How many encounters do you encounter?

[Man_Over_Game]

How many encounters do you actually experience in a typical session?





Please keep the discussion on the topic of "Did", not "Should". Too many of these threads dissolve into a balance concern involving Warlocks vs. Wizards, and I'm really interested in gathering people's real experiences on this.

Personally, I don't think I've had more than two.

[Trask]

One, and I think its had a really negative impact on our gaming sessions. Two DM's in my friend circle do what we call the "One Big expletive" kind of encounters where we just wail on a guy for 1-2 hour(s) until either we die or he dies. It makes battles just so enormously long and it becomes tiring. They can be tense when something is at stake beyond our lives or if its really dangerous, but its such a slog to move from full power nova encounter to full power nova encounter. A lot of DMs I've played with do this, and I dont think they realize how much of a negative impact it has on the gameplay.

My two cents.

Also we only usually have 1 encounter per session, but rarely two.

[Brookshw]

Session or adventuring day?

Day, probably 3-4. Session, varies, but rarely more than 8.

[Luccan]

Generally it's no more than two combat encounters. If I had the time for it I'd love to do marathon sessions that could actually afford a few separate combats (where appropriate) but that's hard even if you have four hours. Let alone the two-three hours most of my IRL sessions have had the past few years.

Honestly, I don't do enough dungeon delving anymore.

[Chronic]

I guess it depends on the type of session we are running, but I would say between 1 and 3. If it's dungeon oriented it's more than two usually, and if not it's usually one, rarely 2. In terms of in game time a session is usually one or two days, except for dungeons or combat oriented sessions (like assaulting a villain lairs) it's a few hours at most.

[stoutstien]

4-8 per session counting non combat encounters as well.

[Dork_Forge]

I'd say average around 3 depending on the place in the campaign, sometimes you get into those times where a lot happens in a day with no chance of downtime, in that case 5ish but some would be smaller.

[Dienekes]

Just combat encounter? It depends on what the players are doing. Right now we're in more of a talking/intrigue section of the game so we had 0 last session. During the time they went into a gnoll infested dwarven tomb about 4. Average is probably closer to 1 or 2.

[ad_hoc]

Combat encounters?

2-4. Our sessions are quite short at 3 hours though and we spend a good amount of time just making jokes.

A long rest usually occurs every 2 sessions.

We end up with 4-8 encounters/long rest on average I'd say.

[Spiritchaser]

Combats per game session (not necessary per day): varies wildly. I’d say almost always at least two, and very seldom more than 7

[NecessaryWeevil]

0 to 3 potentially-combat encounters per session, averaging about 2. But currently we're playing the Hidden Shrine of Tamoa-something, so it's been more lately. Per adventuring day? Again average 0-3 usually but in the shrine it's more like 10.

[djreynolds]

I'm running COS and they are in Castle Ravenloft, so they are very conscious of resources right now.

They mix it up with a tough fight and then a tougher fighter, threw up leomunds tiny hut and just short rested.

Tiny hut, rope trick and cat nap make it easy for PCs to safely rest... especially with tiny hut as a ritual.

Funny enough fights go so quickly, even versus powerful foes.

I have found encounters are either "doable" and or quickly devolve into TPK

As for resources, I often will "knock" on the table to prompt players to smite or drop the pain, some forget.

The CR isn't always an effective measure. Some classes inherently do better versus others, magic weapons can devalue foes.

Funnily enough the party fought the tougher fight, ( 2 CR 16 foes) forgot they had used hero's feast and were immune to poison, I forgot as well... they survived vs the tough opponents anyhow.

IMO once PCs get counterspell and really understand its use, its tough to make "fair" challenges... hence TPKs where DMs throw in too difficult opponents

This particular group I'm running in CoS are a well oiled killing machine.

I will tweak the campaign if there are lots of fighters or monks, but there hasn't been an official campaign where players have to get from A to B is this much time or they "cannot" rest.

I only advocate for newer players, I try to shoot for 3 encounters but it only works really in homebrewed campaigns where I can control the tempo.

[LordCdrMilitant]

How many encounters do you actually experience in a typical session?

Please keep the discussion on the topic of "Did", not "Should". Too many of these threads dissolve into a balance concern involving Warlocks vs. Wizards, and I'm really interested in gathering people's real experiences on this.

Personally, I don't think I've had more than two.

One, sometimes two. Though what exactly constitutes and encounter is somewhat fuzzy, since some people might see them as upwards of 9-10 smaller encounters.

[Solusek]

Usually 1 or 2. But it is not at all uncommon to have sessions with zero combat - all session is gathering info, debating among ourselves what to do next, meeting npcs, exploring an area, maybe even talking our way out of a possible combat - but at the end of the session no one launched any attacks.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Usually 1 or 2. But it is not at all uncommon to have sessions with zero combat - all session is gathering info, debating among ourselves what to do next, meeting npcs, exploring an area, maybe even talking our way out of a possible combat - but at the end of the session no one launched any attacks.

Yeah, for me sessions are frequently either all combat or no combat at all. Sometimes, there will be a short combat.

[Magicspook]

I think it might be useful to mention how long your sessions are... You cannot really compare a 3/4 hour session after work with a full-day session from 13:00 to 22:00

[djreynolds]

Usually 1 or 2. But it is not at all uncommon to have sessions with zero combat - all session is gathering info, debating among ourselves what to do next, meeting npcs, exploring an area, maybe even talking our way out of a possible combat - but at the end of the session no one launched any attacks.

100% And its a reason why DMs have to include a whole bunch of stuff.

I have PCs have to scout and avoid combat, or purchase stuff, or repair a wagon, or finding sleep area for a group of weary travelers

I really like OotA and CoS because not all encounters were combat, some was terrain and "natural" disasters

I think IMO, players often feel that if they don't have the "stat" or expertise they cannot contribute but they can.

I encourage players, you're gonna begin play with 4 skills, if you took soldier go ahead and grab insight and history as well.

Some players will grab outlander and grab perception and nature.

Some sessions are just preparing for the next encounter and planning. Some players really do track all the money, I try to include downtime if possible, so players can pick up tools and such.

I think the class variants just allowing the switching out of skills at levels to be a huge boon. PCs change.

Proficiency versatility is really cool, maybe the whole group decides that they all need the rogue to during downtime to teach them how to stealth in preparation for the next mission, they go into town grab the appropriate gear but have to lose focus on another skill in the process.

[rlc]

How many encounters do you actually experience in a typical session?





Please keep the discussion on the topic of "Did", not "Should". Too many of these threads dissolve into a balance concern involving Warlocks vs. Wizards, and I'm really interested in gathering people's real experiences on this.

Personally, I don't think I've had more than two.

I try to have two or three, but I have a buddy who would always whine about that. Like, just because you burn through your spell slots doesn't mean I need to cater to you and you alone.

[EggKookoo]

If you mean combat encounters, one. Maybe two. If you factor in social encounters or sneaking past people, double it. My sessions are short these days as I'm getting my 8 year old into playing, and she gets mentally fatigued. We play for about 2-3 hours.

Back in my younger days, we'd play all night.

[Sigreid]

Varies a lot, but up to 8.

[HappyDaze]

With 4-hour sessions, we usually manage 1 or 2, and sometimes 3 (if one of them is quick) combat encounters in a night. If the session is particularly roleplay-heavy, that number drops (sometimes to 0).

