How many rounds should a good encounter last?

[Nikosandros]

None, if at all possible.

EDIT: I've noticed that when we're doing it right, in OD&D, combat is invariable short, even just one round. When we screw up it takes a lot longer. It's more exciting for a viewer perhaps, but the chances of someone dying also go way up. It's better to win decisively because it's better to win. I think our group cares more about winning though than showing off.

I think that one important component of "modern" D&D is the tactical sub-game, so having only very short fights isn't a good idea.

Now, in the HARP campaign that I was playing until recently, we always tried to strike from ambush... but the gaming style was quite different from a typical D&D game.

As for the initial question, I think that the optimum duration in 4e will be something that allows the possibility of different tactical options and makes per encounter resource management meaningful, without making things too long or repetitive. Even so, the occasional "end of level" fight that takes a couple of hours or more of real time has its place.

 

[Aenghus]

In 3.0 and 3.5e, Save or Dies and just the massive damage some monsters did encouraged the PCs to kill the monsters as quickly as brutally as possible. In some cases every X rounds of combat meant another dead PC. The christmas tree effect allowed a massive temporary bump in PC capabilities, including damage.

In 3.xe I found 5 rounds to be a reasonable encounter length, for reasonably challenging encounters. At high levels, the rounds begin to drag, with increased options and iterative attacks.

In 4e we are told iterative attacks are gone and the Christmas tree effect is reduced. The former should allow more movement in encounters, getting away from the "stand still and exchange blows" feel of 3.x. Non-casters now have their own abilities to do more damage.
Numbers of enemies in encounters will increase, as will the size of the encounter space to encourage movement.

If the rules streamlining works to speed up the average round I would be ok with a decent encounter being between 5-10 rounds in length.

 

[Gort]

I like reasonably lengthy fights, maybe ten rounds. I like to be able to use all the powers a baddie has, and let my players work out the weaknesses they can exploit. Really short fights kinda prevent any kind of build-up.

Keep in mind also, if fights are always going to be very short (1-3 rounds) players will just use their most powerful ability straight off, every time, cause otherwise they won't get the time.

I'm trying to put a 4e spin on this - after all, I found the vast majority of time in 3e, at high levels at least, was spent working out buffs, iterative attacks, or deciding what spell to cast. Seeing as iterative attacks are out and buffs seem to be being simplified (oh please oh please) I guess it just comes down to the spellcasters. However, since everyone's a spellcaster of sorts now (fighters now have their own "spells", maneuvers) that might take longer.

 

[Stoat]

Enough time for each PC and NPC to take, on average, six actions. This gives time for a brief exchange of missile fire while everyone closes to melee range, allows spellcasters to buff/debuff and still get off a few blasty spells, and provides enough time for rogues to set up in flanking position. It also provides the DM with enough time to use any particularly cool NPC abilities, be those a breath weapon, spells, or an unusual melee attack form.

In real time, I think 30 minutes or less should be the goal for all but the most monumental combats.

 

[JohnSnow]

In my opinion, the ideal combat takes between 5 & 10 rounds of game time, and is completed in about 30 minutes (or less) of table time.

If 4e hits that sweet spot, I'll be thrilled. However, even 20 rounds would be fine for an extended combat, as long as it never got boring. And as long as it didn't eat up too much table time.

 

[Klaus]

30 minutes of real time, which can range from 5 to 10 rounds in-game.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I like reasonably lengthy fights, maybe ten rounds. I like to be able to use all the powers a baddie has, and let my players work out the weaknesses they can exploit. Really short fights kinda prevent any kind of build-up.

Keep in mind also, if fights are always going to be very short (1-3 rounds) players will just use their most powerful ability straight off, every time, cause otherwise they won't get the time.

This is basically how I see it, too. For me, 10 rounds is the minimum a challenging combat should last; 1-5 rounds is really nothing more than a "speed bump." (But more than 20 rounds is too much for anything except a climactic BBEG-type fight.)

It seems I am definitely in the minority, however.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think that one important component of "modern" D&D is the tactical sub-game, so having only very short fights isn't a good idea.

Now, in the HARP campaign that I was playing until recently, we always tried to strike from ambush... but the gaming style was quite different from a typical D&D game.

If you can win without even having a combat, than don't have a combat. Unnecessary combats are foolish risks of character death. Why do it?

I refuse to believe "modern" or current typical D&D is not about winning, but about "showing off". That seems juvenile. Fun early on maybe, but not for long term play. The game should support combat of any length or stripe. I hope this obsession with tons of quickly accessed and varied powers is not a concession to a style of play where boredom would quickly set in without a steady stream of attention holding goodies.

 

[Sadrik]

At low level, I have had fights go on forever because the AC was high 20 and nobody could roll high enough. So it was, everybody missing while the BBEG drops the players very slowly because he could not hit too! As the PC's get a higher BAB (+4) and better spells (level 2 spells) and more importantly enough of them the combats get quicker.

By high level the rounds are so compressed it is almost just a matter of who rolls initiative. I played in a game where we could level just about any monster in 1 round so the monsters would kick off a save or die to try and get a PC to roll a 1 before it died. We did roll a couple of 1's in that game and then we had to mark off the 50k for the true rez. High level leaves a lot to be desired and hopefully they get it right in the new edition.

 

[Greybar]

I guess I support the replies that vary it by real-time and by significance, but of course even more by the style of your play. Let me think this one out loud and see if it makes sense to people:

Let's assume game sessions are usually six hours, call it five after you have late people rolling in, having lunch, and a break in the middle.

Game Style #1:
* more story and character driven, lots of talking, thick plot style
* Have 0-2 combats per session normally.
* If there are two, then one or both of them is likely swift - maybe 5 rounds and less than 30 minutes. It may involve initiative being entered just because a failure to do something right (like silence a guard) will cause a drop into badness, but otherwise will be walk-thru
* If one of them is the end of a mini-arc (maybe once every 3-5 sessions), then it is a doozy, easily 10 rounds, easily an hour, good chance that someone teetering on the edge of dying.

Game Style #2 - intensive action packed:
* Story elements are pushing into the next combat. Resources are being expended until we're running on empty.
* Opponents are more wearing away at us that on par with us - combats are swift (2-3 rounds) unless there are just more opponents than can be killed/evaded/neutralized that fast. Key element here is that there is generally no event that makes any one hero suddenly go from healthy to dying.