Can Someone Walk Me Through A 3 Round Combat?

[Necrosnoop110]

So for years I've seen forums claim D&D combat is easily over for their party in just a few rounds (3-5 rounds is commonly stated). And that it is trivially easy to pull these 'short round combats' off. I been playing for decades in dozens of groups across multiple state lines. I have never once seen this. Combat seems to eat up tons of time with rounds almost always over 5-10+ between movement, distance, difficult terrain, bad rolls, injured and incapacitated PCs, three rounds, at least consistently, seems unsustainable.

Can someone walk me through a 4-6 PC party at appropriate levels and CR ratings without all PCs being at peak optimization, ending in three rounds? Am I the only one who has trouble seeing this at the gaming table? I'm having trouble envisioning it.

Thanks,
Necro

[noob]

So for years I've seen forums claim D&D combat is easily over for their party in just a few rounds (3-5 rounds is commonly stated). And that it is trivially easy to pull these 'short round combats' off. I been playing for decades in dozens of groups across multiple state lines. I have never once seen this. Combat seems to eat up tons of time with rounds almost always over 5-10+ between movement, distance, difficult terrain, bad rolls, injured and incapacitated PCs, three rounds, at least consistently, seems unsustainable.

Can someone walk me through a 4-6 PC party at appropriate levels and CR ratings without all PCs being at peak optimization, ending in three rounds? Am I the only one who has trouble seeing this at the gaming table? I'm having trouble envisioning it.

Thanks,
Necro

Often you can deduce which side have a crippling advantage over the other(or have obtained one) after a few rounds even if the actual fight would last longer (at which point one side might start running away: most monsters are not suicidal or heroes that will fight to the last breath for their purpose of making you spend 1% more resources so that you might start a short rest earlier and thus allow more of their allies to evacuate).
Also incapacitated pcs will rarely ever happen with the suggested encounter balance in the dmg(will happen only in the 5% hardest fights or something like that) even if the adventurers are single classed featless characters unless you are intentionally picking undercred monsters.

[stoutstien]

It's 3-5 on average rather than a range. That number is also the number of rounds when the encounter is still contested with the following rounds being unnecessary and could reasonably be handled outside of the blow by blow nature of initiative.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's 3-5 on average rather than a range. That number is also the number of rounds when the encounter is still contested with the following rounds being unnecessary and could reasonably be handled outside of the blow by blow nature of initiative. This. We have had some combats last 8, 9, or 10 rounds, but it's rare and is often associated with a running battle over multiple rooms/areas.

[Man_Over_Game]

You'll find that more players requires shorter rounds.

It's for the same reason that you don't split the party. When only one person is being interacted with at a time, the other 2 players are doing nothing. Add one more player, and now the other 3 players are doing nothing. More time gets wasted the more players you have during those 1-on-1 moments. A player's turn is just a very short 1-on-1, but it adds up.

Larger parties usually end the fight a little too short, but that's usually because about half of most parties aren't interested in combat, and they're starting to get bored. Players also do a lot more damage than you think they do, and AoE spells are pretty nuts in terms of damage calculations (damn fireball), which scale with the larger number of enemies, and the books discourage DMs from adding fewer, big monsters to deal with larger parties (or else you end up with rocket-tag, where players die without making any mistakes).

Each enemy monster also carries a bit of risk. The players have fun by playing, rarely by losing, so you don't want a situation where the players get murdered by a random encounter just because the DM didn't account for something. The bigger the party, the harder it is to balance.

So, long story short, 5+ player parties will almost always end around round 3 (with some cleanup on round 4), simply because the DM is sensing the game is dragging, he overtuned something and doesn't want the players to be struggling this much against this fight, or he did what all of us do and underestimates something like Fireball.

The 5-round combats are more likely to be seen with a smaller group of 3 players who are all familiar with one another and efficient with their turns to avoid wasting time.

[noob]

You'll find that more players requires shorter rounds.

It's for the same reason that you don't split the party. When only one person is being interacted with at a time, the other 2 players are doing nothing. Add one more player, and now the other 3 players are doing nothing. More time gets wasted the more players you have during those 1-on-1 moments. A player's turn is just a very short 1-on-1, but it adds up.

Larger parties usually end the fight a little too short, but that's usually because about half of most parties aren't interested in combat, and they're starting to get bored. Players also do a lot more damage than you think they do, and AoE spells are pretty nuts in terms of damage calculations (damn fireball), which scale with the larger number of enemies, and the books discourage DMs from adding fewer, big monsters to deal with larger parties (or else you end up with rocket-tag, where players die without making any mistakes).

