D&D combats really don't have to take a long time to resolve

[sniffles]

The biggest time waste in other games I've seen and played in (like the one described in my opening post) is how every PC action is discussed in committee. And it gets especially frustrating when a PC actually has no really useful action to make, but he considers *every* possible option so that he doesn't "waste" his action. My Players aren't afraid to delay and ready actions when they've nothing meaningful to do.

Quasqueton

There. That, to me, is the biggest time-waster in our games. In other games I used to ask the other players not to make any suggestions to me unless I specifically asked for help. I tend to be indecisive at the best of times, and people offering suggestions just makes it harder for me to come to a decision. I wish I could ask for that in the D&D game I mentioned previously. But one of the suggesters tends to get offended by any commentary on her behavior (and she's the GM's wife so I have to watch my step; thankfully she'll probably never join this forum); and the other most frequent culprit is one of those people who never thinks himself guilty of the error in question. If I should ever run a campaign myself, however, I will institute the "no talking out of turn" rule.

 

[Quasqueton]

Played last night, and we had 7 combats. I only recorded the Real Time for 6 of them, though.

The party:

rogue 1/wizard 6 - utility mage, has tons of scrolls
rogue 1/fighter 6 - kukri fighter with 4 attacks per round
sorcerer 7 - blaster mage, very straight-forward
monk 6 - loves the stunning fist
fighter 8 (NPC bodyguard for wizard)

The opponents:

Battle #1: 3x CR4 [EL~7] = 4 rounds, 17 minutes

Battle #2: 3x CR3 [EL~6] = 3 rounds, 7 minutes

Battle #3: 7x CR1 [EL~5?] = 3 rounds, 7 minutes

Battle #4: 8x CR1 [EL~5?] = 2 rounds, 6 minutes

Battle #5: 1x CR7 [EL7] = 3 rounds, 3 minutes

Battle #6: 1x CR3 [EL3] = 4+ rounds (forgot to time) - was just with one PC

Battle #7: 1x CR3 [EL3] = 3 rounds, 4 minutes - was at night, in and out of a lighted Leomund's tiny hut, so logistics got a little complicated

Of the 6 battles fully recorded, that's 18 total rounds of combat in 44 minutes = 2.44 minutes per round on average. Out of a 4-hour game session, that's 18% of our game time was in combat. I figure we wasted that much time on out-of-game talk.

These combats were pretty low level for the Effective Party Level. And all these encounters took place in a thick jungle (we spread out *lots* of pennies on the battlegrid to represent trees and general obstacles to movement), so these battles were not just wide open affairs.

These Players have played their characters for 20 game sessions, from 2nd level, so they are pretty well accustomed to their abilities. This makes combats go even faster.

But, anyway, I just thought I'd add this recent data to the list. So, you see why I have a hard time beleiving "5 rounds = 3 hours".

Quasqueton

 

[gamefiend]

I agree with your assertion that combats shouldn't take so long, I just think your method's a bit ham-handed.

The easiest way to deal with player indecisiveness is to build plans beforehand. Lack of a framework for actions is what really keeps people dawdling.

In my case, I helped two of my players (who are new to the game) build up plans, and write them down on a piece of paper (only covering the first three of four rounds of combat). Each player has several combat plans for different situations.

With this framework, they can completely improvise and do heroic things, and do non-scripted actions, but when they are for whatever reason befuddled, they can fall back on these plans they have prepared, zooming combat right along. In our 3 hour sessions, we can have 4-5 combats and still have plenty of roleplaying and jabbering along the way.

 

[Stalker0]

If you like the stopwatch considering this idea.

You get 10 + 2 per int mod.

It requires a bit of fast math on the dm's part, but it can help make int more combat effective. Your wizards get a bit more time to think about the right spell to use, and your dumber combatants may actually provoke AOO because they have to move quickly.

 

[Dragonblade]

IThe biggest time waste in other games I've seen and played in (like the one described in my opening post) is how every PC action is discussed in committee. And it gets especially frustrating when a PC actually has no really useful action to make, but he considers *every* possible option so that he doesn't "waste" his action. My Players aren't afraid to delay and ready actions when they've nothing meaningful to do.

