wasn't a deadly encounter. it wasn't complicated.

In the other tier 1 and tier 2 battles I have been in, the shortest I can recall was 5 rounds long.

-------------------------------------------

Hmm, wait a sec, encounter math. 4 x 3rd level x 225 = 900 for hard. Deadly is 4x 400 = 1600 ish ...

Wight X 700 + 6 zombies times 50 = 1000. (2.5 multiple makes that 2500 due to being on the "7-10" chart, but at the low end.
If I use the multiple for 3-6 rather than 7 we get... 2000. (hmm, deadly is 1600 for 4 thirds).

But, due to disparity in CR (1/4 and 3) why not calculate it this way:
6 x 50 x 2.0 + 700 (wight) yields 1300.

So I'll call that a hard encounter, not deadly.

Two things. First of all, the average length of an encounter is a factor of the skill of the players and the difficulty of the encounters. The difference in efficiency between casual players and hardened strategy gamers is significant.

Second of all, encounter math.

https://i.postimg.cc/x1PJ82rk/encountercalculator.png

[Lord Vukodlak]

In over two decades of playing the game across multiple editions I’ve found most battles are over in 3 rounds. I presume others have had similar experiences and thus the meme was born.
But not everyone has the same experience.

[Lunali]

The length of battles will vary greatly depending on how closely the DM follows the guidelines for the adventuring day.

The majority of DMs I've played with have 1-4 encounters per day, with the easiest fights being towards the upper end of hard according to the tables. This results in relatively long fights expending roughly a short rest or more worth of resources per fight.

If you stick to the larger number of smaller encounters suggested, individual fights will tend to be fairly short with the challenge coming from managing resources for the occasional relatively difficult fight.

[Blood of Gaea]

Looks like your problem was a mix between a deadly encounter and your party either being stingy on disposable resources or being drained of them before the battle. A Paladin using only one divine smite in a deadly encounter with undead seems rather odd to me, just to start.

[MaxWilson]

I ask this question because that is foreign to my experience. For example, last night we had six zombies and a wight in battle with our four 3rd level PCs.

I was keeping track of how many arrows I loosed, and how long I had hunters mark up for.

It took 9 rounds for the battle to be finished.

It really, really depends. I've seen fights that end in three seconds (half a round) and fights that go on for hours. Difficulty is a factor, but tactics is a huge factor too: Pickett's Charge tactics end fights pretty quickly, about as quick as DM estimates, but if stealth and mobility and partial or total cover are in play that can really stretch things out. E.g. some rounds may consist entirely of maneuvering and hiding, with no HP lost on either side.

And difficulty matters a lot too. Harder fights are longer. I remember a first level (barbarian) PC who fought an ogre one on one. The fight lasted nine rounds IIRC, at which point the PC ran out of HP and lost--if the PC had won it would have been more like twelve or thirteen rounds.

"Three rounds" probably comes from the DMG, and it's probably based on the DMG writers assuming Medium-to-Hard fights wherein the PCs and monsters just walk up to each other and start rolling attacks.

[KorvinStarmast]

Looks like your problem was a mix between a deadly encounter and your party either being stingy on disposable resources or being drained of them before the battle. A Paladin using only one divine smite in a deadly encounter with undead seems rather odd to me, just to start. Divine smites burn spell slots. He was the magnet for all of the zombies. He had chosen to cast bless at the start of combat, and as I see his decisions, it was smart not to go all nova all the time since we were not sure what other encounters we would have. (I generally do not second guess my party mates on stuff like that, I am the skirmisher ... ) I will offer that I was non-plussed by our cleric's decision not to turn undead on the zombies to break up the fight. But that might not have sped up resolution; we were still going to need to kill them all. His point was that he was not sure which channel divinity he would need and when ... each cleric has their own style for when to pull, and it was not at the end of the adventure day.

@LudicSavant: I have already demonstrated the three different ways we could have calculated the encounter difficulty in the edit to my post. Your reply shows me nothing I did not already know (though thanks for taking the time and effort anyway. Hey, nice avatar :smallwink:). The "from six to 7" break point" suggested to me taking a keen look at the difference between the 2x and 2.5 x assessment, and the significant CR differential between the wight, and its minions, likewise argues for a careful assessment. Between hard and deadly was IMO a good call. one of the things about encounter difficulty calculation, and CR, is that it's a little bit art and a little bit science.

@Max: thanks.

[strangebloke]

Larger parties = fewer rounds (but longer combats)

Monsters with overtuned offensive CR = fewer rounds.

Larger groups of enemies = fewer effective rounds.

Basically, if its a party of six level 4 PCs vs. 15 hobgoblins, the PCs will take a lot of damage, but half the hobs will be dead/incapacitated by the end of the second round.