We've found that some "encounters" are hardly worth the time they take to play through. This includes the isolated trap that can't inflict enough damage to kill, so with healing being fairly easy such things get as much attention as driving through an automated toll collector on today's turnpike. Likewise, even at only 4th level, my group can just bypass many exploration encounters so it's not worth wasting more than a few minutes to describe what it is and letting them decide what resource to spend to bypass it. I wish there were a mechanical way to do this for pointless mook battles ("easy" and even some "medium" encounters) too because spending an hour to get to a foregone conclusion quickly becomes boring. And resolving downtime...what a drag.

[ad_hoc]

I'm running COS and they are in Castle Ravenloft, so they are very conscious of resources right now.

They mix it up with a tough fight and then a tougher fighter, threw up leomunds tiny hut and just short rested.

Tiny hut, rope trick and cat nap make it easy for PCs to safely rest... especially with tiny hut as a ritual.


Hold up.

They're in Castle Ravenloft and it is easy for them to safely rest?

You should rethink how you're running that adventure. There is no horror or dread in that.

Strahd has control of the castle (and Barovia in general for that matter). They can only rest if he wills it.

They should never feel safe.


With 4-hour sessions, we usually manage 1 or 2, and sometimes 3 (if one of them is quick) combat encounters in a night. If the session is particularly roleplay-heavy, that number drops (sometimes to 0).

We've found that some "encounters" are hardly worth the time they take to play through. This includes the isolated trap that can't inflict enough damage to kill, so with healing being fairly easy such things get as much attention as driving through an automated toll collector on today's turnpike. Likewise, even at only 4th level, my group can just bypass many exploration encounters so it's not worth wasting more than a few minutes to describe what it is and letting them decide what resource to spend to bypass it. I wish there were a mechanical way to do this for pointless mook battles ("easy" and even some "medium" encounters) too because spending an hour to get to a foregone conclusion quickly becomes boring. And resolving downtime...what a drag.

It takes you an hour to resolve an easy encounter?

Combat in 5e should be easy to resolve quickly. Does your table have a lot of analysis paralysis? That's something to work on, esp. in these 'easy or medium' fights.

Combats should take an average of 3 rounds. That's how monsters are designed. Only rare combats should take longer than that for specific reasons (or because it is a multi-part encounter which is really just multiple encounters strung together). Each player's turn should be quick to resolve once everyone knows the rules. Maybe you're finding it tough because you're still just at 4th level?

[DeTess]

0-3 combat encounters in general, and a varying amount of non-combat ones. Do note that this is per session, and not necessarily per in-game day. Generally, a session can span multiple in-game days, but the combat encounters in it are always part of the same day, and that day might either be a run-over from the previous session, or run on into the next one.

@Trask, I can see what you mean about one big combat encounter. I tend to prefer running 2-3 encounters per long rest, and only really bust out the single massive encounters for really special occasions. That having been said, do your game sessions generally end the adventuring day at the end of the session, or could a single adventuring day commonly run over multiple sessions? If your group has an (even unspoken) assumption that you start every session at full resources, then your GM's might feel forced to run the really big encounters to ensure you're 'properly challenged' because they can't guarantee you'll see the multiple smaller encounters in one session. If that's the case, discussing that assumption might lead to a change for the better in your group.

[Sigreid]

I should say that most of the time the party's actions determine how often they are fighting but the party is aware that sometimes the world chooses for them so they dont want to spend all their resources every game day and have nothing in the tank.

[LudicSavant]

Depends on the DM. Going over the last several adventures I ran, I have an average of around 6, and we still find time for heavy roleplaying and exploration.

If you're struggling with time, you're probably getting hung up on a pacing issue somewhere. If you're "spending an hour to get to a foregone conclusion" then there's a lot you can be doing as a DM to improve the pacing.

I'll note that over decades of roleplaying with a wide variety of groups, I've witnessed a considerable difference in how efficiently DMs manage their time. So much so that I've seen DMs who can run an entire adventure chock full of complex setpiece encounters and roleplaying opportunities and dramatic story beats... in the time it takes some other DMs to get through a single bog standard encounter.

[ScoutTrooper]

Since the start of the table I DM for. It's been varying ranges, I think our first session I threw 8 encounters at them, mostly solo monsters, a few were gangs of goblins.

The table bite the plot hook and ran Sunless Citadel. The encounters really depended on their speed to get through the dungeon and took 4 sessions to clear. They got through roughly five to eight encounters. We've had a total of 2 sessions have zero encounters, both involved heavy RP'ing in-town.

For the other table I play at, the DM usually throws 4 to 6 encounters at us. He's been pretty good about doing beginning, middle and ends for our 4 hour sessions. Sometimes we cut early, once we've ran late.

[bc56]

In a two-hour session, two to four, more in dedicated dungeon environments. My players are very efficient in combat though. I know not every party could do that.

[Misterwhisper]

Been playing since beta, never once have I ever played in a game that had more than 1 important fight per session, sometimes there would be like a kill the grunts type fight before where is was just a time waster, but even that was super rare.

It usually goes like this:

1. Is this a grunt fight or a boss fight?
a. if a grunt fight, don't bother spending resources just let the fighter/rogue/barbarian kill them and use cantrips.
b. if it is a boss type fight, casters unload and kill it in 2 turns. Non-casters just clear out the peons.

2. Rest afterwards. if you even need to.

3. Move on.

[EggKookoo]

Maybe a useful metric is to ask how many combat encounters per session hour?

For me it's about one. Which isn't to say it takes an hour to resolve a fight. We just do other things during that hour as well, such as social encounters or exploration.

[Keravath]

The last module I played had 6 combat encounters though the last one consisted of trying to achieve the objective but then deciding discretion was the better part of valor and jumping overboard before the ship sank. My level 2 cleric had used all their spell slots by the end of the third encounter so I was left with cantrips :) ... the level 4 bard managed to save a spell from magic initiate until the 4th or 5th encounter. The 4th level evoker wizard saved all their spell slots until the 3rd to 5th encounters using cantrips before that (mostly because their favorite spell was burning hands and the opponents weren't in a good position to hit the most targets before that.

It was lots of fun. I think we managed one short rest in there. The second short rest attempt was interrupted.

P.S. Playing time was about 5 to 5.5 hours. There was a social encounter at the beginning.

[False God]

Combat encounters? 1-2. They're not big or special, the party is just in an open world and there aren't a lot of monsters roaming around.

Lots of "skill encounters" though. Open-world survival and whatnot.

[Imbalance]

I'm not even sure how to describe what typical means for the sessions I have. Does length in time matter? The current 5e home game i run creeps along with sessions that last two hours at most. My Sunday group gets in about five hours with a different system that are about half bs but also steady and heavy on exploration and problem-solving. The 5e campaign I was in previously had just as much social goofing with a different pace and sporadic encounter ratio. I don't recall ever having a session, as player or DM, with zero encounters. It's probably worth disclaiming that my lack of experience leaves me in doubt about whether Cragmaw Castle counts as a single encounter or multiples, because my players managed to alert the entire building to their presence. Likewise, as a player, is it a single encounter when the enemies come in waves, and while we roll initiative each time my fighter never sheathed his sword for two and a half sessions? Does being stuck in a trap for an entire session count?

Honestly, it's all over the place, nothing is typical, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

[HappyDaze]

It takes you an hour to resolve an easy encounter?