Things like AoOs don't seem to bother my Players. They suck them up when they provoke them, and they don't take much time considering each square of movement. And actually, they rarely provoke AoO. I The 5' step eliminates half or more of the AoO situations. I'd say there is an AoO once in 4 battles.

Our battles last 3-4 rounds on average. That's around 20 minutes. Ironically, the shorter battles seem to take longer per round than the longer battles. After a few rounds, everyone is into the roll of the battle and a round may only last 2 minutes total. We've had grand/epic 20-round combats last 1 hour (~3 minutes per round). That's 1 hour of action-packed excitement.

If we wanted to play rush-battle we could go even faster. But we're comfortable with the pace as it is. What amazes me are those players who see D&D combat taking too long, and rather than look at how they are playing, they just blame the rules system.

Quasqueton

These have generally been my observations as well. Although, I wouldn't have started this thread quite as provocatively, I completely agree.

There are lots of ways to speed up D&D combat, and the two biggest are to break your players of the notion that they HAVE to do something every time their turn comes up, and to break them of the notion that they must NEVER provoke AoO.

In my games, its not the players, but the DM who ends up slowing things down because they have to think and strategize for multiple NPCs at once.

 

[RustyHalo]

I have a relatively simple solution that I use to speed combat:

I use an 1-minute egg-timer.

The timer flips at the beginning of each player's round. If a player does not act in a 6-second round (in-game) with 60 seconds (at-table) to decide, then they simply lose the round.

The strategy works like a charm!

 

[Digital Archon]

If you like the stopwatch considering this idea.

You get 10 + 2 per int mod.

It requires a bit of fast math on the dm's part, but it can help make int more combat effective. Your wizards get a bit more time to think about the right spell to use, and your dumber combatants may actually provoke AOO because they have to move quickly.

It shouldn't require that much math...i mean, it isn't hard to add 10+2 or 10+8.

Actually, i like this a lot. It has, from an armchair gamer point of view (in that i haven't tested it yet), a nice effect in that the guy who ignored Int in favor of Str and Dex for a combat machine now has to deal with being stupid in combat rather than a tactical machine, (i mean, how many low Int/Wis fighters have you seen that are freaking tactical geniuses because the player is?) and the Int heavy guys are able to "think more clearly" when the swords and wands come out. Which is as it should be, imo.

It makes Int a more valuable stat for everyone, not just wizards and other classes that rely on it for class reasons, especially if characters with really low Int have the negative modifier applied to their player's time ("You have 6 seconds to figure it out, dummy. Go!")

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Sometimes I wonder if some D&D combats take longer because the DM is playing some opponents too smart? I remember a few years ago I was running a combat and thinking too hard about some skeletons' movement options. They wouldn't care...they're freakin' skeletons! Unintelligent! They just move forward and kill! Zombies do pretty much the same thing but much slower. Has anyone else come across this?

 

[Caliban]

You're welcome. But you could get by without me. You'd just continue to take 3 hours for a simple combat, come here and complain about it, and this thread would pop up anyway to debate the accuracy of your observation.

Quasqueton

I also find your tone unnecessarily patronizing. You can be right, and still be rude, which really doesn't help make your case at all. All that does is turn the conversation into one about how much people don't like your attitude, and your point (no matter how valid it may be) get's ignored, or dismissed out of hand because of how it is presented.

For the record I've never complained about the length of D&D combat on these boards. So your statement above is innacurate for my situation.

 

[kigmatzomat]

More as a player than DM. I'm pretty good at perceiving events through creatures' senses & intelligence. (For instance: Purple worms do not take AoOs on people using bows or spells within their threat zone; they don't have the capability to understand the threat or to sense the opening.) I imagine the int:4 creatures may be receiving more ability than they deserve but IMO evolution/natural selection should provide a lot of instinctive knowledge.

I have seen the "AoO paranoid zombie" thing in other games though.