Combat should take three rounds?

[lunatron]

I saw a post here that casually mentioned that the average combat "should" take three rounds, and they mentioned a developer implying that or something. Does anyone have a reference for that? Thank you.

[Yunru]

It's under the rules for building a monster, for one that I know of.
If you have a monster that has limited resources, like spell slots, you work out their offensive CR based on a three round nova.

[Darkstar952]

It comes from people assuming that because you calculate a custom monsters CR based on the average of 3 rounds it means the average combat should be 3 rounds.

I personally think this is a fallacy and the monster calculation is just using an average as a mechanism to reasonably assess the wide array of possible damage ranges possible by a creature.

[Crucius]

Beyond what Yunru said, it has been observed that combats usually don't last longer than 4 turns (see this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/93183/how-many-rounds-does-the-average-combat-encounter-last)). This seems to imply that design wise combats take 3 or 4 rounds. Whether this is intentional or an emergent property of other design choices, I don't know, but I hope those folks at WotC know what they're doing and that it's all on purpose.

[Yunru]

(see this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/93183/how-many-rounds-does-the-average-combat-encounter-last))Thank you! That was the other one I was forgetting: Regeneration.
"Increase the monster's effective hit points by 3 x the number of hit points the monster regenerates each round."

[MrStabby]

No. This kind of normative statement isn't justified.

Firstly it ignores party composition and choices. A party of control bards and sword and board fighters will take longer to clear an encounter than great weapon barbarians would take to do the same. And if you, as DM, compensate then you are no longer letting the players determine whether they want rocket-tag or a grind.

Secondly it doesn't really define when an encounter begins. Two parties meet. The first round is mostly each side buffing and no damage is done, or only one side has ranged attacks or so on.

If we are talking about how long an average encounter "should" last, I would say till everyone has had a chance to shine. If someone is built around minute long concentration spells to control the pace of a battle then any combat that only lasts a couple of rounds is going to be pretty unsatisfying. Likewise if a trolls regeneration is a ribbon ability due to encounters being too short it undermines those that brought the specialist tools to counter that to the fight.

At the other end of the scale if going before an enemy in initiative feels useless then PCs built for this will feel cheated.


Personally, I find longer fights to be more engaging and to give more tactical depth (as well as making more actions viable). My NPCs tend to pack spells lime shield and absorb elements as well as counterspell. They will position themselves so that it takes a turn longer to get into melee if they are ranged combatants and so on. They will use illusions and subterfuge so that nova and front loaded damage is not always the best tactic. I still find that 1 min concentration spells rarely run out in combat though. Combat is usually 6 to 7 roundson average. I am not saying this is right for all tables, but 3 rounds is certainly not right for all tables either.

[Unoriginal]

I saw a post here that casually mentioned that the average combat "should" take three rounds, and they mentioned a developer implying that or something. Does anyone have a reference for that? Thank you.

The three-round thing is not a "should", it's just an estimation the designers have done on how long one solo monster of CR X would likely last against 4 PCs of level X (and such is used, as mentioned above, for monster CR calculations in
case they have expendable ressources).

[DeTess]

I'd say this also depends on how you run your campaign. If you've only got 1-2 proper fights per long rest, and most of the party consists of long rest classes, you can easily have bigger, longer combats. In the 5e campaign I'm currently playing in, the last two big boss fights lasted about 8 turns each. However, if you're aiming for the 6-8 encounters per day (which would probably be about 4 combat encounters or so), it'd be best to aim those around 3-4 rounds, as otherwise your long-rest classes will either have to be extremely conservative, or they'll run out of resources too quickly.

[EggKookoo]

Anecdotally, most mook-level fights in my games are usually decided by the third round. Meaning that's about when it feels right for me as the DM to start thinking about if these guards are going to surrender already. Or it's about the time it becomes clear to the players that they're in over their heads. BBEG fights have no such clear pattern.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The three-round thing is not a "should", it's just an estimation the designers have done on how long one solo monster of CR X would likely last against 4 PCs of level X (and such is used, as mentioned above, for monster CR calculations in
case they have expendable ressources).

Right. Although from my experience, fights as a whole rarely last longer than 4-5 rounds unless

A. There are enemies that show up later (ie waves/reinforcements).
B. Really bad luck (those days when the dice seem cursed)
C. Something odd going on, like when we dragged a fleeing boss back in a grapple. Most of us were way out of position, so couldn't do much. It sucked.

4-5 rounds to me feels about right for a "normal" fight. Boss fights don't last that long, because there's an obvious focus target. Much longer and you're either burning lots of resources or just spamming basic attacks/cantrips.

Edit: I've been doing some simulated combats for play-testing, using random encounter generators. 5 encounters per "day" that collectively meet the aXP budget, 1 simulated day per level. The 3rd encounter is always a Hard one, the others are Medium.

Level 1: 15 rounds, average 3. By combat: 2 2 6 2 5
Level 2: 17 rounds, average 3.67. By combat: 4 3 4 3 3
Level 3: 16 rounds (4 combats so far), average 4. By combat: 6 4 3 3

So it seems like 2-6 rounds is "normal" at low levels. And 6 requires lots of missing and/or long distance artillery duels.

[Citan]

I saw a post here that casually mentioned that the average combat "should" take three rounds, and they mentioned a developer implying that or something. Does anyone have a reference for that? Thank you.
Hi.
Well...

