Average Length of Combats [Poll]

[hong]

D&D is all about the damage.

It most certainly isn't.

Yeah, but Nemm, you're just, like, _weird_, ya know?


Hong "green face an' all" Ooi

 

[dcollins]

Average # of Round Per Combat: 12.7

I wish now I had kept track of the individual numbers when I counted them up so I could find the mean.

If you can't determine what the "mean" is, then what are you talking about when you refer to an "average"?

Perhaps you misspoke and wrote "mean" when you were intending "median" or some other measurement.

 

[el-remmen]

I most certainly meant "median" - it was about 1:30 am

 

[hong]

I most certainly meant "median" - it was about 1:30 am

Bah. I make all my best posts at 1:30 am!


Hong "which it is RIGHT NOW, coincidentally enough" Ooi

 

[Storminator]

I play one game in the 15-16 level range, and the two recent combats there lasted 2 rounds (killed 2 18th level NPCs and chased off a third), and 13 rounds. We were keeping track of the duration for the Mass Haste, so we know we were close to the end there.

In the low level (2-4) game I run I had a pair of large combats go 13 and ~20 rounds. Both nearly ended up as TPKs, btw. I find that if the party is ready and working well combats go quickly. If the opponents are ready and working well combats run long.

PS

 

[Sammael99]

Another interesting poll would be how long in real time does the average combat last. I'm getting increasingly worried at how long the combats actually eat from the game time when they rarely contribute much to the plot...

Considering we only play four hours every two weeks, if even that, I'd be interested to find out how long the combats take in real time. Incidentally, I wish we could run multi-criteria polls Then I could ask for character level, encounter rating (easy, average, difficult) and time for running the encounter. That's be reliable...

Hey I'll try it !!! I'll start a thread now !!!

 

[el-remmen]

But my question still stands: Are such short combats satisfying? I don't see how they could be - the fun of a combat (I think) comes from the tactics and the dramatic tension - also, not every combat (not most, in my case) happens when the party is prepared with buffing spells and the like - so this must drag out a combat some

Also, don't your DMs (or you as DM) try to make encounters unique - so there is some variety and mystery to what could otherwise be a die-rolling marathon?

Do you think that high-power means "short combats"? I mean, I run a low-level low-magic setting - this must stretch my combats out - but what about piratecat's game or someone else with a high level high power group? What do they say?

 

[el-remmen]

Oh, and in terms of real time - I would say our average combat lasts an hour and a half - 3E initiative REALLY speeds things up - but this is just a guess - I'll start keeping track though, because I'm intrigued.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: Average Length of Combats [Poll]

I voted 12+, although we often have multiple encounters within a 'combat period'. However, what I find more telling is length of RW time a combat takes. 7 hours is a marathon, though I can appreciate your point about being unfamiliar with the rules. Sadly, we are averaging in the vicinity of 3+ hours for each combat at the moment... if you exclude intra-party skirmishes

Well, understand that the seven hour combat was the extreme exception, being the party's titanic battle with Nightscale from Forge of Fury. In this case, both Nightscale (who was upgraded) and the party of six were both prepared and prebuffed, and pulled all of the toys out of the closet. It was a knock-down, drag-out battle that is still the high-water mark for the campaign.

On average, a combat runs (in real time) anywhere's from a half-hour to three hours, depending on the complexity and the rules references. To compare, the battle against Ebonclaw, Nightscale's older brother, took significantly fewer rounds and real-world time to execute. This was due to higher levels and more experienced players and DM.

I will also agree that the middle-levels feature the longer combats, and that a low-magic game will have a dramatic effect on combat length. When the party wizard throws down an empowered, maximized fireball with an unusually high DC because of an evocation focus...it makes a big difference. The same goes for the paladin with heavy duty buffs, for that matter.

 

[officeronin]

But my question still stands: Are such short combats satisfying? I don't see how they could be - the fun of a combat (I think) comes from the tactics and the dramatic tension - also, not every combat (not most, in my case) happens when the party is prepared with buffing spells and the like - so this must drag out a combat some

Also, don't your DMs (or you as DM) try to make encounters unique - so there is some variety and mystery to what could otherwise be a die-rolling marathon?

Do you think that high-power means "short combats"? I mean, I run a low-level low-magic setting - this must stretch my combats out - but what about piratecat's game or someone else with a high level high power group? What do they say?

I voted four rounds, but that would include the surprise round.

Fact is, by full round #2, it's almost always clear who is winning and who is losing, so surrendering or fleeing is an option to end combat. Low magic games stretch combat out (and high magic games have quick fights), but it's really about the group's abilities. If it's a horde of minor threats, the wizards will level them with fireball. The end. If it's the one BBEG, the rogue sneak attacks and the cleric harms. Done. The fights that last a long time are the fights against things that are resistant to lots of attacks (like Golems) and the fights where there is a very competent "line" in front of the BBEGs. Oh, the environment can also be used to hamper PCs, and slow the pace of combat...

I find that many of the longer combats are just endless die-rolling -- especially the fights against golems and endless archery duels with cover. The ones with nifty environments are fun, as are good enemy tactics. The big problem that I find is, at high levels, either the PCs massacre the enemy, or vice versa -- and both of those are short fights. It's a tough balance...

I figure that every spellcaster has some spell in reserve for when the combat goes poorly -- a wall, teleport, expeditious retreat, etc.

OfficeRonin