Combat in 5e should be easy to resolve quickly. Does your table have a lot of analysis paralysis? That's something to work on, esp. in these 'easy or medium' fights.

Combats should take an average of 3 rounds. That's how monsters are designed. Only rare combats should take longer than that for specific reasons (or because it is a multi-part encounter which is really just multiple encounters strung together). Each player's turn should be quick to resolve once everyone knows the rules. Maybe you're finding it tough because you're still just at 4th level?

Set up game board/map*, place minis*, roll initiatives, and arrange combat tracker by initiatives tends to take up the same amount of time regardless of whether it's an easy encounter or a harder one.

Making combat maps in advance can be a waste of time for the DM if the players bypass the encounter and so too is pre-pulling all of the minis for the encounter (although this doesn't take too much time as I'm willing to use very loose representations rather than wasting time looking for the perfect bad guy mini). Needless to say, we're not going to pre-roll initiatives and have trackers made for "might happen" encounters.

Beyond that, many of our encounters last 4-5 rounds (and some of the tougher ones have lasted a bit over 10 rounds). Not sure where the 3 round idea comes from, but for us, it's fiction.

* EDIT: As a GM, I love "theater of the mind" gaming, but two of my players MUST have combat maps and minis for every encounter. They are also the ones that are super picky about all tactical movement and AoE placement. This makes our D&D combats much slower than combats I run in other systems.

[ad_hoc]

Set up game board/map*, place minis*, roll initiatives, and arrange combat tracker by initiatives tends to take up the same amount of time regardless of whether it's an easy encounter or a harder one.

Making combat maps in advance can be a waste of time for the DM if the players bypass the encounter and so too is pre-pulling all of the minis for the encounter (although this doesn't take too much time as I'm willing to use very loose representations rather than wasting time looking for the perfect bad guy mini). Needless to say, we're not going to pre-roll initiatives and have trackers made for "might happen" encounters.


How much time is that? It takes me 30 seconds to draw on our blank grid plastic the layout.

I do tend to pull minis ahead of time if I know whereabouts they are. Even if I don't I have mine sorted for easy finding. Another 30 seconds maybe.

Initiative should be super fast. Everyone rolls. At our table one person uses a marker to write the order on the battle map. Again, not very much time. (though we have actually switched to Greyhawk Initiative where we don't have a set order)





Beyond that, many of our encounters last 4-5 rounds (and some of the tougher ones have lasted a bit over 10 rounds). Not sure where the 3 round idea comes from, but for us, it's fiction.

* EDIT: As a GM, I love "theater of the mind" gaming, but two of my players MUST have combat maps and minis for every encounter. They are also the ones that are super picky about all tactical movement and AoE placement. This makes our D&D combats much slower than combats I run in other systems.

It comes from Jeremy Crawford on how the game was designed as well as most people's experience I would imagine.

If you have players with severe analysis paralysis then at some point it is their responsibility to pick up the pace. We switched to Greyhawk initiative for the AP players in our group.

That sounds like it might not help your particular players.

One of the primary jobs of the DM is pacing. Whether in encounter design or actual play time at the table. The DM might just need to tell them to stop being so finnicky and just get on with it. If a PC needs to move a far distance over a couple rounds and the player is putting effort into counting every 5ft I just tell them not to worry about it. It doesn't matter if you moved 55 or 65ft this round if you only need to move 20ft next round.

I think 5e is designed well to have quick paced combats. I would work on your group think and maybe ask around to get more advice on how to speed things up. It sounds like that will increase your enjoyment of the game.

[Man_Over_Game]

It comes from Jeremy Crawford on how the game was designed as well as most people's experience I would imagine.

There are a few things in the DMG you can find that refer to it, although they're hard to find:




DMG p.278, Overall Damage Output:

"To determine a monster's overall damage output, take the average damage it deals with each of its attacks in a round and add them together. [...] If a monster's damage output varies from round to round, calculate its damage output each round for the first three rounds of combat, and take the average."

DMG p.281, Monster Features section on estimating the effect of Regeneration on CR calculations:

"Increase the monster's effective hit points by 3 x the number of hit points the monster regenerates each round."

So you could estimate that "real" combat is intended to last around 3 rounds. That is, the time between when the two melee lines lock in place, and when one side should start to flee.

As for what that length really is, I'd say about 2 rounds with big tables, or 4 rounds with a good DM. So 3 seems accurate.

[EggKookoo]

So 3 seems accurate.

Anecdotally, my combats tend to last three rounds on average. By the beginning of the third round, the fight is largely decided. That's when I try to decide if I'm going to have low-HP opponents run or beg for their lives. Or charge in suicidally.

[Daphne]

Around 4 combat encounters, plus one or two traps/puzzles that might drain resources.

[HappyDaze]

I think 5e is designed well to have quick paced combats. I would work on your group think and maybe ask around to get more advice on how to speed things up. It sounds like that will increase your enjoyment of the game.

TBH. I don't like D&D all that much. IMO, there are a great many better games out there, but many are much harder to find players for. I don't really like my current group all that much either, but they are what I have. All of them are very casual gamers, and your 30 second timeframes are ludicrously short from how I see it working IRL. You experiences may be real to you, but I disbelieve them.

[HappyDaze]

There are a few things in the DMG you can find that refer to it, although they're hard to find:




DMG p.278, Overall Damage Output:

"To determine a monster's overall damage output, take the average damage it deals with each of its attacks in a round and add them together. [...] If a monster's damage output varies from round to round, calculate its damage output each round for the first three rounds of combat, and take the average."

DMG p.281, Monster Features section on estimating the effect of Regeneration on CR calculations:

"Increase the monster's effective hit points by 3 x the number of hit points the monster regenerates each round."

So you could estimate that "real" combat is intended to last around 3 rounds. That is, the time between when the two melee lines lock in place, and when one side should start to flee.

As for what that length really is, I'd say about 2 rounds with big tables, or 4 rounds with a good DM. So 3 seems accurate.

That's basically a lot of theorycrafting that does not really match my actual play experiences.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's basically a lot of theorycrafting that does not really match my actual play experiences.

Play experiences or otherwise, that's the formula they recommend when creating new monsters. It's about as definite as the statblock of a kobold.

Anecdotally, most of my combat events lasted about 2-4 rounds.

How much of a difference is it for you?

[HappyDaze]

Play experiences or otherwise, that's the formula they recommend when creating new monsters. It's about as definite as the statblock of a kobold.

Anecdotally, most of my combat events lasted about 2-4 rounds.

How much of a difference is it for you?

4-5 rounds is typical.

[ad_hoc]

TBH. I don't like D&D all that much. IMO, there are a great many better games out there, but many are much harder to find players for. I don't really like my current group all that much either, but they are what I have. All of them are very casual gamers, and your 30 second timeframes are ludicrously short from how I see it working IRL. You experiences may be real to you, but I disbelieve them.

The average combat in my game, using minis and a grid, is about 20 minutes. 10 for a medium encounter and 30 for a deadly one.

I don't think your experience is the norm.

Personally I wouldn't play a game I didn't like even if it was the only game to play.



That's basically a lot of theorycrafting that does not really match my actual play experiences.

Only it is what most people's play experience is.

Your D&D 5e experience does not sound typical at all.

[Misterwhisper]

The average combat in my game, using minis and a grid, is about 20 minutes. 10 for a medium encounter and 30 for a deadly one.