It comes from people assuming that because you calculate a custom monsters CR based on the average of 3 rounds it means the average combat should be 3 rounds.

I personally think this is a fallacy and the monster calculation is just using an average as a mechanism to reasonably assess the wide array of possible damage ranges possible by a creature.
+10.

People who consider that combat "should last only 3 rounds" based on this just forgot to think when they read it, I cannot put it any softer than that.
As a reminder, that bit they are basing everything upon is *a single line designed to help you create a custom monster and broadly evaluate its threat level to assign it a CR (which then is used to evaluate an encounter difficulty)*.
The easiest counterpoint to them is: half of duration based spells (concentration or otherwise) are one minute most. Several class features also last one minute or can be sustained such a time for reasonable cost. If designers really expected encounters to last 3 rounds, then 30 seconds would have been largely enough.

In other words: even if designers actually expected you to defeat *one* monster in three rounds (by ganging all upon it at that which is not necessarily possible), it absolutely not infer that the *whole encounter* "should" end in three rounds.

Actual encounters have varying number of monsters, wich different threat levels and abilities each, different environmental conditions (engagement range, cover, difficult terrain, hazard, inflicted conditions) and also vary greatly in opposing party (AKA players) (party composition, tactical options, tactical awareness, current level of resources available, etc).

And that is before trying to take into account how luck can intervene both sides, or how players make have crazy/genius/overlystupid ideas that completely derail the vision you could may have had initially on how encounter would go.


There should never be any "should" expectations in how one plans an encounter, particularly on PC behaviour or "time to end". Just an effort in trying to make an opposing party that gives challenge adequate to party composition and player expectations (defined in session 0), following guidelines and using awesome online tools to help, with difficulty adjustements here and there to avoid repetitiveness...
Then hoping very hard that how things go keep in check with your evaluation of difficutly and TPK risk (or that things went sour but players still had fun at least, which happens more often than one could expect). :smallbiggrin:

In my (admitedly singular thus non-representative ;)) experience, encounters last less than 4 rounds mainly when the following conditions are fulfilled...
1. Party is still resource-rich (like 1st encounter of the day).
2. Party has several casters (so AOE control/damage or powerful boss-disabler) or enemy party is "equal or smaller" in numbers than PC.
3. Enemy party has no particular merit (no powerful guy with mental saves or spellcasting, no favorable environment like when a party would attack enemy faction in their stronghold) OR party strategized well before (succeeding in an ambush, successfully debilitating the boss to make others surrender or at least smartly dividing forces).

My own average in games is more 5 rounds. A few ones went well over the minute (basically attrition wars like holding a siege, ones in particular environments like on-ships, in mountains or otherwise special environments, or unbalanced fights when party needs to kite overwhelming force or couldn't prevent reinforcements to be warned and coming).

I also saw a big difference between low-level fights and higher-level ones, especially when range matters (like party facing group of archers), because it's not until level 5-6 that you can really start quickly disabling that kind of threat with spells or features (to bridge distance quickly or disable accuracy through vision blockade).
So party, especially if mainly melee, has to advance carefully either proning or using makeshift covers with whatever they can (Mold Earth, allies, making detours, etc). This kind of crawl quickly adds up turns (and quickly gets old but that's another matter ^^).

Beyond what Yunru said, it has been observed that combats usually don't last longer than 4 turns (see this (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/93183/how-many-rounds-does-the-average-combat-encounter-last)). This seems to imply that design wise combats take 3 or 4 rounds. Whether this is intentional or an emergent property of other design choices, I don't know, but I hope those folks at WotC know what they're doing and that it's all on purpose.
Ahem. I hate being the one breaking it to you, but on the source you linked, the only contributor actually bringing actual, factual statistical records ends with an average of "5". Which is, as far as I know, above 4.:smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will say (on both sides) that averages are deceiving here. It's not a normal distribution, since very few if any fights are over in 1 round but some take many many rounds (the most I've ever seen was a multi-wave encounter at ~20 rounds).

I'd guess that the median is more like 4-5 rounds with very long right tails.

[stoutstien]

I think it is easier to say that a NPCs effective time in combat is approximately 3 rounds. So if a npc has the ability to hide/plane shift every other round the fight may last longer.
(Phase spiders)
This only really comes up if you are designing a new npc, don't have an ablity that won't come online until round 5.

[Man_Over_Game]

One thing to consider is the fact that Short Rest resources seem to start running out by Round 3. Warlocks are resorting to cantrips, Fighters are resorting to standard attacks, Wizards are tapping into their Long Rest spell slots, etc.

You can use that as a rough guideline as to how much attrition you want at your table. Some tables want everyone to be fully charged all the time, and some tables want players to get a break long after they needed one.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing to consider is the fact that Short Rest resources seem to start running out by Round 3. Warlocks are resorting to cantrips, Fighters are resorting to standard attacks, Wizards are tapping into their Long Rest spell slots, etc.

You can use that as a rough guideline as to how much attrition you want at your table. Some tables want everyone to be fully charged all the time, and some tables want players to get a break long after they needed one.

I agree. In addition, one of the biggest complaints about early 4e was the padded sumo combat--it felt like you were grinding away forever at these huge health pools. In reaction, one specific design goal of 5e was to shorten combats (and instead give more room for more combats). This is both by shortening the individual turns/rounds (changed action economy) and by reducing the median number of rounds combat lasts.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This just gave me a weird idea- what if you enforced three round combats for standard fights, and something like five for bosses?