If a party has a cleric and a paladin, a tidal wave of zombies might only last half a round.

Conversely, 1 level 5 fighter vs. an Ogre is probably going to last 6-7 rounds.

[Zalabim]

Divine smites burn spell slots. He was the magnet for all of the zombies. He had chosen to cast bless at the start of combat, and as I see his decisions, it was smart not to go all nova all the time since we were not sure what other encounters we would have. (I generally do not second guess my party mates on stuff like that, I am the skirmisher ... ) I will offer that I was non-plussed by our cleric's decision not to turn undead on the zombies to break up the fight. But that might not have sped up resolution; we were still going to need to kill them all. His point was that he was not sure which channel divinity he would need and when ... each cleric has their own style for when to pull, and it was not at the end of the adventure day.

@LudicSavant: I have already demonstrated the three different ways we could have calculated the encounter difficulty in the edit to my post. Your reply shows me nothing I did not already know (though thanks for taking the time and effort anyway. Hey, nice avatar :smallwink:). The "from six to 7" break point" suggested to me taking a keen look at the difference between the 2x and 2.5 x assessment, and the significant CR differential between the wight, and its minions, likewise argues for a careful assessment. Between hard and deadly was IMO a good call. one of the things about encounter difficulty calculation, and CR, is that it's a little bit art and a little bit science.

@Max: thanks.
A Wight is basically as dangerous with its longbow as it is in melee, so using the zombies as a meat wall would be a good idea and completely worth counting the enemies as a single group. CR 1/4 to CR 3 is still a small gap. So if the DM didn't make use of the best tactical options, then the encounter may not be as hard as it could be. Being outnumbered, but you have a good chokepoint is probably an advantage for the party that's worth counting. Those situation-dependent advantages for either side are a factor in determining an encounter's difficulty too.

On the party's tactics, casting Bless, and taking a turn to do it, was probably a poor choice. Zombies have 8 AC and the Wight's only saving throw effect is against its life drain, up to once per turn, only if it hits, and not making a large difference either way if you focus on bringing down the Wight first. Divine Favor might have been a far better choice, making cleanup on the zombies faster and more efficient and providing a nice boost to average damage against the non-silver-weapon resistant Wight. Since channel divinity is a short rest option, and this is a deadly fight, it would have been wise to use Turn Undead here too, if an opportunity presented itself, to clear away zombies and allow you to focus on the Wight fast.

Bless does nothing or nearly nothing against the zombies. You hit on a 3 if you have +5 to attack, and they have no saving throw effects. Divine Favor does something against zombies. Point against Bless, and point for Divine Favor.

Assuming sword and board with dueling style and 16 strength or dexterity, the paladin does 2.8125 damage per attack against the Wight. Bless raises that by 0.5625, and has three targets. Assuming average value per target matches the paladin, then Bless gives up 2.8125 damage right now for +1.6875 damage per round. Divine Favor raises average damage by 1.1625 right now, and each subsequent round. It takes ~10-11 rounds of attacking the Wight for Bless to match the value of Divine Favor. It takes ~8-9 rounds of attacking the Wight with Divine Favor for it to match the average damage of a 1st level divine smite. Divine Favor is worth more against zombies, both in average damage and the special benefit of bypassing their fortitude. Bless does help you keep concentration, but that's going to depend on other characters using concentration since Bless itself isn't very useful in this fight otherwise.
Smiting the Wight is a good idea. Casting Divine Favor to clear the zombies is a good idea. Casting Bless is a worse idea, possibly actually bad idea.

[Unoriginal]

Couldn't the Cleric have used Turn Undead and destroyed all the zombies`who failed the save?

[Zalabim]

Couldn't the Cleric have used Turn Undead and destroyed all the zombies`who failed the save?

That ability comes in at level 5, so not at level 3.

[KorvinStarmast]

A Wight is basically as dangerous with its longbow as it is in melee Yeah, which is why the ranger was taking it on with Silver Arrows and Hunters Mark. The wight was shooting at our cleric.
so using the zombies as a meat wall would be a good idea and completely worth counting the enemies as a single group. Fair point.
CR 1/4 to CR 3 is still a small gap. Hmm, that's a judgment call.

If the DM didn't make use of the best tactical options, then the encounter may not be as hard as it could be.
I think the DM was being tactically astute.

Being outnumbered, but you have a good chokepoint
No, there was no choke point. Happened in the jungles of Chult.

is probably an advantage for the party that's worth counting. Those situation-dependent advantages for either side are a factor in determining an encounter's difficulty too.Yeah, situational advantage is a thing.