I don't think your experience is the norm.

Personally I wouldn't play a game I didn't like even if it was the only game to play.




Only it is what most people's play experience is.

Your D&D 5e experience does not sound typical at all.

Unless it has broken down into an argument over rules I don’t remember ever seeing any fight last more than 15 mins of real-time.

Most don’t last 5 because 5e is so basic most rounds are “I do X damage to Y enemy next turn.”

[LordCdrMilitant]

I think it might be useful to mention how long your sessions are... You cannot really compare a 3/4 hour session after work with a full-day session from 13:00 to 22:00

That's a pretty good point.

My usual sessions are about 5 hours long. [18:00-23:00]

Many, if not most, sessions have no combat at all. Sometimes, sessions have one short engagement, with like a couple of individuals that's brief and over quickly [IE: suppressing a couple of guards to gain access to a building].

Most sessions that have any real amount of in-depth combat are practically entirely combat. Things like storming an enemy base, clearing case networks, and the likes. I usually structure it as "one giant encounter, with initiative only being rolled once and enemies just getting added or removed from the list as they become relevant to the engagement. That said, there's an argument to be made that it could be like 9-10 smaller encounters in each room as enemies defend, fall back, and counterattack and the party tries to advance.

[HappyDaze]

Unless it has broken down into an argument over rules I don’t remember ever seeing any fight last more than 15 mins of real-time.

Most don’t last 5 because 5e is so basic most rounds are “I do X damage to Y enemy next turn.”

Everyone in our group is a spellcaster. They generally have more options than simply making a simple attack (not that cantrips are ignored).

[Misterwhisper]

Everyone in our group is a spellcaster. They generally have more options than simply making a simple attack (not that cantrips are ignored).

Most damaging spells are pretty much the same,

Fireball: I do X damage to those guys
Scorching ray: I do x to that guy and y to the other

Most hampering spells just give disadvantage.

Maybe a min per round for a caster.
30 sec for a martial character.

5 mins for that guy at the table who has to look up every spell he has each round because he can’t plan or remember things.

[HappyDaze]

5 mins for that guy at the table who has to look up every spell he has each round because he can’t plan or remember things.

Multiply that by 3-4 (one guy usually decides quickly) and you get the hell that are my 20 minute combat rounds. Even a supposedly typical 3-turn combat takes an hour to play plus whatever is needed for set-up.

I've never seen the game played in "speed mode" where everyone takes 30 second turns like machines. Obviously the players themselves must be min-maxed to get that kind of performance.

[Misterwhisper]

Multiply that by 3-4 (one guy usually decides quickly) and you get the hell that are my 20 minute combat rounds. Even a supposedly typical 3-turn combat takes an hour to play plus whatever is needed for set-up.

I've never seen the game played in "speed mode" where everyone takes 30 second turns like machines. Obviously the players themselves must be min-maxed to get that kind of performance.

Martials especially archers are just pretty simple, make attacks, do damage, move on.

All placement does is give disadvantage.

Saves don’t take too long, roll multiple dice at once.

Even faster rounds if people have abilities that disable like stunning fist, hold person or the like.

If you have a person who likes summoning it could take a while but many times it is not worth the effort.

[ad_hoc]

Multiply that by 3-4 (one guy usually decides quickly) and you get the hell that are my 20 minute combat rounds. Even a supposedly typical 3-turn combat takes an hour to play plus whatever is needed for set-up.

I've never seen the game played in "speed mode" where everyone takes 30 second turns like machines. Obviously the players themselves must be min-maxed to get that kind of performance.

We don't rush things and have new players joining for every campaign I've played.

I don't think I'd be able to take hour long combats. When our big combats hit the 30 minute mark I start clocking out.

[da newt]

4 - 6 hrs of total time per session, 2-4 encounters per session is our norm (AL) but sometimes you can go a full day with 0 fights. An average encounter of a full 3-4 rounds tends to last about an hour of real time (party of 5-8). A boss fight of 5+ rounds can easily take 1.5 to 2 hrs to get through. We don't battle very efficiently.

We usually complete 1 adventuring day per session but more eventful days often take two sessions.

[djreynolds]

Hold up.

They're in Castle Ravenloft and it is easy for them to safely rest?

You should rethink how you're running that adventure. There is no horror or dread in that.

Strahd has control of the castle (and Barovia in general for that matter). They can only rest if he wills it.

They should never feel safe.



They are killing me. Deadly encounters, they just mow through stuff. They're a large party, but I make sure that they have adequate CR. 100% honest.

They are just so well balanced because of the size of the party they all have redundancies.

The wolf totem barbarian is killing me, for real. The paladin comes by and GWM and smites like crazy.... the horror

They're near the end.... 10th level.... and the have the "Wizard" now on their side. I even killed their other allies off... all of them.

They're just a well-oiled machine.

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Depends heavily on the dm/style of story.
My longest running one as a player tends to be 3-4 combat and 2-3 puzzles this is with generally 1 short rest.

I had one campaign that was always 2 combats with a short rest between.

Another the dm only ever had one encounter per long rest no matter what else happened.

As a dm I have generally found that after the 3re combat encounter my players prioritize resting a lot unless they have a hard time limit in game.

Edit I misread the question.
Generally 2-5 combats depending on where in a quest we are.

[WadeWay33]

I've had six in one session.

I play a bard.

We already had 4 in this 'adventuring day'

I spent 4 hours (real time) dashing and disengaging.

It was not fun.

[Sigreid]

Today was 2...with a few failed stealth checks and bad initiative rolls bringing the campaign to a fiery end.

[prabe]

The session I ran last night was pretty typical. It ran four hours and there were three combats. Some of the table time involved the PCs attempting to find the things they were going to fight. The first fight was over before the bad guys had a chance to act. The second fight also went pretty quickly (because my dice tanked). The third fight took pretty close to an hour, I think (I didn't time it). Six 11th-level characters, 3 Horned Devils. Lots of complex options. I think it ran four or maybe five rounds, and took like an hour of table time (I wasn't keeping track of either).

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly, it's all over the place, nothing is typical, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Yeah, our games are all over the map.

With some groups, we get about 4 encounters per adventure day, and the DM rarely makes them easy or medium. Usually hard or more ... but our sessions can take forever and thus it takes two sessions to make up an adventure day sometimes.

When I DM I try to keep the pace of combat rapid; but not all players get on board with that. I shoot for 3 to 4 combat encounters per adventure day, but sometimes it is one "great big mother of all battles" based on how the players approach the situation. (I tend to have the AD&D 1e DM habit of sending in reinforcements into combat when the sound of fighting begins, with movement delayed by a die roll number of rounds ... so we get quite a few "running battles" in one campaign. )

When my brother DM's we always have at least two social encounters. We rarely have more than two combats in an adventure day, and I think that has to do with RL constraining how much prep he can do. The difficulty is all over the map.

We had a DM run back in 2015 where we consistently got 4 to 5 encounters per adventure day, and none of them were easy, and very few were 'medium' ... and we played on line. That was, once again, a campaign where some players were quick with a decision, and others took all day to make a decision.

TBH. I don't like D&D all that much. IMO, there are a great many better games out there, but many are much harder to find players for. I don't really like my current group all that much either, but they are what I have. All of them are very casual gamers, and your 30 second timeframes are ludicrously short from how I see it working IRL. You experiences may be real to you, but I disbelieve them. That wasn't a very constructive response. One of the groups I play with has players who are "on" - we tend to have our action prepared before the DM calls on us. Combat is fast and furious. I love it when play goes that way, as a player.

