D&D Combat Time - Edition comparisons

[Mercurius]

Has anyone done comparisons of how long the same combat takes in different editions of D&D? In other words, take a party of the same or similar composition vs. the same opponent, how long would the combat run in different editions?

A secondary question would be, is it a static comparison or would it vary by level and opponent?

Feel free to speculate and use whatever party size, level and composition, and opponent(s) you want. I'd love to see someone include as many editions as possible.

The reason I ask is that it seems that are quite a few threads like Wik's recent one that rave about an older edition of D&D, often mainly because of how much is accomplished in a session; I have always thought that "modern D&D" - 3E and later - has more detailed and time consuming character generation and combat, but I'd like to get a better sense of to what degree. I mean, does 4E take twice as long as AD&D? 30% longer? 70% longer?

I personally have found that 4E combat does take longer than AD&D--at least as far as I can remember, as it has been 15+ years since I've played 2E, maybe 25 since I've played 1E--but it also seems to be more fun, and thus because of the time difference, with a greater percentage of the fun being oriented around combat.

So for me the question implied within this inquiry is: Is it possible to retain the "fun factor" of modern version of D&D with their more developed tactical nature and options, yet with the looser, quicker, and more free form style of earlier editions? I know the answer is "yes" in a general sense, but I'm thinking specifically in terms of combat, and especially 4E combat. What can be trimmed away? How to speed things up and make it easier to keep track of things?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Has anyone done comparisons of how long the same combat takes in different editions of D&D? In other words, take a party of the same or similar composition vs. the same opponent, how long would the combat run in different editions?

I think this is really impossible to judge. The rules have changed, and there are so many variables that it is nigh impossible. The only way to do it even a little is to reduce variables as much as possible.

But it it were to be done, this is how I would do it.

Go with Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/MU and try them out with the same stat array, say 18.16.14.14.12.10

The fighter has a longsword, chain, and a shield.
The rogue has leather, and a dagger
The cleric has a mace and all spells are healing.
The mage has the most iconic spells of each level. (!st is sleep and MM, for example)

Every opponent rolls a 15 on attacks, and 75% on the damage dice.

And even this is gonna leave a ton of variables.

But that is scientific.

In practice, until 4E, virtually all characters could be taken down by a single hit from an orc. One hit equals death. Even for wizards, that is very unlikely or impossible in 4E.

That is a huge change. Hitting the enemy is not so different, I do not think, nor damaging them, but again in 4E, orcs are not going down in one shot (at least not often)

If you count swinginess, 4E has a lot less of it. In BECMI to 3.5, one lost initiative and one crit later, and any character, even a fighter, is dying on the ground or stone dead.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Has anyone done comparisons of how long the same combat takes in different editions of D&D? In other words, take a party of the same or similar composition vs. the same opponent, how long would the combat run in different editions?

I would venture that:

(1) Members of the group
(2) Familiarity with the rules

Are two of the largest factors in how long combat takes to resolve.

Beyond that, I haven't done any kind of systematic study, but based on recent play experiences using a similar or identical group of players and with some independent verification in the form of audio recordings, here are my observations:

(1) OD&D and 3rd Edition have comparable combat lengths when comparable encounter design is used.

(2) D&D4 combat was 1.5x to 3x as long, but a comparison of comparable encounters was difficult to gauge because the rules are so radically different that "comparable" is not easy to judge.

Gauging from my experience, D&D4 combat is longer because of (a) the padded sumo wrestler thing (non-minions have a lot of hit points), (b) the game is designed specifically to accommodate and encourage the types of encounters that also take longer in classic D&D, (c) the "all classes are based around the same mechanics" things means that all players are susceptible to analysis paralysis; and (d) the number of modifiers (particularly situational modifiers) that need to be tracked has drastically increased.

Some of these factors can be seen in certain scenarios in previous editions: For example, if you got an analysis paralysis player trying their hand at a classic D&D wizard they could waste a ton of time dithering over spells. And there are several monsters or effects that create complex mechanical scenarios that would slow down combat in a fashion similar to D&D4's "cloud o' modifiers".

 

[MinistryOfGame]

Not quite sure if I'm getting the thrust of the post here, but are the points:

1) Have you done a comparison of the same fight between different D&D editions?

2) Combat takes longer in 4E, but is more fun.

3) How can 4E combat be sped up, but still stay fun tactically, but be looser and more free form?

To answer those points above.

1) Not sure if real comparisons are possible between 4E and older editions. I mean, insta-kill, for example, simply doesn't exist in 4E - so beholders, basilisks etc take longer to kill things. I have played in a 4E and a a 3E game, and run a 2E/1E game, at the same time (that is, playing each game once a week), and can pretty much guarantee that the combats in 4E take longer in my experience.

2) I'll leave that one to personal preference.