Each enemy monster also carries a bit of risk. The players have fun by playing, rarely by losing, so you don't want a situation where the players get murdered by a random encounter just because the DM didn't account for something. The bigger the party, the harder it is to balance.

So, long story short, 5+ player parties will almost always end around round 3 (with some cleanup on round 4), simply because the DM is sensing the game is dragging, he overtuned something and doesn't want the players to be struggling this much against this fight, or he did what all of us do and underestimates something like Fireball.

The 5-round combats are more likely to be seen with a smaller group of 3 players who are all familiar with one another and efficient with their turns to avoid wasting time.
Most of that analysis is true but I might add that simultaneous action declaring and turns is something that is possible and can reduce the issue of players waiting for the turns of others: all the players picks their actions at once and then all the actions of the players and of the monsters are resolved at once instead of being done turn per turn then you restart for the next round.
Coincidentally it can increases the amount of action overlap and can increase the number of rounds fights takes: a classical example is bfc: with simultaneous turns you might have two players deciding "we both use bfc in case the other player do not catch many monsters with their bfc" instead of having one player bfc then the other seeing the success of the first decides to rather shoot arrows at the monsters or something.

[Chugger]

Sure. Many DMs in 5e start the fight by just having the party open the door or enter a room - and "roll initiative" - both sides start close to each other. This is because parties almost always have better range attacks than monsters - and it also speeds up combat - so you can get more fights into a limited amount of time. Also, most modules and hardcovers work this way - if you play Adventurer's League, you'll notice this tendency at work.

So, on round 1 a party of 4 or 5 characters is attacked by 3 giants. Giants don't have good Wis saves, and on round 1 the party's wiz bard lock or sorc does Hypnotic Pattern. Two of the Giants fail their saves. The third giant gets attacked by everyone else. Even if he wanted to burn an action to wake up a pal, they have moved up and blocked him. So he hits the barbarian, who is raging, and only does half damage.

At the end of round 1 this giant is bloody.

If one of the meleers has GWM (or an archer w/ SS) - and if they have a way to mitigate the -5 to hit penalty - they brutalize this giant on round 2. Giant dies.

For round 3 party surrounds a patterned giant and holds actions, attacking at once at optimal phase in the initiative order. DM says "stop, you kill the other giants one by one. I call it."

The fight would have lasted a bit longer, but there was no point in rolling all those dice. The DM called the fight - just ended it cuz no way the giants could win or even hurt someone - time to loot the giants and move on to the next encounter.

If a party has a strong controller, a lot of fights will go this way. If you can banish or polymorph a creature - or wall it off - or fear it away - or hyp pattern it - party divides and conquers - and wins (often too) easily.

[KorvinStarmast]

If a party has a strong controller, a lot of fights will go this way. If you can banish or polymorph a creature - or wall it off - or fear it away - or hyp pattern it - party divides and conquers - and wins (often too) easily. You have read my bard's mind. :smallsmile:

[Man_Over_Game]

If a party has a strong controller, a lot of fights will go this way. If you can banish or polymorph a creature - or wall it off - or fear it away - or hyp pattern it - party divides and conquers - and wins (often too) easily.

Man, the number of level 1-3 encounters that are just trivialized by Sleep is ridiculous.

[MaxWilson]

So for years I've seen forums claim D&D combat is easily over for their party in just a few rounds (3-5 rounds is commonly stated). And that it is trivially easy to pull these 'short round combats' off. I been playing for decades in dozens of groups across multiple state lines. I have never once seen this. Combat seems to eat up tons of time with rounds almost always over 5-10+ between movement, distance, difficult terrain, bad rolls, injured and incapacitated PCs, three rounds, at least consistently, seems unsustainable.

Can someone walk me through a 4-6 PC party at appropriate levels and CR ratings without all PCs being at peak optimization, ending in three rounds? Am I the only one who has trouble seeing this at the gaming table? I'm having trouble envisioning it.

Thanks,
Necro

Sure, here's a quick example of a fight that's quick because no one tries anything fancy:

Level 5 party vs. 3 CR 3 Githyanki Warriors (Hard encounter). Party is moderately optimized, consists of a level 5 Dex 16 Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert Eldritch Knight, a level 5 Moon Druid, a level 5 Str 18 GWM Bear Totem Barbarian, and a level 5 Cha 20 half-elf Lore Bard with Athletics Expertise.

For the sake of keeping my Internet post simple I'll just say this is using side initiative and the PCs won initiative: all the PCs get a turn, then all the Githyanki get a turn. This post isn't really about initiative, more about the numbers, so that shouldn't disrupt anything.