But that's not what most of the games are like: most of them are heavily social in character, the groups, and I have chosen not to press the issue with pace of play. We are there to have fun. :smallsmile:

@Man_Over_Game

To answer your lead question: it's all over the map.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Yeah, our games are all over the map.

With some groups, we get about 4 encounters per adventure day, and the DM rarely makes them easy or medium. Usually hard or more ... but our sessions can take forever and thus it takes two sessions to make up an adventure day sometimes.


Oh yeah. I try to keep encounters from being easy or medium or anything. If it requires setting up an encounter, [more than a roll to vaporize a sleepy sentry or something else trivial that can be done without setting up a battlefield], it should be at least challenging to make it worth the time.

[HappyDaze]

Oh yeah. I try to keep encounters from being easy or medium or anything. If it requires setting up an encounter, [more than a roll to vaporize a sleepy sentry or something else trivial that can be done without setting up a battlefield], it should be at least challenging to make it worth the time.

I agree, but this is also because I seem to lack the ability to set-up maps and minis in under 2 minutes like some posters here have indicated that they can do. I also cannot walk on water.

[Bubzors]

How many encounters do you actually experience in a typical session?





Please keep the discussion on the topic of "Did", not "Should". Too many of these threads dissolve into a balance concern involving Warlocks vs. Wizards, and I'm really interested in gathering people's real experiences on this.

Personally, I don't think I've had more than two.

Been running 5e for the same group of people since release. Depends exactly what you mean for encounter and what type of session it is going to be. But usually there are 3 or 4 combat encounters, plus exploration and RP in between in a 3.5/4 hour session.

If there is a boss fight or a big combat, knock that down to 2 or 3 combats for session.

But unless there is a dungeon crawl there is usually a lot of RP and exploration between the combats. The combats definitely do not take up the majority of time. I find that the majority of time is spent on the party arguing on the best course of action lol.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree, but this is also because I seem to lack the ability to set-up maps and minis in under 2 minutes like some posters here have indicated that they can do. I also cannot walk on water. What do you use for a map? I have an 80's era battlemap that accepts water based markers that makes sketching in the room/terrain quick.
The minis: depends on the encounter, but yeah, that can take some time.

[HappyDaze]

What do you use for a map? I have an 80's era battlemap that accepts water based markers that makes sketching in the room/terrain quick.
The minis: depends on the encounter, but yeah, that can take some time.

One of these (https://www.officesupply.com/office-supplies/paper-pads/notebooks-pads-filler-paper/easel-pads/tops-grid-square-ruled-easel-pads/p14168.html?ref=pla&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=&scid=scplp14168&sc_intid=14168&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwP3yBRCkARIsAABGiPpGUFZrpINiFOYVF1DH YuBBDIKJZUADHgQLafODCATMd_7eSfjO1JsaAguXEALw_wcB) and about two-dozen colors of Sharpie markers. We lay if flat on the table, and the 1" squares work fine for minis.

This lets us revisit maps if/when we backtrack or set up camp "in the dungeon" (or ship, or whatever)

[Hail Tempus]

One of these (https://www.officesupply.com/office-supplies/paper-pads/notebooks-pads-filler-paper/easel-pads/tops-grid-square-ruled-easel-pads/p14168.html?ref=pla&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=&scid=scplp14168&sc_intid=14168&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwP3yBRCkARIsAABGiPpGUFZrpINiFOYVF1DH YuBBDIKJZUADHgQLafODCATMd_7eSfjO1JsaAguXEALw_wcB) and about two-dozen colors of Sharpie markers. We lay if flat on the table, and the 1" squares work fine for minis.

This lets us revisit maps if/when we backtrack or set up camp "in the dungeon" (or ship, or whatever) Wow, that looks like a great option. Just ordered it from Amazon,

[Man_Over_Game]

American wrapping paper is dirt cheap and has 1-inch grids on the back.

I also use bottle caps for figures, or something for figures to stand on to represent different statuses (if players already have their own figurines.

I'm a cheap bastard, but it works.

[ZerohFG]

How many encounters do you actually experience in a typical session?

Typical session 1-3 in games I DM.
The DM I am a player for, 4 Deadly encounters in a row. Like clockwork, every sunday.

[LordCdrMilitant]

American wrapping paper is dirt cheap and has 1-inch grids on the back.

I also use bottle caps for figures, or something for figures to stand on to represent different statuses (if players already have their own figurines.

I'm a cheap bastard, but it works.

I have a couple of different approaches:
The first, and the one that requires the most preparation, is to make a bunch of paper cut-outs for the players and enemies. I have a big accumulated box of them that gives me a lot of flexibility to use. I have a couple of white boards and a big box of KEVA brand blocks that I can use to draw and build terrain upon.
The second, and the least effort intense one, is just to draw on the whiteboards or chalkboards and use letter to represent the players.
I also use 40k miniatures when playing 40k RPG's, because I have a lot of them.

I don't usually use the grid. I just build with blocks or draw and then use a tape measure as everybody moves around.

[jas61292]

How many encounters do you actually experience in a typical session?

It can vary, certainly, but I'd say 3 is fairly normal. Now, of course, that is per session, not per adventuring day. That is something very different.

But yeah, looking at the campaign I just started DMing recently, we have had three sessions so far. During the first session there were 4 encounters, all in one adventuring day. The second session featured 2 encounters, but was still the same adventuring day as session one. Then, in our most recent session, there were 3 encounters. The first one was the only one that adventuring day, while the latter two were on the same day. And while we have not done it yet, I'm expecting three or four more encounters next time, which wil pick up on thr same day as last time.

So yeah, per session, probably 3 is normal. But per "day", that varies much more.

[Anymage]

Generally one per session. We use a lot of minis and fights gobble up a fair amount of time.

Last few games we've been stuck in a dungeon, so I've been minding spell slot usage for the party while the DM has been minding everything else. So it's been three encounters per de facto adventuring "day" so far. Before that we could usually count on one or two encounters at most before we could expect a long rest.

I do find that having to mind resources between game sessions is often a big limiter to practically meeting the expected set of daily encounters.

[CapnWildefyr]

We tend to game between 4-6 hours, with 1-4 encounters per game day. No correlation to adventuring day. We use the old megamatt too, with markers and minis. Combats vary in length; I am dming 10th levels, and if we had short fights all would be bored. The bad guys run, talk, regroup. I bottle up the party and throw minions at them. I try to keep every encounter different as much as possible so there can't be a single strategy. Its hard. My party is all martials--they can wreak havoc, the ranger routinely does 30+ per round because he crits a lot.

[HappyDaze]

MAde it through two medium encounters last week, but probably could have made it through a few more if we hadn't had so many out of game distractions (new puppy in the house) and some longish roleplaying moments. The fights were quite a bit less complex than most we run with, and I was trying to push through them quickly. My players were almost down to 1 min turns (except for our ever-slow Bard player) and the fights only lasted 2 and 4 rounds. I'm not really sure the players enjoyed the faster combats though; two of them seemed almost disappointed it was over so quickly.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Depends on the session but we typically have at least 3 per session but 6 to 9 per long rest

Each session has at least one combat, one social, and one exploration encounter.