You'd need a point system to determine who's presently 'ahead' in the fight, of course. Probably remaining HP * combatants for something fast and dirty, with the DM able to add bonus points where applicable, like when one side can't possibly keep up what they've done so far.

Next, a resolution mechanic for the losers. A random roll to see what happens to them. Do they get away cleanly, get knocked out/killed by their foes, get dealt further injury as they run, lose something of value in the chaos? This'd be an especially useful system for reoccurring bosses, since you could just have certain events like the simple knocked out/killed not be applicable.

I doubt this would be useful for most players, but it would streamline games that get bogged down in attrition warfare (ever play in a combat that goes 6+ rounds? You'll understand why I'm suggesting this) and refocus on narrative possibilities that present D&D doesn't really swing towards easily. Seriously, try having a foe run from the party without some kind of plane shift, teleport, outright death immunity. Watch as they get pulverized in the attempt.

[mephnick]

Anecdotally, most mook-level fights in my games are usually decided by the third round.

I think that's the key word here. I rarely see fights that aren't truly over by round 4. Many tables play through the boring mop up and that can easily extend the fight to 8 rounds, but at that point the monsters and resource attrition are meaningless. The players know it's over, so they don't waste Fireballs. The DM knows it's over and goes through the motions. The conflict is over. The tension is gone. Just call it. If you can't run 3-4 combats in a session it is definitely the fault of the people at your table.

[Xetheral]

I think that's the key word here. I rarely see fights that aren't truly over by round 4. Many tables play through the boring mop up and that can easily extend the fight to 8 rounds, but at that point the monsters and resource attrition are meaningless. The players know it's over, so they don't waste Fireballs. The DM knows it's over and goes through the motions. The conflict is over. The tension is gone. Just call it. If you can't run 3-4 combats in a session it is definitely the fault of the people at your table.

Knowing who is going to be the victor doesn't mean that the outcome is entirely determined. It can make a big difference whether any of the fleeing enemies manage to actually get away to (e.g.) sound the alarm, join reinforcements, sabotage the drawbridge, or even just spread tales of the PCs. Against an enemy that fights to the death, sure, mop-up is sort of irrelevant. But otherwise the final disposition of the enemy can be highly sensitive to the actions of individual PCs, and it makes a big difference in future combats.

[mephnick]

Knowing who is going to be the victor doesn't mean that the outcome is entirely determined. It can make a big difference whether any of the fleeing enemies manage to actually get away to (e.g.) sound the alarm, join reinforcements, sabotage the drawbridge, or even just spread tales of the PCs.

Sure, but that generally transitions from combat to chases and skill checks.

Or, if you have an archer with SS in your party, into "ok you keep shooting him and he dies in 2 rounds"

Fleeing is virtually impossible in 5e unless you force the chase mechanic on your party when morale breaks, or it's a strong enemy with Teleport.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sure, but that generally transitions from combat to chases and skill checks.

Or, if you have an archer with SS in your party, into "ok you keep shooting him and he dies in 2 rounds"

Fleeing is virtually impossible in 5e unless you force the chase mechanic on your party when morale breaks, or it's a strong enemy with Teleport.

Or you're fighting in an enclosed space and they can break contact. But yes, in an open area, getting away is going to be hard unless you've got spells. We had a baddy dimension door away and our wizard missed the counterspell roll. :smallfrown:

[mephnick]

Or you're fighting in an enclosed space and they can break contact.

Yeah, in a dungeon when a mook can possibly get away to alert other monsters and bring waves of enemies down on the party, absolutely.

[MaxWilson]

Or you're fighting in an enclosed space and they can break contact. But yes, in an open area, getting away is going to be hard unless you've got spells. We had a baddy dimension door away and our wizard missed the counterspell roll. :smallfrown:

Yeah, breaking contact is easy if you've already broken contact. Once you've spent a whole round not taking opportunity attacks you're basically home free, but 5E's movement system is so deterministic that it can be hard to get to that point if you and your enemy both have 30' movement. Your best bet is to try to get close enough to total cover that you can eat an opportunity attack, duck around the corner, and then Hide somewhere--yet another reason why Stealth proficiency is a good idea for any adventurer--for just long enough to resume Dashing without taking opportunity attacks.


Yeah, in a dungeon when a mook can possibly get away to alert other monsters and bring waves of enemies down on the party, absolutely.

If this is a real possibility, then IMO those other monsters should already have been part of the original encounter, even if they weren't doing anything. "Five orcs and a hill giant napping in the next room" is functionally one encounter, not two, because there are lots of potential interactions between the PCs, the orcs, and the hill giant, and you need to think about how the context will impact orc behavior even while only the orcs are onscreen. ("Bree-yark!")

[EggKookoo]

Knowing who is going to be the victor doesn't mean that the outcome is entirely determined. It can make a big difference whether any of the fleeing enemies manage to actually get away to (e.g.) sound the alarm, join reinforcements, sabotage the drawbridge, or even just spread tales of the PCs. Against an enemy that fights to the death, sure, mop-up is sort of irrelevant. But otherwise the final disposition of the enemy can be highly sensitive to the actions of individual PCs, and it makes a big difference in future combats.