Round 1, the Lore Bard casts Hypnotic Pattern on two Githyanki who happen to be close together and gives a d8 Bardic Inspiration die to the EK, while the Moon Druid summons 8 wolves and wildshapes into a Giant Hyena and retreats 50' and the EK and Barb focus fire on Githyanki #3: EK will throw a net and then shoot his crossbow as a bonus action, and Barb will Rage and attempt to GWM (attacking Recklessly if the net missed in order to gain advantage anyway).

Githyankis have +3 on Wis saves vs. Bard's DC 16, need 13+ to save. Rolled: 16, 5. One of the Githyankis is hypnotized. The EK rolls 16 with his net (+8) and captures the AC 17 Githyanki in his net. Then he shoots (+3 for d6+13, needs 14+ to hit) and misses (adv(5,3) = 5). The Barb attacks twice (+2 to hit, 2d6+14 on a hit, needs 15+ to hit) and misses twice (adv(8,9)=9, and then again adv(8,9)=9).

The DM rules that the wolves don't get a turn until next round.

The two un-hypnotized Githyanki (call them #1 and #2) can't reach the Giant Hyena even with Misty Step so instead they focus on the Eldritch Knight, except the one in the net pauses to attack the net first. He rolls a 10 and hits the net, for 2d6+2=11 HP of damage, and then he attacks the AC 16 EK and rolls a 7, which misses. The other Githyanki rolls 7,6 and misses both times. (I originally rolled 7, 6, 12, 16 for 8d6+4 damage and 36 HP, but then I remembered the third Githyanki is still hypnotized. Lucky EK!)

Round 2, the wolves will strafe one of the Githyanki, the Druid will Dodge and stay out of range, the Lore Bard will attempt to Shove one of the Githyanki prone after the wolves go and will grant d8 inspiration to the Barb, the Sharpshooter and Barb will focus fire on any prone targets and try to take them out.

Eight wolf attacks at advantage: 7 hits and 44 points of damage total. 7 Strength saves at +3 vs. DC 11, the Githyanki fails the second save with a 4 and falls prone. But at least he gets in an opportunity attack first, rolls a 16 and then 4d6+2=21 damage, and kills one of the wolves. Since Githyanki #1 is prone and down 44 HP, the Lore Bard now Shoves Githyanki #2. d20+6 (Str 10 with Athletics Expertise)=21, vs. d20+2=15 for the Githyanki Warrior, and he falls down too. Sharpshooter rolls a adv(6,6)=6 to attack Githyanki #1, then an adv(7,7)=7, then an adv(6,2)=6, then Action Surges a non-powerattack shot (+8 to hit for d6+3) and rolls an adv(5,8)=8, spends that d8 of inspiration to boost that by d8=1 to a 9, and just barely hits the Githyanki's AC 17 for d6+3=4 HP of damage. The Githyanki is still up with 1 HP so the Sharpshooter, disgusted with himself and his bad luck, uses his last attack to shoot at +8, rolls a 3 (despite advantage: 3, 1 = 3), and still has a live opponent in front on him now.

So now the GWM Barbarian attacks at +7 for 2d6+6 (Rage Damage and Strength), gets a (14,6) which is 14 from advantage, and does 2d6+6=13 HP, downing the Githyanki and granting the Barb a bonus attack. He attacks Githyanki #2 now twice at +2 for 2d6+16, rolls adv(6,12)=12 and spends his d8 inspiration for d8=3 which hits for 2d6+16=23 HP, then adv(17, 19)=19 and hits again for 21 HP.

We're halfway through round 2 and the only Githyanki still left conscious is down 44 HP (out of 49). This is about the point where the combat loses dramatic tension and can probably be safely "ended" by the DM, as the Githyanki switches to surrender-or-flee mode.

Githyanki Misty Steps away and starts running.

Round 3 aborted: combat is effectively over.



If Githyanki #3 weren't hypnotized, he could probably draw things out for another fraction of a round, but fundamentally a Medium or Hard encounter is designed to be won quickly and thoroughly by the PCs. Admittedly the wolves help a lot here.

On the other hand, if the Githyanki were played as being more cunning and using Misty Step + movement between attacks to enable their hit-and-run tactics, things could have gone a lot differently: maybe only one Githyanki would have been hit by Hypnotic Pattern (so no one would have been hypnotized), it wouldn't be so easy to Shove them prone and have both warriors focus fire with advantage, the Barb wouldn't have been able to make those two attacks against Githyanki #2 after Githyanki #1 went down, etc.

Githyanki are pretty intelligent so I probably did them a disservice here by running them as stupid meatbags for the sake of argument--hopefully you can see how they easily could have been drawn out to 4 or 5 rounds if the Githyanki had been savvier. I guess these particular Githyanki were just dumb, and they deserve their Darwin award.