Sometimes it's up to the players on which is which. Social encounters are sometimes possible, sometimes not, depending on the situation... Just the other day, had a gate guard end up saying "nah, I don't even need this job" instead of fighting to the death.

[LordCdrMilitant]

The average combat in my game, using minis and a grid, is about 20 minutes. 10 for a medium encounter and 30 for a deadly one.

I don't think your experience is the norm.

Personally I wouldn't play a game I didn't like even if it was the only game to play.

Only it is what most people's play experience is.

Your D&D 5e experience does not sound typical at all.

My typical experience running is that a combat encounter lasts about half or more of the session [approximately 3 hours per encounter]. It used to last the entire session, then I extended the sessions.

It typically goes on for rounds and rounds, several dozen.

With other GM's, they're usually a bit shorter, but still like 6-12 rounds of combat and a couple of hours.



They are killing me. Deadly encounters, they just mow through stuff. They're a large party, but I make sure that they have adequate CR. 100% honest.

They are just so well balanced because of the size of the party they all have redundancies.

The wolf totem barbarian is killing me, for real. The paladin comes by and GWM and smites like crazy.... the horror

They're near the end.... 10th level.... and the have the "Wizard" now on their side. I even killed their other allies off... all of them.

They're just a well-oiled machine.

Try making the encounters ever harder? How many are there?

If you give them like 8-10 encounters per day, and make them all very difficult, then they'll probably find the game more appropriate.

IIRC CR is based around an assumed like 4-5 person party, so if there's an really big party your baddies need to be tougher and maybe harder hitting, but at least able to hit multiple people sometimes.




What do you use for a map? I have an 80's era battlemap that accepts water based markers that makes sketching in the room/terrain quick.
The minis: depends on the encounter, but yeah, that can take some time.

I mentioned it already, but a whiteboard I can draw on, blocks, and paper cut outs. I don't usually need a grid. It works really well as long as nobody breathes on the paper cut outs. I also have little chip and 40k miniatures to use when they're appropriate, which alleviates the concerns about the cutouts but aren't always applicable or clear when there are a lot of different enemies in the fight.

[ad_hoc]

I do find that having to mind resources between game sessions is often a big limiter to practically meeting the expected set of daily encounters.

Why is that? Just a couple ticks on a sheet, no?


My typical experience running is that a combat encounter lasts about half or more of the session [approximately 3 hours per encounter]. It used to last the entire session, then I extended the sessions.

It typically goes on for rounds and rounds, several dozen.

With other GM's, they're usually a bit shorter, but still like 6-12 rounds of combat and a couple of hours.



I have a hard time imagining what that even looks like.

Yours is the most atypical game I've heard of yet.

Consider the game is designed around an expected 3 rounds per combat and yours routinely take over 36.

Are you sure it is the right game for you?

[HappyDaze]

My typical experience running is that a combat encounter lasts about half or more of the session [approximately 3 hours per encounter]. It used to last the entire session, then I extended the sessions.

It typically goes on for rounds and rounds, several dozen.

With other GM's, they're usually a bit shorter, but still like 6-12 rounds of combat and a couple of hours.



That greatly exceeds even my own experiences. I often see 4-6 round combats and a few have hit a dozen or so rounds, but several dozen? If I'm doing something wrong, it sounds like you've got a double dose. But as long as everyone is having fun, keep it up!

[MaxWilson]

That greatly exceeds even my own experiences. I often see 4-6 round combats and a few have hit a dozen or so rounds, but several dozen? If I'm doing something wrong, it sounds like you've got a double dose. But as long as everyone is having fun, keep it up!

Probably just bigger, more complex encounters. At 7th level, an encounter with 5 Githyanki Warriors at 20' range is a short, 2-3 round encounter and rea-time 10-20 minutes encounter if the Githyanki just attack until they're dead; but an encounter where the party stumbles across a small castle held by a dozen Githyanki Warriors, a Young Red Dragon, and a Githyanki Gish, with two Githyankis on watch from a tower and the others scattered initially throughout the castle grounds... several dozen rounds (several game-time minutes) is absolutely plausible for that, especially if both sides play strategically and seek the upper hand (use partial/total cover, Githyanki mobility, seeking local force superiority before engaging decisively, etc.).

Also the more complex the players' decision-making, the longer rounds will take in real-time, even if they don't feel long. You just look up at the clock and realize that you've been fighting for the past two hours and there's still at least three bad guys left.

[HappyDaze]

Probably just bigger, more complex encounters. At 7th level, an encounter with 5 Githyanki Warriors at 20' range is a short, 2-3 round encounter and rea-time 10-20 minutes encounter if the Githyanki just attack until they're dead; but an encounter where the party stumbles across a small castle held by a dozen Githyanki Warriors, a Young Red Dragon, and a Githyanki Gish, with two Githyankis on watch from a tower and the others scattered initially throughout the castle grounds... several dozen rounds (several game-time minutes) is absolutely plausible for that, especially if both sides play strategically and seek the upper hand (use partial/total cover, Githyanki mobility, seeking local force superiority before engaging decisively, etc.).

Also the more complex the players' decision-making, the longer rounds will take in real-time, even if they don't feel long. You just look up at the clock and realize that you've been fighting for the past two hours and there's still at least three bad guys left.


OK, I can see something like that taking many, many turns but that is largely because most such things would be handled as multiple smaller encounters rather than a single massive & complex one.

[Amdy_vill]

most of my games have 0-2 encounters but thats because my group tends to spend more time on RP. in our combat heavy games we tend to only have 2-3 encounters.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

most of my games have 0-2 encounters but thats because my group tends to spend more time on RP. in our combat heavy games we tend to only have 2-3 encounters.

Encounters aren't just combat

Social and exploration encounters are a thing. You may be having some very long social encounters.

[Hail Tempus]

My typical experience running is that a combat encounter lasts about half or more of the session [approximately 3 hours per encounter]. It used to last the entire session, then I extended the sessions.

It typically goes on for rounds and rounds, several dozen.

With other GM's, they're usually a bit shorter, but still like 6-12 rounds of combat and a couple of hours. Can you maybe describe one of these encounters? I don't think I've ever seen an encounter where one minute long spells like Bless needed to be refreshed during the encounter. And, this includes things like the final fights in Princes of the Apocalypse and in Curse of Strahd.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think I've ever seen an encounter where one minute long spells like Bless needed to be refreshed during the encounter. Played a good bit of life cleric, we started playing 5e in 2014.
This happened once to me and I have never seen another cleric have it happen to them.
Bless ran out before the fight was over.
I didn't refresh it; I was out of spell slots.

[LordCdrMilitant]

That greatly exceeds even my own experiences. I often see 4-6 round combats and a few have hit a dozen or so rounds, but several dozen? If I'm doing something wrong, it sounds like you've got a double dose. But as long as everyone is having fun, keep it up!