Right, that's where the "most" comes in. It's not a hard rule by any stretch, and it's not even a rule at my table. It's just an observation that there comes a time where it's pretty clear which side is going to win (typically the PCs) and that there serves little purpose in maintaining a round-by-round turn-by-turn approach to resolving things. By my loose observations about my own games, that is typically around the end of the third round. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but the median seems to be the third.

In universe, the fight isn't over then, but at the table we usually move away from turn-based play and back into "just tell me what you do" mode.

[ad_hoc]

JC has said repeatedly that monsters are designed assuming 3 rounds.

You will need to follow his Q&As, Sage Advice, etc. to see it as it tends to be buried in 1 hour long videos.

Still, he has been clear about it. And it makes sense, the game is designed with play time at the table in mind. So combats are designed to be exciting and not slogs.

People deviating far from that assumption will run into weird balance paradigms.

[MrStabby]

Right, that's where the "most" comes in. It's not a hard rule by any stretch, and it's not even a rule at my table. It's just an observation that there comes a time where it's pretty clear which side is going to win (typically the PCs) and that there serves little purpose in maintaining a round-by-round turn-by-turn approach to resolving things. By my loose observations about my own games, that is typically around the end of the third round. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but the median seems to be the third.

In universe, the fight isn't over then, but at the table we usually move away from turn-based play and back into "just tell me what you do" mode.

If you stopped fights when you could tell with some confidence who would be victorious you would never run anything less than deadly fights.

Some of the tension is not in who wins but in testing if the party consumes too many resources to be viable in the next fight or even at the end of the day. If attrition is never part of the game then efficient spells like prayer of healing, bards song of rest or champions HP recovery are pretty worthless. I suggest not screwing those classes.

[mephnick]

If attrition is never part of the game then efficient spells like prayer of healing, bards song of rest or champions HP recovery are pretty worthless. I suggest not screwing those classes.

Like I said before, in my experience, the attrition part of the fight is already over. The spells have been cast, the HPs have been bled. What happens in the 3 mop up rounds almost never moves the needle of the resources gauge. Maybe the last thing left standing will score a crit and bleed some HP. Maybe the Wizard will have to use a Lv 1 slot to stop a chase. I don't consider the trade-off of table time to be worth it.

[EggKookoo]

If you stopped fights when you could tell with some confidence who would be victorious you would never run anything less than deadly fights.

Not really sure how to parse this as I run fights of varying deadliness. Generally, most fights are not deadly. It's a rare encounter I design where I think it's likely any PC will die.

Keep in mind, I'm not deciding myself, at round three, that I'm going to end the fight. What I'm saying is there comes a point where it's largely obvious that it's all over but the shouting (precluding that an NPC has an ace up its sleeve or there's a gotcha somewhere). That point, in my experience, most often seems to come during the third round, so that when that round is over I feel like I can switch out of turn-based play. It doesn't mean I never go to a fourth round or that I force a fight to end early.


Some of the tension is not in who wins but in testing if the party consumes too many resources to be viable in the next fight or even at the end of the day. If attrition is never part of the game then efficient spells like prayer of healing, bards song of rest or champions HP recovery are pretty worthless. I suggest not screwing those classes.


Like I said before, in my experience, the attrition part of the fight is already over. The spells have been cast, the HPs have been bled. What happens in the 3 mop up rounds almost never moves the needle of the resources gauge. Maybe the last thing left standing will score a crit and bleed some HP. Maybe the Wizard will have to use a Lv 1 slot to stop a chase. I don't consider the trade-off of table time to be worth it.

My experience jives mostly with what Mephnick is describing. My players pull out the big guns early. Relative to their overall long-rest budget, I mean. They don't blow their most expensive abilities in the first round of the first fight of the day, but they try to end fights quickly. There's a general perception -- which I think is mostly true -- that the longer a fight goes on the better it is for NPCs, who typically don't have rest-based resources to worry about. But there's also the idea that a quick victory is seen as worth the expense of a few resources. It keeps more options open for the players.

I also try to run my NPCs like people instead of game pieces. They have feelings, desires, fears, and some of them even loved ones or families. They don't see themselves as XP fodder. They want to live, so they'll often surrender if the fight isn't going their way. If fights are over too soon I can add more NPCs. I tend to go with milestone leveling anyway so it doesn't cause the PCs to progress too quickly.

[MrStabby]

Not really sure how to parse this as I run fights of varying deadliness. Generally, most fights are not deadly. It's a rare encounter I design where I think it's likely any PC will die.

Keep in mind, I'm not deciding myself, at round three, that I'm going to end the fight. What I'm saying is there comes a point where it's largely obvious that it's all over but the shouting (precluding that an NPC has an ace up its sleeve or there's a gotcha somewhere).




So what I am taking about is that for say a medium encounter we know who is going to win when initiative is rolled. How many medium encounters have you run that defeat the PCs. I think the only times it has ever been close have either involved very low levels or intellect devourers.

Obviously your style is not wrong. It is fine. But if it is fine then the right criterion for ending a fight is not "the result is now known". If the PCs are going to win the result is known.

There are a lot more reasons for continuing. Most obviously Fun. Sometimes PCs enjoy kicking ass. Sometimes you want to convey information about a monster type for later. Sometimes you care how much it will cost the party in HP or in time or in noise to defeat the enemy. Now sometimes I lower HP of defeated enemies to speed things up, especially if they are not the most damage capable enemies but there is no hard rule to say I should.