[Dr.Samurai]

So for years I've seen forums claim D&D combat is easily over for their party in just a few rounds (3-5 rounds is commonly stated). And that it is trivially easy to pull these 'short round combats' off. I been playing for decades in dozens of groups across multiple state lines. I have never once seen this. Combat seems to eat up tons of time with rounds almost always over 5-10+ between movement, distance, difficult terrain, bad rolls, injured and incapacitated PCs, three rounds, at least consistently, seems unsustainable.

Can someone walk me through a 4-6 PC party at appropriate levels and CR ratings without all PCs being at peak optimization, ending in three rounds? Am I the only one who has trouble seeing this at the gaming table? I'm having trouble envisioning it.

Thanks,
Necro
Excellent question. I have seen this repeated myself and have wondered how in the world this can be the case. Many optimizers online rate spells/feats/features on the assumption that combat will be over in a handful of rounds and I've never seen that happen at the table myself.

Judging by the responses thus far, it appears the fight is "called" in 3 rounds generally. I appreciate MaxWilson's example, but Max do you think it would change much if all the PCs didn't go before all the Gith?

[Kane0]

One caster lays down a good blast or conc spell at the start of combat, one support character assists with casting or something like advantage/inspiration and two characters start dishing out damage.
I believe this is the pattern the majority of examples will take, and it will reliably remove one or two threats per round. By the end of round 3 that should be about a half dozen enemies dealt with in one way or another, potentially more if the encounter is comprised of creatures that are more easily dropped by AoEs or the bruisers.

[MaxWilson]

Excellent question. I have seen this repeated myself and have wondered how in the world this can be the case. Many optimizers online rate spells/feats/features on the assumption that combat will be over in a handful of rounds and I've never seen that happen at the table myself.

Judging by the responses thus far, it appears the fight is "called" in 3 rounds generally. I appreciate MaxWilson's example, but Max do you think it would change much if all the PCs didn't go before all the Gith?

Only if the Gith changed their tactics. Otherwise all it does is let the Gith get six more attacks in, while making Hypnotic Pattern more effective (three Gith have to save instead of two, which [rolls an 11] means TWO Githyanki get hypnotized).

If the Gith had all gone first and attacked the EK... [rolls] 5, 5, 9, 3, 18 (Bard attempts Cutting Words, rolls a 1) (Fighter Shields) (17+4 still manages to hit 16+5, EK takes 4d6+2 = 16 damage), 14 misses.

Having the Gith go first increases the resource usage and the risk to the party, but doesn't really add much to the length.

Long combats are driven by enemy strength and by tactics, not die rolls. Six Githyanki could easily take five rounds. Three Githyanki using skirmishing tactics could too. But three Githyanki who just charge in and start making attacks? One and a half to two rounds is approximately par for the course in that case.

[Keravath]

I have had combats end in 2-3 rounds and others take 10+.

However, the 10+ typically have one of three features if not a combination.
1) Range - they do not start within 30' of melee range and some maneuvering is required while ranged attacks are made.
2) Reinforcements - only some of the opponents are obvious on the first round of combat - others arrive depending on circumstances on later rounds.
3) Large groups - opponents typically outnumber the characters AND the opponents either avoid fireball formation or the characters lack significant AoE capabilities. Larger groups can be significantly weakened by a well placed fireball or crowd control effect.

However, if the characters outnumber the opponents and the opponents do not have either a very high AC, or very high hit points, or significant resistances or some other mitigating factor then most parties are very capable of finishing off the opponents in 2-4 rounds just by focusing their attacks.

[MaxWilson]

Final thought for now:

It should also be mentioned that "long combats" in rounds are not the same as long combats in real time.

For example, PCs may engage a squad of Hobgoblins at long range and in order to make the most of the PCs' advantages (catching missiles and ignoring partial cover both become better when both sides have disadvantage). The combat gets "longer" in rounds, but potentially simpler: it's just an archery duel now and can be run a round a minute.

Hobgoblins fire a volley of twelve arrows! 11, 3, 15 (monk Deflects that one), 4, 8, 3, 12, 8, 9, 3, 12, 3, 14 (monk takes d8+1=8 damage).

PCs fire back! 6, 8 (Sharpshooter hits for d8+3=4 damage), 16 (wood elf monk hits for d8+4=5 damage), 9 (monk hits again for d8+4=8 damage, down goes a hobgoblin!), bard and wizard just hide and wait.

It takes ten times as long to type that up as it does to run it. :) 45 real time seconds later, round 2 is over and another hobgoblin is dead with no more damage to the PCs. 30 seconds after that, we're down to only 9 hobs vs. 4 PCs and the monk just took 9 more HP of damage.

