D&D 5E Has D&D Combat Always Been Slow?

[John R Davis]

If DND combat is slow in in BECMI, 1ST & 5E that's the people not the game.
3.5/PF even with on the ball people is somewhat slow.
Thankfully DND doesn't have the horrors of " I roll to hit, you roll to not be hit", which is both slow, annoying and frustrating.

 

[loverdrive]

Somehow, a game which has a reputation for being "overly complex" still manages to play through combat encounters faster than D&D.

Well, probably mostly because everyone either flee or die within first few rounds. A full-auto burst isn't fun to withstand.

Honestly, since I've entered PbtA camp, I just can't stand initiative-based combat. Too slow for me.

 

[Argyle King]

Yep. D&D is a combat game and thus they put most of the rules and time into making combats as interesting as they can (within the D&D model). If people want less fighting and more social/exploration... there are better systems out there geared towards those standards that should be used for a more effective result.

I think this may be part of why I'm noticing it more now.

Though, it's odd (to me) that a game focusing so much on a combat system is producing somewhat bland combat.

Our group certainly isn't opposed to combat. But we are opposed to burning several sessions on resolving a combat, especially when we have other aspects of the game we'd also like to get to. I think, to some extent, this puts pressure on a few of us to optimize -so as to make combat faster.

A lot of our combats devolve into the enemy swinging at PCs with high AC (and missing) and the PCs hitting often, but whittling away HP.

I've also noticed that higher level 5E seems to swing back and forth between 3E "problems" and 4E "problems." In 3E, "rocket tag" became a thing at higher levels. In 4E, my usual group had a tendency to steamroll encounters -even against supposedly deadly foes. It's a combo which produces a weird swinginess that (for me personally) isn't very engaging at either end.

Some of it might also be that (it appears) our tastes are starting to embrace breadth of play more than the usual 1-20 mode of advancement.

 

[Oofta]

To answer the original question, I don't think combat is all that much slower but to be honest I don't remember that far back.

On the other hand there are ways to make combat run faster even without a single house rule.

• Roll attack and damage at the same time.
• If your player has trouble with adding up numbers (I've had a few) use average damage (I round up). That way they can do a quick sheet that gives them what AC they hit and what damage it will do.
• Roll ahead. If your fighter has multiple attacks, roll ahead and write them down.
• Use color coded dice. Search for pound o' dice and get a color matched set. That way if you have multiple sets you can roll all attacks at once.

I use these options as a player and my turn probably averages less than a minute.

As a DM, use average damage and look into the mob rules if you have a lot of monsters. If, as DM you have problems deciding what the monsters will do, I jot notes down if a monster is complex - kind of a quick reminder do A first then B kind of thing.

For making combat more exciting? I personally run pretty dynamic combats that are pretty descriptive and combat seems to be fun and exciting without a single house rule. But that's a different topic.

EDIT: for casters, once you get more than a handful of dice for damage for things like high level fireballs we just average damage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Johnny3D3D

I forgot to mention yesterday that if you try items 1-3, another thing is everything is proficient in all saves, even NPCs/monsters. If a listed creature actually has a save shown in its stat block, it gains advantage. Additionally, for PCs your two chosen saves gain advantage as well (e.g. a Monk has advantage in STR and DEX saves because normally those would be their proficient saves).

 

[el-remmen]

I am a weirdo that that never found D&D combat to (on average) feel too slow (when it does I think it has more to do with the specific scenario and table culture) and love long combats (I recently bumped a thread from 2008 where I broke down the length of combats in the first 25 sessions of my last 3E game I ran and mentioned 23 round combats).

Having played 5E just under a year now it feels like it play A LOT faster and few of our combats last more than 5 or 6 rounds.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Having played 5E just under a year now it feels like it play A LOT faster and few of our combats last more than 5 or 6 rounds.

A lot of combats only last 3 rounds or so, but the point in question is more how long it takes to resolve combat in real time.

 

[iserith]

It's funny--I remember when 5E first came out, people were delighted at how fast combat was. What's changed?

Memories of the length of D&D 3.Xe and 4e combats must have faded since the early days of 5e.

 

[Stoutstien]

Encounters are as fast as each tables action resolution speed is. It doesn't matter if they last 1 round or 20 if the time for a cycle to be completed is so long tension is lost.

 

[el-remmen]

A lot of combats only last 3 rounds or so, but the point in question is more how long it takes to resolve combat in real time.

Sure, but as a rule of thumb on average, three rounds takes less real time than 6 rounds.

Not sure how many people are actually timing their combats, but my guess is the "feel" of the combat has more to do with enjoyment or wanting to move on than the actual amount of time.