[EggKookoo]

Obviously your style is not wrong. It is fine. But if it is fine then the right criterion for ending a fight is not "the result is now known". If the PCs are going to win the result is known.

Ok, gotcha. What I mean is I don't end the fight when it's clear who is going to win, since as you say most of the time it's a foregone conclusion that the PCs will. What I mean by "decided" is when it looks like all the interesting decisions about the fight have happened, and it's mainly about mopping up. And by "end the fight" I really mean I switch from initiative-based turns to something a little more relaxed, where the players can just tell me how they proceed and the sequence of events is more intuitive. Rolls still might happen but it's less formalized, more like what might occur if the PCs are investigating a room at their leisure or something.

[Xetheral]

Sure, but that generally transitions from combat to chases and skill checks.

Or, if you have an archer with SS in your party, into "ok you keep shooting him and he dies in 2 rounds"

Fleeing is virtually impossible in 5e unless you force the chase mechanic on your party when morale breaks, or it's a strong enemy with Teleport.

I don't tend to switch to abstract chases to resolve characters fleeing from combat. And my experience on how difficult it is to flee is very different than yours: I find that as long as the number of creatures trying to flee exceeds 3, there usually aren't enough PCs willing to leave the safety of the group to pursue all three at once, which means at least one can usually get away.

Sure, an archer PC on entirely open ground makes it harder to run away, but (a) fights on entirely open terrain are rare in my game unless the attackers are cavalry, and (b) dashing out of longbow range only takes a minute even if there is somehow no cover anywhere in a 600' radius circle. Sure, ten rounds is enough to bring down several fleeing opponents, but when a pack of them scatter in all directions you may not have time to finish them all off before someone is out of range.

[lunatron]

Thanks for the answers, all! That cite from the DMG is just what I was looking for.

I was curious about it, because, in the games I play in, combat tends to go... a lot more than three rounds, to the point where long-rest classes have all their resources exhausted after surviving just one combat, and then we long rest. The DM likes Deadly encounters, though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thanks for the answers, all! That cite from the DMG is just what I was looking for.

I was curious about it, because, in the games I play in, combat tends to go... a lot more than three rounds, to the point where long-rest classes have all their resources exhausted after surviving just one combat, and then we long rest. The DM likes Deadly encounters, though.

That's a common play-style. One that plays really badly when you have a mix of short and long rest classes. But to each their own, I guess.

[Man_Over_Game]

Thanks for the answers, all! That cite from the DMG is just what I was looking for.

I was curious about it, because, in the games I play in, combat tends to go... a lot more than three rounds, to the point where long-rest classes have all their resources exhausted after surviving just one combat, and then we long rest. The DM likes Deadly encounters, though.


That's a common play-style. One that plays really badly when you have a mix of short and long rest classes. But to each their own, I guess.

I'm going to shamelessly plug my content and recommend that your DM takes a short look at my Adrenaline Surge link in my signature to solve the problem that PheonixPhyre is describing. If your DM is the one that likes singular, big fights, it really helps round out the balance for the characters while just making everything more epic.

[ad_hoc]

Thanks for the answers, all! That cite from the DMG is just what I was looking for.

I was curious about it, because, in the games I play in, combat tends to go... a lot more than three rounds, to the point where long-rest classes have all their resources exhausted after surviving just one combat, and then we long rest. The DM likes Deadly encounters, though.

Yeah, the game is just not designed for that.

1 encounter/long rest will either result in trivial encounters or TPKs.

I suggest playing a published adventure to get a feel for the flow of the game.

[DeTess]

1 encounter/long rest will either result in trivial encounters or TPKs.


I'll have to disagree here. It might require some adjustments to existing monsters, but 1-2/long rest super deadly encounters can work, an do work in my current 5e campaign, though it did take our DM a while to figure out the correct balancing point.

[mephnick]

I'll have to disagree here. It might require some adjustments to existing monsters, but 1-2/long rest super deadly encounters can work, an do work in my current 5e campaign, though it did take our DM a while to figure out the correct balancing point.

How does he balance rests for Short Rest characters? Or does everyone play Wizards and Paladins?

[MrStabby]

Yeah, a small number of tougher encounters is a bit rubbish. You really need some extensive rework of classes to make it work; essentially it favours nova classes and any class that is good at peak power rather than endurance. Given that these classes tens to be powerful enough in normal play this is a big balance issue.

It also narrows the range of viable options within classes. Why take spells like prayer of healing when you are more likely to have a rest after an encounter? Getting the balance wrong between easy and hard encounters just eliminates much of the range of strong characters and reduces diversity.

[DeTess]

How does he balance rests for Short Rest characters? Or does everyone play Wizards and Paladins?

There's one warlock, and the rest is more long-rest oriented. The warlock is a hexblade build for lots of attack action damage (polearm-master for an extra bonus action attack action, and he gets +14 to damage even without the curse), so he actually does more than fine despite not getting the maximum use out of the warlock spell slots.

[MaxWilson]

How does he balance rests for Short Rest characters? Or does everyone play Wizards and Paladins?

The players could be proactive about using their abilities outside of super-deadly encounters. I've seen druids be very proactive about wildshape, and Shadow Monks be proactive about making the whole party super-stealthy for days at a time via Pass Without Trace (short rests every 3-4 hours to recharge ki). I can imagine warlocks being similarly proactive about Suggestion and Invisibility.