Lets see, recent encounter groups [none of these are from D&D 5e, because I'm not currently running a 5e game, but still]:

10 Necron Warriors, 5 Lychguard, 5 Triarch Praetorians, 1 Necron Overlord without her weapon.

1 Well-Armed Noble, 20 Bodyguards, 11 Hostages [this encounter was actually averted by negotiation]

1 Daemon-Tank [Crew of 1: Keeper of Secrets], 1 Medusa Siege Gun [Crew of 6: Commander, Driver, Hull Machinegunner, Gunner, 2 Loaders], 1 AA Halftrack [Crew of 8: Driver, Pintle Machinegunner, Gun Commander, Gunner, 4 Loaders], 6 Technical Trucks [Crew of 4: Driver, Commander, Machinegunner, Assistant Machinegunner], 4 Cultist Squads [Horde Unit], 3 PDF Defector Squads [Horde Unit], 1 Bloodthrister Daemonhost, 1 Khornate Champion BSB, 1 Tzeentchian Renegade Warlord, 1 Slaaneshi Renegade Psyker & Minion, 1 Renegade Psyker.

7 Kataphron Destroyers, 11 Tech Priests, 100 Mixed Skitarii [Vanguard, Rangers, Infiltrators, Ruststalkers], 10 Guardsmen, 1 Guard Lascannon Team, 5 Stormtroopers, 1 Commissar, 1 Imperial Psyker.

30 Hormagaunts, 10 Termagaunts, 15 Genestealers, 2 Hive Tyrants, 2 Carnifexes, 1 Barbed Heirodule, 2 Harridans, 2 Gargoyle Squads [Horde Unit], 4 Hormagaunt Squads [Horde Unit], 2 Termagaunt Squads [Horde Unit]



From D&D games I have run in the past, encounters have included [something along the lines of]:
6 Assassin Teams, 1 Vampire, 40 Assorted Criminals, 8 Frost Elementals

16 Assorted ShadarKai Shock Troopers, 4 ShadarKai Casters

6 Dwarf Necromancers, 1 Dwarf War Machine, 30 Dwarf Zombies

[Hail Tempus]

I can't speak to any other game, but those D&D encounters have way too many monsters. I can see why your fights take so long, and I imagine they move at a glacial pace, since there are going to be so many different monsters to account for.

I highly recommend keeping your encounters more tightly focused. For the standard party of 4-5, the sweet spot seems to be no more than two monsters for every PC.

Pages 88-92 in Xanathar's has some quick calculations of how many monsters are appropriate per PC, based on PC level and CR of the monsters. You should take a look at it.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I can't speak to any other game, but those D&D encounters have way too many monsters. I can see why your fights take so long, and I imagine they move at a glacial pace, since there are going to be so many different monsters to account for.

I highly recommend keeping your encounters more tightly focused. For the standard party of 4-5, the sweet spot seems to be no more than two monsters for every PC.

Pages 88-92 in Xanathar's has some quick calculations of how many monsters are appropriate per PC, based on PC level and CR of the monsters. You should take a look at it.

They actually run pretty quickly [as in, we can chalk up a lot of rounds very quickly if the players aren't stopping to think too long], because I assign them group initiatives. Either a policy where "troop" enemies all go together and "hero" enemies have individual initiative, or where squads are assigned an an initiative step.

And sometimes, not all of them are always present on the battlefield, arriving as reinforcement waves as the battle progresses. In the one with the Skitarii, it started with only 10 skitarii and 1 kataprhon on the board, but once the players breached the door into the next room where the enemy had set up a defensive position, they started arriving in squads of 10 every maybe 8-10 rounds from three access points, with the Guardsmen and Psyker arriving part way through the fight from dropships behind the party to catch them in a crossfire from behind.

It's easier to go faster in other games, because the it rarely comes up to the spellcaster who hasn't figured out which of her limited resources she's going to use this turn, and everybody's turn is "shoot then move" or vice versa. Of course, sometimes it does stop if the players need to take a moment to strategize.



I don't usually pay mind to the whole recommendation on encounter groups. They usually wind up with encounters that are too easy for my players. I have my own encounter-making policy, which roughly translates to: Make sure that for each party member, there's a threat [which could be a single enemy or could be a large group of enemies working together] that they can't effectively suppress that somebody else in the party can deal with. Then, add two to four of each of those threats and prepare the battlefield to make it hard for them to service all the threats as quickly as they would like to. This sometimes creates very large encounters, and whether I use a horde group or a lot of single enemies usually comes down to how I want them to take damage and whether the party using chokepoints and defensive positions and tight spaces is intended to factor into the encounter solution.

I've yet to kill my players [or at least, kill them because they ran out of health and failed three death saving throws in combat], and the encounters are usually well remembered. I generally try to avoid presenting encounters that aren't hard and don't use random wandering encounters. Usually, the flow of my campaigns will be several sessions without meaningful combat [there might be a single roll to assassinate someone or something], and then one session where half or more of it is a really big combat or string of a lot of smaller ones.



I don't always make big combats though. If I want the event to be epic and heroic and exciting, I make it large and very challenging. If I want the event to feel exhausting and attritive, I aim for having a lot of smaller, but still resource-consuming, encounters. That said, I do this sparingly, because my players don't like it as much.

[cZak]

Our d20 group of five players
The DM is a first time runner. She's been splendid on mixing things up using the Lost Mines as a general background

We usually get a good 2 to 3 non-combat encounters per session, tho they usually only involve maybe one to three of the players.
I'm a big fan of RP interactions but I try not to Bogart the table time with solo actions, trying to draw in the other players to such

Combat, we could get 1 to 5 per session
If we ended last session at the 'cave opening' next session is pretty good for four +/- combats

[HiveStriker]

@OP Hi!

Really depends on many things, so first let's define.
- Encounter: any kind of challenge that may require some resources consumption or entail specific consequences to actions.
- Fights: encounters that are resolved through harm and possibly kill.

Evaluation timeframe: adventuring day (not real life session).

So.
As a player, I'd say in most adventures I played, I had around 5 encounters, with at least 1 social and 2 fights of varying difficulty (at least one battle where we have to focus).

As a GM, I try to mix&match various kind of encounters, but in as much a reactive way as possible (we usually play "sandbox" kind of games, even if I take a printed adventure I'll use it quite liberally).
So, in "normal" days with no specific context, I try to keep the following minimum: 1 social challenge, 1 "adventuring" (gathering information/scouting/surviving) encounter, 1 "theater of the mind" fight just to deplete some resources whenever such event makes sense (obviously you won't get a fight if traveling on safe roads or staying in library all day ^^). Usually the task/quest my players undertake brings a battlemap fight too.
That's about the most consistency I can muster. Besides that, sometimes they'll spend all day fighting (getting lost/trapped in a dungeon, trying to defend an outpost), sometimes it will be a session in which 2 hours are spent roleplaying a strategy set up and 3 others actually facing the BBEG, and some times there won't be any fight during several sessions but lots of checks of various nature because the characters are either playing a long shot or pushing their own personal objectives.

I just try to slightly adjust the pace in a proactive way if I feel some players are too pushy for the others, or the sandboxing gets a dynamic that is too different from what the group enjoys.
And when such a group is particularly enjoying fights but has unbalance in powers, I try to define quests where getting several encounters of different difficulty feels coherent, to avoid the "one-fight in all day supremacy" of casters.

Soooo... Overall varies wildly. :) If I had to hazard a guess on average number of fights, I'd say 3, with only one too dangerous/complex to skip tactical view.


Hold up.
It takes you an hour to resolve an easy encounter?

Combat in 5e should be easy to resolve quickly. Does your table have a lot of analysis paralysis? That's something to work on, esp. in these 'easy or medium' fights.