On the party's tactics, casting Bless, and taking a turn to do it, was probably a poor choice.I completely agree. Cleric should have done bless, and could put up spiritual weapon that requires no concentration. Also could have used Turn Undead to break zombies up. But the cleric didn't.
I am the skirmisher, not the party leader. :smallwink:
Since channel divinity is a short rest option, and this is a deadly fight, it would have been wise to use Turn Undead here too, When I play a cleric, I am very attuned to that. In this party, I am the skirmisher, not a spell caster/support.
if an opportunity presented itself, to clear away zombies and allow you to focus on the Wight fast. The cleric did move the spiritual weapon to engage the wight. I have archery fighting style, each of my arrows hit the wight. I eventually dropped it. (Dex 16). Hunters Mark is a very nice bonus, and I am glad I had silver arrows.

Bless does nothing or nearly nothing against the zombies. Given the number of hits that needed the bless to hit (over five swings, to include one of my bow shots that rolled a nat 1) the dice were a bit cruel to some of our party. Bless helps speed up combat in our experience, regardless of the enemy. 22 HP per zombie. If damage rolls are high, great. If not, no.
Assuming sword and board with dueling style and 16 strength or dexterity, the paladin does 2.8125 damage per attack against the Wight. The paladin was never able to engage the Wight, who stayed at range for the whole encounter. The fight started with the zombie pack about 30' or so from us and the wight hiding about 50+ feet beyond that. (Ranger perception sniffed it out). Paladin is our only tank, and he had two casters to protect. (Bard and cleric)

Smiting the Wight is a good idea. Not if the paladin is surrounded by zombies and the Wight is at range. Up close and personal? Heck yeah! :smallcool:

Casting Divine Favor to clear the zombies is a good idea. . As I said, I am the skirmisher. :smallwink: I don't micromanage my fellow players.
This is the paladin's first D&D 5e group.
He comes from 4e and 3.5e.
I'll mention your point about radiant damage if we have a discussion about that battle before our next session. I am not sure if he has divine favor in his spells prepared list, but I think I'll discuss it with him. See what he thinks.

I will say this.
It was bizarre that all of the Sacred Flames were saved against. Zombies are not awesome dex monsters. As my first cleric did a few years ago, our cleric got frustrated and weighed in with the quarter staff.

Sacred flame has been called "Suckers Flame" by more than one person in the parties I have played in, thanks to how often that dex save gets made.

[MaxWilson]

No, there was no choke point. Happened in the jungles of Chult.

In that case, the smartest PC play would have been to Dash away for a few rounds to open up distance between the party and the zombies. The wight is the only one who can engage at that distance, and it probably should have been possible to keep jungle undergrowth between yourselves and the wight anyway. Then all you have to worry about is killing the wight from range (or letting itself out of arrows if that's easier) and then zombies are trivialized: with only 20' movement, they cannot kill any PC who doesn't let them.

All this changes of course if the jungles are being run as full of dangerous creatures on every hand--but then, the whole game changes if the jungles are full of dangerous creatures on every hand.

[Zalabim]

Looks like all good progress. Using the Spirital Weapon to help with the Wight first probably would have been better, but likely doesn't influence the length of the fight as a whole. Also, with 20' speed on the weapon the wight could outrun the weapon if it's purely a ranged battle. Smiting a wight would help, smiting a zombie not as much. There is of course the problem of if the paladin prepared Divine Favor at all. Beyond that, who is the party leader? By that I mean tactical shot caller. Maybe it's a vacant position you could apply for. It's as easy as yelling out a quick tactical suggestion on your turn, "Their archer is the biggest threat. Take him down.". Or more subtly do the reverse, and just call out what you're doing on your turn, like "The zombies can wait; I'm on the archer," to get other people to think about and share what they're doing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Looks like all good progress. Using the Spirital Weapon to help with the Wight first probably would have been better, but likely doesn't influence the length of the fight as a whole.
Yeah, and I think it was cast on either the first or second round. What I liked about that choice was that cleric did not need concentration to whack at various foes.
Also, with 20' speed on the weapon the wight could outrun the weapon if it's purely a ranged battle. Which is why the ranger had to go and chase the Wight. :smallbiggrin: So I did. Tactically, this was the fourth fight in which I took the initiative to target enemy spell caster, the ranged attacker, or the obvious leader from the get go. (Yes, I approach it "combat as war" because it's a hard ingrained habit from waaaaaaaay back). It's a pretty consistent MO for my Ranger. (When we fought some pirates, my taking out their cleric / acolyte at range in round one ended up being a fortunate happening as that fight progressed).