But I'm probably atypical in my adventure pacing. I even once saw a combat go on long enough (due to a Mexican standoff with an undead Bone Naga) that the dwarf who was knocked unconscious during the first couple rounds of combat actually woke up after an hour or two, breaking the standoff.

[lunatron]

Yeah, the game is just not designed for that.

1 encounter/long rest will either result in trivial encounters or TPKs.

I suggest playing a published adventure to get a feel for the flow of the game.

We haven’t had any TPKs, and most encounters don’t feel trivial. We used to do about three encounters per long rest, but these days, it is more like one encounter per long rest.

I’d like to play a published adventure, but I don’t have time for more D&D beyond the two campaigns I’m in.

I just find all of this helpful with regards to understanding what is atypical about my main group’s playstyle.

[ad_hoc]

We haven’t had any TPKs, and most encounters don’t feel trivial. We used to do about three encounters per long rest, but these days, it is more like one encounter per long rest.

I’d like to play a published adventure, but I don’t have time for more D&D beyond the two campaigns I’m in.

I just find all of this helpful with regards to understanding what is atypical about my main group’s playstyle.

How many of these mega-encounters have you had?

If you've never had a TPK that sounds like it is pretty trivial.

The thing with super deadly encounters is either the PCs get the upper hand or the monsters do. Death spirals will happen in difficult encounters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

How many of these mega-encounters have you had?

If you've never had a TPK that sounds like it is pretty trivial.

The thing with super deadly encounters is either the PCs get the upper hand or the monsters do. Death spirals will happen in difficult encounters.

Also makes me wonder how much "dynamic adjustment" the DM is doing behind the scenes. In either direction.

[DeTess]

How many of these mega-encounters have you had?

If you've never had a TPK that sounds like it is pretty trivial.

So any encounter that doesn't end in a TPK is trivial? So any campaign that lasts for longer than a few sessions without TPK only involves trivial encounters?:confused:

Edit: anyway, as to my own campaign, there's been a couple of close calls, but the game has been operating under rule of cool, so when we come up with a suitable enough shenanigan (like chucking 20 liters of alchemists fire into a dragons' mouth) we could usually buy ourselves enough time to turn the tide. The DM has been getting the encounters pretty right once he got a feeling for what we could handle though, with most of the party hitting bingo resources right around the time we managed to bring down our opponent. I can't speak for earlier encounters, but I know 98% certain that those final encounters didn't include any adjustments downwards, though he might have adjusted the final boss upwards slightly after the simulacrum got popped during round 1 of that encounter with a heavily overcast dispel.

[Man_Over_Game]

So any encounter that doesn't end in a TPK is trivial? So any game that lasts for longer than a few sessions only involves trivial encounters?:confused:

He's saying that a team with every Long Rest resource available, in a single fight of equal power, has a LOT of sway to one side or another. The game is designed around having a bunch of smaller fights and rationing those long-rest resources throughout the day, taking breaks as needed.

You'd have to be a god to create a perfectly balanced challenge every fight with the party having a long rest each fight, and the opposition being perfectly balanced. More than likely, the player team would win without much risk, or the players would get an unlucky streak and just get crushed by their mirror match.


What you're describing is akin to a fully powered Wizard duel. Both Wizards have all their spells. Normally, random chance/circumstance would determine the winner in a high-stakes fight like this, yet Wizard 1 has won every single battle, despite being against supposedly even competition.

Likely, either the Wizard is superior (the enemies are too easy), or the game is rigged (the DM is cheating in the player's favor).

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

The game is balanced around having multiple fights so that players can afford to run away and rest, and so that DMs can afford to have a day's worth of combat to actually be too difficult for the players. As a result, the players can choose to fight exactly how much is perfect for them, which is pretty well balanced by itself.

The players are always struggling, yet they only pick fights they can win, which is what you want in a difficult RPG.

[ad_hoc]

Also makes me wonder how much "dynamic adjustment" the DM is doing behind the scenes. In either direction.

Yeah, this is likely it.


So any encounter that doesn't end in a TPK is trivial? So any campaign that lasts for longer than a few sessions without TPK only involves trivial encounters?:confused:


I started by asking how many of these encounters they had.

At some point the realization should dawn that they aren't in any actual danger if they never TPK from these encounters. If you are guaranteed to succeed then there was never much challenge was there.

On the other hand, if the monsters are strong enough to be able to overpower the PCs then they could easily create a death spiral in the first round or two.

I suppose the sort of encounter this wouldn't be true would be if there was a doom clock. Kill the monsters within X rounds or the party gets wiped out by whatever.

[MaxWilson]

He's saying that a team with every Long Rest resource available, in a single fight of equal power, has a LOT of sway to one side or another. The game is designed around having a bunch of smaller fights and rationing those long-rest resources throughout the day, taking breaks as needed.

According to the WotC devs, that isn't true. They don't design around attrition.


We actually balance the game assuming player characters are at full health. We have to do that, since an encounter could happen at any point. An extra powerful healing spell doesn't unbalance the game. But it can disrupt what feels right to a group. That's what concerns us.

Source: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/935995896637964290

Apparently this is why WotC writers didn't think spells that obviate attrition (like Healing Spirit) could be a problem: attrition isn't part of how they see the game. Le sigh. Go figure.

==============================


At some point the realization should dawn that they aren't in any actual danger if they never TPK from these encounters. If you are guaranteed to succeed then there was never much challenge was there.

