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

[DND_Reborn]

More than one miss in a row is extremely demoralizing. A game design study showed that most people are happiest around 70% hit rate, across both non-deterministic video games and tabletop war games. 60% is also generally accepted, in the bell curve of happiness.

This is impacted somewhat by the bias that missing multiple times at high hit percentages creates a higher amount of frustration, which is why some game designers (mostly video games) secretly change the percentages so that high numbers succeed even more often than the tooltip says. But even taking that into consideration, people were still happiest around 70%.

I could see that more in video games, but in RPGs hitting that much is BORING in the extreme, tedious, and drags things out. Personally, I prefer about a 35-40% hit rate.

As I wrote with the house-rules we've been using, it drops the % by 20 so we are around 40%, give or take 5%. We like it. It makes hitting more meaningful and exciting when it happens. It makes it more "special".

If you hit (what seems like) nearly all the time, it loses its luster and appeal IMO. I blame people's need for instant satisfaction (or whatever) nowadays.

 

[Flamestrike]

No. If an individual player isn't paying attention, that's the inattentive player's fault.

And the DM should ask that player to pay attention. If that doesnt work, put them on the clock:

DM: OK Mike, I've noticed that you're still not paying attention during combat, and we've talked about this before mate. You're not alone, and despite my frequent requests, it's still happening, with you and with others.

To address this and speed up combat, from now on I'll be using the following rule at the table: When your turn starts you have 5 seconds (max) to tell me what your character is doing, or else your PC takes the Dodge action and your turn ends, and I will move onto the next Player.

Done.

Part of the DMs role is running the game (and not just adjudicating it, or also often hosting it). It's up to the DM to implement what ever he feels is necessary to get the game running smoothly.

That includes correcting bad player behaviour (or booting them out of the game if that doesnt work), managing the players, and managing their behaviour.

 

[Don Durito]

It's not the missing that's frustrating - it's the powerlessness. The feeling that your actions don't matter. Adding hit points and increasing hit chance actually feeds into that same powerlessness to an extent. At a certain point it becomes worse - If I have a 25% Hit chance but will take out the enemy on a single hit - then there's some tension. If have a 95% hit chance, but know that it will take 4 hits to knock it out then there's no tension.

One reason that hit chance has been raised is that flanking has been lost. Flanking is something you can do to mitigate against missing - it potentially puts you in a dangerous position yourself - so you have a meaningful decision to make.

I think the big thing that matters in rpgs is "Can I do something meaningful on my turn?". This is tuned slightly differently to crpgs because it takes longer per turn.

Basically, 70% hit chance is probably what you do want - but if you don't have to work to get it, then the game balancing itself around that renders it somewhat moot.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Are you the busy DM on the go? Looking to put some turbo into your gaming session? Want to get back to the action sooner?

There's no problem more stuff can't solve! Spell cards! Initiative tracker boards! Apps! For a nominal fee, these time saving tools can be yours! Get them at your FLGS ASAP!

 

[Bohandas]

Combat can sometimes take a long time even in D&D based computer games like Dark Queen of Krynn, and Temple of Elemental Evil, despite the speed boost that these games get from not having to roll dice, consult tables, or remind the next player that it's their turn.

 

[Argyle King]

Are you the busy DM on the go? Looking to put some turbo into your gaming session? Want to get back to the action sooner?

There's no problem more stuff can't solve! Spell cards! Initiative tracker boards! Apps! For a nominal fee, these time saving tools can be yours! Get them at your FLGS ASAP!

I once considering the idea of using cheap mini clothespins for tracking initiative.

They plastic come in a variety of colors.
The clothespins are clipped across the top of the DM screen in the order of initiative.
Monsters/NPCs use colors non-PC colors. (You could get a set of plain ones to help monsters stand out from PCs)
Each character/player gets a set of two (of the same color).
One is clipped across the top of the DM screen.
One is handed to the player.
The one on the DM screen shows where that person is at in initiative (in relation to the other pins)
The one kept by the player is so they understand that they are color coded.

The total cost is about 12 bucks.

That was the rough idea, but I eventually decided against it. I think arranging the pins would take more time than it might be worth. It might still be a good idea for a combat which was complex and contained a lot of different elements.

Who knows? Maybe I'll still try it sometime and see how it goes. Typically, the usual homegroup just has one of the players keep track of initiative on a piece of paper, dry erase board, or by "writing" it on their phone with a stylus.

From reading the responses, I'm starting to feel as though the group I game with is an outlier in that we don't expect the GM to remember every aspect of the game. One of the players is responsible for initiative. Typically, one of them also keeps track of treasure. As far as treasure goes, our usual policy is that -if the players somehow lose or misplace the treasure sheet- that means some tragic fate befell the PCs and lead to them being broke.

My usual group doesn't do this, but a past GM from a different group played with the policy that dice rolls which miss the table and go onto the floor count as having rolled a 0.