Adding partial cover to both sides will make the battle take even longer but will virtually ensure that the PCs take zero damage in the whole fight, which is still only about 60-90 seconds long (ten to fifteen rounds at most).

Long fights in a D&D game are not bad per se! They're normally just a sign of deadly enemies or sophisticated tactics or both.

[Kane0]

With my current party combat durations tend to drag out due to PC action, such as laying down a darkness or wall to force the enemies to attack piecemeal.

[Chugger]

What I'm seeing (in Adv League), for DMs to make fights more challenging, they have to modify the NPCs/monsters, sometimes a lot.

They have to make the boss immune to more, better Legendaries, and so on. There is an "orb" in the room that brings it back to life maybe. Uh oh, now party must fight it while some try to break the orb. Or new waves of minions enter. Or when boss dies, it cackles malevolently - then comes back as a demon or undead thing or abomination (that's even stronger).

Normal "straight" fights go fast for various reasons, but power creep is real - and that's one vector in the equation.

[LudicSavant]

I have never once seen this. Combat seems to eat up tons of time with rounds almost always over 5-10+ between movement, distance, difficult terrain, bad rolls, injured and incapacitated PCs, three rounds, at least consistently, seems unsustainable.

I find that at optimizer tables, fights tend to end faster (even if the enemies are stronger and using better tactics). It's not just a matter of raw DPR, either; strong practical optimizers are just much less inclined to ever have 'dead turns.' They actively plan for situations like "the enemy starts over a hundred feet away" or "the enemy is behind a Wall of Force" or whatever, and are ready to engage from the moment initiative is rolled.

This really came to the fore for me recently when I had a one shot with a new group that optimizes less than my usual ones. Despite playing a relatively support-y Paladin build, I was basically buzzsawing the entire encounter before half the party even got to the encounter.

If an enemy started 120 feet away, that was no problem for me, I could start killing them immediately. Not so for the Mountain Dwarf Rune Knight who hadn't invested in any mobility features or even a ranged weapon.

Movement, distance, and difficult terrain are things that you can get past by investing in mobility or range or other engagement tools. Injured and incapacitated teammates might be an inefficient cycle of people stopping to cast Cure Wounds on an ally only to see them get bopped back down to zero... or it might be a case of someone just having a familiar fly in with a potion, or the Cleric using those Cure resources to burst the last enemy down and then heal after the fight. Even bad rolls will matter less, since I tend to invest in consistency and "IP proofing," too.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Uh oh, now party must fight it while some try to break the orb. Or new waves of minions enter. Or when boss dies, it cackles malevolently - then comes back as a demon or undead thing or abomination (that's even stronger)..

I'd call those...interesting fights. White room "you and him slug it out until one of you is dead" boss fights are boring. Better to have different win conditions or to shake things up. MMOs use "phases" to boss fights, Theros introduced Mythic actions (which happen at bloodied, but I've run where the boss's true HP is double what I tell the players (ie I say "it dies" when it's actually at half health and the phase switches)), terrain, reinforcements, etc.

Now I wouldn't do that every fight. Most fights are just small stops along the way. But for an epic solo fight? Ya got to do something--with even somewhat optimized (or lucky) PCs, they'll kill even the toughest solo real darn quick.

[Gignere]

I think the difference isn’t optimized builds vs non optimized builds. Rather it’s more like optimized decision making, maximizing the effectiveness of each turn.

When players do random stuff or don’t use their abilities that will drag out the fights. However if each players knows their abilities and uses well fights are usually over fast.

[MaxWilson]

I think the difference isn’t optimized builds vs non optimized builds. Rather it’s more like optimized decision making, maximizing the effectiveness of each turn.

When players do random stuff or don’t use their abilities that will drag out the fights. However if each players knows their abilities and uses well fights are usually over fast.

Exactly.


Lt. Tom Chamberlain: The problem with this army is, we got too many [bugle] calls. We got a call for artillery, infantry, get up and eat, retreat. Anyway, old Butterfield, he wrote a special call for this here brigade. Say there is an order for this brigade, you and me. Some blame fool'll be blowing his bugle, we will think that order's for us when it wasn't. We'll follow that order anyway, and then we'll look around and we'll be in a world of hurt.

2nd Maine Soldier: Yeah, that happened to me once. Us, that is. Half the regiment charged, the other half retreated. You had your choice.

I've DMed for parties where half the party charged and the other half retreated. It turns ugly real fast because the PCs have only half their normal firepower AND half their normal durability, which means they're only about 25% as powerful as normal and can easily be squashed.