Smiting a wight would help, smiting a zombie not as much. Paladin was not in a position to reach the wight. He was frustrated with having 5 zombies in his face. SMITE! He now had 4 zombies in his face, happy paladin. :smallbiggrin:

There is of course the problem of if the paladin prepared Divine Favor at all. Beyond that, who is the party leader? Hehe, who indeed? It's a mixed bag, but the Cleric (being from near to Chult) is close to the leader, and the player has shown from day one some pretty sound tactical savvy. (Our last encounter with a dozen zombies he turned 9 on round 1).
The Ranger is from the Sword coast. I am playing him in the RP under the Spy Background that he was and remains. (He's in a faction, and has had to send reports 'back home.' ) Part of his MO is trying not to draw attention to himself. (This is a deliberate choice. I often can't help my own Type A personality from pushing through in RPG's, but for this party I try to keep that in check. Spotlight sharing is to me important)

By that I mean tactical shot caller.
That's a good question.
I think our cleric has made the most consistently good suggestions for tactical decisions "in situ" over the course of our journey from levels 1 to 3 over all of our sessions and battles. I now and again drop a tactical fog cloud, but I usually check with him first because he's got a good "gut feel" for tactics.

Maybe it's a vacant position you could apply for.
Absolutely Not. See above about my Type A personality. I have reasons to not do that.

It's as easy as yelling out a quick tactical suggestion on your turn, "Their archer is the biggest threat. Take him down.". Or more subtly do the reverse, and just call out what you're doing on your turn, like "The zombies can wait; I'm on the archer," to get other people to think about and share what they're doing. We do some of that. When I see a glaring issue come up, I often do as you say, make a short input. The others do that as well, but we have lost one player and gotten another. Over time, I'd say the most consistent suggestion maker has been our cleric. Our paladin has been the most consistent "do something heroic and unexpected" throughout. As you'd expect from a paladin. :smallsmile:

In that case, the smartest PC play would have been to Dash away for a few rounds to open up distance between the party and the zombies. No, that would not be the smartest play if only for OC reasons. (Kiting may have delayed combat but I agree that it would have been an effective tactic).
We have a hard time getting the group together on a consistent basis.
We finally got all together and had just finished with a different quest/mission.
We had avoided an encounter with giant lizards as not being worth delaying our journey to the next mission. (We discussed trying to turn them into mounts, but they are wild, not trained, lizards).
This encounter was a much needed combat; some head smashing was in order. (Our bard did some clever stuff before it was all over). After this encounter we are facing some jungle dinosaur action ... the next time we get together.
RL gets in the way, so sometimes, the best course of action is indeed
"patience my ass. I'm gonna kill something (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/1971-patience-ass-gonna-kill-1738593636#.WUgkG_kMlL0.pinterest)" :smallwink:

[Theodoxus]

Everytime I've used zombies, it's been a crap shoot. Although in general, everything else being equal, whichever side has the larger numbers, wins. That's the unspoken curse about Bounded Accuracy. It definitely makes things easier to balance, but if you throw 6 CR 1/4 critters at 4 level 1 characters, and play them with a modicum of intelligence, at least 1 of the PCs will be knocked out, potentially killed. The same encounter with half the enemies will be a cakewalk - all things being equal.

But zombies in particular... their fortitude is remarkable, and if your cleric misses a couple times with Sacred Flame on very lucky dex saves, they might get frustrated and stop using it. That'd be a mistake (especially since Spiritual Weapon deals force damage - usually pretty good, but not ideal against zombies).

[PhoenixPhyre]

But zombies in particular... their fortitude is remarkable, and if your cleric misses a couple times with Sacred Flame on very lucky dex saves, they might get frustrated and stop using it. That'd be a mistake (especially since Spiritual Weapon deals force damage - usually pretty good, but not ideal against zombies).

This is my experience with zombies. There's always one that survives long past its time...

And Sacred Flame is very miss or miss for me. I managed to miss a mushroom with it...I think I've only hit a half-dozen times, and I played a cleric who used it continually for several months.

[DeadMech]

Things go well... yeah 3 rounds can cover it. If not at least have things so far swung towards victory that the rest is just mop up.

SO very often my group is very far behind par on that front. Mistakes were made.

[Asmotherion]

It comes from average DMing were variables like the Field (to specify the most majorly neglected factor) are not calculated at all in the combat. Things like Spellcasters, as well as the weather, magical and physical phenomenons, the existance of structures and multiple other factors can change the field during combat, in orden not to make it a boring 3-round encounter.

Obviously, an oppen field encounter with no other contributing factors is going to end shortly; No cover to calculate, no chance of throwing the enemy prone in a pit, no hiding and strategising on how to manipulate the field into a deadly labyrinth for the opponent.

[DaveOfTheDead]

Dude, zombies are no joke with their undead fortitude. That can keep a zombie up for WAAAY longer than it needs to be.