 

[Don Durito]

I've found the simplest and fastest way to do initiative is:

Whoever initiates combat goes first.
(Someone from the other side goes next. (unless surprise, or someone was explicitly ready - basically just go with the essential logic of the situation)
Then go back to the original side.
Etc etc.

Write down the order as you go and then just follow that order from round to round.

There's no break for "roll initiative".

It's basically faster then even side initiative and feels a little more organic.

 

[Ace]

For a while now, my primary group has been playing other rpgs more often.

Also, for a while now, I have had the feeling that D&D combat seems to take a long time to work through one encounter. However, it really hit me how slow it was (or at least seems to be to me) after the group recently played a mini-campaign of 5E to cover a few sessions that a regular couldn't attend.

Thinking about it more, I started to ponder if D&D combat has always been this way. I'm most familiar with 3rd, 4th, and 5th. All three are relatively quick for the first few levels. As options (and monster HP) start to pile up, encounters slow. What highlights is more is that it becomes slow for reasons which aren't (imo) compelling. If an encounter is a dramatic fight with a tough opponent, involves and epic chase, or something else, it's not quite as noticeable. But taking (sometimes) an hour to beat on some basic critters as part of an opening encounter gets old quickly. When I played primarily D&D, I didn't notice it as much. As myself (and the group) have spent more time with other games, coming back to the D&D combat system feels more and more like a slog beyond around 5th level (and sometimes before that).

In comparison, our primary campaign is currently a FFG Star Wars game. Even with high-point-value characters and some ridiculous dice pools, we were still able to play through several encounters (and still have time to wrap up some RP stuff) in one session. Also, because of how the game functions, there were rarely turns during which nothing happened.

Likewise, for those of you who may be familiar with my posts elsewhere, you may know I play GURPS. Somehow, a game which has a reputation for being "overly complex" still manages to play through combat encounters faster than D&D.


So, my question is three parts:

1) Do you feel D&D combat is slow (or "drags")?

2) If yes, how do you address this in 5E?

3) Has it always been that way? I'm not familiar with very much of 1E or 2E.

1) Not Really though it can be slow if players are allowed to drag their feat when their initiative comes up or if there is lack of perpetration especially at high levels.

2) I think bounded accuracy goes a long way to speeding up combat though variable spells slow it a bit.

3) D&D ranges from fast to clunk depending on how many rules are used. late 2e wandered well into GURPS territory and 1E had many rules weapons vs armor and the like that were often ignored. B/X combat is fast though.

What determines the speed of combat in any game (including GURPS my #2 favorite) are a number of factors.

Player and GM experience, Rules used (GURPS ranges from D&D lite to high realism and high complexity) and to a degree preparation

Some games Rolemaster are in particular are outright too slow to enjoy without preparing. In others like B/X, it doesn't matter.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

For my part, I don't even play with my old in-person group of friends anymore. They simply can't produce the same excellent gaming experiences that I can get with my new(er), hand-picked group who otherwise don't meet up outside of D&D games. So with my old D&D group it's board games, card games, and barbeque (pre-pandemic anyway) and that's just fine.

I know it probably didn't happen like this, but I am now imagining the 'termination interview', where you explained to your friends that you weren't going to play D&D with them anymore due to their "insufficiently excellent provision of gaming experience" and that you were replacing them with a more rigorously-selected group of D&D-exclusive friends.

Here's a relatively simple question to try and expand on this.

Ignoring the caveats that everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and that some play styles mesh better with your own than others (both things I acknowledge and agree with), are some D&D players simply better at D&D than others, in your experience?

Most definitely.
However, an awful lot of that boils down to experience. Outside of the rather rare "that guy" who remains consistently awful no matter how much you talk to them, most people get better at being better at D&D by learning alongside people who are good at it.

And, to put it bluntly, if you deny new players the opportunity to improve themselves, you don't really get to complain about the state of the modern playerbase.

 

[Asisreo]

Also, has anyone noticed how quiet combats are if taking a perspective relative to character time. Like, a fight lasts for roughly half a minute and nobody says anything to anyone? No "you'll pay for that!" Or "Catch me if you can!" Or "By the power of the moon, I will punish you!"

My point is that roleplay and story movement should be a part of combat.

In fact, I feel people might try to divide the pillars when they weren't meant to be played separately. Give the player wiggle-room to describe how exactly they want to stab the orc and let them be the action hero they imagined themselves to be.

And when you roleplay as a DM, make sure the monsters talk to the players. "How dare you make me bleed?!" "Men, focus your fire on the spellcaster!" "Foolish witch, your charms will not hold me." "I...I see stars." Also have them physically react to their actions. If they are insulted, let your monsters snarl. If they're excited, let them smirk.

Someone said its about the feeling of hopelessness and I agree, but I don't think HP/AC dynamics is the most important aspect. What's important is that your players feel like they're making an impact. Within 3-5 rounds of combat, they don't get a great idea of their hit-chance or damage percentage but they're hoping their attacks had some sort of affect on the creature, even if its more psychological than physical.