D&D 5E Speeding Up Combat

[S'mon]

Just using higher damage/lower hit point monsters is probably the best advice. Hobgoblins are
better than gnolls, for instance.
Personally I hardly ever see 5e combat take more than 4 rounds, and those rounds go reasonably fast, so I don't think it's a huge issue.
If your turns feel slow then probably speeding up player turns is the main thing for more exciting combat, so avoid anything that is making them hesitate, like 3e/4e style square-counting - "close enough is good enough" should be your motto, and don't be tied to the grid.

 

[aramis erak]

Removing the damage rolls (by using standard damages) slightly speeds things up. I find it fundamentally unsatisfying, but it is faster.

requiring a player to state their actions immediately or forfeit their turn when their turn happens helps a lot, but is a bit draconian in tone.

If you use minis, Dropping the grid and going to ruler based movement can speed things up a bit, too. A flexible ruler helps.

having the spell cards and requiring the player hand you the correct one for the spell when casting can speed things up a lot.

Blanket doubling of the damage (on both sides) without increasing HP really speeds things up...

 

[Yardiff]

Have your players been complaining that combats are taking to much time?

 

[BoldItalic]

...
I wouldn't care, but we sometimes only have a few hours a week to play (around 3 hours). There have been nights where a single big battle is the majority of the game. That certainly didn't happen in the early stages of the game, so I can only guess that more hit points require more time to chop through.
...

Can you narrow the problem down? Is it

• It takes too many rounds to resolve the encounter
• There too many creatures taking turns each round
• Each player takes a long time to take their turn
• There is too much extraneous activity

As people here have suggested, there are ways to improve each of those, but the solution is different in each case.

Personally, I feel that any encounter that takes more than about 10 minutes to resolve is too slow; the excitement and thrill of battle wears off after that and it becomes a grind. Likewise, combats that last more than about 4 rounds start to become tedious, unless there is a chase or it is part of a more complex situation; players will have tried most of their tactical options by then and there is little point in repeating them. But not everyone thinks like me

 

[Uchawi]

Have less battles.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Have less battles.

Fewer. If you can count the things, it's fewer, if you can't, it's less. There's less water in the glass after you take a sip, but fewer M&Ms in the bowl after you take a handful.

/grammar nazi threadjack complete

 

[MostlyDm]

Fewer. If you can count the things, it's fewer, if you can't, it's less. There's less water in the glass after you take a sip, but fewer M&Ms in the bowl after you take a handful.

/grammar nazi threadjack complete

On the other hand, you understood what he meant. And, recent pushback (changing express lane verbiage for example) notwithstanding, "less" in the wrong context has pretty much entered common use by this point... Which might make this a moot point.

(Those that fight common usage will note that a "moot point" used to be a point of contention, something people argued about, before common usage gave it literally the opposite meaning.)

 

[BoldItalic]

Fewer. If you can count the things, it's fewer, if you can't, it's less. There's less water in the glass after you take a sip, but fewer M&Ms in the bowl after you take a handful.

/grammar nazi threadjack complete

---

Crit happens

I get it. Less crit but fewer crits.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This thread reminds me of that saying, "D&D: where you spend 15 minutes killing that big boss, but 2 hours trying to figure a way across that frayed rope bridge."

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*