Combats should take an average of 3 rounds. That's how monsters are designed. Only rare combats should take longer than that for specific reasons (or because it is a multi-part encounter which is really just multiple encounters strung together). Each player's turn should be quick to resolve once everyone knows the rules. Maybe you're finding it tough because you're still just at 4th level?
Please don't contribute in propagating that myth. Thanks in advance.

DMG just provide guidelines to design *a* custom monster, and using some metrics gatheredt in three rounds as a *hint* to its dangerosity.

Fights usually include *several* monsters, some of which may have abilities that completely change the power balance or expected time to kill.
Plus how intelligent, or not, you interpret some or all of them.
There is also the environment that can completely alter strategies and quickness too (traps, covers, unexpected events).
And there is the current state of player resources and resilience.

Let's pick the classic trope of needing to take control of some kind of fort. They have archers, they have sturdy walls, they have 30 feet of water separating from land.
Let's say you are a party of 4, level 6, the classic Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard.
If they are full resources, and are lucky enough to have the most adequate spells, they may devise a plan that ends in having the bridge put down so everyone can storm in (or making them cross water and climb wall fast enough to not get "hedgehogged" by defenders in the process. Even then, it will certainly last a couple of minutes to win.
Without specific spells like Fly / Spider Climb / Haste? Either come back later with Rogue in Disguise to infiltrate, or set up some makeshift covers and try an attrition war while you ask for reinforcments, or wait for night and try a sneaky attack. Won't last just 3 rounds either.

Take another classic trope of a fight in a dungeon, with somewhat narrow corridors. You may not have enough space to deploy all your melee party when you engage the fight, neither enough height or vantage points to bypass cover and rely on ranged attacks. Or you may simply prefer fighting strategically to conserve resources for another fight so you purposely retreat to a place small enough to make a chokepoint you can stand, instead of using some Fireball / Sickening Radiance.

3 rounds fights is a false stat.

Such a short duration can happen only when the following conditions are fulfilled: a) party has pertinent options b) has resources to use them c) enemy has nothing to prevent/weaken those options d) has no ability that has a good enough chance to outright disable or "turn" one or several party members (which usually implies there are not that dangerous in the first place, and using resource is half necessity half comfort).

This can happen quite easily in small dungeons while your making way towards the center, or when travelling in an area where you outpower the locals, or when you start your first fight of the day and don't mind blowing it all... Making it a generality? Largely too big of a stretch.

If you really want an indication of average, you'd better watch all the spell lists, and notice that most of combat ones (as well as spell-like features) last one minute. By that metric, you can suppose that designers expect most fights to end at most after 10 rounds. Making the average 5, not 3.

Play experiences or otherwise, that's the formula they recommend when creating new monsters. It's about as definite as the statblock of a kobold.

Anecdotally, most of my combat events lasted about 2-4 rounds.

How much of a difference is it for you?
Not at all confer above.
Those guidelines are just baseline at best, because they suppose a) party can focus fire on enemy from start b) enemy has no features that can single-handedly change the encounter.
Having a caster with spells such as Wind Wall or Spike Growth, for example, can heavily hamper party's ability as a whole to deal damage.
Your party may expect to put the baddest away with a Phantasmal Force or Banishment long enough to dispatch everyone else, turning the fight from difficult to trivial... But there is no guarantee your spell actually lands.
Things like that...

In my experience, fights that are played on theater of the mind last 2-3 rounds on average, simply because I don't use battlemaps when there is no particular challenge or when respective sides's tactics are obvious.
Also because imx it's a big pain to describe the situation in an accurate and plain enough manner that everyone can play tactically without falling into endless discussions about how one thought X when another thought Y and you thought Z. ^^
So it's usually "I describe the scene", "Initiative", "round 1 players blow the resources they want to spend on this fight", "round 2 and 3 basic focus firing until enemies all dead, surrender or flee". Unless their tactic failed in which case it can last up to 5 rounds.

On battlemaps? Usually 5-6, sometimes 8. On the rare occasions where it goes past 12-13 rounds it means fight has gone into a deadlock state so, unless my players said in session 0 they love that kind of situation, I'll help them break it (whether in their favor or not ^^).


In a two-hour session, two to four, more in dedicated dungeon environments. My players are very efficient in combat though. I know not every party could do that.
I have to concur on that (sadly XD).

Lets see, recent encounter groups [none of these are from D&D 5e, because I'm not currently running a 5e game, but still]:

10 Necron Warriors, 5 Lychguard, 5 Triarch Praetorians, 1 Necron Overlord without her weapon.

1 Well-Armed Noble, 20 Bodyguards, 11 Hostages [this encounter was actually averted by negotiation]

1 Daemon-Tank [Crew of 1: Keeper of Secrets], 1 Medusa Siege Gun [Crew of 6: Commander, Driver, Hull Machinegunner, Gunner, 2 Loaders], 1 AA Halftrack [Crew of 8: Driver, Pintle Machinegunner, Gun Commander, Gunner, 4 Loaders], 6 Technical Trucks [Crew of 4: Driver, Commander, Machinegunner, Assistant Machinegunner], 4 Cultist Squads [Horde Unit], 3 PDF Defector Squads [Horde Unit], 1 Bloodthrister Daemonhost, 1 Khornate Champion BSB, 1 Tzeentchian Renegade Warlord, 1 Slaaneshi Renegade Psyker & Minion, 1 Renegade Psyker.

7 Kataphron Destroyers, 11 Tech Priests, 100 Mixed Skitarii [Vanguard, Rangers, Infiltrators, Ruststalkers], 10 Guardsmen, 1 Guard Lascannon Team, 5 Stormtroopers, 1 Commissar, 1 Imperial Psyker.

30 Hormagaunts, 10 Termagaunts, 15 Genestealers, 2 Hive Tyrants, 2 Carnifexes, 1 Barbed Heirodule, 2 Harridans, 2 Gargoyle Squads [Horde Unit], 4 Hormagaunt Squads [Horde Unit], 2 Termagaunt Squads [Horde Unit]



From D&D games I have run in the past, encounters have included [something along the lines of]:
6 Assassin Teams, 1 Vampire, 40 Assorted Criminals, 8 Frost Elementals

16 Assorted ShadarKai Shock Troopers, 4 ShadarKai Casters

6 Dwarf Necromancers, 1 Dwarf War Machine, 30 Dwarf Zombies
When D&d 5e meets Warhammer... :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:
(I love tactical combat, more than majority of the friends I play with, but... This... Is a whole other dimension of mindblowing strategy. You may maybe consider trying the optional "group rules" WoTC published some time ago?)

[LudicSavant]

In the Roll20 campaign I'm playing today, we appear to be on our ninth encounter of the day. And it appears to have 57 monsters in it (no, I'm not kidding. One Deadly monster and fifty-six mooks. I am glad I saved a few of my Evoker AoEs!).

Edit And now that fight's over. And we apparently still have another encounter coming. So yeah. Definitely not in the "only 1-2 encounters a day" category! :smallsmile:

Note that this adventuring day has spanned 3 sessions. So I guess about 3 of those per session, plus tons of roleplaying.

[HappyDaze]

This week we had three combat encounters (taking 2 turns, 5 turns, and 4 turns, respectively, in length) plus two non-combat encounters (one social, one exploration) in 3.5 hours of play. The players are getting a little quicker, and the combats have also been with fewer & less complex monsters.

[bendking]

I never had more than two. We usually have one combat encounter per session.