On the other hand, if the monsters are strong enough to be able to overpower the PCs then they could easily create a death spiral in the first round or two.

I suppose the sort of encounter this wouldn't be true would be if there was a doom clock. Kill the monsters within X rounds or the party gets wiped out by whatever.

This is exactly why it is good IMO to crank the difficulty up to at least Deadly. Even if you use 100% of the full day's XP budget on a single encounter per day, the PCs have a pretty good chance of winning even if they don't do anything particularly clever, and that's not just because of paladins and wizards nova'ing so put that canard to rest. It's just because 5E is designed to be pretty easy, "trivial" in your words. But at least it's less trivial when you decline to break the enemy up into 6-8 Easy/Medium penny packet encounters for the PCs to defeat in detail. At least that way PCs who make really dumb decisions have some chance of dying.

The other way you can do it as DM is to game the system and construct "Medium" encounters which exploit loopholes to be more difficult than the XP rating implies (e.g. swarms of Intellect Devourers supported by Pixies), but what does that buy you? Now your PCs have a difficult encounter and you get to laugh to yourself about how it wasn't really all that difficult, and they don't even get much XP from it--why would you ever do that? Hopefully you wouldn't.

If you want more dramatic tension, construct tougher fights. Bigger, tougher, or smarter, take your pick.

[Hail Tempus]

According to the WotC devs, that isn't true. They don't design around attrition.



Source: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/935995896637964290

Apparently this is why WotC writers didn't think spells that obviate attrition (like Healing Spirit) could be a problem: attrition isn't part of how they see the game. Le sigh. Go figure.I think you're misreading that statement. The attrition is of PC resources in general (of which HPs are just a part). Starting every encounter at full HPs requires attrition of spell slots, hit dice, a Paladin's lay on hands etc.

Starting encounter three of the day at 100% HP doesn't mean that a PC is at full resources.

[MaxWilson]

I think you're misreading that statement. The attrition is of PC resources in general (of which HPs are just a part). Starting every encounter at full HPs requires attrition of spell slots, hit dice, a Paladin's lay on hands etc.

Starting encounter three of the day at 100% HP doesn't mean that a PC is at full resources.

If HP attrition isn't an issue you can afford to save your other resources as long as you like. Except in Ultra-Deadly fights, abilities like Flurry of Blows and Divine Smite are really just ways of ending the fight quicker and reducing the amount of HP damage you take. Surely you must realize that an uber-healing spell affects attrition of many, many resources, not just HP?

Don't overlook the fact that Jeremy Crawford was talking specifically about why he didn't think Healing Spirit was a problem. Hit dice, lay on hands, etc. aren't even required--a few low-level Healing Spirits are more than enough to keep everyone at 100% all day, and the WotC writers were perfectly fine with that, if Crawford can be believed.

[Xetheral]

At some point the realization should dawn that they aren't in any actual danger if they never TPK from these encounters. If you are guaranteed to succeed then there was never much challenge was there.

On the other hand, if the monsters are strong enough to be able to overpower the PCs then they could easily create a death spiral in the first round or two.

I suppose the sort of encounter this wouldn't be true would be if there was a doom clock. Kill the monsters within X rounds or the party gets wiped out by whatever.

The threat of failure can be the source of challenge, even if that failure doesn't involve a risk of death. In some cases, as you mention, that source of failure can be a doom clock, but it doesn't have to be time-related. As long as the enemies threaten the party's goals, a fight can be challenging.

Even for pure-combat encounters, if the party has an effective means to run away, a fight can be simultaneously extremely challenging and have virtually no chance of a TPK (unless the PCs opt not to disengage).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you're misreading that statement. The attrition is of PC resources in general (of which HPs are just a part). Starting every encounter at full HPs requires attrition of spell slots, hit dice, a Paladin's lay on hands etc.

Starting encounter three of the day at 100% HP doesn't mean that a PC is at full resources.

One good reason (IMO) for attrition-based gameplay is that it reduces the descent into the "solved problem" state that so many games get into. If every encounter you start at 100% of your resources (abilities, mainly), you reduce the game to an MMO-like "rotation." You press that button first, then the next one, etc. in descending order of effectiveness. With diminishing resources you start to have to make choices. Blow the big guns now to shorten this encounter, or save them for later? Maybe there's something short of your highest-power ability that will get the job done here?

Every fight being a high TPK risk with a full reset afterward removes all those choices. You always nova as fast as possible. Rocket tag is a way of life.

[MaxWilson]

One good reason (IMO) for attrition-based gameplay is that it reduces the descent into the "solved problem" state that so many games get into. If every encounter you start at 100% of your resources (abilities, mainly), you reduce the game to an MMO-like "rotation." You press that button first, then the next one, etc. in descending order of effectiveness. With diminishing resources you start to have to make choices. Blow the big guns now to shorten this encounter, or save them for later? Maybe there's something short of your highest-power ability that will get the job done here?

Every fight being a high TPK risk with a full reset afterward removes all those choices. You always nova as fast as possible. Rocket tag is a way of life.

If using the same tactics over and over is even an option, that's not a very challenging or interesting scenario anyway, regardless of adventure pacing.