3) I do attribute part of the 4E slowdown to the huge amount of hitpoints that even low level 4E characters and monsters have (eg. 1st level wizard before then - 4 hitpoints), and I have heard that the newer 4E books have adjusted monsters to have less hitpoints and do more damage, which sounds like it would speed things up. Other than that, I think players are called upon to make more decisions than they used to be (between different at-wills, encounters, dailys etc). Fighters used to just swing their sword (before being given the option to power attack, sunder, disarm etc in 3E), and the decisions they did make were more determined by circumstance and were simply determined by the DM.

Curiously, the opposite was true for spellcasting classes, who had pages and pages of spells to flick through and decide what to memorise/cast, but as a rule those classes were probably picked less often by those who weren't keen on having a bunch of choices to make.

Were I to run a 4E game, I think I'd limit daily powers to certain encounters only, half monster hitpoints and double monster damage from the MM. I think that would speed combat up a bit. But I don't think it will ever match the speed of combats in my current 2E/1E game, where a battle with a giant slug lasted 3 rounds, and took well inside of 10 minutes.

 

[Wiseblood]

If you want a comparison. Go to the legacy forums and look for threads that ask "How do I speed up combat in AD&D?" Next look for the for 3.X/PF and 4E.

The only way to get a solid comparison IMO would be to time people who have never played D&D before.

 

[Stoat]

I have done no formal comparison.

My informal, anecdotal experience is that a typical fight in 3.X or 4E takes between 45 minutes to an hour. Typical here means 4-6 PC's versus 2-6 monsters.

To my recollection, 2E fights were faster. I'd guess that a typical 2E fight would last anywhere from 15 minutes to half an hour.

 

[Jack Daniel]

It seems like an apples/oranges comparison, if you ask me. In my experience, admittedly anecdotal, combats in the d20 System editions [3e, 4e] take from fifteen or twenty minutes up to an hour or more, but that's okay because combat is the fun part, the focus of the game and most of the rules. Conversely, the traditional editions [0e, 1e, 2e] blow through most combats in a minute or two, maybe ten to fifteen minutes for a particularly complex encounter, but again, that's okay because the combat is a bland and boring time-sink, best avoided if possible, and the fun part is exploring the dungeon. It's worth pointing out that the traditional rules give half their focus to dungeon exploration, which is structured in ways that the d20 System omits, e.g. the ten-minute "game turn," which has its own set of rules for movement and actions allowed, resource depletion (torches, most spell durations), and a sequence for the DM to follow (check for wandering monsters, roll reactions if an encounter occurs, etc.) which parallels the one used in combat prior to the introduction of cyclical, individual initiative.

 

[amnuxoll]

I've done no formal comparison.

And it has been a while since I've played older editions.

2nd ed. - The main reason for my quitting the game for a time in the late 1990s was that the 2nd Ed. rules were so tedious. I don't know if the combats were shorter or longer than 3.5e, but they certainly felt longer. I distinctly remember wrestling with "I love this game" vs. "I hate this game" for a while.

Before 2nd ed. - my memory (which grows still hazier) was that combat was faster and simpler but not particular tactically engaging. Specifically, I felt like my decisions had less of an impact on the outcome.

3.5e/4e - these both seem to take about the same time. I find the 3.5e rules much more tactically engaging than 4e but I like some of 4e's mechanics and design.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

While 4e combats take much longer than pre-3e ones, their quality is different. A well done 4e combat should be a centerpiece of a session, treating players and characters to surprises, demanding tough tactical decisions, and instilling them with the satisfaction of having successfully completed a task.

Compare this to older scenarios where 6 1st level PCs fought 4 kobolds. The fight was a short affair, the only negative consequence for the PCs being one or two lucky strikes by the kobolds, which might negatively impact them by uing up HP resources.

Now string along a handful of these encounters and you have a busy session with lots of fights but nearly no feeling of accomplishment, IMHO.

I also don't like the 3e paradigm of four PCs vs. one monster (any more). At higher levels fights like this became a chore.

What many 4e fight scenes are missing is them being designed in a interesting way with turning points in the fight. If the PCs just encounter a group of five similar enemies in a featureless scenery, it will be a boring experience because all combatants have many HPs compared to older editions. The combat will take longer without any gain. But introduce enemies which arrive a few rounds in the fight, give some of them powers unknown to the players, have some surprising terrain effects, and so on, and the hour it takes to resolve the fight will fly for everyone involved.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

My first thought regarding the question of the OP was: what level?


I mean, combat in 3e is pretty fast at levels 1-3 (where there are relatively few things the players can do and the chacters are not very robust and able to handle too many foes).

But 3e combat at levels 17-20? There's stuff to look up, there could be dozens of foes on the battlefield, players might take a significant amount of time just understanding what all of their options are, making a decision, and then figuring out how to do whatever it is they are going to do.



From what I remember about AD&D and know about older D&D, combat was much more deadly/penalizing (e.g. undead). Because of the issues of death and level drain, maybe players did not reach the more cumbersome and complicated higher levels, or if they did, not as often?