D&D 5E Big Battle, Exciting Victory, 36 seconds.

[ro]

As seems to be the norm with 5e combat, our party went through an encounter yesterday that took us about two hours to complete. Between 6 PCs, 1 friendly NPC, 1 BBEG, and 10 minions, we had 18 participants.

Each round of combat is 6 seconds, and all of these had a turn in each round, moving, fighting, etc.

During this combat, a slew of enemies invaded our position, we took over their position, a ship sunk into the sea, and all enemies were destroyed. Victory!

It took 6 rounds, which is 36 seconds, for the entirety of this event to unfold.

It seems crazy that this whole large encounter would take only 36 seconds, a minute tops when you include the closing of battle. It took far longer than that for me to write this post.

Does 5e just throw out realism? but where's the problem?

A person can easily walk 30 feet in 6 seconds, and double that running (Dash action). There are many spells that last a minute, some ten minutes or longer. That's 10 or 100 turns! Rarely can you get the full benefit if battles don't last nearly that long.

What are your thoughts on combat length vs. realism, and on improving combat situations?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

As seems to be the norm with 5e combat, our party went through an encounter yesterday that took us about two hours to complete. Between 6 PCs, 1 friendly NPC, 1 BBEG, and 10 minions, we had 18 participants.

Each round of combat is 6 seconds, and all of these had a turn in each round, moving, fighting, etc.

During this combat, a slew of enemies invaded our position, we took over their position, a ship sunk into the sea, and all enemies were destroyed. Victory!

It took 6 rounds, which is 36 seconds, for the entirety of this event to unfold.

It seems crazy that this whole large encounter would take only 36 seconds, a minute tops when you include the closing of battle. It took far longer than that for me to write this post.

Does 5e just throw out realism? but where's the problem?

A person can easily walk 30 feet in 6 seconds, and double that running (Dash action). There are many spells that last a minute, some ten minutes or longer. That's 10 or 100 turns! Rarely can you get the full benefit if battles don't last nearly that long.

What are your thoughts on combat length vs. realism, and on improving combat situations?

I think they are far too short in 5e.

I've toyed with going back to 1 minute rounds, although now my combats use no rounds.

I settled on calling each battle at least 15 minutes long in game-time, and the fight that's played out at the table is the highlights.

That seems to have taken you a very long time to complete. Not sure I've had a 5e combat go that long in real time...

 

[jgsugden]

A 36 second battle is more realistic (in an enclosed space) than a 3 minute battle. You don't see people exchange blades for 3 minutes in real life.

 

[Sadras]

I settled on calling each battle at least 15 minutes long in game-time, and the fight that's played out at the table is the highlights.

Nice idea. The 15 minutes could also incorporate the treasure "clean-up" afterwards, retrieving unbroken arrows or thrown weapons, some investigative work on the fallen and perhaps a quick drink.

That seems to have taken you a very long time to complete. Not sure I've had a 5e combat go that long in real time...

Agreed, I think my table would have taken 1/2 that time at most.

 

[iserith]

The way I handle it is I don't think about it.

It's only worked for 25 years so I guess the jury's still out.

 

[ro]

I think they are far too short in 5e.

I've toyed with going back to 1 minute rounds, although now my combats use no rounds.

I settled on calling each battle at least 15 minutes long in game-time, and the fight that's played out at the table is the highlights.

That seems to have taken you a very long time to complete. Not sure I've had a 5e combat go that long in real time...

I think the length of real time we take is a combination of newish players, questions, and clarifications. We're getting quicker as we become more familiar with the game.

The 15-minute length seems much more plausible for the sake of realism. I like the highlights explanation. I suppose a lot of time should be lost by players deciding what to do, although fighters locked in combat are likely to act very quickly.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I think the length of real time we take is a combination of newish players, questions, and clarifications. We're getting quicker as we become more familiar with the game.

The 15-minute length seems much more plausible for the sake of realism. I like the highlights explanation. I suppose a lot of time should be lost by players deciding what to do, although fighters locked in combat are likely to act very quickly.

If you're new, that's probably true. Each table is different, though, and will handle combat differently. And there's nothing inherently wrong with it taking a while. I just haven't seen 5e combats go that long, earlier editions, yes. So it's not intended to be a criticism, just an observation.

My combats go very quickly at the table, because I try to set things up to do just that. I no longer use rounds, you roll initiative to determine which segment you go next. It's a constant count. In addition, I expect people to tell me what they are doing, and act quickly. There's a lot of talking over each other, but I can follow that. I like the chaos it creates.

The highlights approach is a bit of a nod back to AD&D as well. Since at least 3e, it seems most players equate rolling the dice with a swing of the sword. So in a 6 round combat, you'd swing your sword 6 times. Where in AD&D, the round was a minute, and you were spending time striking, feinting, parrying, etc. and the die roll was the opening you found to make a solid strike.

Combined with the fact that 5e is relatively easy - the design team said came to the conclusion that misses aren't fun, you hit more frequently, things are weighted more on a 60/40 than a 50/50 or worse. So the game is designed for short combats in terms of actual rounds (I saw somebody mention that the expected length of an average combat was 3 rounds).

From a game standpoint, I'm OK with all of that. But stretching out the time of a round screws up things like movement, the speed of ranged vs melee attacks, spell casting times and durations, and all sorts of other things since we're actually measuring so many different things with different time spans.

So the combat we enact and describe in the game is just a portion of the action that actually took place.

 

[MarkB]

Combat moves fast in real life too. Generally speaking, real people aren't made of hit points and can't withstand being stabbed repeatedly over an extended combat - they tend to fall over the first time it happens.

A person can easily walk 30 feet in 6 seconds, and double that running (Dash action).

True enough. Average human walking speed is around 3.1 miles per hour, which works out to 27.28 feet per six seconds. So a D&D character using their full movement walks very slightly faster than average.

 

[Oofta]

What are you trying to model?

Real world fights are frequently over in an incredibly short period of time. If you're trying to mimic movie/tv fights then you have to go back to minute long rounds and the theory that the attacks you make are only the ones that actually matter.

If you were to model a typical cinematic fight scene in D&D and included every thrust and blow, in most cases it would be dozens of rounds. Far longer than your typical combat in most cases.

Or just be like most people and don't pay too much attention to it and enjoy the game, simplifications and all.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What are your thoughts on combat length vs. realism, and on improving combat situations?

It's mostly the fault of the PHB cyclic initiative system, with an assist from unrealistic encounter-building. But it's mostly about PHB cyclic initiative. It doesn't support even something as reasonable as a lull in a duel, let alone a battle.

I use old-school concurrent initiative (everyone declares; then everyone acts, rolling initiative as necessary). With just one simple tweak on top (Delay action: lets you declare your action after everyone else's action has resolved, but if everyone Delays the round ends) the problem you're struggling with goes away entirely. Some fights at my table are over very quickly in both game time and table time; other fights are quick climactic clashes of the type you describe (lots of table time to resolve--though you don't realize it until you look up at the clock and see it's been two hours since the pirates boarded your ship--but very little game time passes); other fights are resolved quickly but last for lots of game time (e.g. a Mexican standoff interrupts combat, and from then on everyone just keeps Delays or maintaining Readied Actions until something occurs to break the status quo, such as an unconscious PC waking up and re-entering the fight). Some fights have a quick initial flurry of activity, then a standoff of sorts while negotiations occur ("Surrender!" "What happens if I do?"), followed by potentially another break back to active fighting.

If your rule system supports it, battles can have a duration which is natural and fits the scenario.