IME it's less important to have enough spell slots left over than it is to cast the right spell in the right place, which may require having done the right things and asked the right questions beforehand so you know what is the right spell and who is the best target. (Same goes for non-spell abilities, like grappling.) If it devolves into blind rocket tag that means you failed the exploration/socialization pillars.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If using the same tactics over and over is even an option, that's not a very challenging or interesting scenario anyway.

IME it's less important to have enough spell slots over than it is to cast the right spell in the right place, which may require having done the right things and asked the right questions beforehand so you know what is the right spell and who is the best target. (Same goes for non-spell abilities, like grappling.) If it devolves into blind rocket tag that means you failed the exploration/socialization pillars.

Spells, less so (due to their variability). But when the right answer for the Paladin is to "blow his highest slot on a smite" on the first hit of every combat, and the right answer for the fighter is to Action Surge on teh first round, etc, you've removed an important tactical dimension.

[MaxWilson]

Spells, less so (due to their variability). But when the right answer for the Paladin is to "blow his highest slot on a smite" on the first hit of every combat, and the right answer for the fighter is to Action Surge on teh first round, etc, you've removed an important tactical dimension.

And yet, neither of those is (IME) always the right answer, and in fact they are usually the wrong answer. (The Fighter should at least save his Action Surge for when he's got advantage; the Paladin may need those spell slots more badly for something else like Wrathful Smite or Sanctuary or a Divine Smite against a spellcaster concentrating on a big spell or a threat that isn't yet obvious to him because it's hidden behind secret doors or illusions. He shouldn't just nova on the first thing that he sees.) The fact that they are always the right play in your games mostly just speaks to what kind of game you are running.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And yet, neither of those is (IME) always the right answer, and in fact they are usually the wrong answer. The fact that they are always the right play in your games mostly just speaks to what kind of game you are running.

Uh...I don't run those types of games. Because I actually play the game as designed.

But I'm hard-pressed to find an example from the PotA game I'm in where that wouldn't be at least a really good idea if you never had a second fight that day. Being able to fireball out the gate removes a lot of the level 5-6-ish fights that are the 3rd or 4th of the day as written.

[MaxWilson]

Uh...I don't run those types of games. Because I actually play the game as designed.

It's very bold of you to claim that everyone else has these problems then. I play the game in an old-school mode, Combat As War, and yet the complaints I have about 5E are mostly about its lack of support for game structures besides combat--it works just fine in combat, without any of these rocket-tag problems you talk about. It is rarely a good idea for fighters and paladins to nova on the first thing they see, even if there winds up being one big climactic battle today instead of a dungeon crawl.

IME, generally you should wait to use your Action Surge until (1) you have a decisive advantage like a Restrained enemy; (2) you are responding to an unforeseen circumstance like a paralzed comrade and it is vital to do two things at once, like grapple an enemy and retry the grapple when it fails to prevent that enemy from waltzing over to your paralyzed buddy and killing him/her with auto-crits; (3) you need to break an enemy's concentration on a big spell; (4) the situation has fallen apart and you need to run away.

If you blew your action surge making a lousy two extra attacks on the first enemy that grabs your attention, who might not turn out to even be the biggest threat, you won't have it available when it is most needed and your chance of death or TPK increases. Ditto paladins not having paladin spells available. (Besides, if you blow your smites on the Merregon bodyguards in front of you, what are you going to do about the Narzugon who leads them? Instead you should deal with the Merregons as cheaply as you can, perhaps via Sanctuary + Dash to get close to the Narzugon, and then attempt Blinding Smite + Divine Smite.)


But I'm hard-pressed to find an example from the PotA game I'm in where that wouldn't be at least a really good idea if you never had a second fight that day. Being able to fireball out the gate removes a lot of the level 5-6-ish fights that are the 3rd or 4th of the day as written.

*shrug* We all know WotC writes crummy adventures with inherent pacing problems. Don't run their adventures. Problem solved.

[Mitsu]

If am not mistaken the default CR and so the challange of monsters is calculated basing on default setting of the game: no feats and no multiclass.

Also the default setting is calculated for average PC. Means no optimization, min-maxing numbers etc.

As someone who played few times in such setting - it's quite accurate and combat usually if followed by CR didn't take longer than 5 turns, 3-4 on average.

However situation changes TOTALLY when we have a party full of min-max optimized builds or even one or two of them.

For example one fight on 8 level (my custom campaign) lated 5-6 turns normally when I was doing this part of short campaign two times with two different groups.

However same fight was abslotely BLASTED in 2 turns by other group I had when I had PAM GWM Bearbarian, Sorcadin, Sorlock and Assassin/Gloom Stalker.

They literally blow everything in 2 turns. It wasn't even a fight.


So I think by default system ineed was intended for fights lasting no more than 3 to max 5 turns. However it's important to note that it will change from party to party. Feats and Multiclasses alone change that. Min-Maxers change it further.

So it's up to DM to adjust it, however I belive system works best when combat is short as it makes in my opinion more smooth experience for players around table. Usually longer combat seems to be tiresome for most players from my own experience.

[MaxWilson]

If am not mistaken the default CR and so the challange of monsters is calculated basing on default setting of the game: no feats and no multiclass.

Feats and multiclassing don't factor into CR either way. The DMG doesn't say to use different numbers when constructing encounters for PCs with feats or multiclassing, because in theory feats and multiclassing are written such that they don't make PCs more powerful, only more complex. (In reality this is laughable, but so is the CR system. In reality you just have to eyeball it.)