On average, how many rounds does combat last in your game?

[harpy]

When Monster Manual V came out in '07 and I read the design article about it, one of the things that has stuck with me these last couple of years was Noonan's assertion "A typical monster has a lifespan of five rounds."

After over a decade of playing euro games, that was a significant highlight for me. I'd spent years playing "efficiency engine" games like Puerto Rico, where the number of actions you had in the overall game were very limited, and so squeezing as much out of each of those actions was essential to victory.

If it really is the case that on average, a monster is only going to last five rounds, then the overall combat system can be framed and more precision can be made with how various game elements function within that time frame.

So, I'm just wondering, does five rounds feel about right? More? Less? Remember, this is averaging, ancedotal 21 round mega battles is doubtfully the norm.

Also, I'm not sure how much of a difference the editions make, at least between 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder and 4e. There could be some differences, but they seem to be hovering around the same length.

 

[Mark]

Remember, this is averaging, ancedotal 21 round mega battles is doubtfully the norm.

I think it is much more rare to have one, two or three round battles than battles longer than five rounds which can last upwards of nine regularly enough to make five less likely as a true average. I also think that the premise that five round battles are typical so monsters should be designed to last five rounds fell apart as a design strategy when they tinkered the other side of the equation, thus the proliferation of grinds. In my experience, well-matched battles typically can last longer then five rounds, unless the PCs exploit weaknesses and are tactically clever, both of which reduce resource loss, heighten pace, and increase PC success rate. Opponents with multiple potential strategies force PCs toward strategic caution and prevent death by continual rampart storming.

 

[Griego]

I was going to vote "3" but that option doesn't exist.

 

[harpy]

I was going to vote "3" but that option doesn't exist.

Heh... you win the poll! I don't think there is a poll I've set up yet that hasn't had a silly mistake.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think for my current (3.X) campaign about half the battles have run over 10 rounds. This total is a bit inflated by the deadborn vulture I used (which resurrects after being killed and fights again as a zombie). Over other campaigns I've run the average might have been a bit less in the past, but I still think were are enough 10+ round battles to pull the number up there.

By my reckoning, anything in the realm of 5 or less rounds is either a fluff battle or some very unusual circumstance. I run such battles occasionally to use up old monster stats (or because I simply underestimated the difficulty, or just to keep 'em guessing). In general, I expect to run 1-2 combats per session, and have about 1/3-1/2 of those put the PCs in serious mortal danger, which implies a longer battle. Obviously, I don't do anything like the guidelines for encounters and don't use CRs or even XP.

My PCs wish the average monster lifespan was 5 rounds.

 

[Quickleaf]

Heroic-tier campaign through 5th level with party of 4-7 players at any given point. Frequent use of minions. My combats usually fall between 4 to 7 rounds, so yeah 5 rounds feels about right.

 

[Crothian]

About 8 rounds or so. I stopped having small little stupid fights as they are boring and pointless. We have less battles and the ones we have have more meaning and risk.

 

[Janx]

About 8 rounds or so. I stopped having small little stupid fights as they are boring and pointless. We have less battles and the ones we have have more meaning and risk.

That's how I felt about combats in D&D, though perhaps driven from a different angle.

I look at a D&D adventure as a akin to a novel, movie or TV episode. Run differently of course.

But what I observe, is that in all most fiction, there are far less fights to get to the BBEG than in most D&D games. To me, it's a pacing problem. It drags things out too much.

So, do less fights, make them matter, and the players are having fun in every fight.

 

[roguerouge]

Big battles in my single PC campaign regularly last 20+ rounds from 3rd to 13th level for the PC. Part of that is having villains who aren't sudden death maximized in design, of course, although, since she's playing a bard, the charm spells are pretty much sudden death.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The question is almost meaningless because the average length of combat in a given adventure depends heavily on the encounter design in that adventure (and will vary considerably from location to location in my campaign world).

I actually have a data source for this question, however, because I keep track of combats in a notebook. I usually just toss the notebooks when I'm done, but at the moment I can look back over several sessions of worth of 3.5 data. Combats have lasted:

8, 6, 3, 33, 9, 1, 8, 2, 35, 9, 12, 7, 12, 10, 7, 26, 15, 8, 2, 12, 18, 1, 7, 20, 4, 15, 5, 4, 15, 3, 4, 0, 2, 2, 2, 1, 4, 16, 8, 15, 3, 0, 5, 1, 6

(0 refers to combats which ended in the surprise round.)

Which, if I've done the math right, breaks down to an average of 8.53 rounds per combat.

But in my experience I find combat tends to go like this:

Mook Encounter -- last less than 5 rounds (typically 2-3)
Battle - generally lasts 8-15 rounds
Epic Battle - 25+ rounds

You'll notice that there's a gap between these three categories. Combats will occasionally drop into those gaps, but rarely.

In terms of table time, mook encounters generally take less than 10 minutes; battles generally take 30-45 minutes; and epic battles can take an hour or more. (Just prior to this notebook we had a 78 round combat that lasted a little over 4 hours.)